Found Deceased Canada - Shannon Burgess, 25, Calgary, 26 Nov 2014 - #3 *Arrest*

[deugirtni]

Hmm, I'm noticing a distinct hesitation in the detective's responses surrounding SB's banking/credit card info, during the family press conference that I hadn't noticed before. In listening between the lines, he is offering up everything BUT the answer to the reporter's question. Take note of 'ReporterA' who seems to have latched onto the non-answer in regard to the credit card usage, and he seems to keep at it, but the detective doesn't budge.

So then if we pair the detective's refusal to answer the question directly regarding the credit cards (which I take to also mean bank cards), along with the MSM article wherein it states, "Family members have been distributing missing person posters and checking businesses in Inglewood that Burgess had stopped in prior to her disappearance." - I am really really wondering now if her credit/bank card(s) were used after JB says he last saw her at 12;30am Nov.27th.

If that is the case, then surely they must be able to obtain camera footage or an eye witness who would have seen *someone* using the card(s).

If that is the case, that would sure explain why there seems to be hesitance in accepting 100% that she disappeared due to unnatural causes. I really wonder what LE are up to in the background.

ReporterA:
What's the process, take me through it, credit cards I assume, phone records, that kind of stuff, just sort of take us through those steps you take.

Detective:
Absolutely. As you know, every person has a huge electronic footprint, so we look into cellphone records, bank records, uh medical records, anything like that, driving tickets, red light cameras, we'll go every which direction we can think of to find her and where she's at right now.

ReporterA:
No action on any of that stuff?

Detective:
Uh, uh, I don't really want to get into any of the details of the investigation right now, but the reason we're reaching out to the media is because we're hoping that with this media presence and with uh the publicity that somebody will know where she is and has seen her and can come forward with some information to help us in locating her.

ReporterA:
So you can't say for sure whether or not her credit cards have been used or her cellphone has been used since she disappeared?

Detective:
We have her cellphone.

ReporterA:
Okay

Detective:
Soo she's obviously not using her cellphone as we have it. Um family was more than cooperative in supplying that to us.

Diff Reporter:
So it's like day-by-day stuff left at her residence, like her purse, her cellphone, things like that?

Detective:
Yes, there were things at her house, but obviously we haven't inventoried her entire house. and we couldn't tell you exactly what all is missing, what's there, what's not there. Um, we do have some basics that we've started off with and we're running with those right now.

Another Diff Reporter:
Blah blah can't understand beginning part ... she was last seen on that day, there haven't been any calls, or emails, texts, nothing since she was last seen Friday?

Detective:
We haven't had any contact with her at all.

ReporterA:
And so the credit cards, you've checked those?

Detective:
We have.

ReporterA:
Have you been able to see whether there's been any action with them?

Detective:
We haven't seen any activity online or electronically. If there was, we'd certainly be pursuing that. Um all avenues are being looked at, uh certainly credit cards and banking information is one of the priorities we look at. As you know, if somebody uh decides to go off the grid intentionally, um they have to make plans and they have to have some money, so we're definitely looking at the banking

Diff Reporter:
If she has a vehicle, is it also missing or is it at her residence?

Detective:
No, we have the vehicle as well, it's parked in the driveway at the house.

 

[evafiore]

Detective:
We haven't seen any activity online or electronically. If there was, we'd certainly be pursuing that. Um all avenues are being looked at, uh certainly credit cards and banking information is one of the priorities we look at. As you know, if somebody uh decides to go off the grid intentionally, um they have to make plans and they have to have some money, so we're definitely looking at the banking

Yep. He doesn't say if they've seen any evidence of willfully planning ahead to go off the grid, and it's not clear if they saw any electronic activity after 12:30am (which would suggest that it was JB that left then). I still think it's a major possibility. As I mentioned before, she may have left her phone behind to avoid having her location traced, and this was done sometime between the 27th at 12:30am and when she missed the meetings with her brother and others. Also, there's a post on one of the LARP pages, something along the lines of hoping she's just taken some time to "unplug."

 

[news.talk]

Hmm, I'm noticing a distinct hesitation in the detective's responses surrounding SB's banking/credit card info, during the family press conference that I hadn't noticed before. In listening between the lines, he is offering up everything BUT the answer to the reporter's question. Take note of 'ReporterA' who seems to have latched onto the non-answer in regard to the credit card usage, and he seems to keep at it, but the detective doesn't budge.

So then if we pair the detective's refusal to answer the question directly regarding the credit cards (which I take to also mean bank cards), along with the MSM article wherein it states, "Family members have been distributing missing person posters and checking businesses in Inglewood that Burgess had stopped in prior to her disappearance." - I am really really wondering now if her credit/bank card(s) were used after JB says he last saw her at 12;30am Nov.27th.

If that is the case, then surely they must be able to obtain camera footage or an eye witness who would have seen *someone* using the card(s).

If that is the case, that would sure explain why there seems to be hesitance in accepting 100% that she disappeared due to unnatural causes. I really wonder what LE are up to in the background.

ReporterA:
What's the process, take me through it, credit cards I assume, phone records, that kind of stuff, just sort of take us through those steps you take.

Detective:
Absolutely. As you know, every person has a huge electronic footprint, so we look into cellphone records, bank records, uh medical records, anything like that, driving tickets, red light cameras, we'll go every which direction we can think of to find her and where she's at right now.

ReporterA:
No action on any of that stuff?

Detective:
Uh, uh, I don't really want to get into any of the details of the investigation right now, but the reason we're reaching out to the media is because we're hoping that with this media presence and with uh the publicity that somebody will know where she is and has seen her and can come forward with some information to help us in locating her.

ReporterA:
So you can't say for sure whether or not her credit cards have been used or her cellphone has been used since she disappeared?

Detective:
We have her cellphone.

ReporterA:
Okay

Detective:
Soo she's obviously not using her cellphone as we have it. Um family was more than cooperative in supplying that to us.

Diff Reporter:
So it's like day-by-day stuff left at her residence, like her purse, her cellphone, things like that?

Detective:
Yes, there were things at her house, but obviously we haven't inventoried her entire house. and we couldn't tell you exactly what all is missing, what's there, what's not there. Um, we do have some basics that we've started off with and we're running with those right now.

Another Diff Reporter:
Blah blah can't understand beginning part ... she was last seen on that day, there haven't been any calls, or emails, texts, nothing since she was last seen Friday?

Detective:
We haven't had any contact with her at all.

ReporterA:
And so the credit cards, you've checked those?

Detective:
We have.

ReporterA:
Have you been able to see whether there's been any action with them?

Detective:
We haven't seen any activity online or electronically. If there was, we'd certainly be pursuing that. Um all avenues are being looked at, uh certainly credit cards and banking information is one of the priorities we look at. As you know, if somebody uh decides to go off the grid intentionally, um they have to make plans and they have to have some money, so we're definitely looking at the banking

Diff Reporter:
If she has a vehicle, is it also missing or is it at her residence?

Detective:
No, we have the vehicle as well, it's parked in the driveway at the house.

I really don't think there is anything about the banking that they were trying to cover up... I took the Detective's answers as standard investigative replies. In have a feeling that they really weren't that far into the actual investigative aspects of the case. They don't usually start into a forensic accounting of financials until after they have interviewed everyone who had contact with the missing person and created a timeline of events. In order to check financials and online activities, they first need to obtain warrants, and to get them, they need to prove the person is at risk using the information from the interviews and the timeline. I have my doubts that at the time of this presser, that they had achieved all that and also did the forensic accounting by that time. They wouldn't need warrants for joint accounts, but they would for any accounts in only her name. Then they would have to serve the warrants to the bank, and wait to receive the information. I am not sure if they could even go through her phone and Facebook account unless they had a warrant... That one I question.

I guess what I am trying to say but instead am just rambling nonsensically, is that, MOO, what they were really saying, is, "We really haven't done much on the case because we are swamped with cases up the wazoo, we talked to family, we collected the phone, and we are planning on doing those other things but there is so much red tape to go through first... So we are just going to answer your questions and try our best to sound like we have worked super-duper hard and SB is our top priority, even though she is just one of the dozens of missing persons cases we get in a day and the stupid city cut our budget and staffing, so I have to appear like we have done a lot..."

Translation to police lingo - We cannot divulge any information that may comprimise an ongoing investigation...

 

[news.talk]

But if it were in transition---suspicious at first because it's not like SB (which is one qualifying factor in mising person investigations, whether it is typical of that person), get the warrants, access online profiles (hence access of Cupid profile Dec 12th), determine that it looks like it was wilfull, and then hold off and quiet down.

Missing persons cases are always a fine line between respecting an adult's right to not contact anyone, and a possible person at risk. They have a set criteria and proceedures to determine the level of risk, and they work from there. That is why interviewing people is the first step. With the Privacy Laws, it can be a tricky balance. Say for example, you got really ticked at your husband and your family was taking his side. You decide to go stay with friends and lay low for a while. Would you want the Police hacking into your social-media, digging into your finances and going through your belongings? LE has to figure out how much they can intrude into your life, since you have every right to ignore your loved ones.

I still have a sneaking suspicion that it has quieted down because they are monitoring a suspect. Of course it could be that they case has run the course of the investigation, and it is simply cold.

 

[evafiore]

I really don't think there is anything about the banking that they were trying to cover up... I took the Detective's answers as standard investigative replies. In have a feeling that they really weren't that far into the actual investigative aspects of the case. They don't usually start into a forensic accounting of financials until after they have interviewed everyone who had contact with the missing person and created a timeline of events. In order to check financials and online activities, they first need to obtain warrants, and to get them, they need to prove the person is at risk using the information from the interviews and the timeline. I have my doubts that at the time of this presser, that they had achieved all that and also did the forensic accounting by that time. They wouldn't need warrants for joint accounts, but they would for any accounts in only her name. Then they would have to serve the warrants to the bank, and wait to receive the information. I am not sure if they could even go through her phone and Facebook account unless they had a warrant... That one I question.

I guess what I am trying to say but instead am just rambling nonsensically, is that, MOO, what they were really saying, is, "We really haven't done much on the case because we are swamped with cases up the wazoo, we talked to family, we collected the phone, and we are planning on doing those other things but there is so much red tape to go through first... So we are just going to answer your questions and try our best to sound like we have worked super-duper hard and SB is our top priority, even though she is just one of the dozens of missing persons cases we get in a day and the stupid city cut our budget and staffing, so I have to appear like we have done a lot..."

Translation to police lingo - We cannot divulge any information that may comprimise an ongoing investigation...

But if it were in transition---suspicious at first because it's not like SB (which is one qualifying factor in missing person investigations, whether it is typical of that person), so they hold the press conference, get the warrants, access online profiles (hence access of Cupid profile Dec 12th), then determine that it looks like it was willful, and then hold off and quiet down. Family would not be so worried anymore, and could carry on closer to normal than if they thought there was foul play involved, and LE would focus more on cases of people who look to be endangered.


Sorry, added this (I'm multitasking, and a newbie...) At the time of the press conference, the investigation would probably have been pre-accessing records, so they weren't necessarily covering anything up. They accessed records and profiles after, and have not commented since.

 

[news.talk]

But if it were in transition---suspicious at first because it's not like SB (which is one qualifying factor in missing person investigations, whether it is typical of that person), so they hold the press conference, get the warrants, access online profiles (hence access of Cupid profile Dec 12th), then determine that it looks like it was willful, and then hold off and quiet down. Family would not be so worried anymore, and could carry on closer to normal than if they thought there was foul play involved, and LE would focus more on cases of people who look to be endangered.


Sorry, added this (multitasking...) At the time of the press conference, the investigation would probably have been pre-accessing records, so they weren't necessarily covering anything up. They accessed records and profiles after, and have not commented since.

Yep. That is what I think... They weren't trying to cover anything up because at that point, there wasn't anything to cover up.

 

[evafiore]

Yep. That is what I think... They weren't trying to cover anything up because at that point, there wasn't anything to cover up.

Missing persons cases are always a fine line between respecting an adult's right to not contact anyone, and a possible person at risk. They have a set criteria and proceedures to determine the level of risk, and they work from there. That is why interviewing people is the first step. With the Privacy Laws, it can be a tricky balance. Say for example, you got really ticked at your husband and your family was taking his side. You decide to go stay with friends and lay low for a while. Would you want the Police hacking into your social-media, digging into your finances and going through your belongings? LE has to figure out how much they can intrude into your life, since you have every right to ignore your loved ones.

I still have a sneaking suspicion that it has quieted down because they are monitoring a suspect. Of course it could be that they case has run the course of the investigation, and it is simply cold

It does seem really unlikely that she'd be fine with having her privacy invaded by LE and on forums like this. But if she had no idea in advance, and stayed missing out of embarrassment...? It would be really difficult to go back to normal life if she had decided to disappear, and then caused such a stir. LE and her family may be quiet on the issue as not to distress her further.

Sorry, just thinking out loud. I'm pretty much ruling this out simply for being silly and "unbelievably unlikely."

The other possibility for the reason behind the silence is, as you've mentioned, that they're monitoring a suspect, or it's run cold.

 

[Sillybilly]

But if she had no idea in advance, and stayed missing out of embarrassment...?

It's been over 3 months ... don't know how, without a source of income, someone could remain missing for that length of time and beyond.

Unrelated to a possible income source for SB, I wonder if she had a Will or life insurance.

 

[otto]

I am just guestimating... If the post about Yuk Yuk's (not getting back in time) was made just after 9PM - whether it was her or someone else posting, that would put her traveling back from Edmonton (and hopefully arriving) sometime between 7PM and 9PM. It is a three hour trip so she must have left between 4PM and 6PM - Give or take.

My math is horrible, so I may be off by a mile. [emoji51]

Could she have arrived home shortly before sending the text about being too late for Yuk Yuks? She posted about "funzies" at 10:06. She was last seen at 12:30AM, 2.5 hours later. It's a 2.5-3 hour drive, depending on the driving conditions and speed, so conceivably she could have left at 6, arrived home at 9, cancelled her evening plans, posted about funzies on Facebook an hour later, and then about 2.5 hours later vanished.

 

[Leischa]

Yes, good point, I was forgetting to consider that if SB had in fact planned to attend that Development Night Workshop, she would have had to have already arranged a 'swap partner'. Although there was no indication on the YY DN page that she had planned on attending, if she had planned on it, then what about that swap partner? Hmm.

I know, right? But I figured that she could've interacted with her swap partner through text messages, phone calls or even in person.

 

[otto]

Generally, it sounds like JB flat out rejected her. Left her to stay somewhere else/with someone else? Ran into her in the evening as he was picking up some stuff and left at 12:30am (or so he told family)? Or did he pack his bags when she came back from Edmonton? Took the dog to his mom's? Could explain why her family insinuated she was upset about something...

Where did the family state that she was upset about something?

 

[Leischa]

The spelling error in the 'breaks' is a moot issue because it was posted the night before she disappeared. She was seen after posting that post, so I doubt if someone else would have been posting on her behalf, in her absence, if she was still around. It wasn't until the *next* evening/night that the 2 public posts become a little suspicious. So does everyone think that post about the 'funzies' is similar to how SB would have posted/responded/spoken? It never struck me as odd before, because when it is read in context, as a reply to the poster making the comment above, it all made sense to me. But if someone else posted in while covering their tracks and trying to add credibility to the fact that she did return to Calgary after being in Edmonton earlier in the day, then who knows? That person was wise to have replied/responded to the post above it. Does it sound like her?

I think that she could very well have written that sentence herself. She seemed like a playful person and the writing style doesn't strike me as being different from what she previously wrote.

What I wanted to say, in fact, was that this post didn't seem odd to me. I thought that she was just thinking about the ''good old days'' when she had fun with her fellow larpers. Some people introduced the idea that maybe a fight erupted after she wrote that (jealousy?) but I find it hard to believe if it was just in realtion to a game. Although you never know about people's real temper until you get to know them very well...

And, in the case that post was written by someone else in order to make ''the rest of the world'' believe that she was still alive and well at that moment, it was written by someone very close to her, who knew about what she did while playing with Alliance. The post refers to a specific event and, to me, it even sounds kind of like an ''inside''.

 

[news.talk]

I think that she could very well have written that sentence herself. She seemed like a playful person and the writing style doesn't strike me as being different from what she previously wrote.

What I wanted to say, in fact, was that this post didn't seem odd to me. I thought that she was just thinking about the ''good old days'' when she had fun with her fellow larpers. Some people introduced the idea that maybe a fight erupted after she wrote that (jealousy?) but I find it hard to believe if it was just in realtion to a game. Although you never know about people's real temper until you get to know them very well...

And, in the case that post was written by someone else in order to make ''the rest of the world'' believe that she was still alive and well at that moment, it was written by someone very close to her, who knew about what she did while playing with Alliance. The post refers to a specific event and, to me, it even sounds kind of like an ''inside''.

I have often wondered if she was actually pregnant in real life... Pregnancy can be a catalyst for a major life change, hormones can cause issues... It can also be a point of contention with a spouse that doesn't want children - there have been MANY murders that were because of this issue... Especially if the husband suspects he is not the father.

 

[deugirtni]

I'm not really getting why it would look like a strange coincidence to you that SB has the same type of spelling errors on one post as she does on another. Isn't it *more* strange that her 2 final posts (made only 2-3 hours prior to the time she is 'said' to have last been seen), do NOT contain any spelling errors?

I definitely agree that the timing wouldn't work with the trip to Edmonton. It still looks like a strange coincidence to me, but it could be just that.

The idea of pretending to be her reminds me of the Loretta Saunders case---the perps tried texting her family members, posing as her, and failed miserably (or rather, thankfully). However, if you know the person, mimicry really isn't difficult, and it doesn't take a genius, especially in text...how many of you tried forging notes from your parents to your teachers? I learned which words my parents would use, and made sure to use them. I was 12 and managed to pull off some convincing notes. The difficult part was the handwriting.

 

[news.talk]

I'm not really getting why it would look like a strange coincidence to you that SB has the same type of spelling errors on one post as she does on another. Isn't it *more* strange that her 2 final posts (made only 2-3 hours prior to the time she is 'said' to have last been seen), do NOT contain any spelling errors?

There is *something* different about those last posts... Can't put my finger on it. I feel like they were made by someone else.

 

[deugirtni]

I think the detective IS saying that they did NOT see any electronic activity after 12;30am. But he is not making any comment at all as to whether her cards were used in person. So I'm not sure where you are getting the connection from that, to suggest that it was JB that left at 12;30am as opposed to SB?

Yep. He doesn't say if they've seen any evidence of willfully planning ahead to go off the grid, and it's not clear if they saw any electronic activity after 12:30am (which would suggest that it was JB that left then). I still think it's a major possibility. As I mentioned before, she may have left her phone behind to avoid having her location traced, and this was done sometime between the 27th at 12:30am and when she missed the meetings with her brother and others. Also, there's a post on one of the LARP pages, something along the lines of hoping she's just taken some time to "unplug."

 

[deugirtni]

I find the detective's statements to be almost in-your-face-avoiding the answer to reporterA's question, even though ReporterA asked it numerous times. To me, it looks like ReporterA was feeling it too, and hence his repeating it a few times. Police had been brought in on December 1st, and by the time of the presser, it was December 4th.

If LE had access to SB's banking information enough to have been able to answer 'no there has been no online/electronic banking activity', then they also should have been able to answer flat out, 'no there has been no banking activity', in answer to the reporter's actual question.

If they had to get a warrant for her banking activity, said warrant would have included all banking activity, not just one type. So how did they get the answer for one type of transaction, but not the other? It doesn't make sense.

Also, by then, I am certainly HOPING they would have already asked area establishments for copies of their CCTV footage for around that time, otherwise they took the risk that it would have been deleted, the longer they waited to do so.

If after checking out banking activity and determining there was no online/electronic activity, but found there was real-life activity, that would have prompted them to dig deeper, which, imho, they did... via the family putting up posters in the places where she 'stopped in prior to her disappearance'.. and also, the detective indicated they were doing the presser in the hopes that someone could come forward saying they had seen her since the disappearance time.

Another non-answer was when reporter asked if there was anything at all in the way of communications from SB since her disappearance time, and the detective responds with, 'WE haven't had any contact with her at all'. So perhaps I'm reading too much into his answers, although we have at other times been told that LE are very careful in their wording, but I'm wondering if a certain *someone* is telling them that she texted/called him to say she was taking off (perhaps to Vancouver or Toronto, even). It would be easy for that certain *someone* to do that call or text from SB's phone, to perhaps himself, since the phone had been left behind.

I really don't think there is anything about the banking that they were trying to cover up... I took the Detective's answers as standard investigative replies. In have a feeling that they really weren't that far into the actual investigative aspects of the case. They don't usually start into a forensic accounting of financials until after they have interviewed everyone who had contact with the missing person and created a timeline of events. In order to check financials and online activities, they first need to obtain warrants, and to get them, they need to prove the person is at risk using the information from the interviews and the timeline. I have my doubts that at the time of this presser, that they had achieved all that and also did the forensic accounting by that time. They wouldn't need warrants for joint accounts, but they would for any accounts in only her name. Then they would have to serve the warrants to the bank, and wait to receive the information. I am not sure if they could even go through her phone and Facebook account unless they had a warrant... That one I question.

I guess what I am trying to say but instead am just rambling nonsensically, is that, MOO, what they were really saying, is, "We really haven't done much on the case because we are swamped with cases up the wazoo, we talked to family, we collected the phone, and we are planning on doing those other things but there is so much red tape to go through first... So we are just going to answer your questions and try our best to sound like we have worked super-duper hard and SB is our top priority, even though she is just one of the dozens of missing persons cases we get in a day and the stupid city cut our budget and staffing, so I have to appear like we have done a lot..."

Translation to police lingo - We cannot divulge any information that may comprimise an ongoing investigation...

 

[news.talk]

I find the detective's statements to be almost in-your-face-avoiding the answer to reporterA's question, even though ReporterA asked it numerous times. To me, it looks like ReporterA was feeling it too, and hence his repeating it a few times. Police had been brought in on December 1st, and by the time of the presser, it was December 4th.

If LE had access to SB's banking information enough to have been able to answer 'no there has been no online/electronic banking activity', then they also should have been able to answer flat out, 'no there has been no banking activity', in answer to the reporter's actual question.

If they had to get a warrant for her banking activity, said warrant would have included all banking activity, not just one type. So how did they get the answer for one type of transaction, but not the other? It doesn't make sense.

Also, by then, I am certainly HOPING they would have already asked area establishments for copies of their CCTV footage for around that time, otherwise they took the risk that it would have been deleted, the longer they waited to do so.

If after checking out banking activity and determining there was no online/electronic activity, but found there was real-life activity, that would have prompted them to dig deeper, which, imho, they did... via the family putting up posters in the places where she 'stopped in prior to her disappearance'.. and also, the detective indicated they were doing the presser in the hopes that someone could come forward saying they had seen her since the disappearance time.

Another non-answer was when reporter asked if there was anything at all in the way of communications from SB since her disappearance time, and the detective responds with, 'WE haven't had any contact with her at all'. So perhaps I'm reading too much into his answers, although we have at other times been told that LE are very careful in their wording, but I'm wondering if a certain *someone* is telling them that she texted/called him to say she was taking off (perhaps to Vancouver or Toronto, even). It would be easy for that certain *someone* to do that call or text from SB's phone, to perhaps himself, since the phone had been left behind.

I have been to a TON of these pressers, and almost every missing person one is almost a carbon copy of the other's. They are often the first step in obtaining "public information" from knowing some of the Detective's and how they work. JMO.

 

[deugirtni]

Considering that SB had not made ANY indication that I have seen, in advance, that she had planned on attending that YY workshop, it seems strange to suddenly regret that she wasnt' able to attend. And also, the smiley face. Was it common or was it EVER done before in any of her other FB posts to put one of those face things in it?? I haven't gone around to look for just that, but I don't recall seeing it before from her? And the kind of 'romantic' type of writing.. in that last post.. has she written like that before that we can see? I haven't noticed anything like that, however, I do believe there is someone else who can tend to write more like that. Kind of playful and cryptic... whereas when SB writes, imho, it is more 'blunt', to the point, non-romantic, etc.

There is *something* different about those last posts... Can't put my finger on it. I feel like they were made by someone else.

 

[news.talk]

Considering that SB had not made ANY indication that I have seen, in advance, that she had planned on attending that YY workshop, it seems strange to suddenly regret that she wasnt' able to attend. And also, the smiley face. Was it common or was it EVER done before in any of her other FB posts to put one of those face things in it?? I haven't gone around to look for just that, but I don't recall seeing it before from her? And the kind of 'romantic' type of writing.. in that last post.. has she written like that before that we can see? I haven't noticed anything like that, however, I do believe there is someone else who can tend to write more like that. Kind of playful and cryptic... whereas when SB writes, imho, it is more 'blunt', to the point, non-romantic, etc.

That is a good way of explaining how I felt but couldn't quite articulate. They just didn't jive with her other posts that were short, incomplete sentences and sloppy writing skills.