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.