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

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Yes Woodland, I agree about the staging in Audrey's case.

It's interesting while watching these various programmes on OWN TV that (with the exception of random, serial killers) LE speak with/interview the perp in the first 48 hours following the crime. I've seen a few of these shows in which Niagara Police Services and many more police services in Ontario and Quebec are involved - LE are very good at solving crimes. All crimes from domestic violence to murder one. I'm finding (again from watching these true life crimes on OWN) that where the perp is known to the victim, LE most likely will get/charge the perp eventually. It's a bit more difficult with random, serial sex offenders but even there, LE more than likely will liaise with the FBI and/or other provinces in Canada and lo and behold, they catch their guy.

My biggest problem is that I was not given the gift of patience! :blushing: I'm trying to be patient in Audrey's case but it is a chore for me.

Bottom line here (in my opinion) is that Hamilton LE are playing the waiting game until Audrey's killer messes up. It's really such a shame that DLS was picked up and charged so soon thereby tarnishing the case against the real killer. But......time will expose the killer. I simply must believe that.

:twocents:

 

[LambChop]

Do not sleuth friends who are not suspects according to LE in Audrey's death.

 

[dotr]

Forgot about this older link, bbm.

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

"He couldn’t confirm if Scott, who was released from custody, remains a suspect.

“It’s an open case,” Stewart said. “The investigators before and after the arrest were still pursuing other evidence that came forward and we sill continue to review, assess and investigate anything we have and anything else that comes forward.”

 

[Chorley8]

See the second comment below this story Dotr linked to where respondent says you would expect lots of forensic evidence. I do agree that works against the roaming madman theory they have a good point. So it is either someone 1. very careful or 2. someone whose DNA could naturally expect to be there delivery people or whatever

. Well the (laudable) prohibition against us discussing 2 here in any detail make me think again of 1. Someone a bit "deeper" further away from what we know maybe someone whose name we don't even know.

We have discussed before whether the No DNA comment from the lawyer means they have none at all none none linking to his client. That is super important what do you all think?

Still thinking and really even if the culprit was someone A knew (and we shouldn't think we have any kind of total list to that effect) SURELY in a crime this brutal (trusting Hrab) they would screw up ever so slightly - could you REALLY leave only evidence that would be typical of an everyday visit for tea?

That comment from WS has really made me thinking of this case as more uncanny than I had previously.

Forgot about this older link, bbm.

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

"He couldn’t confirm if Scott, who was released from custody, remains a suspect.

“It’s an open case,” Stewart said. “The investigators before and after the arrest were still pursuing other evidence that came forward and we sill continue to review, assess and investigate anything we have and anything else that comes forward.”

 

[colette]

There was talk by Scotts lawyer that he was going to file a civil suite, I don't recall hearing about one being filed, does anyone else?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Forgot about this older link, bbm.

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

"He couldn’t confirm if Scott, who was released from custody, remains a suspect.

“It’s an open case,” Stewart said. “The investigators before and after the arrest were still pursuing other evidence that came forward and we sill continue to review, assess and investigate anything we have and anything else that comes forward.”

Thank goodness! Now is LE able to go after/find/charge the real killer? I hope so.......

Thanks so much for the link!!

 

[Paragirl]

RSBM

We have discussed before whether the No DNA comment from the lawyer means they have none at all none none linking to his client. That is super important what do you all think?

I agree. I have always thought that this is a hugely important piece of information. IF LE have DNA, and haven't identified any other suspects to date, then I would assume that the DNA they have doesn't match anyone they have samples from. Or that it was DNA that would not be considered out of place in AG's home.

IF they have usable DNA. Wish we knew.

 

[Paragirl]

There simply has to be some DNA - the oven installation guy, the TV delivery guy, various people who were in/around Audrey's house.

MY suspicion is that there was no DNA linking DLS to Audrey's property.

QUESTIONS:
1. Since the DLS debacle has been dismissed are LE allowed to start a new criminal investigation with another suspect/person of interest? Or, because of the DLS debacle is Audrey's crime doomed to go unsolved?

Thanks to anyone who has the answers.

2. Because of the WS rules, I'm totally unsure how we are able to discuss this murder. Please excuse me if I sound completely stupid here but how are we able to discuss people here if we aren't allowed to make reference to Audrey's circle of friends? Maybe I'm really out of it..........:tantrum:


:blushing: :blushing: :blushing:

Especially since LE have publicly stated that the perpetrator is most likely someone "young and close" to AG...

 

[LambChop]

Especially since LE have publicly stated that the perpetrator is most likely someone "young and close" to AG...

We need a link for that.

 

[LambChop]

Rules just to refresh your memory.

Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

We do not discuss people who have not been named as suspects. Nor do we hint there may be some involvement by a certain person who can not be named. If there has been no new developments there is nothing to work on but speculation. You must do so that without involving innocent people who have not been named as suspects.

 

[dotr]

Wondering if elderly woman is chosen victim because a child victim is too difficult to obtain?
If so, could that mean that the perp might have previously abused children, or will in the future?
Does it come down to playing a waiting game to see if perp commits another crime and leaves behind his/her DNA?
Should we assume that none of the DNA collected in the SV case matches any DNA that may have been found in AG's case?


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

“(The killer) has knowledge that an elderly female lives there by herself,” said Mark Safarik, a retired FBI profiler with expertise in violent crime against the elderly.

Safarik said those who kill the elderly “are not opportunistic offenders. They are not breaking into a place and stumbling upon the victim. He knows she’s there, know she’s by herself, and he goes there with intent to sexually assault and murder her. This is different than prior research suggesting women were opportunistic victims of non-violent offenders who become violent at the scene.”

These are angry young men with pent-up rage toward women and likely live with a female authority figure, he said. They are socially incompetent men who perceive little control in their lives, are typically undereducated, have substance abuse problems and are unemployed or in a menial job.

“For these guys, there is not a lot of planning, and they don’t stay at the scene long. They leave evidence, don’t clean up. They don’t think that far ahead.”

They use far more violence than necessary to kill. Overkill is indicative of their anger. This had been the case on Indian Trail.

They attack elderly women because they are easy targets — a child does not present as ready a victim because he is seen as having guardianship, whereas an elderly woman on her own has none. These killers also tend to live relatively close to their victim.

“But a homeless guy in his 40s or 50s?” Safarik asked rhetorically when considering the Gleave case. “Hmm … My advice is look young and look close.”

 

[LambChop]

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


Also in this article:

Steve Hrab neared the end of his news conference in which he had announced that police had the evidence to send David Scott to prison for life. Then he added: “I would hope that if the public has any information about Mr. Scott, please call us.”

And this:

These are angry young men with pent-up rage toward women and likely live with a female authority figure, he said. They are socially incompetent men who perceive little control in their lives, are typically undereducated, have substance abuse problems and are unemployed or in a menial job.

BBM: This part of the profile does not fit any one of Audrey's friends and THAT is why sleuthing them is not permitted. According to the statement by Mr. Hrab, LE believes they have evidence. They just do not have enough of the right kind of evidence. Now look at the statement regarding "angry young men" and apply to a person who has aged and never been caught but may have carried over those traits for years. Are they still capable of committing a crime? If they were angry enough I'm sure they could. jmo

 

[dotr]

bbm
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/2205656-eccentric-doesn-t-equal-murderer/

" James Adcock, a professor, author and cold case expert who consults police in the United States, said police services investigating homicides often fall victim to “booby traps,” including tunnel vision.

DNA only solves about 30 per cent of cases, he added.

In his opinion, and without having read the police notes on the case, he said Scott doesn’t meet the profile of the murder.

People who behave oddly can be easy targets, he said.

Given the severity of Gleave’s beating and her extremely private and quiet lifestyle, Adcock believes the murder was done out of anger and was likely committed by someone she knew, someone who was watching her or someone with issues related to women.

Police need to go back and start again with the victim’s profile, he suggested. “If you know your victim, you know your murderer.”

In most homicide investigations, the killer is known to police within the first 30 days but may not be considered a suspect because they are nice or co-operative, he said.

Adcock warned that unless Gleave was murdered for a deeply personal reason, there is a likelihood the killer could strike again.

“This is not going to be the last,” he said."

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Wondering if elderly woman is chosen victim because a child victim is too difficult to obtain?
If so, could that mean that the perp might have previously abused children, or will in the future?
Does it come down to playing a waiting game to see if perp commits another crime and leaves behind his/her DNA?
Should we assume that none of the DNA collected in the SV case matches any DNA that may have been found in AG's case?


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

“(The killer) has knowledge that an elderly female lives there by herself,” said Mark Safarik, a retired FBI profiler with expertise in violent crime against the elderly.

Safarik said those who kill the elderly “are not opportunistic offenders. They are not breaking into a place and stumbling upon the victim. He knows she’s there, know she’s by herself, and he goes there with intent to sexually assault and murder her. This is different than prior research suggesting women were opportunistic victims of non-violent offenders who become violent at the scene.”

These are angry young men with pent-up rage toward women and likely live with a female authority figure, he said. They are socially incompetent men who perceive little control in their lives, are typically undereducated, have substance abuse problems and are unemployed or in a menial job.

“For these guys, there is not a lot of planning, and they don’t stay at the scene long. They leave evidence, don’t clean up. They don’t think that far ahead.”

They use far more violence than necessary to kill. Overkill is indicative of their anger. This had been the case on Indian Trail.

They attack elderly women because they are easy targets — a child does not present as ready a victim because he is seen as having guardianship, whereas an elderly woman on her own has none. These killers also tend to live relatively close to their victim.

“But a homeless guy in his 40s or 50s?” Safarik asked rhetorically when considering the Gleave case. “Hmm … My advice is look young and look close.”

Coloured by me.

Safarik is basically saying that there is no way (in his opinion as an FBI profiler) that DLS committed this murder. He's saying it was someone 'young and close'. At least the "close" part seems to fit as there was no forced entry to Audrey's home/premises. LE stated that there was no forced entry......

:twocents:

 

[dotr]

Fwiw...

"Audrey Gleave: Person DB Profile

This profile page summarizes all known activity of the person Audrey Gleave related to Nuclear. This person may have appeared in articles supporting this topic, against it, or in a separate context: this biographical entry simply demarks this person as appearing in content suggesting contextual association with Nuclear."
- See more at: http://nuclear.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin//profiler?key=audrey_gleave&pt=2#sthash.DIui6cNI.dpuf

 

[colette]

The thing with all these profiles, they are all guessing. In the end it's all a guess. Unless there is evidence, these guesses do not mean a thing.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

The thing with all these profiles, they are all guessing. In the end it's all a guess. Unless there is evidence, these guesses do not mean a thing.

I respectfully disagree that they are "guesses". These profiles come from years and years of experience and data collecting.

:twocents:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from dotr's link:

In most homicide investigations, the killer is known to police within the first 30 days but may not be considered a suspect because they are nice or co-operative, he said.

Yes, that's what I was talking about earlier. The profilers I've seen on real life programmes more often than not get their perp by going back to the beginning of their suspicions.

:twocents:

 

[LambChop]

I respectfully disagree that they are "guesses". These profiles come from years and years of experience and data collecting.

:twocents:

But they are not evidence and no statement as such came from the investigators who are in charge of Audrey Gleave's case. That means you may discuss what evidence LE has reported but you may not sleuth those who have not be named as suspects. These are the rules until such time as a suspect is named. It is very difficult when it involves someone you feel close to but the rules exist for a reason.

 

[colette]

Yes they do come from years of research, but in the end it's still what I would call "a guess" because it's not a fact or evidence. Just my opinion of profiling.