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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
thank you for the reply.

The silence of many of these cases we discuss and review here is tough. The media no longer has any new details to share or publish, LE does not have an abundance of fresh leads or information to follow up on that they are sharing, and the case has gone stagnant in the public view.

We really have very little proof of anything and continue to throw out ideas of how it could or could not happen. Even when we do not have privy to the actual facts, nor any path to prove any facts. We can only go on what the media wanted to sell us.

I now have very little to post on the cases I came to this site and registered to join the conversation and review not long ago.

I grew up in an area where 2 children were missing to have never been located to this day, 40+ yrs later. These are cold cases, they were before I joined. Some of these reviews took me to other cases that could be linked/related or were in the golden horseshoe area, I have participated in conversations to share any intelligence I know or found.

I get riled up that we cannot be more useful when cases do become cold. Why do suspects that have died get to keep their privacy?

Maybe we should start lobbying for the collection of all deceased people's DNA, this DNA should be stored by the government and can be accessed via warrants in specific cases. And use this collection of information to compare against LE databases with victim DNA samples automatically and regularly. Suicides for sure should be looked at, (especially if it is a shocking suicide - no one could believe that person would take their own life or surprised they did not seem unhappy etc)

Of late with our advances in DNA technologies and the ability to find for example Christine Jessop's (CJ) killer, I think we would find many more of these sick people have died, naturally or not they are dead, it is just inconceivable that with that death the secret of their sins is taken to the grave with them. That to me is unjust.

IMO it is we who are here on earth living with the loss and or knowledge of these terrible crimes against humanity that suffer the consequences of these horrendous acts, when we die we should have no secrets left to keep, like Vegas, what happens on earth should stay on earth. I understand most of these culprits have a family and it is them that are being protected by this information being kept silent.

But again if we look at CJ case, they let it out and the family was stunned that he did it, but I bet they are somewhat relieved to know the truth. If it were a family member of mine that was doing this I WOULD WANT TO KNOW.
I think the only reason LE published the perp's identity in the CJ case, was because it seemed like it was pretty much a 'slam dunk' case, with the perp's semen having been found on CJ's underwear which was also found at the scene with her remains. .... and there is really no other explanation for that, other than... he'd had occasion to be doing that around her underwear... I think it doesn't have to 100% mean he was the killer, but the fact that he had been doing that at any point in time, was gruesome enough to let it out. He sure would've had difficulty explaining that away, had he still been alive. In other cases, such as say 'Marianne Schuett' (sp?).. police have thought they've known the perp for many years, but without a body and without evidence, they have not publicized his name... and to me, nor should they. To me, it seems unfair to make horrible accusations without absolute proof, even after death. The family still has to live with such accusations, which could be devastating. If alive, a perp would get a trial, and have to be found guilty, before being deemed guilty, so to reveal a name without that taking place, is going down a slippery slope, imo.

I would want to know too, personally,... but... those genealogy sites where people send in their DNA, and from which LE have discovered perps such as the killer of CJ.. they have changed all of that so that it now has to be an express permission granted by the owner of the DNA to allow LE to use it in that way. The last time (a long while ago) I read about that, it seemed that many did not sign up for that. I guess many people don't trust that method, and/or are afraid of accusations being made unfairly? Who knows?
 
No, I know nothing about PK and/or LV. That said, LE "usually" put out a statement saying that ( paraphrasing ) they have been in touch with friends and are still looking into the case at hand. With Audrey's case we have complete silence. And to be frank, that continued silence is upsetting to me. Audrey Gleave deserves justice. For some unknown reason, this case is always on my mind. Right from day one. I can't explain it.
That's the same frustration I feel. It seems like something is off.

Audrey has no living blood relatives that we know of to remind police and the public of how much her life mattered to them. I'm afraid we are all she has to keep advocating for her: a bunch of strangers on the internet. I explained to someone who asked why I am still following Audrey's case: we're all she's got, and she deserves answers as much as anyone else.

If anyone else is speaking up for Audrey on anniversary dates, etc., they aren't talking to the media about it. Keeping silent does not get these cases solved. We are not silent here. For whatever good that does, we're all Audrey has. I'm sorry, Audrey!
 
They did mention the types of DNA in the article. We don't know what was resent or what came of it. I hope they continue to resend evidence as this technology advances.

I'm more than a bit disappointed that this was never mentioned in any of the updates about Audrey's case.
The article mentioned the possibilities as far as types of DNA which are possible to find, but we don't know which type(s) were found in AG's case (unless I missed that important detail in the article, hopefully not!)... and also, if they have certain types of DNA, whether it is even related to her murder. (ie I'm thinking they could've potentially found 'touch DNA' on something, like say AG's coat button, but it may not have necessarily have been deposited there at the time of the crime... could it have been the week before, etc? - that type of thing)

Which part are you more than a bit disappointed about that it was never mentioned in updates? When *was* the last update? Seems like years ago :( And possibly any reporters weren't interviewing this Huys person, to even know about it? I think we all assumed there was some kind of potential DNA, since they did take the dogs' blood and hair for testing, and they seemed to say DS was not the perp, based on some kind of results that came back, and according to PK, whatever they have, also did not match PK? Too bad we can't just go and look at all of their files.
 
Mentioning the coffee group, in this article it states she told someone she would make the Wed coffee, when she did not, did anyone try to contact her?

That article you are quoting above is no longer viable.. but in it, it said the opposite, that she told someone she would NOT be able to attend:

Gleave also met with former Westdale Secondary School colleagues for coffee every Wednesday. She cancelled last Monday, saying she was ill.

The article was published January 5, 2011, so I'm assuming the person meant that AG had cancelled on Monday, December 27th, the very same day that AG had told PK that come hell or high water, she WOULD be attending the coffee group.......... totally weird!

According to PK, he was unaware of that communication between AG and the coffee group member:
@ Hazel (#507 - re AG cancelling coffee) (CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2)
- Wow! I had missed this before but this is really perplexing me… why did she email me to tell me she was going?? (CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2)
 
I just realized.... pressreader.com still has some of those historical news articles. If you go to the link, go up to the top of the page where the 'magnifying glass' is, and do a search for different things, it will show you different articles. I did a search for Friends remember Audrey Gleave, and it offered a few articles (including photos) from the time.
 
I am not sure why someone with aggressive protective dogs would go into a garage with a knife, why not send the dogs in the garage and call the police yourself?

WAIT! Where did I miss that AG took a knife of her own WITH HER INTO THE GARAGE? My memory is poor but can it be that poor?

Would someone kindly post an article that tells us AG took her own knife with her. Thanks in advance.
 
That's the same frustration I feel. It seems like something is off.

Audrey has no living blood relatives that we know of to remind police and the public of how much her life mattered to them. I'm afraid we are all she has to keep advocating for her: a bunch of strangers on the internet. I explained to someone who asked why I am still following Audrey's case: we're all she's got, and she deserves answers as much as anyone else.

If anyone else is speaking up for Audrey on anniversary dates, etc., they aren't talking to the media about it. Keeping silent does not get these cases solved. We are not silent here. For whatever good that does, we're all Audrey has. I'm sorry, Audrey!

Yes, we are all AG has. I’m an only child, perhaps that’s why I’m so avid here for Audrey. I cannot let her down.
 
Why was a mid-year article written about Audrey's case?


It came within a week of this article:


Maybe the reporter has the same questions that we do. Thank you for that.
 
WAIT! Where did I miss that AG took a knife of her own WITH HER INTO THE GARAGE? My memory is poor but can it be that poor?

Would someone kindly post an article that tells us AG took her own knife with her. Thanks in advance.
No. We don't know anything. That was the point. We don't know if she took a weapon into her garage, or if her killer brought one or if he grabbed something from the garage. She was stabbed with something. If it was premeditated, her killer would might have brought a weapon. If it was unplanned, her killer might have grabbed something available to him. We have been brainstorming with questions. We have no answers.
 
Why was a mid-year article written about Audrey's case?


It came within a week of this article:


Maybe the reporter has the same questions that we do. Thank you for that.
AFAIR, I had completely missed that article about Huys re-sending the DNA.

Why does the name of that reporter (Mac Christie) sound familiar to me?
 
Yes, we are all AG has. I’m an only child, perhaps that’s why I’m so avid here for Audrey. I cannot let her down.
This case really bothers me as well. Perhaps because I live not too far, and I had come to know DS somewhat, a few years prior to her murder. It really bugs me that they haven't solved this.
 
The article mentioned the possibilities as far as types of DNA which are possible to find, but we don't know which type(s) were found in AG's case (unless I missed that important detail in the article, hopefully not!)... and also, if they have certain types of DNA, whether it is even related to her murder. (ie I'm thinking they could've potentially found 'touch DNA' on something, like say AG's coat button, but it may not have necessarily have been deposited there at the time of the crime... could it have been the week before, etc? - that type of thing)

Which part are you more than a bit disappointed about that it was never mentioned in updates? When *was* the last update? Seems like years ago :( And possibly any reporters weren't interviewing this Huys person, to even know about it? I think we all assumed there was some kind of potential DNA, since they did take the dogs' blood and hair for testing, and they seemed to say DS was not the perp, based on some kind of results that came back, and according to PK, whatever they have, also did not match PK? Too bad we can't just go and look at all of their files.
DNA being present also does not mean someone killed her. Some DNA from those close to the victim can be explained away. If a frequent guest to the person's murder scene left DNA, that's expected. Of course it would be there.

However, if a frequent guest left touch DNA on a weapon used to kill someone, that would be hard to explain away. Let's say it was a kitchen knife and the person could explain that they'd been in the kitchen making sandwiches the day before. Then it's not very useful.

If someone left touch DNA on Audrey's torn pants, in this crime which has a sexual component, or on any area of her body that is covered by underwear, that would be a problem. Audrey was known to hug people, but touch DNA left inside her clothing, or on those pants on that day, would be useful information.

Also, the interview with the senior forensics officer mentioned that where a murder was committed determines where DNA samples are taken. Let's say someone who never entered Audrey's garage left DNA in Audrey's garage. Did they touch her car's door handle? Did they touch something that was taken in and out of the garage frequently? Useful or not useful?

I believe part of the problem in solving SV's case could be something like that, MOO; speculation.
 
I wish there was some way of obtaining old research papers from Audrey's days at Chalk River. Do we know the names of any of her team members? Gamma rays and baryon decay is what I'm interested in. She must have called herself "Baryon" for a reason.
 
That article you are quoting above is no longer viable.. but in it, it said the opposite, that she told someone she would NOT be able to attend:

Gleave also met with former Westdale Secondary School colleagues for coffee every Wednesday. She cancelled last Monday, saying she was ill.

The article was published January 5, 2011, so I'm assuming the person meant that AG had cancelled on Monday, December 27th, the very same day that AG had told PK that come hell or high water, she WOULD be attending the coffee group.......... totally weird!

According to PK, he was unaware of that communication between AG and the coffee group member:
@ Hazel (#507 - re AG cancelling coffee) (CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2)
- Wow! I had missed this before but this is really perplexing me… why did she email me to tell me she was going?? (CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2)
The same day (Dec 27th), she visited her friend LV for boxing day.
 
People do sometimes look for themselves when they hear an odd noise. We don't know why she was in the garage, if she took a weapon, what time of day she went there, if someone entered the garage with one, or if they grabbed something to use as a weapon from inside the garage. We're brainstorming. Was a weapon left at the scene? We don't know. Answers to these questions might reveal the nature of this fatal conversation and who killed her. For all we know, it could have been a cake knife.
There was found a little saw (like one for drywalls) in her garden, I remember. Don't know, if it played a role in the murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
1,689
Total visitors
1,896

Forum statistics

Threads
606,609
Messages
18,207,136
Members
233,908
Latest member
Kat kruck
Back
Top