CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #6

[Chorley8]

Drats it linked to the whole video not the url can't seem to edit it out mods please modify thanks!

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

From Chorley:

<<< Theories: my number one theory involves the crime originating from further out in the Niagara region but I have no way to get it down here. >>>


What do you mean? You are unable to post it here? You have no link?

I was wondering if Audrey had a gambling problem and spent much of her money away at Casino Niagara. Did she borrow money in order to gamble but was unable to meet her debts?

The problem with that theory is that I doubt loan sharks would make the hit so personal. A single gunshot to the head or heart would kill Audrey.

The conundrum for me is the way this crime seems to be a very passionate one. Filled with anger, hatred, vengeance, pure violent hatred......

 

[Jade]

Those are fairly large properties, and I would imagine fairly well insulated, with maybe double-glaze windows. As Audrey's dogs were found inside her home, and depending on which room, upstairs/downstairs, there's a good chance they were barking but neighbours (either sleeping or awake) would not have heard them.

JMO

From Hazel&#8217;s post 143:

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/memorial-service-held-for-audrey-gleave-1.592671

This video says the dogs were put up in a room in the house&#8230;.it also says found by a family member so not sure it can be trusted&#8230;

At the end at about 1:54 &#8220; &#8230;two dogs were found locked in a room when her body was found by a family member.&#8221;

That seems to me a deliberate action taken in preparation of a visitor.

Maybe Audrey put them up with a treat to keep them from making a fuss, put on her coat and went to the garage to receive her visitor.

Maybe not feeling great and anticipating a quick visit put them up to avoid the hullabaloo.

Gosh, the video showing the tracking dogs [maybe GSD or Belgian Malinois?] just tears me up.

I don&#8217;t have the link handy but one I saw the dog seemingly wasn't finding anything of interest to track. So could it be assumed that the attacker was in a vehicle based on that limited footage?


all imo

 

[Chorley8]

"I don’t have the link handy but one I saw the dog seemingly wasn't finding anything of interest to track. So could it be assumed that the attacker was in a vehicle based on that limited footage?" quoting previoust post

Any opinions here? I see SillyBilly and others have had dogs even Shepherds - could that drizzly (snow as well (?) ) day have been deliberately chosen for the crime misty etc. This could answer another of our conundrums why the need to discover the body. Then your scent would lead to your car but of course you are the one who called LE all quite innocent.The interesting thing is that the dogs didn't lead into the fields or cemetery so yes you are probably right about the vehicle - unless the weather would have obscured things I don't know.

I am surprised to see the police vehicles parked right in front of the garage.


One of my amateur reseach interests is Nazis in Canada, the whole sordid history of Nazi scientists brought to North America there is wild probably inaccurate stuff on the web on this though the essence of it is of course firmly historical. There is some interesting stuff very detailed by someone who said they lived around Chalk River the claim in 50s early 60s Chalk River had massive military importance and was the source of nuclear proliferation at that time. I think even the Wiki article on the place does state a bit of this. There were two nuclear accidents at Chalk River in the 50s of course. I am only bringing this up as background since I seriously doubt Audrey could have any scientific knowledge relevant to the present day world. If it had anything to do with her days at Chalk River which I seriously seriously doubt but do not rule out - I think it would have to be something she was sleuthing. There was recent concern about the safety of the facility of course and it was only started up again on orders of the gov.

Premonition: I was posting a bit on the Wendy Tedford thread a very cold case one of the two girls murdered supposedly had a note in their locker detailing her fears of being murdered in the way she was actually murdered and yet the way she and her friend were murdered way incredibly unusual- if true hard to know what to make of premonitions like this.

 

[LeftCoaster]

The more I think about the dogs-locked-up part of this, the more convinced I am about the killer's having either been an anticipated and invited guest, or having taken advantage of a situation where Audrey was either admitting or seeing out a visitor via the garage. We know for certain she was expecting a visitor on December 27, after which ... no sign or sound of her. We have a strong impression that the expected visitor at the very least wasn't fond of, and at the most was fearful of, the dogs. Makes sense, then, that the dogs would be out of the way, as dotr and SB have also pointed out. Also... might explain why the dogs weren't harmed or killed as part of the grand 'scheme' which has seemed all along to me as one of the most puzzling details. If the killer was too frightened of the dogs to bother with them....

Will throw it out there - what if the murder and the weird Will and estate disposition were entirely different, coinciding elements? I mean, the murder did indeed shock Audrey's nearest and dearest, but then conveniently allowed some getting rid of any current wills in favour of one already "on file"?

For a reason I'm not too clear on myself yet, I am wondering if Audrey had a cellphone. And wondering again at what kind of phone and computer records LE has reviewed in this investigation.:twocents:

 

[Chorley8]

Another "name" to keep in mind is whoever it is that Audrey did not want to see at L.V.'s on Christmas Day. Now all of us dislike certain people and it a long way from this to murder. Or is it?

 

[dotr]

"I don&#8217;t have the link handy but one I saw the dog seemingly wasn't finding anything of interest to track. So could it be assumed that the attacker was in a vehicle based on that limited footage?" quoting previoust post

Any opinions here? I see SillyBilly and others have had dogs even Shepherds - could that drizzly (snow as well (?) ) day have been deliberately chosen for the crime misty etc. This could answer another of our conundrums why the need to discover the body. Then your scent would lead to your car but of course you are the one who called LE all quite innocent.The interesting thing is that the dogs didn't lead into the fields or cemetery so yes you are probably right about the vehicle - unless the weather would have obscured things I don't know.

I am surprised to see the police vehicles parked right in front of the garage.



One of my amateur reseach interests is Nazis in Canada, the whole sordid history of Nazi scientists brought to North America there is wild probably inaccurate stuff on the web on this though the essence of it is of course firmly historical. There is some interesting stuff very detailed by someone who said they lived around Chalk River the claim in 50s early 60s Chalk River had massive military importance and was the source of nuclear proliferation at that time. I think even the Wiki article on the place does state a bit of this. There were two nuclear accidents at Chalk River in the 50s of course. I am only bringing this up as background since I seriously doubt Audrey could have any scientific knowledge relevant to the present day world. If it had anything to do with her days at Chalk River which I seriously seriously doubt but do not rule out - I think it would have to be something she was sleuthing. There was recent concern about the safety of the facility of course and it was only started up again on orders of the gov.

Premonition: I was posting a bit on the Wendy Tedford thread a very cold case one of the two girls murdered supposedly had a note in their locker detailing her fears of being murdered in the way she was actually murdered and yet the way she and her friend were murdered way incredibly unusual- if true hard to know what to make of premonitions like this.

Thanks for posting about Tedford dream, Chorley8. there were a couple of cases that involved some kind of premonition- was their unconscious mind taking note of "danger clues", was Audrey's fear, or statement of fear because she knew that logically she was vulnerable as a smart, outspoken , non-conformist female with a flashy car, living alone in an isolated house?
CANADA Canada - Double murder of Donna Stearne and Wendy Tedford in Toronto ON, 1973 - Page 9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[SideKick]

The whole 'young and close' bothers me tremendously. Why they think that? Young? Come on? Close? What does that mean, the perp lived close to A? Perhaps they use that phrase as a red flag...to bug the true perp who actually maybe young and close.
I gather who ever did this to Audrey has indeed had practice, this type of crime doesn't sound like a first timer.
Hopefully, LE has taken her computer apart for forensics and done a detailed search of all emails/finger prints and downloaded files.

 

[dotr]

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Baryon
"When Quinn transported the USS Voyager to just before the Big Bang in 2372, a build-up of baryonic particles was detected outside. (VOY: "Death Wish")

Baryons are heavy subatomic particles, including protons and neutrons. As all compounds in the universe contain these particles, a process which eliminates baryons wouldn't leave much behind. We can assume that the baryon sweep refers to a specific type of heavy subatomic particle created by the subspace field of warp drive, rather than the entire family of them. A baryon sweep would thus indeed be dangerous to organic matter, for the reason stated above"


Barium and "chemtrails"
http://tankerenemy.blogspot.ca/2011/07/artificial-strontium-and-barium-clouds.html

 

[dotr]

Canary trap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Barium meal test

According to the book Spycatcher by Peter Wright (published in 1987) the technique is standard practice that has been used by MI5 (and other intelligence agencies) for many years, under the name "Barium meal test". A Barium meal test is more sophisticated than a canary trap because it is flexible and may take many different forms. However, the basic premise is to reveal a secret to a suspected enemy (but nobody else) then monitor whether there is evidence of the fake information being utilised by the other side. For example, the double agent could be offered some tempting "bait": e.g., be told that important information was stored at a dead drop site. The fake dead drop site could then be periodically checked for signs of disturbance. If the site showed signs of being disturbed (in order to copy the microfilm stored there) then this would confirm that the suspected enemy really was an enemy: e.g., a double agent"

 

[LeftCoaster]

The whole 'young and close' bothers me tremendously. Why they think that? Young? Come on? Close? What does that mean, the perp lived close to A? Perhaps they use that phrase as a red flag...to bug the true perp who actually maybe young and close.
I gather who ever did this to Audrey has indeed had practice, this type of crime doesn't sound like a first timer.
Hopefully, LE has taken her computer apart for forensics and done a detailed search of all emails/finger prints and downloaded files.

Absolutely my feeling, too, SK, that LE has been circumspect in providing information in hopes that the killer will feel motivated to fill in some blanks or out himself in some way, so long as he feels like other POI are keeping investigators off of his trail. "Young and Close" seems more like an "Oops we goofed" redirection from DLS (neither young nor particularly close, and circumstantial at best) than it does a what-to-look-for.

As you remarked, the lack of specifics (what age range constitutes "Young," and is "Close" in a family/acquaintance sense, a geographical sense, or both?) is bothersome. Also, the weird combination of LE welcoming tips from the public, but not offering any useful information to prompt tips, is intriguing to me in this regard. It seems to me that the murder was one with a lot of "only the killer would know for sure" evidence - otherwise, in this age of disclosure, we'd have more information than we knew what to do with or even particularly wanted, IMO.

 

[roseofsharon]

LV was permitted to drop soup off on Dec. 27, but on Dec. 25, A told PK to drop by on Thurs., Dec. 30.

Then A sent an email to PK on Dec. 27 letting him know she had a secondary infection.

It seems as though A was ensuring the two friends she saw the most were being kept away ... LV (once she had dropped off the soup) and PK telling him Dec. 30 would be a better time.

PK would have dropped off the cake, the way LV dropped off the soup, so why put PK off?

Even if A was not up to a visit, PK could have left the cake in the garage for her.

Thinking:waitasec: imo

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

There is a definite *reason* why PK is seemingly absent from Audrey's life from Christmas Day until the 30th.

As roseofsharon said - he easily could have placed the cake in the garage, locked the garage and gone on about his business. I highly doubt the cake needed to be kept warm and steamy right out of the oven.

It's all about the cake. The timing is all about the cake. I suspect the "discrepencies" involve the cake. The details of this murder reside in the cake. Man, that's one killer cake................my humble opinion only.

:moo:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Another thing that's been bothering me about this whole thing is the term "secondary infection". I understand that AG was scientifically-minded, but would a person put that in an e-mail? It seems silly; AG had nothing to prove to anyone.

How certain can we be that all the things we've been told by PK are true? Or, could there be some "discrepencies" in what he's posted?

Just putting that out there........

:doughboy:

 

[Woodland]

LV was permitted to drop soup off on Dec. 27, but on Dec. 25, A told PK to drop by on Thurs., Dec. 30.

Then A sent an email to PK on Dec. 27 letting him know she had a secondary infection.

It seems as though A was ensuring the two friends she saw the most were being kept away ... LV (once she had dropped off the soup) and PK telling him Dec. 30 would be a better time.

PK would have dropped off the cake, the way LV dropped off the soup, so why put PK off?

Even if A was not up to a visit, PK could have left the cake in the garage for her.

Thinking:waitasec: imo

These are excellent points roseofsharon.

In the video following the funeral, it has always bothered me why PK chokes on his words 'last Thursday'. To me, it's like he's wondering if he said that correctly, or did he have the same realization you just pointed out?

The whole LV, PK and e-mail timing with AG over the holidays seems choreographed to me or a game of tag. Not quite natural enough.

 

[bodhi93]

Another thing that's been bothering me about this whole thing is the term "secondary infection". I understand that AG was scientifically-minded, but would a person put that in an e-mail? It seems silly; AG had nothing to prove to anyone.

How certain can we be that all the things we've been told by PK are true? Or, could there be some "discrepencies" in what he's posted?

Just putting that out there........

:doughboy:

Maybe AG was a hypochondriac? it sounded like she was worried about germs and upset with those that would spread them... maybe she was the type that would research every little ache and pain she had... and picked up on the use of the term "secondary infection"

I've found since being on this forum that I've started to use language that others find odd. For example: "Law Enforcement"... I've seen a number of people furrow their brow when I'm talking with them about some news and it involves LE ... most would say The Police or Police Officer...

The other thought I had was that it might be a common term for a Nurse... like the one LWT witness... just as an example.

 

[greenthumb]

LV was permitted to drop soup off on Dec. 27, but on Dec. 25, A told PK to drop by on Thurs., Dec. 30.

Then A sent an email to PK on Dec. 27 letting him know she had a secondary infection.

It seems as though A was ensuring the two friends she saw the most were being kept away ... LV (once she had dropped off the soup) and PK telling him Dec. 30 would be a better time.

PK would have dropped off the cake, the way LV dropped off the soup, so why put PK off?

Even if A was not up to a visit, PK could have left the cake in the garage for her.

Thinking:waitasec: imo

Since the cake was a Christmas gift, I expect that the visit was a 'Christmas visit'... one might drop off soup to a sick friend with no visiting expected, but when delivering a Christmas gift, I think many (most?) people would see the visit as part of the package. So it does not seem odd to me at all that AG would ask PK to delay his visit a few days until she felt better. Two entirely different scenarios, IMO.

 

[greenthumb]

There is a definite *reason* why PK is seemingly absent from Audrey's life from Christmas Day until the 30th.

As roseofsharon said - he easily could have placed the cake in the garage, locked the garage and gone on about his business. I highly doubt the cake needed to be kept warm and steamy right out of the oven.

It's all about the cake. The timing is all about the cake. I suspect the "discrepencies" involve the cake. The details of this murder reside in the cake. Man, that's one killer cake................my humble opinion only.

:moo:

BBM

If I imagine that I have made a cake for an elderly friend for Christmas... and when I call about delivering it, she says she's unwell and please wait for few days to drop by... then that is what I would do. I would not even think of putting the cake in her garage, locking it and going about my business, as you suggest... because part of the point of delivering the cake would be to have a visit, and because I would do what she asked me to do, not just drop the cake off in her garage even though she asked me to do otherwise.

All just MOO.

 

[greenthumb]

The more I think about the dogs-locked-up part of this, the more convinced I am about the killer's having either been an anticipated and invited guest, or having taken advantage of a situation where Audrey was either admitting or seeing out a visitor via the garage. We know for certain she was expecting a visitor on December 27, after which ... no sign or sound of her. We have a strong impression that the expected visitor at the very least wasn't fond of, and at the most was fearful of, the dogs. Makes sense, then, that the dogs would be out of the way, as dotr and SB have also pointed out. Also... might explain why the dogs weren't harmed or killed as part of the grand 'scheme' which has seemed all along to me as one of the most puzzling details. If the killer was too frightened of the dogs to bother with them

I fully agree, LC. That is a very plausible explanation of why the dogs were away from AG when she was killed. I tend toward thinking that she was expecting her guest, who turned out to be her killer... and that for some reason, she may not have wanted anyone else to know about that guest. In fact, I believe that she may have exaggerated the extent/duration of her illness in order to keep PK/LV/(others?) at bay for a while because she had 'other business' of some kind planned with whoever that guest may have been. I think along the lines of a secret lover? perhaps a married man, hence the need for secrecy? Or someone who she found distasteful in some way? Or perhaps, the situation/circumstances that connected her to that person was something she found distasteful or embarrassing. The more I think about it, the more I think that AG may have been a woman with a secret - a secret that in the end is providing cover for her killer. All just MOO.

 

[greenthumb]

Another thing that's been bothering me about this whole thing is the term "secondary infection". I understand that AG was scientifically-minded, but would a person put that in an e-mail? It seems silly; AG had nothing to prove to anyone.

My take on the wording 'secondary infection' is that she may have made that up entirely, to delay PK's visit... if she really had no new symptoms, but thought that by telling him that her illness had developed into something else, she could delay him a few days, then she may have used a generic term like 'secondary infection', whereas if she really had additional symptoms, she would have described them - as in "and now my glands are swollen, too". The fact that it is not specific makes me question if it was true.

MOO