GUILTY UK - Sara Sharif, 10, found murdered in house, Surrey, Aug 2023 *POIs ARREST* #5

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1937774353317306695

"A new Mail podcast series
investigates the brutal murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif
by her father Urfan and stepmother Bainash Batool in 2023."

 

[Dotta]

"A new Mail podcast
follows the manhunt across Pakistan for Urfan Sharif,
who fled the UK after the 'depraved' murder of his daughter Sara.

The manhunt for Urfan Sharif: ​

How Pakistani police forced on-the-run child killer's return to the UK.​

In the second episode of
'On The Case: The Murder of Sara Sharif',
podcast host and reporter Andy Jehring
speaks with Pakistani journalist Shahzaib Wahla,
who covered the search for Urfan at the time."

The hunt for Urfan Sharif: How police forced killer's return to the UK

A new Mail podcast follows the manhunt across Pakistan for Urfan Sharif, who fled the UK after the 'depraved' murder of his daughter Sara.

www-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org

Video: How the horrifying aftermath of the murder of Sara Sharif unfolded | Daily Mail Online

How the horrifying aftermath of the murder of Sara Sharif unfolded. Just hours after Sara was murdered, her family fled to Pakistan, where her father called 999 and confessed to the murder.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 367833]

I was reading the judge's sentencing remarks.

The case against Beinash Batoul for murder rests to considerable extent on the view that

1. It takes two people to burn a child on the bottom with an iron - one to hold them down, one to hold the iron.

2. The teeth marks must have been BB's, because the two co-defendants plus SS's elder brother provided their dental impressions and it wasn't them, unlike BB who refused to provide hers.

The big problem with 1 is that it's not true. The idea is based on a lack of understanding of how the infliction of severe physical abuse over a long period of time by a person who is in a position of authority can cause terror. E.g. a much-used weapon can be shown and the victim can go into a state of shock, almost a paralysis, in which they'll let the abuser do anything. So I don't buy reason 1 at all. Urfan Sharif could easily have done this by himself. Perhaps he didn't and perhaps BB helped him, but I can't see that that is something to be sure about.

As for reason 2, well if BB really was the only person who could have done it, then OK she did it, but was she? It could be that not providing dental impressions was for the same reason as not giving evidence, part of the same possibly self-defeating policy.

I am only talking about the murder charge here, not the charge of causing or allowing a death.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-King-v-Sharif-Batool-and-Malik.pdf

 

[Deleted member 367833]

I was reading the judge's sentencing remarks.

The case against Beinash Batoul for murder rests to considerable extent on the view that

1. It takes two people to burn a child on the bottom with an iron - one to hold them down, one to hold the iron.

2. The teeth marks must have been BB's, because the two co-defendants plus SS's elder brother provided their dental impressions and it wasn't them, unlike BB who refused to provide hers.

The big problem with 1 is that it's not true. The idea is based on a lack of understanding of how the infliction of severe physical abuse over a long period of time by a person who is in a position of authority can cause terror. E.g. a much-used weapon can be shown and the victim can go into a state of shock, almost a paralysis, in which they'll let the abuser do anything. So I don't buy reason 1 at all. Urfan Sharif could easily have done this by himself. Perhaps he didn't and perhaps BB helped him, but I can't see that that is something to be sure about.

As for reason 2, well if BB really was the only person who could have done it, then OK she did it, but was she? It could be that not providing dental impressions was for the same reason as not giving evidence, part of the same possibly self-defeating policy.

I am only talking about the murder charge here, not the charge of causing or allowing a death.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-King-v-Sharif-Batool-and-Malik.pdf

The other thing re. point 1 is that restraints were used at times, and who knows whether they may have been used when she was being burned? This is torture. It has an extreme effect on the victim, and the idea that "someone must have held her down" as though it's some kind of playground bullying or street violence is in the wrong ballpark and doesn't grasp the psychological effects on this poor girl. Her father could either gone ahead with the burning with her in such a state that she didn't resist (which I think is more likely given the extreme nature of his abuse), or he could have restrained her physically (less likely IMO but restraints were certainly used in other abuses he inflicted). How a judge could be sure that BB held her down is unclear.

I didn't follow this trial or even pay any attention to the case until recently. Why didn't BB give evidence? Was it because she knew she'd be asked about bitemarks?

 

[su5ie]

The other thing re. point 1 is that restraints were used at times, and who knows whether they may have been used when she was being burned? This is torture. It has an extreme effect on the victim, and the idea that "someone must have held her down" as though it's some kind of playground bullying or street violence is in the wrong ballpark and doesn't grasp the psychological effects on this poor girl. Her father could either gone ahead with the burning with her in such a state that she didn't resist (which I think is more likely given the extreme nature of his abuse), or he could have restrained her physically (less likely IMO but restraints were certainly used in other abuses he inflicted). How a judge could be sure that BB held her down is unclear.

I didn't follow this trial or even pay any attention to the case until recently. Why didn't BB give evidence? Was it because she knew she'd be asked about bitemarks?

Could bienash have a chance of appealing on this remark . I did feel the same how could the judge be sure she was held down by her and why not malik ? Unless one of the children statements ( if they gave any ) stated bienash sometimes held Sara down .

It was known urfan used restraints too . Only reason I can think that a judge would be 100% sure is if the burn mark was more similar to a branding , so no movement or irregular edge . Similar to if you put an iron face down and it burned a hole through say your sofa. So in effect no evidence of wriggling or struggling but still wouldn't prove who held her down and who held the iron .Excellent point

 

[Dotta]

Does it really matter???



Sara was living in this house under the "care" of adults.

Who,
instead of cherish and love her,
tortured her.

And eventually murdered the little girl
and fled like cowards they are
leaving her dead body in an empty house.

Guilty, guilty!!!!!
Both of them

Three of them in fact.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

I was reading the judge's sentencing remarks.

The case against Beinash Batoul for murder rests to considerable extent on the view that

1. It takes two people to burn a child on the bottom with an iron - one to hold them down, one to hold the iron.

2. The teeth marks must have been BB's, because the two co-defendants plus SS's elder brother provided their dental impressions and it wasn't them, unlike BB who refused to provide hers.

The big problem with 1 is that it's not true. The idea is based on a lack of understanding of how the infliction of severe physical abuse over a long period of time by a person who is in a position of authority can cause terror. E.g. a much-used weapon can be shown and the victim can go into a state of shock, almost a paralysis, in which they'll let the abuser do anything. So I don't buy reason 1 at all. Urfan Sharif could easily have done this by himself. Perhaps he didn't and perhaps BB helped him, but I can't see that that is something to be sure about.

As for reason 2, well if BB really was the only person who could have done it, then OK she did it, but was she? It could be that not providing dental impressions was for the same reason as not giving evidence, part of the same possibly self-defeating policy.

I am only talking about the murder charge here, not the charge of causing or allowing a death.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/The-King-v-Sharif-Batool-and-Malik.pdf

BB deserves her term as much as US does.

Ultimately, both are a huge risk for any vulnerable person.

In situations like this, one person must be very sick. I don’t know what Urfan suffered from, but I suspect that sadism was the part of it.

BB is probably much better adjusted than him but she either didn’t care, or enjoyed torturing another young woman as well?

Anyhow, this is the case where both knew.
Just throw away the key.

 

[Skigh]

‘I’ll never get over her death’: Mum of Sara Sharif demands answers

The mum of Sara Sharif is demanding "vital answers" ahead of her daughter's inquest

www.getsurrey.co.uk

The mum of Sara Sharif is demanding "vital answers" ahead of her daughter's inquest as she released a new photo of the pair smiling for the camera in happier times.

 

[Skigh]

'My terrified daughter was tortured to death at age 10 - I'll never get over it'

Sara's dad Urfan Sharif, 43, and stepmum Beinash Batool, 30, were jailed for life for the little girl's brutal torture and murder at the Old Bailey in December last year

www.mirror.co.uk

A pre-inquest review is due to take place on Monday and ahead of the hearing Sara's mum heartbreakingly admitted "I'll never get her over her death."

An inquest will examine the role authorities played in helping support Sara and whether opportunities were missed to save the vulnerable pupil before she died.

 

[Skigh]

'Everything open' as date set for full inquest into death of Sara Sharif

A date for a full inquest has now been set

www.getsurrey.co.uk

Senior Coroner Richard Travers chaired the pre-inquest review at Woking Coroner’s Court on Monday (July 21).


Despite questions from Ms Domin’s lawyers, Mr Travers would not be swayed to indicate what topics or aspects of Sarah’s death would be covered in the inquest.



Sarah Sharif’s siblings and step-siblings will be granted anonymity unless they submit a statement declaring their wish to waive it.

Coroner Mr Travers said other names will not be redacted in the documents and evidence put forward which could include social workers and professionals at Surrey County Council or elsewhere. Legal representatives were advised to make an application to the coroner if a person wanted to be anonymous.

Two more pre-inquest reviews are scheduled to take place on November 10 and January 16 next year. Mr Travers also said he expected the full inquest to start in the Autumn 2026.

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1948388655875145872

 

[Megnut]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1948388655875145872

Does she think anyone cares?

 

[Dotta]

Does she think anyone cares?

I care.
Because this murderer lives there like a princess.
It is so wrong IMO
that a murderer seems to have all these rights and still whinge
while her victim is dead,
robbed of life.

It is so wrong, so so wrong
that a prison doesn't seem to be a prison any more, but a cushy place like some say.

This situation seems to me abhorrent,
"upside down".

JMO

 

[Megnut]

I care.
Because this murderer lives there like a princess.
It is so wrong IMO
that a murderer seems to have all these rights and still whinge
while her victim is dead,
robbed of life.

It is so wrong, so so wrong
that a prison doesn't seem to be a prison any more, but a cushy place like some say.

This situation seems to me abhorrent,
"upside down".

JMO

Oh, I care about that. I don't care about her self-proclaimed discomfort. Not after what Sara endured.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1988910375748673621

"Now a safeguarding review has identified a catalogue of missed opportunities to rescue Sara, concluding
‘different actions could and should have been taken and the system failed to keep her safe'.

Mistakes included failing to probe why the Muslim schoolgirl was suddenly wearing a hijab as professionals feared causing offence.

The blistering report identifies
how professionals failed to ‘join the dots’ as evidence of Sharif’s ‘extensive’ domestic abuse was ‘lost within the system’,
inexperienced social workers under pressure to be ‘speedy’ did not carry out basic checks,
safeguarding processes were not followed and home visits were delayed with fatal consequences.

There was also confusion about home schooling policies
and fears about breaching data protection laws meant evidence of abuse was not shared.

Yet the review concludes that no one should face the sack
as Sara’s death was not caused ‘by one specific malfunction within the safeguarding system’,
instead the ‘blame for these killings lies with the perpetrators'."

 

[Skigh]

For people without X.

Sara Sharif was murdered after authorities missed bruises under hijab

Sara Sharif was tortured to death by her father after a catalogue of blunders by authorities who missed bruises under her hijab as they feared causing offence, a report reveals today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

"Council visited wrong home before Sara Sharif's murder.​

Council staff tried to check up on 10-year-old Sara Sharif the day before she was murdered by her father and stepmother,
but went to the wrong address,
a review has found.

Surrey County Council said it was
'deeply sorry' for the findings in the review.

The authority added that it had taken
'robust action' to address the findings
and would work to implement every recommendation in full.

The child safeguarding practice review stated
'Sara's father and stepmother proved to be a lethal combination,
and with hindsight,
it is clear that they should never have been trusted with the care of Sara'.

The review said that there were
'clearly several points in Sara's life,
in particular during the last few months,
where different actions could and should have been taken' by the authorities.

'The system failed to keep her safe',
it added."

Council visited wrong house before Sara Sharif's murder - report - BBC News

Sara, 10, suffered years of abuse before she was murdered by her father and stepmother.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dotta]

"Council staff visited wrong address day before Sara Sharif’s murder, ​

review finds.​

Services in Surrey failed to identify Sara Sharif was at risk of abuse,
did not question unexplained bruising
and staff members visited the wrong address the day before her murder,
a safeguarding review has found.

A child safeguarding practice review, commissioned after Sara’s murder, revealed
that on 7 August,
the day before Sara was killed,
the council’s home education team attempted to carry out a home visit but went to the family’s old address.

The mistake was spotted when staff returned to the office,
but a rescheduled visit wasn’t due to take place until September.

The review concluded
that multiple agencies 'at many points of her life' had failed to grasp the full scale of danger she was in
and it urged services to
'maintain the capacity to think the unthinkable’.”

Council staff visited wrong address day before Sara Sharif’s murder, review finds

Education secretary says report highlights ‘glaring failures and missed opportunities’ by various agencies

www.theguardian.com

 

[CaptainNancy]

I wonder about the safeguarding of the other children, British citizen minors, still in Pakistan.

But I suppose there will be confidentiality about them .

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1988910375748673621

"Now a safeguarding review has identified a catalogue of missed opportunities to rescue Sara, concluding
‘different actions could and should have been taken and the system failed to keep her safe'.

Mistakes included failing to probe why the Muslim schoolgirl was suddenly wearing a hijab as professionals feared causing offence.

The blistering report identifies
how professionals failed to ‘join the dots’ as evidence of Sharif’s ‘extensive’ domestic abuse was ‘lost within the system’,
inexperienced social workers under pressure to be ‘speedy’ did not carry out basic checks,
safeguarding processes were not followed and home visits were delayed with fatal consequences.

There was also confusion about home schooling policies
and fears about breaching data protection laws meant evidence of abuse was not shared.

Yet the review concludes that no one should face the sack
as Sara’s death was not caused ‘by one specific malfunction within the safeguarding system’,
instead the ‘blame for these killings lies with the perpetrators'."

View attachment 624766

Quote from above

"professionals feared causing offence"

This!!!

I even wrote about it earlier
- months ago -
as it seemed to me soooo unprofessional!!!

When safeguarding the vulnerable
there is NO place for such attitude.

The abusers take advantage of it
laughing at the faces of victims and authorities!!!

It soooo obvious!

JMO