Arlene Fraser death appeal 'depends on false evidence of officers'

Published on Thursday 7 June 2007 01:22

BUSINESSMAN Nat Fraser's attempt to clear his name over the murder of his estranged wife is being built on the word of police officers who "are not telling the truth", it was claimed yesterday.

Fraser's appeal against his conviction and minimum 25-year jail term for arranging the murder of Arlene Fraser has been centred on evidence from two constables which undermines the case against him but which was never revealed to the defence before his trial.

The information has already secured bail for Fraser, 48, who was released a year ago pending his appeal. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh was told at a preliminary hearing yesterday that the Crown's response was that the officers were "not to be believed".

The full appeal was fixed for 13 November, and is expected to last up to a month.

Arlene Fraser's sister, Carol Gillies, said: "We are looking forward to November. I believe Nat Fraser will go back to jail."

Arlene, 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 husband, a fruit wholesaler, had been facing a costly divorce and was a suspect, but he had a cast-iron alibi.

It was almost five years before Fraser was put on trial, with two other men, Hector Dick and Glenn Lucas. A few days into the case, the Crown dropped the charges against Dick and Lucas, and Dick was called as a prosecution witness. Dick said Fraser had confided in him about hiring a hit-man to strangle Arlene, and claimed Fraser had admitted burning the body.

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 in the bathroom of her home. Earlier that day, Fraser had been at the house to see his children.

The Crown said this showed Fraser had had access to the body after the killing, and had removed the rings and had planted them in the house "probably as some kind of shallow gesture".

He was found guilty of murder, given a life sentence, and ordered to serve at least 25 years before applying for parole.

Last year, it emerged the defence had never been told of evidence suggesting the rings had been in the house on the day Arlene disappeared. The evidence was said to have come from two police officers, Neil Lynch and Julie Clark, who had attended the house. Mr Lynch has since retired. The Crown Office set up an inquiry, and its report has been submitted to the appeal court.

At yesterday's hearing to establish which issues would be raised, Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, said the defence saw the report as "lacking in impartiality" and did not accept its findings.

Mr Gray said he had been given a copy of the arguments the Crown proposed to make. Referring to the rings, the Crown said the information provided by Mr Lynch had not been given until four years after Arlene's disappearance. The information from PC Clark had not been provided until last year.

"The Crown argue that they are neither reliable nor are they credible. They are not to be believed. They are, for whatever reason, not telling the truth," added Mr Gray.