Author Topic: Mark Alexander  (Read 16273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #135 on: December 11, 2019, 09:32:03 AM »
“When my friend and colleague Mark Alexander was convicted of the murder of his father in 2010 it wasn’t long before I started talking to a friend of mine to work out how we could increase Mark’s ability to communicate with the outside world. Working in the technology industry it’s not long before either of us tries to apply our skills to a given problem. Andy has a long and established history of developing technologies that allow remote devices to connect with the rest of the world. To both of us Mark was just another hard-to-reach source of information and we wanted to make sure he was connected.

Before Mark went to prison he was an avid user of Twitter. By the time he was convicted in September 2010 he had around 100 friends following him. To us Twitter seemed to be the perfect way for Mark to keep in touch with what his friends were up to, and to allow him to remain more closely in touch with people he could longer contact as easily as he used to.

As well as keeping Mark informed, it was also designed to let his community of online friends know more about life in prison. It wasn’t long before it was serving more of a purpose than just letting his friends know what was on the menu that day, how he felt, or how his music practice was going; Mark has been working to clear his name ever since his conviction 18 months ago. As he goes through the process of appeals and his legal team make progress, we wanted Mark to be able to give his friends updates on the case and his campaign.

I don’t know if Matthew Whitehead or Andy Stanford-Clark are behind ‘Mark Alexanders’ recent tweets or whether it is another of his mates but for the record I’ve made a formal complaint to the Ministry about the account and it’s content (About me) and will be following it up until it is dealt with

Mark Alexander
Dec 9
The voices of miscarriages of justice victims go largely unheard and ignored. We believe it's important that people like Mark are included in discourse about criminal justice reform, because they have first hand experience of how the system has failed them.


Convicted murderer Mark Alexander’s focus should be on understanding why he chose to murder his father and bury his remains in his back garden.

Mark Alexander
Dec 9
Yes, discussions were had with the MOJ some years ago about the terms and parameters of his use of this account. All tweets are handwritten by Mark and sent out in normal post, subject to all the normal checks.


All tweets are handwritten by Mark” Are they?

 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 10:00:22 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #136 on: December 11, 2019, 10:02:17 AM »
Lets look at the facts.

Mark Alexander told everyone who enquired that his father Samuel had gone to stay with friends in London. If this is true who are these friends?  If what he claimed was totally false why did he lie?

Mark Alexander sent out Christmas cards to his neigbours in his father's name.  Why did he do that?

Mark Alexander took delivery of concrete and had it laid over the exact spot where his father had been buried. Is that a coincidence too far?

If Samuel Alexander had gone off on his own accord why did Mark Alexander not contact the police to report the matter?

Via his twitter account

Mark Alexander
Dec 9
3 cards were sent, more than 3 months after the crime allegedly took place. It is deeply cynical to frame a friendly Christmas gesture as evidence of a cover up.


Student jailed for 16 years for murdering father Sept 2010
“A law student who murdered his father in a bid to escape his "controlling influence" was jailed for life today with a minimum term of 16 years.
Mark Alexander, 22, killed 70-year-old Samuel at the family home before burying his body in concrete in the garden.
Passing sentence at Reading Crown Court, Judge John Reddihough said he accepted that Alexander may have been in fear of his father, but added that, after his death, he acted in a "despicable, callous and sometimes cunning manner".
Alexander remained impassive as he was taken down to the cells.
The partially-burned remains of the former lecturer were only found after neighbours became suspicious of his son and compiled a dossier of information for police.
The residents of Prospect Close, a cul-de-sac in the small village of Drayton Parslow, Buckinghamshire, were concerned they had not seen Egyptian-born Mr Alexander since a garden party in August 2009.
The victim's neighbours were praised in court today for building up a dossier of their concerns and going to the police.
Mr Alexander was eventually reported missing in February this year, five months after it is believed he was murdered.
Officers found his badly decomposed remains buried under mortar and concrete in the garden. His son had attempted to burn parts of the body in a bid to disguise its identity.
During the course of a six-week trial it emerged that Mark Alexander, who was studying law and French at King's College, London at the time, faked his father's signature in Christmas cards as part of a plan to conceal the murder.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/student-jailed-for-16-years-for-murdering-father-2075994.html
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 10:30:17 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #137 on: December 11, 2019, 10:06:16 AM »
I notice that in June 2011 Mark Alexander went to the Appeal Court claiming that his ‘cantankerous dad' had provoked him and this should have been put to the jurors.

'However, three senior judges, sitting at London’s Court of Appeal dismissed the claim as ‘speculation’ and upheld the conviction. Mr Justice Walker told the court Samuel Alexander used ‘brutal and callous treatment’ in bringing up his son after the boy’s mother left. He said the father was proud that Mark was reading English and French law, and told neighbours his son planned to study at Paris’ prestigious Sorbonne University in his third year. But the court heard Alexander wanted to change his course and live with his girlfriend in London.'

This suggests that Mark Alexander has now accepted his fate and is introducing excuses for his behaviour.  This is not the actions of an innocent man but a guilty man now pleading mitigating circumstances.

Read more at: http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/crime/killer-provocation-claim-thrown-out-1-2809130

In response to the above, via twitter

Mark Alexander
Dec 9
That is an inaccurate assumption. The Court were asked to consider formal justice in respect of the options left to the jury (Murder, Manslaughter, Provocation), irrespective of the defendant's testimony. No fresh evidence was available at that time. Now there is.
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Fact Checker

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #138 on: December 16, 2019, 02:41:31 PM »
I don’t know if Matthew Whitehead or Andy Stanford-Clark are behind ‘Mark Alexanders’ recent tweets or whether it is another of his mates but for the record I’ve made a formal complaint to the Ministry about the account and it’s content (About me) and will be following it up until it is dealt with

This matter was settled a long time ago:

Winter 2013 Edition of the Prisoners' Advice Service Magazine on Prisoner Rights (Issue #65)

http://www.prisonersadvice.org.uk/information/bulletin/

Quote
Prisoners’ Use of ‘Social Networking Sites’

The Prisoners’ Advice Service recently took up the case of a prisoner ‘X’, who had been refused permission to send out content to a personal Twitter ac-count. X was using the Twitter account to raise awareness of and support for his campaign against conviction. Friends in the community were managing the Twitter account and uploading X’s contributions: he did not have direct access to the account himself.

In refusing X permission, the prison re-lied on section 12.11 of PSI 49/2011 Prisoner Communication Services, which provides in mandatory terms that, “Prisoners must not be permitted to access or contribute via a third party to any social networking site while in custody.”

PAS argued that X was using Twitter as a micro-blogging platform rather than a social networking site, and the prohibition in section 12.11 conflicted with section 11.3 (j) (iii) of PSI 49/2011, which states:
11.3 Correspondence may not contain the following:

In addition to restrictions on access to the media (see PSI 37/2010 Prisoners’ Access to the Media), material which is intended for publication or use by radio, television or the internet (or which, if sent, would be likely to be published or broadcast on these media channels) if it:

(iii) is about the prisoner's own crime or past offences or those of others, except where it consists of serious representations about conviction or sentence or forms part of serious comment about crime, the criminal justice system or the penal system. [emphasis in bold added]

PAS further argued that the ban constituted a breach of X’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 does not provide an absolute right to freedom of expression, but any restriction of this right must be justified on Article 10(2) grounds. X was willing for the content he submitted to his Twitter account to be subject to prior checking by the prison (as is routine with out-going communications), and PAS submitted the ban was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate.

The Policy Lead at the Equality, Rights and Decency Group of NOMS, advised the prison that X could contribute mate-rial to his Twitter account for the purpose of making serious representations about his conviction, subject to the prison checking the content of his communications to ensure they did not breach the restrictions placed on the contents.

This case, and that of prisoners such as Ben Gunn, who fought for and gained permission to have a blog while in custody, illustrates that section 12.11 of PSI 49/2011 should not be read too strictly. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which are often characterised as social networking sites, may have other purposes. If a prisoner wishes to contribute to a web based site for the purpose of making serious representations about their conviction or sentence, or serious comment about crime, the criminal justice system, penal system – or indeed any other issue – should apply to the prison for permission to do so and seek legal advice if their request is refused.

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

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #139 on: January 10, 2020, 09:52:32 PM »
This matter was settled a long time ago:

Winter 2013 Edition of the Prisoners' Advice Service Magazine on Prisoner Rights (Issue #65)

http://www.prisonersadvice.org.uk/information/bulletin/

Who was it settled with exactly?

According to the Briefing and Correspondence team of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and after HMPPS Digital Media Investigation Unit carried out an authorised internet investigation re convicted murderer Mark Alexander’s twitter it’s been claimed the account is fully controlled by a third party ?

Will be interesting to see where this leads especially given the Briefing and Correspondence team state it is not the position of the MoJ to intervene in communications between members of the public on public forums
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 10:13:28 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #140 on: January 10, 2020, 10:35:41 PM »
Quote
Prisoners’ Use of ‘Social Networking Sites’

The Prisoners’ Advice Service recently took up the case of a prisoner ‘X’, who had been refused permission to send out content to a personal Twitter ac-count. X was using the Twitter account to raise awareness of and support for his campaign against conviction. Friends in the community were managing the Twitter account and uploading X’s contributions: he did not have direct access to the account himself.

In refusing X permission, the prison re-lied on section 12.11 of PSI 49/2011 Prisoner Communication Services, which provides in mandatory terms that, “Prisoners must not be permitted to access or contribute via a third party to any social networking site while in custody.”

PAS argued that X was using Twitter as a micro-blogging platform rather than a social networking site, and the prohibition in section 12.11 conflicted with section 11.3 (j) (iii) of PSI 49/2011, which states:
11.3 Correspondence may not contain the following:

In addition to restrictions on access to the media (see PSI 37/2010 Prisoners’ Access to the Media), material which is intended for publication or use by radio, television or the internet (or which, if sent, would be likely to be published or broadcast on these media channels) if it:

(iii) is about the prisoner's own crime or past offences or those of others, except where it consists of serious representations about conviction or sentence or forms part of serious comment about crime, the criminal justice system or the penal system. [emphasis in bold added]

PAS further argued that the ban constituted a breach of X’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 does not provide an absolute right to freedom of expression, but any restriction of this right must be justified on Article 10(2) grounds. X was willing for the content he submitted to his Twitter account to be subject to prior checking by the prison (as is routine with out-going communications), and PAS submitted the ban was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate.

The Policy Lead at the Equality, Rights and Decency Group of NOMS, advised the prison that X could contribute mate-rial to his Twitter account for the purpose of making serious representations about his conviction, subject to the prison checking the content of his communications to ensure they did not breach the restrictions placed on the contents.

This case, and that of prisoners such as Ben Gunn, who fought for and gained permission to have a blog while in custody, illustrates that section 12.11 of PSI 49/2011 should not be read too strictly. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which are often characterised as social networking sites, may have other purposes. If a prisoner wishes to contribute to a web based site for the purpose of making serious representations about their conviction or sentence, or serious comment about crime, the criminal justice system, penal system – or indeed any other issue – should apply to the prison for permission to do so and seek legal advice if their request is refused.

I see Eric Allison is on the PAS board of trustees http://www.prisonersadvice.org.uk/about/who-we-are/
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #141 on: January 11, 2020, 10:08:11 AM »
Will be interesting to see where this leads especially given the Briefing and Correspondence team state it is not the position of the MoJ to intervene in communications between members of the public on public forums

Mark Alexander
Dec 9
Yes, discussions were had with the MOJ some years ago about the terms and parameters of his use of this account. All tweets are handwritten by Mark and sent out in normal post, subject to all the normal checks.


Seems to me the Briefing and Correspondence team are discombobulated
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Daisy

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #142 on: March 01, 2020, 12:45:41 PM »
Mark is taking the HMRC to court on 6th March. He will be appearing by video link. More information on his Twitter account.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #143 on: March 30, 2020, 07:15:25 PM »
Seems to me the Briefing and Correspondence team are discombobulated

what was the outcome?
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Daisy

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #144 on: March 30, 2020, 08:46:37 PM »
what was the outcome?


If you look at the link to his twitter account you will see the outcome. Before it went to court HMRC agreed to hand over all information.  This is significant as may give clues to the secret life Sami led and identify any enemies who wanted him dead.

Offline matthewkevin84

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #145 on: March 31, 2020, 05:47:18 PM »
Do you think Daisy it is still anticipated that Mark will receive the requested documents from HMRC in April (as mentioned on twitter) or will the virus delay it?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2020, 05:51:47 PM by matthewkevin84 »

Offline Daisy

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #146 on: April 05, 2020, 01:42:49 PM »
Do you think Daisy it is still anticipated that Mark will receive the requested documents from HMRC in April (as mentioned on twitter) or will the virus delay it?

I have no idea.

Offline Fact Checker

Re: Mark Alexander
« Reply #147 on: April 22, 2020, 04:14:13 PM »
Do you think Daisy it is still anticipated that Mark will receive the requested documents from HMRC in April (as mentioned on twitter) or will the virus delay it?

Hi Matt, we are pleased to say we have received all the disclosure items requested from HMRC, and are now pressing on with follow up subject access requests with other agencies like www.cifas.org.uk which hold data about credit rather than tax history. With the Court Order we obtained in relation to HMRC, this will hopefully be much easier now.
This account is run by volunteers on the freeMarkAlexander.org team. We welcome healthy debate, but please try to avoid making unsubstantiated or libelous claims. Please excuse us if we do not respond to a post immediately. We may need to conduct further research before we can answer a question fully and this might take some time. All of our posted images are licensed by freeMarkAlexander.org under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.