Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Max Sica charged with Singh murders

I just heard the news.

Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi's parents will be relieved.

It's been five years. Finally it appears the police have sufficient evidence.

Now the trial.

Thinking about making this a no-comment thread. Too many bush lawyers, too many people named Anonymous.
Anonymous, please put a name on your comments, even an initial, or I will delete the latest one - have to have one rule for all.


Anonymous said...

It is really good. But the defence is saying the Govt has no new evidence. Time will tell. Mehaul

Anonymous said...


kae said...

I'm sorely tempted to delete your comment because you're shouting.
If you want to comment, please don't shout. (The use of upper case,, or capitals, is considered shouting.)

Anonymous said...

I was at the bail hearing on friday 2 january. All i can say is that the public does not know the full extent of what was actually said on that recording between Mr singh and Max Sica. The only thing i clearly understood is that Max Sica was there on the request of Mr Singh`s wife. On that recording Mrs Singh was making accusations against her husband (in very graphic details) about what he had done to her, and her children. (including bashings of her children and sexual molestation) Max sica was in no way there to threaten the parents of the singh children, As for the judge repremanding Max`s lawyer about not making certain comments to media about trumpt up charges, trial by media etc etc Well what about all the media coverage on Max Sica? Did anyone in authority try to stop the media when they hounded him and his family? Did police ever step up and at least write some wrongs that had been stated? Max Sica is having basically a Trial by Media. No new evidence was put forward at the hearing, Mr Carlo Sica never told his son to flee the country, and has always cooperated with police in every way shape and form as his son Max Sica has done. This case has been going on for nearly six years. Max Sica has been under scrutiny from police since the beginning. Is this a case of tunnel vision? Is the police under so much pressure to solve this case that putting away an innocent man is the answer? I ask where is the justice? Too much justice can sometimes be a great injustice.

Anonymous said...

flight risk?

Is this what the police say they have for charging Max Sica with the triple murders? They charged him because they consider him a flight risk? And of top of that they allege it was a taped conversation in 2006? In 2006 this man could have gone wherever he wanted to go, he was a FREE MAN. His was not on parole, he was not charged with anything, so i dont see the significance to begin with. I am also sure that they only presented part of a conversation on that taping. I am sure when the whole converstion is heard, it wont sound like they wanted to portray it at all. From the beginning this man has given police everything, dna, clothing, cars, footprints, earprints, his whole body was examined and photographed to see if he had any kind of markings on it (scratches, bruises defence wounds from victims) he did`nt even have a scratch. At the beginning, i remember that they didnt even acknowlegde that he was neelma`s boyfriend, it was stated that he was infatuated with her, stalking her etc etc. Now i see the papers are regarding him as the ex-boyfriend. Max Sica had always protected those kids, and their mother from the violence of their father, MR SINGH. I dont see police investigating and scrutinizing him. It also seems to me that the media is suffering from partial deafness and blindness, since they do not report what they truly hear, see and read. This is one of the greatest injustices ever. Seems more like a circus to me than anything else. If this would`nt be so serious and devastating, it would be commical.

Anonymous said...

Go to www.max-sica.blogspot.com It`s not there to prove his innocence, but it does make you kinda think. Im no einstien, but you get the picture

Anonymous said...


Please do read this article. Just goes to show that there are many pictures in this story

Anonymous said...

IMHO you won't even end up on the wrong side of the courtroom if you don't do anything wrong.

max sica is a sick man, a dangerous sick man. he murdered one of my best friends and after almost six years its finally time that he paid for what he did. sidhi was a beautiful, talented, funny girl with a wicked sense of humor and she deserves justice.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kae said...

Anonymous comment deleted.
jayje has a right to comment, you don't have the right to be abusive.
Any abusive or threatening comments will be deleted.

Anonymous said...

I am astounded as to the story that has come out in the courier mail about the Singh`s sueing Max Sica for trespassing and other costs. Are they going to sue the three kids(his son and daughter aged 5 and ll at the time and his niece aged 10)that were with him on that day as well? Where is this all going? Jayje and you are right to say that Sidhi and also Neelma and Kunal deserve JUSTICE, and they will definitely not get it if an INNOCENT man is put away for it. Here is the link to the latest article: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25246888-2,00.html?from=public_rss

Cercidas said...

Is the moderator (Kae) meant to be biased or fair and open-minded? Her first comment seems to (perhaps inadvertantly) lean towards a bias.

If you want fair blogging, changing your opening comment might be recommended.

kae said...


Which comment are you referring to?

Is it one by me or by a commenter?

Anonymous said...

Think he might be this one Kae....

I just heard the news.

Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi's parents will be relieved.

It's been five years. Finally it appears the police have sufficient evidence.

Now the trial.
(Thrown at the page by kae) at 8:21 PM
Labels: charges, murder, singh

kae said...

Sorry to whoever emailed me that they thought it was my main post that Cercidas was referring to, I've lost the comment!

The main post for this entry on my blog stated:

I just heard the news.
(with a link to the newspaper article about Max Sica being charged with the murder).

Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi's parents will be relieved.
(Perfectly understandable, they believe what they believe and would be angry at the seeming lack of action by the authorities. But they'd also be relieved that someone has been charged.)

It's been five years. Finally it appears that the police have sufficient evidence.
(I'd say that this is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. The police can not charge someone with a crime unless they believe they have enough evidence, because they'd just be wasting their time and the courts' to prosecute a case without sufficient evidence, and with double jeopardy a guilty party could get away with their crime. An Indian friend of mine was upset and cranky that the police seemed to be doing nothing; he said maybe it was a racist thing, they were only Indian... I pointed out to him that the police had to be sure they had the evidence to make the case and it would be foolish of them to arrest a suspect without sufficient evidence to prove a case.)

Now the trial.
(Nothing is proved; the case may go any way. Sica is not convicted. We just wait and see.)

Now, where in that lot did I express a view that Max Sica is guilty as sin or as innocent as a newborn babe?

I don’t think that my post needs changing (not my first comment, comments are these things under the post) because I don't think that what I have said is biased).

I know nothing about the case except that the children were murdered and found in the home and Sica had a relationship with the elder daughter. And that the parents want to know what happened to their children.

Cercidas said...

TO quote the top banner:

I just heard the news. Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi's parents will be relieved.

It's been five years. Finally it appears the police have sufficient evidence.

Now the trial.
Thrown at the page by kae at 8:21 PM

By 'bias' I mean this: your 'welcome banner' makies out as if the person who has been caught *is* the perpetrator. We have a trial system to work that out. Trial by media = dangerous and usually wrong.

I would recommend you rewrite your banner blurb to remain unbiased or state your leanings.

kae said...

I think you are mistaken, Cercidas.

(It's not the top banner, it's called a 'post'.)

Nowhere there have I said that he did or didn't do it.

I don't think my post is biased at all.

Just Another Bloody Lawyer said...


Sorry for the late response.

My Two cents worth is that Cercidas is full of it. Your original post was reasonable, even without the further explanation/clarification above.

You are of course correct that the Police must (should) have sufficient evidence to charge a person and have those charges survive the committal stage.

Whether the Crown chooses to indict and whether a jury, with the benefit of hearing all the evidence and argument in the case, will be satisfied of Mr Sica's guilt to the requisite standard, are of course other questions entirely.

What I am concerned about, is the anonymous contributions above, which sail a bit close to the wind. Further they have the stink of a viral campaign about them. Whoever authored them clearly found your post by searching for Max Sica. The purpose of the comments maybe to insure that if any potential juror performed a similar search that they will come across what is essentially a special plea on his behalf. I could of course be jumping at shadows but you might, particularly if any similar comments begin to appear, consider deleting the post or quarantining it until after Mr Sica is dealt with by the Courts.

Cercidas said...

"Two cents"? You're funny. The interpretation is Kae's comment - "Finally it appears the police have sufficient evidence."

"Appears" and "sufficient" in the same sentence *could* be treated as being biased. In normal conversation, this abberation could be ignored; however in such a heated and polarised topic (as can be seen in this blog alone), these words can easily be misunderstood and thus, seen as 'bias'.

I agree with "Just Another Bloody Lawyer" in the sense that some comments should be quarantined for the sake of a fair trial. Mr Lawyer already has wind that this may not be the case, depending. This is why it is critical to NOT bias the statements, no matter to what degree.

The trial will be ... interesting. I would been keen to know whom they bring up as witnesses, professional and other.

Cercidas said...


My comments were obviously not posted. Reason?

"Just Another Bloody Lawyer":
It was necessary to explain; you as a 'lawyer' should recognise and understand that. As for myself being "full of it" ... I don't appreciate your comments.

Unknown said...

To Just Another Bloody Lawyer and Cercidas,

I understand your concerns regarding keeping some comments off the blog for a fair trial, but it seems to me that there has been extensive media coverage on this case and most of them bias in the sense that Max was the only one that was targeted and if this were to be a fair trial,there should have been no media coverage or at least fair media coverage, but that has not been the case.

As for your comment Mr Lawyer
[The purpose of the comments maybe to insure that if any potential juror performed a similar search that they will come across what is essentially a special plea on his behalf.]
well all I can say is that if this case is going to be a 'trial by media' which it is, then why not allow someone very close to Max to say something positive for a change? If you ask me judge or jury on this case probably already have a bias opinion of Max and it would do no harm in showing another side to this story.

I am not trying to make any plea for or against Max..If he is guilty may he be punished for it and if he is innocent may he go free. My concern has to do with justice. Is this not a country where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Where a person who had not even been charged with a crime, have media hounding him and reporting his every move... things that had nothing to do with the case. Yet, why was the public not informed of police reports and DVO made against Mr. Singh? Is this not a country where people should have a Fair Go? Kudos to Australian newspaper reporter Elisabeth Wynhausen for her article on January 10 for at last providing the public with another side to this case.

babyblues said...

I'd like to share with everyone some things I know about Max Sica. I know he has a history of manipulating people younger than him. The co-criminals in the Ashgrove arson case were younger than him and influenced by him. Then there were the young girls. Having a girlfriend didn't stop him from pursuing them. Need I point out that Neelma was a lot younger than him. Max Sica is not a good man, and I know there are other people out there who have suffered from having known him.

kae said...

I've received your comment and I can't post it at the moment because the court case is being conducted at the moment.
I suspect there's a lot to this case and as I've said before in this thread it will come out during the court case.
I hope you understand.

Anonymous said...

Thankyou for at least having that thought.

kae said...

I'll probably put it up at the end of the court case.

C.K. said...

Anonymous : Considering you know so much about Mr Sica can you confirm or deny if Mr Sica has served a prison sentence previously for fire bombing a police station. Arson.

Dauser said...

Brisbane man Massimo "Max" Sica has been indicted on 20 child sex charges in the District Court.

The charges include one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a girl under 16 years, two counts of rape, six counts of unlawful carnal knowledge with a child and nine counts of indecent dealing with a child.

It is alleged the girl was aged between 9 and 13 at the time of the offences, between 2004 and 2008.

The matter has been adjourned until May 10 in the Brisbane District Court.

kae said...

Thanks for that information Dauser.
I heard it on the news today. No reference to anything else, just these bare details, the same if you google his name in news.

We will not be told who this child is, to protect them.

Comments are still moderated.

Anonymous said...

I know it's up to the defence to throw suspicion elsewhere but what do the Singh's sexual practices have to do with anything? From what I have been lead to believe, there are plenty of 'swingers' who frequent clubs and attend private parties and there are also many people who enjoy voyeurism, have affairs, sleep with younger people, etc. but that doesn't mean they are out there killing families.

There are some who stand by Mr. Sica and proclaim his innocence but I have yet to read anything that states why they believe this to be true. Because Mr. Sica says so? Because they were his alibi on the day in question? Because they can't believe him capable of such a horrendous crime?

On the other side of the coin, what solid evidence does the prosecution have against the man? It's conceivable that the police have tunnel vision. Afterall, Mr. Sica is not beyond reproach as evidenced by his years in prison for arson. Apparently it's not a huge leap from arson to murder as profilers and psychiatrists have documented in the past. Nonetheless, there seems to be a lack of solid evidence that proves he is irrefutably guilty.

I am very interested to see how this plays out and hope that in the end the truth will be known.

Anonymous said...

Massimo Sica, is the latest victims of the Qld incompetent police force,
they need a scape goat becouse they cant find the real assassin.
I beleive that it is some one that new there father for what he was doweng in India smugleling car parts, and some one that he knew come here with the boat kill the kids,and left with the boat agian.
Leiving no trace of any one coming from India at the time of the murder be commited.
I suggest to the police investigator to search for all people that the kids father knew and had dealing with is business and you will find the murder.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I am not aware of any mention of India being made at any time and given that the Singh's originate from Fiji, I would have to ask if there is something you know that no one else does. Perhaps you should report this to the 'incompetent' Queensland police. As the Coastguard, AFMA and Australian Navy patrol the seas, all arrivals and departures via the sea would be recorded. Unless all three of those organizations are also incompetent, I doubt that it is that easy to arrive, commit a crime and return without detection.
In addition, the perpetrator was obviously known to the victims as there was no evidence of forced entry to the Singh's home. This does not make Mr. Sica automatically guilty but one can certainly understand why the police have thrown their suspicions in Mr. Sica's direction.