CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #8

[Woodland]

I've been giving this some thought, Woodland... another way to look at it, perhaps... if there had been other threats or she had been targeted in some way previously, she apparently had not shared those concerns with LE either (as far as we know)... so if she mentally linked the mailbox vandalism to some perceived threat, it may have been just one more thing she was either afraid to report or she decided to deal with on her own. Perhaps because she had an inkling as to who her 'stalker' might be, and thought she could handle it herself? Which may have led to her setting up a scenario to catch someone who expected her to be away from the house having coffee with her group on Wednesday (as suggested by previous posters)?

I can see AG may have felt threatened and decided to take care of it herself - she apparently mentioned to a neighbour she did not feel safe to go outside at night without her dogs.

Unfortunately, two things make that fall part for me where AG is concerned. AG did go outside without her dogs on her last night. Prior to that, she is reported to have gone traipsing off to a hardware store to steal a part that belonged to her, following vandalism to her property, risking being caught on a security camera and stopped before she got back into the vehicle she arrived in. The choices make no sense to me from a clever person, or a person that may have felt some sort of threat.

 

[greenthumb]

I can see AG may have felt threatened and decided to take care of it herself - she apparently mentioned to a neighbour she did not feel safe to go outside at night without her dogs.

Unfortunately, two things make that fall part for me where AG is concerned. AG did go outside without her dogs on her last night. Prior to that, she is reported to have gone traipsing off to a hardware store to steal a part that belonged to her, following vandalism to her property, risking being caught on a security camera and stopped before she got back into the vehicle she arrived in. The choices make no sense to me from a clever person, or a person that may have felt some sort of threat.

Do we know, for certain, that AG went outside? or that it was at night? I think we may have assumed both... but do we have any confirmation of either?

However, I think I'm following your train of thought... that AG reportedly mentioned being afraid so would it be reasonable to believe that she would lie in wait to catch a stalker by herself? Likely not.

Re: the story of 'stealing' the part from the hardware store... I just re-read that account recently, and I wondered if the choice of words used may have skewed our perception of that event. PK may have regarded AG's actions as 'stealing' and thought it a bit of a lark, as a young person might... however, I am speculating that AG may have seen it differently. I have the impression that AG might have been impatient with ineptitude... so it occurs to me that she may have just gone directly to the shelf and picked up the missing piece simply because she thought it was owed to her, and she wasn't going to waste her time trying to explain the whole situation to a store clerk who had already inconvenienced her by failing to repack all the parts into the box correctly the first time. That makes the whole story make much more sense to me.

 

[Woodland]

Wondering where the author of the linked article (portion of his book on AG's case) got this statement as a source is not given -

'... even though the dog had spent most of his time in a cage when Audrey had him.'

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Hzi...=onepage&q=audrey gleave + dogs caged&f=false

We have seen accounts about AG's dogs from the two people that went to her home with any sort of frequency or regularity - none mention the dogs were caged at any time during their visits.

"They were always kind of roaming around when I was there and when we sat and talked ..."

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/01/04/its-all-so-horrifying

Plus various posts in thread #2 that the dogs were present and roaming inside and outside with a frequent visitor, and an account from a neighbour that AG's dogs would run to the roadside when the cycled by.

Always caged? It does make a difference in this particular case.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Wondering where the author of the linked article (portion of his book on AG's case) got this statement as a source is not given -

'... even though the dog had spent most of his time in a cage when Audrey had him.'

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Hzi...=onepage&q=audrey gleave + dogs caged&f=false

We have seen accounts about AG's dogs from the two people that went to her home with any sort of frequency or regularity - none mention the dogs were caged at any time during their visits.

"They were always kind of roaming around when I was there and when we sat and talked ..."

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/01/04/its-all-so-horrifying

Plus various posts in thread #2 that the dogs were present and roaming inside and outside with a frequent visitor, and an account from a neighbour that AG's dogs would run to the roadside when the cycled by.

Always caged? It does make a difference in this particular case.

That's very interesting and not known to me before!

 

[Woodland]

I had not noticed the opposing statement either FG - even though I had read that doc.

I'm going to write it off as unverified and therefore likely not true in light of the statements by the only 2 people that could advise how AG's dogs were kept inside the home. Their statements were very descriptive and similar, and given to the media and WS at different times - lending more credibility imo.

 

[Sillybilly]

I had not noticed the opposing statement either FG - even though I had read that doc.

I'm going to write it off as unverified and therefore likely not true in light of the statements by the only 2 people that could advise how AG's dogs were kept inside the home. Their statements were very descriptive and similar, and given to the media and WS at different times - lending more credibility imo.

I suspect someone used an expression like "they were used to being caged" and it was misinterpreted to mean they were always in their cages.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Jon Wells asserts, that he only writes the whole truth.
Therefore I think, an interview partner meant what she/he said. Maybe it had been AG's BIL DG whom Wells had interviewed.

 

[Sillybilly]

Jon Wells asserts, that he only writes the whole truth.
Therefore I think, an interview partner meant what she/he said. Maybe it had been AG's BIL DG whom Wells had interviewed.

Actually, my interpretation is that the article attributes the comment to the new owners who adopted Togi and Schatze after Audrey's death. I really don't attach any negative connotation to whatever those good-hearted folks had to say. JMO

 

[Woodland]

For me, it comes down to the credibility of anything one can find in writing. It could be the writer, the source of the info, the interpretation of the source etc.

FWIW I thought the new owners of one of AG's dogs were innocent bystanders where the caged statement is concerned.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I had read the article "If only AG's dogs could speak" and don't remember this special info about "all the time caging".
DG had given the info about a cluttered home and AG's aversion to visitors. To my mind this also fits the statement about caging. But I just had suspected. MOO :smile:

 

[Chorley8]

Does anyone remember or have a link to the vet's (I think two different) times that he last saw Audrey.

Is it correct to say he was vague about the day and time?


It is interesting to me that the 'loveable vet' label has allowed there to be little scrutiny of the vet practice and I mean in general, anyone working there ditto for the pet cemetary.

Is there any chance that he was the last person to see Audrey alive?

 

[dotr]

Does anyone remember or have a link to the vet's (I think two different) times that he last saw Audrey.

Is it correct to say he was vague about the day and time?


It is interesting to me that the 'loveable vet' label has allowed there to be little scrutiny of the vet practice and I mean in general, anyone working there ditto for the pet cemetary.

Is there any chance that he was the last person to see Audrey alive?

http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/lynden-honours-audrey-gleave/


" Veterinarian Dudley Collins cared for Gleave’s pets for over

30 years. Just days before her death, Gleave visited Collins’ home to pick up

some medications for her two German Shepherd dogs, Togi and Schatzen.

“They were her life, those dogs,” said Collins.

Collins, who retired as a vet from Mountain Animal Hospital

in 1994, is also the founder of the Ancaster Pet Cemetery on Book Road West.

Gleave had three or four pets buried at the cemetery and often visited the site

to pay her respects.

“She was just an all-around good friend,” said Collins. “I

never heard her say a bad word about anyone.”

 

[dotr]

Another vet reference .

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2216816-audrey-s-story-continues/

" After Christmas, she felt under the weather. Monday morning, Dec. 27, Audrey emailed Phil and declared she would make her Wednesday coffee meeting come hell or high water. Lynne Vanstone brought her soup.

Monday afternoon she loaded Togi and Schatze into the Camaro and visited veterinarian Dudley Collins in Ancaster to pick up vitamins for the German shepherds. She let the dogs run on his property as usual. She gave him a hug when she left, as she often did.

Later that day, at about 6 p.m., she emailed a friend, Linda. She forwarded Linda the same music video she had sent Phil that morning"

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Chorleigh8 and dotr,

2 x thanks, if I only can click 1 x "thanks"! :thumb:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Another vet reference .

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2216816-audrey-s-story-continues/

" After Christmas, she felt under the weather. Monday morning, Dec. 27, Audrey emailed Phil and declared she would make her Wednesday coffee meeting come hell or high water. Lynne Vanstone brought her soup.

Monday afternoon she loaded Togi and Schatze into the Camaro and visited veterinarian Dudley Collins in Ancaster to pick up vitamins for the German shepherds. She let the dogs run on his property as usual. She gave him a hug when she left, as she often did.

Later that day, at about 6 p.m., she emailed a friend, Linda. She forwarded Linda the same music video she had sent Phil that morning"

Yes!!! Important, though I don't know the source.

 

[Woodland]

Even the source may or may not be correct.

Brantford and Hamilton report a temperature of -4C the afternoon of 27 Dec 2010 - Hamilton reports a wind chill of -12 to -14C on the same afternoon.

The week before makes more sense to me if she wanted to see her friend around the holidays, pick up vitamins for the dogs and let them have a run on the friends property for a change of scenery, but that's jmo.

 

[Sillybilly]

from The Spec Jan 5, 2011:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2182146-friends-remember-audrey-gleave/

“They won’t be euthanized,” said Gleave’s veterinarian, Dudley Collins, who knew her for 30 years and last saw her a couple of days before Christmas.

<bbm>

 

[Chorley8]

First thank you everyone for saving me painstaking research that I don't have time for but that quite reasonably I was asked for.

So I think it is correct to say there are two different times (?)

Am I correct (not thinking all that clearly these days sorry) that the vet could be the last person to see Audrey alive.

So that the one possibility for his visit comes after the soup drop off (assuming that included LV seeing talking eyeballing Audrey which I don't think we know for sure (?)

It is strange to me that in a small town around Christmas you would not be CERTAIN when you say Audrey last especially as she died especially as she was murdered in this spectacular and ugly way. Usually phrases like "what are you doing for Christmas?" or "how was your Christmas?" are proverbial and would stick in the memory. Even a question about the dogs and Christmas.

Woodland's weather notes are apropos good use of logic there.

But what is up? Why the vagueness?

No I am not turning the poor old vet into a suspect. But the last person to see a murdered person.....well that is important.

Audrey's property was sold and fast.

The pet cemetary was sold (and fast?)

The key posts are 737 and 739.

Am I not a bit correct that something has slipped through our hands here?

 

[Chorley8]

And 735 just to reprise:

" After Christmas, she felt under the weather. Monday morning, Dec. 27, Audrey emailed Phil and declared she would make her Wednesday coffee meeting come hell or high water. Lynne Vanstone brought her soup.

Monday afternoon she loaded Togi and Schatze into the Camaro and visited veterinarian Dudley Collins in Ancaster to pick up vitamins for the German shepherds. She let the dogs run on his property as usual. She gave him a hug when she left, as she often did.

Later that day, at about 6 p.m., she emailed a friend, Linda. She forwarded Linda the same music video she had sent Phil that morning"

Don't mean to steer anything away from what you guys have been discussing. But even as a sideline here could be concentrate on the Mon to Wed. and see what we can come up with? JH assumes she dies early in the morning I think Wed morning? as I have said I find that weird because ALL the dogs would be barking as anyone who lives in the country knows.

Fergusons the source of that I have no reason to doubt them.

So what happened Mon to Wed. I mean especially if we have suspicion of those emails AND accept the vet visit. The Audrey is a hostage scenario is impossible if we accept the vet's word since email was sent in morning then vet visit then evening email either just read at that time or sent then. We don't know.

Apropos of nothing: both vet and P.K. mention hugs.

Arrgh help me oh ye clear headed ones.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Chorley8:

Am I not a bit correct that something has slipped through our hands here?


I don't think anything has slipped through our hands here. Our hands are tied for various reasons. LE is giving us nothing new! MSM has seemed to be backing off. All of our links come from long ago (2011-ish).

I'm sick about this but it *seems* that a very intelligent, cunning, careful killer is the one who is going to successfully slip through the cracks, our hands, the hands of LE.

My OPINION remains the same: Audrey was killed (in my OPINION) by someone 'young and close' who knew her well. My OPINION is that Audrey died very close to the time(s) the Amazing Grace vids were sent. My OPINION is that Audrey lay in that garage for quite a long time (days/nights?). My OPINION is that the killer did not want personal belongings (car, jewels, books, etc.). My OPINION is that the killer killed for extremely personal reasons because of the utter brutality of the crime itself. My OPINION is that the killing was well-planned in advance by the killer. My OPINION is that someone 'young and close' to the killer knows what the killer did and is keeping this info to him/herself. My OPINION is that this other 'young and close' person in fact aided and abetted the killer (before possibly and definitely after).

My question is this:
Who killed Audrey Gleave and how can this murderer live inside his/her own skin?

ETA:

My OPINION is that the answer lies somewhere in Amazing Grace:

http://www.shmoop.com/amazing-grace/meaning.html