POLICE did not apply to typical crime scene procedures when they investigated the controversial death of a Swedish woman in Scotland 14 years ago, according to a prominent Home Office pathologist.
In 2015, The National exclusively tried to shed light on the death of Annie Börjesson on Prestwick beach on 2005 after lawyer Aamer Anwar called for the cold case to be reopened. We later received a deeply moving letter of thanks from her family and friends.
Now, new claims have emerged in the final episode of a six-part Sky News podcast documentary – What happened to Annie? – which investigates the bizarre circumstances surrounding the 30-year-old’s death.
The documentary, released today, has led to a commitment from the Swedish Government to consider granting access to files related to the case.
In a statement to Sky News, Police Scotland Detective Sergeant Paul Livingstone, from the Specialist Crime Division, said the case was fully investigated at the time and had since been subject to review.
Börjesson was found fully clothed on Prestwick beach on December 4, 2005 while in possession of her passport. Her family believed she was due to fly home from nearby Prestwick Airport. The Crown Office later determined that suicide was the most likely cause of death, but the family have always maintained their daughter was murdered.
Despite the circumstances surrounding her death being largely unexplained, the procurator fiscal never granted a Fatal Accident Inquiry.
Prestwick Beach
In the last episode of the StoryCast production, Home Office pathologist, Dr Stuart Hamilton appraises the results of Annie’s post-mortem examination.
He counters the long-held position of the police that a rigorous and thorough investigation was carried out, and concludes that procedures typically associated with such treatment of a crime scene appeared not to have been completed in Börjesson’s case: “So we seem to have a bit of a half-way house here, whereby the hands are bagged but the other procedures that would be taken with a forensic recovery haven’t been undertaken.”
The police handling of the case led to a loss of confidence in the Scottish systems, say the Borjesson family.
Hamilton added: “If we are talking about a body being forensically recovered, it would be typical to bag the head, the hands and the feet and to put the body into a body bag so you have continuity of evidence.”
Livingstone said: “With any investigation where the death has occurred outdoors or where the circumstances are as of yet unknown, the scene would be treated as a potential crime scene, allowing for all crime scene protocols to be put in place in order to obtain the maximum evidence available.”
READ MORE: Bayoh family list police 'failures' to police chief constable
In the series – which took 10 months to make – it appears the Crown Office misrepresented the statement of a key witness in Annie’s death and overlooked another potentially important witness. They have also refused to release photographs of Annie’s post-mortem examination for analysis.
StoryCast Producer, Robert Mulhern, told The National: “How Annie’s case was handled is not in isolation.
“Because the family were never granted a FAI, this created a vacuum. They’re still asking questions today after 14 years because they still haven’t got their answers. Had Annie’s body washed up down the coast in the UK, then she would have got an inquest and this documentary would never have been made.
“But the Börjesson’s are just one family dealing with the aftermath of an unexplained death that Scottish authorities might have been able to bring to a point of closure had they granted the family an FAI.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel