Vital evidence on Arlene Fraser's rings 'kept from murder trial'

Published on Wednesday 14 November 2007 00:31

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.