shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

I checked the Frontline Scotland website it seems it has not been active since 2004 no news of why not.

_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

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

Lydia

You might find it here:

http://justicefornatfraser.webs.com/

I have been studying the Fraser case recently, looking and readuing his appeals etc and come across this startling fact.

The appeal was refused on the premise that Fraser had room to place the rings back in the bathroom but according to this article I read the Police took the rings and placed them there a week later:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26453069@N02/3384787643/sizes/l/

Why have the High Court ignored this fact ?

Are the High Court Suggesting the police gave the rings to Nat Fraser to return to the Bathroom.

The appeal needs to be listened to here to grasp what I am saying:

http://www.truveo.com/Fraser-loses-murder-appeal/id/3301450947

After this short Video of Lord Johnston click on full appeal above

Best Wishes

Wullie

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

Scotkaz

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

Thanks wullie and good point above too
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

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

Lydia

The more I watch and read about Fraser the more depressed I get with our Judicial System.

Our Judges have actually stated that the evidence from the two Police that the rings were in the house at the first search would have enhanced the Crowns Case against Fraser.

Bear in mind the chief prosecutor (Now Lord Turnbull) has stated he would have fainted had he heard about the police evidence of the rings.

The Judge directed the jury that if there was no rings there was no case to answer (Though they have said this was a misdirection) but what about the Chief Prosecutor then ?

He stood up and proclaimed the rings where the basis for his case and paraded them in front of the Jury.

Edited here to include Lord Turnbull's Quote:

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

Taken from the Fraser appeal;

The Judge said:

Lydia · Joined: 06 Nov 2008 Posts: 82

Again though Wullie I am relying on media reports, but I remember reading that a member of the family stated that different members of the family stayed in the house and would have noticed the rings so what was to stop one of them placing the rings.

Was the house secure, was it kept as a crime scene.
_________________
We are the parents in Scotland denied justice for our children who had illegal post mortem's or had organs removed illegally at post mortem.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 145

Once again, we have a case that's all smoke and mirrors. Every member of Arlene's family and friends could honestly say that, prior to the point when the rings re-appeared, they did not see them. They would not be lying or even mistaken, because, as we now know, the rings were not there.

But that's entirely beside the point. The rings were returned to the bathroom. That was never contested. All that was in question was who returned them, and we now know it had to be the police.

The family would never in their wildest imagination have expected the police to have removed the rings and then later returned them without telling them they'd done so, therefore, it was a very simple step to jump to the conclusion that it must have been Nat.

As Wullie pointed out, the judge at the original trial told the jury that, if they did not believe Nat was responsible for the return of the rings, they could not convict.

The outrageous behaviour of the appeal judges, in trying to claim that the question of who returned the rings was "insignificant" because there was other "substantial" evidence, is just outright wrong. The judge had instructed the jury, and both he and the prosecution referred to the returning of the rings as the "cornerstone" of the case.

Lord Osborne, during the Luke Mitchell appeal commented, "Cornerstones are dangerous things." Wonder just what he had in mind when he said that?

The "substantial" evidence to which the original judge referred in Nat Fraser's case was based almost entirely on the testimony of Hector Dick. Mr Dick, as you know, was originally the co-accused, but charges against him were dropped, and he went on to give evidence against Nat. How very convenient, don't you think?

The evidence about the other guy (sorry, forgotten his name) who was supposed to have procured the car in return for payment of £50 is laughable. Who in their right mind would get involved in disposing of the body of a murder victim for a paltry 50 quid?

Shameful. Makes yet another mockery of Scottish Justice.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 145

Incidentally, a solicitor working on the defence of a very high profile case told myself and another, whilst discussing the Nat Fraser appeal that "The court knows Nat Fraser's guilty." Remember, this solicitor was supposedly working on the defence of another very high profile case. Could he/she be saying the same thing to others about the case he/she was working on?

What in God's name is a defence solicitor telling us in this statement? The court isn't supposed to "know" anything - both sides are supposed to lay out their evidence before a jury, and the course of due process brings about a decision of innocence or guilt.

The appeal court has even less right to "know" anything about the guilt or innocence of the convicted person - it is supposed to ensure that the trial was fair, and due process adhered to.

Personally, I believe this solicitor slipped up but gave us a fascinating insight into what really goes on in the corridors of legal powers.

At the moment, I cannot name the solicitor involved, but as soon as I am able to do so, I will.

_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone