Found Deceased Canada - Shannon Burgess, 25, Calgary, 26 Nov 2014 - #1 *Arrest*

[frisson]

Forgive me; I'm trying to catch up. I'm not sure what the last time she was seen actually means if the person who reported the last time she was seen, is lying... for his own reasons. And IDK if that's true, but I did think about it.

 

[otto]

It is definetly an avenue to explore and worth the LE's time to pursue. They would be remiss if they did not bother to check social media.

Police stated during the press conference that they are reviewing Shannon's electronic footprint, including bank transactions, CCTV footage, cell phone usage, and activity on social media. At the time of the press conference, which was nine days after she was last seen, they had no information about her after the time that she was last seen at home by her husband late Wednesday night at 12:30AM.

 

[otto]

Forgive me; I'm trying to catch up. I'm not sure what the last time she was seen actually means if the person who reported the last time she was seen, is lying... for his own reasons. And IDK if that's true, but I did think about it.

That last person to see her, by his own admission, is the husband. There is no trace of her, or her electronic footprint, after the time that he last saw her. Whether he last saw her at 11:30PM on Nov 26, or at 12:30AM Nov 27, makes little difference. He saw her nine days prior to the press conference, then she vanished without a trace.

 

[frisson]

That last person to see her, by his own admission, is the husband. There is no trace of her, or her electronic footprint, after the time that he last saw her. Whether he last saw her at 11:30PM on Nov 26, or at 12:30AM Nov 27, makes little difference. He saw her nine days prior to the press conference, then she vanished without a trace.

I see your point. When was the last time anyone else had voice contact (not text) with her or saw her? TIA. (Reading today's pages and going back to catch up)

And congrats, otto on almost 11 years anniversary here. Awesome!

 

[otto]

I see your point. When was the last time anyone else had voice contact (not text) with her or saw her? TIA. (Reading today's pages and going back to catch up)

And congrats, otto on almost 11 years anniversary here. Awesome!

According to police, the last person that saw her was her husband. The best information is found from listening to the extended version of the press conference: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=507836 . News articles got their information from the press conference. There has been no news since that Dec 5 press conference, although there were tips from Vancouver and Toronto.

Thanks ... it is almost 11 years (I thought it was 10) ... I've followed a lot of cases from all over the world during that time. One thing I've learned is that when a married woman vanishes without a trace, and her estranged husband is the last person to see her, quite often the husband is responsible for her disappearance. I hope it isn't true in this case, but the alternative - that a crazy person is grabbing housewives off the street, is worse ... and far more unlikely.

 

[deugirtni]

For the family/LE to say that she 'left' I think is obvious, since she is no longer in the place where she was reportedly last seen. She had to have left 'somehow' at 'some point', but that could have been at any time after 12;30am late on Wed night/Thurs morning. We don't have details as to what was happening at 12;30am, during the last time her estranged husband reported seeing her, ie were they having a mild argument? Was SB saying she was heading out to the bars? Did SB and JB retire each to their own bedroom where JB thought she remained when he left for work the next morning after getting some sleep that night? Did JB even go to work on Thurs? If at 12;30am they each went to their separate bedrooms, and then JB got sleep and went to work the next morning, couldn't it be possible that SB was still sleeping in her own bedroom and 'left' sometime during the time JB was at work during the Thursday?

LE and family obviously aren't releasing details on the particulars in regard to what was happening during the time of her last reported whereabouts. How many video recordings in the area were obliterated by the time LE had a chance to go around asking for them? I wonder if there are video cameras around the couple's townhouse project?

It is interesting (imho) to note that the most recent FB banter that we are privvy to from SB's FB is a couple of hours earlier than when JB states he last saw her. Makes me wonder if perhaps the time *he* stated was based on what he already knew existed and which LE could check up on. If he were guilty of some kind of wrongdoing, he would have been better off stating the last time he saw her was at say 10pm when he then retired to his separate bedroom, making her last communication to be with someone other than himself. I wonder if LE took prints of SB's cellphone prior to handling? Would have been interesting to know if JB's prints were on it, or only SB's, or if they had been wiped. Also, would be interesting to know if said cellphone was being recharged and was dead before the recharge and what time it was when starting the recharge? Is it even possible to determine those things from a cellphone?

 

[otto]

For the family/LE to say that she 'left' I think is obvious, since she is no longer in the place where she was reportedly last seen. She had to have left 'somehow' at 'some point', but that could have been at any time after 12;30am late on Wed night/Thurs morning. We don't have details as to what was happening at 12;30am, during the last time her estranged husband reported seeing her, ie were they having a mild argument? Was SB saying she was heading out to the bars? Did SB and JB retire each to their own bedroom where JB thought she remained when he left for work the next morning after getting some sleep that night? Did JB even go to work on Thurs? If at 12;30am they each went to their separate bedrooms, and then JB got sleep and went to work the next morning, couldn't it be possible that SB was still sleeping in her own bedroom and 'left' sometime during the time JB was at work during the Thursday?

LE and family obviously aren't releasing details on the particulars in regard to what was happening during the time of her last reported whereabouts. How many video recordings in the area were obliterated by the time LE had a chance to go around asking for them? I wonder if there are video cameras around the couple's townhouse project?

It is interesting (imho) to note that the most recent FB banter that we are privvy to from SB's FB is a couple of hours earlier than when JB states he last saw her. Makes me wonder if perhaps the time *he* stated was based on what he already knew existed and which LE could check up on. If he were guilty of some kind of wrongdoing, he would have been better off stating the last time he saw her was at say 10pm when he then retired to his separate bedroom, making her last communication to be with someone other than himself. I wonder if LE took prints of SB's cellphone prior to handling? Would have been interesting to know if JB's prints were on it, or only SB's, or if they had been wiped. Also, would be interesting to know if said cellphone was being recharged and was dead before the recharge and what time it was when starting the recharge? Is it even possible to determine those things from a cellphone?

No one said that Shannon was going to the bar at 12:30AM. There was no conflict prior to her disappearance. The husband's prints on Shannon's cell phone would be meaningless. The phone was at their home for five days before she was reported missing, and it's reasonable to believe that he picked it up and gave it to police ... leaving his prints all over it.

There's no trace of Shannon after 12:30AM Nov 27 ... not in her house, not outside her house, not at the bus stop, not on social media, not at the bank, not on her cell phone, not in her car ... no where ... no trace.

 

[otto]

I found this on a different thread, but thought it might be helpful for people that are new to the site and who are posting direct quotes from facebook pages:

Social Networks

Regarding Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other social networking or blog websites: Links may be used to direct posters to view something on a social networking page. But postings on social networking sites are not considered fact; they are rumor. Copying and pasting, or taking screen caps, directly from these pages is not allowed. Paraphrasing is okay. (Exception: If the Twitter or Facebook post belongs to a verified news station, it may be copied. But a link should still be provided.)

Also, social networking pages may only be linked if they are directly related to a case, i.e. the victim or suspect. We don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman, or postal carrier just because they know the main player. We also NEVER link to minor's pages (unless they are the victim). And be sure that the page actually belongs to the person being discussed. Do not link to someone if you are not 100% sure it is the correct person. And if a social networking is set to private and you get in the back way, you may not post what you find. Private means private!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

What difference does it make to the timeline if the estranged husband (not an ex-husband), with whom she lived, was responsible for her disappearance? According to him, she was alive and well at 12:30AM on Nov 27. He places her at home at that time. After that time either he, or someone else, most likely did something to her.

The social media banter is nothing more that people that knew Shannon trying to nail down the last time that they heard from her, or saw her. No one heard from her, or saw her, after 12:30AM late Wednesday per the police.

And so if LE were to discover she browsed the internet at 9:43am the next morning, they would hold a presser immediately to update the public? Information released initially, changes with the investigation.

The "banter" also locks those speaking into their story. The "banter" also helps dispell rumor. The "banter" gives an inside glimpse into many, many different aspects. It may also mean nothing now, like Shannon's use of "forever miss", but may mean something later when more facts come to light.

All that... especially if you've spent any time on here... goes without saying and is dreadfully obvious.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The last eye-witness to see Shannon is her husband. He saw her at their home. The last phone record is available through the cell phone provider and has nothing to do with social media remarks. We can rely on police statements for facts ... no reason to creep social media pages.

Yes... everyone quick! Don't sleuth!

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

In the case of Edmonton born Nancy Cooper, she was last seen by friends shortly after midnight. The following morning, she was reported missing by friends. The husband reported that he saw her in the morning shortly before she went for a run. The husband was convicted of her murder, and the murder most likely occurred shortly after she returned home the night before. That does not change the timeline of the husband reporting that she was last seen in the morning. There was truth to that statement, as the theory is that he disposed of her body early that morning. According to her husband, she vanished during her morning run. According to her friends, she was murdered in her home and her husband made her disappear.

Did she vanish? Yes. Was the husband the last person to see her? Yes. Did he lie about when she was last seen alive and well? Yes. Did it make any difference in the investigation? No. He was still the last person to see her alive, and her murder occurred at some point between the time that she arrived at home, and the time that she was expected at her friend's house the following day. The same is true of Shannon. If her husband did something to her, it happened at some time between the time that she arrived at home and 12:30AM Nov 27. In Shannon's case, the husband has suggested that she went out in the middle of the night. In Nancy Cooper's case, the husband suggested that she went for a run in the early morning.

The husband suggested she went out? Link?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Police stated during the press conference that they were looking at Shannon's electronic footprint, but that doesn't mean that social media comments will form the foundation for the facts of the case.

Dare I say LE would be completely incompetent if they didn't look at monitor social media, rather than dismiss it as irrelevant, like some would insist.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

That last person to see her, by his own admission, is the husband. There is no trace of her, or her electronic footprint, after the time that he last saw her. Whether he last saw her at 11:30PM on Nov 26, or at 12:30AM Nov 27, makes little difference. He saw her nine days prior to the press conference, then she vanished without a trace.

It can make a huge difference. Should someone come forward that they saw her at 11:30 pm somewhere, that would be relevant, and LE wouldn't release that information... FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

 

[news.talk]

Dare I say LE would be completely incompetent if they didn't look at monitor social media, rather than dismiss it as irrelevant, like some would insist.

There is a difference between using social-media as a source for information and narrowing down a timeline based on FAMILY'S direct contact.

Not only do police use social-media in their investigation, so do reporters.

 

[news.talk]

It can make a huge difference. Should someone come forward that they saw her at 11:30 pm somewhere, that would be relevant, and LE wouldn't release that information... FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

I have found over the years, reading countless press releases and hearing LE speak, that they use very carefully chosen words to elicit the best response without divulging investigative clues.

When they say, "last seen" - it means that that is the information they have at that time. Does it make it a fact? Absolutely not. Without probable cause to suspect the husband, they only have his word. Does it mean they believe him or don't have other information that may contradict his statement? Of course not. It means they are not showing all their cards. They are merely providing the necessary information to the public.

A perfect example is the Lisa Mitchell case I posted. They state where she was "last seen" and even suggested that she may be in other cities. She was dead in her home, allegedly killed by her husband. None of that information was in press releases but will soon be evidence before a court.

LE statements are information that they CAN release at the time. Does not mean there is not information they are pursuing that will later contradict early statements. No. That doesn't make them incompetent, it makes them careful so to protect the integrity of an investigation.

 

[otto]

And so if LE were to discover she browsed the internet at 9:43am the next morning, they would hold a presser immediately to update the public? Information released initially, changes with the investigation.

The "banter" also locks those speaking into their story. The "banter" also helps dispell rumor. The "banter" gives an inside glimpse into many, many different aspects. It may also mean nothing now, like Shannon's use of "forever miss", but may mean something later when more facts come to light.

All that... especially if you've spent any time on here... goes without saying and is dreadfully obvious.

Police checked her online activity prior to the press conference and, during the press conference, stated that there was no activity after she was last seen by her husband.

Social media is considered rumour. Is there any point is discussing rumour that is posted on some other webpage?

 

[otto]

The husband suggested she went out? Link?

The statement that "she left" is included in the press conference. It's the same link that you quoted a few days ago when you posted that "she left".

 

[otto]

Dare I say LE would be completely incompetent if they didn't look at monitor social media, rather than dismiss it as irrelevant, like some would insist.

Dare I say, thankfully the police are on it.

 

[news.talk]

Police checked her online activity prior to the press conference and, during the press conference, stated that there was no activity after she was last seen by her husband.

Social media is considered rumour. Is there any point is discussing rumour that is posted on some other webpage?

Have you bothered to read the family's comments on social-media or has been dismissed?

What is being referred too, is not speculation. It is the family discussing when THEY had direct contact with the MP. As I stated above, LE have their reasons for not divulging all the facts of a case, including a timeline. It does not make it any less worthy of further sleuthing.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Dare I say, thankfully the police are on it.

Then perhaps a "Let's Confirm What Police Said" forum might be the place for that conversation.