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

[Sillybilly]

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.

WADR colette, why do you feel PK had nothing to do with AG's murder? Do you have an opinion on who the perp could be?

By his own admission, he is certainly a "person of interest" to LE:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Audrey Gleave, retired teacher, viciously murdered in home, Ancaster Ontario, #2

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

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Audrey Gleave, retired teacher, viciously murdered in home, Ancaster Ontario, #2

The detectives are now putting lots of pressure on those of us who knew AG well

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/596949--audrey-s-case-gets-colder

A detective told him flat out that he was a person of interest.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/617241--if-audrey-gleave-s-dogs-could-speak

Phil Kinsman says he met with police in early September to address what he says police called “discrepancies” in a polygraph test he took.

 

[Sillybilly]

Just a friendly reminder that the flag button is there to report a post if we feel it is offensive, and the Mods or Admin can decide whether something is a violation of TOS. They do their jobs quite effectively :slap: ython:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

And also for what it's worth: collette & 2soccermom - PLEASE put me on "Ignore" if my posts are offensive to you. Then you can read everyone else's posts and ignore mine, especially when I'm indicating that PK is a POI and that he FAILED the polygraph.

Now......FWIW.....I was watching a TV show last night with a guy from the FBI on it. He's a polygraph specialist. He said that polygraphs are just over 90% accurate. (Oh.....I know.....I know.....they are not admissable in court). But they DO indicate "deception".

Question for the ones who feel PK is innocent of this crime: Why did he "have inconsistencies" in his polygraph? What was he deceptive about? The time of day? The colour of the sky? The colour of the Camaro? The date of his own birth? Please.........explain your thoughts.

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Just a friendly reminder that the flag button is there to report a post if we feel it is offensive, and the Mods or Admin can decide whether something is a violation of TOS. They do their jobs quite effectively :slap: ython:

:goodpost: :websleuther: :goodpost:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

OK, I just got my brains together so let's be fair. :rocker:

WHO COULD HAVE MURDERED AUDREY GLEAVE?

1. A stranger passing through town? Counterpoint - FBI said "Look young and look close".

2. Another aquaintance? Counterpoint - That leaves LV, the coffee group, a neighbour, a "young and close" person who came home for Christmas holidays.

3. Someone from her past? Counterpoint - Why have we heard NOTHING about so-and-so being called in for questioning/polygraphing/being held the way DLS was held.

There.......I've run out of ideas. PLEASE - add more suspects to this list.

:tyou:

 

[Sillybilly]

I am cautious about relying too heavily on the “young and close” component of Mark Safarik’s profile/analysis, while disregarding other details that formed part of that same analysis. For example, we do not know if retired FBI profiler Mark Safarik was consulted, or if the FBI was brought in as part of a thinktank on AG’s case. We don’t know whether the points attributed to Safarik are generic wrt crimes against the elderly, or if they were intended to apply specifically to Audrey’s case. While “young and close” leads us to consider PK, there are other components within that same analysis, the majority of which would appear to point away from him:

From:
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/595858--who-is-audrey-gleave

These are angry young men with pent-up rage toward women and likely live with a female authority figure, he said. They are socially incompetent men who perceive little control in their lives, are typically undereducated, have substance abuse problems and are unemployed or in a menial job.

“For these guys, there is not a lot of planning, and they don’t stay at the scene long. They leave evidence, don’t clean up. They don’t think that far ahead.”

So, while PK DOES fit the profile as it relates to the “young and close” aspect, we don’t KNOW that he is angry with pent-up rage, he does NOT live with a female authority figure (unless AK is such, OR AG was considered as such although he did not live with her), we don’t KNOW if he is socially incompetent, he DOES seem to have control in his life, he is NOT undereducated, we don’t KNOW if he does or does not have substance abuse problems, and (assuming his position with the university is a paid position), he is NOT employed in a menial job.

Mark Safarik’s background:

http://criminalminds.wikia.com/wiki/Mark_E._Safarik

http://www.robertkressler.com/main.html

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

:goodpost:

And I agree that PK doesn't fit the entire profile that Mark Safarik gives.

So.......who else could have killed Audrey? Let's be fair to PK and find the real killer. Who/what type of person killed Audrey?

 

[colette]

I think the killer was a teen who lives around there or was staying near Audrey's home at the time of the murder. Maybe the same one who damaged her mail box.
As far as PK being told that he was a "PI", LE doesn't have any clue who did it and they are trying to rattle PK. Also lie detectors are not science, there are too many problems with them. Inconsistencies in a test is not falling. If they have evidence to rule out the homeless man then it certainly doesn't implicate PK or he would have been arrested.
We all want the killer caught, the actual killer.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I think the killer was a teen who lives around there or was staying near Audrey's home at the time of the murder. Maybe the same one who damaged her mail box.
As far as PK being told that he was a "PI", LE doesn't have any clue who did it and they are trying to rattle PK. Also lie detectors are not science, there are too many problems with them. Inconsistencies in a test is not falling. If they have evidence to rule out the homeless man then it certainly doesn't implicate PK or he would have been arrested.
We all want the killer caught, the actual killer.

OK, well....I work with young offenders and teenaged murderers so I can buy that.

QUESTION:
If that's the case, WHY hasn't LE arrested this teen/young offender yet? Ancaster is a relatively small town. Cops must know every teen/young person in sight. Where is he? Who is he?

Help me see the light, please!

ETA: I know there is no pass/fail in a polygraph. It was my inadequate way of wording things. LE uses the term 'had inconsistencies'. Sorry......... :blushing:

 

[Sillybilly]

I wonder who did Audrey's snow removal? Did PK do that, or was there another young person in the hood that AG may have hired occasionally?

I also wonder if PK was given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies that were contained in his polygraph, and if so, were his explanations considered satisfactory to LE.

ETA: There was no mention by PK that a snowblower was in the garage. AG's driveway was exceptionally long, so am thinking that she may have had someone on standby who drove a plow

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I wonder who did Audrey's snow removal? Did PK do that, or was there another young person in the hood that AG may have hired occasionally?

I also wonder if PK was given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies that were contained in his polygraph, and if so, were his explanations considered satisfactory to LE.

I was wondering about the snow removal as well! In fact, we just phoned our snow removal guy to line him up for this winter!

According to the FBI guy I was watching on TV last night (the FBI polygraph specialist), he said where there are inconsistencies he asks the question four more times with slightly different wording. In the example he was using, the killer 'had inconsistencies' all four times.

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from sillybilly:

ETA: There was no mention by PK that a snowblower was in the garage. AG's driveway was exceptionally long, so am thinking that she may have had someone on standby who drove a plow


AG might have had a guy who removed snow from her entire area/street. The guy we've hired will do 10 houses on our street and therefore he gives all 10 of us a better deal.

:twocents:

 

[Sillybilly]

I was wondering about the snow removal as well! In fact, we just phoned our snow removal guy to line him up for this winter!

According to the FBI guy I was watching on TV last night (the FBI polygraph specialist), he said where there are inconsistencies he asks the question four more times with slightly different wording. In the example he was using, the killer 'had inconsistencies' all four times.

:twocents:

I just went back to the weather for Hamilton in Dec 2010 and it doesn't seem there was enough snow on the ground to warrant a plow that month, so unlikely they would have dropped in for payment.

Other service people that may have occasion to be at Audrey's house could be cable or hydro meter readers. I actually know of a case where a meter guy was peeping into a home; young guy, admitted to doing so ... and it was 2 weeks before his upcoming wedding. Anyway, i don't know when the meters would have been read in the area, but hope it has been considered.

WRT the poly, yeah ... consistent with the inconsistencies would be a red flag.

 

[Sillybilly]

I think the killer was a teen who lives around there or was staying near Audrey's home at the time of the murder. Maybe the same one who damaged her mail box.
As far as PK being told that he was a "PI", LE doesn't have any clue who did it and they are trying to rattle PK. Also lie detectors are not science, there are too many problems with them. Inconsistencies in a test is not falling. If they have evidence to rule out the homeless man then it certainly doesn't implicate PK or he would have been arrested.
We all want the killer caught, the actual killer.

<bbm>

Amen to that colette !! lease:

I do think this case is an exceptionally difficult one NOW since the DLS fiasco. Can't find the link now, but just yesterday was reading where Hrab had made the comment to the effect "we have enough to put him away for a very long time". Obviously that was NOT the case once the forensic evidence was analyzed, and we are left to wonder whether DLS remains part of the suspect pool or not.

Would be really interesting to KNOW if they are still rummaging around on their own, or if they have truly sought help from other agencies. They are really faced with a conundrum, but I have confidence that in time (could be years), this case will be solved. They will have to redeem themselves, and the only way to do that is to bring the real killer to justice, no matter how long that takes.

BTW, do you have a specific "teen" in mind?

JMO

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

IIRC, the night/day Audrey was killed it was rainy and there would have been mud in the driveway. Maybe that's why she was wearing running shoes rather than winter boots.

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

About teens/young offenders from my working experience:

- yes, young people like to do damage (smashing mailboxes, setting off stinkbombs in schools, pulling the fire alarms, etc.) ETA: I should say *some* young people! :truce:

- the young people in my line above rarely/never graduate to murder

- we have to look for young people who have killed/tortured animals, set fires to their own homes/schools, been in trouble at school from the get-go

If anyone here knows of a young person like that who may have killed Audrey, it's imperative that the person call LE. It might be a false alarm but it's at least something.

:moo:

 

[Woodland]

I'm lost on 'inconsistencies' in a polygraph. I thought polygraphs showed 'deception' or no 'deception.'

Does inconsistency mean deception?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I'm lost on 'inconsistencies' in a polygraph. I thought polygraphs showed 'deception' or no 'deception.'

Does inconsistency mean deception?

YES!! It's a more polite way of saying 'he lied'.

:twocents:

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm lost on 'inconsistencies' in a polygraph. I thought polygraphs showed 'deception' or no 'deception.'

Does inconsistency mean deception?

Polygraphs themselves don't show deception or "detect" lies. They only show fluctuating graphs. It is the amount of fluctuation in the graph activity, and to which those fluctuations relate, that results in the examiner determining if there was deception.

You may already know this, but for those who may not:

Probably an oversimplification, but ... the examiner carefully designs the questions that will be asked, prepares the subject, and a baseline graph is conducted prior to the actual test (in order to establish that particular individual's normal physiological responses under the circumstances, i.e. with an understanding that anyone might be nervous in such a situation). The results are interpreted by the examiner.

Errors can occur if the subject has not been properly prepared by the examiner, or if the examiner does not interpret the data correctly.

FWIW, polys being inadmissible in court is a bit of a generalization. Not sure we have a lot of info in Canada .. the following applies to the USA:

from: http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector4.htm

United States v. Piccinonna (1989) - U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit - This decision allowed for polygraph results to be admitted in court, but only if one of two requirements is met: Either the two parties in the case agree to allow it, or the judge decides to allow it based on criteria established by the 11th Circuit.


Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) - U.S. Supreme Court - The court opened the door for scientific evidence, and gave judges broader discretion as to whether or not to admit polygraphs. This applies to all federal courts but does not apply in state courts, although particular states do accept this ruling.


United States v. Scheffer (1998) - U.S. Supreme Court - Moving beyond the broader topic of scientific evidence, this military case directly involved polygraphs. The court ruled that the U.S. president has the prerogative to deny polygraph results in military tribunals because polygraph testing is so controversial.

It seems clear that no final decision has been made on the federal level. At the state level, polygraph admissibility is generally handled on a case-by-case basis

 

[colette]

I don't have a person of interest. I just think that it was someone who walked the area, possibly looking in windows. Someone who watched Audery and knew she was alone. There was a recent rape in my area where a teen waited until the woman parked her car, then rushed her as she was getting out. Maybe Audery had gone out for a quick ride and was rushed in her garage before the door was closed.
LE probably has no clue and no evidence to link the killer at this point.