The Orkney Assassin unmasked: How schoolboy, 15, escaped justice for 14 years for racist point blank execution of Indian waiter - and whose parents STILL believe 'real' killer is out there
New details have been revealed about a schoolboy who swerved justice for 14 years after his racist murder of an restaurant waiter.
Michael Ross went on to be hailed for heroics in the first Gulf War as he served as a Black Watch sergeant.
He joined the famous Scottish regiment at the age of 17 and progressed through the ranks, eventually becoming the sergeant of a sniper platoon - and his service included a tour of duty in Iraq in which comrades were killed.
But he remained free for years before being jailed for the shooting to death at point blank range of Shamsuddin Mahmood at an Orkney Islands restaurant in Scotland.
Ross was finally brought to justice when jailed for life, aged 29, in June 2008 - found guilty of carrying out the killing as a 15-year-old teenager.
Now a new investigation has shed new light on Ross, as he and his family continue to say he was wrongly convicted.
He was ultimately found guilty of what was described as a 'savage, merciless and pointless' murder of Mr Mahmood.
Yet his parents are continuing to insist he is innocent and the 'real' killer remains on the loose, as suggested in a new Amazon Prime Video documentary about the case.
Ross is seen here as a 29-year-old defendant outside Glasgow High Court in June 2008
The killing of 26-year-old Mr Mahmood came on June 2 1994 when a masked man walked into the Orkney Islands' only Indian restaurant and 'executed' his victim before calmly walking away.
Ross's trial in 2008 heard that, as a youth, he harboured extreme racist views that drove him to hunt down and murder one of the island's few Asian residents.
he became the main suspect just months after the murder, but police did not have enough evidence to charge him.
The breakthrough came when a new witness walked into Kirkwall police station in 2006 with a note saying he had seen the killer in public toilets on the night of the murder brandishing a gun and identified him as Michael Ross.
Ross's lawyer Donald Findlay, defending, insisted it was unthinkable for a 15-year-old to have committed such a crime, suggesting the killing bore all the hallmarks of a 'professional hit'.
But at the end of a six-week trial, jurors took just four hours to find Ross guilty of murder by a majority verdict.
Ross was subsequently sentenced to life behind bars with a minimum of 25 years.
He insists he is innocent of the killing - and last month told the Orcadian newspaper that he was 'doing a 25-year life sentence for something I didn't do'.
His parents have also rallied to his defence in the new documentary called The Orkney Assassin that will be made available on Amazon Prime Video this Sunday.
Promotional material ahead of the broadcast suggests there is still 'a shadow of doubt still lingering and dividing opinion in the Orkney Islands to this day'.
Speaking to the programme-makers, Ross's mother Moira Ross recalls the moment she asked the then-teenager whether he was a killer after his initial arrest.
She says: 'I remember him coming home with the detective and he went up to his room and sat there, and I did go up and ask him.
'I said, "Did you shoot that man?" - and he said, "No". I just can't get over the look on his face when I asked him that.'
Mr Mahmood had been living on the Orkney Islands for just six weeks before his death and was planning to return home to Bangladesh to wed his fiancée.
His brother, barrister Abul Shafiuddin, paid tribute at Ross's 2007 trial, saying of Mr Mahmood: 'He was our baby brother and at least we know the person who killed him will be punished.'
Ross was also found guilty by majority of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by disposing of the murder weapon and changing his clothing.
During the trial, it emerged that his policeman father Edmund Ross had been jailed for hampering the investigation by withholding crucial evidence.
Advocate depute Brian McConnachie QC, told the court the prosecution's case against Ross was based on 'compelling, unanswerable' circumstantial evidence.
When the guilty verdict was announced, Ross leapt from the dock and tried to escape before being led to the cells - having been wrestled to the ground by a court official.
He had been one of 12 soldiers decorated for outstanding service in Iraq in 2005 and was even mentioned in dispatches for showing bravery following two improvised explosive attacks in north Babil.
Yet his downfall eventually came when a new witness walked into Kirkwall police station in 2006 with a note saying he had seen the killer in public toilets on the night of the murder, brandishing a gun - and identified him as Michael Ross.
Ross had been questioned as a 15-year-old in relation to Mr Mahmood's death, after two witnesses had suggested they saw him wearing the same balaclava and dark clothing as the murderer in woodland a fortnight earlier.
But he was only charged with lying to police and interfering with a witnesses, receiving a four-year jail term in 1997.
His eventual murder trial was told now the anonymous letter writer, later named as William Grant, told of seeing Ross in public toilets near the restaurant, clad in balaclava and dark clothes, on the night of Mr Mahmood's killing.
Jurors also heard that Ross had told a fellow army cadet as a schoolboy that 'blacks should be shot' and had textbooks scrawled with swastikas, SS symbols and slogans suggesting 'death to the English'.
His father Edmund Ross tells the new Amazon Prime Video documentary: 'I didn't believe it.
'I knew my son for all that years and he never showed any tendencies or anything like that that I would expect him to go out and shoot anyone.'
The Orkney Assassin: Murder in the Isles is being made available to Amazon Prime Video viewers in the UK and Ireland on Sunday 8 June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
26 minutes ago
- STV News
Former St Mirren director defamed colleagues over comments on charity build
Two St Mirren directors were defamed when a former colleague accused them of pursuing a 'secret plan' to build a charity centre on the club's land, a judge has concluded. Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble – a shareholder in the Premiership side – had applied for a £2.65m grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who are also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association – an organisation which owns 51% of shares in the club – and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest – that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion – that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65m grant under the name The St Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publically available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Arrests in Matthew Schofield murder inquiry nearly two years on
Police investigating the murder of a 34-year-old man almost two years ago have made new arrests. Matthew Schofield died in the early hours of 11 June 2022 after being found unresponsive in Belgrave Road, Leicester, following an Wednesday, Leicestershire Police said it had re-arrested a 32-year-old man on suspicion of murder and had arrested a woman aged 62 on suspicion of assisting an offender. A total of 19 people have so far been arrested in connection with the investigation and 13 people remain suspects, police said, but nobody has ever been charged. The force said work had continued to establish the full circumstances of Mr Schofield's death and identify the people involved in the attack. Det Insp Emma Matts, senior investigating officer in the case, said: "We still have active lines of inquiry we are investigating."As part of this, arrests are still being made as we work to identify people who may have been involved in Matthew's death."Throughout the investigation we have continued to appeal for people to come forward with information which may assist us, and I would make that plea again."Det Insp Matts added: "Matthew's mum, Emma Daniels, remains fully supportive of our investigation and at the heart of this is a grieving mum who deserves to know fully what happened to her son."Anyone with information is urged to come forward.
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Idah insists he can handle 'big pressure' at Celtic
Striker Adam Idah is convinced he can handle the "big pressure" that comes with playing for 24-year-old, who completed a reported £9.5m switch from Norwich to Celtic Park last summer after a successful loan spell, finished the campaign with 20 goals despite making almost half his 53 appearances from the he also suffered testing periods, not least after a video of him apparently vomiting from a taxi circulated on social media, prompting a stern defence from manager Brendan about the pressure, Idah said: "The pressure is a lot and you are expected to deliver. I think with my experience now, you have to put that behind you. You know what you are good at."If you don't score for a couple of games, it is not helpful to listen to an ex-player. I am not really concerned with what he thinks - I am there to do my bit."I had a good run in the last few games, but I know it can turn quick. That is football. There have been plenty of games I have gone without scoring in, you have to stay focused and help the team."There is a lot of pressure at the club to be successful. It is good, I think. Every player wants to play at a big club, but what comes with a big club is the pressure."Rodgers' backing was welcome, but Idah has vowed to continue to live his life despite having to do so in the spotlight at times."At the end of the day I am a human being," he added. "I go out. I don't have to stay inside all the time. It's hard when people are videoing you, it can be quite upsetting, especially when the story is made out to be what it is not."It can be tough, but like I said, I am human and I'm going to carry on with my life."
