Author Topic: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.  (Read 67025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #195 on: January 25, 2019, 12:26:09 PM »
But why at this moment in particular? The timing is off. The idea that he would nurse his father back to health, only to turn on him, just doesn't sit right. And this at the very moment when he is supposedly being granted his freedom. If he wanted to get away from Sami, all he had to do was walk out of the door and never come back. He could have made a clean break in Paris or London quite easily.

Not as yet. Mark's lawyers collated a list of about 40 contractors who Sami had hired to do work at the house over the years, and phoned them all. Nothing really came out of this however, and it seems unlikely that anyone would implicate themselves that way at any rate.

Since Sami tended to pay labourers and housekeepers in cash, there are very few records of any of the work that occurred at the home. Despite building work of this nature being noisy and labour-intensive, the neighbours maintain that they saw no-one doing any work until Mark showed up for an hour and a half on 19 November.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#contractors
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#night

Things often don’t “sit right” in cases like this but you shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss all the possibilities.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 12:35:11 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Daisy

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #196 on: January 28, 2019, 08:38:22 AM »
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.

Let us be clear here. Senta was a year below Mark so hadn’t even qualified as a lawyer. Also what an elitist attitude you have to suggest a “high flying lawyer” wouldn’t be lying!!  All sorts of people tell lies and a person’s occupation does not give them credibility. You are so naive.  She didn’t do a very good job on the stand as the jury found Mark guilty.

Offline Fact Checker

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #197 on: January 28, 2019, 04:03:26 PM »
Why was Senta a witness for the prosecution? She was Mark’s girlfriend and I have always been led to believe she was a witness for the Defence.

This is quite routine where the evidence a witness can contribute is important to the case. The court will want to hear their evidence early on in the trial, rather than waiting until the defence opens (which was 6 weeks into Mark's trial for example). One important reason for this is that if they were to say something which other witnesses need to be questioned about then the court would have to call back all of those other witnesses to take the stand again. SN was, on all accounts, a good witness. She gave an honest and reliable testimony to the Court, and whilst she believed Mark to be innocent she did not shy away from telling the truth, the issue you raised earlier being a good example of that:

"when quizzed, his girlfriend SN said he told her he had seen his father in February".

In her statement to police she explained that "On 4 February Mark drove the car back to Drayton Parslow... That day I remember asking him whether he had seen his Dad. He told me he had. On 5 February Mark received a call from social services, saying that his Dad has been reported missing. I thought this was strange because Mark had told me he'd seen his Dad the day before. I pointed this out to him and he apologised and said he'd lied about seeing his dad because he didn't want to talk [about it]... he was attempting to call his dad lots throughout the day."

Mark was arrested later that evening. At his trial the Judge explained, "Mark has admitted that he... implied he had seen his father on that visit at the beginning of February, when in fact he had not... 'SN just asked me on 4 February if I had seen my dad today and I made a very off-hand response just saying 'Yes'... but I did correct it with SN after I received the call from [social services]'".

So here was a situation where Mark had 'glossed over' the topic of his father in the way we discussed earlier, and which is representative of two aspects of Mark's upbringing: 1) his compartmentalisation of family and social life; 2) the way Mark had been conditioned by his father to maintain this kind of secrecy about where he might be at any given moment.

"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."

As Mark has described it to us, "I didn't want to trouble SN with the whole situation and said 'Yes' to avoid having to get into a full blown discussion about everything. I just thought dad would turn up and it would all blow over." Whilst Mark's concerns were mounting in the New Year, he still saw this as just another communication blackout in a long line of similar unexplained absences on the part of his father. The fact that they had had a falling out in October also made the situation more complex than previous occasions and harder for Mark to gauge whether this was something to be worried about or not. Because Mark didn't discuss it with anyone, he was relying on his own judgement at exactly the moment when he would have most benefited from the advice of others. Mark certainly recognises his faults, and this was one of them. He's never claimed to be perfect, only that he is innocent of this crime. We should remember that innocent people are just human beings like all the rest of us:

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Offline Fact Checker

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #198 on: January 28, 2019, 04:05:05 PM »
I’d be interested to know what you learned from my bad experience? The same applies to the case I was once involved with.

@)(++(* How is it unfair and irresponsible? And for the record and to make it abundantly clear, you have no idea of my experience - just an opinion of what you think my experience was/is!

Nicholas, please don't think we're trying to have a go at you. We're all fighting for the same thing here, so we say this out of solidarity with you as a fellow campaigner. We chose our words carefully before. We know that you had a bad experience with Simon, but we don't pretend to have insight into the experience itself. What matters is that a bad experience, whatever the experience may be, is going to leave a lasting effect on someone. Different people react differently to bad experiences. Some try to draw positives from it and move on. Others are consumed by the negatives and become stuck in the past. If you allow bad experiences and all the negative emotions that come with that to become a controlling influence in your life then you will never truly be able to put this awful experience behind you. That mindset will only ever lead to bitterness, anger, and resentment which will be projected onto everything and everyone around you. Forget about this case for a minute and just think about yourself and your own future. Where do you want to be in a year or two? You deserve a second chance. Don't allow yourself to be held down, or held back, by the ghosts of the past.

Now, we know we'll be shot down for going off topic here, but we can't go on without addressing the elephant in the Forum: Simon Hall. This case sent shock-waves throughout the miscarriage of justice community that are still felt today. It shook campaigners, it shook investigators, and it shook the prisoners who really are innocent. Two big questions come out of this moving forward. How do innocent prisoners make themselves heard without being compared to Simon Hall? And how do campaigners identify who is really innocent? These are not easy questions, but several academics have had a good go at laying down a few basic principles. Dr Michael Naughton for example came up with his 'Typology of Prisoners Maintaining Innocence'. He categorises prisoners who maintain innocence into five groups:

1) Those who have suffered an abuse of process, what you might call a 'technical' or 'formal' breach. For example, a burglar who wasn't caught for the burglary he actually committed, but has been convicted of another burglary that he wasn't involved in. This raises interesting ethical issues, because if we expect our justice system to uphold the law then we have to hold it to the highest standards. Allowing criminal justice professionals to 'fit' someone up shouldn't be acceptable, because it involves the state acting criminally. If they don't follow procedure then they should be held accountable for that so that they do their jobs properly in future without cutting corners.

2) Those who do not know or see their behaviour as criminal because they 'misunderstand' the law. Dr Naughton includes joint enterprise cases in this group.

3) Those who know they have committed an offense but think that the law is wrong / that the offense should be criminalised, for example, a cannabis dealer.

4) Those who maintain their innocence to protect loved ones from the truth.

5) Those who are telling the truth. They are completely innocent, legally and factually.

In his view, people say they are innocent for many different reasons. We need to be aware of this, but also careful not to rush to judgement. Comparing every prisoner to Simon Hall is unfair because everyone is different. By looking for what we think are similarities between cases we run the risk of wrongly categorising prisoners as guilty when they are in fact innocent. This will only perpetuate injustice. We also run the risk of seeing what we want to see, or looking for what we want to look for. This is a risk we can ill afford to take. We should be critical, we should test the evidence, and we should question everything. But we should also try to be impartial and treat every case and every individual on their own merits, without allowing our preconceptions about what a miscarriage of justice ought to look like affect how we treat new cases. This is a challenge for all of us in the field, but one we can all rise to.
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Offline Fact Checker

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #199 on: January 28, 2019, 04:25:02 PM »
Do you not think it probable that the reason Mark excelled at such a young age was because he was/is without conscience therefore more able than those with a conscience?

Not really. Wouldn't that have to be true of all people who excel at a young age?

I fail to see Mark’s positive feelings towards his father nor have I witnessed Mark’s support of his father for his behaviour towards Mark (Or indeed his mother) and why his father behaved the way he did in the first place - How and why his Sami’s) alleged controlling and abusive behaviour started etc and what his back story is.

You might like to read the links below:

Mark's real grief over his father's death is palpable, as are his regrets over his short-sightedness:

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/eulogy/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top4
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20

As Mark says "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."

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top17

As Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist came to the conclusion that "Although on the one hand Mark accepts that his upbringing was unusual, in that his father was not a very nice man, he still tends to idealise him, emphasising the care and attention he showed him, and to a large extent denying the degree of abuse he suffered". There are some interesting comments as well from the counseling report we shared with you previously:

"On one occasion Mark recounts being confined to his room being given only bread and water. His child processing of being reprimanded was that of acceptance, he believed he deserved the punishment and this motivated him to try harder and gain his father's approval... Mark maintained that he took something positive from each negative experience... Mark believed he was to blame or be at fault and would endeavour to improve himself resulting in avoidance of future disappointments...

In exploring the effects of Mark's unconventional childhood, Mark stated that it only became apparent to him that his early years were not conventional as he grew into his pre-adult years... Mark did not know any different and accepted his early childhood as normal... Mark maintains he has no regrets with the way his father brought him up... Mark did not minimise the level of abuse he was exposed to as a child and admitted to fearing his father, but what remained constant through his therapy was that he believes the abuse has not had a detrimental effect on his adult life... Mark stated that these negative experiences did not change the fact that he loved his father. Mark explained that he believes we do not pick and choose the bits about someone that we care for, we accept them as a whole with all their complexities... Mark engaged with the counseling process... It was at times challenging for Mark and he could become emotional when exploring 'loss' relating to his father"
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Offline Myster

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #200 on: January 28, 2019, 06:46:50 PM »
In her statement to police she explained that "On 4 February Mark drove the car back to Drayton Parslow... That day I remember asking him whether he had seen his Dad. He told me he had. On 5 February Mark received a call from social services, saying that his Dad has been reported missing. I thought this was strange because Mark had told me he'd seen his Dad the day before. I pointed this out to him and he apologised and said he'd lied about seeing his dad because he didn't want to talk [about it]... he was attempting to call his dad lots throughout the day."

Mark was arrested later that evening. At his trial the Judge explained, "Mark has admitted that he... implied he had seen his father on that visit at the beginning of February, when in fact he had not... 'SN just asked me on 4 February if I had seen my dad today and I made a very off-hand response just saying 'Yes'... but I did correct it with SN after I received the call from [social services]'".
And yet, despite caring so much for his dad's welfare and countless numbers of fruitless phone calls home, even in the first few days of February Mark didn't think of getting into contact with the Egyptian Coptic church or community in London to enquire about his dad's whereabouts, despite pacifying neighbours that this was Sami's most likely place of refuge.

Some apt phrases come to mind... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, a chip off the old block, tell a lie once and all your other truths are brought into question.
It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #201 on: January 29, 2019, 11:16:56 AM »
Nicholas, please don't think we're trying to have a go at you. We're all fighting for the same thing here, so we say this out of solidarity with you as a fellow campaigner. We chose our words carefully before. We know that you had a bad experience with Simon, but we don't pretend to have insight into the experience itself. What matters is that a bad experience, whatever the experience may be, is going to leave a lasting effect on someone. Different people react differently to bad experiences. Some try to draw positives from it and move on. Others are consumed by the negatives and become stuck in the past. If you allow bad experiences and all the negative emotions that come with that to become a controlling influence in your life then you will never truly be able to put this awful experience behind you. That mindset will only ever lead to bitterness, anger, and resentment which will be projected onto everything and everyone around you. Forget about this case for a minute and just think about yourself and your own future. Where do you want to be in a year or two? You deserve a second chance. Don't allow yourself to be held down, or held back, by the ghosts of the past.

These are interesting projections; especially so when you apply them to Mark Alexander!
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #202 on: January 29, 2019, 11:25:59 AM »
Now, we know we'll be shot down for going off topic here, but we can't go on without addressing the elephant in the Forum: Simon Hall. This case sent shock-waves throughout the miscarriage of justice community that are still felt today. It shook campaigners, it shook investigators, and it shook the prisoners who really are innocent. Two big questions come out of this moving forward. How do innocent prisoners make themselves heard without being compared to Simon Hall? And how do campaigners identify who is really innocent? These are not easy questions, but several academics have had a good go at laying down a few basic principles. Dr Michael Naughton for example came up with his 'Typology of Prisoners Maintaining Innocence'. He categorises prisoners who maintain innocence into five groups:

1) Those who have suffered an abuse of process, what you might call a 'technical' or 'formal' breach. For example, a burglar who wasn't caught for the burglary he actually committed, but has been convicted of another burglary that he wasn't involved in. This raises interesting ethical issues, because if we expect our justice system to uphold the law then we have to hold it to the highest standards. Allowing criminal justice professionals to 'fit' someone up shouldn't be acceptable, because it involves the state acting criminally. If they don't follow procedure then they should be held accountable for that so that they do their jobs properly in future without cutting corners.

2) Those who do not know or see their behaviour as criminal because they 'misunderstand' the law. Dr Naughton includes joint enterprise cases in this group.

3) Those who know they have committed an offense but think that the law is wrong / that the offense should be criminalised, for example, a cannabis dealer.

4) Those who maintain their innocence to protect loved ones from the truth.

5) Those who are telling the truth. They are completely innocent, legally and factually.

In his view, people say they are innocent for many different reasons. We need to be aware of this, but also careful not to rush to judgement. Comparing every prisoner to Simon Hall is unfair because everyone is different. By looking for what we think are similarities between cases we run the risk of wrongly categorising prisoners as guilty when they are in fact innocent. This will only perpetuate injustice. We also run the risk of seeing what we want to see, or looking for what we want to look for. This is a risk we can ill afford to take. We should be critical, we should test the evidence, and we should question everything. But we should also try to be impartial and treat every case and every individual on their own merits, without allowing our preconceptions about what a miscarriage of justice ought to look like affect how we treat new cases. This is a challenge for all of us in the field, but one we can all rise to.

I find it interesting you refer to Dr Michael Naughton’s work, especially given the fact he was Simon Hall’s representative at the time of his confession.

From my experiences and knowledge Michael Naughtons work is outdated and indeed flawed.

And your projections appear naive and bias, as opposed to impartial - which you clearly are not.

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #203 on: January 29, 2019, 11:32:07 AM »
Not really. Wouldn't that have to be true of all people who excel at a young age?

You might like to read the links below:

As Mark says "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."

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top17

As Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist came to the conclusion that "Although on the one hand Mark accepts that his upbringing was unusual, in that his father was not a very nice man, he still tends to idealise him, emphasising the care and attention he showed him, and to a large extent denying the degree of abuse he suffered". There are some interesting comments as well from the counseling report we shared with you previously:

"On one occasion Mark recounts being confined to his room being given only bread and water. His child processing of being reprimanded was that of acceptance, he believed he deserved the punishment and this motivated him to try harder and gain his father's approval... Mark maintained that he took something positive from each negative experience... Mark believed he was to blame or be at fault and would endeavour to improve himself resulting in avoidance of future disappointments...

In exploring the effects of Mark's unconventional childhood, Mark stated that it only became apparent to him that his early years were not conventional as he grew into his pre-adult years... Mark did not know any different and accepted his early childhood as normal... Mark maintains he has no regrets with the way his father brought him up... Mark did not minimise the level of abuse he was exposed to as a child and admitted to fearing his father, but what remained constant through his therapy was that he believes the abuse has not had a detrimental effect on his adult life... Mark stated that these negative experiences did not change the fact that he loved his father. Mark explained that he believes we do not pick and choose the bits about someone that we care for, we accept them as a whole with all their complexities... Mark engaged with the counseling process... It was at times challenging for Mark and he could become emotional when exploring 'loss' relating to his father"

Can you expand on this? For example, what is Mark’s understanding of ‘love?’ What is your understanding of love? 

Did Mark murder his father because he “loved him” in his strange way?

Was Sami’s alleged abuse of Mark grounded in love?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 11:48:40 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #204 on: January 29, 2019, 11:37:28 AM »
Nicholas, please don't think we're trying to have a go at you. We're all fighting for the same thing here, so we say this out of solidarity with you as a fellow campaigner. We chose our words carefully before. We know that you had a bad experience with Simon, but we don't pretend to have insight into the experience itself. What matters is that a bad experience, whatever the experience may be, is going to leave a lasting effect on someone. Different people react differently to bad experiences. Some try to draw positives from it and move on. Others are consumed by the negatives and become stuck in the past. If you allow bad experiences and all the negative emotions that come with that to become a controlling influence in your life then you will never truly be able to put this awful experience behind you. That mindset will only ever lead to bitterness, anger, and resentment which will be projected onto everything and everyone around you. Forget about this case for a minute and just think about yourself and your own future. Where do you want to be in a year or two? You deserve a second chance. Don't allow yourself to be held down, or held back, by the ghosts of the past.

Now, we know we'll be shot down for going off topic here, but we can't go on without addressing the elephant in the Forum: Simon Hall. This case sent shock-waves throughout the miscarriage of justice community that are still felt today. It shook campaigners, it shook investigators, and it shook the prisoners who really are innocent. Two big questions come out of this moving forward. How do innocent prisoners make themselves heard without being compared to Simon Hall? And how do campaigners identify who is really innocent? These are not easy questions, but several academics have had a good go at laying down a few basic principles. Dr Michael Naughton for example came up with his 'Typology of Prisoners Maintaining Innocence'. He categorises prisoners who maintain innocence into five groups:

1) Those who have suffered an abuse of process, what you might call a 'technical' or 'formal' breach. For example, a burglar who wasn't caught for the burglary he actually committed, but has been convicted of another burglary that he wasn't involved in. This raises interesting ethical issues, because if we expect our justice system to uphold the law then we have to hold it to the highest standards. Allowing criminal justice professionals to 'fit' someone up shouldn't be acceptable, because it involves the state acting criminally. If they don't follow procedure then they should be held accountable for that so that they do their jobs properly in future without cutting corners.

2) Those who do not know or see their behaviour as criminal because they 'misunderstand' the law. Dr Naughton includes joint enterprise cases in this group.

3) Those who know they have committed an offense but think that the law is wrong / that the offense should be criminalised, for example, a cannabis dealer.

4) Those who maintain their innocence to protect loved ones from the truth.

5) Those who are telling the truth. They are completely innocent, legally and factually.

In his view, people say they are innocent for many different reasons. We need to be aware of this, but also careful not to rush to judgement. Comparing every prisoner to Simon Hall is unfair because everyone is different. By looking for what we think are similarities between cases we run the risk of wrongly categorising prisoners as guilty when they are in fact innocent. This will only perpetuate injustice. We also run the risk of seeing what we want to see, or looking for what we want to look for. This is a risk we can ill afford to take. We should be critical, we should test the evidence, and we should question everything. But we should also try to be impartial and treat every case and every individual on their own merits, without allowing our preconceptions about what a miscarriage of justice ought to look like affect how we treat new cases. This is a challenge for all of us in the field, but one we can all rise to.

Can you really not see the fundamental flaws here?

What about the psychopathic prisoners, those whom for example thrive on manipulating and deceiving others?


« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 12:32:07 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Fact Checker

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #205 on: January 29, 2019, 04:26:45 PM »
Can you expand on this? For example, what is Mark’s understanding of ‘love?’ What is your understanding of love? Did Mark murder his father because he “loved him” in his strange way? Was Sami’s alleged abuse of Mark grounded in love?

Well, we don't think Mark murdered his father at all. These kind of relationships are complex, but we think the prosecution fundamentally distorted the reality of situation for their own benefit. They were essentially saying that Mark's childhood experiences led to what happened, and go to Mark's motive. But given that the abuse stopped when Mark became a teenager it doesn't make much sense that he would suddenly snap at the age of 21, five years later, just as he was about to leave home. All he had to do was wait a few weeks! If he'd waited five years, a few weeks wasn't going to hurt.

Love is a very subjective thing. Whatever we call it, these two people clearly cared for each other. Mark wouldn't have nursed his father back to health for 6 months, washed him, helped him on the toilet etc. if he didn't care about him. And he wouldn't have done all of that just to take his life away later. Sami had a control problem and an anger problem, granted, but nobody is completely one-sided. Everyone has different sides to their personality, and there was a lot about Sami that those closest to him loved about him. Many people have described him as a "lovable rogue" for instance.
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Offline Fact Checker

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #206 on: January 29, 2019, 04:27:48 PM »
From my experiences and knowledge Michael Naughtons work is outdated and indeed flawed.

You're absolutely right, the model needs more work. You could add more categories, and divide some of the existing one's up. It's an area that needs more study and would definitely benefit from contributions from stakeholders.
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #207 on: January 31, 2019, 07:53:29 PM »
Well, we don't think Mark murdered his father at all. These kind of relationships are complex, but we think the prosecution fundamentally distorted the reality of situation for their own benefit. They were essentially saying that Mark's childhood experiences led to what happened, and go to Mark's motive. But given that the abuse stopped when Mark became a teenager it doesn't make much sense that he would suddenly snap at the age of 21, five years later, just as he was about to leave home. All he had to do was wait a few weeks! If he'd waited five years, a few weeks wasn't going to hurt.

Love is a very subjective thing. Whatever we call it, these two people clearly cared for each other. Mark wouldn't have nursed his father back to health for 6 months, washed him, helped him on the toilet etc. if he didn't care about him. And he wouldn't have done all of that just to take his life away later. Sami had a control problem and an anger problem, granted, but nobody is completely one-sided. Everyone has different sides to their personality, and there was a lot about Sami that those closest to him loved about him. Many people have described him as a "lovable rogue" for instance.

Traumatic experiences in childhood and psychopathy: a study on a sample of violent offenders from Italy
Giuseppe Craparo, Adriano Schimmenti, and Vincenzo Caretti

“Weiler and Widom (1996) suggested that as a result of early abuse, “a child might become ‘desensitised’ to future painful or anxiety provoking experiences” and that this desensitisation might make “him or her less emotionally and physiologically responsive to the needs of others, to be callous and lack empathy, and to lack remorse or guilt” (p. 264); similarly, Porter (1996) indicated that the “capacity for empathetic responding … is ‘turned off’ with repeated disillusionment of the child through physical or sexual abuse or other mistreatment … the child's emotion being dissociated from or unconnected with cognition and behaviour over time” (p. 183). Porter's theorising implies that traumatic events can trigger a dissociation of affective capacities.
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Fact Checker

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #208 on: February 01, 2019, 11:35:08 AM »
“Weiler and Widom (1996) suggested that as a result of early abuse, "a child might become ‘desensitised’ to future painful or anxiety provoking experiences"

This is very interesting and may explain some violent crimes (though not this one!). The outcomes theorised in this paper are of course conditional and case-specific. What 'might' happen to one victim of abuse won't happen to every victim of abuse. In this case, none of the experts who assessed Mark came to such a diagnosis. Quite the opposite in fact, they were impressed by how well Mark had dealt with his past, as indeed was everyone who knew him. One typical neighbour remarked:

"Mark was a very pleasant young man. I couldn’t imagine how he became so nice after having the father he did". http://www.freemarkalexander.org/testimonials/

We know of course that Mark has been quite overwhelmed emotionally at numerous points, whether it be crying in his police cell, shaking in interview, bursting into tears in the dock under cross-examination, and becoming visibly upset when discussing the loss of his father in therapy. It would be easy to make the mistake of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc here, but Mark's abuse is completely unrelated to Sami's death and has not had the negative impact upon his life that the prosecution implied.

What is important in every case is to subject the individual to the rigours of scientific testing, and face-to-face interaction. Only then can we come to any reliable conclusions. Trying to apply abstract theories to someone you haven't even met, as you seem to be doing, is neither helpful nor reliable.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 11:38:53 AM by Fact Checker »
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #209 on: February 07, 2019, 11:53:29 AM »
What is important in every case is to subject the individual to the rigours of scientific testing, and face-to-face interaction. Only then can we come to any reliable conclusions. Trying to apply abstract theories to someone you haven't even met, as you seem to be doing, is neither helpful nor reliable.

Totally disagree!
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation