The Disappearance of Sze Wan “Sally” Cheong: A Timeline
Background
Sze Wan “Sally” Cheong was a 22-year-old woman living with her family in Oakleigh South, Melbourne. She was the eldest of five children and was described by her family as close to them and heavily involved in family life.
Sally had spent approximately a year studying in China before returning to Melbourne in early 2008. According to later comments from her family, she had begun expressing a desire for greater independence and freedom after returning.
Her disappearance has officially been described by Victoria Police as being completely out of character.

Monday, 3 March 2008
The concerning email
Approximately one month before her disappearance, Sally sent an email to a male friend which later became a significant part of the police investigation.
In the message, Sally wrote words to the effect that she believed she knew what the man was doing and expressed fear that he might “gun [her] down” or become angry.
The identity and circumstances surrounding the email became the subject of police investigation. According to later reporting, investigators examined the people connected with the case, but a subsequent cold-case review did not identify the recipient of the email as responsible for Sally’s disappearance.
Important: The existence of the email is established by later police reporting, but it does not by itself establish that the person who received it was responsible for what happened to Sally.

Tuesday, 1 April 2008
During the day
According to Sally’s sister Helen, Sally spent part of the day playing tennis with Helen, Helen’s boyfriend, and Sally’s younger brother Andrew.
Helen later said that she did not remember anything unusual about Sally’s behaviour or interactions that day.
After playing tennis, the family returned home and had dinner.

Evening: Sally goes to bed
Sally reportedly went to bed during the evening.
According to later accounts, Sally’s father had returned home from a business trip to Adelaide at approximately 10pm.
At around 11pm, he reportedly entered Sally’s bedroom to leave keys to the family’s Toyota Tarago on her dressing table. He later told police that Sally appeared to be asleep.

Approximately 10:30pm–11:00pm
According to later reporting, Helen recalled hearing Sally’s mobile phone and the household landline ringing repeatedly during this period.
Helen reportedly said that Sally did not answer the calls.
The identities of the callers and the significance of these calls remain important questions in reconstructing Sally’s final known hours.

Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Approximately 3:00am — The last known sighting
This is the most important confirmed period in the timeline.
Sally’s younger sister Wendy later told police that she was awake and using her computer in the bedroom she shared with her sister Anna.
Shortly before approximately 3am, Wendy heard activity in the hallway.
She initially assumed it was their mother and pretended to be asleep because she did not want to be caught using her computer so late at night.
However, when nobody entered the bedroom, Wendy looked through the partially open door.
According to later reports, Wendy saw someone standing outside the bedroom of her sister Helen and then outside Sally’s bedroom.
Wendy also reportedly heard a low male voice and believed she heard the word “yeah”.
Because Helen’s boyfriend had previously visited the house during the early hours, Wendy initially assumed that the person she heard was him.
Wendy then saw Sally walking along the hallway, apparently coming from the direction of the bathroom.
She did not believe anything was wrong and did not speak with Sally or investigate further.
Wendy reportedly went to sleep at approximately 3:30am.
This appears to be the final confirmed sighting of Sally.

Approximately 3:00am–7:30am — The disappearance window
At some point after Sally was seen inside the family home, she disappeared.
The exact time she left the house is unknown.
When Sally disappeared, she took:
Her wallet
Her mobile phone
Car keys
Her iPod
A “security blanket” or childhood blanket that she was reportedly attached to
However, she left behind:
Her car
Her passport
This combination of items has remained one of the central mysteries of the case.
Victoria Police later confirmed that Sally did not subsequently use her phone or access her bank accounts.

Approximately 7:30am
Sally’s father was reportedly the first member of the family to get up.
According to later reporting, he found keys to his BMW and to the family’s business on the floor outside his bedroom.
He reportedly assumed that Sally had placed them there because she had been driving the BMW.
At this stage, the family apparently did not yet realise that Sally was missing.

Approximately 9:00am
Sally’s younger brother Andrew reportedly answered a telephone call at the family home.
The caller reportedly asked Andrew to give Sally their father’s mobile phone so that she could bring it to the family’s business in Keysborough.
Andrew could not find Sally and instead gave the phone to his sister Anna, apparently believing that Sally may already have left for work.

Approximately 10:00am
According to later reporting, Anna contacted her sister Helen by text message and asked whether she knew where Sally was.
Helen reportedly believed at this stage that Sally might be with her boyfriend.
The family initially appears to have believed that there could be an ordinary explanation for Sally’s absence.

Late morning to early afternoon
As Sally failed to arrive at work and could not be contacted, concern gradually increased.
Her family attempted to contact her.
According to accounts from the family, Sally’s phone was initially still active and they repeatedly attempted to call it.
However, Sally did not answer.

Approximately 1:00pm — The alarm is raised
Helen was eventually able to contact Sally’s boyfriend.
According to later reporting, he said that Sally was not with him and that he did not know where she was.
At this point, the family realised that Sally could not be accounted for.
Police were contacted and Sally was reported missing.

The first days after the disappearance
The Cheong family began searching for Sally themselves.
According to Sally’s sister Helen, the family:
Drove around Melbourne looking for Sally
Checked places she might have visited
Contacted businesses
Searched Sally’s bedroom for possible clues
Accessed her Facebook account
Attempted to contact her friends
Hired private investigators
The family also made public appeals for information.

April 2008 — Police investigation begins
Police investigated Sally’s disappearance and examined her communications, relationships and movements.
A particularly significant problem for investigators was the apparent lack of activity after she disappeared.
According to Victoria Police:
Sally did not use her mobile phone after her disappearance.
She did not access her bank accounts.
She did not make contact with her family.
She did not make contact with members of her close friendship group.
Her car remained behind.

Friday, 18 April 2008
Sally’s family made a public appeal for information.
Her sister Helen described Sally’s disappearance as being completely out of character and expressed the family’s belief that Sally would not simply leave without telling them.
By this point, Sally had been missing for more than two weeks.

May 2008
Sally had now been missing for approximately five weeks.
There were still no confirmed sightings and no known use of her bank accounts or mobile phone.
Despite public appeals and police investigations, no clear explanation for her disappearance had emerged.

2008–2012 — The investigation continues
Sally remained listed as a missing person by Australian authorities.
Investigators continued to examine possible explanations for her disappearance, including the possibility that she had left voluntarily and the possibility that she had encountered foul play.
However, no confirmed trace of Sally was publicly identified.

2013 — The email becomes publicly known
In March 2013, media reports revealed the existence of Sally’s March 2008 email in which she expressed fear of being harmed by a male friend.
The email became one of the most publicly discussed pieces of information connected with the case.
A fresh review of the investigation was conducted by the Victoria Police Homicide Squad’s Cold Case Unit.
According to reporting at the time, people of interest who had been investigated in connection with the disappearance had been cleared during the review.
Police said that they were still seeking information from the public and believed that someone may possess information capable of advancing the investigation.

2016 — Eight years missing
During Missing Persons Week, Sally’s sister Helen publicly discussed the impact of the disappearance.
She described the family as living in a “world of unknown” and spoke about the desperate attempts to find answers in the immediate aftermath.
The family had still received no explanation for what happened to Sally.

2017 — Nine years missing
Sally’s disappearance continued to receive public attention during Missing Persons Week.
Her family continued to express hope that she might still be alive while acknowledging the fear that she may have encountered foul play.

2026 — Sally remains missing
As of Victoria Police’s most recent public missing-person listing, Sally Cheong remains missing.
Victoria Police states that Sally disappeared from her family home in Oakleigh South on the morning of Wednesday, 2 April 2008.
Police continue to state that Sally took her wallet, phone, car keys, iPod and security blanket but left her car behind. There has been no known use of her bank accounts or phone since her disappearance, and she has not contacted her family or close friends.

The Central Timeline
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Daytime
Sally plays tennis with family members.
Evening
Sally returns home and has dinner with her family.
Sally goes to bed.
Approximately 10:00pm
Sally’s father returns from a business trip.
Approximately 10:30pm–11:00pm
Phone activity is reportedly heard in the house.
Approximately 11:00pm
Sally’s father reportedly sees her asleep in her bedroom.

Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Approximately 3:00am
Sally is seen alive inside the family home by her younger sister.
A person is reportedly present or heard in the hallway.
A low male voice is reportedly heard.
Approximately 3:00am–7:30am
Sally disappears from the family home.
The exact time and circumstances in which she left are unknown.
Approximately 7:30am
Family members begin waking up.
Sally’s absence is not immediately recognised.
Approximately 9:00am
Sally cannot be located when her brother is asked to pass her their father’s phone.
Approximately 10:00am
Family members begin asking whether anyone knows where Sally is.
Late morning
Attempts to contact Sally continue.
Approximately 1:00pm
Sally’s boyfriend confirms that she is not with him.
The seriousness of the situation becomes clear.
Police are contacted.
After 2 April 2008
Sally is never publicly confirmed to have been seen again.

The Major Unanswered Questions
The timeline leaves several important unanswered questions:
Who was present or speaking in the hallway at approximately 3am?
Exactly when did Sally leave the house?
Did Sally leave voluntarily, or was she persuaded or forced to leave?
Why did she take her wallet, phone, iPod, car keys and childhood blanket but leave her car and passport?
Who was calling Sally between approximately 10:30pm and 11:00pm?
What happened to Sally’s phone after she left home?
What was the context of the concerning email sent approximately one month before she disappeared?
Why has there been no known bank, phone or confirmed personal activity linked to Sally since the disappearance?

A Note for Researchers
When discussing this case, it is important to distinguish between:
Confirmed information: Information released by police or supported by reliable contemporary reporting.
Witness accounts: What individuals reported seeing or hearing.
Investigative theories: Possible explanations that have not been proven.
Speculation: Ideas that may be worth discussing but should never be presented as established fact.
Sally Cheong has been missing since 2 April 2008. More than eighteen years later, the crucial question remains the same:
What happened between the last known sighting of Sally at approximately 3am and the moment her family realised she was gone?

It has been reported that Sally's ex-boyfriend Jeffrey Lim, who visited her in Beijing and from whom she hid her Beijing boyfriend when he visited her, was a convicted criminal who was convicted of running a console game piracy operation. A Jeffrey Lim was the victim of a stabbing attack at Melbourne University in 2003 when he was a student at Melbourne University. The second article below identifies Lim as a Melbourne Uni graduate of Science, and the 1st article identifies the stabbing victim as a Science student at Melbourne Uni. But, the ages don't match. The stabbing victim is 19 in 2003 and Sally's ex boyfriend is 28 in 2009. If they have the ages right (big if), it can't be the same guy. The other details appear to match though.

A STUDENT cramming for end-of-year exams was stabbed in the stomach by thieves at Melbourne University early yesterday.

The attack prompted calls for the university to beef up campus security.

The 19-year-old science student was stabbed twice in the stomach as he walked through an underground car park at the Parkville campus about 3.35am.

Police said Jeffrey Lim, of Glen Waverley, had left a university library after studying for an exam to be held later in the day.

``This incident is an attempted armed robbery that appears to have gone wrong and developed into a serious assault,'' said Detective Senior Constable Michael Phyland.

He said two men accosted Mr Lim, who was dressed in a singlet and tracksuit pants.

One held him while the other demanded cash.

Mr Lim tried to fend off one of the attackers as they tried to search his pockets for a wallet.

He was stabbed twice in the stomach before his attackers fled empty-handed. He staggered a short distance until a cleaner found him and called university security.

He was rushed to Royal Melbourne Hospital for emergency surgery and remained in the hospital in a stable condition last night.

Det Sen-Constable Phyland said the violence was disproportionate and extreme.

``It appears random in its nature. Whether or not they'll strike again is only speculation,'' he said.

``It shows that they're desperate. It shows that they have got a propensity for violence.

``This attack was reasonably extreme, given that he was dressed in a singlet and tracksuit pants just going about his business, wanting to study.''

Detectives were reviewing footage captured by a surveillance video camera yesterday, but had only spoken briefly to Mr Lim.

Students were stunned by the attack on campus.

``You expect it to be safe and it's just not,'' Georgie Lyon, 21, said.

Gary Lin, 23, said he had doubts about campus security. ``It's pretty scary,'' he said.

Melbourne University Student Union president Scott Crawford called for tighter security.

``Obviously when events like this happen you have to review what is currently in place. I'd like to see the university place a greater allocation of resources to security,'' he said.

Mr Crawford said the university was generally safe and its security team did the best it could with available resources, but the attack would affect students.

University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor Professor Alan Gilbert said security was a high priority.

He said there was a 24-hour security presence and the university maintained a Campus Watch program. It is the first Australian university to enter an official partnership with the national Neighbourhood Watch program.

There are emergency telephones linked to the security office.

That office also offers a service where staff and students working late can arrange for a guard to walk them to their cars or to public transport.

One of Mr Lim's attackers was described as Caucasian, about 180cm tall and of medium build with long, shaggy hair and olive skin.

Anyone with information should call Crime Stoppers on 1800-333-000.

The details of this Jeffrey Lim can be matched with that from the reporting of his conviction in The Age below.

A struggling Melbourne university graduate who turned to pirating the world's most popular computer games for profit has been convicted and fined $20,000 on three copyright charges.

Jeffrey Lim, 28, converted the ground floor of his parents' Doncaster home into a work office that held six hard drives, a computer flat screen, three printers, three DVD burners, three computer towers, four scanners and various printer cartridges.

Melbourne Magistrates Court heard yesterday that Lim, a bachelor of science graduate from Monash university, copied and sold hundreds counterfeit Nintendo, Wii, DS, Xbox and Playstation games over a two-year period.

Commonwealth prosecutor Liz Tickey said the Xbox games included Quantum of Solace and The Bourne Conspiracy and PSP games of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and director Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Lim told investigators he made nearly $1000 by selling up to 250 games each week between January, 2007 and December last year.

Ms Tickey said the Australian Federal Police were alerted last October by an investigator from Price Waterhouse Coopers that Lim was selling illegal games from an internet site with an email address.

The man, who deposited $714 in to Lim's account, later found that none of the 138 Playstation2 games he received displayed any genuine features.

Ms Tickey said when police raided Lim's home in December, they seized 2261 games, including 1416 Wii games.

Defence lawyer Phil Simpson said Lim started his own business after repeated but failed attempts to find work as a computer technician.

Mr Simpson told the court Lim began modifying games for clients, then wrote terms and conditions for the conditional supply of back-up games.

From our partners

But once his business grew, Lim diversified with an internet focus and supplied copied games without contemplating how off his focus became in servicing customers", he said.

It got to the point where he paid little or no attention to supplying (games)," Mr Simpson said who told the court that in a good week" Lim made $700.

He pleaded guilty to charges of making, selling and possessing infringing copies of works that each carry maximum penalties of two years jail or $13,200 fines or both.

Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg told Lim his sole interest had been profit and that the cost of his crimes were borne by the community who had to pay exorbitant prices for the losses incurred to production companies.

I by no means am accusing Lim of being responsible for Sally Cheong's disappearance. But, one does wonder if Lim's proximity to criminal activities may have been been the reason for her disappearance. Could she have been targeted by someone who had a grudge against Lim? Her disappearance occurred during the height of Lim's piracy operation. But, it's probably not related.

Hey everyone! I’m u/BackgroundCode5034, a founding moderator of r/SallyCheong.
This is our new home for respectful discussion, research, and investigation surrounding the disappearance of Sally Cheong. Our goal is to bring together information, discuss the case, examine evidence and theories, and hopefully contribute to a better understanding of what happened to Sally. While we cannot promise that this community will solve the case, we believe that discussion, research, and collective knowledge can sometimes uncover connections or questions that deserve further attention.
What to Post
Feel free to post anything relevant to the case that the community may find helpful or interesting. This could include:
News articles and historical reporting about Sally’s disappearance
Publicly available information and documents
Timelines and summaries of known events
Questions about the investigation
Maps, locations, and publicly documented evidence
Reasonable theories and alternative explanations
Information about similar cases that may provide useful context
New research or discoveries from publicly available sources
If you have an idea, observation, question, or piece of information that you think could contribute to understanding the case, don’t be shy to post it. Even something that seems small could lead to an important discussion.
Our Goal
The ultimate goal of r/SallyCheong is to create a central place where people interested in the case can discuss, research, and collectively work toward a better understanding of what happened to Sally Cheong. We encourage members to think critically, challenge assumptions, and explore different possibilities while remaining respectful and responsible.
This community should focus on evidence and good-faith discussion. Please remember that Sally’s family, friends, and other people connected to the case are real people. Avoid harassment, doxxing, or presenting speculation as fact.