|Posted by admin on August 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM|
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.