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

[Mickymack10]

Just re-listened to VW. She definitely says he came up to her with a blue envelope after he closed door (she doesn't discuss if open/closed/size/name etc, just it was a blue envelope). I listened to STV clips. Nothing major, only short clips. I had hoped to find the full Unsolved programme, but it's unavailable!!! At least these are from the horses mouths, direct quotes etc! Also, there was no real conversation between A and V, just confusion. Hence A going down again. That is what VW states here. View attachment 345893

Great spot Kiri, I just had time to watch the videos on the STV hub. One thing I couldn't help but notice is Veronica doesn't want to give anything away with regards to the whole incident that took place, she seems hesitant and reluctant to go give us a true count of the events that unfolded. She starts of by saying "The doorbell went, I go down it's for Al". She is very much distancing herself from the gunman and doesn't want to give a word for word true account over what was said between her and the gunman. It's very unusual behaviour especially in this sort of case where your using those media platforms as an appeal. In most cases you'd expect the person to say "I answered the door to this strange man, he was stocky wearing a baseball cap and asked for Alistair by name, his accent sounded like he was from... But no VW very much brushes over this and gives her account of event's almost from an outsiders point of view. She misses this part out completely and goes to get Al.

In her very brief version of events he returned back upstairs with the envelope, in her brief quote "he.. just wanted to know who it was" she pauses, stutters: " you know it just doesn't make any sense to him". Very reluctant again to provide a true account over what was actually said. I think VW is being very deceitful in her brief descriptions over what happened. It's almost asif the whole envelope business is a complete inconvenience to her, and the less said about it then the better.

It could be a case of the Detectives have given her a dress rehearsal over questions being asked, and they want her to refrain from given away certain piece's of information with regards to the envelope and also the conversation that took place between her and Al. if that was the case and I was in her shoes then I would have refused this proposal made by the Police, I would have wanted the public to have known all the details to the incident that occurred, including the envelope and the conversation that took place. I would have wanted as much help as possible if my conscience was clear and I had nothing to hide. So on her part i find it very bizarre and odd behaviour.

I'm not for one trying to say she was directly involved in the murder of her husband, but her behaviour during those interviews is really questionable. Maybe she's covering up for her Husband.

 

[Kiri]

Great spot Kiri, I just had time to watch the videos on the STV hub. One thing I couldn't help but notice is Veronica doesn't want to give anything away with regards to the whole incident that took place, she seems hesitant and reluctant to go give us a true count of the events that unfolded. She starts of by saying "The doorbell went, I go down it's for Al". She is very much distancing herself from the gunman and doesn't want to give a word for word true account over what was said between her and the gunman. It's very unusual behaviour especially in this sort of case where your using those media platforms as an appeal. In most cases you'd expect the person to say "I answered the door to this strange man, he was stocky wearing a baseball cap and asked for Alistair by name, his accent sounded like he was from... But no VW very much brushes over this and gives her account of event's almost from an outsiders point of view. She misses this part out completely and goes to get Al.

In her very brief version of events he returned back upstairs with the envelope, in her brief quote "he.. just wanted to know who it was" she pauses, stutters: " you know it just doesn't make any sense to him". Very reluctant again to provide a true account over what was actually said. I think VW is being very deceitful in her brief descriptions over what happened. It's almost asif the whole envelope business is a complete inconvenience to her, and the less said about it then the better.

It could be a case of the Detectives have given her a dress rehearsal over questions being asked, and they want her to refrain from given away certain piece's of information with regards to the envelope and also the conversation that took place between her and Al. if that was the case and I was in her shoes then I would have refused this proposal made by the Police, I would have wanted the public to have known all the details to the incident that occurred, including the envelope and the conversation that took place. I would have wanted as much help as possible if my conscience was clear and I had nothing to hide. So on her part i find it very bizarre and odd behaviour.

I'm not for one trying to say she was directly involved in the murder of her husband, but her behaviour during those interviews is really questionable. Maybe she's covering up for her Husband.

Or heavily censored. But yes, a bit odd.

 

[Kiri]

Or heavily censored. But yes, a bit odd.

And, if you watch the 'how we made Unsolved' STV interview (I shared it previously - it's a long interview with the producer/directer of the Unsolved series - and followed by his discussion of the Ross Unsolved murder episode). I recall the producer/directer(?), think he was producer (the guy discussing it all!) said police specifically instructed that he could ask VW anything (on interviewing her for Unsolved) but NOT about the envelope. What is it about that flipping envelope!!!?? .... see now why I really want to see the full episode AND any crimewatch footage??!! Seems a censorship in play.

 

[Kiri]

And, if you watch the 'how we made Unsolved' STV interview (I shared it previously - it's a long interview with the producer/directer of the Unsolved series - and followed by his discussion of the Ross Unsolved murder episode). I recall the producer/directer(?), think he was producer (the guy discussing it all!) said police specifically instructed that he could ask VW anything (on interviewing her for Unsolved) but NOT about the envelope. What is it about that flipping envelope!!!?? .... see now why I really want to see the full episode AND any crimewatch footage??!! Seems a censorship in play.

I'd have to listen to the podcast again, haven't for a while, but prety sure she is the same in that (as you quite observantly describe!). It's funny how she really doesn't do any media now and that podcast on sounds was something she actually agreed to! I know it's not televised, but I have heard she really doesn't like media. I hate media too I.e being centre of attention, but you'd think she would welcome it, if it helped find killer? But who knows. Could say the same for quite a number of families of missing people!! At least the McCans got out there!! (Please no comments on them though! Too tired to reply!!).

 

[davidt]

Or heavily censored. But yes, a bit odd.

Always felt the police have strongly controlled the narrative.

 

[davidt]

And, if you watch the 'how we made Unsolved' STV interview (I shared it previously - it's a long interview with the producer/directer of the Unsolved series - and followed by his discussion of the Ross Unsolved murder episode). I recall the producer/directer(?), think he was producer (the guy discussing it all!) said police specifically instructed that he could ask VW anything (on interviewing her for Unsolved) but NOT about the envelope. What is it about that flipping envelope!!!?? .... see now why I really want to see the full episode AND any crimewatch footage??!! Seems a censorship in play.

Yep, the envelope is always off limits. You can only assume VW provided some specific information about it that is super sensitive. Although nearly 18 years in you wonder what it could be. You'd also fear a bit for her safety if the information is that vital.

 

[Kiri]

Yep, the envelope is always off limits. You can only assume VW provided some specific information about it that is super sensitive. Although nearly 18 years in you wonder what it could be. You'd also fear a bit for her safety if the information is that vital.

I would feel vulnerable as the only witness to a murder yes. So guess it's amazing she speaks at all. Her son is also very brave. They're all brave for staying there. Its OK for us, outside of it all to comment. But it is such a baffling case. That's what makes it so compelling - people shouldn't be murdered on their own doorstep!! Whatever they may have done or not done. As Bleksley says, people/persons shouldn't get away with murder. It's not right.

 

[Mickymack10]

And, if you watch the 'how we made Unsolved' STV interview (I shared it previously - it's a long interview with the producer/directer of the Unsolved series - and followed by his discussion of the Ross Unsolved murder episode). I recall the producer/directer(?), think he was producer (the guy discussing it all!) said police specifically instructed that he could ask VW anything (on interviewing her for Unsolved) but NOT about the envelope. What is it about that flipping envelope!!!?? .... see now why I really want to see the full episode AND any crimewatch footage??!! Seems a censorship in play.

And, if you watch the 'how we made Unsolved' STV interview (I shared it previously - it's a long interview with the producer/directer of the Unsolved series - and followed by his discussion of the Ross Unsolved murder episode). I recall the producer/directer(?), think he was producer (the guy discussing it all!) said police specifically instructed that he could ask VW anything (on interviewing her for Unsolved) but NOT about the envelope. What is it about that flipping envelope!!!?? .... see now why I really want to see the full episode AND any crimewatch footage??!! Seems a censorship in play.

I'll need to try finding that episode, is it on the STV footage sales? It's extremely baffling as to why there is so much secrecy around the envelope, and the exact conversation that took place between VW and AW. I get that the detectives have to conceal specialists knowledge, incase it harms there investigation. They clearly know what was said between AW and VW when he returned back inside, also from what I believe there was more than just "PAUL" written on the envelope.

Reading between the lines I think it's safe to say that the Police are wanting a reliable witness to step forward to give a statement which will match the version of events that took place that night. But after all those year's of trying to apply this strategy that hasn't been successful, it may be time for them to try a different tactic, and put all the cards on the table, what do they have to lose?

I have heard another theory that the gunman wanted AW to show his wife the envelope so that the name could be circulated in the media. It's an interesting theory but one I find to far fetched. In my opinion if that was the sole purpose of the envelope, then wouldn't it not just have been easier to hand the envelope to VW when she 1st came down to answer the door? And say "can you give this to your husband and tell him I'm waiting for him"? It save far more time on the doorstep where he was exposed and would mean that when AW came downstairs he could have shot him straight away. Also the gunman would have to be overly confident that AW was going to follow his instructions, which could have totally backfired on him. For all he could have known, AW could have shut the door in his face and told him to do one, or he could have shouted VW down from upstairs to ask her why on earth did the gunman tell him to show her the envelope. What would the gunman do then? Blast them both to death? Or VW could have confronted the gunman on her own and dealt with it herself, then what? The gunmans now lost his target as he's back inside the house and now he's entered a form of dialogue with his wife who wasn't the intended target. It's so high risk and in all likelihood it didn't happen. I know that DR Rahman the criminologist who offered this theory up on the Doorstep Murder Podcast believes this to be the case, but for me the gunman would have to rely on probabilities, luck, and a perfect real life scenario to all work in his favour without any distractions, in order for him to carry out this operation successfully.

 

[Kiri]

I agree, a lot of things could have gone wrong with the envelope hand over. I mean he nearly lost his opportunity to kill, when AW went inside. How was the killer to know AW would return?
This is the interview:

 

[davidt]

I'll need to try finding that episode, is it on the STV footage sales? It's extremely baffling as to why there is so much secrecy around the envelope, and the exact conversation that took place between VW and AW. I get that the detectives have to conceal specialists knowledge, incase it harms there investigation. They clearly know what was said between AW and VW when he returned back inside, also from what I believe there was more than just "PAUL" written on the envelope.

Reading between the lines I think it's safe to say that the Police are wanting a reliable witness to step forward to give a statement which will match the version of events that took place that night. But after all those year's of trying to apply this strategy that hasn't been successful, it may be time for them to try a different tactic, and put all the cards on the table, what do they have to lose?

I have heard another theory that the gunman wanted AW to show his wife the envelope so that the name could be circulated in the media. It's an interesting theory but one I find to far fetched. In my opinion if that was the sole purpose of the envelope, then wouldn't it not just have been easier to hand the envelope to VW when she 1st came down to answer the door? And say "can you give this to your husband and tell him I'm waiting for him"? It save far more time on the doorstep where he was exposed and would mean that when AW came downstairs he could have shot him straight away. Also the gunman would have to be overly confident that AW was going to follow his instructions, which could have totally backfired on him. For all he could have known, AW could have shut the door in his face and told him to do one, or he could have shouted VW down from upstairs to ask her why on earth did the gunman tell him to show her the envelope. What would the gunman do then? Blast them both to death? Or VW could have confronted the gunman on her own and dealt with it herself, then what? The gunmans now lost his target as he's back inside the house and now he's entered a form of dialogue with his wife who wasn't the intended target. It's so high risk and in all likelihood it didn't happen. I know that DR Rahman the criminologist who offered this theory up on the Doorstep Murder Podcast believes this to be the case, but for me the gunman would have to rely on probabilities, luck, and a perfect real life scenario to all work in his favour without any distractions, in order for him to carry out this operation successfully.

Sometimes you could really think the police have never wanted any help from the public. All we've ever had is the vaguest description of the gunman, the age of which the police recently lowered. Nothing else really at all until the requests for any information on the decking dispute.

Nate Campbell makes a point early on in his book. What if this killing wasn't a standalone event but instead part of some wider investigation. That might explain why the police are so reluctant to give out information. Though again after nearly 18 years it's taking a hell of a long time if it is.

 

[davidt]

Just thinking about the conversation AW had with VW. He's said to have been confused and/or bewildered which is why he went back outside. I've often wondered how if he didn't know what was going on how he could have said anything of note to VW that the police refuse to reveal. I suppose its just possible AW told VW all that had happened during that first doorstep conversation. That neither of them understood it but in due course VW relayed that to the police who did understand at least some of it. Though the po,ice themselves have said the conversation did not throw any light on the murder. But if it didn't then why keep it secret?

 

[Mickymack10]

Yep, the envelope is always off limits. You can only assume VW provided some specific information about it that is super sensitive. Although nearly 18 years in you wonder what it could be. You'd also fear a bit for her safety if the information is that vital.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's sensitive as in she has an inkling about what the envelope signified? Or is it a case of it doesn't hold any real significance but the Police are trying to conceal part's of the conversation that took place as it's only the gunman and VW who would know the true details?

 

[Mickymack10]

Just thinking about the conversation AW had with VW. He's said to have been confused and/or bewildered which is why he went back outside. I've often wondered how if he didn't know what was going on how he could have said anything of note to VW that the police refuse to reveal. I suppose its just possible AW told VW all that had happened during that first doorstep conversation. That neither of them understood it but in due course VW relayed that to the police who did understand at least some of it. Though the po,ice themselves have said the conversation did not throw any light on the murder. But if it didn't then why keep it secret?

Either that, or it could be the classic tale of the husband not being honest with his wife and was totally taken back by the unexpected visitor who showed up to his house to discuss or negotiate an under hand business deal that perhaps AW had participated in. It would make sense in the grand scheme of things that the Police have found it so difficult to solve, if infact AW was bluffing his wife and was trying to bide himself sometime as he felt totally on the spot with what the visitor said to him.

I've seen alot of people say that if AW thought he was in danger and knew that the gunmans visit was about, then he could have easily called the Police for assistance. My response to that would be, would he really have phoned the Police if he was infact participating willingly into dubios business affairs within his workplace? And then inadvertently put himself in danger of being prosecuted? Ofcourse he wouldn't of. He clearly thought he could handle the situation and didn't expect to be killed, so it's safe to say his guard was totally down.

 

[davidt]

What's your opinion? Do you think it's sensitive as in she has an inkling about what the envelope signified? Or is it a case of it doesn't hold any real significance but the Police are trying to conceal part's of the conversation that took place as it's only the gunman and VW who would know the true details?

Honestly haven't a clue. The police were quoted as saying that the conversation did not throw any light on the murder but it did mention the envelope. I can only think whatever was said about the envelope meant something to the police even if it meant nothing to VW. Perhaps it tied into something they were already investigating. Its another area that seems to contradict itself.

 

[Mickymack10]

Hi guy's just had a random thought that came into my head just now, another theory which could explain as to why AW was murdered. I wonder if AW had a loyal business client who desperately needed a loan to secure a business project and vastly needed a large deposit in order to finalise the deal. I wonder if he contacted AW and asked him to try and secure a loan through his work, and when AW workplace rejected the loan proposal made, then it had massive ramifications on AW business client who was heavily relying on this loan to fund this project.

I wonder if AW witnessed this client visibly upset and disappointed over the rejection? Did AW take it upon himself to secure a loan from those underworld source's that he knew of during his time working for HBOS? and struck a deal between the two parties in order to give his client the loan he was so heavily relying on?

Did AW customer who he helped in gaining this Large some of money for his business, not do aswell as he thought it was going to? And he lost money and was struggling to payback his loan to these Loan sharks that AW sourced? Was the business clients name Paul? Did Paul refuse to pay back his loan on time? Or did he decide to close up shop and do a runner and leave the sticky situation he found himself in, as he knew he couldn't come up with the cash in time to pay the lenders back? Did the lenders then turn up the heat on him and send him warnings and threat's that were ignored? If so then is it a stretch to far to suggest that they then turned there attention to AW and held him partially responsible for them losing a large amount of money, let's just say £50,000 as an example.

They decided that AW must be held accountable for his role in striking up the deal between them and his business client. They try to guilt trip AW into given them the whereabouts of "Paul" i.e full name, home address and other business's that he may own in order for them to be able to locate him . Did AW refuse to cooperate with them as he knew he'd put Paul in serious danger if he was to give them any intel as to where he was?

If my intuition is correct then is it plausible that the gunman was sent to force AW to hand over any details regarding PAUL? were they forcing him into handing over any information he had of PAUL, such as security detail's in a money savings account which they wanted access to in order to get there money back? Or as I said previously were they wanting updated information on him such as phone number, home address or any other addresses they found desirable? Were they simply running out of patience as they knew AW was leaving his position within his role at the bank the following week and he would be washing his hands completely with them? So it was very much a case of "it's now or never"? As a last resort were they trying to force AW to put his work phone in the blue envelope so that they could go through it to trace Paul as they weren't satisfied that AW was being totally honest with them.

If we take all those hypothetical factors into account then it starts to make sense the regards to gunmans visit, he is sent to try and retrieve as much information of AW as possible on PAUL. AW at 1st decided to comply, he feels guilty over the amount of money the lenders have lost. He goes back inside as he was contemplating given the lenders this information they required from him, he goes upstairs, he knows he could have Paul's blood on his hands if he complies with the gunmans instructions and it could potentially end with Paul being shot dead. Not only that he knows he could face prosecution to conspiring to murder by providing those lenders assistance with the information on his business client. He's also in breach of contract as bank manager by breaking the clients confidentiality by providing there details to someone who doesn't work for HBOS.

He contemplates coming clean with his wife and think's about asking her for advice on what to do, but he can't bring himself too do it as he doesn't want her to feel disappointed in him If he hands over this information to the gunman that could put Paul in grave danger. He decides at the last minute he can't bring himself to do it, so he returns back to the doorstep empty handed and tells the gunman he can't help them and that he wasn't taken anything more to do with it.

The gunman decides enoughs, enough and shoots him. They kill AW and hold him partially responsible for there loss of money, and by killing him they send a message to PAUL "YOUR NEXT IF YOU DON'T PAY US BACK OUR MONEY". Paul decides to get pay back his money as he knows these lenders will kill his friends or family if he doesn't pay back, and that they have not to be messed with.

It's just a quick hypothesis that came into my head, let me know what you guys think.

 

[Scottishem1]

I have followed this case for a long time and the question I keep coming back to is why wasn't V put in to witness protection ? Why was she and the police so sure the gun man wouldn't come back especially with her having 2 young children in the house .

 

[Mickymack10]

I have followed this case for a long time and the question I keep coming back to is why wasn't V put in to witness protection ? Why was she and the police so sure the gun man wouldn't come back especially with her having 2 young children in the house .

I think it was based on the fact that the gunman could have killed her aswell if he wanted too, but he chose not to and didn't threaten her in anyway. It was very much a case of it being between her husband and the gunman. The fact that the Police have found no hidden secrets from her, and also she doesn't seem to have any idea as to why her husband was shot, it would seem she isn't a threat to them who murdered her husband, she isn't a lose end in there eye's that needs tied up. She doesn't seem to withold any information or knowledge on the people involved in the murder.

There is no doubt the house was under surveillance by the Police for quite sometime after the murder, and when they felt there was no threat to her or the kids then they gradually eased of.

From the killer's point of view, why would he risk going back to the crime scene where he seems to have pulled of the perfect murder and shoot VW? Then he faces double murder charges. The fact she only seen him for a couple of seconds and could only give a very hazy description of what the killer looked like it seems a very over the top reaction, and completely unnecessary from the party involved with carrying out the execution of her husband.

 

[Kiri]

I have followed this case for a long time and the question I keep coming back to is why wasn't V put in to witness protection ? Why was she and the police so sure the gun man wouldn't come back especially with her having 2 young children in the house .

They were in a safe house for a number of days immediately after, but that was it. VW always maintained it was her home and that's where she wanted to be, apparently.

 

[Kiri]

Hi guy's just had a random thought that came into my head just now, another theory which could explain as to why AW was murdered. I wonder if AW had a loyal business client who desperately needed a loan to secure a business project and vastly needed a large deposit in order to finalise the deal. I wonder if he contacted AW and asked him to try and secure a loan through his work, and when AW workplace rejected the loan proposal made, then it had massive ramifications on AW business client who was heavily relying on this loan to fund this project.

I wonder if AW witnessed this client visibly upset and disappointed over the rejection? Did AW take it upon himself to secure a loan from those underworld source's that he knew of during his time working for HBOS? and struck a deal between the two parties in order to give his client the loan he was so heavily relying on?

Did AW customer who he helped in gaining this Large some of money for his business, not do aswell as he thought it was going to? And he lost money and was struggling to payback his loan to these Loan sharks that AW sourced? Was the business clients name Paul? Did Paul refuse to pay back his loan on time? Or did he decide to close up shop and do a runner and leave the sticky situation he found himself in, as he knew he couldn't come up with the cash in time to pay the lenders back? Did the lenders then turn up the heat on him and send him warnings and threat's that were ignored? If so then is it a stretch to far to suggest that they then turned there attention to AW and held him partially responsible for them losing a large amount of money, let's just say £50,000 as an example.

They decided that AW must be held accountable for his role in striking up the deal between them and his business client. They try to guilt trip AW into given them the whereabouts of "Paul" i.e full name, home address and other business's that he may own in order for them to be able to locate him . Did AW refuse to cooperate with them as he knew he'd put Paul in serious danger if he was to give them any intel as to where he was?

If my intuition is correct then is it plausible that the gunman was sent to force AW to hand over any details regarding PAUL? were they forcing him into handing over any information he had of PAUL, such as security detail's in a money savings account which they wanted access to in order to get there money back? Or as I said previously were they wanting updated information on him such as phone number, home address or any other addresses they found desirable? Were they simply running out of patience as they knew AW was leaving his position within his role at the bank the following week and he would be washing his hands completely with them? So it was very much a case of "it's now or never"? As a last resort were they trying to force AW to put his work phone in the blue envelope so that they could go through it to trace Paul as they weren't satisfied that AW was being totally honest with them.

If we take all those hypothetical factors into account then it starts to make sense the regards to gunmans visit, he is sent to try and retrieve as much information of AW as possible on PAUL. AW at 1st decided to comply, he feels guilty over the amount of money the lenders have lost. He goes back inside as he was contemplating given the lenders this information they required from him, he goes upstairs, he knows he could have Paul's blood on his hands if he complies with the gunmans instructions and it could potentially end with Paul being shot dead. Not only that he knows he could face prosecution to conspiring to murder by providing those lenders assistance with the information on his business client. He's also in breach of contract as bank manager by breaking the clients confidentiality by providing there details to someone who doesn't work for HBOS.

He contemplates coming clean with his wife and think's about asking her for advice on what to do, but he can't bring himself too do it as he doesn't want her to feel disappointed in him If he hands over this information to the gunman that could put Paul in grave danger. He decides at the last minute he can't bring himself to do it, so he returns back to the doorstep empty handed and tells the gunman he can't help them and that he wasn't taken anything more to do with it.

The gunman decides enoughs, enough and shoots him. They kill AW and hold him partially responsible for there loss of money, and by killing him they send a message to PAUL "YOUR NEXT IF YOU DON'T PAY US BACK OUR MONEY". Paul decides to get pay back his money as he knows these lenders will kill his friends or family if he doesn't pay back, and that they have not to be messed with.

It's just a quick hypothesis that came into my head, let me know what you guys think.

Anything is possible, when it comes to money!
There are lots of theories relating to finance, in and out of bank. They didn't find anything amiss at the bank, so an out of work issue seems likely. Unless they missed something at the bank.

 

[Mickymack10]

Anything is possible, when it comes to money!
There are lots of theories relating to finance, in and out of bank. They didn't find anything amiss at the bank, so an out of work issue seems likely. Unless they missed something at the bank.

I don't think his work and business deals were looked into vigorously. This was proven by one of AW former work colleagues who stated that the Detectives didn't source a forensic accountant to look into the business deals that had taken place between AW and people or businesses that he had connections with.

A former friend and accountant of AW, Stewart Walker, has just recently came out and said that the he doesn't believe that the decking dispute was connected to AW murder. He is of the opinion that it's related to AW finance deals within the bank that lead to his death.

He says that AW business clients should all be looked at, especially round about the time when AW purchased his house in Nairn in 2002. He mentions that it would require the detectives hiring a chartered accountant, in other words a specialist accountant who could dig deeper into those account's and trace clients who AW was lending money to at the time.

This statement suggests that the Detectives didn't look into this and overlooked his workplace as a potential reason as to why he was murdered. I think also if it was something personal I.e an affair, then the police would surely have found this out by thoroughly checking AW phone and computer for suspicious messages being sent to another woman. Affairs are easy to catch out, not unless your the ultimate professional who can cover there tracks.