DETRIMENTAL PUBLICITY........

LAWYERS for accused triple murderer Max Sica today failed in a bid to have his trial on other unrelated charges to be brought on as soon as possible.

There have been delays in setting up timelines for Mr Sica's after disputes about Legal Aid and which trial should go first.

Mr Sica is charged with the murders of Neelma Singh, 24, her brother Kunal, 18, and sister Sidhi, 12. They were found dead at their parents' Bridgeman Downs home on April 22, 2003. He was committed to stand trial for their murders last October.

Mr Sica has also been committed to stand trial on unrelated matters in the District Court.

The District Court in Brisbane heard today Mr Sica had effectively been in custody on remand since February 2009 on both the murder charges and the unrelated charges which involve allegations of sexual offences.

He has pleaded not guilty to both sets of charges. The court heard Mr Sica was arrested on sexual offences and got bail on them but was then arrested on the murder charges in late 2008.

He had been regarded as being on remand for both sets offfences since a magistrates court hearing in February, 2009. Mr Sica's lawyer Kerry Douglas said her client wanted to get the sexual matters dealt was as soon as possible.

Ms Douglas said because of the nature of the non-murder charges Mr Sica had been denied the right to see his daughter for 2-1/2 years.

"He is innocent and will be found not guilty of them and wants them out of the way as soon as possible.

"We can then attack the murder charges," she said.

Judge Milton Griffin, SC, said no one could say anyone would be found not guilty of anything. He said it would seem the best course would be for the District Court trial to follow the murder trial in the Supreme Court.

"Having an earlier trial will attract publicity that could be detrimental to Mr Sica's murder trial," he said.

However. Ms Douglas said her client wanted to abandon that submission and have a District Court trial as quickly as possible.

Judge Griffin said he would reject the request from Ms Douglas and relist the matter for May 23. He said at that stage dates may have been set for the Supreme Court trial.



THE JUDGE SAYS:
("Having an earlier trial will attract publicity that could be detrimental to Mr Sica's murder trial," he said.)

What more possible publicity could be detrimental to Mr Sica`s murder trial? The publicity on Mr Sica has been relentless since the beginning. Mr Sica has already been having a lengthy trial by media even before he was ever charged with anything.

Mr Sica was given bail on the sex charges only to then be arrested for the murder charges a couple of months later. They (at the time he was given bail) obviously did not think he was a threat, a flight risk, or anything else.

Mr Sica has never fled the jurisdiction since the discovery of the murders in April 2003. He has always co-operated with police and given them everything they asked for. He has been under constant surveillance in the way of.... phone taps, listening devices in his home, GPS tracking of his vehicles, police observing his moves and following him, and the use of undercover police. This all shortly after the murders in 2003.

This blog states certain facts and truths then logically all are entitled to their own opinion. This blog gives the whole picture and not only sensational headlines.

Innocence is a presumption for anyone who is charged with a crime, especially if one is truly innocent (as i believe Max Sica to be).