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.
No comments:
Post a Comment