THREE expensive rings belonging to Arlene Fraser were found in her home more than a week after she disappeared, a murder trial has heard.
Mrs Fraser's stepmother, Catherine McInnes, 75, recalled the surprise find of the engagement, wedding and eternity rings 14 years ago.
She told the High Court in Edinburgh that she had "taken over the housework" in her stepdaughter's home in Smith Street, New Elgin and there were no rings in the bathroom during the early days.
Mrs McInnes, now of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, was shown video footage taken by police the day after mother-of-two Mrs Fraser, 33, vanished, and there were no rings on a dowel rod under a soap dish at the wash-hand basin.
Mrs McInnes told the trial she searched Mrs Fraser's home in the days after her disappearance in a hunt for clues about what could have happened.
At that stage, she did not see the rings in the house and agreed that, if she had spotted them, she would have viewed the find as significant.
Mrs McInnes told the court: "I would have given them to police because they were expensive."
Advocate depute Alex Prentice QC, prosecuting, asked Mrs McInnes if she would have seen the rings while cleaning.
"Yes, they would have been obvious," she told him.
Mrs McInnes said she had also helped search Mrs Fraser's home for her passport, medication or other clues which might help solve the mystery of her step-daughter's whereabouts. The rings would have been a significant find, she told Mr Prentice.
The prosecutor asked her if anything had happened on May 7, 1998 – nine days after Mrs Fraser was last seen.
Mrs McInnes said it was just after 3pm: "I went into the bathroom to use the toilet and, of course, washed my hands afterwards and I noticed jewellery on the dowel – three rings."
In court she was shown a gold eternity ring, a diamond and gold wedding ring and a sapphire engagement ring and confirmed they had belonged to her step-daughter.
"I removed them from the dowel," said Mrs McInnes. "I just couldn't understand where they had come from. They definitely weren't there before."
She said the rings were put back on the dowel to await the daily visit from the police. She told the trial that at the time Nat Fraser, Mrs Fraser's husband, had been in the house for about an hour and was upstairs.
Mrs McInnes told the trial she thought the rings important because they were expensive and if Mrs Fraser had simply left home she could have taken them to sell for cash.
Mrs McInnes made another statement in April 2006. She said: "Not until much later did I realise the importance of the discovery, and I mean years later."
She said the family had gathered in October 1998 to watch a video taken by police the day after Mrs Fraser disappeared.
"We all said with more or less one voice: 'Where are the rings?'" said Mrs McInnes. She said they were "puzzled" because Fraser had insisted that the rings had been in the house all the time.
Fraser, 53, denies attacking his wife between April 28 and May 7, 1998 at the home they once shared in Smith Street, New Elgin, or elsewhere in Scotland.
It is alleged that he strangled her or murdered her "by other means to the prosecutor unknown".
The indictment against Fraser says he knew Mrs Fraser had seen a solicitor about divorcing him and getting a cash pay-off.
Fruit-and-veg wholesaler Fraser has lodged papers in court claiming that 14 years ago on April 28 he left the address in Burnside Road, Lhanbryde, where he was staying, at about 7.30am and spent the day making van deliveries to hotels, restaurants and shops – pausing to make a phone call just after 9am.
Fraser also claims that if his wife was murdered, as prosecutors claim, the man responsible could be Hector Dick of Mosstowie, Elgin.
The jury has heard there was an earlier trial in 2003 when Hector Dick had been one of three men accused of murdering Mrs Fraser, but left the dock to give evidence for the prosecution.
Another man on trial then, Glenn Lucas, was now dead. The third man was Fraser.
The trial continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article