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

[Woodland]

I like the article you linked NSU - the one dated 19 Sep 2011.

Something is lacking for me regarding JW in this article -

A longtime friend was LV. She golfed in Brantford with Audrey for years, they often had coffee and Audrey spent some time with Lynne's family. In 2007, Audrey decided it was time to write her will and made Lynne executor.

[modsnip]

I tried to encourage JW to track down the witnesses to the Will with no real interest on his part - fwiw. Whatever.

[modsnip]

I just don't get the flip-flop and lack of real pursuit of the truth when the truth might have been available. Not a fan of the Spec articles knowing more could have been done.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Woodland:

JW knew LV was also the sole beneficiary, but failed to mention that. So why mention LV was the executrix? I know from subsequent e-mail correspondence with JW that he had a copy of the Will, as I/we di

Yes, that is odd.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted again from Woodland:

And yes, PK knew right away that AG had not slipped on ice - according to JW. Later PK said the scene was not so bad. Whatever.

Yes.........whatever.

THIS IS MY OWN OPINION ABOUT THE MATTER. THE JW ARTICLE IS IN MSM. I GAVE THE MSM LINK ABOVE. NO NEED TO DELETE.
Thanks.........

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

QUESTION/THOUGHTS:

Since we are finding not much follow-up, digging deeper in JW's MSM's articles..........why do we *seem* to be taking his articles regarding Audrey Gleave's murder as the 'gospel truth'. I will take his info from LE as gospel. But what about the info from Audrey's acquaintances?

Whatever. Hug a puppy.

[modsnip].:twocents:
Thanks........

 

[Woodland]

QUESTION/THOUGHTS:

Since we are finding not much follow-up, digging deeper in JW's MSM's articles..........why do we *seem* to be taking his articles regarding Audrey Gleave's murder as the 'gospel truth'. I will take his info from LE as gospel. But what about the info from Audrey's acquaintances?

Whatever. Hug a puppy.

[modsnip].:twocents:
Thanks........

Chuckles NSU - there is an uphill battle here with MSM and other opinions imo.

Will hug a puppy though - got one handy, my daughters 7 pound Yorkie. He's quire sure that one day he will take down one of the deer that hangs around here - love his bravado, reminds me of AG.

Hope she fought like h*ll.

 

[2soccermom]

[modsnip]

rsbm

I think this was probably a gesture of respect and privacy on JW's part for the beneficiary; not everyone believes the public is entitled to know who inherits other people's estates. For some it might even be a matter of personal safety and financial protection to have that info remain confidential. On the other hand, this is a murder investigation and so the info is important to and for LE for their investigative purposes, and LE always already has access to the info.

I know we're sleuthing here, but I sometimes think the error has to be to protect the innocent-until-proved guilty and for my part I appreciate JW's reticence. I know not everyone working hard to sleuth justice for Audrey here will agree with me.

I also don't find the fact that Audrey may have carried her important papers in her purse to be odd at all. I've said this before on WS a long time ago, but I'll just briefly repeat here: It is not unusual to me for immigrant families (and even their second-gen offspring) to carry valuables on their person, especially folks from "the old country"; it's a legacy of property appropriation from WWII and also the need out of war and trauma to flee at a moment's notice. If you have read Anne Michaels' novel _Fugitive Pieces_ you'll know one of the characters, a camp survivor living in contemporary Toronto, keeps packed suitcases in the closet out of fear that history could repeat....
I know lots of eastern and western Euro war-era immigrant families who, like I assume Audrey did, deeply distrust banks and lawyers and prefer to retain control over their money, property, and papers as much as possible and as I think Audrey did.

Respectfully, MOO
moo

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Yes, Hrab said that right at the beginning. Maybe we have been confused because when the body was found it was described as a simple slip on the ice.

THE ABOVE IS MY OWN RECOLLECTION OF THE DAY AUDREY'S BODY WAS DISCOVERED. SHALL TRY TO FIND A LINK.

ETA LINK:

Here's the link telling about possibly slipping on ice:

http://news.ca.msn.com/ontario/hamilton/audrey’s-story-continues

Sorry to NSU and all WS, I had got the wrong translation because of too lazy to look after!!! I thought of "partially" - sooo stupid! :blushing:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Sorry to NSU and all WS, I had got the wrong translation because of too lazy to look after!!! I thought of "partially" - sooo stupid! :blushing:

No need to be sorry! We're all in this together trying to find justice for Audrey.

:cheers:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

rsbm

I think this was probably a gesture of respect and privacy on JW's part for the beneficiary; not everyone believes the public is entitled to know who inherits other people's estates. For some it might even be a matter of personal safety and financial protection to have that info remain confidential. On the other hand, this is a murder investigation and so the info is important to and for LE for their investigative purposes, and LE always already has access to the info.

I know we're sleuthing here, but I sometimes think the error has to be to protect the innocent-until-proved guilty and for my part I appreciate JW's reticence. I know not everyone working hard to sleuth justice for Audrey here will agree with me.

I also don't find the fact that Audrey may have carried her important papers in her purse to be odd at all. I've said this before on WS a long time ago, but I'll just briefly repeat here: It is not unusual to me for immigrant families (and even their second-gen offspring) to carry valuables on their person, especially folks from "the old country"; it's a legacy of property appropriation from WWII and also the need out of war and trauma to flee at a moment's notice. If you have read Anne Michaels' novel _Fugitive Pieces_ you'll know one of the characters, a camp survivor living in contemporary Toronto, keeps packed suitcases in the closet out of fear that history could repeat....
I know lots of eastern and western Euro war-era immigrant families who, like I assume Audrey did, deeply distrust banks and lawyers and prefer to retain control over their money, property, and papers as much as possible and as I think Audrey did.

Respectfully, MOO
moo

I understand what you're saying - my grandmother kept money in a shoe box under her bed (and it was great fun for me, as a child, to play with the money tossing it around the room!:blushing.

But Audrey seemed to me to be more 'North American' in that she had a profession outside of her home, she went to upgrading classes, etc.

It's impossible for me to think that Audrey carried her money in her purse to daily classes in high school and also to various night school classes for upgrading. And to Costco. And to the GM dealership. And to the Library.

From what we know, Audrey didn't live like my grandmother did - cooking from 6am till 5pm with the odd trip to the market, the church and outdoors to get her vegetables from her garden.

THIS IS ALL MERELY MY OWN OPINION FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IN MSM AND FROM LE.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from 2soccermom:

I know we're sleuthing here, but I sometimes think the error has to be to protect the innocent-until-proved guilty and for my part I appreciate JW's reticence. I know not everyone working hard to sleuth justice for Audrey here will agree with me.

But shouldn't a journalist, working for MSM, tell the entire truth and nothing but the truth? I don't get why JW needed to "protect the innocent". The truth will protect all of us.

[modsnip]

 

[Woodland]

Quoted from 2soccermom:

I know we're sleuthing here, but I sometimes think the error has to be to protect the innocent-until-proved guilty and for my part I appreciate JW's reticence. I know not everyone working hard to sleuth justice for Audrey here will agree with me.

But shouldn't a journalist, working for MSM, tell the entire truth and nothing but the truth? I don't get why JW needed to "protect the innocent". The truth will protect all of us.

MERELY MY OWN OPINION ABOUT THE POST BY A FELLOW SLEUTHER.

But shouldn't a journalist, working for MSM, tell the entire truth and nothing but the truth? I don't get why JW needed to "protect the innocent". The truth will protect all of us.

That's an innovative statement NSU, imo.

Who in JW's opinion is innocent? If it's JW opinion, should he not say so? If he is being swayed to give a certain opinion, should he not say so? He literally held information in his hand and reported some of it. This was after DLS had been released, so no suspect(s) in custody.

Fwiw, if anyone has visited to Archives of Ontario in Toronto, you only have to walk straight through from the entrance to a very large set of drawers holding probated Wills for 100+ years - it's a help yourself arrangement to view them. Same as the Land Registry Office - if someone inherited property the Will is attached to transfer of the deed.

They are legal docs and therefore in the public realm - part of our open justice system to ensure all is above board. Seems the thinking might be that keeping Wills private would encourage fraud.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Woodland:

Who in JW's opinion is innocent? If it's JW opinion, should he not say so? If he is being swayed to give a certain opinion, should he not say so? He literally held information in his hand and reported some of it. This was after DLS had been released, so no suspect(s) in custody.


My point exactly! :drumroll: Was there an "arrangement" between the writer and whomever contributed to the articles/book? It DOES beg the question!

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from Woodland:

That's an innovative statement NSU, imo.


Thanks..............

:cheers:

 

[2soccermom]

But shouldn't a journalist, working for MSM, tell the entire truth and nothing but the truth? I don't get why JW needed to "protect the innocent". The truth will protect all of us.

Well, on the one hand it's impossible ever to tell the "entire truth" in the sound bites that pass for news these days, and on the other I wasn't suggesting JW has to "protect the innocent" so-to-speak but rather wanted to press the question of the public's right to know how much money people will have in their possession which may put them at risk, among other issues of privacy and right to confidentiality through mainstream media access. I agree the info is integral to LE and that is why LE will always begin with questions about who gains from someone's loss. I also think it's fair for individual citizens to have the right to sleuth public records in individual work for justice and/or/as a check on LE. But wide public access to the knowledge is a different issue, imo. (We could launch into a debate over publication of govt salaries over 100K here; I see it as a separate but relatable issue )

I also wasn't remotely trying to intimate that Audrey lived a "traditional" lifestyle (if by that we mean a gendered conventionality; that's to me a non-sequitur) but rather that the legacy of her Latvian heritage may be that she had her papers bundled in a purse at the ready. It doesn't assume she carried those papers to her classes....
I was just trying to say that for me there isn't any kind of oddness to the idea she would have those papers in a purse (whether or not she did). -- I'll try not to "moo" twice this time

 

[Woodland]

I struggle with AG leaving everything to a bff, leaving the document in plain sight, but making the bff look for what constituted 'everything'. If there was an attachment listing bank accounts, investments etc then the total, by law, should have been easily inserted in the probate doc. Plus the value of the new car.

Cannot recall the source that the executor had to go from bank to bank looking for AG's accounts - so do not know where to begin looking.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from 2soccermom:

Well, on the one hand it's impossible ever to tell the "entire truth" in the sound bites that pass for news these days

Not at all to be argumentative, but that's the entire point here - JW wasn't merely giving sound bites. He wrote many articles in the Spec (MSM) regarding Audrey's murder. We all raced each day to read those articles. We all posted those articles here because they are MSM reports rather than gossip/hearsay. We refer to those articles now, three years later.

For me, when I pick up a MSM newspaper and the headlines say "War has broken out in blah-blah-blah" I tend to believe that to be the truth. Isn't that what MSM is designed to do - provide us with the truth as far as the reporter and LE are aware of?

:rollercoaster:

ETA: JW's articles were in the Spec, weren't they? I'm having a mind collapse right now!:blushing:

 

[greenthumb]

Quoted from 2soccermom:

I know we're sleuthing here, but I sometimes think the error has to be to protect the innocent-until-proved guilty and for my part I appreciate JW's reticence. I know not everyone working hard to sleuth justice for Audrey here will agree with me.

But shouldn't a journalist, working for MSM, tell the entire truth and nothing but the truth? I don't get why JW needed to "protect the innocent". The truth will protect all of us.

[modsnip]

I believe that JW would have shared all the information that he had available to him with LE, as he should. But - IMO - we, as the public, do not have the right to every bit of private information about individuals who are unfortunate enough to be connected to a crime. Individuals do have rights to privacy, and as 2soccermom pointed out, widespread public disclosure in MSM of who was beneficiary of a will may indeed expose that person to potential harm.

Canadian journalists have a set of guidelines here (and I believe those who are worth their salt actually pay heed) - http://www.caj.ca/?p=1776

We do not manipulate people who are thrust into the spotlight because they are victims of crime or are associated with a tragedy. Nor to we do voyeuristic stories about them. When we contact them, we are sensitive to their situations, and report only information in which the public has a legitimate interest.

BBM

Also, JW's articles would be subject to editing, so even had JW included such private information in his original drafts, I assume that the editor(s) at the Hamilton Spec would be mindful of the ethical aspects of releasing such information publicly.

As for me, I say hats off to JW for successfully balancing the public's thirst for 'a story' with individuals' (including AG's) rights to privacy. I treat the details of my will as very private information - don't most of us?

Yes, I understand that any of us may go seek this particular information - that is quite different than it being printed in the daily news, IMO.

 

[dotr]

There are ways to get into a house and to know whether the occupant is there or not and even know exactly where any dogs might be located ...
In the news today, poi arrested is from Bradford. Alleged crimes committed from 2010 onwards..

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/28608
bbm

"- an investigation revealed that a man used an array of sophisticated equipment while breaking into these homes, including flexible spy-cams, parabolic listening devices, and precious-metal testers

- the man often scaled the exteriors and entered the homes through skylights and second-storey windows to avoid alarm systems

On Friday, January 31, 2014, police arrested Shane Gagnon (aka Shane Louis Zwezdararyk), 43, of Bradford, following a pursuit.

To date, he has been charged with:

1) 31 counts of Break-and-Enter

A number of search warrants were executed in the GTA that have allegedly recovered hundreds of stolen items.

Investigators in York and Toronto have compiled photos of all the recovered items to date, and ask victims of break-and-enters to review them for their property. The photos can be viewed at tps.to/spiderman. Please check back periodically as photos will be updated as the investigation progresses".

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Of course I understand that journalists "protect" the deceased - we don't need to know the gruesome body parts details, etc. I'm certain JW held back info he was given by LE and also from people he interviewed. To protect the victim's dignity.

That said, Audrey's killing should be solved. And, as I see it, that's what we're attempting to do here.

It's a huge uphill climb......

 

[dotr]

http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/266

"There are some common characteristics of sexual predators. If you're worried your teen may be a sexual predator, look for these warning signs:

Refusal to take responsibility for actions and blames others or circumstances for failures
A sense of entitlement
Low self-esteem
Need for power and control
Lack of empathy
Inability to form intimate relationships with adults
History of abuse
Troubled childhood
Deviant sexual behavior and attitudes

From the book, Protecting Your Children from Sexual Predators, by Dr. Leigh M. Baker.



Other Tips on Spotting a Sexual Predator:

Often offend where they won't get caught — when they have misdirected people's attention
Often married or in relationships
Offend when the victim is handy
Not always strangers, often family members, family friends and neighbors
Most attracted to adults
Good manipulators (seduction is an integral part)
Overly self-indulgent
Arrogant
Sexualize, objectify women
Users of various kinds of
Typically known as rationalizers, intellectualizers, justifiers
Great helpers — are there to lend a helping hand — prey on people in need, when they can insinuate themselves in your life
Use stressful and vulnerable situations to get in — they find a need they can fill and they use that to get next to the victim"