position to stop him. He judged by their distance and rate of approach that he could easily leave with Victoria.
It seems pretty clear that Fraser was going with Victoria but how did he plan to handle the bail matter and the possible loss of Ray's house? According to Ray in Victoria's Secret, Part 2, the judge considered Fraser a flight risk so his bail was high. What kind of plan could Fraser have had? He had just let her get on the train so it seems unlikely that he was going to bring her back to face a murder charge. Are we to assume that Fraser was going to skip out on the bail and have Ray possibly lose his house? What could Fraser have been thinking? Or is that the point--he wasn't! The bail question is left as a matter of pure speculation.
Questions About the Plot
I think the Victoria's Secret episode is so well written and brilliantly executed that I am loath to find fault with the plot.
Victoria's Secret has a very well constructed plot but a couple of things bothered me, however--among them, the envelope for Ray and the danger of the diamond dealers.
How did Fraser know that Victoria was going to the train station? How could he have effectively relayed that information to Ray? Leaving such information in an envelope for Ray on Dief's cage seems rather chancy.
Also, what did Fraser state to Ray in the letter that he left on Dief's cage? He couldn't have told him that Victoria would be at the train station because he couldn't be sure that that she was going there or that Ray would see the letter in time.
Fraser could have been killed by the diamond dealers. It seems a rather dangerous enterprise for Victoria to expose Ben to. On the other hand, she seems rather fearless. When the diamond dealers are shooting at the car, she insists that Fraser show her the diamonds before she will drive away. She seems to be impervious to the tension involved in the fact that they are being shot at.
In addition, Victoria's sister's death seemed a little too convenient, unless that was the starting point for Victoria's planning this elaborate scheme.
The Prosecution's Case against Fraser
Some others have pointed out that a defect in the plot consists of the fact that DNA evidence of Victoria's hair in Fraser's bed, for instance, would have proven that Victoria was alive. This is not a valid point. Proving that Victoria had been there would require DNA analysis. There is no evidence that there are samples of Victoria's DNA on file for the necessary comparison. Her fingerprints are on file. All that the hair would prove is that a woman had been in Fraser's bed. That is hardly exculpatory evidence unless the defense can prove who the woman was. As far as the prosecution is concerned, Victoria Metcalf is dead and her body was cremated. There's no possibility of a DNA comparison from that source to prove the truth of Fraser's story.
As for the fingerprints in Fraser's apartment, I think that if one were planning a set-up of this scale, as Victoria did, she would have been careful as to what she touched in the apartment and then she would have scrubbed those areas. The rest of the apartment would contain Fraser's and Ray's prints, as well as the paw prints. It would be a stretch for the defense to argue that certain areas of the apartment had been scrubbed of prints and therefore there must have been someone else in the apartment. They could argue it but they would lose.
All you need is a prima facie case to get to trial. They certainly had a lot more than that. Jolly is killed with Fraser's gun and he comes up with a story about some dead woman having been in his apartment. His best friend and he are passing marked money around. It may be dumb but it can't be ignored. Fraser spent time with the dead woman before turning her in so he had opportunity to find out where the money is. Fraser's cabin contains remnants of the marked bills from the robbery. Jolly has come looking for his share. Fraser is at the zoo when Jolly is killed.
I guess we can safely assume that since Victoria called Jolly from Ray's house twenty minutes before Ray and Fraser got to Jolly's hotel, she had probably planned to kill him at Ray's house. She hadn't counted on the good detective work on the part of Fraser and Ray.
Had Victoria's original plan gone into effect, Jolly may have been found dead in Ray's house. She might have had a little difficulty with alibis for Fraser and Ray. Maybe, she had another alternative up her sleeve, e.g., make sure that when she killed Jolly that Ray or Fraser were somewhere where she knew it would be hard to establish an alibi or better yet, shoot Jolly then call Ray quickly to come home.
The defense is that a dead woman did all of this and framed Fraser. Since the dead woman's body was cremated, this defense can't be proved. There are no traces of this woman's existence. Even if the defense can prove that a woman was in Fraser's bed, without a DNA comparison, they can't prove it was Victoria. The only proof would consist of a positive identification from the restaurant owner where he and Victoria had lunch. The prosecution would counter that okay she's not dead--they were in it together and now she has disappeared.
The strongest defense is that the acts of murder with your own gun and passing marked bills was so stupid that two cops would have known better. Shooting or not shooting your own dog would be risky in front of a jury. People mistreat their pets all the time.
All in all, the prosecution has a pretty good case against Fraser, one that cannot be ignored.