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

[deugirtni]

I'm sorry, I'm not really understanding your post. The brain dump you refer to simply contains some paraphrashing of what the missing person in question has written about publicly. And of course, it is difficult for me to write without expressing at least a few of my own thoughts and perceptions in there, which I have indicated.

Sounds to me like the 'group' could be the LARP group, and the potential for a 2nd mate coming from that group with all this brain dump you wrote out. not necessarily anything else

 

[otto]

otto, I'm not sure if you are only interested in reading what has been correctly or incorrectly reported in MSM (they often make mistakes and don't bother correcting them), but if you are interested in reading some things that the missing person herself has written (so we could assume those things to be true, from herself), do a search for 'shanswers reddit', and you will find a page full of her writings.. not only her own writings of herself, but also answers/replies to others, as it seems she participated frequently a couple of years ago. If, when you see the page with her shanswers name on it, if you then click on her name, you will come up with her 'own' page, which contains her own posts (as opposed to everything, including her replies and helpful hints and advice to other posters). Since LE and family do not wish to talk about personal things, or anything much at all, even though things do exist, information can be gleaned from that site, even though we are not allowed to post a link here, or quote what was said.

The only google source that comes up with that search is this website.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

See below. www.google.com

That's too hard. This isn't a forum for people that search for things online you know...

 

[Coldpizza]

What is going on in here? You guys are usually pretty civil.

Let me clarify, Shannon's social media is allowed to be discussed, her husband's is not.

Anything from MSM is allowed to be discussed.

If the information is coming from a blocked link it's off limits, don't bring it here please. The link will show ******.

Please don't personalize your posts, address the post and not the poster.

Last but not least, please provide links when stating fact.

Thank you

 

[deugirtni]

Actually, it seems that I AM allowed to post the link to her FB comments in regard to her trip to NZ

ETA: (look down until you come to her posts made December 29th, 2012 and January 4, 2013):

https://www.facebook.com/shanswer.nsfw.1?fref=ts

Not allowed to link, however we are allowed to say what was said. SB mentioned her trip to NZ on her FB. She was IN NZ when she posted, and talked also in advance of the trip, asking about what she could keep busy with during the long plane trip.. and then also talked about the dates she would be arriving back in Calgary.

Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
What trip to NZ?

Where is the link?

 

[Sillybilly]

What is going on in here? You guys are usually pretty civil.

Let me clarify, Shannon's social media is allowed to be discussed, her husband's is not.

Anything from MSM is allowed to be discussed.

If the information is coming from a blocked link it's off limits, don't bring it here please. The link will show ******.

Please don't personalize your posts, address the post and not the poster.

Last but not least, please provide links when stating fact.

Thank you

Bless you Coldpizza ... you deserve hot pizza, large with extra toppings, delivered by one of Chippendale's finest !!

 

[evafiore]

Here's a headscratcher: why is it that some people focus on the logistics of posts that "don't work" for their theories, rather than what's being said?

 

[Sillybilly]

Here's a headscratcher: why is it a problem for some people to post items from certain alternate media sources, and not others?

Because mods don't/can't babysit the threads 24/7. They expect us to familiarize ourselves with TOS, abide by TOS, and diligently flag posts that are in violation. Some squeak through, others don't. If we have any questions, we are expected to ask a mod so as not to detract from the purpose of the thread. HTH

This too may self-destruct

 

[news.talk]

Because mods don't/can't babysit the threads 24/7. They expect us to familiarize ourselves with TOS, abide by TOS, and diligently flag posts that are in violation. Some squeak through, others don't. If we have any questions, we are expected to ask a mod so as not to detract from the purpose of the thread. HTH

This too may self-destruct

I agree Silly. However, I wonder how we are supposed to consider information obtained from personal blogs like in this case... IOW, if the victim has a blog that lays out possible reasons for her disappearance, how do we "sleuth" to find the answers to a case, communicate what we have found, while observing the rules? If we discount valid and potentially important information because of a banned site, how do we expect to help move the case forward? Even the mention of a certain site results in the post being removed. I am not trying to be disrespectful towards the TOS, I am sincerely wondering how to proceed.

 

[evafiore]

I agree Silly. However, I wonder how we are supposed to consider information obtained from personal blogs like in this case... IOW, if the victim has a blog that lays out possible reasons for her disappearance, how do we "sleuth" to find the answers to a case, communicate what we have found, while observing the rules? If we discount valid and potentially important information because of a banned site, how do we expect to help move the case forward? Even the mention of a certain site results in the post being removed. I am not trying to be disrespectful towards the TOS, I am sincerely wondering how to proceed.

I'd say proceed judicially. Why look through the keyhole of a locked door through another? From what I can see, people who do that do it for their own aims, and eliminate possibilities to support their own ideas.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

The only google source that comes up with that search is this website.

Otto, type this in your google search: "shanswer" reddit

You should find her posts with that, worked for me.

 

[Lalalacasbah]

Bless you Coldpizza ... you deserve hot pizza, large with extra toppings, delivered by one of Chippendale's finest !!

You deliver Billy? Sorry, you set yourself up for that one!

 

[evafiore]

I agree Silly. However, I wonder how we are supposed to consider information obtained from personal blogs like in this case... IOW, if the victim has a blog that lays out possible reasons for her disappearance, how do we "sleuth" to find the answers to a case, communicate what we have found, while observing the rules? If we discount valid and potentially important information because of a banned site, how do we expect to help move the case forward? Even the mention of a certain site results in the post being removed. I am not trying to be disrespectful towards the TOS, I am sincerely wondering how to proceed.

It's been made clear: Anything from a social media site is not valid. Proceed from there.

e.g.,

There has been no release about what SB was last wearing, so it can be assumed she was not wearing anything, etc., etc,

 

[Sillybilly]

You deliver Billy? Sorry, you set yourself up for that one!

I would but I can't find my trenchcoat

 

[evafiore]

I would but I can't find my trenchcoat

Trenchcoat? Nope, not possible. Not reported by CPS.

 

[Sillybilly]

It's been made clear: Anything from a social media site is not valid. Proceed from there.

e.g.,

There has been no release about what SB was last wearing, so it can be assumed she was not wearing anything, etc., etc,

That's odd ... I 'assume' if she 'left' she was fully clothed unless otherwise stated. If she did not leave alive, then it is open to whether she was fully clothed or naked. There is a reason LE has not divulged information and it is not our God-given right to know, so we can only speculate one way or another based on what we are told via LE or MSM, or what we find as a result of our own sleuthing. Some stuff we find we have to keep under wraps just because it's now allowed under TOS.

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858

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!

IOW, pages like a victim's FB or Twitter account, a FB for "Help Find So and So" are okay to paraphrase from and link to as there are usually insiders posting information which can generally be relied upon. Also if LE has officially stated that someone is a POI or a suspect, we can then do the same with that individual's FB, Twitter, etc. but only when they have been named as such by LE through MSM.

Some links are banned for valid reasons, but thousands of cases get discussed here under the same guidelines. This one is no different.

 

[evafiore]

That's odd ... I 'assume' if she 'left' she was fully clothed unless otherwise stated. If she did not leave alive, then it is open to whether she was fully clothed or naked. There is a reason LE has not divulged information and it is not our God-given right to know, so we can only speculate one way or another based on what we are told via LE or MSM, or what we find as a result of our own sleuthing. Some stuff we find we have to keep under wraps just because it's now allowed under TOS.

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858



IOW, pages like a victim's FB or Twitter account, a FB for "Help Find So and So" are okay to paraphrase from and link to as there are usually insiders posting information which can generally be relied upon. Also if LE has officially stated that someone is a POI or a suspect, we can then do the same with that individual's FB, Twitter, etc. but only when they have been named as such by LE through MSM.

Some links are banned for valid reasons, but thousands of cases get discussed here under the same guidelines. This one is no different.

You haven't stated clearly what you are wearing. Thus, under the (very recently re-outlined---thank you!) outilines of this forum I must assume that you are wearing nothing. All the best, hope you live somewhere warmish.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I agree Silly. However, I wonder how we are supposed to consider information obtained from personal blogs like in this case... IOW, if the victim has a blog that lays out possible reasons for her disappearance, how do we "sleuth" to find the answers to a case, communicate what we have found, while observing the rules? If we discount valid and potentially important information because of a banned site, how do we expect to help move the case forward? Even the mention of a certain site results in the post being removed. I am not trying to be disrespectful towards the TOS, I am sincerely wondering how to proceed.

Igpay atinlay, foay oursecay.

 

[Sillybilly]

I agree Silly. However, I wonder how we are supposed to consider information obtained from personal blogs like in this case... IOW, if the victim has a blog that lays out possible reasons for her disappearance, how do we "sleuth" to find the answers to a case, communicate what we have found, while observing the rules? If we discount valid and potentially important information because of a banned site, how do we expect to help move the case forward? Even the mention of a certain site results in the post being removed. I am not trying to be disrespectful towards the TOS, I am sincerely wondering how to proceed.

We don't usually have a victim's social media (which is normally okay to link to) associated with a banned link (which is obviously not acceptable to link to .. okay, kinda redundant). In this instance, (if i'm understanding this issue correctly), we probably all know the specific item that is referred to but formally have to consider it "rumour", keep it tucked away in our minds for our own purposes in sleuthing, and not discuss the actual information stemming from that particular banned link.

I think we can work around it by continuing to question/discuss the possibility (as we have from the beginning) that mental health issues could be a factor (because many interpret it to have been insinuated at the family presser, which is fine to discuss, but not because it was stated in a banned link > not fine to discuss).

Example: We have another WS thread (since closed) where someone close to the victim came in and posted that LE told him he was officially a POI. Regardless that it seems to have come from the horse's mouth, because LE had not officially announced to the public through MSM that the person was a POI, we could not discuss it on the board or treat the person as such. We know when we can't discuss something, but we also can't unring a bell. I think most of us know what was said and we're intelligent enough to be able to keep it in the back of our minds as we continue.

IOW, if we want to discuss mental health as a possibility, fine but just don't use a link to the banned site to support what you're getting at.

If the above attempt at explanation doesn't cut it, then maybe we can PM a Mod to clarify further.

 

[Leischa]

The problem is that information that is not linked to a legitimate site is rumour ... and therefore not really relevant.

It is technically considered rumour but the thing is that it comes from SB herself. So, yes, we aren't supposed to post about it here but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't take it into consideration when trying to find what happened to her.