Max was charged with the murders late last year because he was considered a flight risk and a threat, he was not charged because of any overwhelming evidence. As for the taped conversation between max and singh November 2002, well you can plainly hear that max was called there by the Singh children because they were scared. He did not just rock up at 1am in the morning take Mrs Singh side about an argument she and her husband were having about one of his affairs and start a confrontation with Mr Singh (like one particular paper i read reported). You can clearly hear on the tape Mrs Singh saying to Max "you have my permission to be here, are you going to protect me max" you can also hear max say to Mr Singh "dont worry, im not going to hurt you, what do you think i am like you? im just going to wait for the cops". At one point max says to Mr Singh, "put the weapon down" repeatedly. Mrs Singh is clearly heard making other accusations about her husband in english and in her own language. When this taped conversaton was leaked to media, the heading was Max threatened family. Dont forget, Mr Singh was knowingly taping the conversation and still made numerous threats to Max like, dont worry you`re gonna get it, you dont know what im capable of,you will see etc. Were these threats printed in any paper?
Police was called by both Max and Singh im sure they have proof that Max was called to the residence via his mobile phone and sms messages, and im sure they have statements from the rest of the Singh family too.
It is really astonoshing how A paper could print out sheer and utter untruths when they were there to hear a taped conversation that was played in court of an argument between Mr Singh and Max Sica.
In a case of this magnitude where an innocent man is fighting for his life, how can it be that A newspaper (hearing it with their OWN ears and not any kind of heresay)can print such utter lies? It is truly dumbfounding. Six years on and still we ask ourselves, where is the justice? How is a man suppose to defend himself when the public is continuously been fed complete rubbish based on a trial by media who can destroy a persons character and legally get away with it?
Im not saying that they have to make Max out to be a choir boy, for yes, he has got a criminal record, but just because you havent got a criminal record, it doesnt make you a choir boy either.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
as i say, the media is responsible for encouraging corruption here in queensland by reporting lies and half truths, and only what suits them. shirley singh was holding a picture of her idol( indian deity lord shiva) and the media reported that she was holding the picture of her deceased children. not only that, as a bystander i witnessed first hand that the so called foot morphologist had changed his view in front of the court and under cross examination said he would stick to his original report and not to what he said in court during his testimony as the barrister had caught him out. also the media reported that the foot impression was an exact match to that of mr sica's when mr kennedy had never said that, all he said was that he was unable to exclude mr sica as having made the foot impression found at the crime scene, but admitted that there were many variables he didnt consider as they weren't provided by the police, eg rise and going of the staircase, etc. he also admitted that he had only compared mr sica's foot impression with the crime scene impression and no one elses. dont worry, not all of us out here are lacking common sense, thats why i took the liberty of coming to the court myself to see what was actually going on. don't worry, i'll be praying for justice
ReplyDeletelook what i found on "happy antipodean" just google it.
ReplyDeleteSaturday, 22 August 2009
Shirley Singh, whose husband, Vijay, accuses Brisbane’s Max Sica of killing their children, doesn’t like the questions she’s being asked during Sica’s committal hearing. The hearing is being held in Brisbane Magistrate’s Court to establish whether there is enough evidence to bring Sica to trial. It’s incredibly intriguing.
Sica’s lawyer, Sam Di Carlo, has been questioning the Singhs intensely for the past week in an attempt, as he says today, to “establish the likelihood of another person being responsible” for the deaths, in 2003.
Vijay Singh and his wife were in Fiji at the time the murders were carried out.
"If you are trying to prove that my husband is violent and that he is the cause of what happened let me remind you that we were in Fiji at the time," Mrs Singh said.
"I'm not trying to prove one or another person did it," Mr Di Carlo replied, referring to the crimes for which his client, Max Sica, is currently in court.
But there’s more.
Mrs Singh told the defence lawyer yesterday [20 August] she could not understand why the abuse she suffered at Vijay Singh's hands was "the main topic" of his questioning.
"In 25 years of marriage, 50 times being assaulted is just a minor thing," she said, insisting the attacks were irrelevant to her children's deaths.
"What are you driving at?"
Mr Di Carlo, who spent more than an hour quizzing Mrs Singh about her childhood, her husband's business dealings, his extra-marital affairs and the physical abuse she suffered, told her he simply had to do his job.
"I'm not driving at anything," Mr Di Carlo said.
"I understand your pain ... I don't think anybody can understand your pain but I'm doing the best I can."
and heres the 2nd half
ReplyDeleteVijay was on the stand earlier.
During another dramatic day of cross-examination by Sica's barrister Sam Di Carlo yesterday [17 August], Mr Singh said the accused man had influenced Neelma to lie when she wrote in an email about a threat by her father to chop her up.
Mr Di Carlo read out the email, allegedly written by Neelma to Sica in October 2002 when she and her mother, Shirley Singh, were in Fiji investigating an affair Mr Singh was having with a Fijian woman.
In the email Neelma allegedly wrote that she had confronted her father, who was then in Australia, about the affair and six or seven other women she believed he had been sleeping with.
"I spoke to Dad and blew the f--- out of him. He told me that when I get back to Brisbane he will cut me to pieces. He said he's going to bash us up and he's really going to do it."
Asked if the threat was made, Mr Singh said it was not, and that Sica was responsible for his daughter's words.
"He is the one who instigates very much my daughter to do that," he said.
"Why should I be saying that? I did not."
The trial continues, providing endless topics of conversation for the people of Queensland. In my view, Shirley’s prompt denial of guilt and her ready excuse that she and her husband were overseas at the time of the murders, makes her sound guilty. And her husband’s erratic temperament is also a matter of interest for a spectator.
The upshot of all the evidence is that Vijay Singh killed his children because he was sexually abusing his youngest daughter, Sidhi, 12. Son Kunal, 18, and daughter, Neelma, 24, also died. This may be because they were aware of the goings-on. In a traditional Indian family such as this, silence would have been rather more usual than the alternative.
Sica is an easy target for Singh because he violently disagreed with Sica’s (39) love affair with Neelma, which took place in 2002 and 2003. Vijay Singh claims that Sica threatened him, which is possible, but it seems unlikely to me that Sica did it. If Singh were really abusing his daughter, as Sica claimed, then he has motive. As for opportunity, he could easily have organised for another person to have entered the house and killed the children.
Vijay Singh further presents an unbalanced personality by admitting that he and his wife once fantasised about having sex with Sica. The children were killed with an religious rake, an accoutrement of a Hindu god.
posted by Dean at 11:43 AM
seems to me that the singh family think that everything they say will be believed by the public and the judge, i must say i admire the fact that the sica family has known many things about the singhs and has never tried to expose their affairs publicly. i think i'll take time to come again some day during the court proceeding of max sica.
ReplyDeletenot everyone is dumb and close minded, u can clearly see that the daughter had been lying constantly to her parents and since theyre not around to state otherwise, the singh family are trying to blame max sica for everything, i mean come on, anyone with any commonsense will know that if someone is in fiji and the partner is in australia, how can he influence the other to write things about how she wants her dad bashed and that the father had threatened her??? also, if i'm not mistaken, the girl was 24 years old, clearly not a baby, and able to make up her own mind. u cant say that max forced her to do things....i'm anxiuos to see the police evidence that proves that whether or not neelma and max were still seeing each other right up till the siblings were murdered as the family can say whatever they want, but the evidence will prove who is telling the truth. so far from what ive heard and seen, the singhs have already been caught out lying about certain things, as the mother and the father are saying 2 different things. this sure will be an interesting case when it unfolds, i'll be praying for justice for the sake of the children, as only god knows who the real killers are, and if max really is innocent, i have no doubt in my mind (and i believe that so would mrs singh as she has portrayed herself as one who believes in god) that his innocence will be proven and his name cleared. my prayers are with both max and the singh children for justice to occur.
ReplyDelete"Max was charged with the murders late last year because he was considered a flight risk and a threat"
ReplyDeleteYou do realise that someone cannot be charged with a crime just because they are a flight risk and/or a threat? Evidence IS needed. It may not be overwhelming evidence, but it IS evidence none the less.
The police cannot charge someone based on the fact that they are believed to be a flight risk or a threat. Sorry, but it as simple as that.
Rosy previously stated,
ReplyDelete"On the day max sica discovered the bodies, he was with his son , his daughter and his niece. (aged from 5 to 11 yrs of age) He had passed by with the kids to see if they (the singh children) wanted to go to the movies." Yet they were all murdered in their beds. what time was he planning on going to the movies!
Sounds like a very strange alibi to me!
god is watching he is guilty
ReplyDeleteRosy previously stated,
ReplyDelete"On the day max sica discovered the bodies, he was with his son , his daughter and his niece. (aged from 5 to 11 yrs of age) He had passed by with the kids to see if they (the singh children) wanted to go to the movies." Yet they were all murdered in their beds. what time was he planning on going to the movies!
Sounds like a very strange alibi to me!
IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE COMMENT MADE
I suggest you find out what time the bodies were discovered, and where and how they were discovered before you speak. Also you say strange alibi, i ask you why he would need an alibi to go there in the first place..... please use a bit of common sense.
Question.
ReplyDeleteIf he was just going to ask if they wanted to go to the movies, why would he go around the back and then break into the house just to ask them to see a flick with him?
He never went round the back and broke into the house, the door was unlocked, the cars were still there and no one answered the phone, like stated at committal hearing.
ReplyDelete