Here is the Serious Case Review if anyone is interested in reading it.
http://www.buckinghamshirepartnership.gov.uk/media/1027749/scr_exec_summary_mrc_final.pdf
Looks like his behavoir is a major contributer to his death. Could be he died of natural causes and was buried to secure his benefit money. I say Could be. However, reading this I am leaning towards agreeing with police. Mark knows more than he has saying in my opinion.
Mr Alexander's body was burned then dismembered before the remains were put in plastic bags and encased in concrete in the back garden. I think we can discount natural causes.
Um yeah, I get that. Slipping on a live fire ,then dismembering himself would be difficult lol.
I was suggesting he could have died of natural causes- was burned,buried for fraudulent reasons. It is not as uncommon as you would think. People who get DLA can live abraod- they die, but relatives 'forget' to inform the authoroties. I am not suggesting this is the case here, I was just mentioning it as it is strange his money was still being withdrawn as is being implied by the SCR. I do feel sympathy for Mark having to live with such a creature of hate, and feel he could have claimed diminished responsibility if he had lost the rag with his father. But something is just niggling me.
Mr Alexander's body was burned then dismembered before the remains were put in plastic bags and encased in concrete in the back garden. I think we can discount natural casues.
I have never seen any reports that Samuel's skull was battered. Also although the prosecution tried to convince the jury that Samuel had been dismembered, I think this was retracted but it was still reported in the press as fact. As far as I am aware Samuel's remains were intact. We cannot believe all we read in the press.
I agree, why did he go back to the family home at all if his father was such an ogre?
I wondered that too, but I suppose Mark had, over the years, become used to what his father was like, and knew no different. It also seems, from what I have read, that he was fond of him, despite his behaviour and quirks.
My reading of the situation is that it came down to a battle of wills. Mark had led a sheltered life but on going to University a whole new world had opened up to him including girls. He wanted to stay in London but his father wanted him to study in Paris.
Only Mark knows what happened next and whether his father's death was accidental or premeditated murder.
From the Daily Mail.
His father had insisted the brilliant student spend two years studying in Paris but Alexander wanted to live in London with his girlfriend, Senta Nazarbekova, who knew nothing of the brutal killing.
Determined to have his way, he murdered the frail former university lecturer at their £500,000 home in Drayton
Parslow, Buckinghamshire, just days before he was due to depart for France in September 2009.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310848/Law-student-Mark-Alexander-murdered-controlling-father-jailed-16-
years.html#ixzz4ZeJk6Hkj
Of course if it was in the Daily Mail it MUST be true!! It's all paper talk and so far from the truth it is not worth the paper it is written on. Just like the story that Samuel was found dismembered. All utter rubbish.
Of course if it was in the Daily Mail it MUST be true!! It's all paper talk and so far from the truth it is not worth the paper it is written on. Just like the story that Samuel was found dismembered. All utter rubbish.
Quite. I have come across numerous inaccuracies in newspapers, albeit while studying a different case.
To some extent I agree, the media do like their stories, however, the forensic report which Mark should have will settle this very easily. Can I ask you Daisy, on what basis are you claiming the DM article is rubbish? You do understand that this forum operates on the basis of cites and recorded facts?
I am sorry John if you don't like what I am saying but I only listen to facts. It had already been retracted by the prosecution that Samuel had not been dismembered but the DM still continued to report this as fact. It is outrageous that they will print anything to sell. Yes the forensic report will disprove this. Mark has nothing to hide and it extremely distressed that people keep saying his father died in this way. It was horrifying enough to find out he was buried in the garden, let alone lies being told about the circumstances.
He wasn't killed in August and the full copy of the SCR mentions a meeting with Samuel in September. This information was witheld at trial and only came to light later. I wonder why?
Samuel was aware Mark was moving to London with his girlfriend and got on well with Senta.
Money wasn't continually withdrawn from the account and bank statements prove this. As stated before Mark continued to pay into the account as his father was struggling financially. He withdrew cash which his father preferred to use and took it regularly to the house as instructed by his father.
There are obviously certain elements about the article which are true but newspapers have no morals and print as fact information which is heresay or has been repeated and twisted third hand.
I believe Mark and until I see anything which causes me to doubt him, I will continue to fight for his cause. Of course, John, I am most grateful that you are allowing me to debate this case on the forum whatever your personal view of Mark.
I am sorry John if you don't like what I am saying but I only listen to facts. It had already been retracted by the prosecution that Samuel had not been dismembered but the DM still continued to report this as fact. It is outrageous that they will print anything to sell. Yes the forensic report will disprove this. Mark has nothing to hide and it extremely distressed that people keep saying his father died in this way. It was horrifying enough to find out he was buried in the garden, let alone lies being told about the circumstances.
He wasn't killed in August and the full copy of the SCR mentions a meeting with Samuel in September. This information was witheld at trial and only came to light later. I wonder why?
Samuel was aware Mark was moving to London with his girlfriend and got on well with Senta.
Money wasn't continually withdrawn from the account and bank statements prove this. As stated before Mark continued to pay into the account as his father was struggling financially. He withdrew cash which his father preferred to use and took it regularly to the house as instructed by his father.
There are obviously certain elements about the article which are true but newspapers have no morals and print as fact information which is heresay or has been repeated and twisted third hand.
I believe Mark and until I see anything which causes me to doubt him, I will continue to fight for his cause. Of course, John, I am most grateful that you are allowing me to debate this case on the forum whatever your personal view of Mark.
Well, Daisy...Occams razor and all that....Sami was obviously a very difficult man, but he was too frail to just move away and get on with his life, and Mark laid a load of concrete and Sami was under that concrete. With all due respect, you were wrong about Bamber. But, good luck to you. You mean well.
I started out thinking Jeremy was innocent but as time went on I began to lean towards guilty. With Mark the situation is different. We know Sami was under several layers of concrete. A geologist who examined the site stated that it was laid by different people. The first layers were done by a professional and Mark laid the final very amateurish layer. He clearly didn't have a clue what he was doing but wanted to please his father by finishing the job.
It has been accepted that Sami didn't go away. As he was in the habit of going away for periods of time, Mark wrongly assumed he had done so again.
He can't have been that frail as the neighbour who gave a witness statement saw him putting up a fence post.
Did any contractor ever come forward and admit to laying concrete?
As a qualified civil engineer with lots of experience in pouring concrete I can tell you now that the geologist was talking out of his backside. No expert can tell who laid concrete as like most things it can be faked in all sorts of ways. Had there been a contractor on site they would have been observed.
Did any contractor ever come forward and admit to laying concrete?
As a qualified civil engineer with lots of experience in pouring concrete I can tell you now that the geologist was talking out of his backside. No expert can tell who laid concrete as like most things it can be faked in all sorts of ways. Had there been a contractor on site they would have been observed.
I certainly don't have any experience of laying concrete (!), but I would have thought it would be perfectly possible to tell whether it had been done professionally or not, and if one layer was not done as well as the previous layer.
I would also have thought that at least one neighbour would have noticed a workman at the house laying concrete, or at least, they would have noticed a workman's vehicle. Neighbours tend to notice these things.
Yes precisely. It is easy for a professional to see who it was done by whether it is plastering, bricklaying or laying concrete.
Neighbours don't seem to notice things these days as we all lead busy lives. My house was broken into several years ago in broad daylight. One neighbour was washing his car and another was mowing his lawn yet they didn't see anything, despite the intruder scouring a 6ft wall!
It all seems somewhat tenuous. Friends who have never been identified, carers who never existed, labourers who disappeared into the night etc etc ... I have a feeling you're onto a lost cause Daisy.
I'm sorry Daisy but you can only stretch a string so far. The defence story appears to be that the concrete was laid as some sort of wall underpinning. If that was the case then the work was completely inappropriate for a multitude of reasons. Furthermore, you don't invite casual labour to undertake such a task. It also raises the question as to where Samuel found such labourers, him being an oddball recluse who never opened his doors to anyone?
Had Samuel employed casual labour to carry out the work there would have been cars or vans at the property, possibly a mini digger and a concrete mixer on a trailer since very few people in the trade use a spade these days. The sort of activity associated with concreting work will rarely go unnoticed but in this case it apparently did. I find it much more likely that Mark dug the hole himself in the dark when nobody would see him and added several layers of concrete when he could. On the other hand, had Mark employed labourers he will know their names.
I haven't formed a view as yet, all I am doing is exploring the evidence. Having sight of the forensics report will be of great help and hopefully we can put to bed anything which the press have wrongly claimed.
Did the pathologist state the cause of death by the way?
The Home Office Pathologist was unable to find a cause of death and gave the following:-
1A - Unassertained.
Judge Reddihough said in his opening speech
"There was no dismembering of the body contrary to what was said to the press."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
Thank you Daisy, it really is quite unbelievable what these hacks get away with. This is where a copy of the forensic report would come in very handy.
Was it true that an attempt had been made to burn the body?
It all seems somewhat tenuous. Friends who have never been identified, carers who never existed, labourers who disappeared into the night etc etc ... I have a feeling you're onto a lost cause Daisy.
Regardless of the above there is absolutely no evidence to connect Mark with this terrible crime. Speculation is not evidence. If you can provide any then please share it with us.
The evidence would appear to be circumstantial but it is still evidence. The three separate layers of concrete laid over Samuel's grave would appear to be extremely self incriminating as far as son Mark is concerned. No third party would risk carrying out such a burial right beside neighbours let alone revisit the scene on another two occasions simply to add more concrete.
The evidence would appear to be circumstantial but it is still evidence. The three separate layers of concrete laid over Samuel's grave would appear to be extremely self incriminating as far as son Mark is concerned. No third party would risk carrying out such a burial right beside neighbours let alone revisit the scene on another two occasions simply to add more concrete.
Neighbouring houses shown below. The white arrow where Sami was buried, black arrows access to the property. I seem to think there was a high wall stretching between the house and garage, shielding views of the rear from the estate road.
Contrary to what was published in the Daily Mail and the presence of a police tent at the front of the property, Samuel was buried at the back. There were several areas of underpinning.
But the position of the tent signifies nothing. A CSI tent was present in front of Helen Bailey's property but her body was found floating in cesspit sewage in a garage at the rear. Contrary to what you believe, most times the Mail gets thing spot on.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4252096/Helen-Bailey-s-fiance-jailed-34-years.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4252096/Helen-Bailey-s-fiance-jailed-34-years.html)
We still have no witness statement from the woman who called at Sami's house and smelled something like a rotting carcass, presumably coming from the garage where his body was stored for a period?
Did you not read my previous post in which I posted a link stating Wikipedia have banned all sources of news from the Daily Mail as they are totally unreliable, and tell downright lies? It is unprecedented as they have never banned a news organisation before.
There was no witness statement from the woman who smelled something from Sami's house. It was obviously discounted as she had bats in her own garage. Another fantasy from the Daily Mail with no substance to it.
Wikipedia itself is not all that it's cracked up to be, as anyone with a grudge can edit. Tell me... what things has the MailOnline got wrong in the Helen Bailey story?
Nobody underpins a domestic garage, the whole idea is ridiculous and especially for a frail old man living on state support. Underpinning is used primarily where there is settlement of a house wall causing cracking. House walls are loaded much more than domestic garages thus why they sometimes fail in poor soil conditions.
The Daily Mail is a trashy tabloid and anyone with any intelligence wouldn't bother reading it.
Nobody underpins a domestic garage, the whole idea is ridiculous and especially for a frail old man living on state support. Underpinning is used primarily where there is settlement of a house wall causing cracking. House walls are loaded much more than domestic garages thus why they sometimes fail in poor soil conditions.
You haven't answered my question, as you're obviously biased with hatred of any paper which prints the truth.
Rather than being just a mouthpiece for Mark Alexander and turning this forum into a supporters' site, you need to upload documentation - court transcripts, witness statements and pathology reports - so that the rest of us can decide whether he's innocent or not. So far, I've seen nothing which proves he was wrongly convicted.
I do not have hatred towards the Daily Mail but obviously professional organisations do. How do you know they print the truth? Only Helen Baileys family will be able to tell you if they printed facts. I only know in this case that the truth wasn't told and even the judge criticised the Daily Mail. This is highly unusual. Many lives have been destroyed by their gutter journalism. There have been many occasions when they have had to make payments to individuals they have made slanderous remarks about.
Court transcripts are not available to the public and are destroyed after a few years. The legal profession are calling for these to be made available. I have already said I am waiting for the forensic report. Please pay attention and stop asking the same questions.
I tried to get hold of court transcripts (referring to a different case). It is true that they are destroyed after about five years, and they are extremely expensive. One has to apply to the court first, and then to whichever private firm made the transcripts. Whether or not they will give them out to anybody is something I never got as far as investigating !!
This is certainly an unusual and fascinating case!
I have no idea whether or not Mark killed his father (either deliberately, or accidentally during an argument), whether he paid someone to do it, or whether he is completely innocent. I can, however, see why a jury would have found him guilty.
I don't think they should have done, because the case could not have been proved beyond reasonable doubt----we do not even know when or how Samuel died. He might even have died of natural causes, and the death covered up, either by Mark, or by somebody else. After all, he was a sick man. Also, Samuel led such a strange life, used a number of aliases, and knew people whose identities we don't know, that we cannot really know who might have had a reason to kill him, or why.
The jury would have been persuaded by the fact that Mark did have a strong motive to kill his father: going by all the reports I have read, his father treated him very badly throughout his life, although the two of them seem also to have been fond of each other.
In addition, I suspect the jurors would have been appalled by the fact that Samuel was buried in the grounds of his home, just as many of us were when Trevor Jordache was buried under the patio in "Eastenders" all those years ago!!! Then, of course, there was the dreadful Cromwell Street case with a number of young women buried under the patio by Fred West. It's vile, but it happens, and I surmise the jurors would have thought that such a deed could only be done by somebody who lived in the house (albeit intermittently).
I have to admit to being a bit suspicious regarding the neighbours, who, going by some reports, disliked Samuel, but who were only to ready to report his disappearance--------to a retired policeman who lived in the village. Why were they suddenly so concerned about their difficult, rude neighbour? How did they feel about Mark? Did they like him, or were they angry about him leaving his father to go to university (and leaving them to keep an eye on his father)?
Who knows?
You are clearly an intelligent, insightful and fair minded person who is seeing this case from all angles. I am suspicious as to why the two police officers were so keen to pin this crime on Mark. I wonder if they had informants who killed Samuel and were covering up for them. Anything is possible. Also if the police had done their job properly in the first place instead of taking the easy option, and investigated Samuel's alliases and contacts then they may have found the real culprits. Mark is now having to do this himself at great expense.
You are clearly an intelligent, insightful and fair minded person who is seeing this case from all angles. I am suspicious as to why the two police officers were so keen to pin this crime on Mark. I wonder if they had informants who killed Samuel and were covering up for them. Anything is possible. Also if the police had done their job properly in the first place instead of taking the easy option, and investigated Samuel's alliases and contacts then they may have found the real culprits. Mark is now having to do this himself at great expense.
That really isnt any mystery Daisy. A father and son with a fraught relationship, the father disappears suddenly, no contact with social services, unkept appointments when previously he had attended both his GP and the hospital. A son who sends out Christmas cards purporting to be from his father yet tells anyone who later asks that he had gone off on his jaunts leaving his car and possessions behind and never once accesses his bank accounts or does any sort of business online. Then eventually the father's burned body is found buried alongside the family garage in a makeshift grave covered in multiple layers of mortar and concrete where nobody except the family had any access to. It really doesn't take much for all these circumstances to add up to suspicion of the son.
Where do you come up with the idea it was a fraught relationship? Oh yes of course The Daily Mail! This is far from the truth. Mark was very compliant and did whatever he was asked and never complained. The serious case review criticised Social Services for not considering Mark's needs. While at school Sami used to make sure Mark was studying at weekends for 8 hours a day and Mark did as he was told. Try telling a child today to do that!! Mark told me that the jury couldn't understand their unconventional life style as it wasn't "normal". However how does one define "normal?".
Lots of people had access to the family home. Also shortly before Sami disappeared the police put letters through everyone's doors in the village warning of suspicious individuals hanging around.
You asked why two police officers were so keen to pin the crime on Mark and I ponted out why it was obvious. Nobody knows what went on behind closed doors, you only have Mark's version of events to go by. I find it extremely likely however that when Mark started spending time away from home and the influence of his father that the relationship changed dramatically. Was Sami's demand that Mark attend university in Paris and away from his girlfriend in London an ultimatum with consequences?
Yes it is easy to go with the cheapest option like they did with Barry George and Colin Stagg . Good police work starts with gathering facts and investigating properly. You of all people should understand that. There is no evidence in this case only suspicion and the jury should never have convicted Mark on this basis. I am not aware that Sami demanded Mark attend University in Paris and I will clarify this point with him. Of course I only have Mark's version of events to go by and this is fact compared to The Daily Mail's version.
It is incorrect to state that there is no evidence in this case Daisy. The conviction proceeded on the basis of circumstantial evidence some of which we have discussed on this board. What is very clear is that Mark made no attempt to disclose the fact that his father had disappeared under very suspicious circumstances. In fact, he went out of his way to ignore the disappearance and give the impression to anyone who enquired that his father was off visiting associates in London. He furthered this pretence by sending out Christmas cards in his fathers name. Sami might well have gone off somewhere but I'm very sure his son would have known had he not done so ie he was dead and buried in the back garden. I do not accept for a second that a son whose life had revolved around his father for twenty odd years would not know if his father had gone away or not. Additionally, son Mark had access to his fathers banking and had withdrawn sums of money regularly from it, he knew very well that his father had not taken any funds. The Daily Mail nonsense aside, in the real world those circumstances all add up to a very real suspicion.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying Mark killed his father but it is most certainly a very real and credible possibility.
Yes I agree there is suspicion but we have to remember that Sami and Mark had an unconventional lifestyle which many of us find hard to understand. Sometimes when there is no solid evidence it comes down to belief. I speak to Mark regularly and he comes over as very genuine. The trouble today with so much evil in the world we are naturally suspicious of everyone. Years ago we were much more trusting but this seems to have been lost. All I can say is Mark has given me his version of events which are consistent whenever I speak to him or receive a letter. The truth never changes and I will continue to believe him but at the same time question him. I have sent a list of further questions to him today.
After a while you will form a sense of whether he is being honest with you and if he is holding back anything. There are many tell-tale signs to look out for. Remember this though, he is a smart guy and may have created a version of events in his own and and sticks to it. Our job is to pick away at it to see if it sustains.
That thought did cross my mind. People can be so convincing. That is why I am grateful to have this platform to discuss as others may have thought of something I haven't. I remember how I was fooled by Jeremy Bamber and I don't want to make the same mistake twice.
I'm sorry Daisy but you can only stretch a string so far. The defence story appears to be that the concrete was laid as some sort of wall underpinning. If that was the case then the work was completely inappropriate for a multitude of reasons. Furthermore, you don't invite casual labour to undertake such a task. It also raises the question as to where Samuel found such labourers, him being an oddball recluse who never opened his doors to anyone?
Had Samuel employed casual labour to carry out the work there would have been cars or vans at the property, possibly a mini digger and a concrete mixer on a trailer since very few people in the trade use a spade these days. The sort of activity associated with concreting work will rarely go unnoticed but in this case it apparently did. I find it much more likely that Mark dug the hole himself in the dark when nobody would see him and added several layers of concrete when he could. On the other hand, had Mark employed labourers he will know their names.
This is Mark's Response
It does seem extraordinary that none of our neighbours saw or heard any of this work taking place. In fact, I came to the same conclusion as yourself that the only logical explanation for this was that the work had been carried out after dark. If so, this rules me out immediately, because I only visited the house during the day. I was living with my girlfriend at the time, and she was able to confirm to the police that:
“Mark didn’t go back to his dad’s that often and never stayed overnight there.”
This might explain why I never bumped into the perpetrators directly. Indeed, when we look at my movements, the latest I was ever at the family home until was 20:15 in September, 19:00 in October and 15:15 in November – so there was always plenty of daylight and people around. The night time would also seem to be a likely time for transportation of the body, particularly if it was taken in and out of the garage – because the main doors faced the street.
Again, the very fact that I ordered a truckload of concrete in my own name, for 2pm in full view of the neighbours, just doesn’t fit with the modus operandi of the people who buried my father. They obviously took great care not to be discovered, while I by contrast was waving cars by in the main road while this huge truck stood blocking it. The simple fact of the matter is that I had nothing to hide. This was routine building work as far as I was concerned, and I was none the wiser about the horrors lurking only a few feet away.
If I was responsible for my father’s burial, I would surely have finished it in the same way it was started; in secret, and in mortar through and through. It doesn’t make any sense to suddenly switch materials and start sounding the trumpets.
Another remarkable fact that rules me out of the picture is that, if I had been responsible, I would have used the existing stockpiles of sand and cement already at the house. Yet it turns out, on analysis, that in fact none of these materials had been used in the mortar mix. It is completely baffling:
“These materials differ from those found in the mortar samples. The cement in
mortar is a completely different formulation and the sand is coarser in terms of
silica content”
- Chartered Engineer and Chartered Geologist.
Did any contractor ever come forward and admit to laying concrete?
As a qualified civil engineer with lots of experience in pouring concrete I can tell you now that the geologist was talking out of his backside. No expert can tell who laid concrete as like most things it can be faked in all sorts of ways. Had there been a contractor on site they would have been observed.
Here is Mark's response
The expert in question wasn’t claiming to identify who actually laid the mortar. He simply drew attention to stark differences in the methodology and workmanship of the mortar as compared to the concrete. We interpret this evidence to say that the same person couldn’t have been responsible for both. I imagine that someone with lots of experience in pouring concrete like yourself might be able to “fake it” as you say, but I think you have rather disproved your own argument here. In order to fake something, you need to know how to fake it in the first place. I am not an expert; I am not even a DIY enthusiast. The haulier knew I was out of my depth. “He looked as though he had never used a wheelbarrow before. He clearly didn’t have a clue what he was doing.” I am a pencil pusher, not a brickie.
Here is Mark's response
As a qualified civil engineer, you might like to ask yourself this: could you mix, lay, compact, and shutter 3 distinct layers of mortar in just 3 hours? Ironically, no one thought to ask this simple question at my trial. Of course, as the expert explained, each layer along “would probably take 3 to 4 hours to dry and harden sufficiently for the next layer to be put on top”, forming distinct strata.
Here is Mark's response
Preparing the site would have involved excavating 2 metric tones of soil, while cutting away tree roots, and an eaves drip gully:
“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 utilized. 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.” SJP Forensic Archaeologist.
This perhaps points toward a disconnect between the excavation and the burial, as I discuss in a previous post. In any event, the excavation was followed by the mixing and laying of 1.09 cubic metres of mortar in 3 separate strata. The professionalism of the whole diabolical process would have required a high level of experience and expertise, far beyond my own understanding. And as we know, it was all done without being seen or heard. Not only does this contrast starkly to the very public arrival of a concrete truck heralding my return in November, but it would have required far more time to carry out than I was actually around for. Indeed of the 3 hours I spent at the house in November, half of it was taken up by the concrete delivery.
So, when am I supposed to have carried out this awful crime? The point is none of these timings add up. I simply wasn’t there long enough to have been responsible.
Here is Mark's response
The expert in question wasn’t claiming to identify who actually laid the mortar. He simply drew attention to stark differences in the methodology and workmanship of the mortar as compared to the concrete. We interpret this evidence to say that the same person couldn’t have been responsible for both. I imagine that someone with lots of experience in pouring concrete like yourself might be able to “fake it” as you say, but I think you have rather disproved your own argument here. In order to fake something, you need to know how to fake it in the first place. I am not an expert; I am not even a DIY enthusiast. The haulier knew I was out of my depth. “He looked as though he had never used a wheelbarrow before. He clearly didn’t have a clue what he was doing.” I am a pencil pusher, not a brickie.
As a qualified civil engineer, you might like to ask yourself this: could you mix, lay, compact, and shutter 3 distinct layers of mortar in just 3 hours? Ironically, no one thought to ask this simple question at my trial. Of course, as the expert explained, each layer along “would probably take 3 to 4 hours to dry and harden sufficiently for the next layer to be put on top”, forming distinct strata.
Let’s look at what we do know. The Forensic Archaeologist conducting the police excavation noted the following:
“No tool marks or prints were seen in the base of the grave, and there was no evidence of wash from the sides, or biological material such as leaves having been present prior to the pouring of the mortar. The grave was probably not open for a long time before the first layer of mortar was poured, as there was little evidence of weathering of the sides of the grave, or of any wind blown detritus such as leaves in its base.”
We can assume from this that the mortar was laid shortly before my return in mid November, and therefore during the month long period when it is accepted that I was away from the area.
Preparing the site would have involved excavating 2 metric tones of soil, while cutting away tree roots, and an eaves drip gully:
“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 utilized. 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.” SJP Forensic Archaeologist.
This perhaps points toward a disconnect between the excavation and the burial, as I discuss in a previous post. In any event, the excavation was followed by the mixing and laying of 1.09 cubic metres of mortar in 3 separate strata. The professionalism of the whole diabolical process would have required a high level of experience and expertise, far beyond my own understanding. And as we know, it was all done without being seen or heard. Not only does this contrast starkly to the very public arrival of a concrete truck heralding my return in November, but it would have required far more time to carry out than I was actually around for. Indeed of the 3 hours I spent at the house in November, half of it was taken up by the concrete delivery.
So, when am I supposed to have carried out this awful crime? The point is none of these timings add up. I simply wasn’t there long enough to have been responsible.
No stranger would have been involved in this. What occurred was done by someone who had unfettered access to the property and if seen would not have attracted undue attention. Only two people met that criterion and one of them was dead, that leaves Mark Alexander as the prime suspect imo.
It seems to me that Mark Alexander can only come up with excuses and no real evidence to prove his claimed innocence. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had an accomplice in his endeavours.
I know where you are coming from but if you simply weren’t there how can you prove your innocence? I expect if you were arrested and asked to account for your whereabouts on a given day weeks ago then you would struggle to recall details. We simply don’t remember what we have done in such detail unless it was a significant date like a birthday or if it was a special event. We just don’t retain that information as it is not important.
These days ones location is easily checked from bank statements.
What if you don’t do any banking during the dates in question?
Don't most well heeled guys use plastic these days?
That’s a good point. I didn’t think of that. If Mark can prove he drew money out or paid for goods miles away from the family home then that puts him out of the picture. I asked him some direct questions from the forum in my last letter which included a Christmas card and a cheque. I haven’t heard a thing from him, not a card or a thank you. I am not at all pleased as that is a lack of manners.
He's probably run out of answers Daisy and frankly, I see no answers coming from him which could in any way mitigate his guilt.
These days ones location is easily checked from bank statements.
I received a letter from Mark yesterday which was written on 14th December! By the writing on the envelope it appears it was one of the free letters prisoners are given a week but the prison forgot to put a stamp on it. Mark answered your question to say that his father made him sole beneficiary and executor of his will. In normal circumstances the executor could obtain the BT bill but due to Mark’s position there must be restrictions in place.
This has already been pointed out. I don't recall what I did last Wednesday after work as I have no plans on Wednesdays, however on checking my bank statement it says I was in Marks and Spencers (branch included) at 6.34pm which would tie in with my driving Home from work and popping in for food. UNLESS someone had my card and ID.... on this occasion I believe I did use my card and bought food on the way home from work, due to the fact I still have my card and no one has my ID...
I am not convinced Mark is innocent.
There are far too many inconsistencies in this case for it to be a miscarriage of justice imo. The notion that some third party could have entered the property and killed Sami, taken him outside and tried to burn his remains, dig a large hole in the garden, attempt a burial using homemade mortar to seal the grave etc etc and all this just metres from other houses is preposterous. Was it also just one big coincidence that Mark Alexander took it upon himself in his father's absence to return to the family home and order and pay for a small load of premix concrete and have it wheelbarrowed in so to completely seal the grave? So laughable if it wasn't so sad! I have no doubt whatsoever as to his guilt.
I feel Daisy has hit a brick wall but not for the lack of effort on her part. I think Mark has just run out of excuses.
I do have more items to post but it is just finding the time to do it as they are quite long. I think once we have all the information from Mark and there are no more questions to be answered we can then come to our own decisions regarding guilt or innocence.
Has Mark accepted his guilt now?
Has Mark accepted his guilt now?
No he hasn't. I have just posted some more information which is waiting approval by a moderator. Lots more to come.
I have spoken to Mark this evening and he is going to try and arrange to send me a copy of the forensic report.
Did Mark ever send you the full forensic report Daisy?
We have to consider Sami's family when sharing previously undisclosed documents to the public, and how releasing the obviously graphic and distressing details contained within the full post-mortem to the public will impact upon them. However, if you can specify what you would like to know, we might be able to help you by posting extracts and answers to particular points.
Son of Egyptian-born parents brought up by father after mother was sent packing. Son was reared under the most difficult circumstances under the thumb of a strict and domineering father. Son was not allowed a social life and was at his fathers beck and call. As son got older and began to stand up for himself the arguments started. When son wanted to go to University in London and be with a girlfriend the situation became intolerable. Something happened the day the son was due to travel abroad to a university in Paris, France. Did the feuding come to a head, was there a scuffle, a fight or something more sinister?
It would be interesting to hear Mark's response to this Review?
It would also seem that no care assistants were ever employed by Samuel despite the direct payments being made to him.
Thanks John, all of those points are addressed on our website if this is helpful. They are constructs of the prosecution's efforts to establish motive, but don't pass much scrutiny:
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-8/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-6/
IMO, Mark certainly had a motive to murder his father, but whether or not he did is a different matter.
I have read that the first two layers of concrete were laid well, and professionally, but the layer that Mark laid (and admits he laid) was not done particularly well, as Mark was not trained in construction work. Has anyone found out who laid the first two layers?
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
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.
Just becasue it doesn't sit right does not mean it can't happen. He was being granted his freedom? what does this mean exactly... Why didn't he just walk away sooner?
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.
Implicate themselves? in what way, I don't understand... how can they be implicated if it was established that they were professionals laying concrete legitimatly?
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.
Was it established that the nearby neighbours never left the house at all. They didn't work, go on holiday or played music in the house?
He was being granted his freedom? what does this mean exactly... Why didn't he just walk away sooner?
Implicate themselves? in what way, I don't understand... how can they be implicated if it was established that they were professionals laying concrete legitimatly?
Was it established that the nearby neighbours never left the house at all. They didn't work, go on holiday or played music in the house?
What we're trying to get across here is that the premise of the whole prosecution case is deeply illogical. They claim that Mark was oppressed and desperate to leave home, but this doesn't make sense because Mark was due to leave home in his third year of study anyway. Mark didn't need emancipating, he was already very independent, and running his own business. He had no reason to feel trapped at all. If he wanted to walk away sooner, he could easily have done so, but the point is that he was perfectly happy where he was and with the life he already had. The prosecution narrative was a fantasy.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-8/.
There are a number of stages here:
1) Excavating the pit. This could have been conducted by legitimate labourers without any link to Sami's death.
2) Layers 1 to 3 of mortar. This had to be conducted by professionals, but could not have been done legitimately, since Sami's body was encased within the second layer, between 1 and 3.
3) Layer 4 of concrete. An amateur job, using different materials and methodology. This was, as we know, Mark's involvement. It could not have been linked to the first two stages above.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#experts
No doubt they would have, but this was a tight-knit, curtain-twitching neighbourhood. 15 families lived in this street, and Sami's house was at the top of the street. No-one could leave or enter Prospect Close without driving or walking past Sami's home.
Mark Alexander could access the property though unseen and that is the point.
Mark Alexander could access the property though unseen and that is the point.
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.
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.
1.) Hardly likely since legitimate labourers would have been seen and would have come forward. In this case neither occurred.
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.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#contractors
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#night
2.) Layers 1,2 and 3 were not laid by professionals for the reasons above and because the mortar mixes were basically rubbish and of no real engineering value. Only an amateur will access to the property could have carried out this work.
3.) Layer 4 was Mark Alexander's attempt to legitimise all the layers he had previously laid down. A cover up if you like to use a pun. Only the killer knew what lay below whichever way you want to cut it!
Yet he was stealing money out of his father's bank account after her was murdered?
Is it? There is no evidence to support this suggestion at all. We know exactly when he was at the property, and exactly when he wasn't. There are no grey areas here. The kind of theory you're promoting sounds like someone trying to hold on to the 'idea' of Mark's guilt at all costs. We've talked about 'tunnel-vision' before, in the context of the police investigation. Is the truth really that hard to accept?
If however, this took place long after 7pm, as seems likely, this might explain why nobody saw or heard the work taking place. As mentioned elsewhere on the Forum, the only other people with regular access to the house were the housekeepers themselves. They would have been able to move freely without attracting attention, because the neighbours were used to them, and they would have known the area well enough to be familiar with remote access points.
If your work physically connected you to an area that later turned out to be a burial site, the chances are that you would be reluctant to speak up about it. Look what happened to Mark. Anyone who admitted going anywhere near that area would have been arrested. Most people wouldn't subject themselves to that kind of ordeal or scrutiny.
You're confusing intention with reality.
A) Intention: Sami intended this site to fulfil two functions. Shoring the foundations of the garage, and providing a root barrier to the chopped down trees.
B) Reality: The site, upon completion of stage one (the excavation stage), was hijacked by opportunists. They would have had no interest in the engineering value of the site. Their only interest was in hiding a body. Can you think of any reason why mortar would suit their purposes better than concrete? The experts have very carefully analysed the various elements (mix proportion, consistency, signs of shuttering etc.) and returned their findings. Comparing the concrete to the mortar reveals very clear differences between the two, which go beyond mere differences in the materials. They show a different methodology and skillset entirely.
This allegation has no substance. No suggestion of this was made at Mark's trial.
Sami regularly asked Mark to handle his financial affairs under the Samuel Alexander alias, and legally appointed Mark as his Attorney in May 2008, authorising him "to act on [his] behalf in all bank, building societies, and other financial institutions… to draw money… to sign [his] name to and as [his] act and deed… to receive mail on [his] behalf".
Sami and Mark also operated a shared account. There was nothing unusual about Mark using this joint account at all. Moreover, the Crown Prosecution Service admitted that between 2007 and 2009 Mark had paid more than £25,000 of his own money into Sami's accounts. The jury were fully aware of this and were given a copy of this evidence in the formal CPS Admissions.
Mark's own income far exceeded any expenditure from the joint account. He earned more than £4000 between September 2009 and January 2010, and received over £5000 from the Student Loans Company by way of maintenance allowance in the same timeframe.
I fear the truth of it is that the grey areas are many. I think it just a tad naive to insist that Mark's movements were always known because that simply couldn't be the case. We only have his word for it when he was at the property and I'm afraid that means very little. His digs in London were a mere 50 miles away, about an hour in a vehicle, so plenty of time to return to the family home, do what he had to do and return to London with no-one being any the wiser.
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.
Maybe he had an accomplice who is yet to be unmasked, a distinct possibility imo?
There is no record of any payment having been made to any contractor which leaves only one possibility.
I don't think Angelo is confusing intention with reality. The grave in which Sami was buried had nothing to do with any professional underpinning. Sami's body was entombed in a makeshift grave using three discernible levels of mortar mixes. Clearly the mortar was poured into the grave on more than one occasion thus why it was inconsistent and amateurish. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mark Alexander had help to carry the mortar mix to the grave and fill it in. It doesn't take much skill set to dig a hole for a body and pour a concrete mix into it before applying water.
IMO one thing is certain though and that is that Mark Alexander had no involvement in any building work while his father was away, Sami would never have allowed it for one thing.
The only reason Mark Alexander ordered Ready Mix concrete was to cover up what he had a already done. The concrete lorry driver even observed that his customer was literally out of his depth and had very little real knowledge of what he was doing.
So the prosecution set out Mark's movements at trial, and presented a detailed chronology to the jury in their document bundle as to where he was on any given day. We have been able to supplement their own sources with cash machine usage, university attendance records, records of appointments and events that Mark attended, and so on. The final picture is very finely detailed and completely evidence based. We do not need to rely on Mark's word at all.
If you're willing to accept that Mark couldn't have acted alone, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that he didn't do it at all. The idea only makes sense in the abstract, i.e. we think more than a single person must have been involved. But that doesn't mean that one of those two or more people was Mark, because that would require actual evidence (how inconvenient!) linking other parties to what the prosecution allege Mark did, and there is none.
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
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.
(http://www.freemarkalexander.org/wp-content/gallery/mark/15.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To do this he obviously had the use of a motor vehicle of some sort which he could have parked nearby.
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?
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
A handful of dirt works well.
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.
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.
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.
Well you are disagreeing with a team of expert witnesses I'm afraid. They factored in the possibility of a fast-setting agent being used, but at the volumes we are talking about 3 hours was the shortest amount of time it would have taken to set sufficiently hard enough for another layer to be placed on top and form a distinct strata rather than simply merging into the one below it.
You are quite right however, the same effect could have been achieved by returning on several visits.
Not necessarily as the site was partially obscured from view.
When was this photo taken? Before the police excavated the burial site, or after when they'd backfilled it with soil?
(https://i.imgur.com/9an6ZyT.jpg)
I've got a feeling that it was taken before police attempted to expose the concrete, because this other photo shows the Forensic Investigation Unit van (recently) parked on Prospect Close road with soil near the garage undisturbed. Why would police take cs photos after investigation anyway, the usual procedure being to gather visual evidence before disturbing the scene. So do you believe that Mark backfilled and cleaned up the area sometime after laying the concrete?
We're not sure when the photo was taken Myster, potentially on either occasion.
The latter.Why, John?
This is a fair point John, but we assume the work involved would have generated a lot of noise, and it would have been necessary to transport all the materials and tools to the site. A strange vehicle would have been noticed during the day, and if it was parked a way off then the occupants would have had to lug all the contents back and forth up and down Prospect Close. All very risky. The only other access would seem to be from the farmer's field itself. Alternatively, turning up under the cover of darkness may have shielded their activities.
We're not sure when the photo was taken Myster, potentially on either occasion.
I've got a feeling that it was taken before police attempted to expose the concrete, because this other photo shows the Forensic Investigation Unit van (recently) parked on Prospect Close road with soil near the garage undisturbed. Why would police take cs photos after investigation anyway, the usual procedure being to gather visual evidence before disturbing the scene. So do you believe that Mark backfilled and cleaned up the area sometime after laying the concrete?
(https://i.imgur.com/DQPi344.jpg)
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.From mid October to January, autumn / winter time when grass and weeds are dormant and the area wasn't seeded?
From mid October to January, autumn / winter time when grass and weeds are dormant and the area wasn't seeded?
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...
Some interesting points, watch from about 3.50
To be fair, the reporter was only recalling what the prosecution and / or defence said during the trial.
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.
When was this photo taken? Before the police excavated the burial site, or after when they'd backfilled it with soil?
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.
| 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 |
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.For what it's worth, I think the amount in blue should be about 419 cubic cm.
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.
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...
(https://i.imgur.com/9an6ZyT.jpg)
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?
(https://i.imgur.com/DQPi344.jpg)
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.
Well said. As a MoJ, a total non starter.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
The whole idea that some anonymous third party was involved in the murder of Samuel Alexander is quite simply ridiculous imo.
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/zkOXlU0.jpg)
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 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 wouldn't believe a word either of them say.
He will never benefit from this crime and rightly so imo.
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?
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.
I wouldn't believe a word either of them say.
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.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mark is a psychopath.
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
That’s a matter of opinion
With respect, this question seems a little gratuitous. For the record, Mark has been assessed by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, and at the request of the prison service a Mental Health counsellor (30 sessions over the course of a year). None of their findings indicate any evidence of pathology, psychopathy, or any other abnormality of the mind. Mark was understandably diagnosed with depression shortly after his conviction, and has been taking medication for anxiety as a result of this ordeal, but there are no underlying issues pre-dating his time in custody.
What a thoughtful and compassionate response.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top16
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top3
No, it's a matter of professional assessment and common sense amongst those of us who know him:
What a thoughtful and compassionate response.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top16
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top3
No, it's a matter of professional assessment and common sense amongst those of us who know him:
Am being objective
And as I’ve previously stated “professional assessments” boil down to a matter of opinion
Well this is a great news. We had no idea that we could rely on armchair enthusiasts to deliver diagnoses this way, it will save us a fortune on expert witnesses! So I guess the advantage of this is that you can label all the people you don't like (especially all those pesky prisoners) as psychopathic to explain away any problems you have with them. And that's okay, because you're being 'objective', and it's only your 'opinion', and if you change your mind you can always change your diagnosis. Awesome! 8((()*/
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.
Why should we take “high flying lawyer” Senta (SN) on her word?
All witnesses are presumed credible, trustworthy, and of good character in Court unless proven otherwise. SN was a prosecution witness appearing on behalf of the Crown. If you are suggesting that she isnot credible then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of this. We should remind you that defamatory statements may expose you to personal liability. Please be mindful therefore of the Forum Rules:
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
I can understand that as I too once felt similarly.
However I’ve learned a lot since and my opinion is that Mark Alexander is pathological and not to be trusted.
It would be helpful if you could find out what affect Marks mothers abandonment of him had on his emotional development.
All witnesses are presumed credible, trustworthy, and of good character in Court unless proven otherwise. SN was a prosecution witness appearing on behalf of the Crown. If you are suggesting that she isnot credible then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of this. We should remind you that defamatory statements may expose you to personal liability. Please be mindful therefore of the Forum Rules:
You remain solely responsible for the content of your posted messages. Furthermore, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless the owners of this forum, any related websites to this forum, its staff, and its subsidiaries. The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.
What a thoughtful and compassionate response.
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top16
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top3
No, it's a matter of professional assessment and common sense amongst those of us who know him:
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. I wouldn’t trust her if she could turn against Mark at his hour of need. Whatever happened to “stand by your man”?
“After his arrest on February 5, heSo who is telling porkies?
told police he had last seen his
father just before Christmas, but
when quizzed, his girlfriend Senta
Nazarbekova said he told her he
had seen his father in February.
She is due to give evidence for
the prosecution at a later date.
https://archive.org/stream/mk-news-2010-07-28/onemk-2010-07-28_djvu.txt (https://archive.org/stream/mk-news-2010-07-28/onemk-2010-07-28_djvu.txt)
It depends whether you think your man actually did kill his father.
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. I wouldn’t trust her if she could turn against Mark at his hour of need. Whatever happened to “stand by your man”?
It would be helpful if you could find out what affect Marks mothers abandonment of him had on his emotional development.
Mr Price said: "To Samuel it would have appeared that Mark was an obedient and dutiful son. But the Crown says that Mark was not able to properly challenge him in a mature, adult way over the control his father exercised over him."
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?
Well this is a great news. We had no idea that we could rely on armchair enthusiasts to deliver diagnoses this way, it will save us a fortune on expert witnesses! So I guess the advantage of this is that you can label all the people you don't like (especially all those pesky prisoners) as psychopathic to explain away any problems you have with them. And that's okay, because you're being 'objective', and it's only your 'opinion', and if you change your mind you can always change your diagnosis. Awesome! 8((()*/
P.S. If it wasn't obvious, this is satire!
Okay, no problem. The following extracts are taken from a report commissioned by the prison's sentence planning board. The board referred Mark for therapy, where he was examined by a Mental Health Counsellor for more than 40 hours over the course of a year. The subject matter is clearly deeply personal to the family, and we would kindly ask that you treat it respectfully, with some thought for their feelings and privacy.
"Due to his father’s controlling nature his Mother left the family home, returning only for arranged visits agreed by Sami. When I asked Mark how he felt when his Mother left, he said it was like losing a friend and a playmate… From a transactional perspective, the relationship between Mark and his Mother was that of a child. With Mark’s Mother being 29 years Sami’s junior and the distribution of control being all Sami’s, his Mother would regress to child. This regression formed a unique relationship between Mark and his Mother which was particularly powerful after either person had been physically or psychologically abused. In safety they would connect and support one another, creating a comforting childlike bond. Fear played a significant part in his Mother’s regression, as with Mark, isolated from her close family and friends her only companion was Mark. In a childlike state she was unable to stand up to Sami taking away her protective parental responsibilities, leaving her only to comfort him and encourage freedom of play when Sami was not there. In contrast, Mark would become ‘parent’ when comforting his Mother after abusive behaviours towards her which for a young child was a big responsibility. Both feared Sami to such an extent that they became submissive, adapting their behaviour to please him, the reward being non-abusive behaviours towards them both...
Mark described his Mother’s absence from his home like losing a friend and playmate, again reinforcing his Mother’s adapted childlike state. What is incredibly sad is that Mark had no one to share his loss with and I feel he disassociated from his true feelings at this time. As a young child Mark’s coping mechanism was to try and mirror that of his Father, as Mark had internalised the belief that what his Father said or expected was right. Mark’s sole focus became pleasing and appeasing his Father. With an isolated existence it was only natural that Mark would try and form a safe relationship with Sami, a primal protective instinct of self-preservation."
Well this is a great news. We had no idea that we could rely on armchair enthusiasts to deliver diagnoses this way, it will save us a fortune on expert witnesses! So I guess the advantage of this is that you can label all the people you don't like (especially all those pesky prisoners) as psychopathic to explain away any problems you have with them. And that's okay, because you're being 'objective', and it's only your 'opinion', and if you change your mind you can always change your diagnosis. Awesome! 8((()*/
P.S. If it wasn't obvious, this is satire!
With respect, the Crown would say that, that was the whole basis of their case, but it doesn't bear much scrutiny.
www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top17
Okay, no problem. The following extracts are taken from a report commissioned by the prison's sentence planning board. The board referred Mark for therapy, where he was examined by a Mental Health Counsellor for more than 40 hours over the course of a year. The subject matter is clearly deeply personal to the family, and we would kindly ask that you treat it respectfully, with some thought for their feelings and privacy.
"Due to his father’s controlling nature his Mother left the family home, returning only for arranged visits agreed by Sami. When I asked Mark how he felt when his Mother left, he said it was like losing a friend and a playmate… From a transactional perspective, the relationship between Mark and his Mother was that of a child. With Mark’s Mother being 29 years Sami’s junior and the distribution of control being all Sami’s, his Mother would regress to child. This regression formed a unique relationship between Mark and his Mother which was particularly powerful after either person had been physically or psychologically abused. In safety they would connect and support one another, creating a comforting childlike bond. Fear played a significant part in his Mother’s regression, as with Mark, isolated from her close family and friends her only companion was Mark. In a childlike state she was unable to stand up to Sami taking away her protective parental responsibilities, leaving her only to comfort him and encourage freedom of play when Sami was not there. In contrast, Mark would become ‘parent’ when comforting his Mother after abusive behaviours towards her which for a young child was a big responsibility. Both feared Sami to such an extent that they became submissive, adapting their behaviour to please him, the reward being non-abusive behaviours towards them both...
Mark described his Mother’s absence from his home like losing a friend and playmate, again reinforcing his Mother’s adapted childlike state. What is incredibly sad is that Mark had no one to share his loss with and I feel he disassociated from his true feelings at this time. As a young child Mark’s coping mechanism was to try and mirror that of his Father, as Mark had internalised the belief that what his Father said or expected was right. Mark’s sole focus became pleasing and appeasing his Father. With an isolated existence it was only natural that Mark would try and form a safe relationship with Sami, a primal protective instinct of self-preservation."
I once wrongly defended a murderer.
Nicholas, we know that you've had a bad experience in the past, but you mustn't allow this to cast a shadow over every other prisoner you come across protesting their innocence. What happened in the case you worked on was unique and tragic, but Stuart is not representative of everyone else. You are tarnishing Mark with the same brush, and this is both unfair and irresponsible.
Nicholas, we know that you've had a bad experience in the past, but you mustn't allow this to cast a shadow over every other prisoner you come across protesting their innocence. What happened in the case you worked on was unique and tragic, but Stuart is not representative of everyone else. You are tarnishing Mark with the same brush, and this is both unfair and irresponsible.
Nicholas, we know that you've had a bad experience in the past, but you mustn't allow this to cast a shadow over every other prisoner you come across protesting their innocence. What happened in the case you worked on was unique and tragic, but Stuart is not representative of everyone else. You are tarnishing Mark with the same brush, and this is both unfair and irresponsible.
I’d be interested to know what you learned from my bad experience? The same applies to the case I was once involved with.
Let's not stray from the topic thanx.
Stockholm Syndrome?
Stockholm Syndrome?
Who else is in the frame for Sami’s murder?
The investigation, and our understanding of Sami to date, seems to indicate three main possibilities:
1) A house-keeper or other employee who took advantage of the cover of anonymity they gained from Sami's benefit scam. Because Sami was returning claims with false employee names, they avoided having to register with the authorities, or being vetted. Receiving payment in cash, they could avoid declaring their earnings. They had easy access to the house and would have known the area well.
2) A direct or indirect victim of one of Sami's confidence tricks online.
3) A loan-shark Sami owed money to, or had defrauded. In other words, Sami's past caught up with him, there was a confrontation of some description, and something went wrong. There is also the possibility, given the very unusual and extreme manner of burial, that some kind of message was being sent out to those in criminal circles.
We believe whoever was responsible could not have acted alone.
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
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.
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.
"when quizzed, his girlfriend SN said he told her he had seen his father in February".
"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’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!
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?
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.
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
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."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.
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]'".
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.
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"
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 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?
From my experiences and knowledge Michael Naughtons work is outdated and indeed flawed.
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.
“Weiler and Widom (1996) suggested that as a result of early abuse, "a child might become ‘desensitised’ to future painful or anxiety provoking experiences"
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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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.
I don’t need to have met Mark to have come to the conclusions I have. And of course, following a trial, a jury found him guilty!
Because of course, no jury has ever made a mistake!
(&^&
You do realise this is a miscarriage of justice forum, right? That every case presented here implies that a jury got it wrong? That every past exoneration of every wrongly convicted man and woman reveals the extent to which juries, prosecutors, forensic teams, and police get things wrong?
We've been pretty clear that there is no evidence to support any of your theories. There is nothing more to say.
But, moving on, what does all this boil down to Nicholas? Do you think that Mark should have been convicted of manslaughter because of the years of abuse, or some act of provocation, or accident, or self-defense?
Only Mark knows why he murdered his father.
You may know that in 2015 Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship? The thing is I cannot see how Mark could now use this as an argument in his defence.
If Sami’s murder was an accident; I have my doubts, Mark should have held his hands up at the earliest opportunity.
You may know that in 2015 Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship? The thing is I cannot see how Mark could now use this as an argument in his defence.
If Sami’s murder was an accident; I have my doubts, Mark should have held his hands up at the earliest opportunity.
Yeah, I mean it's interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on this. However you look at it, Mark shouldn't be in prison right now. A manslaughter conviction would have seen him released years ago. If the State is going to send someone to jail they need to do it for the right reasons and for the right amount of time. In a sense we're kind of arguing for the same result but from different ends.
And a manslaughter conviction wasn’t on the table?
Yeah so, interestingly, Mark turned down a charge-bargain before trial which would have taken murder off the table:
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#manslaughter
Manslaughter was also one of the options available to the jury at the end of trial.
Many such killings result from a conflict which gets out of control with terrible consequences for all concerned. It is quite possible that Mark didn't initiate the violence but his conduct afterwards rendered his destiny beyond doubt. Actions have consequences which he undoubtedly now knows to his eternal regret.
According to Mark...
“I’m often asked why I didn’t plead manslaughter. I was offered a charge-bargain quite early on which would have seen me spending about five years in prison. If I was guilty, I’d have jumped at it. But I guess that’s the point, I wasn’t going to admit to something I hadn’t done. Some people do cut their losses, it’s true, and in about 10% of guilty pleas the defendants are thought to be innocent. The bottom line is that I’m being punished for sticking to my principles and maintaining my innocence. In other words, had I made up some story to fit the prosecution’s case, I would have been rewarded with a sentence reduction. The price of my conscientious resistance has been life imprisonment.
Accepting manslaughter now would be very easy, but also very selfish. It would mean giving up on our pursuit of the truth. The suffering and pain I might save myself would instead be inflicted upon my family, who have already endured too much. The outcome of this case is bigger than one individual alone, it is a matter of legacy. Clearing my name and finding my father’s real killers means removing the stain of injustice and stigma of conviction from our family as a whole. Would I take the easy way out now, if I could turn back time? Not a chance. Besides, I’d like to think I’d make better use of a time machine than that!"
I have much sympathy with Mark if this is true. I was put in the very same position before my trial and would have walked away with a two year sentence had I returned a guilty plea. But I too am not the sort of person who will plead guilty to something I didn't do regardless of the carrot being dangled in front of me.
It's an interesting point though from his point of view but one cannot ignore the possibility that he was guilty but was so cock sure of getting off that admitting guilt was a non starter.
You were arrested and convicted regarding a white collar crime; Marks was for murder. There aren’t many criminals who hold their hands up to this.
I agree it does happen but not often. Vincent Tabak put his hands up to manslaughter but that wasn't good enough for the CPS who charged him with murder and he was subsequently convicted. In my opinion both cases are similar in that what ultimately occurred was an escalation of an event which resulted in death. I don't believe either men set out to kill.
Only Mark Alexander knows what really happened, if it was a fight which got out of control and he overreacted he should have taken his punishment instead of attempting to conceal the body. A bad move imo.
It's not too late for him to redeem himself imo. He should be persuaded to tell the truth about what happened. We know that his father was a bit of an oddball who had driven off his mother and who had dictated virtually every facet of his life. If there was an altercation in which the father was accidentally killed then Mark should come clean. He might even be able to have his sentence reviewed in the light of new information.
You’ve suggested an “altercation” and previously suggested Sami’s murder being an “accident” but we simply do not know nor should we speculate on one scenario. For all any of us know Mark planned to murder his father for sometime?
As Angelo stated; only Marks knows the truth.
You're right, we can only but speculate. That said however, I find it hard to believe that the killing was premeditated.
I would speculate that he lost his rag-------that is, IF he did it at all, and I am certainly not convinced he did.
The main thing which people can’t their head around in this case is the contrast between what Mark said / says and his subsequent actions, such as fobbing off neighbours with the London Coptic Church tale but making no further enquiries himself, or the fact that within a day of returning home after a month’s absence and seeing that everything was going to plan regarding his father’s wishes for a tree root-barrier next to the garage, he should suddenly decide to interfere and order two and a half tonnes of concrete, then dump it directly over where his father was interred. All this when he freely admits to being only a pen-pusher, uninterested in DIY and isn’t used to heavy manual work.
I would speculate that he lost his rag-------that is, IF he did it at all, and I am certainly not convinced he did.
The main thing which people can’t their head around in this case is the contrast between what Mark said / says and his subsequent actions, such as fobbing off neighbours with the London Coptic Church tale but making no further enquiries himself, or the fact that within a day of returning home after a month’s absence and seeing that everything was going to plan regarding his father’s wishes for a tree root-barrier next to the garage, he should suddenly decide to interfere and order two and a half tonnes of concrete, then dump it directly over where his father was interred. All this when he freely admits to being only a pen-pusher, uninterested in DIY and isn’t used to heavy manual work.
I know what it’s like to order ready-mixed concrete – if you’ve never done it before, you’re on edge wondering if everything will go to plan, then when a bl**dy great lorry arrives whirring away, you wonder what you’ve let yourself in for! In my case it was simply chuted directly into a hole for foundations and later into a shuttered area for a floor slab. Luckily both turned out OK. Mark didn’t have that straightforward advantage – because of poor access, he had to barrow load after heavy load, negotating each through a narrow gateway, no doubt spilling much on the way. Then he had the problem of wasting more time waving traffic past the lorry which was blocking access to the cul-de-sac, when the driver is allocated only a certain period for depositing his load.
Which beggars belief why Mark should have attempted such a demanding task in the first place!?
Then of course is the awkward question why he told Senta he'd seen his father in the few days before being arrested?
This has always bothered me as Mark has no knowledge of building work and in the past has never done anything without his father’s approval. Therefore I find it strange that he ordered concrete when he had no idea what he was doing. I will put this to Mark next time I write.
As regards telling Senta he had seen his father when he hadn’t, he admitted it was foolish to say such a thing but said it to avoid an argument. Senta had asked him how his father was and without thinking he said he had seen him the previous day.
Will be interesting to hear what he has to say Daisy.The Internet can be a blessing... sometimes. This is how to mix concrete in a wheel-barrow, although mortar as found in the first three layers is easier because only fine sand not coarse aggregate is used -
However because Mark says he has no knowledge of building worK doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth! Plus he was an intelligent young man, doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
The Internet can be a blessing... sometimes. This is how to mix concrete in a wheel-barrow, although mortar as found in the first three layers is easier because only fine sand not coarse aggregate is used -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8M8RWz1-0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8M8RWz1-0)
or...
https://tarmac-bluecircle.co.uk/project/mixing-concrete-and-mortar/ (https://tarmac-bluecircle.co.uk/project/mixing-concrete-and-mortar/)
Mixing equipment was readily available in the secluded back yard, such as a wheelbarrow, a shovel and spade leaned up against a wooden spot board by the garage wall, all found before police started digging. A few previously stored bags of sand and cement brought through the white door plus water from a hose reel fixed to the house wall, so no need to call for Tommy Walsh to complete the job...
(https://i.imgur.com/fhxfP4V.jpg)
This has always bothered me as Mark has no knowledge of building work and in the past has never done anything without his father’s approval. Therefore I find it strange that he ordered concrete when he had no idea what he was doing. I will put this to Mark next time I write.
As regards telling Senta he had seen his father when he hadn’t, he admitted it was foolish to say such a thing but said it to avoid an argument. Senta had asked him how his father was and without thinking he said he had seen him the previous day.
Will be interesting to hear what he has to say Daisy.
However because Mark says he has no knowledge of building worK doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth! Plus he was an intelligent young man, doesn’t take a rocket scientist.
Nothing he says adds up, he lies easily.
He failed miserably academically so his level of intelligence is questionable. He certainly didn't inherent his father's intelligence.
He didn’t fail miserably. He obtained a 2:1 in his degree but his dad expected him to get a first.
He didn’t fail miserably. He obtained a 2:1 in his degree but his dad expected him to get a first.
The notion that he would undertake works at the family home in his absence are not supported by the history.
This has always bothered me as Mark has no knowledge of building work and in the past has never done anything without his father’s approval.
Mark helped his father with various jobs over the years, in which Sami had gradually allocated him increased roles of responsibility. One landscape gardener for example described how, "Sami would organise for me to come when Mark was there to let me in".
Mark had previously supervised the installation of the rear-drive gate (inbetween the brick pillars) in Sami's absence. This would have been about October 2008. He regularly mowed the back garden lawn, and had previously coated the newly installed fences seen bordering the front drive with wood treatment.
When Mark arrived home his father wasn’t there. How did he know that Sami hadn’t already ordered concrete to arrive?
Why didn’t Mark phone him first to find out what was needed?
Mark has admitted knowing nothing about laying concrete so I wonder how he knew what quantity to order.
Thanks for your questions Daisy
These discussions had already taken place in the summer of 2009. Mark had been instructed to place the order once preparations on the site were complete.
Remember, this was the third site of its kind. Mark had knowledge of what was required and the steps involved in the first two sites, so applied this understanding to the final one.
But Mark didn't know that Sami would be absent to supervise for a year. Or did he?... and that he wouldn't ever be coming back home?
These discussions had already taken place in the summer of 2009. Mark had been instructed to place the order once preparations on the site were complete.
Sami's instructions to Mark were clear and wouldn't have required clarification. Mark took the initiative to press on with works in his father's absence to avoid further delays accumulating and the job laying unfinished for another year.
Remember, this was the third site of its kind. Mark had knowledge of what was required and the steps involved in the first two sites, so applied this understanding to the final one.
But Mark didn't know that Sami would be absent to supervise for a year. Or did he?...
So the claim of no building knowledge is indeed a lie
The final root barrier had already "gone to plan" with three thick "professionally laid" slabs of mortar and offending trees removed, so all Mark needed to do was to backfill with soil from the original hole, just like he did after his own unnecessary ready-mixed concreting job.
Sami had made the planning application to fell the trees several years previously
Sami had made the planning application to fell the trees several years previously and, as was his habit with most jobs, progress had been slow.
Knowlege doesn't equate to practical experience. Mark had been present during previous construction work at the house, even acting as a hod-carrier for his dad on occassion, but had never actually taken the lead before. His lack of practical experience is evident in the amateur workmanship evidenced in the layer of concrete. Remember that this was very different from the professional layers underneath.
When Mark arrived in November, the site appeared to have been prepared with a professional foundation, but it was clearly incomplete and remain far too deep to simply backfill. The previous two sites had been filled up to a particular height in the brickwork, and although he lacked the practical experience, he knew from this basic prior knowledge that this was what was required here too.
But apparently the application was to cut three lime trees 4, 5 and 6 down on the opposite side of the house as in the submitted plan
I was under the impression that two previous tree root-barriers had been constructed at the front and side of 2 Prospect Close
So which is it?
Where’s your evidence for this; Mark?
That's spot on Myster. The work at the front and side of the house did not require planning permission because Sami had planted a short line of Lleylandi conifers there himself in the 1990s, just to the left of the front drive entrance and all the way up to the corner of the house. These proved to be too close once they had fully matured, so he had them removed, stump-ground, and the root-barriers installed at those two sites.If the line of Leylandii was in roughly the position as indicated on the plan below, and they were felled and stump-ground, then I see no need for the construction of any root-barrier, and especially the one on the western side of the house where the boundary wall meets it. If the builder had already dug down deep enough in both regions, then all he needed to have done was to saw off and remove any existing tree roots, then backfill with soil, whacker it or allow it to settle before carrying out any further work, such as block-paving with those Marshalls paviors stored at the front of the house. There doesn't appear to have been any Leylandii conifers planted directly on the western side of the house adjacent to the road at all, (because there's a paving flag footpath which seems to have been present and undisturbed for years) as in the photo below... so why the need for a root barrier where that small inspection chamber / rodding point is positioned?
The planning application went in some years later to cut down the lime trees because those lime trees were subject to a tree preservation order. Note that he was only given permission to fell one tree, but felled all three anyway. He was also supposed to plant new, smaller trees in their place as a condition of the permission to proceed. These were never planted either.
Mark helped his father with various jobs over the years, in which Sami had gradually allocated him increased roles of responsibility. One landscape gardener for example described how, "Sami would organise for me to come when Mark was there to let me in".
Mark had previously supervised the installation of the rear-drive gate (inbetween the brick pillars) in Sami's absence. This would have been about October 2008. He regularly mowed the back garden lawn, and had previously coated the newly installed fences seen bordering the front drive with wood treatment.
These discussions had already taken place in the summer of 2009. Mark had been instructed to place the order once preparations on the site were complete.
Sami's instructions to Mark were clear and wouldn't have required clarification. Mark took the initiative to press on with works in his father's absence to avoid further delays accumulating and the job laying unfinished for another year.
Remember, this was the third site of its kind. Mark had knowledge of what was required and the steps involved in the first two sites, so applied this understanding to the final one.
Sami had made the planning application to fell the trees several years previously and, as was his habit with most jobs, progress had been slow. Construction sites dotted around the house often lay incomplete for years. It is likely that Sami had discussed his plans with contractors in his employ. We know for example that his landscape gardener, AH, knew about the site and something of Sami's intentions.
If the line of Leylandii was in roughly the position as indicated on the plan below, and they were felled and stump-ground, then I see no need for the construction of any root-barrier
So trees A and B were both felled, these were very large trees not the small golden one that still survives in the back garden. E was probably a third silver birch which seems to have gone too.
Sami's rationale for the two root-barrier sites is unclear. We can see from his exchanges with the surveyor in the 2003 planning application that he had his own ideas about what was necessary and didn't take much notice of professional opinion. It seems that he took far more precautions in this regard, and more steps, than would strictly be required in this kind of situation, but that's just how he wanted to do things.
Sami was a knowledgeable intelligent man obviously, so I can't see him wanting to create a root barrier where there were no trees, or the trees had already been felled and stump ground. My own opininion is that the two areas of concrete (what looks like a dry mix of cement and all-in-one aggregate from the part-used bag at the house front) are simply shallow bases for flags or block paving, rather than deep root barriers. Both are located under windows and would form a hard surface to stand on instead of grass for anyone cleaning them.
It would seem odd for Sami to install paving to clean some windows and not others, so this theory doesn't quite work. Otherwise, we think you're right here. We realised that the plans only mark trees which were subject to a preservation order. There are trees and conifers which aren't subject to such an order and which therefore don't appear on the plans. It appears that Sami bought an extra triangular-shaped area of land to the NW containing a long line of conifers, many of which have since been felled and shredded by the present owner according to one photo I've seen but which I can't find now.
Sami has marked "five new trees" which were "introduced on the site since 1986" A through to E.
These trees were felled: T4 (Ash), 6 (Lime), 5 (Lime) T4 (Ash)?... but that tree wasn't on Sami's property and nowhere near the garage, according to the TPO plan of the former BT Training Centre. Don't you mean G4 (Lime) See attached pdf.
Of the new trees Sami planted himself, he subsequently removed B and E.Mark only recalls being present and witnessing the work conducted on the site at the front of the house. He is confident that this was a root-barrier. We could dig exploratory trenches / use ground survey equipment next to both sites to confirm the depths, and test our assumptions, but this probably wouldn't have significant enough bearing on the case to justify disturbing the current owners or indeed the cost of such work. I think the present owners would be horrified at any proposed excavation, in case you found something you weren't meant to. That small Hepworth inspection chamber is raised about 3 or 4 inches above the level of the weak concrete base, which suggests that either concrete flags or those Marshalls paviors were meant to be laid on top, presumably by the landscape contractor who never finished the job. Maybe if you tried to contacted him, he would enlighten you whether they were root barriers or not. Marshalls or the builders' merchant who supplied those paviors should have a past record of who ordered them, which is normally the person who is doing the work, not the client.
It appears that Sami bought an extra triangular-shaped area of land to the NW containing a long line of conifers, many of which have since been felled and shredded by the present owner.
T4 (Ash)?... but that tree wasn't on Sami's property and nowhere near the garage, according to the TPO plan of the former BT Training Centre.
That small Hepworth inspection chamber is raised about 3 or 4 inches above the level of the weak concrete base, which suggests that either concrete flags or those Marshalls paviors were meant to be laid on top, presumably by the landscape contractor who never finished the job. Maybe if you tried to contacted him, he would enlighten you whether they were root barriers or not. Marshalls or the builders' merchant who supplied those paviors should have a past record of who ordered them, which is normally the person who is doing the work, not the client.
All helpful suggestions. Our biggest problem to date has been trying to identify which contractors and suppliers were actually involved in this site, or indeed any of the other sites (including behind the garage). We have a long list, but very few of the individuals our lawyers and investigators contacted were willing to talk. We are now awaiting copies of Sami's diaries pre-2009 from the police and are hopeful that these will help us identify who he hired for what work.
I do not buy this excuse. When it comes to a murder investigation the police are not interested in whether the contractors did “cash in hand” jobs or whether they paid tax. The same goes for the housekeepers. If Mark is really innocent these people would want to help free an innocent man. One wonders if they know he is guilty.
I do not buy this excuse. When it comes to a murder investigation the police are not interested in whether the contractors did “cash in hand” jobs or whether they paid tax. The same goes for the housekeepers. If Mark is really innocent these people would want to help free an innocent man. One wonders if they know he is guilty.
You may want to read up on controlling or coercive behaviour Daisy
I do not buy this excuse. When it comes to a murder investigation the police are not interested in whether the contractors did “cash in hand” jobs or whether they paid tax. The same goes for the housekeepers. If Mark is really innocent these people would want to help free an innocent man. One wonders if they know he is guilty.
This land always belonged to the 2 Prospect Close plot, but in the original plans was situated outside the back garden. Sami removed the dividing fence and merged the two bits of land, encircling everything with a line of tall Lleylandi conifers which he planted.
Correct, this large Ash tree (T4) was felled by the Council itself. It was just East of the garage.
All helpful suggestions. Our biggest problem to date has been trying to identify which contractors and suppliers were actually involved in this site, or indeed any of the other sites (including behind the garage). We have a long list, but very few of the individuals our lawyers and investigators contacted were willing to talk. We are now awaiting copies of Sami's diaries pre-2009 from the police and are hopeful that these will help us identify who he hired for what work.
The following is from the ‘Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence’ (PPMI) website
Case Studies
In this section, you will find some examples of convicted prisoners who maintain their innocence. We hope that their stories will help you to understand something of the many problems that such people can face.
Case of Mark Alexander.
Mark was wrongly convicted of murder in 2010 and received a mandatory life sentence. He has always maintained his unqualified innocence and both sides of his family are calling for his exoneration. Mark touches the lives of everyone he meets and his family just want him home. Having spent almost a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit, each day he is forced to wait for justice is another day wasted. A charge bargain would have freed him many years ago on manslaughter, but Mark won’t settle for anything less than the truth.
Mark writes, “Given that my ‘risk’ levels are so low, why is the open prison estate arbitrarily restricted to the last 3 years of a sentence?… ROTLS (Release On Temporary Licence) would not only enable me to demonstrate in practical terms that I am not a ‘risk’ to anyone, but would alleviate some of the injustice of being wrongly imprisoned by helping me reconnect with the world. There is no reason why I ‘need’ to be in closed conditions. In addition, there is no longer any sentence review for prisoners convicted after 2003 who make ‘exceptional progress.”
For more on Mark’s story, and to get involved, please see: http://freemarkalexander.org
http://www.prisonersmaintaininginnocence.org.uk/case-studies/
The committee which’s makes up PPMI is as follows:
Chair:- John Stokes
Vice-Chair: Dean Kingham (Solicitor, Parole Board Lead for the Society of Prison Lawyers)
Treasurer:- Gerry McFlynn (Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas)
Secretary:- Sue Stephens
Convicted murderer Mark Alexander opinion on ‘Crime & Consequence’
http://crimeandconsequence.libsyn.com/website/the-case-for-decriminalisation-mark-alexander
What prison is he currently in factchecker?
In relation to the Mark Alexander case Dean Kingham states,
‘Don’t claim it’s factual. No nothing about the case. Until today hadn’t heard of it. I head the team at Swain and Co prison dept but don’t know every case we have” (sic) 8th Dec 2019
The following is from the ‘Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence’ (PPMI) website‘Systemic bias’ for prisoners claiming innocence - J Stokes - Chair PPMI 1st August 2018
Case Studies
In this section, you will find some examples of convicted prisoners who maintain their innocence. We hope that their stories will help you to understand something of the many problems that such people can face.
Case of Mark Alexander.
Mark was wrongly convicted of murder in 2010 and received a mandatory life sentence. He has always maintained his unqualified innocence and both sides of his family are calling for his exoneration. Mark touches the lives of everyone he meets and his family just want him home. Having spent almost a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit, each day he is forced to wait for justice is another day wasted. A charge bargain would have freed him many years ago on manslaughter, but Mark won’t settle for anything less than the truth.
Mark writes, “Given that my ‘risk’ levels are so low, why is the open prison estate arbitrarily restricted to the last 3 years of a sentence?… ROTLS (Release On Temporary Licence) would not only enable me to demonstrate in practical terms that I am not a ‘risk’ to anyone, but would alleviate some of the injustice of being wrongly imprisoned by helping me reconnect with the world. There is no reason why I ‘need’ to be in closed conditions. In addition, there is no longer any sentence review for prisoners convicted after 2003 who make ‘exceptional progress.”
For more on Mark’s story, and to get involved, please see: http://freemarkalexander.org
http://www.prisonersmaintaininginnocence.org.uk/case-studies/
The committee which’s makes up PPMI is as follows:
Chair:- John Stokes
Vice-Chair: Dean Kingham (Solicitor, Parole Board Lead for the Society of Prison Lawyers)
Treasurer:- Gerry McFlynn (Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas)
Secretary:- Sue Stephens