CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #6

[No_Stone_Unturned]

YAAAAAY, the piece of cake was located!:rocker: I admit I was wrong.:blushing:

About handyman vs. dear friend - I do think that their relationship developed over time from a mere handyman to that of a friendship. That said - it's only MY opinion that the handyman thought of the relationship more than what it was. Just look at his posts. He speaks as though he knew Audrey and her lifestyle intimately.

Some examples to show my point:
-he knew Aud didn't take prescription meds
-he was in her bedroom
-"we" had a blast at the hardware store (paraphrased)
-Aud would e-mail him at least 2,000 times a year
-"we" were the only ones who knew the garage code
-"we" always took my car
-on and on he goes

Now, we must look at these statements as only coming from him. Audrey is dead and is unable to correct/contradict.

Bottom line: I think the handyman thought his relationship with Aud was more deep than it truly was.

An acecdote: When I first began working with disturbed young people, a 16-year-old boy was very grateful for my help. He and his sister gave me a lovely vase to hold flowers. It even has a Chinese theme/pattern because they knew I am a Buddhist. I LOVE the vase and I display it at all times. But never do I think that he and I have a "special relationship". He simply wanted to 'repay' my kindness to him.

There.......must get off to work!

 

[greenthumb]

YAAAAAY, the piece of cake was located!:rocker: I admit I was wrong.:blushing:

About handyman vs. dear friend - I do think that their relationship developed over time from a mere handyman to that of a friendship. That said - it's only MY opinion that the handyman thought of the relationship more than what it was. Just look at his posts. He speaks as though he knew Audrey and her lifestyle intimately.

Some examples to show my point:
-he knew Aud didn't take prescription meds
-he was in her bedroom
-"we" had a blast at the hardware store (paraphrased)
-Aud would e-mail him at least 2,000 times a year
-"we" were the only ones who knew the garage code
-"we" always took my car
-on and on he goes

Now, we must look at these statements as only coming from him. Audrey is dead and is unable to correct/contradict.

Bottom line: I think the handyman thought his relationship with Aud was more deep than it truly was.

An acecdote: When I first began working with disturbed young people, a 16-year-old boy was very grateful for my help. He and his sister gave me a lovely vase to hold flowers. It even has a Chinese theme/pattern because they knew I am a Buddhist. I LOVE the vase and I display it at all times. But never do I think that he and I have a "special relationship". He simply wanted to 'repay' my kindness to him.

There.......must get off to work!

I just don't understand how else he could relate that information, other than saying 'we' did this or that? And I don't find it suspicious that he knew things about her, if he spent time at her home/working in her yard on a regular basis. IMO, it's different than dealing with someone through your work on a professional level, because they are not at your home, involved in your personal life.

AG has always reminded me of my now deceased aunt, also a retired and somewhat eccentric school teacher. She maintained a life long interest in 'young people' - not only her neices/nephews, but her former students, neighbours' children, etc. She showed great interest in their lives, and provided much needed encouragement and support to many young friends and acquaintances, entirely outside of her professional role as a teacher. And you can bet, when any of them visited, they would be treated as 'friends' and I am sure she would, in course of conversation, share some of the details of her own life with them.

Regarding the 2000 emails per year... this info supports the notion that AG was a prolific emailer

http://johnhartig.info/12-headlines.html

She e-mails me all the time, jokes, Maxines, political articles, things about computers.' My heart sank. Most of my e-mails are from either baryon or from M's dad.

snipped by me to remove names

I respect your stance on this NSU, just wanting to provide another perspective to balance the speculation re: PK, the cake, the recipe, etc.

 

[dreamwatcher]

I am beginning to wonder if Audrey knew her killer, but her group of friends had never met him. She was so secretive about many things - and even protective of her name, as well as her e-mail. She would sign her assignments (computer classes as Byron. She had expressed concerns about someone accessing her e-mails. I wonder if she was evading someone from her past. Someone who lived a distance away from her but was afraid that he could snoop on her electronically. Someone that she knew definately.
And someone to whom she had confided in about the manner of death she would face.

DW

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

After having read and re-read the responses to my posts above, I'm now thinking that it's the word "we" that's getting to me. (Who knows why!!)

In my experience, when I was a young child my parents would say "we're going shopping" which was a kind of clue to me that "you're staying with Grandma". And not bothering us with asking for ice cream!!

As a married woman, hubby and I always say (to neighbours/friends/family) "we're not going to be home for X number of days" or "we're doing the gardening today".

For ME, the term "we" between a male and a female (or male/male or female/female couple) always means "a deeply, intimate relastionship".

In defense of myself with my work with young offenders, I've shared MANY things with them about myself. My severe migraines. My marriage to hubby. They LOVE my car! The TV shows I like. The books I read. My Buddhism. The female young offenders often ask me about 'how did I know hubby was the right one to marry'. I share a great deal to this very day. But it never crosses the line where they have my phone number, my address, my e-mail, etc. They knew when my dad passed away; they knew when my mom passed away.

Bottom Line: Something is indicating to me that the handyman + Audrey's relationship PERHAPS moved on to something more than teacher/student/owner/handyman stuff.

Did that even make a modicum of sense?:twocents:

 

[Jade]

Just in review in fear there are those who think I am being unkind to PK a link in which he is named as a person of interest thereby speculation being allowable according to WS TOS [bbm]:

He had already been interviewed by police, and ruled out as a suspect by Steve Hrab early in the investigation.
But in mid-August police asked him to take a polygraph test — lie detector — and he agreed. A detective told him flat out that he was a person of interest.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/596949--audrey-s-case-gets-colder

While the motive remains a mystery, as do Gleave's movements in the days before her death, Matthews says it was not a random attack.
"The person who killed Audrey was a person who was known to her."

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-gleave-murder-remains-mystery-one-year-later-1.747175#ixzz2Jf62HSMM :


Motivation who knows maybe Wells touches on it [bbm]:

She could also be a polarizing figure as a teacher. Former student Steve Mihalich, who was in her physics class in the mid-'70s at Barton Secondary School, said she was a tough marker and especially severe with male students. He said her expectations were high — higher than her students were able to achieve.

Quote from PK [bbm]

“… I remember I was over at her house, we had spent the entire day planting flowers; she loved flowers. She shared with me all the research she had done.
“ At the end of day, we were both exhausted and a bit frustrated and she said to me point blank, ‘Well, did you learn something today or not?' And I said of course I did. The way she left us is tragic, but in these situations of chaos, it's instinctive to ask why, to look for answers. I prefer to just be so thankful she left us with a lesson, that our time is so short. Every moment we can spend together in love, and cherish together, (it's) so important to do that.”

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/596070--who-killed-audrey-gleave


I think you all have touched on that incongruent adjective before.

I am also interested in the use of the word chaos by a scientist.

I would think of chaos as unpredictability, no ability to predict a long term outcome but maybe he meant it as random.

Although his sentiment in the quote is that he was not as worried about finding A's killer as learning a lesson from it so maybe he did mean chaos as just a complexity of nature that defies definite outcome.

IMO, PK does not even try to portray himself as traumatized he is glib and ebullient.

It would have been nice to see the relationship defined by A say if she had remembered PK and his wife in the will.

The Indian Trail house would be a nice gift for a young couple [even if they sold it] seeing as how there was no related heir…

Personally I don’t see him as setting himself up as finding A as anything less than brilliant- if this is the case.

PK says himself there was DNA besides his.

I’m actually on the fence because PK could be all these things and everything in between and it still be a Israel Keyes situation.

All IMO

 

[greenthumb]

I am beginning to wonder if Audrey knew her killer, but her group of friends had never met him. She was so secretive about many things - and even protective of her name, as well as her e-mail. She would sign her assignments (computer classes as Byron. She had expressed concerns about someone accessing her e-mails. I wonder if she was evading someone from her past. Someone who lived a distance away from her but was afraid that he could snoop on her electronically. Someone that she knew definately.
And someone to whom she had confided in about the manner of death she would face.

DW

I agree completely in regard to AG's apparent reluctance to have her name made 'public' in any way. It seems odd to me that she so often used an 'alias' and does suggest that to some degree, she may have been 'hiding'? I tend more toward this theory - that she had someone or something in her past that she wanted to forget/hide/escape... and that someone she did not want contact with may have located her, that she may have agreed to meet with such person due to some sort of blackmail or other threat, and that AG ended up murdered as a result of that meeting, whether her death was pre-planned or as a result of a disagreement turned very, very ugly. All just MOO.

 

[greenthumb]

After having read and re-read the responses to my posts above, I'm now thinking that it's the word "we" that's getting to me. (Who knows why!!)

In my experience, when I was a young child my parents would say "we're going shopping" which was a kind of clue to me that "you're staying with Grandma". And not bothering us with asking for ice cream!!

As a married woman, hubby and I always say (to neighbours/friends/family) "we're not going to be home for X number of days" or "we're doing the gardening today".

For ME, the term "we" between a male and a female (or male/male or female/female couple) always means "a deeply, intimate relastionship".

In defense of myself with my work with young offenders, I've shared MANY things with them about myself. My severe migraines. My marriage to hubby. They LOVE my car! The TV shows I like. The books I read. My Buddhism. The female young offenders often ask me about 'how did I know hubby was the right one to marry'. I share a great deal to this very day. But it never crosses the line where they have my phone number, my address, my e-mail, etc. They knew when my dad passed away; they knew when my mom passed away.

Bottom Line: Something is indicating to me that the handyman + Audrey's relationship PERHAPS moved on to something more than teacher/student/owner/handyman stuff.

Did that even make a modicum of sense?:twocents:

BBM

I think I get it... you get an 'overly familiar' vibe from him when he writes about AG? Maybe so, and an interesting point.

For me, I think that what leads me to granting PK benefit of the doubt, in part, is the very real (at least to me) possibility that he is totally innocent, in which case he has suffered a terrible trauma and a devastating loss of someone he very much admired and considered a friend... and the other very real (at least to me) possibilty that AG considered him a fine young man and a friend, as well... and so, out of respect for AG, I prefer to err in his favour rather than not. If that makes any sense?

 

[Jade]

Yes, very ugly!

There is a knife and at least one other weapon of some type…

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/595858--who-is-audrey-gleave

Hrab did not reveal additional pieces of the picture, details only the killer would know, what investigators call “hold-back evidence.”
He spoke of a vicious stabbing but did not talk about other weapons — at least one other had been used — or the nature of the “sexual component” (it had included a perverse act that went beyond a conventional assault; the killer had taken something from the victim as though making off with a souvenir.)

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-gleave-murder-remains-mystery-one-year-later-1.747175#ixzz2JfnslGpy

Hamilton police described the attack as vicious, saying she had been sexually assaulted stabbed several times and the body suffered significant trauma.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Of course, I also give the handyman the benefit of the doubt. :truce: So, I have QUESTIONS:

- who had access to Audrey's garage?

- did Audrey willingly let in the killer that night?

- why was Audrey so secretive about her life?

- why did the handyman have (seemingly) access to Audrey's entire house?

- who all else might be a POI?

- who else had a polygraph?

- who all have LE investigated thoroughly?

- where did the knife which caused the horrific stab wounds come from?

- why does the handyman seem to not be in grief? (I know we all grieve differently!) :truce:

????????????????????????????????

 

[LeftCoaster]

BBM

I think I get it... you get an 'overly familiar' vibe from him when he writes about AG? Maybe so, and an interesting point.

For me, I think that what leads me to granting PK benefit of the doubt, in part, is the very real (at least to me) possibility that he is totally innocent, in which case he has suffered a terrible trauma and a devastating loss of someone he very much admired and considered a friend... and the other very real (at least to me) possibilty that AG considered him a fine young man and a friend, as well... and so, out of respect for AG, I prefer to err in his favour rather than not. If that makes any sense?

Well put, GT. I agree to some extent with other comments that PK 'presents' rather strangely. For example, the video footage of his interview outside the funeral home is disturbing in that, if the sound is muted, he could be talking about some positive accomplishment, smiling and nodding, were it not for his anxious companion indicating otherwise. And there is a disconcerting amount of 'coziness' here and there in the wording of posts made by PK, I agree, N_S_U.

My own opinion is that,

1. He's a young man, and I think related eventually very much as a teen protégé to Audrey's mentorship. Remember, he would have begun working for her (apparently at her request) when he was aspiring to go to McMaster, where Audrey had distinguished herself as a woman who completed a graduate degree in physics. Not to mention, she went on to a decent enough career as a teacher, so in a way would have informally taken pleasure in imparting knowledge. To merit her interest would be very flattering, and I think perhaps that's where the 'intimacy' existed - quite literally a meeting of the minds, and I suggest, surprising to both.
   
   
2. He is very clever, articulate, and exceptionally well-presented, but with those odd 'tics' (for lack of a better way to put it) of grinning inappropriately and seeming to carefully compose his speech. That says to me, idiosyncratic, rather like his mentor (again). Somebody might have seriously resented him getting 'into' Audrey's quotidian existence on the basis of his intelligence, and maybe - :twocents: - figured out that his mannerisms (ah! better word!) could incriminate him.

Introduce a will that seems quite out of character for its lack of provision to what had seemed to mean the most to Audrey - her furbabes, her protégé and his wife, and her car - and again, my sense :moo: is that whatever went on in those last days of 2010 had little if anything to do with PK. The potential for a visit from the past seems far more likely.

ETA, I strongly believe that there was a newer will somewhere.:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Well, you guys cannot understand how happy I am that my post DID make a modicum of sense! :tyou:

Should we expect a new/original Will to appear? Perhaps!

Should we expect "someone from Audrey's past" to emerge/be located? Not so certain!

Should we expect to hear from LE about other POI's and more polygraphs from those people? Could happen.

BIG QUESTION - Will Audrey's murder be solved? Starting to have a few doubts. :blushing: lease: :blushing:

----------------

ETA:

From greenthumb:

<<< I think I get it... you get an 'overly familiar' vibe from him when he writes about AG? Maybe so, and an interesting point. >>>

 

[Sillybilly]

ETA, I strongly believe that there was a newer will somewhere.:twocents:

<rsbm>

A few of us are toying with that possibility. If there was a newer and valid Will, why would it not be produced?

If it was a forged Will, then whoever did so was confident at the time of the forgery, so what factors would cause them to so totally chicken out after Audrey's death? If financial gain via a forged Will was the motivator, and the perp caused Audrey's death in order to benefit, what factor outside their original plan would have subsequently prevented them from producing the fake document in order to achieve the financial benefit?

Am I making any sense? ullhair:

and is that the longest run-on sentence ever entered into the annals of WS?

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm getting set to upload a revised timeline this afternoon. Anyone have any suggestions wrt additions?

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm puzzled that in November 2011, there was a "Certificate of Appointment of Trustee with a Will&#8221; stating that the document remains in full force and effect.

Never heard of that before. Why was a reinforcement of the original authorization necessary at that time?

 

[Woodland]

Could AG's estate money have been frozen due to the renewed investigation?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Could AG's estate money have been frozen due to the renewed investigation?

And.......are Wills frozen when the person is murdered? (I know not much about Wills.:blushing

 

[Woodland]

The house sale was allowed to go through without any interference, but that was also a different investigation with a different focus.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I'm getting set to upload a revised timeline this afternoon. Anyone have any suggestions wrt additions?

The last time the handyman saw Audrey ALIVE........that can be certain.

When exactly did the handyman SPEAK to Audrey.

 

[Woodland]

Timing - the last e-mail AG sent to PK was sent 'minutes before' LV was expected to arrive.

I'm thinking that is rather significant.

LV was known to AG. LV had to know of PK's existence - btw who cuts your grass, plants your flowers, fixes a leaky sink?

 

[Sillybilly]

The last time the handyman saw Audrey ALIVE........that can be certain.

When exactly did the handyman SPEAK to Audrey.

The first one we have never been told.

The second is in the timeline as PK reporting he spoke with her by phone sometime on Christmas Day.