CROOKED POLICE WORK IN SCOTLAND

They were so keen to convict Nat Fraser -- who may well have been guilty -- that they fabricated evidence and colluded with prosecutors to cover up the fabrication. Excerpt below:

Fraser was convicted in 2003 of the murder of his estranged wife, Arlene. Central to the case against him was the alleged disappearance and reappearance of Mrs Fraser's wedding, engagement and eternity rings from her home around the time she went missing. The prosecution succeeded in arguing that Fraser had returned the rings, and so must have had access to his wife's body. But it has emerged that the jury in Fraser's trial was never told of claims made by a former Grampian Police officer that the rings had been removed and later returned by a member of the force's investigation team.

Professor Christopher Gane, a vice-principal of Aberdeen University and one of Scotland's leading legal experts, said yesterday: "Clearly this is very important evidence, given the nature of the Crown's case. The Crown may well have some difficulty convincing the appeal court that there has not been a miscarriage of justice." The allegations surrounding police involvement in returning the rings will form the focus of separate legal and police investigations.

The three rings mysteriously appeared in the bathroom of Mrs Fraser's home in Smith Street, New Elgin, more than a week after she vanished on 28 April, 1998. There was no sign of the rings when officers from Grampian Police took a detailed film of the interior of Mrs Fraser's home shortly after her disappearance. The trial was told that police and Mrs Fraser's relatives had been over the house with a fine-tooth comb and that the rings had not been in the house.

But they were later discovered in full view in the bathroom, hanging on a peg under a soap dish. The discovery was made on 7 May, nine days after Mrs Fraser disappeared, by Catherine McInnes, of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, who is married to Mrs Fraser's father, Hector. Mrs McInnes told the court that the rings had "definitely" not been there when she and other members of the family had earlier searched the house for any clues, such as a note or missing clothing, to explain what had happened. And the trial was told that Fraser had been seen "lurking" outside the bathroom on the day the rings were found.

The tale of the rings formed a critical part of the Crown's case. The jury was told by the advocate depute, Alan Turnbull, QC, that it was Nat Fraser's tokens of love which had "ensnared" him on the charge of arranging his estranged wife's murder. Mr Turnbull argued that the appearance of Mrs Fraser's rings after she had gone missing was a most compelling and eloquent piece of evidence against Fraser. He claimed that the jury could convict Fraser on the circumstantial evidence alone, without the damning testimony of Hector Dick, Fraser's former co- accused, who turned Queen's evidence during the trial and claimed that Fraser had hired a hitman to kill Mrs Fraser before disposing of her body.

Mr Turnbull argued that Fraser had returned the rings, and it showed that he had access to the body. He told the jury: "He has been caught by that mistake. These are the rings he gave to his wife and the mother of his children. "How ironic these tokens of love, permanence and fidelity should end up being his undoing ... the undoing of a husband who became consumed by jealousy and greed. These rings tell us as eloquently and powerfully as any witness that Nat Fraser killed Arlene."

But the jury, it has been revealed, was never told of the claims that it was police investigators who were responsible for returning the rings. Two investigations - one by Catherine Dyer, a Glasgow procurator-fiscal, and the other by Richard Gray, the deputy chief constable of Strathclyde Police - have begun, to establish why the crucial evidence was not made available at the 2003 trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.

Yesterday, Fraser's lawyer, John McAulay, called for the dual investigation into the conviction to be extended to the critical evidence given at the trial by members of the family of his client's estranged wife. Mr McAulay said yesterday: "I hope Mr Gray's investigation will extend to some of the highest ranks of Grampian CID and to some of those members of Mrs Fraser's family who gave evidence at the trial. I am alluding to the ones who gave evidence in relation to the rings." Mr McAulay added that no date had yet been set for Fraser's appeal hearing and that he was still considering whether to apply for his client to be released on bail, pending his appeal. He declined to comment on Fraser's reaction to his possible release from a 25-year prison sentence.

Fraser is now out on bail and any attempt at finding him guilty in a retrial would run up against great skepticism about any evidence presented. So it may well be another example of the old, old story: Corrupt police work ends up letting the guilty go free. The latest report (excerpt) on Fraser below:

Fraser was convicted of killing his estranged wife in 2003 and given a life sentence. The trial was told that Fraser removed rings from Arlene and taken them back to the family home. But fresh evidence is believed to show that the rings were removed by detectives and returned to the house at a later date. Fraser was freed pending an appeal last month and returned to Elgin, Moray, almost immediately.

But he faced a serious blow when his former best man and business associate gave an interview to the Sunday Mail about how Fraser organised the murder of his wife. Ian "Pedro" Taylor claimed Fraser persuaded an associate to use chloroform to kill Arlene before the pair of them disposed of her body in a dump. Detectives from Strathclyde Serious Crime Squad have the tapes as part of their investigation into Grampian Police's original murder probe. Yesterday, they said they had not spoken to Taylor but are still planning to interview him.

Meanwhile taxpayers face funding a new life for Fraser in another town. Not only could he end up with a 1 million pound payout for wrongful conviction, he could argue his life is intolerable in Elgin and he needs to move. Lawyer Cameron Fyfe said: "If Fraser can prove the Lord Advocate or the police were malicious in their handling of his case, he could win a whole new life for himself, including the cost of a move from Elgin."



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)