Discussion in 'Cold Cases' started by Salem, Jan 12, 2013.
Very, very interesting article, and so good to know that Audrey's case hasn't gone cold.
So IF the scene was staged as sexual assault that staging effectively eliminates SA as a motive.
The Camaro was left behind even though the crime was uninterrupted so car theft doesn't appear to be motive.
We haven't heard of any items of great value that were missing so garden variety robbery doesn't seem to be the case (unless AG had a stash of money we don't know about, but someone close to her did).
Interesting that of possible motives for murder, Dr. David Buss at the Univ of Texas has this to say about murders of victims known to their killers:
Something from the recent Spec article that popped out at me that was being discussed in another current case:
IMO, the fact Det Abrams felt the need to make that statement indicates they believe they have interviewed Audrey's killer or someone close to the killer. LOL, Russ Williams seemed pretty cooperative until Jim Smith nailed his butt to the wall.
Thanks to the mods for opening this thread, quite an unexpected surprise-
Very interesting article, shout out to J. Wells for writing it!
Having these threads back just brightened my day - if anyone deserves to be remembered here it's Audrey imo.
From the article -
While family members of victims in unsolved homicide cases are known to call detectives to lobby for resources, no one calls for Audrey Gleave. She had no family.
"We have to keep pushing for her," says Abrams.
Feb 3 2007 Audrey's Last Will and Testament signed and witnessed at Brantford, Ontario
Odd that after a friendship of approx 30 years, AG's close friend didn't know until the LWT was being done in 2007 that AG didn't have any family.
Just as odd imo was LE finding the Will in AG's purse sitting on the kitchen counter.
I recall Det Hrab indicating that Audrey's Will had been located, but I don't recall that we had any MSM confirmation that it was located in her purse. I can only find MSM reference to it as rumour:
Yes SB, spent some time browsing the first few threads to remind myself of some facts and the source of the purse on the counter is elusive. Reported, but the actual source remains elusive.
So sad that not one of Audreys friends call police to see if there are updates. At least we remember.
Please remember there are no officially named POIs or suspects in Audrey's case. As such, we do not accuse them of involvement.
Etiquette & Information
Well, nothing official, but find the latest article pretty clear imo.
Carefully crafted by the detectives now in charge imo - kudos and thank-you to them for having the estrogen/testosterone that Canadians want and expect from LE. No finger pointing but info at the same time to show they are working on it.
Hamilton has shown very good LE leadership for a couple of years now including the Bosma case - where others forces failed the public. Good job and happy to say - my home town.
Fellow Hamiltonian here! :greetings: Born and bred in Steeltown. (Only moved north in the past 3 years).
I really think LE has no clue. I think they are thinking just of known possible persons of interest. I think they need to go back to square one and start over. Re-interview everyone that lives around there, find out who was staying or visiting the area then.
It would be great to see brand new, fresh eyes on this case with no biases or previous knowledge of the details. Sometimes it takes a fresh perspective to sort things out.
FWIW, the 2 detectives on the case now are fresh eyes.
I think there was a 'doozy' of a plan to kill Audrey - with mistakes - and will be very difficult to prove. I hope it will be proven down the road, but will not be surprised if it is not.
Remember the lawyer for the person that was once arrested for killing AG? He baffled us with, paraphrasing, 'they don't have DNA, they don't have nothing'. No DNA at all or no DNA from his client? Imo, the latest article reinforces, in a subtle way, no DNA was found. If so, that took planning.
Not leaving DNA can be as easy as wearing gloves and being lucky.
Agree with gloves - but not the easy nor lucky part.
Gloves and other body coverings were used imo = planning. A random person at a random time would not have such useful tools on hand. Those dogs, capable of rendering someone 'inoperable', also had to be lured, beforehand, into a spot where they could not get at the killer.
Planning for what motive? Ok that is probably easy but we can't/should not go there again - the threads are better left open. I like the way this set of detectives tiptoed around the current thinking - will join them as much as I possibly can.
As a GSD owner, being lured is what I can't wrap my head around. IMO, it was either AG herself OR, OR someone the dogs were at least familiar with that confined them. I simply can't fathom a total stranger being able to lure 2 dogs, let alone GSDs, into confinement.
The dogs, apparently enjoyed special treats like donuts, maybe they enjoyed other baked goods too? imo
Just noted now, that the dogs are fine, "well-behaved, even with a stranger"
" Out in the country, inside Lorne and Sylvia’s modest home, Togi and Schatze seem intimidating at first, especially big Togi, eyes darting as though on full alert. But after much sniffing, the dogs are well-behaved, even with a stranger.
Lorne calls all four animals into the kitchen. They are fed twice a day, but the canines know what’s coming. Treat time. Hortons.
He opens the box and tears pieces from two plain doughnuts — he goes easy on the sugar — and the dogs sit patiently, waiting for a morsel of fried dough."
I do think it was Audrey that confined the dogs - in whatever manner confined was. Not sure if I'm too close to the edge, but it makes sense to me that Audrey was actually the one lured into confining the dogs - expecting someone that preferred the dogs confined and had asked this before their arrival.
I agree it's highly unlikely someone else could have managed that.