Hector Dick we challenge you to take a lie detector test.
 In fact we would go as far as raising the money for you to take it. 

The Nat Fraser Case

Blog

view:  full / summary

Natalie blames her dad's former best pal Hector Dick for the killing of her mum Arlene Fraser Natalie blames her dad's former best pal Hector Dick for the killing of her mum Arlene Fraser

Posted by admin on July 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM Comments comments (0)

At his 2012 trial, Fraser lodged a special defence of incrimination, blaming Dick for the murder if it did take place, a defence rejected by the jury.

 

Scottish court chiefs only gave permission for The Murder Trial after three years of negotiation.

 

It finally got the green light after Lord Bracadale – the judge in the case – gave his consent.

 

The real-life courtroom drama includes tense footage of defence and prosecution lawyers battling to win over the jury.

 

There are heartbreaking scenes of prosecution QC Alex Prentice questioning Arlene’s mum Isabelle about her daughter.

 

She tells the court: “I didn’t expect it of her but she turned out to be a very good mother, very loving.”

 

Defence QC John Scott is seen cross-examining Dick and accuses him of being a liar. At one point, he tells the jury: “If he came in soaking wet and said it was raining, you would have to put your hand outside the window.”

 

Dick was a key witness at the retrial which saw Fraser convicted a second time. He was also a central part of Fraser’s defence, with the murderer trying to blame him for the crime.

 

In 2003, Dick was accused with Fraser – and a third man Glenn Lucas who has since died – of conspiring to murder Arlene.

 

But he sensationally walked free along with Lucas after agreeing to turn on Fraser and give evidence for the prosecution.

 

In the documentary, Dick denies having anything to do with Arlene’s death and accuses

prosecutors of trying to paint him “blacker than black”

 

Mum-of-two Arlene was 33 when she vanished from her home in Elgin, Moray, in 1998. She had been trying to begin a new life but Fraser wanted her dead after she told him their marriage was over.

 

He was seething with jealousy because he suspected she might have a lover.

 

And fearing his wife would also take half his fortune, he paid a hitman £15,000 to kill her.

 

Just five weeks before Arlene disappeared, Fraser throttled her for coming back late – an attack for which he was sentenced to 18 months.

 

In the documentary, Fraser holds his head in his hands and shakes as the conviction is read out.

 

Arlene doted on Natalie and son Jamie. After she vanished Jamie, then seven, left a heartbreaking scrawled note on her doorstep that is shown in tonight’s film. It read: “Mother, where are U!”

 

The documentary is likely to spark a debate about how much access television cameras should be given to courts.

 

The Murder Trial’s Bafta-winning director Nick Holt said: “There is nothing to hide, nothing shameful going on. The process of filming demystifies the legal process.”

 

The documentary used six remote-controlled cameras to capture the unfolding drama in court.

 

Nat was sent to prison for 25 years after the 2003 trial. He challenged the verdict and his

convcition was quashed in 2011.

 

In April 2012, he was sent back to the High Court in Edinburgh for a fresh trial – which was filmed for the show – and again found guilty.

 

Fraser’s latest appeal against his conviction will be heard in September.

Arlene Fraser's daughter accuses dad's best pal of murdering her mum in Channel 4 courtroom screening

Posted by admin on July 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM Comments comments (0)

9 Jul 2013 07:30

 

NATALIE FRASER says she is '100 per cent' sure that it's Hector Dick, not her dad Nat Fraser, who is guilty of killing her mum.

THE daughter of murdered Arlene Fraser has accused her dad Nat’s former best friend of the killing.

 

Natalie Fraser claims she is “100 per cent” sure that Hector Dick was responsible for her mum’s death.

 

The 20-year-old is convinced her dad, who has been convicted twice of killing Arlene, did not have anything to do with the murder.

 

Natalie, who was five when her mum disappeared in 1998, speaks out in a sensational documentary to be aired tonight on Channel 4.

 

The ground-breaking programme was allowed to film a High Court murder trial for the first time.

 

It includes footage of Nat trembling in the dock as he awaits the jury’s decision – and captures the devastation in his face as a guilty verdict is read out.

 

The film was made last year when the former fruit and veg salesman from Elgin in Moray was retried for the murder.

 

He had been convicted in 2003 but was later acquitted on a technicality.

 

At the initial trial, Dick was cleared of murdering Arlene but jailed for a year in 2001 for lying about a beige Ford Fiesta that police believe was involved in her disappearance in 1998.

 

In the documentary, Natalie was asked what she thought happened to her mum. She answered: “I think she was murdered.”

 

When asked who she thought did it, she replied: “Hector Dick, 100 per cent.”

 

Natalie is adamant her dad is innocent. She said: “I don’t have an if or a but or a doubt, I believe in him. We were always together when I was younger.

 

“I remember when we were younger he said to me, ‘Do you miss your mum?’ I don’t need him to tell me he didn’t do it.”

 

When asked what she would think if her dad admitted he killed Arlene, she said: “I wouldn’t believe it.”

 

Natalie blames her dad's former best pal Hector Dick for the killing of her mum Arlene Fraser Natalie blames her dad's former best pal Hector Dick for the killing of her mum Arlene Fraser

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news...-frasers-daughter-accuses-2039489

 


Documentary shows Nat Fraser court case

Posted by admin on July 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM Comments comments (0)

A DOCUMENTARY featuring the retrial of wife killer Nat Fraser is due to be screened this month.

 

The high-profile case at the High Court in Edinburgh in May last year was recorded by programme makers Windfall Films. The historic move to film a "live" trial was granted only after lengthy negotiations.

 

Fraser was jailed for 17 years after being found guilty for a second time of arranging the murder of his wife Arlene in 1998.

 

The Murder Trial is due to air on Channel 4 on July 9.

 

It will document the six-week case from start to finish and feature several of the figures involved.

 

The show is aimed to give viewers a rare insight into the proceedings in Scots courts. London-based Windfall had previously tried and failed to record cases at the High Court in Glasgow.

 

Fraser's retrial was filmed just weeks after cameras were allowed in a Scottish courtroom for the first time to record the sentencing of David Gilroy, jailed for the murder of Suzanne Pilley.


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/documentary-shows-nat-fraser-court-case.21484113

Did Nat Fraser Get A Fair Trial

Posted by admin on August 7, 2012 at 7:20 AM Comments comments (0)

Having sat throughout the trial I can tell you my opinion was there was an insufficiency of evidence.

Despite the judge saying the jury could find him guilty without the evidence of Hector Dick I simply cannot agree. 

The juror who admitted speaking to his mother and brother ought to have been excused in fairness after saying he would find him guilty anyway without hearing one bit of defence evidence,

The crown case had not yet closed.

 The judge sent the police to speak to the juror’s family but despite a motion from the defence to quiz the person on the bus this was refused and the witness that called the court leaving details to contact her, I am shocked the judge did not allow this person to be interviewed.

 If this is not showing a one sided bias then I don't know what is. 

Why only interview the one side ?

Perhaps the woman who heard the juror's brother speaking on this bus saying he would find him guilty might have been able to provide other witnesses had the police bothered to speak to her. 

Perhaps the police would have been able to recover CCTV from the bus to enable them to speak to other witnesses to see if they heard the juror’s brother too.

At the first trial of Nat Fraser a juror was excused for falling asleep which I suggest is far less serious than this latest issue. 

The other issue denying him a fair hearing was the references during trial to a previous sentence. 

Jurors are not supposed to know you have any previous convictions let alone served a prison sentence so the mention during evidence in chief by the A/D this witness mentioned a previous sentence.

 I do not accept this could be dealt properly with a direction from the judge because once heard it is hard for anyone to ignore any part of evidence particularly jurors that were taking many many notes.

Insufficiency of evidence

 As Hector Dick was the only witness to claim Nat Fraser confessed to killing his wife, I fail to see how the judge can direct the jury that they could reject his evidence and still find Nat Fraser Guilty. The direction from the judge that the jury must have regard to everything he saws about the law then go on to say there is sufficient evidence in law to convict is biased towards any accused. 

Anyone listening to a comment like this would conclude they had a right to convict without having regard to the evidence as the judge is saying there is enough. 

This direction should be struck from all judges speeches if further miscarriages are to be avoided.

Straight from the Judges Mouth

Posted by admin on August 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM Comments comments (0)

Taken from the charge to the jury page 21, lines 12-16.  

Case Number: SCS/2011-124887   30th May 2012

There is no witness who claims to have heard the accused instigating or making an arrangement with another person or persons in order that his wife would be murdered

One wonders why the judge allowed the case to go before a jury if there was no evidence he paid someone to murder his wife.

Lord Bracadale told the jurors that the Crown relied on many strands of circumstantial evidence. Also, he said, the jury had heard many days of evidence from Mr Dick.

“Clearly, he gave some damning evidence against the accused. Evidence about the Ford Fiesta and evidence that the accused made confessions would, if believed and found reliable, be strong evidence against the accused. It is for you to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence he gave,” said Lord Bracadale.

 “You take account of the powerful and extensive criticisms of his evidence made by Mr (John) Scott (Fraser’s QC.)

On any view, he had a history of lying. You can have regard to the way in which he gave his evidence and have regard to what he said on earlier occasions about matters on which he gave evidence. “It would be open to you to take the view he was such an untruthful and unreliable witness that you reject his evidence out of hand

How you view the evidence of Hector Dick is entirely a matter for you.

“I direct you, looking at all the evidence in the case, there is sufficient evidence coming from more than one source which, when brought together and considered as a whole, would allow you to find the accused guilty of murder.

Whether you accept that evidence and whether it satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt, is entirely a matter for you. 

“In addition, I direct you that that is the case even if you leave out of account entirely the evidence of Hector Dick. In the absence of his evidence, there would still be sufficient circumstantial evidence coming from more than one source which, when brought together and considered as a whole, would allow you to find the accused guilty of murder.

Again, whether you accept that evidence and whether it satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt, is entirtely a matter for you.”

In my opinion the judge has misdirected the jury when he said without Hector Dick's evidence there was still sufficient evidence in law to convict Mr Fraser. 

Dick was the only person to tell the court Nat Fraser had said he strangled his wife now the crown are saying they accept his Alibi and it has never been the case Fraser murdered his wife. 

What the Cown are saying now is Nat Fraser paid someone to kill her. 

Still the only evidence of this comes from a perjuer, Dick, who has admitted telling lies under oath at the trial in 2003. 

Dick has also been the only person to tell the court that the Ford Fiesta was used to kill Arlene Fraser or to transport her body so how can the judge say without this evidence there is sufficient evidence in law without this evidence.

 Would you buy a used car from Hector Dick ? 

The riddler he was called by John Scott who in my opinion was being kind. He is a lying scheming rat bag who would sell his granny to save his own bacon, who cannot be trusted to tell the truth. He has told that many lies over the years even he has difficulty seperating fact from fiction.

 




Pedro Taylor

Posted by admin on July 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM Comments comments (1)

It should be pointed out that Pedro Taylor did not testify at Nat Fraser's first trial yet he can speak to the media and tell tales just like his mate Hector Dick.

 

It also came out that he had not been interviewed about what he has said he knew and neither did he come forward with this information also.

 

Why was he not under arrest for having "specialist" knowledge?

 

There are so many things that bother me about this case. One thing in particular is that there is not one piece of independent evidence. Any of these allegations made against Nat Fraser come from Carole Gilles, Arlene's other family, friends Arlene was supposed to say things to, and of course Hector Dick and Pedro. Carol Gillies in particular blamed Nat Fraser within hours of her sister going missing.

 

Both Hector Dick and Pedro should both take lie detectors to see if they pass on vital questions like.

 

1. Do you know what happened to Arlene?

2. Do you know where she is?

3.Where you involved in her disappearance?

4. Can you say with truth you know Nat Fraser was involved?

5. If yes how do you know?

 

I am sure there are a million questions these two could be asked. If they failed especially if they failed on "Where is Arlene?" then just maybe we might get to find out the truth.

 

Though I cannot see any one of them taking a test, and I know they are not allowed in court. It just might help solve some of the mystery of their involvement and what they say they know once and for all.

_________________

What evidential value can be added to anything found in Arlene Frasers House ?

Posted by admin on July 14, 2012 at 10:35 AM Comments comments (0)

 The rings for example were seen in different parts of the house by different witnesses.

 A ring was found in Natalie Fraser's bedroom. Watches were found in the Kitchen and Bathroom (The one in bathroom was not seen by the person who found the rings) two very expensive watches. 

The Advocate Depute suggested the rings might have been took by Fraser because of their value but surely this must have applied to all Arlene Fraser's family who had lived in the house until the rings and watches were found. 

If Nat Fraser took the rings because of their value then why not take watches that were more valuable ?

 A denim shirt was spotted in different parts of the house by different people yet no evidential value was added to this. 

The police took productions out of boxes and asked others to sign them knowing they knew nothing about them. 

The rings were not signed for, and no statements were taken, indeed not a single statement was taken from any of the family when they were found, nor were any photographs taken of the rings when they were found so what evidential value can be added to them ? 

What evidential value can be added to anything that was handed back to Nat Fraser in the one box then taken back from his months later 

The Ross Monaghan trial collapsed for the following reasons: 

The Carroll trial heard from forensic expert Alison Colley, of the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA), who said she was asked by a detective superintendent to form a conclusion using a single particle of gunpowder found on a jacket in Monaghan's wardrobe. The judge, Lord Brailsford, deemed it "of no evidential value" and described Ms Colley's evidence as "disturbing".

 Why did the same principles apply to Nat Fraser regarding the rings ? 

Once again these rings were used to convict Nat Fraser which really have no evidential value ? 

Indeed we heard officers admit the rings might innocently have been moved within the house like the denim shirt. 

Earlier news reported that it was impossible to tell from a video if the rings were on the dowelling but the video used at this trial seemed pretty clear. Something wrong there I think. 

I do not think anything found in the house had any evidential value apart from the torn denim shirt which seems to have been forgotten all about in this case. It was seen in a wardrobe beside a box of Vodka then later found downstairs. It was torn as if it had been cut with a knife or Scissors. Surely this would have been more significant if they were looking for any signs of a fight or disturbance. The shirt was one of Arlene’s favourite ones. It was alleged she was disturbed while doing household chores, washing and hovering.

 What evidential value can be added to a washing machine being on ? How could one tell exactly what time it was switched on ? The hoover was left plugged into the wall. How many people leave their hoover plugged in after hovering ? indeed how many fail to even switch off their hoovers at the plugs after using them, sometimes until hours later ? I fail to see how these things could have any evidential value at-all that something untowards happened to Arlene Fraser.

 I fail to see how they have not been rejected like the Monaghan case. A small amount of DNA was also found on the grip of a pistol used to kill Carroll, which the court heard was a "perfect match" to Monaghan. 

 

However, forensic experts were unable to say how it got there.

Not a single person in the Nat Fraser case can say with certainty how the rings got into the bathroom when Cathy McInnes claimed to have found them. No-One saw Nat Fraser place these rings anywhere but no-one else saw any of Arlene’s family do it either but they could not be excluded. The quotes I have used above come from the Herald Article as no opinions are available for the trial of Ross Monaghan, so there is no proof of their accuracy. Herald Article: http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/ftopic1108-0.php

Jury out in Arlene Fraser murder trial

Posted by admin on May 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM Comments comments (2)
  • By JOHN ROBERTSON 

    Published on Tuesday 29 May 2012 13:50

    THE jury in the Arlene Fraser murder trial has retired to consider its verdict.

    In his directions to the eight women and seven men of the jury, the judge, Lord Bracadale, said that they could return a guilty verdict against Nat Fraser, even if they rejected “out of hand” evidence given by a key prosecution witness.

    There would still be enough evidence, if the jury accepted it, added Lord Bracadale, to allow a conviction.

    Fraser, 53, denies acting with others to murder his estranged wife, 33, who disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, in April 1998. He pleads alibi and incrimination, blaming Hector Dick, a former friend, and another or others if she was killed.

    During the trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, Mr Dick testified that Fraser had asked him to obtain a car for Fraser just before the disappearance, and that it was returned to him after Mrs Fraser went missing. He said he had burned and scrapped the Ford Fiesta. Mr Dick also alleged that Fraser, worried about having to meet a divorce settlement and determined that his wife would never be able to start a new life with anyone else, had admitted hiring a hitman to kill her.

    Lord Bracadale told the jurors that the Crown relied on many strands of circumstantial evidence. Also, he said, the jury had heard many days of evidence from Mr Dick.

    “Clearly, he gave some damning evidence against the accused. Evidence about the Ford Fiesta and evidence that the accused made confessions would, if believed and found reliable, be stroing evidence against the accused. It is for you to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence he gave,” said Lord Bracadale.

    “You take account of the powerful and extensive criticisms of his evidence made by Mr (John) Scott (Fraser’s QC.) On any view, he had a history of lying. You can have regard to the way in which he gave his evidence and have regard to what he said on earlier occasions about matters on which he gave evidence.

    “It would be open to you to take the view he was such an untruthful and unreliable witness that you reject his evidence out of hand. How you view the evidence of Hector Dick is entirely a matter for you.

    “I direct you, looking at all the evidence in the case, there is sufficient evidence coming from more than one source which, when brought together and considered as a whole, would allow you to find the accused guilty of murder. Whether you accept that evidence and whether it satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt, is entirely a matter for you.

    “In addition, I direct you that that is the case even if you leave out of account entirely the evidence of Hector Dick. In the absence of his evidence, there would still be sufficient circumstantial evidence coming from more than one source which, when brought together and considered as a whole, would allow you to find the accused guilty of murder. Again, whether you accept that evidence and whether it satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt, is entirtely a matter for you.”


http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/jury-out-in-arlene-fraser-murder-trial-1-2324917

Key witness is habitual liar, trial hears

Posted by admin on May 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM Comments comments (0)

Published on Monday 28 May 2012

A KEY prosecution witness in the Arlene Fraser murder trial has been condemned as a “compulsive liar”.

Defence QC John Scott nicknamed Hector Dick “The Riddler”, and said he had done very well out of his story, with a murder charge dropped against him and £20,000 from a tabloid newspaper.

In his closing speech at the High Court in Edinburgh, Mr Scott also branded as feeble and unconvincing the motive suggested for Nat Fraser arranging the murder of his estranged wife. The Crown had suggested it was to avoid a divorce settlement and to stop his wife being with anyone else.

“If that is a motive for murder, this country has thousands of men the police need to keep a close eye on,” said Mr Scott.

Fraser, 53, denies acting with others to murder his wife, 33, who vanished from her home in New Elgin, Moray, in April 1998 and has never been seen again. He pleads alibi and incrimination, blaming Mr Dick, a former friend, and another or others if she was killed.

At a previous trial in 2003, Mr Dick was in the dock with Fraser but he was freed and became a prosecution witness. Later, he sold his story to a newspaper.

Mr Scott’s address to the jury yesterday came as the trial entered its sixth week. He reminded the jury that the prosecutor, Alex Prentice QC, had claimed that, on the evidence, there was only one person in the world who had a motive to kill Mrs Fraser.

“I suggest that is a dramatic overstatement of Nat Fraser’s circumstances and thinking at the time,” said Mr Scott. “The Crown appears to be saying his motive was that she was divorcing him, this would cost him money, and he could not bear the thought of her being with someone else.

“If you examine the evidence, you have been offered a feeble justification and unconvincing motive for murder.”

In relation to Mr Dick, he argued that the prosecution relied heavily on his evidence but Mr Dick had not appeared to realise that repetition did not transform a lie into the truth.

“Hector Dick is a compulsive liar who seeks always to put himself in the best possible position. He seems to think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth. He is an easy, habitual and accomplished liar, almost a complete stranger to the truth,” said Mr Scott.

“I suggest... in his evidence in this trial he has lied so often that even he cannot always separate out the lies from the truth.”

Mr Scott suggested that the case had been blighted by hindsight and assumption, and that there had been flaws in the police investigation which officers had been reluctant to accept.

Much had been made of Mrs Fraser’s rings being found in the house more than a week after she had vanished, and her family believed Fraser had put them there, but two police officers had testified they saw the rings on the night she went missing, said Mr Scott.

The officers’ statements should have been examined to see what implications they had, but, instead, they had been “visited” and told they were wrong.

The judge, Lord Bracadale, expects the jury to retire today to consider its verdict.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/arlene-fraser-murder-trial-key-witness-is-habitual-liar-trial-hears-1-2322728


 

Meeting with HMRC

Posted by admin on May 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM Comments comments (0)

Ian Jap and  Robert James McKay both spoke about Hector Dick requesting a meeting with HMRC at Inverness prison and indeed such a meeting took place which resulted in HMRC droppping charges against Dick and a week later he got bail affectively achieving his objectives.

 Dick told them they said, (But Dick denied this) that the Car was 70% Gettable and the body of Arlene 50% Gettable.

 They were limited in speaking to Dick as he was a prisoner and they said they were not allowed their notebooks at this visit but they took note of what was said after the visit.

 Jap would contact HMRC and indeed HMRC attended according to a Mr (sic) Lyndsey Frett who told the court an unusual meeting took p;lace with Dick HMRC and The Police which resulted in charges being dropped against Dick as a comfort before he would speak to the police with his Solicitor George Mathers present. 

The court were told by Mr McKay that Dick was worried about losing his Farm, House and the impact of everything on his wife and brother. 

But in any event all charges of bootlegging were dropped against Dick by HMRC before he turned queens evidence in 2003 and he was allowed to keep his house and farm.


Rss_feed