GUILTY UK - Hashim Ijazuddin, 21, and Saqib Hussain, 20, car crash A46 Leicester 11 Feb 2022 *Murder Arrests*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Day 14 updates in murder trial of Mahek Bukhari and 7 others
Might as well post a link to today's updates from court while I'm at it. But also question the image they've chosen for their coverage as I'm not quite sure what it depicts and why it's there.
This is clearly not Mahek or Ansreen. Is it Natasha Akhtar? Did the paparazzo just assume it was Mahek because she's a brown skinned girl leaving court trying (and failing) to hide her face with her coat?
1__D4R6908JPG.jpg
 
I fell a bit behind and missed a couple of days; TikTok star Mahek Bukhari murder trial updates on day 13 has the updates from Tuesday and Wednesday, before the link bobbymkii posted above.

So far I haven't noticed any particularly new information over what we read of the previous trial (aside from the extent of the illegal window tinting on the Seat, but that doesn't seem overly relevant unless to give a possible excuse for accidental contact), I just hope this one reaches the end.
 
bobbymkii said:
Day 14 updates in murder trial of Mahek Bukhari and 7 others
Might as well post a link to today's updates from court while I'm at it. But also question the image they've chosen for their coverage as I'm not quite sure what it depicts and why it's there.
This is clearly not Mahek or Ansreen. Is it Natasha Akhtar? Did the paparazzo just assume it was Mahek because she's a brown skinned girl leaving court trying (and failing) to hide her face with her coat?
View attachment 421525
Click to expand...
That's is Natasha and the very first part of the article talks about her so that is why they are showing her pic.

I hope the familys get justice soon. It must be so hurtful for them watching these lot take absolutely zero account for what happened.

Jmo
 
LouTennant said:
That's is Natasha and the very first part of the article talks about her so that is why they are showing her pic.

I hope the familys get justice soon. It must be so hurtful for them watching these lot take absolutely zero account for what happened.

Jmo
Click to expand...
Ah OK! Weird though that Mahek's name is in the headline and is the first name mentioned in the article itself.
I'm starting to wonder now if these defendants have spent so much time crafting and honing their nonsense stories that they've actually forgotten the actual truth of what happened.
I'm also now not sure that charging all eight defendants with murder and manslaughter was a good idea in order to get justice for Saqib and Hashim's families. Particularly the 4 passenger defendants who had never met Mahek or Ansreen before that night. I think they're all lying through their teeth and are guilty of at least some offence (like conspiracy, assisting an offender and/or PTCOJ just thinking off the top of my head) but the Crown hasn't met the burden of proof on murder/manslaughter?
 

Rekan was there 'for protection​

When asked why Rekan was at the meeting, Ansreen replied: "I wanted to speak to Saqib and that was why Rekan was with us, and because of the money. For our own protection as well because of when [Saqib] said 'I'm going to bring the boys'."


There seems to be much more emphasis this time around on “the boys” and “our own protection” (it came up several times today), are they now trying to suggest the accused were not the aggressors but victims??
 
Blynk Mist said:

Rekan was there 'for protection​

When asked why Rekan was at the meeting, Ansreen replied: "I wanted to speak to Saqib and that was why Rekan was with us, and because of the money. For our own protection as well because of when [Saqib] said 'I'm going to bring the boys'."


There seems to be much more emphasis this time around on “the boys” and “our own protection” (it came up several times today), are they now trying to suggest the accused were not the aggressors but victims??
Click to expand...
I'm sure I remember this coming up in the first trial. Ansreen and/or Mahek trying to make as big a deal about this supposed "bring the boys" text by Saqib as they could. That they were anticipating he would bring his own posse and there would be some sort of showdown between Banbury and Leicester in a supermarket car park with various rudimentary melee weapons involved.
 
bobbymkii said:
So Ansreen was having another affair as well, with a married man in his thirties! and this guy came along to help fix May's car?
I wonder why she included that as part of her defence this time around?
Click to expand...
Nice catch. Im guessing that the prosecution was planning to bring it up to show that she is not quite the deer caught in the headlights blameless woman she is claiming to be.

She got her story in first but who goes to a hotel room with a ex lover just to chat? I found her story to be hogwash anyways. Like she beleived a 18 year old teenager to be 27. I could go on will refrain. I now have a love hate relationship with this trail!

JMO
 
LouTennant said:
Nice catch. Im guessing that the prosecution was planning to bring it up to show that she is not quite the deer caught in the headlights blameless woman she is claiming to be.

She got her story in first but who goes to a hotel room with a ex lover just to chat? I found her story to be hogwash anyways. Like she beleived a 18 year old teenager to be 27. I could go on will refrain. I now have a love hate relationship with this trail!

JMO
Click to expand...
She should have stuck to just having one sideguy and made this guy the sideguy and not Saqib. He's not gonna blackmail her and turn up to ruin her marriage, he's going to turn up to try and fix her daughter's car!
Assuming this guy actually exists of course. The only authority we have confirming his existence is Ansreen herself and that is not a reliable source of information, as we all know!
In Saqib, she really couldn't have picked a worse young man to have an affair with. Unless she was blinded by feelings of insatiable lust towards him that she couldn't help and that she hasn't disclosed then she really should have paid attention to the red flags and decided that it wasn't worth it.
Unfortunately, decision-making appears to be something that Ansreen Bukhari is extremely poor at over the last couple of years - and now two young men are dead as a result!
 
bobbymkii said:
She should have stuck to just having one sideguy and made this guy the sideguy and not Saqib. He's not gonna blackmail her and turn up to ruin her marriage, he's going to turn up to try and fix her daughter's car!
Assuming this guy actually exists of course. The only authority we have confirming his existence is Ansreen herself and that is not a reliable source of information, as we all know!
In Saqib, she really couldn't have picked a worse young man to have an affair with. Unless she was blinded by feelings of insatiable lust towards him that she couldn't help and that she hasn't disclosed then she really should have paid attention to the red flags and decided that it wasn't worth it.
Unfortunately, decision-making appears to be something that Ansreen Bukhari is extremely poor at over the last couple of years - and now two young men are dead as a result!
Click to expand...

My guess with Ansreen is that she was bored in her marriage and liked the attention she got from Saqib. I bet she actually got quite flirty with him and led him on more than she will admit. She cant say that of course because the aim of the defendants game is to totally blame the victims in every way.

Ansreen to me is a total joke anyways. The supposed innocent meetup with the victim's featured new random people being present, balaclavas, wheel braces etc. Of course she did not notice any of that and they were only there for her protection you see.

The people who were only supposed to protect her set off on a chase after the victems. All they wanted to do was catch up with Saqib and have a nice friendly chat about handing over his phone. But Oh no the boys crashed gotta blame Hashim and those pesky road conditions.

I hope the jury sees through this garbage.

JMO
 
LouTennant said:
My guess with Ansreen is that she was bored in her marriage and liked the attention she got from Saqib. I bet she actually got quite flirty with him and led him on more than she will admit. She cant say that of course because the aim of the defendants game is to totally blame the victims in every way.

Ansreen to me is a total joke anyways. The supposed innocent meetup with the victim's featured new random people being present, balaclavas, wheel braces etc. Of course she did not notice any of that and they were only there for her protection you see.

The people who were only supposed to protect her set off on a chase after the victems. All they wanted to do was catch up with Saqib and have a nice friendly chat about handing over his phone. But Oh no the boys crashed gotta blame Hashim and those pesky road conditions.

I hope the jury sees through this garbage.

JMO
Click to expand...
Yep, she was bored with her marriage - but enjoyed the attention and free gibs she got from being the mum and co-star of her daughter's TikTok videos and if she'd left her marriage willingly for Saqib or the other guy (or no-one!) Mahek may have decided that their mum/daughter relationship was not so "elite" and cast her aside.
As much as these defendants dishonesty makes me want them all to get the big GUILTY verdict, I still think a number of them have been overcharged.
If this was a genuine murder plot, these lot are so inept I reckon Hashim and Saqib would still be alive and one or both of those cars would have gone flying into the central reservation instead!
I think they should have charged the non-Bukhari surnamed passenger defendants with something more along these lines:

Section 44-46 Serious Crime Act 2007

They might have even got plea deals out of some of them?

JMO!
 
bobbymkii said:
As much as these defendants dishonesty makes me want them all to get the big GUILTY verdict, I still think a number of them have been overcharged.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on the Law or what can or cannot be charged, however, as a layman, if i were in the Jury, so far in my mind 3 (possibly 4) of the accused I would be thinking are guilty of murder, 2-3 guilty of manslaughter and 2 of lesser crimes.
 

The wheel brace​

Ansreen again denied knowing anything about the boot of the Audi she was sitting in being opened and a wheel brace removed. In a videotaped police interview, Mohammed Patel claimed Raees Jamal opened the Audi's boot, took out the wheel brace and put it in Patel's trousers. That was collaborated by Raees Jamal's fingerprints, which were found on the wheel brace cover.

Ansreen said she didn't notice the boot begin opened and didn't see a warning light on the dashboard. Mr Thompson said: "Well, you would know, wouldn't you, Mrs Bukhari, because the only time the wheel brace was taken out of the vehicle was when you were in the car in Tomlin Road. You were in the front passenger seat.

"Or is it you don't want to admit it because that would tie you in to the fact that a weapon was taken to the Tesco car park?" She said that was not correct.



This is gobsmackingly unbelievable... why? Anyone that's been in a Audi TT will tell you they are tiny inside - As a previous owner of a few models, when the rear tailgate it opened, almost half the interior is open to the elements, the roof immediately behind a front passengers head would be gone. IMO there is zero chance anyone sitting inside wouldn't know the tailgate had been opened, even more so during a winters night as you'd feel the cold in seconds!

Edit: Here’s a random pic as an example

audi-tts-boot-space.jpg
 
Last edited:
Blynk Mist said:
I'm no expert on the Law or what can or cannot be charged, however, as a layman, if i were in the Jury, so far in my mind 3 (possibly 4) of the accused I would be thinking are guilty of murder, 2-3 guilty of manslaughter and 2 of lesser crimes.
Click to expand...
after today I think we might also have to consider whether any of them are guilty of:

Perjury Act 1911

If we hadn't been already!
 
Blynk Mist said:

The wheel brace​

Ansreen again denied knowing anything about the boot of the Audi she was sitting in being opened and a wheel brace removed. In a videotaped police interview, Mohammed Patel claimed Raees Jamal opened the Audi's boot, took out the wheel brace and put it in Patel's trousers. That was collaborated by Raees Jamal's fingerprints, which were found on the wheel brace cover.

Ansreen said she didn't notice the boot begin opened and didn't see a warning light on the dashboard. Mr Thompson said: "Well, you would know, wouldn't you, Mrs Bukhari, because the only time the wheel brace was taken out of the vehicle was when you were in the car in Tomlin Road. You were in the front passenger seat.

"Or is it you don't want to admit it because that would tie you in to the fact that a weapon was taken to the Tesco car park?" She said that was not correct.



This is gobsmackingly unbelievable... why? Anyone that's been in a Audi TT will tell you they are tiny inside - As a previous owner of a few models, when the rear tailgate it opened, almost half the interior is open to the elements, the roof immediately behind a front passengers head would be gone. IMO there is zero chance anyone sitting inside wouldn't know the tailgate had been opened, even more so during a winters night as you'd feel the cold in seconds!

Edit: Here’s a random pic as an example

audi-tts-boot-space.jpg
Click to expand...
Ha ha Im glad you feel just as much frustration as me with these people! I dont think Ansreen has any self awareness as to how her obliviousness makes her look quite ridiculous.

Apparently throughout the crash Ansreen had her head down and no one spoke about it even when they had their 20 min walk after the crash. In her version everyone was quite and no one bought it up. Even driving back past the crash nothing was said by anyone. Unbelievable IMO

What makes sense is the defendants story's were decided on that 20 min walk after the crash. She must have been told to say that she did not notice anything out of the ordinary and just stick with that.

Its all or nothing for these defendants. Im thinking that the two drivers and the two women get murder. Mo gets manslaughter as he did not know of the overall situation and was probably enticed there on the night with a promise of the devils lettuce. Im not sure about the others.

JMO
 
LouTennant said:
Ha ha Im glad you feel just as much frustration as me with these people! I dont think Ansreen has any self awareness as to how her obliviousness makes her look quite ridiculous.

Apparently throughout the crash Ansreen had her head down and no one spoke about it even when they had their 20 min walk after the crash. In her version everyone was quite and no one bought it up. Even driving back past the crash nothing was said by anyone. Unbelievable IMO

What makes sense is the defendants story's were decided on that 20 min walk after the crash. She must have been told to say that she did not notice anything out of the ordinary and just stick with that.

Its all or nothing for these defendants. Im thinking that the two drivers and the two women get murder. Mo gets manslaughter as he did not know of the overall situation and was probably enticed there on the night with a promise of the devils lettuce. Im not sure about the others.

JMO
Click to expand...
If we’re to believe Ansreen, she apparently is the most oblivious person ever. Saw nothing, heard nothing, had her head down, didn’t question anything, didn’t talk to anyone…. Met lovers in hotel rooms and just had a little chit chat. Assumed a banned driver was insured (oh wait she didn’t know he was banned). Pull the other one, love. With bells on.

JMO
 
I think someone mentioned this during the earlier trial but Ansreen's behaviour really is shocking. She is the oldest of the group - in her 40s! - and yet this is all down to her. She had at least 2 affairs, hung around with her 20 year old daughter and her mates then asks her daughter to sort out the problems when the sh** hits the fan! Follows along meekly, dragging 7 other people into the situation and not stopping them when clearly things have gone too far.

She really needs to grow up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 150 more.
Total: 1,791 (members: 151, guests: 1,640)

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
1,640
Total visitors
1,791
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,597
Messages
18,189,505
Members
233,454
Latest member
jcnew91
Back
Top