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

[Professor Moriarty]

You can understand the police wanting to withhold some information. But why put out an account that makes no sense? I've heard Professor David Wilson and other pundits pontificating on this murder, but they don't seem to point out that the official version makes no sense.

 

[alb1on]

Let’s say the killer was 20 in 2005. The killer’s dad, perhaps having inherited the gun from the killer’s grandad, legally acquires some ammunition for the gun during the 1980s or 90s, when the killer is but a child. The gun is possessed purely for protection, a need to fire it never arises, and so the ammunition is never used. As a teen or young adult the killer discovers the gun and ammo - in this scenario there’s no need for him to source anything illegally?

It is just possible (and I would not rule it out) but the times (both of the ammunition being available and the time lapse between the law change and the murder) suggest it is much less likely than illegality being involved. I have also previously posted pointing out that those suggesting this must be an old war souvenir retained by a family and so not connected to the underworld are just plain wrong. It may be but in my previous post I linked to a report of exactly this model being used by criminals. My problem is not with keeping the 'family war souvenir' theory as an option but rather seeing it as an overwhelming favourite in the face of the legal issues, the documented criminal use of the same weapon and the probability of illegal sourcing of ammunition.