The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.

[puglove]

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

 

[Fact Checker]

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. 

Maybe, but this was what Sami wanted regardless.

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:

In Sami's own opinion:

"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"

[Fact Checker]

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.

We've had a chance to go over the transcripts in more depth and found that Mark did at least mention to her that he'd tried to get in touch with his father on Christmas day:

"I don't know what contact he made with his father, but I think he said over Christmas he had called his father... I was not actually personally aware of any contact by Mark with his father over Christmas".

We know from her testimony that this was quite normal. The Judge summed up her evidence to the jury as follows:

"Her impression was, she said, that Mark cared for his father deeply, but she acknowledged that Mark's father's relationship with Mark was very different from the relationship she had with her parents".

"She said that when during her relationship Mark ever took any phone calls from his father he would normally go out of the room so he could talk privately to his father, 'and he told me he didn't like speaking to his father when others were around' and that perhaps he was embarrassed to do so... 'He told me sometimes he didn't like to go into details about his father... In our relationship Mark often glossed over the topic'"

In her original statement to the police she explained that

"Mark seemed embarrassed about the relationship with his Dad, I think this is because I have a very good and informal relationship with my Mum which is so different from mark and his Dad... Early on in the relationship I quickly understood that Mark didn't like talking about his Dad, so I didn't really question him about his Dad or family... I know Mark respected his Dad so they were close in that sense... Mark's phone would ring, and Mark would always leave the room to take the call in private, and once he had finished he would tell me it was his Dad. He didn't like me or anyone overhearing his calls. As long as I've known Mark... Mark would make calls to his Dad when I was not around, again I believe this is because of privacy reasons... he would always delete his Dad's emails as he was embarrassed of the formal relationship he had with him and didn't want me reading them."

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.

Daisy is right of course, though if Mark is sending you the transcripts we might be pre-empting what he has to say.

Certainly in her witness statement of 6 February, she explained that "Mark’s father was aware that Mark and I were boyfriend and girlfriend", and she repeated this evidence on the stand. Sami mentioned it to a number of other people too, including one of the contractors he hired: "Last summer I saw Samuel, I knew Mark had a girlfriend. Sami said he had a new girlfriend. He said Mark had had a holiday with his girlfriend".

[Fact Checker]

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.

I think we've exhausted this possibility already John, because any journies like this would have been documented and evidenced in some way and picked up by the police.

People don't make some of their trips secretly and others openly, or in other words, go out of their way to spotted on some journies and not others. Either they are seen on all of them, or not at all.

We know that Mark made 12 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.

[Fact Checker]

The whole idea that some anonymous third party was involved in the murder of Samuel Alexander is quite simply ridiculous imo.

So, some of you are convinced that Mark had accomplices, but can't imagine there being third-party involvement? This is a bit like someone telling you that they eat Brie but don't like cheese. It's a very small step from saying that others were involved (accomplices) to saying that Mark didn't know who those people were. In the end you realise that your Brie was just cheese all along.

[Angelo222]

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.

Agreed.  There's simply no logic in what Mark claims.  No wonder he botched his exams.

[Angelo222]

We've had a chance to go over the transcripts in more depth and found that Mark did at least mention to her that he'd tried to get in touch with his father on Christmas day:

"I don't know what contact he made with his father, but I think he said over Christmas he had called his father... I was not actually personally aware of any contact by Mark with his father over Christmas".

We know from her testimony that this was quite normal. The Judge summed up her evidence to the jury as follows:

"Her impression was, she said, that Mark cared for his father deeply, but she acknowledged that Mark's father's relationship with Mark was very different from the relationship she had with her parents".

"She said that when during her relationship Mark ever took any phone calls from his father he would normally go out of the room so he could talk privately to his father, 'and he told me he didn't like speaking to his father when others were around' and that perhaps he was embarrassed to do so... 'He told me sometimes he didn't like to go into details about his father... In our relationship Mark often glossed over the topic'"

In her original statement to the police she explained that

"Mark seemed embarrassed about the relationship with his Dad, I think this is because I have a very good and informal relationship with my Mum which is so different from mark and his Dad... Early on in the relationship I quickly understood that Mark didn't like talking about his Dad, so I didn't really question him about his Dad or family... I know Mark respected his Dad so they were close in that sense... Mark's phone would ring, and Mark would always leave the room to take the call in private, and once he had finished he would tell me it was his Dad. He didn't like me or anyone overhearing his calls. As long as I've known Mark... Mark would make calls to his Dad when I was not around, again I believe this is because of privacy reasons... he would always delete his Dad's emails as he was embarrassed of the formal relationship he had with him and didn't want me reading them."

Daisy is right of course, though if Mark is sending you the transcripts we might be pre-empting what he has to say.

Certainly in her witness statement of 6 February, she explained that "Mark’s father was aware that Mark and I were boyfriend and girlfriend", and she repeated this evidence on the stand. Sami mentioned it to a number of other people too, including one of the contractors he hired: "Last summer I saw Samuel, I knew Mark had a girlfriend. Sami said he had a new girlfriend. He said Mark had had a holiday with his girlfriend".

I wouldn't believe a word either of them say.

[Angelo222]

I think we've exhausted this possibility already John, because any journies like this would have been documented and evidenced in some way and picked up by the police.

People don't make some of their trips secretly and others openly, or in other words, go out of their way to spotted on some journies and not others. Either they are seen on all of them, or not at all.

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.

I think you underestimate the abilities of murderers when the chips are down. He could easily have dug the hole in one or two trips and filled it in during two more trips imo.

[Fact Checker]

I wouldn't believe a word either of them say.

Love all your comments. Are you on commission with the Daily Mail?

Perhaps you'd like to offer some defamatory statements explaining why a high-flying lawyer like Senta (SN) shouldn't be taken on her word.

[Fact Checker]

He will never benefit from this crime and rightly so imo.

And what did Mark stand to 'benefit' from all this exactly?

When we talk about 'benefit' there needs to be some actual improvement to the existing situation. That means more than just the value of the thing gained ('nominal benefit'). It involves an assessment of that nominal value against what a person already has ('relative benefit'). In other words, is it really worth it? 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. As he explains on our website (www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/):

My childhood may have been difficult and unconventional, but it made me who I am today, and I’m a stronger person for it. I’ve never felt like a victim of my circumstances, and I just don’t buy into the idea that traumatic experiences can only ever have a negative impact on people.

I look back upon my life at that time as a halcyon period. Things were going from strength to strength and I wanted for nothing. I’d come away from an amazing boarding school education with the highest mark in the country for ICT at A level, been head-hunted by IBM, worked at the Wimbledon Championships, and been nominated for the Excellence in Computing Awards. When King’s College London made me an offer to study law everything seemed to be falling into place. There’s no sense that dad was somehow ‘holding me back’. I had set up my own business a few years before my arrest, and my diary was being filled with invitations to deliver talks on entrepreneurship and innovation, attend parties and business functions. I was making new friends and enjoying student life, it was an exciting time. The reality is that I was already living the life I ‘wanted to lead’. Everything was already on track, why would I throw it all away?

This was a zero-sum game for Mark. He had nothing to 'gain' and everything to lose. But this isn't simply an economic analysis folks. We're talking about the loss of a kid's father here, and you can't put a value on that. This was the father he'd grown up to idolise, the father he'd nursed back to health on his sick-bed. Whatever faults you may think they had, these two people loved and cared for each other. Sami was all the family Mark knew or had, and the one person he could rely on in life. He wouldn't have given that up for the world.

[Nicholas]

Love all your comments. Are you on commission with the Daily Mail?

Perhaps you'd like to offer some defamatory statements explaining why a high-flying lawyer like SN shouldn't be taken on her word.

Who is the alleged high flying lawyer SN?

[Nicholas]

I wouldn't believe a word either of them say.

I agree!

[Nicholas]

And what did Mark stand to 'benefit' from all this exactly?

When we talk about 'benefit' there needs to be some actual improvement to the existing situation. That means more than just the value of the thing gained ('nominal benefit'). It involves an assessment of that nominal value against what a person already has ('relative benefit'). In other words, is it really worth it? 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. As he explains on our website (www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-6/):

This was a zero-sum game for Mark. He had nothing to 'gain' and everything to lose. But this isn't simply an economic analysis folks. We're talking about the loss of a kid's father here, and you can't put a value on that. This was the father he'd grown up to idolise, the father he'd nursed back to health on his sick-bed. Whatever faults you may think they had, these two people loved and cared for each other. Sami was all the family Mark knew or had, and the one person he could rely on in life. He wouldn't have given that up for the world.

But Mark clearly isn’t your average guy and Psychopaths like him, as that’s what I think he is, don’t need to gain in the way you imagine.

[Nicholas]

I’d be interested to learn how Mark coped with being abandoned by his mother at such a young age and what affect this had on his emotional development

[mrswah]

But Mark clearly isn’t your average guy and Psychopaths like him, as that’s what I think he is, don’t need to gain in the way you imagine.

There is no evidence to suggest that Mark is a psychopath.