CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #5

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I'm wondering if Audrey was alittle bit of a pack rat/hoarder and that is why people didn't get in her home. If LE supposedly has DNA doesn't that put PK and wife in the clear?

You'd think so. But WHY was he asked to take polygraph (which he did not pass!). Why is he a POI?

Oh man......bring it on!:truce:

 

[dotr]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/10/22/20299611.html
"Outside youth court where the boy's bail hearing was held Monday, his uncle said they had attended the rally to support their neighbourhood.

"Yes, we know (what the rallies were about) — that's why we were there," said the uncle, who is taking care of the boy because his sick father lives in Ottawa.

He said his nephew told him, "We need to find this person."

"He saw a girl standing on the street, he said, 'I have to tell her. This is not a safe neighbourhood. She has to watch.'"

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm wondering if Audrey was alittle bit of a pack rat/hoarder and that is why people didn't get in her home. If LE supposedly has DNA doesn't that put PK and wife in the clear?

LE has never ever said they do or don't have DNA.

When they were testing in relation to DLS, they only made reference to "forensic evidence" did not match. Forensic evidence can run the gamut from body fluids to ballistics, shoeprints, weapon markings, etc. It could simply be that the knife DLS was arrested with had blood on it that did not match AG's, or the markings on her body could not have been caused by his particular weapon, etc.

 

[LilyMacBloom]

Just to go back LE has made the following statement, however, DLS lawyer made it pretty clear what LE doesn't have, although it could also be intrepretted that the sentence wasn't finished and should read "to link DLS to this crime". Meaning LE has somethingbut it doesn't match DLS (does that make sense? scratching my head)

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher


Hamilton Police Supt. Bill Stewart said the forensic evidence didn’t come back with the “conclusive results we were hoping for.”

He wouldn’t comment when asked if that means there wasn’t any DNA linking the suspect to the scene.

“I can’t go there, what that evidence was, because it’s part of the case and it’s still an open case,” Stewart said.

Scott’s lawyer, Charles Spettigue, said police had no DNA.

“We’re been poring through mountains of disclosure ... and the police have been flailing about trying to find some evidence to theoretically carry on with this,” he said. “The simple reality is they never had any evidence. They have no DNA, they have no-nothing.”

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

OK, so no DNA which cannot be explained. I'm sure there's DNA of LV and PK in AG's house. But, of course, they both had the right to be there, so........

Will this crime ever be solved?

:cupcake:

 

[Sillybilly]

snipped from LilyMacB's post:

... however, DLS lawyer made it pretty clear what LE doesn't have, although it could also be intrepretted that the sentence wasn't finished and should read "to link DLS to this crime". Meaning LE has something but it doesn't match DLS (does that make sense? scratching my head)

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher ...Scott’s lawyer, Charles Spettigue, said police had no DNA.

“We’re been poring through mountains of disclosure ... and the police have been flailing about trying to find some evidence to theoretically carry on with this,” he said. “The simple reality is they never had any evidence. They have no DNA, they have no-nothing.”

This is a hard one to wrap a brain around, but yes ... seems whatever forensic evidence they had proved DLS could not have been responsible, and it seems to have effectively removed him from the suspect pool.

Bearing in mind that "mountains of disclosure" and then "no-nothing" came from a defence lawyer, they still are pretty much at opposite ends of the scale.

Absent DNA and/or other conclusive forensic evidence, one has to wonder what the other part of that mountain consisted of ... obviously not enough to proceed with a heavy circumstantial case against DLS. If there had been such heavy circumstantial against DLS, that wouldn't explain them going back to scratch with a focus on AG's closer associates, polygraphs, etc.

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6990375&highlight=DLS#post6990375

I find it highly unlikely that DLS is responsible and the police were simply unable to hold him because the direction of the case has shifted so drastically. The detectives are now putting lots of pressure on those of us who knew AG well (and honestly, I've always thought it likely that AG either knew or expected a visit from her attacker).

I wonder why kinsmapj said he didn't think DLS was responsible. What insight could he possibly have that would lead him to that conclusion? Does he know DLS personally in order to make that call? What did he base that statement on?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from sillybilly:

I wonder why kinsmapj said he didn't think DLS was responsible. What insight could he possibly have that would lead him to that conclusion? Does he know DLS personally in order to make that call? What did he base that statement on?


It looks like PK is very savvy and cunning. He KNOWS we're not stupid enough to think that DLS actually did kill Audrey so (I think) PK was simply playing into our hands. Playing 'our game' as it were.

Does he know DLS - I say he possibly knew that DLS lived in that barn and also that DLS would be the "natural" fall guy for LE.

And........kinsmapj obviously KNOWS that it wasn't DLS who murdered Audrey.

:truce:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from kinsmapj:

I find it highly unlikely that DLS is responsible and the police were simply unable to hold him because the direction of the case has shifted so drastically. The detectives are now putting lots of pressure on those of us who knew AG well (and honestly, I've always thought it likely that AG either knew or expected a visit from her attacker).

There's our answer right there!

:cupcake:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Sorry for so many in a row, but Audrey is really on my mind right now.

I just dropped my 'Vette off at my GM dealership for its winterising. I saw Camaros there and I thought of her. It's being winterised and so I thought of her. The weather is changing and I thought of her. Christmas is coming and I'm thinking of her.........

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from kinsmapj:

I find it highly unlikely that DLS is responsible and the police were simply unable to hold him because the direction of the case has shifted so drastically. The detectives are now putting lots of pressure on those of us who knew AG well (and honestly, I've always thought it likely that AG either knew or expected a visit from her attacker).

There's our answer right there!

:cupcake:

Quoting myself now! It just hit me:

kinsmapj uses the word "attacker" rather than "killer/murderer".

Does he KNOW that AG was merely left to die/not meant to die but merely be attacked? Was he going to be the hero to find and save her? Does he KNOW who the "attacker" is?

These questions need to be asked and I shall not apologise for asking them.

:twocents:

 

[Sillybilly]

Quoting myself now! It just hit me:

kinsmapj uses the word "attacker" rather than "killer/murderer".

Does he KNOW that AG was merely left to die/not meant to die but merely be attacked? Was he going to be the hero to find and save her? Does he KNOW who the "attacker" is?

These questions need to be asked and I shall not apologise for asking them.

:twocents:

Could be seen as a form of "distancing" perhaps? In most instances, PK can't help but convey his closeness to AG, but when it comes to the actual act of her murder, his terminology minimizes the act. Would be interesting to know what the forensic psycholinguist / BSU folks might have to say.

ETA: Something else I find interesting about PK's communications is that instead of showing fear or outrage at being a suspect, he appears unflappable.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

If PK is reading here, he surely must feel we are a pretty tough bunch, and unmerciful in picking him apart limb from limb. Hopefully he realizes that we do that with absolutely everything and everyone when delving into cases.

PK said that "The detectives are now putting lots of pressure on those of us who knew AG well", and unfortunately, we don't have the benefit of LV or anyone else who was close to Audrey who has had the guts to come in here and answer our questions.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

If PK is reading here, he surely must feel we are a pretty tough bunch, and unmerciful in picking him apart limb from limb. Hopefully he realizes that we do that with absolutely everything and everyone when delving into cases.

PK said that "The detectives are now putting lots of pressure on those of us who knew AG well", and unfortunately, we don't have the benefit of LV or anyone else who was close to Audrey who has had the guts to come in here and answer our questions.

I'm fairly certain that PK is reading all of this. So, if I'm correct, he also knows that not all posters here are tough on him. He must be happy that a few posters stand up for him and his innocence.

:twocents:

 

[2soccermom]

I'm fairly certain that PK is reading all of this. So, if I'm correct, he also knows that not all posters here are tough on him. He must be happy that a few posters stand up for him and his innocence.

:twocents:

hi NSU: I'm wondering if you are counting me as one of these "other" posters? I do want to say that I'm not certain any more than any of the rest of us could be about who is guilty or who is innocent in AG's murder (though we all have our different theories). I know that we all know that under the law, everyone must be considered innocent until proved guilty in court. YES, the work we do here IS to ask questions and scrutinize responses to arrive at a burden of proof and I'm sorry if it has seemed like I was challenging that in posts -- I wasn't. All I wanted to do was to ask us to think about the relationship between questions and asserted conclusions, in the absence of empirical fact. I really haven't meant to offend anyone or put them on the defensive; rather, I have been trying to think about fairness to all, including PK. As I have said quite a few times before, I cannot vouch for his innoncence or guilt although I have also posted my own opinion on this -- which is not, of course, a conclusion.

Anyway. I wasn't certain if the "bring it on" (etc) comments in your posts, NSU, were specifically intended for me or not. But in case so, I wanted to clarify that my posts weren't meant to offend, but to invite the opposite, broadly.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Hi guys:
I didn't have time yesterday/last night to share this but I have time now.

Yesterday it was bleak and pelting rain. Chilly, too. My 'Vette was ready at the dealership so my husband drove me to pick it up (after its winter tune-up).

We pulled into the GM dealership and my husband said - 'Oh look, there's your car. They've washed it too!' Then he added - 'Oh no, it's parked right beside a white Camaro, year 2010. Audrey's car!'.

He was right, it could have been Audrey's car.

It's these little, everyday things that drive me (pardon the pun) to keep pushing to find her KILLER.

And trust me......her KILLER will (eventually) be caught. A KILLER can only be lucky and cunning enough for so long.......

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Could be seen as a form of "distancing" perhaps? In most instances, PK can't help but convey his closeness to AG, but when it comes to the actual act of her murder, his terminology minimizes the act. Would be interesting to know what the forensic psycholinguist / BSU folks might have to say.

ETA: Something else I find interesting about PK's communications is that instead of showing fear or outrage at being a suspect, he appears unflappable.

JMO

Great post! Yes, he's distancing himself from the MURDER while (at all other times) he paints himself and Audrey as BFFs.

As far as being "unflappable", I don't know how PK CAN be this cool, calm and collected in the face of his BFF just having been brutally murdered......NOT "attacked" alone. :waitasec:

But then again, PK did say that he "thought Bary slipped on a piece of ice" rather than the bloody description Hrab gave. :waitasec:

Who shall we believe?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

And speaking of cars:

- who serviced AG's car(s)

- PK said he'd never been in AG's car - why not? He was in her house; he helped her build/plant her garden, etc.

- since AG seemed to always be a 'GM person', various GM mechanics obviously drove her car over the years

- what dealership was the Camaro purchased from

- did she continue to return to that dealership for her servicing

- when was the FINAL time the car was driven

Soooo many questions; very few answers.

 

[Sillybilly]

When PK was describing the scene in the garage, he referred to AG's car as her "giant" Camaro.

IMO, it would certainly qualify as a "muscle car". I have to admit I get a bit of a giggle when picturing AG bootin' down the road with her two big German Shepherd passengers

 

[colette]

I'm fairly certain that PK is reading all of this. So, if I'm correct, he also knows that not all posters here are tough on him. He must be happy that a few posters stand up for him and his innocence.

:twocents:

I am one of those who feel he had nothing to do with the murder. I don't know PK, but it is hard to read some of these posts at times. If I was PK I would never look at this thread again, or at least not until the killer is caught.

 

[2soccermom]

Colette: I agree with you. I think when we are posting it is really important to remember that we are talking about real people with real lives and families and jobs and..... <modsnip>.

I know, here on WS and specifically AG's thread, that pretty much everyone here feels passionately about the case and wants to see justice for her. I just gently again want to insist that this IS a publicly visible forum and we need to be accountable in what we disseminate here -- not just in legal terms but in the more important, for me, ethical sense of responsibility to each other.