Arlene Fraser murder trial: Accused ‘joked’ about wife’s disappearance

• Arlene Fraser’s estranged husband Nat made light of his wife’s disappearance to her family

• Nat Fraser had visited the family home in the days running up to his wife’s disappearance

• The accused denies murdering Arlene Fraser

Mrs Fraser’s mother told a jury that Nat Fraser said his wife had grabbed some cash and run away from home, and that he even joked with a toy moustache about the disguise she had worn.

Isabelle Thompson recalled confronting Fraser and demanding to know if he had done anything to her daughter. He had asked what the point would have been because “I would not have Arlene.”

Mrs Thompson described her impression of how Fraser had coped with the fact his wife and the mother of his children was missing.

She stated: “He did not seem all that bothered one way or another. He did not seem to be trying to find any information. We were trying in every direction to find out something. He was quite happy to feed off us.”

Fraser, 53, denies acting with unknown others to murder his wife at her home in Smith Street, New Elgin, Moray, by strangling her or by other unknown means. It is said he had known she had consulted a solicitor about a diovorce and obtaining a financial settlement from him, and that he had shown malice and ill-will towards her before the killing.

He has lodged two special defences, one of alibi for the day of Tuesday, 28 April, 1998, when Mrs Fraser, 33, disappeared, and one of incrimination, stating that if she was murdered, it was by Hector Dick “acting with another or others meantime unknown.”

The High Court in Edinburgh was told that Dick had been one of three people who stood trial in 2003 for Mrs Fraser’s murder, but that he had left the dock to become a prosecution witness.

Giving evidence for a second day, Mrs Thompson, 66, said she had not found out until the morning of Wednesday, 29 April, 1998, that her daughter had gone missing the previous day. She heard it in a telephone call from the husband of her older daughter, Carol.

Mrs Thompson agreed with the advocate-depute, Alex Prentice, QC, that it had not been from Nat Fraser that she had discovered that her daughter had vanished.

She said she had gone to Elgin from her home near Glasgow. Nat and Arlene Fraser had been living apart, but he visited the family home in the days following her disappearance.

“He said there was a stash of money behind a ventilation grille in the bedroom and that was what Arlene had taken to go away with. He said there was money behind the grille and he thought Arlene would have taken it because she had just run away. He said there was £500,” said Mrs Thompson.

Recalling another incident, she added: “We were sitting at night and there was a toy moustache one of the children had. He put it on and said this was the disguise Arlene used for getting away with. I thought it was terrible he could joke about something like that. He did not seem upset about anything.”

Mrs Thompson said she had noticed that pillows and the duvet were missing from the couple’s bed, and Fraser had told her that the police had some of the bedding and the rest was at his mother’s being washed. She could not understand that there was any need at that time to have washing done, or at his mother’s when there was a washing machine in the house.

The family had continually searched the house, said Mrs Thompson, looking for any clues as to what might have happened to Arlene. Her personal belongings and clothes were still there, and she was not the type of person who would have upped sticks and gone, especially without making any arrangements for her two children.

Mrs Fraser’s engagement, wedding and eternity rings would have attracted their attention, and they would have handed the rings to the police had they been found, she said. But it was only after several days that Mrs Fraser’s stepmother had come across the rings on a wooden dowel in the bathroom.

Mr Prentice asked if it was possible the rings had been there all the time, but had not been seen.

Mrs Thompson said: “I don’t think so.”

There had come a point, she continued, when she confronted Fraser.

“I asked if he had done anything to Arlene. He said, ‘What would be the point in that?’ I said, ‘You would have your business, your house, your family, your freedom.’ He said, ‘I would not have Arlene.’ I said, ‘You would not have Arlene anyway because she was divorcing you.’ He got a bit agitated but I just left after that,” said Mrs Thompson.

The trial continues.