The Gareth Williams Spy in a Bag Case

Gareth Williams was an employee of GCHQ, a British intelligence agency, when he was found dead in his apartment August 23, 2010.

His corpse was found locked inside a large sports bag placed in his bathtub. Hence the phrase "Spy in a Bag" used prominently in the news media.

It is still unknown how he died, whether as an accident, a hit by a foreign intelligence agency, organized crime, or a sex game gone wrong.

Police believe it was an accident, while the coroner found that his death was likely the result of a criminal action.

Notes on these possibilities and evidence supporting each:

Evidence Suggestive of Murder (Foreign Intelligence Agency/Organized Crime:

1. The coroner concluded Williams' death was likely the result of criminal action
2. Difficult (but not impossible) to lock oneself in the bag without leaving prints
3. No DNA on the bag locks
4. The handles on the outside of the bag were fastened together with velcro
5. Bag placed in the bathtub (evidence down the drain)
6. No handprints or footprints in the bath
7. Room heater on full blast (get rid of evidence faster)
8. DNA found in bathroom too small to be analyzed
9. Williams didn't have a knife with him to get out of the bag in an emergency
10. A confinement expert believes it must have been murder
11. No signs of a struggle to get out of the bag
12. His family says he wasn't a risk taker
13. Williams possessed rare skills hard to replace, he launched effective counterattacks to stop enemy computer hackers gaining access to UK banks
14. His cell phone was wiped clean shortly before his death
15. Williams made "unauthorized searches that left him open to blackmail"
16. Evidence of at least 2 unidentified people in the apartment around the time of his death
17. The front door could be opened through the mailbox by anyone, security problem
18. Williams wasn't just an intelligence worker, he was a spy out in the field as well, traveling abroad
19. He knew in some way the son of a billionaire Kazakh oligarch
20. He likely met with spies at his safe house apartment and they or he may have been followed
21. One of his jobs was tracking the flow of money between Russia and Europe

Evidence Suggestive of an Accident/Suicide:

1. Police concluded it was likely an accident
2. Williams had recently attended the DefCon conference, where attendees can learn how to escape from handcuffs, not leave traces, etc
3. It is possible to lock oneself inside that kind of sports bag
4. Williams apparently visited bondage websites on his computer
5. His landlady once found him tied to his bed and he needed help, suggesting a propensity to restrain himself
6. Williams had just been taken off a job (distraught, suicide?)

Evidence Suggestive of a Sex-Related Angle

1. His landlady once found him tied to his bed and he needed help, suggesting a propensity to restrain himself
2. Evidence he wore women's clothing
3. Williams apparently visited bondage websites on his computer
4. Williams visited transvestite/gay clubs (disputed?)
5. Williams made "unauthorized searches that left him open to blackmail"

As you can see, so far I've tallied far more facts that point in the direction of murder than for any other explanation.

**********

You Might Also Like:

1. Who Killed the Spy Gareth Williams?
2. My Novel: Murder at the Library Conference
3. My Twitter Page
4. My Amazon Author Page
5. My Goodreads Page

How to Get Comfortable While Writing

Comfort while writing is essential, otherwise, how can you produce your best work?

The ideal position for writing depends entirely on the writer. Comfort for one is agony to another. I may prefer a leather executive chair while you want to recline on your sofa. But you need to find what is necessary to be comfortable. Otherwise how can you expect to ever challenge J.K. Rowling or Stephen King?

The home works for many. But it is a living hell for others. Do you need to get away somewhere?

You may prefer to venture out into the public arena in search of a comfortable writing place. Maybe it will give you a fresh perspective on the world as well as your manuscript. A cafe like Starbucks or Panera. But you may prefer to be waited on at your table. In that case, something like Olive Garden or Longhorn Steakhouse. The idea of typing on your laptop next to a plate crowded with a sirloin steak and a foil-wrapped baked potato topped with a gob of butter suddenly appeals to you. Who couldn't write something good in that setting?

Or you may prefer toting your iPad to the local dance club at midnight and write your next chapter while everyone around you is tripping to the loud pulsating beats. Can you type and dance at the same time? Is that what it would take to unleash something on the world never written before?

Have you been selected for an Amtrak writer's residency? Good for you. Writing on a train, bus, cruise ship, subway, or airplane may be just what you need to elevate your manuscript to Big 5 publishing house quality.

In a public place, you lose control of your local environment. Is it worth it? For some, yes. Anyone can walk in the door and start talking loudly next to you. Or maybe the lighting isn't right. Or the chairs don't work well with your anatomy. On the other hand, you may be one of those who require a public setting to compose your best prose. You draw inspiration from not knowing who or what will confront you when you step out your front door and into a restaurant, dance club, or library. The danger ignites your literary fire.

For most people, we can list standard apparatus needed for comfy composing:

1. A nice chair or sofa.
2. Something to drink.
3. Something to snack on.
4. Music or background white noise, such as that provided by a TV.
5. A pleasant scene outside the window.
6. Your favorite writing attire (you do have favorite writing clothes?).
7. Your favorite laptop or mobile device.
8. The heat/ac of your room properly adjusted.
9. The absence of annoying things or people.

**********

You Might Also Like:

1. 20 Reasons to Take a One-Way Trip to Mars
2. 5 Creepy Kinds of Starbucks People
3. How to Write a Novel Holding a Full-time Job
4. My Novel: Murder at the Library Conference
5. My Twitter Page
6. My Amazon Author Page
7. My Goodreads Page

20 Reasons to Take a One-Way Trip to Mars

The Mars One mission to colonize Mars will start blasting off with human crews in 2024. The trip is one-way. They're not coming back to Earth.

1,058 applicants have made it to the next round which will include rigorous simulations of space flight.

Why would someone want to leave earth forever? Here are 20 reasons for anyone thinking about taking the Mars plunge:

1. Nothing else to do. 23% of applicants are unemployed.
2. The wife. Some of the finalists are married.
3. Think of the publicity. A reality show is planned.
4. This is what you have to do to get noticed these days.
5. You owe somebody a lot of money and can't pay it back.
6. The grass is always greener on another planet, even a red one like Mars.
7. You did something really bad, like murder, and would otherwise spend the rest of your life behind bars.
8. Nobody cares if you're on this planet or not, so goodbye.
9. Your life is agony and you need a permanent change.
10. If it's broke and can't be fixed, run away.
11. Because coming back to what you left would ruin what you did where you went.
12. No more cable TV commercials.
13. A great way to get into the history books if you have no skill or talent for anything.
14. Leaving for good is the only way they will ever appreciate you.
15. You're doing it for science, although the idea of leaving the people of this world pains you greatly.
16. Mars is the new French Riviera.
17. You'll spend the rest of your life with astronauts just as psycho and unqualified as you are.
18. When the Earth blows up, you're safe.
19. There's no intelligent life on this planet.
20. Obama, Putin, Kim, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, Cuba, Congo, illegal people, Islamists, communists, serial killers, politicians, voters, criminals, wind farms, sharks, mosquitoes, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Hollywood, rain and snow.

**********

You Might Also Like:

1. Why Are We Afraid of Great Leaders?
2. 5 Creepy Kinds of Starbucks People
3. How to Write a Novel Holding a Full-time Job
4. My Novel: Murder at the Library Conference
5. My Twitter Page
6. My Amazon Author Page
7. My Goodreads Page

Why Are We Afraid of Great Leaders?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign nation, and the lackluster response from western leaders, must induce all of us to question the suitability of the leaders who rule our countries.

Vladimir Putin ignores Russia's deep problems while invading and threatening his neighbors, causing alarm throughout the world. European statesmen and President Obama make threatening noises but seem impotent during this latest international crisis.

Think of the zeal of millions of voters who rushed to the polls, stood in long lines, and enthusiastically voted for Obama. Judging from recent opinion surveys, many of those people regret voting for him. Yet it was clear during his first term that he was unsuited for the job.

I think of all the famous politicians currently in the US government on both sides of the aisle, and I ask myself, aren't there literally millions and millions of citizens who would make better leaders? McCain, Boehner, McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, Biden.

We elect those with nothing more than a prominent bloodline, like the Kennedys and the Bushes, as if this were a monarchy. And jokers like comedian Al Franken. All unqualified by any honest measure. Yet the prominent names are reelected over and over despite enormous supposed "disapproval" of Congress itself. It's not an accident. The promotion of mediocrity is deliberate.

We settle for individuals we know, deep down inside us, are middling, but probably lower than that. My conclusion is that we don't really want great leaders. We fear them. Bizarrely, what makes us comfortable are rulers like those mentioned above.

Are we intimidated by great leaders? Do we fear they will push things forward and we just aren't ready or up to it? It seems as if great leaders are an anomaly, an accident, and we didn't really mean to have them. But the world around us reflects their inadequacy.

**********

You Might Also Like:

5 Creepy Kinds of Starbucks People

How to Write a Novel Holding a Full-time Job

Murder at the Library Conference

My Twitter Page

My Amazon Author Page

My Goodreads Page

5 Creepy Kinds of Starbucks People

I see it all in the Washington DC area. At least no shootings yet, but that's more a McDonalds thing.

I could have made a list of 10 instead of just 5 without breaking a sweat, but that leaves plenty for a sequel down the road.

1. People Who Bring In Their Non-service Dogs

• Always arriving with a phony, toothy smile
• Often pretending it's a service dog when it clearly isn't
• Always pretending others actually want their barking, crapping dog in the cafe

2. Mothers with Screaming Babies

• Sit at communal tables right next to obviously annoyed readers and silent laptop users
• Pretend they have a right to destroy the local atmosphere
• "Inconsiderate" isn't a word in their vocabulary
• Others should be honored they brought their genius baby with them

3. Bums of All Stripes

• Squatter bums can annihilate a cafe's pleasant atmosphere and turn it from a go-to spot to a stay-away-from cafe
• Customers of quality (read: girls) stay away from hobo-infested cafes
• Smelly, drug addicts, mentally ill, and criminal records. Did I leave out anything?

4. Laptop Users Wanting the Plug at Your Table

• They want you to move from your table so they can have it and the wall socket nearby
• They arrive with a dead battery in their laptop (not to mention the dead attitude)
• The important reasons they're here and needing priority: online games, chat and all other frivolous activities

5. Headphonophobes

• Loud music and talk from the speaker of their laptop because they didn't bring headphones or earphones
• They brought headphones but just don't feel like using them
• Not inconveniencing anyone with my loud noise, right? You want to hear what I've got on my laptop, right??

**********

You Might Also Like:

How to Write a Novel Holding a Full-time Job

Murder at the Library Conference

My Twitter Page

My Amazon Author Page

My Goodreads Page

NYT's Nervous Breakdown Over @GSElevator's Book Deal

The Twitter account @GSElevator was recently revealed to be someone by the name of John Lefevre.

The New York Times has breathlessly informed us of this guy's true identity and that he never worked for Goldman Sachs, despite committing the cardinal sin of telling an NYT reporter he did.

The NYT has now published, yes, an editorial about @GSElevator and his six-figure book deal with Simon & Schuster.

The problem? NYT says Lefevre is a "liar" with no credibility. That's their stated issue with the whole thing.

But that's not the real problem and doesn't explain why the NYT is having a tizzy fit over an anonymous twitterer.

The real problem is the fact that @GSElevator regularly criticized Obama, therefore marking himself as an enemy of the NYT and its own frenzied political stance on the far left.

As a side note, the NYT dishonestly lives off a reputation for journalism it earned long ago. By "long ago," I mean World War II. That was over half a century ago. The NYT is now a newspaper that slants news stories in the direction of socialism. That started around, probably, the time of the JFK assassination or thereabouts. It ignores what it doesn't want to report though in theory it should, and what it does choose to report is based on its politics. I can't think of anything more dishonest in a journalistic sense. As honest journalism, the NYT doesn't have any credibility. It has a reputation that it no longer deserves.

As for Lefevre, suppose he were a typical liberal of today. In other words, a socialist/communist hiding behind words like "progressive" or "liberal" until it is socially acceptable to call oneself a communist. Do you think for one moment the NYT would have the slightest problem with Lefevre or his lucrative book deal?

If he had been singing the praises of liberals, the NYT would laud him as a hero and tell us about his "fresh approach," and yadda yadda yadda.

The NYT is in the process of writing so much copy on this guy, they could write their own book about it. The "chapters" are coming fast and furious!

To me, the scribblings of the NYT reveal more about its own failings and shortcomings than anything about @GSElevator or the book publishing business.

**********

You Might Also Like:

1. How to Write a Novel Holding a Full-time Job
2. Stephen Leary Refused to Return Our Repeated Phone Calls
3. Murder at the Library Conference
4. My Amazon Author Page
5. My Goodreads Page

Stephen Leary Refused to Return Our Repeated Phone Calls

It's a commonplace in the mainstream newspaper media. Somewhere in the last few paragraphs of hundreds of news article:

1. He did not return our repeated phone calls
2. He declined to comment
3. He did not return phone calls seeking comment
4. He did not respond to a text message seeking comment
5. He did not return an email seeking comment

I don't see much of these:

1. He did not respond to our Twitter message seeking comment
2. He did not respond to our Facebook friend request
3. He ignored our LinkedIn friend request
4. We left a comment on his blog seeking comment but he has ignored it

I would think it is understood that contact was attempted with the subject of a news article without stating it. There seems to be some implied condemnation of the person who did not communicate with the newspaper.

Newspapers that built their reputations long ago, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, feel that is is an honor to be contacted by them and it is a person's duty to respond since theoretically, the media is acting in the public good. But it almost goes without saying that newspapers don't practice journalism as it was understood decades ago but now slant everything to their political god.

It is a matter of time before a newspaper story is composed of nothing but a list of ways the reporter attempted to contact the main personage under review, without success.

I'm thinking this will be a new genre in news reporting. The genre of simply writing about how a reporter attempted to contact the subject of a proposed article in numerous ways but was completely unsuccessful. A literary short story is in there, I'm sure.

I'm eager for the day I read in a newspaper the title of this post, "Stephen Leary Refused to Return Our Repeated Phone Calls" because I can see myself doing that, depending on what they want and what I think they would do with the quotes I would give them, which is probably nothing too good, such is the state of the news media these days. Like many, I would judge whether it's something innocuous or, on the other hand, something they would consider in their minds a political opportunity.

I like the idea of mainstream reporters needing to contact me and me not needing to communicate with them. Surely a lot of famous people feel this way. Not so famous people as well, given the large number of news stories I've seen with that paragraph stating the reporter's frustration in achieving contact with the wanted person.

**********

You Might Also Like:

1. How to Write a Novel Holding a Full-time Job
2. Why You Should Write Your Novel Out of Sequence
3. Murder at the Library Conference
4. My Amazon Author Page
5. My Goodreads Author Page