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

[Konstantin]

The hotel chef who was sacked after he closed the pub restaurant on the night AW was murdered was also questioned extensively by the police about why VW ran to him for help (I mean, the hotel was literally across the road and people were there, she probably knew the chef at least by sight as he worked there, where else would she go to for help?)

Nairn murder won't drive me from my home, says chef (pressandjournal.co.uk)

I do find it very odd that the hotel manager--who was questioned in Canada--would sack the chef for shutting up shop after a man was gunned down right opposite. What was the objection? Who would want to dine in a place where a terrifying and horrific murder had just taken place opposite? The chef was actually one of the people at the hotel who went over to try to help VW after she had run over there for assistance. How could he then just go back to cooking meals for customers? It does seem that emotions between the hotel and the Wilsons were running deep. The Wilsons had tried to run their home as a hotel but it had failed while the place opposite was clearly doing well, maybe there was some bad feelings under the surface going on here--and this is not just a random objection to a random planning application.

 

[davidt]

The hotel chef who was sacked after he closed the pub restaurant on the night AW was murdered was also questioned extensively by the police about why VW ran to him for help (I mean, the hotel was literally across the road and people were there, she probably knew the chef at least by sight as he worked there, where else would she go to for help?)

Nairn murder won't drive me from my home, says chef (pressandjournal.co.uk)

I do find it very odd that the hotel manager--who was questioned in Canada--would sack the chef for shutting up shop after a man was gunned down right opposite. What was the objection? Who would want to dine in a place where a terrifying and horrific murder had just taken place opposite? The chef was actually one of the people at the hotel who went over to try to help VW after she had run over there for assistance. How could he then just go back to cooking meals for customers? It does seem that emotions between the hotel and the Wilsons were running deep. The Wilsons had tried to run their home as a hotel but it had failed while the place opposite was clearly doing well, maybe there was some bad feelings under the surface going on here--and this is not just a random objection to a random planning application.

Yes, as you know from Bleksley's book he attributes quotes from the hotel owner. In those quotes the hotel owner doesn't seem over fond of the Wilsons. He appears not to be convinced by Veronica's account. He was also conveniently somewhere else at the time of the shooting. So you do wonder exactly what the relationship between them all was really like.

 

[Taskforce88]

Yes, as you know from Bleksley's book he attributes quotes from the hotel owner. In those quotes the hotel owner doesn't seem over fond of the Wilsons. He appears not to be convinced by Veronica's account. He was also conveniently somewhere else at the time of the shooting. So you do wonder exactly what the relationship between them all was really like.

I have read a lot of criticism of his book. What is your impression of it?

 

[Taskforce88]

Do we know if the Wilsons were planning on moving away from Nairn? I know AW was working his notice?

 

[davidt]

I have read a lot of criticism of his book. What is your impression of it?

I did put my thoughts on the book a few pages back on here. I don't think he got very far. Police, Veronica and the Bank wouldn't speak to him so he was reduced to relying on bits on pieces from whoever came forward. Some of that stuff may be relevant but none of it is backed up with any evidence.

 

[Konstantin]

I did put my thoughts on the book a few pages back on here. I don't think he got very far. Police, Veronica and the Bank wouldn't speak to him so he was reduced to relying on bits on pieces from whoever came forward. Some of that stuff may be relevant but none of it is backed up with any evidence.

I'll have to go back and see what you wrote, but I agree with this summary above. But of course though Veronica would not speak to him--she couldn't--even when she agreed to do the BBC interview for that podcast they did, she was accompanied by five police officers who had vetted the questions and her responses beforehand. They all need to be very careful what she puts in the public domain. The bank presumably just won't speak to journalists about it which tbh does make sense.

I admire him for trying though. Like the BBC podcast, he didn't have anything to go on so explored some angles based on bits and pieces he got from anyone who spoke to him, which were basically just people's theories. However I think the book does do a few things well in retrospect, given this new line the police are now taking:

1. Peter can't find anything in AW's professional life that points to a possible motive. There was nothing going on with the bank that he could find. AW was just a regular guy. He was maybe a bit on the outskirts of the extraverted banking community there, socially.

2. Peter found the hotel landlord interesting. The landlord was "practically horizontal" in his interview, and was perhaps trying to show that he had nothing to hide. He contradicted himself a bit in his recollection of the evening, in terms of the time he was in the bar down the road, which he explained he always went to on a Sunday night. He is also skeptical of Veronica's account.

3. Peter points out that AW's rather forceful/angry complaint he submitted to the planning permission people at the council regarding noise from the bar/decking area and the parking issues were a little...odd in the light of the fact that AW had planned to create a hotel in his home, with a restaurant, which would also have added to noise and parking issues in the street. Was AW jealous of the landlord's success while his expensive venture with the hotel had been a total failure? A failure that had cost him, and maybe made him a bit annoyed?

It's worth noting a few things in relation to this based on other news reports. First, AW and the hotel landlord used to be golfing buddies apparently. But it seems there was a falling out, ostensibly around this issue over the decking and the noise. Now, if you had a mate who was a neighbour who was causing some issues in your street, wouldn't your first port of all to sort all that out be to go and have a word with him, man to man? I don't think the issue over the noise / anti social behaviour as AW saw it was initially raised just in that letter of objection to the retroactive planning permission thing.

After the murder, Veronica stayed on in the house and actually made more complaints relating to the hotel.

The hotel landlord fired his chef ostensibly for shutting the restaurant that night after AW was shot (the chef had run over to help Veronica, I assume the sight of the dying AW was traumatic and who would want to cook food after that?) In his interview with Peter, the landlord talks about seeing AW dying, describes his swollen neck, blood on his hand, helps him back on the ambulance stretcher after he fell off it (!!) and touched AW some more by reclasping AW's watch which he saw was falling off his wrist.

So yes, it is likely there was a dispute between people at or around the hotel and the Wilsons, that was probably coloured by the Wilsons' own failure to get their hotel up and running (which would have cost them). We don't know how others saw this, if they were angry at the attempts to get the decking ripped up (costing the hotel money, maybe it hadn't been fully paid for and was being paid for by money that came in from profits from it being used, maybe it was thought it would spoil the fun of drinking and hanging out there, maybe the place was used by certain groups of local hardmen, who knows)

But the police knew all this. So why now think it's the key to the mystery after all this time?

 

[touch]

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.

Maybe it's that behaviour which caused them to focus on him and overlook one of the other less-obvious suspects the first time around, which they are now revisitng?
The builder, for example, who constructed the decking could stand to lose a lot of money. Maybe they told the hotel that planning permission wasn't required so when it turned out that planning was required, the builder would not only lose the original cost of the materials and construction but they'd then have to pay more to remove it all. That could be enough to upset someone.
Maybe a hotel employee scared of losing their job? Maybe if the hotel was already struggling a bit for cash the money lost from the decking and/or lost custom from not having such a large outdoor area might have been enough to tip them over the edge. Or, at least, if that's what the employees thought could happen it might be enough to make them think AW's complaint was a risk to their job.
Even just one of the pub regulars not quite right in the head. Maybe a loner who's only 'friends' were the people he spoke to in the pub worried that if the hotel shut down he'd lose all that. Or maybe having heard all the stories around the pub of the feud with AW he wanted to be the hero by shutting him up.

There's a lot more people and motives around the planning dispute to be considered rather than just the hotel owner - but he's such an obvious suspect that maybe it took too much focus or clouded judgement investigating him?

 

[davidt]

This seems to have emerged after the police flew to Canada to interview the landlord. The landlord says they wanted to ask him about someone else who he didn't (particularly) know. I found that a bit of a strange way of putting it.

Now presumably the police had reason to fly to Canada. It indicates that something new must have turned up in addition to the information that has been known for years. Now the police have made it public about the decking and that they have practically ruled out the killing being related to AWs professional life.

The police have as other posters have said, always been reluctant to release information so again you wonder why now and why this. You have to think this is a new lead.

And just a thought on tbe gun. I wonder if its possible this person was carrying a gun because he saw AW as a threat? Protection perhaps?

 

[Markybug]

Was Alistairs property a hotel when they bought it ? Or did they decide to convert it after purchasing?

I assume the hotel across the road was there first ?

another thought re the envelope, maybe it was something to be signed withdrawing his complaint?

 

[Mickymack10]

Really good points been made by everyone above. As much as this lead maybe significant to the police it still doesn't explain the envelope or the gunmans actions and time spent on the doorstep talking to AW. To my way of thinking if this was over the complaint AW made to the council over the planning permission for the decking, then surely he would have told his wife about it when he returned back inside, that the stranger on the doorstep was trying to convince him to go back on his complaint to the council.
The only way any of this could make sense would be if the gunman asked him to go back upstairs to show his Wife the envelope in order for the name "PAUL" to be circulated in the media, as one criminologist previously suggested.
Or maybe the gunman was local or had local connections and was familiar with people in Nairn, and he noticed people were present or walking by so he decided to bide himself sometime by presenting the envelope and waited until the street was clear before he felt comfortable enough to pull the trigger.

 

[Konstantin]

I think we don't know enough about the envelope and we don't know anything at all about the convo between the gunman and AW or between AW and VW, so it's really hard to try to fit what is known around a sensible hypothesis.

There was apparently more than just Paul written on it.

AW didn't think he was in physical danger, I think that much we can conclude. So for me that does point toward the motive for this being something else, and while people have indeed been killed for less, the dispute between AW and the Havelock hotel wasn't violent or openly aggressive previously. Not physically anyway. You could argue that AW's complaint--which he sent in to the council and didn't give to the hotel directly, was an act of passive aggression or indirect aggression that could have sparked anger. I doubt that killing him was the plan, though, because as others pointed out, his death does not resolve anything apart from satisfying the anger of the gunman.

The self-defence idea is interesting, maybe the gunman was a bit of a nutter--the weird envelope stuff does suggest something very bizarre is going on in his head, since AW had no clue what it was about or for--and thought AW was coming at him or something. If the gun was the one seen on the beach weeks before then that was nothing to do with AW's complaint so maybe this person was carrying it around for something else, has the weird altercation / encounter with AW sparked by the decking row, and snapped.

 

[davidt]

To recap on the envelope per the official line:

AW was given this by (or took it from) the caller at the end of their first conversation.
It was a blue greetings card shaped envelope
It had PAUL and possibly something else written on it.
It was unopened and empty (how do they know it was empty if it was unopened?)
AW returned inside the house.
AW asked VW if the caller had definitely asked for him.
AW and VW discussed the envelope (details of the conversation are withheld)
Still confused AW decides to go back outside taking the envelope with him to see if the caller is still there.
The caller is still there and a second shorter conversation takes place.
AW is fatally shot and the gunman makes off presumably with the envelope.

Please correct me if any of that is wrong.

If the above is accurate then the gunman was leaving the envelope with AW and didn't expect it back. It can't have been important to him even though there may have been forensic evidence on it. AW wasn't expected to put anything in it or give it back. Why then were the police keen to keep the details secret for so long? It seems the police think it's very important whilst the gunman wasn't bothered about it at all. It that's correct why was the gunman waiting around? Couldn't have been for the envelope.

 

[cortina]

it just gets stranger......first of all, thank you for all the thought provoking posts and. for filling me in on details.

ive just realised the strangest. thing....that. Veronica and the children were allowed to stay where they were from the word go....ie at a time when no one apparently had. a clue about what was going on...does this mean the police already had a. solid theory or were they being negligent

as. far as the latest stuff goes, it. could well have been to do with the decking, but the police seem to. have settled. on that because they've got nowhere with anything. else...id. have thought they'd have been looking into that, anyway...im not saying its to. do with the bank, but not all funny stuff is. logged or known...in my. particular area a dodgy customer who. eventually became fully criminal was letting his branch manager use one of. his flats as a love nest away from his wife.

we dont really know anything about the evenings events...we dont know if aw. did come back. inside or if. he was shot immediately...for all we know, the gunman may have dropped the envelope on the doorstep. when he was running away.

the image of the younger man firing shots into the. sea sounds to me like a child with a. new toy....maybe took it. with. him everywhere.

the police may have reached the right conclusion but there. are definitely a lot of. questions about the official. version,

 

[Mickymack10]

I have always wondered if there was anything more written on the envelope than just the name PAUL. Locals staying in Nairn believe there was, and also that there was something inside the envelope initially that AW took out before he showed VW. I don't believe in AW own mind that he was finished speaking to the gunman when he went back inside, I think he always had the intention to go back outside to see what was going on. I wonder if the gunman rang the doorbell a second time for AW to go back downstairs? Maybe the Police have that quiet, as only the gunman and the people close to him would have known what transpired that night.

 

[cortina]

I think the police. have said that there was more than Paul written on the envelope, but they're not saying what

 

[Ruthbullock]

Really great posts and theories- a lot to think about.
My 3 questions- why is there no picture of the suspect?
Why shoot someone over the decking- if it was the builders, they still don’t get paid. If it was the landlord, then it was a flawed plan as VW continued the objections afterwards- although of that were her suspicions I can see why she stayed early on and kept objecting, but from an outsiders point of view it’s a little illogical.
Final question- Did VW run over to the pub for help or did the staff hear the commotion and run out?

 

[Konstantin]

Really great posts and theories- a lot to think about.
My 3 questions- why is there no picture of the suspect?
Why shoot someone over the decking- if it was the builders, they still don’t get paid. If it was the landlord, then it was a flawed plan as VW continued the objections afterwards- although of that were her suspicions I can see why she stayed early on and kept objecting, but from an outsiders point of view it’s a little illogical.
Final question- Did VW run over to the pub for help or did the staff hear the commotion and run out?

she ran over for help.
At some point the chef who was later sacked for closing the restaurant came to assist her

 

[touch]

Why shoot someone over the decking- if it was the builders, they still don’t get paid.

The decking was built on the hotel property and (presumably) already paid for by the hotel - the construction wasn't really anything to do with AW and he wouldn't have been paying for it.
The issue is that it was built without planning permission. The hotel owner submitted an application for planning permission after the decking was completed. If the application was rejected he would have had to remove the decking again.
If it was the builders who told him he didn't need planning permission for it then they could well be liable to refund the construction cost and also have to do the work to remove it.
AW's complaints against the planning application could have cost someone a large amount of money.

 

[Ruthbullock]

she ran over for help.
At some point the chef who was later sacked for closing the restaurant came to assist her

To me that is a strange reaction, to run passed your shot husband and over the road, rather than screaming and trying to help him or even just staying with him- but maybe that’s just me I need to clarify, I’m not victim bashing- merely think this is another part of the story that doesn’t make sense and maybe has missing aspects.

 

[Ruthbullock]

The decking was built on the hotel property and (presumably) already paid for by the hotel - the construction wasn't really anything to do with AW and he wouldn't have been paying for it.
The issue is that it was built without planning permission. The hotel owner submitted an application for planning permission after the decking was completed. If the application was rejected he would have had to remove the decking again.
If it was the builders who told him he didn't need planning permission for it then they could well be liable to refund the construction cost and also have to do the work to remove it.
AW's complaints against the planning application could have cost someone a large amount of money.

I’m not sure how much decking and money is involved and where it tips over from mere anger at each other to ordering a hitman- but the decking area wasn’t that big and at a guess cost less than £5000- fairly sure it would cost a lot more than that to hire a hitman- it’s just not logical. It’s only logical if they suspect it was someone involved with the build who directly did the shooting.