New Discovery (Part One)
For the last ten years, Imran Aslam has attempted to prove his innocence by using all means available within the Justice system. Unfortunately, Aslam has been obstructed in all his attempts to prove his innocence, whether this be by incompetent legal advice, or by deliberate withholding of evidential material, by the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service.
Aslam has uncovered a wealth of information, which was overlooked (for a variety of reasons) in his Trial. The evidence relates to the sole witness, namely Zak Uddin, whom was the primary reason for Aslam's conviction of Murder.
The Metropolitan Police and CPS provided selective disclosure, which made it very difficult to reach an accurate narrative, relating to the night of the murders. Therefore, the information uncovered, cannot be used for the purpose of an appeal, as it is not considered ‘fresh evidence’.
As this cannot be used, Imran Aslam has decided to make this information available for public use, to present the flaws in the British Justice System. He intends to prove his innocence through a public platform.
Here you will find a timeline of Zak Uddin's involvement on the night of the Murders, which will show major inconsistencies, when compared to the version of events given in his Police Interview.
In addition to this, there is Key Forensic Evidence, which could otherwise be seen as exculpatory evidence, once uncovered, confirming that Imran Aslam was innocent of the murder, of Hayder Ali.
Furthermore, the evidence will show Zak Uddin to be much more heavily involved in the night's events, than previously known. However, from the very beginning, this evidence was covered up by the Metropolitan Police Murder Squad.
Zak Uddin
At 22:30, Zak Uddin was driving on Trinity Road and passed the Bhatti Group’s van, who he claimed flashed their lights to get his attention, indicating that they wanted to talk to him. (Who flagged who first, remains unknown)
Zak Uddin and the Bhatti Group were captured on CCTV at 22:42, parked at a Bus Stop on Trinity Road. According to Uddin, Javaad Bhatti and a few others approached his vehicle, and had a discussion with him, regarding the earlier Foulser Road incident, and what had transpired between Hammad Bhatti and Hassan Mir.
Uddin made a call to Defendant A (who is to remain Unknown) and passed the phone to Javaad Bhatti, claiming this was in order for Defendant A and Javaad Bhatti to sort out their differences. Uddin then claims, Javaad Bhatti returned his phone and they decided to part ways.
Call records show at 22:41:39 Uddin rings Defendant A, for a total of 29 seconds. At 22:42:21 Uddin rings Defendant A again, this time for a total of 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
In his Police Interview, Uddin claimed, whilst he was with Javaad Bhatti, Defendant A called him, but he disconnected the call. Defendant A called him again, this time Uddin claimed he answered the call, and passed the phone to Javaad Bhatti.
Uddin's call records show that Defendant A never rang him, but in fact Uddin rang Defendant A. Uddin claimed in his interview that he rang Defendant A at 22:42:21, to see if everything was now resolved. Uddin stated this call lasted no more than 5-10 seconds, but according to his call records, this specific call lasted 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
In their original statements, the Bhatti Brothers, Javaad, Favaad, and Hammad Bhatti, all claimed to have met Zak Uddin on Trinity Road at Midnight, and Uddin instructed them to “go down Fircroft Road” as the Tooting Group wanted to talk things through.
The Bhatti brothers claimed this was the sole reason for them being on Fircroft Road at midnight, and being ambushed by the Tooting group; subsequently losing two friends in the process.
During the second trial, a Solicitor obtained CCTV footage that showed the meeting on Trinity Road took place at 22:42, as opposed to midnight. The Bhatti brothers lied about the time and location of the ambush, set up by Zak Uddin. However, there was truth in the fact that Uddin had set them up, but on Dafforne Road.
Zak Uddin and the van group travelled from Trinity Road, towards Tooting Bec Station, and Uddin's call record shows he was still speaking with Defendant A.
On Upper Tooting Road, there were two CCTV cameras, which captured the attempted ambush. The first CCTV camera was a Local Authority one, which covered both sides of the main road. The second CCTV camera was a Barclays Bank one, which covered the Barclays ATM Machine
Please Click here to view a map of the Tooting area
Please Click Here to view the Barclays CCTV footage at 22:43pm
Please Click Here to view the Barclays CCTV footage at 22:43pm in Slow Motion
Please Click Here to view the Barclays CCTV footage at 22:51pm
Dafforne Road Incident
The Local Authority footage shows Defendant A on the phone, crossing the road from Noyna Road, onto Dafforne Road, at 22:44:09.
Twenty seconds later, Zak Uddin’s car appears on the same Local Authority footage (Upper Tooting Road), and the call terminates between Zak Uddin and Defendant A.
According to the CCTV footage, Uddin seems unsure about where to park and appears to be in a hurry.
Uddin’s car takes a right, onto Noyna Road, and the van then appears just outside Dafforne Road. A group of people appear at the junction of Dafforne Road, and attack the van. This is all captured on the Local Authority CCTV camera.
Following the attack, the van drove off and members of the Tooting Group can be seen chasing the van.
The Local Authority footage cuts out, as this footage was an edited version, disclosed by the Metropolitan Police. A few seconds more of this footage would have revealed Uddin running across the Upper Tooting Road, from Noyna Road, which is where he had parked.
Please note: It is officially documented, the Barclays CCTV Camera is one minute behind, so therefore the timestamps of the footage should be considered a minute behind than the actual time.
Uddin was captured on the Barclays footage, joining the others in chasing the van, and he can be seen holding a bag in his right hand.
This image of the Barclays footage was captured at 22:44:10:73. Image of Zak Uddin
At 22:44:30:07, Uddin returns to the footage with the same group of people, who attacked the van, only this time, he is seen to be holding a spade/shovel in his hand. This image was used in Imran Aslam's Trial.
According to Zak Uddin's interview, when he arrived on Upper Tooting Road, in the rear view of his vehicle, he could see the van following a few cars behind. Uddin claims when he turned onto Noyna Road, he witnessed some kind of commotion with the van. Uddin then claims to cross the road and question some of the guys on why they were “trying to smash up the van?”. After questioning the guys, Uddin claims to have left them and headed into Zaytoon Cafe.
The major discrepancy here is, the CCTV footage shows Uddin’s version of events to be completely false.
According to CCTV footage:
- Uddin can be seen leading the van to Dafforne Road.
- Call records show he notified the Tooting Group (Defendant A) that the van is coming.
- He parked his vehicle in a hurry.
- He is then seen to be holding something in his hand on the Barclays CCTV footage.
- He proceeded to join the Tooting Group in chasing after the van, as seen on the Barclays CCTV footage.
- 20 seconds later, Uddin is seen to be holding an object, appearing to be a spade/shovel, again on the Barclays CCTV footage.
22:50 to Midnight
According to Zak Uddin, he spent most of his time in Zaytoon Cafe, smoking shisha. However, Uddin’s mobile phone records do not reflect this version of events, and in fact reveal a much more disturbing discovery.
At 22:50, Zak Uddin made a call to one of the men from the van group; namely Sharjeel Chaudhry.
Uddin made a total of 31 calls, 29 of which were to Favaad Bhatti from the van group.
Below is a table of information extracted from official phone records, which show all the calls Zak Uddin made. They range from 22:50 to 00:04, approximately 3 minutes before the Fircroft Road attack and subsequent murders of both Mohammed and Hayder Ali.
An analysis of Zak Uddin’s call records show that he gave a false account in his Police Interview. He did not just turn up for a pre-planned night in a shisha bar, but in fact was heavily and actively involved with the Tooting Group.
The only time Uddin took a break from calling Favaad Bhatti (from the van group) was between call 27 and call 28. The rest of the time, he was in fact either provoking Favaad Bhatti and the van group, with consecutive calls, or seen multiple times on CCTV footage, with the Tooting Group.
Call 1 was made to Sharjeel Chaudhry from the Van Group. At that precise moment, Uddin is seen on CCTV footage standing with 11 other men from the Tooting Group.
Footage from both the Barclays CCTV, and Local Authority Camera is now available on this site.
An independent witness gave a statement to the Police, in which he stated to have seen an asian male in possession of a spade/shovel at 23:30. On CCTV footage, Zak Uddin was seen in possession of the described weapon, a full 40 minutes earlier. A log made by the Police confirms that this individual was indeed Zak Uddin.
In Zak Uddin’s version of events, he claimed he left Zaytoon Cafe and went towards Chicken Cottage, a distance of approximately 50m, whereby he met some religious brothers. After speaking with them, he saw Azim Butt, on Foulser Road, and gave him advice regarding his smashed rear windscreen.
Uddin then claimed to have asked Azim Butt to give him a lift to Zaytoon Cafe, from Foulser Road, which was a mere 40m in distance
According to Uddin, Azim Butt wanted to leave the area and go home, so Uddin got into Butt’s car, to get a lift roughly 40m down the road. He stated, as Azim Butt was pulling out of Foulser Road onto Upper Tooting Road, Azim saw the white van coming from Fircroft Road.
Uddin then stated, Azim Butt reversed back on to Foulser Road and got out of his car. Azim went to his car boot and retrieved something. He then proceeded to run after the van.
There is a discrepancy with Uddin’s version of events. It was the Prosecution’s own case, supported by independent witnesses, that Azim Butt’s car had been attacked by the van group at the junction of Noyna Road, minutes before the Fircroft Road incident.
Zak Uddin claimed he got a lift from Azim Butt, but was not possible as it is an agreed upon fact, Azim Butt’s car tyre was stabbed with a sharp implement, on Upper Tooting Road, resulting in a flat tyre.
Following the Noyna Road incident, Zak Uddin immediately made a call to Favaad Bhatti (Call 31) continuing to provoke the van group. Uddins call records reflect this.
Having given this version of events in his Police Interview, Zak Uddin was accounting for his reason for being present on Fircroft Road, at the time of the van attack.
Please Click Here to view the Barclays CCTV footage at 23:36pm
Please Click Here to view the Barclays CCTV footage at 23:38pm
Please Click Here to view the Barclays CCTV footage at 23:48pm
Fircroft Road Incident
On the 24th and 25th of April 2006, Zak Uddin gave an account to the Police, regarding what he had allegedly seen on Fircroft Road, on the night of 21st and 22nd April 2006.
According to Zak Uddin he went to Fircroft Road and saw the victim Hayder Ali surrounded by a group of men, one of which was armed with a baseball bat.
In his Police interview, Uddin stated he witnessed Noor Kayani hit Hayder Ali in the head with a baseball bat. Hayder Ali then fell to the ground, and was immediately set upon. Uddin alledgedly witnessed Hassan Mir stab Hayder Ali, whilst he was laying on his right side; his left side of his body uncovered. Uddin then claimed he saw Imran Aslam make a stabbing motion towards Hayder’s back.
Whilst these events were taking place, according to Uddin, Hayder Ali was unconscious.
It should not come as any surprise now, that the account given by Uddin, regarding the murder of Hayder Ali, was completely false. This is not based on prejudice or assumption, but proved factually by the scientific evidence in this case.
Imran Aslam’s entire conviction is strictly based on Uddin’s version of events, with regards to how the victim Hayder Ali was attacked.
For the very first time, the attack on Hayder Ali will be re-created using forensic pathology, blood spatter analysis, and independent witnesses.
Forensic Pathology
Please Note: some readers may find the following information disturbing, therefore reader discretion is advised.
A Forensic Pathologist is a Medical Doctor, whose role is to perform autopsies/postmortem examinations to determine the cause of death.
According to the post mortem carried out by Dr Fegan-Earl, on 22nd April 2006 at St George’s Hospital in Tooting, the victim Hayder Ali had four stab wounds to his back. The victim also had been stabbed with a screwdriver, on his left thigh. There were also signs of blunt force trauma, on the right side of the scalp, and also on the left side of the scalp.
Details of the Stab Wounds are as follows:
- There was a stab wound on the left side of the back.
- The orientation was in a 5 past 7 position.
- The wound held in apposition was 1.5cm.
- A single edged weapon with a ‘V’ shape caused the wound.
- The wound did not penetrate the chest, but only passed through the skin, fast.
- On the left side of the back, was stab wound 2.
- The orientation was in a 10 past 8 position.
- The wound held in apposition was 2.1cm.
- A single edged weapon with a ‘V’ shape caused the wound.
- This wound passed through the skin's fat, and entered the left chest, causing extensive bleeding.
- In the process, the lung and the aorta (large artery) were injured.
- Stab wound 2, was one of the causes of death.
- On the lower left back, closely related to stab wound 1 and 2, was stab wound 3.
- The orientation was in a 10 past 8 position.
- The wound measured 2.6cm.
- The appearance was consistent with having been caused by the tip of a knife.
- It went no deeper than the Subcutis layer.
- On the right side of the back, was stab wound 4.
- The orientation was in a 10 past 8 position.
- The wound held in apposition was 2.5cm.
- A single edged weapon with a ‘V’ shape caused the wound.
- The knife went through the skin, fat and the muscle of the posterior abdominal wall, before penetrating the inferior Vena Cava and Liver.
- This wound, together with stab wound 2, were the causes of death.
- On the left thigh, was an oval wound.
- On the right scalp, there was a curved laceration and on the left side, was a cigar shaped wound.
- Neither wounds caused any fractures.
In conclusion, the Forensic Pathologist Dr Fegan-Earl stated; stab wound 2 and stab wound 4 together led to shock and death.
In his own words, he stated:
“In terms of weapon type, there are features on the skin that suggest utilisation of a single edged knife, that appears to consistently measure approximately 2.5cm in width.”
One of the knives recovered at the scene, ETK/7, was single edged and measured 2.4cm at the hilt, from back edge to sharp blade, but thereafter rapidly tapered down to an average width of 1cm.
Note: The blood of Hayder Ali was found on the tip of knife ETK/7, and on the handle, the DNA of Usman Butt.
He further stated:
“The wounds are consistent with having been caused by the same knife, although the use of two knives cannot be excluded. There is no positive pathological evidence to support the use of two knives in this case.”
“The pattern of injuries down the left hand side of the back, shows close grouping, and similar orientation suggesting rapid sequence infliction by the same knife. The wound on the right side of the back also shows an approximately similar orientation.”
The Forensic Pathologist confirmed there were four stab wounds to the back; three on the left side and one on the right side. Stab wound 2 and stab wound 4, were the principal wounds that led to the death of Hayder Ali.
The Pathologist also stated, the type of weapon used was, in his opinion, the same knife; a thin bladed weapon.
The close grouping and stab wounds 2, 3 and 4, were held at an exact orientation with stab wound 1; very closely in respect to orientation.
Following the Noyna Road incident, Zak Uddin immediately made a call to Favaad Bhatti (Call 31) continuing to provoke the van group. Uddins call records reflect this.
Having given this version of events in his Police Interview, Zak Uddin was accounting for his reason for being present on Fircroft Road, at the time of the van attack.
Blood Spatter Analysis
Bloodstain Pattern Analysis is the study and analysis of bloodstains at a crime scene, that are collected with the purpose of drawing conclusions about: the nature, timing, size, distribution patterns, shape and other details. The patterns of the blood stain can help in crime scene reconstruction.
Imran Aslam has attempted to get a Blood Pattern Analysis report created by an expert, but was prevented from doing so. This is for the reason that the Metropolitan Police murder squad refused to release the original crime scene pictures, although these pictures were released in Aslam's trial.
It would have been imperative for the murder squad to have their report, following the murders in 2006, but they have failed to disclose it.
Imran Aslam has re-created the events that took place with respect to the attack on Hayder Ali. Although Aslam is not an expert in the field of Blood Spatter Analysis, the following information is a common sense approach. He has used the information and evidence that was disclosed to him, after his conviction.
All of the following information correlates with official evidence.
Blood Trail; Marker A to Marker T
In the aftermath of the attack on the two brothers, crime scene investigators took over the scene of the crime.
From outside 14 Fircroft Road, to 24 Fircroft Road, there was a trail of blood, which belonged to Hayder Ali.
Alphabetical markers from A to T, were placed where blood was found. Marker A was placed outside 14 Fircroft Road, and marker T placed outside 24 Fircroft Road.
At marker A, the pattern of blood appears to be blood after the immediate withdrawal of a pointed implement. At marker E, 45 degrees to the right, on the opposite side of the road, is a pool of blood.
At marker T (outside 24 Fircroft Road) is a large pool of blood, and the spot whereby the victim Hayder Ali collapsed.
The rest of the markers, B, C, D etc, appear to show blood drops, indicating the victim was on the move.
The pattern of the markers seem to indicate the victim was severely injured, and was moving in a zig-zag motion.
Crucial Independant Witnesses
Two independent witnesses; G.L and R.L stated they saw a male on the ground, next to a Silver Peugeot, which was confirmed to be Mohammed Ali.
Both witnesses stated they saw another male present on Fircroft Road, going towards the group of men, who had ambushed Mohammed Ali.
G.L, and R.L, then saw the attack on Hayder Ali unfold, from their windows.
Hayder Ali was surrounded by a group of men, in a semicircle, near the Silver Peugeot. Both witnesses saw someone creeping along the pavement. In G.L’s description of this particular person, he described the male may possibly have been wearing a hoodie, and was holding something “long” and “thin”.
Upon creeping along the pavement, the male came out between two parked vehicles (one of them being the Silver Peugeot) and made a stabbing motion towards Hayder Ali’s back. Hayder yelled in pain and looked back at the male who had stabbed him, and the male proceeded to run away.
Immediately after Hayder Ali was stabbed by the attacker, G.L then saw Hayder Ali take a few steps forward, stumble and fall to the ground. G.L was then either distracted, or had moved away from his window, but when he returned to his window to look back out again, he stated, Hayder Ali was no longer in sight.
The blood pattern suggests that the blood at marker A was caused by the withdrawal of a sharp implement, and whilst the victim was standing. The victim has then taken a few steps forward and fallen, albeit very briefly at marker E.
After Hayder Ali was brutally attacked and stabbed, he managed to get up and stumble with his stab wounds North of Fircroft Road (in the direction of 24 Fircroft Road). The manner of his movement; a zig-zag line, and the blood drops at marker F to marker S, suggests that Hayder Ali was already severely injured.
Hayder Ali eventually collapsed outside 24 Fircroft Road, at marker T. He was then further attacked despite already being brutally injured.
It may have been thought, the victim Hayder Ali had sustained other wounds, aside from the stab wounds, that may have caused the blood trail. However, I will outline how the stab wounds were the only logical cause of the blood trail.
Aside from the four puncture wounds to the back, on the right side of Hayder Ali’s scalp was a curved laceration, which indicated minor bruising. There was no evidence of a bloody wound.
On the left side of his scalp, was a cigar shaped wound, with minor deep scalp bruising, again no evidence of a bloody wound.
That would leave the final puncture wound, which was on the upper left thigh, in the shape of an oval. When the Ambulance Services arrived at the scene, they lifted Hayder Ali onto a stretcher. The Ambulance Personnel discovered a screwdriver underneath his body. This proved to be a red handled screwdriver, which was logged as exhibit ETK/23.
The blood of Hayder Ali was found on the red screwdriver. The Pathologist examining the screwdriver stated in his report:
“Such a weapon would be capable of causing the puncture wound on the inner aspect of Hayder Ali’s left thigh”.
In the earlier statement from the Pathologist, he reported:
“The wound to the left thigh would not have proved fatal, but may well have served to incapacitate the individual”.
Taking both statements from the Pathologist into account, this clearly shows the wound on the upper left thigh was caused at marker T, outside 24 Fircroft Road.
Event Reconstruction
The following reconstruction has been put together by using pathological evidence, blood spatter analysis, and evidence from the independent witnesses. This reconstruction focuses solely on the attack on Hayder Ali.
Hayder Ali, who is further along Fircroft road, runs back down Fircroft Road (in the direction of Upper Tooting Road) whereby he witnesses his brother Mohammed Ali on the ground. His brother is being attacked by a group of men, and when Hayder Ali approaches, he is also immediately surrounded by the group.
Hayder has his back towards 14 Fircroft Road, and is in-between two parked cars; a silver Peugeot and a blue Mercedes. A male attacks Hayder from behind and vigorously makes stabbing motions towards his back.
Hayder may not have realised he has been stabbed, but instead feels something resembling punches to the back. As Hayder responds by turning to look back, it may well be stab wound 3 is attempted. Stab wound 3 went no further than skin and fat.
Immediately after stab wound 3, stab wound 4 was committed, which was on the right side, going in the direction of right to left.
Stabs wounds 3 and 4 are interesting from the perspective that it appears the attacker has not moved his position, whilst Hayder has moved his.
Hayder has taken a few steps forward and fallen, very briefly. He managed to stand up and struggle away from 14 Fircroft Road, for a distance of 30m, eventually collapsing outside 24 Fircroft Road, whereby he was further attacked.
This reconstruction is entirely inconsistent with Zak Uddin's account of the attack on Hayder Ali.
According to Zak Uddin, he claimed the entire attack took place outside 24 Fircroft Road. The Prosecution’s case was also that the attack took place at the same location.
Although an attack can be complex, and movement can be approximate, a discrepancy of 30m is highly questionable.
The blood spatter analysis proves the stab wounds were inflicted upon Hayder at 14 Fircroft Road, which was 30m away.
Zak Uddin's description of the attack took place over several interviews, and later re-visited in detail by the Police Murder Squad Detectives. His account and description of the attack kept changing consistently.
However, Zak Uddin maintained consistency in his claim; upon Hayder Ali collapsing, he placed his legs either side of Hayder, standing over him pushing the group of men away. This is when he claimed to have seen the alleged stabbings by Hassan Mir and Imran Aslam.
Description Of Weapons
According to the Prosecution, the knives found at the crime scene were unique and distinctive, in that they had been ground to the extent there was hardly a blade left. Click here to view the murder weapon shown in Exhibit ETK/7
In Zak Uddin’s Police Interview, when first questioned about the description of the knife in Hassan Mir’s hand, Uddin stated, “It looked like a very narrow knife”.
When relating to Imran Aslam, Uddin described it as, “A knife”.
The following is an excerpt from the interview:
[UDDIN] “A knife”
[DETECTIVE] “Ok, definitely a knife this time?”
[UDDIN] “Definitely”
[DETECTIVE] “First one, not sure, could be. You’ve mentioned screwdriver, could be a knife”
[UDDIN] “Yeah”
[DETECTIVE] “This one definitely a knife”
In a later interview Uddin stated, “Looked like a very slim knife”.
The Detectives proceeded to show Uddin a picture of ETK/7 (SRF/6 in the interview), Uddin confirmed, “100% that was the knife” in the hand of Hassan Mir.
Although there was no description of the knife in the possession of Imran Aslam, apart from it having a black handle, one fact is absolutely clear, it was not a thin bladed knife.
The knives recovered at the scene were very thin bladed. It was said that the knives could not have been ground down any thinner.
According to Uddin’s account, the knife in the possession of Aslam had to be of a bigger blade. The significant question here is, where is the wound(s) attributed to Imran Aslam?
The Forensic Pathologist confirmed, all wounds established on the victim Hayder Ali’s back, were caused by a thin bladed knife.
Consequently, serious critical flaws emerge from Zak Uddin's version of events. Hayder Ali was not attacked in the manner described by Zak Uddin.
Hayder Ali was not stabbed laying on his side, outside 24 Fircroft Road, but stabbed in a standing position, outside 14 Fircroft Road.
The description given by Uddin of the weapon in the hand of Hassan Mir, matches the description the independent witness provided, who saw the attack on Hayder Ali. The description also matches all four stab wounds. The alleged weapon in Imran Aslam’s possession, does not match any wounds inflicted on Hayder Ali’s body.
As shown above, the attack on Hayder Ali could not have taken place as described by Zak Uddin, which leaves one critical question.
When exactly did Uddin see the actual murder weapon? (ETK/7)
In cross examination, Uddin confirmed he had Hayder Ali’s blood on his trainers.
The question here is: If the attack had not taken place as Uddin claimed, and had taken place as shown through scientific basis, how did Uddin get the victim Hayder Ali’s blood on his trainers?
With that in mind, when Uddin was shown exhibit ETK/7, he confidently identified the murder weapon, which he could not have seen as he described. This is because it was said in evidence that the knife had been thrown over a gate, and it was later discovered exactly where it was claimed to have been discarded.
This proves Zak Uddin would have seen, and had descriptive knowledge of the knife, before the attack took place on Hayder Ali.
In Imran Aslam’s trial, the trial Judge directed the Jury, stating, if the Jury were satisfied Aslam was in possession of a sharp implement, or knew someone who was in possession of a sharp implement, he would be guilty of murder, as a secondary party.
On a couple of occasions during Uddin’s interview under caution, he openly declared he did not see or know anyone who had a “sharp implement”, or a knife. It is clear he had been briefed beforehand.
Following the Murders
In Zak Uddin’s own account, he left the scene with others, who were heavily involved in the night's events. He later returned to what was now a murder scene, to collect his car. In his own words, he got into his vehicle via the passenger seat, and upon entering was careful not to activate the light inside the car. He stated he drove away from the scene, without his headlights turned on. These are certainly not the actions of someone innocent, rather actions of someone with a guilty conscience.
Uddin stated he handed himself in to the Police, to get justice for the murders of Mohammed and Hayder Ali. However, many months later he refused to sign a witness statement, following his interview.
Information that has come to light recently, casts a serious doubt on Zak Uddin’s intentions for handing himself in.
Uddin handed himself in 65 hours after the murders, giving himself crucial time to carefully and clinically plan how to free himself of his involvement, and the significant role he played.
In the early hours of 22nd April 2006, between 02:20 to 04:00, there was a meeting in Richmond Park. Present at this meeting were most of the men involved in the Fircroft Road incident. Zak Uddin was present at this meeting. Imran Aslam was not present.
It was agreed by all those present, if and when they were to be arrested and interviewed, they would all maintain “No comment” in their interviews.
Further new information came to light, confirming Uddin had communication with friends of Mohammed and Hayder Ali, before he handed himself in.
Immediately upon being bailed, Uddin attempted to perceive himself as a witness. Days after he was bailed, a log was made by a Police Family Liaison Officer assigned to the victims family for additional support, following the murders of Mohammed and Hayder Ali.
The Police Liaison Officer's liaison log, dated 27/04/2006, stated that during her visit to the victims family, whilst in her presence, the friend of received in excess of 6 phone calls from ‘Zak’, which the friend disconnected.
In her own words, she stated the victims friend had said: “Zak had told him he had been helping the Police, and he was not on bail”.
Zak Uddin was interviewed under caution, and was still on bail until June 2006.
The Police Liaison Officer also stated that the victim's father had referred to Zak Uddin as a witness, and questioned why the Police were not acting upon his information.
In response, the Liaison Officer explained to the victims father, that Uddin was released on bail, and was still under investigation. This would mean following his bail, Uddin was creating the impression that he was a witness.
Another log stated, whilst a friend of the victims family was with the victims father, Zak Uddin rang the friend a total of six times, but the calls were rejected.
Zak Uddin deceptively covered the depth of his involvement. He was already aware the Tooting group were in agreement to maintain a “No comment” interview. However, in establishing contact with the opposing group, he was simply trying to portray and maintain an innocent position on both sides.
In 2009, the convictions for six of the Defendants were quashed and re-trials were ordered for four of the Defendants. Before the commencement of the re-trials, Zak Uddin contacted one of the Detectives at the Metropolitan Police, via telephone.
On the 12th of November 2009, Uddin called DS Foxley, who was one of the original interviewing Detectives. Uddin stated he had started a new job, and inquired whether he would be called as a witness in the retrial. Uddin made clear he would only attend court if summonsed, but if so, this would put him in the middle of both the Tooting group and Wimbledon group. He also stated he would require protection if he attended court. [Document Enclosed - View Document]
By ringing the Detective voluntarily, Uddin’s intentions become indicative of his disingenuous nature.
There is a reason the above information, alongside the document, is being disclosed on this website. This will become clear in Part 2 of New Discovery.
Zak Uddin's Involvement
In conclusion, I will now put into context all of Zak Uddin's involvement in this case.
Zak Uddin lured the van group, whilst on the phone with Defendant A, to Dafforne Road to be attacked. He then joins others in chasing the van, and is seen in possession with a spade.
Uddin spent a majority of his time in the company of the Tooting group, whilst making numerous calls to the van group. He made a total of 28 calls to Favaad Bhatti, and 3 calls to Sharjeel Chaudhry, from 22:50 to 00:04.
From when the van group left the Tooting area, following the Dafforne Road incident, up until the group returned to Noyna Road, Uddin did not stop calling them.
There is only one logical explanation as to why Uddin would call the van group multiple times, and consecutively one call after the other. He was clearly goading the van group.
In the 1 hour and 20 minutes the Van Group was not present in the area, the situation may have possibly defused. Tensions may have reduced but due to Uddin’s persistence, he merely caused the situation to escalate.
The established evidence shows, from 22:42 to midnight, Zak Uddin was the prime instigator, and responsible for the Fircroft Road attack on Mohammed and Hayder Ali.
Considering these were the vital actions of Zak Uddin leading up to the Fircroft Road incident, it becomes very clear he was not a witness, nor protecting Hayder Ali as he claimed. In hindsight, he played one of the most critical roles.
Uddin’s account regarding the attack on Hayder Ali was excessively inconsistent with scientific facts.
Zak Uddin positively identified the murder weapon and had Hayder Ali’s blood on his trainers.
It is important to note here:
1 - According to Uddin, when he arrived at the scene and saw Hayder Ali, there was already blood on the ground, and he stated it seemed ‘watery’.
2 - Although Blood Spatter images show the blood of Hayder Ali dried up, there are not any visible footprints surrounding the area of the blood.
3 - If Zak Uddin was indeed standing over Hayder Ali, upon proceeding to step away following the attack, surely there would have been imprints of his footwear on the ground.
This shows Zak Uddin was much more involved, and his version of events was simply not capable of belief.
It was extremely obvious from Zak Uddin’s Police interview, he had a personal grudge against Imran Aslam. When mentioning Aslam in his Police interview, Uddin referred to him as a “Knifeman from school days”. Uddin and Imran Aslam did not attend the same school, nor did they know each other at that time.
In his interview, without being prompted by the Detectives, Uddin gave a description of what Imran Aslam was wearing. It was clear Uddin had resentment towards Aslam, when referring to him.
Uddin was strategically careful in ensuring he covered all angles surrounding his involvement, prior to handing himself in, and even after he was bailed.
Taking all the above information in to account, it would seem the investigating team were deliberately incompetent in analysing and investigating Zak Uddin’s actual involvement.
Zak Uddin’s Police interviews took place very early on in the investigation, on the 25th and 26th of April 2006. It is understandable that crucial facts and evidence would not have been available, as this was still being obtained.
However, Uddin was re-interviewed in June 2006, after he returned on bail. By this point, all the evidence was available to the investigation team. However, the lack of critical questioning is alarming in these interviews.
The Detectives failed to challenge the extensive amount of inconsistencies in Zak Uddin’s account, which failed to match established evidences such as: scientific evidences, CCTV footage, telephone records and independent witnesses.
There is lack of information regarding Zak Uddin’s clothes that he was wearing, on the night of the murders. There has never been any disclosure by the Police or Prosecution, regarding his clothing items being submitted for forensic testing. Furthermore, there was never any disclosure regarding forensic tests carried out on these items.
The victims Mohammed and Hayder Ali and their family, were denied justice by Metropolitan Police murder squad and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Zak Uddin was never considered a witness between 2006 and 2011. Further to this, his actual involvement was collectively suppressed by the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service.
New Discovery Part Two will be released in due course.