GUILTY UK - Sara Sharif, 10, found murdered in house, Surrey, Aug 2023 *POIs ARREST* #4

[Furore]

Tbf I think the jury are full of the average member of society who are collectively appalled at the extent of injuries sustained, with aggravating features like the weapons used, premeditation with hooding, restraint with tape…these things aren’t even legal for military interrogation. Because it is foreseeable to the reasonable mind that beating with a cricket bat and leaving deep burns untreated…could lead to death, and no medical care was sought….this will be enough for the charge of murder for U and B I feel. M is at least manslaughter as clearly no adult would not have been aware what was happening to Sara. The failure of any of these adults to do the right thing is just jaw dropping tbh.

I also think SS have a huge case to answer - dropping out of school such a red flag ! All JMO

 

[PoirotPink]

I'm presuming the grandfather was interviewed outside his home . It seemed quite 3rd worldly. I noticed corrugated structures and kind of run down buildings I don't mean any badness by that just from the type of city the kids came from it must be a shock to them .

This is a different video, but is this the place you saw?

That's a supermarket, shop area on the main road. The house must be the building in the background (with the rooftop balcony). No clear shot of the house because it's hidden behind buildings, but it doesn't look run down. If you watch the video, they show the area where this is being filmed from all angles.

 

[PoirotPink]

It seems telling to me that there appears to have been no discussion or suggestion between Beinash and Urfan that they return Sara to her mother, which would have solved the problems that both of them had with her.

It was reported early on that Batool stopped contact with Olga following a "disagreement". So, quite to the contrary.

 

[PoirotPink]

DBM

 

[PoirotPink]

At best, he was an opportunist who thought that if he reported the abuse, he’d lose his place of stay in Urfan’s house and maybe, sponsorhip? I don’t know the rules of getting established in GB if you come on a student visa. At worst, the same, but he also sadistically enjoyed beating up Sara. Either way, a despicable person.

You're talking about the uncle. What evidence (or likelihood) is there that he was involved in the violence?

 

[PoirotPink]

When did the abuse actually start?

One of the neighbours who gave evidence (the one who said she heard banging, rattling, Batool shouting and screams that suddenly stopped), said she heard those noises from the day she moved into her flat (which she recalled as being around 2018 or 2019).

 

[PoirotPink]

I certainly don't take the view in your last paragraph. What I don't see, though, is how Urfan's original defence case (which you appear ready to accept, along with the doubt he tried to throw on the evidence of three entirely unconnected Polish women) has been in any way underrepresented in court. There were six days of it before he changed his story. The prosecution then carefully took him through all the points on which he'd changed his evidence. We're all forming our views on incomplete evidence here, but as far as I can see it is not bias when the prosecution accepts the last version of his story but with the caveat that he has lied repeatedly. They regard Beinash Batool as equally guilty - you seem to be saying Urfan Sharif is less guilty, as he first claimed.

I'm well aware of other legal systems and the drawbacks of the English adversarial system. You nonetheless seem to me to be maligning the prosecution here. Evidence presented in court is not only the evidence given in person. Forensic evidence carries a great deal of weight.

ETA And they do check the evidence to try to establish the truth. They are prosecuting on behalf of the state.

I haven't accepted Urfan's original case, only that I found it more likely than his second story. Also, I'm not throwing doubt on what his previous partners said. But there's a standard of evidence, and our legal system decides cases on evidence before the court (which can tested before the jury) not on information that's out in the world (which might or might not be true).

The prosecution didn't "accept" his last version of the story (that's for the jury to decide). What the prosecution did by taking him back through his previous answers is to demonstrate to the jury that he lied under oath. That he should not be believed.

I'm not maligning the prosecution, but one thing I do find problematic about this trial is the decision to charge all three with murder. That has had the effect of muddying the waters, because it led to the prosecution making some assumptions / contentions that probably aren't true (such as the idea that it takes more than one adult to bite or burn a child).

It's not the prosecution's job to check the evidence and establish the truth. It only seems that way because the truth usually aligns with the evidence in most cases. The "truthfinding" role, in our justice system, starts and stops with the police investigation. If the police do a good job at finding the right culprit and collecting/preserving evidence, you're closer to being able to establish the truth than a bad investigation and / or where much remains unknown. The legal side only has one job, to make the charges stick on the evidence available.

 

[PoirotPink]

DBM

 

[Charlot123]

Well,
When presenting herself as a victim in the video,
B wore a hijab all right.

Although it was much more feminine than the one Sara had to wear to school.
Sara was wearing stark black one.
It didn't look comfortable and flattering IMO.
Quite the opposite.
Children rarely wear black clothes.
It is the colour suitable for funerals.

JMO

The video was made in Pakistan. I didn’t view it as a sign of personal religiosity, merely a respect of local traditions. We all would cover our hair if this is the culture norm where we go, and not bare our arms.

You're talking about the uncle. What evidence (or likelihood) is there that he was involved in the violence?

personally I think his DNA on the belt. Granted it was his belt but the density of DNA might be not what’s expected from merely wearing it?

 

[Tortoise]

I haven't accepted Urfan's original case, only that I found it more likely than his second story. Also, I'm not throwing doubt on what his previous partners said. But there's a standard of evidence, and our legal system decides cases on evidence before the court (which can tested before the jury) not on information that's out in the world (which might or might not be true).

The prosecution didn't "accept" his last version of the story (that's for the jury to decide). What the prosecution did by taking him back through his previous answers is to demonstrate to the jury that he lied under oath. That he should not be believed.

I'm not maligning the prosecution, but one thing I do find problematic about this trial is the decision to charge all three with murder. That has had the effect of muddying the waters, because it led to the prosecution making some assumptions / contentions that probably aren't true (such as the idea that it takes more than one adult to bite or burn a child).

It's not the prosecution's job to check the evidence and establish the truth. It only seems that way because the truth usually aligns with the evidence in most cases. The "truthfinding" role, in our justice system, starts and stops with the police investigation. If the police do a good job at finding the right culprit and collecting/preserving evidence, you're closer to being able to establish the truth than a bad investigation and / or where much remains unknown. The legal side only has one job, to make the charges stick on the evidence available.

I don't really agree with this.

What the prosecution says is not evidence. Of course they check the evidence (IMO) because they have to show through the evidence presented, and argued at the end of the case, how it proves the charges. If there was no case to answer the defence's remit is to ask the judge to rule that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction.

It is for the jury to decide the facts proved, the truth as they see it based on the evidence, within the framework of the law clearly laid out for them by the judge.

IMO, you will be in the frame for murder if you were one of three adult family members living together in a small space where your niece died due to persistent long term very serious abuse and restraint, which caused visible injuries and debility, and would have caused screams and significant signs of distress, perhaps unconsciousness, certainly a period of brain damage, leading up to her death, which is very unlikely to have been not apparent to all, and you didn't seek medical help for her but bought tickets (showing participation/group alliance in evading police) for all three adults plus other children, and fled within an hour of her death, and you went into hiding, and you came back to face questioning but you all three remained silent when accused of her murder, and your defence at trial is a written statement that you didn't see anything (the upshot from that being that if you did see, you committed an offence under the law) but you didn't submit yourself to cross-examination at your trial. All of those actions and inactions are evidence.

 

[Sooty]

I don't really agree with this.

What the prosecution says is not evidence. Of course they check the evidence (IMO) because they have to show through the evidence presented, and argued at the end of the case, how it proves the charges. If there was no case to answer the defence's remit is to ask the judge to rule that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction.

It is for the jury to decide the facts proved, the truth as they see it based on the evidence, within the framework of the law clearly laid out for them by the judge.

IMO, you will be in the frame for murder if you were one of three adult family members living together in a small space where your niece died due to persistent long term very serious abuse and restraint, which caused visible injuries and debility, and would have caused screams and significant signs of distress, perhaps unconsciousness, certainly a period of brain damage, leading up to her death, which is very unlikely to have been not apparent to all, and you didn't seek medical help for her but bought tickets (showing participation/group alliance in evading police) for all three adults plus other children, and fled within an hour of her death, and you went into hiding, and you came back to face questioning but you all three remained silent when accused of her murder, and your defence at trial is a written statement that you didn't see anything (the upshot from that being that if you did see, you committed an offence under the law) but you didn't submit yourself to cross-examination at your trial. All of those actions and inactions are evidence.

Thank you, Tortoise. Brilliant synopsis.

 

[Tortoise]

How does one define "encouraging" in terms of our murder laws?

I might say it is supporting, over a period, by a deliberate choice of non-intervention. I personally don't think it requires an overt act or utterance such as 'I agree with what you're doing'.

JMO

 

[Sooty]

When I seen bienash in the video wearing the traditional Muslim women's attire . I felt she wore it because it would not be as acceptable in Pakistan for a women to show her hair or wear western clothing. I also thought urfans family would want him to be seen with a more traditional wife and prehaps were more strict in adhering to the laws of Islam.

Dotta did you happen to see the interview with urfans father ,the children's grand father. I caught a clip of it on SM but can't see a link for msm .

I'm presuming the grandfather was interviewed outside his home . It seemed quite 3rd worldly. I noticed corrugated structures and kind of run down buildings I don't mean any badness by that just from the type of city the kids came from it must be a shock to them .

Sara Sharif: Grandfather says it was 'his duty to protect' five children recovered by police

Officers say they are now "hopeful" they can locate Sara's father Urfan and her stepmother Beinash Batool following the 10-year-old girl's death in Woking, Surrey, last month.

news.sky.com

Sara Sharif's grandfather speaks to the BBC about her death

Police in Pakistan are searching for 10-year-old Sara Sharif's father Urfan, his partner, and his brother.

www.bbc.com

It was not these interviews . It was an interview at night

You can find the video on TikTok if you search ‘inside the house where Sara sharifs 5 siblings were found’.

Hope this helps.

 

[su5ie]

This is a different video, but is this the place you saw?

That's a supermarket, shop area on the main road. The house must be the building in the background (with the rooftop balcony). No clear shot of the house because it's hidden behind buildings, but it doesn't look run down. If you watch the video, they show the area where this is being filmed from all angles.

The video I saw was yhe grandfather sitting on a chair in front of a corrugated fence or roofing . It was dusk so getting dark and a blonde woman was interviewing him . The grandfather walked out from somewhere and sat on a chair .

I couldn't have volume on as children in earshot and now I can't find it . I seen it on Facebook reels which can't be posted on WS .

I wasnt inferring that it wouldn't enable the grandfather to give care and love .it was more the modern city the kids were taken from and as this looked like an impoverished village . I felt the children would be so out of place .

But in hindsight the environment the child grew up in was horrendous even though they grew up surrounded by modern technologies.

 

[su5ie]

How does one define "encouraging" in terms of our murder laws?

I might say it is supporting, over a period, by a deliberate choice of non-intervention. I personally don't think it requires an overt act or utterance such as 'I agree with what you're doing'.

JMO

I think it's allowing the abuse ,torture, death of a child and possibly negligence and neglecting to report

 

[Dotta]

The video I saw was yhe grandfather sitting on a chair in front of a corrugated fence or roofing . It was dusk so getting dark and a blonde woman was interviewing him . The grandfather walked out from somewhere and sat on a chair .

I couldn't have volume on as children in earshot and now I can't find it . I seen it on Facebook reels which can't be posted on WS .

I wasnt inferring that it wouldn't enable the grandfather to give care and love .it was more the modern city the kids were taken from and as this looked like an impoverished village . I felt the children would be so out of place .

But in hindsight the environment the child grew up in was horrendous even though they grew up surrounded by modern technologies.

I guess Sharif family in Pakistan is quite well off.
Senior used to be an Army officer, his two sons were able to travel to Europe, FM had enough money to pay for 8 plane tickets to Pakistan ad hoc.
Grandfather talked about organizing a good private school for Sara's brother.

JMO

 

[su5ie]

I haven't accepted Urfan's original case, only that I found it more likely than his second story. Also, I'm not throwing doubt on what his previous partners said. But there's a standard of evidence, and our legal system decides cases on evidence before the court (which can tested before the jury) not on information that's out in the world (which might or might not be true).

The prosecution didn't "accept" his last version of the story (that's for the jury to decide). What the prosecution did by taking him back through his previous answers is to demonstrate to the jury that he lied under oath. That he should not be believed.

I'm not maligning the prosecution, but one thing I do find problematic about this trial is the decision to charge all three with murder. That has had the effect of muddying the waters, because it led to the prosecution making some assumptions / contentions that probably aren't true (such as the idea that it takes more than one adult to bite or burn a child).

It's not the prosecution's job to check the evidence and establish the truth. It only seems that way because the truth usually aligns with the evidence in most cases. The "truthfinding" role, in our justice system, starts and stops with the police investigation. If the police do a good job at finding the right culprit and collecting/preserving evidence, you're closer to being able to establish the truth than a bad investigation and / or where much remains unknown. The legal side only has one job, to make the charges stick on the evidence available.

Tbh none of us can really accept any version urfan gives because it's all lies imo .
But what evidence the prosecution presents in court in front of the judge and jury is build from the foundation up

The foundation being the story Sara's body tells . The truths are within her . Each block thereafter is another piece of forensic evidence.. the soiled nappy ,the hoods ,the discarded wet McDonald's uniform ,the messages , the screams , urfans history of violence, the belt , all the evidence that is factual .
Then each defendant is given a chance to speak and if what they say or choose not to say adds up and can be corroborated with the known facts it is seen as truth . If it goes against the known evidence this is seen as lies .


The fact bienash and malik chose not to defend themselves against the known evidence imo speaks for itself .
Especially malik he chose not to help establish facts about his niece's demise from the first interview He proclaimed innocence. Saying I was never there or I didn't see this is not enough . There is an old saying The man protest too much . In this case it would seem the man protest too little .

The view I take from urfans testimony is his great ability to tie himself in knots . The known ,well checked and double checked evidence I would imagine does not align with his version of truths .
I think it was decided he would take the fall for all 3 . He thought imo bienash and malik would go free and bienash would get to raise their children and malik would step in as breadwinner and father figure / watchful eye till urfan got out .

The prosecution will have an airtight forensic evidence case . They didn't have much to do in exposing urfan as a liar he did that himself . Bienash revealed her part in the murder in her love of text messaging . For malik he can be charged with murder because he lived there . He may have worked and studied and claims to not have seen but bienash implicates him by stating urfan punished Sara during the night . Urfan was hardly whispering and Sara was hardly not making noise and malik was hardly working and going to college for 24 hour days .

I have full faith in the prosecution and I believe the right charges were brought . The judge introduced other possible charges which is manslaughter I believe it was good to have the murder option on the table for all 3 as I don't think that can be introduced half way through .
The hypothesis that it may have taken two or more people to inflict certain injuries is based on past proven experiments and evidence in this case . It is the clarity of the imprint of the iron for example Even if Sara was bound . One person holding a child down no matter if that child is an infant will have reflexes. The depth of the burn shows the child did not move . As I'm assuming and speculating the burn was as clear and as imprinted as a footprint in the snow . With no blurred lines . A piece of evidence indicating two people were involved in my opinion

 

[su5ie]

The only way in my opinion that fasial malik did not know about the punishments doled out to Sara is if she was "living" in the outhouse and excuses were made about her absence such as she was in bed upon him arriving home in the evening after work / college

I personally think he will be sentenced on manslaughter, fleeing the scene of a crime and gross negligence and allowing the death of a child .

I believe the scream heard by the neighbour and then silence was Sara’s final day alive . Which in turn gave any of the defendants 48hours to call for medical assistance if she was comatose or call police if she was dead .

The ring doorbell was removed for a reason and I speculate that was because it implicated malik

 

[FlamingLily]

The only way in my opinion that fasial malik did not know about the punishments doled out to Sara is if she was "living" in the outhouse and excuses were made about her absence such as she was in bed upon him arriving home in the evening after work / college

I personally think he will be sentenced on manslaughter, fleeing the scene of a crime and gross negligence and allowing the death of a child .

I believe the scream heard by the neighbour and then silence was Sara’s final day alive . Which in turn gave any of the defendants 48hours to call for medical assistance if she was comatose or call police if she was dead .

The ring doorbell was removed for a reason and I speculate that was because it implicated malik

Is this Little Tikes faded plastic playhouse the "outhouse" of the Hammond Road residence? Where the pole etc was found and Sara possibly restrained in? The whole thing is fitting under a standard window (looks large next to garden furniture due to photo angle IMO). If it's the one our neighbours' kids had, it's not even useful as a shed. A bag of fertiliser, a trowel and small pressure washer is all you'd fit in it. I'm confused!

 

[Rosydecember]

I always thought what I circled in purple was the outhouse?

WhatsApp messages from Sara Sharif's step-mother reveal abuse

Urfan Sharif, 42, the father of the 10-year-old, his wife Beinash Batool, 30, and brother, Faisal Malik, 29, all deny murder and causing or allowing the death of a child.

www.google.com