Found Deceased WA - Cheryl DeBoer, 54, Mountlake Terrace, 8 February 2016 #2

[DatelineFan]

Which isn't at all uncommon for LE to do.

Right. And I wish I could think of a specific case right now, but it's not unheard of for LE to be untruthful to the public to protect the integrity of their investigation.

 

[darring21]

I really don't think a complete stranger did this to Cheryl. The situation feels too set up. So many little things were different for her that morning.

I think Pickard is more than capable of leading this investigation. I think he's being extremely strategic with how he speaks and what he releases. I believe he has a plan, and has been on to the perp for a little while.

I have a feeling the case will open up after Cheryl's celebration of life.

It's interesting because it seems to me that it was a really routine morning except that she forgot her ID.
He leaves at 6:50 and gets to work at 7:15, she leaves a couple of minutes later and her car is seen driving towards the park and ride.
Is there any reliable information that she normally did not park on the street?

 

[Stripehaven]

Just thoughts,

No one could have known that on that day she would leave her badge home and have to text her friend about a later pick up
Her badge was found at home

If she did not send the text, it was someone close to her.
I really want to know if anyone saw her leave the house.
And did she decide to walk home to get the badge?
Did anyone see her?

If the walk home was so short, why drive to the parking spot at all? Why didn't she walk everyday?
Am I confused about where she normally parked and where she parked that day?

The distance from her house to the parking spot is 1.3 miles, if I recall correctly. Walkable, but not to get there and back in 10 minutes, as she (apparently) texted.

If it was a random attacker, he need not have known about the text at all. He may just have stumbled on a woman who, for some reason, had parked and stopped to do something - anything - and taken that opportunity. In this case, if this is the scenario, he would have spotted a woman stopped to text. The content woulnd't have mattered. The may have just grabbed and destroyed the phone right off the bat.

 

[DanceCard]

I keep posting myself into trouble today but I'll have another try

I don't think it was a complete stranger either. And that's why I was thinking about the texts.

When I quoted earlier, I should also have snipped the part about the culvert because I don't think that Cheryl was there at the time of the texts.
What I was trying to figure out is whether anyone else would have known she didn't have her badge. Her husband left the house before she did so he didn't know she'd left it behind. I can't think who would have known that, unless Cheryl told someone else herself. So I am leaning strongly towards believing that she did send the texts. But until we know for sure, I'm also trying to think of other options.

I'm not implicating her husband. I know that LE have said he isn't a suspect. I'm not making this about him.
I can't imagine who it could have been, but I do feel it was someone known to Cheryl. Or someone who knew *of* her and her life.
I'm trying to tread carefully here !....Maybe there is someone who saw Cheryl as an obstacle to something they wanted and didn't have.

 

[Dushi]

The distance from her house to the parking spot is 1.3 miles, if I recall correctly. Walkable, but not to get there and back in 10 minutes, as she (apparently) texted.

If it was a random attacker, he need not have known about the text at all. He may just have stumbled on a woman who, for some reason, had parked and stopped to do something - anything - and taken that opportunity. In this case, if this is the scenario, he would have spotted a woman stopped to text. The content woulnd't have mattered. The may have just grabbed and destroyed the phone right off the bat.

True enough. She could have already sent the text before anything happened.
And frankly, that is what I believe at this point.

Grabbing someone off of a street is gutsy. That is the part I have trouble with

 

[DatelineFan]

Maybe there is someone who saw Cheryl as an obstacle to something they wanted and didn't have.

Snipped by me.

BINGO!

 

[Stripehaven]

True enough. She could have already sent the text before anything happened.
And frankly, that is what I believe at this point.

Grabbing someone off of a street is gutsy. That is the part I have trouble with

Right there with you. I know it's possible but very risky in that location at that time of day.

 

[Yvettea]

I have no idea what is meant by that. I assume it would mean video surveillance but the article has been edited and that bothers me.

On second look I'm not sure the article was edited.

http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20160216/NEWS01/160219330&template=MobileArt

It does seem this is the only news outlet reporting about the surveillance system.

 

[Seatowner]

But if it were more than one person, it might be easier. One driving, one walking and pushing into van with open door. Would only take seconds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seatowner]

The herald is located across he street from the Snohomish County Prosecutors office.

They seem to get good info on a lot of cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dushi]

Anyone have a motive in mind?

If she was an obstacle, was she being stalked? Was someone waiting for a prime moment?
What did she have that someone wanted enough to take her life?
Or was it a nutcase?

 

[Chicopee416]

Perhaps someone that was interested in her husband? Or a totally different angle..... any chance she was meeting up with someone that she might have met online? She sent the text as a cover and things went terribly wrong after meeting up? Not likely, but possible. Right?

 

[Treelights]

On second look I'm not sure the article was edited.

http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20160216/NEWS01/160219330&template=MobileArt

It does seem this is the only news outlet reporting about the surveillance system.

Jumping off your post.
In the link you provided:

http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20160216/NEWS01/160219330&template=MobileArt

I have been meaning to ask about this statement:

" “Just go without me,” the text said. “I’ll probably ride home with you.” "

This was in quotes.

The additional word "probably".
It doesn't say "I'll ride home with you."
It states probably. And that can be taken several ways.
If she wasn't going to get a ride home with the co-worker, would she get a ride home with someone else? Would she ride the bus home?
Could it also mean that perhaps she wasn't sure if she was going to be at work that day?
Just throwing all these idea out here...
IMOO.

 

[Seatowner]

It's not uncommon in this area to use multiple modes of transportation. Bus in, carpool home. Vanpool in, bus home.

I wouldn't read too much into such slight wording. If she was late to work she might work 15-20 minutes later, so it might not have been possible to ride home. Many explanations.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Treelights]

It's not uncommon in this area to use multiple modes of transportation. Bus in, carpool home. Vanpool in, bus home.

I wouldn't read too much into such slight wording. If she was late to work she might work 15-20 minutes later, so it might not have been possible to ride home. Many explanations.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good thought...

 

[Occam's Zebra]

There's a surveillance system at the DeBoer house.
There's "another" surveillance system on Cheryl's way to the transit center.

So, 2 systems. One shows her; one shows her car.

This was like any other morning, except she forgot her badge, and someone took advantage of that. I can't believe there's a conspiracy, an elaborate suicide plan, a plot to collect her life insurance policy, or that she has secret data on how to cure cancer and was targeted by an underground cadre of murderers.

Between "around 7 am" and "7:02 am", she parked the car because she realized she'd forgotten her badge and needed to get in touch with her carpool friend. Whether "around 7 am" is 6:58 or 7:01, that surveillance camera is just around the corner from where her car was found. She parked there. She texted. Maybe she got out to open her car doors - I think she did. And someone (or more than one someone) took advantage of that.


OZ

 

[kammiemc]

Jumping off your post.
In the link you provided:

http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20160216/NEWS01/160219330&template=MobileArt

I have been meaning to ask about this statement:

" “Just go without me,” the text said. “I’ll probably ride home with you.” "

This was in quotes.

The additional word "probably".
It doesn't say "I'll ride home with you."
It states probably. And that can be taken several ways.
If she wasn't going to get a ride home with the co-worker, would she get a ride home with someone else? Would she ride the bus home?
Could it also mean that perhaps she wasn't sure if she was going to be at work that day?
Just throwing all these idea out here...
IMOO.

Or it could mean that sometimes she takes the bus home if her departure time from work ends up being different from her friend's (like if she needs to stay a little later). Just a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dianaprince]

While it's possible that being a few minutes late could cause her to leave at a later time, I assumed given her position that she was a salaried employee and not subject to the same constraints as an hourly employee. That issue aside I do think the wording of the text is worth some examination. For instance, why was it important for her to let her carpool friend know that she would potentially accompany her/him home at that point in time? It just seems like unnecessary information to text especially when she was already running late.

 

[kammiemc]

The distance from her house to the parking spot is 1.3 miles, if I recall correctly. Walkable, but not to get there and back in 10 minutes, as she (apparently) texted.

If it was a random attacker, he need not have known about the text at all. He may just have stumbled on a woman who, for some reason, had parked and stopped to do something - anything - and taken that opportunity. In this case, if this is the scenario, he would have spotted a woman stopped to text. The content woulnd't have mattered. The may have just grabbed and destroyed the phone right off the bat.

This is just the way I am imagining it, but if Cheryl is the one who parked her car, I think she probably parked first and at that time realized she had forgotten her badge. I just don't see someone driving to their destination and parallel parking in order to send a quick text. I could be wrong, maybe she just pulled over and kept the car going, but seems a little a bit of a deliberate parking spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elainera]

Perhaps someone that was interested in her husband? Or a totally different angle..... any chance she was meeting up with someone that she might have met online? She sent the text as a cover and things went terribly wrong after meeting up? Not likely, but possible. Right?

I think it is possible.

The thing is, we know she was headed West in her car just before 7 am towards the transit center. We also know that the car was later in the day found near the park/library. But what we do not know is if she went to that parking spot at 7 am or if went somewhere else. She might have met someone, or she might have run an errand she didn't want to talk about with her friend. Maybe she deliberately left her badge at home to have an excuse to not carpool that morning. She might have been elsewhere at just after 7 am when she texted and then was taken and her phone was disabled, in a location without much traffic or people around. That would mean that whoever did this to her knew that she often parked in the overflow street and brought her car there later. Means, they knew her reasonably well.

Too farfetched?