The Murder Trial(41 Posts)
Anyone watch it? It's winding up in the next 10 minutes. Very sad
I was interested to see how court worked and I learnt quite a lot
Yes i watched it. Very sad for the daughter who can't accept her father had involvement. No winners in this
I watched it. I'm from the area and friends knew Nat. Murky murky dealings there. I'm glad he didn't get out but it's pretty much accepted that Dick had more to do with it than he's letting on.
Those poor people. Especially his daughter, I felt for her so much. Who can blame her for clinging to his innocence? Dreadfully sad.
I live in the area, have worked with the DD and I was surprised by some of what came to light as its very rare for her to open up so honestly.
In all honesty I still have my doubts about his guilt, as do many people here and I know Dick (quite literally) very well and again its accepted he's got a lot more to do with things and like many I wonder how he's getting away with it.
The man is a compulsive and dangerous liar who cannot be trusted. My mum refused to let him back in our house after a bizarre passing comment regarding this case.
I watched it. Although I knew previous convictions can't be taken into account, I was stunned when they revealed that just 5 weeks beforehand he had strangled her. Surely the fact that she disappeared so soon afterwards must have made it relevant? Thank goodness the jury found him guilty regardless.
I watched. It was very sad. the devastation for Arlene's family was awful.I really felt for Natalie, she seemed very mixed up. She was sure Hector Dick did kill her mum but didn't seem to connect that her dad and Dick were in it together. She didn't want to believe her dad had anything to do with it. Even when all the evidence pointed that way.
There was nothing (or I missed) the police evidence from the lip reader from visiting time when Nat was originally in custody. It was damning, though maybe they weren't allowed to use it.
There was also the piece about Arlene's rings which were supposedly returned to the house after her disappearance.
Awful for the family.
BUmpotato - I was thinking about that too. Was that the evidence that got quashed during his appeal and lead to his second trail?
The ring evidence yes. It was to do with the rings that the first conviction was quashed.
The lip reading evidence was in another documentary I watched on the subject. I'm not that far from Elgin, perhaps it was only shown locally.
Given the evidence we saw I don't understand how there can not have been reasonable doubt over Nats guilt. And why has Dick not been charged with anything?
I too watched.
And then my mouth fell open with aghast.
How did they find him guilty? How was there not, reasonable doubt.
The case against him was very very weak. The circumstansial evidence was weak.
I am still shocked this morning, that they found him guilty.
I was convinced that they would have to find him not guilty.
Whether he did it, or not, organised it... whether Dick was more involved. These are questions that seem unable to be explored.
But you have to be sure, 'beyond reasonable doubt' to find someone guilty, and I just couldn't see that.
Mind you, in a short tv programme, it covered 7 weeks of trial, so maybe all the content was hidden from the viewer?
The father daughter relationship was too strong, from her perspective, thtas how it looked to me? She adored her father. Remmebredd playing with him, but not her mum? wierd.
Where was the brother? who was 10 , when she was 5.
The after, strangelation, the jury is not allowed to know about. I find that hard to accept that such a serious piece of evidence can be kept from a jury. How can that be right?
I think, on the parts we were shown of the trial, it was not possible to make a realistic judgement. From those bits I would have thought a not proven verdict most likely, but I would also imagine his decision not to give evidence went against him even if the jury are directed to ignore it.
Obviously having the benefit of the full trial the jury made the decision they thought was right. However I also cannot understand why Hector Dick was not pursued by the police and it also seemed from the program that they didn't even search his land.
I believe Hector Dick was tried alongside Fraser in the original case, testified against him, and walked.
It seems more than likely that Fraser organised it. But there was no reliable evidence (at least not shown on the programme) other than the fact the marriage was ending. Dick was unreliable.
What wasn't shown was the judge's direction to the jury:
I direct you, looking at all the evidence in the case, there is sufficient evidence coming from more than one source which, when brought together and considered as a whole, would allow you to find the accused guilty of murder. Whether you accept that evidence and whether it satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt, is entirely a matter for you.
In addition, I direct you that that is the case even if you leave out of account entirely the evidence of Hector Dick. In the absence of his evidence, there would still be sufficient circumstantial evidence coming from more than one source which, when brought together and considered as a whole, would allow you to find the accused guilty of murder. Again, whether you accept that evidence and whether it satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt, is entirely a matter for you."
Quite a significant part to leave out of the program then
What was the lip reading evidence?
WARNING SENSITIVE CONTENT...scroll down to read my post
The police had a lip reader watch Fraser at prison visits. They couldn't use anything they got but I think they were trying to suss out where the body might be to give them a better case. From memory he mentioned putting Arlene's body through some farm machinery and burning what remained.
couldn't use anything they got *as court evidence
Which would fit in with the car being back at the farm.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
It is madness the farm wasn't searched.
They do say Grampian Police have the worst rate for murder convictions
though no idea if it is true . There did used to be a saying locally that if you wanted to commit murder, come to Aberdeen.
The DS returned from a school trip to an empty house, he lived there with his parents and sister.
Dick was tried alongside Nat originally but back tracked on his story and turned it all on Nat when he was offered a deal.
That man had and still has a reputation here.
I just watched it now, I had never heard of the case before, and I found it really interesting.
I felt incredibly sad for the daughter- when her granddad said she might prefer her father to get off to still have one parent it really brought home the horror of her circumstances, poor girl.
It is interesting what was said upthread about there not seeming to be enough evidence in the TV show to see why the jury convicted.
I have to say, based on the TV evidence alone, if I was on the jury I WOULD have found him guilty.
I would assume that Dick killed and disposed of her body but that he did not act alone and that Nat was guilty because
(a) of all the odd remarks about how the children would soon forget their mother/ I'll be the first person in the frame for this etc IMO very odd and also
(b) the guy who sold Dick the car said that Nat was there when he delivered it to the farm. Had Nat had nothing to do with the crime of his missing wife he would have told police about the car purchase when they questioned him.
The fact that he didn't suggests to me he knew it had been used to dispose of his wife's body on his orders. This seemed to me to be a real smoking gun.
Like everyone else when his previous convictions were read out I was amazed that he had tried to strangle her 6 weeks prior to this and the jury were not told.
But also, in a way, it did reinforce my respect for the jury system- they didn't know any of that and still found him guilty. To me that seemed like the best ending- a conviction soley on the evidence and not just on susupcions because of what else he'd been up to....quite reassuring really.
How, as a jury member, could you bring a conviction of guilty where there is so little evidence, though? There was no body, nothing linking the accused to the disappearance of the victim,; we were left to assume that the body had been destroyed tithe farm, and that Dick and the car were key to this.
Had I been on that jury, I couldn't't have found the accused guilty despite being guided in that direction by the judge. And what about reasonable doubt?
I don't get it!
See the odd remarks, I can totally imagine my very loving non murderous husband saying similar whilst distressed and scared and worried.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.