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

[Mickymack10]

But....the smoking ban was coming in I think, so they really wanted a covered area to bring in business, serve more food etc etc. Were they planning to extend the pub on the decking footprint eventually? Was there more to it? Was there more going on? Was AW mad that the Havelock was doing well, yet the B&B business he had tried to set up in his house hadn't? I'm going round in circles now, I'm going to have a rest till tomorow eve!!!! My Michael Ross theory was far simpler!

They were allowed to keep the decking and it's still there to this day, so it had no knock on effect with what they were trying to achieve, I could get it to a certain extent had the decking been ripped up and the hotel lost money over it, but it's always remained in place to this very day.

An objection to the planning permission wasn't going to lose the hotel thousands of pounds worth of profit, nor cost them any serious money.

As mentioned it was already under retrospective application, so the council were already aware of the situation before Alistair lodged his form of complaint directly to them.

I just can't visualise an angry punter taken it upon himself to go round to AW door to straighten him out after hearing it through the local pub landlord that AW complained to the council over the decking.

Or are we going to believe that AB (Pub owner) thought that the only way this whole situation could be resolved was to hire a hitman and blast AW to death over it, then that would resolve the matter? It's a stretch to far in my opinion and it didn't happen.

I also don't get why people say AW wasn't meant to die? And something went wrong? Based on what evidence? He was shot 3 times, twice to the chest and once to the head, so clearly he was meant to die.

I think that claim could hold a little bit of merit had it only been one bullet that was fired and it ruptured a main artery, but come on he was meant to die.

This case will never be solved now, the Police missed opportunities to persue lines of enquires that weren't followed up properly, they refused outside help from criminologists and members of the public who have tried there upmost to assist them.
They didn't hire a forensic accountant who would have been able to have checked AW workplace from top to bottom, instead they hired there own Police force who were under qualified and were clearly out of there depth when dealing with looking into loans, and lending.
Near 20 years later they still won't give the public a true account of what actually happened on the doorstep that night, and it seems they don't want the public to know anything about the envelope or what was actually said between VW and AW, it's very much a case of the less we know the better.

As I said earlier the Police had known all about the decking complaint for the past, near enough 20 years, so why do they see this as maybe being significant now? They have no evidence to support there own admission, and there covering old ground.
My gut feeling is telling me they have a new superintendent who has taken the case on, and he's trying to show us that the Police force is still being proactive over this case, whilst trying to make a name for himself as the new superintendent.
I hope I'm wrong but my gut instincts is telling me I'm right.

The truth

 

[Mickymack10]

They were allowed to keep the decking and it's still there to this day, so it had no knock on effect with what they were trying to achieve, I could get it to a certain extent had the decking been ripped up and the hotel lost money over it, but it's always remained in place to this very day.

An objection to the planning permission wasn't going to lose the hotel thousands of pounds worth of profit, nor cost them any serious money.

As mentioned it was already under retrospective application, so the council were already aware of the situation before Alistair lodged his form of complaint directly to them.

I just can't visualise an angry punter taken it upon himself to go round to AW door to straighten him out after hearing it through the local pub landlord that AW complained to the council over the decking.

Or are we going to believe that AB (Pub owner) thought that the only way this whole situation could be resolved was to hire a hitman and blast AW to death over it, then that would resolve the matter? It's a stretch to far in my opinion and it didn't happen.

I also don't get why people say AW wasn't meant to die? And something went wrong? Based on what evidence? He was shot 3 times, twice to the chest and once to the head, so clearly he was meant to die.

I think that claim could hold a little bit of merit had it only been one bullet that was fired and it ruptured a main artery, but come on he was meant to die.

This case will never be solved now, the Police missed opportunities to persue lines of enquires that weren't followed up properly, they refused outside help from criminologists and members of the public who have tried there upmost to assist them.
They didn't hire a forensic accountant who would have been able to have checked AW workplace from top to bottom, instead they hired there own Police force who were under qualified and were clearly out of there depth when dealing with looking into loans, and lending.
Near 20 years later they still won't give the public a true account of what actually happened on the doorstep that night, and it seems they don't want the public to know anything about the envelope or what was actually said between VW and AW, it's very much a case of the less we know the better.

As I said earlier the Police had known all about the decking complaint for the past, near enough 20 years, so why do they see this as maybe being significant now? They have no evidence to support there own admission, and there covering old ground.
My gut feeling is telling me they have a new superintendent who has taken the case on, and he's trying to show us that the Police force is still being proactive over this case, whilst trying to make a name for himself as the new superintendent.
I hope I'm wrong but my gut instincts is telling me I'm right.

 

[touch]

An objection to the planning permission wasn't going to lose the hotel thousands of pounds worth of profit, nor cost them any serious money.

I wasn't able to find any confirmation that the "decking" is the same today as it was then, but i'll take your word for it. So this is what we're talking about:

It's not a few decking boards with some garden chairs on it! That's a substantial construction and could easily have cost 10s of thousands to build - even at 2004 prices. It would also cost a lot to dismantle and dispose of. That's before considering any lost revenue from not having the decking (it shows that if it's still there almost 20 years later then it's clearly worth having it). It could be a significant financial loss to the business.

 

[Mickymack10]

I wasn't able to find any confirmation that the "decking" is the same today as it was then, but i'll take your word for it. So this is what we're talking about:

It's not a few decking boards with some garden chairs on it! That's a substantial construction and could easily have cost 10s of thousands to build - even at 2004 prices. It would also cost a lot to dismantle and dispose of. That's before considering any lost revenue from not having the decking (it shows that if it's still there almost 20 years later then it's clearly worth having it). It could be a significant financial loss to the business.

Ofcourse it would have cost them money to build the decking, it was an investment the wanted to make, they clearly had enough money to finance the project at the time of construction.

The decking has remained there since it was constructed, modifications have been to it but the foundation has remained the same.

I think it's important to remember the pub landlord (AB) was given AW letter of appeal on Saturday the 27th of November, the day before AW was shot. It was already under retrospective action so someone else had already complained to the council over it.

If we go along with this theory then we are supposed to believe that AB decided within 24 hours to hire an assassin to kill AW and he thought that would resolve the matter, when it wouldn't, as it was already under retrospective action by the council.

The fact the decking remains there to this day answers the whole debate, it didn't get ripped away, it therefore didn't cost AB or the builder's hired to construct it, any money.

Also the letter that the council sent to AB with AW complaint lodged inside, wouldn't have stated what the outcome was going to be. They would have most likely stated that the decking was under a form of retrospective application through another complaint that was made to them, but they wanted to bring those appeals to his attention.

There would have been no mention in the letter that because of his breach they whole decking area would have to go.

We would then have to believe that AB is an
They were allowed to keep the decking and it's still there to this day, so it had no knock on effect with what they were trying to achieve, I could get it to a certain extent had the decking been ripped up and the hotel lost money over it, but it's always remained in place to this very day.

An objection to the planning permission wasn't going to lose the hotel thousands of pounds worth of profit, nor cost them any serious money.

As mentioned it was already under retrospective application, so the council were already aware of the situation before Alistair lodged his form of complaint directly to them.

I just can't visualise an angry punter taken it upon himself to go round to AW door to straighten him out after hearing it through the local pub landlord that AW complained to the council over the decking.

Or are we going to believe that AB (Pub owner) thought that the only way this whole situation could be resolved was to hire a hitman and blast AW to death over it, then that would resolve the matter? It's a stretch to far in my opinion and it didn't happen.

I also don't get why people say AW wasn't meant to die? And something went wrong? Based on what evidence? He was shot 3 times, twice to the chest and once to the head, so clearly he was meant to die.

I think that claim could hold a little bit of merit had it only been one bullet that was fired and it ruptured a main artery, but come on he was meant to die.

This case will never be solved now, the Police missed opportunities to persue lines of enquires that weren't followed up properly, they refused outside help from criminologists and members of the public who have tried there upmost to assist them.
They didn't hire a forensic accountant who would have been able to have checked AW workplace from top to bottom, instead they hired there own Police force who were under qualified and were clearly out of there depth when dealing with looking into loans, and lending.
Near 20 years later they still won't give the public a true account of what actually happened on the doorstep that night, and it seems they don't want the public to know anything about the envelope or what was actually said between VW and AW, it's very much a case of the less we know the better.

As I said earlier the Police had known all about the decking complaint for the past, near enough 20 years, so why do they see this as maybe being significant now? They have no evidence to support there own admission, and there covering old ground.
My gut feeling is telling me they have a new superintendent who has taken the case on, and he's trying to show us that the Police force is still being proactive over this case, whilst trying to make a name for himself as the new superintendent.
I hope I'm wrong but my gut instincts is telling me I'm right.

The truth

Quote Reply
Report •••
Prev

• 1
• …
• 27

Your post will be publicly visible, please type responsibly.​

BoldItalicMore options…

Insert linkInsert imageMore options…
UndoMore options…
Preview

Font sizeText colorFont familyAlignment

• Align left
• Align center
• Align right
• Justify text

Paragraph formatStrike-throughUnderlineInline spoilerInline code

SmiliesQuoteInsert videoMediaInsert tableInsert horizontal lineSpoilerCode
RedoToggle BB codeRemove formattingDrafts


Write your reply...
Post reply
Attach files
Share

report this ad

Shannan Gilbert Family Attorney Discusses 911 Call
JD and AH Trial Update!
Live at 10 PM ET

​

Latest posts​

• K
  UK - Alistair Wilson, 30, murdered at home, Nairn, Scotland, 28 Nov 2004
  • Latest: Kiri
  • 
    
  • Today at 9:10 PM
  • Crimes in the News
• E
  AZ AZ - Solomon, WhtFem, 13-16, UP77029, on ranch land

I wasn't able to find any confirmation that the "decking" is the same today as it was then, but i'll take your word for it. So this is what we're talking about:

It's not a few decking boards with some garden chairs on it! That's a substantial construction and could easily have cost 10s of thousands to build - even at 2004 prices. It would also cost a lot to dismantle and dispose of. That's before considering any lost revenue from not having the decking (it shows that if it's still there almost 20 years later then it's clearly worth having it). It could be a significant financial loss to the business.

Ofcourse the decking area would have came at a cost, I didn't say it wasn't, but it was a business investment that the hotel clearly had funds for at the time to fund there project.

The decking has changed over the years with modifications been made to it, but it's always been there since it was constructed. The fact it's remained there to this day proves that it didn't come as a severe financial loss due to a complaint that was made.

It's worth noting, the letter that was served to AB (pub landlord) by the council on the 27th November (night before the murder) was only stating that the decking was under retrospective application and that they had an official complaint by AW.

There would have been no threats made by the council at that point, that he had to rip up the whole decking, they were simply making him aware of the situation.

So again if we go along with this theory we would then have to then believe that AB had an overextravagant personality that was out of control so much so that he decided there and then "i'm going to hire someone to kill him over this", I'm going to have him hit tomorrow night and that's the end of that" Seems borderline delusional in my opinion.

Here's the thing had there been any mention of the decking to AW on the doorstep by the gunman, then he would have relayed this information to his wife when he returned back inside with the envelope.
Also are we seriously going to be that insulting to AW memory that he couldn't grasp what was going on, if it was indeed over his decking complaint?

 

[Fidobell]

Your welcome. I really like Nate you can tell he's spent years studying this case and put alot of passion into it. He also backs up alot of his theories up with Police statements from very early on in the case which seem to not be spoken about now, and there's definitely alot of contradiction with them aswell.
It's a fantastic read. I hope you enjoy it, let us know what you think of the book.

Thanks

Just finished reading this book , highly recommend if your interested in this case .

 

[cortina]

I can understand v, but what I dont understand is why the police at the very beginning, when they apparently had no idea what the murder was about, allowed her to stay until they'd investigated a bit...admittedly this is based on the fact that I haven't heard that they put pressure on her...presumably there'd be a safe house where she could have stayed for free for a few months

 

[cortina]

I can understand v, but what I dont understand is why the police at the very beginning, when they apparently had no idea what the murder was about, allowed her to stay until they'd investigated a bit...admittedly this is based on the fact that I haven't heard that they put pressure on her...presumably there'd be a safe house where she could have stayed for free for a few months

that post was in reply ton kiri about Veronica staying in the house...sorry

 

[Kiri]

What a strange case. If it was a proff. hit man, why oh why did he let AW wonder off back into house??? That bit I don't get? He may have had to come back and try again another day! Seems such an odd think to do when trying to murder someone in the street! Darn it, missed, I'll pop back over later!!! So he must have really wanted something putting in that damn envelope....were the police and VW corresponding to a suspect behind the scenes after? I.e they know who may be involved and were discussing further payments etc?!? Like a trap? Was the house being watched by police marksmen just in case he came back for whatever he wanted, then they could get him!!! Very risky with 2 young kids in house! VW seems a strong woman! Think I'd have gone into witness protection, the boys were young enough to start over, somewhere new.

 

[cortina]

im just amazed that the police have got. away. without having a proper financial investigation, although it could have been something aw was unable to do something that he. had. given a verbal promise to do...and that something was never officially mentioned in the banks records...he was. moving to another job where the regulations would also have been tighter...v said he felt disappointed. that he wouldn't be able to help customers the way he used to...he. may have been thinking of one or more in. particular...he must have felt frustrated about certain customers there, because conditions wouldn't have been very different at. his new job, but he. hadn't developed a personal connection with customers there.

if Micky. is correct and. the gunman did what he was supposed to do, then his brief. must have been to try and get aw to do something and, if he. wouldn't, to kill him...so he. did that...but it looks as if he risked the whole thing going up in smoke by letting him go. back inside...aw could have called the police, say that the person outside. was threatening him etc...unless he knew the police wouldn't do much etc...I just think it was risky to kill him then rather. than wait for a quieter time...but thats perhaps why id be no good at the job.

I think it was some kind of banking motive, but. you can't. rule. out anything, not even a random killing...ive been in a situation where I had been talking for 20 minutes with someone id known for 2 years...it was quite rational and then they said something quite calmly that frightened me to death.

the police are obviously relying on an insider coming forward...or hoping the whole thing disappears altogether

 

[cortina]

if it was a business connection and. they wanted money from aw, I imagine the proposed. deal was for him to fiddle some for them from his next job...they must have known he couldn't do it from his. own resources

 

[Kiri]

if it was a business connection and. they wanted money from aw, I imagine the proposed. deal was for him to fiddle some for them from his next job...they must have known he couldn't do it from his. own resources

His next job was for finance/developmemt dept. in BRE (we know it was BRE, but guessing exactly what his role was). They are a big company with possible links to local development, planning etc.

 

[cortina]

thanks...wheels within wheels perhaps

 

[davidt]

I've just read Nate Campbells book.

There's a few things of note. The size of the envelope changed over the years. Very interesting to see an original police quote saying the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents. That's a direct contradiction of the current official line that the reason AW went back outside was because he was bewildered and confused by what was going on.

The author rightly brings up tbe issue of whether or not a professional hit man was involved. The are pro and cons on both sides of that and neither option really fits the official line. I wish both books had explored more of this. The idea why the killer let AW return in to the house with the envelope does make sense if AW was expected to come back out. However he clearly was not, according to the official line. I'd liked to have seen more discussion of this. To me it's the biggest elephant in the room. Did AW go back out on tbe spur of the moment and if he did why was the gunman still there? If it wasn't spur of the moment why does the official line say otherwise?

He mentions the story of the possibility of AW borrowing £50k from dodgy sources in return for something. He names three papers who ran that story. He doesn't say where the story originated from though, I've seen this mentioned a few times. Does anyone know where it cane from? What was the original source?

Again a lot is made of banking practices at the time but I still don't see any actual evidence linking AW.

You do end up feeling frustrated. You get the feeling there's a lot held back that is really unhelpful. You don't know how much of the official line is a straight account of what happened and how much may have been altered or added for other purposes. Clearly a lot of it is incompatible with the official line.

 

[Mickymack10]

if it was a business connection and. they wanted money from aw, I imagine the proposed. deal was for him to fiddle some for them from his next job...they must have known he couldn't do

I've just read Nate Campbells book.

There's a few things of note. The size of the envelope changed over the years. Very interesting to see an original police quote saying the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents. That's a direct contradiction of the current official line that the reason AW went back outside was because he was bewildered and confused by what was going on.

The author rightly brings up tbe issue of whether or not a professional hit man was involved. The are pro and cons on both sides of that and neither option really fits the official line. I wish both books had explored more of this. The idea why the killer let AW return in to the house with the envelope does make sense if AW was expected to come back out. However he clearly was not, according to the official line. I'd liked to have seen more discussion of this. To me it's the biggest elephant in the room. Did AW go back out on tbe spur of the moment and if he did why was the gunman still there? If it wasn't spur of the moment why does the official line say otherwise?

He mentions the story of the possibility of AW borrowing £50k from dodgy sources in return for something. He names three papers who ran that story. He doesn't say where the story originated from though, I've seen this mentioned a few times. Does anyone know where it cane from? What was the original source?

Again a lot is made of banking practices at the time but I still don't see any actual evidence linking AW.

You do end up feeling frustrated. You get the feeling there's a lot held back that is really unhelpful. You don't know how much of the official line is a straight account of what happened and how much may have been altered or added for other purposes. Clearly a lot of it is incompatible with the official line.

it from his. own resources

His next job was for finance/developmemt dept. in BRE (we know it was BRE, but guessing exactly what his role was). They are a big company with possible links to local development, planningio

His next job was for finance/developmemt dept. in BRE (we know it was BRE, but guessing exactly what his role was). They are a big company with possible links to local development, planning etc.

Not unless his change of job had huge financial ramifications for the people

I've just read Nate Campbells book.

There's a few things of note. The size of the envelope changed over the years. Very interesting to see an original police quote saying the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents. That's a direct contradiction of the current official line that the reason AW went back outside was because he was bewildered and confused by what was going on.

The author rightly brings up tbe issue of whether or not a professional hit man was involved. The are pro and cons on both sides of that and neither option really fits the official line. I wish both books had explored more of this. The idea why the killer let AW return in to the house with the envelope does make sense if AW was expected to come back out. However he clearly was not, according to the official line. I'd liked to have seen more discussion of this. To me it's the biggest elephant in the room. Did AW go back out on tbe spur of the moment and if he did why was the gunman still there? If it wasn't spur of the moment why does the official line say otherwise?

He mentions the story of the possibility of AW borrowing £50k from dodgy sources in return for something. He names three papers who ran that story. He doesn't say where the story originated from though, I've seen this mentioned a few times. Does anyone know where it cane from? What was the original source?

Again a lot is made of banking practices at the time but I still don't see any actual evidence linking AW.

You do end up feeling frustrated. You get the feeling there's a lot held back that is really unhelpful. You don't know how much of the official line is a straight account of what happened and how much may have been altered or added for other purposes. Clearly a lot of it is incompatible with the official line.

I honestly don't buy it for one second with regards to the detectives making out that AW had finished with the gunman when he returned back inside with the envelope.
Let's for a second put ourselves in AW position that night. A seemingly unknown man turns upto his door hands him an envelope with a name on it that he doesn't recognise. AW according to detectives couldn't understand the visit or why he was given a blue empty envelope with the name "Paul" on it. If we go along with this version of events that have been portrayed to us, we must then believe that AW amidst this confusion and bewilderment decided he couldn't conclude or gauge what was going on Infront of him. If we still go along with the version of events the Police want us to believe,

 

[Mickymack10]

Let's for a second put ourselves in AW position that night and go along with the chain of events that the detectives want us all to believe.

A seemingly unknown man turns upto his door hands him an empty envelope with a name on it that he doesn't recognise. AW, according to detectives couldn't understand the visit or why he was given a blue empty envelope with the name "Paul" on it.



If we go along with this version of events that have been portrayed to us, we must then believe that AW amidst his confusion and bewilderment, decided he couldn't conclude or gauge what was going on Infront of him, he refused to be confrontational towards the stranger so decided to wish him a good night and closed the door behind him.



He decides to take the envelope back inside and asks his wife for help in trying to understand what the visit was about, he show's her the empty envelope and expresses his bewilderment over it and tells her he didn't know the man.



When she can't give him any explanation or answers as to what happened she encourages him to help her get the boy's down to bed then afterwards they can try sussing it out between them what the visit, and the mysteries envelope signified.



AW would most likely said something along the lines of "don't worry he's gone anyway". To his Wife. It's the only thing that makes sense to me as to why the Police are under this assumption that he had finished talking with the man on the doorstep.



Now this is when the whole sequence of events contradicts everything and makes no sense whatsoever.

After initially agreeing with his wife to put the kids down to sleep, AW quickly has a change of heart and decides to nip back downstairs to double check if the gunman was still there, he goes against his wife's suggestion and leaves her with the kids.



Almost as a matter of urgency he goes back downstairs to see if this apparent stranger who he told his wife he was finished speaking to was still there. And low and behold against all the odds the gunman is still there. Coincidence? I think not.



Something bothered him enough to go back downstairs, even though the Police and VW try glossing over that fact. Now unless AW was really naive and lacked common sense or awareness , which he clearly didn't, then I think it's well within reason to believe that AW knew what was going on and most likely wasn't forthcoming in being honest with his wife either, it would explain his strange behaviour when he came back inside, along with his sudden change of thought, he seemed very indecisive and quite erratic.



It would explain the lack of information we have with the envelope, the unknown exact conversation between AW and the gunman. And also the his last minute decision to go back downstairs.



However I still believe VW knows a great deal more , it wouldn't surprise me if AW did let slip to her that it was to do with a business deal, and that he would deal with it when he went into work the next day. If he was involved in illegal practices within his workplace, then he wouldn't want anyone to find out including his wife.







I
[/QUOTE]

 

[davidt]

Let's for a second put ourselves in AW position that night and go along with the chain of events that the detectives want us all to believe.

A seemingly unknown man turns up to his door hands him an empty envelope with a name on it that he doesn't recognise. AW, according to detectives couldn't understand the visit or why he was given a blue empty envelope with the name "Paul" on it.



If we go along with this version of events that have been portrayed to us, we must then believe that AW amidst his confusion and bewilderment, decided he couldn't conclude or gauge what was going on Infront of him, he refused to be confrontational towards the stranger so decided to wish him a good night and closed the door behind him.



He decides to take the envelope back inside and asks his wife for help in trying to understand what the visit was about, he show's her the empty envelope and expresses his bewilderment over it and tells her he didn't know the man.



When she can't give him any explanation or answers as to what happened she encourages him to help her get the boy's down to bed then afterwards they can try sussing it out between them what the visit, and the mysteries envelope signified.



AW would most likely said something along the lines of "don't worry he's gone anyway". To his Wife. It's the only thing that makes sense to me as to why the Police are under this assumption that he had finished talking with the man on the doorstep.



Now this is when the whole sequence of events contradicts everything and makes no sense whatsoever.

After initially agreeing with his wife to put the kids down to sleep, AW quickly has a change of heart and decides to nip back downstairs to double check if the gunman was still there, he goes against his wife's suggestion and leaves her with the kids.



Almost as a matter of urgency he goes back downstairs to see if this apparent stranger who he told his wife he was finished speaking to was still there. And low and behold against all the odds the gunman is still there. Coincidence? I think not.



Something bothered him enough to go back downstairs, even though the Police and VW try glossing over that fact. Now unless AW was really naïve and lacked common sense or awareness , which he clearly didn't, then I think it's well within reason to believe that AW knew what was going on and most likely wasn't forthcoming in being honest with his wife either, it would explain his strange behaviour when he came back inside, along with his sudden change of thought, he seemed very indecisive and quite erratic.



It would explain the lack of information we have with the envelope, the unknown exact conversation between AW and the gunman. And also the his last minute decision to go back downstairs.



However I still believe VW knows a great deal more , it wouldn't surprise me if AW did let slip to her that it was to do with a business deal, and that he would deal with it when he went into work the next day. If he was involved in illegal practices within his workplace, then he wouldn't want anyone to find out including his wife.







I

[/QUOTE]
FWIW I don't buy it either. What really puzzles me is that the official line is so blindingly obviously odd that they must know anyone spending more than a couple of minutes on it is going see it doesn't make sense. I don't for a second believe the police are unaware how it looks. For whatever reason they must be happy with this.

It makes much more sense if AW was always going to come back out. But if that if is the case then a huge chunk of the official line is wrong and if that is wrong what else in the official version is wrong as well. It's very hard to believe the gunman hung around on the off chance. If the intention was always to kill AW I don't see a professional hitman allowing his intended victim to return back in to his property unless he's very confident AW is going come back out. If that's the case he must have very good reason for thinking that. That doesn't tally with the official version though.

Perhaps there never was an envelope, perhaps there was only one conversation on the doorstep and AW didn't go back in at all. If we can't trust one bit why should we trust any of it?

I can't reconcile the original statement that the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents with the current version that it was unopened and empty. Which is it?

Police refuse to divulge the contents of the conversation between AW and VW but say it throws no light on the murder itself. Given that presumably the whole conversation was about the envelope and the stranger at the doorstep how is it possible the conversation throws no light on the murder?

 

[Taskforce88]

But....the smoking ban was coming in I think, so they really wanted a covered area to bring in business, serve more food etc etc. Were they planning to extend the pub on the decking footprint eventually? Was there more to it? Was there more going on? Was AW mad that the Havelock was doing well, yet the B&B business he had tried to set up in his house hadn't? I'm going round in circles now, I'm going to have a rest till tomorow eve!!!! My Michael Ross theory was far simpler!

The smoking ban in Scotland was introduced in March 2006 but the push for it really began in 1999. It was just to be finalised at the time of AW's murder.

 

[Kiri]

FWIW I don't buy it either. What really puzzles me is that the official line is so blindingly obviously odd that they must know anyone spending more than a couple of minutes on it is going see it doesn't make sense. I don't for a second believe the police are unaware how it looks. For whatever reason they must be happy with this.

It makes much more sense if AW was always going to come back out. But if that if is the case then a huge chunk of the official line is wrong and if that is wrong what else in the official version is wrong as well. It's very hard to believe the gunman hung around on the off chance. If the intention was always to kill AW I don't see a professional hitman allowing his intended victim to return back in to his property unless he's very confident AW is going come back out. If that's the case he must have very good reason for thinking that. That doesn't tally with the official version though.

Perhaps there never was an envelope, perhaps there was only one conversation on the doorstep and AW didn't go back in at all. If we can't trust one bit why should we trust any of it?

I can't reconcile the original statement that the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents with the current version that it was unopened and empty. Which is it?

Police refuse to divulge the contents of the conversation between AW and VW but say it throws no light on the murder itself. Given that presumably the whole conversation was about the envelope and the stranger at the doorstep how is it possible the conversation throws no light on the murder?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Kiri]

FWIW I don't buy it either. What really puzzles me is that the official line is so blindingly obviously odd that they must know anyone spending more than a couple of minutes on it is going see it doesn't make sense. I don't for a second believe the police are unaware how it looks. For whatever reason they must be happy with this.

It makes much more sense if AW was always going to come back out. But if that if is the case then a huge chunk of the official line is wrong and if that is wrong what else in the official version is wrong as well. It's very hard to believe the gunman hung around on the off chance. If the intention was always to kill AW I don't see a professional hitman allowing his intended victim to return back in to his property unless he's very confident AW is going come back out. If that's the case he must have very good reason for thinking that. That doesn't tally with the official version though.

Perhaps there never was an envelope, perhaps there was only one conversation on the doorstep and AW didn't go back in at all. If we can't trust one bit why should we trust any of it?

I can't reconcile the original statement that the envelope was unopened because AW was already aware of its contents with the current version that it was unopened and empty. Which is it?

Police refuse to divulge the contents of the conversation between AW and VW but say it throws no light on the murder itself. Given that presumably the whole conversation was about the envelope and the stranger at the doorstep how is it possible the conversation throws no light on the murder?

[/QUOTE]
It is VW that says this happened. I.e that AW went back down an out again, with the blue envelope to see if the man still there, then she heard shots and ran down. She says this is what happened. I'll find a source, but I'm sure it's in the podcast.

 

[Kiri]

Just re-listened to VW. She definitely says he came up to her with a blue envelope after he closed door (she doesn't discuss if open/closed/size/name etc, just it was a blue envelope). I listened to STV clips. Nothing major, only short clips. I had hoped to find the full Unsolved programme, but it's unavailable!!! At least these are from the horses mouths, direct quotes etc! Also, there was no real conversation between A and V, just confusion. Hence A going down again. That is what VW states here.