Thursday, February 18, 2010

YES, POINTS OF INTEREST..........

Tristan SwanwickA SUPREME Court judge has described the Crown case againstaccused triple murderer Max Sica as"less than compelling".
Sica has been in custody sinceDecember 2008 when he was arrested for the murders of his former girlfriend Neelrna Singh, 24, and her siblings,Kunal, 18, and Sidhi, 12.
Justice Richard Chesterman, indismissing the ~ccused man's latest bid to be released on bail, said the only evidence capable of directly linking Sica to the 2003 murders was footprint impressions found at the crime scene." (However) it is not possible to say the extent! to which it might provide that link," he said in his written decision.
Justice Chesterrnan detailed evidence from Canadian policeman and expert in "footprint morphology"Robert Kennedy. Mr Kennedy had concluded that there was "strong support" for the theory that foot impressions found at the scene were made by Sica. However, under cross examination he changed his position by saying there was "support"for the theory, but not "strong support"."The footprints apart, the only evidence establishing the appellant's presence in the house on 20 April 2003 is circumstantial," JusticeChesterman said. "The most that can be said is that the Crown case is not without substance but is less than compelling."However Justice Chesterman, upholding the decision of the SupremeCourt in December to deny Sica bail, conceded that a proper assessment of the evidence could not be conducted until the completion of the committal hearing. Other evidence against Sica detailed by Justice Chesterman included:• Sica admitted visiting the Singhhouse on April 13, 15 and 17, but denied being present on April 20,when police believe the murder soccurred. • A text message to Sica found on Neelma's mobile phone suggested she expected him to visit on the night of the murders. • There was no sign of forced entry to the house. • Jewellery owned by Neelma, including an item given to her by Sica, had been stolen while other more valuable property was untouched. • Her diary was also taken. • A cigarette butt with Sica's DNA was found outside the rear door. • On the night after the killings, Sica activated a program to delete all data from his computer. Sica's committal hearing, which will determine if he will stand trial, is ongoing.
Justice Chesterman was scathing of defence lawyers' handling of the case, rejecting protests their client was "languishing in prison" and saying a six-month committal hearing was "unnecessary and wasteful".



(When police BELIEVE murders occurred being the key word. Plus they have statements from family members and others who saw him at home on thatEaster Sunday night)

(Max and Neelma also spoke via phone on that same Easter Sunday night at 11.10pm, txt message was sent at 8.57pm. Neelma was not feeling well that night and there is a statement of one of Kunal Singh`s friend saying that Kunal had told him not to come over that night because his sister was not well.)

(No sign of forced entry does not mean that Max was the only person they knew and would let in. They might have answered the door to someone whom they did not know or might have pretented to be in need of help so as to gain entry.)

(Not only Neelma`s jewellery was taken and why would Max have taken an item of jewellery that he had given her? A bloodied pillow was taken away from the scene of the crime and police did not even notice.)

(Neelma`s diary was taken, yes i wonder by whom and when it was taken.)

(Cigarette butts containing Max`s DNA were not only found outside the rear door but also in a make shift ashtray in the garage (along with butts which had Neelma`s DNA on them) and butts containing Max`s DNA were found near gutters and in grassaround the house. Max and Neelma use to smoke in the garage and outside the house.)

(As for the the program that was running on Max`s computer, it was a program called cyber scrub and anyone could have bought it or downloaded it from the internet. The police themselves have said that Max knew quite a bit about computers, well dont you think that if he wanted to get rid of whatever, he would have taken out the hard drive and smashed it to bits? For the only way of getting rid of data from your computer is by doing exactly that. As long as you have a hard drive, info can be retrieved. Even i know that and im not a computer expert of anykind. Police took the hard drive out and sent it to America and they have all the data that was on it.)

I would also like to add that police only theorize that the Singh children were killed on late Sunday night early Monday morning. Max had gone to pick up his kids at 7.15 am on Monday morning and they have proof of this. Also bone chilling screams that were heard at around 8.30pm Monday night and around 12 or 12.08am Tuesday morning have never been confirmed as not coming from the Singh house or from anywhere else. A Mr Paul Surri was adament he saw Sidhi Singh outside the front of her house on the Easter Monday morning, police tried to tell him that he must have been mistaken, but he insisted it was then. A man was seen at around 5.30 am Tuesday morning, two women taking a walk had seen him and when this man saw them coming, he apparently ran off towards the Singh house and jumped a fence. An identicate of this man was given to the police, i didnt see it on any newspaper or news program, i would have thought it would have been of great interest and importance. BUT im sure police have their reasons for proceeding the way they have, especially when Max was their prime suspect from the very first day. Please dont tell me that this would not entail them having tunnel vision and focusing mostly and primarily on Max Sica......... JUSTICE ........ as for Sam Di Carlo who is defending Max, all i can say is that this man has, and is, giving it his all. The police have had all these years to do their so called job, they have stated that this is one of the biggest criminal cases in QLD`S history, they have all the resources and back up house that they need, Mr Sam Di Carlo is then a superhuman who must with extremely limited resources, funds and back up try to defend someone who has been put in this position. Good job Mr Di Carlo, there should be more like you.

No comments:

Post a Comment