Author Topic: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.  (Read 52937 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Daisy

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2017, 01:34:07 PM »
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.

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2017, 07:51:49 PM »
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.

Regardless of what has already transpired we can give him the benefit of the doubt, it is surprising sometimes what can happen further down the line.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Daisy

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2017, 01:29:41 PM »
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.

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2017, 02:15:37 PM »
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:


We only have Mark's word for this and I'm quite sure said girlfriend cannot possibly account for his movements 24/7.


   “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.

No outsider is going to murder someone and then take the trouble to dig a neat hole in the back garden, coming back several times to add multiple layers of mortar to a makeshift grave.  The whole notion is just fantasyland imo.

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.

The ordering of the concrete actually incriminates Mark.  In my opinion he ordered that small load to give legitimacy to the work already carried out.  He knew very well that pouring the concrete in full view of the neighbours would not cause suspicion.

The other thing we have to remember is that Mark prepared the excavation for the concrete yet NEVER ONCE FOUND IT SUSPICIOUS THAT SOMEONE HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE!  The pouring concrete episode was a last ditch effort to seal the grave under the pretence that it was some sort of structural underpinning project. 

Luckily, the police saw through this pretence.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 02:30:17 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Daisy

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #64 on: December 17, 2017, 11:52:53 AM »
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.

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.


Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2017, 05:52:38 PM »
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.

Clearly the several layers of amateurish mortar mix were placed around and over the body by Sami's murderer in a hasty attempt to hide it.  The proper concrete ordered later by Mark was an attempt to legitimize the site in my view.

Mark knew exactly what he was doing in pouring concrete over a weak mortar mix.  The entire thing was can pathetic attempt to hide his father's remains. Merely pouring concrete into a hasdtily dug hole had no structural integrity whatsoever.

It's not the driver of a concrete lorry's job to wheel concrete using a wheelbarrow so I'm not at all surprised he looked bemused.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 05:57:25 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2017, 05:59:18 PM »
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.

Clearly the three layers were laid on three different occasions, probably under cover of darkness.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2017, 06:05:05 PM »
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.

For all we know Sami had already dug or had the excavation dug out before his death and his killer saw an opportunity to get rid of the body by using said excavation as a guise.

Mark asks the question as to when he was supposed to have carried out the work as he claims to have not been there long enough.  The simple answer to that is that he had every opportunity to return to the family home and do what he needed to do unseen.  He could easily have made numerous trips back home unbeknownst to anyone.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Angelo222

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #68 on: December 25, 2017, 01:10:24 PM »
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.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #69 on: December 26, 2017, 11:47:16 PM »
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.

I believe that point has been made already, the whole idea that some anonymous third party would kill Samuel Alexander, attempt to incinerate his body somewhere and then cart it back to the family home before digging a hole in the garden and burying him in homemade mortar is frankly too silly for words.

The risks involved for some anonymous intruder were simply too great. Mark Alexander was without doubt the perpetrator of this crime, he had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry it out despite his claims to the contrary.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 11:52:08 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Angelo222

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #70 on: December 27, 2017, 08:00:33 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 08:04:20 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Daisy

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #71 on: December 30, 2017, 09:09:27 AM »
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.

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #72 on: December 30, 2017, 07:39:52 PM »
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.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Daisy

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #73 on: December 30, 2017, 10:38:54 PM »
These days ones location is easily checked from bank statements.

What if you don’t do any banking during the dates in question?

Offline John

Re: The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.
« Reply #74 on: December 31, 2017, 12:49:31 AM »
What if you don’t do any banking during the dates in question?

Don't most well heeled guys use plastic these days?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.