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 It had already been retracted by the prosecution that Samuel had not been dismembered but the DM still continued to report this as fact.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Money wasn't continually withdrawn from the account and bank statements prove this.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.