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

[whiterhino]

@sillybilly: I don't think I can answer your questions without breaking forum rules...? Yes, I am talking about DNA on the body. Even if it wasn't necessary, it's much more difficult to dismiss DNA on the body as opposed to DNA or prints found inside the house. I'm unable to propose by whom or how DNA could be obtained but as for purpose, I can say that if someone were going around collecting anothers' hair or used Kleenex, I can't imagine they have good intentions. All I know is if I wanted to frame someone, I'd probably plant DNA.

To be clear: I am not exactly married to the idea of a setup. Just looking at alternatives maybe for no other purpose than to reaffirm previously proposed theories.

Regarding AG being a private person: She might very well have been private but seemed to have no problem mentioning one friends' expected visit to another. Based on this, who knows what other info AG might have casually mentioned to someone? Even if AG didn't say anything about cake or expected visits of friends to anyone, PK could have. Anyone who wanted to frame PK could have used this info (date of cake delivery) to their benefit. I really don't think a setup is very likely but couldn't resist going there once I saw other posters suggest the same idea.

I read somewhere in the timeline leading up to AGs' death that her mailbox had been damaged at one point. Idk why but it stood out to me for some reason. It seems like the kind of thing that might have gotten under AGs' skin. Does anyone have any thoughts about the mailbox or is it nothing?

 

[Woodland]

<rsbm>

Do you have a link for that FG?

I don't recall seeing anything regarding how long PK was involved with detectives (whether at AG's or the police station) that day, what time AK left work that day, or whether PK picked her up from work, whether he was alone or they were together on a drive home.

FromGermany was correct as we do know the answer to that actually, as much as we possibly can at this time -

After he was interviewed by police at the scene of the homicide he drove home and along with Alex ate the cake — a "Texas stollen" cinnamon and raisin coffee ring cake.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

PK was not detained, was not taken to the police station and drove home. Whether he picked up AK before going home or went home and picked her up later would not change any circumstances. He was at home with AK whenever she finished work or she left early due to AG being found.

 

[Woodland]

<rsbm>

Nobody had to know that PK was going to show sometime between Dec 27 - 30 ... they only had to know that PK frequently visited AG and would possibly/likely find the body or report that AG wasn't answering her door. However, for that same person to know that PK was a frequent visitor, presumably they would also know that LV visited AG, so there was no guarantee that it would be PK who found the body.

In an article at the time of AG's murder, LV stated she was only ever in AG's home once or twice. She did sit outside at AG's an unknown number of times, but was uncomfortable with the dogs.

LV did offer to drop some soup off on the 27 Dec, a break from their norm, but don't see LV setting up a time to visit with AG outside at the end of December.

Seems to me LV was not one of the few people AG allowed/invited into her home from time to time. Unsure at whose preference.

 

[Woodland]

<rsbm>

No need to 'plant' PK's DNA in the home .. by his posts here at WS, he was in pretty much every room in the house. If we're talking DNA planted at the immediate crime scene or on Audrey's body, how would we propose that PK's DNA was obtained for that purpose and by whom? PK indicated the 911 dispatcher asked him to check for a pulse, so that would explain his DNA on a pulse point, but wouldn't necessarily explain it away on other parts of her body or clothing.

Just for the record, we don't know for sure that no cake was found at AG's, but presumably it wasn't, or I doubt LE would have allowed the cake or anything else in the home / at the crime scene to be removed by anyone.

BBM - we do know that from the last article -

He says police focused on apparent inconsistencies in his recollection of events, but the shock of seeing his friend's body, and the passage of time, blurred many details for him.

At one point, he said he had carried the cake for Gleave into the garage where he discovered the body, but later said he had left the domed-lid Tupperware in his car the whole time. He's now convinced he must have left the cake in the car.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

Imo, no cake was found at the crime scene - that would be one of the inconsistencies mentioned here. LE knows there was no cake found at the crime scene - otherwise there would be no inconsistency. He was allowed to drive home, with anything that was in his vehicle.

 

[deugirtni]

After LE finished with the crime scene and released it, everything else would be up to the executrix of the Will with no need for LE to be involved in either the cleaning or the sale of the house.

There have been known to be times when LE have returned to a crimescene, or suspected crimescene, after the fact. And times when even bodies are exhumed for further investigation. I think it is too bad that both AG's home, and her body, will never be able to be further examined, just in case. Police don't always catch everything on the first round. And especially when there is no suspect yet. I suppose the medical examiner would have taken samples that could always be re-looked at, but hopefully the ME took the same samples that might be in question years later. One doesn't know what they don't know, and to me, it seems simple enough to miss something just by not thinking of a particular possibility at the time. We are all only human, even the police and MEs. Even with the cleaning of the house, how do police know they wouldn't have potentially come upon something that would have been of interest to this case? It may not have held the same interest for the friend who was in charge of cleaning the house, nor the cleaning crew. It's one thing if police know whodunit, but it's another thing when the case is still a big mystery.

 

[deugirtni]

BBM - we do know that from the last article -

He says police focused on apparent inconsistencies in his recollection of events, but the shock of seeing his friend's body, and the passage of time, blurred many details for him.

At one point, he said he had carried the cake for Gleave into the garage where he discovered the body, but later said he had left the domed-lid Tupperware in his car the whole time. He's now convinced he must have left the cake in the car.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

Imo, no cake was found at the crime scene - that would be one of the inconsistencies mentioned here. LE knows there was no cake found at the crime scene - otherwise there would be no inconsistency. He was allowed to drive home, with anything that was in his vehicle.

Does a single piece of cake get a domed tupperware container?

 

[deugirtni]

.... I read somewhere in the timeline leading up to AGs' death that her mailbox had been damaged at one point. Idk why but it stood out to me for some reason. It seems like the kind of thing that might have gotten under AGs' skin. Does anyone have any thoughts about the mailbox or is it nothing?

This is the piece in the news article about the mailbox. It happened the month prior to her murder. It does seem odd that 'vandals' would be way the H*LL out there on Indian Trail, doesn't it?

Months later, Phil talked to a Hamilton Spectator writer about his relationship with Audrey. He told the story of her new mailbox. About a month before she died, vandals had busted up her old one, he said. She “hated the guts” of whoever did it. She bought a new mailbox, and when she discovered that a part was missing, she recruited Phil to drive with her to the hardware store.

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

 

[deugirtni]

.... @Woodland: To your question of who else could know that PK was coming over on Dec 30th... Like you say, info mentioned casually. Just as AG mentions in her email (to PK on the 27th) that Lynne is bringing soup, AG could have mentioned PK bringing the cake while Lynne was there. *NOT suggesting or speculating or implicating* just using this as an example to illustrate how easily & casually someone could acquire such information. Similarly, PK could have mentioned the cake to someone who wanted to set him up (altho if a setup, you'd think the killer would be sure to plant DNA to "seal the deal"). Just suggesting alternatives fwiw.

For the sake of repetition:

PK contacts AG on the 25th to arrange "cake delivery" for the 30th.

AG emails PK on 27th to "report" (as per subject line in email) her illness & vent about symptoms, cabin fever & her coffee group meeting. Mentions that she's expecting Lynne to bring soup over shortly. ....

I believe you are misreading the newspaper article wherein it mentions about her friend bringing her soup being announced to PK; (unless you know of a different article?):

After Christmas, she felt under the weather. Monday morning, Dec. 27, Audrey emailed Phil and declared she would make her Wednesday coffee meeting come hell or high water. Lynne Vanstone brought her soup.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2216816-audrey-s-story-continues/

 

[Woodland]

Agree a mailbox vandal(s) out in such a rural area is strange, in that only AG's mailbox was suppose to have been vandalized at that time.

Fwiw, never bought into how a missing part for the new mailbox was retrieved from the hardware store by AG. An intelligent woman goes to a hardware store and pretends to 'steal' a part that she felt belonged to her? Nonsense imo, considering no other such stories surfaced about her.

 

[Woodland]

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

Monday, Dec. 27, 2010, 10:46 a.m.

Subject: report

From: [email protected]

By Sunday the weakness was disappearing but still there. And would you believe that this morning I got a secondary infection; runny nose, runny eyes, sneezing. But at least I don’t feel weak so don’t think I’ve a fever. I’m just annoyed with it. Hope it gets better because I intend to have coffee Wed. come hell or high water. I’ve got cabin fever. Lynne is coming over with soup in a few minutes.

Bary

This is the text of the last known e-mail sent by AG - brought forward in post #213. The soup delivery is related the morning of the day LE feels she was killed.

 

[anonymess]

Does a single piece of cake get a domed tupperware container?

Good eye!

 

[dotr]

When a profiler suggested LE " look young and close " for the perp in this case, it was at a time when presumably, there was a " sexual component " to the crime.
If it turns out that the scene was staged, and there was not any genuine sexual motivation in this crime, would that mean the " perp. profile" might also have changed? imo.


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

" A behavioural profile of the killer in the Audrey Gleave case likely would have suggested the perpetrator was a younger male, in his 20s or early 30s, and someone who had known Audrey, or known of her, which was not the case with David Scott.

“(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."

 

[Woodland]

I would think the perp profile has changed - dramatically. Staged, targeted, known to AG - according to the latest from current LE on the case. Not a huge circle to choose from, according to what is known. Jmo.

 

[Sillybilly]

From the latest Spec article:

When Vanstone's dog Murphy died, she emailed Gleave to break the news gently, knowing she would be upset.

That answers a question we had much earlier as to whether or not LV was computer savvy and emailed with AG.

 

[deugirtni]

FromGermany was correct as we do know the answer to that actually, as much as we possibly can at this time -

After he was interviewed by police at the scene of the homicide he drove home and along with Alex ate the cake — a "Texas stollen" cinnamon and raisin coffee ring cake.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/

PK was not detained, was not taken to the police station and drove home. Whether he picked up AK before going home or went home and picked her up later would not change any circumstances. He was at home with AK whenever she finished work or she left early due to AG being found.

Is it normal for such a person as the one happening upon a gruesome crimescene, to NOT be taken to the police station to give an official statement to police? Or would that be done on the scene? It seems like rather shoddy workmanship if there is no official statement given by the person finding the body? I am kind of shocked at that.

 

[Sillybilly]

Is it normal for such a person as the one happening upon a gruesome crimescene, to NOT be taken to the police station to give an official statement to police? Or would that be done on the scene? It seems like rather shoddy workmanship if there is no official statement given by the person finding the body? I am kind of shocked at that.

SOP that they would have taken a statement. Not SOP that they would share it publicly, LOL.

LE had an incident command unit set up on scene, so I would think he could have been interviewed there. Scroll down to pic 5:

http://m.brantnews.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Agree a mailbox vandal(s) out in such a rural area is strange, in that only AG's mailbox was suppose to have been vandalized at that time.

Fwiw, never bought into how a missing part for the new mailbox was retrieved from the hardware store by AG. An intelligent woman goes to a hardware store and pretends to 'steal' a part that she felt belonged to her? Nonsense imo, considering no other such stories surfaced about her.

I believe, it may be possible for her to have "taken" the missing part. I don't understand at all how someone would tell this at the memorial of the (murdered!) friend who had "stolen". At least it was something like a very small theft/a mini violation of the law and that's not funny. Should the people shake their heads about AG, was it the intention? Not really nice, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

This is the piece in the news article about the mailbox. It happened the month prior to her murder. It does seem odd that 'vandals' would be way the H*LL out there on Indian Trail, doesn't it?


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

It was discussed also, that 2 bank statements disappeared in relation to the damaged mailbox?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

There have been known to be times when LE have returned to a crimescene, or suspected crimescene, after the fact. And times when even bodies are exhumed for further investigation. I think it is too bad that both AG's home, and her body, will never be able to be further examined, just in case. Police don't always catch everything on the first round. And especially when there is no suspect yet. I suppose the medical examiner would have taken samples that could always be re-looked at, but hopefully the ME took the same samples that might be in question years later. One doesn't know what they don't know, and to me, it seems simple enough to miss something just by not thinking of a particular possibility at the time. We are all only human, even the police and MEs. Even with the cleaning of the house, how do police know they wouldn't have potentially come upon something that would have been of interest to this case? It may not have held the same interest for the friend who was in charge of cleaning the house, nor the cleaning crew. It's one thing if police know whodunit, but it's another thing when the case is still a big mystery.

I also find it quite dramatically, that all tracks were destroyed. I think, they had their (wrong) suspect to early on and trusted that DS would be the perp.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/02/12/man-charged-in-sex-slaying

David Laurie Scott, 50, was barely out of Brantford jail when he was arrested Thursday afternoon for the murder of the retired Hamilton-area teacher.

Scott was picked up without incident at a Brantford laundromat by Hamilton police. He appeared in a Hamilton court Friday and was charged with first-degree murder.

Scott had been released from Brantford jail Wednesday morning after serving more than 40 days on a weapons charge.

He had been arrested on Dec 29 when found with a knife in his waistband as he visited the washroom of his bank.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Audrey was suppose to have been a very private person - did not like her e-mail passed around, had friends that witnessed her Will that the executor knew nothing about etc. Wouldn't it be a change for AG to start telling various people what her movements would be in the coming days?

To me, in the latest article, the point about the cake is that it should have been in the givers hand when approaching the house/garage. Left in the car would require returning to the car to retrieve it. Santa doesn't do that.

How many people would Audrey have been willing to confine her dogs for?

Too much coincidence, for me, on a last minute plan or set up. Jmo.

Regarding a set up, I wonder if the killer would have been cold blooded enough to stage an "overkill murder". Maybe someone can fake a "sexual motive", but can someone also do vicious stabbing and causing severe trauma - only to fake the murder to get on a misleading profile?