The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.

[Myster]

IMO the forensics caravan would not have been brought to the site without a discovery. The site would have had grass and weeds on it had it been undisturbed and yes, the killer placed the excavated soil back over the grave.

In that case, there should be some other cs photo available of the burial area taken before police began to excavate.  They must have been suspicious of Sami's body being buried there, through recce of the back garden and interviews with Mark himself, re ordering of concrete, etc. There are also what appear to be several augered holes? and a mini tent (not yet erected over that bare patch) in the far corner of the back garden...

[Myster]

Tent and round holes...

[Daisy]

Some interesting points, watch from about 3.50

Thanks for this John. However we know that there are several untruths in this report. Senta told the court that during the three weeks in Moscow Mark did not phone his dad. Fact checker has advised us that Mark’s phone records show he phoned his dad several times. The next point is that it is reported Senta only met his dad once and was never introduced as Mark’s girlfriend. I have raised this with Mark and he said this is totally untrue and he is sending me the trial transcript which shows totally the opposite. If you have a copy of the part regarding this issue Fact checker maybe you could upload it for members to see. It is unbelievable that journalists can report something which is so untrue.

[Myster]

Thanks for this John. However we know that there are several untruths in this report. Senta told the court that during the three weeks in Moscow Mark did not phone his dad. Fact checker has advised us that Mark’s phone records show he phoned his dad several times. The next point is that it is reported Senta only met his dad once and was never introduced as Mark’s girlfriend. I have raised this with Mark and he said this is totally untrue and he is sending me the trial transcript which shows totally the opposite. If you have a copy of the part regarding this issue Fact checker maybe you could upload it for members to see. It is unbelievable that journalists can report something which is so untrue.

To be fair, the reporter was only recalling what the prosecution and / or defence said during the trial.

But if Mark did phone home from abroad it does show that he did so secretly out of Senta's earshot or elsewhere when not in her company.

[Daisy]

To be fair, the reporter was only recalling what the prosecution and / or defence said during the trial.

But if Mark did phone home from abroad it does show that he did so secretly out of Senta's earshot or elsewhere when not in her company.

It is true that Senta was unaware Mark phoned his father but this shows a failure by the police. They had Mark’s phone and the first thing they do in these cases is check where and when calls were made. They knew he had phoned his father but chose not to disclose this information in order to strengthen their case against him.

In court Senta said she had met Sami several times and he was pleased that she was Mark’s girlfriend. He was aware that they were moving in together and even told some of the neighbours. How can reporting be so distorted?

[Myster]

A blow-up of the excavation in progress.  Any grass and topsoil has been removed from the length of the garage and beyond (to the right) then dumped on white plastic? sheeting on either side...



It seems to me that when the site was reinstated it would not have looked like this with soil confined to a smaller area and fresh grass growing on each side in February...



Hence the reason imo that the above photo was taken pre-excavation, along with the other contemporaneous site photos on Mark's website.  So my question to FC - Is there any documented witness statement or interview where Mark says that he backfilled the hole with soil once he'd laid the concrete?

[Fact Checker]

When was this photo taken?   Before the police excavated the burial site, or after when they'd backfilled it with soil?

We have checked the SOCO photo record and can confirm that the photo of the freshly dug soil was taken before the police began excavating the site, and so is how it looked when they turned up. This isn't unusual in and of itself because the site was intended as a root-barrier. One wouldn't expect this to have been left exposed once complete. The other two sites are a bit different because the intention was to create a paved area around that corner of the house that led to a water feature by the front drive. There would have been no point installing a patio behind the garage because nobody would use it.

Notice how exposed and conspicuous the site is. No attempt has been made to disguise the area. Indeed, when police arrived at the house it stood out like a sore thumb. If Mark had been involved in the burial, and if he had taken all the time and expense to conceal everything in mortar, then he would have turfed this area over.

[Fact Checker]

I can dig a hole for a post, insert the post, pour dry postcrete in, add water and it's hard in 5 minutes.  In fact it goes off so quickly in warm weather that you need to be quick.  You can add a cement accelerator or admixture to any sand and cement mix to speed up concrete setting.

As you know, the whole topic of this site is a sensitive aspect of the case because of the ongoing legal process. This is a little frustrating for us because it means we can't answer all of your questions as fully as we might like to at this stage. We are dancing on the tip of the iceberg at the moment. Once Mark's case gets through the next appellate stage (hopefully towards the end of this year) we will be in a much better position to reveal the full extent of our understanding on this and other elements of the case.

On the specific point Angelo raises, no doubt this is true for a small post hole like the one you're describing, but once you increase the volume and factor in other variables things change considerably.

The site was 2.15m long, 1.3m wide, and a total of 1.2m deep. We can break this down into individual layers and roughly estimate volume:

Layer 1 (the bottom layer)	15 cm deep	19 cubic cm volume
Layer 2 (the body layer)	20 cm deep	56 cubic cm volume
Layer 3 (top layer mortar)	10 cm deep	28 cubic cm volume
By comparison, the concrete was	29 cm deep	81 cubic cm volume

You might remember that new tests were conducted at the original site by a team of Chartered Engineers and Chartered Geologists. They compiled a report in August 2017, which we have yet to publish and remains subject to embargo. They do however, make mention of the issue we're discussing now, and we have been given permission to share a short extract with you which you might find helpful. The experts have taken into account the chemical composition, ambient temperature, humidity and volumes of this particular mortar mix:

"Once the pit had been excavated, it seems that 3 layers of mortar were placed, to encapsulate the bagged remains and, as distinct bedding planes formed, each layer was allowed to harden before placing of the next layer. My original examinations showed that the mortars were well mixed, suggesting either (noisy) mechanical mixing and/or use of a ready-mixed mortar product. If I assume that a ready-mixed product probably included a rapid-hardening admixture or additive, there might just have been a few hours between placing each layer... Of course, in the absence of any deliberate rapid-hardening, each of the first two mortar layers would probably have required a day of setting and hardening before placement of the overlying layer, for the clear bedding planes to be formed".

So we have there a time-frame of at least 2 hours, and at most 4 hours (recalling the evidence given at trial), for the drying of each of these layers.

[Myster]

As you know, the whole topic of this site is a sensitive aspect of the case because of the ongoing legal process. This is a little frustrating for us because it means we can't answer all of your questions as fully as we might like to at this stage. We are dancing on the tip of the iceberg at the moment. Once Mark's case gets through the next appellate stage (hopefully towards the end of this year) we will be in a much better position to reveal the full extent of our understanding on this and other elements of the case.

On the specific point Angelo raises, no doubt this is true for a small post hole like the one you're describing, but once you increase the volume and factor in other variables things change considerably.

The site was 2.15m long, 1.3m wide, and a total of 1.2m deep. We can break this down into individual layers and roughly estimate volume:

Layer 1 (the bottom layer)	15 cm deep	19 cubic cm volume
Layer 2 (the body layer)	20 cm deep	56 cubic cm volume
Layer 3 (top layer mortar)	10 cm deep	28 cubic cm volume
By comparison, the concrete was	29 cm deep	81 cubic cm volume

You might remember that new tests were conducted at the original site by a team of Chartered Engineers and Chartered Geologists. They compiled a report in August 2017, which we have yet to publish and remains subject to embargo. They do however, make mention of the issue we're discussing now, and we have been given permission to share a short extract with you which you might find helpful. The experts have taken into account the chemical composition, ambient temperature, humidity and volumes of this particular mortar mix:

"Once the pit had been excavated, it seems that 3 layers of mortar were placed, to encapsulate the bagged remains and, as distinct bedding planes formed, each layer was allowed to harden before placing of the next layer. My original examinations showed that the mortars were well mixed, suggesting either (noisy) mechanical mixing and/or use of a ready-mixed mortar product. If I assume that a ready-mixed product probably included a rapid-hardening admixture or additive, there might just have been a few hours between placing each layer... Of course, in the absence of any deliberate rapid-hardening, each of the first two mortar layers would probably have required a day of setting and hardening before placement of the overlying layer, for the clear bedding planes to be formed".

So we have there a time-frame of at least 2 hours, and at most 4 hours (recalling the evidence given at trial), for the drying of each of these layers.

For what it's worth, I think the amount in blue should be about 419 cubic cm.

To simplify then, the total mortar layers amounted to approx. 1.26 cubic metres and Mark's concrete layer to approx. 0.81 cubic metres.   So he was either short-changed by the delivery driver (unlikely), or spilled 0.19 cubic metres barrowing it from lorry to burial site.

But can you reveal yet whether Mark backfilled the area with soil and stated such in either witness statement or police interview, and if so, when that took place?

[John]

It seems to me that when the site was reinstated it would not have looked like this with soil confined to a smaller area and fresh grass growing on each side in February...



Hence the reason imo that the above photo was taken pre-excavation, along with the other contemporaneous site photos on Mark's website.  So my question to FC - Is there any documented witness statement or interview where Mark says that he backfilled the hole with soil once he'd laid the concrete?

From The Bucks Herald:

He continued quoting the trial judge : “The Petitioner ‘took very considerable steps to bury the body in three layers of mortar and a final layer of commercial cement in the back garden of the home which the deceased and his father had shared.

“Thereafter he took steps to place a great deal of soil over the concrete grave with the intent that it should not be discovered. Going along with that was clearly some attempt by the defendant to burn parts of the body, no doubt either to seek to destroy it or parts of it which may show evidence of particular injuries.

https://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/22-year-old-who-murdered-his-dad-is-denied-say-over-his-gravestone-1-8545347

[John]

This photo shows perfectly how hidden the back garden is from the road and neighbours.  Mark Alexander could have slipped back to the house any time he wanted and worked away under cover of the winter darkness.  He could also have done the initial excavation work in broad daylight and wouldn't have drawn undue attention.

[Angelo222]

The whole idea that some anonymous third party was involved in the murder of Samuel Alexander is quite simply ridiculous imo.  Mark Alexander clearly had a case to answer on so many levels and was rightly found guilty of his father's murder and of attempting to conceal his body.  He will never benefit from this crime and rightly so imo.

[Myster]

I'd prefer to read uploaded copies of Mark's interviews with police (similar to what we have in the Bamber case) to get an impartial view of what was documented at the time, rather than relying secondhand on what he's saying now.

[Myster]

The offending tree(s) close to the garage had already been felled weeks ago and roots cut back, so there was no need to add yet more concrete on top of the "professional" three layer mortar barrier already laid.  In one crime scene photo of the hole, a single tree root could just as easily been sawn off, never to grow again, before backfilling with soil from the original excavation and the problem more simply dealt with.  Yet out of the blue, Mark returns home, sees building work "going to plan", but instead of letting these mystery builders complete the job and unbeknown to Sami, immediately decides to intervene and orders two and a half tonnes of concrete, which according to his own admission is clueless about how to barrow and lay.

[sika]

The whole idea that some anonymous third party was involved in the murder of Samuel Alexander is quite simply ridiculous imo.  Mark Alexander clearly had a case to answer on so many levels and was rightly found guilty of his father's murder and of attempting to conceal his body.  He will never benefit from this crime and rightly so imo.

Well said.  As a MoJ, a total non starter.