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 .........................
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
what do you think about the decision to go to trial?
ReplyDeleteThe 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 already spent $20 million they are not going to give up on it now are they.....
ReplyDelete