Author Topic: 10 things the Daily Mail got wrong about the trial of Mark Alexander Mistake #1  (Read 497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Daisy

Please read introduction first

“Gifted son gets life for butchering pushy father”
“He is accused of attempting to dismember him with a saw”
He…tried to cut it up with an electric saw”
“A blade from a saw was found with the corpse…an electric saw was found in the house”


-Excerpts from the Daily Mail et al

This is one of the most upsetting and appalling aspects of the case, not only because it’s a horrible thing to be told as a family, but because after putting us all through that, it then turned out to be a mistake.  Receiving the news that my father hadn’t just died, but had lost his life in such a horrific and brutal manner was completely devastating and shook us all for months.  When the prosecutor’s own expert then revealed that the police had been wrong all along – and that my father’s body hadn’t been dismembered at all – I felt both relieved and outraged.  Had this all been some kind of cruel joke?  How could they get something like that wrong?  And if they could mess this up, what other mistakes were they making?

Three months after my arrest, and two months before my trial, a Forensic Archaeologist and Anthropologist delivered the findings of an examination he had conducted – at the request of the Home Office Pathologist – of my father’s remains.  He had been asked to assess “the overall condition of the remains, any taphonomical changes such as burning, and evaluate whether any bone fractures were the result of fire, dismemberment, or peri-mortem trauma”.

“It is my opinion that these bone fragments were not intentionally separated…Most of the fractured edges appeared to be irregular, not clean cut, and therefore broken as a result of the fire and then decomposition.  Possible transportation of the body for burial would have likely resulted too in the movement of some bones” – Forensic Archaeologist and Anthropologist 28 May 2010.

Despite this unequivocal revelation, the prosecution ignored their own expert and maintained their original fallacy as if nothing had changed – I can think for no other reason than to generate an emotional reaction amongst the jurors and sway public opinion in the press.  Their opening speech seemed purposefully designed to manipulate the jury right from the start.  In a gruesome charade, they paraded an electric saw from dad’s tool shed around the courtroom before passing it to the jurors for a good look.  Yet their own forensic scientists had already established, a month earlier, that the saw neither had any traces of my DNA on it, not any traces of my father’s blood – and so was completely irrelevant to the case.  Indeed, the blades for this saw – which were also presented to the jury for maximum visceral impact – were just 5cm long.

All I could do was look on in horror and disbelief as this bizarre and macabre pantomime unfolded before me.  Seeing them play with my father’s dignity in this way was intolerable.  In that moment I lost any scraps of faith I had left in their integrity or impartiality.  I had trusted them to find my dad’s killer, and they hadn’t.  I had put my faith in forensic science to prove my innocence, and they too had failed.  At every step of the way our family has been let down, disappointed, or even toyed with simply to meet the prosecution’s own ends.  This wasn’t about justice for them, it was about winning, by any means possible: they couldn’t have made a starker demonstration of this had they tried.

Once the judge realized what had happened, and the allegation was revealed for what it really was, the jury were simply asked to forget all they had heard and been shown – as if erasing those images was as easy as flicking a switch.  But the damage had already been done.  I have no doubt it left a lasting and irreparable impression upon them, just as the prosecutor had intended.  And of course in the meantime, it had been all over the press.  Indeed, the stain of the prosecution’s abuse still lingers to this day.  No amount of reporting directions from the judge seemed strong enough to blot out that mark, they were all ignored, even when delivered before a full press gallery ahead of his sentencing remarks:

   “There was no dismemberment of the body, contrary to what has been said in
   the press” – The Honourable Judge Reddihough, 10 September 2010.

As a family, there are no words adequate to express our disgust at this behaviour, not the extent to which it has compounded our grief.  We only hope that a line can finally be drawn under these falsehoods, not withstanding that in truth they are symptomatic and symbolic of a much wider injustice yet to be remedied.


Offline John

I must say Daisy, readng what Mark has written reminds me of my own trial in which the prosecution did their damnedest to paint me as the villain. All too often the Judge will let a prosecutor get away with such conduct.  In my own case I challenged the prosecutor over her conduct, her reaction was so bad the Judge threatened to put us both out of the court.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 01:03:45 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Any update Daisy?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Daisy

Any update Daisy?


Yes. Sorry for the delay in posting. I have mistake 2 to post and will do this over the weekend.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Mark certainly, quite eloquently, writes with passion about the heinous error in stating his fathers cadaver state when found.

However, this error does not have anything to do with Marks involvement in his fathers demise, one can't say one believes or disbelieves Mark's innocence based on this post.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Stephanie

Please read introduction first

“Gifted son gets life for butchering pushy father”
“He is accused of attempting to dismember him with a saw”
He…tried to cut it up with an electric saw”
“A blade from a saw was found with the corpse…an electric saw was found in the house”


-Excerpts from the Daily Mail et al

This is one of the most upsetting and appalling aspects of the case, not only because it’s a horrible thing to be told as a family, but because after putting us all through that, it then turned out to be a mistake.  Receiving the news that my father hadn’t just died, but had lost his life in such a horrific and brutal manner was completely devastating and shook us all for months.  When the prosecutor’s own expert then revealed that the police had been wrong all along – and that my father’s body hadn’t been dismembered at all – I felt both relieved and outraged.  Had this all been some kind of cruel joke?  How could they get something like that wrong?  And if they could mess this up, what other mistakes were they making?

Three months after my arrest, and two months before my trial, a Forensic Archaeologist and Anthropologist delivered the findings of an examination he had conducted – at the request of the Home Office Pathologist – of my father’s remains.  He had been asked to assess “the overall condition of the remains, any taphonomical changes such as burning, and evaluate whether any bone fractures were the result of fire, dismemberment, or peri-mortem trauma”.

“It is my opinion that these bone fragments were not intentionally separated…Most of the fractured edges appeared to be irregular, not clean cut, and therefore broken as a result of the fire and then decomposition.  Possible transportation of the body for burial would have likely resulted too in the movement of some bones” – Forensic Archaeologist and Anthropologist 28 May 2010.

Despite this unequivocal revelation, the prosecution ignored their own expert and maintained their original fallacy as if nothing had changed – I can think for no other reason than to generate an emotional reaction amongst the jurors and sway public opinion in the press.  Their opening speech seemed purposefully designed to manipulate the jury right from the start.  In a gruesome charade, they paraded an electric saw from dad’s tool shed around the courtroom before passing it to the jurors for a good look.  Yet their own forensic scientists had already established, a month earlier, that the saw neither had any traces of my DNA on it, not any traces of my father’s blood – and so was completely irrelevant to the case.  Indeed, the blades for this saw – which were also presented to the jury for maximum visceral impact – were just 5cm long.

All I could do was look on in horror and disbelief as this bizarre and macabre pantomime unfolded before me.  Seeing them play with my father’s dignity in this way was intolerable.  In that moment I lost any scraps of faith I had left in their integrity or impartiality.  I had trusted them to find my dad’s killer, and they hadn’t.  I had put my faith in forensic science to prove my innocence, and they too had failed.  At every step of the way our family has been let down, disappointed, or even toyed with simply to meet the prosecution’s own ends.  This wasn’t about justice for them, it was about winning, by any means possible: they couldn’t have made a starker demonstration of this had they tried.

Once the judge realized what had happened, and the allegation was revealed for what it really was, the jury were simply asked to forget all they had heard and been shown – as if erasing those images was as easy as flicking a switch.  But the damage had already been done.  I have no doubt it left a lasting and irreparable impression upon them, just as the prosecutor had intended.  And of course in the meantime, it had been all over the press.  Indeed, the stain of the prosecution’s abuse still lingers to this day.  No amount of reporting directions from the judge seemed strong enough to blot out that mark, they were all ignored, even when delivered before a full press gallery ahead of his sentencing remarks:

   “There was no dismemberment of the body, contrary to what has been said in
   the press” – The Honourable Judge Reddihough, 10 September 2010.

As a family, there are no words adequate to express our disgust at this behaviour, not the extent to which it has compounded our grief.  We only hope that a line can finally be drawn under these falsehoods, not withstanding that in truth they are symptomatic and symbolic of a much wider injustice yet to be remedied.

Mark's really annoyed with the Daily Mail for the way they've reported on his crimes and he's gone to great lengths to point out where they've got it wrong

The thing is, if he'd told the truth when he was arrested, there would not have been a trial and the newspapers would have reported the details differently

He's only got himself to blame for that