Anybody think Nat Fraser is actually innocent?

Rolfe

Adult human female
Rolfe
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
53,819
Location
NT 150 511
I've started this thread in this forum because I'm interested in the miscarriage of justice angle more than the politics of the highest Scottish court being overturned by the UK supreme court.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-the-dock-as-nat-fraser-wins-appeal-1.1103573

The Supreme Court judgment said that three of Arlene’s rings had been the “cornerstone” of evidence against Fraser. They were found in the bathroom of her house on May 7, 1998.

Prosecutors suggested that Fraser had removed them from her body and placed them in the bathroom to make it appear that she had left home.

However, the judges said, it later emerged that prosecutors had evidence from police to suggest the rings were in the house on the night Arlene vanished.

Fraser’s counsel argued that the failure by the prosecution to reveal that information to his legal team breached his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR

Lord Hope, deputy president of the Supreme Court ruled: “The court holds that the trial would have been significantly different if the undisclosed evidence had been available.

“There is a real possibility that the evidence would have been sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether (Fraser) placed the rings in the bathroom on May 7.

“If that were so, the jury’s verdict would have been bound, in view of the judge’s direction, to have been different.”
Click to expand...


Should that have been allowed to overturn the verdict?

Rolfe.
 
To be honest, I don't understand the ring thing. I've read it in two places now, and still don't get it!

As to Nat, since he'd previously been convicted of her attempted murder, for a separate offence, I think a retrial is in order.
 
Well, obviously I don't know the details of the case as I've only read the linked story but it sounds like:

1) the prosecution put a lot of weight on the evidence of the rings;
2) the prosecution simultaneously withheld potentially exculpatory evidence related to the rings;
3) the judge's charge to the jury included instruction about their findings on the evidence relating to the rings;
4) had the defence (and jury) known about the evidence that the prosecution withheld, the judge's instructions to the jury would have been different; and
5) had the defence (and jury) known about the evidence that the prosecution withheld, the verdict may well have been different.

If the foregoing is accurate (and again, I've only read the linked story so far) I would say, yes, that is certainly grounds upon which to overturn the conviction and order a new trial.
 
I think the retrial is the key. Unfortunately I heard something on the radio about any retrial having to take place within eight weeks or something like that, which seems a bit unrealistic.

I remember the fuss about the withheld testimony about the rings from the original trial - or possibly the failed appeal. It seems there was quite a lot of other circumstantial evidence, and in that case the business of the rings seems like a bad miscalculation on the part of the prosecution.

Rolfe.
 
We the free people know that government abuses its power if allowed. For this reason we have forbidden it to hide evidence.

If a murderer gets off because of a mistrial, those who withheld the evidence should be jailed. It's not good for a murderer to get out, but in the long run, authorizing a government to hide evidence causes much greater problems.
 
I think that's a very fair point indeed. Though not really dealing much with Fraser's actual guilt or innocence.

Rolfe.
 
Legality does not (unfortunately by me, but...) have any relationship to guilt or innocence. Legality has only to do with rigidly following precedent and procedure.
 
Quite so. However, the fact that a good case can be made for the conviction to have been quashed, doesn't prevent people having an opinion on whether he did it or not.

I have already come to the conclusion that my OP was poorly worded. It may well be that he did kill his wife, but it was still perfectly proper for the Supreme Court to recommend the conviction be quashed. (Objections relating to jurisdiction aside.)

Rolfe.
 
monoman said:
To be honest, I don't understand the ring thing. I've read it in two places now, and still don't get it!
Click to expand...

Neither do I. From the link in the OP:

Prosecutors suggested that Fraser had removed them from her body and placed them in the bathroom to make it appear that she had left home.
However, the judges said, it later emerged that prosecutors had evidence from police to suggest the rings were in the house on the night Arlene vanished.
Click to expand...
 
The defence case was that Arlene had walked out on her family and deliberately vanished. Part of the case for that was that she had left her engagement, wedding and eternity rings behind in the bathroom.

However, the prosecution alleged that the rings were not there at the time of the initial search of the house. The accusation was that Fraser had removed them from her body after killing her, and later placed them in the bathroom specifically to give the impression of a woman walking out.

Unfortunately, two police officers stated that they saw the rings in the bathroom at the time of the first search, when according to the prosecution Fraser had not yet replaced them. If they were there at that time, there was no reason not to believe they were there all along. Thus, Fraser had not replaced them.

The prosecution made quite a big thing about the rings, at the trial. The alleged fact that they had not been there at first, then they were, was advanced as being strong evidence that Fraser had staged their appearance, and so was guilty. However, the evidence of these two cops was withheld from the defence. If they were correct, that point completely collapses.

It's not the only point of course, but legally, that doesn't actually matter. The Supreme Court is not obliged to re-try the case without the discredited evidence.

Rolfe.
 
Dick testified against Fraser, claiming that Fraser had tried to frame him.

I'm being lazy here, I followed the case at the time but it's been a while and I'm hazy on the details now.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
The defence case was that Arlene had walked out on her family and deliberately vanished. Part of the case for that was that she had left her engagement, wedding and eternity rings behind in the bathroom.

However, the prosecution alleged that the rings were not there at the time of the initial search of the house. The accusation was that Fraser had removed them from her body after killing her, and later placed them in the bathroom specifically to give the impression of a woman walking out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clairfication on the rings. A most stronger indication if someone "walked out" is their bank account(s). Were they accessed? Her wallet, her identification?
 
There was supposed to be a stash of money that disappeared when she did.

I don't think anyone is disputing that she came to harm. However, did she walk out then meet the harm from person or persons unknown?

Rolfe.
 
Yes, it seems that's the way the wind is blowing.

The original Court of Appeal should have allowed the appeal on the grounds the Supreme Court cited. The Scottish criminal justice system is broken in several places and I just wish we could fix it ourselves rather than have a foreign jurisdiction step in and do it.

My own view is that Fraser did it, but that he didn't replace the rings. Since the fairy-story about the rings was such a large part of the prosecution case, he was outraged about being convicted on false premises. Hence the constant efforts to have the case looked at again.

I could be wrong. It will be interesting to follow the retrial.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
The original Court of Appeal should have allowed the appeal on the grounds the Supreme Court cited. The Scottish criminal justice system is broken in several places and I just wish we could fix it ourselves rather than have a foreign jurisdiction step in and do it.
Click to expand...

Maybe but since UKIP didn't win the last election and the Torys didn't get a clean win for the time being scotland still falls under the human rights act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom