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

[jambers]

In terms of what the killer actually wanted. It wouldn't necessarily have to be something tangible. Perhaps it was information the killer wanted written down? An address or some bank details or something to do with "Paul"?

The perplexing aspect is that assuming that what the killer was after was related to AW's work, (eg account details, etc) - why would AW have this information at home - or at least what type of information could be 'useful' to someone from someone in AW's position?

Or was it other information? A task?

If the reason was to obtain something from, or get AW to act in some way would calling at his house be the best way to achieve this?

Could pressure not be exerted in other ways?

Either the killer achieved their goal then killed AW (As far as we know, unless AW told them something or furtively wrote something on or put something in the envelope) - they did not. Did the act of killing AW mean the 'goal' was not achieved? If the goal was important enough to kill for, what happened next? Did the person behind the visit get what they wanted some other way?

Or was AW 'silenced'?

 

[davidt]

The perplexing aspect is that assuming that what the killer was after was related to AW's work, (eg account details, etc) - why would AW have this information at home - or at least what type of information could be 'useful' to someone from someone in AW's position?

Or was it other information? A task?

If the reason was to obtain something from, or get AW to act in some way would calling at his house be the best way to achieve this?

Could pressure not be exerted in other ways?

Either the killer achieved their goal then killed AW (As far as we know, unless AW told them something or furtively wrote something on or put something in the envelope) - they did not. Did the act of killing AW mean the 'goal' was not achieved? If the goal was important enough to kill for, what happened next? Did the person behind the visit get what they wanted some other way?

Or was AW 'silenced'?

Possibly the information was something he would have in his head or perhaps he'd been under previous pressure to obtain it?

It does bother me the whole going back inside thing. We're led to believe it was AWs decision to go back outside rather than because he was expected to. He could have left the envelope in house or not gone back outside. Presumably the killer had no idea AW was going to come back out if you believe the official version of events. If that's correct it wouldn't seem the killer was particularly bothered about the envelope itself.

Everything changes of course if you think AW was always going to go back outside and this is why the killer was still there. Makes much more sense to me.

 

[davidt]

Well....

A) Killer calls at AW's house on a Sunday evening (High chance AW would be at home) - (I will touch on 'what was requested' of AW Shortly) - but, (especially having gone back inside**) there was a high chance AW would potentially call the Police (if threatened enough) - evidence from his wife is that he did go back inside, and was not back at the door very long before being shot (What changed - AW was going to check to see if the person was still there - did he at that point say "go away"?)

B) What did AW say to the person before going in the first time? (Enough to indicate 'go away I do not know what you are on about?)

I don't think the gun was disposed of randonly. Unless it was placed there at a later date the location proves the killer (or someone associated with them) was at the location within minutes of the shooting. They then had immediate access to the main road into and out of Nairn (whichever way they went). The time to reach this point would be before the emergency services were around en masse. They had to pass literally dozens of other drains to reach this point and could have deposited the gun earlier. Once on the main road no one would find a gun if they were stopped.

In regards to the envelope, the Police have never disclosed what the substance of the chat between AW and is wife was.

Clearly they don't believe she is in any danger at the house yet clearly the 'evidence' from the conversation is sensitive enough they will not release it.

Your last paragraph has always bothered me. VW is about the only person we know for sure saw the killer and might be able to identify him. Her husband has been shot dead on their doorstep. Yet as you say it's apparently safe for her to remain there. Must be a reason for this. Might it mean that the police think that whatever this is all about was settled upon AWs death.

You also mention AW not seeming to be scared before going back out. Something must have changed very quickly when he went back to the door.

I do wonder if whatever was wanted from AW was something he would only have access to whilst employed at the bank. This might be about the last chance giving he was leaving.

 

[jambers]

Possibly the information was something he would have in his head or perhaps he'd been under previous pressure to obtain it?

It does bother me the whole going back inside thing. We're led to believe it was AWs decision to go back outside rather than because he was expected to. He could have left the envelope in house or not gone back outside. Presumably the killer had no idea AW was going to come back out if you believe the official version of events. If that's correct it wouldn't seem the killer was particularly bothered about the envelope itself.

Everything changes of course if you think AW was always going to go back outside and this is why the killer was still there. Makes much more sense to me.

Yup

As with anything, one can only 'compare' to how one would react themselves. If someone was at my door - and I didn't know what they were speaking to me about, there's no way I would take an envelope from them - not a chance. "Sorry, not interested" or words to that effect before shutting the door.

The official version of events says AW was 'handed an envelope' - without a reason to accept it....

 

[jambers]

Your last paragraph has always bothered me. VW is about the only person we know for sure saw the killer and might be able to identify him. Her husband has been shot dead on their doorstep. Yet as you say it's apparently safe for her to remain there. Must be a reason for this. Might it mean that the police think that whatever this is all about was settled upon AWs death.

You also mention AW not seeming to be scared before going back out. Something must have changed very quickly when he went back to the door.

I do wonder if whatever was wanted from AW was something he would only have access to whilst employed at the bank. This might be about the last chance giving he was leaving.

VW mentions more than once "No sense of danger"; from the description of events, after going back to the door it was not long before he was shot.

The thing is, whatever was wanted from AW - he was 'bewildered' - and this is what puzzles me.

If the killer asked for something bank related - even if AW did not know any details, he would have to know it was to do with the bank (or, realistically any other subject); - could a 'demand' be made in such a way he would not understand this?

Whatever was said, clearly the substance was related to his wife - and the Police know this information but have not released it. Whether or not the Police could compel anyone on safety grounds to leave their home or not, VW has remained in the house since, being the only other person to have seen the killer.

This does not mean VW is in any way guilty of anything, but, in the absence of further information, is pertinent to discuss.

My hunch is the killer said something specific enough that (whatever their full reasons for not disclosing the information) the Police were confident the culprit would not be back....

Conversely, the Police are seemingly at a loss to piece anything together.

Does this information go some way to explaining why AW took the envelope to begin with, and why he was shot?

 

[davidt]

It also struck me when considering if this was a planned killing or not that as soon as AW was allowed to return inside the killer had lost control of the situation. As we've already discussed AW may not have come back out, rung the police, flee, left the envelope in the house and so on. Given he was apparently bewildered when he decided to go back inside his wife quite possibly might have gone with him back outside. Not too much of a stretch to imagine that when being told by her husband that he didn't know what it was all about that she might want to go and try and help. Would they both have been shot? There's no way the killer could know what would happen as soon as AW went back inside. All a bit odd if killing AW was always part of the plan.

Couple of questions about the nights event's. Firstly the original conversation was said to last "a few minutes". Has that ever been clarified? A few minutes might be two or three or as much as ten minutes depending on your viewpoint. Just wonder how much of a conversation it was.

Similarly when AW went back inside how long was he inside for? Again trying to work out how long the killer was hanging around outside for on the off chance. I'm not sure exactly what AW did before he went back outside. I've seen reports they finished putting the kids to bed and then discussed the matter. That could have taken some time and increases the puzzle of why the killer was still hanging around. Even a couple of minutes is a stretch to understand.

It does make more sense that AW was expected to come back out but even then the killer is taking a lot of risks. I suppose we always end back at the thorny issue that the entire sequence of events is based purely on the testimony of one person with nothing available to verify any of it. If that account is inaccurate in any way then everything else falls out the window.

 

[davidt]

On the subject of AWs bewilderment possibly it might have been a case of mistaken identity. We know the killer asked for AW by name so the chances of that being the case are narrowed down massively but not totally impossible.

 

[jambers]

It also struck me when considering if this was a planned killing or not that as soon as AW was allowed to return inside the killer had lost control of the situation. As we've already discussed AW may not have come back out, rung the police, flee, left the envelope in the house and so on. Given he was apparently bewildered when he decided to go back inside his wife quite possibly might have gone with him back outside. Not too much of a stretch to imagine that when being told by her husband that he didn't know what it was all about that she might want to go and try and help. Would they both have been shot? There's no way the killer could know what would happen as soon as AW went back inside. All a bit odd if killing AW was always part of the plan.

Couple of questions about the nights event's. Firstly the original conversation was said to last "a few minutes". Has that ever been clarified? A few minutes might be two or three or as much as ten minutes depending on your viewpoint. Just wonder how much of a conversation it was.

Similarly when AW went back inside how long was he inside for? Again trying to work out how long the killer was hanging around outside for on the off chance. I'm not sure exactly what AW did before he went back outside. I've seen reports they finished putting the kids to bed and then discussed the matter. That could have taken some time and increases the puzzle of why the killer was still hanging around. Even a couple of minutes is a stretch to understand.

It does make more sense that AW was expected to come back out but even then the killer is taking a lot of risks. I suppose we always end back at the thorny issue that the entire sequence of events is based purely on the testimony of one person with nothing available to verify any of it. If that account is inaccurate in any way then everything else falls out the window.

The consensus seems to be the entire event lasted around 10 minutes, but, it is believed the initial conversation lasted around 2 minutes, Alistair returned upstairs and (amongst what we don't know) asked his wife if the caller definitely asked for him. Apparently he was not at the door (second time) for too long when he was shot - the precise timings are estimates.

From listening the podcast, VW took over reading to the kids, AW then came up bewildered, went to check the doorway, and was shot - other reports say that they resolved they would talk the matter over after bedding the kids down.

As you say, once AW was back inside the killer had nothing. They had no control - and - while AW could well have been naturally curious - "Is this stranger still at the door" they could not know who would come to the door (if anyone).

 

[jambers]

On the subject of AWs bewilderment possibly it might have been a case of mistaken identity. We know the killer asked for AW by name so the chances of that being the case are narrowed down massively but not totally impossible.

Mistaken ID is a possibility although if this is the case, no other Alistair Wilson has been murdered, (That we know of) but if it was mistaken identity one would need to ask would this result in his being killed? (If the goal was to kill and Alistair Wilson why not just do so straight away?)

Would it be evident to a killer/contract person that the person they are speaking to clearly has no idea what they are talking about (The Killer's conversation?)

And the main question in all of this - why did AW take the envelope?

 

[davidt]

Yep, there are many parts of the official version of events that make little sense. Unfortunately and uncomfortably as soon as you raise any doubts or questions you are effectively questioning VWs testimony. That's all there is really. No collaborative evidence. Nothing to prove there was an envelope or to prove any of the other sequence of events that night. I don't understand why the envelope was kept quiet for so long given how little chance there is of anyone knowing anything now. Why release it now and why in such a limited way? It's not like asking if anyone remembers seeing a car or something. We don't even have the envelope, only a description. If the police really do think there are people out there who know about the envelope there must be some specific reason for thinking so and it must be of great importance. It's not going to be a member of the general public is it? And I don't imagine for a second the police believe the envelope itself is going to turn up. According to the official version AW himself decided to go back outside on the spur of the moment, not because he had to. Therefore the killer can have had no reason to think they would get the envelope back. If they weren't bothered about leaving it with AW why is it so important? They can't have expected to get it back that night once AW disappeared inside and yet the killer waited outside. Its; so hard the believe the killer was just waiting around on the off chance. None of this works or makes any sense does it? Some part of this is wrong. And we're still no closer to understanding why it went from bewilderment and no fear to extreme violence in such a short space of time. Rather than being asked to put something in the envelope was the envelope actually a message in itself?

 

[jambers]

Yep, there are many parts of the official version of events that make little sense. Unfortunately and uncomfortably as soon as you raise any doubts or questions you are effectively questioning VWs testimony. That's all there is really. No collaborative evidence. Nothing to prove there was an envelope or to prove any of the other sequence of events that night. I don't understand why the envelope was kept quiet for so long given how little chance there is of anyone knowing anything now. Why release it now and why in such a limited way? It's not like asking if anyone remembers seeing a car or something. We don't even have the envelope, only a description. If the police really do think there are people out there who know about the envelope there must be some specific reason for thinking so and it must be of great importance. It's not going to be a member of the general public is it? And I don't imagine for a second the police believe the envelope itself is going to turn up. According to the official version AW himself decided to go back outside on the spur of the moment, not because he had to. Therefore the killer can have had no reason to think they would get the envelope back. If they weren't bothered about leaving it with AW why is it so important? They can't have expected to get it back that night once AW disappeared inside and yet the killer waited outside. Its; so hard the believe the killer was just waiting around on the off chance. None of this works or makes any sense does it? Some part of this is wrong. And we're still no closer to understanding why it went from bewilderment and no fear to extreme violence in such a short space of time. Rather than being asked to put something in the envelope was the envelope actually a message in itself?

Agreed.

As an experiment, I read out loud (well under my breath in case the other half wondered what I was doing!!) your message above, allowing pauses between sentences, and in its entirety it took 1 minute and 50 seconds. Bearing in mind I have to read the message (I don't know what I am about to say) - that is a lot of information in short space of time. Best estimate of AWs first encounter was approximately two minutes. Thus we can see even allowing a few seconds less, and time for AW to pause, think and answer, a conversation of such a length can contain plenty 'information'.

AW took the envelope, and, according to reports, queried if VW knew anything about (the purpose of the visit).

If AW was bewildered why would he have a reason to take the envelope? It does not make sense. Whatever 'message' or 'name' - if you are unaware of what it means, why accept it? Even if the person said "Go on, take it" why would you not just tell them where to go?
Having said that of course we do not know the bits of the conversation not released - and have to question why the Police are not doing so - there is a practically zero chance of the case ever being solved when relevant information is witheld (and has been since day one really).

Little wonder it is so baffling.

There is mention of a plan to 'talk it over' after bedding the kids down: one has to ask - if someone appears at your door and you are genuinely unaware of what they are on about, why would you think you could 'work out what was going on?' (barring concluding some random person had been at the door for some strange reason) - if you don't know what they are there for after talking to them, surely you would not then suddenly have a light bulb moment?

 

[davidt]

I'd be interested to see if anyone can make a plausible theory fit the official version of events. I can't. I can find reasons for each individual bit but nothing that works as a whole without leaving gaping holes in it. I could argue the reason the AW took the envelope was because it was forced on him and he was threatened. But that's immediately contradicted by VW saying he was bewildered and not panicked and he then decided to go back outside. Similar applies to most other parts of the story. Given how reluctant the police have been to release information might they have also altered or deliberately issued a version of events they know not to be accurate?

 

[jambers]

I'd be interested to see if anyone can make a plausible theory fit the official version of events. I can't. I can find reasons for each individual bit but nothing that works as a whole without leaving gaping holes in it. I could argue the reason the AW took the envelope was because it was forced on him and he was threatened. But that's immediately contradicted by VW saying he was bewildered and not panicked and he then decided to go back outside. Similar applies to most other parts of the story. Given how reluctant the police have been to release information might they have also altered or deliberately issued a version of events they know not to be accurate?

Well, the version of events might be absolutely correct - except without knowing what was said between AW and the killer....

Basically, after the initial conversation with the killer AW asked his wife if he had definitely asked for him by name, and if she was aware of what the 'subject'.

He then went back down and was shot.

I do not think this means AWs wife is in any way involved, however, it is interesting to ponder the fact that the Police have specifically not released details of what was talked about (they must know at least something).

When AW left the killer, the killer must have had at least a suspicion some of what they'd said to AW would be repeated (and that the envelope would be seen) - by in all likelihood the person who had answered the door and seen them.

All well and good (to a point) until you shoot someone then leave a potential witness who can provide information to the Police.

Why would AW ask his wife if they were sure the killer asked for him by name (surely his wife would know this)

Why would AW take the envelope? Curiosity?

What could the conversation be that is so sensitive the Police won't release it?

 

[davidt]

Well tbh I agree the missing details of those two conversations are a major problem. However even then I can't make it fit. I know I'm sounding like a broken record but the business of AW going back in to the house and back out doesn't work for me. If the whole thing did take around ten minutes and the first conversation was said to be around two minutes and he was shot soon after he went back out that suggests he was back in the house for around five to seven minutes. Quite a long conversation with his wife.

After that period of time why would he think the killer would be there and why did the killer hang around increasing his chances of being seen by others?

Only way I can make it work is if, as someone has already suggested, AW mislead his wife. May have told her he was going to check when in fact he was always going back out and the killer was expecting him. It still means the official story is wrong but honestly so. Of course we then go back to wondering what it was that meant he went back out and why the killer knew he would.

 

[jambers]

Well tbh I agree the missing details of those two conversations are a major problem. However even then I can't make it fit. I know I'm sounding like a broken record but the business of AW going back in to the house and back out doesn't work for me. If the whole thing did take around ten minutes and the first conversation was said to be around two minutes and he was shot soon after he went back out that suggests he was back in the house for around five to seven minutes. Quite a long conversation with his wife.

After that period of time why would he think the killer would be there and why did the killer hang around increasing his chances of being seen by others?

Only way I can make it work is if, as someone has already suggested, AW mislead his wife. May have told her he was going to check when in fact he was always going back out and the killer was expecting him. It still means the official story is wrong but honestly so. Of course we then go back to wondering what it was that meant he went back out and why the killer knew he would.

I agree with your sentiment.

As a counter - I cannot see any reason why AW would need (or want ) to mislead his wife - I mean he's at the door, and presumably if the killer wanted something he could have given any excuse under the sun to explain what he was doing (He would not need to act confused surely?)

One would imagine, with a stranger at the door, (you don't know what they are on about) - you would tell them so and make it clear they should go (and probably watch them doing so) - you would be pretty sure they were away would you not?

Did AW say "Hold on I don't know what you are on about, I will check with my wife?"

Did the killer say "I will wait?"

Which leads back to the envelope - why would AW take it? An item given to you by a stranger, empty with someone elses' name on it?

 

[jambers]

Theory:

Let's assume the basic story is 100% correct.

We assume the caller was related to AW's work - or perhaps some illicit relationship.

What if the conversation related to something closer to home?

AW would surely not be bewildered by a banking related conversation (even if it wasn't something he was involved with, he'd surely know if a topic related to finance?) - if it did and he was still bewildered, why would he ask his wife about it?

On the other hand, could the couple (or AW) have had some recent (or even not so recent) encounter in or around Nairn, which just happened to connect into 'something'? Was something innocently commented on, advice given or such like?

An innocuous conversation which inadvertently led to AW's death?

A conversation related to the 'area' or local entity might, in AWs mind connect to his wife in some way (Perhaps they'd been somewhere, or she had)?

This still can't explain the other factors mind you?

 

[davidt]

Obviously the temptation is to automatically assume whatever happened was related to his work as a banker. May not have anything to do with it all. There are curiosities such as why he was abandoning his banking career when this was apparently what he'd wanted to do all his life. Is it a coincidence he was killed at this time.

I'm also curious about the killer. Was he just a hired third party or directly part of whatever was going on? He asked for AW but we don't know if he knew AW or not. AW asked his wife if the caller had definitely asked for him by name which suggests AW did not recognise him. It's also odd that the killer didn't seem bothered about being seen or identified. Happy to hang around and from what I've read he didn't exactly run off after the killing. What happened so quickly during the second conversation that led to the shooting? Is it possible AW threatened the killer who reacted by drawing his gun?

Everything from the official version suggests AW didn't have a clue what was going on. He clearly told his wife a lot more than has been released. It might just be someone with a grudge over a failed banking arrangement or something. But then all the envelope stuff wouldn't make any sense. I know there was some talk about the failed hotel business and whether money might be owed over that.

Or perhaps we have it all backwards and the caller owed AW money or AW was actually involved in something and the killer had been on the receiving end and was at the end of their tether and had gone there as a last attempt to resolve something. AW refuses and the killer snaps? We assume AW was on the end of something but we can't rule out that it might have been completely the other way around.

 

[jambers]

Working from the bottom:

If the killer was visiting AW to ask AW to 'call something off' or resolve something, it's hard to imagine he (AW) would be bewildered by this (He would surely know what the caller wanted?) - he would have no reason to speak to his wife far less take an envelope in (assuming AW was 'up to something') then he'd clearly kept it quiet up to that point (from his family) (?) - all he needed to do was tell his wife anything about the visit (not ask her about it);

AW had no need to show his wife the envelope, even if he had to take something in to the house (or put something in it) - and this is the part I can't fathom out.

Did the killer speak in such a way (initially) Alistair did not cotton on until the second trip to the door? (Or did the killer shoot an unsuspecting AW?)

I can (Personally) only conceive of an 'innocent' reason for accepting the envelope - did the killer perhaps use words like "Gift" or "Donation", expecting AW would know what he meant?

Did AW take the envelope thinking maybe his wife had said they would donate to something?

If you are standing at your front door I can't see how you could be pressed into taking an envelope, if you've no fear but simply don't know what it's about - you would be more likely to tell the person to go away (you don't know them) - and watch them leave - why would you take the envelope (which is empty) then a bit later go to check if the person was still there? Definitely not unless you are up to something yourself, or you are believing it is something innocent?

 

[davidt]

I think the envelope has much more significance than we know. The police had kept quiet about it for a long time and still have refused to elaborate on it. Added to that they won’t comment on the conversation between VW and AW. And why release that information now? You have to think there’s some very specific information they have that they don’t want in the public domain. I doubt it’s the envelope itself. After all it appears the killer wasn’t bothered about getting it back. More likely it’s very existence is the important bit and what that means and may represent together with the word “Paul”. All that of course assuming there ever was an envelope. To me it seems the police want the envelopes existence known for a purpose. They want someone to know they are aware of it.

Similarly AW being bewildered is something we assumed that happened. It cannot be substantiated. Nor for that matter can it be substantiated that AW did go back in and come back out again.

In terms of why took AW the envelope. Again I wonder if the caller was a hired third party or directly part of what was going on. Did he hand it over saying “so and so told me to give you this” believing AW would know what that meant. Perhaps AW did recognise a name or something in the conversation he had but didn’t understand the bigger picture. So he took the envelope on that basis but would still be bewildered overall. If someone gave you something telling you someone you knew had asked them to give it you, you might take it without understanding why it had been sent to you.

There’s still a big problem understanding what the killer hung around and why he shot AW. What happened in those few moments that led to such violence? Everything points to him hanging around because he expected AW to return. Problem is everything else suggests that wasn’t likely.

 

[jambers]

You have to ask why the Police didn't mention the envelope for so long. Undoubtedly the VW AW conversation is very important; however, the problem with the envelope is that let's say the killer said "So and so asked me to give you this", AW would then be in no doubt (if he knew the name given) the killer had asked for him: this is where it it sticks: if AW recognised any part of what the killer said he can't have thought the killer wasn't there to see him?

"Bewildered by what the Gentleman had said" Was the quote from VW about Alistair's demeanour (and him asking if he had defnitely asked for him): if AW didn't go back in then this would be lies - there seems no reason why there would be - had AW not come back in, what would be the reason to say he had? Would it not be easier to just say he'd been shot when he went to the door 1st time?