Is that not the idea to show she right out lied or at best had the police officer put words into her mouth?
She virtually begs to stay on the case when the police advise her that they would have to let her go as in 5 yrs she got nowhere. She asks for a few more weeks and she says she is sure to get a confession. She also says that she cannot wear a wire or she wont act natural. More like she then wont be able to make up stories so she can stay in the lime light.
She has in the past put her own father in jail convincing her younger sister she was molested by him...only to later be proven was all made up on a pack of lies.
She has many mental issues all relating to be the center of attention as attested to by a few psychologists.
Max Sica`s walk through of the crime scene (again not fully shown to the jury) shows him breaking down in tears and saying that she (Neelma) should have called me, i would of saved them. He says this over and over again. He is in total shock and has to be assisted from the Singh house. No one should have been made to go into that house again.
They did not produce Doctors evidence to show Max Sica suffers from a phobia of seeing blood.
The police themselves say that in 8yrs, they have not found one woman or child that Max Sica had ever abused or hit. You dont go from not abusing anyone straight into murder.
Why did the prosecution not call all the neighbours who heard the bone chilling screams that were heard coming from the direction of the Singh home between the Easter Monday night and the early hours of the Tuesday morning?
Because the police documentation itself says that they must make time of murders on Sunday early Monday as Max Sica had firm alibi for other times.
The painter who saw Sidhi Singh outside the front door of the house on the Monday morning again was not called and his full interview not shown.
They could have called not less that 22 witnesses to prove Max Sica`s whereabouts from Sunday night to the Tuesday but did not follow through with statements. It did not suit their case.
The police own psychic that has helped them solve other cases told them it was not Max Sica but a large big Asian or Indian man and a small man of Indian appearance...and surprise, surprise, at the crime scene was found a size 8 pair of Indian thongs with blood on them that police lost, and a XXL white t-shirt.
A partial face and earprint made with blood did not match Max Sica or any of the Singh children.
Police chose not to send the unidentified finger prints found around Neelma`s bed head because they said that it would cost too much...are we for real???what b.s.
No mention that Mr Singh was under investigation by Australian Federal Police. No mention that he allegedly stole a drum of drugs from his drug associates. Street value of 2 to 350.000 dollars.
He owned many properties in Australia and Fiji, yet the police accountant stated that it was very odd as he declared a taxable income of only $17.000. When he told his superiors about this, they told the accountant not to look any further into Mr Singhs finances. WHY???
His own daughter (sidhi singh) who was 12yrs old at the time, charged the father with sexual abuse. On an audio tape Mr Singh tells his wife...you know i like it...this only a couple of months before she was killed. Thus this investigation was cancelled.
Neelma hated her father and Kunal brought shame to the family by also dealing in drugs and stealing. The oldest living child is the favoured child of Mr Singh. In fact, on a taped conversation, Mrs Singh says that Mr Singh and her oldest child Archana are the same. She says that they are both sick and both the same. She also accuses her husband of molesting the oldest child when she was little on that same recording.
How would one person kill three people and not one of them call for help, try to run or try to bite, kick and scratch their attacker?
There are many hours of police interviews that the jury was not allowed to see. WHY NOT? Because it did not suit their case. That is not fair. All statements and witnesses should be called but due to QLD old outdated law, it was not allowed to be placed before the jury.
One can only hope that at least one jury member has common sense and also is strong enough to stay strong and not be persuaded by the others.
The channel 7 documentary show said....it was shocking that the jury not see the evidence that they had seen and that after the trial they can air it all on TV. BUT that by then is too late. Why wait for an injustice to happen first..............
No comments:
Post a Comment