'Rings did not prove Fraser's guilt'
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
THE MYSTERY of Arlene Fraser's rings did not show that her husband had murdered her, defence QC John Scott told the jury.
In his closing speech at the High Court in Edinburgh the lawyer questioned the importance others had attached to the discovery of the rings.
They were found in the Frasers' Elgin home nine days after Arlene (33), vanished - 14 years ago. Witnesses suggested Fraser had put them there.
Mr Scott said today: "Another assumption made by the advocate depute, which I could not follow, was that Nat Fraser had some reason to re-introduce the rings.
"What would the reason be for re-introducing them? I am afraid, on the evidence, I simply cannot find the answer for that."
Mr Scott said initially police did not think the rings important.
"Six months on it was impossible to say how these items had ended up in the position where they were found."
Police hunting for the mum-of-two had made unreasonable and inaccurate attempts to re-construct what happened at a time when it was too late, said Mr Scott.
The lawyer also recalled how different witnesses had described Fraser's behaviour following his wife's disappearance.
Detective sergeant William Robertson had accused Fraser of "crocodile tears." Family members had confronted Fraser. He had made bad jokes about the situation, the trial has heard.
"It is easy to see that even at that stage a process of demonisation of the estranged husband was already beginning," he said.
Nat Fraser denies murdering his wife Arlene.
The jury is expected to begin considering its verdict on Tuesday...
