Jump to content

The Murder Trial.


Sarah O

Recommended Posts

Anyone watching? Not really aware of the full story here but it's interesting to watch. This farmer guy in the dock the now seems suss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hec Dick guilty as sin, why go destroy a car and lie lie lie?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hec Dick guilty as sin, why go destroy a car and lie lie lie?

Yup and not the sharpest tool in the box IMO he defo had something to do with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Effervesance

Gripping viewing. Having seen so much of it on the news it seems the police have acted on the word on one man who consistently lied to them and had the means of disposal on his farm who openly admitted buying, burning and crushing a car at the same time. Seems baffling how his farm wasn't thoroughly examined. Whether Fraser is completely innocent or not, Dick is involved in Arlene's disappearance.

 

The DI with 32 years service seemed to suggest they focused on Nat from the beginning without taking into account other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good closing statement there. I reckon Fraer and Dick were in cahoots.

 

Dick telling the court about the equipment available on his farm. Steam dead animals so they fall apart... Sadly I think this is where Arleene ended up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What channel is this on for catch up?

What channel is this on for catch up?

Channel 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good and interesting program. Don't know if we should move to televised court proceedings however, would hate to see our legal system altered anymore than it has been recently. Justice has to seen to be done, but not to the extent that we see the Pistorios and OJ Simpson style trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did any one see Gerry Britton (ex Partick) on this in the background maybe as part of the defence team...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick Bateman

Why would he not give evidence?

 

Because he doesn't have to? The idea that he should have to 'clear his name' is contrary to the presumption of innocence and the need for the crown to prove guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good programme. No sign of the brother which I find a bit strange as the rest of the family took part. The daughter certainly put her views forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating stuff. I'm sure many of us have grown up around this story but its wierd hearing the full story. The advocates are different level. Intensely clever guys. Would love to have the ability to do that job. Old Hector is a shite liar as well!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still believe he did it. The fact he has little emotion or reaction regarding the events is what I find strange. Although in saying that Mr Dick also looks increasingly involved with it.

 

Additionally, to think he might be nearing release had he admitted it or not appealed time after time, must be a downer for him when 17years gets banged on his sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why would he not give evidence?

 

I was a juror in a nasty rape trial at the start of the year, lets just say he didn't have to give evidence and it only confirmed what we, the jury, thought.

 

Ta ta...8 and half years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick Bateman

Fraser and Dick colluded to murder Arlene Fraser, her body was then processed on Dick's farm and her remains were fed to pigs, if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick Bateman

I was a juror in a nasty rape trial at the start of the year, lets just say he didn't have to give evidence and it only confirmed what we, the jury, thought.

 

Ta ta...8 and half years.

 

Contempt of court post, IMO. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Contempt of court post, IMO. :whistling:

 

Whoops! I better say no more.

 

Still waiting for it to appear on C4 catch up, how long does it take normally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

A good and interesting program. Don't know if we should move to televised court proceedings however, would hate to see our legal system altered anymore than it has been recently. Justice has to seen to be done, but not to the extent that we see the Pistorios and OJ Simpson style trials.

Indeed. What has been done recently is a complete disgrace.

 

Remove corroboration?! Populist nonsense designed for one reason and one only - to improve rape convictions.

Not interested in getting into a debate about this at this time of night but when the judiciary, law society and bar associations are against something but a certain MSP (who was a terrible lawyer in his day, by all accounts) is keen on it and his party of non nae-Sayers push it through anyway we should be very, very worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

Fraser and Dick colluded to murder Arlene Fraser, her body was then processed on Dick's farm and her remains were fed to pigs, if you ask me.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. What has been done recently is a complete disgrace.

 

Remove corroboration?! Populist nonsense designed for one reason and one only - to improve rape convictions.

Not interested in getting into a debate about this at this time of night but when the judiciary, law society and bar associations are against something but a certain MSP (who was a terrible lawyer in his day, by all accounts) is keen on it and his party of non nae-Sayers push it through anyway we should be very, very worried.

 

Agreed. The removal of corroboration has been ill thought out and timed. If there was a replacement system which was ready to be put in place then I would give greater consideration to it, but I feel this is a massive risk and a gamble by the Government. As that trial showed, a lack of corroboration (2 independent sources of evidence to show guilt) makes a case circumstantial, and as we see in the differing opinions here, that creates doubt as to whether justice has truly been done. If it goes onto work then good, but if it is seen not to be as effective then we will be in a truly dreadful position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

 

 

Agreed. The removal of corroboration has been ill thought out and timed. If there was a replacement system which was ready to be put in place then I would give greater consideration to it, but I feel this is a massive risk and a gamble by the Government. As that trial showed, a lack of corroboration (2 independent sources of evidence to show guilt) makes a case circumstantial, and as we see in the differing opinions here, that creates doubt as to whether justice has truly been done. If it goes onto work then good, but if it is seen not to be as effective then we will be in a truly dreadful position.

Indeed.

Corroboration was one of things that made Scots law great.

Hundreds of years of legal history wiped by the SNP in a pen stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Corroboration was one of things that made Scots law great.

Hundreds of years of legal history wiped by the SNP in a pen stroke.

 

To be fair, the Lord Carloway's review recommended it, as long as something as effective could be implemented. But largely agree. Have a few friends who went abroad on the Erasmus program to european universities, and when the Cadder case exploded some covered it in Human Rights classes, and they said our system was ridiculed then as outdated. I'm all for updating the system, but corroboration was not the key problem in Cadder, and even then Cadder lost on appeal once it went back to Scottish Courts....so aye it's a terrible move. A thing introduced to prevent wrongful prosecution in the 17th century ripped up.

 

Excellent program, on topic. Was balanced enough. But as I said above I am unsure as to whether televising court proceedings are the best way forward. It did show the Scottish courts in a good light and that has to be welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion Lannister

Why would he not give evidence?

 

As mentioned above it should be because he shouldn't have to. It is quite natural, unfortunately, though to see it as - if he was innocent, surely he'd be doing everything in his power to show that.

 

If you look at it cynically; giving evidence opens himself up to examination from the prosecution, which potentially could be more harmful to his innocence than keeping schtum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scottish_chicP

 

 

I was a juror in a nasty rape trial at the start of the year, lets just say he didn't have to give evidence and it only confirmed what we, the jury, thought.

 

Ta ta...8 and half years.

 

That was my thought surely it makes you look worse (even if wrongly so, that's how humans work).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the program (if you can say that about a murder trial!).

 

Thought it was interesting hearing the wee bits from the judge, how he kept quiet and out of it for most of the time. Not the way it's often portrayed on TV shows.

 

Hector looked to be involved in a big way in what happened, but the summary from the depute fiscal summed up Nats involvement and guilt.

 

Felt really sorry for Natalie the daughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy Brown

 

Did any one see Gerry Britton (ex Partick) on this in the background maybe as part of the defence team...

Not seen it yet but Britton was defending Gary O` in court last week

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he didn't speak in his own defense as then the Crown could have brought up his previous convictions for battering his wife. Not 100% on this maybe a legal type on here could confirm.

 

Good program, surprised he got convicted on what we saw.

 

Previous convictions cannot be raised in a trial. It is to prevent your past skewing yoyr current conviction. You could steal a loaf of bread 20 years ago, and be indicted for murder, for sake of argument you're innocent, and leading that conviction could sway a jury to say you have a bad character and must have done it.

 

Its a good thing to me. You should always be purely tried on the crime alleged, not on previous sins. No doubt Mr McAskill will at some point do away with this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The People's Chimp

I was a juror in a nasty rape trial at the start of the year, lets just say he didn't have to give evidence and it only confirmed what we, the jury, thought.

 

Ta ta...8 and half years.

 

Incredible post, on a number of accounts. Admits openly that he understood, but disregarded the accused's right to silence, then talks about it on an internet forum FFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible post, on a number of accounts. Admits openly that he understood, but disregarded the accused's right to silence, then talks about it on an internet forum FFS.

 

Is there any way for a court to prevent such an inference from being drawn, apart from telling the jury not to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any way for a court to prevent such an inference from being drawn, apart from telling the jury not to?

 

If a juror publically said this after trial it could be grounds for an appeal on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

There are many reasons for not giving evidence if you are in trial.

From the very brief snippet we got of that trail ( remember Dick was in the stand for 7 days. 7 days?!) i think Fraser's team may have been running an 'incrimination' defence. That's why they repeatedly accused Dick of the murder.

 

You shouldn't judge anyone for not giving evidence. There's a reason that you should never say anything if you are arrested. Nothing - nada. 'Lawyer-up' immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoyed the programme on catch up and I think it's a good thing for the public to see this kind of thing once in a while.

 

Feel sorry for the daughter as previous posters have said.

 

For me, the chances that he was guilty were about 80-90% before I heard about previous convictions, and 99.99% after.

 

Based on that I would have been voting for a not guilty verdict... The fact that Dick was so blatantly involved and so obviously lying after the great job the defence lawyer did, meant that I couldn't have convicted him.

 

If Hector dick had abducted and raped her then hidden the body, what would be different? Nothing, to me that's reasonable doubt.

 

Obviously once I'd heard about the assault I changed my mind, but that case really could have gone either way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched this on 4OD. Compelling stuff.

 

Based on the evidence given in court that appeared in newspapers at the time of the retrial and in this programme (note: programme, not program!), I couldn't have voted guilty. After hearing of the 'attempted murder' I am inclined to believe Nat Fraser is guilty, but in my mind there is still reasonable doubt, especially when you bring Dick into the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched this on 4OD. Compelling stuff.

 

Based on the evidence given in court that appeared in newspapers at the time of the retrial and in this programme (note: programme, not program!), I couldn't have voted guilty. After hearing of the 'attempted murder' I am inclined to believe Nat Fraser is guilty, but in my mind there is still reasonable doubt, especially when you bring Dick into the equation.

 

 

Ask any police officer even remotely connected if they have any doubt as to the guy's guilt. I think I know the answer you will get.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ask any police officer even remotely connected if they have any doubt, even the slightest, as to the guy's guilt. I think I know the answer you will get.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franklin Delano Bluth

I watched this yesterday, really intriguing.

 

The defence went after Dick like a rabid dog and was trying to shift the blame.

 

Dick was involved, Fraser was involved. If the jury had known Fraser's previous convictions it would have been a unanimous verdict. Beating your wife 5 weeks before she goes missing, and not knowing anything? Cool, pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched this yesterday, really intriguing.

 

The defence went after Dick like a rabid dog and was trying to shift the blame.

 

Dick was involved, Fraser was involved. If the jury had known Fraser's previous convictions it would have been a unanimous verdict. Beating your wife 5 weeks before she goes missing, and not knowing anything? Cool, pal.

 

Thats why you shouldnt know the previous conviction. It totally prejudices the trial in question, it is a trial of the crime alleged not of the character or previous ills of the man.

 

I cant see how Dick wasnt involved. I had reasonable doubt on Fraser due to the fact Dick was caught destroying evidence and having a romantic interest. Not proven for me. Not enough for me to say guilty or not. Not proven.

 

Gorgiewave; I cant see a way you could. Unless its on youtube independently, a torrent type file or write to C4 and ask for a copy but you'd likely have to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google 'watch bbc iplayer outside uk'

 

It wasn't on BBC, so wont be on i-player.

 

Try by a Google of 'watch 4OD outside UK'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franklin Delano Bluth

Thats why you shouldnt know the previous conviction. It totally prejudices the trial in question, it is a trial of the crime alleged not of the character or previous ills of the man.

 

I cant see how Dick wasnt involved. I had reasonable doubt on Fraser due to the fact Dick was caught destroying evidence and having a romantic interest. Not proven for me. Not enough for me to say guilty or not. Not proven.

 

Gorgiewave; I cant see a way you could. Unless its on youtube independently, a torrent type file or write to C4 and ask for a copy but you'd likely have to pay.

 

I know why they shouldn't know of previous convictions. However, it's perfectly plausible, knowing his previous convictions, he hit her, called Dick and said 'I've just killed Arlene, it was a mistake, can you help me get rid of the body'. Of course, the car indicates more sinister events.

 

They had the wrong guy in the dock though, IMO. Hector Dick should have been charged with the murder of Arlene Fraser. He was crumbling from the word go. Dick was heavily involved, Fraser may or may not have been involved. Going by that reckoning, you can't convict Fraser because he may have been involved.

 

IMO, knowing the full picture, Fraser hit his wife, or killed her in a rage and used Dick to help get rid of the body. Or Fraser hired Dick as a hitman and said 'I don't care what you do with her, just make sure she's dead'. Dick (maybe, knowing his romantic feelings) rapes Arlene and then kills her, steams her body, feeds her to the piggies. Fraser was involved, but he got away with the perfect murder - there is not enough evidence to prove guilt, you must acquit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google 'watch bbc iplayer outside uk'

It wasn't on BBC, so wont be on i-player.

 

Try by a Google of 'watch 4OD outside UK'.

Tunnel bear

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but are these methods legal? Thanks in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know why they shouldn't know of previous convictions. However, it's perfectly plausible, knowing his previous convictions, he hit her, called Dick and said 'I've just killed Arlene, it was a mistake, can you help me get rid of the body'. Of course, the car indicates more sinister events.

 

Doesn't add up - the forensics boy was as sure as he could be that there was no murder in the house and Fraser's van boy was positive Fraser was with him the morning of the disappearance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...