The murder of Samuel Alexander - Serious Case Review.

[Fact Checker]

It would be interesting to hear Mark's response to this Review?

Thanks John, you may find this of interest: http://www.freemarkalexander.org/serious-case-review/

It would also seem that no care assistants were ever employed by Samuel despite the direct payments being made to him.

As I think we revealed on another thread, Mark's lawyers recently tracked down one of the household assistants Sami had hired to work for him. She had approached the police in February 2009, but no statement was ever taken. She had been working at Sami's home in August 2009, and confirmed that there were other people working there too. She was unable to identify who they were however, which brings us back to square one. Who were they, and why have they never come forward?

[mrswah]

Thanks John, all of those points are addressed on our website if this is helpful. They are constructs of the prosecution's efforts to establish motive, but don't pass much scrutiny:

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-8/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-6/

IMO, Mark certainly had a motive to murder his father, but whether or not he did is a different matter.

I have read that the first two layers of concrete were laid well, and professionally, but the layer that Mark laid (and admits he laid) was not done particularly well, as Mark was not trained in construction work. Has anyone found out who laid the first two layers?

[Fact Checker]

IMO, Mark certainly had a motive to murder his father, but whether or not he did is a different matter.

But why at this moment in particular? The timing is off. The idea that he would nurse his father back to health, only to turn on him, just doesn't sit right. And this at the very moment when he is supposedly being granted his freedom. If he wanted to get away from Sami, all he had to do was walk out of the door and never come back. He could have made a clean break in Paris or London quite easily.

I have read that the first two layers of concrete were laid well, and professionally, but the layer that Mark laid (and admits he laid) was not done particularly well, as Mark was not trained in construction work. Has anyone found out who laid the first two layers?

Not as yet. Mark's lawyers collated a list of about 40 contractors who Sami had hired to do work at the house over the years, and phoned them all. Nothing really came out of this however, and it seems unlikely that anyone would implicate themselves that way at any rate.

Since Sami tended to pay labourers and housekeepers in cash, there are very few records of any of the work that occurred at the home. Despite building work of this nature being noisy and labour-intensive, the neighbours maintain that they saw no-one doing any work until Mark showed up for an hour and a half on 19 November.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#contractors
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#night

[Miss Taken Identity]

But why at this moment in particular? The timing is off. The idea that he would nurse his father back to health, only to turn on him, just doesn't sit right. And this at the very moment when he is supposedly being granted his freedom. If he wanted to get away from Sami, all he had to do was walk out of the door and never come back. He could have made a clean break in Paris or London quite easily.

Not as yet. Mark's lawyers collated a list of about 40 contractors who Sami had hired to do work at the house over the years, and phoned them all. Nothing really came out of this however, and it seems unlikely that anyone would implicate themselves that way at any rate.

Since Sami tended to pay labourers and housekeepers in cash, there are very few records of any of the work that occurred at the home. Despite building work of this nature being noisy and labour-intensive, the neighbours maintain that they saw no-one doing any work until Mark showed up for an hour and a half on 19 November.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#contractors
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#night

But why at this moment in particular? The timing is off. The idea that he would nurse his father back to health, only to turn on him, just doesn't sit right. And this at the very moment when he is supposedly being granted his freedom. If he wanted to get away from Sami, all he had to do was walk out of the door and never come back. He could have made a clean break in Paris or London quite easily.

Just becasue it doesn't sit right does not mean it can't happen. He was being granted his freedom? what does this mean exactly... Why didn't he just walk away sooner?

Not as yet. Mark's lawyers collated a list of about 40 contractors who Sami had hired to do work at the house over the years, and phoned them all. Nothing really came out of this however, and it seems unlikely that anyone would implicate themselves that way at any rate.

Implicate themselves? in what way, I don't understand... how can they be implicated  if it was established that they were professionals laying concrete  legitimatly?



Since Sami tended to pay labourers and housekeepers in cash, there are very few records of any of the work that occurred at the home. Despite building work of this nature being noisy and labour-intensive, the neighbours maintain that they saw no-one doing any work until Mark showed up for an hour and a half on 19 November.

Was it established that the nearby neighbours never left the house at all. They didn't work, go on holiday or played music in the house?

[Fact Checker]

He was being granted his freedom? what does this mean exactly... Why didn't he just walk away sooner?

What we're trying to get across here is that the premise of the whole prosecution case is deeply illogical. They claim that Mark was oppressed and desperate to leave home, but this doesn't make sense because Mark was due to leave home in his third year of study anyway. Mark didn't need emancipating, he was already very independent, and running his own business. He had no reason to feel trapped at all. If he wanted to walk away sooner, he could easily have done so, but the point is that he was perfectly happy where he was and with the life he already had. The prosecution narrative was a fantasy.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-8/

Implicate themselves? in what way, I don't understand... how can they be implicated  if it was established that they were professionals laying concrete legitimatly?

There are a number of stages here:
1) Excavating the pit. This could have been conducted by legitimate labourers without any link to Sami's death.
2) Layers 1 to 3 of mortar. This had to be conducted by professionals, but could not have been done legitimately, since Sami's body was encased within the second layer, between 1 and 3.
3) Layer 4 of concrete. An amateur job, using different materials and methodology. This was, as we know, Mark's involvement. It could not have been linked to the first two stages above.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#experts

Was it established that the nearby neighbours never left the house at all. They didn't work, go on holiday or played music in the house?

No doubt they would have, but this was a tight-knit, curtain-twitching neighbourhood. 15 families lived in this street, and Sami's house was at the top of the street. No-one could leave or enter Prospect Close without driving or walking past Sami's home.

[Angelo222]

What we're trying to get across here is that the premise of the whole prosecution case is deeply illogical. They claim that Mark was oppressed and desperate to leave home, but this doesn't make sense because Mark was due to leave home in his third year of study anyway. Mark didn't need emancipating, he was already very independent, and running his own business. He had no reason to feel trapped at all. If he wanted to walk away sooner, he could easily have done so, but the point is that he was perfectly happy where he was and with the life he already had. The prosecution narrative was a fantasy.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-7/
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/mistake-8/.

Yet he was stealing money out of his father's bank account after her was murdered?

[Angelo222]

There are a number of stages here:
1) Excavating the pit. This could have been conducted by legitimate labourers without any link to Sami's death.
2) Layers 1 to 3 of mortar. This had to be conducted by professionals, but could not have been done legitimately, since Sami's body was encased within the second layer, between 1 and 3.
3) Layer 4 of concrete. An amateur job, using different materials and methodology. This was, as we know, Mark's involvement. It could not have been linked to the first two stages above.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#experts

1.) Hardly likely since legitimate labourers would have been seen and would have come forward. In this case neither occurred.

2.) Layers 1,2 and 3 were not laid by professionals for the reasons above and because the mortar mixes were basically rubbish and of no real engineering value.  Only an amateur will access to the property could have carried out this work.

3.) Layer 4 was Mark Alexander's attempt to legitimise all the layers he had previously laid down. A cover up if you like to use a pun. Only the killer knew what lay below whichever way you want to cut it!

[Angelo222]

No doubt they would have, but this was a tight-knit, curtain-twitching neighbourhood. 15 families lived in this street, and Sami's house was at the top of the street. No-one could leave or enter Prospect Close without driving or walking past Sami's home.

Mark Alexander could access the property though unseen and that is the point.

[John]

Mark Alexander could access the property though unseen and that is the point.

I find the suggestion incredulous that some third party was able to access the property unseen, dig a large hole and bury Sami's burned remains in some DIY mortar mix. Thereafter, his son, completely ignorant of what has just gone on, decides to order a small load of ready-mix concrete and fill in the remaining hole. I'm quite sure the jury would have had some difficulty keeping a straight face at that theory?

[Fact Checker]

Mark Alexander could access the property though unseen and that is the point.

Is it? There is no evidence to support this suggestion at all. We know exactly when he was at the property, and exactly when he wasn't. There are no grey areas here. The kind of theory you're promoting sounds like someone trying to hold on to the 'idea' of Mark's guilt at all costs. We've talked about 'tunnel-vision' before, in the context of the police investigation. Is the truth really that hard to accept?

Mark's movements show that he was never at the house any later than about 19:00, because he always travelled back to London after a visit. He never spent the night in Drayton Parslow between September to December 2009 because he was at university, living in London with his then girlfriend. She testified that they slept every night together and that he never stayed away anywhere else.

We can all sit down and think of alternative explanations when the evidence doesn't fit the current theory, but this doesn't get us anywhere without proof. The risk we take by doing this is falling into the trap that the police fell into, which is one of tunnel vision, fitting the evidence to the suspect. But when all the evidence starts to fall apart, instead of trying to make up some other theory, shouldn't we instead be asking whether we might have got the wrong guy in the first place? The refusal to accept that a terrible mistake may have occurred here seems worringly familiar, it's exactly what criminal justice agencies have done time and again in the worst miscarriages of justice.

If however, this took place long after 7pm, as seems likely, this might explain why nobody saw or heard the work taking place. As mentioned elsewhere on the Forum, the only other people with regular access to the house were the housekeepers themselves. They would have been able to move freely without attracting attention, because the neighbours were used to them, and they would have known the area well enough to be familiar with remote access points.

1.) Hardly likely since legitimate labourers would have been seen and would have come forward. In this case neither occurred.

If your work physically connected you to an area that later turned out to be a burial site, the chances are that you would be reluctant to speak up about it. Look what happened to Mark. Anyone who admitted going anywhere near that area would have been arrested. Most people wouldn't subject themselves to that kind of ordeal or scrutiny.

Mark's lawyers collated a list of about 40 contractors who Sami had hired to do work at the house over the years, and phoned them all. Nothing really came out of this however, and it seems unlikely that anyone would implicate themselves that way at any rate. Since Sami tended to pay labourers and housekeepers in cash, there are very few records of any of the work that occurred at the home.

http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#contractors
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#night

2.) Layers 1,2 and 3 were not laid by professionals for the reasons above and because the mortar mixes were basically rubbish and of no real engineering value.  Only an amateur will access to the property could have carried out this work.

You're confusing intention with reality.

A) Intention: Sami intended this site to fulfil two functions. Shoring the foundations of the garage, and providing a root barrier to the chopped down trees.

B) Reality: The site, upon completion of stage one (the excavation stage), was hijacked by opportunists. They would have had no interest in the engineering value of the site. Their only interest was in hiding a body. Can you think of any reason why mortar would suit their purposes better than concrete? The experts have very carefully analysed the various elements (mix proportion, consistency, signs of shuttering etc.) and returned their findings. Comparing the concrete to the mortar reveals very clear differences between the two, which go beyond mere differences in the materials. They show a different methodology and skillset entirely.

3.) Layer 4 was Mark Alexander's attempt to legitimise all the layers he had previously laid down. A cover up if you like to use a pun. Only the killer knew what lay below whichever way you want to cut it!

Why would Mark go to all the apparent effort of conducting this work in secret, taking such great care not to be seen, and without leaving any forensic trace of his presence, only to completely undo all of that by requesting that someone send a noisy concrete truck to park infront of all the neighbours on a weekday afternoon, while he stood in the street waving cars by and clumsily wheeling barrows of the stuff from the front drive to the garage?

Common-sense tells you this wasn't the same guy.

[Fact Checker]

Yet he was stealing money out of his father's bank account after her was murdered?

This allegation has no substance. No suggestion of this was made at Mark's trial.

Sami regularly asked Mark to handle his financial affairs under the Samuel Alexander alias, and legally appointed Mark as his Attorney in May 2008, authorising him "to act on [his] behalf in all bank, building societies, and other financial institutions… to draw money… to sign [his] name to and as [his] act and deed… to receive mail on [his] behalf".

Sami and Mark also operated a shared account. There was nothing unusual about Mark using this joint account at all. Moreover, the Crown Prosecution Service admitted that between 2007 and 2009 Mark had paid more than £25,000 of his own money into Sami's accounts. The jury were fully aware of this and were given a copy of this evidence in the formal CPS Admissions.

Mark's own income far exceeded any expenditure from the joint account. He earned more than £4000 between September 2009 and January 2010, and received over £5000 from the Student Loans Company by way of maintenance allowance in the same timeframe. This was a means-tested allowance, but Mark's earnings fell below the threshold.

[John]

Is it? There is no evidence to support this suggestion at all. We know exactly when he was at the property, and exactly when he wasn't. There are no grey areas here. The kind of theory you're promoting sounds like someone trying to hold on to the 'idea' of Mark's guilt at all costs. We've talked about 'tunnel-vision' before, in the context of the police investigation. Is the truth really that hard to accept?

If however, this took place long after 7pm, as seems likely, this might explain why nobody saw or heard the work taking place. As mentioned elsewhere on the Forum, the only other people with regular access to the house were the housekeepers themselves. They would have been able to move freely without attracting attention, because the neighbours were used to them, and they would have known the area well enough to be familiar with remote access points.

I fear the truth of it is that the grey areas are many. I think it just a tad naive to insist that Mark's movements were always known because that simply couldn't be the case.  We only have his word for it when he was at the property and I'm afraid that means very little.  His digs in London were a mere 50 miles away, about an hour in a vehicle, so plenty of time to return to the family home, do what he had to do and return to London with no-one being any the wiser.  Maybe he had an accomplice who is yet to be unmasked, a distinct possibility imo?

If your work physically connected you to an area that later turned out to be a burial site, the chances are that you would be reluctant to speak up about it. Look what happened to Mark. Anyone who admitted going anywhere near that area would have been arrested. Most people wouldn't subject themselves to that kind of ordeal or scrutiny.

I don't accept that for a moment.  Anyone who had a legitimate reason for undertaking work at Sami Alexander's home has come forward but nobody has taken ownership of the alleged underpinning of the garage wall because it was all a sham. There is no record of any payment having been made to any contractor which leaves only one possibility.

You're confusing intention with reality.

A) Intention: Sami intended this site to fulfil two functions. Shoring the foundations of the garage, and providing a root barrier to the chopped down trees.

B) Reality: The site, upon completion of stage one (the excavation stage), was hijacked by opportunists. They would have had no interest in the engineering value of the site. Their only interest was in hiding a body. Can you think of any reason why mortar would suit their purposes better than concrete? The experts have very carefully analysed the various elements (mix proportion, consistency, signs of shuttering etc.) and returned their findings. Comparing the concrete to the mortar reveals very clear differences between the two, which go beyond mere differences in the materials. They show a different methodology and skillset entirely.

I don't think Angelo is confusing intention with reality. The grave in which Sami was buried had nothing to do with any professional underpinning. Sami's body was entombed in a makeshift grave using three discernible levels of mortar mixes.  Clearly the mortar was poured into the grave on more than one occasion thus why it was inconsistent and amateurish. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mark Alexander had help to carry the mortar mix to the grave and fill it in. It doesn't take much skill set to dig a hole for a body and pour a concrete mix into it before applying water.

IMO one thing is certain though and that is that Mark Alexander had no involvement in any building work while his father was away, Sami would never have allowed it for one thing.  The only reason Mark Alexander ordered Ready Mix concrete was to cover up what he had a already done. The concrete lorry driver even observed that his customer was literally out of his depth and had very little real knowledge of what he was doing.  Little did that driver know that his customer was attempting to seal his father's grave.

[Angelo222]

This allegation has no substance. No suggestion of this was made at Mark's trial.

Sami regularly asked Mark to handle his financial affairs under the Samuel Alexander alias, and legally appointed Mark as his Attorney in May 2008, authorising him "to act on [his] behalf in all bank, building societies, and other financial institutions… to draw money… to sign [his] name to and as [his] act and deed… to receive mail on [his] behalf".

Sami and Mark also operated a shared account. There was nothing unusual about Mark using this joint account at all. Moreover, the Crown Prosecution Service admitted that between 2007 and 2009 Mark had paid more than £25,000 of his own money into Sami's accounts. The jury were fully aware of this and were given a copy of this evidence in the formal CPS Admissions.

Mark's own income far exceeded any expenditure from the joint account. He earned more than £4000 between September 2009 and January 2010, and received over £5000 from the Student Loans Company by way of maintenance allowance in the same timeframe.

Aren't student loans assessed based on income?

[Fact Checker]

I fear the truth of it is that the grey areas are many. I think it just a tad naive to insist that Mark's movements were always known because that simply couldn't be the case.  We only have his word for it when he was at the property and I'm afraid that means very little.  His digs in London were a mere 50 miles away, about an hour in a vehicle, so plenty of time to return to the family home, do what he had to do and return to London with no-one being any the wiser. 

The prosecution ruled this possibility out themselves when they established the chronology at trial. Mark could not have driven anywhere without being picked up by ANPR cameras. The police retrieved all the local taxi journals and were able to identify any occassions on which Mark travelled by train and taxi. Mark's defence team have painstakingly retraced his steps between September and December 2009, and there is strong alibi evidence. Mark simply wasn't in the vicinity of Drayton Parslow anywhere near long enough to carry out the crime.

So the prosecution set out Mark's movements at trial, and presented a detailed chronology to the jury in their document bundle as to where he was on any given day. We have been able to supplement their own sources with cash machine usage, university attendance records, records of appointments and events that Mark attended, and so on. The final picture is very finely detailed and completely evidence based. We do not need to rely on Mark's word at all.

Maybe he had an accomplice who is yet to be unmasked, a distinct possibility imo?

If you're willing to accept that Mark couldn't have acted alone, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that he didn't do it at all. The idea only makes sense in the abstract, i.e. we think more than a single person must have been involved. But that doesn't mean that one of those two or more people was Mark, because that would require actual evidence (how inconvenient!) linking other parties to what the prosecution allege Mark did, and there is none.

There is no record of any payment having been made to any contractor which leaves only one possibility.

All the employees and contractors interviewed told the police that Sami always paid them in cash.

I don't think Angelo is confusing intention with reality. The grave in which Sami was buried had nothing to do with any professional underpinning. Sami's body was entombed in a makeshift grave using three discernible levels of mortar mixes.  Clearly the mortar was poured into the grave on more than one occasion thus why it was inconsistent and amateurish. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Mark Alexander had help to carry the mortar mix to the grave and fill it in. It doesn't take much skill set to dig a hole for a body and pour a concrete mix into it before applying water.

The only layer that was identified as 'inconsistent and amateurish' was the final layer of concrete that Mark laid. This was described as "less well compacted and more voided at the upper and edge surfaces, which suggests a non-specialist installation, and the absence of shuttering".

The three layers of mortar were not described in this way. These mortar layers were "consistently well-mixed", with clear evidence of techniques like ‘levelling’, ‘shuttering’, and ‘compacting’ having been used. "The mix quality, consistency (both thoroughness of mixing and degree of compaction) of the various mortar layers suggests preparation by an experienced person".

Similarly, the excavation itself was quite unusual:

"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 utilised. 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"

Recent analysis by experts has revealed the degree of effort required. We cannot disclose the findings of this latest report in great detail because they will be subject to legal proceedings, but the main thing to take away from it is that this would have been back-breaking and time-consuming work. They've given an estimate of just how long it would have taken, and the excavation alone exceeds the amount of time that Mark was actually in Drayton Parslow.
 
http://www.freemarkalexander.org/faq/#construction

IMO one thing is certain though and that is that Mark Alexander had no involvement in any building work while his father was away, Sami would never have allowed it for one thing.

There was evidence at trial of a number of occassions when Sami had asked Mark to deal with contractors visiting the house on his behalf prior to this, to supervise their work, or to collect materials he had ordered from depots.

The only reason Mark Alexander ordered Ready Mix concrete was to cover up what he had a already done. The concrete lorry driver even observed that his customer was literally out of his depth and had very little real knowledge of what he was doing. 

Again this just doesn't seem consistent with the way the first three layers were installed. If Mark was involved from the beginning, why would he change materials? Why not just stop at the third layer? Why would he change his modus operandi, making the bizarre switch from clandestine to public? If he had been mixing and laying mortar to a professional level previously then he would have had plenty of practice with a wheelbarrow and would have appeared proficient to the lorry driver.

Most critically, why is their no forensic evidence? None of Mark's DNA or fingerprints appeared on the plastic bags found within the mortar. Nor had he washed his rough work clothes. Had he been involved in the burial then residue from the body would have been left on his clothes. Had he been mixing and laying mortar then particles of this would also have appeared on his clothes.

[John]

So the prosecution set out Mark's movements at trial, and presented a detailed chronology to the jury in their document bundle as to where he was on any given day. We have been able to supplement their own sources with cash machine usage, university attendance records, records of appointments and events that Mark attended, and so on. The final picture is very finely detailed and completely evidence based. We do not need to rely on Mark's word at all.

If you're willing to accept that Mark couldn't have acted alone, you have to be willing to accept the possibility that he didn't do it at all. The idea only makes sense in the abstract, i.e. we think more than a single person must have been involved. But that doesn't mean that one of those two or more people was Mark, because that would require actual evidence (how inconvenient!) linking other parties to what the prosecution allege Mark did, and there is none.

It would be helpful if you wouldn't bundle every response together in one post.  Each point deserves a reply so please respond to individual posts.

Marks movements were by no means set in stone, he could have travelled the fifty miles to the family home undetected any time he chose, he was not under police surveillance.

I don't believe he alone had knowledge of what went on.