I have read the account on the MoJ site and find it persuasive. It annoys me considerably when I hear about important factors not being revealed at trials, and when police "overlook" what could be important evidence and we only hear one side of the story. Trials which rely on "circumstantial" evidence only are asking to be found dodgy.
As for newspaper reports, they are sometimes inaccurate, and often very one sided and sensationalised.
It seems that there is a lot we don't know about Samuel, and the life he led-----and, apparently, even Mark did not know a lot of this, Samuel had enemies: have these people been found and questioned???? There is a lot we don't know about where he went, whom he knew, and who might have had motive to murder him.
On the other hand, it is clear that Mark was badly treated by his father and this could well have provided him with a motive to murder. If it is true that he sent Christmas cards to people and signed them as being from Samuel, we need to know why he did this. If he told neighbours that Samuel was living in London , we need to know why he said this. Was he covering up a murder, or did he really believe this?
So, there is a lot more I need to read about this case, and I look forward to Daisy putting more questions to Mark.