THE judge in the Max Sica murder trial has warned the jury not to pay attention to information in the public arena, which could be "plain wrong or misleading".

Justice John Byrne also said the statements of witnesses, not lawyers, should be considered evidence.

Sica, 42, has pleaded not guilty to murdering Neelma Singh, 24, Kunal Singh, 18, and Sidhi Singh, 12, at Bridgeman Downs, on April 21, 2003.

Justice Byrne, whose summing up was interrupted by a bomb scare at another courtroom in the Supreme Court building, had told the jury they would hear from a summing up under 252 key points.

He sad he would direct them on the law that applies but they were to determine the facts of the case.

Justice Byrne said the jury would then apply the law as explained to them to the facts they found.

"You are the sole judges of the facts ... you must strive for an unanimous verdict, guilty or not guilty," he told the jury.

Justice Byrne warned the jury that the answers of witnesess was the evidence, not statements by the lawyers.

"In short, a thing suggested by a lawyer is not evidence," he said.

Justice Byrne also emphasised that no external influence such as media reports, textbooks or internet should play a part in the deliberations.

He said sometimes information in the public arena was plain wrong or misleading.

Justice Byrne said the jury should only draw inferences which were based on facts prioved by evidence.

Evidence may be accepted in whole or in part, he added.

Justice Byrne also warned the jury that in general powers of observation and retention of memory of what was seen or heard were "fragile".

"Minds do not fucntion like recording machines," he said.

COMMENTS FROM ABOVE NEWS ARTICLE

He said sometimes information in the public arena was plain wrong or misleading.

The above statement was made by the judge in the news article. Well i can tell you that from the beginning, there has been misleading or plain wrong information given to the public by not only the newspapers themselves, but even with the police information itself. Fragile minds and minds that do not function like machines he says.......

WHOSE MINDS is he alluding to? Witnesses who were questioned the same day or the following day in which the bodies were discovered? Or is he alluding to police who made Max Sica their prime suspect only hours after he had discovered the bodies (and in my opinion) had tunnel vision and did not bother investigating in full all other leads presented to them? Or maybe the witnesses that never got to use their minds because they were not called up to give evidence?

The crowns case is practically based on assumptions, circumstances, suggestions....A man and his 3 children,his wife and his family`s whole lives are at stake for this. I only hope and pray that true justice takes its course and that an innocent man does not pay the price.

The edited list Mr Di Carlo gave the jury:

10. ''You could not be satisfied there was a full and proper investigation.

9. You could not be satisfied there was a proper and full investigation into Fiji [where the Singhs' parents were on holiday at the time of the

8. There are [finger]prints outstanding at the Singh house that are identifiable but to date have not been identified. There is always the chance that sometime down the track they may be identified.

7. The unexplained but dismissed as distractions of the blood-stained sandal in Neelma's room, the cup, the t-shirt and the blue bucket.

6. In the five years and eight months, Sica did not run away and despite the deployment of undercover police, listening devices and tracking devices, they were not able to produce one iota of direct evidence.

5. The failure to delete from Neelma's phone the 8.56 message "See you later, coming down with something."

4. The compete lack of any evidence of a violent disposition on Max's part, despite an abundance of provocative incidents.

3. No one person could engage in such blood letting, carried bodies to a spa, carried blankets and bed linen to a spa and then so thoroughly clean a house of that magnitude that every single trace of his presence and involvement in the murder is erased in the window the Crown contends.

2. The investigation has failed to identify who was at the door around 8.30pm on Easter Sunday and why was it necessary for Neelma to cut her conversation with her sister to answer the door when Kunal and Sidhi were home. Ask yourself who used this cup that they didn't get the DNA from in Neelma's room.

1. Reasons you couldn't be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused: Not one iota of the victims' DNA, blood, or other bodily fluids or bleach etcetera was detected on Max Sica, his clothes, his cars and not one iota of Max Sica's DNA, blood, other bodily fluids, hair etcetera was detected at the crime scene and I ask you to compare that with the minuscule amount they found in respect to Johnson and Daffy [two identified DNA samples in the house] which had been left some considerable period of time before on one small square of carpet.''