UK UK - Alistair Wilson, 30, murdered at home, Nairn, Scotland, 28 Nov 2004

[davidt]

They don't have the envelope. The only witness to its existence is Veronica, and she would have seen it only for a few seconds I assume. It was not found at the scene so the hypothesis is the assassin took it away with him.

Yep, they have appealed for information on the envelope. Seems very unlikely anyone other than those who may have been involved with it will know anything. Not likely a member of the public will have seen it let alone remember seeing it. For that reason I think the release of some of the information about it is more about making it known publicly than anything else. They want someone to know that they have this information.

 

[Jaycee 1992]

<modsnip>

My hypothesis is that more happened on the doorstep that night, and the police are very reluctant to release this information into the public domain.

My gut feeling is that AW was definitely meant to die that night, but for some unknown reason the killer hesitated in pulling the trigger 1st time round: "why"? My gut instincts tell me that perhaps the gunman was aware of AW young sons presence, either with there Dad, or present with him at the door on the 1st encounter, If so then it's highly plausible that this completely threw the gunman off track and he couldn't bring himself round to carrying out the hit.

I have always found it strange that the Police released footage of AW eldest son not long after the crime being told by a child psychologist that his Daddy was never going to come back home, I'm sure if my memory serves me correctly the son in question was clearly distressed in the video and just wanted his Dad to come back home, it was almost like the Police were using this to play on the gunmans conscience, in hope that he would hand themselves in.

The eldest son also did an appeal last year aswell, it's almost like the Police are using this as tactic in hope that it will finally make a breakthrough.

I think the envelope was always meant to be used that night, almost as a way to verify the person he was sent to kill. Example : " I have a letter for Paul at number 10 crescent road" AW: "Sorry I'm the only man that stays here and I'm AW" so by that simple use of the envelope he knew this was definitely the right target and AW verified the envelope as the correct address and also himself inadvertently in the process.

From that point I believe the envelope grew and drew more attention to itself, far more than what its sole purpose was supposed to be used for.

It obviously didn't mean a great deal to the gunman as he could have taken the envelope from AW before he took it back inside to show his wife, i don't believe the name "PAUL" had any real significance to the gunman or to the people that hired him to carry out the hit, under no circumstances would they be so naive to leave such a significant amount of clues or evidence on an envelope which would jeopardize them being caught.
I think the gunman lost control of the situation very quickly in quite a short space of time, but when AW came back to the door second time round, in all probability to hand the envelope back to the gunman and to tell him that he definitely got the wrong house, I believe then the gunman pulled the trigger straight away and got himself away from the scene.

 

[gregjrichards]

“The mysterious shooting of a Scottish man, may have been related to his objection to a planning application, it has emerged.

Alistair Wilson, who was murdered at his home in Nairn in 2004, had registered his objection to permission for a large decking area outside the Havelock Hotel opposite his home.

Police now believe this to be significant to the enquiry into his death.”

Alistair Wilson murder: Objection to hotel deck may be the key to Scottish banker's murder, police say - Sky News UK link.

 

[Luwin]

Nairn doorstep murder detectives probe decking row

 

[davidt]

<modsnip>

My hypothesis is that more happened on the doorstep that night, and the police are very reluctant to release this information into the public domain.

My gut feeling is that AW was definitely meant to die that night, but for some unknown reason the killer hesitated in pulling the trigger 1st time round: "why"? My gut instincts tell me that perhaps the gunman was aware of AW young sons presence, either with there Dad, or present with him at the door on the 1st encounter, If so then it's highly plausible that this completely threw the gunman off track and he couldn't bring himself round to carrying out the hit.

I have always found it strange that the Police released footage of AW eldest son not long after the crime being told by a child psychologist that his Daddy was never going to come back home, I'm sure if my memory serves me correctly the son in question was clearly distressed in the video and just wanted his Dad to come back home, it was almost like the Police were using this to play on the gunmans conscience, in hope that he would hand themselves in.

The eldest son also did an appeal last year aswell, it's almost like the Police are using this as tactic in hope that it will finally make a breakthrough.

I think the envelope was always meant to be used that night, almost as a way to verify the person he was sent to kill. Example : " I have a letter for Paul at number 10 crescent road" AW: "Sorry I'm the only man that stays here and I'm AW" so by that simple use of the envelope he knew this was definitely the right target and AW verified the envelope as the correct address and also himself inadvertently in the process.

From that point I believe the envelope grew and drew more attention to itself, far more than what its sole purpose was supposed to be used for.

It obviously didn't mean a great deal to the gunman as he could have taken the envelope from AW before he took it back inside to show his wife, i don't believe the name "PAUL" had any real significance to the gunman or to the people that hired him to carry out the hit, under no circumstances would they be so naive to leave such a significant amount of clues or evidence on an envelope which would jeopardize them being caught.
I think the gunman lost control of the situation very quickly in quite a short space of time, but when AW came back to the door second time round, in all probability to hand the envelope back to the gunman and to tell him that he definitely got the wrong house, I believe then the gunman pulled the trigger straight away and got himself away from the scene.

I think there's a lot of sense here. There are a couple of things that come to mind. Firstly when Veronica answered the door the caller asked for AW by name. If he'd got the wrong place Veronica would surely have told him there and then. I would have thought he already knew he had the right person as soon as she went to get him.

In terms of not shooting the first time. The problem is with the official version of events. Those details are clear it was a spur of the moment decision by AW to return outside. It makes much more sense if AW was always going back outside and the caller knew this. Otherwise how long was the caller going to hang around risking being spotted or recognised? If AW hadn't decided to return outside was the caller going to hang around all night? I guess it's a question of how much faith we have in the official line.

The other reason I have some doubts it was a professional planned killing is that the gun used from all I've read seems to be a really inappropriate one for the job. Much more the sort of thing someone might carry for defence purposes.

 

[davidt]

“The mysterious shooting of a Scottish man, may have been related to his objection to a planning application, it has emerged.

Alistair Wilson, who was murdered at his home in Nairn in 2004, had registered his objection to permission for a large decking area outside the Havelock Hotel opposite his home.

Police now believe this to be significant to the enquiry into his death.”

Alistair Wilson murder: Objection to hotel deck may be the key to Scottish banker's murder, police say - Sky News UK link.

Very interesting. I wonder on what basis police have ruled out his professional life? They seem pretty certain on that. Also the dispute about the decking has been known about since day one. Again, I wonder why now it has assumed such importance?

 

[V347]

Hi! Been following this case recently and went back and read all the previous comments.

If the potential motive is the decking with a neighbour, would it be appropriate for his wife to still be living there?

 

[Taskforce88]

Murdered because he was against some decking? Nah.

 

[Taskforce88]

“The mysterious shooting of a Scottish man, may have been related to his objection to a planning application, it has emerged.

Alistair Wilson, who was murdered at his home in Nairn in 2004, had registered his objection to permission for a large decking area outside the Havelock Hotel opposite his home.

Police now believe this to be significant to the enquiry into his death.”

Alistair Wilson murder: Objection to hotel deck may be the key to Scottish banker's murder, police say - Sky News UK link.

So the hotel sent a hitman to kill him because he had registered an objection for a decking area?

 

[Taskforce88]

When the gunman came to the door is it correct that he simply asked for Alistair Wilson? Nothing else like is he in etc, and that his wife who saw the gunman simply went and got her husband, didn't ask who he was or what he wanted?

 

[Konstantin]

So the hotel sent a hitman to kill him because he had registered an objection for a decking area?

Well as Peter Bleksley noted in his book, people have been killed for less than that. And people do get angry over these things. AW's complaint, if upheld, would have meant disruption for the hotel/pub, less business, and fewer people who could go there for a drink and to have fun. Given that AW's complaint--you can read it online in one of the news reports--sounds very harsh/angry it might be that there was some bad blood between him and the hotel people that had been simmering for a while when this happened. The complaint was received by them a few days before the murder. The CCTV on the hotel was not working or switched off, the gunman wasn't too bothered about being seen. One interpretation of the latter could be that he didn't actually intend to kill AW that night.

We don't know what happened, of course-- but it's possible to interpret the events that have been made public in a way that suggests the gunman didn't originally intend to kill AW. We don't know what was said between him and AW when he first came to the door or when AW went back. Maybe he was sent to negotiate, not assassinate, and then something AW said annoyed him, or he panicked, lost control and shot him.

However, all this is just speculation as we don't know the full story of what happened that night, what we do know might be misleading, and there must be some back story here too that again we don't know.

 

[davidt]

When the gunman came to the door is it correct that he simply asked for Alistair Wilson? Nothing else like is he in etc, and that his wife who saw the gunman simply went and got her husband, didn't ask who he was or what he wanted?

That's how it's been reported. Like you I've always found that a bit odd.

 

[davidt]

Well as Peter Bleksley noted in his book, people have been killed for less than that. And people do get angry over these things. AW's complaint, if upheld, would have meant disruption for the hotel/pub, less business, and fewer people who could go there for a drink and to have fun. Given that AW's complaint--you can read it online in one of the news reports--sounds very harsh/angry it might be that there was some bad blood between him and the hotel people that had been simmering for a while when this happened. The complaint was received by them a few days before the murder. The CCTV on the hotel was not working or switched off, the gunman wasn't too bothered about being seen. One interpretation of the latter could be that he didn't actually intend to kill AW that night.

We don't know what happened, of course-- but it's possible to interpret the events that have been made public in a way that suggests the gunman didn't originally intend to kill AW. We don't know what was said between him and AW when he first came to the door or when AW went back. Maybe he was sent to negotiate, not assassinate, and then something AW said annoyed him, or he panicked, lost control and shot him.

However, all this is just speculation as we don't know the full story of what happened that night, what we do know might be misleading, and there must be some back story here too that again we don't know.

Was going to make a similar point. Sometimes it's a trivial thing or sometimes it's an accumulation of things leading up to a breaking point. Given the police have made this public you'd assume they have some reason for doing so.

 

[Markybug]

Wonder if the envelope wasn’t for money to be put in by Alistair , but a bribe to be taken out ? For dropping his objection to the development?

 

[Markybug]

Police quote is interesting


“Det Insp Winter said the objection may have caused an inconvenience to those involved in building or using it.‘

 

[Markybug]

Former pub owner (Andy burnet) statement

“
I'm not a suspect and I never have been. It had no relation to me other than somebody they thought I might have known. I didn't particularly know them.

'I think they got the information they were looking for.'

 

[alb1on]

What surprises me about the latest development is that you would assume the police would have looked into it being linked to the hotel from early on. This is because of the behaviour of Andy Burnett, the owner. He sacked the chef of the hotel because the chef closed the restaurant when Wilson's wife ran to the hotel for help, as he (the chef) felt it wrong to remain open under the circumstances. This led to an unfair dismissal case which was reported at the time Chef sacked after closing hotel on night of Nairn banker&apos;s murder | HeraldScotland. Whilst this may be irrelevant to the murder the action of the owner does not sound like that of a friend or someone with much empathy and should have led to questions at least.
It would be interesting to know what police made of the hotel owner at the time of the initial investigation.

 

[Taskforce88]

If he didn't intend to kill him why did he have a loaded gun?

And why has no e fit of the suspect been rel

That's how it's been reported. Like you I've always found that a bit odd.

I find the whole case very odd.

Why did Alistair go back to the door for a second time? Why was the gunman still there?

 

[davidt]

If he didn't intend to kill him why did he have a loaded gun?

And why has no e fit of the suspect been rel


I find the whole case very odd.

Why did Alistair go back to the door for a second time? Why was the gunman still there?

All good questions which have been theorised on here but fair to say no one yet has really been able to fit it altogether. Perhaps the gun was for protection? Who knows really. If you stick to the official line it's very hard to make sense of the chain of events.

Not sure I'm convinced AW going back to the door was because he wanted to check if the caller was still there as per the official version. Makes more sense if he was always going back, but that's not the official line.

 

[Taskforce88]

All good questions which have been theorised on here but fair to say no one yet has really been able to fit it altogether. Perhaps the gun was for protection? Who knows really. If you stick to the official line it's very hard to make sense of the chain of events.

Not sure I'm convinced AW going back to the door was because he wanted to check if the caller was still there as per the official version. Makes more sense if he was always going back, but that's not the official line.

Yep, very confusing official line