Threatens To Expose Man As Paedophile, Then Kills Man's Children

[Ed: Who does he think he is? Janet Reno? ]

Queensland, Australia
A JUDGE will listen to a secret recording of Max Sica allegedly being told by his father to flee Queensland, before he decides whether to let the accused triple-murderer out on bail.

The prosecution told the Supreme Court in Brisbane yesterday that police had taped a conversation between Mr Sica and his father, Carlos, in September, 2006.

Mr Sica's father allegedly tells his son: "You go get yourself a ticket and get yourself out of here before it happens ... we can't do airport."

The tape allegedly contains evidence that Mr Sica was planning to go to Western Australia.

Mr Sica, 38, of Toorbul, north of Brisbane, was charged with three counts of murder four days ago, almost six years after allegedly killing his former girlfriend and two of her siblings.

The bodies of Neelma, 24, Kunal, 18, and Sidhi Singh, 12, were found at their family home in Bridgeman Downs, Brisbane on April 22, 2003.

Mr Sica is a former neighbour.

He applied for bail yesterday, represented by Michael Byrne, QC. He was not in court.

Mr Byrne argued that the conversation was more than two years ago and his client had not fled.

Justice James Douglas said now Mr Sica had been charged and faced a potentially heavy sentence if found guilty, there was a greater risk.

"I regard it (the tape) as significant," he said.

Mr Byrne said there was 'no logical or lawful basis' for bail to be refused, referring to the prosecution case as 'somewhat tenuous'.

During the bail application, Mr Byrne referred to an argument between Mr Sica and the father of the Singh children which took place weeks before the children were killed.

Mr Sica allegedly accused Vijay Singh of being a pedophile and of mistreating his children.

Mr Sica allegedly said: "I can cave your head in right now, you are a (expletive) pedophile ... I'll come here myself with the (expletive) cops and send you to jail."

Mr Byrne asked for an adjournment and that the tapes relating to Mr Sica being a flight risk be provided to the court so they could be put in proper context before bail was determined.

Director of Public Prosecutions Tony Moynihan, SC, said Mr Sica's defence team had wanted the matter brought on early and for them to seek an adjournment was 'absurd'.

Justice Douglas adjourned the hearing until January 27.

A committal mention date has been set for the Supreme Court in Brisbane on March 16.

Before closing the court yesterday, Justice Douglas warned Mr Sica's lawyer, Kerry Smith Douglas, of contempt of court if she continued making comments to the media which might be prejudicial after Ms Smith Douglas said the charges had been 'trumped up'.

"These are very serious charges, they must be tried fairly in the courts, not in the media," said Justice Douglas.

Outside the court, Carlos Sica wanted to say his son was innocent.

"If I knew my son did that, I'd kill him myself," he said.

Mr Sica said his son had been persecuted by the police and media.

"God witnessed who killed those kids," he said.


Anonymous said...

Max Sica did not expose the father of the victims being a paedophile, the father was exposed by his wife. You see Max Sica was called to the house by the victims mother. She had called him because she feared for her safety. On that taped conversation the wife is heard (in very graphic details) speaking about the abuse he (her husband)had caused to herself and her children (including bashings and sexual molestation)Max Sica was not the one doing the talking. On that taping Max Sica is saying put down the f ing weapon, the father is saying get out of my house, the wife is saying no Max i give you the right to stay here and protect me. You see i was there at that bail hearing and i know what has been stated in the papers, and what the truth is. I heard with my own ears. Character assassination is what is happening to Mr Max Sica. Isnt if funny that media can say whatever they want, truth of lies and get away with it. The police are under so much pressure to solve this case that putting away (what i consider to be) an innocent man is the answer

Anonymous said...,27574,24893019-2,00.html

read this and then see some truths being told.

Anonymous said...
see just a fraction of another side to this story. The part in the newspaper add which states judge to hear secret tape is a laugh in itself. Secret tape my foot. The so called recording was made in september 2006. People use your brains, dont you think if the police were sooooo afraid of him fleeing (or anything else) they would have gone to arrest him then and there? They presented this at his first bail hearing in 2009. They listended to the taping for nearly three years and then they decided the tape had material on it which would cause his immediate arrest? Then they only took snipets of the tape and not the whole conversation. But i guess its all in the name of justice right?

Anonymous said...

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Before reading the statement made below consider two facts:
1. The girl in question up until oct 2008 was a virgin. This proved by the states own doctors.
2. Police had max under surveillance for five yrs, so either max was the best at evading more than 47 police officers or they point blanked lied.
Use your brains. If you believe that max was the best then sack the government and police for being so incompetent.
If you believe in the latter that police lied, (corrupted and perverted justice) then sack the government and police and worry for your future and that of your children.


ALLEGATIONS. The word itself says it all. An "allegation" is what a person SAYS happened, but not what really happened. Thats why a number of people from the public is quick to jump at and decide a persons guilt from these "so-called" allegations, because to any ordinary person, when the police lay charges against someone, they immediately trust and believe that the police have fully investigated the matter and that they (police) are members of the law that can be trusted without question.

It is so unfortunate that we are unable to bring out the truth about the complainant child's allegations, as we do not want to give the child a chance to change her stories again. That's right, again. The child first told everyone that the offences would occur while people would be in the house, sometimes up to 5 other people, and that it would take place in all the rooms of the Sica residence, however when confronted by someone in front of two other witnesses, (one of which was the complainant child's mother) the child changed her stories. Initially she had said that the offences would occur in maxs room, however when this person told her that max had his room under video surveillance, she quickly said that it never happened in maxs room. The person then told her that all the other rooms of the house was under audio surveillance and that they'd be able to hear things. She then turned around and said that they never spoke about it, to which the person got frustrated and asked her, if they used sign language.

The police themselves who was investigating, following and surveilling Max (since 2003 for the triple murders with the states finest officers assigned to the case )admitted that there was no evidence to suggest that these offences had occurred. The child also told members of her family, the sica family and the family children that her friend (chloe-real names ommitted for legal issues) was drugged, raped and beaten by her friends mother's boyfriend and that she was pregnant. This story started in feb/march of 2008, yet some 6 months later when questioned by police, Chloe, the friend of the complainant child told the police that it never really happened and that it was all a DREAM that she had. Regarding the assault allegations, nothing came out of it as the police said that there had been "alibi witnesses".


Anonymous said...

Amazing how the police never once questioned any members of the sica family, including max's wife and children from the family. This is despite the fact that carlo sica, max's father, (the person who informed the police about the disclosures that the complainant child had made) AND ALSO A CROWN WITNESS told the police that max's partner was always with max everyday, like a leech. The complainant child herself told the police that after and before some of these offences, they had met up with other people in the family, including maxs partner. I wonder why they didn't even bother to go and confirm whether or not that really was the case.

It's just so unfortunate that we are unable to give examples as this will give the child a chance to change her stories once more.. Here's another one. The child started high school in 2008, she had a friend in primary school that she used to call her ''sister'' and her other half, someone that she knew for 3 years. She never once told her best friend about any of these allegations, yet opened up to more than 5 girls that she only knew for less than 6 months. The funny part is, those other girls themselves said they find it difficult to believe the complainant child as she has a habit of telling lies about everything and everyone. The police also knows that the child and her friends lied about a call that they alleged was made by max sica to the complainant child during school hours in november 2008, (shortly after max was granted bail over the sex charges) which they claim to have lasted over 30 mins. The phone records showed that the child did not recieve any such call and neither did her friends, and we all know that phone records don't lie.
Here's a real mind boggler........the complianant child alleged that an offence occurred in 2007, 5 days after her friend kim's birthday. (real names not provided due to legal reasons) kim, told the police herself that she did know the complainant child until 2008, when they started high school together. Even if u give the child the benefit of the doubt and say that it could have occured 5 days after her friends kim's birthday in 2008, things do not add up, as during that day in 2008, (which equates to be a tuesday) the complainant child's mother watched her daughter at her house as she was no longer working weekdays by then. It's a real pity that the complainant child's mother has not read the details of the allegations, because if she did, she herself would realise that her daughter has lied immensely.


Anonymous said...

The police did not take the child for a medical examination until after 6 weeks, after constant pressure from maxs parents, the child was taken to a medical center for examination by a gp. The gp told the court under cross examiantion in commital, that she did NOT examine the child's hymen at all after speaking to the sexual assault unit over the phone who advised her not to carry out the examination. She only took a specimen to check for bacteria culture and to look for urine infection. She HERSELF, from her own mouth told the court that she never once said that the child was not a virgin, as she did not examine her for that. however, when the complainant child went to the specialist, she told her that the other gp had said that she was definetely not a virgin. Even the mother of the complainant child said that the doctor said that "she thought that penetration had occurred", however the gp said that she never said that. how could she, when she did not examine the girls hymen??? even the specialist said that the childs hymen was fully intact, thick, and without any injury or abnormalities. (which is normally present in sexually active girls, especially if sex is occurring at least once a fortnight for 4 years) this piece of evidence is mind boggling too, especially if u consider the fact that the child herself told the police that "it hurt" her so bad on nearly every occasion they had sex and that sometimes it hurt her for days after as well, to the point where she would "whimper" and "cry" after urinating............wierd isn't it?

The most disgusting fact about the police is that they did not even bother to question anybody at all. don't they have a duty of care towards children?? How come they never questioned max's daughter, niece, son, and partner's brother??? (all of whom are ALIBI WITNESSES), the police would have known this if they had bothered to investigate everything properly. What if max had been molesting other children in the family??? what would the police say if this had turned out to be the case? where does their duty of care lie....I wonder. They did not attempt to question max's partner until the day they charged max with the allegations. After max was arrested and taken away by police, 2 female officers approached his partner and asked if she was willing to talk to the police, naturally, anybody that has common sense will know (and ask any lawyer) that once a person is charged, it is futile for ALIBI witnesses to talk to the police. The sadest part is, max's wife was always willing to talk to police if they had approached her, prior to arresting max. and it would have been better for the police case, as at that time the defense did not know the details of the allegations. If the police had simply asked a question such as "do u recall the night that ............................ and ...................?" (in due time all the evidence of the defense will fill in the gaps) that would have been enough to find out the truth. They did it in the complainant child's friends' case, i wonder why they didnt do that in max's. But i must give the police credit for "attempting" to talk to max's wife's younger brother. They went to the wrong address......this is ironic as shiv's (max's wife) parents have always rented, and tenancy information is readily available to police.


Anonymous said...

This case was the reason why the police ended up jumping the gun and charging max with triple murder. Max got charged with the sex allegations in late october, got bail 2 weeks later in mid of november, and arrested with triple murder a week after he got married in december to his partner for 5 years. The police knew that the child had lied but it was too late for them, as they couldn't have max get off the sex charges as it would prove to the public just how badly the police wanted him for the murders.
The lead detectives in the sex case was liasing with the lead detectives (mr zitny, homicide squad) from the murder investigation. Ironic part is, that mr zitny was working for the child protection unit in pine rivers that same year. This is the officer who denied under oath that max was a prime suspect in the triple murder. He had said that max was only ever a "person of interest" and that he didn't become the prime suspect in the killings until an year later, which was disproved with documentation which showed that max was a prime suspect in the killings within less than 12 hours of the discovery of the bodies. This is one of the reasons why max's family is fighting for max's bail so strongly, because they all were told by many lawyers to expect an arrest for the murders as the police will not want to look stupid in front of the public, and this way they could get him for one or the other set of charges. oh, did i forget to mention that 2 of the 20 sex charges alones carries 2 life sentences, which means, if convicted, max would be spending a minimum of 20 to 30 years behind prison? Just wait and see, the sex trial will occur early next year before the complainant child reaches the age of 16 and is able to be cross examined as an adult. It is a real pity that the police didnt do their job properly, as once the trial begins, they will look like real fools, especially when the alibi witnesses for the days in question are presented. Not only that, the alibi witnesses have got evidence to back up their witness testimonies, eg phone records, bank statements, photos, videos, passports, school records, POLICE records and many more will prove the extent to which the complainant child has lied and the lack of proper police investigation in this matter.

The police did not speak to many of the crown witnesses( child's friends, etc) until after max was arrested with the allegations. I pray that anyone that has commonsense can now understand the legal politics which surrounds the murder charges, moreso, due to the fact that police shot themselves in the foot when they jumped the gun and charged max with the murders when they realised that the child's story didnt add up........maybe thats why they didnt even bother to question any of the sica family members, because they knew that then, they (the police) will not be able to say in the end that they knew both sides of the story.
The police have always tried to taint max's name through trial by media, and what better opportunity then when a child is involved? please do not take our word for it, just wait until the trial starts and when the defense produces it's evidence. the family will naturally then come out to the media with the entire evidence, including a really long list of alibi witnesses, most of which are children. Think about it, the police was thorough in Chloe`s case and questioned people (from suspects side) to establish the childs creditability. I wonder why they never did that in max SICA`S CASE. They did not attempt to question the defences main alibi witnesses (which is common police practice) until after Max got charged.


Anonymous said...

Anyone that reads this, if u really are a person of truth and integrity, please pray that god shows the truth in this matter for both the sake of the complainant child (someone who max and shiv treated as if their own child) and for max, Amen. Mark my words, max will get vindicated by god, who knows and sees all, and if this does not come to pass, u can spit on our faces. Thats how much evidence the defense has, and guess what, it's really not evidence at all, its the TRUTH. and if it wasnt, then everyone apart from the complainant child is telling the truth, including people who don't know max personally but will be able to provide alibi witness testimony.

Watch the trial it will be very very enlighting and entertaining (because a circus will be made out of the legal system) and it will prove the many fundamental flaws in the QLD governement and QLD police system which has been seen from the Fitzgerald Inquiry right up until today. For example, the Graham Stafford case, Lindy Chamberlain case, Millard case just to name a few. Now Max Sica, who is going to be the man for this century.

this is not heresay, this is all fact which was heard at committal hearing for this alleged sex case.