How not to murder your own employees by MI6 (UPDATED 14/03/2018)

Gareth-Williams-photo-ret-006

 

EDIT 14/03/2018. I have been meaning to update this article to include additional details which I decided to exclude for reasons of my own personal safety when I was resident in Russia. I also kept it as it was in the hope that there would be those intelligent enough to realise that the conclusions reached were not logical or complete and that this would provide evidence for involvement potentially on the part of the Russians even if this was not directly stated.

A fuller explanation of the case involving the murder of Gareth Williams can be found in an article from the Guardian newspaper.

Gareth Williams was an employee of GCHQ who had begun an advanced course in mathematics at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge in 2000 as part of his employment at that organisation. The people whom GCHQ assigned to mind him at the college were one of the former directors of admissions and my former personal tutor, Dr Philip Oliver, along with one of the porters whose name I cannot remember but who retired last year.

This fact was made known to me by Dr Oliver in a conversation which I had with him at the college on the 25th August 2015. Dr Oliver revealed this information as part of a conversation whereby he attempted to recruit me to MI6. He also does not always keep thing confidential which might be to do with the fact that he gets tired and emotional.

Shortly before Gareth Williams was due to leave his secondment to MI6 to work at GCHQ in 2009, he was found dead in a locked holdall in an MI6 safe house in Pimlico. There is apparently some uncertainty as to what caused his death.

When one examines the facts surrounding this case and other similar cases and when one takes into account conversations which were help with myself and Dr Oliver and additionally with Chris Kerr, a former student of the college, one can only conclude that he was murdered by individuals who work for or on behalf of the British government. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows.

Why he was murdered and why he was murdered by or on behalf of the British government

  1. He was found dead in a holdall which was padlocked from the outside, something which is apparently not been achieved by someone of his height. Furthermore, the holdall was found in a bath which would have further lessened the room which he would have needed in order to manoeuvre himself into the bag and also to lock himself in from the outside. One must also consider that the handles were fastened with Velcro which would have added to the difficulty. Even if it were the case that he had somehow managed to lock himself in the bag, there were apparently no fingerprints or DNA on the handle of the holdall or around the zip which would mean that he would have had to have worn gloves. There were however no gloves found. It would be reasonable to conclude on the basis of this that someone else put him in the bag and that he was murdered.
  2. There were no fingerprints or DNA evidence in the flat and the USB sticks within his flat had been wiped. Additionally, the temperature had been turned up in his flat in the midst of summer, something which would appear to be indicative of an attempt to eliminate the presence of toxins within his body. Both of these factors would indicate that a third party had had access to the flat and had taken steps to hide the evidence in relation to a murder.
  3. It been noticed that he had not turned up to work for a week. Given his access to sensitive information and the fact they they considered him important enough to allocate him a safe house in Pimlico with an armed guard outside, it is difficult to believe that MI6 did not seek to discover his whereabouts at an earlier stage.
  4. The suggestion that due to the presence of two armed guards, someone chose to enter his premises through a skylight would appear to be somewhat suspicious in that had it been a possibility, given how obvious it is, it would have been mentioned as part of the inquest and was only mentioned later as part of an attempt to throw off the scent.
  5. There were suggestions that Gareth Williams was a cross dresser despite the lack of evidence for this found by the police who expressed frustration at the fact that “He didn’t even drink”.
    1. If he had bought women’s clothing, the police would easily have found either credit card records if the garments were purchased on-line (or indeed offline) or witnesses in the form of employees at the shops where the clothes would have been bought, particularly given the fact that £20000 worth was found. Given his employment and the fact that he would have been under close surveillance as part of this, it would have been very easy to discover which shops he frequented. The fact is there was no record of any such purchases.
    2. Such sexual smears after the murder of an employee of the intelligence services or indeed former government owned or associated defence companies are markers of the fact that the British establishment is responsible for a murder. Of particular note in this respect can be said to be Jonathan Moyle, James RusbridgerStephen Drinkwater, Kevin AllenNicholas HusbandRichard Pugh, Mark Wisner, Shani Warren and Stephen Milligan. It is notable that historically where journals, even those which can be said to be virulently anti-Russian like the dailymail, have made claims about Russian involvement in some murder, they have never made involve allegations that the Russians dressed them up in women’s clothes or bondage gear
  6. It is difficult to see how Gareth Williams could have afforded £20,000 worth of such clothing which was apparently found in his flat given the comparatively low salaries paid by GCHQ and the need for secure housing which is not provided as part of any remuneration package. The secondment to MI6 and the allocated safe house was only for a short-term period and it is difficult to see how he could have saved that amount of money in such a short duration.
  7. The lack of willingness of the press to apportion blame to the Russians as overtly as they do in other cases signifies a wish to conceal involvement on the part of the British. It was after all only two years after the inquest that the possibility was mentioned in a newspaper. Furthermore the lack of willingness on the part of several newspapers to respond or to publish this information, to get in contact as well as the publishing of disinformation are indicative of the fact that this case is subject to a DSMA notice and that the press are aware of what happened. Further to this, one might also like into consideration the following in that there is an attempt to conceal what occurred by the powers that be.
    1. The rather aggressive reaction and personal attacks in relation to my perfectly reasonable questions about the case in December 2015 on the British Army Rumour Service forum seem to suggest that there may be something to hide. It would appear likely that members of JTRIG were present on the forum which would not be unexpected given that it is an official British military forum and had used personal misinformation in the form of very idiosyncratic personalized slurs which had been gathered from people whom I had known 20 years ago.
    2. The fact that someone has commented upon the previous version of this post with advice that one should secure ones laptop. Given that this is written on a laptop and given the fact one the basis of the evidence one can conclude that MI6 or another intelligence agency murdered their own employee, this can not only be interpreted as a threat by JTRIG but also as confirmation of the fact that the intelligence services do in fact steal as I have stated in my asylum case.

Incorrect reasons for the murder

  1. There was a suggestion that he was assassinated by the British because someone “had some compromising material on him” which might present a security risk. The trouble is there was no such opportunity to gather any compromising material.
    1. He had no great wealth nor indeed desire for possessions.
    2. He had no sexual interests according to the evidence from the guardian article and the suggestion that he was does not make sense according to the evidence.
  2. The possibility that the United States ordered the murder is not plausible in that they like investigations and prosecutions to take place openly. Even where American government employees like to see people dead, they are open about the fact, as can be seen with Edward Snowden. They also ask for extraditions as can be seen in the case of Gary McKinnon and Lauri Love. It does not seem likely that they would have ordered the murder of Mr Williams for hacking the emails of the United States President.
  3. It does not seem plausible that it was because he was supplying information to some foreign government as  Chris Kerr, a former student at Saint Catharine’s College, claimed in a meeting in January 2015. There was no leverage on him in terms of sex or money and even disregarding such adverse pressure, he did not have the time, inclination (being obsessed with maths) or skillset (being somewhat naive), to be able to deceive people as would be a requirement for anyone acting as a double-agent. Mr Kerr mentioned the fact that because he was aware of my recording of an attempt to recruit me to MI6 and hinted that for my own safety I should not return to the UK. From my observation and from the fact that he was a former member of the college’s MCR (Middle Combination Room) committee, Chris was quite close to to Dr Oliver. As Dr. Oliver has leaked a certain amount of sensitive information to myself and to others, it would not have been unreasonable to suggest that Mr Kerr had had access to information in relation to what happened from Dr Philip Oliver.
  4. He could have been murdered because he was aware of something which was inconvenient to those within a section of British intelligence. As mentioned by Jock Kane this would have pertained to corruption which of course, more often than not, has entailed working on behalf of a hostile party but even so he could, as with Mr Kane have simply been moved on. He was leaving SIS anyway. It is of course possible perhaps that he was intending on reporting the matter to GCHQ but from my experience and that of others, they do not tend to take much notice of such complaints.
  5. Gareth Williams was someone who by all accounts was somewhat introverted. He spoke about friction in the office and his distaste for the hard drinking, macho culture in the office. It is possible that due to a personality clash, certain members of MI6 or other intelligence agencies may have used him as a scapegoat for actions which were their own or that, given the lack of oversight in the intelligence services, someone may have chosen, purely based on a personal dislike or some perceived social faux pas to murder him but that seems a little excessive even for the intelligence services.

Why he was murdered

  1. It seems more likely that concern was expressed by others about leakages/infiltrators and they chose to kill an “oddball” like Gareth Williams in order to reassure them even given his level of skill. This is not altogether unlikely, given the fact that  my experiences of British Intelligence at Cambridge concur with those reported by Gareth Williams and more importantly sections of British Intelligence including MI6 have attempted to kill me. For reference, I should perhaps add that there are of course leakages on a general level within British intelligence as indicated by this website but given that these sort of leakages would have been known about by the Americans, it is not logical to suggest that someone who would have access to greater information as part of his direct employment would have been blamed for this sort of leakage.
  2. There was no concern at my repeated reports of Russian infiltration within British Intelligence and also an attempt to conceal my report when I pointed it out on various occasions. As in the case of Jock Kane, and as recently admitted this sort of allegations is an inconvenience and challenge to the powers that be because of the effect amongst other things upon the special relationship. And when push comes to shove they chose someone disposable in terms of the hierarchy even if he had a high level of skill.
  3. In my meeting with him in August 2015, Dr Oliver did not express concern at the death of Gareth Williams and in fact joked about it. It is my interpretation but I read from his tone that he knew that he had been murdered and furthermore.  He said that after it occurred, he hid from the press who presumably knew about his function as minder and wished to talk to him.
  4. As the director of admissions for the college and as someone who has made visits to several schools in order to encourage people to apply to the college, it is implausible to claim that Dr Oliver’s reticence is down to shyness and not wishing to talk to the press. One can see that this is not the case from the following tweet.Screenshot from 2018-03-15 19-57-25

4 thoughts on “How not to murder your own employees by MI6 (UPDATED 14/03/2018)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s