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

[rvlvr]

...or apparently Scottish?

Indeed. According to Veronica the only words he said were ‘Alistair Wilson’, so I guess it would’ve been difficult to discern much either way.

 

[ekardh]

I've heard a common theory (that I'm sure has been discussed previously) that the murder was related to Alistair's complaints about the building work taking place at the hotel across the road, and that owner of the hotel emigrated to Canada not long afterwards. Sounds pretty extreme to murder a guy over that (although people have been killed for less), when they could've tried to put the frighteners on him.

The other angle is that Alistair was involved in something shady, and that would explain why he was able to live in a 9-bedroom £200k+ house on a bank manager's wage.

Wasn't Alistair was at the door with the man for a few minutes? What did they talk about? It's said the killer took the envelope with him to leave no forensic evidence, but he was happy for Alistair to take the envelope back into the house?
Alistair only went downstairs again on the spur of the moment. If he hadn't done this, then potentially the killer had missed his chance to kill him and retrieve the evidence. I don't think it makes any sense for a hired assassin to let their target go back indoors.

 

[Konstantin]

Wasn't Alistair was at the door with the man for a few minutes? What did they talk about? It's said the killer took the envelope with him to leave no forensic evidence, but he was happy for Alistair to take the envelope back into the house?

Well, the killer might not have been intending to kill him when he let him take the envelope into the house. It would seem like a very risky strategy as he had no idea whether Alastair would come down again. He might have had the gun to put the frighteners on him if he did not comply. Alastair clearly was not shown it before he went back inside, so the first encounter with the killer was not scary for him or threatening or he would not have gone back down.

While Veronica has very obviously been told to limit what she says to the media etc, you would think that Alastair told her what the man had said or what he was after, because he went inside to talk to her about it. Had the killer mentioned the decking or something to do with the bank, that would be a lead and we know the police do not have any leads or motive for why AW was killed. So what did the killer say, and what did AW tell VW?

The killer might have ended up firing the weapon because he didn't like AW's answer when he came down, or AW threatened to call the police, or for any reason that meant the conversation escalated. And then perhaps he grabbed the envelope after so as to not leave it as evidence.

But had he been sent there to assassinate AW, it makes sense for him to have done so right away, not give him an envelope. He doesn't need to distract him! AW comes to the door, bang bang, leave. Having VW come to the door first does suggest that this "professional assassin" is a novice at least. Maybe he was the best whoever is behind this could get. I guess he did the job and didn't get caught yet...

 

[ekardh]

Well, the killer might not have been intending to kill him when he let him take the envelope into the house. It would seem like a very risky strategy as he had no idea whether Alastair would come down again. He might have had the gun to put the frighteners on him if he did not comply. Alastair clearly was not shown it before he went back inside, so the first encounter with the killer was not scary for him or threatening or he would not have gone back down.

While Veronica has very obviously been told to limit what she says to the media etc, you would think that Alastair told her what the man had said or what he was after, because he went inside to talk to her about it. Had the killer mentioned the decking or something to do with the bank, that would be a lead and we know the police do not have any leads or motive for why AW was killed. So what did the killer say, and what did AW tell VW?

The killer might have ended up firing the weapon because he didn't like AW's answer when he came down, or AW threatened to call the police, or for any reason that meant the conversation escalated. And then perhaps he grabbed the envelope after so as to not leave it as evidence.

But had he been sent there to assassinate AW, it makes sense for him to have done so right away, not give him an envelope. He doesn't need to distract him! AW comes to the door, bang bang, leave. Having VW come to the door first does suggest that this "professional assassin" is a novice at least. Maybe he was the best whoever is behind this could get. I guess he did the job and didn't get caught yet...

You're right. Unless Veronica can disclose more of the conversation she had with Alistair at the time, I'm at a loss to understand the sequence of events.

• Alistair is putting children to bed
• Door knocks. Veronica opens it.
• Man asks for Alistair by his full name.
• Veronica gets Alistair and takes over with the kids.
• Alistair comes down and chats with the man for a few minutes.
• ????
• Alistair comes back upstairs with an empty envelope addressed to "Paul"
• ????
• Alistair decides to go back downstairs.
• ????
• The man shoots Alistair three times and takes the envelope.

Is that pretty much the gist of it?

Why was the envelope empty? Why was "Paul" written on it? What did Alistair and the man talk about initially? What did Alistair and Veronica talk about afterwards? Why did Alistair decide to go back to the door? There is something off about all of this.

 

[davidt]

You're right. Unless Veronica can disclose more of the conversation she had with Alistair at the time, I'm at a loss to understand the sequence of events.

• Alistair is putting children to bed
• Door knocks. Veronica opens it.
• Man asks for Alistair by his full name.
• Veronica gets Alistair and takes over with the kids.
• Alistair comes down and chats with the man for a few minutes.
• ????
• Alistair comes back upstairs with an empty envelope addressed to "Paul"
• ????
• Alistair decides to go back downstairs.
• ????
• The man shoots Alistair three times and takes the envelope.

Is that pretty much the gist of it?

Why was the envelope empty? Why was "Paul" written on it? What did Alistair and the man talk about initially? What did Alistair and Veronica talk about afterwards? Why did Alistair decide to go back to the door? There is something off about all of this.

Yes, that's the gist of it.

A few other points. Some early reports appeared to quote a spokesperson saying that Alastair did not open the envelope because he knew what was in it. However the general consensus these days seems to be that the envelope was empty.

When Alastair spoke to Veronica all we know about the conversation is that Veronica says Alastair was bewildered or confused but apparently not frightened or scared. He asked her if she was sure this person really did want to speak to him and Veronica replied saying yes he asked for you by name. The picture we have is of someone who hasn't a clue what is going on. We don't know the contents of the conversation but we can deduce a couple of things. That is the conversation did not contain anything to either identify the killer or the motive. The police have spent 20 years trying to figure that out. That's why the decking theory is difficult in my opinion. If this person had turned up complaining about the objection Alastair would have immediately realised what it was connected to and have told Veronica. But that didn't happen. Obviously there's something in their conversation that the police want to keep to themselves but its not anything that helps solve the case as such.

I think everyone who ponders this case pretty much comes to the conclusion that it makes little sense as it stands. Every bit of what is said to have happened that night raises numerous unanswered questions as soon as you start thinking about it. Putting the whole thing together in a way that covers all those bits feels well nigh impossible.

Probably the biggest issue is that effectively there are no witnesses. We have one second hand account of what happened which comes from Veronica who in turn only knows what Alastair told her. Whether Alastair told her everything or was honest with her is impossible to know. So much of what we've been told makes so little sense the whole thing becomes baffling.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

If someone rang my house bell late in November, at about 7 pm, I, rather than my wife, would go and answer it. A lot of women would expect their husbands to do that, even if they were in the middle of something. Nairn might have been a very low crime area, but they lived opposite a pub, which would put many women off answering an unexpected ring of the doorbell at night. If the caller just said the husband's name, many wives would ask "What's it about please?" If Veronica had asked that, I wonder what the murderer would have replied. After Alistair goes to the front door and returns, he doesn't know what the visit is about or why he has been handed an envelope. How can that be? I can't imagine how Alistair took the envelope without knowing what it was for. Surely, he would have asked. It also seems that, after an unreported conversation with Veronica, he went back to the front door "to see if the man was still there".

Possibly, the police don't want to reveal what was really said and have told Veronica not to do so either. However, if that is the case, it doesn't seem to have helped much.

There are cases where nutcases (medical term) kill someone just for fun. In 2009 Colin Cheetham shot Stuart Ludlam in Derbyshire, just for the hell of it. He was a gun nut. I wonder if the person who shot Alistair Wilson had no motive. He had a gun and wanted to shoot someone. If that was the case, all the analysis of bank loans, football clubs, decking etc won't help at all.

 

[CSIAngus]

If someone rang my house bell late in November, at about 7 pm, I, rather than my wife, would go and answer it. A lot of women would expect their husbands to do that, even if they were in the middle of something. Nairn might have been a very low crime area, but they lived opposite a pub, which would put many women off answering an unexpected ring of the doorbell at night. If the caller just said the husband's name, many wives would ask "What's it about please?" If Veronica had asked that, I wonder what the murderer would have replied. After Alistair goes to the front door and returns, he doesn't know what the visit is about or why he has been handed an envelope. How can that be? I can't imagine how Alistair took the envelope without knowing what it was for. Surely, he would have asked. It also seems that, after an unreported conversation with Veronica, he went back to the front door "to see if the man was still there".

Possibly, the police don't want to reveal what was really said and have told Veronica not to do so either. However, if that is the case, it doesn't seem to have helped much.

There are cases where nutcases (medical term) kill someone just for fun. In 2009 Colin Cheetham shot Stuart Ludlam in Derbyshire, just for the hell of it. He was a gun nut. I wonder if the person who shot Alistair Wilson had no motive. He had a gun and wanted to shoot someone. If that was the case, all the analysis of bank loans, football clubs, decking etc won't help at all.

I think if he just wanted to shoot someone he would have either shot VW or AW at the first occortunity. Why hang about not knowing if AW would return, unless he knew AW would return. The killer took the envelope with him when he fled and that leads me to believe, at least in the killer's mind, that AW was supposed to return to the door and hand it back, even if AW only did that by chance on his part. JMO

 

[Konstantin]

after an unreported conversation with Veronica, he went back to the front door "to see if the man was still there".

These are really good points!

I'm confused about why, having gone to the door to talk to an apparently random stranger about a matter he doesn't understand and is given a baffling envelope, he goes to talk to Veronica about it. Leaving this chap on the doorstep. Why? What's she going to say or know about it?

The scenario as reported is so bizarre as to really suggest the police are holding back quite a bit.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I think if he just wanted to shoot someone he would have either shot VW or AW at the first occortunity. Why hang about not knowing if AW would return, unless he knew AW would return.

On the basis of what we are told, the two stage process is a mystery, whatever the scenario. If the murderer had given Alistair some sort of ultimatum (eg. "withdraw your objection to planning permission or else"), why would he let Alistair go back inside and shut the door? Why would the murderer wait outside?

And wouldn't Alistair call the police and not go back outside? According to what we are told, when Alistair went back into the house and spoke to Veronica, he was puzzled. If the murderer had threatened him, he would not have gone back outside.

"Why hang about not knowing if AW would return, unless he knew AW would return."

Did the murderer know that Alistair would return? (We are told that Alistair went back downstairs and opened the door to see if the caller was still there.)

Whatever the motive, it could be that the murderer didn't have the courage to shoot straightaway. If it was a shooting just for the hell of it, he might have drawn the line at shooting a woman (Veronica) and then he had to steel himself to shoot Alistair.

It is a mystery, but are the police and Veronica withholding something important?

 

[crazychris]

There are cases where nutcases (medical term) kill someone just for fun.

Yes a girl was pulled under a train in Germany last week. He said "if I'm going you are too" Both dead.

 

[alb1on]

There are cases where nutcases (medical term) kill someone just for fun. In 2009 Colin Cheetham shot Stuart Ludlam in Derbyshire, just for the hell of it. He was a gun nut. I wonder if the person who shot Alistair Wilson had no motive. He had a gun and wanted to shoot someone. If that was the case, all the analysis of bank loans, football clubs, decking etc won't help at all.

The difference between Cheetham and this case is that Cheetham killed with a legally held weapon (probably a .22 rimfire rifle as these are referred to in reports). In this case a pistol was used which was illegally held under UK law and, even if it was an old souvenir, the ammunition was modern dating from the late 80s/90s and so almost certainly sourced after it became illegal in the UK. This points to someone with more than a passing acquaintance with the underworld. The more I look at this case the more significant that ammunition seems to me.

 

[rvlvr]

The thing about Veronica answering the door is that Veronica had been looking after their friends’ baby, and they were due to collect the child. I believe Veronica went to the door expecting it to be them.

The Wilsons had bought their property as a hotel then ran it as a restaurant for a time, so it wasn’t your typical house. I expect that having had people coming and going from your home means you become less guarded about opening the door, even in the evening (and it was still only very early in the evening when Alistair was shot).

That said we know police have held back information and that Veronica has no doubt had to choose her words carefully in interviews over the years as a result. It’s possible police and Veronica know more than they’ve let on.

 

[rvlvr]

The difference between Cheetham and this case is that Cheetham killed with a legally held weapon (probably a .22 rimfire rifle as these are referred to in reports). In this case a pistol was used which was illegally held under UK law and, even if it was an old souvenir, the ammunition was modern dating from the late 80s/90s and so almost certainly sourced after it became illegal in the UK. This points to someone with more than a passing acquaintance with the underworld. The more I look at this case the more significant that ammunition seems to me.

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?