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

[evafiore]

But wouldn't looking for her potentially lead to the discovery of her body, which would then lead to the discovery of evidence which they could pursue and hopefully bring charges? Doesn't seem right not to even bother looking.

I don't recall reading anywhere that they HADN'T investigated the home...did I miss something?

 

[deugirtni]

If LE and family are believing a certain individual is responsible, wouldn't they have to also have a theory to go with that, and from there, seek out clues to back up their theory and find the body, and wrap up their case, etc? Aren't police supposed to find clues and build a case from the clues, rather than the other way around? I wonder if they had cadaver dogs in the home, and through the couple's vehicles, and used luminol in all?

If a person goes missing and the family seems to be distraught, are police sometimes too politically correct/sympathic to the family, which would make them avoid carrying out a complete investigation including things that may be upsetting to the distraught family members? Wouldn't any family have to understand they'd be the first to be suspected, unfortunately, and have to be fully investigated in order to be competently cleared and move on from there? Police aren't necessarily going to find clues if they don't bother to look for them (unless they get lucky or get tips from the public)? Wouldn't it make sense to fully investigate every inch of the last place a MP was seen, along with the last person to see the MP alive?

I've said it before. But I believe the husband did it and they feel the same so not much reason to look for her. While everyone waits for LE to build his case and one day makes an arrest. Most people slip up eventually. People don't just walk away at 12:30 am to go somewhere but who knows where and takes their keys but not their car or their cell phone. Nothing else has even had an inkling of panning out.

 

[evafiore]

If LE and family are believing a certain individual is responsible, wouldn't they have to also have a theory to go with that, and from there, seek out clues to back up their theory and find the body, and wrap up their case, etc? Aren't police supposed to find clues and build a case from the clues, rather than the other way around? I wonder if they had cadaver dogs in the home, and through the couple's vehicles, and used luminol in all?

If a person goes missing and the family seems to be distraught, are police sometimes too politically correct/sympathic to the family, which would make them avoid carrying out a complete investigation including things that may be upsetting to the distraught family members? Wouldn't any family have to understand they'd be the first to be suspected, unfortunately, and have to be fully investigated in order to be competently cleared and move on from there? Police aren't necessarily going to find clues if they don't bother to look for them (unless they get lucky or get tips from the public)? Wouldn't it make sense to fully investigate every inch of the last place a MP was seen, along with the last person to see the MP alive?

Do we know for sure that they didn't bring cadaver dogs to the home or do a luminol check?

 

[deugirtni]

Have we heard one inkling to say that they did? Do you recall all the photos taken at the Liknes residence of the after-traces of luminol/fingerprinting powder? MSM are generally pretty good at trying to get details and photos. I think someone at some time would have let it slip that this had happened, ie neighbours being interviewed, etc., even if police didn't state to MSM directly that they had completed these things.

Do we know for sure that they didn't bring cadaver dogs to the home or do a luminol check?

 

[news.talk]

Do we know for sure that they didn't bring cadaver dogs to the home or do a luminol check?

Did they have probable cause at the time of the disappearance? Regardless of whether someone allows them to search for evidence, LE would be remiss and completely stupid, to do forensic testing without a warrant.

 

[evafiore]

Did they have probable cause at the time of the disappearance? Regardless of whether someone allows them to search for evidence, LE would be remiss and completely stupid, to do forensic testing without a warrant.

Agreed. Did they get a warrant and check the home, or did JB just let them check? They did state he was being cooperative. I remember them mentioning at the presser that they had yet to do an inventory of the home. Would they have done a forensics check at the same time, with a warrant or just with JB's agreement?

Or maybe they just didn't check. Which would be remiss and completely stupid.

 

[evafiore]

Have we heard one inkling to say that they did? Do you recall all the photos taken at the Liknes residence of the after-traces of luminol/fingerprinting powder? MSM are generally pretty good at trying to get details and photos. I think someone at some time would have let it slip that this had happened, ie neighbours being interviewed, etc., even if police didn't state to MSM directly that they had completed these things.

Again, just because we haven't heard anything doesn't mean it didn't happen. LE has asserted that things are happening behind the scenes.

 

[news.talk]

Agreed. Did they get a warrant and check the home, or did JB just let them check? They did state he was being cooperative. I remember them mentioning at the presser that they had yet to do an inventory of the home. Would they have done a forensics check at the same time, with a warrant or just with JB's agreement?

I would imagine that if a warrant was issued, the media would have found out. Warrants are usually a precursor to an arrest.... The media would be tipped that one was issued and we would have been informed.

Chances are they did a walkthrough with JB and made notes as to what was where. They only need permission of the lease holder for that. Forensics are a completely different ball game.

 

[evafiore]

I would imagine that if a warrant was issued, the media would have found out. Warrants are usually a precursor to an arrest.... The media would be tipped that one was issued and we would have been informed.

Chances are they did a walkthrough with JB and made notes as to what was where. They only need permission of the lease holder for that. Forensics are a completely different ball game.

Admittedly, I'm not sure about the requirements of a forensic investigation, but if the person whose belongings or property is being inspected consents to the inspections, I don't understand why LE would need a warrant.

And while I agree that the media would likely catch on if there was a warrant issued, I wouldn't say that they always catch on.

 

[news.talk]

Admittedly, I'm not sure about the requirements of a forensic investigation, but if the person whose belongings or property is being inspected consents to the inspections, I don't understand why LE would need a warrant.

And while I agree that the media would likely catch on if there was a warrant issued, I wouldn't say that they always catch on.

Because any evidence obtained without a warrant is easily thrown out by a defense lawyer. If they do a walkthrough and see something suspicious, they can declare it a crime scene, have anyone removed that live there, while they get a warrant. In order to obtain a warrant, they need to show in the ITO that what they are looking for will likely be found - such as blood evidence, signs of a struggle, a firearm... In my experience, they are VERY procedural in evidence collection methods and always get a warrant once something leads them to believe inevitable discovery. On the flip side, they cannot get a warrant without probable cause.

 

[evafiore]

Aahhh...I'd assumed Canada's approach was similar to the States':

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Criminal_Law/Searches_without_a_warrant

"The simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent.[1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search."

Seems I've watched one too many CSI and have been away from home too long...

 

[news.talk]

Aahhh...I'd assumed Canada's approach was similar to the States:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Criminal_Law/Searches_without_a_warrant

Seems I've watched one too many CSI and have been away from home too long...

Canada is no where near the same as the U.S.

 

[evafiore]

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Search_and_Seizure/Warrant_Searches

A Search Warrant is an Order issued by a Justice of the Peace under statute that authorizes a person to enter into a location and seize specified evidence that is relevant and material to an offence.[1] The warrant is a substitute for consent to enter a private premises or any other places with reasonable expectations of privacy.

:thinking:

 

[debsy99]

Debsy, do you mind me asking which family member you asked about starting the FB page and was it a one word response? What was the tone of the answer? Was it 'Leave us alone' or 'we're grateful for help but don't require it at this time' kinda thing?

It was a leave that up to the family if they want to do it they would.

 

[debsy99]

But wouldn't looking for her potentially lead to the discovery of her body, which would then lead to the discovery of evidence which they could pursue and hopefully bring charges? Doesn't seem right not to even bother looking.

I'm not saying the police are not still investigating. I'm saying the family is not actively searching at establishments/social media/spreading the word etc.

 

[debsy99]

http://missingpersonsinformation.ca...orting-a-missing-adult-in-canada/#not_a_crime

"In some cases, the person no longer wishes to remain in contact with her/his loved ones. When this happens, police have to respect the missing person’s decision. In most cases, the searching family is notified that the missing person has been located but no further details are shared without the missing person’s consent."

Nothing about notifying the public. I'm beginning to believe that any mandates regarding missing persons favour the missing's privacy over the public's curiosity. If she had done something that had motivated her family to state "you're not in trouble," it may not be something that she's want exposed publicly. If LE had found something to suggest she'd gone on her accord, though not located her, I don't think they'd announce this to the public without her consent, and definitely not if it's something that may be seen by some as "trouble."

Again, I don't think they've found her, I just think they might suspect it's not foul play and are acting accordingly. Or they're waiting for someone to slip up. Either way, they're not obligated to notify us if they're taking either direction.

They clarified in the press release video that what they meant by trouble was they didn't want her to think that by the police being called and the media attention that she is in trouble if she choose to leave.

 

[debsy99]

If LE and family are believing a certain individual is responsible, wouldn't they have to also have a theory to go with that, and from there, seek out clues to back up their theory and find the body, and wrap up their case, etc? Aren't police supposed to find clues and build a case from the clues, rather than the other way around? I wonder if they had cadaver dogs in the home, and through the couple's vehicles, and used luminol in all?

If a person goes missing and the family seems to be distraught, are police sometimes too politically correct/sympathic to the family, which would make them avoid carrying out a complete investigation including things that may be upsetting to the distraught family members? Wouldn't any family have to understand they'd be the first to be suspected, unfortunately, and have to be fully investigated in order to be competently cleared and move on from there? Police aren't necessarily going to find clues if they don't bother to look for them (unless they get lucky or get tips from the public)? Wouldn't it make sense to fully investigate every inch of the last place a MP was seen, along with the last person to see the MP alive?

They have to have evidence to conduct a search like that. That's the hard part. Even if they could just run through a home with K-9 automatically some of these cases would be solved right away. Like in the Lisa Mitchell case.

 

[debsy99]

Did they have probable cause at the time of the disappearance? Regardless of whether someone allows them to search for evidence, LE would be remiss and completely stupid, to do forensic testing without a warrant.

Yes this is exactly it. In the press release video from everything the family and LE says they have or had zero clues to say foul play was involved and zero clues to show she left on her own.

 

[debsy99]

I would imagine that if a warrant was issued, the media would have found out. Warrants are usually a precursor to an arrest.... The media would be tipped that one was issued and we would have been informed.

Chances are they did a walkthrough with JB and made notes as to what was where. They only need permission of the lease holder for that. Forensics are a completely different ball game.

As well as searching in bins/freezers etc. That is in the different ball game then a walk through as well.

 

[evafiore]

Yes this is exactly it. In the press release video from everything the family and LE says they have or had zero clues to say foul play was involved and zero clues to show she left on her own.

...and they also stated at that point that they had not YET done an inventory of the house and that they were in the process of investigating any digital evidence. Her dating profile was last accessed on December 12th (maybe LE?), after the press conference on December 5th.