GUILTY Australia - Lisa Harnum, 30, killed in 15-storey fall, Sydney, 30 July 2011 #1

[SouthAussie]

Why didn’t the neighbours open the door and let an obviously terrified Lisa in?
Why didn’t the psychologist or personal trainer contact a women’s shelter and have them collect Lisa with the aid of the police?
Why didn't Lisa just fake it and wait until a better time to leave?

There is no-one else to criticise or blame here. People do what they do out of fear, not wanting to get involved, not understanding what is happening or could happen…. whatever.

The person who is at fault is the murderer who threw Lisa off that balcony – no-one else.

Everyone else has testified, and done what they can do to make sure justice is served. They will spend the rest of their lives saying ... 'if only'. May the one and only person who is at fault, Simon Gittany, spend many, many years behind bars for his crime.


Personally, I think Joshua reported what he saw when he got to work, and it may have taken a few days for police to interview him, take him for that walk through Hyde Park, and sign the report. Of course, that is what Strickland would have held onto ... the day the report was signed.

 

[mirage1]

At least he called from work so did not delay too much I guess. Its crucial that he reported he saw a shirtless man, which video inside the apartment confirms is true.

 

[enzeder]

October 24, 2013

"Mr Rathmell, a then ABC employee was walking to work just before 10am on July 30, 2011 when he said his attention was drawn to yelling."

"The court heard the man contacted the police from work, and made a formal statement less than a week after Ms Harnum's death."

http://m.news.com.au/NSWACT/pg/0/fi8822992.htm

 

[icu nurse]

A quick way to refresh the page is to right click and click Refresh on a PC. Click Reload Page on a MAC.

Also... The F5 key.

If you want to totally reload the cache, hold Ctrl (or command) while pressing F5

 

[icu nurse]

You are comparing an accident to a murder. Totally different. It is not abnormal and very common to witness accidents of any type, and to continue normally with your day, after all its not even a crime. But to witness a murder, and just continue on your merry to work is almost unbelievable. He has a mobile he could have reported it instantly and most people would do.
..

I think we will just have to agree to disagree - all I was trying to do was show how our backgrounds affect our reactions.

I don't think any of us can judge him because we've not been in his shoes.

 

[Theodora]

October 24, 2013

"Mr Rathmell, a then ABC employee was walking to work just before 10am on July 30, 2011 when he said his attention was drawn to yelling."

"The court heard the man contacted the police from work, and made a formal statement less than a week after Ms Harnum's death."

http://m.news.com.au/NSWACT/pg/0/fi8822992.htm

My reading of this report is that he called the police when he arrived at work and, less than a week later, made a formal statement to police. There is no suggestion that the police arrived until after he had continued his walk to work, so there is no reason for him to stand there waiting for them.

Like South Aussie, I don't think we should criticise or blame witnesses the timing of their calls or their failure to take other action, especially criticisms based on what we "would have done". We don't know what we would have done if we were in that situation, we just say what we assume we would have done.

 

[KG1]

http://www.handmenotes.com/sites/default/files/uploads/document/Fatal offe
nces.doc


This is another link which goes into causation of a death by another person. An Australian Hgh Court case - Royall v Q quoted in this article is quite clear. I have highlighted in yellow the Royall case comments. If the deceased is in fear of life by the accused's act and flees from that act, then the accused is guilty of the murder of that deceased person. So long as the chain of causation is not broken. 69 seconds between the dragging of Lisa into the apartment and the death of Lisa does NOT break the chain of causation and therefore the accused should be found guilty of murder. I am certain that Justice Lucy McCallum is very much aware of this precedent and other cases.

I do not fear that he will be found not guilty.

http://www.handmenotes.com/sites/default/files/uploads/document/Fatal offe
nces.doc

 

[Fuskier]

My reading of this report is that he called the police when he arrived at work and, less than a week later, made a formal statement to police. There is no suggestion that the police arrived until after he had continued his walk to work, so there is no reason for him to stand there waiting for them.

Like South Aussie, I don't think we should criticise or blame witnesses the timing of their calls or their failure to take other action, especially criticisms based on what we "would have done". We don't know what we would have done if we were in that situation, we just say what we assume we would have done.

Agreed. Criticism of Mr Rathmell is outrageous. Be thankful he reported what he saw to the Police that same day. Very chilling case, much emotion and possibly misdirected anger? Anger should be directed towards the murderer. IMO.

 

[icu nurse]

http://www.handmenotes.com/sites/default/files/uploads/document/Fatal offe
nces.doc


This is another link which goes into causation of a death by another person. An Australian Hgh Court case - Royall v Q quoted in this article is quite clear. I have highlighted in yellow the Royall case comments. If the deceased if in fear of life by the accused's act and flees from that act, then the accused is guilty of the murder of that deceased person. So long as the chain of causation is not broken. 69 seconds between the dragging of Lisa into the apartment and the death of Lisa does NOT break the chain of causation and therefore the accused should be found guilty of murder. I am certain that Justice Lucy McCallum is very much aware of this precedent and other cases.

I do not fear that he will be found not guilty.

http://www.handmenotes.com/sites/default/files/uploads/document/Fatal offe
nces.doc

I wish to kiss you oh fair stranger on the Internet.

Thankyou.

SG is directly responsible, even if the defences case of a balcony climb and fall was true/possible. Shouldn't take long now.

 

[SouthAussie]

http://www.handmenotes.com/sites/default/files/uploads/document/Fatal offe
nces.doc


This is another link which goes into causation of a death by another person. An Australian Hgh Court case - Royall v Q quoted in this article is quite clear. I have highlighted in yellow the Royall case comments. If the deceased if in fear of life by the accused's act and flees from that act, then the accused is guilty of the murder of that deceased person. So long as the chain of causation is not broken. 69 seconds between the dragging of Lisa into the apartment and the death of Lisa does NOT break the chain of causation and therefore the accused should be found guilty of murder. I am certain that Justice Lucy McCallum is very much aware of this precedent and other cases.

I do not fear that he will be found not guilty.

http://www.handmenotes.com/sites/default/files/uploads/document/Fatal offe
nces.doc

Thanks KG1, for bringing this to our attention. :tyou:

So now it all becomes crystal clear why SG is lying and saying that Lisa calmly sat on the couch and he went to make a cup of tea!!!! And provided the 'proof' in the photo of the open kettle on the counter (taken when exactly?!)

In Royall v The Queen, it says that ……

“a woman died after falling from the small bathroom window of the sixth floor flat that she shared with R. R freely admitted that he had quarrelled violently with her just before her death, but denied that his actions had caused her to fall. Instead, he claimed that she must have either fallen from the window accidentally, or taken her own life voluntarily as a result of depression produced by epilepsy or amphetamine abuse" (or in Lisa’s case – bulimia??!).

"The prosecution claimed that R’s actions were causally linked to her death. They argued that he had killed H in one of three ways: either by pushing her out of the window, or by physically attacking her so that she fell from the window while trying to fend off the attack, or by producing in her a well-founded and reasonable belief that her life was in danger, such that she concluded that her best chance of survival lay in jumping from the window in order to escape.”

The prosecution won the case, which was then appealed. The High Court was split over the decision initially, then agreed the decision stood because nothing intervened in between the arguing and fear, and the woman’s death.

Nothing intervened to break the cause of the death, nothing intervened like a ‘she calmly sat on the couch while I went to make a cup of tea’.

So the slimy <modsnip> is already planning his appeal, even while his court case is underway!!!


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1992.tb00936.x/pdf

 

[Theodora]

Thanks KG1, for bringing this to our attention. :tyou:

So now it all becomes crystal clear why SG is lying and saying that Lisa sat on the couch and he went to make a cup of tea!!!! And provided the 'proof' in the photo of the open kettle on the counter (taken when exactly?!)

In Royall v The Queen, it says that ……

“a woman died after falling from the small bathroom window of the sixth floor flat that she shared with R. R freely admitted that he had quarrelled violently with her just before her death, but denied that his actions had caused her to fall. Instead, he claimed that she must have either fallen from the window accidentally, or taken her own life voluntarily as a result of depression produced by epilepsy or amphetamine abuse (or in Lisa’s case – bulimia??!).

The prosecution claimed that R’s actions were causally linked to her death. They argued that he had killed H in one of three ways: either by pushing her out of the window, or by physically attacking her so that she fell from the window while trying to fend off the attack, or by producing in her a well-founded and reasonable belief that her life was in danger, such that she concluded that her best chance of survival lay in jumping from the window in order to escape.”

The prosecution won the case, which was then appealed. The High Court was split over the decision initially, then agreed the decision stood because nothing intervened in between the arguing and fear, and the woman’s death.

Nothing intervened to break the cause of the death, nothing intervened like a ‘sit on the couch while I make a cup of tea’.

So the b@#%@#d is already planning his appeal, even while his court case is underway!!!


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1992.tb00936.x/pdf

South Aussie, I think you're right about the purpose of his claim he sat her down for a cup of tea but 67 seconds between stranglehold and hitting the pavement is not enough time for that to occur (judged "reasonably").

I have no doubt this story was created after one of his legal representatives questioned him about any intervening actions that may have occurred between the headlock and her going over the balcony. That representative may have indicated to him the reason for the question. I would like to clarify that I don't intend to suggest that his Counsel or solicitor coached him to lie about such an intervening action.

 

[SouthAussie]

South Aussie, I think you're right about the purpose of his claim he sat her down for a cup of tea but 67 seconds between stranglehold and hitting the pavement is not enough time for that to occur (judged "reasonably").

I have no doubt this story was created after one of his legal representatives questioned him about any intervening actions that may have occurred between the headlock and her going over the balcony. That representative may have indicated to him the reason for the question. I would like to clarify that I don't intend to suggest that his Counsel or solicitor coached him to lie about such an intervening action.

Oh, I agree with you 1,000% Theodora! It just amazes me that he/they were planning his appeal even before he went to trial. Just goes to show what kind of strength they thought they had in their case IMO.

Strickland probably strongly suggested that SG think very hard about anything that may have intervened between the suffocating headlock and screams for help, and Lisa plunging to her death. An open kettle is the best SG could come up with.

And I'm sure Justice McCallum has already seen this for what it is too. And hopefully any High Court appeal will see the same (if it is even allowed to go to a High Court appeal).


ETA: Again, thank goodness for the eyewitness! And I think the lack of Lisa's fingerprints on the high glass enclosure may even stop the approval of any appeal.

 

[they'll get you]

How long was the relationship? I'm wondering if Lisa had life insurance & if SG was beneficiary. That would be GBC incarnate.

 

[KG1]

I wish to kiss you oh fair stranger on the Internet.

Thankyou.

SG is directly responsible, even if the defences case of a balcony climb and fall was true/possible. Shouldn't take long now.

Why, thank you too icu nurse. :blushing:

As I said in an earlier post, regardless of how Lisa went over the balcony, SG caused her death.

 

[they'll get you]

I wish to kiss you oh fair stranger on the Internet.

Thankyou.

SG is directly responsible, even if the defences case of a balcony climb and fall was true/possible. Shouldn't take long now.

OOoooo can I watch? KG1 has that affect on me too!:loveyou:

I think Joshua, an editor for ABC, is a reliable witness.
Lisa did not jump!! :banghead:

 

[Theodora]

KG1, I echo the others' thanks for locating Royall v R. South Aussie, that aspect of the defence, if it was accepted, might mean he was found not guilty, so it is not just aimed at an appeal.

If McCallum J finds him guilty, I think she will say that she does not believe his evidence that he stopped to make her a cuppa. It's difficult to appeal from a Judge's decision on a matter like that.

TGY, he won't get any insurance payout for her death if he is found guilty and he would have problems if he is acquitted because the insurance policy is likely to exclude payment where death is by suicide.

 

[icu nurse]

Why, thank you too icu nurse. :blushing:

As I said in an earlier post, regardless of how Lisa went over the balcony, SG caused her death.

Firmly with you on that stance.

I'm so glad that you found the case law that means the law is with us too!

And southaussie is right..... It puts the whole maddening tangent of "the kettle" alleged evidence into light. It was the missing link.

You my dear, today, won the internet

 

[KG1]

Firmly with you on that stance.

I'm so glad that you found the case law that means the law is with us too!

And southaussie is right..... It puts the whole maddening tangent of "the kettle" alleged evidence into light. It was the missing link.

You my dear, today, won the internet

Now you're really embarrassing me icu!

It was heartening to read the case law and it gives me, and I hope others, much greater hope and confidence that justice will be served for Lisa and her family.

I think even if the time span had been longer, say 5 minutes or longer, it would not be sufficient to break the chain of causation. The fear/terror for one's life would not dissipate in that time.

He is caught in his own web of deceit - the surveillance set up. :jail: :jail:

 

[SouthAussie]

I guess this may be one reason (other than all the witness testimony he has) why Tedeschi pushed for murder with one cause ... pretty much eliminates the intervention of that damn open kettle!

Must have put a hiccup in Strickland's defence .. threw him all off in his closing argument. He really was left with nothing much to argue, once the kettle was out of the argument. :argue:

Strickland did try the Lisa 'climbed over looking for attention' story, but Tedeschi didn't suggest that she climbed the balcony in fear of SG, did he? So I think Tedeschi nipped that angle (possible intervening action) in the bud pretty quick.

"If this was the truth he would have been adamant to tell police this was a slip or a fall," Mr Tedeschi said.

"She didn't slip, she didn't fall, she didn't slide or end up lying on an awning. She was unloaded."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/11/13/18/46/harnum-feared-for-her-life-court

 

[enzeder]

How long was the relationship? I'm wondering if Lisa had life insurance & if SG was beneficiary. That would be GBC incarnate.

BBM

I did a quick search online to see how long Lisa and SG had been together and this is all that I've found. They, according to SG, met in early 2010.

He proposed to Lisa at her surprise 30th birthday party. Her 30th birthday was on 12 June 2011.

"The court was told that Gittany met Miss Harnum in early 2010 and they began a sexual relationship three months later before they moved into an apartment where he had been living at the time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...irlfriend-kneel-submit-him.html#ixzz2knqTB7OW

" ....he proposed to Ms Harnum at her surprise 30th birthday party....."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...s-caught-on-cctv/story-fni0cx12-1226743837046

Lisa Cecilia Harnum
Born on 12 June 1981
Passed away in Sydney, Australia on 30 July 2011
Aged 30 years
http://www.heavenaddress.com/Lisa-Cecilia-Harnum/394786/service_details