THE police officer in charge of the murder inquiry that prompted the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal threatened legal action to prevent the publication of a new book which suggests that detectives framed the chief suspect, The Scotsman has learned.
Lawyers for Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Heath wrote to publishing company Birlinn, threatening an interdict against The Price of Innocence, by Ms McKie's father, Iain, and Michael Russell, the former SNP MSP.
In the book, the authors put fo
rward their own theory behind the McKie "cover-up".
They claim that officers from the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) and Strathclyde Police may have colluded to testify falsely that a fingerprint on a biscuit tin found in the home of David Asbury, who was convicted of the murder of Marion Ross, belonged to the victim.
Up until then, the authors claim, police had no solid evidence to link Mr Asbury with the 1997 murder of 51-year-old Ms Ross, from Kilmarnock.
Mr Asbury's conviction was overturned on an appeal which rendered the fingerprint evidence against him unsafe, and he was released from prison after spending three and a half years behind bars.
In the book - which is published today - the authors say the four SCRO officers who identified a thumbprint on a doorframe in Ms Ross's house as belonging to Ms McKie, a Strathclyde Police constable at the time, had probably made an honest mistake.
Some of them knew they had got it wrong, but refused to speak out, they allege.
But the authors says the false identification of the biscuit tin print "is not so easily explained".
They do not name names, but state: "We believe there is evidence which would support the view that this 'mistake' was deliberate and that there may have been collusion, possibly between one or more experts and police officers, to create false evidence in order to convict Asbury."
They say the theory would explain why, when the thumbprint was identified two weeks later as Ms McKie's, any "conspirators" could not admit a mistake.
To support their theory, Mr McKie and Mr Russell point to the police report by James Mackay, Tayside's former deputy chief constable, who claimed to have uncovered evidence of "cover-up and criminality" in the case.
Ms McKie was accused of lying about the fingerprint, and nine years later, after a civil damages claim, she received £750,000 from the Scottish Executive, which admitted that an "honest mistake" had been made.
In the book, some proceeds of sales of which are going towards the building of a retreat for the victims of miscarriages of justice, Ms McKie also speaks of her "nightmare" to clear her name.
Neither the SCRO nor Strathclyde Police wished to comment last night.
