After the first publication about the death of Assem Shabelskaya in Shchuchinsk in the Burabay district of the Akmola region, the FBRK team travelled to the city to conduct their own investigation. We spoke with the victim's friends, colleagues from both of her workplaces, the local police officer, and several neighbours of the suspect. We also examined fragments of correspondence. The picture we managed to piece together is significantly more complete than what has been published previously, and in some places diverges from the already known version of events.
Previously, FBRK published the first article on this case. In this text, we rely solely on data obtained by the editorial team during their assignment. In accordance with Article 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the suspect is considered innocent until a court conviction enters into legal force.
WHO ASSEM WAS - THROUGH THE EYES OF THOSE WHO KNEW HER
According to her childhood friend Yekaterina, who had known Assem since the ninth grade, she never complained or asked for help.
"She wouldn't hurt a fly. Small, thin. She handled everything herself," says her friend.
Notably, Yekaterina only learned about the relationship with the suspect from the news, after her friend's death.
Another friend, Zarina, who met Assem back in 2013 and lived under the same roof with her for a time, describes her similarly: a private, unmalicious person who could share joy but couldn't speak about pain. Zarina also didn't know Assem had a partner.
This wasn't random secrecy. According to everyone spoken to, Assem deliberately kept her relationship with Almaz hidden - neither her friends nor her sister had the full picture.
THE CORRESPONDENCE: WHAT REMAINED
The victim's relatives kept her phone. According to them, Assem usually cleared her correspondence - so what could be examined was only isolated fragments. But even these give an insight into the dynamics of the relationship.
In one screenshot dated April 28th, at 11:35, Almaz writes: "Sorry for bothering you, but I miss you, I want to see and hug you". At 11:49 - fourteen minutes later, having received no reply - three messages arrive in a row with insults and the conclusion "I guess I'm bothering you". She replies later, gently. She explains she's tired and decided to let go. He professes his love and directly calls what's happening "abuse" - meaning he was aware of the behaviour pattern and labelled it as such himself.
In another fragment, he writes about thoughts of marrying her, adding: "The question arises - not whether I can support you financially, but morally". She replies: "Get those thoughts out of your head. You'll end up bloody killing me". What the tone of that phrase was, we don't know.
Another fragment of the correspondence deserves particular attention. In it, Almaz, using crude language, contrasts Assem with her Russian surname - Shabelskaya, inherited from her deceased husband - with another woman, a Kazakh. Relatives say that in the correspondence, he repeatedly demanded that Assem speak Kazakh and reacted painfully to any mention of her connection to the Russian family of her first husband. The editorial team presents this data solely based on the relatives' words and the fragments of correspondence they provided.
MARCH 2026: THE INCIDENT WITH THE HAMMER
According to the victim's sister - Bakhyt, in March of this year, Almaz attacked Assem with a hammer on the grounds of the "Shchuchinsky" sanatorium, in full view of colleagues. According to the family's version, the trigger was jealousy - another employee happened to sit next to Assem at the lunch table. Assem managed to lock herself in a shop; the attacker smashed the window and forced his way in. Security intervened, and the police were called. It went to an administrative court.
Assem forgave him. They reconciled. No serious punishment followed.
An important caveat: when the editorial team visited the sanatorium, the details of the March incident varied in different people's accounts. Exactly where security was at the time of the incident, whether the specific actions were as described by the family - there was no consistency in eyewitness testimony. What exactly happened that day is for the investigation to establish, including in relation to assessing the suspect's prior behaviour.
After March, Assem resigned, changed jobs, got a new phone number, and blocked Almaz everywhere.
NEW JOB: STALKING AND THE FINAL RECONCILIATION
At her new workplace - a bathhouse complex - colleagues describe Assem just like everyone else: quiet, kind, one of them. She explained her reason for leaving the sanatorium simply: the inconvenient schedule, not enough time with her children.
According to Bakhyt, Almaz tracked Assem down at her new workplace too: he came by, missed her shift, asked other employees if she worked there, saying he owed her money. However, colleagues at the bathhouse complex whom the editorial team managed to speak to said they only saw him near Assem once - on June 7th, when he came to see her at work.
He brought food. That same day, according to colleagues, he paid off her loan - around 50,000 tenge. Colleagues say: that day, Assem was genuinely happy, happier than they had seen her in a long time.
That evening, she wrote to her sister: they had made up, he'd given his word. Her sister sent a voice message: "He'll kill you. Don't you dare forgive him". Assem replied: "Don't get worked up. Everything will be fine."
The colleague who, according to other staff, was closest to Assem, refused to contact the editorial team - she declined immediately and categorically. Her absence from this story is one of the remaining unanswered questions.
THE NIGHT OF JUNE 8TH TO 9TH: THE FAMILY'S VERSION
On June 8th - her day off - Assem spent the day with her children and caring for her paralysed mother. Around 9:00 PM she left to meet Almaz. Shortly before midnight, she spoke on the phone with her younger son: she said she'd be home soon.
But she didn't return.
According to the relatives' version, Almaz beat Assem throughout the night. Relatives who saw the body in the morgue describe numerous bruises and head injuries. According to them, he didn't call an ambulance immediately - when they entered the apartment in the morning, it was perfectly tidy, with no traces of blood. When the ambulance arrived, Almaz told the medics the woman had fallen and hit a radiator. Assem didn't survive long in the hospital.
Around four in the morning, Almaz called the sister from Assem's phone. He didn't get through. He contacted the mother-in-law - the mother of the first husband. According to relatives, during the conversation he confirmed that he was the one who had previously broken the windows at the sanatorium. The mother-in-law called Bakhyt. She arrived at the hospital and learned from a police officer that her sister was no more.
This is the family's version. The official picture of what happened that night will become fully known following the investigation's conclusion.
THE LAPTOP AND THE THEFT REPORT
A separate thread in this story is the laptop, which led to a theft report being filed against the victim's sister.
A laptop was lying on the bed in the apartment. Bakhyt assumed it belonged to Assem - her sister had the same one. In the presence of the local police officer, she asked if she could take the laptop. He replied: if it's yours, take it.
Later, Almaz's father and his relatives arrived. They offered their condolences; the father said he wasn't excusing his son. But when Assem's relatives said they would hire a lawyer and push for the maximum sentence, Almaz's relatives reacted aggressively and left the apartment. And two hours later, a theft report was filed with the police regarding the laptop.
According to information received by the editorial team, from a legal standpoint, the elements of theft here are questionable: theft requires the secret taking of property with intent. Bakhyt took the laptop openly, in the presence of a police officer, genuinely believing it was her sister's property. However, later, while in a state of shock and still in mourning, the relatives handed it over to a man who introduced himself as Almaz's brother - without any documentation. This legally complicated their position.
THE SUSPECT'S NEIGHBOURS AND CIRCLE: A WALL OF SILENCE
It was not possible to fully speak with the neighbours in the building where Almaz rented an apartment. The few who started a conversation on the street stuck to one position: we didn't hear anything, we don't know. He lived quietly, didn't make noise, worked.
The editorial team noted one thing: several people referred to him in the plural - "they". Who exactly lived in that apartment with Almaz or frequented it regularly couldn't be established.
Employees at the "Shchuchinsky" sanatorium were also taciturn. They spoke of Almaz neutrally. None of those who could be spoken to confirmed the information about his use of illicit substances, which the victim's relatives insist upon. Those who observed the couple's relationship from the outside described it cautiously: adults, no one felt they had the right to interfere.
INTENT - THE KEY QUESTION
The case is officially being investigated under Part 3 of Article 106 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of a person"). The relatives are seeking to have the charge reclassified to Article 99 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Murder"). According to the relatives, the initial charge was an even lesser article - causing death by negligence - but the classification was subsequently changed. The police themselves have not publicly commented on this intermediate stage.
The fundamental difference between Article 106 and Article 99 lies in intent. The first article applies when a person intentionally caused harm, but death occurred without intent to cause it. The second applies when the intent was directly aimed at taking a life. Establishing this is the task of the investigation and the court: they will assess the nature and multiplicity of injuries, the suspect's behaviour before and after, the time gap between the moment medical help was needed and the ambulance call. The relatives are convinced: had the ambulance been called sooner, Assem might have been saved. This is the family's assumption, but the investigation is obligated to verify it.
This question - regarding intent - is the main unresolved question of the case.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD'S OPINION
A few days in Shchuchinsk gave the editorial team something important - not a sensation, but depth. The story of Assem Shabelskaya is more complex than the one presented in the family's public interviews, and yet does not contradict it in essence: a woman was in a relationship for a year and a half with escalating levels of aggression, the March incident was recorded and closed with a reconciliation, after which she tried to leave - and couldn't leave completely.
Closing an administrative case through reconciliation is standard practice, which in this instance had no consequences for the suspect and did not stop the situation from escalating further. This happened after the "Saltanat Law" - amendments intended to toughen liability for domestic violence - had already come into effect. To what extent these amendments work in district towns, at the level of administrative courts and local police officers, remains an open question, one that the case of Assem Shabelskaya poses with renewed urgency.
CONCLUSION
The investigation continues. The answer to the main question - whether there was intent - will be for the court to provide. The FBRK editorial team continues to monitor the progress of the case and will report on its outcome when it becomes known.
See also: FBRK special report on the Assem Shabelskaya case
