GOING TO TRIAL

The Sica family has known from the very beginning that this case would go to trial, it is no surprise to them at all. The state has spent $20 million so far on this case. The Sica family have stood and will stand by Max 100%. The family and people who truly know Max know who he is.

For those few who have made extremely vile comments, i just hope that one day it does not happen to you or a loved one to be in a similar position and to know exactly what it feels like.

For those who leave a comment and claim to know the family personally, please do speak with the family im sure they would be quite interested in all aspects of what it is you have to tell them.

Thank you to all the people who support Max and to others that dont know him or know much about this case but at least have the decency to comment appropriately, without being Judge, Jury and executioner, for this is only (in my opinion) a sign of ignorance.

BRISBANE TIMES ARTICLE IN PAPER TODAY 5/10/10

Sica witness denies lying
Amelia Bentley
October 5, 2010 - 5:00AM

A friend of slain teenager Kunal Singh has denied creating a story to help implicate Max Sica in the Singh siblings' murders, in order to remove suspicion he was the killer.

In Brisbane Magistrates Court yesterday, Anil Jaga refused to answer several questions thrown at him by Mr Sica's defence barrister Sam Di Carlo, who accused him of lying to detectives.

Mr Sica, 40, is accused of the grisly murders of Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi Singh, whose bodies were found in a spa in their home at Bridgeman Downs, in Brisbane's north, in April 2003.

Police allege he killed her, along with her brother and sister, following an argument at their home, while their parents were in Fiji on business.

Today, a tape was played in court showing Mr Jaga agreeing to become a police informant to feed detectives information on Mr Sica in August 2005.

At that time, Mr Sica was under investigation for the murders. He was not arrested and charged until late 2008.

Mr Di Carlo asked Mr Jaga if he made up information he gave to the police.

"Did you tell these lies in order to inculpate Max Sica as to exculpate yourself for murdering Kunal, Neelma and Sidhi?" he asked.

"No," replied Mr Jaga.

"Did you do it to get your 15 minutes of fame?" he asked.

"No," replied Mr Jaga.

Mr Jaga, who the court heard had known Kunal since primary school, refused to answer whether police officers told him they were determined to "get Max Sica" because they had made up their mind he was the killer.

Mr Jaga is not first witness in the case Mr Di Carlo has suggested were involved in the deaths.

He asked the siblings' father Vijay Singh if he had organised the murders and had "set up" Mr Sica.

"No way," Mr Singh said.

The committal hearing continues.



This is what was printed in paper regarding yesterday`s witness court appearance.
The heading of the article WITNESS DENIES LYING is a joke in itself. All Mr Jaga ever did was lie through his teeth. There are many video tapes of police interviews with Mr Jaga where it tells the story as it is .....
Another thing this article did not mention (i guess because the reporters were there for only a relatively short time)is that Mr Jaga was never charged for commiting purjury and obstructing the course of justice.
READ POST BELOW THIS ONE .........................

WITNESS FABRICATES EVIDENCE ABOUT SICA CARRYING FRIENDS DEAD BODY

Today (Monday 4th October) a witness by the name of Anil Jaga was called in by defence. This witness was informed by the judge that since he could incriminate himself, he didnt have to answer the questions put to him, so if he chose to, he could respond with "I do not wish to answer".

Mr Jaga had gone to police in 2005 and stated that he was at the scene of the crime on Sunday 20th April 2003. He said he had parked his car in a nearby street and not in front of the house. He said that he went there to see his friend Kunal Singh and that when he got there he looked through the glass panel of the front door and saw Mr Sica carrying Kunal Singh`s body over his shoulder on the stairway. He also tells police that he then went through the back entrance to see what was going on and that he had a video camera with him. He then told them that he was taping and that he thought Mr Sica had seen him so he ran out of the house down the street and hid the tape in a drain (just in case Mr Sica caught up with him). He says that when he went to retrieve this tape (one week later) it had rained so the tape was ruined.

Tapes were shown in court today of Mr Jaga at the police station. On these tapes you see Mr Jaga making the above statements to police. Police at one point ask Mr Jaga to sign a document making him a police informant. Mr Jaga continues to say that what he saw is true, he also says a lot of other things about Mr Sica, this goes on for about three and a half months.

He and Katrina (Kunal Singh`s then girlfriend) were romantically involved some time after Kunal Singh`s death. He had also told her what he had told police like he also told his mother and a few other people. There were apparently different versions by him said to these people than the version he had told police. Police had said to Mr Jaga before this (and on more than one occasion) that if he was making it up, he still had a chance to come clean and that if he didnt and they found out he had been lying, he could be prosecuted. Mr Jaga was also asked by police to take a polygraph test at about that time. (to which when asked in court today if he had taken that polygraph test his answer was, "i do not recall") Police start to question the validity of Mr Jaga`s claims so they confront him. His mother is seen on tape at a police station waiting for her son to enter the room. Her son, a female and male officer enter the room and start to question him. They tell him that things dont add up and that if he is lying he should tell the truth. They continue on and say to him do it for your mother, tell the truth, you say you love your mother so much, then they say, do it for Sidhi (the youngest Singh sibbling) she was a child, she didnt deserve this, then they say do it for Katrina, (i did not hear anyone say, do it because what you did is just wrong) Why did they want to make him confess in the presence of his mother?

Mr Jaga then says, yes, its true, its all a lie ALL HE SAID ABOUT MR SICA WAS A LIE. Police respond by saying he did an honorable thing, that it was commendable what he tried to do etc etc. The Male officer says to Mr Jaga that some damage had been done and that there would need to be some sort of damage control. The female officer asks Mr Jaga if Mr Sica was aware of what he had been saying, Mr Jaga responds, no, i told you, it was all a lie. The female officer says, we need to know if Mr Sica has knowledge of you saying this, if he does, we need to put you under police protection.

There is so much more that was said by Mr Jaga and it will be made available at some stage.

In court today Mr Jaga was asked many questions to which he responded, "i do not wish to answer", "i do not recall" and a no here and there. When he was asked why he would fabricate such a story his answer was "i do not wish to answer". He was asked if the Singh`s would have asked him to fabricate the story as to inculpate Mr Sica, he answered "no", he was asked if he fabricated the story to inculpate Mr Sica as to disculpate himself from committing the crimes and had killed Kunal, Sidhi and Neelma, he answers "i do not wish to answer".

Mr Jaga is asked if he was ever charged for lying and for obstruction of justice, he answers "i do not wish to answer" He is then told by the judge that he can answer that question and should, Mr Jaga then responds, NO.

So Mr Jaga is practically given a pat on the back and honored for waisting police time, fabricating evidence and more, he also had his rights on the stand not to answer questions so not to incriminate himself, and then WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH PERJURY. On a tape you see an officer tell Mr Jaga, we dont want Max Sica to walk (incase Mr Jaga was making up the story then in 2005) but Mr Jaga got to walk, talk commit an offence and not get charged.

Today in court there were a couple of female reporters, (courier mail and Brisbane times i think) they stayed for a short while and then left.

Tomorrow Ms Bowman will be further cross examined and then Mr Jaga will be back on the stand.

Like i have already stated, unless you are in the same position of having the whole weight of the law on top of you and unless you know all the facts, you just dont have the whole picture.

Lead Detective Leaks Evidence Of CMC Documents To Witness - WHERE WAS THE MEDIA?

Detective Senior Sergeant Joeseph Zitny prepared a 9 page document, which contained a "summary" of Ms Andrea Bowmans testimony during the CMC inquiry in 2006 and emailed it to her for the preparation of her statement, a court has been told.

Ms Bowman was asked repeatedly about the process she had adopted to prepare her statement, and said that she had used media articles, emails, text messages, notes, etc, but did not recollect the 9 page CMC document.Mr Di Carlo produced and email from Mr Zitny to Ms Bowman dated the 11th of march 2009, to which was attached a 9 page summary of what Ms Bowman had told the court at the CMC hearings in 2006. Ms Bowman said that she could not recall Mr Zitny saying he'd provide a summary from the CMC transcripts for her statement, but agreed it was provided to her.

When asked about the conversation on the 22/04/08 which was recorded, Ms Bowman said that she had no recollection of Mr Sica saying to her, " (i wont give you what you want, why on earth out of all people would i tell you anything?)" but recalled Max had said this before, during the early days. Ms Bowman also had no recollection of Max saying to her, "IF I SAID THAT, (refering to the remorse statement that the media sensationalised) IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR ONE THING, AND ONE THING ONLY......." we will fill in the gaps later to avoid leading Ms Bowman as she is currently under cross examination. Or when he said "it appears you are trying to get me" or when Max asked her who the cops would use after her.

Mr Di Carlo asked why she couldn't recall much under cross examination and yet, was able to provide a chronological sequence of events, emails and phone conversations during evidence in chief and Ms Bowman agreed that she would look at her statement.

For five and a half years prior to his arrest on 30/12/08, and uptil today, Mr Sica has been through "trial by media." They were present for every raid, every police interview, every forensic procedure order carried out on Max. They even made headlines about him being booked for driving his brothers unregistered vehicle, despite max being unaware.

Ms Andrea Bowman has alledged that Max had made "partial confessions"' to her. Where is the media I wonder, as the polices' "star" witness is being cross examined, and evidence of official police misconduct is coming out. For the majority of this commital proceedings, the media has stayed away especially during cross examination of witnesses.Let's see if they will be present for another person who claimed to have witnessed Max killing the Singh children on 20/4/03 and later admitted that it was a lie.

The opportunity for the reporters to give Max at least a "fair" trial by media is here, (so if and when Max gets cleared of these or other charges, the public can know the facts) but whether they grasp that, is entirely up to them.Guess in the meantime, we just have to wait and see.........................