I think they did mention a blank piece of paper at some point. I picked up on it as I'd only heard mention of an empty envelope previously. Possible of course I misheard and I am going to watch it again to see if I missed anything.
maybe. you're swimming. against the tide, but you make some excellent. points....as you. say, anyone who'd. been observing the. local. situation. would surely have known about aw...id have expected them to have checked comings and goings and ascertained that he was the only adult male there...again. you'd. have expected him to have. asked. simply for alistair. and not alistair Wilson....would a hard case criminal have used an. antique gun...id have imagined they'd have had a better. gun as part of their. basic kit and the. approach, presumably without. any previous. attempt, also. seems odd, as you say
Some good points made, with this case you have absolutely no other choice, than to go against the tide as it's such a perplexing case. The only part of this theory that I would question would be, if it was indeed an extremists who had strong religious beliefs who was there to confront AW who held opposing views compared to him, then surely he would have said something to AW as to why he was on his doorstep. Ie, "I'm here because you are a disgrace to the church". From what we know the gunman seemed to be very calm and never acted in an aggressive manner, not something you'd expect from an angry religious person. According to VW and the detectives AW had to idea why the gunman asked to speak to him and why he was given an empty envelope with name Paul on it. Even if the gunman had the wrong AW he would have atleaest given an explanation or an excuse as to why he was their. It's a good theory that you have given though. But I just can't accept this for being a case of mistaken identity
I can see where you are coming from but I still have issues with the decking theory.
Yes it did eventually go through.
Do we know if AW was the only objector to the planning application or were there others? I would assume that every public house proprietor with neighbours would expect objections to any proposal to develop an outside area. I increasingly doubt whether this was sufficient motive for someone connected with the establishment to murder one of those neighbours. There must be another reason why he was murdered.
That's a good question. Don't think I've ever seen anything to say if there was other opposition to the decking or not. If AW was the only one that might have stirred up a lot of resentment against him.
As I recall, AW was murdered only a couple of days after his objection to the retrospective planning application for the decking was made public. At that stage, there was nothing to gain by murdering him as his objection would only be discounted if he himself withdrew. In the end, they got their permission regardless of his or other objections. I don't see how anyone connected with the pub had anything to gain by murdering one of the neighbours, unless it was the lone actions of an unbalanced mind who believed they were helping the pub by shooting him. The fact that it was an antique firearm and he wasn't killed instantly but died later in hospital, suggests that it wasn't a professional hit. VW heard 3 shots but do we know where he was hit and which shot proved fatal?
I think anything, no matter how trivial could be a motive for the murder. My problem with it being the motive is more to do with AW not having a clue what it was all about and he would also have told Veronica. If it was the decking surely he had a good idea that was what it was. Difficult to think he didn't know it was to do with the decking in some respect.
Agreed, but as I understand it we don't really know what was said on the doorstep and the fact that AW spoke to his wife might indicate he was confused about what the caller said, which he would be if it was a mistaken identity and the gunman said things of no relevance to AW. Just a theory.
Indeed we know very little. We don't even know what sort of form the conversation took. Was it a proper two way conversation or just one person ranting etc? Was it civil, angry, confused etc? Apparently AW didn't feel threatened and that's about it really. We do know he asked for AW by name and that the police don't think it was mistaken identity.
Hi, couple more points following study today. His wife was quoted as saying early on "he paid the ultimate price for a mistaken identity" or words to that effect. Also, the date of the murder was 28 November 2004 which was the first Sunday of Advent and the colour blue is significant in the UK Christian Church as a symbol of Hope (I know, a bit of an oxymoron) at this time of year. St. Paul called on everyone to prepare for the coming (or second coming) of Christ. Anyone got anything further to add on this theme? I'm not a religious person so someone else might have some insight. Just feel there might be something in this.
well, you never know...we once had someone. turn up on our doorstep saying he couldn't remember. who. he was. or where he'd come from...he could only remember his son had stopped speaking to. him when he...the man on the doorstep ...had told him he. was Jesus.
One more thought, was the envelope opened to reveal the name Paul inside, or on the flap, much like the first window on an Advent calendar? The other AW went to Africa in 2005 as a missionary so might not have been interviewed and certainly not around if the perpetrator wanted to correct his mistake. Could all be just fantasy but it is an alternative if the decking theory does not pan out (I hope it does for the family's sake).
