cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,300
I assume LE is examining her hard drive from work too?
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).
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?
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."thank you! That's what I've always wondered....where were they supposed to meet up?
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 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).
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.
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).
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).
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.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.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 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
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.
Yes, I see all that. Thank you again for sharing your opinion as it is 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.
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.
RSBMWith 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.