The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.

[John]

All the employees and contractors interviewed told the police that Sami always paid them in cash.

The only layer that was identified as 'inconsistent and amateurish' was the final layer of concrete that Mark laid. This was described as "less well compacted and more voided at the upper and edge surfaces, which suggests a non-specialist installation, and the absence of shuttering".

The three layers of mortar were not described in this way. These mortar layers were "consistently well-mixed", with clear evidence of techniques like ‘levelling’, ‘shuttering’, and ‘compacting’ having been used. "The mix quality, consistency (both thoroughness of mixing and degree of compaction) of the various mortar layers suggests preparation by an experienced person".

Similarly, the excavation itself was quite unusual:

"A gully of loose bricks and rubbish could also be seen to have been cut through in order to dig the large hole... The root system of a tree had been cut down... [and] cut away in order to excavate the hole... [The site was] apparently not designed as a grave... Not all the excavated length was utilised. It may be an indication that other means were first used to dispose of the body, but after the grave had been dug. The maximum depth was 1.2m... [It was] well-constructed, by someone who appears to have known what they were doing"

Recent analysis by experts has revealed the degree of effort required. We cannot disclose the findings of this latest report in great detail because they will be subject to legal proceedings, but the main thing to take away from it is that this would have been back-breaking and time-consuming work. They've given an estimate of just how long it would have taken, and the excavation alone exceeds the amount of time that Mark was actually in Drayton Parslow.
 
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#construction

It is well evidenced that the top layer was ready-mix concrete which Mark had delivered by a supplier and that this layer differed significantly from those layers of mortar previously laid. His reason for laying this concrete is extremely questionable.

The real question though is who excavated the original hole and who entombed Sami's remains in mortar within it. As no contractor was seen doing the work or none came forward admitting to having done the work the logical conclusion can only be that Sami and/or Mark did it. I can see no other answer to this question.

In respect of your last sentence, it isn't known how long Mark Alexander was in Drayton Parslow.  He had every opportunity to slip away from London and nobody would have been any the wiser.  If he was seen at the family home he was entitled to be there and nobody's suspicions would have been aroused.

[John]

Again this just doesn't seem consistent with the way the first three layers were installed. If Mark was involved from the beginning, why would he change materials? Why not just stop at the third layer? Why would he change his modus operandi, making the bizarre switch from clandestine to public? If he had been mixing and laying mortar to a professional level previously then he would have had plenty of practice with a wheelbarrow and would have appeared proficient to the lorry driver.

Most critically, why is their no forensic evidence? None of Mark's DNA or fingerprints appeared on the plastic bags found within the mortar. Nor had he washed his rough work clothes. Had he been involved in the burial then residue from the body would have been left on his clothes. Had he been mixing and laying mortar then particles of this would also have appeared on his clothes.

Quite simply, necessity is the mother of invention.  Mark had to use materials he could transport to the site, most probably quick setting mortar mix in bags. All he had to do was empty the mix into the hole and water it with a hose...job done!

To do this he obviously had the use of a motor vehicle of some sort which he could have parked nearby.

The absence of inculpatory forensic evidence is not surprising.  Mark lived at the property so finding his DNA and/or fingerprints would not be unusual.  Clearly he wore other clothing which he disposed of later.  Latex gloves are a wonderful invention.

[Fact Checker]

It would be helpful if you wouldn't bundle every response together in one post.  Each point deserves a reply so please respond to individual posts.

Marks movements were by no means set in stone, he could have travelled the fifty miles to the family home undetected any time he chose, he was not under police surveillance.

No problem John, apologies.

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 we have established he visited the house on. To the contrary, they provide evidence of him being in London for the majority of that time. This includes cell-site data from Mark's phone geo-locating his position, transactional data from his banks, and other data.

It isn't known how long Mark Alexander was in Drayton Parslow.  He had every opportunity to slip away from London and nobody would have been any the wiser.

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.

[Fact Checker]

It is well evidenced that the top layer was ready-mix concrete which Mark had delivered by a supplier and that this layer differed significantly from those layers of mortar previously laid. His reason for laying this concrete is extremely questionable.

We get that some people may be challenged by this. The fact that he did put that top layer down however, strongly suggests that he didn't lay the ones underneath, because had he done so there would really be no need to add yet another layer. He could have relied on the fact that he hadn't aroused any attention and stopped there. Again, logically, had he wanted to add a fourth layer, he could have done so in the same clandestine way as the previous three without attracting any attention.

[Fact Checker]

The real question though is who excavated the original hole and who entombed Sami's remains in mortar within it. As no contractor was seen doing the work or none came forward admitting to having done the work the logical conclusion can only be that Sami and/or Mark did it. I can see no other answer to this question.

Sure, but then Sami or Mark would have been seen carrying out this work, just as they had been seen carrying out all the other work they did, and just as Mark was seen working on the concrete on 19 November.

[John]

No problem John, apologies.

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.

There are ways of avoiding the number plate recognition system if you need to so I wouldn't rule out him using his car or someone else's.  Leaving ones mobile phone behind in London would give a false impression as to whereabouts.  Anyone actively involved in covering up a murder would be well aware of these things.

[John]

We get that some people may be challenged by this. The fact that he did put that top layer down however, strongly suggests that he didn't lay the ones underneath, because had he done so there would really be no need to add yet another layer. He could have relied on the fact that he hadn't aroused any attention and stopped there. Again, logically, had he wanted to add a fourth layer, he could have done so in the same clandestine way as the previous three without attracting any attention.

I believe his reasoning for pouring concrete so publicly over his fathers grave was to give the impression that what was occurring was legit and so would not attract undue attention. Luckily however, the neighbours weren't fooled.

[John]

Sure, but then Sami or Mark would have been seen carrying out this work, just as they had been seen carrying out all the other work they did, and just as Mark was seen working on the concrete on 19 November.

Not necessarily as the site was partially obscured from view.

[Fact Checker]

There are ways of avoiding the number plate recognition system if you need to so I wouldn't rule out him using his car or someone else's.

We are not familiar with these, perhaps you can share them with us. While you're at it, you might like to explain how you can attribute this knowledge to Mark, or demonstrate that he used those methods?

Leaving ones mobile phone behind in London would give a false impression as to whereabouts. Anyone actively involved in covering up a murder would be well aware of these things.

John, it seems that you are clutching at straws. We are not talking about passive pings between celltowers and Mark's phone. We are talking about actual calls or texts that Mark sent or received. For example, if he was talking (handfree ofcourse!) while travelling from London to Drayton Parslow, this would register on the cellsite analysis and you would see the phone change between celltowers during the call.

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.

To do this he obviously had the use of a motor vehicle of some sort which he could have parked nearby.

With respect, this is just fantastical. Perhaps Mark had a teleporter as well. There is no evidence of anything of this kind, so let's make some up!

[John]

We are not familiar with these, perhaps you can share them with us. While you're at it, you might like to explain how you can attribute this knowledge to Mark, or demonstrate that he used those methods?

A handful of dirt works well.

[Fact Checker]

Quite simply, necessity is the mother of invention.  Mark had to use materials he could transport to the site, most probably quick setting mortar mix in bags. All he had to do was empty the mix into the hole and water it with a hose...job done!

This doesn't reflect the evidence I'm afraid. Even if we assume that a readymix product was used, this does not help explain the consistency of the mix between all three layers "(both thoroughness of mixing and degree of compaction)", nor the fact that professional techniques were employed (levelling, shuttering, and compacting) which then weren't employed in the concrete layer.

At trial the expert explained that each layer of mortar "would probably take 3 to 4 hours to dry and harden sufficiently for the next layer to be put on top". The forensic archaeologists have since told us more about how long mixing and laying each of these layers would take. This throws further time into the equation, over and above the excavation itself, which makes it still less possible for Mark to have conducted the work in the time he was at the property.

[John]

John, it seems that you are clutching at straws. We are not talking about passive pings between celltowers and Mark's phone. We are talking about actual calls or texts that Mark sent or received. For example, if he was talking (handfree ofcourse!) while travelling from London to Drayton Parslow, this would register on the cellsite analysis and you would see the phone change between celltowers during the call.

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.

With respect, this is just fantastical. Perhaps Mark had a teleporter as well. There is no evidence of anything of this kind, so let's make some up!

The intention would be to not ping the cell towers between London and Drayton Parslow.  This was achieved by simply leaving the phone behind in London. Another mobile could be used thereafter.   

[John]

This doesn't reflect the evidence I'm afraid. Even if we assume that a readymix product was used, this does not help explain the consistency of the mix between all three layers "(both thoroughness of mixing and degree of compaction)", nor the fact that professional techniques were employed (levelling, shuttering, and compacting) which then weren't employed in the concrete layer.

At trial the expert explained that each layer of mortar "would probably take 3 to 4 hours to dry and harden sufficiently for the next layer to be put on top". The forensic archaeologists have since told us more about how long mixing and laying each of these layers would take. This throws further time into the equation, over and above the excavation itself, which makes it still less possible for Mark to have conducted the work in the time he was at the property.

I totally disagree, concrete can set in minutes if a fast setting agent is used.  In any event, I suggest several visits were made to the grave to add mortar, not just one.

I see no evidence that could possibly overturn the original verdict.

[Fact Checker]

Mark lived at the property so finding his DNA and/or fingerprints would not be unusual. 

It wouldn't be, but then no DNA or fingerprints were infact found at the burial site.

Clearly he wore other clothing which he disposed of later.  Latex gloves are a wonderful invention.

'Clearly' is not really clear at all. Anything that is 'clear' would be supported by evidence, like used gloves, or sightings of Mark disposing of rubbish etc. You are falling back upon supposition to hold your theory about Mark together, just like the prosecution did. This is a dangerous and reckless exercise. We must work with the evidence, not make up evidence to suit our tastes.

[Fact Checker]

I believe his reasoning for pouring concrete so publicly over his fathers grave was to give the impression that what was occurring was legit and so would not attract undue attention.

Why bother? It would be totally random. Nobody knew 'what was occuring' until Mark turned up anyway. There was no need to pour legitimacy over a situation that, prior to the site being hijacked, was already legitimate. The planning records already provided all the legitimacy that could be needed, as did the other two sites at the property of an identical nature.