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

[dotr]

If Audrey had plans and was genuinely feeling unwell, or uneasy about a meeting and cancelled the rendezvous, I could see a very immature and insecure person saying "she's faking!" and charging over to confront her about it.

 

[greenthumb]

If Audrey had plans and was genuinely feeling unwell, or uneasy about a meeting and cancelled the rendezvous, I could see a very immature and insecure person saying "she's faking!" and charging over to confront her about it.

Good point, dotr! That fits well, too, IMO.

 

[LeftCoaster]

...If by some chance it was a child of AG's (who most likely would not be all that 'young' any more, but could be what? in his twenties possibly, more likely older than 30), then I believe the rage came from AG's denial of that child, her refusal to change her will, etc to acknowledge him.

But I lean more toward the secret/online relationship gone wrong ... and that somehow her online love interest sleuthed her out and insisted on a face to face meeting.

I recall reading former students' comments re: her authoritative manner with those younger than herself, and can imagine that she would attempt to deal quite sternly with such demands from someone younger than herself and try to control the situation, which may have incited his violent rage.

This scenario competes with the 'unknown person from her past' theory in my contemplations.

<rsbm; rbbm>

I've written before that a child of Audrey's, particularly if issue from that first [Bohnart] marriage, would be around 60 by now, so theoretically we could be looking at a grandchild in his (I use that pronoun deliberately) 20s or 30s. Which brings the topic of the LW&T back, IMO. But, GT, I'm with you on the 'guest' scenario, and very much inclined to believe that online activity has a big part in this.

Very grateful to SW for the input wrt authenticating PK.

We're going in some interesting directions here!

 

[dreamwatcher]

Whomever she met that day or evening, she let them in. It was someone that she knew.
I think she did not go to the coffee group that day, or even the evening before, she had a meeting with someone over serious business in that garage. She felt confident enough to leave her dogs in the house in their cages. So that person may have been there before. I don't think that it would be a regular cast of characers in her then immediate life, but someone whom she never discussed with her friends.
Audrey by all accounts could be secretive. Perhaps the e-mail of the Amazing Grace brought back memories, and could have been sent to the person whom she met in the garage? No?
If not the song, but perhaps the orchestra (can't recall the head of it - very famous name) could have been sent to her of the same national persuasion.
And if so, why would she share it? Out of happiness?

 

[shadowraiths]

If not the song, but perhaps the orchestra (can't recall the head of it - very famous name)

Andre Rieu: Amazing Grace ( link )

 

[greenthumb]

<rsbm; rbbm>

I've written before that a child of Audrey's, particularly if issue from that first [Bohnart] marriage, would be around 60 by now, so theoretically we could be looking at a grandchild in his (I use that pronoun deliberately) 20s or 30s. Which brings the topic of the LW&T back, IMO. But, GT, I'm with you on the 'guest' scenario, and very much inclined to believe that online activity has a big part in this.

Very grateful to SW for the input wrt authenticating PK.

We're going in some interesting directions here!

Definitely agree that a child would most likely be from the first marriage! but if we go all the way to the other end of AG's childbearing years, it seems possible (from a purely physiological standpoint) that she could have had a child in that same age range (though admittedly a very slim chance, since there has been no hint of an unexplained 'interruption' in her teaching career in mid-life).

And yes, that LW&T keeps coming back into play, doesn't it... I don't think PK has been reading here lately, but it would be most interesting if he was able to respond to SB's request for some further information about what AG told him about 'what would happen when she was gone'. And if, in his opinion, the LW&T carried out her wishes, as he understood them.

 

[Sillybilly]

If not the song, but perhaps the orchestra (can't recall the head of it - very famous name) could have been sent to her of the same national persuasion.

<rsbm>

Could certainly explain why LV didn't receive an email with the video ... you wouldn't normally send it back to the person who sent it to you.

 

[greenthumb]

Thinking further about the possible online relationship scenario... LE will surely have checked AG's computers for recent communications, so if this theory has any validity, LE would have to know about it, I assume. Same with phone records... presumably they would know about all her recent calls. So then, if someone from an internet relationship, or someone from her past, contacted her to set up a meeting/visit, is it safe to assume that LE would have contacted/interviewed that person(s)?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Thinking further about the possible online relationship scenario... LE will surely have checked AG's computers for recent communications, so if this theory has any validity, LE would have to know about it, I assume. Same with phone records... presumably they would know about all her recent calls. So then, if someone from an internet relationship, or someone from her past, contacted her to set up a meeting/visit, is it safe to assume that LE would have contacted/interviewed that person(s)?

I'd have to say that an online relationship is highly possible......BUT, LE would have found that person by now via Audrey's computers. He'd either be ruled out as the killer OR he'd have been arrested as the killer!

Could she have been having an online, flirty relationship with someone already known to LE? Someone already in the cast of characters about whom we've been discussing?

I wonder if the computers of all the POI's in this case have been examined by LE.

:twocents:

 

[LilyMacBloom]

same with phone records... presumably they would know about all her recent calls. So then, if someone from an internet relationship, or someone from her past, contacted her to set up a meeting/visit, is it safe to assume that LE would have contacted/interviewed that person(s)?

snipped:....I really don't know too much about phone stuff, however, IF you have a cell phone and use it extensively, (no land line) the cell number is not recognized say by Bell Canada therefore, it shows as an "unknown number" OR said caller could always "block" their number IF calling, therefore, the number still would be "unknown". So LE may not be able to have the records pulled???? (I don't know any of that as factual)

Or that's how I experience Bell, dunno if you have Rogers or some other carrier how that all works. (dunno any of that either for a fact)

OR, the other option may be a "computer to computer call" I haven't used something like that in a very very long time but there used to be all kinds of programs . (altough I guess there would be some record of ISPN ) (although I don't know that either for a fact)

Going back to an on-line bridge chat type room or any other game vs other people on line. ie poker. Perhaps AG played poker on line. (my Grandson says he plays against some real old weirdos who have no idea he's just 14 the reverse is very possible) Actually the more I think about this scenario the scarier it becomes as our "older" generation is more and more computer savy...it might actually make them more vulnerable. I'm rambling

 

[greenthumb]

I'd have to say that an online relationship is highly possible......BUT, LE would have found that person by now via Audrey's computers. He'd either be ruled out as the killer OR he'd have been arrested as the killer!

Could she have been having an online, flirty relationship with someone already known to LE? Someone already in the cast of characters about whom we've been discussing?

I wonder if the computers of all the POI's in this case have been examined by LE.

:twocents:

That's very possible, NSU... and it's also possible that there are other POI's that we are unaware of, and possible that they have become POI's because of online activity. How would we know? LE is playing this case very close to the chest, and we really KNOW very little, unfortunately. We know they have only made one arrest, presumably of the wrong POI... though all we know is that forensic evidence did not support the charges, we don't know that DLS is not still 'liked' by LE as the perp. Presumably, the forensic evidence that is available has not definitively identified any POI in this case, so that leads me to believe that it cannot be anyone that we know LE has interviewed/investigated. All of which just brings me round and round in circles... to no helpful conclusions at all.

LE would need a warrant to examine others' computers, I assume... and a very good reason for the warrant to be granted, right? Not just because they wanted to have a look... or just because there was evidence of contact with AG... there would have to be something related to the crime somehow.

 

[greenthumb]

snipped:....I really don't know too much about phone stuff, however, IF you have a cell phone and use it extensively, (no land line) the cell number is not recognized say by Bell Canada therefore, it shows as an "unknown number" OR said caller could always "block" their number IF calling, therefore, the number still would be "unknown". So LE may not be able to have the records pulled???? (I don't know any of that as factual)

Or that's how I experience Bell, dunno if you have Rogers or some other carrier how that all works. (dunno any of that either for a fact)

OR, the other option may be a "computer to computer call" I haven't used something like that in a very very long time but there used to be all kinds of programs . (altough I guess there would be some record of ISPN ) (although I don't know that either for a fact)

Going back to an on-line bridge chat type room or any other game vs other people on line. ie poker. Perhaps AG played poker on line. (my Grandson says he plays against some real old weirdos who have no idea he's just 14 the reverse is very possible) Actually the more I think about this scenario the scarier it becomes as our "older" generation is more and more computer savy...it might actually make them more vulnerable. I'm rambling

I'm really not up on too much re: the ability to track cell phone calls, computer calls, either. However, it does seem to me that even if a record of calls could be established, what the content of the conversation was in those calls would remain unknown... contrary to emails, for instance, which may be able to be located on the computer hard drive even if deleted, from what I understand. So, even if there were records of some communication via phone or skype or whatever, they may give LE leads to pursue, but not any specific evidence related to the crime, I suppose.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I'm pretty certain that DLS is not a POI. I remember something about there not being any DNA to link him to the crime.

DLS is certainly not a POI.

:twocents:

 

[greenthumb]

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

The Crown has dropped a murder charge in the brutal sex slaying of 73-year-old Audrey Gleave, saying that a conviction was unlikely.

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.

Stewart, however, said police at the time had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Scott.

He couldn’t confirm if Scott, who was released from custody, remains a suspect.“It’s an open case,” Stewart said. “The investigators before and after the arrest were still pursuing other evidence that came forward and we sill continue to review, assess and investigate anything we have and anything else that comes forward.”

BBM

I don't recall reading anything that said that DLS was no longer a POI - just that he had been released because there was not enough evidence, and that the forensic evidence available did not tie him to the case, as LE hoped it would. But there are so many articles out there, perhaps I missed something else that indicated otherwise?

If LE has not actually stated that he is not a POI, then I think we have to at least consider the possibility that he is and that LE may still be pursuing evidence against him.

I personally do not believe he is guilty, for a number of reasons, but of course, my opinion is based on what limited information we have here, and may be different if I was privy to all the evidence that LE has available to them.

All MOO.

 

[greenthumb]

SNIPPED

Going back to an on-line bridge chat type room or any other game vs other people on line. ie poker. Perhaps AG played poker on line. (my Grandson says he plays against some real old weirdos who have no idea he's just 14 the reverse is very possible) Actually the more I think about this scenario the scarier it becomes as our "older" generation is more and more computer savy...it might actually make them more vulnerable. I'm rambling

Lily... what can you (& your grandson) tell us about online poker? Are the stakes quite high? I assume folks play make real bets and lose 'real' money (or win, I suppose!) Do folks play under a user name, then? I wonder how hard it would be to connect a user name to the real life individual, if you were computer savvy?

There has been some discussion of how AG spent her money... this might be an explanation. And might also be an explanation of how she might have made a menacing connection online.

 

[dotr]

Toronto Police news release..
Thursday, February 21, 2013, 9 p.m.,
Twitter's #Fraudchat on how to detect and avoid "romance" scams
Broadcast time: 08:22
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Financial Crimes Unit
416&#8722;808&#8722;7300
Since November 2012, the TPS Financial Crimes Unit has partnered with the Financial
Service Commission of Ontario to educate the public about financial crimes and fraud through
the use of social media.
Every Thursday evening, from 9 p.m., to 10 p.m., EST, these two agencies host an online
one&#8722;hour forum on Twitter called &#8220;#Fraudchat.&#8221; This program seeks to educate and exchange
ideas with the public about financial crimes and fraud. The moderators for this program are
Kristen Rose, (@kristenjrose), Senior Communications Officer of the Financial Services
Commission of Ontario, and Detective Sergeant Cameron Field of the Financial Crimes Unit
(@cfieldFCU).
Tonight&#8217;s program will cover "romance" scams and how to detect and avoid them. Romance
scams victimize people in two ways. They suffer a financial loss often in the thousands of
dollars. Once the fraud is detected, victims experience significant emotional harm.
To follow this program, log on to Twitter and type in #Fraudchat and follow along. Other
applications like &#8220;Tweet Chat.com&#8221; are also helpful in following and contributing to the
program.
During Fraud Prevention Month 2013, in March, #Fraudchat will cover the following topics:
February 28: Fraud and scams targeting seniors
March 7: Home&#8722;renovations scams
March 14: Auto&#8722; insurance fraud
March 21: Life&#8722;insurance fraud
March 28: Staged motor&#8722;vehicle&#8722;accident frauds
Please join us every Thursday evening on #Fraudchat and learn about frauds and scams that
target us.
To learn more about #fraudchat, please visit Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/fraudchat.
For more information on this program, and the Fraud Prevention Month strategy of the
Toronto Police Service, please contact Detective Sergeant Cameron Field at 416&#8722;808&#8722;7300"

 

[Sillybilly]

I don't recall reading anything that said that DLS was no longer a POI - just that he had been released because there was not enough evidence, and that the forensic evidence available did not tie him to the case, as LE hoped it would. But there are so many articles out there, perhaps I missed something else that indicated otherwise?

If LE has not actually stated that he is not a POI, then I think we have to at least consider the possibility that he is and that LE may still be pursuing evidence against him.

I personally do not believe he is guilty, for a number of reasons, but of course, my opinion is based on what limited information we have here, and may be different if I was privy to all the evidence that LE has available to them.

All MOO.

<rsbm>

Yes, he could still be a POI for all we know, but according to PK's post here (paraphrased from memory) after DLS was released, LE started from scratch and really ramped up their investigation on Audrey's associates.

 

[shadowraiths]

<rsbm>

Yes, he could still be a POI for all we know, but according to PK's post here (paraphrased from memory) after DLS was released, LE started from scratch and really ramped up their investigation on Audrey's associates.

That would be correct.

FYI... the police have restarted the investigation "from scratch" so officially I've been told that I am a person of interest again. I wonder if the community can comment, is this normal? As everyone knows, I was interviewed extensively, my car and person searched, myself and shoes were measured and photographed and DNA was collected from me in the first round of investigation where I was originally eliminated. However, the last few weeks have brought new interviews and a polygraph exam.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

<rsbm>

Yes, he could still be a POI for all we know, but according to PK's post here (paraphrased from memory) after DLS was released, LE started from scratch and really ramped up their investigation on Audrey's associates.

Well thank you! I didn't dream that up! The way *I* interpret it is that DLS would not be in the group called "Audrey's associates".

As always, I could be totally wrong here.................:blushing:

 

[greenthumb]

<rsbm>

Yes, he could still be a POI for all we know, but according to PK's post here (paraphrased from memory) after DLS was released, LE started from scratch and really ramped up their investigation on Audrey's associates.

Do you think one has to exclude the other necessarily? I think there could be more than one path the investigation is following... in fact, I hope there is. I know they went back to square one and started over, for which I am thankful... but I don't necessarily believe that they completely abandoned their interest in DLS, either. That's just my belief. I base it in part on a very unofficial remark I heard shortly after DLS's release - from someone connected to LE - which indicated that he was still a POI after the charges were dropped, that the dropping of the charges was due to insufficient evidence to convict, not that they lost interest in him. So, going back to scratch and re-examining AG's acquaintances does not necessarily mean they are not also still investigating & looking for further evidence re: DLS, IMO. But that's just MO.