Spy Murder "Too Sensitive For Court"

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
It's possible he was the victim of agents of an officially "friendly" power and any cover up is aimed at avoiding a diplomatic incident.
they being MI6 !!!

and he was a case of friendly fire ?

You really have to weigh up who can cover this up.
and why he may have been needed to be silenced

lets ask a few questions

does every one agree he didnt kill himself by accident ? thats a start ?
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
Jonfairway said:
does every one agree he didnt kill himself by accident ? thats a start ?
We all agree it's fishy. That's it. That's the only conclusion (if you could call it that) that's possible from the available evidence.

In other words, an attempt to link this to a nefarious conspiracy is just guesswork and scuttlebutt based on nothing.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
In other words, an attempt to link this to a nefarious conspiracy is just guesswork and scuttlebutt based on nothing.
and your happy to just let it ride too

chap gets murdered most probably and no one gives a hoot about removal of evidence for example ( this was admitted BTW )

does that sand get gritty between the teeth ?
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,016
Reaction score
189
Points
114
Jonfairway said:
...

does every one agree he didnt kill himself by accident ? thats a start ?
Does stretch one's credulity, rather.
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
8,944
Points
294
Location
Midwich
Sergeant_Pluck said:
I find it faintly amusing that anyone would consider the locking-himself-in theory in the first place. Someone killed him, stuck him in the bag as a means to transport the body with relative lack of suspicion (presumably a rolled-up carpet wasn't available)...
I've wondered, thinking about this possibility, if rather than being disturbed the alleged perpetrator had simply underestimated the weight of a human body and had to give up on the idea.

I have no idea what Gareth Williams actually weighed, but my impression is that he was a relatively slight figure. However, even a relatively lightweight male of 10 stone (63 kilos-ish) is still going to weigh in at the equivalent of two and a half big bags of plaster. I'm pretty handy, and I regularly have to lug around 25kg bags of plaster: I could pick up two and a half of those bags without a problem, but I'm not sure I'd want to walk very far with them.

To put this in another perspective, a fully laden British Army bergen on operation might be somewhere around the 100lb mark (roughly...I think - the average non-operational is considerably less than this), and 100lbs (45 and a bit kilos) is considerably lower than my guess for Williams. (Apologies for mixing my weights and measures - I tend to think automatically in a mix of both, and find it difficult to chuck the habit).

And, as for two people sharing the load: well, seems to me that you might as well wear a sandwich board with, THERE'S SOMETHING VERY, VERY MOODY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, written on it.

Strikes me that another factor which appears to have been obscured by the arguments about a live individual voluntarily entering such a confined space is that dead bodies are themselves notoriously unwieldy and uncooperative - I wouldn't mind betting a bag of toffees that trying to stuff one inside a bag which is only just big enough for the volume of freight involved is not exactly a cakewalk either.

Bigfoot73 said:
...It's only a holdall and you might think somebody in imminent danger of suffocation would have been able to struggle forcefully enough to maybe break the stitching somewhere and rip it apart from the inside out. Williams was a cyclist, surely he would have had strong enough legs?...
No, I really don't think this would be the case. If the North Face Base Camp duffel shown in all the pictures is the type used, then it's tough bit of kit; a double-stitched seam with bar-tacking and webbing reinforcement isn't going to be easy to split at the seams without some sort of hardwear - however desparate you are - and the ballistic nylon they are made from is developed from an original design for flak-jackets, so it's not going to tear without very considerable force. (I've got one, but I'm not about to test my hypotheses as I'm much too big, and the bag was much too expenseive.)

I'm not entirely sure why there's so little interest in what seems to me to be the entirely feasible third route to this in the possibility that the Intelligence services became involved in this after the fact, but before the police became involved.

In this scenario Williams employees discover he's dead and deliberately delay the official discovery until they've carried out their own investigation into his death and whether it was in any way linked to his work, and/or had in any way compromised that work. I can quite imagine that they would not be happy with the peelers charging all over the place until they'd carried out their own investigation - and I can also imagine that there's no love lost between the two groups. The advantage of this explanation is that it discards any need to explain why an apparently omniscient intelligence service managed to so royally bugger up the removal of the body (namely, because they hadn't actually tried to remove it), while at the same time explaining why there may be signs of an apparently professional involvement in the scene of crime - it would also accommodate many of the other anomalies, including the time lag between his non-appearance at work and the start of the official investigation.

(And yes, a lot of conjecture - like most everything else that's been written subject.)

Edit for typo.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
Spookdaddy said:
I'm not entirely sure why there's so little interest in what seems to me to be the entirely feasible third route to this in the possibility that the Intelligence services became involved in this after the fact, but before the police became involved.

In this scenario Williams employees discover he's dead and deliberately delay the official discovery until they've carried out their own investigation into his death and whether it was in any way linked to his work, and/or had in any way compromised that work. I can quite imagine that they would not be happy with the peelers charging all over the place until they'd carried out their own investigation - and I can also imagine that there's no love lost between the two groups. The advantage of this explanation is that it discards any need to explain why an apparently omniscient intelligence service managed to so royally bugger up the removal of the body (namely, because they hadn't actually tried to remove it), while at the same time explaining why there may be signs of an apparently professional involvement in the scene of crime - it would also accommodate many of the other anomolies, including the time lag between his non-appearance at work and the start of the official investigation.

(And yes, a lot of conjecture - like most everything else that's been written subject.)
Brilliant post sir, conjecture it's true but very well reasoned.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
conjecture yes !

there "would" have been signs of struggle on his nails, there was no signs !

They would have been keen to point the finger if it had been a lets say terrorist killing or even political enemy they have not even pointed anything that way.

what best fits the known facts ?,,, stirring the water into a muddy condition does not make the obvious pointers any less obvious
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
8,944
Points
294
Location
Midwich
I take it that by, 'stirring the water into a muddy condition', you mean coming up with any suggestion that doesn't suit your own favoured scenario.

I'm not claiming that the third route option I suggested is without doubt what happened - I'm suggesting that as a possible scenario it more or less works, and that it appears to accommodate many of the apparent anomalies. To be honest, it seems pretty simple to me - hardly a muddying of the water.

None of the theories explain everything.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
Jonfairway said:
stirring the water into a muddy condition does not make the obvious pointers any less obvious
Jon, if the obvious pointers are so obvious and you seem to know exactly what has happened here, would you care to elucidate as I really have no idea :? .

The best explanation I've read thus far is Spookdaddy's, but please clear up my confusion with regards to your own.
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,016
Reaction score
189
Points
114
The real problem is that there are any number of possible scenarios based upon the sketchy details and a limited number of variables/suspects. Motives are unclear, Sex gone wrong? Robbery, possibly of sensitive info.? Assassination? The cryptographer who knew too much? Murdered, when he uncovered a plot? Murdered when he refused to take part in a plot?By enemies? By friends? etc.

There are probably just as many reasons why the authorities may be reluctant to pursue any of those possibilities. Speculation could be endless.

However, the fact that bag containing the body had been placed in the bath, strongly suggests that whoever did it was expecting any escaping liquids to run down the plughole. Less chance of giveaway seepage. That doesn't seem very accidental, or the act of a suicide, to me.
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
8,944
Points
294
Location
Midwich
Quite.

Without further evidence all this subject can ever be is an exercise in speculation - which isn't in itself wrong, and certainly doesn't make it any less interesting. It does, however, rather preclude any claim to know which scenario is the right one.
 

Pietro_Mercurios

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,016
Reaction score
189
Points
114
It's unlikely to have been the home team. They would probably have done a better job of tidying up.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,025
Reaction score
27,353
Points
309
Location
Eblana
Pietro_Mercurios said:
It's unlikely to have been the home team. They would probably have done a better job of tidying up.
Maybe some of their functions have been privatised.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
ramonmercado said:
Maybe some of their functions have been privatised.
Perhaps they only do body collections once a fortnight now?
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
as usual i seem to have a different take from the rest of the board !

i dont think spooks i sthe best explanation heckler

why would MI6 cover up an enemy killing of one of their ops ?

it was MI6 that removed evidence ? and kept it away from cops for two years ??? that is confirmed by them !!!

this reminds me of a "few good men" you cant handle the truth ? so the police were kept in the dark for two years by MI6 ???

There has been no attempt to find the owner of the finger prints ?

and then there is this, like yourselves attitude, well its not going to be solved anyway, so why bother, its all ok really,,,,

i am going to suggest something here

lets say they knew he was dead maybe after two days of not turning up to work.
plenty of time for clean up, plenty of time to remove stuff, plenty of time to soak body in bag to hide evidence, police come into the fray 7 days, all the evidence and crime scene is tampered with and the investigation is bogged down for years.

can this 3rd party arrange all this ?

and i still as the question, why would Mi6 cover up for someone unless it was one of their own ?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,980
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Jonfairway said:
can this 3rd party arrange all this ?

and i still as the question, why would Mi6 cover up for someone unless it was one of their own ?
I think that's a valid point.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
Mythopoeika said:
Jonfairway said:
can this 3rd party arrange all this ?

and i still as the question, why would Mi6 cover up for someone unless it was one of their own ?
I think that's a valid point.
Presumably if other Intelligence Officers finger prints or other physical evidence were in the property they didn't want them dragged into a plod investigation?

Also the idea that SIS would point the finger at another nation's intelligence service and declare 'them is what done it' to the plod is frankly absurd and that also assumes that the intelligence service in question in this theory is an 'unfriendly' one. Just because we have 'friends' globally, doesn't matter a tinker's cuss unless there is mutual benefit or an asset to trade.
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
8,944
Points
294
Location
Midwich
Mythopoeika said:
Jonfairway said:
can this 3rd party arrange all this ?

and i still as the question, why would Mi6 cover up for someone unless it was one of their own ?
I think that's a valid point.
This is simply begging the question.

It's only a cover-up in the sense meant here if the perpetrator(s) were in fact discovered. What reason is there to assume that this is the case?
 

Sergeant_Pluck

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
485
Reaction score
7
Points
24
Mythopoeika said:
Jonfairway said:
can this 3rd party arrange all this ?

and i still as the question, why would Mi6 cover up for someone unless it was one of their own ?
I think that's a valid point.
I think it's the mootest of all moot points. In my opinion, MI6 would cover up anything done by anyone. Any dirty washing, committed by them or against them by someone else would be investigated and cleaned up in-house. Supposing it was Mossad or whatever the KGB is called these days who had zipped up this chap, do you think MI6 would want that getting out? Spycraft 101 - tell nobody nuffink.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,980
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Sergeant_Pluck said:
Mythopoeika said:
Jonfairway said:
can this 3rd party arrange all this ?

and i still as the question, why would Mi6 cover up for someone unless it was one of their own ?
I think that's a valid point.
I think it's the mootest of all moot points. In my opinion, MI6 would cover up anything done by anyone. Any dirty washing, committed by them or against them by someone else would be investigated and cleaned up in-house. Supposing it was Mossad or whatever the KGB is called these days who had zipped up this chap, do you think MI6 would want that getting out? Spycraft 101 - tell nobody nuffink.
Hmmm. You mean, it's a 'cover your arse' scenario so British Intelligence doesn't look stupid?
I guess that's a valid point too.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
Presumably if other Intelligence Officers finger prints or other physical evidence were in the property they didn't want them dragged into a plod investigation?

Also the idea that SIS would point the finger at another nation's intelligence service and declare 'them is what done it' to the plod is frankly absurd and that also assumes that the intelligence service in question in this theory is an 'unfriendly' one. Just because we have 'friends' globally, doesn't matter a tinker's cuss unless there is mutual benefit or an asset to trade.


and i can see what you mean, but that leads to "you can't handle the truth"

and someone has been murdered and its ok becouse the inteligence service is beyond any laws of the land ?
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
Jonfairway said:
and someone has been murdered and its ok becouse the inteligence service is beyond any laws of the land ?
And nowhere on this thread has anyone said anything of the sort.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
This is simply begging the question.

It's only a cover-up in the sense meant here if the perpetrator(s) were in fact discovered. What reason is there to assume that this is the case?
spook are you asking was he in fact murdered at all ????

i thought we had covered that particular thing a while back ????
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
And nowhere on this thread has anyone said anything of the sort.
it is being implied by "we will neer know the truth" and we are wasting our time trying
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,232
Points
219
Jon I asked a while back what you think happened and who you thought did it and why (in the absence of any evidence I'm intrigued to know what you know that we don't), it would be useful to get an answer to that so we know why you off handedly dismiss any theories that anyone else comes up with.
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
8,944
Points
294
Location
Midwich
Jonfairway said:
This is simply begging the question.

It's only a cover-up in the sense meant here if the perpetrator(s) were in fact discovered. What reason is there to assume that this is the case?
spook are you asking was he in fact murdered at all ????
Your question doesn't even begin to follow the statement it's a response to. Just read it again.
 

Spookdaddy

Cuckoo
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
6,987
Reaction score
8,944
Points
294
Location
Midwich
Jonfairway said:
...and then there is this, like yourselves attitude, well its not going to be solved anyway, so why bother, its all ok really,,,,
The repeated implication that those who don't concur with your argument are displaying some kind of moral weakness, rather than simply disagreeing with your own particular line of conjecture, is getting somewhat grating.

If you truly believe without doubt that a crime has been perpetrated by the intelligence services then the onus is on you, not on those who are less convinced of the infallibility of your reasoning. I might have some time for this high handedness if I thought for one minute you were actually going to chain yourself to Vauxhall Bridge with a loud hailer, but I suspect not - hectoring those who disagree with you with accusations of complacency doesn't represent any kind of moral equivalent, so do us all a favour and give the more righteous than thou act a bit of a rest because it doesn't actually address anyone else's doubts in any meaningful way.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
The repeated implication that those who don't concur with your argument are displaying some kind of moral weakness, rather than simply disagreeing with your own particular line of conjecture, is getting somewhat grating.

If you truly believe without doubt that a crime has been perpetrated by the intelligence services then the onus is on you, not on those who are less convinced of the infallibility of your reasoning. I might have some time for this high handedness if I thought for one minute you were actually going to chain yourself to Vauxhall Bridge with a loud hailer, but I suspect not - hectoring those who disagree with you with accusations of complacency doesn't represent any kind of moral equivalent, so do us all a favour and give the more righteous than thou act a bit of a rest because it doesn't actually address anyone else's doubts in any meaningful way.
apologies for sounding grating !!

one of the reasons for not bothering for a few years to post was the fact i grate on some people !!! its nothing personal, and your quite right i am not about to chain myself to any bridges :)

and i,m not hectoring about complacency of Actions but rather of complacency of Thought in the last post, is it ok to just accept he was murdered, by whom ever and not really give a moneys, that there is a strong posibilty he was removed by our own intelligences services or at the very least they helped to cover up who murdered him.

is it not right to thoughtfully question these things happening ?

if i see any evidence that swings me away from

1. he was murdered ?
2. It was covered up ?

i will be more than willing to accept the arguement

as yet i have seen nothing to tell me

it was an accident
it was not covered up

??????

show me the error of my reasoning i am waiting
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
90
Points
79
Jon I asked a while back what you think happened and who you thought did it and why (in the absence of any evidence I'm intrigued to know what you know that we don't), it would be useful to get an answer to that so we know why you off handedly dismiss any theories that anyone else comes up with.
disprove the apparent facts Heckler ,, see last post

1. convince me we wasnt murdered ( that would be good )
2. Convince me someone didnt remove the evidence and clean up

if You agree that He was Murdered and it did have a componant of cover up by MI6

then it makes common sense that MI6 were involved in some way.

then i am back to

is it ok for Mi6 to get rid of /cover up the true identity of someones murder and use subterfuge on the police investigation for two years ?
 
Top