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

[No_Stone_Unturned]

To me, this indicates that trophies taken were NOT from Audrey's body but rather items from her house/garage/car.

And THAT indicates that the killer was inside the house/car.

QUESTION:

Why/how did the killer leave no DNA somewhere in her house/garage/car? To me, leaving NO DNA would be nearly impossible to do. Unless he wore a hazmat/space suit! :scared:

:twocents:

--------------------

ETA:

Quoted from GT's post above:

<<< There are items missing from Audrey’s house, he says. What they are, he won’t say. Valuables? Trophies? >>>

Now I'm thinking that the valuables were the trophies!

So......this makes it certain that the killer was indeed inside Audrey's home/car. HOW ON EARTH DID HE FAIL TO LEAVE AN UNEXPLAINED DNA?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

More....quoted from GT's post 2 posts up:

<<< My interpretation is that the taking of a 'souvenir' was related to the sexual component, which was a 'perverse' act. Which has led some of us to speculate that the souvenir may have been an intimate body part. >>>



OK, so NOW I'm having TWO different thoughts about it all:

- there were items missing from Audrey's home/car which COULD have been trophies

- in addition, when her body was defiled there was more trophy-taking (for example if he took underwear from her house he also perhaps took the underwear which she was wearing when killed......)

Did that make any sense to anyone here?

:drumroll:

 

[dotr]

If one combined "sexual component" with "trophy", it could be an award/trophy for "Beauty Queen", or "Hottest Teacher" ect. or a photograph of a young and lovely Audrey. imo.

 

[dreamwatcher]

I think that the "sexual component" was exploited by newspapers- The sexual componant, if any, was probably that the side of her slacks were ripped, as per PK's observation upon finding her deceased. - and this sexual componant business took off exploding outward to anyone's imagination from the news headlines.
--- and became fact ----

Now, I would be more interested in knowing as to what was missing from her home or garage, as was reported (if indeed this reporting is correct)---furthermore, since Audrey lived alone --- who would know what was missing in order to report it to the police in the first place?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that a 'sexual component' was indeed sexual in nature. Who knows aht that was?

I also am VERY interested in learning about the thing(s) which were taken from Audrey's home/car. For me, this indicates that the killer had access to the house (or car) while LE says there "was no forced entry".

Still......many questions......:scared:

 

[LilyMacBloom]

Green, I couldn't access your link just above but from the original post on thread 1

http://www.thespec.com/news/crime/article/308663--cops-cagey-about-lynden-murder-investigation

She had been stabbed multiple times, injured in other ways police have not specified, and was sexually assaulted

Bracing against the wind at the foot of Audrey's long gravel driveway on Indian Trail Road, Hrab's answers to media questions make some aspects of the case more clear, others more certain.


There are items missing from Audrey's house, he says. What they are, he won't say. Valuables? Trophies?

Some items have been found during the ground searches. He again won't say what they are and adds detectives do not know for sure they relate to the homicide.


-I'm really disappointed in myself that I didn't read that correctly about the Valuables/trophies. That part was clearly the reporters thoughts not a quote from Hrab (shame on me!)
-also, just so I don't go screwing up again....the last sentence contradicts itself and I end up taking from it that as a fact "items were found" ..(could have been garbage on the side of the road..."do not know for sure they relate to the homicide"

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Lily's post:

<<< She had been stabbed multiple times, injured in other ways police have not specified, and was sexually assaulted



So that settles the 'sexual component' part. :drumroll:

Now, about the items found around the house:

QUESTIONS:

-was the killer actually INSIDE the house and took items/trophies?

-or was Audrey's garbage pail(s) attacked by a hungry raccoon and the raccoon let items scatter about?

Do we know when Audrey's garbage day was in relation to the killing? Would her garbage have been left at the end of her driveway? Did the killer gain entrance WHILE Audrey was taking out the garbage?


Now, to contradict my own thoughts.....didn't Audrey ALWAYS take the dogs with her down the driveway? That might detract a potential killer. AND also, items which were important to her would NOT be placed in the garbage for the raccoons. If the 'items' were wedding pics, University degrees, underwear, things that congratulated her (Best Teacher of the Year, etc.) I doubt they would go into the garbage.

:scared:

Finally, another part of Lily's post:

<<< injured in other ways >>>.

This is apparently different from the stabbing. A trauma to the head? Something placed in her mouth (thinking sexual in nature)? <MODNSIP> (apologies for the graphic images here). Was she naked except for the shoes and ripped pants?

It boggles my mind.........:twocents:

 

[Chorley8]

"Police still did not interview Audrey's ex-husband, Allan Gleave, or her former brother-in-law, David Gleave, who had been in touch with her in recent years &#8212; although he said he phoned police himself offering assistance.

David Scott has been renting a room downtown in Brantford. He remains an unofficial person of interest in the investigation &#8212; at least that's the impression his lawyer gets.

The house on Indian Trail, meanwhile, was cleared of Audrey's belongings and reportedly purchased by a couple.

In the spring, Allan Gleave was in Hamilton with his wife, visiting his mother. He drove up to see the house he had designed. He couldn't believe the size of the trees they had planted all those years ago."


From Spectator: note that other articles make ex-husbad sound remote, living up north, hadn't seen Audrey for years, here he is visiting Mom (in Ancaster?) in spring 2010 and driving by Audrey's house almost certainly a deliberate trip- now if taken at face value it would seem this was his first visit in years o/w why mention the size of the trees - unless it is mild dissimulation and he had driven by many times and the size of the trees was part of a broader reckoning of time. Article says he was the one that insisted that Audrey live in the house and never sell it. So you run after a young woman in your karate class and then direct your ex that she has to stay put (?) Obsessed with the house doesn't want anyone else living in it not I think a common response for someone running off with a younger woma - it does sounds controlling, a bit obsessive. Was she given the house or did he battle through a lawyer? He makes it sounds amicable- was it?

As I have said before someone with last name has real estate business in Ancaster on main drag.

One idea to keep in mind is that there could have been some OTHER attempt to get Audrey's property or money but that the person unknown had to stand down and allow LV to do her work and take the house for reasons we don't know - crime got out of control, LV smarter, even LV outsmarted them going a bit further, fear of police following crime, went silent.

We don't know the specifics of the break-up but knowing Audrey it is not IMPOSSIBLE that husband tried to reconcile but she told her where to get off so be ended up in the other relationship. Pure speculation but it happens.
LE Wells article says didn't interview him or his brother though they helpfully offered.

 

[Chorley8]

NO Stone recent post:

"QUESTIONS:

-was the killer actually INSIDE the house and took items/trophies?

-or was Audrey's garbage pail(s) attacked by a hungry raccoon and the raccoon let items scatter about?

Do we know when Audrey's garbage day was in relation to the killing? Would her garbage have been left at the end of her driveway? Did the killer gain entrance WHILE Audrey was taking out the garbage?


Now, to contradict my own thoughts.....didn't Audrey ALWAYS take the dogs with her down the driveway? That might detract a potential killer. AND also, items which were important to her would NOT be placed in the garbage for the raccoons. If the 'items' were wedding pics, University degrees, underwear, things that congratulated her (Best Teacher of the Year, etc.) I doubt they would go into the garbage."


It is EXTREMELY unusual I have finally decided for Audrey to be quite this cautious. Unless there had been incidents. AND it is EXTREMELY unusual to believe that one day you will be raped and killed in your home. More so to have it happen. And you have told this to your brother in law. Yet LE doesn't want to talk to him, strange.

Now on the very old cold case Wendy Tedford/Donna Stearne apologies since I have mentioned this once before maybe on this thread that one of the girls supposedly had a dream of being killed the way (unusual in itself) that she was killed police found the written account in her high school locker. So just a caveat it can happen.

Is David Gleave leaving out the NAME of the person Audrey had feared would rape and killer her in her home I almost wrote "his" home the ex husband's.

 

[Chorley8]

"Hamilton police executed search warrants on Audrey’s home and the barn six kilometres away. They did not report any items stolen from the house.

The sexual assault and murder of an older woman in her home was a story in media across the country.

Soon after the news broke, the phone rang at the home of David Gleave in British Columbia. It was his brother, Allan, on the line.

"Allan Gleave was Audrey’s ex-husband. To David, Allan did not sound upset, the voice was matter-of-fact. But then, Allan had not been in touch with her for many years.

“Did you hear the news about Audrey?” Allan asked.

Allan had not been contacted by Hamilton detectives about the murder. Police would not call Audrey’s ex-husband for five months. Instead he had heard the news when Hamilton Spectator reporter Danielle Wong called him.

Unlike his brother, David had been in touch with Audrey in recent years. He remembered something she once told him.

Audrey had said she feared she would one day be raped and murdered in her home." Wells article Spectator

I know we dig through these same articles again and again but we have little else to go on.

Voice matter of act not upset note mother did not tell him I thought he was visiting her in Ancaster or around heard from a reporter. Really?

Yet went out of his way to drive by Audrey's house in the spring remember this almost certainly was a deliberate trip.

The house: was Audrey harrassed, messed with? Not accusing ex-husband but there might be an entire word there old acquantances, friends we don't know enough about. The Spec articles tend to helpfully make him seem remote in space and time. Yes Mom living there or around! Are the real estate people in Wilson Street relatives or just same name?

Did anyone want the house? Who wouldn't regret selling or gifting a house with 45 acres near Ancaster. Which brings us back to what I take to be the ridiculous selling price. Too low something up there. And if anything is planned for the area that not everybody knows about then you could make millions from a resale. But now it is LV who ends up with the house to sell it - this case is confusing nothing fits.

Silly Billy could you remind me of how the chronology of the marriage fits in with the Chalk River work of 1. Audrey and 2. father. how many years about etc.

Now when DG talked with Audrey did he pass on the conversation to the brother or was he like "that was then I want to forget don't want to talk about Audrey" or was he keeping up with her through the brother.

Why the drive past the house in the spring? Notices the trees have grown i.e you cannot see the house well from the road. A factor in the case is of course that the house is hidden (now) from the road.

Brother doesn't say voice was matter of fact but he was always matter of fact - gives excuse of having not seen her for years.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Chorley8 above:

<<< Why the drive past the house in the spring? Notices the trees have grown i.e you cannot see the house well from the road. A factor in the case is of course that the house is hidden (now) from the road. >>>



Extremely interesting!! Of course, trees DO grow. But was he trying to see how TALL and THICK the trees had become.......in order to hide someone? Was he hoping for a forest-like area?

Hmmmmm.................:twocents:

 

[dreamwatcher]

One further thought, re: ripped pants.

The abdoman, upon death bloats first, thus her pants could have been ripped from the pressure of internal gasses building up.

A peron raping her would not pull her pants back up. The witness who discovered her, said that the side of her pants were ripped. No mentioning of her slacks pulled down at all!

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I highly doubt that it was a rape per se.....too much chance of DNA being left on the scene.

It was a 'sexual component'. In my mind, that implies an implement left on/near her body, in her mouth, sexual toys left, pics left, something placed inside her pants (hence the ripped pants).

:twocents:

 

[dotr]

Stranger things have happened...

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...le_in_connection_with_kidnapping_robbery.html
"
Police are looking for a Toronto couple accused of robbing and kidnapping an elderly woman.


“These incidents are very disturbing,” said Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou, during a press conference Monday morning, “and we are very concerned.”


Police report that on April 9, the man and woman allegedly approached the victim as she walked her dog in the Eglinton Ave. W and Allen Rd. area.


After asking for directions to the nearest hospital, the female suspect allegedly placed a fake gold necklace on the victim’s neck and pressured her for money, which she gave to them.


Police report that using fear and intimidation, the couple allegedly went on follow the victim home"

 

[dotr]

BBm.
If a killer is ever named, guess it would be better if there was not a sexual motivation.
Dogs were in the house?
Someone nearby must have noticed.imo.


http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2011/02/11/man_arrested_in_retired_teachers_stabbing_death.html
"The charge of first-degree murder can be laid when police believe the murder was planned or if it includes sexual assault.

Hrab said there was a sexual component to the crime.

Gleave&#8217;s viciously attacked and stabbed body was found in the garage of her Indian Trail home around 11 a.m. Thursday, Dec. 30, 2010. Her two big German shepherds &#8212; Togi and Schatzen &#8212; were in the house"

 

[dreamwatcher]

I was under the impression that they do have dna, and that is why Scott was let free.
His dna did not match.

 

[dotr]

Maybe this is the type of perp that attacked Audrey ( he was mad at his girlfriend)


http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/05/01/man-who-pulled-pants-down-on-9-women-gets-23-months-in-jail

"The victims, in their teens to early 40s, told the same story &#8212; Griffiths struck from behind, usually in the morning, and tried to yank down their pants or pantyhose beneath their skirt then walked away calmly.

Several were totally exposed and three had their genitals grabbed or groped.

In one assault on Lebreton St., Griffiths forced a woman to the ground, pulled her pants and underwear down and grabbed her pelvis. She knocked a cigarette laden with DNA from his lips.

His blood was also found on the clothing of another woman, who he grabbed so hard as she walked at 8 a.m. that her underwear tore"

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

But I always keep going back to what the FBI profiler (I think that's who it was??:blushing said - Audrey knew her killer and there was no forced entry.

And yes - there must be DNA because DLS was released and one of the reasons was that 'the DNA didn't match'. That phrase tells me that there was no DNA from DLS in/around Audrey's house.

So..........whose DNA do they have? And why can't they make an arrest? :stormingmad:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

BBm.
If a killer is ever named, guess it would be better if there was not a sexual motivation.
Dogs were in the house?
Someone nearby must have noticed.imo.


http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2011/02/11/man_arrested_in_retired_teachers_stabbing_death.html
"The charge of first-degree murder can be laid when police believe the murder was planned or if it includes sexual assault.

Hrab said there was a sexual component to the crime.

Gleave’s viciously attacked and stabbed body was found in the garage of her Indian Trail home around 11 a.m. Thursday, Dec. 30, 2010. Her two big German shepherds — Togi and Schatzen — were in the house"

Maybe there's a definitive definition (if that isn't a redundant phrase!!:blushing of sexual assault. And perhaps in Audrey's case this definition doesn't apply. And perhaps the killer knows that is the case.

:stormingmad:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Me again! Quoted from dotr above:

<<< If a killer is ever named, guess it would be better if there was not a sexual motivation.
Dogs were in the house?
Someone nearby must have noticed.imo. >>>



Opinions:

1. A 'sexual motivation' will make the killer not only a killer but a sexual preditor (sp????):blushing:. I think....in the eyes of the law.

2. Dogs were merely 'in the house' OR were they contained? How do we know?

3. Well yes......someone noticed that the dogs were not running around the yard with Audrey.

But where does this leave us? :scared: