Skip to playerSkip to main contentSkip to footer
Cinema Series US Film
  • today
A Killer's Mistake Season 1 Episode 2

#cinemabuum
#CinemaSeriesUSFilm
🎞 Please join
https://t.me/CinemaSeriesUSFilm

Category

😹
Fun
Transcript
00:00in an idyllic place a mother disappears from the family home our kids had come home from school she
00:09wasn't there that was unexpected the door was left open she was meant to be collecting her
00:17child from school she didn't turn up police were called to the address later that evening
00:24not the father her husband had been contacted he was staying elsewhere at the time thereafter
00:31the investigation into her as a missing person began because it was totally out of character
00:36Arlene Fraser a family woman had simply vanished nobody could explain where Arlene was weeks earlier
00:46she'd been attacked was there a link Arlene was just an ordinary mum why would someone
00:53attempt to murder her a month before and then she goes missing in a case which frustrated
01:00detectives a specialist lip reader used by Britain's security services her identity protected
01:06was drafted in to help uncover the truth and another party actually mimed throwing his wrist
01:13when he was talking about cutting up the bands what had happened to Arlene Fraser detectives fear
01:20she's been abducted murdered and if she has how will they solve the mystery every investigation is
01:27like a jigsaw each piece offering new evidence as a picture of a suspect emerges but which one will
01:34reveal the killer's mistake
02:04200 miles from Elgin in the northeast of Scotland on a blustery April evening,
02:16Carol Gillies is at home near Glasgow.
02:19Her life is about to change.
02:22It all started with a knock on the door.
02:25There was a policeman standing there from Strathclyde Police
02:28and he'd said, your sister's been reported missing.
02:32Right away, I felt that was it.
02:37You know, Arlene wouldn't go missing.
02:39She had two children that she loved.
02:42Nothing added up.
02:44At her home in Smith Street, Elgin,
02:47the minutiae of Arlene Fraser's life, including vital medication, were discarded.
02:53If she'd really disappeared and run away,
02:55she would have packed the medicine she needed for her Crohn's disease.
02:59She would have packed her spectacles.
03:01She wouldn't have left her door open.
03:03She would have made arrangements, you think, as a loving mother,
03:06for her child to be picked up from school.
03:08There were all these things that were very suspicious.
03:11A 14-year riddle of the mother who had disappeared had begun.
03:15What followed saw a cat and mouse game between killer and investigator.
03:20Would a murderer's mistake be uncovered
03:22in a story which begins with an inexplicable scene?
03:26It was as if she had just been spirited away.
03:31Some of her clothing was in the bathroom,
03:34just folded and ready to be presumably worn.
03:38It looked like she had been in the middle of some housework.
03:41The vacuum cleaner is plugged in
03:43as if she's just kind of stopped using it midway through cleaning.
03:47Arlene was a creature of habit.
03:49She had a set routine and she went missing on a Tuesday morning.
03:54Now, a Tuesday morning was pretty much the only period of time
03:57that she would have been at home alone
03:59or known to be home alone by those who knew her.
04:02She went to college.
04:04She had the kids, obviously, in the evenings and the weekends.
04:08So the period of time that she would have had peace at home
04:11was really very much only on a Tuesday morning.
04:14And then she always met a friend for lunch in the town.
04:20From looking at all Arlene's, her life,
04:24and the way she lived her life,
04:26I mean, she'd been a mother for ten years.
04:29She was going back to college.
04:31She was doing that on a Tuesday.
04:34She was trying to build up her own wee life.
04:37The kids were now both at school.
04:39There was a strangeness around the house,
04:41but there was no upset, there was no signs of violence,
04:45there was nothing knocked over,
04:47there was certainly no crime scene.
04:49It just looked like the house had emptied.
04:54On the day itself, April 28th,
04:57police had little option but to ask for all of the relevant forces
05:00to be on the lookout
05:01and then alert the public of Arlene's disappearance.
05:05Perhaps she would return.
05:07The first thing you might consider is that they've just run away.
05:09Maybe they've run away with someone else.
05:11Maybe they've just run away by themselves.
05:13They just want to start a new life.
05:1624 hours went by.
05:18Still no sign of Arlene.
05:20The next day, it was becoming a little bit more sinister
05:23in the sense that there was just no obvious explanation
05:27why Arlene hadn't come home.
05:30The practicalities of a mother who suddenly vanishes from a family home
05:34present an immediate problem for those called in to help,
05:37like what to do with two school-aged children.
05:40We collected the kids, Jamie and Natalie,
05:44and obviously they needed nightclothes, the school uniform, etc.
05:50They were both standing in the doorway with two plastic bags.
05:54They just looked so bewildered and so lost as to what was happening,
06:01bearing in mind Natalie was five and Jamie was ten, you know.
06:05For me, you know, that's just rubber-stamped it,
06:10that this was not Arlene's doing.
06:12There was no way Arlene would do this to her children.
06:14Absolutely no way.
06:16She loved her two children,
06:19and there's no way she would have left the children.
06:22She was going to run away.
06:24She would have taken the children with her.
06:25So I knew right away that Arlene was dead.
06:35Dead.
06:37Arlene's father feared she was dead within a day of her disappearance.
06:42When evaluating the case,
06:44it's important to understand why there was such disbelief
06:47that Arlene would simply run away.
06:50It would have meant leaving a ten- and five-year-old in an empty house
06:54because the children's father was not living in the family home.
06:59Nat Fraser, Arlene's husband,
07:01was someone investigating Detective Alan Smith, based in Glasgow,
07:05knew all about from his days as a local policeman in Elgin.
07:09Understanding Nat Fraser becomes vital to uncovering a killer's mistake.
07:15My first conversation with Nat Fraser, the husband,
07:19was probably a matter of days after I arrived up in Elgin.
07:23I'd known Nat from a previous life.
07:27He was a local businessman.
07:29He was involved in the delivery of fruit and veg to local businesses.
07:35He was a popular individual in Elgin.
07:38He played in a local band, a music band, at weekends.
07:42So he was a popular individual in the town.
07:49Nat Fraser was an incredibly manipulative man
07:53who could make friends quite easily.
07:58He set up a business.
08:00It was very successful.
08:01And none of these things go against his general personality.
08:05He wasn't one of those people who was a loner,
08:09who kept himself away from people.
08:11He was very much the opposite.
08:12He was out there.
08:13He was in control.
08:14He was the boss.
08:15He was the master of what was going on.
08:17But he was no longer master in his own home.
08:23Arlene had seen a solicitor.
08:25She wanted a divorce.
08:27Nat had beaten her.
08:30Charged with attempted murder, later downgraded to assault,
08:34he was living out of the town on bail.
08:36Nat Fraser had a very definite history
08:42that would have raised him as a potential risk to his wife.
08:48Some of the things that were reported about him and his behaviour
08:53would even, I think, have made him a high risk to his wife.
08:56That assault was a very, very serious one.
09:00He had put his hands around her throat and threatened her life.
09:04The police begin to build up this picture of an unhappy relationship,
09:08one which she was trying to escape,
09:10and a potentially violent partner.
09:13But when his wife disappeared, Nat had his sympathisers.
09:17He was a popular man.
09:19When locals and the police asked about Arlene,
09:22Nat would answer, revealing how tormented he was.
09:26There's two sides to Nat Fraser.
09:28There's the public Nat Fraser, the hellfellow well-met,
09:32the popular van delivery guy.
09:35Everybody in the town thinks he's a cheeky chappy.
09:39Always cracking a joke, flirting with the ladies.
09:41That's one side of Nat Fraser.
09:43The other side that we began to unearth,
09:47as we looked very much more closely into him as an individual,
09:51is that there was very much a dark side.
09:53A dark side to the private Nat Fraser.
09:55And what we saw there was quite alarming.
09:59He clearly had a history of domestic abuse.
10:02Arlene had been subjected to domestic abuse on many occasions.
10:07He was a controlling individual.
10:09He didn't necessarily have any real loving or emotional investment
10:14in Arlene herself.
10:17And there was strong evidence of controlling and coercive behaviours
10:22and violence.
10:25Knowing all of this,
10:26why was Nat Fraser not immediately a significant person of interest to the police?
10:32Irrespective of our hunch,
10:35you've got to follow the evidence.
10:37And the evidence that we had was very, very thin.
10:39We didn't have a crime scene.
10:41We didn't have any witnesses.
10:43We didn't have any forensic evidence.
10:45We didn't have any CCTV that helped us.
10:49We didn't have any confessions.
10:51So we didn't have a crime.
10:53So our first challenge as an investigation was,
10:56is Arlene alive?
10:58Or has she gone missing?
10:59There was something else which deflected suspicion from Nat Fraser.
11:04He had an alibi.
11:06He was known to be out of town,
11:09delivering fruit and veg the day that Arlene went missing.
11:12He was accompanied by a van delivery boy.
11:16His vehicle was seen on CCTV at a particular location on that particular day.
11:23He was on a telephone call to a lady
11:27who he'd previously had a relationship with but hadn't phoned in years
11:31and, ironically, never phoned again.
11:36So he made sure that he was marking his scent that morning.
11:40Detectives were in constant dialogue with Nat Fraser,
11:43but if something sinister had happened to Arlene,
11:46he had made no mistake to put him in the frame.
11:49She had gone missing and there was nothing to say to the contrary.
11:53He was not a suspect for months and months and months
11:57because there was no evidence.
11:59Why had a doting mother walked out on her children?
12:03Was husband Nat involved in her disappearance?
12:06Where was Arlene Fraser?
12:08Detectives with little to go on in the hunt for Arlene Fraser
12:18simply kept a watching brief on her husband, Nat.
12:23His demeanour did not compute
12:25with what they knew had been going on
12:26behind closed doors on Smith Street.
12:29Nat's behaviours were odd
12:32around the time that she was reported missing.
12:35Now, on the evening that she was reported missing,
12:39he was staying with a friend
12:41and he had received a phone call that Arlene had gone missing.
12:45Now, in the context at that time
12:47that they were a couple going through a divorce
12:49and there was no love lost there between them,
12:53bizarrely, he went straight into the telgun where she lived
12:56and within no time at all that evening,
12:58he was checking the hospital.
13:00He was showing all signs of distress and concern,
13:03which was completely out of character.
13:07After only a few days,
13:08he seems kind of very blasé about the whole thing
13:11and he goes from being the extremely concerned partner
13:13to police actually having to contact him
13:16to give updates on the case.
13:18A few weeks later, he's making jokes to friends about,
13:20oh, the kids will get used to her being away and so on.
13:23That's not the behaviour of somebody
13:25who's genuinely worried about their partner
13:28and the fact that they've been missing for several weeks now.
13:31The media locally and nationally began to speculate,
13:36but not about Nat Fraser.
13:38Coverage focused on the mother who'd abandoned her children.
13:42There was a lot of bad press about Arlene,
13:45which was, you know, it was hard to read.
13:48There was talks of her being on drugs,
13:51which was just ridiculous, you know, absolutely ridiculous,
13:55about having boyfriends, things like that.
13:57Where were the stories coming from?
14:00None other than Nat Fraser.
14:03And of course, naturally,
14:05those who know Arlene,
14:07that would make no sense.
14:10So he introduced some elements
14:14to create an impression that she was involved in drugs,
14:19that she was promiscuous,
14:20that she was involved in other relationships.
14:22He blackened her character.
14:25I think these things come with the territory,
14:28but at the time you don't realise that.
14:31You just have to, you know,
14:33if you can't stand the heat,
14:35get out of the kitchen sort of thing.
14:36So we just tried our best to kind of rise above it.
14:40But undoubtedly, this was part of Nat's plan
14:43to create an impression,
14:45plant a seed that Arlene was into amphetamine,
14:48into drugs,
14:48which was never the case
14:50because we were able physically
14:51to get samples of Arlene's hair
14:55from a hairbrush post-disappearance.
14:59And that evidence scientifically told us
15:01that Arlene was not involved in drug abuse.
15:05Similarly,
15:06the relationships that he suggested
15:09and others close to Nat suggested
15:12she was involved
15:13and never came to anything.
15:15Detectives wondered
15:16why Nat Fraser would start these stories.
15:19As the months passed,
15:21Nat pushed a plausible story.
15:23Arlene had run away.
15:25It became vital to him
15:27that the picture he painted of Arlene
15:28was seen to be true amongst the community,
15:31including the police.
15:33Arlene's betrayal of her family
15:34was a story which Nat repeated
15:36to anyone who would listen.
15:38They believed through fantastic propaganda
15:41by Nat Fraser and his close friends
15:44that this woman had up sticks,
15:47abandoned her kids,
15:49disappeared,
15:50leaving him and the kids
15:51with a difficult situation.
15:54So she was being painted as a prior.
15:57Fraser embellished the story
15:59as the anniversary of her disappearance neared.
16:02Arlene had funded her new life
16:04with a stash of Nat's cash
16:06taken from his house.
16:07But Arlene's father,
16:09Nat's father-in-law,
16:10a quiet man,
16:11told a different story.
16:13I knew that Arlene hadn't run away
16:16despite what Nat Fraser was saying.
16:20I just knew because
16:21she would have phoned me
16:23on the Tuesday.
16:24So I suspected right away
16:27that she had possibly been killed.
16:32And he had an idea of his own
16:34as to who was responsible.
16:36They always blame the husband
16:37in murder cases.
16:39So possibly Mr. Fraser
16:42would be a prime suspect.
16:46Although I think there might have been
16:49one or two others up there.
16:51But he was a suspect.
16:56And I think the police knew
16:58that they were looking
16:59at a murder investigation.
17:08By 1999, detectives were convinced
17:10that Arlene had indeed been the victim
17:12of a violent crime and was dead.
17:14But if so,
17:15no killer had revealed a mistake.
17:18They set about proving
17:19their suspicions in stages.
17:21First,
17:22that Arlene was not alive.
17:25The proof of death,
17:27which is what we were doing,
17:28the proof of death
17:29in relation to Arlene
17:30is about closing doors
17:33of life possibilities.
17:35So no activity on her bank
17:38or any finances
17:39for X period of time.
17:42No apparent interaction
17:44with pharmaceutical outlets
17:46for medication
17:47that she needed.
17:48In the UK,
17:49not just locally,
17:50in the UK,
17:51similarly with her contact lenses,
17:54her renewable contact lenses.
17:56No activity in that regard.
17:58Telephony,
17:58nothing that would suggest
18:00contact with friends
18:00family.
18:01All of these elements
18:03had to be proved
18:06in a negative sense
18:09to be able to then say
18:11it looks very much like
18:13there's just no evidence
18:14that this woman is alive.
18:17Nat Fraser went about his life
18:19running his fruit and veg business
18:20around the town
18:21in and out of the family home
18:23on Smith Street.
18:24He maintained an impression
18:26that he thought she had
18:27gone on holiday.
18:29And I remember saying
18:30to Nat,
18:31this is some length of holiday
18:32that Arlene's gone on.
18:35And even then,
18:37he tried to maintain
18:38no that it was credible.
18:40She's gone off to Spain.
18:42And despite trying to reason
18:44with Nat
18:45that this is so out of character,
18:47how can you really believe this
18:50of Arlene, it just seemed illogical,
18:53incredible, but he couldn't but maintain
18:57that position because to give an inch
19:00would be a weakness in the sense
19:03of it would have given ground
19:05back towards where he didn't want to go.
19:08Arlene's father and sister, meanwhile,
19:12were finding it hard to cope.
19:13It was really difficult
19:15because one minute you're living
19:17quite a normal life.
19:19You know, you're just every day,
19:21you're going to work,
19:22you've got two children,
19:23you're doing your housework, etc.
19:24And then all of a sudden,
19:26you've stepped into this really
19:27almost dark life.
19:30You know, when you're talking,
19:31I mean, the word murder,
19:33you know, when you're talking about that,
19:34that's horrible.
19:3618 months after Arlene's disappearance,
19:39some in the police had concluded
19:40there'd been foul play.
19:42And privately, some acknowledged
19:44that they had a suspect,
19:46the same man that the family
19:48believed responsible,
19:49the man who was about to face charges
19:51for the attack on Arlene
19:52five weeks before she went missing.
19:55Nat Fraser.
19:56There seemed to be
19:57no other theories possible.
20:00The question has to be
20:01who would gain the most
20:03from Arlene's disappearance.
20:06Now, in terms of motivation,
20:09Nat had a huge amount of motivation
20:12to get rid of Arlene.
20:15And statistically speaking,
20:16when a woman is murdered,
20:18in about half of cases,
20:20it's a partner or ex-partner
20:22who turns out to be to blame.
20:23So Nat Fraser is going to be
20:25an obvious suspect.
20:28The number one motivation was that
20:30he was already awaiting criminal trial
20:33for her attempted murder
20:35just weeks before she disappeared.
20:38So freedom,
20:39if she wasn't there to give evidence,
20:42was obvious.
20:44The second thing is,
20:45we knew that she had been in talks
20:47with her solicitor
20:48around about a divorce settlement,
20:50a six-figure divorce settlement,
20:52which was going to hugely damage him financially.
20:55Motivation number two,
20:57with Arlene out of the equation,
20:58he's not going to lose his money.
21:00If Arlene was no longer there,
21:04he would get back into the family home,
21:06he would control that,
21:07he would get back with the kids
21:08and control that.
21:10All of his finances,
21:12he would be back in control.
21:14So, from a perspective of motivation,
21:17there was no shortage of motivation.
21:23Whilst there were still plenty of people in Elgin
21:26who supported the popular Nat Fraser,
21:28time was not on his side.
21:34By the second anniversary of Arlene's disappearance,
21:36there seemed no sensible reason
21:38to support the claim
21:39that she had abandoned her children
21:41and left home.
21:43It was only the passage of time,
21:46weeks, months, years,
21:48with some individuals
21:49before they began to reflect
21:51on the likelihood of this
21:54as being sensible.
21:56Birthdays had passed,
21:58Christmases had passed.
21:59The kids,
22:00she was a devoted mother.
22:01The one thing that we knew
22:03was that she was a devoted mother.
22:05And yet,
22:05birthdays passed,
22:06Christmases passed.
22:07It was absolutely illogical.
22:15I mean,
22:16obviously,
22:17the police were getting information
22:18from all angles
22:20about Arlene.
22:21They would talk to her friends.
22:22They would talk to Nat Fraser.
22:26And, most importantly,
22:28they'd talk to the people
22:30that actually, you know,
22:31really, really know her.
22:33But Nat had an impregnable alibi
22:36and there was no body
22:37to confirm Arlene was dead.
22:39Neither Arlene nor her remains
22:41had been found.
22:43She might still be alive.
22:44So, what charge could
22:46detectives possibly bring?
22:48If she had been murdered,
22:49they needed the killer
22:50to reveal a mistake.
22:52Nat Fraser,
22:53a suspect as time passed
22:55for something.
22:56But for what?
22:57A turning point in the case
23:05came when a key piece of evidence
23:06was uncovered.
23:08An Elgin mechanic
23:09revealed
23:10that he'd sold a vehicle
23:11to a friend of Nat Fraser.
23:14The case went very quiet
23:16and then there was
23:18talk of a car
23:20being used,
23:22a beige fiesta.
23:23We uncovered
23:24a significant break
23:26for the first time
23:27in relation to
23:29a vehicle.
23:32Police were very excited
23:33about this
23:34and I think
23:35it is relevant
23:36to the inquiry.
23:38And the Ford Fiesta
23:39had been purchased
23:40the night before
23:41Arlene had gone missing
23:43on 27th of April
23:44by a very close
23:47associate
23:48of Nat Fraser.
23:50In circumstances
23:53that could only
23:54be described
23:55as very covert
23:56cash in hand
23:57and say nothing,
23:58there was a third party
23:59used to purchase
24:00the vehicle.
24:02The car was purchased
24:03the night before
24:05Arlene went missing
24:06and then
24:06it was disposed of.
24:09And so that vehicle,
24:11the whereabouts
24:12of that vehicle,
24:13sightings of that vehicle
24:14really re-energised
24:15the investigation
24:17because we began
24:18to believe
24:19that the purchase
24:20of that vehicle
24:21was inextricably linked
24:23to her disappearance.
24:25And could that
24:25have been the vehicle
24:26that was enticed her out?
24:29Police had a lead.
24:31They summed it up
24:32like this.
24:32A car had been bought
24:34by a Fraser confidant
24:35the day before
24:36Arlene had disappeared
24:37and then
24:38it had been destroyed.
24:41It's very, very strange.
24:43Why would you do that?
24:44Other inexplicable evidence
24:48had been uncovered
24:48like the mystery
24:49of the missing
24:50and then reappearing
24:51wedding rings.
24:53The initial crime scene
24:54examination
24:55of the house
24:57within a day
24:58of Arlene gone missing,
25:00the house was sealed
25:01and it was looked at
25:02forensically
25:03and including
25:05that forensic examination
25:07was a full video
25:09sweep of the house.
25:12Days after that,
25:14once the family
25:15had moved back
25:16into the home,
25:17one of the family members
25:18recovered from the bathroom
25:21three rings,
25:22Arlene's wedding ring,
25:24engagement ring
25:25an eternity ring
25:26but they hadn't been there
25:28during the course
25:29of the video.
25:31Now bear in mind
25:32Nat had had fairly
25:33regular and free access
25:35to the house
25:35at that point in time
25:37so the belief was
25:39that the rings
25:40had been returned
25:41to the house
25:42by Nat.
25:44He was crazy to think
25:45that the police
25:46hunting for this
25:47woman who's gone missing
25:48and even her family
25:49wouldn't notice
25:50that the rings
25:52weren't there
25:52and then they suddenly
25:53appeared again
25:54so that really suggests
25:56that somebody
25:56has gone in
25:57and planted those rings
25:58and he's doing it
25:59to support his story
26:00that she's just run off
26:01and she was trying
26:01to leave him
26:02but you know
26:03if she was running off
26:03really trying to run off
26:04and leave him
26:05surely she would have
26:06taken her rings
26:06and tried to sell them
26:07for money.
26:09It seemed such an obvious
26:10mistake from Nat.
26:12Why would he not
26:13dispose of the rings?
26:14Why commit the cardinal error
26:16of returning to the scene
26:17of a crime
26:18so further exposing himself
26:20to suspicion?
26:22Alan Smith
26:22put it down
26:23to Nat's greed.
26:25As unbelievable
26:25as that might be
26:27it is not that unbelievable
26:30if you understand
26:32how close Nat is
26:33to money
26:34and the value
26:36of these rings
26:36and by reintroducing them
26:38into the family home
26:39was his way
26:41of being able
26:41to regain control
26:43of the rings
26:43and their value.
26:49Yet another piece
26:50of evidence emerged
26:51to further draw suspicion
26:52on Nat Fraser.
26:53His story about Arlene
26:55walking out on the family
26:56with Nat's cash
26:58kept in the house.
26:59It simply wasn't true.
27:01So his assertion was that Arlene
27:05had taken the money
27:06and disappeared
27:07and it was all part
27:08of the plan
27:10her plan
27:11but what he was unaware of
27:13was that days
27:15before Arlene
27:16went missing
27:16she'd had
27:18humiliatingly
27:19had to borrow money
27:20from a friend
27:22for housekeeping
27:23so she was low
27:24on cash.
27:26Now if she had known
27:27there was a stash
27:28of cash in the house
27:29she wouldn't have had
27:31to borrow from a friend
27:32never would have
27:33so that didn't square
27:35and even if that stash
27:38had been uncovered
27:39post-borrowing money
27:40Arlene would not
27:44have gone missing
27:44without having repaid
27:46her friend the money
27:47so that whole
27:49staged piece of
27:51theatre
27:52by Nat
27:53to again
27:55build on
27:55the fact
27:56she's gone missing
27:57and ran off
27:57and abandoned
27:58her family
27:58when you actually
28:00looked in behind that
28:02that was a mistake.
28:08But there was
28:09still a big problem
28:09to overcome
28:10for police to prove
28:11that Nat was a killer
28:12with so many sightings
28:13of Fraser
28:14miles away from
28:15Smith Street
28:15home of Arlene
28:16on the day
28:17that she went missing
28:18how could Fraser
28:19be responsible?
28:21Police dug deeper
28:22into the part
28:23played in the mystery
28:23by a friend of Fraser
28:25a man called
28:26Hector Dick
28:27So Hector Dick
28:28was a business partner
28:30It was Hector Dick
28:32who bought the
28:33now destroyed
28:33beige Ford Fiesta
28:35and may have helped
28:37dispose of Arlene's body
28:39Nat believed
28:40that if Arlene's body
28:43was never found
28:45there could never be
28:47a conviction for murder
28:48so his real driving force
28:50I think was in her
28:52body disposal
28:53her body deposition
28:54In a rare twist
28:58at this point
28:58in their investigation
28:59the year 2000
29:00police had Nat Fraser
29:01exactly where they
29:02wanted him
29:03in prison
29:04whilst the investigation
29:05into her disappearance
29:07and possible murder
29:08continued
29:08Fraser had been tried
29:10for the assault
29:10of Arlene
29:11for which he'd been
29:12arrested in 1998
29:13convicted
29:15he was sentenced
29:16to two years
29:17in prison
29:17during this time
29:19a third person
29:20entered the police
29:20investigation
29:21another friend
29:22of Nat Fraser
29:23a man called
29:24Glenn Lucas
29:25he visited Fraser
29:27inside prison
29:28neither men
29:29knew they were
29:30being filmed
29:31there was no audio
29:32on the tape
29:33so detectives
29:34turned to a deaf
29:35identity protected
29:36lip reading expert
29:37to help uncover
29:39what had been said
29:40Nat Fraser
29:41was doing most
29:42of the talking
29:43when he said
29:45something about
29:46if the bones
29:46are smaller
29:47than that
29:48he actually held
29:49up his hand
29:50if the bones
29:51are smaller
29:52than that
29:52they cannot be
29:54identified
29:55via DNA
29:57the conversation
29:59between Fraser
30:00and his visitor
30:00Glenn Lucas
30:01seemed to confirm
30:02the prosecution
30:03case
30:03Nat knew an awful
30:05lot more
30:06than he'd admitted
30:07and to another point
30:10he actually mimed
30:11sawing his wrist
30:13when he was talking
30:14about cutting up
30:15the bones
30:15and Lucas
30:16was saying
30:18no good idea
30:19police don't
30:21suspect you at all
30:22and stuff like that
30:26and telling him
30:28that he hoped
30:29he thought very much
30:31that Nat would
30:31get away with it
30:32whilst they didn't
30:34deliver hard evidence
30:37that was able
30:38to be admissible
30:39in court
30:40what it did do
30:42was give us
30:43significantly
30:45interesting intelligence
30:47and Nat was talking
30:48about how many
30:48alibis he'd had
30:50how he'd been
30:51very sure
30:51that when he delivered
30:52made the deliverers
30:54that everybody
30:55had seen him
30:56I could tell
30:57they were talking
30:58about cutting up bones
30:59but I didn't know
31:00whose bones
31:01I didn't even know
31:02that someone was missing
31:03let alone dead
31:04and that reinvigorated
31:07the investigation
31:08and gave us
31:10a number of lines
31:11of inquiry
31:11the information
31:13given by the lip reader
31:14did not offer new evidence
31:16but it did confirm
31:17the case against
31:18Nat Fraser
31:18and his harrowing crime
31:20they were talking
31:22about a third party
31:23called Hecky
31:24and how much
31:26Hecky had helped him
31:27there was mention
31:29of a car
31:29and a mobile phone
31:31and I don't know
31:33what
31:34or how
31:37he had Arlene killed
31:40but there was a mention
31:43of a third party
31:44who had offered
31:49or agreed
31:50to
31:52help Arlene
31:54for
31:55a price
31:56by 2002
31:58Alan Smith felt
32:00that he and the team
32:00had assembled enough
32:01to gain convictions
32:02related to the murder
32:04of Arlene Fraser
32:04against three men
32:06Glenn Lucas
32:07was considered
32:08an accomplice
32:09to a conspiracy
32:10alongside Hector Dick
32:11with Nat Fraser
32:12the orchestrator
32:13of the abduction
32:14and murder
32:14of Arlene Fraser
32:15we had no
32:17hard and fast
32:18silver bullet
32:19no forensic DNA
32:21link between
32:22the victim
32:23and the perpetrator
32:24we didn't have
32:25the luxury of that
32:26in this investigation
32:27despite the absence
32:30of a piece
32:31of smoking gun evidence
32:32Fraser, Hector Dick
32:34and Glenn Lucas
32:35were charged
32:36what followed
32:37transformed Elgin
32:38from a delightful
32:39market town
32:40on the coast
32:40to the scene
32:41of complex legal arguments
32:43in court
32:44and the continued
32:45probing by police
32:46into what had happened
32:47to Arlene Fraser
32:48Elgin and the picturesque
32:50Moray Firth
32:51became a temporary home
32:53to legal experts
32:54and senior detectives
32:55as prosecution
32:56and defence teams
32:57argued about
32:58amongst other things
32:59whether Nat Fraser
33:00and his alleged
33:01accomplices
33:02could ever get
33:03a third trial
33:03in the small town
33:05eventually
33:06it was decided
33:07to move the case
33:07to another town
33:08Dingwall
33:0952 miles away
33:10but four years
33:12after her disappearance
33:13three men
33:14including her husband
33:15were due to stand trial
33:16for the murder
33:17of Arlene Fraser
33:18the case was thought
33:20by some
33:20dangerously thin
33:22but as the trial
33:23neared
33:23one of Nat Fraser's
33:25friends
33:26turned against him
33:27he thought
33:29that he could
33:30confide in other people
33:32and that they would
33:33remain loyal to him
33:34it didn't occur to him
33:36that they would not
33:37be loyal to him
33:38Hector Dick
33:40now offered
33:41to support
33:41the prosecution case
33:42and he made
33:44an amazing revelation
33:45he claimed
33:46that Fraser
33:47had hired a hitman
33:48from down south
33:49that Arlene
33:50had been abducted
33:51killed
33:52her body dismembered
33:54and then her body
33:55was ground up
33:56and burned
33:57and then her ashes
33:58were disposed of
34:00he also claimed
34:01that Fraser
34:02had asked him
34:03to acquire a car
34:03to help
34:04with the abduction
34:05charges against
34:09Hector Dick
34:10were dropped
34:10as were those
34:11against Glenn Lucas
34:12at last
34:14Arlene's sister
34:15could have her day
34:16in court
34:16to put the record
34:17straight about Arlene
34:19she was far from
34:21relaxed about it
34:22nothing was certain
34:23about the outcome
34:24being a witness
34:26in a high court
34:27is very
34:29very scary
34:31it's really scary
34:32well it was quite
34:33an experience
34:34because
34:35you know
34:37in the box
34:37and we tried to
34:39and it was accused
34:40of these
34:40questions
34:41and half the time
34:43my hearing aids
34:44weren't working
34:45so it was
34:47a bit of a challenge
34:48it's just not
34:49a nice
34:50atmosphere
34:51at all
34:52they have a way
34:54of doing things
34:56and you're
34:58asked a question
34:59and it's a yes
35:00or no
35:01and you come away
35:02feeling very frustrated
35:04because they've
35:04asked the question
35:05but you want to say
35:06but
35:07you know
35:08but no
35:11it's a yes
35:12or no
35:12so you feel
35:14kind of unfulfilled
35:15what would
35:19be the outcome
35:19had Nat Fraser
35:21made a killer's mistake
35:22would he be found
35:23guilty
35:23of the murder
35:24of Arlene Fraser
35:26Carol Gillies
35:41and her father
35:42Hector
35:42attended on the
35:43verdict of the
35:43court in January
35:442003
35:45just three months
35:47short of five years
35:48since Arlene
35:49had disappeared
35:50Nat Fraser
35:52was found
35:53guilty
35:54the judge
35:56offered his opinion
35:57of Arlene's killer
35:57the judge made it
35:59very clear
36:00that he felt
36:01that this was
36:02an evil crime
36:03it was
36:03without any care
36:05for anybody else
36:07it was
36:07planned
36:08it was brutal
36:10it involved
36:11other people
36:12it even hurt
36:13you know
36:14his own child
36:15so when the
36:17when the judge
36:18described him
36:18as evil
36:19that's quite a big
36:20step to take
36:21that's all
36:22that's almost
36:23saying
36:23there is no
36:24mitigation
36:25in what you
36:27did
36:27whatsoever
36:28but if the
36:30people of Elgin
36:31thought that
36:31it was case
36:32closed
36:33they were wrong
36:34Nat Fraser
36:35would appeal
36:35and his conviction
36:37would be quashed
36:38well today's the day
36:40we'll find out
36:40if the police
36:41and prosecution
36:42have held evidence
36:43if they're allowed
36:44to withheld
36:45hold evidence
36:45in 2008
36:48after a series
36:49of court hearings
36:49both in Scotland
36:50and in London
36:51on a legal
36:52technicality
36:53related to the
36:54Crown's evidence
36:54about the rings
36:55found in the
36:56Fraser family home
36:57there was a question
36:59a technical question
37:00in relation to
37:02the integrity
37:03of the chain of evidence
37:04and the way that
37:05those rings
37:06were handled
37:06by the police
37:07and on the basis
37:09of that
37:10the conviction
37:12was quashed
37:13because the rings
37:16played such a
37:17significant part
37:18in the first trial
37:19and that was devastating
37:20it was devastating
37:22for the police
37:23and the inquiry team
37:25but it was
37:26doubly devastating
37:28for Arlene's family
37:29oh it was
37:30it was horrible
37:31it was absolutely horrible
37:32and of course
37:35we were disappointed
37:36we were bitterly disappointed
37:37the quashing
37:38of the conviction
37:40for the whole family
37:41was just
37:42devastating
37:43absolutely devastating
37:45the whole court
37:48process
37:48for each
37:49and every one
37:50of us
37:50was
37:50it was just
37:52a living
37:53nightmare
37:54it seemed
37:54so unfair
37:55to everybody
37:56involved
37:57buoyed
37:59by his success
38:00in winning his appeal
38:01Nat Fraser
38:02reverted to type
38:03the old Nat
38:04came back
38:05it was as if
38:07everything had lifted
38:08and he was back
38:09to being the cheeky chap
38:10in the high street
38:11in Elgin
38:11delivering his fruit
38:12and veg
38:13he could not
38:13contain himself
38:14and the family
38:16had to endure that
38:17and it was hard
38:18and it was hard
38:19but
38:19he reverted to type
38:21Nat reverted to type
38:23and so
38:24that
38:24absolutely
38:26was all the motivation
38:28that was needed
38:28if any
38:29was needed
38:30to get
38:31this train
38:33back on the track
38:33let's get this
38:34investigation
38:36and redouble
38:37our efforts
38:38to get him
38:39back into court
38:40police and prosecutors
38:41reconsidered their evidence
38:43it may have seemed
38:44easier to let the
38:45investigation rest
38:46but detectives
38:47wanted to take
38:48their case
38:48back to court
38:49and so he went
38:51on trial
38:51for a second time
38:52and this
38:53again was the first
38:54time that
38:55an individual
38:56who had a conviction
38:58quashed
38:59was re-indicted
39:01and put on trial
39:03for murder
39:04for the same crime
39:05in 2012
39:09Nat Fraser
39:10returned to court
39:11charged with the murder
39:12of his wife
39:13Arlene
39:14would the case
39:15against him
39:16once again
39:16convince a jury
39:17had he made a mistake
39:19or would the cheeky
39:20chappy
39:21win the day
39:22and walk free
39:23we always
39:24remember
39:25sitting in a room
39:26we could hear them
39:27saying jury verdict
39:27court three
39:28jury verdict
39:29court three
39:29and we up the stairs
39:32we went
39:32I mean hearts
39:33were beating
39:34absolutely beating
39:35she need not have
39:36worried
39:37for a second time
39:38a Scottish jury
39:39found Nat Fraser
39:40guilty
39:41it was just
39:42the relief
39:44you try not to be
39:46you know
39:47jump in the air
39:48you know
39:49you try to stay
39:50composed
39:50but
39:51the relief
39:52is unbelievable
39:53just unbelievable
39:54because
39:55the alternative
39:57was that
39:58you would just
39:58walk through the doors
39:59and it would have
40:00all been in vain
40:01and you know
40:02and Arlene
40:04would still be out there
40:05and that seems
40:06so unfair
40:06Arlene's body
40:08remains undiscovered
40:10it's somewhere
40:11out there
40:12but the trial outcome
40:13did bring some
40:14consolation
40:15I don't suppose
40:16you could call it
40:17joy
40:18but
40:18it was a relief
40:19because
40:20we were down
40:22in London
40:23at the Supreme Court
40:24and
40:26it didn't seem
40:28to be going
40:28too well
40:29for us
40:29so I was
40:31a bit
40:32worried
40:34Nat Fraser
40:37was sentenced
40:37to life in prison
40:38for a second time
40:39he will serve
40:40a minimum
40:40of 17 years
40:42it had taken
40:4314 years
40:44to bring him
40:44to justice
40:45what was
40:46the key mistake
40:47which convinced
40:47a second jury
40:49to find him guilty
40:50it was the crime scene
40:52itself
40:52which betrayed
40:53the truths
40:54Nat Fraser
40:54wanted to be kept hidden
40:56if he was to be believed
40:57the town of Elgin
40:59had been harboring
40:59a selfish mother
41:00who had taken
41:01what money
41:02the family had
41:03and then set off
41:04on an extended holiday
41:05to Spain
41:06having abandoned
41:07her children
41:08but why
41:09would she leave behind
41:10vital medicine
41:11and her glasses
41:12the unlikely claims
41:13by Fraser
41:14that a devoted mother
41:15would abandon her children
41:16a wife
41:17who had already
41:17sought refuge
41:18from the abuses
41:19of her husband
41:20did not ring true
41:21too many people
41:23knew too much
41:24about the nature
41:25of Arlene
41:25and that of Nat Fraser
41:27Nat Fraser thought
41:29he'd planned
41:30the perfect murder
41:31but what he couldn't do
41:33is erase people's memories
41:34he couldn't erase
41:35the things Arlene
41:36had told her solicitor
41:37and her friends
41:38about their relationship
41:39the fact that he tried
41:41to kill her previously
41:43they couldn't erase
41:44the fact that she was
41:44a wonderful mother
41:45and that she cared
41:46about her children
41:47and when she didn't
41:48turn up to pick up
41:49her children from school
41:51that that rang alarm bells
41:52that was out of character
41:53for her
41:54so that for many
41:56is the killer's mistake
41:58which Nat Fraser made
41:59planning a story
42:00which asked people
42:01to believe
42:02that a doting mother
42:03and family woman
42:04would leave behind
42:05her children
42:05and for what it's worth
42:07vital medication too
42:09it was that
42:10which convinced police
42:11two juries
42:12and her sister
42:13that Nat Fraser
42:14was guilty of murdering
42:16Arlene Fraser
42:16a woman
42:17who nobody could believe
42:19would abandon her children
42:20she wouldn't do that
42:22to her family
42:23and her parents
42:25and her sister