relief for family of Arlene

Final word on saga of Nat Fraser case

Published:

EVERYONE has had their say over the Nat Fraser case – from the ordinary man and woman in the street to highly-paid lawyers who created a barrage of legal argument in an attempt to get their man off the hook.

It was Lord Gill, in the Appeal Court, who had the final word. He articulated what many people have been thinking: that there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence against Fraser, a clear motive and a history of malice towards Arlene. There was also damning evidence from a fellow accused who turned Queen’s evidence.

The appeal case hinged on new evidence about Arlene’s rings. Yet the appeal judges dismissed the importance attached to them by the trial judge as a misdirection at the time in favour of the defence.

Circumstantial evidence is always fraught with potential red herrings and miscarriages of justice can result. Courts prefer direct confessions from the accused, reliable witnesses and forensic evidence. Three of the country’s top appeal judges, however, classed the circumstantial evidence here as being powerful.

The family of Arlene will be relieved but their agony is prolonged by not knowing where her remains are.

Fraser’s team will continue to try to reduce his sentence but, given the magnitude of the case and his steadfast denials of wrongdoing, one wonders if there are any mitigating factors in support of his plea for less time in prison. From the family’s viewpoint, he would do himself some good, and allow them to grieve properly, if he told them where her remains were hidden.