In 1997, Anu Singh killed her boyfriend Joe Cinque.
She planned for weeks, told her friends, sedated him and injected him with a lethal dose of heroin. It took 36 hours for him to die.
It has been 18 years and she says she still doesn’t know why she did it.
The couple were living together in Canberra when Singh, a law student at the Australian National University at the time, injected Cinque with the dose of heroin after sedating him with Rohypnol.
He did not die immediately, instead it took more than a day and he died slowly in their bed, while Singh watched on.
“I don’t think you can ever atone for something like that,” she told News.com.au journalist Ginger Gorman when they met in a suburban Sydney coffee shop recently. “What I did was a horrible thing.”
One of the most disturbing aspects of the case was that Sigh’s actions appeared premeditated – she had told a university friend of her plan to kill her boyfriend and later herself.
Word spread among their social circle and on the night of Cinque’s death several of her friends, some of whom knew about the plan, attended a dinner party at the couple’s house.
No one stopped her. No one warned him.
Top Comments
There are some Important considerations in this case:
1) although mentally ill the law student had the ability to ensure her parents did t find out, meticulously plan and rehearse murder and investigate what would be needed for an insanity defence beforehand.
2) her behaviour had all the hallmarks of an abusive relationship. She controlled him, cut him off from friends and decided to murder him when he said he was leaving. She then manipulated courts like lots of abusers do.
3) although she was able to have her parents vouch for her mental aspects, she had been anorexic, hardly surprising they had mental concerns.
Extreme case of abuse and manipulation.
Singh is very cunning. I recommend reading the transcript of Phillip Adams' interview with Singh in 2004, to get a perspective on how she manipulates. She has become a lawyer using legal tactics to explain away her crime, which she refers to in third person impersonal, like: "It just happened", which serves to separate her from the act, as if it had nothing to do with her. If she'd had a trial by jury, not just by judge alone, I believe she would have been convicted of murder, not manslaughter. I empathize with Joe's parents and family. How must they feel to have this abominable woman publicizing her case continually, at their expense, to their grief.