|Posted by admin on July 14, 2012 at 10:35 AM|
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