► Two found guilty of murdering Liam Aitchison
Both men appealed on the grounds that no reasonable jury, properly directed, would have found them guilty of killing Liam Aitchison.
MacKinnon’s solicitor advocate, Chris Fyffe, pointed out that the prosecution said
there was only a narrow two-
The lawyer argued it was not reasonable for the jury to infer Mackinnon had cut himself at the scene, entered the derelict building at Steinish with difficulty through a broken window, and to move about inside the building in darkness.
He highlighted the prosecution claimed Mackinnon was bleeding, yet there was no blood
trial. In addition, the jury was told it took police officers some 24 minutes to
walk to the murder scene during daylight -
Murder case appeal court releases judgement
4 February 2015
Liam’s body was found about a week after he was last seen -
It was put to the appeal judges that forensic medicine specialist Prof Busuttil believed it was “highly unlikely” Liam died on that date.
The expert witness thought it could be days later because of the level of rigour mortis and decomposition in the teenager’s body.
A second pathologist, Dr Rankin, “accepted that the absence of decomposition was in general terms unusual.”
The appeal judges concluded the arguments “failed to take into account” that both Mackinnon and Liam Aitchison “were familiar with the locus and had with them a source of light in the form of a mobile phone.”
They said pathologist, Dr Rankin, had highlighted detailed a number of specific factors in the case which would have “accelerated heat loss and retarded decomposition.”
“There was clear evidence from Dr Rankin that her findings ... were consistent with death having occurred in the early hours of the 23rd.”
She had also detailed “the reasons why the post mortem interval might be greater in this case than in the average situation.”
The judgement pointed out that Mackinnon’s expert witness, Professor Busuttil, thought
such a gap was unlikely, but stated in court, that nevertheless: “In medicine everything
is possible -
The judges said there “is absolutely no basis” to say the jury were not entitled to accept Dr Rankin’s evidence.
In addition, the jury was also entitled to conclude that Liam Aitchison had last been seen alive in the company of both accused and had not been seen alive since then.
In Stefan Millar’s case, lawyers stressed “no reasonable jury” could have convicted based on the evidence.
Advocate Claire Mitchell said he was found guilty mainly on evidence from Dominic Long who shared a custody cell with Millar at Porterfield Prison, Inverness.
The witness had testified Stefan Millar “confessed” to the murder.
The appeal hearing heard Dominic Long had ADHD and “might have had difficulty processing the information which he was given.”
Lady Dorrian said: “His evidence was crucial in providing a sufficiency of evidence against the second appellant, but was said to be wholly lacking in quality, character and strength largely under reference to issues capable of affecting his credibility and reliability, such as his having originally lied in court, his ADHD, his use of valium, and the terms of what he reported.”
She added that Mr Long “categorically denied” any misunderstanding.
He clearly considered Millar was “bragging to him about what he had done and that he was not in any way merely repeating what the police had been alleging against him.”
She continued: “Long’s evidence went beyond the information which the police had put to the second appellant and there were several aspects of his evidence which were capable of enhancing his credibility.”
The appeal judges stressed all the evidence has to be considered as a whole and the testimony of a particular witness should not be looked at in isolation.
They pointed out that “throughout the critical time,” Millar “on his own account,”
placed himself in the presence of his co-
“There was no evidence that the deceased was ever seen again after leaving in the company of (Mackinnon) and there was pathological evidence that was consistent with death occurring in a few hours after that sighting.”
The appeal judges said: “Here there was clearly a satisfactory base line of evidence which would properly entitle the jury to carry out their task.”
They“ added: This is fundamentally a circumstantial case where the various pieces of evidence, if accepted and viewed as a whole, entitled the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty as libelled. The appeals will therefore be refused.”
Both accused had been sentenced to life with a minimum of 18 years in jail before they will be eligible to apply for parole.