Big Wullie
|
Nat Fraser Two Different IndictmentsI have been Reliably Informed that there was two Different Indictments against Nat Fraser.
One with the names of the Police, Lynch & Clark who spoke about the rings being in the house at the initial searches of his Ex Wifes house.
Then all of a sudden there was a second Indictment which exluded these names. "Lynch & Clark"
Could this explain his defence team not taking any witness Statements from these two cops, at the time or prior to his trial ?
Surely they had a duty to reveal all witness's on any and every indictment ?
There has been absolutely no evidence produced to prove one way or another if his defence team actually took witness statements from Lynch & Clark.
What fell out of the Lawyers folder at the Appeal Court was from the lawyer of Glen Lucas therefore there is no proof Nat's Lawyer interviewed these witness's prior to trial.
From what I have been told his lawyers are refusing to entertain such question from his new defence team and have refused to be drawn on this issue denying Nat Fraser the opportunity to challenge this issue at appeal.
Even if it could be said the witness statements that fell out the folder at the appeal was before his defence prior to trial, They did not mention the rings, therefore the Crown not revealing Crown Precognitions mentioning the rings still denied Nat Fraser a fair hearing.
One thing really puzzles me here if this is right:
Prosecutor Mr Turnbull now Lord Turnbull has claimed if he had known about the rings he would have fainted.
The above totally destroys Mr Turnbull's assertion that he did not know about the rings at the time of or prior to Trial.
I have trouble believing this if the two indictments issue is true.
|
gustav51
|
Nat Fraser CaseWillie
Interesting post re Lynch and Clark. I recall that at the time of the trial v Fraser the 'rings' were the cornerstone of the prosecution and the issue regarding Fraser being able to somehow 'as if by magic' replace them within the bathroom at the marital home was crucial for a conviction.
However' at his most recent appeal the gist of the story was 'och well whether or not the rings were there initially doesn't really matter, there is sufficient evidence to find him guilty anyhow'
Talk about moving the goalposts eh!!
It shows really that the Scottish Justice system will always 'cut the cloth to suit' in order to secure a conviction. Whether or not the conviction is 'safe' does not appear to cause the authorities much concern.
An officer involved in the case alleged that a senior officer had access to the rings, had them removed and later replaced!!
Do you think the Police are capable of orchestrating such 'slight of hand' or to put it in layman's terms to ' stitch someone up?' The question is rhetorical.
I doubt that Fraser will ever get a fair hearing.
|
Angeline
|
I'm in total agreement with gustav here (thanks Wullie for the information).
Once a case has been so tarnished by police manipulation, it's pretty much impossible for the person to ever get a fair hearing in the future - the "stitch up" covers not only the original investigation and trial, but any future attempts to rectify the situation.
It seems to me the entire system is in need of a complete overhaul - as it stands at the moment, it's getting progressively worse, with less and less opportunities to reverse the trend.
At least we have the fingerprint inquiry, and the very vocal concerns about the dropping of the Megrahi appeal keeping the subject in the public eye.
|
Tom Shielding
|
Does anyone know whether or not any police officers who worked on this case retired early? I have noticed that in many other miscarriage cases that officers have been allowed to retire early to save embarrassment to the force. Recently I was pleased to see on this site that an unscrupulous officer has been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. There people should not be above the law and should face the same if not a worse punishment than the people they have illegally imprisoned.
|
Tom Shielding
|
Does anyone know whether or not any police officers who worked on this case retired early? I have noticed that in many other miscarriage cases that officers have been allowed to retire early to save embarrassment to the force. Recently I was pleased to see on this site that an unscrupulous officer has been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. There people should not be above the law and should face the same if not a worse punishment than the people they have illegally imprisoned.
|
gustav51
|
Nat FraserTom
See my entry entitled 'convicted police Officers' on this forum. You can check entries under gustav51 for more details.
Basically I have raised a petition at the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee calling for all police Officers with criminal convictions to be dismissed from their jobs.
It is due to be heard at the PPC meeting at Holyrood on 6 October 09 which is not far away now.
Regards
Gustav51
|
|
|
