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

[Sillybilly]

Until we have named POI(s) in Audrey's murder, we seem to be at a loss here.

<rsbm>

I don't get it either Stone. Most cases we discuss others named in MSM (Caylee Anthony case being just one example where Cindy, George, friends, Kronk, etc ... none of them were named as POIs or suspects) were discussed at length throughout the entire threads as to the possibility of their involvement (and in Audrey's case at hand here, discussion of others took place for X number of earlier threads)

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members or others that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members or others cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.

<bbm>

Perhaps a Mod or Admin can give us some clarification as to why we are now not allowed to discuss "others" in this particular case.

 

[Woodland]

Have a difficult time looking at items apparently missing from AG's home separately from no bloody footprints in the garage according to PK.

If items were missing (not so sure how accurate that is or if it was staged) when did the killer go inside the house, knowing they would not be attacked by 2 german sheppard dogs? Before killing AG? They gathered up items and had AG under their control not to escape or call 911? Then took the items to the garage, along with AG, set the items down, killed AG, picked the items up and left - with no bloody footprints after a vicious stabbing and other acts of violence?


Or, the killer viciously stabbed AG and committed other acts of violence first (in the house or garage?), knowing they would not be attacked by 2 german sheppard dogs, cleaned their footwear, picked up items of interest from the house, took the items to the garage and set them down, moved AG to the garage (if not already there) - leaving a trail of blood even if deceased I'm afraid, cleaned their footwear again before picking the items back up and leaving?


Or were there footprints? If there were footprints, then the prints either matched DLS by coincidence or LE ignored a non-match between footprints and DLS. The lawyer for DLS only mentioned LE did not have DNA - whatever that meant.

LE has not attempted to engage the public with a certain type of footwear involved in this case - as they did with SV.

So, if there were no bloody footprints, and so-called missing items were found outside on the property (if they were) does that point more to a careful and well planned premeditated killing? By someone known to AG? Imo, yes.

 

[LambChop]

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members or others that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members or others cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information


There has been no evidence that anyone AG knew is considered a suspect, in any way, shape or form. To subject someone to wild speculation is not evidence, nor is it permitted under TOS here. Sometimes a case just goes cold until something happens and investigators reopen the case.

Also:

Freedom of Speech:

While we believe very much in the freedom of speech & expression, you DO NOT have an absolute right to say whatever you want in this community. WS is based in the United States, but is not an agency of the Federal or any State government - so the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar State amendments regarding your right to free speech DO NOT APPLY HERE. Anything that goes against our core beliefs and the purpose for which this community was designed may not be allowed. Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited. WS Administration has the absolute right to edit, modify, close or delete any content found in this community. While this rarely, if ever happens, we will not tolerate individuals or groups creating problems with the overall membership.

There are specific reasons for the rules and regarding all our cases. We just can't accuse someone of a crime they have not been charged with. It is as simple as that.

The rules are above. Please feel free to go over them to answer any questions you may have.

 

[Sillybilly]

Can someone please remind me who is the detective in charge of Audrey's case now since Ian Matthews died. Thanks !!

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

SB, I can't think of the new detective's name right now! :blushing:

:thinking:

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Questions & Comments:

- Do we know on which side of the Camaro Audrey's body was found (driver's or passenger's side)?

- Were we ever told if rigor had set in yet - if so, Audrey's arms would have been pointing somewhat upright rather than down at her side.

- We know it had been a rainy/muddy day so (I think) there would be no footprints in snow or also in the rainy/muddy driveway.

- Or do we know if the body was located behind the car near the garage doors?

- Is there any evidence that a killer was loose in the Hamilton area and if so, has he/she killed again since? (I'm not from Hamilton so I don't tend to read the Hamilton news).

- LE would have double-checked if any patient had escaped from the Hamilton Mental Health facility at that time.

- Do we know how close to the bench Audrey was found?

- Were there obvious signs of Audrey having been out there having a smoke when the killer attacked?

(I'll shut up now.........):blushing:

 

[Woodland]

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members or others that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members or others cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?65798-Etiquette-amp-Information


There has been no evidence that anyone AG knew is considered a suspect, in any way, shape or form. To subject someone to wild speculation is not evidence, nor is it permitted under TOS here. Sometimes a case just goes cold until something happens and investigators reopen the case.

Also:

Freedom of Speech:

While we believe very much in the freedom of speech & expression, you DO NOT have an absolute right to say whatever you want in this community. WS is based in the United States, but is not an agency of the Federal or any State government - so the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar State amendments regarding your right to free speech DO NOT APPLY HERE. Anything that goes against our core beliefs and the purpose for which this community was designed may not be allowed. Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited. WS Administration has the absolute right to edit, modify, close or delete any content found in this community. While this rarely, if ever happens, we will not tolerate individuals or groups creating problems with the overall membership.

There are specific reasons for the rules and regarding all our cases. We just can't accuse someone of a crime they have not been charged with. It is as simple as that.

The rules are above. Please feel free to go over them to answer any questions you may have.

I do think the regular posters and readers here understand and respect the TOS of the forum. Where I think the fork in the road occurs is as follows, fwiw -

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-gleave-murder-remains-mystery-one-year-later-1.747175

From the above link -

While the motive remains a mystery, as do Gleave's movements in the days before her death, Matthews says it was not a random attack.
"The person who killed Audrey was a person who was known to her."


Where is the line and when do we cross it if LE has stated the attack was not random and her attacker was known to her? This statement from LE has not been updated, to the best of my knowledge.

Respectfully, when no one has been ruled out, it seems to some to be counter-intuitive to not discuss possible person(s) involved. Unless there is something more to this that we are not privy to.

Encarta definition of counter-intuitive - not in accordance with what would naturally be assumed or expected.

I also do not think the public has been informed who the new Detective assigned to this case is. A call or an e-mail to HPS should produce a name.

Anyway, my next post will also highlight what SB said in post #101, this page.

 

[dotr]

Optimistically speaking, my guess is that a person, or persons, are being considered, and LE is waiting for just the right evidence, at the right time, to make an arrest.

 

[Pink Panther]

What do you mean when you say 'she seems happy and relaxed with whoever took it.'? It seems obvious to me that the photo is a 'selfie'. I wonder how MSM got their hands on it?

I didn't realize that there was still activity in this topic. It really really bothers me that nothing has come of this so far, investigation-wise. Seems like when the homeless man was released, LE gave up?

I was curious after reading some of the last few posts.. what made LE believe there were items missing from the home? Who would know, other than AG if there were items missing? Who told them? How did that person know? Was it in that person's interest to tell them so?

I'm sorry. I seem to have caused a bit of confusion with my post. Yes, of course…It's a selfie…But someone gave it to the papers. I stand by the fact that I don't believe that Audrey would have ever wanted that particular picture released to the media.

moo

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm sorry. I seem to have caused a bit of confusion with my post. Yes, of course&#8230;It's a selfie&#8230;But someone gave it to the papers. I stand by the fact that I don't believe that Audrey would have ever wanted that particular picture released to the media.

moo

I ABSOLUTELY agree Panther ... it is, without a doubt, the least flattering picture we have ever seen of Audrey and I believe she would have been appalled that anyone saw it, let alone the public after her death. Yes it's a selfie ... seems to be practising with her new camera. Who would Audrey have ever shown that picture to who would have been brash enough (vindictive enough?) to present it publicly (as a way of demeaning Audrey in death)? I think someone rummaged and found that pic and had a good laugh over it.

GROSS FACTOR

IMO, it could also represent what has been speculated on wrt sexual component and something that was taken.

 

[dotr]

I ABSOLUTELY agree Panther ... it is, without a doubt, the least flattering picture we have ever seen of Audrey and I believe she would have been appalled that anyone saw it, let alone the public after her death. Yes it's a selfie ... seems to be practising with her new camera. Who would Audrey have ever shown that picture to who would have been brash enough (vindictive enough?) to present it publicly (as a way of demeaning Audrey in death)? I think someone rummaged and found that pic and had a good laugh over it.

GROSS FACTOR

IMO, it could also represent what has been speculated on wrt sexual component and something that was taken.

ITA, who knows, maybe it was used as a psychological ploy by LE ? imo.

 

[dotr]

Can someone please remind me who is the detective in charge of Audrey's case now since Ian Matthews died. Thanks !!

Think this might be the Detective presently in charge of Audrey's case..

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/CrimeFiles/Help+Us+Solve+This+Crime/gleave.htm

bbm.

"Gleave was a retired school teacher who lived alone at the property. There were no signs of forced entry to the property and it is not believed that anything was taken from the home during the attack.

Gleave was last seen alive on the morning of Monday 27th December 2010 when she was visited by a friend.

Police ask anyone with information on this crime to contact Det Sgt Joe Stewart at 905 546 2458."

 

[Pink Panther]

Think this might be the Detective presently in charge of Audrey's case..

http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/CrimeFiles/Help+Us+Solve+This+Crime/gleave.htm

bbm.

"Gleave was a retired school teacher who lived alone at the property. There were no signs of forced entry to the property and it is not believed that anything was taken from the home during the attack.

Gleave was last seen alive on the morning of Monday 27th December 2010 when she was visited by a friend.

Police ask anyone with information on this crime to contact Det Sgt Joe Stewart at 905 546 2458."

I'm still so confused about the police description and the recounting of how she was found by the person that found her. It's very strange. Had she been covered up in some way so that the stabbing/violence was not obvious at first sight? If so, why isn't this mentioned anywhere?

moo

" Gleave had been the victim of a particularly violent attack and had been stabbed multiple times."

 

[Salem]

<rsbm>

I don't get it either Stone. Most cases we discuss others named in MSM (Caylee Anthony case being just one example where Cindy, George, friends, Kronk, etc ... none of them were named as POIs or suspects) were discussed at length throughout the entire threads as to the possibility of their involvement (and in Audrey's case at hand here, discussion of others took place for X number of earlier threads)

from:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858

<bbm>

Perhaps a Mod or Admin can give us some clarification as to why we are now not allowed to discuss "others" in this particular case.

Every case is different and sometimes the rules are different. In Audrey's case, you may discuss what is MSM and you may discuss the information received from the Verified Insider. You may not reach and speculate about POIs or suspects. In order to have that discussion, you need a link that clearly shows LE suspects them.

You may also discuss the book, provided that any POIs the author discusses are not discussed here, unless there is a corroborating MSM/LE link.

Hope that helps,

Salem

 

[Salem]

I do think the regular posters and readers here understand and respect the TOS of the forum. Where I think the fork in the road occurs is as follows, fwiw -

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/audrey-gleave-murder-remains-mystery-one-year-later-1.747175

From the above link -

While the motive remains a mystery, as do Gleave's movements in the days before her death, Matthews says it was not a random attack.
"The person who killed Audrey was a person who was known to her."


Where is the line and when do we cross it if LE has stated the attack was not random and her attacker was known to her? This statement from LE has not been updated, to the best of my knowledge.

Respectfully, when no one has been ruled out, it seems to some to be counter-intuitive to not discuss possible person(s) involved. Unless there is something more to this that we are not privy to.

Encarta definition of counter-intuitive - not in accordance with what would naturally be assumed or expected.

I also do not think the public has been informed who the new Detective assigned to this case is. A call or an e-mail to HPS should produce a name.

Anyway, my next post will also highlight what SB said in post #101, this page.

You can discuss what Detective Matthews stated in MSM BUT you may not speculate about anyone that has not been named. So in other words, your speculation must be towards an anonymous/unknown someone unless you have a link to support your speculation.

Salem

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=17152



Stalled cases are not often solved, says York prof

For roughly five months, Hamilton police worked to build a case against David Laurie Scott for the murder of 73-year-old Audrey Gleave, found stabbed and violently attacked in the garage of her rural Indian Trail home Dec. 30, wrote The Hamilton Spectator June 8, in a story about evidence that later exonerated Scott and left investigators with no suspect.

Barring a major break, such as a sudden DNA match or new eyewitness coming forward, these cases go cold and are not solved, Brienza said.

If that is the situation with cases like Audrey's, then after more than 3 years why not permit publication of more relevant results of investigation? Why withhold "culprit knowledge" and other informations?

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Optimistically speaking, my guess is that a person, or persons, are being considered, and LE is waiting for just the right evidence, at the right time, to make an arrest.

I couldn't agree with you more! :drumroll: The only other reason I can see here is that the "suspect" (for lack of another term) has close connections to LE and 'the thin blue line' wants to protect this person. I know, that's a horrible thing to think of! Or are LE being threatened in some way? Again, that's horrific to consider.

Bottom Line: Audrey's case *seems* to be treated differently than any other crimes in my memory. That said, I still have faith the killer(s) will be caught when we least expect it.

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoting FromGermany:

Why withhold "culprit knowledge" and other informations?

It's common for LE to hold back something only the perp would know about any/all crimes.

HTH

 

[LambChop]

http://www.yorku.ca/yfile/archive/index.asp?Article=17152



Stalled cases are not often solved, says York prof

For roughly five months, Hamilton police worked to build a case against David Laurie Scott for the murder of 73-year-old Audrey Gleave, found stabbed and violently attacked in the garage of her rural Indian Trail home Dec. 30, wrote The Hamilton Spectator June 8, in a story about evidence that later exonerated Scott and left investigators with no suspect.

Barring a major break, such as a sudden DNA match or new eyewitness coming forward, these cases go cold and are not solved, Brienza said.

If that is the situation with cases like Audrey's, then after more than 3 years why not permit publication of more relevant results of investigation? Why withhold "culprit knowledge" and other informations?

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

 

[No_Stone_Unturned]

Quoted from SB:

I think someone rummaged and found that pic and had a good laugh over it.

Forgive me but I tend to disagree. I think Audrey was playing around with her (new?) camera and when she saw the selfie it gave her a good laugh. I think she thought it was so funny that she showed it to someone/people in order to have a laugh. But NEVER in her wildest dreams would she have thought that anyone would display it at her memorial.

To me, Audrey seems like the type of person who would make jokes about her shortcomings. Something like this: See, I have many University degrees and this is how I handle a camera.

And also Audrey may have added: This is so awful I'm going to hide it (name of hiding place).

Did that make sense at all? :blushing: