Unveiling the Mystery: 5 Telltale Signs in Missing Women Cases and Outcomes

Exploring a Suspicious Five-Point Pattern in Missing Women Cases

Unveiling the Suspicious Pattern

By: Shane Lambert

In missing persons cases, a specific pattern of circumstances can raise red flags, particularly when foul play is suspected. I’ve identified a five-point pattern involving missing women last seen by their husbands. This article examines two resolved cases—Shannon Madill (husband guilty) and Audrey Backeberg (found alive)—to show how outcomes vary despite similar suspicious patterns.

Five Key Indicators in Domestic Disappearances

• When all points below are present, most would find the scenario troubling:
• 
  
• (1) A woman went missing,
• (2) She was last seen by her husband,
• (3) Her disappearance followed an argument with him,
• (4) The husband failed to report her missing in a timely manner, but
• (5) Another person learned of her absence and alerted the police.

Why the Pattern Sparks Concern

Most who will consider these points will probably imagine a troubling domestic scenario.

The first point establishes the urgency of a missing woman. The sex is relevant because women are typically physically weaker than their husbands. In any kind of physical combat, the wife is more likely to be physically outmatched.

The second and third points place the husband as the sole witness to a volatile moment, prompting questions about whether the argument escalated to harm.

The fourth point, the husband’s failure to report his missing wife in a timely manner, suggests a cover-up. However, what constitutes "timely" is a point that could be debated: someone might voluntarily disappear after an argument for a cooling off period.

But the fifth point, family reporting of the missing woman, highlights external intervention, keeping suspicion on the husband. Why should the family report someone's disappearance as suspicious ahead of the husband?

Investigating Diverse Case Outcomes

This article explores cases with all five points present, showing varied resolutions. The goal was to find cases where all five points fit perfectly and then to examine the results. However, that has not worked out thus far, with future results pending (ie. more cases will be looked at). 

So far, I looked at two cases: one involving a woman from Calgary named Shannon Madill and another involving a woman from Wisconsin named Audrey Backeberg. Shannon Madill’s case fits perfectly with a guilty husband, while Audrey Backeberg’s case, a near-match, shows a voluntary escape. The latter case is included despite the fact that it wasn't a perfect match because it was the closest matching case I could find where the woman survived the disappearance event.

The Husband Did It: Shannon Madill Case Study

A Lethal Domestic Argument in Calgary

The murder of Shannon Madill, a 25-year-old aspiring actress from Calgary, Alberta, in November 2014, perfectly aligns with the five-point pattern. (1) She was a woman who went missing, (2) she was last seen by her husband, (3) her disappearance followed an argument with him, (4) the husband failed to report her missing in a timely manner, and (5) her disappearance remained unreported until another person learned of her absence and alerted the police.

This case was resolved in December 2017 with the conviction of her husband, Joshua Burgess, for second-degree murder (CBC News). It illustrates how a domestic argument escalated to lethal violence.

Case Details: Shannon Madill

Late on November 27th, 2014, Shannon Madill vanished from her Calgary home in the Ramsay neighbourhood, fulfilling the first criterion. She was last seen by her husband, Joshua Burgess, that night (Point 2) after a heated argument over their deteriorating marriage (Point 3). Madill insulted Burgess, saying she wished she’d never married him. Joshua strangled her in rage, did not report Madill missing (Point 4), and instead placed her body in a plastic bin on their patio. He would later bury it in their backyard when the ground thawed after the cold Alberta winter. 

Joshua Burgess lied to family, claiming Shannon left voluntarily. The fifth point was met when Madill’s sister, Erin, alarmed by her absence from a family event on November 30, 2014, reported her missing to the Calgary Police Service in December 2014 (Point 5).

In July 2015, police executed a search warrant at their home, initially for Burgess’s phone and vehicles. His confession led to finding Madill’s body buried in the backyard. An autopsy confirmed strangulation. On December 4, 2017, Burgess pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, receiving a life sentence with no parole for 10 years. This case shows that the five-point pattern, when present, does warrant suspicion of husband. 

The Husband Was Innocent: Audrey Backeberg Case Study

A Near-Match: Escape from Abuse

The disappearance of Audrey Backeberg, a 20-year-old mother from Reedsburg, Wisconsin, on July 7th, 1962, is a near-match for the five-point pattern.

(1) Audrey went missing, (2) she was last seen by her husband, (3) her disappearance followed an argument with him, (4) the husband’s reporting was delayed (partially supported), and (5) family members likely alerted police (inferred, partially supported).

Audrey vanished from her Reedsburg home, fulfilling the first criterion. She was last seen by her husband, Ronald Backeberg, that morning (Point 2) after a violent argument (Point 3).

Days earlier, Audrey, married at 15, filed a complaint against Ronald for beating and threatening her life, which would certainly raise suspicions after she disappeared. 

But Audrey was found alive in May 2025, as reported by Mike Wendling for BBC News, Chicago. When this case was finally resolved, it showed a voluntary escape from abuse.

Let's look back at the five points: 

• (1) A woman went missing (MATCH)
• (2) She was last seen by her husband (DISPUTABLE IN HINDSIGHT)
• (3) Her disappearance followed an argument with him (MATCH)
• (4) The husband failed to report her missing in a timely manner (PARTIAL MATCH)
• (5) Another person learned of her absence and alerted the police (PARTIAL MATCH)

Point 2 is a tricky match. There was a babysitter in the picture, who claimed to have seen Audrey after the husband. This babysitter was just 14 years old and may not have been treated with full credibility. But in hindsight, it seems that the babysitter was telling the truth. It was her statements that drew some suspicion away from Ronald Backeberg.

Point 4 is a partial match. The husband did report Audrey missing and that makes Point 5 a partial match. While the family would have pressured the police to find Audrey, that was not entirely in lieu of the husband's efforts.

In January 2025, Detective Isaac Hanson used an ancestry account from Audrey’s sister to locate her, alive at 82, living outside Wisconsin under a new name. On May 2, 2025, Sheriff Chip Meister confirmed her disappearance was “by her own choice.” Ronald (deceased 2006) was innocent of foul play. This near-match shows how abuse-driven disappearances mimic the pattern, urging open-minded investigations.

Lessons from Varied Outcomes

Finding a case where a woman survived her disappearance and all five points of the pattern—(1) a woman went missing, (2) last seen by her husband, (3) after an argument, (4) unreported by the husband, and (5) reported by another—matched perfectly proved challenging. I anticipated cases ending in suicide, murder by another, or resurfacing, but the Audrey Backeberg case only partially fits, with Points 4 and 5 unclear. This suggests that any deviation from the pattern should prompt broader investigation beyond the husband, reducing premature assumptions of guilt.
In contrast, identifying a case where all five points aligned and the husband was convicted was straightforward. The Shannon Madill case, where the husband’s guilt was confirmed, emerged quickly. I plan to expand this article with additional cases, but these preliminary insights are interesting. I think when all five points are present in a pure state (ie. no partial matches), then those who think the husband should face increased scrutiny are very justified. Conversely, deviation away from purity requires increased opened-mindedness to other scenarios.