CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #9

[Deleted member 102539]

Was it written anywhere whether there was any sign of forced entry into the garage? Or is it looking like the killer got in either through the house, or with the keypad code?

http://hamiltonpolice.on.ca/audrey-gleave-homicide
There were no signs of forced entry to the property and it is not believed that anything was taken from the home during the attack.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Good point about the dog poop. I don't recall it being written anywhere as to whether there was any, or how much, but that might help to provide for police a good indication of how long the dogs had been left in their kennels.

Where is it said that the murderer knew that AG had no Christmas visitors, or are you just going on the fact that the killer didn't seem to have regard for whether or not she might have visitors? It would probably be easy enough to determine if the killer showed up and saw no other vehicles in the drive? Or else the killer could have known AG, as police suspect that he did, and therefore could have been informed by her about all of her holiday plans, if any.

Dog poop= PK told us on WS, if I remember well.

Visitors=
To drive up the way to AG's home, the perp had to know, nobody else would be there, I think. I don't know how far one had to drive before one could see another car in front of AG's home.

If she didn't tell LV or PK of her plans how to spend the next days - who would have known? It's unlikely especially for the person AG, she would have exposed it to some acquaintances.

Only one plan was known (per email*): she wanted to meet her friends at Williams, "come hell or high water", on Wednesday morning. If she needed to attend the meeting after her "secondary infection", I would think there was no visitor present at her home. BUT who did know about, if it was not PK?

*= we exactly don't know, whether it was indeed her's

LV brought soup to an ill friend on 27th. I don't think, AG (in her impugned condition) had an appointment with Mr./Mrs. "Unknown" for the same evening: first and secondary infection, wearing her winter coat and opening the garage instead of the front door. It seems somehow improbable to me.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

L.E didn't reveal an est. time of death but from what I recall, AG was reportedly last seen alive Monday December 27th. Can't recall by whom atm? L.V?

Was that when Lynn brought the soup? Could the dogs have been locked up at that time & remained in their confines until found later? Why would AG go outside to look at stars when she had a cold? She seemed to be keeping a close eye on her symptoms & I feel like she would be too smart to risk going outside.

@FG: I believe the garage had a separate entrance. That is to say, an exterior door, the actual garage door itself & then a door leading into the house? Is this correct? Also, I think there might have been a keypad or lock on the exterior door?

bbm
I think so. I don't know, why entering through the exterior door (lock perhaps?) never had been cleared.

 

[whiterhino]

That occurred to me as well, not about the iffy internet, which is a possibility too, but I wondered if AG had set the email to send at a time different from what the time actually was. Something like that could even have been done by accident, after just poking around in the options. I'm not sure if it ever stated what time PK's email had been sent to him, but I was wondering if AG may have set one to am and one to pm, like say 10am and 10pm....

Also, I read that AG could tend to be up in the night, on her computer. Being such a reportedly private person, if she ran across something she wanted to share with her friends while she was up surfing around in the middle of the night, I'm wondering if she set the email(s) to send at a different time, so that nobody would really know exactly what time she was actually up playing around. She may have done so in the past and received comments back like 'what were you doing UP so late Audrey??!!'? That would be a way for her to avoid people knowing that she liked to play online in the night and being harassed about it by those that may not have the same affliction/addiction(?).


http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2111178-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2216816-audrey-s-story-continues/

Re: emails...

Just a real quick search gave me a few services/apps that offer scheduled email sending. One called Boomerang that works with Gmail. I'm assuming the computer techs could see if AG was using one of these applications (which seems rather handy tbh).

I wonder if AG was in the habit of setting her email & other social media to automatically login? Does anyone know which email provider AG used? Yahoo has a sign-in activity feature that shows timestamps for every login & what ip accessed it. Not exactly concrete proof but if there was a lot of strange sign-in activity (login attempts not unfamiliar ip addresses bc they were sent from her own ip) around AGs' est t.o.d, it could further indicate that someone else was sending the emails. Same goes for the YouTube videos in the emails. There should be viewing history that lines up with the time the emails were sent (unless the video link was copy/pasted and saved elsewhere like on a desktop notepad).

Wonder if being out in the cold garage could throw off the time of death? I can't understand why the perp would go to the trouble of sending emails?

I'm a bit confused about the garage door. There was indeed a keypad & when PK entered the code, the door opened? The large main door? I've not seen pics of AGs' house so idk what the setup was but always imagined the door w the keypad was a regular door. Either way, how would the perp get in & out without making noise? Maybe the killer stayed on the property for a period of time & that's what the neighbours' dogs heard at 2a.m?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Re: emails...

Just a real quick search gave me a few services/apps that offer scheduled email sending. One called Boomerang that works with Gmail. I'm assuming the computer techs could see if AG was using one of these applications (which seems rather handy tbh).

I wonder if AG was in the habit of setting her email & other social media to automatically login? Does anyone know which email provider AG used? Yahoo has a sign-in activity feature that shows timestamps for every login & what ip accessed it. Not exactly concrete proof but if there was a lot of strange sign-in activity (login attempts not unfamiliar ip addresses bc they were sent from her own ip) around AGs' est t.o.d, it could further indicate that someone else was sending the emails. Same goes for the YouTube videos in the emails. There should be viewing history that lines up with the time the emails were sent (unless the video link was copy/pasted and saved elsewhere like on a desktop notepad).

Wonder if being out in the cold garage could throw off the time of death? I can't understand why the perp would go to the trouble of sending emails?

I'm a bit confused about the garage door. There was indeed a keypad & when PK entered the code, the door opened? The large main door? I've not seen pics of AGs' house so idk what the setup was but always imagined the door w the keypad was a regular door. Either way, how would the perp get in & out without making noise? Maybe the killer stayed on the property for a period of time & that's what the neighbours' dogs heard at 2a.m?

bbm
baryon@golden.net

The door with keypad was the double garage door. Yes, PK knows/knew the code.

If the killer stayed there - what had he/she done during this time? Seemingly nothing was in disarray (more than usually), nothing was stolen (if that is ascertainable at all).

Maybe the neighbour dogs barked when they heard something like sad yowling of Audrey's dogs? Maybe the killing was done at a time police had mentioned (evening of 27th, morning of 28th) and Wednesday 2am Audrey's dogs felt hunger/thirst/lonelyness and caused some noises?

 

[shadowraiths]

Interestingly, or not, I found PK's characterization of the crime scene to be... odd.

First then, questions about the scene. I realize the discrepancy between my description of the scene and Det. Hrab's. To be completely honest with you guys... I was really shocked as I started to get a sense of how gruesome LE perceived this crime to be. When I raised the door I saw Audrey lying on the floor and my eyes were immediately drawn to her face. I looked at the scene for only a fraction of a second before darting away. I saw hardened blood on the floor and that, along with the contortion of her body was what prompted me to call 911 and tell them she was dead. While I was on the phone with 911 the woman insisted that I go back and feel for a pulse. Even though I begged her not to make me and told her I was certain Audrey was dead, she didn't relent and I walked back. I bent over her to feel for a pulse (this was my only contact with her) and immediately left the scene again. Any details outside of her face were strictly seen in my periphery and are (thankfully) unclear in my mind. It didn't appear to me that her face was blue and as best I can remember, I believe she was wearing her sneakers but did not have her purse. I don't know exactly what DNA evidence LE collected… I know only that whatever they collected was distinct from myself and DS. Audrey did tell me when she gave me the code that I was the only person in the world to have it other than herself and she insisted that I not write it down anywhere and only commit it to memory. She gave it to me - she said - in case I ever needed to come while she was out and get tools out of the garage to work. I always found that a bit odd since I never, ever visited when she wasn't home but I never thought enough of it to ask her about it. I can't say with any certainty whether Audrey gave out her code to anyone (e.g. LV) after giving it to me but I can say that the code was not required to close the door and most of the time when Audrey was inside, the garage door would be closed.

Why would PK not realize just how gruesome the crime scene was? And why would the operator ask him to check for a pulse? Especially in light of the description in the Spectator:

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.)

Notably, when I first stumbled upon this tragic case, I had wondered what would lead the detective to state that there was a "sexual component," sans an affirmative autopsy. Based upon the above description, imho, the "perverse act" was something that was readily visible. (e.g., did he remove one or both of her breasts?). Obscene, I know. However, outside of that, I cannot imagine the removal of any other body part that is not only visible but would lead him to draw the "sexual component" conclusion so quickly.

The above description also arguably explains why retired FBI profiler, Mark Safarik was quoted in the spectator:

“But a homeless guy in his 40s or 50s?” Safarik asked rhetorically when considering the Gleave case. “Hmm … My advice is look young and look close.”

This was my response regarding Safarik's statement.

He's referring to relationships (i.e., family, friend, lover, etc) as opposed to physical proximity. Hate to say it (and I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this) but PK fits squarely into that zone.

Before continuing, I want to include some other comments from PK, for readers to consider.

The dogs were confined away from the area where AG was found. Although it wasn't especially unlikely for AG to confine them away from this area during the day, I cant imagine her in this area in the middle of the night. Hopefully that isn't uselessly cryptic?

- Actually AG really liked stars and so it wasn't impossible for her to go outside extremely late at night for a smoke to look at the sky and let the dogs run
- I can't think of a single time when I ever saw the garage door open with AG inside. She was extremely diligent at keeping it closed

Notably, based upon both PK's own words and the spectator, he is one of many that is still considered, by LE, to be a POI.

FYI... the police have restarted the investigation "from scratch" so officially I've been told that I am a person of interest again.

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. Phil understood why police were spending time with him.

Now, let's revisit the crime scene. Or, rather, what we know about it, which is admittedly, very little.

The spectator notes Audrey had been severely beaten and stabbed.

For roughly five months, Hamilton police worked to build a case against David Laurie Scott for the murder of 73-year-old Audrey Gleave, found stabbed and violently attacked in the garage of her rural Indian Trail home Dec. 30.

[...]

Given the severity of Gleave’s beating and her extremely private and quiet lifestyle, Adcock believes the murder was done out of anger and was likely committed by someone she knew, someone who was watching her or someone with issues related to women.

For starters, I think the crime scene was partially staged. That is, Audrey may have been killed in a fit of rage (the beating).

However, imho, the stabbing and removal of body parts was designed to lead investigators in the direction of a possible sexual sadist... a serial killer, even... someone whose gratification required stabbing (the signature) and the removal of body parts (trophies). This sort of killer would be someone who could be described as an organized killer.

Aside: granted, the beating may not have been enough... she could have still been alive, so her killer wanted to be sure she was dead, hence the stabbing. In this scenario, the stabbing would not be considered a signature. That is, basically, a signature is an act that is not required to "complete" a murder. Obviously, the body part removal, could also be seen as a signature. Though, again, that would mean that other women in Audrey's age range would have to show up dead, with the same body parts missing.

Within this light, including the aside, and imho, the crime scene description indicates a disorganized killer. For example, you have this huge mess. The overkill... the severe beating, the multiple stab woulds, the so-called trophy. You also have a woman who kept to herself when it came to her home. That is, she would not have let just anyone into her home.

And, speaking of her dogs? How about putting them in a kennel, and having LEO's various POIs walk by them? See what sort of reaction they get? Yeah, I know, far fetched. But, yah never know... Anyway, that's my out-loud thoughts for the day.

P.s. would love to know from mod's if we're allowed to research/discuss POIs named by LEOs? TIA!

 

[shadowraiths]

Something else to consider.

I don't know exactly what DNA evidence LE collected… I know only that whatever they collected was distinct from myself and DS.

While some speculated that forensics included DNA, the only affirmative DNA mentioned was from the article, "If Audrey Gleave's Dogs Could Speak," in the spectator.

Togi and Schatze have played a role in the investigation. Detectives took DNA samples from the dogs — blood and hair — but it is unclear why.

Togi and Schatze​

So, the question of the day, why would LE take DNA from the dogs? After all, per the same article, they were allegedly locked in the house, whereas she was found in the garage.

When she was killed, likely in her garage, Togi, a big eight-year old male shepherd, and Schatze, a lean, four-year old female, had been unable to help. They were in the house, perhaps locked in their familiar cages.

Anyway, just more food for thought.

 

[deugirtni]

Interestingly, or not, I found PK's characterization of the crime scene to be... odd.

Why would PK not realize just how gruesome the crime scene was? And why would the operator ask him to check for a pulse? Especially in light of the description in the Spectator:

Notably, when I first stumbled upon this tragic case, I had wondered what would lead the detective to state that there was a "sexual component," sans an affirmative autopsy. Based upon the above description, imho, the "perverse act" was something that was readily visible. (e.g., did he remove one or both of her breasts?). Obscene, I know. However, outside of that, I cannot imagine the removal of any other body part that is not only visible but would lead him to draw the "sexual component" conclusion so quickly. ....

Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your insight here shadowraiths. I will have to go back to the beginning of AG's thread because I must not have been here at the beginning, although I did follow this case in the news, etc.

Just from this small bit of reposted stuff, I am confused.. He only looked at her face and from that, he didn't sense the gruesomeness of the situation. I believe he reported at some point that her pants were ripped (presumably not being worn on the face). And that her eyes were wide open and as if they were staring at him. And it was also reported that he later had night terrors, presumably from the sight that he saw on that fateful morning. And when it was all said and done and reported and questioned and home again, he and his wife ate the cake. It all seems so incongruent.

Phil Kinsman said Gleave's stretchy pants were torn when he found her.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

He did have flashbacks in the months to come. It messed him up.
Audrey's dark eyes had been wide open — as though she was looking at him.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2216816-audrey-s-story-continues/

And yes, for the detective to state right away before ME examination that there was a sexual component, had to have meant it, whatever it was, was obvious enough to be seen at the crimescene, but yet PK seemed to downplay the scene's gore. Could it be that PK blocked all of that out from his mind, only to return to his consciousness in his sleep?

Kinsman says he had flashbacks after finding Gleave's body. Alex says her husband experienced several "night terrors" where he acted out loudly, and physically, while sleeping.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

I don't have *any* experience at all in what dispatchers would say to persons calling into 911 to say they happened upon a dead person, but I would have thought that it would be common to ask the caller to go to the body to check for a pulse or breathing, just to be sure?

 

[Sillybilly]

P.s. would love to know from mod's if we're allowed to research/discuss POIs named by LEOs? TIA!

<rsbm>

There are NO officially named POIs or suspects in Audrey's case.

Regardless of the fact that PK told us he is a POI, he is not considered an official source. Persons who are not officially named are not sleuthable but we can discuss what has been said by someone in MSM or posts on the board. We cannot however extrapolate and speculate/theorize on folks who are considered innocents unless named otherwise by LE.

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thinking back to the Amazing Grace video, PK gave us the link (no longer available), but it was to a "Broadcast Yourself" youtube. I wonder if LE ever checked into who that account belonged to.

Don't really know where i'm going with this train of thought or if it's important in any way, but am also wondering if the email that was sent to LF was a direct link to the Broadcast Yourself, or if it was simply the same email AG sent to PK, then forwarded to LF later that day.

The "hell or high water" email in the morning would seem to have been from Audrey (given the reference to LV coming over shortly with soup and LV later confirming she had done so). We also have the email that JH referred to being sent that day (time unknown) to a member of AG's coffee group ... that AG would not be attending the coffee group. I think it's possible the "not attending" email and the one to LF were sent by the killer. IF the "not attending" email was sent by the killer, they had to have known the name of at least that one member of the coffee klatch group ... someone close enough to AG to know the circles she travelled in.

 

[deugirtni]

Thinking back to the Amazing Grace video, PK gave us the link (no longer available), but it was to a "Broadcast Yourself" youtube. I wonder if LE ever checked into who that account belonged to.

Don't really know where i'm going with this train of thought or if it's important in any way, but am also wondering if the email that was sent to LF was a direct link to the Broadcast Yourself, or if it was simply the same email AG sent to PK, then forwarded to LF later that day.

The "hell or high water" email in the morning would seem to have been from Audrey (given the reference to LV coming over shortly with soup and LV later confirming she had done so). We also have the email that JH referred to being sent that day (time unknown) to a member of AG's coffee group ... that AG would not be attending the coffee group. I think it's possible the "not attending" email and the one to LF were sent by the killer. IF the "not attending" email was sent by the killer, they had to have known the name of at least that one member of the coffee klatch group ... someone close enough to AG to know the circles she travelled in.

I was a bit stumped about that email to the coffee group from AG saying that she would be unable to attend... especially after having said to PK that she would be there, come hell or high water. Another thing that doesn't make sense. I can't find an indication of *when* that email was written/sent by AG to the coffee person though. Was it also sent on the same day on which she said to PK that she WOULD be going? Or was it on the Tues or even the Wed morning? Was that ever stated anywhere?

 

[deugirtni]

I don't recall coming across this news article before. It says that AG was cremated even before the memorial service. The article was written on January 5th, 2011, at which time she had already been cremated. I hate it when they cremate murder victims before the case is solved!

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/01/05/remembering-audrey

 

[deugirtni]

AG had reportedly not been feeling well.. she went to LV's house on Boxing Day (December 26th), IIRC? Then on the 27th, she tells PK she will be attending her coffee group on the 29th, no matter what. LV brought her soup that same day (27th). Then she visited her veterinarian friend on the afternoon of that same day, and gave him a hug? It seems like she must have been feeling better, to be going out.. having conversation.. and giving an old guy a hug (spreading her germs), which I don't think she would want to expose him to her illness if she was still on the downswing? So I really wonder when it was exactly that she wrote the email saying she would NOT be attending the coffee group on the 29th. Very curious.

Monday afternoon she loaded Togi and Schatze into the Camaro and visited veterinarian Dudley Collins in Ancaster to pick up vitamins for the German shepherds. She let the dogs run on his property as usual. She gave him a hug when she left, as she often did.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2216816-audrey-s-story-continues/

 

[deugirtni]

Just thinking about that little trip to the veterinarian friend on the Monday afternoon.. in her camaro.. I wonder if when police examined her camaro (they took it away for forensic examination), they found dog hair and blood in the car? If so, that could perhaps explain why LE took samples of AG's dogs' hair and blood?

 

[deugirtni]

I'm sure it has been posted previously, but AG's veterinarian friend died a year and a half after Audrey, in July 2012. His obit:

http://www.lifenews.ca/announcement/1868380-collins-g-dudley

 

[deugirtni]

Here is a paragraph about the email AG sent to someone in the coffee group to say she would not be attending, but it doesn't specify exactly when/which day the email had been sent (BBM):

After she retired, she met up with a group of other former Westdale teachers for coffee every Wednesday at the Williams Fresh Café across McMaster for the last 14 years.
But even those who saw her weekly for decades said Gleave kept to herself.
'She was very private person,' said Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, who taught science at Westdale and retired at about the same time as Gleave.
'She was a very good teacher who knew her stuff,' he said. The last time Xxxxxxxx saw Gleave was Dec.22 during one of their Wednesday coffee meet-ups.
Gleave had e-mailed someone in their group to say she was not feeling well and wouldn't make it to Wednesday's coffee meet-up, he said.

 

[whiterhino]

Questions:

The neighbours dogs were barking at 2 a.m of which morning? Maybe I was wrong in thinking the perp hung around inside the house? L.E estimate time of death sometime the afternoon/evening of the 27th. If the perp hung around until 2 a.m the next morning then it makes sense. Idk. The dogs could have been barking at AGs' dogs. Poor things. Perhaps L.E took DNA from the dogs just in case they managed to bite/shed/slobber on the perp? This would tie in with my wondering if the dogs had been baited or confined by an intruder.

Another question related to what shadowraiths had said regarding the "sexual component" & mention of the removal of breasts... This ties to a question I'd posted about the taking of souvenirs and whether or not the taking of certain parts is also considered defeminization. The removal of breasts is from what I understand, an example of defeminization. I am not sure if this only counts when the parts are left at the scene or if taking the part as a souvenir changes the meaning of the act? Also, can we confirm that "perverse act", "sexual component" & "souvenir" are all in fact, in reference to the removal of human tissue and not a personal effect?

Forgive me for being so graphic. The whole thing is gruesome enough but as other posters have said, if the perpetrator took a part of AGs' body, it makes him (or her) that much more sadistic.

Fwiw, I've never understood why AG would email one person to say she was determined to go for coffee and then turn around and email another to cancel the exact same coffee plan. One minute AG is laid up with a cold, closely monitoring her symptoms & accepting soup, the next she's out visting her veterinarian, then she's committing to plans and turning around to cancel, then she's emailing Amazing Grace & putting on her coat to go out into the garage alone with a cold because... why??? It's all rather scattered imo.

 

[Sillybilly]

The neighbours dogs were barking at 2 a.m of which morning?

<rsbm>

As per the timeline, it was approx. 2:30 am, Wednesday, December 29th:

Timeline

 

[Sillybilly]

Here is a paragraph about the email AG sent to someone in the coffee group to say she would not be attending, but it doesn't specify exactly when/which day the email had been sent (BBM):

Can't locate the earlier references, but IIRC, the day it was received by EH came from the writings of Audrey's friend, JH. That may have been the only source we had (so if not via MSM, then grain of salt in that regard).

 

[deugirtni]

Can't locate the earlier references, but IIRC, the day it was received by EH came from the writings of Audrey's friend, JH. That may have been the only source we had (so if not via MSM, then grain of salt in that regard).

The text I quoted above came from the blog of JH. Not sure if same writing you are thinking of, but from a big paragraph about her on his blog.