MI6 (?) murder
Discussion
odyssey2200 said:
Haggleburyfinius said:
5678 said:
It's not that they didn't find evidence... it's the fact that there was no evidence what so ever that makes it so conspicuous. Not a single hand or footprint from the deceased in the bathroom tells you quite a lot...
My guess is the guy was aware of or involved in something that either went wrong, or was not supposed to be known about at ANY cost.
You have to then ask...wtf did they do it like that for?My guess is the guy was aware of or involved in something that either went wrong, or was not supposed to be known about at ANY cost.
There are a million and one better ways of killing someone!
His family will be less inclined to pursue anything for fear/embarrassment of what they might uncover and make public.
I believe I read that it was some 3 days between him going missing and the police being notified? Plenty of time for the scene to be set and for the poor guy to be staged to look like some sort of whacky perv who's shenanigans went wrong.
The DNA on the zip must have been so minor that it got missed when the bathroom was being cleaned.
odyssey2200 said:
Doing it along these lines discredits the victim and will have more people speculating about the Pervert element of the guys case.
His family will be less inclined to pursue anything for fear/embarrassment of what they might uncover and make public.
But people go missing/die every day.His family will be less inclined to pursue anything for fear/embarrassment of what they might uncover and make public.
This seems way too elaborate. There are far more efficient ways of bumping somebody off than this.
I refuse to believe that the KISS maxim hasn't made it to the SIS or whoever yet.
Look at his eyebrows:
Don't they look just a little too neat and arched to be like that naturally?
I think he plucked them. A lot of men who cross-dress do.
Of course he's perfectly entitled to get up to whatever he wants in the privacy of his own home, but I bet his bosses didn't quite see it that way.
My personal belief is that the 'powers that be' thought he was a potential security risk, and had him killed. More than likely by someone he knew, hence there were no signs of forced entry or a struggle.
Don't they look just a little too neat and arched to be like that naturally?
I think he plucked them. A lot of men who cross-dress do.
Of course he's perfectly entitled to get up to whatever he wants in the privacy of his own home, but I bet his bosses didn't quite see it that way.
My personal belief is that the 'powers that be' thought he was a potential security risk, and had him killed. More than likely by someone he knew, hence there were no signs of forced entry or a struggle.
The Coroners statement raises far more questions than it answers.
1.) It was unlikely that he got into the bag himself, so who put him there?
2.) Why did no one raise the alarm after a code breaker seconded to MI6 didn't turn up for work for 7 days?
3.) Who put the bag in the bath?
4.) What is the coroner suggesting when she critcises the police for the handling of evidence especially Mr Williams mobile phone.
5.) What is the coroner suggesting when she critcises Mr Williams MI6 line manager and states that his evidence stretches the bounds of credibility?
6.) Why weren't the police allowed to speak to Mr Williams' MI6 colleagues directly?
7.) The coroner identified breakdowns in communication by her own office in ordering a second post-mortem examination, a DNA mix-up by forensics and the late submission of evidence by MI6 to police? So is she suggesting that evidence supplied to her by her own office was tampered with or deliberatly delayed? And if so was it done under orders?
8.) The coroner ruled out Mr Williams' interest in bondage and drag queens in having any bearing on his death and as questioned leaks about his private life to the press. She said: "I wonder if this was an attempt by some third party to manipulate the evidence." Who?
9.) Mr Williams job involved a degree of risk assessment.If he had locked himself into the bag for fun on his own or if he was an amatuer Houdini, surely he would have taken a knife with him? Unless he thought that someone who was with him would let him out?
10.) She said she found it "highly unlikely" that Mr Williams got inside his red holdall alone, saying: "If Gareth had been carrying out some kind of peculiar experiment, he wouldn't care if he left any foot or fingerprints." It that case why was none found including any at all in the bathroom?
Seriously. WTF???
1.) It was unlikely that he got into the bag himself, so who put him there?
2.) Why did no one raise the alarm after a code breaker seconded to MI6 didn't turn up for work for 7 days?
3.) Who put the bag in the bath?
4.) What is the coroner suggesting when she critcises the police for the handling of evidence especially Mr Williams mobile phone.
5.) What is the coroner suggesting when she critcises Mr Williams MI6 line manager and states that his evidence stretches the bounds of credibility?
6.) Why weren't the police allowed to speak to Mr Williams' MI6 colleagues directly?
7.) The coroner identified breakdowns in communication by her own office in ordering a second post-mortem examination, a DNA mix-up by forensics and the late submission of evidence by MI6 to police? So is she suggesting that evidence supplied to her by her own office was tampered with or deliberatly delayed? And if so was it done under orders?
8.) The coroner ruled out Mr Williams' interest in bondage and drag queens in having any bearing on his death and as questioned leaks about his private life to the press. She said: "I wonder if this was an attempt by some third party to manipulate the evidence." Who?
9.) Mr Williams job involved a degree of risk assessment.If he had locked himself into the bag for fun on his own or if he was an amatuer Houdini, surely he would have taken a knife with him? Unless he thought that someone who was with him would let him out?
10.) She said she found it "highly unlikely" that Mr Williams got inside his red holdall alone, saying: "If Gareth had been carrying out some kind of peculiar experiment, he wouldn't care if he left any foot or fingerprints." It that case why was none found including any at all in the bathroom?
Seriously. WTF???
Another very odd fact - the central heating in the flat was left turned on full whack ... in warm weather in August .. which accelerated body decomposition.
no fingerprints or DNA of his in the bathroom
heating on full
impossible for him to lock himself in the bag.
my best-guess is he was drugged by someone he knew then put in the bag ..set up to look like a failed kinky auto-erotic asphyxiation game .
no fingerprints or DNA of his in the bathroom
heating on full
impossible for him to lock himself in the bag.
my best-guess is he was drugged by someone he knew then put in the bag ..set up to look like a failed kinky auto-erotic asphyxiation game .
This story is just so murky and downright strange that I don't know what to think and I can't escape the thought that maybe that's exactly whoever killed this chap wants.
We know he was probably killed somehow by person or persons unknown. Any more than that is speculation.
What the hell is going on at MI6 is what worries me now. Is it well managed and how would we know if it wasn't? They seem to have been less than entirely honest with the Coroner in this case. Is that okay? I don't know because I don't know why they've been "stretching credulity" as the Coroner put it.
We know that foreign intelligence agencies do all sorts of illegal things. The French sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ, the Mossad murder people in imaginative and elaborate ways using stolen identities, the Russians and their Polonium sushi, the CIA have their black ops. You have to wonder just exactly what it is that MI6 do.
We know he was probably killed somehow by person or persons unknown. Any more than that is speculation.
What the hell is going on at MI6 is what worries me now. Is it well managed and how would we know if it wasn't? They seem to have been less than entirely honest with the Coroner in this case. Is that okay? I don't know because I don't know why they've been "stretching credulity" as the Coroner put it.
We know that foreign intelligence agencies do all sorts of illegal things. The French sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ, the Mossad murder people in imaginative and elaborate ways using stolen identities, the Russians and their Polonium sushi, the CIA have their black ops. You have to wonder just exactly what it is that MI6 do.
rohrl said:
We know that foreign intelligence agencies do all sorts of illegal things. The French sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ, the Mossad murder people in imaginative and elaborate ways using stolen identities, the Russians and their Polonium sushi, the CIA have their black ops. You have to wonder just exactly what it is that MI6 do.
Read a lot of PH.Probably.
rohrl said:
This story is just so murky and downright strange that I don't know what to think and I can't escape the thought that maybe that's exactly whoever killed this chap wants.
We know he was probably killed somehow by person or persons unknown. Any more than that is speculation.
What the hell is going on at MI6 is what worries me now. Is it well managed and how would we know if it wasn't? They seem to have been less than entirely honest with the Coroner in this case. Is that okay? I don't know because I don't know why they've been "stretching credulity" as the Coroner put it.
We know that foreign intelligence agencies do all sorts of illegal things. The French sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ, the Mossad murder people in imaginative and elaborate ways using stolen identities, the Russians and their Polonium sushi, the CIA have their black ops. You have to wonder just exactly what it is that MI6 do.
Nothing SIS does is given the go ahead without the Foreign Secretary's approval. (Well apart from "Increment" operations which are done deniably and don't have political backing, but are overseen by the PM.)We know he was probably killed somehow by person or persons unknown. Any more than that is speculation.
What the hell is going on at MI6 is what worries me now. Is it well managed and how would we know if it wasn't? They seem to have been less than entirely honest with the Coroner in this case. Is that okay? I don't know because I don't know why they've been "stretching credulity" as the Coroner put it.
We know that foreign intelligence agencies do all sorts of illegal things. The French sank the Rainbow Warrior in NZ, the Mossad murder people in imaginative and elaborate ways using stolen identities, the Russians and their Polonium sushi, the CIA have their black ops. You have to wonder just exactly what it is that MI6 do.
It often interests me when people speculate on the work SIS do though; what do you think they may or may not do? I have my own ideas, I'm interested to see what you think.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff