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

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Looked up "killers who use a sexual component in their killings" and this came up:

http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/sexrelatedhomicides.htm

Please note: some of what is here in the link does apply to what happened to Audrey.

 

[Woodland]

With all due respect to the above article, the author left out 'staged'. That has to be an aspect from time to time - imo.

Maybe more movies with the staged motive will help the overall thinking. I see a link unfortunately.

Money is a powerful motivation for many acts of desperation. Lots of money is a very powerful motivation for many people. Would love to introduce one of my siblings to all of the readers as an example, but that's not possible.

Satisfying a young persons dreams with money is powerful. Going into one's twilight years without enough money is a very powerful motivation for many acts.

Jmo and observation throughout many years.

And yes NSU, AG's killer just might slip away unchallenged for their depraved act. Sadly, it happens. People are not stupid, especially these days, when they want to take something they are not entitled to. Again, jmo.

 

[Chorley8]

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

Not disagreeing with you really but:

1. If it is true that Audrey sent AG emails then went to vet then she is more likely to have been the author of the emails. We can imagine other scenarios e.g. the remote hacking of her computer, someone else being at her house while she goes to vet etc. but those are not that likely. That is why I think the vet evidence has been overlooked a bit here IF that article is correct.

2. If the story is false and if Audrey went to the vet before Christmas we need to wonder why the source of that later story is. If the vet changed the timeline why? If somewhat else changed it for him why? This COULD be important since it could be used to cover the fact that Audrey was captive in her house (with someone else sending the AG as emails) or already dead. If someone wanted LE to believe Audrey was free/alive on the day she went to vet.

3. The evidence against the young and close (the ones I take you to mean don't know for sure) is that they would have had to commit a fairly perfect crime and would have had the gall to insert themselves into the crime scene a few days later and insert themselves into online sites looking at the murder.

4. Re WL's post I agree there is lots of evidence o a financial motive for the 'person going into twilight years broke' and the young person as well seeking cash... but if there is a small conspiracy against Audrey and they are spending the cash fairly freely after the murder why can't LE figure it out?

5. Not to tilt towards the sensational but is it possible that the perp has connections to someone in gov. Canadian foreign relations there is a particular person I have in mind. That is the only thing that makes sense to me at this point regarding that angle - unless we credit unbelievably sloppy police work.

6. Also against young and close are the strange circumstances of the will etc. there is no obvious way we know of for young and close to get their hands on money unless Audrey it hid it in her house (very possible IMO) or there was an agreement/plot.

7. Some of the evidence COULD lead to the conclusion that time was needed for some reason. It doesn't take that long to kill someone even to ritually pose their body as in NSO's article (I am not saying Audrey's body was posed).

8. Time needed during the crime PLUS haste in taking down the house afterwards is interesting.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Regarding the vet visit: I think it wasn't an "appointment" per se. It's my OPINION that Audrey had a very close and casual relationship with the vet and she just dropped in to pick up the vitamins. I doubt the vet had it logged into his appointment book as something more dramatic - ie. weigh-ins, examinations, shots, etc. That's why the vet *seems* to have confusion about the day/time of the visit. In fact, perhaps Audrey used the vet visit as a little trip away from home before all the Xmas stuff happened. It's my OPINION that the vet visit took place before Xmas. I do believe AG hugged him. (My husband and I hug our vet, especially if something serious is going on and even moreso when all is well).

Regarding perps inserting themselves into the aftermath of the killing itself: Yes, it's my OPINION that's exactly what happened here. LE show up at funerals for a reason. LE take photos at funerals, memorials for a reason. Very cunning killers will insert themselves anywhere they can in order to appear helpful and to keep tabs on what is going on. Killers are known to help in LE searches for missing children even though the killer knows exactly where the dead child is hidden, as an example. It's my OPINION that Audrey's killer has joined in all manners of communication (interviews, MSM, online) in order to protect his/her identity.

Regarding motive: It's my OPINION that Audrey was murdered for a mixture of reasons. Love/hate + expected money/payment. Why the extreme brutality of the crime against Audrey? That would be the love/hate thing. Further, the notion of salvation/redemption cannot be overlooked. Of all the tunes in the world that could have been sent of Andre Rieu, Amazing Grace holds the clues (in my OPINION).

:twocents:

 

[Chorley8]

Thanks No Stone for those thoughts: do you agree that IF the vet visit (I agree not a formal appointment) was after AGrace that would make the notion that AGrace is significant less likely?

Police at funerals: I would think it would be fairly run of the mill following a murder (anyone have info?) and doesn't have to point to the young and close suspect. Could and likely was more general surveillance after all they had already publically cleared one young close "possible" at that point unless that was a ruse - doesn't seem to have been. So I can't see that LE being at funeral points towards that person.

"Religious" is a big category we can't throw someone under a bus because they go to church. Actually AGrace could be linked to someone else who has been discussed as Rieu Austrian like them etc. (I didn't notice this someone else did) and they are publically FAR more religious. AND possibly created an online fake timeline of their whereabouts in Dec. 2010.

And if being denied money was one issue how is it they seem to end up with money?

By the way I am just trying to keep an open mind perhaps too open so I am not against 100% young and close far from it. In a case where someone was to insert themselves in a crime by discovering a body they would have to be sure that there was not tire evidence of them having recently been to the crime scene (unless they walked or walked close by).

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Cholrey8:

Police at funerals: I would think it would be fairly run of the mill following a murder (anyone have info?) and doesn't have to point to the young and close suspect. Could and likely was more general surveillance after all they had already publically cleared one young close "possible" at that point unless that was a ruse - doesn't seem to have been. So I can't see that LE being at funeral points towards that person.



Sorry, I failed to make myself clear! :blushing: What I was getting at was that very often, in my OPINION, perps will do anything to ingratiate themselves to LE, to other friends of the deceased, etc. Hence, perps do show up at the funerals; they say kind words to MSM about the deceased; they outwardly try to show their loving care for the victim in order to protect themselves from scrutiny. It seems, in my OPINION, that some perps feel a safety blanket by being outwardly forthcoming with interviews, LE and MSM. It seems (again in my OPINION) that some perps decide to be 'in our faces' and that gives them an air of innocence.

This is merely my own OPINION........

:blushing:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

If I have a good friend for many years, then I do know exactly, whether I met them at their dying day or several days earlier - I would think.
This mismatch of 2 statements should be clarified, because the timeline depends on it.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

On a different note:

Where are Audrey's "dear friends" now, three years later? After all the media has disappeared and after LE have made their presence scarce (seemingly) where are these friends who (I assume) want justice for their friend.

This "disappearing act" also is fuelling my OPINIONS about the friends who, at the beginning, were at the memorial, on TV, giving interviews, communicating in other ways............

Where has everyone gone? And why?

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Again quoted from Chorley8:

Thanks No Stone for those thoughts: do you agree that IF the vet visit (I agree not a formal appointment) was after AGrace that would make the notion that AGrace is significant less likely?



Oh yes. But didn't SB post (with a LINK) that the vet visit was prior to Xmas? It's that link on which I'm relying to be the truth. Why? Because in my own experience, vet offices/places do shut down for the holidays and I would think that getting the vitamins for the dogs would be very important to Audrey.

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

ETA my own LINK:

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.



By the logical process of elimination, we can see that Audrey did NOT visit the vet on the 25th (Xmas Day) and not on the 26th (Boxing Day). Perhaps on the 27th? My own OPINION, (and GUT FEELING) is that she was at home all day on the 27th.......either alone or with someone.

:twocents:

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

ETA police notice:

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/CrimeFiles/Help+Us+Solve+This+Crime/gleave.htm

The police make no mention of Audrey going out to visit a vet (or anyone) on the 27th.

:twocents:

 

[Woodland]

The police make no mention of Audrey going out to visit a vet (or anyone) on the 27th.

Good point NSU - what, if anything, could LE have downloaded from AG's vehicle after they towed it away?

 

[Sillybilly]

I know this is rehashing old info, but back to considering those emails and one of the things that still really bugs the heck out of me ...

By Sunday the weakness was disappearing but still there. And would you believe that this morning I got a secondary infection; runny nose, runny eyes, sneezing. But at least I don’t feel weak so don’t think I’ve a fever. I’m just annoyed with it. Hope it gets better because I intend to have coffee Wed. come hell or high water. I’ve got cabin fever. Lynne is coming over with soup in a few minutes.

Grammar aside, IMO, the above thought process makes ZERO SENSE. Since when does the existence or non-existence of of weakness indicate whether one does or does not have a fever? Typically, weakness is not an indicator of body temperature.

She said the weakness was disappearing but there was nothing to indicate she previously had or suspected a fever when the weakness had been at its worst. Why would she now indicate that such lack of weakness was an indicator that she didn't have a fever? By contrast, her new symptoms of runny nose, runny eyes, sneezing might make one suspect they now might have a fever !! But Audrey only considered a lack of weakness to indicate she didn't have a fever?? I don't buy that.

If I experience weakness in my arms/hands, I may consider various things (nerves related to neck and shoulder problems, or that it could be circulatory as in a precursor to stroke or heart attack). If I have a more generalized weakness, I might consider that I've simply over-extended myself or need to eat something, or have the flu coming on. I would NOT consider weakness or lack of it to be an indicator of fever. Weakness and fever are two totally independent symptoms that, while they may co-exist, one is not an indicator of the presence of the other.

Just doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't sound like a thought process Audrey would have.

 

[Woodland]

Very much agree SB, but cannot disregard grammar with the thought process.

A former student would be helpful here, imo. Just how particular was AG with the written word? A former classmate and or teacher in the night classes for computers would also be helpful, imo.

Seems to me we have only seen what passed for AG's Will as her form of writing. Not buying any of it at the moment.

 

[Sillybilly]

AOh yes. But didn't SB post (with a LINK) that the vet visit was prior to Xmas? It's that link on which I'm relying to be the truth. Why? Because in my own experience, vet offices/places do shut down for the holidays and I would think that getting the vitamins for the dogs would be very important to Audrey.

<rsbm>

I'm also more inclined to rely on the visit being prior to Christmas, given that the articles dated Jan 5 refer to a couple of days before Christmas or a couple of days before her death, yet it is later articles that indicate the visit was the afternoon on the day she was last seen. IMO, an elderly person's recollection would have been more clear on Jan 5 rather than months down the road when other articles were publicized AND the possibility that, as part of their ongoing investigation, LE has asked the media to cooperate by not being as specific about a timeline.

ETA: WRT the vet's office, not sure that a retired vet would have had any formal office hours, and probably not for a friend they had known for 30+ years. I've even wondered if AG's request for the Texas bundt cake may have been so she could have food gifts for her long term friends, and maybe the cake wasn't available when she expected it prior to Christmas?? Not hooked on the thought, but I do consider it.

 

[Chorley8]

So what kind of person does it sound like?

To my ear it sounds overwhelmingly female and like an older even elderly somewhat crabby crotchety very direct woman Ontario born person with quite a bit of spirit (they are annoyed with the illness not feeling sorry for themselves at all). I agree you have to wonder about the first illness ebbing on Sunday just "weakness" with a cold/flu to follow. But perhaps the weakness illness was accompanied by fever and that is implied. It sounds more rural than urban to me.

There is no way I can see 'young and close' fabricating this email unless they are an unusual young male creative writer. It is either Audrey, Audrey being dictated to or another person. Among my large lists of characters of interest one person does fit the letter more than others if it is not Audrey. A financial motive person.


What is odd is that a hospital term like "secondary infection" is mixed in with casualness of grammar etc. But in an email? Not sure Audrey would give a daxx exactly.

We do have her direct question to P.K. "did you learn anything today?" It does fit with "my boyfriend Einstein" IMO. They both fit but slender evidence.

Slender evidence but it sounds similar. We really need someone who knew Audrey to tell us - we are tormenting ourselves with things that other people know!

I know this is rehashing old info, but back to considering those emails and one of the things that still really bugs the heck out of me ...



Grammar aside, IMO, the above thought process makes ZERO SENSE. Since when does the existence or non-existence of of weakness indicate whether one does or does not have a fever? Typically, weakness is not an indicator of body temperature.

She said the weakness was disappearing but there was nothing to indicate she previously had or suspected a fever when the weakness had been at its worst. Why would she now indicate that such lack of weakness was an indicator that she didn't have a fever? By contrast, her new symptoms of runny nose, runny eyes, sneezing might make one suspect they now might have a fever !! But Audrey only considered a lack of weakness to indicate she didn't have a fever?? I don't buy that.

If I experience weakness in my arms/hands, I may consider various things (nerves related to neck and shoulder problems, or that it could be circulatory as in a precursor to stroke or heart attack). If I have a more generalized weakness, I might consider that I've simply over-extended myself or need to eat something, or have the flu coming on. I would NOT consider weakness or lack of it to be an indicator of fever. Weakness and fever are two totally independent symptoms that, while they may co-exist, one is not an indicator of the presence of the other.

Just doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't sound like a thought process Audrey would have.

 

[dotr]

I know this is rehashing old info, but back to considering those emails and one of the things that still really bugs the heck out of me ...



Grammar aside, IMO, the above thought process makes ZERO SENSE. Since when does the existence or non-existence of of weakness indicate whether one does or does not have a fever? Typically, weakness is not an indicator of body temperature.

She said the weakness was disappearing but there was nothing to indicate she previously had or suspected a fever when the weakness had been at its worst. Why would she now indicate that such lack of weakness was an indicator that she didn't have a fever? By contrast, her new symptoms of runny nose, runny eyes, sneezing might make one suspect they now might have a fever !! But Audrey only considered a lack of weakness to indicate she didn't have a fever?? I don't buy that.

If I experience weakness in my arms/hands, I may consider various things (nerves related to neck and shoulder problems, or that it could be circulatory as in a precursor to stroke or heart attack). If I have a more generalized weakness, I might consider that I've simply over-extended myself or need to eat something, or have the flu coming on. I would NOT consider weakness or lack of it to be an indicator of fever. Weakness and fever are two totally independent symptoms that, while they may co-exist, one is not an indicator of the presence of the other.

Just doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't sound like a thought process Audrey would have.

The email almost reminds me of a young woman's coded saucy, sassy message. imo.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Good point NSU - what, if anything, could LE have downloaded from AG's vehicle after they towed it away?

LE would be able to tell:
- if the car had been tampered with (steering, windows, brakes, transmission)
- if it had tried to be started/jump-started
- if the alarm went off at any time during the assault
- if there were fingerprints other than Audrey's in the car
- if the hood had been released
- if the trunk had been released
- to see what was in the trunk (other than what belonged to Audrey)
- to locate hairs, fibers
- to see if the tires had been tampered with for stealing (impossible to do without removing the lugnuts)
- to locate the last bit of mileage
- to feel how hot the engine was (if it had been run recently)
- to find blood, footprints, mud, snow, wetness
- had the car recently been vacuumed (by a killer)
- to see if Audrey did drive her killer home with her
- LE will take the underside of the vehicle off to determine where it's travelled recently (grass, mud, snow, cement, etc.)

The list is very long about what LE will look for in a vehicle.

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

The email almost reminds me of a young woman's coded saucy, sassy message. imo.

Same here.

 

[Sillybilly]

ETA police notice:

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/CrimeFiles/Help+Us+Solve+This+Crime/gleave.htm

The police make no mention of Audrey going out to visit a vet (or anyone) on the 27th.

:twocents:

<rsbm>

from your link provided:

Gleave was last seen alive on the morning of Monday 27th December 2010 when she was visited by a friend.

Hopefully LE was able to determine the date of the vet visit, and to somehow verify that LV did see Audrey in person the morning of the 27th, that the soup did exist, and that evidence of its existence was found inside the home (i.e not left outside the door).

If nobody else was present when Audrey was supposedly at LV's on Boxing Day, we only have LV's word that Audrey was even alive on the 26th.

Rambling thoughts here ... soup, cake ... animal behaviour

One of my old shepherds was great with people she knew but pretty intimidating to strangers. One day I was in the driveway talking with a neighbour when someone else my dog knew somewhat came walking up the driveway ... waving her arms to say hello. My dog went sailing down the drive in full guard dog mode but stopped short with no harm done. It was out of character however and took me a while to figure out what happened.

Turns out the person, who normally smelled familiar, had been baking cookies just prior to arriving, and smelled more like an unfamiliar Pillsbury Doughboy instead of Familiar Friend.

Did one of Audrey's dogs scare someone who was bringing food, and that is why Audrey caged them?

Like I said, rambling. Can't see the vicious nature of the attack and/or a sexual component really fitting into the above scenario.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from SB:

If nobody else was present when Audrey was supposedly at LV's on Boxing Day, we only have LV's word that Audrey was even alive on the 26th.



Hopefully, LE took road and parking lot/garage samples from the under carriage of the car in order to see if Audrey did park at LV's on the 26th.

 

[Sillybilly]

The email almost reminds me of a young woman's coded saucy, sassy message. imo.

The email was Monday morning, so why refer to the day prior as "By Sunday"? Why not yesterday, or last night? Smacks of being contrived as it relates to a chronology.

Also no mention of having been to LV's the previous day, as in "the weakness had diminished, so I was able to go to LV's for coffee". If she had been to LV's the day prior, why such "cabin fever"?