| Archive for sccrcunjustdecisions.myfastforum.org SCCRC are frequently not referring cases which should be referred |
| Scott Law |
Nat Fraser Shockin JusticeNat FraserTurnbull would have fainted had he heard the evidence of the "rings" http://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...ence-on-Arlene-Frasers.3498260.jp Premium Article !Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button. Options Premium Article !To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site. Subscribe Registered Article !To read this article in full you must be registered with the site. Sign InRegisterVital evidence on Arlene Fraser's rings 'kept from murder trial' Nat Fraser at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. His estranged wife vanished nearly a decade ago « Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryADVERTISEMENTPublished Date: 14 November 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT CRUCIAL evidence which could have cleared Nat Fraser of murdering his estranged wife, Arlene, was withheld from him because of "extraordinary incompetence" by the Crown, it was alleged yesterday. The man who had secured Fraser's conviction and life jail sentence also knew nothing of a statement by a policeman which had the potential to destroy his case, appeal judges were told. Senior prosecutor Alan Turnbull, QC, said later that if the statement had been shown to him at the trial he would have fainted. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard the statement, taken in advance of the trial, had been passed to a procurator- fiscal to be followed up, but nothing was ever done. Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, 48, who claims he suffered a miscarriage of justice, told the court: "I do not suggest there was a cover-up, but there was an extraordinary degree of incompetence." Mrs Fraser, 33, disappeared on 28 April, 1998, after seeing her two children off to school from the family home in New Elgin, Moray. Her body has never been found. Her estranged husband, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, had been facing a costly divorce settlement and was suspected by the police, but he had an alibi. It was almost five years before Fraser was put on trial. A crucial part of the prosecution's case was that Arlene's engagement, wedding and eternity rings had vanished with her, but then turned up several days later under a soap dish in her home. Earlier that day, Fraser had been at the house to see his children. The Crown insisted Fraser had had access to the body after the killing, had taken the rings and planted them in the house. The evidence about the rings was described as the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, and the trial judge told the jurors that if they were not prepared to hold that it had been Fraser who placed them in the bathroom, they could not convict him. Last year, it emerged that the defence had never been informed of evidence which suggested that the rings had been in the house on the day Mrs Fraser disappeared. The evidence was said to have come from police officers Neil Lynch and Julie Clark, who had attended the house. The Crown Office set up an inquiry, and Fraser was released on bail pending his appeal. Yesterday, Mr Gray said Mr Lynch had given a statement in July 2002, six months before the start of the trial. He had mentioned seeing rings in the bathroom after Mrs Fraser had been reported missing. The Crown official who took the statement realised the importance of the information, and left a note with a draft copy of the statement on the desk of the then procurator-fiscal in Elgin, David Dickson. Mr Gray told the court that Mr Dickson's position was that he had never seen the statement. He was unable to reconcile the fact that after the trial the statement was found in his file on the Fraser case. "For whatever reason, the information given by PC Lynch on 3 July, 2002, was never followed up," said Mr Gray. The prosecutor told the inquiry he first learned of it in 2005. He stated: "If, in the course of the trial, I had been shown Lynch's precognition, I honestly would have fainted, so inconsistent would it have been with my thinking and my view of the evidence." The hearing continues. OFFICER'S CLAIMS 'A RED HERRING' THE appeal judges were told that PC David Alexander had been part of the original team investigating Arlene Fraser's disappearance, but he was taken off the inquiry and he raised a number of grievances with Detective Chief Superintendent Keith Wilkins. One of these related to the rings. Peter Gray, QC for Nat Fraser, said PC Alexander's belief was that Det Sgt William Robertson had removed the rings from the house, kept them for some days in his drawer and had then returned them to the house, where they were found by a relative of Mrs Fraser. The source of PC Alexander's information had been a colleague, Det Sgt David Slessor, who had later taken his own life. When one of the appeal judges suggested that this aspect might be a red herring in the case, Mr Gray agreed that Fraser was not basing his appeal on anything said by PC Alexander. "I simply put it in as part of the background," said Mr Gray. He added that two officers who were said to have seen rings in the house on the day Mrs Fraser vanished had reported that each had been told by Det Sgt Robertson that they must be mistaken. The full article contains 791 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Page 1 of 1 Last Updated: 13 November 2007 9:26 PM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh Related Topics: Arlene Fraser murder |
| Scott Law |
Evidence PressureFraser appeal told of 'evidence pressure'« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPublished Date: 15 November 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON TWO police officers have come under pressure to change evidence, which Nat Fraser is using to try to win an appeal against his conviction for killing his wife, it was claimed yesterday. Neil Lynch, now retired, was subjected to a "robust interrogation" by detectives to break his claim that he saw rings in the couple's home on the day that Arlene Fraser disappeared. Eventually, he agreed that he might have been mistaken. The Court ofADVERTISEMENTCriminal Appeal also heard that PC Julie Clark had been in tears as she revealed she had been told to say nothing. The issue of Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings was crucial at Fraser's trial in 2003, when he was found guilty of arranging his wife's murder by a hit-man in 1998. The Crown said the rings had vanished with her and reappeared in her home in New Elgin, Moray, several days later. The allegation was that Fraser had access to Mrs Fraser's body. The officers gave statements that they saw rings in the house on the night she was reported missing. Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, told the court an inquiry was set up to investigate the rings issue. Detectives from Strathclyde Police turned up unannounced at Mr Lynch's home. The interview ended with him ordering them from his house. "They returned for no purpose other than to seek to break him down," said Mr Gray. He recounted a meeting in April last year between PC Clark and Sharon Ralph, the procurator-fiscal in Elgin. In a report, Mrs Ralph said: "I asked if she had seen the rings and she nodded. I asked, 'Were you told not to say anything?' She nodded. I asked, 'By whom?' She shook her head as if to say, 'no'. I took it she did not feel able to tell me." The hearing continues. The full article contains 317 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Page 1 of 1 Last Updated: 15 November 2007 12:00 AM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh Related Topics: Arlene Fraser murder |
| Scott Law |
Police Liedhttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...d-to-secure-conviction.3499024.jpThe Police lied to secure conviction in Nat Fraser case, appeal court told POLICE lied to the chief prosecutor in the Nat Fraser murder trial in order to secure a conviction, it was claimed yesterday. The Court of Appeal in Edinburgh was told that two police constables who said they had seen Arlene Fraser's rings in her house the night she disappeared in 1998 had been "hung out to dry" because their evidence would have weakened the case against heADVERTISEMENTr husband. Peter Gray, the defence advocate, said the officers' sightings of the engagement, wedding and eternity rings had been "extremely inconvenient" to the police and the procurator-fiscal service. Summing up, he said that Nat Fraser had suffered a miscarriage of justice because of mistakes by the Crown. Fraser, 48, of Elgin, Moray, is appealing against his conviction for hiring a hitman to kill his wife, on the grounds that the defence was not made aware of the evidence of constables Neil Lynch and Julie Clark. Alan Turnbull, QC, who prosecuted the case and is now a High Court judge, also gave a statement as part of a Crown Office inquiry last year. Reading from the statement, Mr Gray said: "I have a clear recollection of being firmly reassured that the officer concerned had made a mistake and the impression that was left was that he himself acknowledged that." Mr Gray added: "One way or another, lies were being told and they were being told to the advocate depute who had the responsibility to prosecute this case in the public interest and fairly. "There is a reek about the conduct of the police, and two police constables appear to be being hung out to dry to protect a conviction," he said. The hearing continues. The full article contains 293 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Page 1 of 1 Last Updated: 15 November 2007 11:59 PM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh Related Topics: Arlene Fraser murder |
| Scott Law |
Crown Sorry But Insist Fraser is GuiltyCrown 'sorry' but insists Fraser is guiltyhttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...rry-but-insists-Fraser.3538221.jp « Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPublished Date: 17 November 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT THE Crown issued a full, public apology yesterday in the Nat Fraser case, but insisted that his conviction for murdering his estranged wife should stand. Defence lawyers have complained this week to the Court of Criminal Appeal that evidence which could have undermined the prosecution's case against Fraser, 48, had not been disclosed before his trial in 2003 and was not heard by the jury. At the opening of the Crown's reply yesterday, the advocate-depute, John Beckett, QC, acknowledged a "deeply regrettable state of affairs" and said new procedures should prevent a repeat of what had happened. However, Mr Beckett submitted that Fraser's appeal ought to be rejected, and added: "It remains the case that there was, and is, a compelling body of circumstantial evidence giving rise to an almost irresistible inference that he was, as the jury determined, guilty of being involved in the instigation of the murder of his wife, Arlene Fraser." Mrs Fraser, 33, a mother of two, disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, on 28 April 1998. At that time, she and her husband, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, were living apart, and although he was suspected by the police, he had an alibi. It was almost five years before he was put on trial. The cornerstone of the prosecution's case was that Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings had vanished with her, but then turned up several days later on a peg under a soap dish in the bathroom of her home. Earlier that day, Fraser had been at the house to see his children. The Crown maintained the appearance of the rings proved Fraser had access to the body after the killing. He was found guilty of the murder charge, by arranging the killing, and was jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum of 25 years. Last year, it emerged that in a pre-trial statement, PC Neil Lynch, now retired, had reported seeing rings in the bathroom on the night Mrs Fraser had been reported missing. An inquiry was set up, and a second officer, PC Julie Clark, gave a similar account. Fraser was freed on bail to await an appeal. During this week's hearing, it was explained the Lynch statement had been left on the desk of the procurator-fiscal in Elgin, but he said he had not seen it and the information was not followed up, or disclosed to the defence. Yesterday, Mr Beckett said: "I readily acknowledge that the circumstances of this case disclose a deeply regrettable state of affairs in the preparation of this trial by the Crown. I apologise for it on behalf of the Crown. "There has been a fundamental change in the management of business, particularly in preparing for trial. I would suggest it is highly improbable that the circumstances that arose in this case could occur again." Mr Beckett stressed the appeal by Fraser was based on information provided, albeit belatedly, by the Crown. He said there had been suggestions during the hearing that his position was that either Mr Lynch or PC Clark had lied deliberately about what was in the house on 28-29 April. That was wrong, he said, adding: "Can I make my position clear? I submit that the court should refuse the appeal on the basis that it has not been demonstrated there has been a miscarriage of justice." Mr Beckett argued that it was important to bear in mind what the totality of the evidence had been, and he began to outline a number of circumstances which, separately, may not have meant much but which, together, could carry an inference of guilt. He said Fraser had been facing the cost of a divorce settlement, and he had threatened that if his wife was not going to be living with him, she would not be living with anyone. Also, his alibi could be seen to have been deliberately set up, and on the night before Arlene disappeared, a close associate of Fraser had arranged in haste the purchase of a cheap car which the associate had stipulated must have a boot. The hearing resumes next week. The full article contains 699 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Page 1 of 1 Last Updated: 16 November 2007 9:37 PM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh Related Topics: Arlene Fraser murder |
| Scott Law |
Detective in Fraser case facing ActionDetective in Fraser case 'facing action'http://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...-in-Fraser-case-facing.3540033.jp « Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryPublished Date: 23 November 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT INDIVIDUALS who have been severely criticised in the Nat Fraser case could have action taken against them, it was revealed yesterday. A detective and a procurator-fiscal have featured heavily, and an assurance was given to the appeal court that the Crown will examine their conduct. John Beckett, QC, for the Crown, said he conceded the policeman had acted "entirely inappropriately" to a witness, and he found it hard to square the fiscal's involvement with a missing piece of evidence. Fraser, 48, of New Elgin, Moray, is challenging his conviction and life sentence for instigating the murder of his estranged wife, Arlene, 33. She disappeared in 1998, and her body has never been found. A crucial part of the prosecution's case related to Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings. It was alleged the rings had vanished with her and then appeared in her home several days later, when Fraser had visited his children. It showed he had had access to the body, the Crown contended. However, following the trial, it emerged that a constable, Neil Lynch, had given a pre-trial statement saying he had seen rings in the house the night Mrs Fraser was reported missing. The appeal court has heard that the statement was left on the desk of David Dickson, the then procurator-fiscal at Elgin, who said he had never seen it. No follow-up action was taken on the information about the rings, nor was it disclosed to the defence at the trial. During an inquiry, Mr Lynch had faced a "robust interrogation" by Detective Constable Andrew Wright and a colleague, but insisted he was correct that he had seen rings in the house that night. He ordered the officers out of his home. "They returned for no purpose other than to seek to break him down... he accepted he may have been mistaken after all," Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, alleged to the appeal judges. The court has heard that Mr Dickson had been unable to reconcile his position of having never seen the document with the fact it was found, second from the top, in his papers. Yesterday, Mr Beckett said: "I acknowledge DC Wright did not behave well." He said the Crown had carefully considered the conduct of individuals, including Mr Dickson, but it had been impossible to reach a clear view. "The Crown has taken the view that the interests of justice require a resolution of the appeal takes precedence... the circumstances will be reconsidered after the appeal hearing." |
| Scott Law |
PC Witness Mistaken Over RingsPC witness 'mistaken' over rings evidence in Nat Fraser appealhttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...ss-mistaken-over-rings.3544046.jp Published Date: 24 November 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT A CRUCIAL new witness in the Nat Fraser murder appeal was not deliberately lying but was mistaken in her evidence, it was suggested yesterday. The witness, a policewoman, had waited eight years before providing information which Fraser, 48, is hoping will help establish that he suffered a miscarriage of justice in being convicted of instigating the murder of his estranged wife, Arlene, almost a decade ago. However, the prosecution submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal that PC Julie Clark may hold a "genuine but erroneous" belief that she saw rings in Mrs Fraser's home in New Elgin, Moray, on the night she was reported missing in April 1998. The engagement, wedding and eternity rings featured prominently at Fraser's trial in 2003. The Crown contended that they had vanished with Mrs Fraser but then appeared in the bathroom of the house several days later when Fraser visited his children. The allegation was that he had had access to the body. PC Clark gave a statement last year that she had seen rings in the bathroom while at the house during the initial missing person inquiry. Yesterday, John Beckett, QC, for the Crown, pointed out to the appeal judges that PC Clark appeared not to have made any note of her "sighting". He said she had been responsible for completing a form relating to a police search of the house, and it had recorded that the bathroom had been searched for eight minutes and nothing had been recovered. "That was an opportunity for PC Clark to have said, 'Hang on, there were rings there, I saw them last night'. There is an absence of any such observation," said Mr Beckett. He recalled that after six months, in October 1998, the inquiry into Mrs Fraser's disappearance had been relaunched and a briefing was held. PC Clark had attended. "She was vocal at the briefing, but she had no recollection of [the rings] when the point was brought up. It makes no sense that there is a memory of them in 2006 but no recollection of them in October 1998. "A possible explanation is that she did not, in fact, see the items in that place at that time, and recounted an erroneous recollection years later. There is nothing to suggest she was deliberately lying. This could be an honest mistake... a genuinely held belief." While PC Clark made no statement about seeing the rings until last year, a former colleague, Neil Lynch, now retired, had given a pre-trial statement in 2002. He mentioned seeing rings, but the information was never followed up or revealed to the prosecutor at the trial, nor was it disclosed to the defence. Mr Beckett told the appeal court that, as with PC Clark, there was no reason to believe Mr Lynch had lied. "If the court assumes the evidence of Lynch to be entirely correct, in my submission we have travelled no distance to establishing the innocence of the appellant. My overarching submission is that there is no miscarriage of justice on any analysis," he added. The hearing will resume next week. Prosecution's case hung on Arlene's missing jewellery THE appeal has centred on a crucial plank of the prosecution's case against Nat Fraser at his murder trial in 2003. Fraser had an unbreakable alibi for the morning of 28 April, 1998, when his estranged wife, Arlene, 33, vanished after waving off her two children to school from the family home in New Elgin, Moray. The allegation was that he had arranged her death and then disposed of the body by burning it and scattering the remains. The evidence was that Mrs Fraser's family had searched but had not found her engagement, wedding and eternity rings. They turned up several days later, when Fraser was at the house visiting his children. According to the Crown, the re-appearance of the rings showed Fraser had had access to the body and this was said to be the cornerstone of the case. Fraser was convicted of instigating his wife's murder - paying a hit-man to strangle her - and was ordered to serve at least 25 years of a life term. Last year, he was freed on bail pending an appeal after it emerged that a policeman had given a pre-trial statement of seeing rings in the house on the night Mrs Fraser was reported missing. The statement had been left on the desk of the procurator-fiscal in Elgin, who claimed never to have seen it, and there was no follow-up on the information about the rings, nor was it disclosed to the defence. An inquiry was set up and a second officer then stated that she, too, had seen rings in the house. Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, told the appeal court he was not suggesting there had been a cover-up, but "an extraordinary degree of incompetence". John Beckett, QC, for the Crown, apologised to the court for "a deeply regrettable state of affairs" and said action might be taken against individuals after the appeal had been concluded. However, he maintained that, even without the rings evidence, there had been a powerful and compelling circumstantial case against Fraser, and that the accused had not suffered any miscarriage of justice in being convicted of the murder. Submissions in the appeal are expected to end next week. |
| Scott Law |
Missing Statement Refutes Police EvidenceMissing statement' refutes police evidencehttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...efutes-police-evidence.3587175.jp Published Date: 05 December 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT JUDGES in the Nat Fraser appeal were stunned yesterday by a "significant development" which prompted one of them to comment: "Curiouser and curiouser." Both defence and prosecution lawyers in the appeal had believed two new witnesses had not given statements to Fraser's original legal team before his 2003 trial. However, in the last few days, statements have been found by accident, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh was told. They were among the volumes of case papers held by the defence, filed in a totally separate area of evidence. The Crown has already questioned the reliability of the evidence of the two witnesses, a former policeman and a serving officer, and yesterday's twist could expose them to further criticism. The court heard that both insisted they never gave statements to the defence. Fraser, 48, was convicted at his trial of instigating the murder of his estranged wife, Arlene, 33, who disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, in April 1998. A cornerstone of the prosecution's case related to Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings. The jury was told, those had vanished with her but had reappeared in the house several days later, when Fraser was visiting his children. The allegation was that he had returned them, showing he had had access to the body. After the trial, however, it emerged that Neil Lynch, now retired but a constable at the time, had given the Crown a pre-trial statement in which he said he had seen rings in the house on the night Mrs Fraser was reported missing. The statement was left on the desk of the local procurator-fiscal - who said later he had never seen it - and no follow up action was taken, nor was the information disclosed to the defence. A second officer, PC Julie Clark, said she too had seen rings that night. Fraser claims he suffered a miscarriage of justice and his appeal is based on the evidence of the witnesses. As the hearing resumed, Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, announced that there had been a "significant development" over the weekend. He said: "On Friday evening, it was discovered that, contrary to the belief of PC Lynch, contrary to the belief of PC Clark, contrary to the belief of the advocate depute and certainly contrary to my belief and those instructing me, PCs Clark and Lynch were precognosced [examined beforehand] by solicitors acting on behalf of [Fraser] at the time of the trial." Mr Gray explained that Fraser's current legal team was different from his team at the trial and his original solicitor had said no statement was taken from PC Clark or Mr Lynch. One of the judges, Lord Johnston, remarked that it seemed the solicitor was someone else who had forgotten. He added: "Curiouser and curiouser." Mr Gray said the current solicitor, John Macaulay, had been searching through the case papers when he came to a file which related to lip-reading evidence. That evidence, as it turned out, had never been led at the trial. "In that file, there were a number of statements and precognitions which had nothing to do with that subject. They were loose and fell out. Mr Macaulay put them back in and put the file to one side, but then looked back at them again and, on doing so, came upon the precognitions of Clark and Lynch," said Mr Gray. He added there was no mention of rings in either statement. The hearing continues. |
| Scott Law |
Wife Killer Nat Fraser Back Behind BarsWife killer Nat Fraser back behind barshttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...killer-Nat-Fraser-back.3587780.jp « Previous « PreviousNext » Next »View GalleryCONVICTED wife killer Nat Fraser was dramatically sent back to jail today after spending more than 18 months on bail. The 48-year-old was ordered back behind bars when his appeal against conviction came to an end this afternoon. He will remain in prison until judges issue a written judgment on his appeal, which could take several weeks. Fraser is challenging his conviction for murdering his estranged wife Arlene more than nine years ago. Three senior judges at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh made the unexpected decision after the Crown asked for his bail not to be continued. Mrs Fraser was 33 when she disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, on April 28 1998. Her body has never been found. He was jailed for life in 2003 but was freed in May last year, pending his full appeal, after the court heard the grounds of appeal in his case were “compelling”. Members of Mrs Fraser’s family, who have attended every day of his four-week appeal, spoke of their surprise at the move today. |
| Scott Law |
Appeal Judges Send Fraser Back To JailAppeal judges send Fraser back to jailhttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...udges-send-Fraser-back.3587997.jp View GalleryPublished Date: 07 December 2007 By JOHN ROBERTSON LAW CORRESPONDENT NAT Fraser was back behind bars last night after the convicted wife-killer's bail was withdrawn at the end of submissions in his appeal. Fraser was released 19 months ago, when new evidence appeared to cast doubt on his conviction for arranging the murder of his estranged wife, Arlene. He showed no emotion as the appeal judges announced that they wanted time to consider their ruling, and agreed to a request by the Crown that his bail be revoked. Relatives of Mrs Fraser, who had attended the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, were delighted. Her father, Hector McInnes, 67, said he did not want to read too much into the decision, but added: "We knew the appeal would finish today, but the way it finished just took the wind completely out of my sails. I would not have believed it. I certainly hope he will remain there [in prison], but there is no way I am going to prejudge three judges." No indication was given as to how long it might take the judges to deliver their ruling - it is unlikely to be before the New Year - and Mr McInnes said: "I don't care because Mr Fraser is in jail... they can take as long as they like." Carol Gillies, 44, Mrs Fraser's sister, echoed her father's comments. She said: "It was a complete and utter shock... so unexpected. I think John Beckett [QC for the Crown] has done us proud in the appeal." Mrs Gillies said she believed Fraser should never have been freed in the first place. "He was convicted for murder and it was a terrible crime," she added. Mrs Fraser, 33, disappeared in April 1998 after seeing her two children off to school from the family home in New Elgin, Moray. Fraser, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, had been facing a costly divorce settlement and was suspected by the police, but he had an unbreakable alibi. It was almost five years before he and two other men, Hector Dick and Glenn Lucas, now deceased, were put on trial, in January 2003. A few days into the case, the Crown dropped the charges against Lucas and Dick. Dick then said Fraser had confided in him about hiring a hit-man to strangle Arlene, and claimed Fraser had admitted burning the body and crushing and scattering the remains. Lord Gill, the Lord Justice-Clerk, sitting with Lords Osborne and Johnston, said: " We consider that it is in the public interest that interim liberation should be withdrawn." |
| Scott Law |
Arlene Fraser: 'Surely the guilt of what he did will alwaysArlene Fraser: 'Surely the guilt of what he did will always be there...'http://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...ser-39Surely-the-guilt.4039478.jp MURDERED: Arlene Fraser Gallery Published Date: 01 May 2008 By SANDRA DICK HE has grieved for his daughter Arlene Fraser for ten years, yearning for the day when her body might be found. Now Hector McInnes, father of the murdered mother-of-two, has to face more emotional turmoil – the possibility that within weeks the husband convicted of her murder might walk free. Today the 69-year-old grandfather is at his Bonnyrigg home, braced for news of when the next stage of Nat Fraser's appeal against his conviction might begin. On Monday he travelled to Elgin, for a sombre family gathering to mark ten years since the 33-year-old disappeared from her home in the town. Family and friends were determined to draw strength from each other and remember the young mother's life. "I suppose everything that's happened has come to just grow on us," says Mr McInnes, who lives in Harmony Street, Bonnyrigg, with his second wife Cathie, 71. "To be perfectly honest, the tenth anniversary wasn't as bad as the first or the second – those were very hard to bear. "Besides, I did a lot of my grieving for Arlene when she died and then I grieved for myself too. Now I choose to just remember her." Arlene disappeared on April 28, 1998, after waving her children off to school – on the day she was due at talks with her lawyer about a £250,000 divorce settlement. A nationwide search yielded nothing. Her husband Nat had attacked her before, yet he coolly went on television to appeal for her return. Five years later he was in the dock of the High Court in Edinburgh, accused of paying a hitman to strangle Arlene and dispose of her body by dismembering, burning and scattering her remains. He was sentenced to serve at least 25 years of a life sentence. But instead of the conviction bringing Mr McInnes's anguish to an end, his grief continues. Fraser's appeal began last year – the next stage in the hearing is expected to begin within weeks. "We've been told the appeal is imminent, so we can't make any plans to do anything," says Mr McInnes. Fraser had enjoyed 20 months of freedom pending the appeal hearing, only to be returned to prison in November. Today Mr McInnes revealed how he stoically refused to let his emotions spill over as he came face-to-face with his daughter's killer in the court corridors. "Thankfully we didn't see him when he was out of jail, apart from in the corridor. I would just say 'Good morning' and he'd reply the same," said Mr McInnes. "It stuck in my throat a bit but I kept reminding myself that it's him that has all the problems, that he is obviously a sick man." The case against Fraser was one of Scotland's most high-profile court hearings. It hinged on the discovery of Arlene's rings, said to have been missing from the home at the start of the police investigation into her disappearance, only to appear later in the bathroom. The prosecution argued that this showed Fraser had access to her body, had removed the rings and returned them later to the house. But appeal court judges have heard claims the rings were seen by a police officer during the initial search, whose statement was never passed to prosecutors or defence agents prior to the trial. Fraser claims he did not receive a fair trial. "Obviously we are apprehensive about the outcome of the appeal," admits Mr McInnes. "It is all about procedure, lawyers saying to each other that one didn't tell the other one this or that. "I can't believe he could be released on a technicality like that. Surely the guilt of what he did is always going to be there." Had she lived, Arlene would have been 43 years old, probably divorced and enjoying a "new life", her father adds. "She had started college, was talking about becoming a travel agent, working with computers and doing business studies," he says. "She could have gone on to do anything. So of course you wonder sometimes what she would be like now." The hardest burden of all for the family is the mystery over where Arlene's remains may lie. "It would be nice to find out Arlene is lying at peace in the Moray countryside," says Mr McInnes. "But will her body ever be found? I really do not know." The full article contains 745 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.Page 1 of 1 Last Updated: 01 May 2008 12:57 PM Source: Edinburgh Evening News Location: Edinburgh Related Topics: Arlene Fraser murder , Midlothian Bookmark: Del.icio.us Digg Facebook reddit StumbleUpon 1 Bravetart,01/05/2008 23:14:41 Are people who can do such things capable of feeling guilt? Capable of feeling anything at all?Report Unsuitable2 The Geniune Mario Antionette,01/05/2008 23:38:02 #2 - Yes.Report Unsuitable3 Digory,Narnia Scotland 02/05/2008 09:13:54 The conduct of the Police and the other Agencies requires to be sorted out once and for all this is not the only matter in which they have been involved.Report Unsuitable4 Digory,Narnia Scotland 02/05/2008 09:17:42 There are a lot of locations and people who appear to be connected. It is not Fair that the Safety and the Lives of others in the Community should be affected on an ongoing basis. Report Unsuitable5 Digory,Narnia Scotland 02/05/2008 09:25:36 What was the Policeman looking for in the garden and why was he arrested so quickly? How often do the Police bother with people going in someone else's garden? Why were they so keen to prosecute a Police Officer?Report Unsuitable6 2Right,On Location 03/05/2008 03:36:04 Filmed I Hear Clearly he never got a fair hearing if the cases of Gair and Kidd are anything to go by. The above were denied a fair hearing it was agreed at their appeals because Crown withheld evidence which later turned out to be exculpatory. The other evidence in their trials did not matter as it was said they were denied a fair argument on the crucial evidence before the jury or not being before the jury. The vital evidence relied upon in Frasers case was the rings Re-Appearing which later turns out they must have been placed there by the police as they were the ones that had them, according to new evidence accepted by Crown at his appeal. (The two Police now confirm this) To me this proves in their desperation for a conviction, They decided to "Fit Fraser Up" and clear their books. Of course now we have far too many cases before our Courts on the same issues now and i am afraid an attempt is being made now to say: Ok he was denied a fair hearing BUT There is enough evidence for the conviction to stand. Please bear in mind in Gair's case there was still two Police Identifying Him. Fraser will win His Appeal but Crown will be given permission to Re-Try him i am afraid Report Unsuitable7 Yo-Yo,Edinburgh 03/05/2008 18:54:50 Until her body is found, how can anyone be sure she is dead. |
| Scott Law |
Fraser loses bid to overturn conviction in wife's murderFraser loses bid to overturn conviction in wife's murderhttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...-loses-bid-to-overturn.4053442.jp View Gallery NAT Fraser today failed in a bid to have his 2003 conviction for murdering his estranged wife quashed at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Fraser's lawyers claimed he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and argued that vital evidence casting doubt on his guilt was withheld from his defence team. But three senior judges ruled that his appeal against conviction should be refused. The Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill concluded that the proposed evidence of Pcs Neil Lynch and Julie Clark was not new evidence and that, even if it was, the verdict could not be regarded as a miscarriage of justice. He said: "The circumstantial evidence alone constituted a compelling case against the appellant. There was evidence that he had motives for the crime. There was evidence of his previous malice and ill will towards the deceased." Fraser was jailed for life in January 2003 after a jury convicted him of killing his estranged wife Arlene ten years ago. Mrs Fraser was 33 when she disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, after waving her two children off to school on 28 April 1998. Her body has never been found. The disappearance led to one of the largest and most complex investigations ever mounted by Grampian Police, and resulted in a high-profile trial. In 2003 the trial judge at the High Court in Edinburgh ruled that Fraser should spend a minimum of 25 years in jail before being considered for release. But Fraser walked free in May 2006, having been granted bail ahead of his full appeal. Judges took the step after hearing that the grounds of appeal were "compelling" in Fraser's case. The trial heard Arlene's rings went missing on the day she disappeared, then turned up in the bathroom of her home nine days later. It was claimed her husband had placed them there, suggesting he had access to her body. Fraser's defence team appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the evidence of two police officers – Julie Clark and Neil Lynch – who claimed to have seen rings in the house much nearer the time she went missing, was not disclosed to the defence or to the trial. But the appeal judges said the original evidence against Fraser was "overwhelming". Fraser returned to prison in December 2007 after the convicted killer's bail was withdrawn at the end of submissions in his appeal. Lawyers for Fraser claimed his trial had been a "farce". Fraser, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, had been facing a costly divorce settlement and was suspected by the police, but he had an unbreakable alibi. It was almost five years before he and two other men, Hector Dick and Glenn Lucas, now deceased, were put on trial. A few days into the case, the Crown dropped the charges against Lucas and Dick. Dick then said Fraser had confided in him about hiring a hit-man to strangle Arlene, and claimed Fraser had admitted burning the body and crushing and scattering the remains. In today's decision, Lord Gill said there was evidence of "preparatory acts" by Fraser in setting up an alibi. The judge continued: "There was incriminating evidence in the events and circumstances and in the demeanour and the statements of the appellant immediately after the disappearance. "In my opinion, the circumstantial evidence alone was not only sufficient in law to entitle the jury to convict, but was powerful in its effect." Fraser tried to interject as the judges delivered their opinion, saying: "Excuse me, excuse me," while Lord Gill was speaking. Fraser showed little sign of emotion as he was led away to continue his sentence. Members of Mrs Fraser's family, including her father and sister also showed little sign of outward emotion as the opinion was delivered. Speaking outside court, Grampian Police Assistant Chief Constable Jim Stephen, who was the senior investigating officer in the case, said: "Today's result is that Nat Fraser will continue to pay for his crime. "This must be a source of comfort to Arlene's family who have had to endure considerable pain and anxiety throughout the appeal period. "We hope that in some way today's verdict will help them close one traumatic chapter of their lives." Last Updated: 06 May 2008 3:56 PM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh |
| Scott Law |
Court throws out Fraser's appeal over murder of wife ArleneCourt throws out Fraser's appeal over murder of wife Arlenehttp://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...s-out-Fraser39s-appeal.4055435.jp Nat Fraser talks to reporters outside court, where he vowed to ‘fight for the truth’ Picture: Neil Hanna View Gallery Published Date: 07 May 2008 By SHÂN ROSS NAT Fraser, the businessman convicted of murdering his estranged wife, yesterday failed in an attempt to have his conviction quashed. The decision came a few days after the tenth anniversary of his wife's disappearance. Fraser, 48, of Elgin, Moray, was jailed in 2003 after a jury found him guilty of murdering Arlene, 33, despite no body being found. As they emerged from the court in Edinburgh, Mrs Fraser's mother, Isabelle Thompson, her father, Hector McInnes, and sister, Carol Gillies, were smiling. With his voice shaking and full of emotion, Mr McInnes, who gave a thumbs-up, said: "We are pleased with the outcome. It has taken ten years of our life. Unfortunately, we have not found out about Arlene, but he is where he deserves to be. "He has given us a life sentence, so he deserves a life sentence as well." But as he was led away from the back of the court building, Fraser tugged on his handcuffs to delay a Reliance officer putting him into a security van and said to waiting reporters: "The fight will go on, as will the fight to get to the truth." The mother of two went missing from her home in Elgin in April 1998 after waving her two young children, Jamie and Natalie, off to school. Last year Fraser's lawyers claimed he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice and argued that evidence from two police officers was not disclosed to the defence or to the trial. The prosecution case had included claims that Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings were placed in the bathroom of her house several days after she vanished. Evidence later emerged that the police officers may have seen the rings in her house shortly after she disappeared. But yesterday, at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, three senior judges ruled that Fraser's appeal against conviction should be refused. The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, concluded that the proposed evidence of PCs Neil Lynch and Julie Clark was not new and that even if it was, the verdict could not be regarded as a miscarriage of justice. He said: "The circumstantial evidence alone constituted a compelling case against the appellant. There was evidence that he had motives for the crime. There was evidence of his previous malice and ill-will towards the deceased." Lord Gill added that there was evidence of "preparatory acts" by Fraser in setting up an alibi. At one point during the proceedings, Fraser tried to interrupt Lord Gill as he delivered his opinion, saying: "Excuse me, excuse me." In a highly unusual departure from the usual proceedings in a Scottish court, television cameras were also allowed in. At a press conference in a nearby hotel, Mrs Fraser's family spoke of their "sheer relief". They also revealed that they would be prepared to do a "trade-off" with Fraser, giving him a reduction of his life sentence if he would disclose where Mrs Fraser's body was buried. Mrs Gillies said: "I'm appealing to Nat's human side. We'd like to give Arlene a proper burial and a trade-off might be the only way we can get that information." Mrs Gillies and her father said they were still prepared to put up £20,000 each as a reward for information, despite the fact that no-one had come forward with information in the past. Mrs Fraser's sister, describing the strain of yesterday's proceedings and seeing Fraser in court, continued: "This case has been full of surprises. I was terrified going into court. I have no feelings towards him. Maybe pity; he's completely ruined his life, he's got nothing ahead of him. Mrs Gillies added that she "did not feel hatred" towards Fraser. "I just see him as a source of information. He needs to go back to his cell and think about his future. People talk about 'closure'. We will only get closure when Arlene is found. We need to be true to ourselves and accept that we might never know." The case could now be considered by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission if there were sufficient grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Case centred on three rings, but judges weren't convinced NAT Fraser's appeal against his life sentence centred round three rings worn by his wife – her engagement, wedding and eternity rings, pictured. In the immediate aftermath of Arlene's disappearance on 28 April, 1998, no trace of them was found by police or family members. Arlene Fraser: Body has never been foundBut they were eventually found on a wooden dowel beneath a soap dish in the bathroom, after a visit Fraser made to the house on 7 May. It was claimed Fraser had placed them there, suggesting he had access to her body after she vanished. The trial judge directed the jury at the time that, if they did not accept that Fraser placed the rings in the bathroom on 7 May, they could not convict. However, in March 2006 it emerged that two police officers, precognosed by the Crown in preparation for the trial, had mentioned seeing rings there prior to the police search. Two months later, Fraser walked free from prison on bail, after judges heard the grounds of appeal in his case were "compelling". This evidence had not been known to the advocate-depute and not disclosed to the defence. Fraser's legal team argued for a miscarriage of justice. The appeal judges yesterday said the ruling was a "misdirection", but one which was "limited in its scope". Lord Gill told the court: "We can conclude with certainty the jury found that the appellant put the rings in the house on May 7. "The question is whether, in light of the proposed new evidence, the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. In my view, it was not." Lord Gill added evidence from the PCs had "no material significance in comparison with the evidence of the family members." FIVE YEARS OF PAIN 6 MAY 2008 Nat Fraser's appeal against a life sentence for killing his wife is rejected. 28 APRIL 2008 Tenth anniversary of Arlene Fraser's disappearance from her home. Her family gather in Elgin to mark the date privately. 6 DECEMBER 2007 Fraser is sent back to prison, pending a written outcome by three judges, as his appeal comes to an end. 15 NOVEMBER 2007 Police lied to the prosecutor in the Fraser murder trial in order to get a conviction, it is claimed. 14 NOVEMBER 2007 The prosecutor who secured Fraser's conviction for murdering his wife was unaware of important evidence until two years later, appeal judges hear. 6 JUNE 2007 Fraser is to challenge his conviction for murdering his wife when a full appeal is heard later this year. 14 SEPTEMBER 2006 Glenn Lucas, one of the men ( the other was Hector Dick) cleared of murdering Arlene, is found dead at his home in Lincolnshire. 12 MAY 2006 Fraser is freed from prison pending an appeal. 6 MAY 2005 Fraser is allowed to appeal against his conviction. 19 DECEMBER 2003 Fraser lodges an appeal against his conviction for murdering his wife. The full article contains 1193 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Page 1 of 1 Last Updated: 07 May 2008 12:13 AM Source: The Scotsman Location: Edinburgh |
| Scott Law |
Some Serious QuestionsThe trial judge directed the jury at the time that, if they did not accept that Fraser placed the rings in the bathroom on 7 May, they could not convict.Surely the juries verdict returned under the above directions are perverse and had the jury known of this it was clearly capable of undermining the Crowns Case and he should have won his appeal on this issue. Turnbull even claimed himself : if he had known of the evidence of the rings he would have fainted. So why hasn't Fraser won his appeal? The mention of his case being similar to Gair and Kidd is a Joke Kidd won his appeal on his sister "Allegedly" overhearing someon on a bus say : he had set her brother up. Could we not all say this to win appeals ????????? I am sure this is a joke Gair won his appeal on being deprived an argument in front of the jury because Crown did not reveal an Exculpatory statement but interestingly in Gairs case taking away the evidence withheld there in effect was still two Police Identifying him as the murderer Holland aand Sinclair mentioned as 2005 issues. In Sinclair The right to a fair trial is an absolute right which cannot be compromised: Brown v Stott, 2001 SC (PC) 43, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill at p 60A-B; see also p 74B. If the accused has not had a fair trial the verdict cannot stand and the conviction must be quashed. Nor can the fact that the statements were not made available be attributed to any failure in duty on the part of the defence. The duty of disclosure was on the Crown, and it was a breach of that duty for these statements not to have been provided to the defence before the trial. 1.It is impossible therefore to say that the appellant’s defence was not prejudiced by what happened in this case. It was prejudiced because his solicitor advocate was not in a position to cross-examine Pamela Ritchie when she changed her evidence on the basis of what she said and what she did not say to the police when she was being interviewed by them after the incident. Nor can it be said that the appeal court removed the unfairness. This is because it took the view that the fact that the police statements were not produced before the trial was not due to any breach of duty on the part of the Crown and that it was up to the defence to decide whether or not to ask for them: 2004 SLT 794, 798, paras 15 and 16. 1.For these reasons I would hold that the appellant’s complaint that there was a breach of his article 6(1) Convention right to a fair trial is well founded. In my opinion the act of the Lord Advocate in bringing these proceedings and seeking a conviction without having disclosed these statements was incompatible with the appellant’s right to a fair trial. Remedy 1.As I said at the outset, section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that a member of the Scottish Executive has no power to do any act so far as it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights. As Lord Rodger of Earlsferry observed in R v HM Advocate, 2003 SC (PC) 21, 73, para 155, it is not open to the court if this subsection is breached to assess what the consequences of any particular violation of an individual’s Convention rights should be. Parliament has decided that members of the Scottish Executive, including the Lord Advocate, should have no power to do acts that are incompatible with any of the Convention rights. In this case that means that the Lord Advocate, having proceeded to trial without having made Pamela Ritchie’s statements available to the defence as article 6(1) requires, had no power to continue with it and seek a conviction without making these statements available to the defence as soon as it became apparent that she was changing her evidence. But it could equally well be said in this case that the failure to disclose the statements was a failure to act by the Lord Advocate which was incompatible with the appellant’s article 6(1) Convention right: see para 1(e) of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998. The right to a fair trial is an absolute right which cannot be compromised: Brown v Stott, 2001 SC (PC) 43, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill at p 60A-B; see also p 74B. If the accused has not had a fair trial the verdict cannot stand and the conviction must be quashed. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: 1.If the appellant’s solicitor advocate had had a copy of that statement, he would have been able to use it to considerable effect in challenging the reliability, and perhaps also the credibility, of Ms Ritchie’s evidence that she had seen the appellant hitting the complainer with the hammer. That would in turn have provided a platform for challenging her evidence as a whole. Therefore the conduct of the appellant’s defence was materially affected by the fact that his solicitor advocate did not have access to this statement when cross-examining Ms Ritchie. 1.In giving the judgment of the appeal court, the Lord Justice General appeared to suggest, 2004 SLT 794, 798, para 16, that, because the solicitor advocate did not ask for the statement, the advocate depute was under no obligation to provide it. The Crown’s article 6(1) duty to disclose evidence in favour of the defence does not, however, depend on any request being made by the defence. That duty subsists unless, unusually, it is waived by the defence. There was no waiver in this case. The appeal court therefore erred when they concluded that there was no breach of the Crown’s duty of disclosure. Given its potential significance for the defence, the failure to provide the statement can also be said to have rendered the appellant’s trial as a whole unfair for purposes of article 6. The appeal against conviction must accordingly be allowed. 1.It follows that the police statements of all the witnesses who are to be called at the trial are to be regarded as containing material evidence either for or against the accused. The Crown are, accordingly, under an obligation, in terms of article 6(1), to disclose their statements to the defence. This helps to ensure that there is equality of arms between the two sides. (Indeed the absence of any reciprocal obligation on the part of the defence may tip the scales in their favour in this respect.) For the avoidance of doubt, the Crown’s obligation of disclosure as described in Macleod v HM Advocate (No 2) 1998 JC 67 should be understood as requiring the disclosure of these statements. It follows that, in so far as the Crown Practice Statement on Disclosure (September 2004) requires the Crown to provide the statements of these potential witnesses, it can properly be regarded as fulfilling this aspect of their obligation of disclosure under article 6(1). For present purposes it is unnecessary to consider situations in which the public interest will justify the non-disclosure of such statements, or how such cases should be handled. In Holland Lord Rodger said: Failure to disclose outstanding charges 1.Ms Scott submitted that, by failing to disclose the information about the charges against Mr Lynn and Miss Gilchrist relating to drug dealing from the house where they were attacked, the prosecution had infringed the appellant’s rights under article 6(1) of the Convention. The parties accepted that the requirements of article 6(1) in this regard had been correctly identified by the European Court of Human Rights in Edwards v United Kingdom (1993) 15 EHRR 417, 431–432, para 36: “The Court considers that it is a requirement of fairness under paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1), indeed one which is recognised under English law, that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused. ...” In McLeod v HM Advocate (No 2) 1998 JC 67 a Court of Five Judges applied that guidance when considering the duty of the Crown to make disclosure under Scots law. I put the position shortly, at p 79F-G: “Our system of criminal procedure therefore proceeds on the basis that the Crown have a duty at any time to disclose to the defence information in their possession which would tend to exculpate the accused.” I added, at p 80E–F, that the court would order the production of documents if satisfied that their production “would be likely to be of material assistance to the proper preparation or presentation of the accused’s defence”. Lord Hamilton said, at p 83A–C, that the duty was to disclose information that “is significant to an indicated line of defence” or is likely to be of real importance “to any undermining of the Crown case or to any casting of reasonable doubt on it”. 2.Before the Board the Advocate Depute, Mr Brailsford QC, who argued this part of the appeal, accepted these formulations of the Crown’s duty of disclosure. Similarly, Ms Scott accepted that they accurately described the duty of the Crown in terms of article 6(1). The problem, she said, was not the way that the duty had been formulated in McLeod but the way in which it had subsequently been interpreted and applied by the Crown and, in her experience, by the judges. If she had not applied to the court for an order for disclosure in this case, it was because, in her experience, it would have been unlikely to be granted. 1.There is no doubt that, historically, in Scotland the Crown have been reluctant to provide the defence with details of the previous convictions of witnesses in advance of trial. In part, at least, this reluctance is probably a hangover from a time when the Crown regarded all the information which they gathered when investigating a case as confidential. Failure to disclose remark after the Identification Parade 1.Both before the appeal court and again before the Board, the Crown accepted that they had infringed the appellant’s article 6(1) Convention right by failing to tell the defence about the remark which the police officer had made to Miss Gilchrist after the identification parade. Taking all the relevant factors together, I have reached the conclusion that in this case the failures of the Lord Advocate’s representatives to disclose information to the defence and the advocate depute’s reliance on the dock identifications of Miss Gilchrist and Mr Simpson were incompatible with the appellant’s core article 6 Convention right since, taken together, they resulted in an unfair trial. Since a conviction resulting from an unfair trial cannot stand, the appellant’s conviction of charges 2 and 3 must be quashed. Why have our courts not decided that the evidence now produced of the two police that the rings were in the house prior to 7 May have deprived Fraser of the fair hearing he was entitled to. If he did not get a fair hearing then the verdict clearly cannot stand and at the very least he should have won his appeal and crown could then have proceeded to new trial if they so wished. For people to win appeals because they could not challenge peoples previous convictions in court then surely the evidence of the two police discredit or at least they appear to be able to discredit and undermine the Crowns Case. I am really shocked our courts have adopted this stance with Fraser and brought our judicial system into disrepute, as if Lockerbie wasn't enough eh ? Surely his defence team must now appeal to Privy Council as did Holland And Sinclair with great success |