Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The forgotten victim of McKie case whose killer remains free

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 February 2007
IT MAY be the final word on the Shirley McKie scandal, but the publication of yesterday's parliamentary report did nothing to end the torment for Marion Ross's family.
A decade after the reclusive former bank clerk was murdered, her family described Miss Ross as the "forgotten victim" of the affair.

"Every now and again they show a picture of Marion on the television, but it's always in connection with the Shir
ley McKie case," said Elizabeth Campbell, a relative.

"Fair enough to the woman - she lost her job and deserved compensation. But whatever happened to the real victim behind all this?"

Mrs Campbell, who was initially considered a suspect, also expressed anger that Miss Ross's killer has never been brought to justice.

Miss Ross was murdered on 6 January, 1997. Her ribs had been crushed and she had been stabbed in the eye with a pair of scissors, which were left embedded in her throat.

Because the 51-year-old victim was security-conscious and there were no signs of forced entry at her home, detectives were convinced she knew her killer. They believed she had allowed the person into her semi-detached bungalow in Irvine Road, Kilmarnock.

Mrs Campbell and her husband, Jim, who is a cousin of Miss Ross, were questioned by police, compounding the trauma of Miss Ross's murder. Their clothes and shoes were seized for forensic examination, while investigators dug up their garden. Police even had to provide them with new apparel.

Mr Campbell, now 61, a security officer, was initially considered among the main suspects because he had access to Miss Ross's home, his fingerprints were found inside and there were discrepancies in his work logs at the time.

Mr Campbell's brother William, 57, was also regarded as a suspect. He had done odd jobs and gardening for Miss Ross. His fingerprints were also found, on a vacuum cleaner near the body.

Mrs Campbell, who is recovering from breast cancer, said her health had suffered as a direct result of the case.

"Jim and I were treated like criminals from the start," she added. "Jim went round to her house after she hadn't been seen for a few days and he saw her lying there.

"Shirley McKie even came round here with items they had found in Marion's house that had nothing to do with us.

"I'm not surprised the system has been criticised today."

Miss Ross was described as "eccentric" and "a loner". It is believed the former Royal Bank of Scotland worker had experienced mental health problems after her parents died.

David Asbury, a joiner who was 20 at the time of the murder, was convicted of killing Miss Ross, partly on fingerprint evidence. Asbury had previously carried out work on her home.

He was jailed for life in 1997.

When the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed his murder conviction in August 2002, Strathclyde Police confirmed that they were "not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder of Marion Ross".

However, a force spokeswoman last night declined to comment on the case.

During the trial, Asbury insisted he had been framed. He claimed that a Marks & Spencer biscuit tin discovered packed with money at his home had been taken to the mortuary so Miss Ross's fingerprint could be put on it. However, he was found guilty by a majority verdict.

The High Court in Glasgow was also told that £1,400 in cash found in the tin included some in £100 bundles - the same "peculiar" way Miss Ross had arranged notes when she was a bank clerk.

The 13-day trial also heard that although he initially denied having entered Miss Ross's house since working on an extension two years earlier, Asbury eventually told police that his car had broken down 100 yards from her home the day before the murder.

He claimed Miss Ross let him in to use the telephone.

Asbury, of Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, had become a suspect after his mother, Amelia Crisp, reported that he had disappeared and had left a suicide note along with instructions on where to find the money.

He is now seeking compensation for his wrongful conviction.

Mrs Campbell admitted that the family had been left traumatised by knowing that Miss Ross's killer was still on the streets.

She said: "I don't think they'll ever find who did it and I don't think there will ever be justice for Marion. But now it's all become the Shirley McKie case. Whatever happened to the Marion Ross case?"

Q &
A: FINGERPRINTING
When w
as fingerprinting introduced?

Fin
gerprinting has been used by police since the beginning of the 20th century.

How do forensic scientists collect fingerprints?

Off
icers traditionally used powder to pick up prints, but digital cameras and chemicals can also be used.

What method is used to identify fingerprints?

For
50 years in Scotland a "points-based" system, requiring at least 16 matching characteristics between a print and the accused, was used. But after the McKie case, a non-numeric system was brought in from England and the US. It assesses the quality and uniqueness of the print, rather than the number of similar points.

How reliable is it?

Des
pite controversies such as the McKie case, fingerprinting remains the most commonly used forensic evidence worldwide. No two prints have been found alike in many billions of human and computer comparisons.

What happens if someone gets it wrong?

If
experts cannot agree on a fingerprint, it is usually dismissed from a case. In exceptional cases, such as Shirley McKie, where the fingerprint is disputed, the accused can be cleared if there is no other evidence.

Will fingerprinting continue to be used in Scotland?

Mor
e recent techniques, such as DNA evidence, are increasingly being used by police. But fingerprinting remains a common tool of police and solves ten times more unknown-suspect cases than DNA.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Alberto.,

16/02/2007 05:50:47

No doubt the name of Marion Ross will still be 'on file' and placed in its appropriate order of priority (if any!).

Such is life today, but as everyone should know by now, as the situation and the noticeable activity always make very clear - whenever the point arises - 'Nothing has greater priority for discussion at anytime, than the 'saving of a Political face!' - and this ‘battle still seems to be ongoing!

The possible exception to this position, at the time necessary for it to be discussed, is MSP's salaries and expenses increases, which are absolutely vital.

2

,

16/02/2007 11:22:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 374758, Article id was mapped to record!
3

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 16/02/2007 12:58:24

I am sorry for the episode. However, the problem with the lawyers and judges is they leave the files of the local people like you and me or call these common people in one shelf. They attend to the rich first. There is the formula RFRO Rich First Rich Out.
With Iran and more demand by the FBI, CIA, KGB, Scotland Yard about the Iraq and Afghanistan, I doubt if this case will be out fast. There is also the Blaire affair and the donations received investigated, the property his wife has, the plane he flew, expenses of the MPs and no explanation. Brown kicking the ball and showing the football talents. Who is interested? Me, readers and you. Others are not.

4

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 16/02/2007 13:00:33

Despite controversies such as the McKie case, fingerprinting remains the most commonly used forensic evidence worldwide. No two prints have been found alike in many billions of human and computer comparisons.

This is what I mean. They just do not have time for the proper DNA chaeck or fingerprints.

5

marple,

tayside 16/02/2007 15:32:31

This will go down in history probably for all the wrong reasons. The truth will only be know to everyone (some people know the truth anyway) if the whole matter is fully aired. Pity the McKie's avoided the court case. That could have saved a lot of time.
There may still be justice for Marion Ross

6

Searchlight,

Glasgow 16/02/2007 15:39:02

David Asbury appealed his conviction because of 'unreliable' fingerprint evidence. Specifically, Mark QI2, that two Danish experts said was a misidentification. The Danes later recanted saying, they had not seen the correct material. On February 19 last year the Sunday Times had this on their front page. Four days later, on February 23 the Sun carried a story on its front page, headlined Fingered that, whilst quoting extensively from Iain McKie, claimed that another person had been 'in the frame' for Marion's brutal murder and had actually confessed. Ian McKie even referred to “secret police documents” that he had seen.
But on March 4 the Herald ran an article saying the police had issued a statement saying that the person named in the Sun article had been 'interviewed during that inquiry and had been eliminated as a suspect'.
Strathclyde Police have issued statements saying they are not looking for anyone else in connection with this killing. It’s all very confusing.

7

The Guzz,

Fife 16/02/2007 15:48:07

I see that the Scottish Fingerprinting Service still have the same lying incompetent cover up merchants running it and the disrepute they have brought not only to Scottish justice but to the fingerprinting programs throughout the whole world continues because of them. Police had no clue who to blame for this crime and so framed one of their own before ultimately arresting a tradesman who had carried out work in the victim’s house some time before her murder. A man who has since had his sentence quashed because of the uncertainty of the police evidence. This has caused stress and turmoil to the lives of Shirley McKie and David Asbury and their families. It has cost £Ks of tax payer money to investigate and prosecute the wrong people. It has cost £Ks in tax payers money to compensate these people for the incompetence of the police service. It effectively stopped the police from investigating the case properly and bringing the real perpetrator to justice. They have brought the Scottish Fingerprinting Service into disrepute and cast it against the rest of the world experts in this field. And worst of all they have failed to provide satisfactory closure for the family of the victim. Now the case is closed and the killer no longer being sought. They have made a mockery of the criminal investigation and justice system in Scotland and they are still in their jobs. Disgraceful.

8

CHIC,

16/02/2007 16:59:16

From above

'When the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed his murder conviction in August 2002, Strathclyde Police confirmed that they were "not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder of Marion Ross".'

This is misleading, to the casual reader it implies that Asbury's defence team successfully argued for his release.
What actually happened was that
the former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd chose not to contest the appeal. In yet another reaction to Iain Mckie's media campaign Boyd withheld evidence from the court which was not available at the time of the origional trial.

Searchlight is quite correct that the Danish report has now been discredited. Alan Bayle, one of examiners Asbury's defence used to mount their appeal has also since been discredited over the Sutherland case. He would appear to be trying to make a career out of his association with Iain Mckie&media chums.

Asbury was freed by Boyd almost immediately after BBC Panorama had a programme looking at 3 disputed fingerprint identifications.

The first was Shirley Mckie and they rehashed an old frontline report.
The second was Asbury, who thanks to 'lord' Boyd is now walking streets.
The third was a case in involving Greater Manchester Police. It was not a murder conviction but the CPS did challenge the appeal. The appeal was thrown out.

Fingerprint opinion is usually verified by another examiner so to give their programme some credibility the BBC obviously found themselves someone who would back up Bayle's claims. There are many 'independant' experts in the UK, so why did they go to the US to get Shirley Mckie's examiner Pat Werthiem.

If Pat Werthiem & Alan Bayle were wrong in the Manchester case how do we know the had the ability to make the identifications in McKie & Asbury?

What was Werthiem's mindset when he aproached the analysis in the Asbury case? Could he truly be considered independant when his opi

9

lisa,

Perth 16/02/2007 23:58:32

CHIC and others.

I thought the fingerprint service had reached the conclusion that it was Venus de Milo what done it. Purely on the basis of fingerprint evidence.

Or was it Abu Hamza. Can't quite remenber.

Can't you guys see why your public image is as important as the reality.

All that matters with the fingerprint service is that you have credibility. So you guys within the service can comfort yourselves with the knowledge that you were talented people who nobody believed, whereas we, the public, can be comforted by the knowledge that any case based on the evidence of the sevice has a chance, in future, of resulting in a conviction.

10

Searchlight,

Glasgow 17/02/2007 00:34:10

Sorry Lisa (10) I don't quite understand what you're saying.

11

CHIC,

17/02/2007 09:10:02

Lisa,

Thank you for the compliment, but unlike some who have commented on the murder of Marion Ross and the consequences of a lying cop, I feel that I must be honest.

I am not a fingerprint officer, I have never suggested that I am.

You do not need to be a fingerprint examiner to decide wether Mckie is guilty or not. Watch the evidence sessions at J1( dont just read the transcripts ) and read the submissions.

The problem with the J1 report is it mainly sits on the fence. The SNP members would never have suggested McKie was guilty but even they could not ignore how compelling their evidence was and have now cleared the SCRO of any malice.

The McKie's had to prove malice inorder to win their case last year, J1 has told us they would have failed.

Why did the Exec pay out?
Two Justice ministers, the lord Advocate & numerous senior police officers were to be called to give evidence and unlike at J1 they would be unable to talk around the answers.

Just like Guzz you are being conned by the media, former Strathclyde Police Media Relations officer Iain Mckie has been pulling their strings for years.
Pauline McNeil said that the committee may comment on the role of the media in this mess. But with the BBC, Scotsman, Herald, and the Sun all firmly in Mckie's pocket, these politicians have choosen not to do so. There must be an election comming.

I am not a fingerprint officer, Every Police employed Fingerprint officer in the UK has been gagged, and told not to comment on this case. The SCRO officers have many supporters, both fingerprint experts & others involved in the administration of Justice.

Dont believe everything you read in the papers. Public image is for the politicians Justice should be above that.

12

Anthony,

Glasgow 17/02/2007 13:23:28

Before the inquiry began, Margaret Mullen MSP stated that her objective was to restore faith in SCRO. As I suggested back then, after making this statement she should never have been allowed to sit on the committee. Her remit was to get to the truth, not sheild figures within the establishment.

The role of Boyd is a national disgrace. The committee appearing to suggest that the Executive should have gagged Shirley McKie to contain the damage (and prevent an inquiry), is frankly disturbing. The offer now being made to the officers involved, (which I also predicted would be made), is nothing less than an attempt to buy them off. The reason? If this matter were to go to an employment tribunal, it would be able to compel witnesses to attend and then put them under oath.

Let's hope UNISON have put them in touch with their solicitors, and that they are discussing issues such as constructive dismissal. I fear this is the only way we are ever going to learn the truth. Our politicians have badly let us all down. Our law officers if they bathed in perfum for a year, could not remove the stink.

13

Anthony,

Glasgow 17/02/2007 13:25:51

Their should also be an urgent inquiry into HMCIC to find out why they misled parliament. You can almost see the legal establishment closing ranks to suppress the truth on this one, and it is ugly, very ugly!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.