ROSS Monaghan was acquitted of murdering Kevin Carroll in May 2012 after Judge Lord Brailsford ruled there was not enough evidence in the case.
Before he walked free from court, Lord Brailsford hit out at the forensic evidence in the case, prompting the investigation by the Home Office Forensic Science Regulator.
The trial heard that just a single particle of firearms discharge residue was found on a jacket seized during a raid on Mr Monaghan's home.
Forensic expert Alison Colley said the particle was insufficient to draw any scientific conclusion, despite previously preparing a report stating the residue was of a similar type to that used in cartridges recovered from the crime scene.
She admitted in court she had formed her conclusion at the request of a detective superintendent involved in the investigation.
Lord Brailsford said: "Miss Colley displayed great candour and said she had been told to file her report in the way she did by a detective superintendent.
"I find this evidence to be disturbing."
He pointed out that the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) which ran Scotland's police forensic services and has now been replaced by Scottish Police Authority, was an independent body distinct from the police.
He added: "If the integrity of the SPSA is to be maintained it should not be influenced by any outside body."
Lord Brailsford also heavily criticised police after a firearms officer admitted that during the raid on Mr Monaghan's home he and colleagues wore the uniforms they had earlier worn to a gun training exercise.
The clothing would have been covered in firearms residue, contaminating evidence.
The judge said: "It was absolutely clear that the search of the house and the jacket seizure gave rise to contamination. I was told the search was, in scientific terms, horrendous, and that is also my conclusion."
The court also heard only one-tenth of a billionth of a gram of Mr Monaghan's DNA was found on the handle of one of the guns used to kill Carroll. The DNA of a lab worker who never touched the gun and worked three floors above where it was stored was also found on it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article