UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Mark Alexander was in September 2010 convicted of the murder of his elderly reclusive father Samuel (70), an Egyptian-born former University lecturer. => Topic started by: Daisy on June 16, 2018, 08:53:33 AM
-
A website has just been launched for Mark. This has some of the information I have posted but also a lot more. Take a look if you are interested.
www.freemarkalexander.org
-
A website has just been launched for Mark. This has some of the information I have posted but also a lot more. Take a look if you are interested.
www.freemarkalexander.org
I'm afraid there isn't anything new in that website. The notion that some anonymous individual murdered Samuel Alexander at his home, stored the body in the garage for a period of time before attempting to cremate it and then had the sheer cheek to bury the remains alongside the garage with his son knowing about it is frankly preposterous but that is what Mark Alexander would have us believe.
In addition, he claims to have not visited the family home at key times offering only the defence that he was 50 miles away at university. One can cover that distance in a car in less than an hour so that excuse is pretty lame too.
The medical evidence and social services reports relating to Samuel Alexander are very worrying. He was not a well man, the claim that he had gone off to stay with friends in London is unsupported by any evidence. There is no paper trail relating to any alleged activities he might have been involved with. None of it adds up IMO.
The layers of concrete covering Samuel Alexanders body were nothing to do with any underpinning of the garage wall, this claim was merely an invention. The burial was amateurish, obviously been carried out covertly at night and undertaken on more than one occasion. The load of premix concrete which Mark Alexander ordered was simply an attempt to give legitimacy to what he had already done. No builders were involved in this work, this was yet another fabricated story.
I have seen nothing compelling in Mark's arguments, imo the jury was correct to convict him on the circumstantial evidence available to them.
-
I haven't a clue whether or not Mark murdered his father, but I am finding the new website interesting, and am wading through it when I have time!
-
A website has just been launched for Mark. This has some of the information I have posted but also a lot more. Take a look if you are interested.
www.freemarkalexander.org
Its all semantics, a jolly good chap and all that. Testimonials have no relevance whatsoever unless someone is claiming they were with Mark continuously.
Killing someone on the spur of the moment is all too common and does not discriminate between social classes or intelligence. I think it's time he came clean and admitted his guilt because if that website is anything to go by he isn't going anywhere.
-
I'm afraid there isn't anything new in that website. The notion that some anonymous individual murdered Samuel Alexander at his home, stored the body in the garage for a period of time before attempting to cremate it and then had the sheer cheek to bury the remains alongside the garage with his son knowing about it is frankly preposterous but that is what Mark Alexander would have us believe.
In addition, he claims to have not visited the family home at key times offering only the defence that he was 50 miles away at university. One can cover that distance in a car in less than an hour so that excuse is pretty lame too.
The medical evidence and social services reports relating to Samuel Alexander are very worrying. He was not a well man, the claim that he had gone off to stay with friends in London is unsupported by any evidence. There is no paper trail relating to any alleged activities he might have been involved with. None of it adds up IMO.
The layers of concrete covering Samuel Alexanders body were nothing to do with any underpinning of the garage wall, this claim was merely an invention. The burial was amateurish, obviously been carried out covertly at night and undertaken on more than one occasion. The load of premix concrete which Mark Alexander ordered was simply an attempt to give legitimacy to what he had already done. No builders were involved in this work, this was yet another fabricated story.
I have seen nothing compelling in Mark's arguments, imo the jury was correct to convict him on the circumstantial evidence available to them.
Just emailed you John so hadn’t looked on the thread. I must admit I am struggling to find concrete evidence of innocence (excuse the pun)! It is also true that a person’s intelligence or who they associate with has no bearing on innocence or guilt.
I can’t wait for the second part of Murder in Suburbia tonight regarding the case of Glyn Razell. I have no idea if he is guilty or not.
-
Just emailed you John so hadn’t looked on the thread. I must admit I am struggling to find concrete evidence of innocence (excuse the pun)! It is also true that a person’s intelligence or who they associate with has no bearing on innocence or guilt.
I can’t wait for the second part of Murder in Suburbia tonight regarding the case of Glyn Razell. I have no idea if he is guilty or not.
As stated at the very outset, I am more than prepared to give anyone the benefit of the doubt but in the end it is the facts and evidence that we have to go by. Mark might be innocent and the victim of a very sophisticated plot, he might well have the support and backing of his extended family, the circumstantial evidence however is extremely damning.
-
The new website is really well put together and I'm gradually working my way through all the information in there.
Some things that have occurred to me during my reading:
1) Mark isn't a DIY guy, he openly admits this but takes it upon himself to order and lay concrete. He says that his Dad had mentioned him doing it but does it seem likely that having found the job half done by someone else he would have ordered a different concrete and finished it off in an amateurish way. Would this likely get him back "in his good books?" It strikes me as an odd choice.
2) The body was burnt but there is no evidence at the house of any fire. How easy would it have been to have a fire there big enough to burn a body without a) any neighbours noticing b) leaving no trace of it afterwards? Unless he burnt the body else where but then when that doesn't work he brings him back to bury him? That doesn't make sense to me either.
3) If the prosecution's timeline is demonstrably incorrect doesn't that also make accounting for Mark's movements during this time also slightly irrelevant to his cause?
4) Mark's Mum is convinced he is being framed but the risks involved in burying him at the property, where neighbours could be witnesses, to set up Mark seem quite extreme risks to take. Unless the point of the murder in the first place was to implicate Mark, which seems unlikely.
I think I sway in favour of guilty I'm afraid but I'm not 100% sure.
EDIT: Sorry this post is a bit of a ramble but I'd been reading the website for a while and my thoughts were a bit unstructured.
-
The new website is really well put together and I'm gradually working my way through all the information in there.
Some things that have occurred to me during my reading:
1) Mark isn't a DIY guy, he openly admits this but takes it upon himself to order and lay concrete. He says that his Dad had mentioned him doing it but does it seem likely that having found the job half done by someone else he would have ordered a different concrete and finished it off in an amateurish way. Would this likely get him back "in his good books?" It strikes me as an odd choice.
2) The body was burnt but there is no evidence at the house of any fire. How easy would it have been to have a fire there big enough to burn a body without a) any neighbours noticing b) leaving no trace of it afterwards? Unless he burnt the body else where but then when that doesn't work he brings him back to bury him? That doesn't make sense to me either.
3) If the prosecution's timeline is demonstrably incorrect doesn't that also make accounting for Mark's movements during this time also slightly irrelevant to his cause?
4) Mark's Mum is convinced he is being framed but the risks involved in burying him at the property, where neighbours could be witnesses, to set up Mark seem quite extreme risks to take. Unless the point of the murder in the first place was to implicate Mark, which seems unlikely.
I think I sway in favour of guilty I'm afraid but I'm not 100% sure.
EDIT: Sorry this post is a bit of a ramble but I'd been reading the website for a while and my thoughts were a bit unstructured.
Hi Baz
Thank you for your comments. The website has a contact page so you can ask them any questions you wish. Maybe they will come back with some answers for you.
-
The new website is really well put together and I'm gradually working my way through all the information in there.
Some things that have occurred to me during my reading:
1) Mark isn't a DIY guy, he openly admits this but takes it upon himself to order and lay concrete. He says that his Dad had mentioned him doing it but does it seem likely that having found the job half done by someone else he would have ordered a different concrete and finished it off in an amateurish way. Would this likely get him back "in his good books?" It strikes me as an odd choice.
2) The body was burnt but there is no evidence at the house of any fire. How easy would it have been to have a fire there big enough to burn a body without a) any neighbours noticing b) leaving no trace of it afterwards? Unless he burnt the body else where but then when that doesn't work he brings him back to bury him? That doesn't make sense to me either.
3) If the prosecution's timeline is demonstrably incorrect doesn't that also make accounting for Mark's movements during this time also slightly irrelevant to his cause?
4) Mark's Mum is convinced he is being framed but the risks involved in burying him at the property, where neighbours could be witnesses, to set up Mark seem quite extreme risks to take. Unless the point of the murder in the first place was to implicate Mark, which seems unlikely.
I think I sway in favour of guilty I'm afraid but I'm not 100% sure.
EDIT: Sorry this post is a bit of a ramble but I'd been reading the website for a while and my thoughts were a bit unstructured.
Excellent points Baz. The entire story about ordering and laying concrete over the grave is clearly a concoction and a poor one at that. Little wonder that the driver of the lorry was of the opinion that Mark was well out of his depth and didn't really know what he was doing.
The point you make about burning the body in the garden is a valid one. No doubt this was carried out somewhere else where the chances of being disturbed were remote, the remains being brought back out of guilt possibly. I don't think a stranger would have gone to such bother.
The question also arises imo as to whether more than one person was involved in the attempt to hide the body?
-
He may not have been murdered at his home but else where... and the body burning may have been botched so it was brought back to the house for the body to be concealed forever?
-
Any more updates Daisy?
-
Any more updates Daisy?
Nothing much at the moment. Mark’s lawyers are working on his CCRC application which should be ready by the end of the year.
-
Nothing much at the moment. Mark’s lawyers are working on his CCRC application which should be ready by the end of the year.
So which issues are they relying on?
-
So which issues are they relying on?
I imagine most of it is kept under wraps. However I understand there is a lot more information on Mark’s website. Documents are available to download for a small fee. I think one of the issues is a meeting Sami had with the medical profession a couple of weeks after the police said he was dead.
-
Just wanted to advise you that you won’t get anymore updates on Mark from me as I no longer want any contact with him. I feel I have been conned again and I don’t know why I didn’t listen to you all when you said I was wasting my time.
Mark asked me to help with some research in the summer. This involved me sending away for documents costing £12 each. I spent over £80 on these. Then in October it was Mark’s birthday so I sent him a cheque but have had no acknowledgment at all. The research was passed to me from one of Mark’s friend who “didn’t have time” to do it.
I feel quite hurt that he has used me in this way and I think I have given him ample time to give me a quick ring or drop me a few lines to thank me. He may be intelligent but he certainly has no manners.
-
Just wanted to advise you that you won’t get anymore updates on Mark from me as I no longer want any contact with him. I feel I have been conned again and I don’t know why I didn’t listen to you all when you said I was wasting my time.
Mark asked me to help with some research in the summer. This involved me sending away for documents costing £12 each. I spent over £80 on these. Then in October it was Mark’s birthday so I sent him a cheque but have had no acknowledgment at all. The research was passed to me from one of Mark’s friend who “didn’t have time” to do it.
I feel quite hurt that he has used me in this way and I think I have given him ample time to give me a quick ring or drop me a few lines to thank me. He may be intelligent but he certainly has no manners.
Probably conniving would be a suitable adjective for him Daisy. As for being guilty or innocent, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
I am so sorry that all your efforts have been in vane, I'm quite sure you have thought long and hard before coming to this decision. You did some sterling work on his case and for that you must be applauded.
-
Probably conniving would be a suitable adjective for him Daisy. As for being guilty or innocent, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
I am so sorry that all your efforts have been in vane, I'm quite sure you have thought long and hard before coming to this decision. You did some sterling work on his case and for that you must be applauded.
Sorry everyone but I have gone back on my decision and will be maintaining contact with Mark. I was annoyed that he hadn’t replied to me and I now understand why. He has been busy sifting through information on his case. Two new witnesses have come forward with sightings of Sami after the date he allegedly died. This has obviously been Mark’s priority. I will provide more information when I am given it.
-
Just wanted to advise you that you won’t get anymore updates on Mark from me as I no longer want any contact with him. I feel I have been conned again and I don’t know why I didn’t listen to you all when you said I was wasting my time.
Mark asked me to help with some research in the summer. This involved me sending away for documents costing £12 each. I spent over £80 on these. Then in October it was Mark’s birthday so I sent him a cheque but have had no acknowledgment at all. The research was passed to me from one of Mark’s friend who “didn’t have time” to do it.
I feel quite hurt that he has used me in this way and I think I have given him ample time to give me a quick ring or drop me a few lines to thank me. He may be intelligent but he certainly has no manners.
The behaviour you describe is that of a con artist IMO Daisy.
Mark did indeed have ample time to give you a quick ring or drop you a few lines to thank you but he didn't.
-
Sorry everyone but I have gone back on my decision and will be maintaining contact with Mark. I was annoyed that he hadn’t replied to me and I now understand why. He has been busy sifting through information on his case. Two new witnesses have come forward with sightings of Sami after the date he allegedly died. This has obviously been Mark’s priority. I will provide more information when I am given it.
Theres no excusing Marks bad behaviour Daisy. IMO you need to be on your guard.
I suspect he got wind of your unhappiness and has contacted you with a piss poor excuse to ensure he keeps you on side.
It won't be long before he slips back to his usual bad behaviour.
-
Sorry everyone but I have gone back on my decision and will be maintaining contact with Mark. I was annoyed that he hadn’t replied to me and I now understand why. He has been busy sifting through information on his case. Two new witnesses have come forward with sightings of Sami after the date he allegedly died. This has obviously been Mark’s priority. I will provide more information when I am given it.
Btw Mark most probably knows the information contained within his case files inside out therefore WHY did he fail to thank you sooner?
Oh - and the "two new witnesses" won't have seen Marks father as he was already dead!
-
Btw Mark most probably knows the information contained within his case files inside out therefore WHY did he fail to thank you sooner?
Oh - and the "two new witnesses" won't have seen Marks father as he was already dead!
I would take this all with a very big pinch of salt. If he could lie about murdering his father he could lie about anything. The police will have interviewed all the neighbours in that street to find out if anyone saw Sami after he supposedly disappeared so two people claiming to have seen him now is just a little bit convenient given all the previous publicity. Or are these the people his son claimed he was meeting in London on his secret trip away in which he was invisible and didn't spend a penny?
-
I would take this all with a very big pinch of salt. If he could lie about murdering his father he could lie about anything. The police will have interviewed all the neighbours in that street to find out if anyone saw Sami after he supposedly disappeared so two people claiming to have seen him now is just a little bit convenient given all the previous publicity. Or are these the people his son claimed he was meeting in London on his secret trip away in which he was invisible and didn't spend a penny?
Have you seen all the footage regarding murderer and classic psychopath Chris Watts? There's quite a bit of footage online including his interviews with the FBI. He shows not one ounce of remorse after murdering his wife and 3 children!
So many of these cases are similar if for no other reason the person claiming innocence is a con artist and manages to continue duping others after their crimes. In the Chris Watts case his parents remain in denial not understanding how their son could do what he did.
-
Sorry everyone but I have gone back on my decision and will be maintaining contact with Mark. I was annoyed that he hadn’t replied to me and I now understand why. He has been busy sifting through information on his case. Two new witnesses have come forward with sightings of Sami after the date he allegedly died. This has obviously been Mark’s priority. I will provide more information when I am given it.
I'm still erring on the side of guilt with this one, Daisy, although prepared to be persuaded otherwise if new evidence surfaces. But I can't get my head around why Mark ordered such a large amount of concrete to cover yet more previously laid "underpinning" concrete, supposedly to stop roots undermining the garage wall, when the trees which were causing the problem had already been removed. Why not just backfill with the soil which had originally been in the hole, or barrow a few loads of gravel? from that large industrial-sized bag (shown in one of the photos) at the front of his house instead. The use of so much impenetrable concrete implies an intention that his father's remains would never be discovered.
Angelo suggested that all Sami's neighbours would have been interviewed, but the sightings, if true, could have been by anyone who didn't live nearby such as a delivery driver or dog walker.
https://twitter.com/ma_campaign (https://twitter.com/ma_campaign)
-
I would take this all with a very big pinch of salt. If he could lie about murdering his father he could lie about anything. The police will have interviewed all the neighbours in that street to find out if anyone saw Sami after he supposedly disappeared so two people claiming to have seen him now is just a little bit convenient given all the previous publicity. Or are these the people his son claimed he was meeting in London on his secret trip away in which he was invisible and didn't spend a penny?
Apparently someone came forward who worked for Sami. She said after his murder she contacted the police to say she worked there and also saw cleaners working at the house. The police never took a statement from her and there is no record of her in their files.
-
I'm still erring on the side of guilt with this one, Daisy, although prepared to be persuaded otherwise if new evidence surfaces. But I can't get my head around why Mark ordered such a large amount of concrete to cover yet more previously laid "underpinning" concrete, supposedly to stop roots undermining the garage wall, when the trees which were causing the problem had already been removed. Why not just backfill with the soil which had originally been in the hole, or barrow a few loads of gravel? from that large industrial-sized bag (shown in one of the photos) at the front of his house instead. The use of so much impenetrable concrete implies an intention that his father's remains would never be discovered.
Angelo suggested that all Sami's neighbours would have been interviewed, but the sightings, if true, could have been by anyone who didn't live nearby such as a delivery driver or dog walker.
https://twitter.com/ma_campaign (https://twitter.com/ma_campaign)
The entire story about underpinning the garage wall is a load of bollocks. As you state, his intention was to cover over his father's grave and by using a contractor he thought that would bring some legitimacy to his endeavours.
-
Apparently someone came forward who worked for Sami. She said after his murder she contacted the police to say she worked there and also saw cleaners working at the house. The police never took a statement from her and there is no record of her in their files.
The date of Sami's murder could not be established exactly so someone might well have seen him in the very early part of that timeline. Had someone seen him in the later part then that would be worth looking into because Mark claimed he had gone away. Sami's accounts showed no activity after a certain date except for the money which Mark helped himself to. If Sami was at home his utility bills would have indicated it. Neighbours are always aware of adjacent properties and would know if there were any lights on in the house or if there were any vehicle movements to and from it. As there wasn't then one can only come to one conclusion.
-
I'm still erring on the side of guilt with this one, Daisy, although prepared to be persuaded otherwise if new evidence surfaces. But I can't get my head around why Mark ordered such a large amount of concrete to cover yet more previously laid "underpinning" concrete, supposedly to stop roots undermining the garage wall, when the trees which were causing the problem had already been removed. Why not just backfill with the soil which had originally been in the hole, or barrow a few loads of gravel? from that large industrial-sized bag (shown in one of the photos) at the front of his house instead. The use of so much impenetrable concrete implies an intention that his father's remains would never be discovered.
Angelo suggested that all Sami's neighbours would have been interviewed, but the sightings, if true, could have been by anyone who didn't live nearby such as a delivery driver or dog walker.
https://twitter.com/ma_campaign (https://twitter.com/ma_campaign)
The comments on the Twitter account re witnesses alledgedly seeing Sami give Mark Alexander plausible deniability amd allow him to continue to maintain his innocence.
Daisy I urge you to watch some of the interviews and media footage regarding murderer Chris Watts. They'll give you some idea of what someone without a conscience looks and acts like.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cYhfJDIzifE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bGKj8BIUtTQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cfgdaW7V04s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIrN1TbQ6_A
-
The entire story about underpinning the garage wall is a load of bollocks. As you state, his intention was to cover over his father's grave and by using a contractor he thought that would bring some legitimacy to his endeavours.
I agree!
Something else that stands out to me in this case is how Mark argues about his father body not being dismembered?! http://www.freemarkalexander.org/myths/
Again I refer to the Chris Watts case and how he says "oh god no" in relation to when he's asked whether or not his daughters were still alive when he squeezed their tiny little bodies into the oil containers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuQu8SWOFr4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MgMRwCVjPpY
Mark appears to negate the fact his fathers body was dumped like trash and covered with cement. *&^^&
These are clear signs of pathogical thinking processes. Again I urge you to watch the FBI interviewing Chris Watts when he's asked if his daughters bodies would show signs of resuscitation etc..
-
I agree!
Something else that stands out to me in this case is how Mark argues about his father body not being dismembered?! http://www.freemarkalexander.org/myths/
Again I refer to the Chris Watts case and how he says "oh god no" in relation to when he's asked whether or not his daughters were still alive when he squeezed their tiny little bodies into the oil containers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuQu8SWOFr4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MgMRwCVjPpY
Mark appears to negate the fact his fathers body was dumped like trash and covered with cement. *&^^&
These are clear signs of pathogical thinking processes. Again I urge you to watch the FBI interviewing Chris Watts when he's asked if his daughters bodies would show signs of resuscitation etc..
Thank you Nicholas I will certainly watch the videos. I have never heard of this other case and maybe I will see some similarities.
-
Thank you Nicholas I will certainly watch the videos. I have never heard of this other case and maybe I will see some similarities.
The videos may be helpful? There's quite a few of them on you tube. There's one where his wife's best friend has phoned the police concerned for her friend Shannann's welfare. Chris Watts then turns up from work - the police have already arrived. There's also videos of his parents being interviewed and one where the FBI allows his father into the interview room to speak to his son.
IMO the videos will give you some idea of how "normal" many murderers can appear after committing the most unforgivable and heneous of crimes.
-
The classic psychopath in unable to show any empathy or remorse and will always attempt to blame others for their dastardly deeds.
-
https://twitter.com/MA_Campaign/status/1009520594977808387 (https://twitter.com/MA_Campaign/status/1009520594977808387)
But Mark didn't excavate 2 metric tonnes of soil and clay anyway, did he Daisy? The consultant who analysed the first three thin concrete layers, said they were professionally executed, so I presume the original hole was also dug by this mysterious building contractor, and not by Mark himself who was allegedly too busy with his studies in London?
The driver who delivered the last batch of concrete which Mark ordered must also have seen which area of the property he barrowed the full cubic metre to.
-
The classic psychopath in unable to show any empathy or remorse and will always attempt to blame others for their dastardly deeds.
This guy knew Chris Watts and his family for around 25 years and although he appears to pick up on sometching between son/mother he doesn't appear to have a clue of his friends darker side https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L6NvQYDVK7I This is how convincing pathological individuals can be.
-
A website has just been launched for Mark. This has some of the information I have posted but also a lot more. Take a look if you are interested.
www.freemarkalexander.org
"Mark Alexander finds himself in very tragic circumstances, having been wrongly convicted of his father’s murder in 2010 – while he was still at university. Mark has always maintained his innocence and both sides of his family support calls for his conviction to be overturned. We are extremely concerned that Mark was found guilty on the basis of doubt created about his version of events rather than any evidence of his involvement in a murder. No such evidence exists. There is no known cause, or date, of death – and there were no traces of DNA, blood, or even fingerprints linking Mark to the crime. Significant questions remain unanswered too about his father’s lifestyle. Those of us who know Mark, or have met him even once, will appreciate the absurdity of this situation; the weakness of the prosecution, and how the jury were misled during the trial."
Mark clearly uses manipulation and charm to pull the wool over people's eyes, especially given the fact it's stated on his website that after meeting him once people believe him innocent!
And by immediately pointing out "while he was still at university?" this statement alone strikes me as manipulative. Is this written to suggest university students don't commit murder? .
Why is Mark charging £1 to view the CCRC's statement of reasons? http://www.freemarkalexander.org/case-file/
-
On his website it is naively claimed that he couldn't have murdered his father as he was at university fifty miles away. The truth however is somewhat different. He could have driven back to the family home, killed his father, hidden the body and returned to his university lodgings at any time and nobody would have been any the wiser. He could thereafter have returned to bury the remains after attempting to cremate them.
The shallow grave in which Sami's remains were buried was covered by several layers of a mortar mix. This would indicate that he returned on several occasions to add multiple layers of mortar as he couldn't carry enough sand and cement in his vehicle to do the job in one go. The 'in full public view' final effort was a pathetic effort to cover over what has occurred previously.
No outsider/third party would have gone to such trouble had they killed Sami. Only someone like Mark with an insider knowledge of the property and of the neighbours could have managed to dig a grave and bury a body in such circumstances. Had he been discovered he had an excuse for being there.
The police are to be praised for uncovering Sami's body otherwise this killer might have gone free. I still see nothing which could by any stretch of the imagination be described as exculpatory evidence.
-
Theres no excusing Marks bad behaviour Daisy. IMO you need to be on your guard.
I suspect he got wind of your unhappiness and has contacted you with a piss poor excuse to ensure he keeps you on side.
It won't be long before he slips back to his usual bad behaviour.
You are spot on. His supporters regularly check this site and informed him I was unhappy that he failed to thank me for his birthday present. I will be posting a message direct to them as they are distorting everything which is posted on this site but they are not brave enough to post themselves and explain why they are supporting Mark and how they believe he is innocent. Disgraceful behaviour. I will be replying to Mark privately but they also failed to mention that everyone agrees that he is bad mannered and should have thanked me. It doesn't matter how busy you are, you should always find time to thank your friends for their presents. Eight weeks is unacceptable and he might as well not have bothered.
-
This is a message for Mark's friends who are snooping on this site and reporting distorted information back to Mark in order to make him angry. You are just after your own glory and are not genuine friends. Please join this forum and explain why you support him and give reasons for his innocence.
You are the same people who informed Mark (incorrectly) that I posted photos of Mark and his father on the forum. This was not me and I had a scathing letter from Mark demanding I remove them. Admin posted them and they were perfectly entitled to as these photos were already in the public domain and have been for some 10 years. I had to try and repair the damage with Mark as I felt he didn't trust me.
You have now tried to stir up trouble again by contacting Mark who has subsequently sent me the money for the work I did for him. I never at any time asked for money and was making the point that after doing the work and sending him a cheque for his birthday he seemed to have abandoned me. However, you failed to mention to him that everyone on here agreed with me and thought it was bad mannered of him not to thank me, or anyone else for that matter. We all lead busy lives but when someone gives you a present, you find the time to give them a ring or drop them a few lines. I bet you also failed to tell him that most of the members on here think he is guilty as did the jury. You are doing nothing but cause trouble and not giving Mark the full picture. However, you can rest assured that I will be.
-
This is a message for Mark's friends who are snooping on this site and reporting distorted information back to Mark in order to make him angry. You are just after your own glory and are not genuine friends. Please join this forum and explain why you support him and give reasons for his innocence.
You are the same people who informed Mark (incorrectly) that I posted photos of Mark and his father on the forum. This was not me and I had a scathing letter from Mark demanding I remove them. Admin posted them and they were perfectly entitled to as these photos were already in the public domain and have been for some 10 years. I had to try and repair the damage with Mark as I felt he didn't trust me.
You have now tried to stir up trouble again by contacting Mark who has subsequently sent me the money for the work I did for him. I never at any time asked for money and was making the point that after doing the work and sending him a cheque for his birthday he seemed to have abandoned me. However, you failed to mention to him that everyone on here agreed with me and thought it was bad mannered of him not to thank me, or anyone else for that matter. We all lead busy lives but when someone gives you a present, you find the time to give them a ring or drop them a few lines. I bet you also failed to tell him that most of the members on here think he is guilty as did the jury. You are doing nothing but cause trouble and not giving Mark the full picture. However, you can rest assured that I will be.
It sounds to me like Marks true colours are never far from the surface.
I wouldn't bother writing to him if I were you Daisy. Post whatever you have to say to him here and let someone else report back to him.
-
This is a message for Mark's friends who are snooping on this site and reporting distorted information back to Mark in order to make him angry. You are just after your own glory and are not genuine friends. Please join this forum and explain why you support him and give reasons for his innocence.
You are the same people who informed Mark (incorrectly) that I posted photos of Mark and his father on the forum. This was not me and I had a scathing letter from Mark demanding I remove them. Admin posted them and they were perfectly entitled to as these photos were already in the public domain and have been for some 10 years. I had to try and repair the damage with Mark as I felt he didn't trust me.
You have now tried to stir up trouble again by contacting Mark who has subsequently sent me the money for the work I did for him. I never at any time asked for money and was making the point that after doing the work and sending him a cheque for his birthday he seemed to have abandoned me. However, you failed to mention to him that everyone on here agreed with me and thought it was bad mannered of him not to thank me, or anyone else for that matter. We all lead busy lives but when someone gives you a present, you find the time to give them a ring or drop them a few lines. I bet you also failed to tell him that most of the members on here think he is guilty as did the jury. You are doing nothing but cause trouble and not giving Mark the full picture. However, you can rest assured that I will be.
Sorry I missed this Daisy, however yet another red flag and suggestive of a controlling nature.
-
This is a message for Mark's friends who are snooping on this site and reporting distorted information back to Mark in order to make him angry. You are just after your own glory and are not genuine friends. Please join this forum and explain why you support him and give reasons for his innocence.
You are the same people who informed Mark (incorrectly) that I posted photos of Mark and his father on the forum. This was not me and I had a scathing letter from Mark demanding I remove them. Admin posted them and they were perfectly entitled to as these photos were already in the public domain and have been for some 10 years. I had to try and repair the damage with Mark as I felt he didn't trust me.
You have now tried to stir up trouble again by contacting Mark who has subsequently sent me the money for the work I did for him. I never at any time asked for money and was making the point that after doing the work and sending him a cheque for his birthday he seemed to have abandoned me. However, you failed to mention to him that everyone on here agreed with me and thought it was bad mannered of him not to thank me, or anyone else for that matter. We all lead busy lives but when someone gives you a present, you find the time to give them a ring or drop them a few lines. I bet you also failed to tell him that most of the members on here think he is guilty as did the jury. You are doing nothing but cause trouble and not giving Mark the full picture. However, you can rest assured that I will be.
Did Mark pay you back out of his own money or give you back the money you sent him as a gift? Either way I very much doubt you were paid back by Mark. Wouldn't surprise me to learn he used someone else's money.
-
On his website it is naively claimed that he couldn't have murdered his father as he was at university fifty miles away. The truth however is somewhat different. He could have driven back to the family home, killed his father, hidden the body and returned to his university lodgings at any time and nobody would have been any the wiser. He could thereafter have returned to bury the remains after attempting to cremate them.
The shallow grave in which Sami's remains were buried was covered by several layers of a mortar mix. This would indicate that he returned on several occasions to add multiple layers of mortar as he couldn't carry enough sand and cement in his vehicle to do the job in one go. The 'in full public view' final effort was a pathetic effort to cover over what has occurred previously.
No outsider/third party would have gone to such trouble had they killed Sami. Only someone like Mark with an insider knowledge of the property and of the neighbours could have managed to dig a grave and bury a body in such circumstances. Had be been discovered he had an excuse for being there.
The police are to be praised for uncovering Sami's body otherwise this killer might have gone free. I still see nothing which could by any stretch of the imagination be described as exculpatory evidence.
I concur!
-
Did Mark pay you back out of his own money or give you back the money you sent him as a gift? Either way I very much doubt you were paid back by Mark. Wouldn't surprise me to learn he used someone else's money.
Mark sent me cash in the post so who knows where it came from.
-
Mark sent me cash in the post so who knows where it came from.
I imagine he didn't like the fact you'd posted the following; in particular where you've said "I feel I've been conned again"
Just wanted to advise you that you won’t get anymore updates on Mark from me as I no longer want any contact with him. I feel I have been conned again and I don’t know why I didn’t listen to you all when you said I was wasting my time.
Mark asked me to help with some research in the summer. This involved me sending away for documents costing £12 each. I spent over £80 on these. Then in October it was Mark’s birthday so I sent him a cheque but have had no acknowledgment at all. The research was passed to me from one of Mark’s friend who “didn’t have time” to do it.
I feel quite hurt that he has used me in this way and I think I have given him ample time to give me a quick ring or drop me a few lines to thank me. He may be intelligent but he certainly has no manners.
Sounds to me like he's attempting to save face.
There's no doubt Mark Alexander is a con artist Daisy and again if I were you I'd remain guarded. Those people who are supporting him, including family members, are quite clearly in denial about his crimes.
It's a shame he doesn't have the courage to own up to murdering his father Sami but many of these pathological individuals are cowards.
-
Mark states:
"I revered my father. It was a relationship of respect but also one based on fear. I was scared of him and what he was capable of, as so many people were. It was a fear that had been instilled in me as a child through discipline, threats and punishment. It was his way of bringing me up and conditioning me with a set of principles and ideals that would set me in good stead for life. It isn’t fair to say I was unhappy as a child – I didn’t know any better – but I knew somehow we were different.
If things were done his way he was a charming man to be around, but everyone seemed to fall short of his expectations at some point and he would unleash fury and spite onto them. Like any son, I learnt to understand him, how to mediate with him and appeal to his nature. Patience, flexibility and an appreciation for his perspective were key to this. I learnt to value these qualities, to be sensitive and respectful of the individual. We simply cannot afford not to be. Life thrusts all kinds of people together, we have to understand tolerance if we are to get by at all.
Ultimately, my upbringing made me who I am today and I can only be grateful for that. It was an environment where the incentive to achieve drove me to excel.
All very telling and why in the end Mark chose to murder his father.
I don't believe he's "sensitive and respectful" or "understands tolerance" at all. I think he's a cold and callous individual who attempts to hide behind a mask of sanity.
He may have fooled a few people but he didn't fool the police nor the courts.
-
This is a message for Mark's friends who are snooping on this site and reporting distorted information back to Mark in order to make him angry. You are just after your own glory and are not genuine friends. Please join this forum and explain why you support him and give reasons for his innocence.
You are the same people who informed Mark (incorrectly) that I posted photos of Mark and his father on the forum. This was not me and I had a scathing letter from Mark demanding I remove them. Admin posted them and they were perfectly entitled to as these photos were already in the public domain and have been for some 10 years. I had to try and repair the damage with Mark as I felt he didn't trust me.
You have now tried to stir up trouble again by contacting Mark who has subsequently sent me the money for the work I did for him. I never at any time asked for money and was making the point that after doing the work and sending him a cheque for his birthday he seemed to have abandoned me. However, you failed to mention to him that everyone on here agreed with me and thought it was bad mannered of him not to thank me, or anyone else for that matter. We all lead busy lives but when someone gives you a present, you find the time to give them a ring or drop them a few lines. I bet you also failed to tell him that most of the members on here think he is guilty as did the jury. You are doing nothing but cause trouble and not giving Mark the full picture. However, you can rest assured that I will be.
Seems to me you fell short of Marks expectations. As he projects on his website - "if things were done his way he was a charming man to be around, but everyone seemed to fall short of his expectations at some point and he would unleash fury and spite onto them."
His 'supporters' aren't to blame for his behaviour Daisy, he's manipulated them to do his bidding.
-
More photos of the house, grounds and crime scene... http://www.freemarkalexander.org/gallery/ (http://www.freemarkalexander.org/gallery/)
If he was worried about the whereabouts of Sami for several weeks, did Mark not think to search the garage just in case he'd locked himself in and couldn't get out ? According to the text under the garage door photo, Sami's body had been stored there for a period before burial.
-
There was nothing to stop Mark moving his dad's body at nightfall on such a sparsely populated estate, and if anyone did spot what they thought could be suspicious they would be none the wiser if Sami was already wrapped up in plastic bags or sheeting... no different to seeing a bundled-up carpet being dragged into, or out from storage.
-
Or Sami's body could have been carried / dragged from the house where he met his fate via the side door facing the back garden which was sheltered from prying eyes (see overhead photos), to the white garage door, then stored inside until the burial site had been prepared to receive him.
-
The police will have interviewed all the neighbors in that street to find out if anyone saw Sami after he supposedly disappeared so two people claiming to have seen him now is just a little bit convenient given all the previous publicity. Or are these the people his son claimed he was meeting in London on his secret trip away in which he was invisible and didn't spend a penny?
The latest sighting comes from a witness statement taken on 22 February 2010 which has been tucked away in the list of non-material statements all this time. Unfortunately, Mark's legal team missed it at trial, and we have only got hold of it now. The witness was the neighborhood watch coordinator at the time, and said that
"I caught a fleeting glimpse of Sami in front of his driveway, he was alone and I said good morning, he did not respond to this. He was in my view for only a couple of seconds, but I am 100% certain it was Sami... I am 80% certain it was... either on Sunday 11 October or Sunday 18 October".
This is now the second confirmed independent sighting of Sami alive after 5 September, the first being the meeting that he is recorded as having with Peoples' Voices (a charity contracted by Buckinghamshire County Council) on 8 September.
-
But I can't get my head around why Mark ordered such a large amount of concrete to cover yet more previously laid "underpinning" concrete, supposedly to stop roots undermining the garage wall, when the trees which were causing the problem had already been removed. Why not just backfill with the soil which had originally been in the hole, or barrow a few loads of gravel? from that large industrial-sized bag (shown in one of the photos) at the front of his house instead. The use of so much impenetrable concrete implies an intention that his father's remains would never be discovered.
This wasn't an isolated work area, there are two other sites just like the one where Sami was found (http://www.freemarkalexander.org/gallery/). These were installed using the same methodology, following the removal of trees.
We have a copy of Sami's original planning application for the area where he was later found:
"When the house was built in 1986 the lime trees were much smaller than they are now and the builders had no idea what distance to allow. 17 years on, the trees now pose a visible threat to the foundations of both the house and the garage"
Mark believes that the construction site was used opportunistically by those responsible for his father's death, because the work was happening around the same time.
-
And by immediately pointing out "while he was still at university?" this statement alone strikes me as manipulative. Is this written to suggest university students don't commit murder?
Mark was barely 22 when this awful event occurred. The fact that he was at university establishes both lack of motive (he was due to move out in September 2009, so if he wanted to get away from home as the prosecution suggested all he had to do was wait; it doesn't make sense for him to throw his life away like this), and a strong alibi (Mark was living with his partner who recalled that they spent every night together).
Why is Mark charging £1 to view the CCRC's statement of reasons? http://www.freemarkalexander.org/case-file/
This is both a legal measure and a security measure. The documents are made available subject to Licence Terms, which are only enforceable if a valid contract has been made. The rate of £1 was set by our site technician to cover transactional and administrative costs, so we are reliant on him for this.
-
On his website it is naively claimed that he couldn't have murdered his father as he was at university fifty miles away. The truth however is somewhat different. He could have driven back to the family home, killed his father, hidden the body and returned to his university lodgings at any time and nobody would have been any the wiser. He could thereafter have returned to bury the remains after attempting to cremate them.
The prosecution ruled this possibility out themselves when they established the chronology at trial. Mark could not have driven anywhere without being picked up by ANPR cameras. The police retrieved all the local taxi journals and were able to identify any occassions on which Mark travelled by train and taxi. Mark's defence team have painstakingly retraced his steps between September and December 2009, and there is strong alibi evidence. Mark simply wasn't in the vicinity of Drayton Parslow anywhere near long enough to carry out the crime.
Only someone like Mark with an insider knowledge of the property and of the neighbours could have managed to dig a grave and bury a body in such circumstances. Had he been discovered he had an excuse for being there.
The question perhaps then, is who else had this kind of knowledge and access? Where are the four individuals who were working for Sami, in his home, at the time? Employed on recommendation, paid in cash, these individuals were not working for an agency, and had not been vetted. They were able to avoid registering with the authorities because of Sami's benefit scam. These were people who the neighbours would have been used to seeing coming and going as well.
What about the long list of individuals Sami was in contact with online and on his mobile, but who the police could not identify or trace? What about the victims of Sami's fraud?
-
There was nothing to stop Mark moving his dad's body at nightfall on such a sparsely populated estate
Mark's movements show that he was never at the house any later than about 19:00, because he always travelled back to London after a visit. He never spent the night in Drayton Parslow between September to December 2009 because he was at university, living in London with his then girlfriend. She testified that they slept every night together and that he never stayed away anywhere else.
-
Fact checker why didn't Mark phone his father when he was in Moscow in the December or buy him a gift/souvenir? https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=229 (https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=229)
But send the neighbours Christmas cards from the both of them!
"His son Mark, 22, had told his girlfriend and social services he was in regular contact with his father. *&^^&
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-10778640 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-10778640)
-
Mark was barely 22 when this awful event occurred. The fact that he was at university establishes both lack of motive (he was due to move out in September 2009, so if he wanted to get away from home as the prosecution suggested all he had to do was wait; it doesn't make sense for him to throw his life away like this), and a strong alibi (Mark was living with his partner who recalled that they spent every night together).
"Samuel kept himself and his son apart. The picture is of the father and son living together in this house, more or less isolated from those who lived around and about him," Mr Price added. He said Mark commuted to lectures in London, caring for his "cantankerous" and "difficult" father, who had had a colostomy bag fitted in 2008.
Mr Alexander regularly boasted about Mark's academic achievements and intended for him to study at the University of Paris Sorbonne as part of his degree, without knowing that his son had no plans to take up the placement. Mr Price said: "The degree of control he exercised over his son, Mark, was disapproved of by others who observed it, and was resented by others whom it affected directly.
"For example, Senta Nazarbekova [Mark's girlfriend] described what she saw of the father-and-son relationship and how, as it seemed to her, Mark struggled under the weight of his father's expectations and his control of him. On the face of this, it seems Mark did not, or possibly could not, resist. To Samuel, Mark would have appeared every inch the dutiful and obedient son."
In September last year, however, Mark moved with Ms Nazarbekova to a flat in Fleet Street, central London, and told his tutors he could not go to France because his father was bed-bound. The prosecution alleges that it was likely by this time that Mr Alexander had already been killed.
During questioning by police, the accused insisted that his father was still alive. He claimed he had last seen him just before Christmas last year and his father was then living in a Christian community in London.
Mark Alexander denies murdering his father between 20 August 2009 and 5 February this year. He also denies unlawfully disposing of his body and two charges of perverting justice, by lying about his father's wellbeing and by dismembering his body and burying it in the garden.
-
Mark's movements show that he was never at the house any later than about 19:00, because he always travelled back to London after a visit. He never spent the night in Drayton Parslow between September to December 2009 because he was at university, living in London with his then girlfriend. She testified that they slept every night together and that he never stayed away anywhere else.
Sami may well have been dead by the time he moved in with his then girlfriend.
-
The latest sighting comes from a witness statement taken on 22 February 2010 which has been tucked away in the list of non-material statements all this time. Unfortunately, Mark's legal team missed it at trial, and we have only got hold of it now. The witness was the neighborhood watch coordinator at the time, and said that
"I caught a fleeting glimpse of Sami in front of his driveway, he was alone and I said good morning, he did not respond to this. He was in my view for only a couple of seconds, but I am 100% certain it was Sami... I am 80% certain it was... either on Sunday 11 October or Sunday 18 October".
This is now the third independent sighting of Sami alive after 5 September, the first being the meeting that he is recorded as having with Peoples' Voices (a charity contracted by Buckinghamshire County Council) on 8 September, the second being the disputed sighting by a neighbor of Mark and Sami working together on 1 October.
This isn't the first murder case where witnesses have been mistaken with dates and times and sightings
-
This wasn't an isolated work area, there are two other sites just like the one where Sami was found (http://www.freemarkalexander.org/gallery/). These were installed using the same methodology, following the removal of trees.
We have a copy of Sami's original planning application for the area where he was later found:
"When the house was built in 1986 the lime trees were much smaller than they are now and the builders had no idea what distance to allow. 17 years on, the trees now pose a visible threat to the foundations of both the house and the garage"
Mark believes that the construction site was used opportunistically by those responsible for his father's death, because the work was happening around the same time.
Marks a proven liar!
-
This is both a legal measure and a security measure. The documents are made available subject to Licence Terms, which are only enforceable if a valid contract has been made.
Ha ha
It's a way of making money
There's no reason to charge £1 for the CCRC statement of reasons!
-
Mark's movements show that he was never at the house any later than about 19:00, because he always travelled back to London after a visit. He never spent the night in Drayton Parslow between September to December 2009 because he was at university, living in London with his then girlfriend. She testified that they slept every night together and that he never stayed away anywhere else.
Her testimony doesn't make it true.
-
The latest sighting comes from a witness statement taken on 22 February 2010 which has been tucked away in the list of non-material statements all this time. Unfortunately, Mark's legal team missed it at trial, and we have only got hold of it now. The witness was the neighborhood watch coordinator at the time, and said that
"I caught a fleeting glimpse of Sami in front of his driveway, he was alone and I said good morning, he did not respond to this. He was in my view for only a couple of seconds, but I am 100% certain it was Sami... I am 80% certain it was... either on Sunday 11 October or Sunday 18 October".
This is now the third independent sighting of Sami alive after 5 September, the first being the meeting that he is recorded as having with Peoples' Voices (a charity contracted by Buckinghamshire County Council) on 8 September, the second being the disputed sighting by a neighbor of Mark and Sami working together on 1 October.
I fail to see the relevance as to when Sami was killed whether it be September or October.
-
Her testimony doesn't make it true.
Why did she dump him and close her justice for Mark Facebook account?
-
The prosecution ruled this possibility out themselves when they established the chronology at trial. Mark could not have driven anywhere without being picked up by ANPR cameras. The police retrieved all the local taxi journals and were able to identify any occassions on which Mark travelled by train and taxi. Mark's defence team have painstakingly retraced his steps between September and December 2009, and there is strong alibi evidence. Mark simply wasn't in the vicinity of Drayton Parslow anywhere near long enough to carry out the crime.
If Mark Alexander killed his father, removed the body to another location where he attempted to burn it before returning it back to the family home for burial then he used a vehicle to carry out these movements. Consequently the claim that had he used a car or some other means of transport he would have been seen falls by the wayside.
-
Two more 2010 news reports. Make of them what you will...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkw6e4ScoMY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkw6e4ScoMY)
https://youtu.be/u38H89FuPNM?t=317 (https://youtu.be/u38H89FuPNM?t=317)
-
Two more 2010 news reports. Make of them what you will...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkw6e4ScoMY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkw6e4ScoMY)
https://youtu.be/u38H89FuPNM?t=317 (https://youtu.be/u38H89FuPNM?t=317)
Thank you for these links. I have never seen these before. Mark sounds very unemotional. The new information which has been made public will not, in my opinion, be enough to refer this case back to the court of appeal.
-
Thank you for these links. I have never seen these before. Mark sounds very unemotional. The new information which has been made public will not, in my opinion, be enough to refer this case back to the court of appeal.
Definately not Daisy!
-
Thank you for these links. I have never seen these before. Mark sounds very unemotional. The new information which has been made public will not, in my opinion, be enough to refer this case back to the court of appeal.
Definately not Daisy!
Neither have I, Daisy. Mark's three week holiday in Russia, Christmas 2009/10 with girlfriend Senta is very telling. No souvenir to be bought for his father and no phone calls home either throughout their stay according to Senta's testimony. Mark must have thought that ringing him would be pointless because he knew Sami was three feet under...
https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=410 (https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=410)
-
Neither have I, Daisy. Mark's three week holiday in Russia, Christmas 2009/10 with girlfriend Senta is very telling. No souvenir to be bought for his father and no phone calls home either throughout their stay according to Senta's testimony. Mark must have thought that ringing him would be pointless because he knew Sami was three feet under...
https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=410 (https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=410)
And again, Mark claimed Sami was "bed bound" so WHY send out Christmas cards to the neighbours but not phone his father from Moscow?
WHY was Mark thinking of the neighbours but NOT thinking of his frail father at this time?
-
You are spot on. His supporters regularly check this site and informed him I was unhappy that he failed to thank me for his birthday present. I will be posting a message direct to them as they are distorting everything which is posted on this site but they are not brave enough to post themselves and explain why they are supporting Mark and how they believe he is innocent. Disgraceful behaviour. I will be replying to Mark privately but they also failed to mention that everyone agrees that he is bad mannered and should have thanked me. It doesn't matter how busy you are, you should always find time to thank your friends for their presents. Eight weeks is unacceptable and he might as well not have bothered.
Bit like when Mark didn't bother contacting his father, as per the evidence of his then girlfriend during his trial, for 3 weeks when he was away in Moscow. Incidentally what are the dates he was out of the country?
-
Neither have I, Daisy. Mark's three week holiday in Russia, Christmas 2009/10 with girlfriend Senta is very telling. No souvenir to be bought for his father and no phone calls home either throughout their stay according to Senta's testimony. Mark must have thought that ringing him would be pointless because he knew Sami was three feet under...
https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=410 (https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=410)
Here is the answer to the first question
Why did Mark lie when he claimed that his father was living with friends in London?
?
I still hadn’t heard from dad when I came home in the New Year only to find the house empty, and I wasn’t getting any answer to my calls or texts. I had no real notion of where my father actually was by this point and when the neighbours told me they hadn’t seen him either I came to my own, albeit naive conclusions.
Mark Alexander is far from naive!
-
Fact checker why didn't Mark phone his father when he was in Moscow in the December or buy him a gift/souvenir? https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=229 (https://youtu.be/hBtuFEB2ezA?t=229)
Hi there, thanks for sharing this interesting report from the trial. Police analysis of Mark's phone shows that Mark made 19 attempted calls to his father between September 2009 and the day of his arrest. This included a call on Christmas day from Prague, at 00:09, and a text message on his arrival at Heathrow Terminal 5 at 12:35 on his return to England on 11 January 2010. You'll note from the report that Mark had a habit of speaking to his father in private, so this would explain why his girlfriend wasn't aware about the call or the text.
Mark and his father were Coptic Christians. Copts celebrate Christmas in January, not December. As a strict Orthodox, Mark's father did not subscribe to Western traditions of celebrating Christmas. So, for example, he would never put up Christmas decorations, buy a Christmas tree, or exchange presents with people. This is why Mark didn't buy him a present, and in fact had never bought him a Christmas present in his life.
-
If Mark Alexander killed his father, removed the body to another location where he attempted to burn it before returning it back to the family home for burial then he used a vehicle to carry out these movements. Consequently the claim that had he used a car or some other means of transport he would have been seen falls by the wayside.
There is no evidence for this at all. It would have required Mark to for example, rent a vehicle, and that would leave a record trail. No such trail exists, because he didn't use any other vehicle. We agree with you though, it makes sense that whoever was reponsible used a vehicle. It just wasn't Mark.
We can all sit down and think of alternative explanations when the evidence doesn't fit the current theory, but this doesn't get us anywhere without proof. The risk we take by doing this is falling into the trap that the police fell into, which is one of tunnel vision, fitting the evidence to the suspect. But when all the evidence starts to fall apart, instead of trying to make up some other theory, shouldn't we instead be asking whether we might have got the wrong guy in the first place? The refusal to accept that a terrible mistake may have occurred here seems worringly familiar, it's exactly what criminal justice agencies have done time and again in the worst miscarriages of justice.
-
Her testimony doesn't make it true.
Is this because it doesn't suit your current theory? If we looked at all the evidence in this light our justice system would be in a very worrying place. We need to be willing to accept that our preconceptions about this case might be wrong, because if we don't, we risk condemning all victims of miscarriages of justice to a perpetuity in prison.
-
Mark sounds very unemotional.
This phone call wasn't made with the knowledge of his father's death, so people are only ascribing a 'lack of emotion' to it now because they think he did know. This is an easy mistake to make, but if they're wrong, then this interpretation is baseless, because what reason would he have had to be 'emotional' if he believed his father was alive? Listen to it again with this in mind and see what you think. It requires a different perspective.
Best wishes for Christmas folks, we'll pick things up again in the New Year.
-
Hi there, thanks for sharing this interesting report from the trial. Police analysis of Mark's phone shows that Mark made 19 attempted calls to his father between September 2009 and the day of his arrest. This included a call on Christmas day from Prague, at 00:09, and a text message on his arrival at Heathrow Terminal 5 at 12:35 on his return to England on 11 January 2010. You'll note from the report that Mark had a habit of speaking to his father in private, so this would explain why his girlfriend wasn't aware about the call or the text.
Mark and his father were Coptic Christians. Copts celebrate Christmas in January, not December. As a strict Orthodox, Mark's father did not subscribe to Western traditions of celebrating Christmas. So, for example, he would never put up Christmas decorations, buy a Christmas tree, or exchange presents with people. This is why Mark didn't buy him a present, and in fact had never bought him a Christmas present in his life.
You've moved the goal posts regarding telephone calls. However what's dates did Mark go to Moscow and return?
And what time are you using for the ATTEMPTED alleged single telephone call to his father on Christmas Day? Moscow or UK?
So as a "Coptic Christian" why did Mark send Christmas cards to the neighbours.and sign his fathers name?
Btw a text message isn't the same as a telephone call
-
This phone call wasn't made with the knowledge of his father's death, so people are only ascribing a 'lack of emotion' to it now because they think he did know. This is an easy mistake to make, but if they're wrong, then this interpretation is baseless, because what reason would he have had to be 'emotional' if he believed his father was alive? Listen to it again with this in mind and see what you think. It requires a different perspective.
Best wishes for Christmas folks, we'll pick things up again in the New Year.
I wasn't referring to the phone call but the police questions. If someone asked me if I had killed my father I would be highly emotional & strongly emphasis I had nothing to do with it. I would cry as well. He simply replied "no I didn't" There was no emotion there. I suggest you listen to it again and ask yourself is this the reaction of an innocent man.
-
Mark and his father were Coptic Christians. Copts celebrate Christmas in January, not December. As a strict Orthodox, Mark's father did not subscribe to Western traditions of celebrating Christmas. So, for example, he would never put up Christmas decorations, buy a Christmas tree, or exchange presents with people. This is why Mark didn't buy him a present, and in fact had never bought him a Christmas present in his life.
Why then did he send Christmas cards to neighbours signing his fathers name?
-
We can all sit down and think of alternative explanations when the evidence doesn't fit the current theory, but this doesn't get us anywhere without proof. The risk we take by doing this is falling into the trap that the police fell into, which is one of tunnel vision, fitting the evidence to the suspect. But when all the evidence starts to fall apart, instead of trying to make up some other theory, shouldn't we instead be asking whether we might have got the wrong guy in the first place? The refusal to accept that a terrible mistake may have occurred here seems worringly familiar, it's exactly what criminal justice agencies have done time and again in the worst miscarriages of justice.
The evidence does fit the current theory and there is strong circumstantial evidence that points to Mark.
Why do you claim the police had tunnel vision?
What evidence are you claiming is falling apart?
I'm not sure what you mean by worryingly familiar? What are you suggesting the criminal justice agencies have done in this case?
-
Is this because it doesn't suit your current theory? If we looked at all the evidence in this light our justice system would be in a very worrying place. We need to be willing to accept that our preconceptions about this case might be wrong, because if we don't, we risk condemning all victims of miscarriages of justice to a perpetuity in prison.
What preconceptions are you referring to?
-
I wasn't referring to the phone call but the police questions. If someone asked me if I had killed my father I would be highly emotional & strongly emphasis I had nothing to do with it. I would cry as well. He simply replied "no I didn't" There was no emotion there. I suggest you listen to it again and ask yourself is this the reaction of an innocent man.
That's what I thought too... so deadpan as if he'd realised his plan had been rumbled and was accepting his fate. And like you, if I definitely had nothing to do with my father's death, I'd be protesting such in no uncertain terms to that officer... fuming and probably banging on the table as well! The second answer he gave to dismemberment could be truthful in an odd sort of way, because if Sami's body had become mummified and dried up whilst stored in the garage, carrying, then positioning it at the burial site might result in parts of it dropping off. As opposed to dissecting the body using a knife, axe or saw, unless there was evidence of this in a pathology report we aren't privy to.
https://youtu.be/u38H89FuPNM?t=549 (https://youtu.be/u38H89FuPNM?t=549)
Hint: Hit F5 to repeat.
-
To mitigate on behalf of Mark for a moment, his weird upbringing by his father probably moulded the character he became.
-
To mitigate on behalf of Mark for a moment, his weird upbringing by his father probably moulded the character he became.
A combination of Victor Meldrew and the dad from hell... but that doesn't mean he deserved burying under two and a half tons of concrete.
-
What do you think about this weird case, mrswah?
-
What do you think about this weird case, mrswah?
Yes, it is weird.
I don't know whether or not Mark killed his father: I don't think it's by any means clear that he did, but if he did, I think he was provoked. By all accounts, his father was a strange man, and didn't always treat Mark well, and I think the judge should have taken this into consideration when sentencing him, and that Mark should have received a shorter sentence for that reason. I haven't yet followed up all the links that have been posted recently, and will do so when I have time.
Sami obviously had various secrets in his life, however, and we do not know whether he had made enemies along the way, any of whom could have killed him.
-
Samuel Alexander : Son of university lecturer arrested on suspicion of murder
Retired university lecturer Samuel Alexander, 70, has not been seen since attending a garden party in his home village
7:30AM GMT 10 Feb 2010
"Samuel Alexander, 70, has not been seen since attending a garden party in his home village last August and police fear that he is dead.
The alarm was raised when, at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting a resident in the small village of Drayton Parslow, Buckinghamshire, mentioned to a Police Community Support Officer that no one had seen Mr Alexander for six months.
Officers have since begun digging up the garden of Mr Alexander's £450,000 five-bedroomed home and have erected several police tents.
Meanwhile senior detectives called a news conference to appeal for help from the public in solving the mystery disappearance of Mr Alexander, who is also known as Sami Yacoub El-Kayoubi.
They confirmed that a 22-year-old man, understood to be the pensioner's son Mark, had been arrested last Friday, less than 24 hours after the Preston family raised the disappearance at the village meeting.
Detective Chief Inspector Joe Kidman said that the man, who he refused to name, had been arrested in London on Friday on suspicion of murder but had been released on police bail pending further inquiries.
Egyptian-born Mr Alexander had worked as an English lecturer at the De Montfort University, Bucks, but retired a few years ago.
He has lived in England for 40 years and had resided in Drayton Parslow for 22 years.
Det. Chief Insp. Kidman said Mr Alexander had one son in England and the next closest relatives were his sisters.
A spokesman for Thames Valley Police described Mr Alexander as having olive coloured skin and of slight build. He walked with a stoop and sometimes with the aid of a Zimmer frame.
"He has receded grey hair, dark eyes and occasionally wears glasses and usually wears plain neutral coloured shirts and trousers," said the spokesman.
On Mark Alexander's Facebook page it says he attends King's College University London and is studying law.
In the "about me" section it he describes himself as "a man of many talents."
He says he went to Rugby School, a co-educational boarding school in Warwickshire, for sixth form in 2006 and before that went to Aylesbury Grammar school.
He says he worked as a software engineer for IBM between Aug 06-07.
He also says he has set up his own web design company called Uproar Design in September 2007, he calls it: "An innovative technology enterprise run by young entrepreneur, Mark Alexander."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7197311/Son-of-university-lecturer-arrested-on-suspicion-of-murder.html
-
Yes, it is weird.
I don't know whether or not Mark killed his father: I don't think it's by any means clear that he did, but if he did, I think he was provoked. By all accounts, his father was a strange man, and didn't always treat Mark well, and I think the judge should have taken this into consideration when sentencing him, and that Mark should have received a shorter sentence for that reason. I haven't yet followed up all the links that have been posted recently, and will do so when I have time.
Sami obviously had various secrets in his life, however, and we do not know whether he had made enemies along the way, any of whom could have killed him.
"In mitigation, the 22-year-old's lawyer, Michael Borelli QC, said his mother was driven out by the 'boorish and bullying' behaviour of her then husband when the defendant was only six years old.
From then on, Mr Alexander had a hold on his son's life and even used a bell to summon him.
Alexander was kept apart from other children and made to practice music and study for long hours under the orders of his father, the court was told.
Mr Borelli said he was so fearful of his parent that he could not tell him of plans to stay in London with his girlfriend.
"The murder came after 'a huge build up of tension', Alexander's lawyer said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310848/Law-student-Mark-Alexander-murdered-controlling-father-jailed-16-years.html
-
Yes, it is weird.
I don't know whether or not Mark killed his father: I don't think it's by any means clear that he did, but if he did, I think he was provoked. By all accounts, his father was a strange man, and didn't always treat Mark well, and I think the judge should have taken this into consideration when sentencing him, and that Mark should have received a shorter sentence for that reason. I haven't yet followed up all the links that have been posted recently, and will do so when I have time.
Sami obviously had various secrets in his life, however, and we do not know whether he had made enemies along the way, any of whom could have killed him.
It probably came to the point where the old man had lost his control over his son and he knew it. One can only but speculate what the final straw was that brought about Sami's death. Only Mark Alexander knows what happened but whatever he did do to his father he tried to cover it up by attempting to cremate his remains. It could very well have been an accidental death following a scuffle, a fall downstairs or hitting his head on a solid object. If that was what occurred then Mark made a very silly mistake in trying to cover it all up, in those circumstances he has paid a heavy price.
I don't think innocence can ever be a factor though, Mark Alexander was involved and denying it is doing himself no favours.
-
"The murder came after 'a huge build up of tension', Alexander's lawyer said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310848/Law-student-Mark-Alexander-murdered-controlling-father-jailed-16-years.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310848/Law-student-Mark-Alexander-murdered-controlling-father-jailed-16-years.html)
Whose side was Mark Alexander's lawyer on?!!!
-
You've moved the goal posts regarding telephone calls. However what's dates did Mark go to Moscow and return?
Mark left the UK with his girlfriend on 21 December 2009. They spent Christmas in Prague, and then the New Year in Moscow. They returned on 11 January 2010.
And what time are you using for the ATTEMPTED alleged single telephone call to his father on Christmas Day? Moscow or UK?
00:09 is the time logged on Sami's phone.
So as a "Coptic Christian" why did Mark send Christmas cards to the neighbours.and sign his fathers name?
Putting up a Christmas tree is for your own benefit, whereas sending someone a card is for their benefit. You can send someone a Christmas, Hannukah, or Eid card without being a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Cards are really just a show of respect, recognising that someone is celebrating an event.
Prospect Close has 15 residents. Mark sent just 3 cards, signed "from Sami and Mark". The prosecution really hammed this up, but they made too much of it: http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#cards
-
Why did she dump him and close her justice for Mark Facebook account?
Both of these statements are inaccurate. The couple came to a mutual understanding about 18 months after Mark's arrest. She remains administrator of the same campaign group.
-
I fail to see the relevance as to when Sami was killed whether it be September or October.
The timing is crucial. It goes both to motive and opportunity. The whole case is centred around the day Mark left the family home to move to London. This was 5 September 2009. If Sami was alive after this, then there is no motive, less still opportunity to commit the offence. It basically makes the prosecution case even less plausible.
-
That's what I thought too... so deadpan as if he'd realised his plan had been rumbled and was accepting his fate. And like you, if I definitely had nothing to do with my father's death, I'd be protesting such in no uncertain terms to that officer... fuming and probably banging on the table as well!
This is extraordinary on many levels. Mark was subjected to 11 interviews, totaling 716 minutes. His first interview was conducted after midnight, from 00:35 until 02:04, without a solicitor. Indeed, 25% of the interviews had taken place before a solicitor was finally instructed. The excerpt extracted for you is but a few seconds long, and taken completely out of context of the interview itself. Who do you think released all of these legally privileged recordings to the press? What motive do you think they had for doing so? Why do you think they selected such short snippets? Could it be that they wanted to portray Mark in a particular way? The fact that you, and no doubt most viewers, assume that Mark said nothing else on the matter demonstrates the effectiveness of their strategy.
Why do you think the 'dismemberment' narrative was being put out there, when even the prosecution's own experts were telling them that no such thing had taken place? It's interesting to note the similarity here to Stephen Avery's case, where the state held that highly staged press conference to reveal the traumatic and horrifying details of Teresa Halbach's apparent death. These details of course, turned out to be complete nonsense, based entirely upon Brendan's false confession. The effect however, was the same. It galvanised public opinion against Steven, and it played on the jury's emotions, colouring their whole view of the case. The 'dismemberment' issue in Mark's case served precisely the same purpose against him, which is why it is so troubling.
Mark spent about 100 hours in solitary confinement, huddled in a ball in the corner of his cell. There are numerous points in interview when he is crying, shaking, and clearly suffering from the effects of shock and distress. The police took full advantage of Mark's vulnerability to press him for answers on points he could not be sure about or could not remember clearly in the state he was in.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top8
Even when the police told Mark that they had found his father's remains, he refused to believe the worst had happened, holding on to every last hope that the body was someone else other than his dad.
"It’s not my dad, it can’t be my dad. I’ve told you before that I’ve seen him, like, I know it’s not."
"Who is it?"
"I don’t know, I’m shocked, I’m really, really shocked, and I don’t know what’s going on at all".
"No, it can’t be, no, it can’t be my dad"
"Well I know you say it can’t be because your dad was alive when, it can’t be your dad"
"Yeah, I know"
To us, Mark just sounds completely exhausted and despondent in these clips. He is usually very talkative, buoyant and bubbly, but here he sounds completely broken.
Mark was examined by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist and a Consultant Clinical Psychologist following his arrest, who assessed him and analysed his responses in interview:
"Mr Alexander does not appear to clearly register that he is being interviewed on suspicion of murder. The interviewing officer notes at the outset that Mark is shaking and asks if he is cold. The shaking may be a sign of considerable psychological distress… I understand from his solicitors that after the initial unrecorded interview with the police, Mr Alexander was very tearful and this may indicate a degree of psychological shock. From the transcripts he appears to be treating his interview entirely as if he is helping the police investigate the whereabouts of his father".
"On a measure of traumatic symptoms Mr Alexander showed abnormally high levels of dissociation and anxious arousal together with borderline abnormal levels of depression over the 6 months following his arrest... understandably he did appear to be suffering considerable distress and anxiety at the situation he finds himself in"
"Throughout both sets of interviews he consistently refers to his father in the present tense, as if still alive, and at no stage does he talk about his father as if he may be dead".
-
"In mitigation, the 22-year-old's lawyer said his mother was driven out by the 'boorish and bullying' behaviour of her then husband when the defendant was only six years old.
Mr Borelli said he was so fearful of his parent that he could not tell him of plans to stay in London with his girlfriend
The murder came after 'a huge build up of tension', Alexander's lawyer said."
I'm sure the seasoned readers amongst you will know this already, but all of these articles you've linked to should be read with caution, they are peppered with inaccuracies.
In relation to defence counsel, once a defendant has been found guilty by a court of law, counsel is obliged to recognise the legal finding of the court. Their role changes, and they must treat the defendant as if he is guilty, offering mitigation on that basis and that basis alone.
-
Why do you claim the police had tunnel vision?
The police have a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether they point towards or away from the suspect. In practice however, with time constraints and fiscal pressures, this tends not to happen. Focus is drawn to avenues of inquiry which implicate the suspect in order to strengthen the likelihood of a successful conviction.
In Mark's case, this meant a number of key things were overlooked during that critical window of opportunity which the police had to gather evidence:
1) The police didn't comb the local area beyond 2 Prospect Close at all, despite the very obvious fact that there was no sign of a murder or fire having taken place at the property.
2) The police didn't investigate Sami's aliases or fraudulent activities. This would have been a time-consuming and costly exercise.
3) The police were unable to exclude various people as suspects. We feel that more could have been done to explore these leads.
There were a number of indicators that the police were biased in this case:
1) Two retired police detectives living in the street had an active influence upon in the line of investigation.
2) A number of witness including Mark's family and friends have told us that the police repeatedly told them that Mark was guilty before taking their statements. These interviews were conducted prior to Mark being charged. For example, Mark's girlfriend was told "He is responsible, there's no hope", while Mark's mother, awaiting reunion with her son, was asked whether she could extract a confession out of him on the police's behalf.
3) Mark's duty solicitor warned Mark in the police station that "these guys are hellbent on proving it was you".
All of this leads us be concerned that the police never genuinely considered the alternative, that Mark may be innocent, despite their duty of impartiality.
-
The timing is crucial. It goes both to motive and opportunity. The whole case is centred around the day Mark left the family home to move to London. This was 5 September 2009. If Sami was alive after this, then there is no motive, less still opportunity to commit the offence. It basically makes the prosecution case even less plausible.
So from 5th September 2009 to 11th January 2010 (roughly 129 days or 18 weeks) Mark never questioned his dad’s whereabouts, even after many fruitless phone calls home or enquiries, if any, with Sami's religious friends and Coptic church authorities in London, yet when he returned to Prospect Close after his Moscow trip, to discover a plumbing leak and that Sami was still nowhere to be found, it was another 24 days before he was reported missing, and then only by concerned neighbours, not by Mark himself. Don’t you find that extremely odd for a son who claims to be very fond of his father ?!
-
Did the delivery lorry park near the large double gate with finialed brick posts whilst Mark barrowed the concrete all the way to the rear of the double garage, a distance of some 80 metres there and back requiring much hard labour with many journeys?
(https://i.ibb.co/sgxf3YD/6.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/vVdShdF/9.jpg)
Or did the lorry park on the road near to the double garage and Mark barrowed concrete by the shorter but more circuitous route to the back yard through the small unpainted wooden gate where those Hippobags are?
(https://i.ibb.co/mGyS2k0/1.jpg)
-
So from 5th September 2009 to 11th January 2010 (roughly 129 days or 18 weeks) Mark never questioned his dad’s whereabouts, even after many fruitless phone calls home or enquiries
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#church
Mark doesn't for a minute deny that he took his eye off the ball here. There a number of problems. First of all, he was used to his dad either not being around, going away on 'business' trips without further explanation, and not returning his calls. This was just normal behaviour in their household. Odd to all of us, but normal for them.
Secondly, he had been brought up not to question his father's intentions, not to put his nose into his father's business. He, like his mum, had grown up in an environment in which huge emphasis was placed upon guarding his father's privacy and secrecy. So, even if Mark was concerned, or worried, which he was, he wouldn't have dreamed of involving the authorities, for risk of getting his father in trouble and upsetting him.
Thirdly, Mark drew some reassurance from the fact that the social services were monitoring his dad. If there had in fact really been an issue, they would have contacted him, or so he thought. The fact that they hadn't allayed his concerns.
Fourthly, Mark had become completely absorbed in his life at university, where he was not only studying, and enjoying student life, but running a business. Mark has a habit, evidenced here in this very Forum, of committing himself to too much and losing track of other things, like Rosie's letter. It took him 8 weeks to respond to her. It took him almost 12 weeks with his father, before he realised something was up on his return to the UK. Mark has never claimed to be perfect, but innocent people are no less fallible than the rest of us!
Finally, of course, Sami had had a go at Mark the last time they spoke. Mark was holding out for an apology, stubbornly, proudly, perhaps, but nevertheless he didn't want to be the first one to reach out.
All of this created the conditions in which Mark didn't react quickly enough to his father's silence, and failed to read the warning signs that something was wrong. Mark constantly questions whether he could have prevented his father's death if only he had acted sooner, and this possibility, that he could somehow have saved his father continues to plague Mark to this day.
-
did the lorry park on the road near to the double garage and Mark barrowed concrete by the shorter but more circuitous route to the back yard through the small unpainted wooden gate where those Hippobags are?
(https://i.ibb.co/mGyS2k0/1.jpg)
Yup, the second shorter route was used via that gate. The truck was originally parked up in the street itself, blocking the road for some time. Mark was stood in plain sight, waving the neighbours' cars by as it reversed onto the front drive. The driver positioned the shute directly at the front of that fence gate. From there it was a couple of metres to the back of the garage. The whole procedure was overseen and witnessed by the driver.
-
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19 (http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19)
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20 (http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20)
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#church (http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#church)
Mark doesn't for a minute deny that he took his eye off the ball here. There a number of problems. First of all, he was used to his dad either not being around, going away on 'business' trips without further explanation, and not returning his calls. This was just normal behaviour in their household. Odd to all of us, but normal for them.
Secondly, he had been brought up not to question his father's intentions, not to put his nose into his father's business. He, like his mum, had grown up in an environment in which huge emphasis was placed upon guarding his father's privacy and secrecy. So, even if Mark was concerned, or worried, which he was, he wouldn't have dreamed of involving the authorities, for risk of getting his father in trouble and upsetting him.
Thirdly, Mark drew some reassurance from the fact that the social services were monitoring his dad. If there had in fact really been an issue, they would have contacted him, or so he thought. The fact that they hadn't allayed his concerns.
Fourthly, Mark had become completely absorbed in his life at university, where he was not only studying, and enjoying student life, but running a business. Mark has a habit, evidenced here in this very Forum, of committing himself to too much and losing track of other things, like Rosie's letter. It took him 8 weeks to respond to her. It took him almost 12 weeks with his father, before he realised something was up on his return to the UK. Mark has never claimed to be perfect, but innocent people are no less fallible than the rest of us!
Finally, of course, Sami had had a go at Mark the last time they spoke. Mark was holding out for an apology, stubbornly, proudly, perhaps, but nevertheless he didn't want to be the first one to reach out.
All of this created the conditions in which Mark didn't react quickly enough to his father's silence, and failed to read the warning signs that something was wrong. Mark constantly questions whether he could have prevented his father's death if only he had acted sooner, and this possibility, that he could somehow have saved his father continues to plague Mark to this day.
Mark returned to the family home on November 17th, 2009, with no sign of Sami, but saw that everything was “going to (his dad’s) plan” regarding the 3-layer mortar root-barrier next to the garage, as well as building materials ready to be used, such as the large bag of coarse sand and some Marshall's block paviors / flags on the frontage. It seemed that two earlier shoring jobs to the house were completed successfully, so why did he decide to intervene and immediately order another cubic metre of concrete for delivery in two days time, instead of letting this mysterious building contractor finish the work, if Mark claims to be just a pen-pusher, unused to heavy manual work and has no interest in DIY?
-
Yup, the second shorter route was used via that gate. The truck was originally parked up in the street itself, blocking the road for some time. Mark was stood in plain sight, waving the neighbours' cars by as it reversed onto the front drive. The driver positioned the shute directly at the front of that fence gate. From there it was a couple of metres to the back of the garage. The whole procedure was overseen and witnessed by the driver.
Ok, I guess the white stain on the tarmac drive is where some concrete spilled over the edge of his barrow? Do you know if the largest Hippobag nearest to the gate was moved out of the way to allow better access?
-
Ok, I guess the white stain on the tarmac drive is where some concrete spilled over the edge of his barrow? Do you know if the largest Hippobag nearest to the gate was moved out of the way to allow better access?
This photo was taken after a recent downpour, so we think this is just an area that has dried out more quickly, rather than a stain.
None of those yellow hippobags were there in 2009, they were only placed there in late January 2010 by renovators dealing with the water-leak, so the area would have been clear originally.
-
so why did he decide to intervene and immediately order another cubic metre of concrete for delivery in two days time, instead of letting this mysterious building contractor finish the work, if Mark claims to be just a pen-pusher, unused to heavy manual work and has no interest in DIY?
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#construction
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top22
So we should make distinction there between Sami's private life (finances, aliases, business arrangements etc.) and what was going on around the house, which clearly wasn't a matter of secrecy. Sami involved Mark in various jobs around the house which didn't require specific expertise, in order to save money. This was meant to be one of them. The tragic irony is that Mark was just trying to help out.
All the evidence supports this, because the layers are clearly made of different materials, and laid to different standards. Moreover, Mark wasn't at the property long enough to conduct all the work required to excavate the site, mix the layers, and lay them professionally.
-
I'm sure the seasoned readers amongst you will know this already, but all of these articles you've linked to should be read with caution, they are peppered with inaccuracies.
In relation to defence counsel, once a defendant has been found guilty by a court of law, counsel is obliged to recognise the legal finding of the court. Their role changes, and they must treat the defendant as if he is guilty, offering mitigation on that basis and that basis alone.
Are you claiming Michael Borelli QC didn't say "the murder came after a huge build up of tension?"
"In mitigation, the 22-year-old's lawyer, Michael Borelli QC, said his mother was driven out by the 'boorish and bullying' behaviour of her then husband when the defendant was only six years old.
From then on, Mr Alexander had a hold on his son's life and even used a bell to summon him.
Alexander was kept apart from other children and made to practice music and study for long hours under the orders of his father, the court was told.
Mr Borelli said he was so fearful of his parent that he could not tell him of plans to stay in London with his girlfriend.
"The murder came after 'a huge build up of tension', Alexander's lawyer said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310848/Law-student-Mark-Alexander-murdered-controlling-father-jailed-16-years.html
-
The timing is crucial. It goes both to motive and opportunity. The whole case is centred around the day Mark left the family home to move to London. This was 5 September 2009. If Sami was alive after this, then there is no motive, less still opportunity to commit the offence. It basically makes the prosecution case even less plausible.
I disagree!
The prosecution make it clear they do not know when Mark murdered Sami. The window of opportunity is left open between Sept - Feb.
Mark clearly has you and his supporters on a wild goose chase.
-
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#construction
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top22
So we should make distinction there between Sami's private life (finances, aliases, business arrangements etc.) and what was going on around the house, which clearly wasn't a matter of secrecy. Sami involved Mark in various jobs around the house which didn't require specific expertise, in order to save money. This was meant to be one of them. The tragic irony is that Mark was just trying to help out.
All the evidence supports this, because the layers are clearly made of different materials, and laid to different standards. Moreover, Mark wasn't at the property long enough to conduct all the work required to excavate the site, mix the layers, and lay them professionally. In all of November, when the prosecution insist the burial took place, he was only there for a total of 3 hours.
Mark wants you to believe this but all the evidence points to him having murdered his father.
-
The prosecution make it clear they do not know when Mark murdered Sami. The window of opportunity is left open between Sept - Feb.
Well that's not what they told the jury at Mark's trial. Summing-up, the Judge said:
"In fact, of course, the prosecution’s case is that Samuel Alexander was killed on 5 September"
"5 September. Of course, that is the crucial date. The prosecution say that is the date when Samuel Alexander was killed by this defendant, the day before he was going to move into the flat"
"You will undoubtedly want to ask yourselves, when did Samuel Alexander die? As I have said, the prosecution say it was on or very close to 5 September".
-
Are you claiming Michael Borelli QC didn't say "the murder came after a huge build up of tension?"
No. But that's not really the point. He was simply accepting the Prosecution narrative at this point, because that's his job. When the Court finds someone guilty, the defence barrister can't carry on protesting his client's innocence, the game is already over. His duty is to offer mitigation. Well, if my client was guilty, and since you've found him guilty, you should reduce the sentence because x, y, z. It's rhetoric.
-
Well that's not what they told the jury at Mark's trial. Summing-up, the Judge said:
"In fact, of course, the prosecution’s case is that Samuel Alexander was killed on 5 September"
"5 September. Of course, that is the crucial date. The prosecution say that is the date when Samuel Alexander was killed by this defendant, the day before he was going to move into the flat"
"You will undoubtedly want to ask yourselves, when did Samuel Alexander die? As I have said, the prosecution say it was on or very close to 5 September".
He was killed by a blow to the head as long ago as last August. John Price, prosecuting, said Alexander, in the third year of a law and French degree at Kings College London, murdered his dad so he could “lead the life he wanted to lead.” https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ex-rugby-school-pupil-guilty-murdering-3056706
-
He was killed by a blow to the head as long ago as last August.
Sadly we do not know the cause of death in this case. There was some speculation about a head injury, but as you can see from the evidence below, this was inconclusive. Similarly, despite their best efforts, it was not possible to ascertain a date of death. The prosecution established that Sami was alive at least until 5 September. As posted in other threads, we now have evidence that demonstrates that he was alive long after this point.
www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-1
www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-2
You may find the following attached report useful in terms of confirming that the cause of Sami's death was unascertainable. Please note, things were complicated by the fact that a Scenes of Crime Officer struck the skull with a Kangol pneumatic drill during extraction. It was impossible therefore to establish whether the fractures were caused by the drill or had existed before SOCO smashed the skull. Another Home Office Pathologist later addmited that "I can't completely rule out that those fractures occurred after death".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7959.0;attach=15149
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7959.0;attach=15151
If Samuel had suffered a head injury, this may not have been fatal. The expert findings suggest that he may well have died of other causes unrelated to the head injury: "There was no evidence of any decomposing blood clot within the cranial cavity. This would be a common accompaniment to severe head injury and often persist even when there is severe decomposition".
EDIT: We've just realised that Daisy posted ac oopy of this over a year ago, apologies for any duplication: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8031.0
-
John Price, prosecuting, said Alexander, in the third year of a law and French degree at Kings College London, murdered his dad so he could “lead the life he wanted to lead.”
But Mark was already 'leading the life he wanted to lead'.
www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/
We know that Mark was already leading a good life, the life he 'wanted'. He was in his graduating year, running his own business, and with a bright future ahead of him. This was a zero-sum game for Mark. He had nothing to 'gain' and everything to lose.
-
He was killed by a blow to the head as long ago as last August. John Price, prosecuting, said Alexander, in the third year of a law and French degree at Kings College London, murdered his dad so he could “lead the life he wanted to lead.” https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ex-rugby-school-pupil-guilty-murdering-3056706
Probably as the result of a fight which went badly wrong. I don't think Mark set out to kill his father but I fear circumstances overtook them and the old man came off worse.
-
Probably as the result of a fight which went badly wrong. I don't think Mark set out to kill his father but I fear circumstances overtook them and the old man came off worse.
IMO Mark harboured deep seated resentment towards Sami
-
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#church
Mark doesn't for a minute deny that he took his eye off the ball here. There a number of problems. First of all, he was used to his dad either not being around, going away on 'business' trips without further explanation, and not returning his calls. This was just normal behaviour in their household. Odd to all of us, but normal for them.
Secondly, he had been brought up not to question his father's intentions, not to put his nose into his father's business. He, like his mum, had grown up in an environment in which huge emphasis was placed upon guarding his father's privacy and secrecy. So, even if Mark was concerned, or worried, which he was, he wouldn't have dreamed of involving the authorities, for risk of getting his father in trouble and upsetting him.
Thirdly, Mark drew some reassurance from the fact that the social services were monitoring his dad. If there had in fact really been an issue, they would have contacted him, or so he thought. The fact that they hadn't allayed his concerns.
Fourthly, Mark had become completely absorbed in his life at university, where he was not only studying, and enjoying student life, but running a business. Mark has a habit, evidenced here in this very Forum, of committing himself to too much and losing track of other things, like Rosie's letter. It took him 8 weeks to respond to her. It took him almost 12 weeks with his father, before he realised something was up on his return to the UK. Mark has never claimed to be perfect, but innocent people are no less fallible than the rest of us!
Finally, of course, Sami had had a go at Mark the last time they spoke. Mark was holding out for an apology, stubbornly, proudly, perhaps, but nevertheless he didn't want to be the first one to reach out.
All of this created the conditions in which Mark didn't react quickly enough to his father's silence, and failed to read the warning signs that something was wrong. Mark constantly questions whether he could have prevented his father's death if only he had acted sooner, and this possibility, that he could somehow have saved his father continues to plague Mark to this day.
These two sides of the same coin don't add up in my opinion. All these claims about a secret life, going away on business etc are not borne out by any evidence and are not reflected in his finances. The other side of this is Marks claim that social services were looking after him, he was after all in receipt of benefits. It just doesn't add up.
-
IMO Mark harboured deep seated resentment towards Sami
And his failure to pass his legal exams was the last straw or at least the straw which broke the camel's back. When Sami learned that his son had flunked his law studies and would not be going to study in Paris, that probably infuriated the old man and he exploded in rage. One can only imagine what happened next.
-
So we should make distinction there between Sami's private life (finances, aliases, business arrangements etc.) and what was going on around the house, which clearly wasn't a matter of secrecy. Sami involved Mark in various jobs around the house which didn't require specific expertise, in order to save money. This was meant to be one of them. The tragic irony is that Mark was just trying to help out.
All the evidence supports this, because the layers are clearly made of different materials, and laid to different standards. Moreover, Mark wasn't at the property long enough to conduct all the work required to excavate the site, mix the layers, and lay them professionally. In all of November, when the prosecution insist the burial took place, he was only there for a total of 3 hours.
The different layers of mortar are consistent with them being laid hurriedly by an amateur, they had no function other than to entomb Samuel Alexander's burned remains. The only person who could possibly have had the means to do it and had an excuse to be there was the son, Mark Alexander. And claiming he was only there for three hours is a pathetic attempt to make excuses for him. He could have gone to the house any day he wanted. His girlfriend's claim that he was with her every minute of every day that he wasn't in lectures is so far fetched to be laughable. In fact, is her testimony even credible?
-
The different layers of mortar are consistent with them being laid hurriedly by an amateur, they had no function other than to entomb Samuel Alexander's burned remains. The only person who could possibly have had the means to do it and had an excuse to be there was the son, Mark Alexander. And claiming he was only there for three hours is a pathetic attempt to make excuses for him. He could have gone to the house any day he wanted. His girlfriend's claim that he was with her every minute of every day that he wasn't in lectures is so far fetched to be laughable. In fact, is her testimony even credible?
I don't know whether the girlfriend's testimony is credible, but was it not said that the first two layers of concrete were laid professionally, and the third one, done by Mark, was amateur? From what I have read, it seems that Mark was no expert at laying concrete, he admits ordering and laying the third layer, so who laid the others???
-
SN appeared for the prosecution (although according to FC she now seems to be part of MA's support team) so she must have had an inkling that something was amiss with his tale, if true, that he saw Sami within the first five days of February.
There were three allegedly professionally-executed mortar layers (of cement, sand and water) with Sami's body embedded in the middle. Having had experience of laying concrete myself when young and fit, it doesn't take much effort to produce a reasonably professional-looking job. Mixing sand and cement mortar by hand on a large plywood board or tarmac drive is easier still, the resulting mix then placed in a bucket or barrow, poured wherever needed, and contained by a timber board as shuttering if necessary. If sufficiently fluid it will flow to find its own level, or for better compaction would be tamped with a spade or piece of wood, then finished off with a float or trowel to produce a smooth surface. It isn't rocket science, doesn't require trained professional skills as some experts would have you believe, and here it was was done in three stages allowing each layer to set with no great rush to complete the job. Anyone watching workmen complete the two other earlier root-barriers near the house would have a good idea of the procedure.
-
And his failure to pass his legal exams was the last straw or at least the straw which broke the camel's back. When Sami learned that his son had flunked his law studies and would not be going to study in Paris, that probably infuriated the old man and he exploded in rage. One can only imagine what happened next.
Mark didn't fail his exams, he achieved no lower than a 2:2 in all his modules in his first two years at university. Most students would be happy with this, but Mark was aiming to graduate with at least a 2:1. The realisation came that the only way for Mark to do this was to change to the straight law course and stay in London, rather than going for the double-maitrise in Paris (which gave students two law degrees, an English one and a French one). Sami was a pragmatist. He only wanted the best for Mark, so this was an entirely practical and sensible decision.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-8/
-
He could have gone to the house any day he wanted. His girlfriend's claim that he was with her every minute of every day that he wasn't in lectures is so far fetched to be laughable. In fact, is her testimony even credible?
Hi Angelo, we've posted quite a lot on this point, although our hands are tied in that we can't divulge the evidence in full at this stage until Mark's next appeal is heard. Hopefully the posts below help answer your questions though. Senta had no reason to make this up if that's what you're suggesting. All she said is that her and Mark slept together every night. That means that Mark wasn't gallivanting to Drayton Parslow in the middle of the night to bury his father in the early hours. It means that he had to have been back from any visits to the house by the evening to spend time with her, or else she would have realised he was missing and got suspicious.
We question how it is that Mark could have traveled undetected, and without leaving any evidential trail, particularly when:
1) The route out of London was covered by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. This rules out him using his car.
2) Every taxi company in the local area of Drayton Parslow kept records of the journies taken. These were trawled and journies to Prospect Close established. This rules out journies outside of those dates.
3) None of the evidence from any of the other sources gathered either at trial, or subsequently, points to Mark traveling outside of the dates originally established by the prosecution. To the contrary, they provide evidence of him being in London during that time. This includes cell-site data from Mark's phone geo-locating his position, transactional data from his banks, and other data.
The combination of data does in fact tell us exactly when Mark arrived, and when he left. The taxi journals log collection and drop-off times. The cellsite logs when Mark's car was traveling away from or towards Drayton Parslow. The ANPR cameras log when Mark entered or left London. Everything is there.
The purpose of the evidence gathering exercise was to demonstrate that one doesn't need to rely upon one source alone. All of the independent sources corroborate each other.
The times that the cellsite place Mark in London are corroborated by other independent sources that put him in London.
We know that Mark made 9 separate trips from London to Drayton Parslow between September and November 2009. This isn't disputed. What we now know however, and what no-one thought to consider at trial was that these trips taken together would not have given Mark enough time to carry out all the different elements of the crime.
-
All these claims about a secret life, going away on business etc are not borne out by any evidence and are not reflected in his finances.
There is quite a lot of evidence on these leads. We will try and give you a sense of some of that here:
1) The map below shows:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?usp=sharing&mid=1KA3FOKs9h4rHVnYRoVBGS1AxegcQzcx0
a) A list of properties used by Sami over the years.
i) Some were purchased under one of his aliases (e.g. El-Kalyoubi, Alexander).
ii) Some were purchased in the name of a woman, using a power of attorney. Her family describe how she was "in such fear of [Sami] that she... gave him power of attorney" over her financial affairs. Sami secured mortgages in her name without her knowledge, sold the properties without repaying them, and then left the lady laden with the debt.
iii) Some were used as addresses to register aliases with various public bodies without actually purchasing the property. Sami would look for unoccupied houses currently on the market, and then claim that his alias was a tenant there (e.g. Jacob).
All of these properties became virtual bases for credit and benefit fraud. When bailiffs turned up to these properties looking to recover debts they would find that nobody lived there. Sami even registered a car with DVLA at one of the properties to avoid repaying the loan.
Sami would set up redirection agreements with Royal Mail to redirect mail addressed to an alias from the property to his own home.
We have evidence for these activities under 6 aliases, many of which have been linked to his Alexander alias by credit agencies like Experian. We are still looking for evidence in relation to 5 further known aliases.
b) A list of GP surgeries where Sami registered himself under different aliases.
c) A list of schools where Sami enrolled Mark under different aliases as a child.
2) One victim of fraud has described Sami as follows: "He is basically a clever thief and has meticulously planned to make easy money out of a naïve young girl and me". He alleges that "my signature has been forged on the deeds of trust and the transfer of the mortgage" in order to place his step-daughter's share of the property into Sami's own name without her family realising.
3) In relation to Sami's dating habits, the Judge said this during his summing-up:
"A further piece of police evidence related to text messages that were on Samuel Alexander's phone, relating to some slightly odd messages that you were taken through... You will remember the text message that said things like 'spoil sport', 'sleep tight', 'Why are you blanking me?', 'Night, night, kiss, kiss' and so on. Of course, it is said that it appeared he was sending these sort of text messages or receiving them from various women, young women that he had been in contact through these sites online, which we know he visited as well. But they were not able to locate these subscribers for the these numbers".
"That officer also was able to confirm that on the computer from the computer reports that Samuel Alexander used a variety of profiles when he was online. Even if he used his own name, it would vary from Sami, Sam, or Samuel. Sometimes he used other names like Dave with the Forbidden Affair site, and various other names... another one he went on frequently was called White Label Dating".
"She confirmed, the lady police officer, that throughout the period from April to July 2009 Samuel was regularly connecting onto such sites, and indeed had been using such sites for quite a long time prior to 2009. There were thousands of pieces of contact by him to such sites. One particular email went back to November 2006 to somebody called Irena saying 'You say the sweetest things", and so on'".
"Also one of the numbers that was found on Samuel Alexander's mobile was traced to a man... but he knew absolutely nothing of any contact with that particular phone number. He was the man who apparently sold SIM cards on and thought it was maybe on of those somebody had ended up using to have a phone call on 1 September with Samuel Alexander's phone..."
"The computer expert... said there were various browsing sessions of internet sites between 1 - 4 September on Sami's profile, most of that browsing was on adult dating sites or adult chat rooms... between 1 - 25 August there were a number of chat sites and adult contact sites, and also a significant proportion of the sites appeared to be sites portraying pornography, some them depicting young women and teenage girls, but not underage girls."
You may recall us previously posting a copy of the CPS admissions on this particular issue:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9578.0;attach=15147;image
-
There is quite a lot of evidence on these leads. We will try and give you a sense of some of that here:
1) The map below shows:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?usp=sharing&mid=1KA3FOKs9h4rHVnYRoVBGS1AxegcQzcx0
a) A list of properties used by Sami over the years.
i) Some were purchased under one of his aliases (e.g. El-Kalyoubi, Alexander).
ii) Some were purchased in the name of a woman, using a power of attorney. Her family describe how she was "in such fear of [Sami] that she... gave him power of attorney" over her financial affairs. Sami secured mortgages in her name without her knowledge, sold the properties without repaying them, and then left the lady laden with the debt.
iii) Some were used as addresses to register aliases with various public bodies without actually purchasing the property. Sami would look for unoccupied houses currently on the market, and then claim that his alias was a tenant there (e.g. Jacob).
All of these properties became virtual bases for credit and benefit fraud. When bailiffs turned up to these properties looking to recover debts they would find that nobody lived there. Sami even registered a car with DVLA at one of the properties to avoid repaying the loan.
Sami would set up redirection agreements with Royal Mail to redirect mail addressed to an alias from the property to his own home.
We have evidence for these activities under 6 aliases, many of which have been linked to his Alexander alias by credit agencies like Experian. We are still looking for evidence in relation to 5 further known aliases.
b) A list of GP surgeries where Sami registered himself under different aliases.
c) A list of schools where Sami enrolled Mark under different aliases as a child.
2) One victim of fraud has described Sami as follows: "He is basically a clever thief and has meticulously planned to make easy money out of a naïve young girl and me". He alleges that "my signature has been forged on the deeds of trust and the transfer of the mortgage" in order to place his step-daughter's share of the property into Sami's own name without her family realising.
3) In relation to Sami's dating habits, the Judge said this during his summing-up:
"A further piece of police evidence related to text messages that were on Samuel Alexander's phone, relating to some slightly odd messages that you were taken through... You will remember the text message that said things like 'spoil sport', 'sleep tight', 'Why are you blanking me?', 'Night, night, kiss, kiss' and so on. Of course, it is said that it appeared he was sending these sort of text messages or receiving them from various women, young women that he had been in contact through these sites online, which we know he visited as well. But they were not able to locate these subscribers for the these numbers".
"That officer also was able to confirm that on the computer from the computer reports that Samuel Alexander used a variety of profiles when he was online. Even if he used his own name, it would vary from Sami, Sam, or Samuel. Sometimes he used other names like Dave with the Forbidden Affair site, and various other names... another one he went on frequently was called White Label Dating".
"She confirmed, the lady police officer, that throughout the period from April to July 2009 Samuel was regularly connecting onto such sites, and indeed had been using such sites for quite a long time prior to 2009. There were thousands of pieces of contact by him to such sites. One particular email went back to November 2006 to somebody called Irena saying 'You say the sweetest things", and so on'".
"Also one of the numbers that was found on Samuel Alexander's mobile was traced to a man... but he knew absolutely nothing of any contact with that particular phone number. He was the man who apparently sold SIM cards on and thought it was maybe on of those somebody had ended up using to have a phone call on 1 September with Samuel Alexander's phone..."
"The computer expert... said there were various browsing sessions of internet sites between 1 - 4 September on Sami's profile, most of that browsing was on adult dating sites or adult chat rooms... between 1 - 25 August there were a number of chat sites and adult contact sites, and also a significant proportion of the sites appeared to be sites portraying pornography, some them depicting young women and teenage girls, but not underage girls."
You may recall us previously posting a copy of the CPS admissions on this particular issue:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9578.0;attach=15147;image
Are they relevant to the time period involving Sami’s disappearance and subsequent murder or are they being used by Mark to paint Sami in a poor light in order to give him an air of plausible deniability?
-
Well that's not what they told the jury at Mark's trial. Summing-up, the Judge said:
"In fact, of course, the prosecution’s case is that Samuel Alexander was killed on 5 September" really?
"5 September. Of course, that is the crucial date. The prosecution say that is the date when Samuel Alexander was killed by this defendant, the day before he was going to move into the flat"
"You will undoubtedly want to ask yourselves, when did Samuel Alexander die? As I have said, the prosecution say it was on or very close to 5 September".
I take it you understand the fact that a prosecution case is a theory?
-
Are they relevant to the time period involving Sami’s disappearance and subsequent murder ?
Hi Nicholas, they stretch over a period of about 10 years prior to Sami's death, and demonstrate the patterns of behaviour we have been discussing in relation to the kind of things Sami was involved in. This is relevant to our exploration of alternative suspects. You're right to a certain degree, but even if a particular event is not directly related to his death, we feel it is evidence of the kind of activity that may have led to it in the end. In other words, something similar happened which went awfully wrong.
I take it you understand the fact that a prosecution case is a theory?
Sure, we're with you there, this is exactly our argument! We have always said that the prosecution case was wrong about the date of death being 5 September. If Sami didn't die on this date then Mark was convicted on the wrong basis. The jury were given the wrong information to deliberate on and the conviction must be quashed.