Where Michael Ross is now as Prime Video's The Orkney Assassin airs
Prime Video's The Orkney Assassin is now available for viewing, but where is Michael Ross?
In 1994, the Orkney Islands were thrust into the international limelight when 26 year old Shamsuddin Mahmood was brutally murdered in Mumtaz restaurant, a bustling curry house in Kirkwall.
At approximately 7.10pm on June 2, a masked man donning a balaclava entered the restaurant and fatally shot the Bangladeshi waiter before calmly exiting the premises.
For 14 years, his murderer managed to evade capture until a breakthrough occurred in 2006 when a witness informed the Kirkwall police that they had seen 15 year old Michael Ross with a firearm on the night of the murder.
(Image: ORKNEY PHOTOGRAPHIC/PRIME VIDEO)
Before his arrest, Ross joined the renowned Scottish regiment Black Watch at the tender age of 17 where he ascended to the rank of sergeant of a sniper platoon and served in the first Gulf War.
It was then in 2008 that, after a trial at the High Court in Glasgow where he refrained from giving evidence, he was convicted for the murder of Shamsuddin Mahmood.
Where is Michael Ross now?
Ross is currently serving a life sentence for Mahmood's murder at one of Scotland's maximum-security prisons, HMP Shotts in Lanarkshire, as reported by the BBC.
To date, he has served nearly 17 years of his sentence and during this period, Ross has attempted to escape on multiple occasions, including in 2018 when he tried to scale a fence.
Ross had crafted a makeshift ladder and attempted to climb over the fence while other inmates were exercising in the yard.
Consequently, Ross was allegedly held in solitary confinement for weeks and barred from contacting his loved ones.
(Image: PA)
His lawyer Aamer Anwar asserted that Ross was aware the escape attempt would fail but aimed to draw attention to his appeal against conviction.
Despite being found guilty in 2008, Ross maintains his innocence, telling The Orcadian newspaper recently: "I'm doing a 25-year life sentence for something I didn't do."
Ross' earliest possible release date is reportedly set for 2035.
The upcoming Prime Video documentary, The Orkney Assassin: Murder In The Isles, will thoroughly examine the brutal murder, the prolonged investigation, and feature interviews with investigators from the time, Ross' lawyer, and his parents, who also claim he is innocent.
The Orkney Assassin: Murder In The Isles is available to watch on Prime Video.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon: The 'powerhouse' of Scottish politics?
From her public fallout with Alex Salmond and a shocking police investigation and even rumours about her sexuality, her life as a politician has played out in the eyes of the world in a way that many before her have never experienced. Since the Scottish Parliament reconvened 25 years ago, Ms Sturgeon has been a mainstay of the Holyrood corridors. Ms Sturgeon's influence on UK politics is rarely disputed, even if her record in government is often criticised for a drug deaths crisis and a failure to narrow the educational attainment gap. Every move – both political and person – has been under immense scrutiny. And yet in May 2026, she will call time on her political career. By that point, it will have been more than three years since she resigned as first minister and SNP leader. But before she goes, the former first minister will release her autobiography Frankly next week, on August 14. Read more: Ms Sturgeon has already shared that the book will be deeply personal, covering every success and failure of her political career. For those of us who have interacted with Ms Sturgeon over the years, it had been clear being at the helm of Scottish politics had taken its toll. It may then seem surprising that the former first minister would want to share every detail of her life with the public in her memoir, particularly as she has sought privacy from the shockwaves of Operation Branchform – the police probe into SNP finances. Ms Sturgeon was arrested and questioned about the case in June 2023 but was informed in March this year the investigation had concluded and she was no longer a suspect. Her husband Peter Murrell – who she is now divorcing – was charged in April 2024 with embezzlement. The case rumbles on as the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service confirmed his next court appearance has yet to be set. Is this a case then of the former first minister trying to reclaim her legacy? A source close to the former first minister told The Herald on Sunday: 'I think being freed from the constraints of office, albeit she is still an MSP but is standing down, it means she is perhaps more able, and will be more able in the years to come, to discover about the person she is rather than the politician she has been literally all of her adult life. On a professional level, it is all she has ever done. (Image: PA) 'The nature of politics, especially in this day and age, it doesn't really give people any leeway.' 'Politics is a brutal business and it doesn't cut people any slack, certainly when you're as prominent, high-profile and senior as she was for so many years, it's very hard to have a life of your own,' the insider said. 'I think that's something that she probably realises now that she is almost completely freed, notwithstanding a few months to go as an MSP, but almost certainly freed of the burden, if you like. 'I think she is realising for the first time just how constraining the life of a senior politician has been for her in all sorts of ways.' You just have to take a look at the former first minister's social media posts to see she is already feeling lighter from the burden of politics. There has been a gradual opening up in recent months with glimpses of gym sessions, driving lessons and cocktails with friends. Ms Sturgeon is building her life away from politics – but she may never escape the attention of her public persona. It is not an understatement to suggest that Nicola Sturgeon is up there with the highest profile politicians Scotland has ever seen. But does her time in office and her legacy match up to that lofty moniker though? Ask the future of the SNP and they will tell you of her 'overwhelmingly positive legacy'. David Barrett, an SNP candidate for Cowdenbeath in next year's election, said: 'She was and still is internationally recognised as the powerhouse of Scottish politics.' He added: 'She has an enormous legacy that I think the public recognises. There may be people that want to cast negative aspects to her legacy and they will desperately try to do that. They can try to undermine her legacy if they want to but they will fail.' But within her own party, there are those who believe she is to blame for the party's very significant decline in popularity. Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry is among the most outspoken of those critics. Read more: She has repeatedly described her former leader's reign over the SNP as a 'failure' and 'divisive'. Take her recent Scottish Daily Mail column. The KC lambasts Ms Sturgeon's record on health, education, poverty, transport – and of course, the failure to secure independence. She asks whether the Scottish Child Payment and the baby box – two policies often cited as Ms Sturgeon's key successes – are 'the height of her legacy'. Ms Cherry wrote: 'She repeatedly promised a second referendum she knew she could not deliver, issuing a never-ending list of dates and targets which she missed. 'She marched her troops up and down the hill until many of them deserted in disgust.' It would of course be remiss not to mention the significant fallout between Ms Cherry and Ms Sturgeon, caused by a number of political and personal reasons, including the former first minister's focus on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which aimed to simplify the process of a transgender individual to change their legal gender. (Image: PA) Ms Cherry has always been a fierce defender of Alex Salmond, the predecessor and mentor of Ms Sturgeon. The row between the two former first ministers rocked the SNP and has lasting implications for the independence movement the pair once built. Under Ms Sturgeon's tenure, the Scottish Government admitted it acted unlawfully while investigating sexual harassment allegations against Mr Salmond. He was cleared of 13 allegations in 2020 but his allies have always accused Ms Sturgeon of participating in a plot against him. Ms Sturgeon resigned as first minister on her own terms while still a significantly popular figure. There can be no doubt that her resignation - and the events that followed - changed her party forever. Ipsos's political monitoring put the SNP on 50% of the Holyrood constituency vote in December 2022. Since her resignation, it has narrowed consistently, reaching 34% in June 2025 - a record low since 2010. She was the face of daily Covid-19 briefings while the country was on lockdown – a move winning her significant support with the public. But the pandemic inquiry that followed have done her legacy no favours. It was revealed that all of Ms Sturgeon's WhatsApp messages from this time had been deleted. Those who lost loved ones to the virus, especially those who were transferred from hospital to a care home while testing positive with the virus, would argue this is a significant part of her legacy. Regardless of how Ms Sturgeon describes her own legacy in her memoir, it will do little to convince her critics. Her close ally describes it: 'If you are subject to scrutiny that she describes, I think there's probably an element of 'I want to be my own person but I'm going to tell it how it is and how I see it'. 'Is that magically going to stop mischief-making and speculation? No. 'If she had been entirely honest and candid, would she rather things hadn't been so intrusive and hadn't been dissected so much? Absolutely. But I think she realises and recognises that it goes with the territory." The source added: 'She elevated the status and the office of first minister and by extension the status of Scotland in a way and to a level that has never been the case previously. 'She was and remains a figure of international interest.' As the sun sets on Ms Sturgeon's political career, there are a range of opinions surrounding her. Whether you believe she has been a positive or negative figure on Scottish politics, it is clear why so many are desperate to know just what the former first minister will reveal in her memoir.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
MSPs weighing up Suzanne's Law should be clear on what it means
Introduced to Parliament more than two years ago, the Government and MSPs are considering final amendments to the legislation. This is the last chance for politicians and campaigners to shape the final flagship criminal justice reform of this SNP administration. One proposal featured prominently in the media last week. Sponsored by the new LibDem MSP Jamie Greene and backed by Victim Support Scotland, 'Suzanne's Law' would require the Parole Board to 'refuse killers parole if they withhold the location of their victims' bodies'. The amendment is named after Suzanne Pilley, who disappeared in 2010. David Gilroy was convicted of her murder in 2012 but remains tight-lipped about where her body might be. Relatives of Pilley and other families who have lost loved ones – and remain in the dark about where their bones are interred – gave a powerful press conference in Glasgow last week, describing the predicament as a 'form of mental torture'. READ MORE: 'Absolutely crazy': Scottish jazz artist scores new film by Hollywood director They argue the uncertainty about the fate of their loved ones makes that elusive thing – 'closure' – even more difficult to find. Homicide convictions are not common but have featured prominently in a number of high-profile documentaries from High Court murder trials in recent years. They range from the disappearance of Arlene Fraser and the subsequent prosecutions and convictions of her husband Nat in 2012, to Margaret Fleming's disappearance from Inverkip, resulting in the conviction of Edward Cairney and Avril Jones in 2019, despite the lack of a murder weapon, physical evidence proving how murder could have been committed or even physical evidence establishing that Fleming had passed away as a result of foul play. To understand this campaign, you need to understand something of the law as it currently applies. If someone is convicted of murder in Scotland, the court is required to hand down a life sentence. The judge sets what is normally called the 'punishment part' of the sentence, which is the minimum period of time the prisoner will remain in custody before being eligible to apply for parole. Decisions on whether or not to release life prisoners from custody are made by the Parole Board. The board is composed of a mixture of legal and criminal justice professionals and is independent of government. Their key role is to 'ensure that those prisoners who are no longer regarded as presenting a risk to public safety may serve the remainder of their sentence in the community on licence under the supervision of a supervising officer'. In taking these decisions, the Parole Board is concerned with risk to the public – not further punishment. News reports suggest that in response, Cabinet Secretary for Justice Angela Constance has accepted some kind of amendment to the parole rules which will require the board to treat non-disclosure of where a victim's remains might be found as a factor in decision-making. While details haven't been published, this would fall short of the principle of 'no body, no parole' requiring the Parole Board to automatically refuse to release a prisoner who won't provide information about what happened to their victim. This proposal has been met by some sceptical responses from parts of the legal world. The first argument is: there's no point in introducing laws like this. Speaking to the media last week, lawyers pointed out that Parole Board rules already direct them to consider whether or not the prisoner has revealed the whereabouts of their victim's body. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar blasted as 'hypocrite' after branding Benjamin Netanyahu 'war criminal' On Radio Scotland, advocate Edith Forrest rightly pointed to Rule 12 of the Parole Board Rules which already applies to parole hearings involving someone serving a life sentence for murder or culpable homicide. Where the Parole Board 'does not know where and how the victim's remains were disposed of' and believes the prisoner 'has information about where and how the victim's remains were disposed of' then it can take this into account in terms of deciding whether or not to release them on licence. This looks, as Forrest says, much like the rules which the Scottish Government is now proposing to add to the statute book. Holyrood has, yet again, been caught relegislating for things the law already deals with. Jamie Greene's response is he thinks 'it's important to get this stuff in black and white on the face of legislation'. But there are other reasons why MSPs would be wise to approach introducing rules like this carefully. As the name suggests, the whole campaign is premised on a particular scenario: a factually guilty person, behind bars, maliciously refusing to yield information about their victim's final resting place, presented as a form of coercive control beyond the grave, or as a further act of spite to rub salt into the wounds of families broken by grief. Presented in this way, who could reasonably object to the idea of keeping dangerous characters like this in custody? But try looking at the proposal from another angle. Try thinking of this not as Suzanne's Law but just as a law which will apply to all kinds of prisoners. While Greene's proposals might answer a sense of justice in one context, they are guaranteed to create more injustice in others. In the miscarriages of justice literature, this is sometimes called the 'innocent prisoner's dilemma'. Consider the case of Andy Malkinson, by way of illustration. Malkinson was convicted of rape in 2004. The conviction relied on the evidence of the victim, who picked Malkinson out of a life-up, saying she was '100% sure' he was the man. She was mistaken. He was convicted by majority verdict and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set the punishment part at six years and 125 days. Subsequent forensic re-examination of the victim's clothing found DNA matching the profile of another man on the national database. On the basis of this new evidence, the Court of Appeal in London finally quashed Malkinson's rape conviction as unsafe in the summer of 2023. He spent 17 years in custody. READ MORE: Former Knesset speaker urges '1 million Jews' to file Israel war crimes complaint Failures in the handling of Malkinson's case have now precipitated the collapse in the leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC is responsible for reviewing potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. But there was another step in the criminal justice process which helped keep Malkinson in custody for 17 years: the parole process. Although eligible to apply for release on license after spending six years and 125 days in custody, the Parole Board applied a principle like Suzanne's law to his case. In essence, it said: if you don't admit you did this, we're going to leave you in prison until you do. Rules like this demand of wrongfully convicted people an impossible question: which is more important to you, the truth or your liberty? Choose. As the Court of Appeal explained in its 2023 judgment vindicating Malkinson, 'throughout those many years', he 'adamantly maintained that he was innocent of the crimes and had been wrongly convicted'. And 'he did so in the knowledge that he was thereby delaying his release from prison' – for years, and years, and years. This is the innocent prisoner's dilemma. Malkinson described it as his catch-22. If he just admitted to committing the rape he was convicted of and went through the dishonest motions of engaging with the behavioural programmes in prison requiring him to reflect on his wrongdoing, he'd have been released from prison long before he was. If he refused, more years were guaranteed to pass him by, protesting his innocence in custody. Similar considerations apply to Suzanne's Law. You can't give the authorities information about a murder you did not commit. You cannot specify a deposition site if you didn't kill your victim. Given the small numbers of people involved, perhaps you're comfortable with a utilitarian calculus which sees a small number of innocent people like Andy Malkinson spending more time in custody for crimes they did not do, if it visits lengthier punishments on guilty men, determined to inflict a final twist of the knife on families they've already bereaved. In backing this campaign, that's the choice MSPs will be making.
South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Salmond may have leaked sexual misconduct inquiry details, claims Sturgeon
In an excerpt of her new memoir, Frankly, published by The Times, Ms Sturgeon insisted she was not the one who had leaked the outcome of the Scottish government investigation into her predecessor as first minister to the press. She said: 'It crossed my mind many times that it might have been Alex himself or someone acting on his behalf. 'To those with no experience of the dark arts of media manipulation, I know this will sound preposterous. However, in many ways it would have been classic Alex. 'I had known him to make these kinds of calculations in the past. If there is damaging information certain to emerge about you and there is nothing you can do to stop it, get it out in a way that gives you the best chance of controlling the narrative.' Mr Salmond, who died last year, was investigated by the Scottish government in 2018 after two women made allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The findings of that investigation were leaked to The Daily Record on the day before they were due to be published, prompting Mr Salmond to launch a judicial review of the handling of the inquiry. The Scottish government initially defended the judicial review, before dropping its defence. But a separate police investigation resulted in a criminal trial in 2020 in which Mr Salmond was cleared of all 14 charges, being found not guilty on 12 counts while prosecutors withdrew another charge and one was found not proven. The next year Mr Salmond, who had been Scottish first minister between 2007 and 2014 as leader of the SNP, founded the pro-independence Alba Party. In her memoir, Ms Sturgeon said Mr Salmond had informed her that he was being investigated in April 2018 and initially appeared to be 'upset and mortified' before he 'became cold'. Claiming he 'effectively admitted the substance of one of the complaints, but claimed that it had been a 'misunderstanding'', Ms Sturgeon said it had been 'evident' that Mr Salmond 'wanted me to intervene' to stop or divert the investigation. She added that her refusal to do so turned him against her and 'made the break-up of one of the most successful partnerships in modern British politics all but inevitable'. Ms Sturgeon also accused Mr Salmond of attempting to 'cast himself as the victim' and being 'prepared to traumatise, time and again, the women at the centre of it all'. She said: 'A conspiracy against Alex would have needed a number of women deciding to concoct false allegations, without any obvious motive for doing so. 'It would then have required criminal collusion between them, senior ministers and civil servants, the police and the Crown. 'That is what he was alleging. The 'conspiracy' was a fabrication, the invention of a man who wasn't prepared to reflect honestly on his own conduct.' In other extracts, published on Friday, Ms Sturgeon discussed her arrest in 2023, describing it as 'mental torture', her miscarriage in 2010 and her sexuality. Nicola Sturgeon served as Scottish first minister between 2014 and 2023. Her memoir, Frankly, will be published on Thursday.
