"The fight goes on,as well as the fight to get to the truth" Nat Fraser
The Nat Fraser Case
Guestbook
Post a Comment
Oops!
The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.
18 Comments
Reply
Reality Check
9:26 AM on June 14, 2018
Read the strands of which their were many. Too many for coincidence. Far too many threads looking to exonerate Nat on feeble technicalities thus pampering to the narcissism of this murderer,
How can he imprisoned without HARD evidence? After watching the The Murder Trial last night i have lost faith in the judicial system completely. Surely the verdict should have returned as unproven due to the fact that no body can prove any guilt!? And many will say he showed no emotion in court - he didn't speak up for himself....well, why should he show emotion, he's been locked up, had his freedom taken away for something UNPROVEN, he didn't speak in his own trial - wise decision to make in my opinion - and why should he have to - innocent until PROVEN guilty! It is worrying how this has happened to Nat - can anybody be accused and charged without evidence for murder then, can we just accuse people for crimes now on a hunch and have them locked up? The system is disheartening.
[/Lucie]
How can he imprisoned without HARD evidence? After watching the The Murder Trial last night i have lost faith in the judicial system completely. Surely the verdict should have returned as unproven due to the fact that no body can prove any guilt!? And many will say he showed no emotion in court - he didn't speak up for himself....well, why should he show emotion, he's been locked up, had his freedom taken away for something UNPROVEN, he didn't speak in his own trial - wise decision to make in my opinion - and why should he have to - innocent until PROVEN guilty! It is worrying how this has happened to Nat - can anybody be accused and charged without evidence for murder then, can we just accuse people for crimes now on a hunch and have them locked up? The system is disheartening.
[/Lucie]
Reply
Timothymt
7:02 PM on March 4, 2018
Can I just say what a reduction to find somebody who truly is aware of what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know learn how to convey a problem to mild and make it important. More people must learn this and perceive this aspect of the story. I cant believe youre not more well-liked since you definitely have the gift. http://hellowh985mm.com
Reply
Smithb839
4:03 AM on April 16, 2017
I am so grateful for your blog article.Really thank you! Fantastic. dkdefebdfkbekfke
Reply
Not_Important
3:55 PM on June 21, 2016
Am I the only one noticing this or is the police in the UK completely retarded (I'm not from the UK)? They say that it was a murder who kidnapped Arlene, but Arlene didn't try to close the door, nor were there any signs of a struggle or of the door being forced open, common when, one is kidnapped and tries to protect himself by fighting the kidnapper. This clearly means that the person for whom she opened the door was familiar to her. Since Nat Fraser, nor Glenn Lucas was able to be there, the only possible person that she could have known was Hector Dick. It also is a clue to understanding the case by noticing the detail of the vent in the bedroom were the money was taken from. The only logical conclusion was that Hector Dick came to the house, possibly because he knew about the strangling and beating of her by Nat, to "protect" her from him, telling her that she had to leave the house now, leave her rings as a sign that she left Nat, take money with her and later on come back for her children. She took the money from the bedroom, stepped willingly in Hector's car on THE PASSENGER'S SEAT, and drove of with him. Hector then drove her to his farm, where he killed her (don't have a clue how or when, could have been in the car), put the remnants of her body in his machines to make fat a solid matter, a powder form, an fed her to his animals on the farm. This is the only logical conclusion. After doing this, Hector was smart enough to put the passenger's seat on fire with diesel, because diesel burns harder than gasoline, and it is more used in tractors, because of the stronger ignition and the bigger explosive force from diesel. He did this, to get rid of all the evidence that could point to him.
The only question is : "did he do it for Nat Fraser, or just because he is some kind of psycho?"
The only question is : "did he do it for Nat Fraser, or just because he is some kind of psycho?"
Reply
Penisdump.
5:51 AM on August 16, 2015
Just watched the retrial documentary and am shocked that he was found guilty. It seems well within reasonable doubt that he wasn't involved. I'm flabbergasted that he was convicted based on ...what exactly? Not very much as far as I saw.
Just a jury going by what they "think" happened. Well that shouldn't be enough to convict.
Just a jury going by what they "think" happened. Well that shouldn't be enough to convict.
Amy says...
I don't know if he's guilty or not, but he's had previous convictions of beating and strangling his wife, he deserves punishment.
Aside from that, he didn't even give evidence in his re-trial. Is he for real?!?! He's making an appeal to say he didn't do it and he wont speak for himself to stand up for this? Watched the television programme on his court case and he didn't seem bothered one little bit.
However, i do completely understand that there does not seem to be enough evidence to convict for murder at least.
Hope Justice is done one way or another.
There is one conviction for assault. This assault he pled guilty and the judge stated he showed deep remorse for his actions and that this was out of character for him to do this.
An accused does not have to give evidence in Scotland. It is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Well thats meant to be the theory.
If you watched the parts of the trial on television, which were of course edited to bits, you would have seen he was concentrating on what was being said and taking notes. What kind of reaction is it you want from someone who has been vilified in the press? If he had cried, they would have been called crocidile tears. He cannot win no matter what way he comes across to people. You are correct there is not enough evidence. Justice has not been done and so the fight goes on.
radu says...
I watched the case too. I am not saying he is not guilty (i think he did it), but there was not enough evidence for that. anyway, he deserves to stay in prison just for the fact that he tried to strangle her 5 weeks before the day she went missing. How would you feel about your husband or boyfriend trying to strangle you till your eyes turn red and your face blue?
you just saw 2 hours of a 7 week trial, so how much do u think you know about it?
No radu, we have not just watched a segment of trial. some of us actually went to the trial. And we have read all the documents and seen evidence not ever presented to the courts. Nat Fraser was already punished for the attack on his wife. The Judge at that trial said that he knew this was totally out of character. No one is excusing a man hitting his wife, however you do not know the story. Since you watched the trial on TV you must have noticed the police officer avoiding questions and also Hector Dick. There is no proof Nat Fraser killed his wife. There is proof someone else did.
Perhaps you should read through the blog on this site and the other parts of it.
Reply
radu
7:47 PM on January 20, 2014
Lucie says...
How can he imprisoned without HARD evidence? After watching the The Murder Trial last night i have lost faith in the judicial system completely. Surely the verdict should have returned as unproven due to the fact that no body can prove any guilt!? And many will say he showed no emotion in court - he didn't speak up for himself....well, why should he show emotion, he's been locked up, had his freedom taken away for something UNPROVEN, he didn't speak in his own trial - wise decision to make in my opinion - and why should he have to - innocent until PROVEN guilty! It is worrying how this has happened to Nat - can anybody be accused and charged without evidence for murder then, can we just accuse people for crimes now on a hunch and have them locked up? The system is disheartening.
I watched the case too. I am not saying he is not guilty (i think he did it), but there was not enough evidence for that. anyway, he deserves to stay in prison just for the fact that he tried to strangle her 5 weeks before the day she went missing. How would you feel about your husband or boyfriend trying to strangle you till your eyes turn red and your face blue?
you just saw 2 hours of a 7 week trial, so how much do u think you know about it?
Oops!
Oops, you forgot something.