Found Deceased WA - Cheryl DeBoer, 54, Mountlake Terrace, 8 February 2016 #7

[cluciano63]

I assume LE is examining her hard drive from work too?

 

[ANZAC]

And not without reason. Even MLT police is still investigating. If they were 100% certain it was a suicide, the investigation would be concluded. Instead, there is apparently evidence left that needs to be looked at in order to come to a definite conclusion. That means right now, the bunch of people thinking this is a homicide are equally correct as the people who think this is a suicide.

(ETA excuse any grammar weirdness. Going to pull my English-as-a-2nd-language card. I can tell that sentence doesn't 'flow', but not sure how to fix it while keeping my meaning).

Precisely my point. If someone was planting evidence to make it look like suicide, they didn't do a very good job because they didn't plant anything that made it "conclusively" suicide. Of course, I don't believe anyone planted anything.

 

[ANZAC]

Part of me wonders what made the volunteers check the culvert on the 6th day? Not that I think that is suspicious, but I was personally spooked by the sight of the culvert on the Saturday before. I saw people grid searching with dogs on grassy areas, when I drove bye, and I was already feeling sad for this whole situation, then you get to the end of road, where that big enterance to the culvert is literally staring back at you and I thought to myself that someone must have peaked in there, b/c it is noticeable. You might even hide in there if someone was chasing you, or look for your lost dog, it just gives off that vibe, that it is worth a peak, if someone is missing close to it. So maybe a lot of locals all thought the same thing, someone probably peaked in there already. I couldn't imagine someone calling the police saying "hey did you know there is a culvert going to under the road?" - I wonder if that's why it took 6 days. No one else was ever weirder out by that spot, before she was missing? Or its so weird, that ppl assumed someone might have already looked there?

The place where the body is found always looks good in hindsight, though I do agree it looks like a likely spot.

Grassy/wooded areas are always good search targets as are bodies of water. But with no apparent indications of despondency, or dementia, and no clues, people doing the search planning are faced with just conducting an expanding search.

We never like not finding people, but resources are finite and like I said in a search like this with no directional or behavioral clues, it is very hard to direct the search in any particular direction.

 

[IMissCrossfit]

thank you! That's what I've always wondered....where were they supposed to meet up?

Me too, I haven't seen that info yet. Also, I am curious why LE requested video for a specific bus trip from Community Transit.. Perhaps it was because of a lead or tip, who knows. I wonder what they saw/found/were told/etc that they requested one specific trip? And from which camera? This was Feb 10 via Martin Munguia of Community Transit "They asked for a specific bus trip, the video for that trip, and we provided that to them."
http://www.kiro7.com/news/police-pu...ding-missing-mountlake-terrace-woman/71854430

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[DistantReader]

Thank you Native Pride. Cheryl was only _missing_ for 48-72 hours when the kitty was retrieved from the home. OK.

 

[JanetElaine]

Precisely my point. If someone was planting evidence to make it look like suicide, they didn't do a very good job because they didn't plant anything that made it "conclusively" suicide. Of course, I don't believe anyone planted anything.

I have a question. You insist it is a suicide and seem rather dismissive of people who believe otherwise. Unless you are inside the investigation of Cheryl's death, you can not know that 100% (and neither can people who insist it is a homicide - even MLT police do not know 100% at this point). The reason I'm making this post is because I may have missed a post where you said you were actually involved in the investigation? I am not veiled attacking you, it's a genuine question. It wouldn't be the first time that happened (Abraham Shakespeare case for example).

 

[charminglane]

Is there a bus route that would drop off near the culvert?

 

[ANZAC]

I am not suggesting tape should not have been on the east side. Tape was definitely a necessity !

I am suggesting it should have *also* been on the west side.

Wasn't Cheryl found on the west side?

Perhaps I am wrong.

*If* Cheryl was found on the west, it should have been taped off longer than one night during the recovery (edited to reword).

With all due respect, those of us not at the scene are not in a position to know where the tape should have been. Those on scene make that decision based on what evidence they think they need to process. As I said, IF the body was wholly in the culvert/creek, on the west side, there is no need to tape off the scene unless there is evidence to process or any need to work there, without interruption.

There's no minute inspection of every blade of grass. Obvious evidence is obvious. One reason might be to close an area off to search for shell casings (not in this case). But once the body is removed from the water, if there is no indication she went in that side, and no evidence to process, then there's no need for the tape.

It is certainly not automatic that the area around a body is taped off. It depends on how access needs to be controlled and what is going to be done there. And what visible evidence/clues there are.

I've worked MANY death scenes where we didn't put tape up.

And we rarely put tape up overnight. You get in, process/search the scene, and get out. Leaving tape up overnight would be pointless unless staffed by police/SAR to keep people out. I do recall one scene we did leave a deputy overnight, with tape, because we couldn't start the scene search until early the next morning.

 

[Terrace12]

I would like to know why the cat breeder took the kitty back just days after Cheryl was found. Wasn't it a purchase? I saw she posted here (unverified) and I am hoping she can answer.

She did, she said with all the people coming in and out of the house they felt the cat should go back (not exact words I am sure) because the cat was scared or nervous.

 

[Hdk]

I have a question. You insist it is a suicide and seem rather dismissive of people who believe otherwise. Unless you are inside the investigation of Cheryl's death, you can not know that 100% (and neither can people who insist it is a homicide - even MLT police do not know 100% at this point). The reason I'm making this post is because I may have missed a post where you said you were actually involved in the investigation? I am not veiled attacking you, it's a genuine question. It wouldn't be the first time that happened (Abraham Shakespeare case for example).

Good questions. I find ANZAC to be very helpful about some general behind the scenes info. This poster is as sure it was suicide as the family believes it's not.

It's very interesting to hear both sides.

I'm still torn. I still am curious about some people close to her - but LE seem to be skipping over the things I'm most interested in knowing about- but I have stopped posting as much since I know the friends and family are here. It makes me feel terrible to speculate to be honest.

 

[ANZAC]

I have a question. You insist it is a suicide and seem rather dismissive of people who believe otherwise.

I think it is "most likely" a suicide, as it has the hallmarks of many suicides. The only thing that doesn't fit in is the "animal" blood. I don't think I am any more dismissive than people who insist it is a homicide...

I'm open to it being a homicide if more evidence comes back from the remaining forensics.

Unless you are inside the investigation of Cheryl's death, you can not know that 100% (and neither can people who insist it is a homicide - even MLT police do not know 100% at this point). The reason I'm making this post is because I may have missed a post where you said you were actually involved in the investigation? I am not veiled attacking you, it's a genuine question. It wouldn't be the first time that happened (Abraham Shakespeare case for example).

I am NOT involved in this case. I know many people who are and I have deliberately not asked them anything about the case. It would absolutely not be proper for me to comment (even anonymously) on a case I was involved in. I would wind up with my credentials stripped for sure.

My comments are intended to cover the general investigative process, how these things "usually go", and then my own theorizing which I hopefully delineate.

The only two unusual elements in this case are:
a) the amount of media attention (compared to other similar cases you've probably not heard of)
b) the animal blood

 

[IMissCrossfit]

With all due respect, those of us not at the scene are not in a position to know where the tape should have been. Those on scene make that decision based on what evidence they think they need to process. As I said, IF the body was wholly in the culvert/creek, on the west side, there is no need to tape off the scene unless there is evidence to process or any need to work there, without interruption.

There's no minute inspection of every blade of grass. Obvious evidence is obvious. One reason might be to close an area off to search for shell casings (not in this case). But once the body is removed from the water, if there is no indication she went in that side, and no evidence to process, then there's no need for the tape.

It is certainly not automatic that the area around a body is taped off. It depends on how access needs to be controlled and what is going to be done there. And what visible evidence/clues there are.

I've worked MANY death scenes where we didn't put tape up.

And we rarely put tape up overnight. You get in, process/search the scene, and get out. Leaving tape up overnight would be pointless unless staffed by police/SAR to keep people out. I do recall one scene we did leave a deputy overnight, with tape, because we couldn't start the scene search until early the next morning.

I would not have taken your opinion as disrespectful if you had not included "with all due respect." Thank you for sharing your opinion also. Much appreciated.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[IMissCrossfit]

With all due respect, those of us not at the scene are not in a position to know where the tape should have been. Those on scene make that decision based on what evidence they think they need to process. As I said, IF the body was wholly in the culvert/creek, on the west side, there is no need to tape off the scene unless there is evidence to process or any need to work there, without interruption.

There's no minute inspection of every blade of grass. Obvious evidence is obvious. One reason might be to close an area off to search for shell casings (not in this case). But once the body is removed from the water, if there is no indication she went in that side, and no evidence to process, then there's no need for the tape.

It is certainly not automatic that the area around a body is taped off. It depends on how access needs to be controlled and what is going to be done there. And what visible evidence/clues there are.

I've worked MANY death scenes where we didn't put tape up.

And we rarely put tape up overnight. You get in, process/search the scene, and get out. Leaving tape up overnight would be pointless unless staffed by police/SAR to keep people out. I do recall one scene we did leave a deputy overnight, with tape, because we couldn't start the scene search until early the next morning.

Yes, agreed..there are a lot of little aspects of making that decision. It is not simply "let's put tape up because of 'X.'" Agreed it is not so simple as put up vs don't put up. Yes, obvious evidence is obvious evidence and no min by min inspection of every single blade of grass lol. Agreed if no evidence and area cleared no need for tape. Yes, what you say makes sense.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[Terrace12]

I think it is "most likely" a suicide, as it has the hallmarks of many suicides. The only thing that doesn't fit in is the "animal" blood. I don't think I am any more dismissive than people who insist it is a homicide...

I'm open to it being a homicide if more evidence comes back from the remaining forensics.



I am NOT involved in this case. I know many people who are and I have deliberately not asked them anything about the case. It would absolutely not be proper for me to comment (even anonymously) on a case I was involved in. I would wind up with my credentials stripped for sure.

My comments are intended to cover the general investigative process, how these things "usually go", and then my own theorizing which I hopefully delineate.

The only two unusual elements in this case are:
a) the amount of media attention (compared to other similar cases you've probably not heard of)
b) the animal blood

Thank you for sharing all the information you have to give! You have explained manys thing that I can take with me long after this case is finished!

 

[ANZAC]

I would not have taken your opinion as disrespectful if you had not included "with all due respect." Thank you for sharing your opinion also. Much appreciated.

To be clear, I was not sharing an opinion on this scene one way or the other.

I don't have an opinion on where the tape should have or have not been, without looking at the scene and looking at objects/marks on the ground.

I've provided some insight based on experience on generally how we approach crime scenes.

The absence of crime scene tape in any particular area at any particular time is NOT an automatic red flag.

(Edit) sorry to sound like a prat, just wanted to be clear I wasn't arguing against your point, you might very well be right.

 

[IMissCrossfit]

To be clear, I was not sharing an opinion on this scene one way or the other.

I don't have an opinion on where the tape should have or have not been, without looking at the scene and looking at objects/marks on the ground.

I've provided some insight based on experience on generally how we approach crime scenes.

The absence of crime scene tape in any particular area at any particular time is NOT an automatic red flag.

(Edit) sorry to sound like a prat, just wanted to be clear I wasn't arguing against your point, you might very well be right.

Yes, I see all that. Thank you again for sharing your opinion as it is much appreciated!

Yes, agreed ..absence of crime scene tape is not an automatic red flag.

No need to apologize for sounding like a prat.

To be clear, I was not sharing an opinion on this scene one way or the other.

I don't have an opinion on where the tape should have or have not been, without looking at the scene and looking at objects/marks on the ground.

I've provided some insight based on experience on generally how we approach crime scenes.

The absence of crime scene tape in any particular area at any particular time is NOT an automatic red flag.

(Edit) sorry to sound like a prat, just wanted to be clear I wasn't arguing against your point, you might very well be right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I577 using Tapatalk

 

[DistantReader]

Hi Charminglane, The only local bus that comes close is the Community transit.org #112 It runs south from Lynnwood down 44th which changes it's street name to Cedar. It turns right on 236th to stop at the MLT P&R lot. Other than that-nothing withing 6 blocks walking on hills.

 

[Sun009]

That is kind of my point, that nothing ended up directing them there, but someone had the thought to peak in there. They decided to expand it on Sunday. And a lot of people werent actively searching for her, (including me) but a lot of people know about or drive by that culvert a lot, and maybe had to think to themselves, "I wonder if, oh that's crazy, I'm sure someone else peaked" - I was spooked by it Sat the 13th, because I just saw people & dogs looking in an open area, meticulously and then I come up to the end of the road & see an opening under the road. And I thought someone probably had to look in there and how silly I'm going to feel if i just get out of my car right now trying to look inside a hole under the road. The news broke Sunday and I thought to myself "Are you &%#%#&$ kidding me?" - I know the search parties weren't meeting up there, but someone could have easily wanted to peak, at any moment for the sake of doing it. I almost did, just out of the bad feeling it gave me, but I also thought, "shes probably not there, I'm sure someone peaked already, I'm just being paranoid"

I'm not saying police or the organized searches, should have gone straight there, I'm just wondering if a lot of people had that thought cross their mind, but then wrote it off, because they weren't the ones searching?

 

[Sun009]

I wouldn't even be here if I had actually peaked and saw something. I'm just sharing my actual personal thought I had about the culvert and why it bothered me on that day at that moment. I also know for a fact, I couldn't handle seeing what that scene looked like, let a alone a body anywhere. I would have peaked just to peak, b/c i also was wondering what that weird thing looked like in the inside. I would of fainted/collapsed because i wouldn't have expected there was actually something there to see. This is where an instinct, met my fear, met a lame feeling of looking so dumb right now. But some other locals had to of had the same feeling...just not knowing what to do about a feeling..

 

[WhisperWorm]

With all due respect, those of us not at the scene are not in a position to know where the tape should have been. Those on scene make that decision based on what evidence they think they need to process. As I said, IF the body was wholly in the culvert/creek, on the west side, there is no need to tape off the scene unless there is evidence to process or any need to work there, without interruption.

RSBM
Anzac, in this particular instance, where Cheryl was found "partially inside of the culvert" on the west side, wouldn't the pool of water downstream from her be of interest because evidence would collect there? I'm talking about the water you can see in front of the opening of the culvert on the western side. It just seems logical that it's a spot where anything that floated downstream from where Cheryl was originally would get stuck, tangled in the brush that was partially inside that opening area of the culvert, etc., before the water moves into a smaller/deeper stream and heads south again.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks!