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

New Posts

<modsnip>

My point was that there is an assumption it was the sensitive information based on when LE spoke to media and when the family mentioned things to the media.
I just don't think we've seen anything direct from LE stating that "we are now releasing the sensitive information which was x,y,z that the family just mentioned".

<modsnip>

I don't need to be right or confirmed; and I've been clear that I'm reading between the lines and it is my opinion, informed by my experience. Otto has said I was trying to "change the meaning" of what MLT PD said. I'm trying to provide an alternative viewpoint to the assumption. If people don't agree with that I don't mind - but I do reserve the right to clarify that I am not trying to "change the meaning" of it. Thank you.
 
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160323/NEWS01/160329601

"Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 1:09 p.m."

"Detectives are waiting for results from other prongs of the investigation."

"Wilson said the police department wanted to be transparent with information after the medical examiner released its findings on the cause and manner of DeBoer's death.
&#8220;If we have evidence that we were withholding there would be a reason behind withholding the evidence for the integrity of the investigation,&#8221; Wilson said. &#8220;At this point, we feel comfortable releasing information about this case.&#8221; "
 
ANZAC said:
They've not released any of the info from the US Marshals. (cell forensics) They have not released any info from other items they may have found during the search around the body/creek.
Click to expand...

SNIP>
Without getting into specifics, Wilson said evidence that would be expected in a homicide case has not been found in DeBoer's death. Not at the spot where her car was found alongside a well-traveled city street. Not in the culvert where her body was discovered nearly a week after she disappeared. Not on her hands or around her neck.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20160323/NEWS01/160329601
 
otto said:
I need to keep my eye on the ball, so I'm bringing forward the exact quote from police:
"We want to do what we can to hold sensitive information back until we see the phone, computer and lab results,” he said."​

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...n-continues-as-police-await-forensic-results/

I'm not prepared to assume that police would not share sensitive information with the victim's family.
Click to expand...

I agree the police could and would share "sensitive information" with the family.

Did you find a quote where it is revealed by MLT PD that this sensitive information mentioned in the quote above was the same information disclosed by the family? (IIRC you said that it was information they told the family (blood, razor, bag etc), which the family then released, which we all read about)

Knowing as much as you do about search and rescue, and investigative techniques, why would you assume that "sensitive information" means "holdback information"? Holdback information is, for example, something that only the perp would know. Sensitive information is typically included in the privacy act:
Click to expand...

If they said "there is sensitive information we are not releasing at this time out of consideration to the family" I would not have batted an eyelid, and I would 110% agree with your interpretation.

I am not assuming "sensitive information" means "holdback information", because those were not the only words used by MLT PD.

So "holding sensitive information back" may not necessarily something that falls under the "sensitive information to the subject or family" category. The words "hold" and "back" used as verbs are usually very deliberately used around investigative information and internally are NOT synonymous with "not releasing". They way they are used is like "kept close to the chest". If someone died in a car crash they would NEVER say "we are holding back the victim's name" they would say "we are not releasing the victim's name" or "we are withholding the victim's name until....".

As I said, I'm reading between the lines of what they have said. It is only two words (hold....back), but they JUMP out at me because of how we talk during investigations.

It is certainly possible the MLT PD used those words synonymously with "not releasing yet", and that I am wrong.

Certainly a medical condition or diagnosis would be considered "sensitive information". Although a specific diagnosis would be subject to HIPAA rules.

I asked before what you thought the sensitive information was and you said it was the bag, the razor, the cuts/blood etc. (IIRC) I see none of those types of things in the example list of sensitive info you provided (from Univ North Carolina).
 
ANZAC said:
My point was that there is an assumption it was the sensitive information based on when LE spoke to media and when the family mentioned things to the media.
I just don't think we've seen anything direct from LE stating that "we are now releasing the sensitive information which was x,y,z that the family just mentioned".

I don't need to be right or confirmed; and I've been clear that I'm reading between the lines and it is my opinion, informed by my experience. Otto has said I was trying to "change the meaning" of what MLT PD said. I'm trying to provide an alternative viewpoint to the assumption. If people don't agree with that I don't mind - but I do reserve the right to clarify that I am not trying to "change the meaning" of it. Thank you.
Click to expand...

It's the other way around. It starts with an understanding that "sensitive information" is distinctly different from "withheld information" (only known to a perp). From that understanding, and knowing that the family did reveal sensitive, personal information (which is really no one's business in the context of privacy), discussion of the plastic bag, and the razor, are examples of sensitive information that was revealed by the family. Police do not need to state that they are releasing sensitive information, and let's keep in mind that in the same article where more details about Cheryl's death were revealed, we read this:

"Members of DeBoer&#8217;s family have been speaking out online about the investigation."

http://mltnews.com/mlt-police-chief-shares-some-details-of-cheryl-deboer-investigation/

Police released the sensitive information after it was revealed by the family in order to set the record straight.

Police don't release statements where we need to read between the lines. They typically use legal language in order to ensure that there is no room for misunderstanding or lawsuit. I don't see any reason to look for an alternate interpretation of a police statement regarding their wish to hold sensitive information back until all evidence has been analyzed.

I have the utmost respect for so many contributors of this site because they come from so many walks of life and have so much cumulative knowledge and experience, but indeed sometimes experience differs.
 
ANZAC said:
I agree the police could and would share "sensitive information" with the family.

Did you find a quote where it is revealed by MLT PD that this sensitive information mentioned in the quote above was the same information disclosed by the family? (IIRC you said that it was information they told the family (blood, razor, bag etc), which the family then released, which we all read about)



If they said "there is sensitive information we are not releasing at this time out of consideration to the family" I would not have batted an eyelid, and I would 110% agree with your interpretation.

I am not assuming "sensitive information" means "holdback information", because those were not the only words used by MLT PD.

So "holding sensitive information back" may not necessarily something that falls under the "sensitive information to the subject or family" category. The words "hold" and "back" used as verbs are usually very deliberately used around investigative information and internally are NOT synonymous with "not releasing". They way they are used is like "kept close to the chest". If someone died in a car crash they would NEVER say "we are holding back the victim's name" they would say "we are not releasing the victim's name" or "we are withholding the victim's name until....".

As I said, I'm reading between the lines of what they have said. It is only two words (hold....back), but they JUMP out at me because of how we talk during investigations.

It is certainly possible the MLT PD used those words synonymously with "not releasing yet", and that I am wrong.

Certainly a medical condition or diagnosis would be considered "sensitive information". Although a specific diagnosis would be subject to HIPAA rules.

I asked before what you thought the sensitive information was and you said it was the bag, the razor, the cuts/blood etc. (IIRC) I see none of those types of things in the example list of sensitive info you provided (from Univ North Carolina).
Click to expand...

Thanks. I see where the difference is. I'm looking at "holding sensitive information back", but if we omit "sensitive information", all we have left is "hold back" - and from there we can look at alternate interpretations. At the same time, I'm not prepared to change the phrase.

Let's wait and see. Perhaps police will make a statement after all the evidence has been returned along the lines of: we are releasing sensitive information now that all the evidence has been returned and ... if we eliminate all reference to suicide ... I wonder what will follow.
 
ANZAC said:
That is a bit out of my general area. I know they take blood and other fluids during the autopsy. Given that her body may have been there for a couple of weeks I am not sure what it would affect. I thought they were waiting for results on the plastic bag (and maybe other items?). I am not sure they send it to multiple places - I believe they send it out to the place best equipped to handle each type of testing, and that doesn't have a huge backlog. I know people here are surprised by how long it is taking but from my POV this is very typical. All of these labs are handling all kinds of cases (assaults, rapes, thefts, you name it) day in and day out that don't make the news. It isn't like they are sitting around waiting for something to test.

Also the process between the detectives and the ME is interactive. We just had a case where the ME asked the detective to go back and find more evidence (and therefore the detective was calling us).
Click to expand...

It seems like telling the family the toxicology was clean, would be normal enough to be like "we know she didnt take type of prescription drug, A-Z or illegal drugs" - I don't know how they check for everything. But as long as things can be invented, there is always a possibility of something that wouldn't come up as something to look for, I guess. Because how many people getting autopsies, get the fullest of the full toxicology testing? It seems like that only happens, if they really neeeed too. Otherwise, it seems unnecessary to check everyone for everything constantly everyday.
 
ANZAC said:
That is a bit out of my general area. I know they take blood and other fluids during the autopsy. Given that her body may have been there for a couple of weeks I am not sure what it would affect. I thought they were waiting for results on the plastic bag (and maybe other items?). I am not sure they send it to multiple places - I believe they send it out to the place best equipped to handle each type of testing, and that doesn't have a huge backlog. I know people here are surprised by how long it is taking but from my POV this is very typical. All of these labs are handling all kinds of cases (assaults, rapes, thefts, you name it) day in and day out that don't make the news. It isn't like they are sitting around waiting for something to test.

Also the process between the detectives and the ME is interactive. We just had a case where the ME asked the detective to go back and find more evidence (and therefore the detective was calling us).
Click to expand...

I have been wondering about this myself and appreciate this explanation, thank you. A point of clarification, I believe she was missing 6 days vs 2 weeks.
 
There are a few items mentioned in this case that are still pending confirmation or results...unless they have been confirmed/resulted and I missed it.

1. Final result of blood on floor board
2. Mention of zip tie
3. Was cell phone found - and this is what's being analyzed?
4. Confirmation of toxicology
5. CD's medical/health history - I would think this was needed to help rule out suicide.

IMOO.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G928A using Tapatalk
 
Please stop the rudeness and disrespect toward other members.

:tyou:
 
otto said:
Thanks. I see where the difference is. I'm looking at "holding sensitive information back", but if we omit "sensitive information", all we have left is "hold back" - and from there we can look at alternate interpretations. At the same time, I'm not prepared to change the phrase.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting you omit two words or change the phrase. I am suggesting we consider the entire phrase.

Let's wait and see. Perhaps police will make a statement after all the evidence has been returned along the lines of: we are releasing sensitive information now that all the evidence has been returned and ... if we eliminate all reference to suicide ... I wonder what will follow.
Click to expand...

Indeed!!
 
Sun009 said:
It seems like telling the family the toxicology was clean, would be normal enough to be like "we know she didnt take type of prescription drug, A-Z or illegal drugs" - I don't know how they check for everything. But as long as things can be invented, there is always a possibility of something that wouldn't come up as something to look for, I guess. Because how many people getting autopsies, get the fullest of the full toxicology testing? It seems like that only happens, if they really neeeed too. Otherwise, it seems unnecessary to check everyone for everything constantly everyday.
Click to expand...

I think those decisions are up to the ME (what to test etc.)

As to checking everyone, the medical examiner is involved in:

"The cause and manner of death of persons who die suddenly, violently, or unexpectedly while in apparent good health within the geographic boundaries of the county and who fall under the jurisdiction of the Medical Examiner."

http://snohomishcountywa.gov/198/Medical-Examiner

Also state law allows a family to request an autopsy.
 
Wilson said the Washington State Patrol crime lab is doing a forensic analysis of the bag, which is from a restaurant he said DeBoer frequented.

The lab is also examining evidence from where her car was found, secured, near the intersection of 58th Avenue West and 234th Street Southwest. Commuters of the transit lot often park there.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...y-no-evidence-cheryl-deboer-death-a-homicide/
 
March 22, 2016

The manner of her death has not yet been determined, and likely won&#8217;t be for months as investigators await analysis of her computer and phone records and other forensic data &#8211; all with support from other federal, state and county officials.

http://mltnews.com/mlt-police-chief-shares-some-details-of-cheryl-deboer-investigation/

&#8220;We still have more investigating to do. This case is not closed,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The investigation involves the examination of computer records, cell phone records, and we&#8217;re waiting on the return from the crime lab on a number of pieces of evidence that have been submitted.
 
I am probably off base here , but when police are investigating a suspicious death, or when method of death is unclear leading to suspicion. isn't ALL information sensitive?
Wouldn't they choose very carefully what is reported to family and the public?
I don't think for one minute that they have released all they know.

JMO
 
Sensitive info could be information that has been uncovered by ivestigators and
Is not the publics business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 4,146 (members: 156, guests: 3,990)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
3,990
Total visitors
4,146
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,515
Messages
17,970,215
Members
228,791
Latest member
fesmike
Back
Top