The following is a list of the Impossible or Implausible events that the Crown alleges occurred. The Crown has relied mainly upon the testimony of Joshua Rathmell. They have been sequenced together to create a highly debatable and inherently implausible scenario.

Impossible or Implausible, events in order:

Render the individual unconscious: How does one render somebody unconscious instantly? How do you achieve this without leaving a visible mark or any sign of trauma to either party? How do you ensure the individual remains unconscious for the entire duration of the 65.3 seconds?
Lift and transport the individual: Make no mistake, picking up an unconscious person requires significant strength. To transport them quickly and efficiently (remember this is alleged to have happened in 65.3 seconds) requires a combination of strength and endurance. Our experiments show that a larger male, weighing 100kg or more can perform the lift and carry of a female weighing 50kg with some exertion. Simon at the time weighed around 62 kg. Does this sound familiar to you? We recommend that you check the link to Gordon Wood’s case. Is this plausible given the time restriction? Could she have been dragged by her feet? Unlikely as this would have caused severe friction burns, which were not evident at the autopsy and would not have been affected by the fall. Could she have been dragged by her arms? No, as her shoes remained on her feet until after she fell – at which point a shoe was likely dislodged.
Turn right through the balcony door: The balcony door must be open as the additional time required to facilitate opening the door would further hamper the Crown Case. However, the balcony door was typically left closed.
Turn left on the balcony: When the scene was examined the shoes that were neatly arranged on the balcony were not disturbed.
Continue to the railing: Negotiate the limited room between the treadmill and make sure not to disturb the potted plant. If the potted plant had been knocked over there would have been soil and pebbles on the balcony. The potted plant was delicate, unstable and if disturbed would have been knocked over very easily – the pebbles and soil would cause a significant mess. Simon left the apartment immediately to call the lift, however, he returned briefly to grab a t-shirt. This is based on a learned behaviour as the lifts frequently took a very long time to call, especially on the weekend. He then proceeded to rush down to check on Lisa. He did not have access afterwards to clean.
Pause in front of the balustrade and scream or yell for 5 seconds: Firstly, why would one yell? To bring attention to the alleged event? For what purpose?

The last point is of particular interest here. In the first description of events provided by Joshua Rathmell to a police officer over the phone he states that he hears a “muffled sound”. This would make sense as he is over 90 meters away from the alleged sound source, which is coming from the 15th floor and he is also situated behind trees. The closest witness hears a brief loud sound and the others witnesses who are closer than Joshua also hear a soft and brief sound. In subsequent statements Joshua states he hears screams whilst the other witnesses do not markedly change their statements. How do those closer hear a softer sound of a shorter duration? This is left to the imagination.

This sequence of events is at odds with the concept of a “blind rage” as the alleged event has also been described as cold, meticulous and calculated. This makes no sense. Does an individual in a blind rage stop to consider his options? When does an individual in a blind rage make cold and calculated decisions?

During the committal Joshua Rathmell was questioned by the defence about a reference made regarding a sound that reminded him a junkie on an “ice bender” during the walk through video. When asked what he meant by that, he stated that having lived in Paddington and Darlinghurst he was familiar with people completely out of their wits, yelling and screaming. Interestingly enough, when he first heard the screaming he assumed that it was a junkie somewhere in the park or across the road on an “ice bender”. This was before he witnessed the incident. This is difficult to rationalise as it makes little sense. The time frames for Joshua Rathmell to determine the alleged source of the sound and witness the incident are very strict. Joshua Rathmell’s testimony is not corroborated by any of the other witnesses.

Once again, note the reference here – he is no longer talking about a “muffled sound”. It’s evolved into a screaming sound that could have easily been coming from somewhere in the park or across the road (the time frame is a few seconds, if that). Joshua Rathmell then looks up to the 15th floor and observes the alleged incident. The background noise level in this area of the city is nearly always consistently around 75 to 80 decibels. Joshua Rathmell also acknowledges that it is loud in the park during the filmed walk through.

He was also asked that given the extremely short time frame and given the distance from the event whether there could be some doubt as to the accuracy of his observations, to which he replied, “Absolutely.” I find this very troubling if the key witness is accepting of the fact that there may well be some doubt with the accuracy of his observations, then how is it possible for there not to be reasonable doubt?

Finally, having accomplished all of the previously detailed Improbable or Implausible tasks Simon has to now unload the unconscious individual. The balustrade is 1200mm high. Simon with his arms parallel to the ground (as described and demonstrated by Joshua Rathmell) measures between 900mm to 1000mm. There is no way based in reality that Simon can perform the action described by Joshua Rathmell. Perhaps Simon could cause the balustrade to dematerialise? Alternatively, Simon could instantly grow taller by over 12 inches.

Everything else that surrounds this case is a distraction and unnecessary obfuscation to hide the real issue. The real issue is that the events as described and subsequently summarised by the Crown during the trial are Impossible or Implausible.

Demonising and Character assassination means the individual is presented in a lesser light, this does not equate to guilt.

Many things in life work beautifully on paper, they may also be articulated succinctly – however when the full facts and common sense are applied to the situation they rapidly become Impossible or Implausible in practice. In the case of Regina V Gittany, reality took a back seat and it has been theorised that the Impossible or Implausible became possible.

Please feel free to leave a comment below.


  1. Danijela says:

    Did the prosecution bring any experts in during the trial?

    • Moderator says:

      The Crown produced a finger print expert more said on the topic tomorrow, watch this space for an interesting update

      • tony t says:

        My biggest problem with the whole account of rathmell’s is that he called police 90 minutes after seeing lisa fall and when asked by detective rex on the phone he said he saw her fall.When asked if he saw her pushed he replied no and when asked did he see her jump he said no.Somehow he then says somethimg different to police 3 days later when interviewed in person.Is that not an alarm bell for reasonable doubt?WTF!Also read in the judgement that the judge said that she cant pretend to know what happened in that apartment but thinks gittany rendered her unconscious therefore she does not entertain a reasonable doubt.REALLY!I don’t know and i think do not add up to no reasonable doubt.There’s alot of stuff in her judgement that i’m sure gittany’s legal team could use to get him off but i dont have a whole day to write about it.Good luck.

        • Administrator says:

          Hi Tony T, we share your thoughts regarding Joshua Rathmell’s changing story. You also bring up many good points regarding some of the statements made in the deliberation. Thank you for your comment and support.

  2. Jane says:

    What I am most curious about is the letter found in Lisa’s pocket (confirmed as her handwriting) and the story there. It reads: “There are surveillance cameras inside and outside the house”.
    Firstly, If she gave it to someone, why is it back in her pocket and why is it torn up? OR she did NOT give it out, but who was it intended for?
    Secondly, is it possible it was given to HER by someone else, and it wasn’t her handwriting (incorrect identification of writing) and someone was advising her of the surveillance, which would explain why is was torn up (maybe out of shock?) and in her pocket.
    Thirdly, if she had given it to someone else, did they come forward to shed light on that note, how they got it, what it meant for them, etc and how did Lisa know she was being filmed?
    Finally, If she didn’t end up giving out the note but merely wrote it, second guessed herself, tore it up and put it in her pocket, then who was she meant to see that day to give it to?
    There seems to be a lot of loose ends regarding that letter. Also, if the note is true and there is surveillance IN and out of the house, the media only showed the outside CCTV. What did the inside CCTV show or was it not recovered/didn’t exist??
    This website has shown a lot of compelling information that at the very least shows obvious reasonable doubt and the more I read about the case from all sides, the more I see that both sides can be argued. There is no question their r’ship wasn’t perfect, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to murder.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Jane, we also find the purpose of the letter puzzling. It was common practice for the internal cameras to only be turned on for security purposes if the apartment was vacant. The external pinhole camera was always on. The cameras were installed for security purposes. To answer your question the hard drive that contained footage was examined and it was determined that it was not tampered with. No relevant internal footage exists. We think it’s worthwhile to note however, the pinhole camera is extremely hard to detect, and Simon willingly provided the details of it’s existence to the police.

      We can’t comment further on the note, because the reality is that we do not know anything about it outside of the fact that it existed.

      We appreciate your feedback regarding the compelling nature of the content here. We would ask that if it isn’t too much trouble, that you share the site details with others. Thank you for your contribution.

  3. Keithy says:

    I know the people who kicked Philip Walsham. They didn’t throw him off. They were on ecstacy and it was bad enough they kicked him(why do something like that on ecstacy?!!)… unbelievably shameful for their friends to say the least… but they didn’t throw him off: there was a young bloke who stayed in the car who had no case to answer who saw everything! He had some brains,… didn’t move from the car as he knew the law came down to judgement and lines of credibility have to be drawn at some point!!

    Rich parents probably made sure he didn’t testify.. so who knows… I don’t even know if that’s possible!??!
    Miscarriage of Justice happens … A cops job is about ‘conflict resolution’: the law has to make a decision and system corrupts man.

    Those people who got released after a girlfriend worked to free them are very thankful: I also think Schapelle Corby was wrongfully jailed and drugs are allowed to just flow through the airport!

    Most don’t agree… decision is difficult!


    • Administrator says:

      Hi Keithy, thank you for your comment. We are not familiar with the incident you’re referring to regarding ‘Philip Walsham’, but we intend to do some reading regarding it. If you have any information that’s pertinent we would greatly appreciate you forwarding it to us. We agree with you on your final point, the truth should always be pursued and everybody should seek out information that allows them to make an informed decision.

  4. elle says:

    I have looked over and over this site and seriously how it became a guilty verdict is beyond me. I say Simon has just had his life taken away from him from someone who seems to be biased maybe even sexist or racial! If all these facts were produced and myself not even having any sense of a law degree can clearly see there is no hard evidence here to destroy Simons life! I have to be honest watching the 1st part of Sunday night I did think Rachelle was just caught up in a love story and couldn’t see beyond that but I am a complete Rachelle and gittany supporter. I think this is all based on revenge from the police because previous events were dismissed.

  5. elle says:

    I’d be interested to know was the scream that Mr rathmell heard was of an unconscious women lol he is just a story maker like all other media associates and media spokes people!!
    I don’t know how he sleeps at night knowingly destroying someone’s life!

    • Moderator_3 says:

      Hi Elle, The scream was made from Simon when Lisa Harnum hit the 14th awning and began to free-fall and Simon screamed out her name in despair and anguish. Yuto Yoshioka was directly across the road from the Hyde Apartments, he heard a scream and immediately looked up as he was already facing that direction. When he looked up he saw Lisa’s body half way between the ground and Simon, Yuto Yoshioka estimated this to be the 7th floor. Joshua Rathmell allegedly heard screams and looked up to see the incident take place. However, Joshua Rathmell is significantly further from Yuto Yoshioka and Josh Rathmell is not facing the building. Further to your point it is difficult to understand why Simon would be screaming if Lisa was unconscious and he was unloading her off the balcony. Thank you for your comment.

      • caramel says:

        yes of course simon screamed has lisa felt down from the balcony. once he got down from the building he asked , if she dead ? like if he didn t know that someone hitting the ground from the 15 th floor will be instantly killed. what a criminal mind he has, trying to cover up his crime by drawing attention on his so called despair, it sounds like pistorius

        • Administrator says:

          Hi Caramel, we don’t think you’ve read any of the material very closely as your comment is very misinformed. Regardless of which version of events you choose to believe, your comment aligns with neither.

  6. Peter says:

    “Our experiments show that a larger male, weighing 100kg or more can perform the lift and carry of a female weighing 50kg with some exertion. Simon at the time weighed around 62 kg.”
    Hmmm, I have seen the photo of Lisa over Simon’s shoulder provided online The Sunday Telegraph •
    December 07, 201310:00PM
    “Murderer Simon Gittany is scene ‘playfully’ putting Lisa Harnum over his shoulder in this photo provided by school friend Sarah Faust.Source: NewsComAu”

    Simon is having no trouble whatsoever lifting and carrying Lisa.I have no doubt he could have just launched her over the balcony in this same way, with his arms in the air as he finishes throwing Lisa.

    Simon could easily have knocked Lisa unconcious in the 69 seconds. His ointense rage was very evident in the video at the door of the apartment and his actions indicate exactly that. He could have smashed her head into the wall, a fridge, suffocated her, which would all be hidden by the trauma dealt from being thrown 15 floors to your death.

    Throughout this site you constantly refer to Lisa showing “risk taking” behaviour” often. How often is often Administrator, once, twice in the relationship and isn’t this information second hand as you say alot of the other evidence is?

    “He wants her to be submissive.” This is the reason I believe Simon threw Lisa over the balcony. Men who desire submissive women generally expect total submission ie: appearance, opinion, lack of close friends, constant surveillance, and as a result feel total control, however, Lisa was staring to fight back as she tried to flee. He was not going to allow that behaviour and have her control the scenario, so he just lost it and acted as we have seen to be proven in a court of law.

    And please do not tell me to read the articles, I already have and you are yet to convince me he is innocent.

    Interesting that RL didn’t go to the sentencing, nor look like she did in her second interview (oh, so tried and unkept) and the first thing she says is “he won’t be too happy I didn’t go”…well, that immediately tells me he has power over her too.

    If you have all the facts that you present here then why is he in jail as we type? Appeal, see what happens, that is his right.A jury may have been a better option.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Peter,

      Yes, Simon was able to lift Lisa in that fashion. However, the crown prosecution key witness Joshua Rathmell stated that Simon was holding Lisa with both his arms parallel to the ground at a 90 degree angle. He specifically described this action as “unloading”. This is extremely difficult to achieve, we encourage you to try this yourself – remembering that according Joshua Rathmell’s testimony you must have your palms facing up and the weight distributed over your forearms. Once you achieve this you also need to lift this weight in a fluid motion to clear the balustrade which is 1200mm. Now on top of all this you must generate enough power to clear the 900mm safety awning. We maintain that this is extremely difficult, and all parties we have asked to demonstrate the aforementioned in this manner have struggled.

      Simon Gittany could not have knocked Lisa Harnum out because there was no sign of trauma to her body. Your assertion is not substantiated by the coroner’s autopsy report which articulates that Lisa Harnum died of a fall from a height and showed no trauma outside of the injuries consistent with those incurred by someone who falls in such a manner.

      “He wants her to be submissive” is the account of someone who is not Lisa Harnum and does not know Simon Gittany and never saw them interact as a couple. This is the opinion of someone else.

      Rachelle did not go to the sentencing because she was distressed with the amount of abuse she was receiving. She was bound by a contract to Channel 7 and they were going to film her at the sentencing proceeds. Because she did not attend, they asked to attend her house, and she was bound by a contract to comply. Regarding Rachelle’s comments, you are taking them out of context – naturally anybody placed in Simon’s position, who is receiving a lot of negative media attention and on top of all that has been charged with a crime he did not commit, would be looking forward to seeing his loved ones at any opportunity available.

      Thank you for your feedback.

      • Zelda says:

        There is a video on YouTube of Simon and Lisa as a couple where he says he never thought he’d find a woman who would “serve him” until he met Lisa. This is quite chilling and sickening to hear.

        I don’t know if Peter has seen the video as well, but I think his phrase “He wants her to be submissive” pretty much sums up my reaction to that disturbing video. It’s sickening that in 21st century Australia, a man could say that about a woman, this can be documented and you can still say it was a normal loving relationship. It’s very, very sad that anyone would think a woman should expect to be treated like this.

        • Moderator_4 says:

          Hi Zelda,

          Once again the video has been taken out of context. We can appreciate that when taken out of context it may sound sickening. However, Simon discusses serving Lisa also. He meant it to be romantic. A mutually serving relationship. He does not mean she is to serve him at his beck and call. He also talks about losing his faith in woman. He meant that he has finally found the perfect woman. It is actually a beautiful speech.

          • Zelda says:

            I saw the full video as uploaded by Gittany in the lead up to the trial. This was actually the first I had heard of the Gittany case – a friend showed it to me, so I watched it the first time with no idea how their story turned out. My friend asked me what I thought, and I said “She’s got to get away from someone who speaks about her like that.” Then my friend told me what happened, and that the video was published in the lead-up to the trial.
            Whether he is innocent or guilty of murder, Simon Gittany is a controlling and manipulative man, and so self-confident in his rights to domineer women, he thinks he can put a speech like that on the Internet and it will work in his favour.
            He is his own worst enemy, and his friends weren’t much help if they encouraged him to post that “beautiful speech” thinking it would show a mutually supportive relationship.

  7. Nicole0909 says:

    Why does everyone keep insulting Rachelle Louise for accepting money from Channel 7. I honestly can’t understand why that is such a bad thing. Lisa Harnum’s mum also accepted money from Channel 7 for her part in the same programme, but I haven’t heard anyone insult Ms Harnum for doing so.

    I think the most important thing to take note of, is both women accepted the offer from Channel 7 because Channel 7 was the only medium who promised a fair and honest report (for both women’s stories).. So they got paid for it, why not? I can only imagine the costs both women incurred during the trial, hopefully that small payout will relieve some of the stress for both of them through this difficult time.. In my opinion.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Nicole0909, thank you for comments and kinds words. We would like to point out that witnesses called by either the defence or the crown do not incur any personal costs.

  8. Kathy says:

    I am 50kg, and men of Simon’s size can lift me easily. Looking at the video photo 69 seconds before she died, it can be seen that Simon is behind her with his hand over her mouth. If she blacked out or became dizzy from having her breathing blocked (she was probably already hyperventilating if she was screaming and running to get away from him), then he could have easily scooped her up as she lost her balance. With her weight resting across both his arms, he could have lifted her over the balcony. I’m not saying it’s possible, I’m saying it is plausible.
    Unfortunately, you don’t have an eye-witness account to directly contradict Joshua’s testimony of seeing a man unloading something from a balcony. With all the people crossing the park, it’s extraordinary that nobody noticed a woman climbing out a window. Have you canvassed for alternate witnesses? Has anyone approached you to say they made a statement that was disregarded?
    I notice you have diagrams of the balcony, showing a man of Gittany’s height standing there. Can you show comparable diagrams of how Lisa climbed over? She must have been very fast if there were no eye-witnesses to say they saw a woman climbing or dangling from a balcony.

    • Moderator_3 says:

      Hi Kathy,

      You bring up interesting points, but we have tested this theory with many people to see whether it is possible and each person has struggled to do so in the manner described by Joshua Rathmell. Did you manage to watch the Channel 7 program on Sunday night? They engaged the expert evidence of Professor Hilton who is a leading forensic pathologist. He clearly articulated that blocking someones breathing in this manner is highly unlikely.

      Have you managed to read the audio witness evidence section on the site? Yuto Yoshioka was directly across the road from the Hyde Park apartments waiting at the bus stop. He said he heard a noise, which enabled him to look up. He was already facing the building. When he looked up he saw the body half way between the man and the ground and estimated it to be at the 7th floor. Joshua Rathmell is significantly further than Yuto Yoshioka and he initially stated he heard muffled screams. In his second statement to the police he stated he heard screams for about 5 seconds, which enabled him to locate the sound and see the incident. However, Yuto Yoshioka who is directly across the road- did not hear these 5 second screams. Nor did the two council workers (who were much closer than Joshua Rathmell and further than Yuto Yoshioka) hear these screams. Yuto Yoshioka and the council workers audio evidence is consistent with Simon’s versions of events. We might also like to point out that the NSW police force expended over 100 hours looking for the council workers and their search was unsuccessful. Rachelle Louise found the council workers, by phoning the council. Yuto Yoshioka’s first statement to the police also disappeared. Yuto was also not able to be found by the police and after many unsuccessful attempts by the defence and the verge of a subpoena to the police, he was found in August 2013 (2 months before the trial). The event did take place in a fast manner (65 seconds). Thank you for taking the time to ask pertinent questions to the case.

      • Kathy says:

        Maybe Joshua heard screams from somewhere closer to him, such as another witness watching the events unfold. He was in the park, so he’d hear noises from all directions. The evidence of what he saw is surely more relevant.
        I did see the Sunday Night program and heard the professor’s view – however, it could still be argued that Lisa was just dizzy or stunned rather than deeply unconscious, as it was such a short time span. She could have started to black out and not had time to recover within one minute. Anyway, thank you for answering all my questions…

        • Moderator_3 says:

          Hi Kathy,

          Thank you for your comments. We are happy to have answered your questions. We would ask that if it isn’t too much trouble, that you share the site details with others. Thank you for your contribution.

      • Laura says:

        You also seem to be quoting Professor Hilton out of context. He said you couldn’t “asphyxiate” someone within that timeframe – asphyxiation is different from rendering someone unconscious. It is the act of killing someone by depriving them of air. Lisa was not killed by asphyxiation and none of the evidence convicting Gittany suggested that she was asphyxiated before being thrown from the balcony. The prosecution said she was rendered unconscious before being thrown, not asphyxiated.

        • Moderator_3 says:

          Hi Laura,

          Asphyxiation- “suffocation: the condition of being deprived of oxygen (as by having breathing stopped)- to cause to die or lose consciousness by impairing normal breathing, as by gas or other noxious agents; choke; suffocate; smother.”

          Professor Hilton clearly articulated that it is highly unlikely to asphyxiate someone with one’s hand over the mouth. Would you like us to provide the link for you to watch the Channel 7 program again?

          The prosecution most definitely stated that she was rendered unconscious before being thrown. However, they failed to mention how. Could you suggest HOW Lisa was rendered unconscious with out any sign of trauma to the body if she was not asphyxiated or her carotid arteries were held to stop blood flow to the brain? As suggested by Professor Hilton.

          • laura says:

            Yes, I can suggest a number of ways Lisa could have been rendered unconscious without being asphyxiated. Fainting is a very common symptom of bulimia/ anorexia due to already having low blood sugar and electrolytes. The most common cause of unconsciousness is a sudden drop in blood sugar, so a bulimic, underweight woman who has been screaming (ie hyperventilating) and then suddenly gets grabbed would certainly have an abrupt drop in blood sugar which could drop below the level of consciousness. Her electrolytes were probably also low if she was vomiting regularly, and electrolyte failure after a shock such as being grabbed could render her unconscious.
            Low blood pressure can also render a person unconscious, but it would be impossible to trace that in an autopsy. However, if you are planning to argue in an appeal that it would be impossible for her to be rendered unconscious without forensic evidence, the prosecution is going to point out her medical history.
            “Rendered” unconscious doesn’t necessarily mean someone rendered her. It can just mean her body rendered her unconscious. It’s common on medical notes to say a patient was rendered unconscious due to low blood pressure etc. I think the judge was very careful when she talked about that in her summation, because of course if she did base her verdict on the fact that Simon intentionally caused Lisa to become unconscious, that one point could be proved wrong and the verdict overturned. The autopsy couldn’t rule either way, because the damage was consistent with either account, although as there was no forensic evidence of physical violence in the apartment (except for the video). So she wasn’t hit on the head in the apartment, she definitely wasn’t strangled/ asphyxiated. It would be logical, though, for a woman with her physical health to faint in a situation of extreme stress. If she did faint in those circumstances she could have recovered quite quickly if she was laid flat on the floor and given something sweet to drink once she revived.
            Anyway, I know you are gathering material for an appeal, so this might be useful information if you were intending to argue that she couldn’t possibly have been unconscious. Hope this is of some help to you, even if it’s not the answer you want!

  9. Amelia says:

    I think the scenario of Lisa blacking out from that assault long enough for Simon to tip her over the balcony is far more possible and plausible that the alternative Simon’s defence lawyer came up with: that Lisa made a “ballerina-type leap” over the balcony, which explains why she didn’t leave any fingerprints.
    Yet apparently this ‘ballerina-type’ leap was just a cry for attention and she never intended to fall. If someone made a ballerina-type leap out of a building across from that busy park, I’d guess there would be a hell of a lot more witnesses queuing up to talk about seeing it.

    “The defence has previously claimed that the absence of Ms Harnum’s fingerprints on the balcony railing could be explained by the trained dancer doing a “ballerina-type leap” on to the top of the railing before jumping over the edge.”

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Amelia,

      We do not accept Lisa Harnum lept like a ballerina over the balustrade. This is the words of Simon’s defence, not Simon, who he subsequently changed. There were smudges on the glass and as per the recreation of the apartment on Channel 7’s Sunday night the reason no fingerprints are left behind is because the person is moving and not standing still. The actress got over easily with no trouble, by touching the glass and not leaving any fingerprints.

  10. Mary says:

    S . Gittany has been cross examined

    What do you of these statements??
    Gittany was telling a story which fitted nearly with objectives
    His account Of what happened Appeared to exist on borrowed details.
    And as for Lisa

    Lisa May have been impulsive maladaptive and over sensitive May have been in a state of acute fear and despair but I do not think she was deranged
    One would have to be in a complete deranged mental state to climb over that balustrade
    In order to escape frighten someone or as a cry for attentionb

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Mary,

      We are not entirely sure what you mean. Could you please explain? Simon told the truth.

      Mary, did you personally know Lisa? How are you able to say what her state of mind is/was? Are you aware that Lisa has jumped out a moving vehicle before? Confirmed by Rachelle, Simon, and her mother Joan Harnum.

      • laura says:

        I think Mary is paraphrasing/ quoting the judge’s assessment of the evidence about Lisa’s state of mind – the judge actually went to the apartment and looked down over the balcony. Her assessment was just as Mary said – that Lisa would have had to be deranged to climb over there for attention. And the evidence presented by Gittany’s witness that she had once climbed out of a moving vehicle, and all the psychological evidence did not indicate that Lisa was in any way deranged.
        None of us visiting this site know Lisa or Simon personally, so we don’t know if Lisa was deranged or if Simon is telling the truth. Unfortunately for Simon there are several red flags in his testimony to indicate he is not always truthful.
        If you disagree with the judge’s assessment about the balcony, probably the best way to present reasonable doubt is to have a woman about Lisa’s size actually climb out the way Simon witnessed, and video tape the climb so it is seen to be plausible that Lisa would have done this, thinking it was safe.
        Hope this helps!

        • Moderator_4 says:

          Hi Laura,

          Laura, do you think it is not normal behaviour to alight oneself from a moving vehicle? And it was presented by Gittany, confirmed by Rachelle Louise who was present and also confirmed by Lisa’s mother Joan Harnum who stated that Lisa told her about it. Lisa jumped out of the cab after an argument with her boyfriend at the time who was NOT Simon, it was George.

          Could you please state the red flags in Simon’s testimony which gave you the impression he was untruthful? Or are you simply agreeing with Justice Lucy McCallum?

          The Sunday night program did this with an actress with the same dimensions as Lisa. She did it easily 3 times and left no fingerprints.

          • laura says:

            I don’t know if Simon is innocent/ guilty, and as I wasn’t in the courtroom, my guess can only be speculation. People like me who are coming to this site have read the judge’s summation and are expecting you to address the issues that caused her to find Simon guilty. In an appeal, you need to overturn the judge’s view, which is quoted by Mary. The judge acknowledged that there was evidence that Lisa was histrionic etc, but she didn’t think this went to the extent of climbing out a window for attention.
            Regarding the red flags, the judge gave examples of perceived dishonesty in her reading: the one I remember is that Simon stated in his testimony that he was completely unaware that Lisa had a certain bank account. But then later, giving testimony in a different context, he mentioned meeting Lisa at her bank for a matter relating to that bank account. The judge saw this as an example of dishonesty – she decided he lied when he said he knew nothing about the bank account. As the judge mentioned this in her summing up, I expected some kind of explanation about this in the site but it hasn’t been mentioned.
            I have been very puzzled by some of the material you’ve posted here, as it doesn’t seem relevant in addressing the judge’s judgement. When I saw you didn’t recognize Mary’s quotation directly from the judge’s statement, I get the feeling that Simon’s support team are not familiar with the specific points that convicted him. For example, the judge accepted all the evidence about Lisa jumping out of a car, but she didn’t think it was comparable to stepping out onto the ledge. So constantly telling everyone here about the car incident is a waste of space – it has already been admitted as evidence in court as confirming Simon’s account of Lisa’s state of mind. Yet the judge decided that jumping out a car is not comparable to jumping/ falling out a window. She is not going to change her mind about that during the appeal process.
            I would suggest to the support team that you start working through the judge’s statement, reducing it to point form, then address each point directly on your site. Quote the judge’s statement if you like, then provide the information explaining why her judgement was flawed. This way you have a direct response to all the points that convicted Simon.
            The judge was very thorough and extremely precise about what she considered relevant/ irrelevant to her decision, so it should be easy to reduce the statement to a list and work through it point by point. Anyone who has previously worked on an appeal will tell you to start with the judge’s statement. Successful appeals have a response to every conviction point, backed up by concrete evidence.
            The other point I have mentioned before (my response hasn’t been approved yet) is your statements about rendering unconscious/ asphyxiation. You will not be able to launch an appeal by claiming that as Lisa was not asphyxiated she could not have been unconscious. On this very site, you have dedicated an entire page to literature about bulimia, and fainting is a key symptom of bulimia, because sufferers generally have extremely low blood sugar.
            Hope this clarifies my previous comments! All the best and I hope I have been some help to you.

          • Moderator_4 says:

            Hi Laura,

            Are you aware of why Lisa jumped out of the cab in Liverpool Street in 2010 after an argument with her boyfriend at the time? He did not phone her while she was in the bathroom taking care of her friend and she became upset with him. Are you aware of why she opened the door at approximately 50km/h on Parramatta road? She wanted to go pick up a skirt from the dry cleaner. Simon and Lisa had an argument in the presence of another witness who testified the two argued about the skirt. Simon was telling her she did not need to get it that night and she wanted to get the skirt. Do you accept jumping out a moving vehicle is normal behaviour?

            Regarding the Westpac account, Justice Lucy McCallum has made a mistake. Lisa opened a safety deposit box on behalf of Simon as he was just getting his business venture off the ground. It was literally ready to go live the week of the tragic accident. Because Lisa had opened it on behalf of Simon, the safety deposit box was in her name. When Lisa would break up with Simon during their relationship she would text him to meet her at Westpac. The reason for this was so she could transfer the safety deposit box into Simon’s name (as they were breaking up) or close the account. However, each time they would meet at Westpac they would reconcile their differences. In this particular instance where Justice Lucy McCallum is referring to there is a series of text messages where Lisa and Simon have clearly had an argument and Lisa tells Simon to meet her at Westpac to do the aforementioned. When Simon talks about closing an account he is referring to the safety deposit box. Justice Lucy McCallum thought Simon was referring to Lisa’s personal account. This would mean that Simon was aware of her approx $60,000 savings. However, Simon stated that he had no idea she had that amount of money saved. Because Simon stated that they were going to close a Westpac account Justice Lucy McCallum thinks this is the Westpac account in which Lisa has her own personal savings. This is incorrect. They are two different accounts. All witnesses asked about whether they had the knowledge that Lisa had substantial savings replied saying they did not know. Michelle Richmond was told by Lisa Harnum she was broke. Lisa told several people she had no money and subsequently no means to leave/escape Simon. Lisa’s mother stated that she thought Simon was afraid that if Lisa had money she would leave him. Lisa’s mother also stated she was not aware of Lisa’s substantial savings. It is evident that Lisa had accumulated and saved approximately $60,000 during her time in Australia, of which approximately $40,000 preceded Simon.

            Simon was asked about this series of text messages in court. When Simon is referring to the account being closed, this is not Lisa Harnum’s personal account; it is the safety deposit box.

            Q. What was the context in which you received and sent those messages?
            A. Cecilia and I had an argument and Cecilia said that she was breaking up and she was leaving. I left and she then wanted to meet up so that we can meet at the Westpac Bank and close an account. I was busy at the time but she felt that she had to close this account before she left. I told her not to worry about that, just leave the keys. And that’s it.

            Q. So in text number 8, exhibit V, you texted her, “You don’t need to return the key, leave it on the table”, what key were you referring to?
            A. It was a key – it was a safety deposit box that Cecilia had opened up at Westpac and I was referring to that key.

            Q. Why did you say, “You don’t need to return the key, leave it on the table”?
            A. Well, she wanted to meet up so that she could close the account and I just told her “Don’t worry about the key, it is not relevant. If you are going to leave then just do what you have to do.”

            Q. When you say “if you are going to leave”, leave what?
            A. She said she wanted to break up and she was leaving.

            Q. You have then written in number 10 “all the key, bank, this house and new house” what does that refer to?
            A. We just got the keys, because we were living at Pitt Street at the time, and we just got the keys for the new place, which is The Hyde and she had a set of her own keys so if she was leaving I just said to her, “Just leave all of the keys once you’ve gone please”.

            Whilst we are aware that the information is not relevant to the judgement, we feel these are facts and aspects that were overlooked during deliberation. It is also information that has not been made readily available to the public.

            We are also in the process of doing an in depth analysis of the judgement. However, are still deciding whether to upload to the site. As we are sure you can appreciate in a court of law our appeal points will ultimately be what decides Simon’s fate. Fortunately we do not have to change the judge’s mind. We are fortunate to be given the opportunity to have the case reviewed by three senior judges.

            We understand success appeals are in regard to the conviction points, thank you. We also find it interesting that you suggested they need to be backed up by concrete evidence. What concrete evidence was there to convict Simon?

  11. Frank. T says:

    if some one I loved jumpd to their death I would never get over it let alone flaunt my new love and kiss in front of the cameras . Ok and if he didnt do it, it just looks insensitive. If you do move on dont parade be discreet . Its borderline immature and insensitive to the Harum family

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Frank,

      Everyone reacts differently. We can understand your point of view but Simon and Rachelle’s relationship was not to be “flaunted”. They are a couple in love and Rachelle was showing support to her boyfriend who felt like a social outcast. They are sorry to have offended the public and appear insensitive, we can assure you this was not their intention.

  12. Moderator_4 says:

    Hi Sophia,

    During court Joan was asked by the prosecution:

    Q. Did she ever tell you about any incidents when she had opened car doors whilst the cars were moving?
    A. She had mentioned a few occasions when she was with George.
    Q. With George?
    A. Yes, when she was with George.
    Q. In relation to the period with the accused, did she tell you about any incidents when she had opened the car door when the car was moving?
    A. I don’t recall with the accused. I’m not positive when it happened, but it was my first reaction–
    Q. Sorry, you can’t tell us about your reaction, you can only tell us what Lisa told you.
    A. I can’t remember the exact conversation I just remember she mentioned once about it and I had said to her, “Were you injured?” And she said, “No”

    She was then asked by the defence:
    Q. Putting aside whether it was with George or with Simon Gittany, it is the case, isn’t it, that she told you that she had got out of the car whilst it was moving on a few occasions?
    A. I – sorry – I remember her talking about it. Whether it was one or two, I’m not positive.

    When Lisa jumped out the moving vehicle this was with George, Rachelle and Simon.

    Simon had CCTV cameras in the apartment for security measures. James Drivas was the person who installed the security cameras. He installed the one at the front because Simon wanted to have a peephole. James Drivas testified that he showed both Lisa and Simon how to used the CCTV and they were both aware of its existence.
    Simon has had a psychological evaluation and has not been diagnosed with anything.

  13. laura says:

    I appreciate the lengthy answers to my questions, but the original question was from Mary, who asked for your views on the judge’s statement about Lisa:
    “Lisa may have been impulsive maladaptive and over sensitive… may have been in a state of acute fear and despair but I do not think she was deranged.
    One would have to be in a complete deranged mental state to climb over that balustrade in order to escape frighten someone or as a cry for attention.” In summary: just because Lisa had histrionic personality disorder etc, did not make her deranged, and she did not seem to be suicidal.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Laura,

      Are you aware of the features of Histrionic Personality Disorder? It is also known as “Hysteric Personality Disorder”. It is very similar to Borderline Personality Disorder and often takes seeing many different specialists before the person is correctly diagnosed. Borderline Personality Disorder suggests that if you have more than 5 of 9 symptoms you would have Borderline Personality Disorder. Most of these overlap with Histrionic Personality Disorder and from her medical records it is evident she suffered from most of them. Women with Borderline Personality Disorder will often suffer from an eating disorder as well. Lisa suffered from anorexia/bulimia. Do you know much about these disorders? We are happy to provide you with an insight. But we recommend that you research them. It is not uncommon for sufferers of Borderline Personality Disorder to commit suicide “unintentionally” during an episode of impulsiveness from an emotional reaction.

      • Laura says:

        Yes, all this evidence was admitted in court and the judge decided there wasn’t enough in Lisa’s background to make the jump/fall plausible. I am well versed in the different personality disorders, and I know there is usually a strong pattern of behaviour associated with the disorder. Often the pattern seems so illogical and out of character to start with, it takes a while for outsiders to recognize the path. This is why it is a disorder – because the people follow a disorderly/ self-destructive pattern. Yet it is still a pattern.
        If Lisa had threatened suicide by jumping off the balcony – or any balcony – before,then her behavioural patterns would be more relevant to the way she died. (Keep in mind, threatening publicly is different to quietly attempting)

        However, the pattern of her relationships in Australia shows that she tended to get into relationships she couldn’t cope with (for whatever reason) and she struggled to leave. When you follow this pattern of behaviour, it doesn’t help Gittany’s case, so I am surprised you are pursuing it.

        • Moderator_4 says:

          Hi Carol/Zelda/Zoe/Laura,

          We never stated that Lisa threatened to commit suicide. We believe she attempted to walk along the awning. Impulsive/irrational/excessive attention-seeking behaviour is an attribute of histrionic personality disorder.

  14. sophia says:

    It is not uncommun for people with borderline personality to commit suicide and it is not uncommon for self obsess and paranoi people to commit a.murder

  15. caramel says:

    I appologise for the insults I have been posting
    I want to know if the judge had in hands lisas’ medical records with all the diseases and disorders this web is constantly attributing to her, didnt she took all these informations into consideration and as for being reals. she said in her judgment that apart from suffering eating disorder and being unbalanced, anything else said about lisa was unfounded. as reported she was a lively young lady poise with a will to survive and a plan to leave mr gittany
    no self harm in a past but was a foreigner in this wild land (Australia) and with no where to go.. the fact she jumped from a moving car was not as deadly as jumping from a 15 th floor without a chance of survival , I think lisa knew that unless of course like you have constantly insisted in this site..( unless she had been insane). but the judge does not believe lisa was insane. I think she may have well have the desire to carry on in life regardless the circumstances of her actual existence.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Caramel,

      We accept your apology, thank you. Justice Lucy McCallum was only given sections of Lisa’s medical records. The entire hospital records were voluminous. Justice Lucy McCallum was given sections that were relevant to previous self-harm and issues that Lisa Harnum unfortunately had suffered from. There was documented reports of self-harm and also a suicide attempt in Canada.

  16. mark says:

    I was a police officer for 17yrs and have seen a lot of violence. I have carefully examined the written judgement. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. I don’t believe that all hypothesis consistent with innocence were excluded therefore Her Honour should have entertained a reasonable doubt.I do not for one moment condone Simon’s controlling and violent behaviour but that does not necessarily make him a murderer. I feel there are a number of grounds for appeal.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Mark, thank you for your comment. We would like to point out that whilst Simon has made some errors in the past as everyone is aware, the controlling behaviour that is mentioned frequently has only been detailed through second hand testimony. There is no indisputable first hand evidence regarding any of this.