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

[dotr]

An example of "young and close"...



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-sex-assault-after-teacher-attacked-at-school
PETERBOROUGH, ONT.—A 13-year-old boy is facing charges after police in Peterborough allege a female teacher was choked and sexually assaulted at school.

Peterborough Lakefield Community Police say the teacher told them she was alone in her classroom at about 3:10 p.m. Wednesday with the boy when she was attacked.

Police allege the boy came up behind her, choked her and sexually assaulted her by trying to take off some of her clothing

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

An example of "young and close"...



http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-sex-assault-after-teacher-attacked-at-school
PETERBOROUGH, ONT.—A 13-year-old boy is facing charges after police in Peterborough allege a female teacher was choked and sexually assaulted at school.

Peterborough Lakefield Community Police say the teacher told them she was alone in her classroom at about 3:10 p.m. Wednesday with the boy when she was attacked.

Police allege the boy came up behind her, choked her and sexually assaulted her by trying to take off some of her clothing

Again dotr - welcome to my working world!! (Not the teaching part, the other person involved......). Allegedly!

:bang:

And to be frank - I was thinking of the crime against Audrey when I heard about this early this morning. The perp (in my experience) could be anywhere in age from 8 - 20's.

 

[Sillybilly]

Found this SB
(respectfully snipped by me)

• I am wondering if we ever had confirmation about the soup delivery?
• Did Audrey mention anything about having an appointment with the Vet that afternoon/evening to either LV or PK?

Thanks for finding that Hazel.

No, we haven't had confirmation of LV delivering the soup, or whether AG called ahead for a vet appt. Still bugs me that AG supposedly had such a thing about spreading infections, yet in her own words (?) developed a secondary "infection" that day, but still decided to visit and hug the senior Dr. Collins. Seems at odds with what we've been told.

Re the Spec article you linked above ... i wonder who advised the writer about AG's email contacts and her habit of emailing them separately. Who would know this about about a person's private email practices? I doubt that my own family know whether I email folks separately or as a group, nor would I bother to tell them. Just seems a strange bit of knowledge for someone to have, let alone pass along to the media. I guess that would have come from either LE or PK, but not sure what significance, if any, can be found in that, except this might be an attempt at explaining why AG didn't send/copy PK and LF the email at the same time that day.

I wonder if all emails received by Audrey's contacts were from the same golden.net account or if that was a new account.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted and snipped from sillybilly's post above:

<<< Re the Spec article you linked above ... i wonder who advised the writer about AG's email contacts and her habit of emailing them separately. Who would know this about about a person's private email practices? I doubt that my own family know whether I email folks separately or as a group, nor would I bother to tell them. Just seems a strange bit of knowledge for someone to have, let alone pass along to the media. I guess that would have come from either LE or PK, but not sure what significance, if any, can be found in that, except this might be an attempt at explaining why AG didn't send/copy PK and LF the email at the same time that day. >>>



Agreed - this has been bothering me all along. Especially WHY the two people didn't receive the song via e-mail at the same time. By that, I mean why weren't those two people sent the song from Audrey at the exact same time?

I do know that two different people will check/receive their e-mails at different times.

It's puzzling to me that Audrey sent the song at two separate times....... Was she looking for help from two different people at two different times?

:twocents:

 

[Sillybilly]

Old hat, but a rehash of some thoughts re the emails of Dec 27:

AG was not religious and was not known to send videos, but
sent a religious, funereal style video that is not normally associated with Christmas
sent that video to PK but not to LV
sent that same video to neighbour LF but not her close friend LV

AG claimed dizziness gone but now a secondary infection had set in, but
didn't mention plans to visit the vet within a few hours
had a thing about spreading germs
went to the vets regardless

AG stated she had cabin fever, but
had been out visiting to LV's the day prior
visited the vet that afternoon
planned to attend her coffee klatch on Wednesday

AG had a thing about spreading germs, but
had no idea whether she would still have the secondary infection
planned on attending her coffee klatch regardless

 

[Sillybilly]

I am wondering if we ever had confirmation about the soup delivery?

<rsbm>

I think this article with various comments attributed to LV is pretty much confirmation that she delivered the soup:

from:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/01/03/16748126.html

Vanstone, who last saw Gleave on Dec. 27, had known the victim for more than 30 years. Gleave had been feeling ill over the holidays and Vanstone had gone to the house to deliver some soup on Dec. 27.

 

[Sillybilly]

On the other hand, if Audrey WAS the sender of the two separate video emails to PK and LF that day, then we do have to also consider that omitting LV may have been intentional, and not necessarily an oversite or simple slip of the digits.

 

[2soccermom]

The writer of the Spec article, Jon Wells, referenced Jon Hartig who became friends with Audrey and was one of her email correspondents. I assume it's from that source from whom he knows the details of her internet privacy practices since the information is related to discussion about Hartig's email relationship with AG. I don't find it at all odd that she insisted her email address remain private and not be forwarded or copied to groups or individuals and that she practiced the same netiquette in her correspondence with others. While Audrey was not the "recluse" MSM has reported, there is general consensus she was a deeply private and eccentric individual. What I find more interesting is the potential connection between this info and Wells' (Hartig's?) claim that she insisted her name as Audrey Gleave never be used in e-correspondence and that she only be referred to as "Barry" or "Baryon." Wells wrote that Audrey would cut someone off from correspondence if she violated that understanding. I wonder if this concern about her legal name has some connection to her fears about being murdered expressed to her BIL David and if this ultimately was about fear of being monitored/traced through her computer.
And yet, of course, she was known publicly in her teaching post and community. So I wonder again if her worry was expressly about access to her electronic files. What did she have on her computer? Wells indicates she took an interest before her death in computers and specifically bugging and debugging programs. Could that be significant?

I'm not sure if this info has been posted before (I haven't been to Audrey's page on Websleuths for quite some time) but just in case I'll post it here: Wells' book, _Death's Shadow: True Tales of Homicide_ about Audrey's murder is now available on Google books.

I chose not to visit Audrey's thread here on WS for a period of time and so I have missed all that has been going on in the recent discussion in #6. I wish I knew what has been said or theorized recently or if the mods could indicate if or when the threads will re-appear. I really hope the discussions have been pulled because LE has found some suprising info there (although I can also imagine other reasons).

Bumping for justice for AG.

 

[Sillybilly]

The writer of the Spec article, Jon Wells, referenced Jon Hartig who became friends with Audrey and was one of her email correspondents. I assume it's from that source from whom he knows the details of her internet privacy practices since the information is related to discussion about Hartig's email relationship with AG.

<rsbm>

Thank you for pointing that out soccermom. Hazel's post contained separate quotes pulled from that article, but in reading the article at the actual link, the "He was one of several people on her contact list" and "She emailed each person separately, never as a group" does seem much more likely to be attributed to JH than anyone else.

I wonder how JH knew that AG emailed people separately. Did Audrey tell him that, or did he assume this because he didn't see any other email addys on messages he received from her?

Don't really know why i'm going into such minutiae on this issue, but will do it anyway ..

I think i'm correct in saying that, if I compose an email and enter your email addy in the "TO" field, and then enter three other email addys in the "BCC" field, when you received that email, you would have no clue that the same message was sent to three other contacts at the same time. By the same token, the three other recipients would each receive an email with their email addy showing ... but would be unaware that the same message was sent to other blind copy recipients.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Yes, when I receive e-mails from someone who uses the 'BCC' format, my e-mail says "Undisclosed Recipients". I have no clue who/how many others received the very same e-mail.

:twocents:

But.......could someone who is very computer savvy figure out who the other recipients are? Could they figure out the e-mail addresses of the other recipients? :dunno:

 

[Sillybilly]

Yes, when I receive e-mails from someone who uses the 'BCC' format, my e-mail says "Undisclosed Recipients". I have no clue who/how many others received the very same e-mail.

:twocents:

But.......could someone who is very computer savvy figure out who the other recipients are? Could they figure out the e-mail addresses of the other recipients? :dunno:

Sounds like it takes more luck than savvy:

from:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_find_out_the_undisclosed_recipient

You can not actually get them - the information is not sent with the email.
You can try replying all and ask for a "confirm on receipt" reply. You may be lucky and get the receipts but it depends on how the mailing list has been set up

Here's one that is interesting and perhaps more effective?:

http://www.msoutlook.info/question/177

ETA: This one is scarey:

from:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/Gmail-Help-Reading-Messages-en/WgsNWA_XgtE

The original sender used your address as a reply-to address so that
responses would be sent to your account.

Perhaps PK can tell us if any of his emails from Audrey indicated "Undisclosed Recipients".

 

[dotr]

http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2013/01/jon-wells-deaths-shadow.html

"Death's Shadow, by Jon Wells (who is a published author and also writes for our friends at The Hamilton Spectator), is a true to form riveting page turner. Recounting true crime details of four murders in Hamilton (some of which remain unsolved), Jon skillfully captures all aspects of intrigue, while weaving in the human impacts of these tragedies, as well as the grisly and often shocking details of the murders. Second to none with the best of true crime novels, the book has the added lure of Hamilton settings and backdrops. As one reads through the book, one can't help but think "hey- I've been to that place, or I've driven by that place, or I know that family". Often times the book leaves you to think "I can't believe that happened in Hamilton".

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Another question about Audrey just popped into my head - did she regularly purchase lottery tickets?

I wonder this because recently in the news, it's being reported that someone who won the lottery was the victim of cyanide poisoning.

Sorry, I don't have the link to that story. :blushing:

 

[Chorley8]

Another question about Audrey just popped into my head - did she regularly purchase lottery tickets?

I wonder this because recently in the news, it's being reported that someone who won the lottery was the victim of cyanide poisoning.

Sorry, I don't have the link to that story. :blushing:

Does anyone think it is possible there could be a small deadly conspiracy between several of the actors that have been discussed? NSO your post in a general sense is relevant to that because although it is probably not a lottery win there would have to be more wealth, I think, for a plot to make sense - I mean assuming the motive is financial primarily.

What we would be missing would be 1. knowledge of other money whether in accounts or hidden in the house. 2. knowledge of more of a relationship between some of the people that as far we know are not close.

Now there could be another motive and once someone realized they wanted Audrey dead they, singular or plural, decided to profit from it as well. I know of nothing that would bring them together for any other motive than financial I mean very many of them. Again, could be missing something.

If LE has Audrey's hard drives I have trouble understanding why they don't have a suspect - or course maybe they do - surely there is something there of relevance.

 

[Sillybilly]

Another question about Audrey just popped into my head - did she regularly purchase lottery tickets?

I wonder this because recently in the news, it's being reported that someone who won the lottery was the victim of cyanide poisoning.

Sorry, I don't have the link to that story. :blushing:

Urooj Khan of Chicago ... here's one link Stone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...psy-help-authorities-solve-homicide-case.html

ME originally said natural causes, and it was only after a third party voiced their suspicions that cyanide was found. The victim was being exhumed today for the ME to try to determine how the cyanide came to be in his system.

 

[Sillybilly]

I have a question that may or may not relate to Chorley's most recent post ^^

PK told us that LE had him check for missing items in the garage and that he did not go in the house. Earlier he told us that he was inside the house prior to cleanup and it did not appear the dogs had been left unattended for any length of time. My question therefore ... if LE did not take/let PK in the house prior to cleanup, who did?

 

[Chorley8]

I loved the accounts if accurate of a person or people methodically going through Audrey's belongings someone, a neighbour said they could see the light on - I think I emphasize think here I don't have a source ready at hand - but I think this overall picture is correct.

Nerves of steel I must say - while the "madman" is on the loose, police are calling it the worst homicide they had ever seen or one of - it is a violent sex murder with even at that a very irregular component of some kind - and yet he she or they they are going through her stuff.

Why no fear? I would rather be anywhere else on the planet that in that house. I think if we could see the day to day of this e.g." I could use that red checked tablecloth" we would all become seriously depressed.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I have a question that may or may not relate to Chorley's most recent post ^^

PK told us that LE had him check for missing items in the garage and that he did not go in the house. Earlier he told us that he was inside the house prior to cleanup and it did not appear the dogs had been left unattended for any length of time. My question therefore ... if LE did not take/let PK in the house prior to cleanup, who did?

OK, so now this leads me to this question:

Does LE allow anyone into a potential crime scene to look around for missing/misplaced things? Why do I think that once there's a crime scene no one is allowed in except LE and their people. Hence.....the yellow tape!

Hmmmm.........:twocents:

 

[LeftCoaster]

OK, so now this leads me to this question:

Does LE allow anyone into a potential crime scene to look around for missing/misplaced things? Why do I think that once there's a crime scene no one is allowed in except LE and their people. Hence.....the yellow tape!

Hmmmm.........:twocents:

Okay, we have a person who has been widely described as intensely private; who also, according to some sources, was something of a hoarder. My understanding accords with yours, N_S_U, that a very high priority is the preservation of a crime scene by LE for evidence gathering by investigators. Given the many details being withheld by LE, I wonder whether a POI would be invited on a "What's missing from this picture?" tour - unless that POI was being scrutinized for non-verbal reactions. JMO, as always.

 

[LeftCoaster]

Forgive the afterthought in a second post, but I find the idea of a purse full of important documents left behind in the house puzzling in a couple of ways. One, who stores all important papers in a purse? Or was that a turn of phrase used to indicate that all papers Audrey was known to have kept in the purse were present after her murder? Still weird. For another, was it typical of Audrey to leave a purse 'out' where it could be seen in the apparently rare occurrences of having a guest inside the house, and thus, who would know specifically what documents were there?

Those really don't add up very well, with the information we have.