This news report that says 'last seen leaving' (I wonder why nobody seems to have come across that article before now??) seems to match with her sister's understanding, because her sister said during the press conference (don't have the wording in front of me right now) that 'she left'. I wonder if this MSM got their information from the sister directly, while the others got theirs from LE? It does seem that it is a point which LE seem to be keeping quiet for some reason. I have no idea why.
Actually, perhaps I can take a wild guess. The power of 'suggestion' perhaps? If police said last seen somewhere else, I wonder if some peoples' 'false memory syndrome' might kick in, ie 'oh yes, I saw someone who looked like her at that location on that night'. So perhaps they (LE) are protecting the integrity of their case by simply stating 'last seen at her home', because then they will only hear
otherwise from people who actually did see her in a different location, and it could never be said later during a trial, that LE put that idea in their heads? Although.. 'last seen at her home', and 'last seen leaving her home' are basically the same location anyway, so does that make sense?
Since her vehicle apparently had bad brakes, discovered only the night before SMB went missing, that would indicate that she likely didn't drive her car to Edmonton on that day, nor after she got home.
I sense this feeling of someone having dug a hole for her/himself somehow. It would have been so much simpler if she had simply never arrived home from Edmonton at all on the evening of Nov 26th.. except.. if someone was providing the transportation, one couldn't easily make that statement, could they? So then a certain person might become therefore by default, the last person to have seen her, when otherwise, it could have been someone in Edmonton being the last person.
Then from there it has to be figured out that if she arrived home, then where did she go, because her vehicle is still here at home and with bad brakes according to SMB. It was a 0degree C ish evening temp wise IIRC, so I wonder if SMB did much walking alone at 12:30 at night in that temp? Was it windy at all? And why would she have left her cellphone in that situation? If she had planned on disappearing, what did she pack to take with her on foot? Or was she just going to hope for the best, that she would find clothing along the way?
Unfortunately by the time she was finally reported missing 5 days later, were any video recordings from local area establishments still available to track her? I would love to know if her bank card was used after she was last seen, since family said they had put up posters in the area where she had last been known to spend money before disappearing. "The family has put up posters around Inglewood
where her last financial transactions were made." (from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/shannon-madill-missing-calgarian-sought-by-police-1.2862214 )
If a stranger/perp had stolen her wallet and bank cards/credit cards, and was bold enough to use them in the first place, why would they stop using them? They had 5 days to use them before the news of her being missing came out. I wonder when the final 'financial transaction' was made? I wonder how many transactions and when the first one was? Were police ever able to verify with the establishment that it was a person matching SMB's description who actually used the card? Don't cards nowadays require pin numbers, even credit cards? Would a stranger be able to determine her pin within few enough times to not get it locked out? Would her husband know her pin? My husband knows my pin. In fact, we both have the same pin for our cards. We even borrow each other's cards from time to time. I wonder if their financial arrangement was similar? I wonder who it was that called in tips saying she may have been seen in 'either of the locations of Vancouver or Toronto'? Why is it stated to be 'either', rather than 'both'? Is 'both' too unbelievable?