Nicola Sturgeon’s written statement to police failed to answer some of the questions detectives put to her about her husband’s crime spree, the Mail can reveal.

Officers were frustrated when the former First Minister gave a ‘no comment’ interview to Police Scotland - but she then provided a statement.

It has now emerged that the document failed to address all of the points raised - and there were further questions which officers would have liked to ask her.

The disclosure comes despite the former First Minister’s insistence that she fully cooperated with Operation Branchform, the investigation into the SNP’s finances.

Senior officers also privately poured scorn on Ms Sturgeon’s claim that she had no ‘conscious memory’ of seeing a £124,000 motorhome paid for by Murrell with stolen cash sitting outside her mother-in-law’s home in Fife.

The Mail has also learned that Police Scotland and the Crown Office has no objection to Ms Sturgeon proactively publishing her written statement - which she has so far failed to do.

Refusing to comment is a right any crime suspect has - but Ms Sturgeon has been criticised for failing to answer detectives’ questions about her husband’s embezzlement of more than £400,000 of SNP funds.

Tory leader Russell Findlay said responding with ‘no comment’ in police interviews was a tactic used by ‘organised criminals’.

The former SNP leader said she later provided a written statement to the police inquiry - but it is understood it only addressed some of the points that were put to Ms Sturgeon and that there were further questions that detectives would have liked to ask her.

Ms Sturgeon was arrested as part of the £2million Operation Branchform after stepping down as First Minister in 2023 but has faced no charges.

She had pledged to ‘fully cooperate’ with the inquiry but it has emerged her written statement left some questions unanswered.

Reflecting on the police investigation, Ms Sturgeon told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg: ‘In the aftermath of that interview, I prepared a very detailed written document answering the questions that had been put to me and that was sent by my lawyer to both the Crown Office and the police in the summer of 2023.

‘I heard nothing more.

‘They didn’t come back to me asking more questions. They didn’t ask for clarification.

‘The next thing I heard from the police was that I had been cleared and no action has been taken against me.

‘So, the idea that I did not fully cooperate with the police is not true, I did fully cooperate with the police.’

The former First Minister told the BBC last month that she had no objection to publishing the written statement but would need to take legal advice.

She said: ‘I’d take legal advice on that because it was a document that was passed to the Crown Office and to the police, but, you know, I can’t think of anything in it that I wouldn’t want – I mean, basically, it’s… some of the things we’ve been talking about and some of the items that I’ve read about in the press in recent days I was never asked about by the police.

‘So that’s another factor in this…

‘There are things that I genuinely, as of [the day Murrell admitted his guilt] was learning for the first time.’

Police and the Crown Office will not publish the written statement for legal reasons.

Ms Sturgeon also she did not have ‘any conscious memory’ of seeing the motorhome outside her mother-in-law’s house.

The 24-ft campervan was seized from the property and was one of the items listed that Murrell embezzled.

It could be seen from space for at least two years in historical satellite imagery.

But Ms Sturgeon said the motorhome would not have been ‘immediately visible’ because it was at the side of the house.

She added that if she had seen it: ‘I probably would have assumed it was a neighbour’s.’

The Mail can reveal this claim was greeted with disbelief among senior officers who believe it would have been clearly visible given its size.

They say it was parked in the driveway of the Murrell’s parents’ home when it was seized.

Ms Sturgeon has said she feels like she is ‘serving a sentence for a crime I did not commit’ and had no knowledge of her husband’s crimes.

Possible charges that can be pursued against recipients of goods paid for with embezzled money include reset – the Scots Law term for fencing stolen property.

But this requires proving that the person who received them knew they were bought with stolen cash.

Ms Sturgeon received jewellery and other items which were paid for with embezzled money - but she has said she did not know this was the case.

Her lawyer Aamer Anwar said: ‘Had there been any evidence whatsoever of criminality against Ms Sturgeon, there can be no doubt that this gold-plated investigation would have led to Ms Sturgeon being charged and prosecuted.’

Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston of Police Scotland said: ‘What she knew or didn’t know about her husband’s criminality is a question for Nicola Sturgeon.’