Website launched for Mark

[Fact Checker]

I fail to see the relevance as to when Sami was killed whether it be September or October.

The timing is crucial. It goes both to motive and opportunity. The whole case is centred around the day Mark left the family home to move to London. This was 5 September 2009. If Sami was alive after this, then there is no motive, less still opportunity to commit the offence. It basically makes the prosecution case even less plausible.

[Fact Checker]

That's what I thought too... so deadpan as if he'd realised his plan had been rumbled and was accepting his fate.  And like you, if I definitely had nothing to do with my father's death, I'd be protesting such in no uncertain terms to that officer... fuming and probably banging on the table as well!

This is extraordinary on many levels. Mark was subjected to 11 interviews, totaling 716 minutes. His first interview was conducted after midnight, from 00:35 until 02:04, without a solicitor. Indeed, 25% of the interviews had taken place before a solicitor was finally instructed. The excerpt extracted for you is but a few seconds long, and taken completely out of context of the interview itself. Who do you think released all of these legally privileged recordings to the press? What motive do you think they had for doing so? Why do you think they selected such short snippets? Could it be that they wanted to portray Mark in a particular way? The fact that you, and no doubt most viewers, assume that Mark said nothing else on the matter demonstrates the effectiveness of their strategy.

Why do you think the 'dismemberment' narrative was being put out there, when even the prosecution's own experts were telling them that no such thing had taken place? It's interesting to note the similarity here to Stephen Avery's case, where the state held that highly staged press conference to reveal the traumatic and horrifying details of Teresa Halbach's apparent death. These details of course, turned out to be complete nonsense, based entirely upon Brendan's false confession. The effect however, was the same. It galvanised public opinion against Steven, and it played on the jury's emotions, colouring their whole view of the case. The 'dismemberment' issue in Mark's case served precisely the same purpose against him, which is why it is so troubling.

Mark spent about 100 hours in solitary confinement, huddled in a ball in the corner of his cell. There are numerous points in interview when he is crying, shaking, and clearly suffering from the effects of shock and distress. The police took full advantage of Mark's vulnerability to press him for answers on points he could not be sure about or could not remember clearly in the state he was in.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top8

Even when the police told Mark that they had found his father's remains, he refused to believe the worst had happened, holding on to every last hope that the body was someone else other than his dad.

"It’s not my dad, it can’t be my dad. I’ve told you before that I’ve seen him, like, I know it’s not."
"Who is it?"
"I don’t know, I’m shocked, I’m really, really shocked, and I don’t know what’s going on at all".

"No, it can’t be, no, it can’t be my dad"
"Well I know you say it can’t be because your dad was alive when, it can’t be your dad"
"Yeah, I know"

To us, Mark just sounds completely exhausted and despondent in these clips. He is usually very talkative, buoyant and bubbly, but here he sounds completely broken.

Mark was examined by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist and a Consultant Clinical Psychologist following his arrest, who assessed him and analysed his responses in interview:

"Mr Alexander does not appear to clearly register that he is being interviewed on suspicion of murder. The interviewing officer notes at the outset that Mark is shaking and asks if he is cold.  The shaking may be a sign of considerable psychological distress… I understand from his solicitors that after the initial unrecorded interview with the police, Mr Alexander was very tearful and this may indicate a degree of psychological shock. From the transcripts he appears to be treating his interview entirely as if he is helping the police investigate the whereabouts of his father".

"On a measure of traumatic symptoms Mr Alexander showed abnormally high levels of dissociation and anxious arousal together with borderline abnormal levels of depression over the 6 months following his arrest... understandably he did appear to be suffering considerable distress and anxiety at the situation he finds himself in"

"Throughout both sets of interviews he consistently refers to his father in the present tense, as if still alive, and at no stage does he talk about his father as if he may be dead".

[Fact Checker]

"In mitigation, the 22-year-old's lawyer said his mother was driven out by the 'boorish and bullying' behaviour of her then husband when the defendant was only six years old.

Mr Borelli said he was so fearful of his parent that he could not tell him of plans to stay in London with his girlfriend

The murder came after 'a huge build up of tension', Alexander's lawyer said."

I'm sure the seasoned readers amongst you will know this already, but all of these articles you've linked to should be read with caution, they are peppered with inaccuracies.

In relation to defence counsel, once a defendant has been found guilty by a court of law, counsel is obliged to recognise the legal finding of the court. Their role changes, and they must treat the defendant as if he is guilty, offering mitigation on that basis and that basis alone.

[Fact Checker]

Why do you claim the police had tunnel vision?

The police have a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether they point towards or away from the suspect. In practice however, with time constraints and fiscal pressures, this tends not to happen. Focus is drawn to avenues of inquiry which implicate the suspect in order to strengthen the likelihood of a successful conviction.

In Mark's case, this meant a number of key things were overlooked during that critical window of opportunity which the police had to gather evidence:
1) The police didn't comb the local area beyond 2 Prospect Close at all, despite the very obvious fact that there was no sign of a murder or fire having taken place at the property.
2) The police didn't investigate Sami's aliases or fraudulent activities. This would have been a time-consuming and costly exercise.
3) The police were unable to exclude various people as suspects. We feel that more could have been done to explore these leads.

There were a number of indicators that the police were biased in this case:
1) Two retired police detectives living in the street had an active influence upon in the line of investigation.
2) A number of witness including Mark's family and friends have told us that the police repeatedly told them that Mark was guilty before taking their statements. These interviews were conducted prior to Mark being charged. For example, Mark's girlfriend was told "He is responsible, there's no hope", while Mark's mother, awaiting reunion with her son, was asked whether she could extract a confession out of him on the police's behalf.
3) Mark's duty solicitor warned Mark in the police station that "these guys are hellbent on proving it was you".

All of this leads us be concerned that the police never genuinely considered the alternative, that Mark may be innocent, despite their duty of impartiality.

[Myster]

The timing is crucial. It goes both to motive and opportunity. The whole case is centred around the day Mark left the family home to move to London. This was 5 September 2009. If Sami was alive after this, then there is no motive, less still opportunity to commit the offence. It basically makes the prosecution case even less plausible.

 So from 5^th September 2009 to 11^th January 2010 (roughly 129 days or 18 weeks) Mark never questioned his dad’s whereabouts, even after many fruitless phone calls home or enquiries, if any, with Sami's religious friends and Coptic church authorities in London, yet when he returned to Prospect Close after his Moscow trip, to discover a plumbing leak and that Sami was still nowhere to be found, it was another 24 days before he was reported missing, and then only by concerned neighbours, not by Mark himself.  Don’t you find that extremely odd for a son who claims to be very fond of his father ?!
 

[Myster]

 Did the delivery lorry park near the large double gate with finialed brick posts whilst Mark barrowed the concrete all the way to the rear of the double garage, a distance of some 80 metres there and back requiring much hard labour with many journeys?






Or did the lorry park on the road near to the double garage and Mark barrowed concrete by the shorter but more circuitous route to the back yard through the small unpainted wooden gate where those Hippobags are?



 

[Fact Checker]

So from 5^th September 2009 to 11^th January 2010 (roughly 129 days or 18 weeks) Mark never questioned his dad’s whereabouts, even after many fruitless phone calls home or enquiries

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#church

Mark doesn't for a minute deny that he took his eye off the ball here. There a number of problems. First of all, he was used to his dad either not being around, going away on 'business' trips without further explanation, and not returning his calls. This was just normal behaviour in their household. Odd to all of us, but normal for them.

Secondly, he had been brought up not to question his father's intentions, not to put his nose into his father's business. He, like his mum, had grown up in an environment in which huge emphasis was placed upon guarding his father's privacy and secrecy. So, even if Mark was concerned, or worried, which he was, he wouldn't have dreamed of involving the authorities, for risk of getting his father in trouble and upsetting him.

Thirdly, Mark drew some reassurance from the fact that the social services were monitoring his dad. If there had in fact really been an issue, they would have contacted him, or so he thought. The fact that they hadn't allayed his concerns.

Fourthly, Mark had become completely absorbed in his life at university, where he was not only studying, and enjoying student life, but running a business. Mark has a habit, evidenced here in this very Forum, of committing himself to too much and losing track of other things, like Rosie's letter. It took him 8 weeks to respond to her. It took him almost 12 weeks with his father, before he realised something was up on his return to the UK. Mark has never claimed to be perfect, but innocent people are no less fallible than the rest of us!

Finally, of course, Sami had had a go at Mark the last time they spoke. Mark was holding out for an apology, stubbornly, proudly, perhaps, but nevertheless he didn't want to be the first one to reach out.

All of this created the conditions in which Mark didn't react quickly enough to his father's silence, and failed to read the warning signs that something was wrong. Mark constantly questions whether he could have prevented his father's death if only he had acted sooner, and this possibility, that he could somehow have saved his father continues to plague Mark to this day.

[Fact Checker]

did the lorry park on the road near to the double garage and Mark barrowed concrete by the shorter but more circuitous route to the back yard through the small unpainted wooden gate where those Hippobags are?

Yup, the second shorter route was used via that gate. The truck was originally parked up in the street itself, blocking the road for some time. Mark was stood in plain sight, waving the neighbours' cars by as it reversed onto the front drive. The driver positioned the shute directly at the front of that fence gate. From there it was a couple of metres to the back of the garage. The whole procedure was overseen and witnessed by the driver.

[Myster]

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top19
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top20
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#church

Mark doesn't for a minute deny that he took his eye off the ball here. There a number of problems. First of all, he was used to his dad either not being around, going away on 'business' trips without further explanation, and not returning his calls. This was just normal behaviour in their household. Odd to all of us, but normal for them.

Secondly, he had been brought up not to question his father's intentions, not to put his nose into his father's business. He, like his mum, had grown up in an environment in which huge emphasis was placed upon guarding his father's privacy and secrecy. So, even if Mark was concerned, or worried, which he was, he wouldn't have dreamed of involving the authorities, for risk of getting his father in trouble and upsetting him.

Thirdly, Mark drew some reassurance from the fact that the social services were monitoring his dad. If there had in fact really been an issue, they would have contacted him, or so he thought. The fact that they hadn't allayed his concerns.

Fourthly, Mark had become completely absorbed in his life at university, where he was not only studying, and enjoying student life, but running a business. Mark has a habit, evidenced here in this very Forum, of committing himself to too much and losing track of other things, like Rosie's letter. It took him 8 weeks to respond to her. It took him almost 12 weeks with his father, before he realised something was up on his return to the UK. Mark has never claimed to be perfect, but innocent people are no less fallible than the rest of us!

Finally, of course, Sami had had a go at Mark the last time they spoke. Mark was holding out for an apology, stubbornly, proudly, perhaps, but nevertheless he didn't want to be the first one to reach out.

All of this created the conditions in which Mark didn't react quickly enough to his father's silence, and failed to read the warning signs that something was wrong. Mark constantly questions whether he could have prevented his father's death if only he had acted sooner, and this possibility, that he could somehow have saved his father continues to plague Mark to this day.

Mark returned to the family home on November 17^th, 2009, with no sign of Sami, but saw that everything was “going to (his dad’s) plan” regarding the 3-layer mortar root-barrier next to the garage, as well as building materials ready to be used, such as the large bag of coarse sand and some Marshall's block paviors / flags on the frontage. It seemed that two earlier shoring jobs to the house were completed successfully, so why did he decide to intervene and immediately order another cubic metre of concrete for delivery in two days time, instead of letting this mysterious building contractor finish the work, if Mark claims to be just a pen-pusher, unused to heavy manual work and has no interest in DIY?
 

[Myster]

Yup, the second shorter route was used via that gate. The truck was originally parked up in the street itself, blocking the road for some time. Mark was stood in plain sight, waving the neighbours' cars by as it reversed onto the front drive. The driver positioned the shute directly at the front of that fence gate. From there it was a couple of metres to the back of the garage. The whole procedure was overseen and witnessed by the driver.

Ok, I guess the white stain on the tarmac drive is where some concrete spilled over the edge of his barrow?  Do you know if the largest Hippobag nearest to the gate was moved out of the way to allow better access?

[Fact Checker]

Ok, I guess the white stain on the tarmac drive is where some concrete spilled over the edge of his barrow?  Do you know if the largest Hippobag nearest to the gate was moved out of the way to allow better access?

This photo was taken after a recent downpour, so we think this is just an area that has dried out more quickly, rather than a stain.

None of those yellow hippobags were there in 2009, they were only placed there in late January 2010 by renovators dealing with the water-leak, so the area would have been clear originally.

[Fact Checker]

so why did he decide to intervene and immediately order another cubic metre of concrete for delivery in two days time, instead of letting this mysterious building contractor finish the work, if Mark claims to be just a pen-pusher, unused to heavy manual work and has no interest in DIY?

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#construction
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top22

So we should make distinction there between Sami's private life (finances, aliases, business arrangements etc.) and what was going on around the house, which clearly wasn't a matter of secrecy. Sami involved Mark in various jobs around the house which didn't require specific expertise, in order to save money. This was meant to be one of them. The tragic irony is that Mark was just trying to help out.

All the evidence supports this, because the layers are clearly made of different materials, and laid to different standards. Moreover, Mark wasn't at the property long enough to conduct all the work required to excavate the site, mix the layers, and lay them professionally.

[Nicholas]

I'm sure the seasoned readers amongst you will know this already, but all of these articles you've linked to should be read with caution, they are peppered with inaccuracies.

In relation to defence counsel, once a defendant has been found guilty by a court of law, counsel is obliged to recognise the legal finding of the court. Their role changes, and they must treat the defendant as if he is guilty, offering mitigation on that basis and that basis alone.

Are you claiming Michael Borelli QC didn't say "the murder came after a huge build up of tension?"

"In mitigation, the 22-year-old's lawyer, Michael Borelli QC, said his mother was driven out by the 'boorish and bullying' behaviour of her then husband when the defendant was only six years old.

From then on, Mr Alexander had a hold on his son's life and even used a bell to summon him.

Alexander was kept apart from other children and made to practice music and study for long hours under the orders of his father, the court was told.

Mr Borelli said he was so fearful of his parent that he could not tell him of plans to stay in London with his girlfriend.

"The murder came after 'a huge build up of tension', Alexander's lawyer said.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310848/Law-student-Mark-Alexander-murdered-controlling-father-jailed-16-years.html

[Nicholas]

The timing is crucial. It goes both to motive and opportunity. The whole case is centred around the day Mark left the family home to move to London. This was 5 September 2009. If Sami was alive after this, then there is no motive, less still opportunity to commit the offence. It basically makes the prosecution case even less plausible.

I disagree!

The prosecution make it clear they do not know when Mark murdered Sami. The window of opportunity is left open between Sept - Feb.

Mark clearly has you and his supporters on a wild goose chase.

[Nicholas]

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#construction
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/diary/#top22

So we should make distinction there between Sami's private life (finances, aliases, business arrangements etc.) and what was going on around the house, which clearly wasn't a matter of secrecy. Sami involved Mark in various jobs around the house which didn't require specific expertise, in order to save money. This was meant to be one of them. The tragic irony is that Mark was just trying to help out.

All the evidence supports this, because the layers are clearly made of different materials, and laid to different standards. Moreover, Mark wasn't at the property long enough to conduct all the work required to excavate the site, mix the layers, and lay them professionally. In all of November, when the prosecution insist the burial took place, he was only there for a total of 3 hours.

Mark wants you to believe this but all the evidence points to him having murdered his father.