Showing posts with label 7b. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 7b. Show all posts

Chapter 96: A Three-Pronged Attack

Previous: Pat Tillman

"Another long walk might do
us both good." [source]
Holmes and Fred continued to talk; that is, Fred continued to talk and Holmes continued to listen. I sat there with them, but their conversation moved into other channels, while I continued to consider the eerie parallels between Fred's description of Pat Tillman and the picture we had been building of Gareth Williams.

Fred's words kept ringing in my ear: "Honest, brave, and naive," he had said. "Character assassination, physical assassination, or both."'

I wondered whether the Williams family knew anything about Pat Tillman. I wondered what the Tillman family had done to cope with their loss, and with all the lies that were thrown at them. I wondered whether we could learn anything from their story that we could use to help the grieving Williams family. Soon I was lost in my own thoughts, where I remained until Holmes touched me on the shoulder.

"It's time for lunch, Watson," he said. "Fred and I are finished for now, and we have the rest of the day to ourselves. I think another long walk might do us both good. But first, let us see what the chef has prepared."

We ate quietly, both reluctant to speak. But once we had finished eating and were walking upon the Yorkshire moor, Holmes began to give voice to his thoughts.

"Fred is a valuable resource, isn't he?" he asked. "He may have helped us more than we've helped him, and without even knowing it. But I will make it up to him if I can."

"His description of Pat Tillman rang quite a few bells with me," I said. "If Tillman had been a cyclist, rather than a football player ..."

"Yes, Watson," he said. "The thought crossed my mind as well. But what can we do with it? Their stories are very different, of course."

"I was wondering what the Tillman family did with all the lies," I said, "and how they coped with their loss. Maybe something in their story would help the Williams family."

"I believe we have a few pieces about the Tillman family in our archives," replied Holmes. "We can find out when we get back home."

"Speaking of which," I continued, "what are your plans?"

"None at present," he replied, "other than a walk in the country air."

We walked along, listening to the wind
rustling through the leaves. [source]
I found it difficult to believe that Holmes had no idea what to do next, but I had none myself, so we simply walked along, listening to the chirping of the birds and the wind rustling through the leaves.

Finally my friend spoke. "It's a nasty problem," he said, "Several nasty problems, in fact. What can I do for Fred? What can I tell Hughes? And have I put the puzzle together incorrectly?

"A week ago I thought I had the case solved, and now I find there's still quite some thinking to be done.

"If we were in Baker Street, I would just sit and smoke," he continued. "But London doesn't offer such an atmosphere as this. It may be exactly what we need. So let's enjoy it while we can."

"Can we keep talking?" I asked. "Or do you need the silence?"

"Oh, no," Holmes replied. "I just need the air. Speak freely. What's on your mind?"

"I have so many questions, I don't know where to start," I said.

"Ask one," he replied, "and see where it leads."

"I don't understand," I said, "why you think you might have put the puzzle together incorrectly. You set a trap, and you obtained the confession you were looking for. Granted, the arrest could not be made to stick, but I should have thought the events of the week would confirm your analysis of the murder, rather than causing you to question it."

"I am confident in the core of the analysis," said Holmes, "but it is still rough around the edges. For instance, I have no doubt that Gareth Williams was murdered, and that the murder was an inside job, approved at the highest levels of the British government. But beyond that, things become a bit cloudier.

"Was he moved from Cheltenham to London to enable it? I think he probably was. Why would they do this?

"Unless I'm reading it completely wrong, the crime involved as much character assassination as physical assassination. What could be the reason? It seems to me that Gareth must have been doing something his superiors found intolerable, something that made him a liability rather than an asset, and I don't think he was very circumspect about it.

"He was targeted for a three-
pronged attack." [source]
"Why? Because he was targeted for a three-pronged attack: first, to silence him forever; second, to make sure he would never be considered respectable, though he may have been much more than that; and third, to warn his colleagues of the consequences of following the path he chose."

"How do you deduce all that?" I asked.

"The first prong is elementary," he replied. "If they didn't want to silence him, he would be back in Cheltenham by now.

"The second prong is not much more difficult. We wouldn't be seeing any of this 'kinky sex' nonsense unless very powerful people wanted to smear him. I can think of many 'well-respected gentlemen' who led riotous sex lives, some of whom expired in the midst of outrageous overindulgence, and none of this was ever reported anywhere. The Official Secrets Act guarantees the security services can make sure stories go unreported. But that didn't happen in this instance. Quite the contrary. Therefore the smear must be deliberate, and that can only mean one thing.

"As for the third prong, consider the time, place, and condition in which the body was found. The report that the body of an MI6 worker had been found decomposing in a 'safe house' must have sent shock waves through the people who could read it. On the surface, it's not difficult to read. Who could have done such a thing without inside connections and high-level approval? Who else would have dared?

"If they simply wanted to silence him and tarnish his reputation, they could have hit him with a truck, or given him a heart attack pill, and put out stories that he was gay, or spying for the Russians, or both. But by leaving his body in the 'safe house' for a week or more, and by failing to check on him even after he missed a meeting, they sent a message to every member of the intelligence community.

"On its face, the message says, 'We did it! And we didn't hesitate to lay a trail that leads straight back to us. We're so powerful, we're not afraid of getting caught. Think about that. And think about this: You may feel safe in your safe house. But don't you dare cross us, or this could happen to you!'

"And to people 'in the know' with respect to Gareth Williams, it says even more. I think there must have been some such people, probably several of them, at least.

"If Gareth had become a liability but nobody else knew about it, there would be very little point in sending such a message, since nobody could understand it fully. But I think Gareth had colleagues who knew what he was about, and I think this message was extremely clear to them. It must have resonated for a very long time."

Chapter 97: A House Of Cards


"Picture a house of cards." [source]
"That all makes sense to me," I said. "I don't see why you'd feel the need to question it."

"That's the core," replied Holmes. "That's the central pillar, or cluster of pillars, if you will, of my understanding of the case.

"But as we move away from the core, things get fuzzier, the puzzle becomes more difficult, and it is more likely that I have a piece or two out of place.

"For example, it is one thing to deduce that Gareth Williams must have been seen as a liability by his employers, and quite another to determine what he was doing to cause them to see him as such.

"Was he leading a rebellious faction within the intelligence community? Was he seen as trying to build one, or as capable of building one?

"Was he selling secrets to a foreign government? Or was he working for a foreign government in some other way?

"Was he leaking documents? If so, to whom? Wikileaks? Somebody else -- MI6 agents, perhaps -- impersonating Wikileaks? Or somewhere else?

"It could have been any one of these. It could have been two or more, in almost any combination. Or it could have been something else entirely. We don't know, and we have almost no prospect of finding out.

"Without knowing what he was doing, it is quite another step to say why he was doing it. Did he decode emails to and from an al Q'aeda commander in Pakistan, and learn details about the domestic 'terror threat' which made him doubt the severity, or even the existence, of the threat? Did this lead to a gradual unraveling of his confidence in, and loyalty to, British intelligence?

"It's not difficult to argue that such an unraveling would have been the inevitable result, if Gareth Williams were reading Rashid Rauf's email. But we can't be sure Gareth read that email. The best we can say is that it's been reported. But plenty of things have been reported, and some of them were so ludicrous they had to be denied. So we certainly cannot believe everything we read in the papers.

"However, if what we have been told about Gareth's character is true, and if he did play a role in decoding the emails of the 'Liquid Bombers' and the 'Easter Bombers,' then we don't need to look any further to find a motive for leaking, or turning, or whatever. This is the drop of water I mentioned back in London.

"If all these so-called 'terrorists' are really entrapment victims, then where are the 'real' terrorists? Why don't they ever seem to show up? Is it because they don't exist? Is that why the Crown was so anxious to prosecute the knuckleheads? He would have had to ask himself all these questions, and many more.

"What is all the domestic surveillance about? Why all the travel restrictions? Eventually, if he trusted the evidence before him, he would have been forced to the conclusion that the 'terror' is bogus, and therefore the war 'against' it must also be bogus. Once he did so, how many other bogus bits of the 'conventional wisdom' and the 'official narrative' would he have been led to question?

"The list is endless, Watson. The man was a logician. Do you see the problem? Picture a house of cards, all finely balanced, one upon another. Now pull out one card. How many of the rest will remain standing?

"Each card represents one lie in the official narrative. We've been forced to the conclusion that Gareth lost his faith in, and respect for, the system he was working for. Why did that happen? Which card did he pull out?

"Was it the one about the 'Liquid Bombers?' Was it the one about the 'Easter Bombers?' Or was is something else? There were plenty of other possibilities.

"Perhaps he found out how the 9/11 attacks happened in the US. Perhaps he found out how the 7/7 bombings happened in London. Perhaps he found out about the bombings two weeks later that didn't happen.

"Perhaps he found out about some other malfeasance. The government keeps countless secrets, Watson, and some of them are quite legitimate. But others are very dirty indeed.

"What did Gareth learn that made him change his mind? He could have seen through any one of the dirty secrets, or any combination of them.

"Slate led us to one hypothesis, which certainly seems plausible. But it's only a hypothesis, and most likely it will never be tested.

"So our knowledge on this point is fuzzy at best, and seems destined to remain so. We're not apt to find another inside source. And even if we did, he would be very unlikely to know the answer. Gareth alone may have known which card he pulled out, which dirty little lie he spotted first.

"There's an unlimited supply, Watson. And any one of them could have led to exactly the same result."

Chapter 98: Three Links In A Chain


"Our hypotheses fit together well,
as three links in a chain." [source]
Holmes and I continued to walk, and he continued to talk.

"As we move further from the core, things get even fuzzier, Watson. I have posed one possible answer to the question of why Gareth may have turned against his employers. But there are many other possibilities.

"I have also floated an explanation for Gareth's trips to the pastry shop near the Holland Park tube station, and his repeated 'chance encounters' with a mysterious couple, who may or may not be the same as the 'Mediterranean couple' for whom the police are supposedly searching. Perhaps Gareth and the 'Holland Park couple' were meeting to arrange other, less visible, meetings, and for this reason, these meetings were seen by Gareth's employers as treacherous.

"It is possible that the 'Mediterranean couple' and the 'Holland Park couple' may be the same people, and that they may have been MI6 agents who were assigned to test Gareth, possibly to entrap him, certainly to contain whatever he may have been tempted to leak.

"Then there's the matter of the gay, drag, and bondage connections. Was Gareth assigned to dip himself in London's 'deviant sex' scene? Is this the import of the story we heard from Sian Lloyd-Jones about Gareth learning a new identity? If so, many puzzling details would become very clear.

"We have three interconnected hypotheses, then.

"First, that Gareth turned against British intelligence when he found out the War on Terror was a fraud predicated on the entrapment of knuckleheads, that he spoke to the 'wrong people' about his change of heart, and that this is why he was seconded from GCHQ to MI6.

"Second, that the 'Mediterranean couple' and the 'Holland Park couple' were the same, and that they were working for MI6, testing and tempting Gareth, and finally setting the stage for his murder.

"Third, that Gareth's appearances at a gay bar and a drag cabaret, and his visits to websites featuring bondage and torture, were work-related tasks whose secret purpose was to lay a foundation for the lurid tales that would be told about him after his death was discovered.

"For the most part, we have been working with published reports, and much of what has been published, concerning Gareth's death and the War on Terror, has been clearly fictional. If we throw away the details which are obviously false, these three hypotheses seem to provide a coherent explanation of what remains."

"It's a more coherent explanation than the police have provided," I said, "and it's much more plausible than anything we have read from the so-called 'security experts.'"

"That part hasn't been difficult," he replied. "They have set the bar extremely low, even for them. But my point is: these hypotheses may be infinitely more credible than anything we've read in the papers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they must be correct.

"When I say there's a possibility that I have some pieces in the wrong places, these are the places where I think it might have happened. For example, our first hypothesis might be wrong in several ways. The reports ascribing to Gareth a role in solving the puzzle presented by the 'Liquid Bombers' might have been fictional. Maybe the papers have it wrong and he wasn't reading Rashid Rauf's email after all. That wouldn't be the first bit of disinformation we've seen along this road.

"There are other possibilities, too. Maybe he never realised the 'Liquid Bombers' were pursuing an impossible plan of attack. Maybe he bought into the explanation that the way to protect ourselves against terrorists is to foment terrorism. In other words, it's possible that he knew their plot was bogus but he approved of the scheme by which they were set up. These latter possibilities seem unlikely, but we don't know.

"Similarly, the 'Mediterranean couple' and the 'Holland Park couple' might be distinct couples. Gareth's reason for meeting the 'Holland Park couple' might have been very different than I have suggested. And I still wonder whether the 'Mediterranean couple' exist at all. The story the police are telling about them is certainly very difficult to believe.

"But the 'Mediterranean couple' may exist; and they may even have got themselves 'buzzed in' to a 'safe house' by claiming they had a key to a flat within. If so, there remain other mysteries, such as why their key wouldn't also open the communal front door, and who in their right mind would let strangers into a 'safe house.'

"And then there's the question of the new identity, with the implication that Gareth was involved, or becoming involved, in undercover work. I have raised the possibility that this new identity was intended to put Gareth in contact with gay men, transvestites, and unsavoury websites. But other interpretations are certainly possible. It could be that the new identity he was learning had nothing to do with homosexuality, cross-dressing, or bondage, and that he was exploring these things on his own initiative. Given what else we know, I think this seems unlikely. But I wouldn't think it impossible.

 "It's possible that Gareth took a box of files to Sian Lloyd-Jones' flat so he could get away from the usual home and office surveillance. Under this line of thought, his second passport was not given to him by MI6, but was connected to something of which he knew MI6 would disapprove. And if this is the case, then there is probably a strong connection between the new identity and the reason why he was killed. 

"Of course, it's also possible that Gareth never took any files to Sian's place at all. She could have made up the whole story to make it seem as if she and Gareth were such good friends that he waived all the normal security precautions in her presence. It wouldn't be the first time somebody made up a story and told it to a reporter.

"Our hypotheses fit together well, as three links in a chain. None of the three is proven, mind you, and even though they combine to provide a reasonably plausible explanation, we still have a number of wide-open questions.

"Fortunately for us, if one of our hypotheses turned out to be incorrect, it wouldn't destroy the utility of the chain, as long as we could replace the faulty hypothesis with a better one.

"It almost seems dishonest, doesn't it, Watson? We can keep changing our story as much as we need to. But here's the catch: We can only move in one direction. We must discard ideas which are proven incorrect, and replace them with plausible alternatives. If we ever reach a point where we have no plausible alternatives, and our working hypothesis is proven incorrect, then changing our story would be dishonest. The thing to do then would be to admit we were wrong.

"But we haven't come to that point yet, my friend. We have not even come near it."

"It sounds to me," I said, "as though the investigation is not as 'finished' as you may have thought a few days ago."

"It's yet another instance of reality intruding on the best-laid plans," replied the detective. "We are compelled to continue, are we not?"

"I can't disagree," I said. "What are you going to tell Hughes?"

"I haven't figured that out yet," said my friend. "Why don't we turn around and head back toward the hotel? Maybe the answer will occur to me as we walk. In any event, you won't want to be late for dinner."

"It's good of you to remember that," said I.

"I've had a few years to pick up on it," said he.

Chapter 99: Retracing Our Steps


I savoured nature's display
of autumn colour. [source]
The Yorkshire air had a most refreshing effect as we retraced our steps, heading back to the hotel and dinner.

The great detective, who had been very quiet for the past several days, continued to put his thoughts into words. And I savoured nature's display of autumn colour while listening to him.

"The three hypotheses I've been describing," said he, "are certainly possible. And, given what we know, we may consider them quite plausible. But they are still hypothetical. In other words, they may be accurate, but their accuracy is by no means proven. As such, they represent three areas of uncertainty.

"However, I do not regard these uncertainties as major weaknesses in our case, both because in all three instances, several plausible alternatives exist, and because these hypotheses are all attempts to answer secondary, or even tertiary, questions.

"We may never find satisfactory answers to all these outlying questions, but the core of our case is built on answers to other, more central, questions. Do you follow?"

"I understand what you're saying," I replied, "but I don't see where you're going."

"I think Gareth Williams was murdered," he continued. "I think MI6 played a major role in his death, and I think so based on considerations independent of these uncertainties.

"I think Gareth was doing something his superiors felt had to be stopped in a way that would knock his confederates on their heels. How much difference does it make if I don't know exactly what he did to make them think so?

"Whatever he was doing, I think he was doing it because he had learned so much in his job that he had lost faith in, and respect for, the system he had originally chosen to serve. How much difference does it make if I can't say precisely when he changed his mind, and why?

"Or, what if I'm wrong, and what if he joined GCHQ eleven years ago with the express aim of betraying Britiain from inside an intelligence agency? How much difference would that make?

"I think the mysterious young couple he met at Patisserie Valerie may have been sent to entrap him, and to capture any secrets he could be persuaded to leak. How much difference would it make if I were wrong about that?

"In these instances, and in many others, the amount of difference it makes depends upon the context."

"Now you have me completely confused," I said. "What are you driving at?"

"Quite often," he replied, "after a murder, the family and friends will want to know what happened, how it happened, how their loved one's life drifted into channels where such a thing became possible, and so on.

"But in a court of law, there is a much narrower focus: Who did it? Can you prove it? These are the questions that drive the police, or should.

"And with respect to these questions, the core questions, we are much more solid. Who could obtain access to the flat, either to kill the occupant, or to deposit his body there? Who has enough control of the press to implement the character assassination we've seen?

"Why have no embarrassing questions been raised in Parliament about the lack of investigative progress? Why, despite the official spokesman for MI6 having declared it a matter for the police, are the police still not allowed to interview British intelligence agents?

"I can answer these questions without knowing who was meeting whom at the back of the cafe, Watson. And, to the extent I have to tell Hughes anything at all, I think I should stick to the core of the case, or as close to it as possible."

"You don't want to speak freely with him," I observed. "May I ask why not?"

"The waters are too deep, too dark, and too dangerous!" replied my friend. "I don't want to draw him into them. The questions I'm expecting from the family are precisely those I am least prepared to answer. So perhaps, for the moment, I should say as little as possible.

"Reporting to Hughes," he added, "for all the delicacy it requires, may be the least of my outstanding problems."

We walked along in silence for a minute or two before I finally asked, "What else is there?"

"For me," he replied, "there is the little matter of justice. A gauntlet has been thrown in my face, Watson, not to mention that two more lives have been taken. What am I going to do about it?"

I must admit I was stunned at my friend's response. I hadn't realised he would be looking to avenge the deaths of Slate and Robinson, as well as trying to solve the mystery of what happened to Gareth Williams.

But the longer I considered it, the more sense it made. How could I have expected any less of him?

"The more I weigh our options," said Holmes after another lengthy pause, "the more I think we should return to London tomorrow and do more research. I will write to Hughes, tell him we're investigating, and stress that we are still on the trail. That should keep him from worrying too much about the mystery, which is my primary concern for him at present.

"The problem of what to do about the case itself still haunts me, Watson," he continued, "so if you find me staring out the window with a pipe in my mouth, don't worry."

"Don't mention it," I replied. "I've seen you do that once or twice already. It usually means the bad guys are in trouble."

"I also need to talk with Mycroft," he added. "That should be interesting."

"Would it be too much," I wondered aloud, "to ask for another little birdie to come along and whisper sweet nothings in our ears?"

"Yes," replied Sherlock Holmes.

Chapter 100: A Wild Theory


"You asked for a wild theory." [source]
"We were fortunate to have Slate on our side, even if only for a while," said Sherlock Holmes, "but we cannot realistically expect to find another source inside the investigation. Which of them would dare talk to us now? Still, we are not without resources."

"I'm happy to hear that," I said, and we walked along in silence for a while.

As we approached the hotel, Holmes asked, "Is there any reason why we are obliged to hurry back to London?"

"None that I know of," I replied.

"Maybe we should stay until Monday," said my friend. "I'm enjoying the peace and quiet, and you seem happy here."

"I am indeed," I replied. "I have a comfortable bed, the food is excellent, and the scenery is beautiful. You're thinking clearly again, speaking freely, and even showing some fighting spirit. In my opinion, Yorkshire has been good for both of us."

"A bit more of it might be even better," said the detective, and I could not disagree.

We enjoyed a tasty dinner at the hotel, then retreated to an outdoor table with our coffee and tobacco. Holmes filled a pipe and lit it, and said, "Wouldn't you just love to know what happened to our guests after they departed Tuesday night? Aside from the fact which must be obvious to every reader -- that the stories in the press were full of impossibilities and contradictions -- we happen to know that Slate and Robinson were not where the reports placed them at the time of the 'botched burglary,' and we can be quite confident that the Minister wasn't there at the time, either."

"Right," I said.

"How can we use this information to our advantage?" asked Holmes, but I could not suggest an answer.

"Perhaps all we can do is keep it in our pocket and hope for a chance to use it later," said the detective, answering his own question. "Progress will likely be difficult to come by in the near future. We shall need to marshal all our resources. We may need to develop new resources. And we shall certainly need to be patient."

"We can express that patience immediately," I suggested, "by postponing our return to London!"

"Indeed," replied Holmes with a smile. "But we'll want to get moving early Monday morning. Patience may be a virtue, but sluggishness is assuredly not!"

"Do you have any concrete plans for London?" I asked, expecting a negative response.

"I have a few vague ideas," answered my friend, "and a half-baked scheme, nothing more. I need more time, Watson."

"We have plenty of that," I said.

"I need more tobacco, too," said Holmes.

"We can get that," I replied.

"And so we shall," said the detective. "We shall also see whether I can work up another plan, preferably a better one."

"When you said we were not without resources," I asked, "what did you have in mind?"

"Another look through the files might do us some good," replied my friend. "We may be able to get some more assistance from my brother. I know a great many other people, one of whom might be able to help us. There are several other possibilities as well."

"You'd rather not say what they are?" I asked, half in jest.

"Not yet," he replied. "Wait and see, my friend. Wait and see."

For the next few moments, we smoked in silence, save for the chirping of a few birds and the rustling of the wind in the trees. Then Holmes turned to me and said, "You're right, Watson. I am in the mood to speak freely this evening. You have other questions, don't you?"

"Yes, I suppose I do," I replied.

"Ask me one," he said.

"All right," I replied, "Thus far, you have concentrated on the hypotheses you find most plausible. To me, the lines of thought you have suggested all seem quite probable. But I can't help wondering about some of your least probable hypotheses."

"Ah, yes, Watson," said Holmes. "What Inspector Lestrade would call my 'wild theories.' Would you like to hear about my wildest theory?"

"Yes, of course," I answered.

"First," he said, "we must acknowledge an implicit contradiction in the published reports. It's been reported that the body of Gareth Williams was unmarked save for small bruises at both elbows. But it has also been reported that his body was 'in an advanced state of decomposition.' We have no way of knowing which is true, if either, but we can say with confidence that if the body was badly decomposed, no small bruises would be visible.

"Many reports support the decomposition story, some indirectly. One of them, published by the Sun, quoted coroner's officer Kim Bedwell, who told the very short inquest session held September first, 'I'm satisfied that the deceased is Gareth Wyn Williams... Identification was confirmed by comparison of the deceased with a recent photograph that was supplied by the next of kin.'

"If Kim Bedwell told the truth and was quoted correctly, it's entirely possible none of the family have ever seen the body. And if that is the case, then it is entirely possible Gareth Williams is still alive!"

"You don't mean it?" I gasped.

"I do!" he replied. "You asked for a wild theory. This is the wildest theory I can give you."

I whistled softly.

"Next in line," Holmes continued, "would be the wild theory that says Gareth Williams is dead but the body found in his flat belonged to someone else."

"Do you think that's possible, too?" I asked.

"If no family member has seen the body," he replied, "then virtually anything is possible."

"Wouldn't switching the body be too risky?" I asked.

"Compared to what?" asked Holmes. "Leaving the body of an MI6 man in an MI6 'safe house?' There is no possible interpretation which does not require outrageous audacity on behalf of the killers. Have you any other objection to my wild theory?"

"What would be the point?" I asked.

"Suppose the killers wanted to make sure they would never be betrayed by the forensic evidence available from the body. What better way could they achieve this than by leaving behind another body altogether? Perhaps the body that was found in the flat was in a remarkably advanced state of decomposition because its owner died long before Gareth Williams was last seen alive."

"And if that is the case," I said, "then we may be investigating a more monstrous crime than we ever suspected!"

"Don't get carried away," cautioned my friend. "It's only a wild theory!"

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)