CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #9

[Sillybilly]

Did that make sense at all? :blushing:

Yes, makes sense, and IMO either one could be the case. Regardless of the different specifics, the constant we all seem to agree on is that Audrey would never want that pic to become public.

 

[Sillybilly]

If unidentified DNA is LE's best evidence then they already know who isn't responsible for AG's death. It could be the only way this crime will ever be solved is if this person's DNA shows up in the process of a crime. jmo

IF they had unidentified DNA, then presumably Audrey's close associates would be eliminated and LE should have been able to revert to their original statement that she was attacked by a stranger. Problem is .. their most recent information is that the perp was known to Audrey, so it seems they do not have the unidentified DNA of a stranger.

 

[LambChop]

Unknown DNA seems to be a fact. The statement "someone known to her" may not be true since there are no suspects. In order to determine there was unknown DNA they had to test everyone who came in contact with AG recently. I have not seen a recent statement from LE. jmo

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

IF they had unidentified DNA, then presumably Audrey's close associates would be eliminated and LE should have been able to revert to their original statement that she was attacked by a stranger. Problem is .. their most recent information is that the perp was known to Audrey, so it seems they do not have the unidentified DNA of a stranger.

Completely agree! The notion of 'unknown DNA' makes no sense given Audrey's lifestyle.

In my opinion, LE do have DNA but it's from someone who was for certain in Audrey's house/garage/on her property. And I DO NOT mean DLS!

I'm finding it strange/odd/looking for excuses to keep returning to the topic of 'someone' unkown to Audrey.

:dunno:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Unknown DNA seems to be a fact. The statement "someone known to her" may not be true since there are no suspects. In order to determine there was unknown DNA they had to test everyone who came in contact with AG recently. I have not seen a recent statement from LE. jmo

Seems to be a "fact"? I highly disagree with this notion. If memory serves, someone was a POI/suspect and was asked to undergo a polygraph. LE had to have a reason for going to all of that trouble and effort. Wouldn't they?

:waitasec:

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

ETA: LINK

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2123220-audrey-s-case-gets-colder/

Quoted from the link:

But in mid-August police asked him to take a polygraph test — lie detector — and he agreed. A detective told him flat out that he was a person of interest. NAME DELETED understood why police were spending time with him.

“To some extent I can understand it, because I had opportunity. I gather that's all you need for them to declare you a person of interest.”

For most questions, police request one-word answers when administering a polygraph.

“Did you kill Audrey Gleave?” he was asked.

“No.”

“Did you cause her physical harm?”

“No.”

“Do you know who killed Audrey?”

“No.”

“Were you present when she died?”

“No.”

NAME DELETED asked the detectives some questions of his own. Were they talking to other persons of interest?

“That's one question they would not answer for me,” he said. “It's frustrating, because they share so little information but they expect so much.”

 

[greenthumb]

IF they had unidentified DNA, then presumably Audrey's close associates would be eliminated and LE should have been able to revert to their original statement that she was attacked by a stranger. Problem is .. their most recent information is that the perp was known to Audrey, so it seems they do not have the unidentified DNA of a stranger.

JMO that somewhere between 'close associates' and 'strangers' is an area that encompasses not - so - close associates, acquaintances, neighbors, etc. In all of our lives, there are numerous people who are known to us, so they are not strangers but neither are they close. In Audrey's life, there were former colleagues, former students, former in-laws, neighbors, coffee buddies, former golfing acquaintances, possibly service people, just to name a few. So if AG's close associates have been ruled out by DNA results, it does not necessarily follow that her attacker was unknown to her, IMO.

 

[Woodland]

Unknown DNA seems to be a fact. The statement "someone known to her" may not be true since there are no suspects. In order to determine there was unknown DNA they had to test everyone who came in contact with AG recently. I have not seen a recent statement from LE. jmo

....

Wow, unknown DNA seems to be a fact? Is there an MSM link to that seems to be a fact, or is that the missing link in the no-go area of someone known to AG? Either way, the answer will be a great avenue to follow!

 

[Woodland]

JMO that somewhere between 'close associates' and 'strangers' is an area that encompasses not - so - close associates, acquaintances, neighbors, etc. In all of our lives, there are numerous people who are known to us, so they are not strangers but neither are they close. In Audrey's life, there were former colleagues, former students, former in-laws, neighbors, coffee buddies, former golfing acquaintances, possibly service people, just to name a few. So if AG's close associates have been ruled out by DNA results, it does not necessarily follow that her attacker was unknown to her, IMO.

BBM - unfortunately, we don't know that. We have been advised AG's killer was known to her - in what capacity is anyone's guess if they cannot be identified after all this time in our techie world.

 

[Woodland]

Seems to me the only DNA LE could rule out at this time, maybe if it's on file with Florida LE, is JV. Other than that, could LE compel others with no previous record to give a DNA sample?

 

[Chorley8]

Reply to Woodland's post well what happened in Orangeville a good recent example of mass Dnaing. Someone must have refused even if innocent.

 

[Woodland]

Reply to Woodland's post well what happened in Orangeville a good recent example of mass Dnaing. Someone must have refused even if innocent.

Unfortunately we don't know if mass DNA testing happened with AG's case - seems to me the public would have heard. If LE has not stated they have DNA from AG's crime scene then we don't know if they do or do not.

 

[Chorley8]

Recent post quoting Spec article: I think the third question might be the one flubbed. Flubbing "Did you kill" or "did you harm" would be more than a discrepancy. OR the questions about itinerary the two days spent with wife that would flumox me and would probably contradict myself.

Other interesting point I didn't notice is that they DID show interest in whether others were being looked at elsewhere there was a "let' move on" point of view. Now whether interested in who killed Audrey or just anxious about own fate I don't know. "Here" early presence showed that same anxiety and need for reassurance. Understandable of course.



But in mid-August police asked him to take a polygraph test — lie detector — and he agreed. A detective told him flat out that he was a person of interest. NAME DELETED understood why police were spending time with him.

“To some extent I can understand it, because I had opportunity. I gather that's all you need for them to declare you a person of interest.”

For most questions, police request one-word answers when administering a polygraph.

“Did you kill Audrey Gleave?” he was asked.

“No.”

“Did you cause her physical harm?”

“No.”

“Do you know who killed Audrey?”




“Were you present when she died?”

“No.”

NAME DELETED asked the detectives some questions of his own. Were they talking to other persons of interest?

“That's one question they would not answer for me,” he said. “It's frustrating, because they share so little information but they expect so much.”

Last edited by No_Stone_Unturned; Today at 04:26 PM. Reason: added link

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

....

Wow, unknown DNA seems to be a fact? Is there an MSM link to that seems to be a fact, or is that the missing link in the no-go area of someone known to AG? Either way, the answer will be a great avenue to follow!

Indeed, this is really a mysterious "fact". I'd love to know where/when this became "fact" (although my memory isn't the best even though I've been following this case since the beginning!).:blushing:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

IF we're going with a stranger who killed Audrey.......

........perhaps we should really define "stranger". This is from an online dictionary:

noun

The definition of a stranger is person you do not know, or someone unknown in a place or a community, or a person who is unfamiliar with something.

A person you have never ever met before who just shows up at your work is an example of a stranger.

A person who moves to a new town and doesn't know anyone is an example of a stranger.

A person who lies all the time is an example of someone who would be described as a stranger to the truth.

FROM - YourDictionary definition and usage example.

This still feels implausible to me. LE would know if stranger moved into Lynden before Audrey's murder. If a stranger showed up at Audrey's door, would she welcome them with open arms? The third example is a moot point.

 

[LambChop]

DNA was collected from the crime scene. DLS was arrested but his DNA was not a match so they had to let him go. Any other suspects/POI would have had to have given a DNA sample. So we are led to believe that DNA was found at the crime scene that does not match any known person that LE has considered a POI during their investigation. That is what is am getting from reading posts from the initial threads. jmo


This is what was posted on the first page of Thread #1

Horrendous. Vicious. Savage.

That was how veteran homicide detective Staff Sergeant Steve Hrab described the murder of 73-year-old Audrey Gleave, found dead inside her secluded, rural Ancaster home on Indian Trail Thursday morning.

“In the last 10 years I can’t think of one more vicious,” he said, later adding that the case stands out in the top 1 per cent.

Gleave was stabbed multiple times, Hrab said. Investigators believe there was a “sexual component” and that she didn’t know her attacker or attackers. So I do not understand how we get from didn't know to did know.



In earlier posts it was mentioned that police collected semen. I can't find a link to that but if there is one it would be between the first and third threads.

And this regarding forensic evidence:

Police had believed results from forensic tests coming in as early as Thursday would solidify the case, but they did not match Scott. The Crown’s office withdrew the first-degree murder charge, citing “no probability of conviction.”

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2205722-anxiety-returns-as-murderer-still-on-the-loose/

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Unknown DNA seems to be a fact. The statement "someone known to her" may not be true since there are no suspects. In order to determine there was unknown DNA they had to test everyone who came in contact with AG recently. I have not seen a recent statement from LE. jmo

Would you PLEASE be kind enough to give us a LINK or a QUOTE (with source) to clarify/prove this "fact". As you can see, this notion of "fact" has us all befuddled! OK, me at least!!:blushing:

Many thanks,
NSU

 

[Paragirl]

Completely agree! The notion of 'unknown DNA' makes no sense given Audrey's lifestyle.

In my opinion, LE do have DNA but it's from someone who was for certain in Audrey's house/garage/on her property. And I DO NOT mean DLS!

ITA. I believe that LE has DNA samples from the crime scene. I believe the only DNA samples found - match people/a person who were/was known to AG, spent time with her in her home/on her property, and so, that DNA might have reasonably have been expected to be there. I believe that so far LE has not been able to determine that the DNA was SPECIFICALLY deposited DURING the crime. I believe that because of this, the DNA they have cannot be considered enough evidence on its own to support naming the owner a suspect. IMO LE are biding their time, waiting for the inevitable slip-up. It always comes, sooner or later.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

DNA was collected from the crime scene. DLS was arrested but his DNA was not a match so they had to let him go. Any other suspects/POI would have had to have given a DNA sample. So we are led to believe that DNA was found at the crime scene that does not match any known person that LE has considered a POI during their investigation. jmo

Apologies for being such a pain in the a^^, but please prove that any/all DNA found at the crime scene fails to match any POI's that LE had in their sights. Kindly give us a LINK or a QUOTE from a source.

The phrase "we are led to believe" still leaves me befuddled.:blushing:

Many thanks,
NSU

 

[dotr]

All this talk about DNA, has me wondering where is the " mess " usually associated with a brutal murder?
Was Audrey attacked in the place where her body was found, or, as mentioned in earlier threads, was she killed and re-dressed elsewhere?
If that was the case, would potential poi increase, or decrease?

 

[Paragirl]

DNA was collected from the crime scene. DLS was arrested but his DNA was not a match so they had to let him go. Any other suspects/POI would have had to have given a DNA sample. So we are led to believe that DNA was found at the crime scene that does not match any known person that LE has considered a POI during their investigation. jmo

...or any DNA that was collected only matched people close to/known by AG - people who could explain away the presence of their DNA at the scene...WHY would LE question anyone known to AG if the collected DNA evidence was "unknown"?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, even though I ASSUME that DNA was collected, and this is my personal belief, I don't think it has ever been officially confirmed that there is DNA evidence. The statements made around the time that DLS was released were very vague and evasive. I am not on my usual computer and don't have access to my notes ATM, but IIRC, LE never confirmed or denied that they had DNA, just "forensic evidence". I don't believe they elaborated on what that "forensic evidence" was. Mr. Spettigue made some remarks re LE not having anything to link his client to the crime, and made a comment about LE not having DNA "or anything", but I believe it was unclear as to whether he meant that LE has DNA and it didn't match his client, or they didn't even have DNA or anything else to justify charging his client.

IMO there is DNA but I believe that if LE had "unknown" DNA, they would be running it against other perps in the system etc and I can't think of any reason why they would keep this from the public in this particular case? Why wouldn't they be openly and publicly doing mass DNA testing of people in the area? Why not make it known and keep the perp on edge? Why would there be all this silence and secrecy? Why keep their cards so close to their chest if they want to catch an unknown perp and they HAVE his DNA?

I am legitimately asking why. I don't personally believe that an unknown, random killer attacked AG in her rural home, but I do like to look at all the possible angles and theories. Sometimes we can get stuck in a certain gear and it's hard to shift perspective.

All JMO etc.