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

[2soccermom]

Thanks whiterhino for your post.

Here are some details I've pulled from Jon Wells' article at https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave pertinent to some of the recent posts, as well as some reflections from previous discussions:

I recall that there has been a lot of chat both about "overkill" and "staging" over the years in relation to this case. (The discussion on the latter had to do with possibility of diverting attention from another motive -- for example, financial -- with focus on the "sexual component" and "trophy".)

OTH: we do have that eery prediction from her ex (the third and last husband) that she would be sexually assaulted and murdered in her home. Because this came true, it's urgent that we consider on what grounds she would make such a stunning statement. Of whom was she afraid???

From the Wells story: "She was also a private woman who volunteered little about her past. Maybe that was because she was older than her peers, or perhaps something had happened to her as a young woman that inspired such caution." And:

"He was one of several people on her email contact list [this refers to her friend John H]. She emailed each person separately, never as a group. It was a privacy thing. More unusual was Audrey’s insistence that anyone emailing refer to her as Baryon, or Bary, even within the text of a message.
She made it clear if you wrote her real first name, at any time, you would be cut off."

She lived in a remote area, with the protection of 2 very large dogs (sadly, in the end, these dogs could not protect her). She was so very careful -- one might say to an extreme; many of us here might even use, if cautiously, the term "paranoid" for her fear of being "named" in email. AGAIN the question: of what, of whom, was she so fearful? Did she fear being email hacked? Remember that she took classes as a senior at Mohawk in computer studies (also from the link above) ....

What do we know about those 2 exhubbies, prior to Allen? Were they living? in Hamilton area? The second from "in her 20s" is named in the article. I don't recall if we ever discovered who the first ex was?

Is it possible -- to offer another motive -- that she discovered something via her computer and internet knowledge that put her in danger? from Wells: "She became a computer whiz, ultimately asking a friend to email her viruses so she could study them, break them down." I recall there was a similar vein of discussion re: danger related to work/knowledge from her connection to Chalk River and nuclear energy; she DID leave her graduate studies in physics somewhat abruptly (at least, as intimated in the Wells' piece).

For the third time: what was it from Audrey's past that required her to be so careful -- (I recall articles where friends reiterated you'd be "cut off" -- she would cease all contact -- f you violated her rule to not name her in email....) While it might be fair to say many elderly women living alone may feel cause to be careful for their safety, I think most of us would agree Audrey's behaviour is not a norm. And that prediction! It remains enormously chilling and warrants substantive inquiry amidst the sea of other possibilities.

Also from the link above, in relation to the garage and dogs, and murder weapon:

"The garage was attached to the house. Audrey’s two German shepherds had been inside, apparently unable to save her."

"He spoke of a vicious stabbing but did not talk about other weapons — at least one other had been used"

We don't know if the dogs were crated, but we do know they were not in the garage to protect her. Again our Qs are: was she surprised in the garage -- for example, while going out to have a smoke? Or was she meeting someone she knew or didn't fear, hence keeping the dogs in the house to avoid a "commotion"?

I can't believe this coming month marks another devastating anniversary of not knowing.

 

[2soccermom]

Thanks whiterhino for the post above.

Here are some details I've pulled from Jon Wells' article at https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave pertinent to some of the recent posts, as well as some reflections from previous discussions:

I recall that there has been a lot of chat both about "overkill" and "staging" over the years in relation to this case. (The discussion on the latter had to do with possibility of diverting attention from another motive -- for example, financial -- with focus on the "sexual component" and "trophy".)

OTH: we do have that eery prediction from the brother of her ex (the third and last husband) and as mentioned above in this thread that she would be sexually assaulted and murdered in her home. Because this came true, it's urgent that we consider on what grounds she would make such a stunning statement. Of whom was she afraid???
From the Wells story: "She was also a private woman who volunteered little about her past. Maybe that was because she was older than her peers, or perhaps something had happened to her as a young woman that inspired such caution." And:

"He was one of several people on her email contact list [this refers to her friend]. She emailed each person separately, never as a group. It was a privacy thing. More unusual was Audrey’s insistence that anyone emailing refer to her as Baryon, or Bary, even within the text of a message.
She made it clear if you wrote her real first name, at any time, you would be cut off."

Soooooo.... She lived in a remote area, with the protection of 2 very large dogs (sadly, in the end, these dogs could not protect her). She was so very careful -- one might say to an extreme; many of us here might even use, if cautiously, the term "paranoid" for her fear of being "named" in email. AGAIN the question: of what, of whom, was she so fearful? Did she fear being email hacked? Remember that she took classes as a senior at Mohawk in computer studies (also from the link above) ....

What do we know about those 2 exhubbies, prior to Allen? Were they living? in Hamilton area? The second from "in her 20s" is named in the article. I don't recall if we ever discovered who the first one was?

Is it possible -- to offer another motive -- that she discovered something via her computer and internet knowledge that put her in danger? from Wells: "She became a computer whiz, ultimately asking a friend to email her viruses so she could study them, break them down." I recall there was a similar vein of discussion re: danger related to work/knowledge from her connection to Chalk River and nuclear energy; she DID leave her graduate studies in physics somewhat abruptly (at least, as intimated in the Wells' piece).

For the third time: what was it from Audrey's past that required her to be so careful -- (I recall articles where friends reiterated you'd be "cut off" -- she would cease all contact -- f you violated her rule to not name her in email....) While it might be fair to say many elderly women living alone may feel cause to be careful for their safety, I think most of us would agree Audrey's behaviour is not a norm. And that prediction! It remains enormously chilling and warrants substantive inquiry amidst the sea of other possibilities.

Also from the link above, in relation to the garage and dogs, and murder weapon:

"The garage was attached to the house. Audrey’s two German shepherds had been inside, apparently unable to save her."

"He spoke of a vicious stabbing but did not talk about other weapons — at least one other had been used"

We don't know if the dogs were crated, but we do know they were not in the garage to protect her. Again our Qs are: was she surprised in the garage -- for example, while going out to have a smoke? Or was she meeting someone she knew or didn't fear, hence keeping the dogs in the house to avoid a "commotion"?

I can't believe this coming month marks another devastating anniversary of not knowing.

 

[whiterhino]

Some of Audreys "rules" seem a bit out there IMHO. Threatening to cut people off might rub someone the wrong way. I'm kind of surprised that Audrey didn't have more security around her home considering her private nature.

Where were her friends surfing the internet in order to send AG viruses?? Seems like an exaggeration. JMO.

The story from the BIL about Audrey being afraid is secondhand information. Telling people she was afraid of being murdered in her home is the kind of fear that many single women have. But to actually be murdered in her home IS spooky. How strange? Maybe there is more to this statement than we'll ever know?

According to this link, this was the weather in Ancaster for the day Audrey was murdered:
Weather in December 2010 in Ancaster, Ontario, Canada

It says high of +4C/39F @ 12p.m and low of -8C/18F @12a.m (as in 12a.m morning of Dec 30th). PK discovered AG right around the time when the temperature was reaching it's high. Apparently the body loses 1.5 degrees F/hour up to about the 12 hour mark. FWIW.

It would be difficult to be stealthy in winter clothing. However, it would be easy to conceal identity and contain DNA with a hat/balaclava/scarf/gloves etc. Was someone watching Audrey leading up to her murder or did someone already know her habits? Whoever it was, they had to be there, right down the street waiting for the right time. Creepy!

 

[FromGermany1]

Thanks whiterhino for the post above.

Here are some details I've pulled from Jon Wells' article at https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave pertinent to some of the recent posts, as well as some reflections from previous discussions:

I recall that there has been a lot of chat both about "overkill" and "staging" over the years in relation to this case. (The discussion on the latter had to do with possibility of diverting attention from another motive -- for example, financial -- with focus on the "sexual component" and "trophy".)

OTH: we do have that eery prediction from the brother of her ex (the third and last husband) and as mentioned above in this thread that she would be sexually assaulted and murdered in her home. Because this came true, it's urgent that we consider on what grounds she would make such a stunning statement. Of whom was she afraid???
From the Wells story: "She was also a private woman who volunteered little about her past. Maybe that was because she was older than her peers, or perhaps something had happened to her as a young woman that inspired such caution." And:

"He was one of several people on her email contact list [this refers to her friend]. She emailed each person separately, never as a group. It was a privacy thing. More unusual was Audrey’s insistence that anyone emailing refer to her as Baryon, or Bary, even within the text of a message.
She made it clear if you wrote her real first name, at any time, you would be cut off."

Soooooo.... She lived in a remote area, with the protection of 2 very large dogs (sadly, in the end, these dogs could not protect her). She was so very careful -- one might say to an extreme; many of us here might even use, if cautiously, the term "paranoid" for her fear of being "named" in email. AGAIN the question: of what, of whom, was she so fearful? Did she fear being email hacked? Remember that she took classes as a senior at Mohawk in computer studies (also from the link above) ....

What do we know about those 2 exhubbies, prior to Allen? Were they living? in Hamilton area? The second from "in her 20s" is named in the article. I don't recall if we ever discovered who the first one was?

Is it possible -- to offer another motive -- that she discovered something via her computer and internet knowledge that put her in danger? from Wells: "She became a computer whiz, ultimately asking a friend to email her viruses so she could study them, break them down." I recall there was a similar vein of discussion re: danger related to work/knowledge from her connection to Chalk River and nuclear energy; she DID leave her graduate studies in physics somewhat abruptly (at least, as intimated in the Wells' piece).

For the third time: what was it from Audrey's past that required her to be so careful -- (I recall articles where friends reiterated you'd be "cut off" -- she would cease all contact -- f you violated her rule to not name her in email....) While it might be fair to say many elderly women living alone may feel cause to be careful for their safety, I think most of us would agree Audrey's behaviour is not a norm. And that prediction! It remains enormously chilling and warrants substantive inquiry amidst the sea of other possibilities.

Also from the link above, in relation to the garage and dogs, and murder weapon:

"The garage was attached to the house. Audrey’s two German shepherds had been inside, apparently unable to save her."

"He spoke of a vicious stabbing but did not talk about other weapons — at least one other had been used"

We don't know if the dogs were crated, but we do know they were not in the garage to protect her. Again our Qs are: was she surprised in the garage -- for example, while going out to have a smoke? Or was she meeting someone she knew or didn't fear, hence keeping the dogs in the house to avoid a "commotion"?

I can't believe this coming month marks another devastating anniversary of not knowing.

What doesn't fit with AG's fear as a single woman is, that she drove a very noticeable white car with a certain sound and sometimes even loved to speed up for a little bit roaring. As a single woman, I would have thought it to be more save for me, if my car would have been less remarkable.

 

[dotr]

What doesn't fit with AG's fear as a single woman is, that she drove a very noticeable white car with a certain sound and sometimes even loved to speed up for a little bit roaring. As a single woman, I would have thought it to be more save for me, if my car would have been less remarkable.

Thinking exactly the same thing, besides AG never seemed to be a shrinking violet despite some of the inevitable ravages of time.

Instead of the long red fingernails, red lipstick and hair in her early youthful television building days, at 73 yr old Audrey was still a flamboyant force as displayed by her cool Camaro, two large German Sheppards and sassy personality, imo, speculation.



Audrey Gleave was a brilliant young woman with a quirky sense of humour. - Hamilton Spectator file photo

Hamilton Spectator
Who is Audrey Gleave | TheSpec.com

Beckett-Glaves
Condolences for Audrey Gleave | Beckett-Glaves Family Funer

 

[Catmommy]

If Audrey's murder scene was staged to imply a sexual assault that didn't happen then, it seems to me, the perpetrator was trying to steer the investigation away from someone who would immediately be suspect for another reason. Who might that be?

 

[deugirtni]

Long story short... I came across an article today which was written by Jon Wells, who does a great job! I don't see it posted here, so I'll post what I found. I believe it is the first time I have seen it written/said that the item 'removed' from AG was 'clothing'??? Which really kind of stunned me, because my mind had settled on something QUITE different. Unfortunately the article, published June 9, 2021, is paywalled, so I will put into diff words:

He says it is LE's belief that AG was either SA'd by the killer, or that the killer set it up to appear that way. AG was stabbed and he said a minimum of one 'other' weapon was 'used'. A clothing item of AG's was taken from her. AG's body was discovered in her garage which was accessed via a code pad.

The killers among us: Delving into the minds of cold case murderers
The killers among us: Delving into the minds of cold case murderers

 

[FromGermany1]

Long story short... I came across an article today which was written by Jon Wells, who does a great job! I don't see it posted here, so I'll post what I found. I believe it is the first time I have seen it written/said that the item 'removed' from AG was 'clothing'??? Which really kind of stunned me, because my mind had settled on something QUITE different. Unfortunately the article, published June 9, 2021, is paywalled, so I will put into diff words:

He says it is LE's belief that AG was either SA'd by the killer, or that the killer set it up to appear that way. AG was stabbed and he said a minimum of one 'other' weapon was 'used'. A clothing item of AG's was taken from her. AG's body was discovered in her garage which was accessed via a code pad.

The killers among us: Delving into the minds of cold case murderers
The killers among us: Delving into the minds of cold case murderers

Never heard of the clothing, which was taken as a "souvenir". Thank you for your info!
Her trousers she had on ....
If LE thought, it would be the bra: why did they know, she was wearing it before murder?

 

[FromGermany1]

If Audrey's murder scene was staged to imply a sexual assault that didn't happen then, it seems to me, the perpetrator was trying to steer the investigation away from someone who would immediately be suspect for another reason. Who might that be?

Well, who might that be. The selection wouldn't be large.

 

[whiterhino]

Never heard of the clothing, which was taken as a "souvenir". Thank you for your info!
Her trousers she had on ....
If LE thought, it would be the bra: why did they know, she was wearing it before murder?

Not to correct you but do you mean to ask "How did LE know" in regard to AG possibly wearing a bra that was then taken? If we're going with items of clothing, I'm guessing underwear.

This is pretty much the exact kind of thing taken after an assault like that. Also the kind of common item that LE would notice missing that would normally be there (?). Maybe whoever took it kept it for later? I hate writing that. Disgusting.

JMO but I don't think it was staged. It's just so creepy to imagine anyone stalking someone in the middle of the night, middle of winter, with the intent to murder them, just waiting outside. Then, to do what was done, to have that level of energy and "motivation"... to be able to walk away and live as if it never happened?! Who indeed, right?

 

[deugirtni]

Same kind of idea though, as what FromGermany1 was getting at... if panties, or if bra.. then how would police know whether AG had been wearing any to begin with? Unless the killer only took part of the item, with the rest remaining on her/on site? A woman who lives alone with no family - who would know her habits, ie if she possibly may have had an aversion to wearing underwear, bras, socks, whatever.

 

[whiterhino]

Same kind of idea though, as what FromGermany1 was getting at... if panties, or if bra.. then how would police know whether AG had been wearing any to begin with? Unless the killer only took part of the item, with the rest remaining on her/on site? A woman who lives alone with no family - who would know her habits, ie if she possibly may have had an aversion to wearing underwear, bras, socks, whatever.

Good point. Perhaps there were traces, scraps or fibers remaining from something unaccounted for at the scene? There is also a good chance that there were marks or bruising possibly from someone pulling or ripping at her clothing.

 

[deugirtni]

Not to correct you but do you mean to ask "How did LE know" in regard to AG possibly wearing a bra that was then taken? If we're going with items of clothing, I'm guessing underwear.

This is pretty much the exact kind of thing taken after an assault like that. Also the kind of common item that LE would notice missing that would normally be there (?). Maybe whoever took it kept it for later? I hate writing that. Disgusting.

JMO but I don't think it was staged. It's just so creepy to imagine anyone stalking someone in the middle of the night, middle of winter, with the intent to murder them, just waiting outside. Then, to do what was done, to have that level of energy and "motivation"... to be able to walk away and live as if it never happened?! Who indeed, right?

Not to pick on your post, but ..... we don't know that AG was actually SA'd, or if it was set up to appear that way to throw the investigation in another direction, or even if she was sexually assaulted, if it had been done as an after-thought to throw investigators off? We don't know the attack came in the middle of the night, nor if she'd been stalked. And we can't be sure the murder was intended or if it was a sudden rage, followed by staging to keep LE at bay.

It was said that AG was wearing 'her comfortable stretch pants' and her coat. I guess we also can't know if AG wore her pants to bed as well as during the day, or if she may have put them back on to go out in the garage in the middle of the night, or if she was wearing daytime attire because it happened during the daytime?

My personal thought is that she was attacked during daytime. I think it would be less noticed/paid attention to, if the dogs had barked wildly during the day when people are out and about and busy and making noises of their own. We know AG smoked inside the home (See references below). If it was the middle of the night and she needed a smoke, it's my belief that she would've just had a smoke inside the home.

• Firstly, why go to the trouble of perhaps getting dressed, getting coat and shoes on, for the seemingly sole purpose of having a smoke in the middle of the night in the cold of winter when you're in your own home in which you already smoke and you live alone, so it wouldn't have bothered anyone, nor was there anyone there to object?
  
• Secondly, if she had gone outside to the garage to have a smoke, why would she not have let her dogs out for a whiz at the same time - two birds, one stone? But yet the dogs were locked up in the house. It's doubtful she would've put the dogs away if a stranger had come in the night while out in the garage with the dogs, and it's also doubtful that her killer would've been able to get the dogs inside. imo.

The following are excerpts from 'verified insider', PK:

08-06-2011, 04:47 PM #247
.... AG would spend lots of time sitting on the bench having a smoke or watching the dogs run or just surveying the property. ....

It is certainly possible that AG would have sat out on the bench having a smoke with the garage door open and the light on, however, AG rarely spent time outside by herself. If she wasn't expecting a visitor she almost certainly would have let the dogs out for a run if she was sitting outside. If AG was inside and not intending to go out, the garage door would be closed.

CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2
========================================
09-21-2011, 10:12 PM #425
- Audrey certainly would smoke in her home but she would usually put the door up if she was going to smoke in the garage

CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2
========================================
09-28-2011, 09:42 PM #582)
@ 1010011010
- AG smoked 10-20 smokes per day
- she would definitely smoke in the garage with the door up and (I believe, though I never saw her / asked about it) that she would smoke inside sometimes

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

 

[whiterhino]

Not to pick on your post, but ..... we don't know that AG was actually SA'd, or if it was set up to appear that way to throw the investigation in another direction, or even if she was sexually assaulted, if it had been done as an after-thought to throw investigators off? We don't know the attack came in the middle of the night, nor if she'd been stalked. And we can't be sure the murder was intended or if it was a sudden rage, followed by staging to keep LE at bay.

It was said that AG was wearing 'her comfortable stretch pants' and her coat. I guess we also can't know if AG wore her pants to bed as well as during the day, or if she may have put them back on to go out in the garage in the middle of the night, or if she was wearing daytime attire because it happened during the daytime?

My personal thought is that she was attacked during daytime. I think it would be less noticed/paid attention to, if the dogs had barked wildly during the day when people are out and about and busy and making noises of their own. We know AG smoked inside the home (See references below). If it was the middle of the night and she needed a smoke, it's my belief that she would've just had a smoke inside the home.

• Firstly, why go to the trouble of perhaps getting dressed, getting coat and shoes on, for the seemingly sole purpose of having a smoke in the middle of the night in the cold of winter when you're in your own home in which you already smoke and you live alone, so it wouldn't have bothered anyone, nor was there anyone there to object?
  
• Secondly, if she had gone outside to the garage to have a smoke, why would she not have let her dogs out for a whiz at the same time - two birds, one stone? But yet the dogs were locked up in the house. It's doubtful she would've put the dogs away if a stranger had come in the night while out in the garage with the dogs, and it's also doubtful that her killer would've been able to get the dogs inside. imo.

The following are excerpts from 'verified insider', PK:

08-06-2011, 04:47 PM #247
.... AG would spend lots of time sitting on the bench having a smoke or watching the dogs run or just surveying the property. ....

It is certainly possible that AG would have sat out on the bench having a smoke with the garage door open and the light on, however, AG rarely spent time outside by herself. If she wasn't expecting a visitor she almost certainly would have let the dogs out for a run if she was sitting outside. If AG was inside and not intending to go out, the garage door would be closed.

CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2
========================================
09-21-2011, 10:12 PM #425
- Audrey certainly would smoke in her home but she would usually put the door up if she was going to smoke in the garage

CANADA - Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #2
========================================
09-28-2011, 09:42 PM #582)
@ 1010011010
- AG smoked 10-20 smokes per day
- she would definitely smoke in the garage with the door up and (I believe, though I never saw her / asked about it) that she would smoke inside sometimes

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

By all means, pick away! It helps clear things up and puts focus on the details.

We don't know 100% if she was s. assaulted. To me, I get the feeling that something happened of a certain violating kind of nature. Whether that constitutes s.a or not legally, different story but to me personally, I feel that what was done is much like s.a. Taking someones' power and control, degrading someone etc.

You're right, we don't know when/what time Audrey died. My "story" of someone waiting around at midnight in the winter is an exaggeration for the record, I don't fully believe. I also have no clue of her habits and was just wondering if Audrey hadn't gone out for a late smoke before bed.

I was just creating an imaginary scenario. Hopefully most who read my posts know that I'm not presenting anything as a fact.

I didn't know Audrey also smoked inside. PK knows a lot about Audreys habits though!

When you say attacked during daytime, do you mean earlier on the morning she was found or the day(s) prior? How do you imagine the scenario?

 

[jobo]

I also can’t wrap my head around Audrey being out in her garage, coat on, deceased and her dogs inside.
So. deugirti..regarding going to the garage for a planned smoke without the dogs, it doesn’t make sense to me, either. She would definitely take her dogs out..they would want to go.
On the other hand..she DID have her coat on…so she did plan to go out…and was out, in her garage..and, the dogs were inside.

Too bad we can’t confirm if the dogs were in cages or just inside…the police know.
Was Audrey expecting someone and quickly went out to meet up with person(s) and leave dogs inside because she was going to be quick and it would be a nuisance to round them up ? Too bad we don’t know if her landline was traced…incoming/outgoing calls.
Why isn’t there a more consistent time of death? I agree we don’t know time of death..could back it up several hours from when found.
What did the autopsy say?

Joe Kenda says..3 reasons for murder…sex..money..revenge.
Speaking of money…in my opinion, NO ONE knows how much cash she had stashed away in her house. Sure her assets have been mentioned…car..house.and around $50,000 in the bank…
What about all the cash she must have had…so many elderly stash cash.
I wonder who was spending money freely back then, out of character.

 

[deugirtni]

By all means, pick away! It helps clear things up and puts focus on the details.

We don't know 100% if she was s. assaulted. To me, I get the feeling that something happened of a certain violating kind of nature. Whether that constitutes s.a or not legally, different story but to me personally, I feel that what was done is much like s.a. Taking someones' power and control, degrading someone etc.

You're right, we don't know when/what time Audrey died. My "story" of someone waiting around at midnight in the winter is an exaggeration for the record, I don't fully believe. I also have no clue of her habits and was just wondering if Audrey hadn't gone out for a late smoke before bed.

I was just creating an imaginary scenario. Hopefully most who read my posts know that I'm not presenting anything as a fact.

I didn't know Audrey also smoked inside. PK knows a lot about Audreys habits though!

When you say attacked during daytime, do you mean earlier on the morning she was found or the day(s) prior? How do you imagine the scenario?

If I was an older woman having lived as an adult through the 60s and 70s, and was a smoker, and smoked in my house which I owned and lived in alone, and it was cold and dark out, and to top it off, I'd also been under the weather, there's not a chance I'd be going out to the cold garage to have a smoke. There was just no reason for her to do that, imho. But out in the cold garage, dressed and with her coat and shoes on she was, so... why? Dogs remained inside... possibly also locked up in their kennels/cages (not sure if she kenneled them inside the house at whatever times).

No, I don't believe she was killed on the same day she was attacked. LE/ME would've been able to pinpoint TOD better, if she'd been discovered only a few hours after death, imo, and LE have said they believe she died on the 27th in the afternoon or early evening. I'm assuming that belief must be based on AG's known communications with others, as well as autopsy findings.

On the morning of December 27th, her friend LV had dropped off soup to AG. Although LV had been friends with AG for 30+ years and visited her at her home, she thinks she had only been inside the house one time (see reference below).

I agree that PK seems to have known much about AG and her habits, however in reviewing his posts here, there seems to be quite a bit of contradiction. (Some day 'when I have time', I want to compile a listing of those!) One might think her friend LV would also know much about AG and her habits, seeing as how they were friends for over 30 years and reportedly saw one another a couple times a week throughout the years - but LV has not said much.
----------------------------------------
On Monday morning, Dec. 27, 2010 she emailed her friend [PK],...
....
Police believe she was killed that same afternoon or early evening.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/
==============
[note: I had copied the following article for my files, however it seems it is no longer available online (i'm not sure if it might be accessible via 'time machine'?]

Vanstone said she has known Gleave for more than 30 years. They met when Gleave was a member of the Brantford Golf and Country Club.

Gleave left the club a few years ago but the pair remained friends, visiting once or twice a week. Gleave attended a lot of the Vanstone family gatherings, such as Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter.

Vanstone said she last saw Gleave Dec. 27.

"She was here Boxing Day but was feeling under-the-weather," she said.

"I took some soup out to her on Monday morning and that was the last time I saw her."
....
"All of the times I visited her, I think I was only in her house once.

"Usually, we sat on a bench outside the house where we would talk."

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/01/04/its-all-so-horrifying
==============

 

[whiterhino]

I also can’t wrap my head around Audrey being out in her garage, coat on, deceased and her dogs inside.
So. deugirti..regarding going to the garage for a planned smoke without the dogs, it doesn’t make sense to me, either. She would definitely take her dogs out..they would want to go.
On the other hand..she DID have her coat on…so she did plan to go out…and was out, in her garage..and, the dogs were inside.

Too bad we can’t confirm if the dogs were in cages or just inside…the police know.
Was Audrey expecting someone and quickly went out to meet up with person(s) and leave dogs inside because she was going to be quick and it would be a nuisance to round them up ? Too bad we don’t know if her landline was traced…incoming/outgoing calls.
Why isn’t there a more consistent time of death? I agree we don’t know time of death..could back it up several hours from when found.
What did the autopsy say?

Joe Kenda says..3 reasons for murder…sex..money..revenge.
Speaking of money…in my opinion, NO ONE knows how much cash she had stashed away in her house. Sure her assets have been mentioned…car..house.and around $50,000 in the bank…
What about all the cash she must have had…so many elderly stash cash.
I wonder who was spending money freely back then, out of character.

Ok, let's forget the smoking with the dogs scenario. What if Audrey had already been out with the dogs, brought them inside and hadn't taken her coat off yet? What if she was getting her mail? That makes more sense tbh.

I think the weather and location where Audrey was found are part of the reason her time of death isn't more accurate. Stupidly, I keep forgetting that Audrey did not die on the same day she was found.

I'm not trying to disagree at all and I get what you're saying but I'm not so sure about Audrey hoarding money in her home. To be fair, she was only 73. I did have an acquaintance whose grandmother did this though! After she passed they were clearing her home and kept finding books with $20, $50, $100 inside.

Maybe she had a lump of money and some valuables but who would know about it? If she did have something hidden away, who would know where to look?

If it was just about money though, why do all those awful things to Audrey? IMO what happened was a vicious personal attack. Even if certain things were done to "stage" or throw off police, whatever they chose to do still speaks to that persons' nature.

 

[whiterhino]

If I was an older woman having lived as an adult through the 60s and 70s, and was a smoker, and smoked in my house which I owned and lived in alone, and it was cold and dark out, and to top it off, I'd also been under the weather, there's not a chance I'd be going out to the cold garage to have a smoke. There was just no reason for her to do that, imho. But out in the cold garage, dressed and with her coat and shoes on she was, so... why? Dogs remained inside... possibly also locked up in their kennels/cages (not sure if she kenneled them inside the house at whatever times).

No, I don't believe she was killed on the same day she was attacked. LE/ME would've been able to pinpoint TOD better, if she'd been discovered only a few hours after death, imo, and LE have said they believe she died on the 27th in the afternoon or early evening. I'm assuming that belief must be based on AG's known communications with others, as well as autopsy findings.

On the morning of December 27th, her friend LV had dropped off soup to AG. Although LV had been friends with AG for 30+ years and visited her at her home, she thinks she had only been inside the house one time (see reference below).

I agree that PK seems to have known much about AG and her habits, however in reviewing his posts here, there seems to be quite a bit of contradiction. (Some day 'when I have time', I want to compile a listing of those!) One might think her friend LV would also know much about AG and her habits, seeing as how they were friends for over 30 years and reportedly saw one another a couple times a week throughout the years - but LV has not said much.
----------------------------------------
On Monday morning, Dec. 27, 2010 she emailed her friend [PK],...
....
Police believe she was killed that same afternoon or early evening.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/5809219-who-killed-audrey-gleave-/
==============
[note: I had copied the following article for my files, however it seems it is no longer available online (i'm not sure if it might be accessible via 'time machine'?]

Vanstone said she has known Gleave for more than 30 years. They met when Gleave was a member of the Brantford Golf and Country Club.

Gleave left the club a few years ago but the pair remained friends, visiting once or twice a week. Gleave attended a lot of the Vanstone family gatherings, such as Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter.

Vanstone said she last saw Gleave Dec. 27.

"She was here Boxing Day but was feeling under-the-weather," she said.

"I took some soup out to her on Monday morning and that was the last time I saw her."
....
"All of the times I visited her, I think I was only in her house once.

"Usually, we sat on a bench outside the house where we would talk."

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2011/01/04/its-all-so-horrifying
==============

BBM

Me either and I also live alone and smoke. My whole line of thinking about her smoking in the garage was an attempt to make sense of what she was doing out there in her coat. Also, knowing that her habit was to open the garage door if she did smoke out there creates an opportunity for someone to let themselves in. But I just don't see anyone going to all that trouble for a cigarette especially when feeling sick.

IIRC there was mention of the dogs in an article talking about how they'd been traumatized after the fact, that one of them struggled to go into it's crate since Audrey was murdered. It sounded like they'd been confined during her murder and were affected by it.

Do you mean to say you think it's odd that LV had only been inside Audreys home the once? It does seem a bit odd considering PK and AG were meant to have a visit involving cake. Unless PK was only meant to drop it off, not to stay and eat it? Even though he ate it anyway

In the timeline it mentions the neighbour "Linda F" receiving an email from AG approx 6p.m the 27th. Then it mentions the Fergusons dog barking at 2:30a.m the 29th. Are these both the same neighbour? Just curious.

This is from the timeline posted on page 44:
Dec 26 2010 Audrey was at Lyn V’s home. Unknown if others were present on this date. Audrey normally went there every Sunday for coffee around 9:30 am.

Dec 27 2010 early morning, PK opened his email and received email from Audrey that included the link to the Amazing Grace video

Dec 27 2010 PK received another email from Audrey timed 10:46 am re “secondary infection … cabin fever … LV bringing soup in a few minutes … will make Weds coffee meeting come hell or high water …”

Dec 27 2010 A member of Audrey's coffee group, EM, a science teacher at Westdale, says Audrey emailed someone in the group that she would not be attending the coffee get-together scheduled for Wednesday, Dec 29

Dec 27 2010 Unconfirmed reports that Audrey visited the vet that afternoon with her 2 dogs. This conflicts with initial reports that Dr. Collins saw her a couple of days before Christmas

Dec 27 2010 In the evening, neighbour Linda F opened email from Audrey that included the link to the Amazing Grace video. Jon W series indicates email was sent at approx. 6:00 pm

Dec 29 2010 Fergusons’ dog started barking wildly approx. 2:30 am

 

[deugirtni]

As far as the one dog not wanting to go into a kennel after her death, I'm not sure if the new dog-owners were informed by someone who knew for sure whether or not AG kenneled her dogs at night or any time (if anyone even knew whether or not she did?).

It's possible that dog had never liked to be caged. I think it's also possible there may have been something about the cage/area/bedding that bothered the dog at the new owner's home. It's also possible that AG had kept both dogs together in one kennel at night, so they were accustomed to snuggling together at night - I know they were larger dogs, but who knows how large AG's cage(s?) was/were, if she even had any. Maybe the other dog didn't care so much as the one dog, whether they slept together or not (if they even did sleep together at AG's house).

We have a few dogs and a few kennels. We open their kennel doors at night and they enter whichever one they choose (if any).. it's funny/odd because one in particular likes to have company in there with him, while the other male is fine either way. We won't allow that snuggler one to be in the same cage with two of the other dogs because he licks their ears to death and causes knots, and they allow it (whereas some don't allow him to do that). Another one whines all night long if kenneled at night, because she wants to be right beside me at all times, and so we let her stay out. Is it possible AG's one dog (or perhaps even both?) slept on her bed with her at night? (I'm not sure if people with 'big dogs' allow that or not?) Or perhaps on a mat at the edge of her bed or something so they were close to her?

There could be other reasons I'm not thinking about too. There are so many possibilities besides the dog balking at being caged at night because of the mental trauma experienced when his human was killed. Just throwing things out there for consideration.

 

[deugirtni]

Do you mean to say you think it's odd that LV had only been inside Audreys home the once? It does seem a bit odd considering PK and AG were meant to have a visit involving cake. Unless PK was only meant to drop it off, not to stay and eat it? Even though he ate it anyway

It seemed that LV may have been AG's 'bestie'.. they'd met and become friends over 30 years before AG's death, and they'd been getting together biweekly for years; AG also asked LV to be the executor of her will and left her estate to her as well, all as per LV. But yet LV was also quoted saying she thinks she's only been inside AG's house one time in all those years. Meanwhile, PK was allowed in and knew all kinds of things about Audrey, he'd only known her for about 6 years IIRC, and it seems he was entirely left out of her will.

I do think it's odd, and yet I don't think it's odd. It seems she had very different relationships with each of them, and it sounds like PK's relationship with her was one thing in the beginning, and then evolved over time to become quite another thing. If AG felt awkward about her housekeeping or the fact she smoked in her home, that could explain it. And I read that LV hadn't known that AG was friends with someone else who lived on LV's street until AG's memorial service. LV reported that AG was a regular guest at LV's house, and so AG surely would've known both women lived as neighbours, but yet didn't mention it to either of them. We know that AG was an extremely private person, and I'm guessing she may not have wanted gossiping going on behind her back about perhaps her housekeeping or whatever. But then if she was afraid of that, or if that thought bothered her, then why leave her estate to that person, rather than the one she allowed to see more deeply into her life/home/perhaps even her thoughts?

Which brings me to wonder....... if others weren't also perhaps confused with that, and perhaps had tried to change her mind over time, etc.

And although PK was bringing over cake, it was PK's Christmas gift to AG, so wouldn't have necessarily been opened and shared between the two when he gave it to her. It seems that although LV brought AG some get-well-soup, LV wasn't invited inside for any hospitality, but then again, AG was under the weather (but she'd also been under the weather the day before when I believe she had dinner at LV's place?).

So many things running through my mind......