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

[dotr]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2111178-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/


bbm
" Her beloved dogs, Togi and Schatze, were reportedly assessed by animal control to see if they had suffered trauma during the murder, with the intention of putting them up for adoption. Audrey had already purchased two plots for the dogs for when they died.

Lynne talked to reporters initially, but then she stopped. The whole thing had been awful, the entire experience just terrible, she said. She was too upset to talk anymore. Moreover, the killer was still out there.

“She had a positive influence on every life she touched,” Lynne said at the memorial. “She was private. And caring, kind, shy at times. Chatty when you got to know her. Stubborn. Fair. Real. A beautiful mind. A kind soul. Extremely intelligent. Funny. Eccentric. Generous. Giving. There are not enough words to properly describe our Audrey. She was unique and very special.”

Meanwhile, the mystery surrounding Audrey, and her death, fuelled interest far and wide. Why was she targeted? Why was nothing stolen? One rumour was that Audrey's purse had been found by police inside the house, stuffed with important papers she always carried around, but it had been left untouched. Had the killer even entered the house from the attached garage? Were the dogs locked in the kennel inside where she kept them, or loose in the house?"

 

[Woodland]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2111178-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

Lynne talked to reporters initially, but then she stopped.

One rumour was that Audrey's purse had been found by police inside the house, stuffed with important papers she always carried around, but it had been left untouched.

Snipped by me for brevity.

So who is the origin of the rumour AG always carried important papers around in her purse? Have always doubted that, but that's just my opinion as smart people don't do that. Someone could steal the purse!

One would now have to introduce evidence/rumours that AG had 'issues', but since that has never come up, would be hard pressed to buy into that at this point. See LV's description in post #983. Jmo.

Did the important papers in the purse derive from Hrab's investigation? Could be some 'issues' there.

Jon Wells might want to clarify where the rumour he heard about the important papers came from, along with clarifying two different versions of the vet visit. Just sayin'.

 

[dotr]

GS's are high status dogs, any chance someone wanted to steal them?
Many years ago someone I knew had an older GS stolen, by some young poseur animal enthusiast, who thought the dog would be better off "living free" in the country instead of in the city, so she " kidnapped" the dog.
It wasn't better.
Unlikely, but maybe some fanatic thought the electric fence surrounding Audrey's property was a cruel way to contain them ect..
Of course the combo. of GS dogs and an electric fence, could possible trigger bad memories for some. jmo.


Quite a few weird cases involving abuse and alleged abuse, of dogs by trainers around the area..

 

[Woodland]

Unable to comprehend why the dogs would be left behind if this was a dognapping - same reasoning as why would the Camaro have been left behind if car theft was the motive.

All that hate - then nothing? Surely there was a point to this crime for someone that was known to AG? The gain didn't have to be at the moment of or leading up to AG's death.

 

[dotr]

Unable to comprehend why the dogs would be left behind if this was a dognapping - same reasoning as why would the Camaro have been left behind if car theft was the motive.

All that hate - then nothing? Surely there was a point to this crime for someone that was known to AG? The gain didn't have to be at the moment of or leading up to AG's death.

The intimidating dogs, the jazzy car racing by, the smart, independent and perhaps sharp tongued, older female authority figure , could really tick some people off. A young hot head comes to mind, or someone from a culture or family dynamic where the females are "put in their place" and dogs are feared or despised. jmo

 

[colette]

My opinion is that it was crime sexual in nature. The only thing taken was something from Audrey's person/body. She was the target. I think it was a guy 16- or older who was visiting or familiar with area. Thought an old lady would be an easy target for his first major sex crime. Probably peeped before. All IMO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Are there any links to MSM for that info FromGermany? TIA

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

No, there aren't links, therefore I asked you. :smile:

I wondered why noone had disagreed with the assertion "bedroom" (forum II) and thought, it perhaps might be right though unknown to me.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

I also have trouble believing that AG kept all her important papers in her purse. Some ID sure. But all important things - no way......IN MY OWN OPINION.

The notion that the dogs had been shut in the bedroom is interesting, to say the least. It would have been a quick way for the killer to contain them. Someone who knew the bedroom, shall I say.

I highly doubt that dognapping and car theft were the motives for this murder.This is way beyond "theft" of any sort.

:twocents:

 

[Woodland]

The dogs could very well have been confined in a bedroom FromGermany.

 

[Woodland]

I also have trouble believing that AG kept all her important papers in her purse. Some ID sure. But all important things - no way......IN MY OWN OPINION.

The notion that the dogs had been shut in the bedroom is interesting, to say the least. It would have been a quick way for the killer to contain them. Someone who knew the bedroom, shall I say.

I highly doubt that dognapping and car theft were the motives for this murder.This is way beyond "theft" of any sort.

:twocents:

One original copy of AG's Will - and she carried it around with her everywhere she went? And no one knew that until LE opened her purse after she was killed?

Tough circumstance to dispute, although I do dispute it.

 

[dotr]

My opinion is that it was crime sexual in nature. The only thing taken was something from Audrey's person/body. She was the target. I think it was a guy 16- or older who was visiting or familiar with area. Thought an old lady would be an easy target for his first major sex crime. Probably peeped before. All IMO.

Not the dogs, not the car, not the house, not the purse.
Audrey,they wanted to steal Audrey or someone similarly vulnerable , and they accomplished that.
Agree also, that perp must have done some pretty bad stuff in the past, to get to the point of commiting such a brutal murder,
unless, the perp had a long standing, simmering rage, or desire for Audrey, that finally boiled over. jmo.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Question about the Will/anyone's Will:

I've always thought that a lawyer had a copy of all/most Wills. Who was the lawyer for AG? Did LE contact this lawyer in order to read the 'real Will". Doesn't a Will need to be witnessed and notarised? (sp??)

Now, IF AG didn't keep her Will in a lawyer's files.........where on earth was it? Who read it? Why am I forgetting this? Why is this so blatantly absurd?

Any/all help will be valuable.

ETA:

Even if a Will is found in someone's purse in their house, the Will still must be sent to the court system for probate. Why hasn't probate called this into question? Or, why wasn't the Will sent to probate?

ETA again:

A copy of a Will would be kept in a safe deposit box or in a locked safe somewhere. There's no way (IN MY OWN OPINION) it would be kept in a purse. Makes no sense.

 

[LambChop]

If an attorney drew up her will the original would have been kept in the attorney's office so she could have kept the copy anywhere as long as the original was safe. Not sure Canada has probate but if she had a law office draw up her will they may have taken care of that. jmo

 

[Paragirl]

I'm pretty sure anyone can prepare their own will and that it just has to be witnessed by two people. A lawyer is not required and I don't think it has to be "filed" anywhere, or a copy retained by a lawyer. The will has to be signed by the testator and witnessed by two people. The witnesses have to be over the age of majority, and they can't be anyone who will benefit from the will, or be married to anyone who will benefit from the will. The witnesses have to swear an affidavit of execution stating that they witnessed the testator sign the will, and that the testator was over the age of majority and of sound mind at the time of the signing. imo.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/justice-ont/estate_planning.asp#


ITA with theft of the car and/or dognapping not being factors in this crime. It just wouldn't make sense when neither the car or the dogs were harmed (as far as we know) or taken imo.

Also skeptical about AG carrying her important papers around in her purse...I mean, what would qualify as important papers? The deed to her house? Copies of university degrees, immigration documents, passport? Birth certificate, banking info? A WILL? I don't know, seems risky to me. I feel like AG would recognize the danger of carrying such important documents around on your person. And her WILL? Why?

 

[LambChop]

I'm pretty sure anyone can prepare their own will and that it just has to be witnessed by two people. A lawyer is not required and I don't think it has to be "filed" anywhere, or a copy retained by a lawyer. The will has to be signed by the testator and witnessed by two people. The witnesses have to be over the age of majority, and they can't be anyone who will benefit from the will, or be married to anyone who will benefit from the will. The witnesses have to swear an affidavit of execution stating that they witnessed the testator sign the will, and that the testator was over the age of majority and of sound mind at the time of the signing. imo.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/justice-ont/estate_planning.asp#


ITA with theft of the car and/or dognapping not being factors in this crime. It just wouldn't make sense when neither the car or the dogs were harmed (as far as we know) or taken imo.

Also skeptical about AG carrying her important papers around in her purse...I mean, what would qualify as important papers? The deed to her house? Copies of university degrees, immigration documents, passport? Birth certificate, banking info? A WILL? I don't know, seems risky to me. I feel like AG would recognize the danger of carrying such important documents around on your person. And her WILL? Why?

I was guessing an attorney drew it up as it seemed to have been handled quickly with the sale of the home.

I can only guess, too, that in case of fire one tends to grab their purse so maybe that made sense to her, I don't know. My mother is 89 and had all her papers in her purse. So it may be a comfort thing that someone knows it's within reach. But, again, I'm just guessing. jmo

 

[Paragirl]

According to AG's estate docs, an Application for Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee With a Will was filed by LV Jan 28/11, and the Certificate of Appointment was issued by a "probate" judge in Hamilton Feb 22/11, so it was reviewed by a judge...but how thoroughly...?

 

[greenthumb]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7362253&postcount=619

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7376660&postcount=781

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7362272&postcount=621

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7377268&postcount=787

Just bringing forward some links to Woodland's previous posts about AG's will, for reference, as it has come up in discussion recently.

 

[Woodland]

Just to recap - the lawyer that obtained a copy of AG's Will for me was positive it had not been drawn up by a lawyer - which is not required.

Items that should have been there due to AG's life circumstances were not, and items that should not have been there, were. Believe it not, no provision for the dogs was a red flag for him - it doesn't happen. And minor children? More in the posts brought forward by greenthumb.

It was put through probate court via a lawyer for the executor - too quickly for the lawyer that reviewed it - it did not pass his smell test given a murder had taken place. $50K was insanely low to him and he did not like the signatures of the witnesses. He was very disheartened to see it was simply 'rubber stamped' - his words. He would not have even filed it in probate court for anyone until more leg work had been done.

Given the status of the investigation at the time - stranger DLS on LE's radar or in custody when the 'rubber stamping' took place - all seemed well. Didn't it? Unfortunately that changed dramatically to AG knew her killer - according to LE.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

IN MY OWN OPINION - someone as careful as Audrey would not carry her Will in her purse. She refused to have her e-mail address passed along; she took the dogs out with her for protection; she was extremely careful about her personal life/affairs.

Unless, Audrey knew someone was about to harm her and she therefore put the Will in her purse to take it somewhere safe. But the killer got there first.

Still makes no sense to me. OR, did the killer place a fake Will in her purse?

 

[Woodland]

...OR, did the killer place a fake Will in her purse?

Snipped and bolded by me.

Best. Plan. Ever.