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

[Elainera]

Cheryl was not in the culvert when those texts were sent. She was seen leaving her home shortly after her husband at about 7am. This has been reported in msm. Link somewhere on previous pages.

I don't know why this misinformation keeps coming up?

 

[Elainera]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160216/NEWS01/160219330




Are you guys even aware that they have video showing Cheryl's husband leaving for work, Cheryl leaving for work, and a video of her car as it was headed to work at 7:00 a.m. ?? The text was at 7:02 A.M. to the friend.

How exactly did she end up in the culvert during that hidden 2 minutes ?

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Yvettea]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20...minutes ?[/QUOTE] Do you have a link please?

 

[steelman]

Do you have a link please?

Are you being serious ?

 

[Yvettea]

Yes, I didn't read there was video of them leaving.

 

[Stripehaven]

Deep breath, everybody! 😀

 

[darring21]

A surveillance system at the DeBoer’s home shows her husband leaving the house around 6:50 a.m. Feb. 8, a few minutes before Cheryl.

He arrived at this work in Mukilteo around 7:15 a.m.

Another surveillance video at the intersection of 236th Street SW and 56th Avenue W showed what appeared to be Cheryl DeBoer’s vehicle passing at around 7 a.m. headed westbound.

The link was in Steelman's post.

It's interesting that while I believe the police, notice the ambiguity. "A surveillance system" - I assume that means video but they don't say that. Cheryl leaves a few minutes later but does the surveillance system show her leaving? That's not said either.

I suspect they have a security camera on their side yard and the husband parks there and she may not have shown up on the camera.

 

[Yvettea]

The link was in Steelman's post.

It's interesting that while I believe the police, notice the ambiguity. "A surveillance system" - I assume that means video but they don't say that. Cheryl leaves a few minutes later but does the surveillance system show her leaving? That's not said either.

I suspect they have a security camera on their side yard and the husband parks there and she may not have shown up on the camera.

Very interesting. I will look back for the link.

 

[eucalyptuz]

Either the police are deliberately (or accidentally) being a bit obtuse or we are skeptically and persistently splitting hairs here

For the record, I suppose a "surveillance system" might not include cctv:

surveillance:The systematic observation of aerospace, surface, or subsurface areas, places, persons, or things, by visual, aural, electronic, photographic, or other means. See also air surveillance; satellite and missile surveillance; sea surveillance.
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

 

[La Louve]

Very interesting. I will look back for the link.

Post # 379 *points up the page*

 

[Stripehaven]

I admit I am splitting hairs on the surveillance thing. I'm not clear if the system "showing" them leaving means there is a record of it or actual images. I am not implying MD did anything - but if he left first, maybe someone was lying in wait after he left. There was that horrible case recently in Ohio where men broke into a house after the husband left for the gym, and killed the wife. That one looked like a "husband done it" but he didn't.

I do think it is extremely unlikely that happened here, given the car placement and text - unless it was a creepy neighbor who might have enough info to stage things. Very doubtful, IMO. Mainly I am just saying that I think there is a bit of ambiguity in the announcment of surveillance "showing" the DeBoers leaving.

 

[eucalyptuz]

Yes, I was just agreeing with the musing above. It is possible MD left by the side and armed a garage alarm that has a time stamp, and minutes later CD left by the front and set the house alarm, again with a time stamp. Yes, it's a record by a "surveillance system", but not what we are thinking of when we hear the words

 

[Elainera]

I admit I am splitting hairs on the surveillance thing. I'm not clear if the system "showing" them leaving means there is a record of it or actual images. I am not implying MD did anything - but if he left first, maybe someone was lying in wait after he left. There was that horrible case recently in Ohio where men broke into a house after the husband left for the gym, and killed the wife. That one looked like a "husband done it" but he didn't.

I do think it is extremely unlikely that happened here, given the car placement and text - unless it was a creepy neighbor who might have enough info to stage things. Very doubtful, IMO. Mainly I am just saying that I think there is a bit of ambiguity in the announcment of surveillance "showing" the DeBoers leaving.

Ok I get your point but do we really want to doubt every word LE uses? They said it shows MD leaving and Cheryl shortly afterwards. The verb "shows" would apply to Cheryl too, no?

If we start thinking that "shows" might not mean that the video "shows" Cheryl, then we treat LE's statements just like social media comments, like rumor. imo

 

[Treelights]

The link was in Steelman's post.

It's interesting that while I believe the police, notice the ambiguity. "A surveillance system" - I assume that means video but they don't say that. Cheryl leaves a few minutes later but does the surveillance system show her leaving? That's not said either.

I suspect they have a security camera on their side yard and the husband parks there and she may not have shown up on the camera.

This is why I questioned that initially as well.
Good point that perhaps Cheryl didn't show up on camera.
IMOO.

 

[Treelights]

Ok I get your point but do we really want to doubt every word LE uses? They said it shows MD leaving and Cheryl shortly afterwards. The verb "shows" would apply to Cheryl too, no?

If we start thinking that "shows" might not mean that the video "shows" Cheryl, then we treat LE's statements just like social media comments, like rumor. imo

Well, originally it was said in MSM that nothing was found in her car but a book, then later they release that blood was found in the car.

IMOO.

 

[Treelights]

Yes, I was just agreeing with the musing above. It is possible MD left by the side and armed a garage alarm that has a time stamp, and minutes later CD left by the front and set the house alarm, again with a time stamp. Yes, it's a record by a "surveillance system", but not what we are thinking of when we hear the words

Good point.

 

[Annie1004]

Again, the surveillance system shows what appears to be Cheryl's car around 7:00 am. it does not state Cheryl herself was SEEN. LE is being careful with its words, MOO.

 

[Miziree]

The next line in that article says "another surveillance video" so I'm going to assume it is a video at her house.

The self inflicted cuts could be from a broken iPhone. Maybe she tried to hit the suspect with it and it broke causing wounds to her fingers. I'm not sure if that is the kind of phone she had but it's a possibility.

Moo.

 

[Stripehaven]

Ok I get your point but do we really want to doubt every word LE uses? They said it shows MD leaving and Cheryl shortly afterwards. The verb "shows" would apply to Cheryl too, no?

If we start thinking that "shows" might not mean that the video "shows" Cheryl, then we treat LE's statements just like social media comments, like rumor. imo

No, I don't want to doubt everything. In fact, I probably trust the police more than many because my dad was a Seattle police officer. Like most of us, I am just so puzzled and eager for answers. It's a compelling mystery anyway, but I live less than 3 miles from Cheryl - one transit stop away up the freeway - and, given all the reports of commuters (i.e., my neighbors!) ARMING THEMSELVES, for crying out loud, I want answers.

I am confident that LE knows more than they are saying. And in their earliest reports, they were leaving some info to be read between the lines (for example, they "knew" Cheryl had been near her car when she disappeared; we all wondered about that, but now we know they found blood in the car). So I continue to wonder if there is still ambiguous information being put out there.

 

[Bravo]

And we don't know if the blood was visible to the eye or found with luminol