Where is The Orkney Assassin Michael Ross now?
The schoolboy murderer is behind bars but pleads innocence three decades on
SENSELESS MURDER Where is The Orkney Assassin Michael Ross now?
THE Orkney Assassin, Michael Ross, was just 15 years old when he murdered waiter Shamsuddin Mahmood.
On June 2 1994, Ross shot the waiter while he served customers in an Indian restaurant in Orkney, an island located off the northern coast of Scotland.
2
The waiter was murdered at an Indian restaurant in front of terrified diners
Credit: PA:Press Association
Where is Michael Ross now?
Michael Ross, born on 28 August 1978, was found guilty of the murder in 2008 and is serving a life sentence in HMP Shotts in Lanarkshire, with a minimum of 25 years.
Ross was originally questioned by police six months after the murder of the 26-year-old waiter, but prosecutors ruled there was not enough evidence to charge the teenager.
In the following summer, Ross left the island of Orkney, where he was born, and 17 joined the Scottish regiment.
From there, he progressed through the ranks and became a decorated Black Watch sniper after serving a tour of duty in Iraq.
Read More on Michael Ross
ISLAND OF FEAR How bombshell letter cracked 'hitman' killing that rocked sleepy UK island
But on June 20 2008, he was brought to justice in the High Court in Glasgow.
2
Michael Ross, accused of murder, arriving at Glasgow High Court.
Credit: PA:Press Association
During his guilty verdict, Ross, dramatically tried to flee by jumping out of the dock and knocking over the security guard.
Now 47 years old, Ross has tried to escape HMP Shotts, one of Scotland's highest security prisons, three times, including an attempt to scale the fence in 2018.
As a result, he was sentenced to two years in prison to run alongside his life term of which he has served 17 years so far.
What happened to Shamsuddin Mahmood?
The murder of Shamsuddin Mahmood took place on June 2, 1994 when he was fatally shot after a man wearing a balaclava entered Mumataz Restaurant in Kirkwall at around 7.10pm and exited the premises shortly after.
Shamsuddin had arrived in Orkney only six weeks before and had plans to return to Bangladesh to marry his fiancée.
Shamsuddin's murder was the first to take place on the island in 25 years and during the original investigation, 2,736 statements were taken.
Ross' mother Moira, recounted the time Michael came home from the police station when he was 16 years old.
She went upstairs and asked whether he had shot Shamsuddin six months before, which he denied.
During the investigation, Edmund Ross' career as a police officer ended after he lied about the fact that he owned identical bullets to those used in the murder weapon.
Edmund Ross was subsequently jailed for four years in 1997 for perverting the course of justice.
It is reported that Michael Ross' earliest possible release is in 2035.
How to watch The Orkney Assassin: Murder In The Isles
Amazon Prime Video has released a special titled The Orkney Assassin: Murder In The Isles, providing insight from law enforcement officers, eyewitnesses, journalists, and also interviews with Ross' parents, who maintain his innocence.
The first episode aired on Sunday, June 8 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
When vice was policed by church & fornication was everyone's business
Several people claimed to have witnessed the scene, which seems unlikely unless the masonry was as holey as Swiss cheese. But it certainly reveals the climate of state-sanctioned snooping that prevailed during an era when 'privacy', if mentioned at all, was considered a sinister cover for wickedness. In her fascinating new social history, Dr Tiffany Jenkins peers through the keyhole of the past to examine the Western world's changing attitudes towards public and private life. By the early 18th century, we learn, a clear distinction between the social and personal had evolved with the (male-dominated) business of politics, commerce, and ideas conducted in Parliament, marketplaces and coffee houses. Read more Meanwhile, for the wealthy at least, the domestic realm became more clearly delineated with curtains, partitioned rooms and distinct bedchambers. Grand houses even had separate service corridors to spare the gentry from encountering last night's reeking chamber pots as they were whisked away by servants (whose own sole source of privacy would have been a lockable wooden box). As the centuries progressed, the sanctity of the private sphere became a battleground and Jenkins offers an entertaining account of controversies that have raged over people's right to defend their homes, their mail or their conversations against prying eyes and ears. During the 1840s, the interception of private letters sent to Italian political exile Giuseppe Mazzini provoked outrage, with Scottish thinker Thomas Carlyle likening the practice to 'picking men's pockets'. Half-a-century later, the newly minted snapshot camera was marketed as offering the 'thrill' of taking someone's picture 'without their knowledge' and women who'd unwittingly been photographed in the street by so-called Kodak fiends were aghast to find their faces appearing in adverts for soap or tobacco. When Broadway star Marion Manola was surreptitiously snapped onstage with her legs clad in nothing but tights, she went to court to prevent the images being ogled by 'every fellow who could afford' them prompting accusations that, having happily displayed her pins on a public stage, she hadn't a be-stockinged leg to stand on. The hypocrisy charge remains a popular paparazzi defence against high-profile complainants. Take Prince Harry, who won substantial damages for press intrusion only to be dubbed 'the biggest invader of privacy in royal history' over the explosive revelations in his memoir, Spare. Another tabloid trope is that 'the public interest' trumps privacy and a notorious 1960s scandal offers a case in point. When news broke that the British Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, was having an affair with model Christine Keeler, acres of prurient coverage were justified on the grounds that her involvement with a Soviet naval attache threatened national security. Not everyone agreed and the event helped trigger the tabling of a parliamentary privacy bill calling for 'the right to be left alone'. Monica Lewinsky was accorded no such privilege over her affair with Bill Clinton. Her humiliating interrogation before the Starr committee, with the world's press salivating over every salacious detail, was legitimised as exposing the deceitfulness of a man unfit for presidential office but for the young White House intern, it felt like a violation. Today, as people splurge ever more intimate details of their lives over reality TV and 'lifestream' blogs, the plea to be left alone may seem anachronistic. ('If Prince Harry really wants his privacy, he must shut up!' suggested TalkTV's royal correspondent Rupert Bell.) But Jenkins warns this ignores the complexities involved, arguing that the hard-won distinction between our public and private lives needs to be defended as - for all the righteous talk about transparency - the ability to live at least part of our lives free from observation is precious. The private sphere, she writes, is where we 'take off our public masks' and 'can make mistakes with those we trust' - though this sanctuary is under threat at a time when people's unguarded remarks are triumphantly laid bare. Indeed, Jenkins raises the spectre of a quasi-Stalinist ethos in which 'divulging private conversations is incentivised, rather than stigmatised as reprehensible snitching', especially north of the Border where, she writes, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act makes ours 'the only country in the Western world where the state has the power to police speech in the privacy of the home'. Read more You might argue that racist, sexist or homophobic remarks are an obvious evil deserving of exposure but Jenkins asks us to think carefully about the implications of a regime in which private speech (including WhatsApp messaging) is controlled, pointing out that 'a society in which we must filter everything we say through a kind of internalised show trial … inevitably encourages conformity and uniformity'. There are conflicting concerns, not least over freedom of information and Jenkins doesn't pretend an unregulated private realm is an unmitigated good, noting that in the 1970s, some radical feminists opposed privacy rights on the grounds they served male supremacy. They had a point, too: bringing rape and domestic abuse out of the shadows and into the courts was among the triumphs of the women's movement. But she lists their well-intentioned insistence that 'the personal is political' among the factors that eroded societal respect for people's privacy, leading to a burgeoning surveillance culture that reached new heights during the pandemic lockdowns. Agree or not, this is a debate we urgently need to be having. Hugely ambitious in its scope, Strangers and Intimates offers an accessible history of philosophical, ecclesiastical and judicial thought across more than four centuries. It also ventures into highly sensitive contemporary territory and raises questions that may challenge those who think outlawing free speech is progressive. They should definitely read this book.
Daily Record
5 hours ago
- Daily Record
I feel strongly about Bomber in Rangers vs SFA fallout and I can explain it all to Cavenagh in jig time
I have paid for the weddings of two daughters off the back of spontaneous, emotional comment. Forty years worth of payment for listening to, and attempting a reply to, exasperated radio callers who want to get something off their chest in a bronchitic blast. It would therefore be hypocritical in the extreme if I were to approve of someone being punished for indulging in that particular practice. Someone like John Brown, for example. Prior to Rangers' lengthy and indignant response to being fined £3000 by the SFA on Thursday, I had found it hard to work up any level of concern, far less righteous indignation, over the Bomber versus the compliance officer. The truth is I loved the story because it appealed to every cynical, sarcastic bone in my sceptical body. Bomber said the decision to disallow a goal for Rangers against Hibs at Easter Road on May 17 was 'corrupt.' In their initial defence of their in-house television channel's co-commentator, Rangers said in a statement that the words used came under the heading of 'spontaneous emotional' comment. My funny bone was tickled at that point because Scottish football has more conspiracy theorists per capita than any other country in the world. I know. I've spoken to most of them over the last four decades. And if you don't believe there's a conspiracy against their team then it stands to reason you must be part of the conspiracy yourself. Whatever reason is in the context of our game. Every fan in the country thinks the game is bent – particularly those who support Celtic and Rangers. That's why, on radio, there is what's known as a seven-second delay button. This mechanism 'loses' a caller in the event of the spontaneous and the emotional turning into the effing and blinding, which causes offence. Or requires the reading out of a disclaimer to legally distance the radio station from any comment that might ultimately be the cause of litigation. Rangers' post-fine statement on Thursday, that the outburst regarding alleged corruption wasn't an official club comment, is debatable. If I say Scottish football is corrupt on radio then I'm sure any punishment suffered would be delivered to my employers. But this is where the whole business is out of proportion to my way of thinking. People in the Bomber's position – or mine for that matter – are not, according to the SFA, supposed to imply bias or incompetence on the part of match officials. But the SFA's own Key Match Incident panel found that the decision to disallow Rangers' goal in Edinburgh was incorrect. And they have previously stood down VAR Alan Muir for mistakes made during games. Does that mean there is incompetence on the part of match officials, but you're not supposed to say so? It is at this point we are all disappearing up our own jurisprudence. Brown is a former Rangers player and lifelong follower of the club who got carried away in the heat of the moment. Big deal. We could all have got over it without psychological scarring. At the same time, the compliance officer must surely have more to do with his time than get involved in trivia of this description. Now we're into the realms of Rangers saying there is 'selective enforcement' of the rules and 'regulatory oversights', which damage the SFA's credibility. Whataboutery by any other name. Andrew Cavenagh might question, on behalf of 49ers Enterprises, what the cheque for £3000 is all about. But I wouldn't take too long to explain it all regarding 'he said that and they said this'. He's likely to tell whoever is informing him on the background that he's got far more important things to do with his time. Meanwhile, Rangers and the SFA could use their time more profitably if they assisted the Scottish government with their crackdown on crowd violence and the use of pyrotechnics. What Bomber said was never going to endanger anyone's life. Unlike the pyro plonkers.
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
The Bayoh inquiry is at a crossroads – the Crown Office must decide
On May 3, 2015 in Kirkcaldy, Sheku Bayoh was restrained on the ground by six police officers. He died. In November 2019, Humza Yousaf announced a full judicial inquiry into the circumstances of Bayoh's death, including an investigation into what role, if any, race played in these events and their aftermath. Lord Bracadale was appointed to lead the inquiry by the Scottish Government, with Angela Grahame KC as its main lawyer. Core participants were identified, including the Bayoh family, Police Scotland, the Crown Office, and the individual police officers involved in the incident giving rise to Bayoh's death. Remarkably, the Equality and Human Rights Commission declined to get involved in the most significant official investigation into race and policing in Scotland in decades. To date, the inquiry has heard almost 125 days of evidence and legal argument over the better part of six years. Until Lord Bracadale recalled the participants to the oral hearing at Capital House this month, we thought the evidential parts of the Bayoh inquiry were basically over and awaited Bracadale's formal conclusions. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election Now, his investigation may be fatally compromised before a single conclusion has been published. Last week, lawyers for the Scottish Police Federation lodged a formal recusal application, arguing that the inquiry was tainted by apparent bias and that officers under investigation by it had 'lost confidence' in the independence of the chair. It isn't unheard of for public inquiries to shed their chair before reaching conclusions and if this happens early enough in their progress, it need not fatally compromise their work. Because inquiry chairs tend to have grey hairs, human frailty being what it is can also have an impact, as age and illness catch up with very long-running inquiry processes. Lady Poole did a bunk from the Scottish Covid inquiry for reasons still unexplained, leaving Lord Brailsford to step in. Child abuse inquiries across the UK have burned through a number of chairs during their long and painfully slow progress. But if Bracadale steps down in response to this pressure, it is difficult to see how the inquiry could meaningfully recover. The Bayoh family's solicitor Aamer Anwar has described the move as an '11th hour,' 'desperate and pathetic attempt to sabotage the inquiry' by 'the Federation and those hanging on to their coat tails'. But the legal arguments involved are serious and if Bracadale decides not to recuse himself, we can expect further litigation in judicial review at the Court of Session. One of the tricky things here is the nature of public inquiries. Public inquiries aren't courts – though given the plantations of lawyers who have sat through the Bayoh inquiry hearings, you could be forgiven for mistaking them for one. Unlike courts, core participants aren't free to choose what evidence they'd like to lead. The lawyers in the room can apply to the chair to ask questions of witnesses, but they don't have the absolute right to cross-examine as they or their clients might like. The process is inquisitorial, and counsel for the inquiry takes the lead. But like all public decision-makers, there's an overriding requirement for public inquiries to adopt a fair procedure. What fairness requires depends on the circumstances, but one aspect of fairness deals with bias – actual or apparent. Some biases are easy to identify. If one of the core participants is best friends with the inquiry chair, we have a problem. If the judge in charge is on the board of trustees of one of the organisations involved in the scrutiny, the fair-minded observer might have their doubts about their independence. Legally, the question is 'whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased' in the circumstances. The case for Bracadale's recusal is based on a range of critical observations about how Bracadale and his lawyers have handled the investigation, but focus primarily on five private meetings they held with the Bayoh family and their legal representatives without any of the other core participants being present, aware of the meetings or given comprehensive information about what precisely was discussed. 'Mindful of how long the inquiry has lasted and the attendant effort and time that has been invested,' Scotland's prosecuting authorities have also concluded 'with great regret' that the inquiry appears biased in favour of Bayoh's surviving relatives. While repeatedly stressing 'there is no basis for assuming anything other than good intentions on the part of the Chair,' the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told the judge they share the Police Federation's disquiet and have submitted supporting arguments, arguing that the inquiry has been actually biased in its language and approach to the evidence. Explaining these meetings, the inquiry has stressed 'the engagement of the families with the inquiry is crucial to the effectiveness of the inquiry in fulfilling its terms of reference. If the inquiry failed to obtain and retain the confidence of the families its effectiveness would be prejudiced'. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action 'Over the years from 2015, the families lost confidence in the various state institutions with which they had dealings – Police Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and the Crown Office. There was a real prospect that they would not engage at all with the inquiry process or at some point would cease to engage with it,' they said. For these aspirations, Bracadale is also criticised by the Crown Office, who maintains 'the fair-minded observer would question whether that was consistent with a stated intention to proceed in a way that was entirely impartial and independent of any person'. But their argument stretches a long way beyond this. They suggest, for example, that the inquiry's approach to witnesses has tended to focus on evidence that met aspects of counsel's 'case theory' which 'usually appeared to align with the position of the family.' Cherry-picking, essentially, with a mind made up, determined to extract answers from witnesses that fit the theory rather than reflect a perhaps more muddled and messy reality. This suggestion stretches a good way beyond suggestions of apparent bias. Reflecting on how some witnesses were examined, COPFS also complained that this 'case theory was at times pursued with notable vigour, creating the impression that the purpose was to validate rather than test the theory'. The prosecuting authorities – themselves the subject of criticism in evidence before the inquiry, remember – don't set out what precisely they understand the inquiry's 'case theory' to be – so the innuendo reading of these complaints is all we're left with. At least the Police Federation are more uncompromisingly direct about the legal consequences of their recusal application. They insist that comments from Bracadale – including suggestions he was 'profoundly moved' by Bayoh's sister's description of the impact of her brother's death on their family – 'suggest or create the appearance' that the inquiry has 'pre-judged, or evinced a closed mind to, material issues' at stake, including the relative blameworthiness of the dead man. Objection was also taken to a human impact video which opened the inquiry, with Roddy Dunlop KC suggesting that 'arranging and paying for a video tribute to the life of one core participant when it was known that other core participants did not accept the description of Mr Bayoh as the 'victim' is again problematic – all the more so when the chair had indicated in advance (privately) that this would 'be a very strong start to the hearings''. Although the Crown Office stresses they aren't questioning the motives or intentions of the chair, their submission argues the inquiry's approach to the questioning of witnesses was actually biased and biased in favour of Bayoh's family – a remarkable allegation meriting much more critical comment than it has received. If the Solicitor General is right, then as a matter of law, Bracadale must resign. If they are confident in their legal analysis, the Crown Office should say so. At the hearing last week, Scotland's prosecutors limply argued it was a 'matter for the inquiry' how to respond to their full-frontal attack on how the inquiry has discharged its duties investing this death in custody. Given the startling breadth of the Crown Office's attack on its work, this isn't legal politesse but pure cowardice.
