THE man a murder accused claims could have been behind his wife's alleged killing told a jury he was not responsible for the death of the mother-of-two.
Hector Dick faced defence claims in court he had lied persistently and it was the "obvious conclusion" he was responsible for the death of Arlene Fraser.
Mr Dick, 56, has been giving evidence for a week at the trial of his former friend, 53-year-old Nat Fraser, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler.
Fraser is accused, at the High Court in Edinburgh, of acting with others to murder 33-year-old Mrs Fraser, who vanished from her home in New Elgin, Moray, on April 28, 1998.
The businessman denies the charge and claims that if his estranged wife was killed, Mr Dick could be to blame.
Mr Dick, a farmer from Mosstowie, Elgin, has told the court Fraser admitted paying a hitman £15,000 to kill his wife. He said Fraser told him her body had been burned and her teeth "ground up".
After several days of questioning, Fraser's defence QC, John Scott, suggested Mr Dick knew "far more about Arlene Fraser's disappearance" than he was "willing to admit".
He said: "Nat Fraser did not kill Arlene Fraser, nor did he tell you that he did."
Mr Dick replied: "He surely did."
The lawyer put it to Mr Dick he had "simply invented that discussion".
The witness replied: "Not correct."
The lawyer went on: "The obvious conclusion, Mr Dick, from all of this, especially your persistent lies, is that you killed Arlene Fraser, isn't it?" The witness responded: "Not correct."
The court has heard that in 2003, Mr Dick stood trial with two others for the murder of Mrs Fraser. Several days into the case he gave a "lengthy" statement to prosecutors and the charges were dropped.
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