trendsetter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2016
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 789
Paid Assassin?
We have heard that the gunman was possibly a professional hit-man. Indeed the police seem to think this is the most likely explanation. We have even heard speculation that he was an IRA member earning a bit of cash on the side. But how likely is it that he was a 'professional' in any sense of the word?
You would expect a professional, whose sole purpose, when he called on Alistair Wilson one evening, was to murder him would do the deed as quickly and efficiently as possible. That didn't happen - the gunman spent some time talking with his victim, gave him an envelope, allowed him to go back into the house (while he waited on the doorstep), talked a bit more when he returned and only then did he get around to what he was there to do. What about the gun? The Haenel Schmeisser handgun is small weapon in every sense of the word (called a pocket pistol or lady's gun) - it has a small calibre (6.35 mm) and a short barrel - the muzzle velocity isn't going to be high and the energy of the bullet will be comparatively low. Either this low energy or the incompetence of the gunman (or both) meant that the three shots fired were insufficient to kill Wilson outright (he died in hospital about an hour later). Compare with the similar doorstep murder of Jill Dando - a single shot from a 9 mm pistol killed her instantly.
I can't reconcile either the execution of the crime or the choice of weapon with the gunman being a professional. I can't even see that anyone setting out to murder Wilson, however amateur, would go about it in such roundabout and incompetent way.
But if the gunman didn't set out to murder Wilson why did Wilson end up dead?
Scenario
This is speculation but consistent with what is in the public domain.
I propose that the gunman lived in Nairn at the time the crime was committed - he was a local man, living within walking distance of the Wilsons. I also suggest that he habitually carried the gun with him whenever he went out. Possibly he had acquired it from a relative who had served in WW2 and brought it back from Europe or he had come across it by some other non-criminal way. He could have carried it in much the same way others carry their wallet or mobile phone and would feel comfortable that it was in his pocket. So it was that on the evening that he rang the bell at the Wilson's front door, his gun was, as usual, tucked away in his pocket.
In an earlier post I suggested that the gunman had had unfortunate dealings with the Bank of Scotland (Alistair Wilson's employer) - did a mortgage end with the loss of a home or did a loan that wasn't repaid cause the gunman to end up in the county court (or whatever the Scottish equivalent is)? Even though Alistair wasn't associated with the High Street arm of the bank, maybe the gunman didn't understand that distinction and felt that Alistair was someone who was to some extent responsible for his plight. Did he put this to Alistair who, of course, would know nothing of what had happened and would probably not understand? Is that why he returned to his wife bemused and perplexed by the conversation he had had with the man at the door? Was he given the envelope to put money in as hoped-for recompense? When he returned to the door essentially empty-handed did the gunman feel that Alistair was simply feigning bewilderment and was merely mocking him? Was the man so incensed by this imagined insult that enraged he pulled out his gun and shot Alistair three times in an access of rage?
Seeing what he had done, the gunman fled the scene - not initially in the direction of his home (his ultimate destination) but sensibly in the opposite direction - to loop round (as the yellow route in Jamber's map) and ultimately return home. Was the drain where the murder weapon was dumped selected because it was the furthest point from both his home and the Wilson's that he reached that night? If so, did he then turn left again at the junction of Seabank Road and then head down Academy Street?
We have heard that the gunman was possibly a professional hit-man. Indeed the police seem to think this is the most likely explanation. We have even heard speculation that he was an IRA member earning a bit of cash on the side. But how likely is it that he was a 'professional' in any sense of the word?
You would expect a professional, whose sole purpose, when he called on Alistair Wilson one evening, was to murder him would do the deed as quickly and efficiently as possible. That didn't happen - the gunman spent some time talking with his victim, gave him an envelope, allowed him to go back into the house (while he waited on the doorstep), talked a bit more when he returned and only then did he get around to what he was there to do. What about the gun? The Haenel Schmeisser handgun is small weapon in every sense of the word (called a pocket pistol or lady's gun) - it has a small calibre (6.35 mm) and a short barrel - the muzzle velocity isn't going to be high and the energy of the bullet will be comparatively low. Either this low energy or the incompetence of the gunman (or both) meant that the three shots fired were insufficient to kill Wilson outright (he died in hospital about an hour later). Compare with the similar doorstep murder of Jill Dando - a single shot from a 9 mm pistol killed her instantly.
I can't reconcile either the execution of the crime or the choice of weapon with the gunman being a professional. I can't even see that anyone setting out to murder Wilson, however amateur, would go about it in such roundabout and incompetent way.
But if the gunman didn't set out to murder Wilson why did Wilson end up dead?
Scenario
This is speculation but consistent with what is in the public domain.
I propose that the gunman lived in Nairn at the time the crime was committed - he was a local man, living within walking distance of the Wilsons. I also suggest that he habitually carried the gun with him whenever he went out. Possibly he had acquired it from a relative who had served in WW2 and brought it back from Europe or he had come across it by some other non-criminal way. He could have carried it in much the same way others carry their wallet or mobile phone and would feel comfortable that it was in his pocket. So it was that on the evening that he rang the bell at the Wilson's front door, his gun was, as usual, tucked away in his pocket.
In an earlier post I suggested that the gunman had had unfortunate dealings with the Bank of Scotland (Alistair Wilson's employer) - did a mortgage end with the loss of a home or did a loan that wasn't repaid cause the gunman to end up in the county court (or whatever the Scottish equivalent is)? Even though Alistair wasn't associated with the High Street arm of the bank, maybe the gunman didn't understand that distinction and felt that Alistair was someone who was to some extent responsible for his plight. Did he put this to Alistair who, of course, would know nothing of what had happened and would probably not understand? Is that why he returned to his wife bemused and perplexed by the conversation he had had with the man at the door? Was he given the envelope to put money in as hoped-for recompense? When he returned to the door essentially empty-handed did the gunman feel that Alistair was simply feigning bewilderment and was merely mocking him? Was the man so incensed by this imagined insult that enraged he pulled out his gun and shot Alistair three times in an access of rage?
Seeing what he had done, the gunman fled the scene - not initially in the direction of his home (his ultimate destination) but sensibly in the opposite direction - to loop round (as the yellow route in Jamber's map) and ultimately return home. Was the drain where the murder weapon was dumped selected because it was the furthest point from both his home and the Wilson's that he reached that night? If so, did he then turn left again at the junction of Seabank Road and then head down Academy Street?
