CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #7

[dotr]

I'm left with the impression that Audrey got a new car every once in a while.
Maybe her oven was old and needed to be replaced.
Maybe some local kids were doing silly things on a Friday night.
Maybe she really did feel sick.
Maybe she liked the recording.

I don't see an "opening and closing" theme.

???

moo

None of these things are significant on their own, but when they precede an unsolved murder everything counts imo.
Not suggesting opening and closing of things was a theme, just my own observation.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from GT:

<<< IIRC, the only evidence we have that PK is a POI, comes from his own understanding of why LE re-interviewed him, as I believe they did all persons related to AG's murder case after DLS's release. But perhaps I missed another source, other than Jon Well's quoting PK as saying that's what he understood - do we have any other evidence that LE stated that PK was a POI? >>>



IIRC, PK HIMSELF told us here that he's a POI. He mentioned something about again in August (of 2011) LE asked him to take a second polygraph AND LE said once again he's a POI.

And......as always......I could be wrong. :blushing:

:back: :rollercoaster: :back:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoting again from GT:

<<< LE indicating to him that there were inconsistencies in his polygraph is a common interrogation technique - they suggest those inconsistencies to gauge the person's reaction to a supposed 'failure' on the polygraph and to apply pressure. It is a documented technique, including at this link - http://www.ap-ls.org/links/confessions.pdf >>>



Well, this is (for ME!!!) even stronger evidence (for lack of a better word) that LE are looking at PK as the doer. BUT, I COULD BE TERRIBLY WRONG HERE.....

Questions:

- did ALL people involved with AG take polygraphs and "fail"??
- did LV take the test and "fail"?
- did LF also "fail"?
- did all of AG's former students "fail"?
- did LE put the pressure on DLS and did he also "fail"?
- did the vet "fail"?
- on and on and on............

:nevermind: :doorhide: :nevermind:

 

[greenthumb]

Quoted from GT:

<<< IIRC, the only evidence we have that PK is a POI, comes from his own understanding of why LE re-interviewed him, as I believe they did all persons related to AG's murder case after DLS's release. But perhaps I missed another source, other than Jon Well's quoting PK as saying that's what he understood - do we have any other evidence that LE stated that PK was a POI? >>>



IIRC, PK HIMSELF told us here that he's a POI. He mentioned something about again in August (of 2011) LE asked him to take a second polygraph AND LE said once again he's a POI.

And......as always......I could be wrong. :blushing:

:back: :rollercoaster: :back:

Not at all... that is exactly my point... that to my knowledge, the only source of that info was PK himself... and that telling him so may also have been a LE interrogation technique. So I am asking if LE ever publicly stated to MSM that he was a POI?

 

[greenthumb]

Quoting again from GT:

<<< LE indicating to him that there were inconsistencies in his polygraph is a common interrogation technique - they suggest those inconsistencies to gauge the person's reaction to a supposed 'failure' on the polygraph and to apply pressure. It is a documented technique, including at this link - http://www.ap-ls.org/links/confessions.pdf >>>



Well, this is (for ME!!!) even stronger evidence (for lack of a better word) that LE are looking at PK as the doer. BUT, I COULD BE TERRIBLY WRONG HERE.....

Questions:

- did ALL people involved with AG take polygraphs and "fail"??
- did LV take the test and "fail"?
- did LF also "fail"?
- did all of AG's former students "fail"?
- did LE put the pressure on DLS and did he also "fail"?
- did the vet "fail"?
- on and on and on............

:nevermind: :doorhide: :nevermind:

Of course, LE would want to rule PK out, since he discovered AG's body, so investigation into him would be expected, IMO. And when the case was re-opened after DLS was released, LE went back to square one with the investigation - so that PK was interrogated again is also not surprising to me. That LE would use a common interrogation technique by suggesting to him (perhaps without basis) that there were inconsistencies in the polygraph is also not surprising to me. We should expect LE to use all techniques and tools available to them to come to the truth.

If LE have not named PK publicly as a POI - and I stand to be corrected, I just have not found a link in which they have - then I think it is possible that they may have told him that privately, to exert a little pressure on him, hoping to force a reaction if he was involved in AG's murder. If so, that would be a particular technique they were using, not necessarily indicative that he was the 'prime' suspect. They may have used similar techniques on others, we just have not been told. And presumably, PK did not succumb to that pressure nor reveal anything that would indicate to LE that he was the guilty party - because LE did not lay any charges against him even though he has apparently been thoroughly investigated - not once, but twice.

I do not believe that it has been stated anywhere that PK 'failed' a polygraph, has it?

As to your other questions - we simply do not know, do we? Because no one on your list, other than PK, has revealed any of that info... which does not mean that such info does not exist.

IMO, PK may have inadvertently drawn the 'focus' to himself here because he was so forthright - both here on WS, as well as in his interview with Jon Wells. It is only through his sharing of his perspective of what he was told by LE that we have heard about inconsistencies in his polygraph, correct?

I do not know that PK was or was not involved in AG's murder. But the balance of the evidence/information that we have available to us at this time suggests to me that LE has forensic evidence which does not implicate him.

Which, then, must implicate someone else, presumably someone who LE has not yet interviewed/interrogated.

All just MOO.

 

[Pink Panther]

Here is an article where PK himself tells John Wells that LE sees him as a POI. Also, a link to the original "Amazing Grace" video that Audrey sent out:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2123220-audrey-s-case-gets-colder/

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from GT:

<<< I do not believe that it has been stated anywhere that PK 'failed' a polygraph, has it? >>>



It's a matter of semantics. In reality, NO ONE ever "fails" a polygraph. Rather, a polygraph indicates truth and/or deception.

PK told us (or maybe it was Jon Wells) that "there were discrepencies in the polygraph".

Example:

a) 1 + 1 = 9

b) 1 + 1 = 2

In a), I'm incorrect. There is a 'discrepency' in my answers. In b), I went back and changed my answer. So.....my entire math test here is inconsistent. One answer is correct and one answer is incorrect. And (let's say) I gave both answers in TWO separate polygraphs.

:twocents:

:dunno:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Back to Pink Panther's link:

My question - are Jon Wells' articles considered MSM??????????? :blushing:

In my own most humble opinion, I'd have to say yes. And coming from PK himself, I'd assume he'd be truthful with Jon Wells. Why would he say that if it isn't true? Just to insert himself FURTHER into the AG murder? That's bizarre.

:twocents:

 

[greenthumb]

Here is an article where PK himself tells John Wells that LE sees him as a POI. Also, a link to the original "Amazing Grace" video that Audrey sent out:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2123220-audrey-s-case-gets-colder/

Yes, I acknowledged in my posts that PK told Jon Wells that he was told that LE considered him a POI. The source of that information was PK.

I was inquiring as to whether there was any other independent source that named him as a POI?

Because LE telling that to PK personally during the course of the investigation may have been just to shake things up a bit, putting pressure on all sides of an investigation hoping that something would give. Others may also have been told the same thing, we don't know because no one else is talking. JMO

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

To answer the question about MSM - IIRC, LE only made a big deal out of arresting DLS. YAY, they solved the case. YAY, they got the killer. YAY, all's well.

And we all know how that worked for them. :drumroll:

:twocents:

 

[colette]

Discrepancies are not the same as failed polygraph or deception.

 

[greenthumb]

Back to Pink Panther's link:

My question - are Jon Wells' articles considered MSM??????????? :blushing:

In my own most humble opinion, I'd have to say yes. And coming from PK himself, I'd assume he'd be truthful with Jon Wells. Why would he say that if it isn't true? Just to insert himself FURTHER into the AG murder? That's bizarre.

:twocents:

Yes, Jon Wells is MSM.

I am saying that I like to consider the source of information, even when it is in MSM, to assess its reliability. In this case, the source was PK.

PK was told by LE that he was a POI and that his polygraph showed inconsistencies, and PK told that to JW.

I would lend more credence to the information if it had been told directly by LE to JW.

Coming from PK only leads me to question why LE told him that - and if the reason may have been to just gauge his reaction to see if he would get rattled, and if he WAS hiding something, if he'd spill it under pressure. Apparently, that did not happen - or if it did, we have not heard of it.

It seems reasonable to assume that LE would have requested PK to take a second polygraph if they were serious about him as a POI, since the first one reportedly showed discrepancies. Yet there was no mention of that, to my knowledge.

 

[Pink Panther]

Is this still an open case? If so, do we know who is the detective in charge? Why has there been NO INFORMATION whatsoever in a year?

moo

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Jon Wells' Book:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=JY4..._esc=y#v=onepage&q=audrey gleave case&f=false

The case is still open. Ian Matthews is the lead detective. Gave a vague response when being asked if an arrest was coming soon. The case is "ongoing".

Enjoy the read!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

1. Obviously PK had many reasons feeling used and hurting his pride.
2. He knows AG already since he had been youth; a sexual aspect is possible I think. - Perhaps he has a problem with his mother too?
3. The unfairly inheritance in future had been most important to PK I think.
4. PK had always suspious behavior already while discovering AG. An old "friend" never reacts without emotions like him.
5. Interviewing him after funeral services he "every 3 seconds" said YOU KNOW to get time thinking of next half true falsehood (just like Jodi Arias during statements full of lies).
5. PK's eyes are looking insincere; his facial impression doesn't fit to honest and intelligent persons. BTW: AK's expression looks same too.
6. PK's delivery of 1 Christstollen and several calls and so on ... turns away from much more important things and it looks like PK's intention. Something is wrong around this.
All MOO and sorry for my English learned 55 years ago.

 

[Woodland]

Welcome FromGermany - nice to see your interest in the case. I agree with all your points on PK!

Your English is fine btw - easy to understand!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

7. The café near McMaster Uni where AG spent her time on Wednesday: Perhaps she had a specially date every Wednesday too and therefore emailed to PK she would visit by all means? Why/at which place/to which purpose - I don't know.
All my suspicion. Thank you!http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/blushing.gif

 

[greenthumb]

Here's hoping that some day soon, we all know for sure if suspicions about PK are valid or not... that an arrest is made and a conviction secured. We all have a common goal, which is justice for AG - no matter who her killer is. Sadly, for now... we wait and pray that LE is more vigorously pursuing this case than it appears.

It's troubling to me that AG had no family left behind who would make regular calls to LE and keep up the pressure, demanding answers and trying to keep her case on the front burner. Do you suppose anyone does that for her? Who might? LV? Certainly not her ex husband.

Would that have made a difference, if she had someone close who was relentless in their pursuit of justice on her behalf?

 

[dotr]

7. The café near McMaster Uni where AG spent her time on Wednesday: Perhaps she had a specially date every Wednesday too and therefore emailed to PK she would visit by all means? Why/at which place/to which purpose - I don't know.
All my suspicion. Thank you!http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/blushing.gif

Welcome to Ws FromGermany, great idea about" Wednesday coffee meetings"
and the possibility that it could also be a regular "date night"!

 

[MsSherlock]

Here's hoping that some day soon, we all know for sure if suspicions about PK are valid or not... that an arrest is made and a conviction secured. We all have a common goal, which is justice for AG - no matter who her killer is. Sadly, for now... we wait and pray that LE is more vigorously pursuing this case than it appears.

It's troubling to me that AG had no family left behind who would make regular calls to LE and keep up the pressure, demanding answers and trying to keep her case on the front burner. Do you suppose anyone does that for her? Who might? LV? Certainly not her ex husband.

Would that have made a difference, if she had someone close who was relentless in their pursuit of justice on her behalf?

Just popping in on this thread, but I'm really surprised that PK is being dragged in again. AG was the victim of a sexual assault. LE does have forensic evidence in this case. DNA is an innocent persons best friend. If LE's forensic evidence doesn't match up with a POI, then I don't think they can be considered a POI anymore, regardless if he's still considering himself one. I think it could be natural paranoia-I can't imagine being an innocent person, who has lost a friend under such scrutiny and LE interrogation. The fact is that someone matches the DNA they found on the scene and that someone is still out there and we know it's not PK. Trying to figure out all sorts of reasons why the DNA didn't match a POI creates tunnel vision and is really a waste of time. The forensic evidence is a match to someone. JMHO

IMO, just like TB, AG had a car that someone wanted. A car that would loose it's value greatly if it was hot wired-the keys were needed. If the perpetrator(s) had anger issues or were power trippers and this older woman was not listening or providing the keys, I can see how AG could have been so victimized. There's a possibility that even if AG had handed over the keys she would have still been murdered. But that's just MOO