Found Deceased Canada - Shannon Burgess, 25, Calgary, 26 Nov 2014 - #2 *Arrest*

[newone]

Of course, as members of WS and the public, we do appreciate it. But they don't always do it (just found another one---see Paula Burnley reported missing January 25/26th 2015, no updates since then. Her Twitter account was active yesterday).

I think that the practice of non-reporting, which does happen, should be considered in discussions of missing persons. Just because we don't think the information should be withheld doesn't mean that it isn't, unfortunately. This discussion so far has been informative for me---I'm not asserting anymore that this is definitely what's happened to SB (fellow WSers have brought up some interesting and helpful points), I'm suggesting it as a possibility that shouldn't be ruled out.

I don't know what the policy is on adults but I have noticed that consistently when it is a minor that's gone missing, local LE are very quick to tell MSM that the minor has been located and is safe.

As you point out, being missing is not a crime.

 

[evafiore]

I don't know what the policy is on adults but I have noticed that consistently when it is a minor that's gone missing, local LE are very quick to tell MSM that the minor has been located and is safe.

As you point out, being missing is not a crime.

That would likely be because minors are, by definition, considered incompetent to give informed consent.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

The only thing specified was "location" and "contact information". No consent is required regarding "safe", "alive" or "case closed".

CPS reached out to the public, and therefore should, and I suspect would, give the public notice of a resolution.

I don't have time to search endlessly for press releases, especially to televised news organizations, but with regards to the cases being put forward as 'found without notice given', how certain are you that you simply haven't found the notice?

 

[evafiore]

Paula Burney's is the most recent one---it's possible they could issue a notice for that one yet. I can't positively confirm for the other two as they were some time ago and I've recently been informed that Cathy Pietz may not have been found after all. I'll keep looking and let you know what I come up with.

However, the Missing Persons Act strongly suggests that LE is NOT obligated to ("may") issue a press release if someone is located. I'm suggesting that since it is in fact possible, it should not be ruled out.

 

[evafiore]

I'd be curious to hear what a professional has to say about this. The Toronto Police policy on missing persons is also phrased in a way that seems to indicate that LE is not actually required to issue a press release upon location of a missing person---no mention of it all:

1. Upon receiving information that a missing person has been located, the police officer will
• attend the location to confirm the information
• ensure the missing person is safe
• ensure the complainant and/or next of kin is notified

It looks like they do often issue it, but again, it's possible that in some cases they might not.

 

[melbot1000]

If SB is alive and well (ish) somewhere else, then I would find it hard to believe that she has not made any contact with her family. From her social media outlets, she seemed like a well-balanced, normal 20-something woman who was making some strides in her career. Lois, to answer your question in regard to her income, she answered that she currently had a part time job on her Ok Cupid profile. I cannot link this as you need to be a member to see her answer.
I consider myself a pretty balanced, normal 20-something and I'm trying to think of a situation in where I would not only leave my life, family and friends but also refrain from contacting them even though I knew they would be going through a stressful time trying to find me. They only situation I would consider would be if I had huge financial problems. Disappearing into a whole new life seems like it might be a better choice than filing for bankruptcy.
Also, if we consider that her and JB might have been thinking about getting a divorce, disappearing would start to look even more appealing. If she left, she would avoid the whole process of being seperated from her husband for a whole year and then going through the whole nightmare of divorcing someone. (My parents had a pretty amnicable divorce and it was still a nightmare for everyone.)
Divorce+crushing debt=possible motivation for disappearing and causing your family emotional pain. Also, crushing debt+impeding divorce=possible mental breakdown of a normally balanced young woman.

 

[news.talk]

There is yet ANOTHER missing person in Calgary. She also left on foot and has not been seen since:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/family-friends-worried-about-missing-calgary-woman

 

[dennisfedak81]

Shannon had no assets and a small income based on the information i have seen. Bankruptcy would have had minimal impact on her life. She would have literally nothing to lose. Its also hard to believe she would abandon her family over a divorce. In all probability she would need them more then ever. Moo...she fell victim to a bad date from online , domestic situation, or random attack.

 

[evafiore]

In my opinion, the most intriguing aspect of this case is the highly-publicized news release in the beginning and active searching from her family, and then silence---from all family members, the "family liaison", and all involved LE (Calgary, Vancouver, and Toronto). After the suspicious photos were found at Fish Creek, nothing has been actively released to the media. She is not in any official public database of missing persons---national or regional. Her family is not publicly expressing any grief whatsoever, and LE has not actively released any information for almost two months.

Again, just my opinion, but it seems like LE has chosen not to release the fact that she has been located, or at least that she has been identified as safe, to the media. The media could actively investigate this, as it was a relatively high-profile case, but I'm guessing the family is not divulging anything to them. The Canadian Centre for Information on Missing Adults (CCIMA)'s official guidelines for dealing with the media in missing persons cases, state that if the family waits, interest will decline. The story will be considered less "newsworthy," and could minimize any reports in the media:

6. Remember that the media can report on a missing person, the circumstances of the disappearance, the outcome, the police investigation and/or criminal proceedings (if they occur) at any time. This includes anniversaries or when similar events occur in your community. These reports may take families by surprise months and years later.
7. Media interest and coverage varies from case to case. It also declines over time – especially if there are no new developments. Reporting depends on whether a story is considered “newsworthy” and what other news is competing for coverage at the time.

 

[Sillybilly]

Three weeks ago, Jan 16, 12:43 pm, CPS FB page responded to the question:

Q: "Is Shannon Burgess still missing?"

A: "Yes, unfortunately she is still missing."

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...s/10153005023044530+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Could we please proceed sleuthing based on the premise that Shannon is still officially a missing person who needs to be found, rather than speculate that she has been located when there is nothing official to substantiate that.

 

[evafiore]

That was almost a month ago. Maybe it would be beneficial to ask CPS again, or ask a local news source for an update. Is there someone who could do this?

It's just bizarre that there's been no evident active, public action on this in the last two months. Responding to one inquiry on Facebook over a span of two months seems awfully passive if a missing person may be endangered.

 

[news.talk]

In my opinion, the most intriguing aspect of this case is the highly-publicized news release in the beginning and active searching from her family, and then silence---from all family members, the "family liaison", and all involved LE (Calgary, Vancouver, and Toronto). After the suspicious photos were found at Fish Creek, nothing has been actively released to the media. She is not in any official public database of missing persons---national or regional. Her family is not publicly expressing any grief whatsoever, and LE has not actively released any information for almost two months.

Again, just my opinion, but it seems like LE has chosen not to release the fact that she has been located, or at least that she has been identified as safe, to the media. The media could actively investigate this, as it was a relatively high-profile case, but I'm guessing the family is not divulging anything to them. The Canadian Centre for Information on Missing Adults (CCIMA)'s official guidelines for dealing with the media in missing persons cases, state that if the family waits, interest will decline. The story will be considered less "newsworthy," and could minimize any reports in the media:

6. Remember that the media can report on a missing person, the circumstances of the disappearance, the outcome, the police investigation and/or criminal proceedings (if they occur) at any time. This includes anniversaries or when similar events occur in your community. These reports may take families by surprise months and years later.
7. Media interest and coverage varies from case to case. It also declines over time – especially if there are no new developments. Reporting depends on whether a story is considered “newsworthy” and what other news is competing for coverage at the time.

Keep in mind, if there is an active investigation on suspicion of homicide, LE or the family would also be VERY careful not to be releasing updates of any kind.

 

[news.talk]

That was almost a month ago. Maybe it would be beneficial to ask CPS again, or ask a local news source for an update. Is there someone who could do this?

It's just bizarre that there's been no evident active, public action on this in the last two months. Responding to one inquiry on Facebook over a span of two months seems awfully passive if a missing person may be endangered.

I don't find the lack of information passive or unusual in these types of cases. The CPS has always been methodical in missing person cases. Until they have a reason to update the public, the generally keep information very close to the vest. This is even more true if they are following a lead and do not want to compromise their investigation, or if they have absolutely no information to provide.

I see on SB'S Facebook, that several of her close friends have posted on her page recently. If there was any information that she was safe, I would imagine that they would not be posting.

 

[evafiore]

Very good point. I suppose I've been confused by the family's seemingly rapid recovery---attending Superbowl parties, taking part in betting pools, galas, etc.

 

[news.talk]

Very good point. I suppose I've been confused by the family's rapid recovery---attending Superbowl parties, taking part in betting pools, galas, etc.

The family's behaviour has been strange from the get-go. Personally, I have always chalked it up to denial but who knows.

Facebook is a funny creature... Timeline's tend to portray a false image of a person's life. In most cases, we also don't see their complete timeline unless all their posts are set to 'public' - They may very well have posts about Shannon set to private or friends only. Given that the family have spoken out about rumours and privacy, it is very possible they have tightened up privacy settings.

 

[evafiore]

Unfortunately, CPS has confirmed that the search for Shannon Burgess is still active, responding to a post today on their FB page.

 

[LoisLane]

Unfortunately, CPS has confirmed that the search for Shannon Burgess is still active, responding to a post today on their FB page.

Yes, they have. Here is their response:
https://www.facebook.com/CalgaryPolice?ref=ts&fref=ts
Calgary Police Service:
"Yes, it is still active. All missing persons investigations remain active until the individual is located or it has been determined that the person is voluntarily absent."

Hopefully more attention is drawn to this again. So glad someone was able to post the question. Sometimes that is all it takes.

 

[evafiore]

I second that---thank you. It's best to have all bases covered.

 

[evafiore]

As I'm late to this conversation and still reading through this discussion, I'm not completely aware of what's been covered so far. Please let me know if I'm just repeating what's been said.

To me, the fact that she left the phone at home is important and establishing what her phone habits are would be helpful. There is the possibility that she did have a secondary phone but news releases seem to emphasize that her family believes she left without a phone. Not sure, but as family they would probably (but not positively!) be aware if she had a secondary phone.

She could have left the phone at home intentionally:

--the phone wasn't charged and she was in a rush. But if you don't trust the person you're living with, you'd probably take it with you anyway.

--as an excuse for someone not to be able to get a hold of her. Saying that you didn't answer calls because you've left your phone at home is a common excuse, and if you live with the person, it's best to actually leave the phone at home to corroborate your story. However, if their marriage was on the rocks, she may not have trusted her husband enough to leave the phone at home.

--she thought that somehow her location could be traced through the phone.

She could have left the phone at home unintentionally:

--forgetting it as she left the house during an argument.

--misplacing it and not being able to find it before leaving.

--thinking that'd she'd misplaced it, whereas it'd been hidden by someone so that they could read the contents.

And not her action at all:

--someone left it there because they thought that her location could be traced through the phone.

Thoughts?

 

[evafiore]

And something else I've come across that I haven't seen in the thread (yet...still reading---there's so much that's been found. Great sleuthing!):

In an FB note she mentions a man she's met, though it was not in a good way, and he takes her out for photography in parks. Different name than her husband, may have been an ex.

It was in 2009, but coincidental, given the headlines about the art project in Fish Creek Park.

Please let me know if you've gone over this already.