He gave himself the name before anyone else did.
Tattooed across a man’s chest or simply claimed as a reputation.
The executioner wasn’t a nickname the media invented for Hamad Assad.
It was the identity he built for himself.
Working as a self-declared hitman for one of Sydney’s most dangerous crime families.
In October 2016, 3 years after allegedly shooting a woman who had nothing to do with the dispute that got her targeted, Assad was killed the same way he’d made his name.
Two men hooded, arriving by car, gone within seconds.
If you’ve watched this channel’s earlier coverage of Basam Hanzi, you’ve already encountered the opening act of this story without knowing the man at its center.
In March 2013, someone fired eight bullets into the front door of Maha Hamzi Hamzy’s own aunt, hitting her repeatedly as she stood on the other side.
This channel’s earlier account named the man convicted for that shooting Reynold Glover.
What it couldn’t fully resolve at the time was who else was allegedly involved in planning it.
This is that answer.
Hammed Assad was by his own branding a contract killer for the Elmir family, a name that would go on to connect directly to one of the most violent, tightly wound periods of gang conflict New South Wales has documented in the past decade.
He’s alleged to have helped plan the attack on Mahams.
3 years later, he claimed responsibility, at least informally, for a second killing entirely before someone else claimed responsibility for his Before we go further, a note on how this video is put together.
Hammed Assad has been deceased since 2016, and this account is able to speak about his own alleged conduct with more direct confidence than it can about people still facing live legal proceedings.
Where this account discusses who police believe killed him or who else was allegedly involved in the crimes connected to his own name.
We’re going to be precise about the difference between a formal police suspicion and an actual conviction because in this specific case, several of the men connected to the story were never convicted of anything at all before their own deaths ended the question permanently.
In this video, we’ll go through what’s actually documented about Hammad Assad, his alleged role in the 2013 attack on Mahamza, the wider three family war that erupted in 2016 and consumed him, and how his own death connects directly back to a family this channel has already spent considerable time documenting.
If you’re new here, this channel covers organized crime and gang history across Australia and New Zealand using court records and verified public reporting.
No dramatizing, no glorifying.
Subscribe and turn on the bell if you want to see where this one goes.
We’ll start in March 2013 on a quiet street in Auburn with eight bullets and a door that shouldn’t have been the target at all.
Very little about Hamad Assad’s early life has made it into the public record.
Unlike most of the figures this channel has documented in detail, men whose families, childhoods, and early paths into organized crime have been traced through court testimony, sentencing remarks, or their own later public statements.
Assad’s own biography largely begins at the point he was already operating as an established self-declared figure within Sydney’s Middle Eastern organized crime landscape.
This account isn’t going to speculate about what isn’t documented.
What can be said with confidence is the specific identity he built once he did become visible.
A man branding himself publicly and deliberately as an executioner working for the Elmir family.
It’s worth taking a moment to consider what this kind of self-branding actually represents because it’s a genuinely distinctive choice among the figures this channel has covered across its broader documentation of Australian organized crime.
Most contract violence within these networks happens quietly, deliberately kept away from public attribution.
The entire structure of witness intimidation, coded language, and suppressed identities this channel has traced across cases like Reynold Glover’s own conviction depends on nobody being too openly associated with a specific killing.
Assad appears to have taken the opposite approach, at least reputationally, cultivating a name and an identity specifically built around violence carried out on behalf of a particular family in a way that functioned as both a warning to rivals and evidently a form of professional advertisement within his own world.
The Elmir family, whose name Assad’s own reputation was built around, sit within a broader web of Western Sydney organized crime networks, this channel has already documented extensively connected both through alliance and through periodic violent rivalry to the Alamadine network, the Ahmed family, and at various points, the Hamzyled Brothers for Life organization.
This channel has covered in considerable depth.
It’s worth understanding that these relationships weren’t fixed.
Alliances between these various family networks shifted, sometimes rapidly depending on the specific dispute at hand.
Meaning, a family aligned with one side of a conflict in one specific incident could easily find itself on an entirely different side of a separate dispute only a few years or even months later.
Assad’s own reputation, by the point he enters this account’s documented timeline in any real detail, was already substantial enough that his name would go on to be directly connected to two of the more significant violent incidents in Sydney’s organized crime history across the following several years.
One involving a woman who had no direct involvement in the underlying dispute at all and one involving a rival family’s own senior figure carried out in a manner serious enough that Assad appears to have wanted credit for it.
It’s worth being precise before this account moves into the specific details of either incident about the general evidentary standard this account is applying throughout.
Assad himself died in 2016 without ever being convicted of either of the two killings his name has been most directly connected to.
This account can speak about his own alleged conduct with somewhat more directness than it typically applies to living figures who might yet face formal legal proceedings given that death has permanently closed off any possibility of a future conviction or a quiddle on these specific matters.
But more directness isn’t the same as treating every allegation as proven fact.
Where this account describes Assad as having been suspected of or alleged to have carried out specific violence, that phrasing reflects the genuine documented state of the public record, serious repeated police and media attribution without a formal criminal conviction ever having tested it.
What this account turns to next is the first and most consequential of these two incidents.
A shooting this channel has already covered once before from a different angle entirely through its earlier account of the man who was actually convicted over it.
This channel’s earlier coverage of Reynold Glover traced in detail what happened on 9 March 2013 when eight bullets were fired through the front door of a house in Auburn, striking Maha Hamz Basam Hams’s own aunt and leaving her with serious lasting injuries.
That earlier account established Glover’s own role with real confidence.
He was convicted of shooting with intent to murder in a trial that relied substantially on his own recorded prison confession to a fellow inmate.
What that earlier account couldn’t fully resolve was the question of who else may have been involved in planning or directing the attack because Glover, as far as this channel’s own research could establish at the time, wasn’t the only name connected to it.
Hammed Assad’s name enters this specific story here.
According to reporting independently confirmed through Wikipedia’s own detailed account of the broader Alamadine Crime Network’s history, itself drawing on Daily Telegraph and other established Australian news sources.
Assad was suspected of being behind the 2013 shooting of Maha Hamz allegedly acting in conjunction with Glover.
It’s worth being precise about exactly what this specific attribution does and doesn’t establish because it sits in a genuinely different evidentiary category than Glover’s own formally proven conviction.
Glover was tried, convicted, and sentenced specifically for this shooting, a matter of established legal record.
Assad’s own alleged involvement never reached that same formal stage.
He was suspected named in reporting connecting him to the attack, but never charged, tried, or convicted in relation to it, and his own death in 2016 permanently ended any possibility that a court could ever have resolved the question one way or the other.
It’s worth reflecting on what a joint attribution of this kind, one man convicted, another merely suspected, for what appears to have been the same underlying incident, actually reveals about how these kinds of attacks typically get investigated and prosecuted.
This channel has now documented across dozens of cases that organized crime violence involving multiple participants frequently produces exactly this kind of uneven legal outcome.
One person, often the one whose own conduct happened to generate the clearest, most directly usable evidence, ends up facing formal prosecution, while others, who may have been equally or even more centrally involved in planning the same incident remain, for whatever combination of evidentiary or strategic reasons formally unprosecuted.
In Glover’s specific case, this channel’s earlier research established that his own conviction rested heavily on a secretly recorded prison conversation in which he directly discussed the shooting with a fellow inmate, an extraordinarily direct, hard to dispute piece of evidence that doesn’t appear to have had an equivalent counterpart connecting Assad to the same incident with the same level of formal courtroom ready proof.
This is worth connecting to a broader pattern this channel has traced repeatedly across its coverage of Sydney’s Middle Eastern organized crime networks.
Specifically, attacks carried out by multiple people, planned collaboratively, and executed jointly don’t always produce matching legal consequences for everyone genuinely involved.
Sometimes this reflects a genuine gap in the underlying evidence investigators simply couldn’t build a case against every participant to the same standard.
Sometimes, as this channel has documented in other contexts, it reflects a participant’s death before any prosecution could be brought at all, closing off the legal process before it could ever properly begin.
Assad’s case appears to sit squarely within this second category, whatever the true extent of his actual involvement in planning the attack on Mahamza.
His own death in 2016 meant no Australian court would ever formally test that specific allegation against him.
It’s worth returning to the underlying motive this channel’s earlier coverage already established for the attack itself because it remains directly relevant to understanding Assad’s alleged role within it.
According to that earlier research, the shooting traced back to a canceled debt collection arrangement between Glover and Bilal Hamse Basan Hams’s cousin with Bilal’s own subsequent attempt to recoup money from Glover’s mother apparently triggering Glover’s decision to retaliate.
What this account can now add, drawing on the broader Alamadine network’s documented history, is a further layer of context Assad’s own alleged involvement, suggests this wasn’t purely a personal dispute between Glover and the Hamay family in isolation.
If the allegation connecting him to the attack is accurate, it would mean a man with his own established reputation as a contract killer for the Elmia family had a hand in planning an attack against the Hamsy family’s own matriarch.
Placing this specific incident inside a considerably broader web of interf family tension than a simple twoperson dispute over a canceled job and a stolen $5,000.
There’s a further detail worth including here, connecting directly to material this channel has already documented in its own coverage of Basam Hamzy’s broader story.
Following the Mahamese shooting, Hamzi himself got into a physical altercation with Glover inside Silverwater Correctional Complex, a detail this channel’s earlier research established in full.
What that earlier account couldn’t establish, because Assad’s own alleged role in the shooting hadn’t yet been researched in detail, is whether Hamsy’s own family understood at the time that Glover might not have been the only person responsible for planning the attack.
This account can’t resolve that specific question with confidence.
There’s no clear evidence establishing exactly what the Hamzy family did or didn’t know about Assad’s alleged involvement in the years immediately following the shooting.
What can be said is that Assad’s own name would go on to become directly formally connected to the Hamzi family’s broader story in the most consequential way possible within just a few years of the Mahakam shooting.
Not through a criminal charge, but through his own death at the hands of someone this account will identify shortly.
Before this account reaches that specific development, it’s worth tracing what happened to Assad in the intervening years.
Because the 2013 shooting, whatever his actual role in it, wasn’t the last violent act his name would become associated with.
What this account turns to next is a considerably larger three family conflict that erupted in 2016 and the second killing Assad appears to have wanted the wider criminal world to know he was personally responsible for.
In April 2016, a conflict erupted between three of Sydney’s most significant organized crime families, the Alamdines, the Elmirs, and the Ahmads.
In a sequence of violence that would ultimately claim Hammed Assad’s own life within the same year.
The conflict’s specific origin traces to a single targeted killing.
Safwan Shahbaji, a relative connected to the Alamadine clan, was shot dead at a smash repair business in Condul Park.
The man responsible, according to established reporting on the case, was wedi Ahmed, known within his own family network, by the nickname Wall-I, and a figure whose own killing weeks later would bring Assad’s name directly and publicly into this specific conflict for the first time.
It’s worth understanding the broader family alliances at play here because they illustrate something this channel has now documented as a genuinely recurring feature of Sydney’s Middle Eastern organized crime landscape.
Family networks that maintain their own distinct identities and their own distinct grievances while periodically forming temporary alliances with each other depending on the specific conflict at hand.
Charbuji, though not himself a core Alamaden family member, was connected closely enough to that network that his killing was treated by the broader criminal world watching this unfold as an attack the Alamaden family and its allies had a genuine stake in avenging.
That avenging came quickly.
Later the same month, Wed Ahmed was murdered in Bankstown, and it was Hammed Assad acting as an associate aligned with the Elmir family who claimed responsibility for the killing.
It’s worth being direct about what this specific detail represents because it’s genuinely unusual within the broader pattern of Sydney gangland violence this channel has documented extensively.
Most organized crime killings covered throughout this channel’s broader work are followed by careful, deliberate silence.
Nobody publicly claims responsibility.
Investigators are left to build cases through forensic evidence, informants, or intercepted communications, and the specific individual actually responsible often remains formally unproven for years, if the case is ever solved at all.
Assad’s own claim of responsibility for Wed Ahmed’s killing cuts directly against that pattern.
Whether this reflects genuine confidence that he was beyond the reach of prosecution, a deliberate strategic choice to demonstrate strength and capability to both allies and rivals, or simply the same self-branding instinct that had already led him to publicly adopt the title of executioner in the first place.
This account can’t determine with certainty.
What’s clear is that Assad wanted this specific killing attributed to him in a way this channel hasn’t documented with quite the same directness across any other case in its broader coverage.
It’s worth reflecting on what this specific choice actually cost him because the consequences arrived within months.
This channel has now documented across dozens of cases how claiming responsibility for a killing, whether through formal conviction, informal underworld reputation, or as in Assad’s specific case, an apparently deliberate public claim, tends to generate exactly the kind of retaliatory targeting that eventually caught up with him.
A reputation built specifically around demonstrated attributable violence carries genuine strategic value within organized crime culture, functioning as both deterrence and advertisement.
It also inevitably makes the person carrying that reputation a considerably clearer, more obvious target for anyone connected to the people he’s killed or claimed to have killed, seeking their own retaliation in turn.
This broader three family conflict didn’t end with Wid Ahmed’s death, and it’s worth tracing its fuller scope before this account returns to Assad’s own fate specifically, because the violence this dispute generated extended considerably further than the two killings already covered.
In March 2017, several months after Assad’s own death, which this account will cover in detail in the next part, Kemmel Blackie Barakat, a Hell’s Angels associate working as an enforcer for the Ahmed family, was killed.
This channel has already documented in its earlier coverage of the broader Alamadin Hamzi conflict, a version of Barakat’s death.
What’s worth adding here is his specific position within this particular three family dispute, connecting his own killing directly back to the same underlying chain of retaliation this account has been tracing from Sharbaji’s original death through to Assad’s own.
Weeks after Barakat’s killing on 28 March 2017, a further figure connected to this same broader conflict was shot, though he survived.
Emmed Slayman, a man with his own prior separate conviction for the 1997 murder of an entirely innocent bystander named Jason Burton, was wounded in the chest and leg in Auburn.
Reporting at the time suggested Slayman was himself a suspect in Barcat’s killing and included a genuinely striking additional detail.
He had reportedly texted Frank Kreniti, the owner of what was then a well-known Sydney restaurant chain, directly connecting this specific violent conflict to a legitimate, publicly recognizable business figure in a way this channel hasn’t documented with quite this level of direct crossover in any other case it’s covered.
It’s worth pausing on this specific detail because it illustrates something worth carrying forward into the rest of this account.
This wasn’t a conflict confined entirely to the shadowy, deliberately hidden margins of Sydney’s underworld.
It touched, at least in this one specific instance, a genuinely mainstream, publicly recognizable Sydney business.
A reminder that the boundary between organized crime networks and the ordinary visible commercial life of the city they operate within is often considerably thinner and more porous than either side would typically prefer to acknowledge.
Taken together, this specific sequence, Chabajji, then Ahmmed, then Assad himself, then Barakat, then Sleman’s own survival of a further attack, represents one of the more tightly compressed, rapidly escalating cycles of retaliatory violence this channel has documented across its entire coverage of Sydney’s organized crime landscape.
Five serious connected incidents across less than a full year.
Each one apparently triggering the next in an unbroken chain of retribution.
What this account turns to next is the specific incident that removed Hammed Assad himself from that chain and the man police ultimately named as their prime suspect for his death.
Hamad Assad was killed at his home in George Hall on 25 October 2016 daylight in the middle of an ordinary weekday morning in a manner that reflected exactly the kind of deliberate unambiguous violence his own reputation had been built around delivering to others.
According to reporting on the killing, two men wearing hooded jumpers and tracksuits arrived at Assad’s property in a stolen black Audi at approximately 20 9 that morning.
They pulled directly into his driveway, entered his home, and fired multiple shots.
Assad was killed inside his own property in front of whatever family members or associates may have been present in an attack that carried none of the careful concealment this channel has documented across other more drawnout organized crime investigations.
This was a killing that appears to have been designed to be immediately unmistakably recognized for exactly what it was.
It’s worth reflecting on the specific timing and manner of this attack because it directly mirrors the kind of violence Assad’s own reputation had been [clears throat] built around inflicting on others.
A man who had, by his own apparent claim, executed a rival family’s senior figure just months earlier was killed in a strikingly similar manner himself.
Daylight, direct, unmistakably deliberate.
Whether this specific parallel was intentional on the part of whoever ordered or carried out Assad’s own killing, sending a deliberate message through the method itself, or simply reflects the broader shared tactical playbook this channel has documented recurring across virtually every organized crime conflict it’s covered in Sydney specifically.
This account can’t determine with certainty.
Police investigating Assad’s death considered several possible connections before ultimately settling on their primary line of inquiry.
According to reporting from the period, detectives were initially investigating whether his killing was linked to the original attack at the smash repair shop where Sharbaji had died or separately connected to Wed Ahmed’s own death.
The two incidents that had already opened this broader three family conflict earlier that same year.
Court documents later tendered in separate related proceedings named Mahmud Ahmed, Wed’s own brother, as a suspect police had considered in connection with Assad’s death.
A detail worth including because it illustrates how directly this specific chain of retaliation appeared to investigators at the time, with each killing seemingly connecting logically back to the one that preceded it.
Ultimately though, it was a different name that emerged as police’s primary suspect, Majid Hamzi.
Basam Hamsy’s own brother.
According to multiple independent sources, this account has been able to verify.
Majid Hamsy was believed by police to have been responsible for Assad’s killing, connecting Assad’s death directly back to the Hamsy family.
This channel has already documented extensively across its earlier coverage.
It’s worth taking a moment to draw together what this specific attribution actually means for how this entire story should be understood because it closes a loop this account has been tracing since its opening part.
If Assad genuinely was involved alongside Reynold Glover in planning the 2013 attack that left Maha Ham Med Hams’s own aunt with serious lasting injuries.
Then police’s later suspicion that Mead Hamzi was responsible for Assad’s own death in 2016 represents something this channel has now documented recurring across multiple separate family conflicts.
It’s covered a specific personal act of retaliation carried out not by the formal organizational structure of any particular gang, but by an individual family member responding directly to violence inflicted on someone he loved.
This account has to be honest.
Once again about exactly what remains formerly unproven here.
Meased Hamzi was never convicted of Assad’s killing.
He was named as a suspect believed by investigating police to be responsible.
But no criminal trial ever tested that specific allegation because Measured Hamzi was himself killed in October 2020, shot dead outside his own Condo Park home in an incident this channel has already documented in considerable detail through its earlier coverage of the broader Alamadine Hamsy conflict that erupted later that same decade.
It’s worth sitting with the genuine remarkable symmetry this creates across this entire extended story.
Hammad Assad allegedly helped plan an attack on Mahams in 2013.
Meid Hamzi, her own nephew, was suspected of killing Assad in apparent retaliation in 2016.
And Medjid Hamsy himself was killed four years later in 2020.
In a killing this channel has already traced back to the broader Alamadine Hamsy conflict that would go on to claim considerably more lives across the following several years.
Three deaths or near deaths in Mahamsa’s own case spanning close to a decade.
Each one apparently connected to the one before it through a chain of retaliation that no formal criminal justice process ever fully interrupted or resolved.
This is worth connecting directly to a broader pattern this channel has now documented across dozens of separate cases throughout its coverage of Australian and New Zealand organized crime.
A genuine recurring gap between the formal criminal justice systems own capacity to establish accountability and the considerably faster, considerably more final form of accountability these organizations often impose on themselves through exactly this kind of ongoing self-perpetuating retaliation.
No Australian court ever formally determined who was responsible for the attack on Mahams beyond Reynold Glover’s own proven role.
No Australian court ever formally determined who killed Hammad Assad.
And no Australian court ever formally determined who killed Measured Hanzi.
Because in each case, the underlying conflict itself, operating entirely outside any court’s authority, appears to have already delivered whatever resolution it was going to deliver, well before any formal legal process could catch up with it.
What this account turns to next is a broader reflection on exactly this pattern.
What it actually reveals about the specific limits of formal justice when applied to a genuinely self-perpetuating cycle of retaliation and what remains even now entirely unresolved about who was actually responsible for any of the deaths this account has traced in detail.
There’s a specific uncomfortable pattern worth naming directly at this point in the account because it runs through every single death this story has traced so far without a single formal conviction connecting any of them to each other.
Reynold Glover was convicted of shooting Maha Hamz.
That’s the one genuinely proven court- tested outcome anywhere in this entire chain of events.
Everything else.
As Assad’s alleged involvement in that same attack, his own claimed responsibility for Wid Ahmed’s killing, Medid Hams’s suspected role in Assad’s death, and whoever was ultimately responsible for Medid Hams’s own killing four years later remains in the strict legal sense formally unresolved.
Not because investigators lacked genuine specific suspicions about who was responsible in each case, because the people suspected kept dying before any court could actually test those suspicions against them.
It’s worth reflecting on what the specific pattern actually demonstrates about the nature of retaliatory violence within organized crime networks of this kind.
A formal criminal justice system, however well resourced, depends fundamentally on having a living defendant to actually prosecute.
When the person police suspect of a specific killing is themselves killed in apparent retaliation before any charge can be laid, the entire process simply stops.
Not because the underlying question of responsibility has been resolved, but because there’s no longer anyone left to formally answer for it.
This channel has now documented this exact pattern recurring across multiple separate conflicts throughout its broader coverage of Sydney’s Middle Eastern organized crime networks specifically.
And Assad’s own story represents one of the clearest, most tightly compressed examples of it yet traced.
It’s worth being fair to what this pattern doesn’t establish alongside what it does.
The fact that Meid Hamzi was never convicted of killing Assad doesn’t mean he definitely did.
The fact that nobody was ever convicted of killing Majid Hamzi himself doesn’t mean the broader suspicions connecting his death to the ongoing Alamadin Hamzi conflict already traced in this channel’s earlier coverage are necessarily accurate either.
Genuine uncertainty remains attached to every individual link in this chain.
Even where the broader pattern connecting them all together looks from the outside remarkably clear and remarkably consistent.
What can be said with confidence, drawing together everything this account has traced, is the shape of the pattern itself, independent of the specific individually unresolved allegations within it.
A woman was shot through her own front door in 2013 for reasons connected to a canceled debt collection job that had nothing to do with her personally.
At least one and possibly two of the men allegedly involved in planning that attack were themselves killed within the following seven years in apparent acts of retaliation connected directly or indirectly back to that same original shooting.
Nobody across this entire extended sequence of violence has ever been convicted of anything beyond Glover’s own single proven role in the original attack.
Meaning that whatever justice this story ultimately produced for Maha Hamz specifically arrived entirely outside any court’s formal jurisdiction delivered instead by the same broader self-perpetuating cycle of violence this channel has now documented defining so much of Sydney’s Middle Eastern organized crime landscape across the past decade and a half.
It’s worth stepping back from Hammed Assad’s own specific story to consider what it adds to the much broader picture this channel has now built across dozens of separate accounts of how Sydney’s Middle Eastern organized crime networks actually function.
Because this specific case illustrates something this channel has traced repeatedly, but rarely with quite this much clarity in a single self-contained chain of events.
This channel’s earlier coverage of Basam Hamzi traced the broader Alamadin Hamzi conflict across close to a decade, documenting a devastating pattern of loss within a single extended family.
An aunt shot, a mother shot, two brothers killed, a cousin killed, a young relative and his father killed together in a single attack.
What this account’s own research into Hamarad Assad adds to that earlier picture is something that earlier coverage couldn’t fully establish at the time.
That the very first documented act of violence against the Hamzi family in this entire sequence, the 2013 shooting of Mahamsi, may itself have already been an act of retaliation within an even older, even more tangled web of family conflict rather than a genuinely isolated opening incident in an otherwise contained dispute.
It’s worth taking seriously what this specific revision actually means for how this channel’s broader documentation of the Alamadine Hamsy conflict should now be understood.
If Assad genuinely was involved in planning the attack on Mahams, working alongside Glover on behalf of his own separate allegiance to the Elmir family, then the entire subsequent chain of violence this channel has already documented in detail the Hamsy family’s own losses, Basam Hamsy’s own civil lawsuit against police over his brother’s death.
Everything this channel traced in its earlier dedicated coverage sits inside a genuinely larger, more tangled web of pre-existing family conflict than that earlier account was fully able to establish at the time.
This isn’t a criticism of this channel’s own earlier research.
It reflects something genuinely true about how these cases actually work.
New information drawn from separate subsequent research into adjacent figures often reveals connections that weren’t fully visible when an earlier account was first compiled because the full web of relationships connecting these different family networks simply isn’t documented in any single comprehensive source.
There’s a further reflection worth offering here, connected to something this channel has now observed across a genuinely wide range of separate cases spanning its entire coverage of Australian and New Zealand organized crime.
Formal justice systems are built around individual accountability.
A specific person charged with a specific crime tried before a specific court, convicted or acquitted based on specific tested evidence.
The world this account has just traced operates according to a fundamentally different logic entirely.
Collective family-based retaliation, where responsibility for an attack on one family member can be answered by violence against anyone connected to the person believed responsible, regardless of whether that specific individual was ever formally proven guilty of anything at all.
Assad may or may not have genuinely helped plan the attack on Maha Hamza.
Measured Hamzi may or may not have genuinely killed him in response.
What’s clear, regardless of the answer to either individual question, is that this broader system of retaliatory accountability operated with a speed and a finality that Australia’s formal criminal justice system simply couldn’t match, resolving in its own violent way questions the courts never got the chance to properly examine at all.
It’s worth being honest about the genuine serious cost of this specific dynamic rather than treating it purely as an interesting structural observation about how these networks function.
Every death this account has traced Assad’s own and meds four years later represents a life ended without the basic due process protections Australia’s formal justice system is specifically designed to provide.
Whatever their own alleged conduct, neither man was ever formally convicted of anything before being killed themselves.
This channel isn’t suggesting either man was necessarily innocent.
The broader pattern of allegation connecting each of them to serious violence is genuinely substantial, drawn from multiple independent sources rather than a single unverified claim.
But it’s worth naming directly what this specific pattern actually represents.
A genuinely significant number of serious criminal allegations across this single case alone that will now never be formally tested, resolved, or proven because the people involved kept killing each other faster than the courts could ever have hoped to keep pace with.
There’s a final broader observation worth offering, connecting Assad’s specific story to the wider body of work this channel has built across its documentation of dozens of separate Australian and New Zealand organized crime figures.
This channel has now traced multiple separate instances of exactly this same underlying pattern.
A killing that generates its own retaliatory killing which generates a further retaliatory killing in turn with formal legal accountability arriving if it arrives at all only for whichever specific individual happens to survive long enough and generate clear enough evidence for a court to actually secure a conviction against them.
Glover’s own conviction represents exactly this kind of survival.
He lived long enough and generated clear enough evidence through his own recorded prison confession for the formal justice system to actually catch up with him.
Assad and Majid Hamzi, by contrast, didn’t survive long enough for that same process to ever have the chance to begin.
This account set out to tell the story of a single man who called himself an executioner and ended up tracing a chain of violence that connects in ways this channel’s own earlier research couldn’t fully establish at the time.
Three separate accounts it has already produced Reynold Glover’s conviction, Basam Hams’s decade of family loss, and the broader Alamadine Crime Network’s own extended history of internal and external conflict.
Hammad Assad himself remains in the strictest formal sense a man who was never convicted of anything suspected of two of the most consequential acts of violence in this entire story and killed himself before either allegation could ever be properly tested.
There’s a genuine lesson worth drawing from this specific case, one this channel has now encountered in various forms across dozens of separate accounts throughout its broader coverage, but rarely with quite this much clarity in a single self-contained chain of cause and effect.
Retaliatory violence, once it begins within a network of family-based organized crime groups, doesn’t tend to stay contained to the two people originally involved in whatever dispute started it.
It spreads generation by generation and incident by incident, drawing in people whose only connection to the original grievance is their relationship to someone else who was actually involved.
An aunt with no independent stake in a canceled debt collection job.
A nephew avenging an attack on that same aunt years later.
And an entire extended family absorbing losses that trace back ultimately to a dispute over $5,000 that most of the people eventually killed in connection with it likely never had any direct involvement in themselves.
It’s worth returning in closing to the specific question this account’s own hook raised at the outset.
What it actually means for a self-perpetuating cycle of retaliation to deliver a kind of resolution the formal justice system never could.
Mahamza survived the 2013 shooting connected to Assad’s own alleged involvement.
The two men most directly connected to planning that attack against her.
Glover formally convicted and Assad only ever suspected both eventually faced serious consequences of their own.
Though only one of those consequences arrived through an actual courtroom.
Whether that specific uneven outcome represents any genuine form of justice at all, or simply a different, considerably more violent, and considerably less accountable mechanism for settling scores that happen to produce a result some might describe as fitting is a question this account genuinely can’t answer with confidence.
And it’s worth sitting with that uncertainty directly.
Rather than resolving it in either direction, the evidence doesn’t actually support.
This is the genuinely large question this account wants to leave with you because it’s one this channel has now encountered across dozens of separate cases throughout its entire body of work without ever finding a fully satisfying answer.
When a formal justice system proves consistently unable to keep pace with a self-perpetuating cycle of retaliatory violence, when the people responsible for serious crimes keep being killed by someone else’s own informal justice before a court ever gets the chance to examine the evidence against them.
What should the public actually make of the outcomes that result?
Is there something in that pattern worth calling justice?
However uncomfortable that word feels applied to an unsolved extrajudicial killing.
Or does treating these outcomes as any kind of resolution at all risk normalizing exactly the kind of endless self-perpetuating violence this account has just spent considerable time tracing.
A cycle that, as this story demonstrates clearly, doesn’t actually end with any specific act of retaliation, but simply continues indefinitely until an entirely separate factor, whether police pressure, changing alliances, or simple exhaustion, eventually causes it to slow down.
This channel doesn’t have a confident answer to that question, and it’s genuinely worth sitting with the discomfort of that uncertainty rather than reaching for a falsely reassuring conclusion.
What this account can offer in place of that resolution is the same standard this channel applies consistently across every case it covers.
An honest accounting of what’s actually documented, precise about the difference between proven fact and enduring suspicion and willing to acknowledge directly when a story simply doesn’t resolve into the kind of clean, satisfying ending most true crime coverage prefers to deliver.
Hammed Assad called himself an executioner.
Whether that title was ever fully earned through the specific violence this account has traced or whether it was simply the reputation he wanted the world to believe about him remains and will likely always remain genuinely unresolved.
What isn’t unresolved is what eventually happened to him and to at least one of the men police believed was responsible for his own death four years later.
In a cycle, this channel has now traced across three separate accounts without ever finding the point where it actually finally stopped.
This channel covers organized crime and gang history across Australia and New Zealand using court records and verified public reporting rather than speculation.
If you’re new here, that’s the standard we hold to on every case, including, as this account has tried to demonstrate throughout, cases where the most honest answer isn’t a resolution at all, but a genuinely open question about what justice even means when the courts never get the chance to deliver it.
Subscribe and turn on the bell if you want to see where the rest of this story and the questions it raises actually goes.
