http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/02/channel-4-broadcast-murder-trial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Arlene_FraserAbsolutely riveting - if you like this sort of stuff
The Murder of Arlene Fraser
28 April 1998 – Nat Frasers wife Arlene disappears
No body ever found
No murder weapon
No signs of foul play at family home
Initially treated as a missing person (WHF initially treated as 4 murders and a suicide)
Fraser had strong alibi (similar to JB)
Circumstantial evidence only (similar to JB)
Damning circumstantial evidence from witnesses (similar to JB)
Proposed use of hit man (similar to JB story in part)
Prosecution witnesses accused of lying (sounds familiar)
29 January 2003 – Nat Fraser found guilty (similar to JB)Defence claims missing evidence - March 2006 two inquiries were announced after claims that relevant evidence was not made available to the original trial (sounds familiar)
May 2006 – Nat Fraser released from prison pending the outcome of his appeal.
The case went to appeal in November 2007 with claims that the prosecution in the original case had withheld evidence, and that police officers had lied (sounds familiar).
2012 – Frasers re-trial televised – Fraser chooses not to give evidence.
May 2012 - Fraser found guilty again, by a majority.Fraser continues to protest his innocence (sounds familiar)
I picked out two quotes in Caroline's link as, to me, they have a ring of another person about them:
“It was about six weeks after she vanished that Nat started showing off, breaking cover and boasting that he was more clever than the cops.”
"The most intriguing figure in the case was the defendant, who opted not to give evidence but agreed to be filmed. He was the still centre of the trial, listening, watching and maintaining a strange aura of glamour that one could read almost anything into."
This is a sad bit - "a daughter who is so convinced of his innocence she says she wouldn't believe he committed the murder even if he confessed."
