CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
arghhh ... back to square one

did they actually say they have cleared and released Scott? if not, they need to hold a press conference and tell the public that he is not a suspect IMO - the man is apparently innocent and has suffered enough already

greenthumb: be safe!
 
I'm a bit taken aback but I can't say that I'm shocked. I truly do not think that that sick man had anything to do with this death. I don't believe that any of us really did.

And now "square one" seems so long ago...last Christmas. I hope some excellent investigative work and notetaking was done as they're going to need to revisit the entire timeline.

The sexual component is central, I believe.
 
Missizzy said:
I'm a bit taken aback but I can't say that I'm shocked. I truly do not think that that sick man had anything to do with this death. I don't believe that any of us really did.

And now "square one" seems so long ago...last Christmas. I hope some excellent investigative work and notetaking was done as they're going to need to revisit the entire timeline.

The sexual component is central, I believe.
Click to expand...

BBM: Actually, Missizzy, I thought they had the right man. He did not appear to be an "upstanding citizen", given his history, his being arrested in his own bank carrying a knife, breaching his probation etc. He was living in a barn near Gleaves home, and given the evidence recovered, I believed LE had the right man.

You are right, though, many here seemed to lean towards the fact LE was charging him erroneously. Besides his "status" in life, can someone from that camp remind me what things stood out, to make you believe that LE had the wrong man?

As for my 2nd quote below, while it was obviously circumstantial evidence that lead to Scott's arrest, LE could have kept him in on that charge, and proceeded with it. Fortunately, there must be valid evidence indicating the perp is someone else entirely, and LE/Crown Prosecutor, have done the right thing and released him.

I am curious, was there an apology issued? A statement of innocence? :waitasec:
He was first arrested Dec. 29 by Brantford police when he was found with a knife in his waistband as he visited the washroom of his bank the day before the body of Gleave was discovered.


The following day, Gleave's stabbed body was found on her property. It's not known how long she had been dead.


Meanwhile, Scott served about 42 days in jail for breaching probation by carrying the knife. Upon his release, he was almost immediately re-arrested by Hamilton police on Feb. 10.


http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3153951
Click to expand...
At the time of the arrest, he said officers had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges. This has since changed.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/542232--charges-dropped-in-gleave-homicide
Click to expand...
 
The impending lawsuit:

Hamilton Police Supt. Bill Stewart said the forensic evidence didn’t come back with the “conclusive results we were hoping for.”


He wouldn’t comment when asked if that means there wasn’t any DNA linking the suspect to the scene.


“I can’t go there, what that evidence was, because it’s part of the case and it’s still an open case,” Stewart said.


Scott’s lawyer, Charles Spettigue, said police had no DNA.


“We’re been poring through mountains of disclosure ... and the police have been flailing about trying to find some evidence to theoretically carry on with this,” he said. “The simple reality is they never had any evidence. They have no DNA, they have no-nothing.”


He called Scott’s arrest improper and expects to proceed with a civil suit next week.
“You got to remember he’s been in jail for the better part of four months and guilty or innocent, jail is absolutely hell,” the Hamilton lawyer said.


http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher
Click to expand...
 
At the time of the arrest, he said officers had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges. This has since changed.
Click to expand...

If forensics ruled him out resulting in no "reasonable and probable grounds", then they are left with what they started with ... which was apparently NO REASONABLE AND PROBABLE GROUNDS without forensics in the first place.

What Crown Attorney in their right mind would hang a 1st degree murder charge on anyone without hard evidence? :rolleyes:

IMO, I never thought the circumstantial was that heavy, given Scott's history was pretty generic and could have applied to a lot of other peeps in a heavy populated area. Actually, his walking around in public sporting a knife is one of the factors that led me AWAY from him as a suspect. IMO, his history of mental illness smacked to me that the scene would be totally disorganized, but also my opinion that whoever killed AG was a more organized type, or we would have seen absolute chaos and squallor in areas outside the home or the garage (forced entry, bloody footprints, bloody handprints on the car, dogs killed, etc.) Also, Scott doesn't appear to have any history of sex crimes.
 
Do cemeteries in the area have surveillance? I know some in the states do. I can't get past my initial thought that there had been some sort of gathering at the cemetery to mark that unique week. I realize that surveillance video probably wouldn't show Ms. Gleaves' home but it might show the comings and goings of people near the gravesites. That's one of the few scenarios which make sense, being that there was a sexual component to the crime. The only other possibility, being that we haven't seen a rash of similar crimes, is that this was a rageful killer who was close to Ms. Gleaves.

One thing that really bothers me is that the crime scene has vanished, essentially. After the initial forensics were done, the house was turned over to a friend, thoroughly cleaned and eventually sold.
 
So will police start asking for DNA samples and if so where do they start? Randomly, volunteers, neighbours, friends? That is if if they actually do have DNA.
 
Hi everybody, I feel like I've been lost and now found! I don't know how I could have ever missed the new thread. Nice to read all your posts.

The one thing that is bothering me is the police aren't giving out what evidence they have...sooooooooooooo I'm going with DLS lawyer who says they don't have ANY EVIDENCE (quoted below)
sooooooooo if there is no DNA then the perp wasn't injured, there was no umm sexual assault (back to the word "component", whoever didn't touch a hard object or was wearing gloves/mittens therefore no fingerprints. :banghead:


Outside the courtroom, Scott’s lawyer Charles Spettigue said his client was targeted because he’s “eccentric” and “stands out in a crowd.”

“Police had no DNA evidence, no fingerprints,” he said, adding that police never explained on what grounds charges were laid


http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/542232--charges-dropped-in-gleave-homicide
 
I've been looking around trying to figure out just exactly HOW LONG it takes to get DNA processed. I saw where one lab worker said from a few mins to a few hours, depending on what you are sampling.

So, if you have the sample or several samples, blood, hairs, prints, semen at the crime scene. Then, you have a suspect for match samples it should NOT take 4 months! If it take 4 months due to lack of staff or facilities then we should be going to our young students and begging them to go into forensics.!

I give you the case of Bin Ladin, the USA had his DNA confirmed in hours!!
 
sillybilly said:
If forensics ruled him out resulting in no "reasonable and probable grounds", then they are left with what they started with ... which was apparently NO REASONABLE AND PROBABLE GROUNDS without forensics in the first place.

What Crown Attorney in their right mind would hang a 1st degree murder charge on anyone without hard evidence? :rolleyes:

IMO, I never thought the circumstantial was that heavy, given Scott's history was pretty generic and could have applied to a lot of other peeps in a heavy populated area. Actually, his walking around in public sporting a knife is one of the factors that led me AWAY from him as a suspect. IMO, his history of mental illness smacked to me that the scene would be totally disorganized, but also my opinion that whoever killed AG was a more organized type, or we would have seen absolute chaos and squallor in areas outside the home or the garage (forced entry, bloody footprints, bloody handprints on the car, dogs killed, etc.) Also, Scott doesn't appear to have any history of sex crimes.
Click to expand...

BBM: You have raised a good point, which I have been wondering about.

What exactly is the definition of "reasonable and probable grounds"?

There had to be "reasonable and probable grounds" even without forensic evidence in the first place, or LE could not have proceeded with the charges, right?

I took the fact that "reasonable and probable grounds" had recently changed to mean, that the forensic evidence (an assumption by me that includes the killer's DNA), goes against the (circumstantial) "reasonable and probable grounds" that they had in the 1st place, effectively ruling out Scott as the possible killer.

Doesn't "reasonable and probable grounds" include hard evidence? :waitasec: It must not.
 
Have we seen these pictures before?

Here is the barn Scott was living in, and Audrey.

Police say the charges were withdrawn today after a review of forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

470_murder_barn_110211.jpg


470_murder_gleave_110211.jpg


http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...-Hamilton-110603/20110603/?hub=TorontoNewHome
 
Wondergirl said:
... Doesn't "reasonable and probable grounds" include hard evidence? :waitasec: It must not.
Click to expand...
<rsbm>

I believe it can include hard evidence; i.e. if a bloody knife was is found at a poi's home (the person could have been fileting fish) that might constitute "reasonable and probable grounds" to be suspicious and obtain a search warrant in a homicide case, and it could even proceed to detain/arrest until such time as forensics conclude it is only fish blood. BUT, to actually charge someone based on the existence of what is perceived to be hard evidence (but turns out to be fish blood), IMO it is certainly NOT reasonable to proceed with a murder charge on an innocent fisherman.

Just when I think i know what "reasonable and probable grounds" is all about, I get to googling :) Appears it can be a somewhat vague principle related to whether "subjective" or "objective" interpretation that even the courts seem to have trouble defining sufficient for the layperson to understand ... as evidenced by the case Miazga v. Kvello Estate, re malicious prosecution:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=28&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

Particularly noteworthy in the above article:

Nor can there be a presumption of malice from a lack of reasonable and probable ground
Click to expand...

- and -

Reasonable and probable grounds

The Court recognized that "reasonable and probable grounds" is a lower standard than "reasonable prospect of conviction" (which is the standard used in most Crown offices), but noted that it remained appropriate.

The Court found that "reasonable and probable grounds" is concerned with the Crown's professional, not personal opinion about the merits of the case. While a lack of a subjective belief of the plaintiff's guilt may be enough to meet the third requirement when the defendant is a private prosecutor, it is inconsistent with the role of a public prosecutor in upholding the public interest.

The Court also noted that in reviewing whether there were reasonable and probable grounds, the court should only consider the facts available to the prosecutor at the time the decision was made, not the facts that later came out.

In the case at bar, the Court found that there was no need to consider Miazga's lack of subjective belief that the plaintiffs were guilty. The court also found that even if Miazga had testified that he believed the plaintiffs were guilty, it would not have been outright unreasonable given the facts known to Miazga at the time.

The Court also found that Miazga was allowed to put reliance on the court's original findings of guilt to support that he had reasonable and probable grounds
Click to expand...


:banghead: :crazy:
 
I don't believe I've seen the barn but I know the photo of Ms. Gleave has been circulated. I believe I saw it on her memorial page.

Concerning the length of time to get a DNA result, I think it differs greatly. Bin Laden is an extreme case and shows what's possible when there is tremendous and high level pressure to get the results in the fastest manner possible. But typically, in the US, it can be anywhere from days to weeks. I know of one murder case in Oregon where it took months (last year).

Possibly O/T, but a similar delay was seen with a repeat criminal who was initially arrested for the Texas serial rapes of elder women. The guy sat in jail for at least a month and LE totally bungled the investigation, even contaminating the DNA. IIRC, the only commonality he shared with the description of the rapist was the color of his skin. The man is also suing. It was over a year later that the true (alleged, still not convicted) rapist, Billy Joe Harris, was arrested. My point is that this seems far more common with marginalized folks who don't have standing in the community. It's beyond shameful, IMO.
 
I want to set things straight. The man I referred to above, CLM, who was arrested for the serial rapes in Texas, suffered from a number of LE missteps. Here's the full story:

http://www.kbtx.com/local/headlines/83986097.html

So not only was his scent sample contaminated but he waited in jail for DNA for almost two months before the results ruled him out. What led to LE suspecting him in the first place? He'd been buying cocaine with cash. That hardly links the man to vicious rapes, IMO.

A horrific reminder of how badly some cases can be handled. And while CLM was jailed, the rapes continued.

I see many similarities with this case.
 
respectfully snipped :

Concerning the length of time to get a DNA result, I think it differs greatly. Bin Laden is an extreme case and shows what's possible when there is tremendous and high level pressure to get the results in the fastest manner possible.


What's possible!!!! There is no excuse absolutely no excuse for peeps not knowing the results! PERIOD. This is all a bunch of baloney. Clearly there is the technology, clearly there is the resources, clearly there seems to be the wo/men/power ...I rest my case your honour, clearly there is a better way to process and store DNA evidence. But this is an argument for another day.

God bless all the peeps who aren't as important as Bin Laden.

And MissIzzy you know I luvs ya! I'm just blowin steam
 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/12/31/16719181.html
The house, which sits at the end of a long driveway, was wrapped in police tape. Collision reconstruction, forensic and canine officers could be seen on the property.

"It's very important to be vigilant of anything suspicious," Hrab said in a message to area residents. "The possibility may exist right now that somebody may know something about this crime because the individual or individuals responsible may have talked to other people

This link posted courtesy Snoopster thread 1, post1
A few things from this early news release caught my attention (again)- that LE thought it was a stranger , more than one person might be involved, that Collision Reconstruction was called in and the car taken away for examination and that the crime scene was absolutely horrific..
"Stranger, sexual component, vicious, vicious assault. It was something very bad," a tired and disturbed Hrab said.


"The crime is horrendous."
 
Thank you for that reminder, dotr. Reading it "fresh", I still have the exact same response I did when I first read it. Check the cemetery visitors, check those with some history with Ms. Gleave. We've noted that her history in somewhat "veiled" and there are unexplained gaps. There's bound to be something there, something missed.

But so much time has been lost, I'm afraid. Being that LE thought they had the right man, I assume that the investigation tapered off.

The killer/killers are out there still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 159 more.
Total: 4,554 (members: 160, guests: 4,394)

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
4,394
Total visitors
4,554
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,536
Messages
17,970,556
Members
228,799
Latest member
Starrynight8974
Back
Top