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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's all in threads #1, 2 and 3. Most of the information is from postings from y'all. Since semen was mentioned in many of the posts that would indicate it was not "touch" DNA LE was having tested but DNA specific to the crime. I have to rely on posts that have been posted at time because there is very little information anywhere else. If it all were posted at the time, I'm assuming it is correct.
 
It's all in threads #1, 2 and 3. Most of the information is from postings from y'all. Since semen was mentioned in many of the posts that would indicate it was not "touch" DNA LE was having tested but DNA specific to the crime. I have to rely on posts that have been posted at time because there is very little information anywhere else. If it all were posted at the time, I'm assuming it is correct.

LC can you please link to some of those posts? This is the first I've heard any mention of semen and a search turned up nothing but a few generalized speculative discussions about what IF there was semen. I'm definitely interested to know if there was semen collected!!!

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.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/03/charge-dropped-in-killing-of-exteacher
 
It's all in threads #1, 2 and 3. Most of the information is from postings from y'all. Since semen was mentioned in many of the posts that would indicate it was not "touch" DNA LE was having tested but DNA specific to the crime. I have to rely on posts that have been posted at time because there is very little information anywhere else. If it all were posted at the time, I'm assuming it is correct.

See quote above

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-viciously-murdered-in-home-Ancaster-Ontario

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...viciously-murdered-in-home-Ancaster-Ontario-2

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...viciously-murdered-in-home-Ancaster-Ontario-3

A post by No Stone Unburned in Thread 2, #821 discusses semen so I think there was some discussions going on at the time that this was what was being tested. Some of the posts back in 2011 are very interesting. I just don't have time to read them all but I will keep checking back.

Anyone know if CLS' attorney ever filed that lawsuit?
 
Spettigue: The returns on the initial DNA cleared David, they didn’t link him in any way shape or form.
Reporter: Spettigue says if it was that horrific it would take a lot of physical effort to attack someone in that manner…
Spettigue: …and it seems highly unlikely that anybody could do that without leaving DNA behind, or alternatively leaving the crime scene with some of the victim’s DNA.

http://www.chch.com/gleaves-neighbours-wondering-what-now/

BBM - does this mean there IS DNA? If so, it didn't match DLS. So why would LE go back and revisit other anonymous POIs after DLS was released, and the results of the "forensic testing" came back, if said evidence belonged to an "unknown suspect"?
 
Seems to be a "fact"? I highly disagree with this notion. If memory serves, someone was a POI/suspect and was asked to undergo a polygraph. LE had to have a reason for going to all of that trouble and effort. Wouldn't they?
<rsbm>

Yabut ... as there are so few people who were ever in Audrey's home, the handyman's DNA would have been all over the house so there is no way to include or exclude that person based on DNA alone. A polygraph would have been an extra investigative tool to use in that particular circumstance. IIRC, he also said that the 911 dispatcher asked him to feel for a pulse, and he did so and that would account for his DNA being found on Audrey's body when he found her in the garage.
 
Unfortunately we don't know if mass DNA testing happened with AG's case - seems to me the public would have heard. If LE has not stated they have DNA from AG's crime scene then we don't know if they do or do not.

Catching up so sorry if answered. No mass collection that we've heard of, but I do recall that PK told us his DNA was collected (and shoes measured, car searched, etc).

(I'd link, but I don't know why I can't find his posts using the search feature, but I'm having that problem a lot with the new format for some reason)
 

I did a search for the word "semen" on each of the pages you linked to LambChop and didn't find it. Is it possible that you are thinking because some articles referred to it as a sexual attack that it would be a given that evidence found included semen? FWIW, LE said it was an exceptionally brutal attack with "a sexual component" (so not necessarily what we might think of as the typical rape / sexual assault):

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...hbours-are-anxious/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Staff Sergeant Steve Hrab called it the worst murder he&#8217;s seen in a decade &#8212; she was stabbed and there was a sexual component to the attack.

It was also said that another weapon had been used, so we are left to wonder if that second weapon somehow relates to the "sexual component" (which again might indicate this was not a conventional assault which could leave semen at the scene):

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...o-is-audrey-gleave/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

He spoke of a vicious stabbing but did not talk about other weapons &#8212; at least one other had been used &#8212; or the nature of the &#8220;sexual component&#8221; (it had included a perverse act that went beyond a conventional assault; the killer had taken something from the victim as though making off with a souvenir.)
 
Now that the charges are dropped &#8212; after DNA evidence didn&#8217;t match Scott &#8212; they are weighing whether to launch a lawsuit, said lawyer Charles Spettigue.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2205656-eccentric-doesn-t-equal-murderer/

Yep. I believe there is DNA.

BUT that's not a direct quote attributable to Spettigue. The confusion lies in Spettigue's original quote:

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...illing-of-exteacher+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Scott&#8217;s lawyer, Charles Spettigue, said police had no DNA.

&#8220;We&#8217;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,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The simple reality is they never had any evidence. They have no DNA, they have no-nothing.&#8221;

Throughout the various threads, posters kept referring to LE saying Scott's DNA was not a match, when we constantly had to correct that by re-stating that LE said the "forensic evidence" didn't match.

So we now have Spettigue saying "The returns on the initial DNA cleared David" when he previously said "They have no DNA ...". Thus our conundrum is, have the reporter(s) and Spettigue also mis-spoken by referring to DNA rather than "forensic evidence"?
 
If unidentified DNA is LE's best evidence then they already know who isn't responsible for AG's death. It could be the only way this crime will ever be solved is if this person's DNA shows up in the process of a crime. jmo

IF the murder has been a personal act to Audrey (to take revenge, to steal only from her etc.), then maybe the perp/s will never be criminal in the future and so he/they will never be caught - what a success for the perp/s.
 
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. :eek:

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:

I don't know Audrey and her sense of humour. I would have less suspected, that she could laugh at herself. :smile:

PK, LV and even the divorced ex-husband have told something odd and sort of tactless about Audrey after her death. Why just these people? I don't understand ....
 
As dotr said, I also want to know where the mess was after Audrey's murder. The person who found the body said it wasn't too bad (paraphrasing) while a seasoned detective said it was the worst crime scene in his many years on the job (paraphrasing).

I suggested this earlier - was Audrey killed elsewhere and then her body was placed in the garage complete with coat and shoes? But that would presume the killer drove her body back in her own Camaro and also knew how to close the garage doors. Or, the killer used his own vehicle to transport the dead body back to the garage. But again - how did the killer manage to close the garage door?

There must be a good reason why LE hauled away the Camaro. And we haven't heard about that car since!

:dunno:
 
Catching up so sorry if answered. No mass collection that we've heard of, but I do recall that PK told us his DNA was collected (and shoes measured, car searched, etc).

(I'd link, but I don't know why I can't find his posts using the search feature, but I'm having that problem a lot with the new format for some reason)
I'm having this problem as well. In fact, if I search "Audrey Gleave" through websleuths it tells me there is no file for it. If I search through google, I invariably get thread #7 or lower. It's very frustrating to not be able to find this link (#9)!
 
As dotr said, I also want to know where the mess was after Audrey's murder. The person who found the body said it wasn't too bad (paraphrasing) while a seasoned detective said it was the worst crime scene in his many years on the job (paraphrasing).

I suggested this earlier - was Audrey killed elsewhere and then her body was placed in the garage complete with coat and shoes? But that would presume the killer drove her body back in her own Camaro and also knew how to close the garage doors. Or, the killer used his own vehicle to transport the dead body back to the garage. But again - how did the killer manage to close the garage door?

There must be a good reason why LE hauled away the Camaro. And we haven't heard about that car since!

:dunno:

Yet, at the same time, PK also stated that the 'sexual component' was 'obvious'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I thought LE talked about the sexual component not PK. I thought PK thought Audrey was deceased but didn't see anything gross or unusual when he found her. He may have seen that she was deceased due to skin discoloring and immediately looked away and left to call LE.
 
Still no named suspect.

Who killed Audrey Gleave?
Aug 22, 2015
By Jon Wells - Hamilton Spectator

[...]
Audrey Gleave lived alone in the house for 37 years. The retired high school teacher had two German Shepherds she always kept at her side. The dogs were inside the house and unable to save her when she was murdered in cold loublood in the garage, just over a month short of her 74th birthday.

Her ashes were buried four summers ago.

[...]
Gleave's murder is not considered a cold case, Abrams says, because it is an active investigation.
Detectives keep tabs on "people of interest" and explore tips. But the case shares resources with others, and there are days it gets pushed to the backburner.

[...]
In the early hours of the investigation, police hypothesized her murder had been random, by a stranger, and residents in Lynden should therefore be vigilant.

But Det. Angela Abrams says Gleave was targeted &#8212; which stands to reason, given the relative isolation of where she lived and how careful she was about letting anyone close to her. She was a creature of habit: the times when she checked her computer, the hours she slept, coming and going from the house with her dogs. "It was not random," says Abrams. "She would have known who it was."

[...]
Police had said Gleave was sexually assaulted &#8212; a detective told reporters there was a "sexual component" to the crime. Emergency response workers first on the scene believed that was true. Phil Kinsman said Gleave's stretchy pants were torn when he found her.

But Abrams says there is no hard evidence Gleave was sexually assaulted. How could interpretations be so different?
One reason is that the killer may have staged the crime scene. At least one Hamilton detective who worked the case in the past believed the killer tried to lead them down the wrong path.

(much more at the link)
 
Good article Bessie. It is so sad that Audrey's murder has not been solved. Too bad the killer didn't leave some DNA at the scene. It seems like there might have been some touch DNA in the ripped stretch pants, he must have been wearing gloves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
3,967
Total visitors
4,107

Forum statistics

Threads
591,853
Messages
17,960,049
Members
228,624
Latest member
Laayla
Back
Top