MI6 (?) murder

[ALawson]

How would placing the key to the padlock under the poor chaps arse ever be described as fun? Unless knowing that you were sitting on the key gave you some sort of self harming pleasure....knowing you would die.

[anonymous-user]

Is it just me that finds it very distasteful the way that the media are so gleefully picking through the saucy details of this guy's private life? There's the constant implicit assumption that he's just some pervert and we should all have a giggle about it. The guy's dead and there's no need for most of this, just let the enquiry run it's course and report the findings.

[Soovy]

Symbolica said:

Is it just me that finds it very distasteful the way that the media are so gleefully picking through the saucy details of this guy's private life? There's the constant implicit assumption that he's just some pervert and we should all have a giggle about it. The guy's dead and there's no need for most of this, just let the enquiry run it's course and report the findings.

I agree.

Poor fellow is dead. His family need to know what happened.

So what if he dressed up in his own time? Nothing to do with anyone.

[shakotan]

carmonk said:

No no, I prefer the murder option by highly trained professionals, who can enter a flat and kill a person without leaving evidence but make the understandable mistake of securing the body in a holdall that's padlocked from the outside. That must be what happened.

You think a highly trained professional would secure the body in a bag padlocked from the inside then?

That would be very professional indeed!

[carmonk]

shakotan said:

carmonk said:

No no, I prefer the murder option by highly trained professionals, who can enter a flat and kill a person without leaving evidence but make the understandable mistake of securing the body in a holdall that's padlocked from the outside. That must be what happened.

You think a highly trained professional would secure the body in a bag padlocked from the inside then?

That would be very professional indeed!

I'd suggest a highly trained professional might forgo the bag / padlock scenario altogether.

[thinfourth2]

carmonk said:

I'd suggest a highly trained professional might forgo the bag / padlock scenario altogether.

Well we can rule out the americans

only 1 dead person and no crashed helicopters

[Tyre Smoke]

thinfourth2 said:

carmonk said:

I'd suggest a highly trained professional might forgo the bag / padlock scenario altogether.

Well we can rule out the americans

only 1 dead person and no crashed helicopters

[XMG5]

Much speculation is being encouraged over the women's Designer dresses and shoes being found in his flat but I haven't seen any mention or confirmation that they would fit the deceased (especially the shoes). The presence of such items does not prove he wore them.

IMHO if he climbed into the bag and secured it by whatever means for his own sexual reasons then what part would the bath play in the scenario? If, as is being promoted by the tabloid press, the deceased was some kind or pervert who got off on some kind of bondage/total restraint sexual act then he could have satisfied his needs anywhere in the house. The role of the bath tub is irrelevant unless it was to facilitate a need by the missing and unidentified accomplice (DNA on external zip and lock).

I am more inclined to believe the placing of the bag was a deliberate act by a third party to prevent the decomposing body of the victim of crime being discovered from any seepage of bodily fluids through floor boards/carpets etc., and containing the resulting odour within the almost sealed bag. As a result of being placed into the bag in this manner the rate of decomposition would be accelerated and forensic evidence lost (as confirmed in the Coroner's Court). The women's clothing and wig are easily planted to give credance to a sexual motive and cover up of the true nature of the crime. Interesting that DNA was found on the two most important parts of the bag, the zip and the lock securing it, DNA that doesn't belong to the deceased

The bath would also allow someone to "wash down" the bag to remove any evidence before leaving it there to decompose sufficiently to be of no evidential value to the authorities when eventually discovered as was inevitable. The fact that "minute" traces of DNA were found on the bag but not it seems elsewhere in the flat, suggests to me, the flat was "cleaned" by someone after the bag had been placed in the bath. That level of "cleaning" requires a great deal of expertise and knowledge and beyond the average Joe Soap IMHO.

The level of cover-up/misinformation/ disinformation (call it what you will) is not beyond the ability of the security services in this country or beyond if the need arises. There is much more to this than has been made known, about the victim, his work or any "motive".

Given the nature of his work and the level of security clearance required for it I am more inclined to ask why the vetting agency was unaware of his lifestyle? Such "personality flaws" would make him a security risk and open to possible compromise.

Edited to add word Court to Coroner's

Edited by XMG5 on Saturday 28th April 10:36

[carmonk]

XMG5 said:

I am more inclined to believe the placing of the bag was a deliberate act by a third party to prevent the decomposing body of the victim of crime being discovered from any seepage of bodily fluids through floor boards/carpets etc., As a result of being placed into the bag in this manner the rate of decomposure would be accelerated and forensic evidence lost (as confirmed by the experts in thie Coroner's court have said). The women's clothing and wig are easily planted to give credence to a sexual motive and cover up of the true nature of the crime. Interesting that DNA was found on the two most important parts of the bag, the zip and the lock securing it, DNA that doesn't belong to the deceased

So not only did the professional killers make the mistake of padlocking a bag containing a corpse, which is both pointless and likely to arouse suspicion, but they did so without gloves? It seems a shame that they successfully avoided all detection and made their kill without leaving any traces or hint of their method, only to go a bit mental at the end.

[XMG5]

carmonk said:

So not only did the professional killers make the mistake of padlocking a bag containing a corpse, which is both pointless and likely to arouse suspicion, but they did so without gloves? It seems a shame that they successfully avoided all detection and made their kill without leaving any traces or hint of their method, only to go a bit mental at the end.

There is no such thing as the perfect crime. Every criminal makes mistakes. Nothing can be 100% successful. The Russian assassinated by a radioactive pellet injected by the tip of an umbrella prodded into his leg in London was almost undetected until the pellet was found during the postmortem. Had someone suggested his death was murder before the pellet was discovered I am sure he/they would have been suitably mocked.

[carmonk]

XMG5 said:

carmonk said:

So not only did the professional killers make the mistake of padlocking a bag containing a corpse, which is both pointless and likely to arouse suspicion, but they did so without gloves? It seems a shame that they successfully avoided all detection and made their kill without leaving any traces or hint of their method, only to go a bit mental at the end.

There is no such thing as the perfect crime. Every criminal makes mistakes. Nothing can be 100% successful. The Russian assassinated by a radioactive pellet injected by the tip of an umbrella prodded into his leg in London was almost undetected until the pellet was found during the postmortem. Had someone suggested his death was murder before the pellet was discovered I am sure he/they would have been suitably mocked.

There's a difference between a perfect crime and forgetting that dead people don't walk around, omitting to wear gloves and deliberately planting evidence that would cast the death in a suspicious light.

[hairykrishna]

XMG5 said:

Given the nature of his work and the level of security clearance required for it I am more inclined to ask why the vetting agency was unaware of his lifestyle? Such "personality flaws" would make him a security risk and open to possible compromise.

They don't watch everyone with a security clearance, all of the time. It's pretty understandable that they wouldn't know about it if he didn't tell them. The other possibility, of course, is that they did know. Having something about you which people might consider embarrassing is not necessarily a bar to having decent clearance. When you're interviewed for DV clearance (or whatever they call it these days) they ask about such things and can insist that you go 'public' i.e. tell everyone close to you about it to remove blackmail potential.

[FourWheelDrift]

Because someone with something private to hide can be more crafty then anyone trying to find out anything about them.

[TheDiplomat]

I would be interested in the vetting process of a GCHQ transfer, and to what extent it differs from that of SIS. He could have very well have had a vulnerable side which wasn't picked up during the DV process.

[XMG5]

You are quite right, being open to blackmail/security exploitation is only possible if those that the perpetrator threatens to tell don't know. If you disclose all to those who need to know then the threat of blackmail/exploitation is mitigated.

However, unless the DNA is already on record then identifying the person who leaves it at the scene is not really such a problem. As for wearing gloves or not, thin latex gloves are known to tear if handling something rough/sharp or abrasive. The fact that the DNA in this case is reported as minute traces of blood may support the theory that it was probably the result of an insignificant abrasion that might go unnoticed by it's donor.

Assuming this third party didn't just walk into the flat, zip up the bag and lock it before leaving again without touching anything, including the door, then I would expect some trace of them elsewhere in the flat. But I haven't seen any report of other traces of a third person in the flat.

Likewise I would expect to find the victim's DNA in or on the women's clothing/wig/shoes if he wore them as is suggested by the media. Yet again, I have seen no supporting evidence to support the trannie theory from the police? More like a cover story being fed to the press by those keen to hide something.

[superlightr]

if the UK cant arrange a hit on that old hook guy abul whatesever then I cant beleive the uk did this poor guy in.

Its clearly a hit but by whome?

[5678]

XMG5 said:

You are quite right, being open to blackmail/security exploitation is only possible if those that the perpetrator threatens to tell don't know. If you disclose all to those who need to know then the threat of blackmail/exploitation is mitigated.

However, unless the DNA is already on record then identifying the person who leaves it at the scene is not really such a problem. As for wearing gloves or not, thin latex gloves are known to tear if handling something rough/sharp or abrasive. The fact that the DNA in this case is reported as minute traces of blood may support the theory that it was probably the result of an insignificant abrasion that might go unnoticed by it's donor.

Assuming this third party didn't just walk into the flat, zip up the bag and lock it before leaving again without touching anything, including the door, then I would expect some trace of them elsewhere in the flat. But I haven't seen any report of other traces of a third person in the flat.

Likewise I would expect to find the victim's DNA in or on the women's clothing/wig/shoes if he wore them as is suggested by the media. Yet again, I have seen no supporting evidence to support the trannie theory from the police? More like a cover story being fed to the press by those keen to hide something.

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.

[Haggleburyfinius]

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?

There are a million and one better ways of killing someone!

[odyssey2200]

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?

There are a million and one better ways of killing someone!

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.

[Sonic]

Assassin A: I bet you can't kill an MI6 agent, stash his body inside a padlocked bag, placed in a bathtub, along with the keys, and make it appear like the victim was a homosexual, cross-dressing, escapologist who accidentally commited suicide whilst carying out some extreme sexual practicies.

Assassin B: Oh really?...