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

[No_Stone_Unturned]

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

Ohhhhhh, this is good!

Hmmmmm.............

 

[Woodland]

<rsbm>

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

This is where 'staged' comes into play for me. Trying to point away from anyone AG knew. LE seems to think AG knew her killer.

"The person who killed Audrey was a person who was known to her."

Read more: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-...mystery-one-year-later-1.747175#ixzz2qsz5vZTi

'Known to her' is different than the killer knew who AG was or was aware of her existence. Imo.

 

[Woodland]

<rsbm>


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

Exactly. Would that request have been made in order to have the dogs out of the way?

 

[Woodland]

- to locate the last bit of mileage

The list would be important, but this would be a priority, imo.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thinking of Audrey's car and wondering about fingerprints. Were there prints found that didn't match Audrey or her known associates, and if NO prints were found at all (including Audrey's), that would indicate a wipe-down? IF there was a wipe-down, were any fibres/materials found nearby which could relate to that activity?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

If there had been a wipe-down of fingerprints, surely the person would have left some fibres inside the car. Unless the perp was wearing Audrey's coat which might leave fibres and dog hairs.

IIRC, when LE took the car away we could see fingerprint dusting on the outside of the white car.

I wonder who (if anyone) ever rode in the car with Audrey. Maybe LV? Maybe her friend from Mohawk College? Do we know if anyone rode in the car other than the dogs?

 

[roseofsharon]

Just getting back to that email ... iirc, the subject line said "Report" ...

So, Christmas and Boxing Day have passed, but AG does not mention being at LV's on Boxing Day, only that LV is bringing soup that morning.

AG does not ask PK anything about his Christmas or that she will see him, as they planned on the 30th.

I was wondering if AG wrote anything in the subject line when she emailed the Amazing Grace video, such as ... this is beautiful!

imo

 

[Sillybilly]

This is where 'staged' comes into play for me. Trying to point away from anyone AG knew. LE seems to think AG knew her killer.

"The person who killed Audrey was a person who was known to her."

Read more: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-...mystery-one-year-later-1.747175#ixzz2qsz5vZTi

'Known to her' is different than the killer knew who AG was or was aware of her existence. Imo.

Yes, recalling in SV's case that LE said:

from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...bductor_most_likely_someone_who_knew_her.html

The attacker is &#8220;most likely someone who knew her,&#8221; Pritchard said, although he added that Varaschin might not have known the person.

Could just be semantics, but LE usually puts a great deal of thought into their announcements to the public. The difference seems to be that in SV's case the perp was not necessarily known to her, but in Audrey's case a "person who was known to her".

Given Hrab's 25 years in homicide and courses in profiling, I wonder what caused him to conclude it was a stranger, when subsequent profilers concluded it is someone known to Audrey.

Although we don't know if Mark Safarik was officially consulted in Audrey's case, his advice to "look young and look close" seems worthy of consideration, given he seems to have been right when he stated "&#8220;But a homeless guy in his 40s or 50s?&#8221;:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave/


WRT staging .. although I suspected the crime scene at Audrey's may have been staged, I had originally thought more in terms of physical posing, clothing rearrangement, location, etc., carried out at the same time as the attack. I can't seem to correlate a perp who would commit a crime of passion, or a premeditated one involving financial gain, with a perp who has whatever the hell it takes to decide to introduce a "sexual component" and possible mutilation. The ability to engage in a sexual component and possibly mutilation at the time of the attack itself makes me think of a perp who considered Audrey sexually attractive and the rage/violence involved was possibly due to being rebuffed. IF however it was just anger or for financial gain and the perp had time after the attack to think what to do, I think it is possible the "sexual component" etc were staged after returning to the scene.

More thoughts on food ... peeps can be genuinely neighbourly in bringing food OR food could also provide an alibi / reason if a perp happened to be found at the crime scene. JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

Just getting back to that email ... iirc, the subject line said "Report" ...

So, Christmas and Boxing Day have passed, but AG does not mention being at LV's on Boxing Day, only that LV is bringing soup that morning.

AG does not ask PK anything about his Christmas or that she will see him, as they planned on the 30th.

I was wondering if AG wrote anything in the subject line when she emailed the Amazing Grace video, such as ... this is beautiful!

imo

Report? Yeah ... whatever happened to wishing someone good ol' "Merry Christmas"?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

QUESTIONS:

Have we considered 'look young and look close' + someone close but somewhat older?

What happened to our theory of Perp 1 and Perp 2?

And how about the notion that Audrey found out someone was still in the closet and found that kind of dishonesty upsetting?

Just rambling out thoughts here........

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

This is where 'staged' comes into play for me. Trying to point away from anyone AG knew. LE seems to think AG knew her killer.

"The person who killed Audrey was a person who was known to her."

Read more: http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-...mystery-one-year-later-1.747175#ixzz2qsz5vZTi

'Known to her' is different than the killer knew who AG was or was aware of her existence. Imo.

It's my OPINION that the killer was someone who was known to her rather than just someone who knew her. Remember, there was no forced entry.

:twocents:

 

[Woodland]

The ability to engage in a sexual component and possibly mutilation at the time of the attack itself makes me think of a perp who considered Audrey sexually attractive and the rage/violence involved was possibly due to being rebuffed. IF however it was just anger or for financial gain and the perp had time after the attack to think what to do, I think it is possible the "sexual component" etc were staged after returning to the scene.

Above is snipped for brevity.

If the killer did not have a plan, and returned to the scene, would they have closed the garage door both times or just the last time? They left the door open, hoping they could return and cover their tracks before anyone else arrived?

Leaving the dogs as they were would make sense, but would the dogs not try to raise the alarm by barking?

Either way, the killer is way ahead of everyone else.

 

[LambChop]

It's my OPINION that the killer was someone who was known to her rather than just someone who knew her. Remember, there was no forced entry.

:twocents:

Did LE find DNA at the crime scene that they could not match up?

 

[Woodland]

QUESTIONS:

Have we considered 'look young and look close' + someone close but somewhat older?

Above is snipped for brevity.

I have my hand raised in agreement.

Wonder what happened to the 'young and close' guy doing 8 years in Florida - did he apply to serve his time in Canada? Wonder what he driving when he thought he was meeting a 14 year-old rather than LE?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Did LE find DNA at the crime scene that they could not match up?

To the best of my knowledge, LE did find DNA and it DID NOT match the gentleman they falsely arrested for the murder.

If I'm wrong, please someone correct me.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

LINK - http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave/

Because of the trophy taking, I doubt the sexual component was staged:

He spoke of a vicious stabbing but did not talk about other weapons — at least one other had been used — or the nature of the “sexual component” (it had included a perverse act that went beyond a conventional assault; the killer had taken something from the victim as though making off with a souvenir.)



:twocents:

 

[Woodland]

Did LE find DNA at the crime scene that they could not match up?

That is the question LambChop. From the lawyer for DLS when charges were dropped -

Scott&#8217;s lawyer, CS, said police had no DNA.

"The simple reality is they never had any evidence. They have no DNA, they have no-nothing.&#8221;

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher

They have no DNA period, or they did not find DLS's DNA? Not exactly clear.

 

[LambChop]

That is the question LambChop. From the lawyer for DLS when charges were dropped -

Scott’s lawyer, CS, said police had no DNA.

[B"]The simple reality is they never had any evidence. They have no DNA, they have no-nothing.”[/B]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher

They have no DNA period, or they did not find DLS's DNA? Not exactly clear.

Seems they had to have had some DNA that did not belong to Audrey or why would they have requested DNA samples from her friends a year later?

 

[greenthumb]

Did LE find DNA at the crime scene that they could not match up?

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher

Hamilton Police Supt. Bill Stewart said the forensic evidence didn’t come back with the “conclusive results we were hoping for.”

He wouldn’t comment when asked if that means there wasn’t any DNA linking the suspect to the scene.

“I can’t go there, what that evidence was, because it’s part of the case and it’s still an open case,” Stewart said.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave/

Meanwhile, investigators waited for evidence collected at the murder scene, Audrey’s house, and the barn to be tested at the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto.

Police would not describe the nature of the forensics. Fingerprints? DNA? A footwear impression at the scene or on the victim?

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-gleave-murder-remains-mystery-one-year-later-1.747175

Hamilton Police Det.-Sgt. Ian Matthews says the force was reviewing evidence as recently as this month with Ontario's Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS).
"We have gone over many of the exhibits with them. Exhibits are still being tested by CFS and by other private agencies inside and outside Canada."
Police won't comment on the type of evidence being reviewed, but will confirm that the case has been labelled a priority.

I do not believe that LE have ever clarified what forensic evidence they have... just that there is some, and apparently whatever it is did not implicate the person they originally charged... nor, presumably, any other person they have tested. As indicated in Woodland's post above, DLS's lawyer is on record as saying that there was no DNA, for what it's worth.

HTH, MOO

 

[LambChop]

"The Brantford Expositor reported when he was sentenced on Feb. 3 for carrying a concealed weapon, Justice Ken Lenz said he didn’t believe Scott was violent, even though he could be intimidating because he yells and has a problem with authority figures."

Wow....now that is an eye opener.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher