shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Found this interesting comment on the Evening News link above.

Filmed I Hear

Clearly he never got a fair hearing if the cases of Gair and Kidd are anything to go by.
The above were denied a fair hearing it was agreed at their appeals because Crown withheld evidence which later turned out to be exculpatory.
The other evidence in their trials did not matter as it was said they were denied a fair argument on the crucial evidence before the jury or not being before the jury.
The vital evidence relied upon in Frasers case was the rings Re-Appearing which later turns out they must have been placed there by the police as they were the ones that had them, according to new evidence accepted by Crown at his appeal. (The two Police now confirm this)
To me this proves in their desperation for a conviction, They decided to "Fit Fraser Up" and clear their books.
Of course now we have far too many cases before our Courts on the same issues now and i am afraid an attempt is being made now to say:
Ok he was denied a fair hearing BUT There is enough evidence for the conviction to stand.
Please bear in mind in Gair's case there was still two Police Identifying Him.

Fraser will win His Appeal but Crown will be given permission to Re-Try him i am afraid.

Interesting

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

This looks fishy!

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/fraser__.html

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Nat Fraser Appeal

Nothing Fishy about it, It is to be filmed.
I hope this means he is not to be re-tried but i fear it will.
With all the recent hype i actually fear he will be refused his appeal at this instance and he will have to go to SCCRC and well we all know what they are like eh ?

My opinion for what it is worth is he should walk on the evidence being withheld by Crown at his original trial depriving him of the ability to argue about the rings, therefore denying him a fair hearing like Johnston, Allison, and Gair etc etc.

Equality for all, Rules should not be changed to suit appeals and laws should not be changed either to suit and cover-up.

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

To think that the cop in charge of this corrupt and controversial case received the Queens Police Medal beggars belef for apparently solving this case. Solved ?? - Aye Right !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2988290.stm

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

It seems that nat fraser has lost his appeal on skytext.

Also BBC,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7361103.stm

VERDICT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bs...pdfs/06_05_08_natfraserappeal.pdf

Nought Justice · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Edinburgh

freethekillie2

Just been watching the links you put up
can only say that the three wise monkeys sitting on the bench really hadnt a clue what was being argued at the original appeal.
they seemed totally oblivious to the fact that the police planted the rings therefore destroying any credibility they would have had with the jury.
the juries verdict returned in absence of the evidence af police planting evidence is perverse and does amount to a miscarriage.
willie mentions above that gairs case is similar along with allison and johnston and that not being able to argue the issue of police planting the rings at the time of the trial did deny him a fair hearing this sounds about right to me.
how have these judges been allowed to turn gairs case against fraser then because they mention it but yet dont agree

is there different laws and can these judges just decide themselfs what laws to change when they want to.

the big question for us lay people is quite simple

if you were sat on the jury and heard the police planted the rings then blamed fraser for doing so
had you heard the judge then say you could not convict without the evidence of the rings

would you have convicted ?

A= no didnt think so

i hope some members of the jury that convicted him would answer some of these questions

what the judges are now saying is the trial judge was a loony for saying they couldnt convict without the rings are they

only because it is now proven the rings were planted

what a shocking travesty of scots justice this case is and only serves to heighten unrest against our system of justice

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

nought justice, i think the Goalposts have been removed on Scottish law.

I FEAR I AM GOING KNOWHERE NOW ON THE DISCLOSURE ISSUE.

Looks like teas oot, for us all.

I will give the judicial a little song for their Victory.
for a few days.

The Fraser appeal has blown scottish justice out the water.

will mitchell do the same?

DO YOU TRUST THEM?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ29pVhsdMs

LOL.

FTK2

Nought Justice · Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 39 Location: Edinburgh

FTK2

only if we allow them will they continue

people will only do what they are allowed to do the same applies to our courts

this decision is lunatic and at the least very bad for our system

how can they not compare this with other cases or how can they say the evidence of the hidden rings were in his favour

what is the issue with the precognitions

they clearly were not available to the defence and by their own admission the defence statements that just all of a sudden appeared from the defence folder did not contain any evidence about the rings so why was his appeal not treated as a fresh evidence one

it reminds us of the allison & johnston case on the issue of the timings

28-29 th the rings were there but crown said they didnt appear till 7 may and claimed this was when fraser put the rings into the toilet

am i not right in saying the police actually had the rings in their desk at the station and returned them later

this case stinks of she-ite and cover ups at the very top of our system

lockerbie hasnt a patch on this coverup

disclosure will come back to haunt them if fraser goes to privy counsel too

freethekillie2 · Joined: 27 Apr 2007 Posts: 309

this decision is lunatic and at the least very bad for our system

how can they not compare this with other cases or how can they say the evidence of the hidden rings were in his favour.

bad for the system is the point. will all cases now be refered to the Fraser decision?

disclosure will come back to haunt them if fraser goes to privy counsel too

I hope so but it looks like they are making up their own rules now on disclosure of evidence.
and lawyers are just fishing in hope before appeal.

court opinion.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008HCJAC26.html

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

I have just finished reading the appeal in the above case and conclude that the judges have materially misdirected themselves on the issues of non disclosure.

Any failure to disclose material key evidence (The two Police Statements) under Holland and Sinclair must be seen to have compromised his right to a fair hearing which below clearly state his right to a fair hearing is an absolute right

Taken from Para 216

But it could equally well be said in this case that the failure to disclose the statements was a failure to act by the Lord Advocate which was incompatible with the appellant's Article 6(1) Convention right: see paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998. The right to a fair trial is an absolute right which cannot be compromised: Stott v Brown, Lord Bingham of Cornhill at page 80E; see also page 94B. If the accused has not had a fair trial the verdict cannot stand and the conviction must be quashed."

The evidence of the rings if you ask me is clearly capable of casting doubt on the Crowns Case admittedly by Lord Turnbull who has now stated he would have fainted had he heard the evidence now available.
The cornerstone of their case rested upon the rings.

The judge in my opinion was right to assert his opinion of the rings and did not misdirect the jury.

Our appeals courts are effectively saying: Both Advocate Depute Turnbull and the Judge were wrong, In my opinion they both would have had a better understanding of the case than any other person.
In this respect their opinions should have stood and the evidence now surfacing about the rings should be considered to have been of material significance enough to have convinced the jury of Frasers innocence.

At the very least it can be said to damage Crowns case to an extent that the verdict returned in its absence cannot stand and has created a miscarriage.

In holland and Sinclair the only matter was The significance of the material and how crucial it was to the case and whether it deprived the appellant the chance to argue before the jury crucial matters.

Since the Crown relied upon the rings being placed in the house on 7 May by Fraser and the police evidence now available suggests they where already in the house is clearly capable of disputing the main issue at trial then the conviction is not safe and should have been quashed.

For the avoidance of doubt i am not convinced of Frasers Innocence but in fairness i have not heard all the evidence.

He clearly has not had a fair hearing.

Gair was freed on the issue of non disclosure but remember without the evidence he was deprived of, Crown still had enough evidence from two police to allow a conviction to stand.

Kid was freed because his Sister overheard a man on a bus say: He had framed her Brother, Not enough to disturb a conviction if you ask me nor can it be said to be independent.

Both were sent back to appeal by SCCRC but only one is available to the public, Kidd V HMA is not available for public view in that it is not reported, Strange, No Controversial, Yes

Why not allow access to all opinions ?

Wonder what happened to the allegation that the police had the rings in his office drawer see the following link:

http://news.scotsman.com/arlenefr...ence-on-Arlene-Frasers.3498260.jp

Peter Gray, QC for Nat Fraser, said PC Alexander's belief was that Det Sgt William Robertson had removed the rings from the house, kept them for some days in his drawer and had then returned them to the house, where they were found by a relative of Mrs Fraser. The source of PC Alexander's information had been a colleague, Det Sgt David Slessor, who had later taken his own life.

When one of the appeal judges suggested that this aspect might be a red herring in the case, Mr Gray agreed that Fraser was not basing his appeal on anything said by PC Alexander.

"I simply put it in as part of the background," said Mr Gray.

He added that two officers who were said to have seen rings in the house on the day Mrs Fraser vanished had reported that each had been told by Det Sgt Robertson that they must be mistaken.

Why did his defence not base anything on PC Alexander ????

Mr Turnbull's Quote:

The prosecutor told the inquiry he first learned of it in 2005. He stated: "If, in the course of the trial, I had been shown Lynch's precognition, I honestly would have fainted, so inconsistent would it have been with my thinking and my view of the evidence."

Crown Failed to Follow Up on the Precognitions, Surely they cannot say they never knew about them then:

Senior prosecutor Alan Turnbull, QC, said later that if the statement had been shown to him at the trial he would have fainted. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard the statement, taken in advance of the trial, had been passed to a procurator- fiscal to be followed up, but nothing was ever done.

Taken in advance of the trial it says so why did Crown not follow up on these statements???

Is it as suggested by the police (Lynch and Clark) That it would severely undermine their case, Remember their evidence that they were bullied see here:

Neil Lynch, now retired, was subjected to a "robust interrogation" by detectives to break his claim that he saw rings in the couple's home on the day that Arlene Fraser disappeared. Eventually, he agreed that he might have been mistaken. The Court of Criminal Appeal also heard that PC Julie Clark had been in tears as she revealed she had been told to say nothing.

The issue of Mrs Fraser's engagement, wedding and eternity rings was crucial at Fraser's trial in 2003, when he was found guilty of arranging his wife's murder by a hit-man in 1998.

The Crown said the rings had vanished with her and reappeared in her home in New Elgin, Moray, several days later. The allegation was that Fraser had access to Mrs Fraser's body. The officers gave statements that they saw rings in the house on the night she was reported missing.

Peter Gray, QC, for Fraser, told the court an inquiry was set up to investigate the rings issue.

Detectives from Strathclyde Police turned up unannounced at Mr Lynch's home. The interview ended with him ordering them from his house. "They returned for no purpose other than to seek to break him down," said Mr Gray.

He recounted a meeting in April last year between PC Clark and Sharon Ralph, the procurator-fiscal in Elgin. In a report, Mrs Ralph said: "I asked if she had seen the rings and she nodded. I asked, 'Were you told not to say anything?' She nodded. I asked, 'By whom?' She shook her head as if to say, 'no'. I took it she did not feel able to tell me." The hearing continues.

Nothing if anything said about this in the appeal decision.