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

[Mickymack10]

Maybe it was not from within the bank and something that occurred just before he moved to Nairn. How did he finance Lothian House for example?

Mostl

I believe that Alistair was always meant to be murdered and that people are concentrating far to much on the envelope and why he would be allowed back in if it was a hit. This inturn is distracting them from trying to make sense of it and the more you read, the more confused you become. I know that's what happened to me for a while.

I do believe it was a murder for hire plot arranged by someone he had upset ( finances) possible an affair, and the person who arranged it either knew violent gang members, or had a violent friend.

When a murder for hire is arranged by a third party 9 times out of 10 you find that the person who is requesting the killing usually provides the weapon.

In order to give you some context. There was a murder of a off duty police officer called Nisha Patel- Nasri. Her husband had hired someone to kill her and had given the killer keys to his house to do so while he was out. The hired hit then used a knife from their knife block, killing her inside her house. 10 days later just like in this case the knife was found down a drain a few streets away, just outside the search parameters.

The reason for dumping the weopan in this way is because they know that it will not be traced back to them, and they don't want to be walking around with it on their person after the murder. Especially when the police & paramedics are likely on their way. ( in this case very close by)

They then walk away usually in the direction of waiting vehicle In this case on the dimly lit links carpark with no CCTV, where coincidently tracker dogs did follow a scent to ( Perhaps to the same 4x4 Mitshibishi seen the night before, and they disappear. ( likley to Inverness)

With that in mind and knowing that the small calibre weapon he had been provided with meant he needed to be close to his target in order to kill him, perhaps that's why he used the envelope. ( Alistair handing it back insured that closness.)

The man who initially knocked on the door with the envelope likely gave him a *advertiser censored*-and-bull-story about what was in it, ( hence his bewilderment) so when he went back inside to look and found it to be empty, and that it was not addressed to him, he obviously went out to check if the man was still there. (Matching what we the public know).

If we remember what Veronica said to Journalist interviewing her. "His decision to go back and see if he was still there was based on what the killer had said"! Now it makes more sense.

However by the time Alistair returned it was a different man standing there, not the guy who handed him the envelope. And that is who shot him.

Veronica only saw the back of him walking away, and let's say, in a bid to turn a profit the people who made the Blouson jacket and the Cap the man she saw was wearing, made more than one, and the two people involved wore the same/simular outfits.

Perhaps the envelope really had contained nothing, but initially it had contained the gun, and Paul was who it was delivered to, and Paul's acomplice had just reused that same envelope. ( explaining why his name was on it).

I have also read that in the early hours of Sunday morning neighbours reported seeing a 4x4 Mitsubishi parked up outside Alistair’s house, and that the men inisde were acting suspiciously, and after being disturbed, they drove off. That being the case perhaps that was the same vehicle waiting for the killer on the links carpark.

Maybe the way to solve this crime lies further back in Alistair’s finances before he moved to Nairn, and lies in how he financed Lothian House.

That was a 9 bedroom property, with 6 bathrooms and 3 reception rooms. How does a 28 year old man finance something like that? Speaking to the chartered accountant who was involved with that purchase would likely uncover any unusual transactions.

When he was seen gambling what was described as large amounts of money 2 days before his murder, still in his suit, going there straight from work. Was he laundering money through the bookmakers, rather than through the bank, which is why police found no unusual transactions at the bank?

Looking at the fact he could afford to take a job with a lower wage, gamble large amounts of money and still afford to run that property, you have to question where his finances were coming from.

Had the closure of the B&B buisness he had initially bought Lothian House for the purpose of, caused the problem? Rather than his decision to leave the bank?

The intent was always to kill Alistair imo, and the motive could be anything some one will eventuly guess right, but perhaps trying to find that 4x4 Mitsubishi seen the night before might be the way to go. My guess would be one of the men seen in it was named Paul.

I've been down the rabbit hole a few times on the theory that the envelope was possibly being used as ruse. In some aspects it makes so much sense, but then I quickly change my mind and have second thoughts on it. For example I don't know how the gunman could have been sure AW was always going to return back to return back downstairs with the envelope? If it was a case of he wanted to get close to AW to shoot him at point blank range, then surely that opportunity would have presented itself to the gunman when he spoke to AW for approximately a couple of minutes on the 1st encounter, why waste more time on the doorstep in an open environment opposite two pubs and risk been seen by others when he could easily have killed him there and then?

It's very unusual for a hitman, wither it's an amateur or a professional to enter any sort of dialogue with the intended target, it's very much a case of shoot and kill, even if there was passer by's or people standing across the road outside the pub, which there was at the time, this still shouldn't have prevented him from killing AW on the spot, as most hitmen when leaving the scene of the crime will lift the gun above there head at show it to the witnesses as a warning sign not to follow them as he will turn the gun on them.

If this was indeed a case of the gunman given AW a false sense of security by lying to him over some false documents in the envelope relating to something, then why didn't AW not just open the envelope up there and then? Why would he close the door, then take it up to his wife to then realise it was empty? Couldn't AW not have figured that out on the doorstep when talking to the gunman? And dealt with the situation there and then? It's a big house aswell so surely from the distance he walked from the front door back up the flight of stairs to the bedroom, he would have been able to have sussed it out that the envelope was empty.

If a stranger came to my door and gave me an envelope, I wouldn't then say "cheers mate I'll open it up inside" psychologically it's all wrong, most of us would open it up there and then and ask the person what it contained and who they were, even more so if the person made out that there was some advertisement documents inside it, when infact there wasn't, you'd tell them to clear off. If we go along with this theory, then the gunman would have had to have relied on alot probabilities, luck and also would have to be certain this spontaneous method would all work in his favour, as it could have totally have backfired on him bigtime. In all likelihood this didn't happen.

 

[Deleted member 296917]

Mostl

I've been down the rabbit hole a few times on the theory that the envelope was possibly being used as ruse. In some aspects it makes so much sense, but then I quickly change my mind and have second thoughts on it. For example I don't know how the gunman could have been sure AW was always going to return back to return back downstairs with the envelope? If it was a case of he wanted to get close to AW to shoot him at point blank range, then surely that opportunity would have presented itself to the gunman when he spoke to AW for approximately a couple of minutes on the 1st encounter, why waste more time on the doorstep in an open environment opposite two pubs and risk been seen by others when he could easily have killed him there and then?

It's very unusual for a hitman, wither it's an amateur or a professional to enter any sort of dialogue with the intended target, it's very much a case of shoot and kill, even if there was passer by's or people standing across the road outside the pub, which there was at the time, this still shouldn't have prevented him from killing AW on the spot, as most hitmen when leaving the scene of the crime will lift the gun above there head at show it to the witnesses as a warning sign not to follow them as he will turn the gun on them.

If this was indeed a case of the gunman given AW a false sense of security by lying to him over some false documents in the envelope relating to something, then why didn't AW not just open the envelope up there and then? Why would he close the door, then take it up to his wife to then realise it was empty? Couldn't AW not have figured that out on the doorstep when talking to the gunman? And dealt with the situation there and then? It's a big house aswell so surely from the distance he walked from the front door back up the flight of stairs to the bedroom, he would have been able to have sussed it out that the envelope was empty.

If a stranger came to my door and gave me an envelope, I wouldn't then say "cheers mate I'll open it up inside" psychologically it's all wrong, most of us would open it up there and then and ask the person what it contained and who they were, even more so if the person made out that there was some advertisement documents inside it, when infact there wasn't, you'd tell them to clear off. If we go along with this theory, then the gunman would have had to have relied on alot probabilities, luck and also would have to be certain this spontaneous method would all work in his favour, as it could have totally have backfired on him bigtime. In all likelihood this didn't happen.

Q. Why didn't he shoot him there and then?

Because the person who went initially was not the gunman. He simply went to make sure he was in and they had their target. Remember he didn't know the man.

Q. How did he know he'd come back?

He didn't. He banked on him coming back, based on what he said to him.

Q. Why didn't he open it there and then?

Because it was pitch black and he was distracted by the conversation which clearly made sense to him. He likely also thought he knew what was in it.

Q. Why use two people?.

So the gunman was never identified... its happend many times with murder for hire plots.

I dont see any psylogical factor's that would change the way he would of done things. A man hands you an envelope in the pitch black, you ask him what its about, he chats to you about whats inside and then perhaps tells you he will be back in a min for an answer, and leaves.

Alistair didn't take it in to his wife. He just took it in, and when he realised the name on it wasn't his, and opened it and saw it was empty, he then went to her to ask her what the man had said to her. She then told him he'd asked for him by name! He then told her what the man had said to him, and she then told him they'd sit down and try and work it out when she'd finished putting the washing away. He then decided to go back out.

If what the man had said to Alistair had been in anyway anything to do with his murder then the police would know the motive and they don't. So imo, it was for the reason I suspect.

The reason for him going back out was based on what the killer had said, and clearly whatever that was, worked as he did return.

He was shot almost immediately on his return because the killer now was standing there and knew it was definitely their target.

What's your theory that makes sense of everyhting the way we are told it happened? Don't forget there was something else written on it besides the name Paul.

I don't buy Alistair was meant to put something in it, because he could of just handed whatever it was over in his own envelope.

 

[Scottishem1]

I wouldn't of thought so because she was at the door inside, as was he was standing outside. If anything she'd of been taller.

I don't think there was any letter in the envelope at all. I believe it was always empty.

What link are you referring to ?

Yes exactly thus giving the killer a shorter appearance

RIDDLE OF GUNMAN'S LETTER TO BANK BOSS; NAIRN MURDER PROBE.. NAIRN MURDER PROBE.. - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: RIDDLE OF GUNMAN'S LETTER TO BANK BOSS; NAIRN MURDER PROBE.. NAIRN MURDER PROBE..(News) by "Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland)"; News, opinion and commentary General interest

www.thefreelibrary.com

 

[Scottishem1]

This was very interesting -

a bit long, but discusses a theory by the DCI McPhee that the shooter had went back to pick up the envelope (that's why Veronica could still see him walking away!!). Also (oddly, as I'd also just posted regarding my Michael Ross theory/question - he was still at large in 2004 - although I'd need to check where he was posted in 2004 - but could have been home on leave (he was 25 at this point and in the army) this was prior to his arrest for the racial murder - also the whereabouts of Eddie his dad - was he still in prison in Nov. 2004?? He was due to be released I believe at some point in 2004 - could he have been the older man seen on the beach with Michael and the gun/s???). Surely they have both been ruled out, but made me think!!!

Yes it got me thinking too after this video , wasn't there an army base near Nairn ?

 

[Mickymack10]

Q. Why didn't he shoot him there and then?

Because the person who went initially was not the gunman. He simply went to make sure he was in and they had their target. Remember he didn't know the man.

Q. How did he know he'd come back?

He didn't. He banked on him coming back, based on what he said to him.

Q. Why didn't he open it there and then?

Because it was pitch black and he was distracted by the conversation which clearly made sense to him. He likely also thought he knew what was in it.

Q. Why use two people?.

So the gunman was never identified... its happend many times with murder for hire plots.

I dont see any psylogical factor's that would change the way he would of done things. A man hands you an envelope in the pitch black, you ask him what its about, he chats to you about whats inside and then perhaps tells you he will be back in a min for an answer, and leaves.

Alistair didn't take it in to his wife. He just took it in, and when he realised the name on it wasn't his, and opened it and saw it was empty, he then went to her to ask her what the man had said to her. She then told him he'd asked for him by name! He then told her what the man had said to him, and she then told him they'd sit down and try and work it out when she'd finished putting the washing away. He then decided to go back out.

If what the man had said to Alistair had been in anyway anything to do with his murder then the police would know the motive and they don't. So imo, it was for the reason I suspect.

The reason for him going back out was based on what the killer had said, and clearly whatever that was, worked as he did return.

He was shot almost immediately on his return because the killer now was standing there and knew it was definitely their target.

What's your theory that makes sense of everyhting the way we are told it happened? Don't forget there was something else written on it besides the name Paul.

I don't buy Alistair was meant to put something in it, because he could of just handed whatever it was over in his own envelope.

Your saying there was two based on what evidence? From the witness statements there was only one person who was on the doorstep, why add more arms and legs onto this story that simply doesn't need it? Can't we just accept that the person who rang the doorbell was infact the person who pulled the trigger? Yes it would have been dark but surely AW would have had a hallway light on, or an exterior light that was on, and by the weight of the envelope aswell he could have concluded that it was empty. Even more so by the time he closed the door and came back into the hallway he would have gauged that the envelope was empty. The gunman didn't know he was going to come back out, and that he banked on it? it kind of contradicts your previous post when you stated that he was sent there to kill him. As I said, a hitman who is sent to kill there target doesn't enter any form of dialogue with there target, it's shoot and kill. What happened if AW then didn't comeback out? Would the gunman had to have explained to the the person that hired him, that it was his bad and that he'd try killing him again another time?

My view is that AW knew what was going on, he either had laundered money for an exchange of a loan to fund his business, or he sourced a loan through shady characters for one of his clients he knew through HBOS. He couldn't get the loan approved through his work, so through his contacts he struck up a deal with those criminals, and something went terribly wrong.

Remember the detectives stated very early on in there investigation that they believed AW knew the contents of the envelope, so that means one or two things. He either let something slip something to his wife before he returned back downstairs, or the detectives that listened to VW testimony believed that he was being deceitful towards her.

 

[Deleted member 296917]

I'm speculating as you are, there were two people based on the witness statements who saw 2 people on the beech a month before, and one of them had a gun. And based on the evidence there was a 4x4 Mitsubishi parked up outside his house in the early hours, with two men in it acting suspiciously, who drove off when they were spotted.

The only witness was Veronica to the man. Tommy Hogg did not see the killer and that man was ruled out!

However now you put it that way it does sound unlikely if it was a hit, and I'm prepared to except there was only one person at the door.

You're saying he lied about the envelopes contents to his wife, Based on what evidence? The officers who were involved to start with who couldn't find their *advertiser censored* with an extra pair of hands?

Since then all officers have said it was empty and they don't know if it did ever contain anything.

What was in the envelope he allegedly hid from his wife? Or was she more in the know than she's let on ? Either to keep her safe or hiding it from police. Why was he killed almost immediately on his return?

The early officer on the case only said we need to know why it may of contained nothing when he showed it to his wife. That doesn’t mean there was anyhting in it.

Why didn't the man kill him the first time ? Are you suggesting he went to collect something ? If so why did he need to hand him an envelope at all.

You haven't really offered any explination as to why the man would go to his home with an envelope bearing somone elses name, and wait for him to return before killing him either.

All you've offered here is a theory that I myself have said was the likley motive. How he financed Lothian House!

He was also seen gambling large amounts of money in the bookmakers on the Friday ( 2 days prior) after he left work, possibly the laundering?

The theory I agree on, but how would the envelope and the waiting around on the doorstep fit Into that theory?

More recently the police are claiming it was to do with a row over the decking, so I really wouldn't be listening to the police here. They don't appear to have a clue, and their theories keep changing.

1. What was in the envelope?

2. Why did he go back inside?

3. Why did it have Paul written on it?


I did consider the theory he had lied to his wife and acted bemused because he didn't want her to know what he had got involved with, and likley thought he could sort it out. Led her to believe he was just going to check if he was still there when in reality he was always going to return. He just didn't expect to be shot!

Turning up at his home on a Sunday night chatting to him and eating for his return is all very personal.

How do you think the gambling of large amounts of money 2 days prior fits in with this?

Is it just possible the envelope was just a ruse to throw investigators off, or to try and set Paul up for the murder?

Is it possible that Andy had let it slip how Alistair had financed Lothian House in the pub after the decking row? They were close friends prior to this.

Example. "Who does he think he is complaing about decking when he's been money laundering for buisness men/gangsters"?

 

[Mickymack10]

I'm speculating as you are, there were two people based on the witness statements who saw 2 people on the beech a month before, and one of them had a gun. And based on the evidence there was a 4x4 Mitsubishi parked up outside his house in the early hours, with two men in it acting suspiciously, who drove off when they were spotted.

The only witness was Veronica to the man. Tommy Hogg did not see the killer and that man was ruled out!

However now you put it that way it does sound unlikely if it was a hit, and I'm prepared to except there was only one person at the door.

You're saying he lied about the envelopes contents to his wife, Based on what evidence? The officers who were involved to start with who couldn't find their *advertiser censored* with an extra pair of hands?

Since then all officers have said it was empty and they don't know if it did ever contain anything.

What was in the envelope he allegedly hid from his wife? Or was she more in the know than she's let on ? Either to keep her safe or hiding it from police. Why was he killed almost immediately on his return?

The early officer on the case only said we need to know why it may of contained nothing when he showed it to his wife. That doesn’t mean there was anyhting in it.

Why didn't the man kill him the first time ? Are you suggesting he went to collect something ? If so why did he need to hand him an envelope at all.

You haven't really offered any explination as to why the man would go to his home with an envelope bearing somone elses name, and wait for him to return before killing him either.

All you've offered here is a theory that I myself have said was the likley motive. How he financed Lothian House!

He was also seen gambling large amounts of money in the bookmakers on the Friday ( 2 days prior) after he left work, possibly the laundering?

The theory I agree on, but how would the envelope and the waiting around on the doorstep fit Into that theory?

More recently the police are claiming it was to do with a row over the decking, so I really wouldn't be listening to the police here. They don't appear to have a clue, and their theories keep changing.

1. What was in the envelope?

2. Why did he go back inside?

3. Why did it have Paul written on it?


I did consider the theory he had lied to his wife and acted bemused because he didn't want her to know what he had got involved with, and likley thought he could sort it out. Led her to believe he was just going to check if he was still there when in reality he was always going to return. He just didn't expect to be shot!

Turning up at his home on a Sunday night chatting to him and eating for his return is all very personal.

How do you think the gambling of large amounts of money 2 days prior fits in with this?

Is it just possible the envelope was just a ruse to throw investigators off, or to try and set Paul up for the murder?

Is it possible that Andy had let it slip how Alistair had financed Lothian House in the pub after the decking row? They were close friends prior to this.

Example. "Who does he think he is complaing about decking when he's been money laundering for buisness men/gangsters"?

I'm not saying for a fact that he was lying to his wife, but I do find it odd that the detectives stated at the beginning of there investigation that they believed that he already knew it's contents, and if they could find them, it could solve the case.

I also agree with you that there was perhaps a getaway driver, but I don't think the two of them were present at the door to carry out the murder. As for the 4x4 being seen outside his house on the early hours of the Sunday morning, did the Police manage to trace the two men? They've never mentioned it in recent appeals which I find bizarre, as I'd find this line of enquiry significant. Or is this another classic example of the Police not wanting us to know anything? As they never revealed to the public for years that the man on the bus was ruled out, only after being put under pressure by criminologist David Wilson.

I heard the theory over AW apparently being witnessed by two workmen gambling a heavy amount of money not long before his murder. To be honest I haven't heard much from local people who stay in Nairn if that was true, or did the workmen mistaken him for someone else? Again it's never been confirmed by Police Scotland who remain tight lipped over everything with regards to this case.

If you go back and read my previous posts I have stated my reasons as to why I think he was killed, I'm of the opinion that the envelope contained something, wither it was a cheque -final offer for AW to remain in his position at the bank, or contained some sort of blackmail which they hope would entice him to change his mind

I do believe that there is some significance to the name "Paul". I'm open to the idea that Paul could have been a business client of AW who was in desperate need of a large loan to fund a business project. When AW couldn't secure it through his work, he reached out to someone he knew, i.e a dodgy money lender who did of the books loans to certain clients. A deal was struck, but Paul didn't didn't do well with his business as he thought he could have, and couldn't pay his loan back on time, so he decided to go into hiding and ignored the threats by the people that granted him this loan. It's then not a stretch to far to suggest that those people turned on AW who helped strike up this deal between the both parties, they held him partially responsible for the money they lost, and they wanted him to provide up to date information on Paul, including his home address, workplace, and families address in order to track him down, when AW refused they killed him and sent a message out to Paul by doing so.

Nobody knows what happened except for AW and the man on the doorstep. All we can do is offer an opinion, we don't have facts or evidence to back up our theories.

 

[dotr]

Out in left field musing, was AW known to be involved in any sort of church dealings, or entanglements with people who do? imo, speculation.

Tithe envelope in which to place an offering, robbing Peter to pay Paul, 3 shots- Father Son & HG.

 

[Deleted member 296917]

I'm not saying for a fact that he was lying to his wife, but I do find it odd that the detectives stated at the beginning of there investigation that they believed that he already knew it's contents, and if they could find them, it could solve the case.

I also agree with you that there was perhaps a getaway driver, but I don't think the two of them were present at the door to carry out the murder. As for the 4x4 being seen outside his house on the early hours of the Sunday morning, did the Police manage to trace the two men? They've never mentioned it in recent appeals which I find bizarre, as I'd find this line of enquiry significant. Or is this another classic example of the Police not wanting us to know anything? As they never revealed to the public for years that the man on the bus was ruled out, only after being put under pressure by criminologist David Wilson.

I heard the theory over AW apparently being witnessed by two workmen gambling a heavy amount of money not long before his murder. To be honest I haven't heard much from local people who stay in Nairn if that was true, or did the workmen mistaken him for someone else? Again it's never been confirmed by Police Scotland who remain tight lipped over everything with regards to this case.

If you go back and read my previous posts I have stated my reasons as to why I think he was killed, I'm of the opinion that the envelope contained something, wither it was a cheque -final offer for AW to remain in his position at the bank, or contained some sort of blackmail which they hope would entice him to change his mind

I do believe that there is some significance to the name "Paul". I'm open to the idea that Paul could have been a business client of AW who was in desperate need of a large loan to fund a business project. When AW couldn't secure it through his work, he reached out to someone he knew, i.e a dodgy money lender who did of the books loans to certain clients. A deal was struck, but Paul didn't didn't do well with his business as he thought he could have, and couldn't pay his loan back on time, so he decided to go into hiding and ignored the threats by the people that granted him this loan. It's then not a stretch to far to suggest that those people turned on AW who helped strike up this deal between the both parties, they held him partially responsible for the money they lost, and they wanted him to provide up to date information on Paul, including his home address, workplace, and families address in order to track him down, when AW refused they killed him and sent a message out to Paul by doing so.

Nobody knows what happened except for AW and the man on the doorstep. All we can do is offer an opinion, we don't have facts or evidence to back up our theories.

I think the latter sounds more plausible. The police early on were awful and didn't bother to investigate. Its a tiny town and they simply weren't equipped or experienced enough to deal with it.

The crime scene was also contaminated by paramedics and other's who were allowed onto the doorstep. Andy for example, who helped him onto the stretcher when he fell off.

This case was only picked up by police Scotland when they merged a few years after the murder and there wasn't really any review or inquiry team on the case. Its only due to it being kept in the media a new inquiry was set up.

Perhaps the person he had used for Paul had helped Alistair previously fund Lothian House?.

I like the idea the message was to Paul ( especially given we don't know what else was written on it) My guess is, for Paul. But In order for that message to get to Paul, someone had to see the envelope. Which takes us back to either lying about it's contents or asking him to put the information inside that envelope?

Isn't that a risk in its self though that someone other AW saw that envelope, meaning the message wouldn't get back to Paul unless they did? As risky as using it to make sure he was in first and identifying him as their target?

I think what you're missing is that you don't go to Hit-Men-R-US to find one. They're mostly just dupes people find, who are low-intelligence thugs. They don't really know what they are doing.

The real professionals are reserved for state sponsored attacks..

Aren't we also missing the bit that Alistair did not know the man at the door? At least that's what his wife says..

The 4x4 wasn't mentioned much after the initial reportings and the man in the bookmakers was definatly Alistair. They saw him on the news the next day and recognised him as that man and gave statements to police.

I wonder if the row he had with Andy over the decking led to him saying something about this to other people in the pub ?

Example: "who the hell does he think he is complaing to the council after the things he gets up to" Police now seem to think the decking row features in some way.

The other explination is that the name on the envelope is simply because it had been reused?

There are 2 theories in one in what you've said. He was either money laundering for someone, based on finances he'd been given to fund lothian house, or he had arranged a loan off the books and the other person ( Paul) had done a runner with their money so they went to him for payment.

The question is why he needed to go back inside to consider any offer? If one was made, and If he was to provide them with updated info on Paul he could of said no there and then.

 

[Deleted member 296917]

Out in left field musing, was AW known to be involved in any sort of church dealings, or entanglements with people who do? imo, speculation.

Tithe envelope in which to place an offering, robbing Peter to pay Paul, 3 shots- Father Son & HG.

I'm fairly confident that's not what it stood for.

 

[Mickymack10]

I think the latter sounds more plausible. The police early on were awful and didn't bother to investigate. Its a tiny town and they simply weren't equipped or experienced enough to deal with it.

The crime scene was also contaminated by paramedics and other's who were allowed onto the doorstep. Andy for example, who helped him onto the stretcher when he fell off.

This case was only picked up by police Scotland when they merged a few years after the murder and there wasn't really any review or inquiry team on the case. Its only due to it being kept in the media a new inquiry was set up.

Perhaps the person he had used for Paul had helped Alistair previously fund Lothian House?.

I like the idea the message was to Paul ( especially given we don't know what else was written on it) My guess is, for Paul. But In order for that message to get to Paul, someone had to see the envelope. Which takes us back to either lying about it's contents or asking him to put the information inside that envelope?

Isn't that a risk in its self though that someone other AW saw that envelope, meaning the message wouldn't get back to Paul unless they did? As risky as using it to make sure he was in first and identifying him as their target?

I think what you're missing is that you don't go to Hit-Men-R-US to find one. They're mostly just dupes people find, who are low-intelligence thugs. They don't really know what they are doing.

The real professionals are reserved for state sponsored attacks..

Aren't we also missing the bit that Alistair did not know the man at the door? At least that's what his wife says..

The 4x4 wasn't mentioned much after the initial reportings and the man in the bookmakers was definatly Alistair. They saw him on the news the next day and recognised him as that man and gave statements to police.

I wonder if the row he had with Andy over the decking led to him saying something about this to other people in the pub ?

Example: "who the hell does he think he is complaing to the council after the things he gets up to" Police now seem to think the decking row features in some way.

The other explination is that the name on the envelope is simply because it had been reused?

There are 2 theories in one in what you've said. He was either money laundering for someone, based on finances he'd been given to fund lothian house, or he had arranged a loan off the books and the other person ( Paul) had done a runner with their money so they went to him for payment.

The question is why he needed to go back inside to consider any offer? If one was made, and If he was to provide them with updated info on Paul he could of said no there and then.

I know about hitmen and no that there not portrayed to us like they are in the movies, but even if it was amateur hour and this was a go to guy as a last resort, I still can't phantom why he wouldn't have shot AW 1st time round. They had initially spoken to eachother for approximately 2 minute's on the 1st encounter so he definitely could have pulled the trigger then, or when AW turned his back to go back upstairs.

I don't necessarily think that it was a case of AW went back inside to consider an offer, if it was a case of he lost those money lenders, let's just say £50,000, and they were forcing him into given security detail's or information on his business client, then perhaps he felt guilty and complied with there demands initially, but then had a 2nd thought that if he gave them what they wanted he would put "Paul" in grave danger and could potentially face prosecution for assisting a potential murder. Or he did give them what they wanted but they killed him anyway, eliminating him as a witness to another potential murder.

Even though he was leaving his position as Bank manager he was still in breach of contract by given out a client's personal information to someone that didn't work for HBOS, so he could have got into alot of trouble, had he been caught. Maybe that's why the gunman took the envelope after the hit, to show it to Paul as they probably thought the name would have been circulated in the media. Presenting that envelope to him, the one they presented to AW just before they killed him, would have been a severe warning message to him, "pay now or your next".


I know about the men that identified AW in the bookies, but again the Police have never confirmed this to the public, it could be true, but then again it could have been a case of someone who looked like AW who was in the bookies that day who the police managed to trace and eliminate from there enquiry. Surely the manager or the owner of the bookie's would have been able to have confirmed this?

To my own way of thinking, I strongly believe that during AW tenure at HBOS, he was most likely doing business in an under hand way, and probably did fund Lothian house by participating in some sort of money laundering scheme, which involved the people that eventually had him killed. I don't think AB (Pub landlord) would have been in the loop over any of AW business deals, especially if it did involve illegal activity. The only people that would have known would have been AW and the people that were directly involved.

 

[Deleted member 296917]

I know about hitmen and no that there not portrayed to us like they are in the movies, but even if it was amateur hour and this was a go to guy as a last resort, I still can't phantom why he wouldn't have shot AW 1st time round. They had initially spoken to eachother for approximately 2 minute's on the 1st encounter so he definitely could have pulled the trigger then, or when AW turned his back to go back upstairs.

I don't necessarily think that it was a case of AW went back inside to consider an offer, if it was a case of he lost those money lenders, let's just say £50,000, and they were forcing him into given security detail's or information on his business client, then perhaps he felt guilty and complied with there demands initially, but then had a 2nd thought that if he gave them what they wanted he would put "Paul" in grave danger and could potentially face prosecution for assisting a potential murder. Or he did give them what they wanted but they killed him anyway, eliminating him as a witness to another potential murder.

Even though he was leaving his position as Bank manager he was still in breach of contract by given out a client's personal information to someone that didn't work for HBOS, so he could have got into alot of trouble, had he been caught. Maybe that's why the gunman took the envelope after the hit, to show it to Paul as they probably thought the name would have been circulated in the media. Presenting that envelope to him, the one they presented to AW just before they killed him, would have been a severe warning message to him, "pay now or your next".


I know about the men that identified AW in the bookies, but again the Police have never confirmed this to the public, it could be true, but then again it could have been a case of someone who looked like AW who was in the bookies that day who the police managed to trace and eliminate from there enquiry. Surely the manager or the owner of the bookie's would have been able to have confirmed this?

To my own way of thinking, I strongly believe that during AW tenure at HBOS, he was most likely doing business in an under hand way, and probably did fund Lothian house by participating in some sort of money laundering scheme, which involved the people that eventually had him killed. I don't think AB (Pub landlord) would have been in the loop over any of AW business deals, especially if it did involve illegal activity. The only people that would have known would have been AW and the people that were directly involved.

That's just confused me more. Either the envelope was used to send a message to Paul, relying on the fact someone else had to see it for that plan to work, or they took it away to make sure no-one knew about it. Why not leave it with him to make sure the message to Paul was recieved?

The police clearly now think something about the row he had with Andy over the decking is behind this, ( that doesn't mean its the decking itself ) so it can only be something he's discussed in the pub, infact police have said as much. He is not a suspect and its a friend of his they want to talk to. He gave them the info the wanted and the police left. They also want to talk to soldiers at the nearby barracks and then men who built the decking.

The reason for not killing him first time round is as ive already tried to explain, either because the guy who went round with the envelope wasn't his killer, and used it to make sure his target was in, and that they had the right man when he returned with it. (Returned to the man who was now on the doorstep.) Which is no more risky than hoping someone else saw that envelope when he went back in as a message to Paul. And offers a theory as to why the name was written on it. ( because it was reused) Perhaps the gun was in it originally delivered for Paul. ) and as I say they simply reused the same envelope.

Taking it with them only tells me he didn't want the name on it getting out, so that destroys the theory it was to leave a message to Paul.

Or if it was the same man who shot him then he needed to retrieve something from Alistair, before he killed him. ( incriminating evidence?) Maybe Alistair just took the envelope in with him as an excuse, incase his wife asked who it was, which she did, and he acted dumb and said, no idea who he was he's just handed me this envelope with nothing in it.

His wife said, he only went bank based on what the killer had said, therfore whatever he said to him did cause him to go back to the door. Whalla, The plan worked!

It also makes sense that if what the man had said to him was anyhting to do with the reason he was murdered, the police would know the motive and they don't! Therefore it wasn't anyhting to do with it. Hence me saying it was used simply to identify their target and make sure when he did come back and hand it over, the real killer knew it was Alistair.

It also illuminates any witness who saw the killers face!

Andy said when he arrived in the brambles pub there was man inside already, who left as he arrived, and then came back a few mins later as he had 'forgotten his cigerettes'. If he was the man who handed the envelope over then he is now on his way to the parked up vehicle on the Links car park and his killer is the man waiting for him, not that first guy.

Your theory is sounding very much like Nates' whome police have already said holds no water.

And when you say there's no way there was 2 people, every hired murder that I've seen in my career there's always been 2 people. 1 is usually a spotter, the other is the killer. In this case, one was sent to identify it was Alistair, the other killed him. That being the case it was a hit because he was murdered immediately upon his return, either once they knew it was him or once they'd retrieved whatever it was they wanted from him.

When coming up with a theory if something doesn't fit then you've either got the wrong theory or you're missing something. This theory offers an explanation for every element of it, without pursuming that Alistair was lying about the contents of the envelope.

 

[Mickymack10]

That's just confused me more. Either the envelope was used to send a message to Paul, relying on the fact someone else had to see it for that plan to work, or they took it away to make sure no-one knew about it. Why not leave it with him to make sure the message to Paul was recieved?

The police clearly now think something about the row he had with Andy over the decking is behind this, ( that doesn't mean its the decking itself ) so it can only be something he's discussed in the pub, infact police have said as much. He is not a suspect and its a friend of his they want to talk to. He gave them the info the wanted and the police left. They also want to talk to soldiers at the nearby barracks and then men who built the decking.

The reason for not killing him first time round is as ive already tried to explain, either because the guy who went round with the envelope wasn't his killer, and used it to make sure his target was in, and that they had the right man when he returned with it. (Returned to the man who was now on the doorstep.) Which is no more risky than hoping someone else saw that envelope when he went back in as a message to Paul. And offers a theory as to why the name was written on it. ( because it was reused) Perhaps the gun was in it originally delivered for Paul. ) and as I say they simply reused the same envelope.

Taking it with them only tells me he didn't want the name on it getting out, so that destroys the theory it was to leave a message to Paul.

Or if it was the same man who shot him then he needed to retrieve something from Alistair, before he killed him. ( incriminating evidence?) Maybe Alistair just took the envelope in with him as an excuse, incase his wife asked who it was, which she did, and he acted dumb and said, no idea who he was he's just handed me this envelope with nothing in it.

His wife said, he only went bank based on what the killer had said, therfore whatever he said to him did cause him to go back to the door. Whalla, The plan worked!

It also makes sense that if what the man had said to him was anyhting to do with the reason he was murdered, the police would know the motive and they don't! Therefore it wasn't anyhting to do with it. Hence me saying it was used simply to identify their target and make sure when he did come back and hand it over, the real killer knew it was Alistair.

It also illuminates any witness who saw the killers face!

Andy said when he arrived in the brambles pub there was man inside already, who left as he arrived, and then came back a few mins later as he had 'forgotten his cigerettes'. If he was the man who handed the envelope over then he is now on his way to the parked up vehicle on the Links car park and his killer is the man waiting for him, not that first guy.

Your theory is sounding very much like Nates' whome police have already said holds no water.

And when you say there's no way there was 2 people, every hired murder that I've seen in my career there's always been 2 people. 1 is usually a spotter, the other is the killer. In this case, one was sent to identify it was Alistair, the other killed him. That being the case it was a hit because he was murdered immediately upon his return, either once they knew it was him or once they'd retrieved whatever it was they wanted from him.

When coming up with a theory if something doesn't fit then you've either got the wrong theory or you're missing something. This theory offers an explanation for every element of it, without pursuming that Alistair was lying about the contents of the env

The Police are clutching at straws over the decking theory, nothing will come off it, mark my words. The information over the decking was already known to them at the very beginning of the investigation. All that's different now is the have a new superintendent in charge wh's trying to show the public that there

That's just confused me more. Either the envelope was used to send a message to Paul, relying on the fact someone else had to see it for that plan to work, or they took it away to make sure no-one knew about it. Why not leave it with him to make sure the message to Paul was recieved?

The police clearly now think something about the row he had with Andy over the decking is behind this, ( that doesn't mean its the decking itself ) so it can only be something he's discussed in the pub, infact police have said as much. He is not a suspect and its a friend of his they want to talk to. He gave them the info the wanted and the police left. They also want to talk to soldiers at the nearby barracks and then men who built the decking.

The reason for not killing him first time round is as ive already tried to explain, either because the guy who went round with the envelope wasn't his killer, and used it to make sure his target was in, and that they had the right man when he returned with it. (Returned to the man who was now on the doorstep.) Which is no more risky than hoping someone else saw that envelope when he went back in as a message to Paul. And offers a theory as to why the name was written on it. ( because it was reused) Perhaps the gun was in it originally delivered for Paul. ) and as I say they simply reused the same envelope.

Taking it with them only tells me he didn't want the name on it getting out, so that destroys the theory it was to leave a message to Paul.

Or if it was the same man who shot him then he needed to retrieve something from Alistair, before he killed him. ( incriminating evidence?) Maybe Alistair just took the envelope in with him as an excuse, incase his wife asked who it was, which she did, and he acted dumb and said, no idea who he was he's just handed me this envelope with nothing in it.

His wife said, he only went bank based on what the killer had said, therfore whatever he said to him did cause him to go back to the door. Whalla, The plan worked!

It also makes sense that if what the man had said to him was anyhting to do with the reason he was murdered, the police would know the motive and they don't! Therefore it wasn't anyhting to do with it. Hence me saying it was used simply to identify their target and make sure when he did come back and hand it over, the real killer knew it was Alistair.

It also illuminates any witness who saw the killers face!

Andy said when he arrived in the brambles pub there was man inside already, who left as he arrived, and then came back a few mins later as he had 'forgotten his cigerettes'. If he was the man who handed the envelope over then he is now on his way to the parked up vehicle on the Links car park and his killer is the man waiting for him, not that first guy.

Your theory is sounding very much like Nates' whome police have already said holds no water.

And when you say there's no way there was 2 people, every hired murder that I've seen in my career there's always been 2 people. 1 is usually a spotter, the other is the killer. In this case, one was sent to identify it was Alistair, the other killed him. That being the case it was a hit because he was murdered immediately upon his return, either once they knew it was him or once they'd retrieved whatever it was they wanted from him.

When coming up with a theory if something doesn't fit then you've either got the wrong theory or you're missing something. This theory offers an explanation for every element of it, without pursuming that Alistair was lying about the contents of the envelope.

I'd assume the envelope wasn't left incase they left trace's of DNA on it? As for my theory and Nate's holding no water in the detectives eyes, then that's fine by me it would seem they have that view on basically everyone that tries to assist them, including criminologists who they don't want to have any communication with.

The fact is none of our theories including yours, holds no factual evidence to support what were saying, were simply all hypothesising and are entitled to express our views on what happened.

I'm going to try and pick apart some of your points made in your last post. As for the two men apparently being present on the doorstep, one being the knocker, and the other being the one who pulled the trigger. Only one man was witnessed on the doorstep, there is no evidence to suggest from what we know that two one of them came to the door, nor did any of the bystanders observe one of the men leaving and then suddenly another person reappearing and shooting him. Why would they risk both being seen? And why would the 1st individual risk potentially facing serious jail time for assisting In a murder when he didn't pull the trigger? In all likelihood the 2nd man would have had to have been standing nearby to get the all clear from the 1st man. Or Would they really have been that incompetent to contact eachother via mobile phone? And risk there numbers being traced through the telephone tower receivers? And why on earth if your just about to commit a murder would you be hanging about inside a pub buying cigarettes? Risk been seen by more people and possibly risk been caught on CCTV?

In your last post you stated that it was possible that the envelope did contain some incriminating evidence of some sort, and that AW bluffed his wife when he returned back inside, and that he was in the know how, about what was going on, hence why he returned back outside, but then below that you state that it would make sense had the killer didn't discuss any business deals with AW, and that it would make sense as VW and the Police don't know the motive. I can't really make sense of the way you have put that across, so I'll try responding to both

I think if AW was participating in dubious dealings within his workplace, then I highly doubt he'd let his wife no what was going on, and most likely bluffed her, or made up another excuse as to why the gunman had visited him.
.
If your open to the idea that there was something incriminating inside the envelope, then it takes away your point from your previous post that the envelope meant nothing and that we were all focusing way to much on it. You finish of by saying that your theory offers the most possible explanation, on the basis that he was killed immediately on his return to the door, or once they retrieved whatever it was they wanted from him, again your open to that hypothesis that I have suggested previously that they were trying to force AW into given them something, but are quick to say that my theory holds no water. Your very much contradicting yourself in the same post.

Not every hit, or murder is the same, why not just keep focused, and take this one itself in isolation? Why try justifying or twisting the facts round by bringing up other murders that have taken place which is unrelated to this? It seems like your trying your best to convince yourself of your own theory in order to suit our own self belief, or to back up our own hypothesis. I get the impression there is no convincing you into having an open mind that your own theory may not be accurate, and that there is other plausible theories out there that sound more plausible.

In response to your theory that pub landlord AB had evidence over AW shady business, and felt aggrieved and gobsmacked that he had the brass neck to complain over the construction of his decking, so much so he then decided to confide in a few of his locals. We would then have to submise that one of those regulars was so aggrieved over this, even though it wasn't his business that he took upon himself to go over to AW house, and took a liberty and blasted AW to death over a complaint, which at that point was already under retrospective action, as someone else had already made a complaint to the council.

There was no form of repercussions at the point for AB, or was there any talk of there being any fines/ punishment being imposed on him for the building of the decking. It was simply a notice of complaint, and they were making him aware of the situation and that it was under retrospective appeal.

I'm sure after all those year's that have gone by, and if indeed AB was innocent and had nothing to hide, then why hasn't he made this information public if infact he had knowledge that AW was money laundering? He's been in the paper's recently and spoke to Peter Bleksley but hasn't mentioned a thing, but you according to you, you think this could be a possible theory?

I can absolutely guarantee you that nothing will come of the decking theory, it's been known since day one and they are just covering old ground. A new detective with a new vision, trying to show us all that there still making it look like there being proactive over this case.

 

[Kiri]

When peofessionals talk about a professional hit, it's usually a violent cousin, brother, or friend. It's not somebody that works every day as a hitman like it would be in a state sponsored assassination. 9 times out of 10 this type of murder for hire, you find that the person who is requesting the killing usually provides the weapon.

In order to give you some context. There was a murder of a off duty police officer called Nisha Patel- Nasri. Her husband had hired someone to kill her. He gave the killer keys to his house and the hitman used a knife from their knife block. 10 days later just like in this case, it was found down a drain a few streets away just outside the search parameters.

The reason for dumping it is because they know that the weapon will not be traced back to them, and they don't want to be walking around with it on the person after the murder. Especially when the police & paramedics are likely on their way.

With that in mind and knowing that he had to be close to his target in order to kill him, perhaps that's why he used the envelope. He likely gave him a *advertiser censored*-and-bull-story and told him there was something in it, so when he went back inside and found out there wasn't he obviously went out to check if the man was still there. By that time it was a different man not the guy who had handed him the envelope. Perhaps the envelope had initially contained the gun and Paul was who it was delivered too? He simply reused that envelope.

Early in the morning on the Saturday night Sunday morning/ there was a 4 by 4 Mitshibishi parked up outside Alistair’s house, and when a witness saw them, them they drove off.

The intent was always to kill Alistair imo.

I've never heard this - the mitsu. 4x4?? Have you got a quoted source?

 

[Kiri]

Yes it got me thinking too after this video , wasn't there an army base near Nairn ?

Yes. Blackwatch use it aparently. And drank in Nairn when on leave, or whatever you call squaddies on the piss! I haven't researched this myself. But when I was on my Michael Ross theory, that worried me a lot! Why haven't Police Scotland publicly ruled Ross out? Just so I can stop this theory!!! Perhaps I'll ask them myself!

 

[Kiri]

Yes it got me thinking too after this video , wasn't there an army base near Nairn ?

Ross was in Blackwatch at the time, I think! He was gun happy!!!! He was also stationed in Yorkshire, again at the time, so relatively close.

 

[Kiri]

i have to disagree, people hired to kill somebody are not usually accomplished gun experts and in a lot of hired hit cases, the weapon is usually provided by the person who commissioned the hit to the person carrying out the killing.

A very simular case, Nisha Patel Nasri was killed by a hired hitman who used a weapon from her house to kill her and just like in this case ten days later the knife was found down a drain just outside the search parmiter. Her husband was convicted of hiring the killer.

She also has never used the front door since and from that night on has used the back door.

They never used the front door, at Lothian House, before, they always used the side. Veronica states this in many interviews, so the fact that the shooter uses the front door, may mean they didn't know him that well after all?

 

[Deleted member 296917]

I'm not saying for a fact that he was lying to his wife, but I do find it odd that the detectives stated at the beginning of there investigation that they believed that he already knew it's contents, and if they could find them, it could solve the case.

I also agree with you that there was perhaps a getaway driver, but I don't think the two of them were present at the door to carry out the murder. As for the 4x4 being seen outside his house on the early hours of the Sunday morning, did the Police manage to trace the two men? They've never mentioned it in recent appeals which I find bizarre, as I'd find this line of enquiry significant. Or is this another classic example of the Police not wanting us to know anything? As they never revealed to the public for years that the man on the bus was ruled out, only after being put under pressure by criminologist David Wilson.

I heard the theory over AW apparently being witnessed by two workmen gambling a heavy amount of money not long before his murder. To be honest I haven't heard much from local people who stay in Nairn if that was true, or did the workmen mistaken him for someone else? Again it's never been confirmed by Police Scotland who remain tight lipped over everything with regards to this case.

If you go back and read my previous posts I have stated my reasons as to why I think he was killed, I'm of the opinion that the envelope contained something, wither it was a cheque -final offer for AW to remain in his position at the bank, or contained some sort of blackmail which they hope would entice him to change his mind

I do believe that there is some significance to the name "Paul". I'm open to the idea that Paul could have been a business client of AW who was in desperate need of a large loan to fund a business project. When AW couldn't secure it through his work, he reached out to someone he knew, i.e a dodgy money lender who did of the books loans to certain clients. A deal was struck, but Paul didn't didn't do well with his business as he thought he could have, and couldn't pay his loan back on time, so he decided to go into hiding and ignored the threats by the people that granted him this loan. It's then not a stretch to far to suggest that those people turned on AW who helped strike up this deal between the both parties, they held him partially responsible for the money they lost, and they wanted him to provide up to date information on Paul, including his home address, workplace, and families address in order to track him down, when AW refused they killed him and sent a message out to Paul by doing so.

Nobody knows what happened except for AW and the man on the doorstep. All we can do is offer an opinion, we don't have facts or evidence to back up our theories.

So based on this then and what they stated early on, it may be the case that Alistair had written Paul on the front and whatever was in that envelope he posted it himself, or left it somewhere for Paul. And the fact it was empty suggets he either took the contents out and lied to his wife, or there really was nothing inside and should of been.

Did someone else take out the contents before the person it was meant for saw it, and he went to question Alistair about it, and that's why he went back inside, to ask his wife why it was empty?

If that is the case then what was inside or should of been inside that angered the killer so much it resulted in him killing Alistair?

You've misunderstood me mate. I am not fixed on any theory, merely trying to make sense of the envelope business. The theory as to why it happend, I think we both agree on.

He either sourced a loan from the wrong people for the funding of Lothian house, or a customer, ( off the books) or he caused somone to loose alot of money by getting them lnvolved in an investment that went wrong.

AW was an investment banker and a qualified accountant, and also had clients outside of the bank, including assisting other accountants with their clients regarding loans. I know this as I have spoken to other accountants in Nairn who have confirmed this to me..

 

[dotr]

May 11 2022
By Karen Roberts

​

 

[Kiri]

Now that's interesting!!! Was Ross ever stationed there? Knew there was a barracks, knew 2 men seen (I theorised could have been Ross senior/junior and/or another!).