http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/01/04/its-all-so-horrifying
^ This article has bothered me from the first time I read it, a week after the killing. It felt very staged, considering other reports published at that time.
So, LV is on the record as having been the one to herself take the soup to Audrey on December 27. We know Audrey was expecting company, borne out by the email message sent to PK. Also on the record. We know that that guest was uneasy around the dogs (although, from the look of it, who of Audrey's friends wasn't uneasy around the dogs?), so it follows that Audrey would confine them to their crates before heading to greet her visitor - or her visitor came in.
Analysis of Audrey's stomach contents would be interesting, but unfortunately for us, that information is not available, along with the estimated time of death. In the absence of those details, I speculate as to how they might add up with the facts we do have.
The visitor "was told," by investigators, about an email being sent on Monday evening from Audrey to a friend. That revelation can be taken a few different ways. Given the investigators' erratic fashion around over-divulging on some parts and withholding others, it looks to me - MOO! - as though some canvassing was going on as to who knew what about Audrey's activity following the 'soup drop.' Then, there's this:
again, BBM.
Those seem, to me anyway, to be really strange comments to throw in while discussing something as horrific as your long-time friend's murder, especially when it has turned out that you are the executor of her estate, and on the record as very likely the last person to have seen her alive.
Journalists can, and do, slant their reporting to reflect attitudes of the publication, and editors can finish the job, as well. I wonder whether Vincent Ball smelled any rats, JMO. Or if LE was looking for information and hoping someone would speak up.
Food for thought.
Vanstone said she hasn't been able to sleep since investigators told her what happened to her friend.
"She was an eccentric, eclectic individual and very private," Vanstone said. "Private in a very big way.
"All of the times I visited her, I think I was only in her house once.
"Usually, we sat on a bench outside the house where we would talk."
Vanstone said that Gleave always worried about strangers getting her e-mail address.
She said that Gleave was so private that she never mentioned that she had another friend in Brantford who lived in the same neighbourhood as Vanstone.
Vanstone described Gleave as an intelligent and caring person.
"She was kind and caring and did not ever want to be the focus of attention," Vanstone said. "She was very much a recluse especially in the last few years.
"She loved to talk about recipes, computers, cars, animals, Suduko, TV programs and other mind-boggling things that were over my head. She was unique, giving and a stickler for being on time."
Among Gleave's friends were members of her Wednesday morning coffee group of retired teachers, Vanstone said.
Gleave was an avid golfer with many golfing buddies, Vanstone said.
Gleave lived for her two German Shepherds, her shopping trips to Costco (her favourite store) and summer drives in her racy Chevy Camaro, she added.
"She loved her dogs but I never really trusted them," Vanstone said. "They were always kind of roaming around when I was there and when we sat and talked I didn't dare get up suddenly or make any quick movements."
Gleave had no children. And Vanstone said she believes that Gleave had not spoken to her former husband, who lives in Sturgeon Falls, for years.
Wednesday's memorial likely will draw a lot of people from the area, said Vanstone.
"It has been hard to focus on anything," she said. "It's all so disturbing."
OK superb post not in order:
1. no children husband out of the way - from teller of the tale's point of view no other heirs maybe anxious of the child aspect . Why does everyone know Audrey has not spoken to her ex?
2. Memorial lots of people sounds a bit anxious.
3. Dogs didn't trust them rationalization as to why they had to be caged and drugged (?)
4. Racy car (bugs her) (wants it)
5. Note mentions "recipes" (stollen cake coincidence?) computers (Amazing Grace of courses) (note these are the first two things mentioned AND play part in crime)
6. Yes friend in neighborhood realizes that is a problem so expresses fake incredulity
7. Only in house once not sure just weird.
8. Can't sleep I believe here ok is that the real reason? O/W seems all too cool about it IMO.
9. Private = privates = privates in a big way
10. doesn't ask who would care if a stranger got your email address? Why would they want to contact you if a stranger?