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

[otto]

The fact that investigators have received information that she may have traveled to Toronto or Vancouver supports willful disappearance, no?

I'm not suggesting JB went out for anything social at 12:30am, but rather to wherever he was sleeping. I'm thinking that maybe they had a discussion when she came back from Edmonton, and then he left to stay somewhere else.

The tips about someone resembling Shannon from Vancouver and Toronto came within days of her disappearance. The tips related to potential sightings, not information that Shannon had taken a train, plane, bus, or taxi to either location. As far as I can recall, the tips related to sighting ... I am not aware of any factual evidence supporting the point that Shannon travelled to those locations.

The husband lived with Shannon, so presumably he slept at home. Given that they were living in a co-op with strict eligibility requirements - requirements that he, rather than Shannon, could demonstrate, I doubt that during divorce proceedings he would choose to give that up by sleeping (defacto living) somewhere else.

 

[otto]

You know, maybe something happened to the dog that might have contributed to her mental state...
Pets are like children ( only better :blushing: ) to plenty of people. (just saying...) :moo:

:cow:

This is true, but if the dog was missing, or something happened to the dog, that should have been released by police. Specifically, police would also be looking for a dog, not just Shannon, or they would have announced that she could have been upset on the night she vanished. As it is, the husband has said that everything was fine, Shannon was fine, he last saw her at 12:30AM, and it didn't cross his mind that anything was wrong at any time even though her cell phone was at home with him for days after he last saw her.

 

[evafiore]

The tips about someone resembling Shannon from Vancouver and Toronto came within days of her disappearance. The tips related to potential sightings, not information that Shannon had taken a train, plane, bus, or taxi to either location. As far as I can recall, the tips related to sighting ... I am not aware of any factual evidence supporting the point that Shannon travelled to those locations.

The husband lived with Shannon, so presumably he slept at home. Given that they were living in a co-op with strict eligibility requirements - requirements that he, rather than Shannon, could demonstrate, I doubt that during divorce proceedings he would choose to give that up by sleeping (defacto living) somewhere else.

True, LE did not divulge much about why they believed she may be in one of those cities.

I can't speak from experience, but if I were going through a divorce, I wouldn't want to spend the evening with the other person. And we don't know about the co-op situation---building demo doesn't usually make the total that's specified on the co-op requirements, so I think it's more likely they applied together---she appeared to be working in an office in 2010, which was when she posted on FB about moving. If one leaves, the other may not meet requirements to stay there anyway.

The other possibility that I mentioned before was that the co-op was under someone else's name, or they had someone co-sign.

 

[evafiore]

This is true, but if the dog was missing, or something happened to the dog, that should have been released by police. Specifically, police would also be looking for a dog, not just Shannon, or they would have announced that she could have been upset on the night she vanished. As it is, the husband has said that everything was fine, Shannon was fine, he last saw her at 12:30AM, and it didn't cross his mind that anything was wrong at any time even though her cell phone was at home with him for days after he last saw her.

But we don't know that he was there for those days after he saw her...

Another reason why I think he was staying somewhere else. He didn't notice anything wrong, or that her cell phone was there and she wasn't, because he wasn't there.

 

[otto]

LE did not divulge much about why they believed she may be in one of those cities.

I can't speak from experience, but if I were going through a divorce, I wouldn't want to spend the evening with the other person. And we don't know about the co-op situation---building demo doesn't make that much, so I think it's more likely they applied together. If one leaves, they may not meet requirements to stay there anyway.

The following statement is clear in terms of stating that Toronto and Vancouver police have receive information that she could be in those cities. Calgary police have not released information that Shannon left Calgary. Therefore, it's safe to assume that Toronto and Vancouver police received tips about sightings in those cities, but Calgary police to not have evidence that she travelled out of Calgary.

"Toronto Police and Vancouver Police have now joined the search. Both units issued releases saying they received information that she could be in either of the cities."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/15/shannon-burgess-missing_n_6327954.html

Shannon did not qualify, on her own, to live in the co-op. One of the criteria is an annual income of $45,000. Shannon, the struggling artist, did not have that type of guaranteed income. Her husband would not live/sleep somewhere else during the divorce, because he would risk loosing his home as a result of the divorce. The only way to keep his home was to live/sleep there.

 

[otto]

But we don't know that he was there for those days after he saw her...

Another reason why I think he was staying somewhere else. He didn't notice anything wrong, or that her cell phone was there and she wasn't, because he wasn't there.

Why would we assume that the husband wasn't living at home when we know he was living at home? Why would we assume that he didn't know that her cell phone was at home? Was the dog left alone for 5-6 days? I doubt it.

When Shannon's family became concerned, they had to wait for the husband to go home from work before they could get answers from him. Clearly he was living at home, and he was unconcerned about her disappearance.

 

[evafiore]

Why would we assume that the husband wasn't living at home when we know he was living at home? Why would we assume that he didn't know that her cell phone was at home? Was the dog left alone for 5-6 days? I doubt it.

When Shannon's family became concerned, they had to wait for the husband to go home from work before they could get answers from him. Clearly he was living at home, and he was unconcerned about her disappearance.

As I said, I don't think JB makes enough for the minimum. SB had an office job when they moved there---I think their acceptance was based on dual income.

Why assume that's where he was because he "lives there"? SB "lives there" too, but she stayed overnight in Edmonton. I'm thinking he wasn't there. Yes, maybe the family had to wait for him to get off work, to go there and check, but it doesn't mean that he was there for those 4-5 days.

And the dog, as I've suggested, could have been somewhere else while SB was in Edmonton.

 

[otto]

As I said, I don't think JB makes enough for the minimum. SB had an office job when they moved there---I think their acceptance was based on dual income.

Why assume that's where he was because he "lives there"? SB "lives there" too, but she stayed overnight in Edmonton. I'm thinking he wasn't there. Yes, maybe the family had to wait for him to get off work, to go there and check, but it doesn't mean that he was there for those 4-5 days.

And the dog, as I've suggested, could have been somewhere else while SB was in Edmonton.

There's not an office job requiring post secondary studies in Calgary that pays less that $40k annually. I don't recall what Shannon's husband does for a living, but I'm 100% confident that he's making more that $45k annually. Shannon and her husband lived together at the co-op. Unless there is factual information suggesting that he lived/slept somewhere else, then he lived and slept in his own home. Shannon frequently travelled to Edmonton in pursuit of her acting/voice career. She lived in the Ramsay co-op. The couple have a dog, so it makes most sense that when Shannon was away for work, her husband looked after their dog.

Is there any factual information supporting the suggestion that the husband was not living at home, or that the couple's dog was looked after by someone other than the couple?

"Shannon was last seen in the early morning hours of Thursday, November 27, at her home in the 1900 block of Spiller Rd. S.E in the community of Ramsay, a home she shares with her husband Josh.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/family-sa...disappear-without-contacting-anyone-1.2134851

 

[evafiore]

There's not an office job requiring post secondary studies in Calgary that pays less that $40k annually. I don't recall what Shannon's husband does for a living, but I'm 100% confident that he's making more that $45k annually. Shannon and her husband lived together at the co-op. Unless there is factual information suggesting that he lived/slept somewhere else, then he lived and slept in his own home. Shannon frequently travelled to Edmonton in pursuit of her acting/voice career. She lived in the Ramsay co-op. The couple have a dog, so it makes most sense that when Shannon was away for work, her husband looked after their dog.

Is there any factual information supporting the suggestion that the husband was not living at home, or that the couple's dog was looked after by someone other than the couple?

"Shannon was last seen in the early morning hours of Thursday, November 27, at her home in the 1900 block of Spiller Rd. S.E in the community of Ramsay, a home she shares with her husband Josh.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/family-sa...disappear-without-contacting-anyone-1.2134851

There's no factual information supporting or negating any possibility---that he was sleeping at the home for those 4-5 days, that he left the city for those few days, or that he was staying with someone else during the divorce.

To look at it a different way: would it be a solid alibi for someone to say that they couldn't possibly have been at a murder scene because they live somewhere else or they share a home with someone else? Probably not.

I don't think he was there.

 

[otto]

There's no factual information supporting or negating any possibility---that he was sleeping at the home for those 4-5 days, that he left the city for those few days, or that he was staying with someone else during the divorce.

To look at it a different way: would it be a solid alibi for someone to say that they couldn't possibly have been at a murder scene because they live somewhere else? Probably not.

I don't think he was there.

We know that Shannon was last seen at home - and we have information that she and her husband shared a home. If he was living elsewhere at the time of her disappearance, we would not have information that they shared a home. Instead, the reports would state that the couple were estranged and living in different locations. There is no information to suggest that while Shannon was pursuing work in Edmonton, her husband was away on vacation. By all account, they lived together, she was away for work, she returned to Calgary, they were both at home, and Shannon was last seen at home at 12:30AM. She left her home, leaving her cell phone and car behind.

There is no information suggesting that their dog went to Edmonton for Shannon's work., so presumably the dog stayed home with one of the two owners: the husband.

"I don't think he was there." ... don't think he was where? We know he was at home with Shannon because that is where he last saw her. She is missing from her home, but her belongings, phone, car, and husband are still at home. Clearly she, not he, left.

 

[evafiore]

We know that Shannon was last seen at home - and we have information that she and her husband shared a home. If he was living elsewhere at the time of her disappearance, we would not have information that they shared a home. Instead, the reports would state that the couple were estranged and living in different locations. There is no information to suggest that while Shannon was pursuing work in Edmonton, her husband was away on vacation. By all account, they lived together, she was away for work, she returned to Calgary, they were both at home, and Shannon was last seen at home at 12:30AM. She left her home, leaving her cell phone and car behind.

There is no information suggesting that their dog went to Edmonton for Shannon's work., so presumably the dog stayed home with one of the two owners: the husband.

"I don't think he was there." ... don't think he was where? We know he was at home with Shannon because that is where he last saw her. She is missing from her home, but her belongings, phone, car, and husband are still at home. Clearly she, not he, left.

Nope, don't agree with you on that, sorry. Staying somewhere for a few nights because you're fighting with your spouse does not equal living somewhere else in my books. We don't know he was home for those few days, I don't think he was at home. Have you found anything that states that she left or he stayed, or is this something you've assumed?

No one knows about the dog---would love to know about that.

 

[otto]

Nope, don't agree with you on that, sorry. Staying somewhere for a few nights because you're fighting with your spouse does not equal living somewhere else in my books. We don't know he was home, I don't think he was at home.

No one knows about the dog---would love to know about that.

There is absolutely no indication that there was any "fighting", or that due to the pending divorce the husband left home and slept elsewhere. He was at home when he last saw his wife, and he was at home when her family contacted him several days later.

The couple shared a home at the Ramsay co-op, which means that's where they slept. He was at home at 12:30AM during the work week - a week which, for him, means a structured daily appearance at the office. The husband is at home and accounted for, the wife has vanished. How can there be any question about who left; who is missing, and who is still living at home? Should we believe that coincidentally, on the night his wife vanished, the husband decided go for a sleepover at a friend's place at 1AM on a work night?

Let's suppose that Shannon decided to leave her dog with someone while she was in Edmonton. We have to assume that she left their dog with someone that is not a family member - because no one in the family knew she was missing for several days. We know she came home from Edmonton, and it's been posted here that the dog was important to her. Would she return from Edmonton and not bother to pick up the dog? Given that she was expected back in Calgary that day to attend a function at Yuk Yuks, wouldn't the hypothetical dog babysitter wonder why she hadn't picked up the dog? Why was it several days before anyone, other than the husband, was aware that she had vanished from the face of the earth? Shouldn't the hypothetical dog babysitter have started asking questions sooner?

 

[otto]

Nope, don't agree with you on that, sorry. Staying somewhere for a few nights because you're fighting with your spouse does not equal living somewhere else in my books. We don't know he was home for those few days, I don't think he was at home. Have you found anything that states that she left or he stayed, or is this something you've assumed?

No one knows about the dog---would love to know about that.

Why is there such an earnest effort to suggest that the husband went to a sleepover at 1AM on the night that Shannon was last seen, and that he had no reason to return home until several days later, after the weekend, and after Shannon was discovered missing by her extended family? Is that an attempt to somehow excuse him for not reporting her disappearance to anyone?

 

[evafiore]

How old is the online dating site profile?

Do you have a link?

Which would be a better indicator of career and professional experience: an online dating site, or LinkedIn?

I would say that in this case the dating site, as the LinkedIn profile you're referring to belongs to someone else. The OkCupid profile was last accessed a few days ago, I believe. This profile has been discussed repeatedly throughout this thread.

 

[evafiore]

Why is there such an earnest effort to suggest that the husband went to a sleepover at 1AM on the night that Shannon was last seen, and that he had no reason to return home until several days later, after the weekend, and after Shannon was discovered missing by her extended family? Is that an attempt to somehow excuse him for not reporting her disappearance to anyone?

I'm making an earnest effort to ensure that certain possibilities are not ruled out due to hasty assumptions or faulty logic. I'm not going to say that I'm 100% confident about anything without absolute facts, as I do not want to potentially excuse ANYONE in error---whether that be JB, SB, or someone else.

 

[otto]

I would say that in this case the dating site, as the LinkedIn profile you're referring to belongs to someone else. The OkCupid profile was last accessed a few days ago, I believe. This profile has been discussed repeatedly throughout this thread.

This line of reasoning - hypothetical sleepovers from 1AM on the night his wife vanished until her family reported her missing several days later, and hypothetical non-family dogsitters - is for the sole purpose of demonstrating that the husband could not know that his wife had vanished and that her cell phone was conspicuously at home alone.

Does the husband need these sorts of hypothetical excuses?

 

[evafiore]

This line of reasoning - hypothetical sleepovers from 1AM on the night his wife vanished until her family reported her missing several days later, and hypothetical non-family dogsitters - is for the sole purpose of demonstrating that the husband could not know that his wife had vanished and that her cell phone was conspicuously at home alone.

Does the husband need these sorts of hypothetical excuses?

:facepalm:

 

[otto]

I'm making an earnest effort to ensure that certain possibilities are not ruled out due to hasty assumptions or faulty logic. I'm not going to say that I'm 100% confident about anything without absolute facts, as I not want to potentially excuse ANYONE in error---whether that be JB, SB, or someone else.

Shannon is gone. We know that. There is no electronic footprint after she was last seen by her husband. There was no activity prior to her disappearance to suggest that she was going to voluntarily vanish. There is no evidence that she left the city. There is no evidence that she was doing anything after she was seen alive at home. Given that she is gone without a trace, there are two possibilities: suicide, murder.

Is it logical to believe that Shannon left the family dog with a non-family member while she was in Edmonton, and that when she returned later in the day than planned she simply neglected to connect with the dogsitter, or pick up her beloved dog? I can't think of any reason that the family dog wouldn't be at home with the husband.

If the husband bolted from the residence at 1AM on the night Shannon vanished, he looks guiltier than if he simply went to bed at home. I wonder if there's surveillance footage from the night that she vanished, or whether any available video would have been overwritten in the 5-6 days between her disappearance and the police report that she was missing.

Any thoughts on why the husband waited until he got home from work to respond to the family's inquiries on Shannon's whereabouts?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

This line of reasoning - hypothetical sleepovers from 1AM on the night his wife vanished until her family reported her missing several days later, and hypothetical non-family dogsitters - is for the sole purpose of demonstrating that the husband could not know that his wife had vanished and that her cell phone was conspicuously at home alone.

Does the husband need these sorts of hypothetical excuses?

Just like the hypothetical successful acting career. An unpaid part in an internet film contest is like volunteering to flip burgers at McDonalds in hopes of getting future work.

 

[LoisLane]

This line of reasoning - hypothetical sleepovers from 1AM on the night his wife vanished until her family reported her missing several days later, and hypothetical non-family dogsitters - is for the sole purpose of demonstrating that the husband could not know that his wife had vanished and that her cell phone was conspicuously at home alone.

Does the husband need these sorts of hypothetical excuses?

I think it is entirely possible for the husband to have been the one who last saw her at the home and it was him who left the home at around 12:30 a.m. and that he may have been staying elsewhere for an extended period of time. Police are going by the last time she was seen at the home, obviously she left because she was not there and the time stamp is 12:30 a.m. because of a supposed reliable source. It is very possible JB was living elsewhere at the time and he never returned to the home after 12:30 a.m. IIRC he was referred to as being "estranged" by either the media or in the presser. The time is documented as Shannon last being seen at 12:30 a.m.

IMO, I think the dog died in the weeks leading up to the disappearance or JB would have had the dog in his care and that they "split-custody". I think JB was just as possesive over the dog as Shannon would have been and unless they surrendered him; someone else was caring for him; or the dog has died; then the dog would have been left unattended in the residence, if that was the case I feel the police and especially the family would have put out a more urgent appeal for her to be found and may have stated that her safety was in jeopardy and that it was not like her to leave the dog uncared for. They did not. For some reason I think the dog is a non-issue. JMOO.