CANADA Canada - Audrey Gleave, 73, Ancaster ON, 30 Dec 2010 #8

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
To follow up on Safarik's findings, I was thinking of Audrey last night whilst watching "Murder She Solved". It was about an 89 and 82 year old women who'd been brutally murdered.

This is a real life crime show.

From the show, I learned the following:
- LE usually come face to face with the killer in the first 48 hours after the murder

- in murders of the elderly there is (more often than not) no forced entry and the victims know their killer

- the elderly victims willingly allowed the killer into their homes

Just had to stop by to post this bit of info.

:twocents:
 
I was just reading over in the Dellen Millard and Co. thread and something about this text sent by DM to SL made me think of AG and the oddly worded email:

“Doesn’t sum up into a text message, shall we grab a coffee later today or tomorrow?”

This seems like odd phrasing to me.

"Doesn't sum up in..."

It's not just that the phrasing seems odd - it also seems like an odd way for a 20-something to talk.

Shall we grab a coffee...

Maybe it's just me, I immediately thought of the "don't think I've a fever" email.
 
If people tend to be more brief in texts, then I get the phrasing. E-mails though are different, imo - people don't have to be quite so concise, as the charge for sending one is not per character or other expensive manner.

Jmo.
 
Woodland said:
If people tend to be more brief in texts, then I get the phrasing. E-mails though are different, imo - people don't have to be quite so concise, as the charge for sending one is not per character or other expensive manner.

Jmo.
Click to expand...

Brief I get, for sure. I can hardly understand some of the texts my sons send me, with all of their slang and short forms!

It's the way it's phrased and the choice of words by someone so young that I find odd. It's just a small thing. I'm not even a believer in the idea that DM had anything to do with AG's murder, personally.
 
I also don't think DM was involved in Audrey's murder.

Apologies for this rather stupid question, but........

We are only allowed to sleuth suspects here. So - Who are the suspects in Audrey's case?

Thanks........... :dunno:

:scared:

LambChop said:
We do not sleuth people who are not suspects, nor do we encourage others to do so.
Click to expand...

 
There are no suspects that we are aware of. Friends and family are off limits unless they are specifically identified as suspects or POI. At this time the person who killed Audrey is unknown and not much information has been released from LE.
 
With all due respect, according to LE 'AG knew her killer' as opposed to her killer was aware of her. A rather big difference imo.

And according to PK, LE has put a lot of pressure on those that knew AG. Not 'our' sleuthing, but his.

According to Safraik in a recent link, more often than not, the killer had some sort of contact before the murder - the range is from close to remote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but someone close to AG complains from time to time? Surely that is not off limits? Or is it?
 
Woodland said:
With all due respect, according to LE 'AG knew her killer' as opposed to her killer was aware of her. A rather big difference imo.

And according to PK, LE has put a lot of pressure on those that knew AG. Not 'our' sleuthing, but his.

According to Safraik in a recent link, more often than not, the killer had some sort of contact before the murder - the range is from close to remote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but someone close to AG complains from time to time? Surely that is not off limits? Or is it?
Click to expand...

And this is why I'm SO confused. If there are no known suspects in Audrey's case, how are we (WS-ers) able to sleuth this case? That's why I started to only post about the car. And then I decided to step away from here.

Am I completely incorrect in what I THINK I know so far:

- LE said that Audrey knew her killer
- LE said there was no forced entry
- LE suggested to "look young and look close"
- DLS was let go because LE had nothing against him/his involvement with Audrey's murder
- polygraphs were done and some were "inconsistent"
- we are not allowed to sleuth WS members even if Woodland (as an example) is pretty certain that I (No_Stone_Unturned) committed the crime

I hope with all my heart that Audrey's case will be solved and that we (WS-ers) are able to participate in the process. But I'm utterly confused and frustrated at this point.

IF there are no suspects, am I only able to contribute by giving my knowledge of GM race cars? Because at least that's something I know a great deal about. But let's face it, Audrey was not brutally murdered by a GM race car! :tantrum:

I'm at a loss..........:dunno:

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

Wondering what type of reaction might be expected of the perp?


"Homicide investigators typically speak to the media about an open case in the interest of public safety — he urged residents in the area to “be vigilant” since a killer was at large — and in the hopes of encouraging tips, and, on occasion, to spark a reaction from the perpetrator"
 
dotr said:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2215939-who-is-audrey-gleave/
bbm.

Wondering what type of reaction might be expected of the perp?


"Homicide investigators typically speak to the media about an open case in the interest of public safety — he urged residents in the area to “be vigilant” since a killer was at large — and in the hopes of encouraging tips, and, on occasion, to spark a reaction from the perpetrator"
Click to expand...

That usually only works when they already have their eye on someone. And Dotr you made me laugh though it is hardly funny yes what kind of reaction are they hoping to spur - another murder?

This case drives me crazy it is like a bad dream: as far as we know neighbours were NOT in a state of terror in fact we have the executor over there at all hours cleaning up Audrey's house asap no apparent paranoia there. Mr. F. on camera seemed a bit bemused. He didn't look as though he thought his wife or kid might be the next victim. There were as I remember a few others a bit further down the road who seemed suitably alarmed. It would occur to almost anyone that the killer COULD have sent the Amazing Grace video.... if I had received one I'd be worried.

It is as if they all know or at least sense something

But Dotr you have really made me think: I think there is local knowledge of what happened to Audrey. I think they need to find out. Be persistent be polite and then not so polite. Go back and ask again. They need to talk to everyone along that road and nearby....again.
 
:lurk::maddening::anguish::bricks: :sweep: :censored: :pullhair: :websleuther: :bang: :confused:

OK, let's see if I have this correctly:

-LE has not named ANY suspects/POI's......EVER (with the exception of DLS who was rightly let go)

- so....... we're stumped!


:drumroll:
 
Imo, LE stating AG knew her killer does not fall under the category of no suspects named.

LE is very much alluding to something, and PK let us know that LE is pressuring him and others that 'were close to her.'

I'm guessing LE's statement comes from actions, interactions or lack of actions and interactions at the crime scene. Something caused the statement 'known to AG.' Not putting an actual name to the person, just yet, does not mean they haven't advised the public the direction they are taking.

I think the new direction LE is taking is correct.

Jmo.
 
Woodland said:
Imo, LE stating AG knew her killer does not fall under the category of no suspects named. AGREED

LE is very much alluding to something, and PK let us know that LE is pressuring him and others that 'were close to her.'YES! We all remember that said (posted) from PK.

I'm guessing LE's statement comes from actions, interactions or lack of actions and interactions at the crime scene. Something caused the statement 'known to AG.' ABSOLUTELY! Not putting an actual name to the person, just yet, does not mean they haven't advised the public the direction they are taking.

I think the new direction LE is taking is correct. :dunno:

Jmo.
Click to expand...

My comments are inside the quote.......

:seeya:
 
Sometimes those that are close, ( Brampton) and whose actions may be considered savage, move away, fwiw..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...sk-to-reoffend-say-parole-documents-1.2656472

"The Parole Board of Canada had no choice but to release Gopaul last summer, because he had served his full sentence for the 2010 aggravated sexual assault of a Brampton, Ont. woman" imo.

http://www.680news.com/2010/12/31/h...suspect-following-muder-of-73-year-old-woman/
HAMILTON, Ont. – Police are warning people to be vigilant following what they call the “horrific” killing of a 73-year-old woman in her Ancaster home.

Retired school teacher Audrey Gleave had been stabbed several times in a “very savage attack” that may have been sexually motivated.
bbm.
 
Yes dotr - I recall that LE said the perp in SV's case would likely have moved (paraphrasing).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 1,116 (members: 164, guests: 952)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
952
Total visitors
1,116
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,542
Messages
18,049,251
Members
230,028
Latest member
Cynichick
Back
Top