CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #3

[nicgumshoe]

Quoted from nicgumshoe:

I'd say it's motive for a real (unknown) child. Given that clause about the child/children we have to wonder. Also motive for PK if he felt he should be getting something. (After knowing someone for only a few years, I wouldn't expect a cent....but you never know.)


My first question is about this 'unknown child/children'. I'm wondering if AG had foster children and if she considered herself a godmother to them.

Regarding PK here - I cannot imagine him thinking he'd be given anything in AG's will unless they talked about it. But given AG's private nature, I can't see her saying to PK that he should be in her will.

Something else is niggling at me here - for some reason, I don't see this killing as money/property motivated. It seems too hateful for that. Too gruesome for that. Too personal for that.:twocents:

Exactly! I don't think anyone after money could/would fake a sexual component to make it look like a serial killer/maniac job. It's somewhat of a human and cultural taboo, unless you are a serial killer/maniac.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Woodland:

So, yes … the minor children clause is a surprise because we are not aware of AG having any children whatsoever. I would really need to study the Will to see in what order everything was stipulated. IMO, it’s unheard of and not possible to transfer the RESIDUE to LV in her personal capacity, and THEN stipulate that a gift should be made to any minor children. Just doesn’t make sense because once the residue is tranferred to a sole beneficiary, it is then theirs to do with as they please.


You know,this almost makes it sound like AG did have children out there somewhere. Estranged children. Maybe adopted children (adopted by other people, I mean).

My husband and I have no children. We know that. So, there's no way on earth we'd put something like that in our will!

This is getting more curious by the day........:waitasec:

 

[nicgumshoe]

Maybe one of her first 2 husbands had kids before they married and she was a step-mom.
-------------------------

Though, as mentioned: if I were a millionaire/rich and maybe otherwise (alone?), I might put something like that in to prevent people claiming to be a child (who were not really, or were step- kids) from being able to lay claims and contest....in which case AG may have been in a better- than-lawyer state of mind

 

[dotr]

Here is a crazy thought, (Yup, the hits keep coming) BUT...thinking about the possibility of AG donating an egg for someone. I imagine that AG is someone who might be sought out for such a procedure because she is a scientist and all round brainiac.

 

[nicgumshoe]

Here is a crazy thought, (Yup, the hits keep coming) BUT...thinking about the possibility of AG donating an egg for someone. I imagine that AG is someone who might be sought out for such a procedure because she is a scientist and all round brainiac.

That's a great thought actually! My guess is she would have been too old to donate by the time the donation system was in place, but maybe not.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Donating an egg? Never thought of that!! How long has 'egg donation' been available in the medical world?

Back to the will - I'm an only child. My father died before my mom died. My husband and I were co-everything for my mom in her final years. In her will, my mom had a paragraph/section saying that all money/property/etc. goes to me (or to my husband if I passed away before he). BUT, she also had somehting which said that 'everything goes to me even if someone pops up claiming to be a child of hers or of my father's. Of course, it was written much better than what I just wrote; done in perfect legal speak.

I asked my mom's lawyer what this was all about! He said it's common practice when there's one child involved. It's put into the will in order to protect me/my husband just in case someone jumped out of the woodwork claiming to be a child of my parents. The lawyer said it protects me from further grief after my parents had passed on.

Now, my long post above is trying to say that perhaps AG was also trying to protect the beneficiary of her will - like my parents did!!:crazy:

 

[Sillybilly]

Now, my long post above is trying to say that perhaps AG was also trying to protect the beneficiary of her will - like my parents did!!:crazy:

<rsbm>

Clause 4.6 in AG's Will doesn't appear to do that though ... it is somehow making provisions for the remainder of the estate to be held in trust and invested, etc, etc. when the remainder of the estate has in fact already been willed to LV. Just plain strange !! However, i suppose of there is/was no minor child in existence, then it's a non-issue and LV still gets the residue. BUT then why put the darn clause there in the first place?

I'm interested in finding out what 4.5 might contain ... i.e. is there something that provides for what happens to the residue of the estate if LV was to predecease AG.

ETA: Are we all thinking with what we know about this grande lady that this seems so "NOT Audrey"??? Where is the lady who cared so deeply about her dogs, her much visited pet cemetary, pet related organizations?

 

[dotr]

Great point NSU! Could that mean that the will was structured to protect L's interests from her own children or even people claiming to be L's children?

 

[SideKick]

Hi!

Here is a link to Adoption.com
An Audrey Gleaves posted looking for adoptive daughter.

http://my.adoption.com/audrey gleave

and all posts....

http://forums.adoption.com/search.php?searchid=2874948

But, was she in Pennsylvania?

 

[Sillybilly]

Hi!

Here is a link to Adoption.com
An Audrey Gleaves posted looking for adoptive daughter.

http://my.adoption.com/audrey gleave

and all posts....

http://forums.adoption.com/search.php?searchid=2874948

But, was she in Pennsylvania?

From what we've seen SideKick, it's not our AG. There are other AG's in the US, and that particular birthmom was apparently only 15/16 y.o. in 1969. She has a middle name (something like Sch...nsky) and googling her under that name, and the email addy that she provided, brings up what appears to be a much younger person than Audrey.

 

[dotr]

Thanks Sidekick for popping in to help out with links!

 

[SideKick]

Thanks Sidekick for popping in to help out with links!

Oh hey, you're welcome... I too thought this would be another A.G. but one never knows, woman have known to go to the end of the earth to deliver a child and place them for adoption.

I must say, the will makes one wonder! So much mystery here, hope it gets solved soon, you WB'ers are awesome.

SK

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I wanted to know how long egg donation has been available here in Ontario. This is what I found:

LINK - Assisted Human Reproduction Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nicgumshoe]

<rsbm>

Clause 4.6 in AG's Will doesn't appear to do that though ... it is somehow making provisions for the remainder of the estate to be held in trust and invested, etc, etc. when the remainder of the estate has in fact already been willed to LV. Just plain strange !! However, i suppose of there is/was no minor child in existence, then it's a non-issue and LV still gets the residue. BUT then why put the darn clause there in the first place?

I'm interested in finding out what 4.5 might contain ... i.e. is there something that provides for what happens to the residue of the estate if LV was to predecease AG.

ETA: Are we all thinking with what we know about this grande lady that this seems so "NOT Audrey"??? Where is the lady who cared so deeply about her dogs, her much visited pet cemetary, pet related organizations?

re: the green bold stuff: Maybe she thought she was ruling out anyone that popped out of the woodwork, and it just comes across that way. Or maybe it was a discreet statement of some kind to let someone specific know they get nothing.

re: the regular bold stuff:
I'm not really thinking that at all. If I recall correctly, in one of those recent videos we watched LV said something about being asked by AG to make sure her dogs were cared for in the event of something. (Maybe that was in an article..and not a video). Her dogs seemed to have gotten special treatment, and are doing well, so LV fulfilled that request/promise.

I think AG probably just trusted LV very much, and felt that she would do the right things with the money. We also don't really know if donations were made on AG's behalf or not.

(Do we even know if AG gave regularly to pet or other organizations? Perhaps she mistrusted them the same way some good people mistrust unicef, unesco, etc. We have heard she felt a lot of / most people are liars.)

AG seems to have been an intelligent person with a lot of great qualities, but I never sensed she was on a mission to save the world, animals, etc.

As for the pet cemetery, I thought it was mentioned she wanted her ashes scattered there near her dogs, but it turned out to be illegal...so couldn't happen.

 

[Woodland]

Clause 4.5 reads - If Lynne Allyson Vanstone predeceases me or dies before becoming entitled to all of this gift held in trust, I direct my Trustee to distribute the residue to Robertson William Vanstone.

So if Lynne Vanstone is the Trustee and predeceases AG, the Trustee becomes RWV and everything goes to him.

I wonder if this is usual or unusual.

 

[Hazel]

Oh hey, you're welcome... I too thought this would be another A.G. but one never knows, woman have known to go to the end of the earth to deliver a child and place them for adoption.

I must say, the will makes one wonder! So much mystery here, hope it gets solved soon, you WB'ers are awesome.

SK

True! We see old stories of young women going to 'visit' their far-away aunt when they start 'showing', then only come back after the birth.
Maybe initially saying she was 16 at the time could give her a better 'reason' as to why she couldn't keep the baby, than saying I was 25 or 26 at the time.
But that last name "Sh...ky" sure throws the theory out the window. (MOO)

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Clause 4.5 reads - If Lynne Allyson Vanstone predeceases me or dies before becoming entitled to all of this gift held in trust, I direct my Trustee to distribute the residue to Robertson William Vanstone.

So if Lynne Vanstone is the Trustee and predeceases AG, the Trustee becomes RWV and everything goes to him.

I wonder if this is usual or unusual.

That's the way it was with my parents' will - if I died before my husband dies, my husband would get everything. So, I think this is pretty normal when the person who writes the will (AG) really trusts someone.

 

[Hazel]

Clause 4.5 reads - If Lynne Allyson Vanstone predeceases me or dies before becoming entitled to all of this gift held in trust, I direct my Trustee to distribute the residue to Robertson William Vanstone.

So if Lynne Vanstone is the Trustee and predeceases AG, the Trustee becomes RWV and everything goes to him.

I wonder if this is usual or unusual.

According to the Obit, LV has two brothers; makes me wonder why the other one was not considered as well. of course, it could be something simple like she never met the other one.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

According to the Obit, LV has two brothers; makes me wonder why the other one was not considered as well. of course, it could be something simple like she never met the other one.

There could be many reasons why only one brother was named - the other one could be ill, live at a far distance,have had a falling out with LV, many reasons!:twocents:

 

[nicgumshoe]

I guess one main question is, where was this Will kept/found? (Maybe I missed that somewhere).

If it was in a safety deposit box of AG's then it seems legit.

If LV suddenly appeared with it in hand, then who knows. In that case it could be a rushed fake will, with no connection to the reason for the murder whatsoever. ie: a 2nd independent crime, when the murder created opportunity.