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

[Eastend Eagle]

Not sure about the ins and outs, but there is definitely a question as to why he showed the envelope to VW, rather than simply dealing with it himself.

An excellent point @shadwell.
JMO

WHY did he show the envelope to his wife?

What alternative theories do people have?

 

[Fletcher81]

FWIW I don't buy it either. What really puzzles me is that the official line is so blindingly obviously odd that they must know anyone spending more than a couple of minutes on it is going see it doesn't make sense. I don't for a second believe the police are unaware how it looks. For whatever reason they must be happy with this.

It makes much more sense if AW was always going to come back out. But if that if is the case then a huge chunk of the official line is wrong and if that is wrong what else in the official version is wrong as well. It's very hard to believe the gunman hung around on the off chance. If the intention was always to kill AW I don't see a professional hitman allowing his intended victim to return back in to his property unless he's very confident AW is going come back out. If that's the case he must have very good reason for thinking that. That doesn't tally with the official version though.

Perhaps there never was an envelope, perhaps there was only one conversation on the doorstep and AW didn't go back in at all. If we can't trust one bit why should we trust any of it?

I can't reconcile the original statement that the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents with the current version that it was unopened and empty. Which is it?

Police refuse to divulge the contents of the conversation between AW and VW but say it throws no light on the murder itself. Given that presumably the whole conversation was about the envelope and the stranger at the doorstep how is it possible the conversation throws no light on the murder?

[/QUOTE]
If there was never a blue envelope, then how would the police know about it & what was written on it? This is based on what Veronica saw, so it makes absolutely no sense that ge didn’t go back in.

 

[Fletcher81]

Not sure about the ins and outs, but there is definitely a question as to why he showed the envelope to VW, rather than simply dealing with it himself.

Maybe whatever the killer had said to him, was in relation to Veronica or about her?

 

[Fletcher81]

I think she has been briefed what to. say by the police...aw may have told. her more than she, or the official version says, but something...or several things...dont make sense here..the police have arranged the story for. some reason..maybe because they are. hoping to catch someone out who knows what really happened

There is clearly obviously something missing the public are not aware of because every time any journalists has interviewed Veronica, there’s been about three or four of them go along just to make sure they only ask her certain questions. So they are keeping what ever that information is back, so that you don’t get some fame hungry individual claiming responsibility, who doesn’t have any of that information if he wasn’t the gunman.

Another reason they could be keeping that information withheld is to keep Veronica safe. In other words, if they do divulge the information inside the envelope, or what Alistair had really said to her about what the man at the door said to him, it could potentially put her in danger! However if she acts dumb, so to speak. She is safe.

Veronica was initially taken to a safe house and stayed there for four days and was then allowed to go back home. In that time they either made a huge mistake that could have ended with a second murder.Or they knew she was safe as did she!

I’m absolutely certain that whatever the reason for this murder, it will be an obvious mundane reason, as all murders are!

I was a police officer back in the early 90’s-2001 when my daughter was diagnosed with neuroblastoma and I had to leave the force. Police very often keep an awful lot back from inquires (such as the missing information on the envelope) for the reasons sated above!

I don’t have a specific theory as to what happened here but you can be sure it was either financial, or an affair. I can only presume the envelope was used as a distraction tactic and something meant he couldn’t be killed initially. (A witness outside the pub perhaps having a cigarette?)

What I can advise is that anybody, trying to figure out a case, based on minimal media reports that are very often not reliable, or TV, detectives and criminologists, who are paid handsomely to draw in viewing numbers will struggle because you will find most if not, all of them are doing this for entertainment purposes, and financial reasons rather than giving their genuine theories on what they think occurred.

And I will be brutally honest with you here about why I am saying that they do this. I have once approached more than once to do a documentary in the early 2000s, and the documentary makers want you to pin it on somebody who either cannot be charged or who is dead, and they do that in order to minimise the risk of a legal cases for liable against them.

The story Nate feeds us ( a part time freelance journalist) he got from a newspaper early on who ran a story that they had information that the answer to this case lay in the purchase of 10 crescent rd ( Lothian house) and that he had borrowed £50,000 from under World sources, and in return for that money he would have to perform money laundering services for the criminal gang. I don’t believe a word of this. Alistair wouldn’t have a clue how to contact a criminal gang based on the type of victim he was. ( As many ordinary folk wouldn’t) And I’m fairly certain that he could’ve got a very lucrative deal on a small loan, such as that from his own bank. on top of this, Veronica‘s father had sold their family home and moved in with them, and I’m sure I could’ve helped them out financially.

I have also read theories that claim that this case is linked to the attack on Leslie Cummings who worked at the law society and was attacked by a hit man whose name coincidently is Paul. But he goes by the name Robert Graham when in the UK.

Eventually someone will get the right theory but without evidence it isn’t much use. I feel in this case it’s evidence they are lacking to bring about a conviction rather than a theory.

The police always have far more information regarding any case and are usually just missing a final puzzle in order to solve it when they make public appeals. In this case what they really needed to solve It had gone off the table very early on, because of the poor handling of the case. Once that information is lost, you can never get it back!

If they have not already reinterviewed everyone again, they probably should as I believe the killer was likely interviewed very early on in this inquiry and overlooked, which happens more that you might think in cases such as this.

I don’t believe the police are looking for a hitman because you don’t keep putting public appeals out if they thought that was the case, because they know full well that would not work. It is most likely a local grievance but I’m not convinced that it’s over the decking. The decking could play a part, but I don’t think it’s the full motive.

The landlord and Alistair were good friends who played golf together and something had led to their fall out. It would appear strange that it was decking that caused this because he himself was planning on opening a B&B. Maybe it was tit for tat between a few of the locals & the landlord that eventually went too far?

Stuart ( the chef) has said in an interview he was accused of sleeping with Veronica. Alistair was allegedly sleeping with other women too if Peter Blesklsey book is to be believed. Are they all just rumours or was something like this going on. Or where they all just extremely paranoid,? If not all very paranoid people, Perhaps this was what led to fall outs and complaints?

That’s my two cents. Not sure if it helps in anyway.

 

[Fletcher81]

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.

I disagree her behaviour is questionable. She has either been briefed on what she can and can not divulge ( very likely ) or as with many victims of serious crime they can’t bring themselves to connect with the events because if they do they will fall apart. So many of them repeat it as though they were an on looker rather than a victim. It’s far easier to do that and very common.

 

[Fletcher81]

I think David Wilson along with a host of other criminologists have stated that it's not uncommon for contract hits to be carried out on the victims doorstep, especially in the UK.
VW I still think to this day doesn't use her front door, apparently all visitors including close friends and families were told to access the house through the backdoor, and I'm sure the front doorbell was disabled aswell.
It's very easy for people from the outside to make judgement calls on what she should have done, but at the end of the day she probably had fond memories of her and AW in the house. Also her young boys were very settled where they were, it's alot of stress having to pack your bags and leave and start a fresh, along with grieving for the loss of her husband, and alot of strain to put on your kids aswel.

No lady's daughter boarded the bus and witnessed a shady character, it was infact a local man by the name of Tommy Hogg who witnessed a man boarding the Inverness to nairn who matched the killer's description. It later turned out that the Police managed to trace this individual and he was eliminated from the investigation as they didn't deem him as a suspect.

I do think it was a mere coincidence that the CCTV malfunctioned, one of the camera's was actually working properly but it just so happened to be that it was facing away from the street that looked onto crescent road. Highland council were the one's who revamped the town with the new CCTV cameras, so I'm sure they'd be the only people who'd have access to operating the camera's.

I don't believe that AW killing was to do with his wife or most definitely not over a decking dispute. The case will never be solved now as the detectives weren't truly equipped or prepared to deal with a case of this magnitude. Had they hired a forensic accountant along with a chartered accountant to turn his workplace upside down, then I believe they would have got somewhere, but so many year's have gone by now old accounts/business deals won't be accessable, and would have been erased from the database, as HBOS most likely had a clear out job when they went bust.

Thu hired three forensic financial analysts. One after police Scotland took over the case. One when they reopened the case, and one during a cold case review!

 

[Fletcher81]

Interesting and the newspaper clearly knows the name of the individual concerned.

The witness was Andy Burnett wasn’t it? The media eventually named him when police went to Nova Scotia I’m sure.

 

[Fletcher81]

I have always wondered about this murder.

At first it seemed so bizarre that somebody would kill this 'ordinary joe' in such a brutal and audacious manner, but then I saw articles indicating that he may have borrowed a large sum from illegal loan sharks, who then tried to blackmail him into laundering money through his bank.

I still can't believe that the killer is still at large, and of course the crime occurred with his small children in the house, which makes it even more shocking.

Any thoughts on this one? I was quite surprised to see no thread already.

Why would he go to illegal loan sharks, when he worked in a bank and would likely have got a lucrative deal? I don’t buy that tbh.

 

[Fletcher81]

<modsnip>

The envelope story still makes zero sense. Why would he go upstairs to talk to his wife about an empty envelope? We've got dozens of empty envelopes lying about our house and they are certainly not a talking point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He didn’t know it was empty until he went back inside and opened it.

 

[Fletcher81]

Yes - it is intriguing. His Wife mentions nobody felt alarmed at the time - but it seems fair to ask how this could be the case following what then happened - for someone who saw the murderer and could potentially ID them. The Police must have looked into this and are (presumably) content with the response. It seems to point toward the Police knowing a LOT more than they are letting on.
Reports say "It is believed" AW spoke to the killer for "A couple of minutes" - even if it was exactly one minute, that's plenty time to say a fair amount. AW then went back in, and according to the BBC discussed the situation calmly with his wife, thinking of bedding the kids then sitting down to work out what was happening. At the time AW had the envelope. Now, even if AW did not "know" what the caller meant he had to understand what was said. If this was the case - why would he take the envelope (Why would anyone in a similar situation?) - if someone you don't know is at your door, and you've no idea what they want why would you accept an envelope and not tell them to clear off? During the conversation with his wife, it seems difficult to believe AW did not mention ANY of the substance of what was said to him (whether or not he understood it) - perhaps the Police know a little more about what was said at the door?

The thing that I don’t understand is that the envelope was not addressed to Alistair. So why on earth did Alistair open it in the first place?

 

[Eastend Eagle]

The thing that I don’t understand is that the envelope was not addressed to Alistair. So why on earth did Alistair open it in the first place?

A theory on the ' baffling ' envelope :

After Alistair Wilson first came to the front door, maybe the gunman made FALSE insinuations to Alistair Wilson that his wife was having / had had an affair with someone called Paul.
I think that Alistair Wilson would RIGHTLY have been very sceptical about these allegations but on the basis that often ' there is no smoke without fire ', he may have thought that he'd better just check with his wife.
Now, I doubt that Alistair Wilson would have directly asked his wife about these allegations for I don't think he would have found them believable and to ask his wife such a question could have caused ' trust issues '. So perhaps he may have just shown his wife the envelope with the name Paul on it to guage her reaction.
She was clearly as baffled about the envelope as he was, but perhaps what the gunman was hoping was that Alistair Wilson would have directly asked her about the insinuations he was making, such that she would have then told the police about this conversation, this being an attempt by the gunman to create a false narrative around the murder in an attempt to throw a future police investigation off the scent.
The fact that Alistair Wilson went back downstairs again and that the gunman was still there would indicate that both of them expected to speak for a second time and may point to Alistair Wilson not being entirely open to his wife about what the gunman had said to him ( He told his wife that he was just going back downstairs just to see if the gunman was still there, and she said that there was no sense of worry or danger, just bafflement ).

JMO / MOO

 

[touch]

The thing that I don’t understand is that the envelope was not addressed to Alistair. So why on earth did Alistair open it in the first place?

According to this link, he didn't open it:
"Upstairs in their home, Mr Wilson spoke to his wife for a few minutes. Police will not reveal the precise details, but they say Mr Wilson did not appear to know why the man had called. He never opened the envelope."

 

[Fletcher81]

According to this link, he didn't open it:
"Upstairs in their home, Mr Wilson spoke to his wife for a few minutes. Police will not reveal the precise details, but they say Mr Wilson did not appear to know why the man had called. He never opened the envelope."

He did open it. How else did he know it was empty?

 

[touch]

He did open it. How else did he know it was empty?

Maybe it had never been closed in the first place?

 

[Fletcher81]

Maybe it had never been closed in the first place?

That isn’t Inline what what Veronica had said. She said in multiple interviews he opened in once back inside.

 

[Fletcher81]

why do you think the gun was deliberately left in the drain? Was it meant to be found ?

Many one off murderers drop the weapon down a drain when leaving the area.

Read up on the case of Nisha Patel-Nasri. Very very similar to this. Weapon found down the drain 10 days later!

It’s the last drain of opportunity in this case to leave the area that has no CCTV, before heading either left or right onto the A96 that does have CCTV. Or the killer lives around that area and disposed of it before he carried on walking home!

If it’s the latter these types of criminals often dump the weapon half way between crime & home.

 

[dotr]

‘Leave the gun.’ Did mobsters seriously do that?

The reasons why professional hitmen discard their firearms at crime scenes

themobmuseum.org

''Historically, many hitmen did intentionally leave firearms at or near the scene of a crime. Guns left behind were usually hard to trace back to the shooter — either they were registered in someone else’s name, or the serial number had been altered or obliterated. Hitmen knew it was far better to risk the police finding an errant fingerprint or restoring a serial number than it was for the obvious murder weapon to be found in their possession. With the firearm in their possession, especially shortly after a crime was committed, they risked serious incrimination. They also frequently risked additional weapons charges, particularly if they were already registered felons or carrying out a hit away from their state of residence.''

2007

Why do mafia hit men drop their guns at the scene of a crime?

On Sunday's episode of The Sopranos, the Italians shoot a man they have mistaken for New York boss Phil Leotardo. Later, Bobby "Bacala" Baccalieri is...

slate.com

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Many one off murderers drop the weapon down a drain when leaving the area.

Read up on the case of Nisha Patel-Nasri. Very very similar to this. Weapon found down the drain 10 days later!

It’s the last drain of opportunity in this case to leave the area that has no CCTV, before heading either left or right onto the A96 that does have CCTV. Or the killer lives around that area and disposed of it before he carried on walking home!

If it’s the latter these types of criminals often dump the weapon half way between crime & home.

If the gunman left by road, they presumably would have been picked up by the A96 CCTV then.

MOO

 

[touch]

Nairn isn't a small rural village with just 1 road.
From the drain where the gun was found you could avoid the A96 and leave via the B9090, B9091 or A939. I'd be sceptical that there was actually any CCTV cameras along the A96 at that time anyway. Maybe from a petrol station covering it's forecourt but I doubt it would be good enough to be capturing the number plates of vehicles driving past on the main road.
Without knowing any vehicles involved they'd need to trace every single number plate which passed that night.

 

[Fletcher81]

‘Leave the gun.’ Did mobsters seriously do that?

The reasons why professional hitmen discard their firearms at crime scenes

themobmuseum.org

''Historically, many hitmen did intentionally leave firearms at or near the scene of a crime. Guns left behind were usually hard to trace back to the shooter — either they were registered in someone else’s name, or the serial number had been altered or obliterated. Hitmen knew it was far better to risk the police finding an errant fingerprint or restoring a serial number than it was for the obvious murder weapon to be found in their possession. With the firearm in their possession, especially shortly after a crime was committed, they risked serious incrimination. They also frequently risked additional weapons charges, particularly if they were already registered felons or carrying out a hit away from their state of residence.''

2007

Why do mafia hit men drop their guns at the scene of a crime?

On Sunday's episode of The Sopranos, the Italians shoot a man they have mistaken for New York boss Phil Leotardo. Later, Bobby "Bacala" Baccalieri is...

slate.com

Mafia hitmen? I would bet my life a hit man did not kill Alistair.