Fraser loses bid to overturn conviction in wife's murder

NAT Fraser today failed in a bid to have his 2003 conviction for murdering his estranged wife quashed at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh.

Fraser's lawyers claimed he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and argued that vital evidence casting doubt on his guilt was withheld from his defence team. But three senior judges ruled that his appeal against conviction should be refused.

The Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill concluded that the proposed evidence of Pcs Neil Lynch and Julie Clark was not new evidence and that, even if it was, the verdict could not be regarded as a miscarriage of justice.

He said: "The circumstantial evidence alone constituted a compelling case against the appellant. There was evidence that he had motives for the crime. There was evidence of his previous malice and ill will towards the deceased."

Fraser was jailed for life in January 2003 after a jury convicted him of killing his estranged wife Arlene ten years ago.

Mrs Fraser was 33 when she disappeared from her home in New Elgin, Moray, after waving her two children off to school on 28 April 1998. Her body has never been found.

The disappearance led to one of the largest and most complex investigations ever mounted by Grampian Police, and resulted in a high-profile trial.

In 2003 the trial judge at the High Court in Edinburgh ruled that Fraser should spend a minimum of 25 years in jail before being considered for release. But Fraser walked free in May 2006, having been granted bail ahead of his full appeal. Judges took the step after hearing that the grounds of appeal were "compelling" in Fraser's case.

The trial heard Arlene's rings went missing on the day she disappeared, then turned up in the bathroom of her home nine days later. It was claimed her husband had placed them there, suggesting he had access to her body.

Fraser's defence team appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the evidence of two police officers – Julie Clark and Neil Lynch – who claimed to have seen rings in the house much nearer the time she went missing, was not disclosed to the defence or to the trial. But the appeal judges said the original evidence against Fraser was "overwhelming".

Fraser returned to prison in December 2007 after the convicted killer's bail was withdrawn at the end of submissions in his appeal.

Lawyers for Fraser claimed his trial had been a "farce".

Fraser, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, had been facing a costly divorce settlement and was suspected by the police, but he had an unbreakable alibi. It was almost five years before he and two other men, Hector Dick and Glenn Lucas, now deceased, were put on trial. A few days into the case, the Crown dropped the charges against Lucas and Dick.

Dick then said Fraser had confided in him about hiring a hit-man to strangle Arlene, and claimed Fraser had admitted burning the body and crushing and scattering the remains.

In today's decision, Lord Gill said there was evidence of "preparatory acts" by Fraser in setting up an alibi.

The judge continued: "There was incriminating evidence in the events and circumstances and in the demeanour and the statements of the appellant immediately after the disappearance.

"In my opinion, the circumstantial evidence alone was not only sufficient in law to entitle the jury to convict, but was powerful in its effect."

Fraser tried to interject as the judges delivered their opinion, saying: "Excuse me, excuse me," while Lord Gill was speaking.

Fraser showed little sign of emotion as he was led away to continue his sentence.

Members of Mrs Fraser's family, including her father and sister also showed little sign of outward emotion as the opinion was delivered.

Speaking outside court, Grampian Police Assistant Chief Constable Jim Stephen, who was the senior investigating officer in the case, said: "Today's result is that Nat Fraser will continue to pay for his crime.

"This must be a source of comfort to Arlene's family who have had to endure considerable pain and anxiety throughout the appeal period.

"We hope that in some way today's verdict will help them close one traumatic chapter of their lives."