BBM - I entered Simon Gittany into the search box at your link Marly and the others came up.
GUILTY Australia - Lisa Harnum, 30, killed in 15-storey fall, Sydney, 30 July 2011 #1
- Thread starter jamie233
- Start date
- Status
BBM - I entered Simon Gittany into the search box at your link Marly and the others came up.
The evidence about the hard drive in the ceiling is that SG's brother removed the hard drive and then gave it to the IT skilled friend to check. We don't know what, if anything, was on that hard drive, just that the friend said it did not appear to be tampered with. I wonder if the Prosecution is sure that the hard drive checked by the friend and produced at Court is the same hard drive the brother took from the ceiling.
This happened while SG was on remand and charged with murder. In those circumstances, if anyone switched the hard drive, or wiped it, that could lead to a charge of more than an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice. For example, there may be an argument that any person who tampered with the hard drive, or substituted another for it, should be tried as an accessory after the fact [see paragraph 2-730 http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/complicity.html ]
<modsnip>
This happened while SG was on remand and charged with murder. In those circumstances, if anyone switched the hard drive, or wiped it, that could lead to a charge of more than an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice. For example, there may be an argument that any person who tampered with the hard drive, or substituted another for it, should be tried as an accessory after the fact [see paragraph 2-730 http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/complicity.html ]
<modsnip>
The evidence of Mrs Harnum from this judgment that is quoted above is from paragraph 34. In paragraph 35, McCallum J ruled that, because of the way it was expressed, the evidence should be excluded from the trial. She gave her reasons as follows:
35 That evidence is plainly relevant to the issues of fact explained above. The difficulty is with its form. It is not clear whether Mrs Harnum was speaking of one occasion or more than one. She appears to be describing something the deceased said the accused had done (not something he had said he would do) but that is not entirely clear. There is no specificity as to dates including when the conversation took place compared with when the events described took place. In my view the evidence, whilst relevant, has not been established to meet any of the tests for previous representations in s 65(2) and in any event should be excluded under s 135 as being liable to cause unfair prejudicial in the form in which it was given.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,778
- Reaction score
- 181,440
The absolute saddest thing about abused, controlled people is that they sort of forget how to think for themselves. They are so accustomed to having their every move decided for them (.... or else!), that they forget that if they can't get their passport - that's okay - go to the Canadian Embassy and apply for a replacement one with current visa attached (people lose their passports every day). If they can't get into their apartment - that's okay too - ask the police to accompany them to get their personal belongings out, the police will do that.
Nothing is insurmountable ... it just seems that way when they have been completely robbed of independent thinking.
The absolute saddest thing about abused, controlled people is that they sort of forget how to think for themselves. They are so accustomed to having their every move decided for them (.... or else!), that they forget that if they can't get their passport - that's okay - go to the Canadian Embassy and apply for a replacement one with current visa attached (people lose their passports every day). If they can't get into their apartment - that's okay too - ask the police to accompany them to get their personal belongings out, the police will do that.
Nothing is insurmountable ... it just seems that way when they have been completely robbed of independent thinking.
Grrr! This makes me so mad! I was once married to what I now I recognize as a Narcissist. (Not a malignant Narcissist. Just a spoiled male child that happened to be Narcissistic)
He led me to believe I was such a hopeless case, that I actually believed him. Even forgot I knew how to drive a car despite I had a Queensland drivers licence. (He never had a licence at all.)
Sure, I had a career before meeting him, but he pursued the line, that my Nursing work was worth, worse than nothing. (I was a Registered Nurse, aspiring for a second certificate). He pursued the line, it was close to prostitution, due to the fact Nurses view naked bodies.
Strangely enough I believed him regarding the useless bit.
Escaped home to Queensland, where I lived without a car for a few years.
Was a big leap forward to remember I had a drivers licence, could actually drive a car, and (God help everyone else); Drove a car!
(That as a long time ago, but I remember all)
Moral to this story: Despite how beautiful or how intelligent or educated, or how successful or how whatever a girl is: She can be taken in by a Narcissist.
And God help her, she cannot see that.
Must be wearing some sort of rose tinted glasses or something at that extremely vulnerable time in her life. Between the age of say 18 and 30.
Please take care in judging others!
KG1
Registered user
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 36
I don't think any of those witnesses to the purported tendency of Lisa to alight from moving vehicles was ever called by the defence at the trial. Seems odd, as they apparently made statements to SG's representatives, which were successfully withheld from the Crown under legal professional privilege. So why didn't the defence call them in the trial to give their evidence? I think the reason is that the circumstances of the alleged 'alighting' may have shown that there was far more to the story. MOO
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,778
- Reaction score
- 181,440
It sounds as though you think I was judging Lisa, LadyBird1. And I am so sorry if I came across that way to you, because I truly wasn't.
I am just so sad that people get robbed of their independence by horribly controlling people. I have had it happen to someone very, very close to me when they were just 16/17 years old - it took over a year to help her recover after she was 'released' from his control - and she is an amazing, intelligent, beautiful person too ... just like Lisa. She just was 'in love' and slipped under his spell without even realising it. Thankfully now she has blossomed into a beautiful successful woman, in a very happy (and equal) relationship - who can spot a controlling person a mile away.
My comment was simply reflecting how sad it is to see this happen to people.
Ha ha! South Aussie, Judging you I am not! No way! Trust me!
The rest of your post is spot on!
What I was trying to say was this: Lisa and I (along with Allison Dickie Baden Clay and probably a lot of other girls) have a very lot in common. So much, It is frightening.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,778
- Reaction score
- 181,440
Oh thank goodness ... I was a bit worried there for a while! :hot:
Yes, too many lovely people get caught in the spell of these manipulating people. Sadly, unlike you and the person close to me, some don't make it through the experience.
South Aussie, your post is so sweet! Especially the :hot: bit
I hope your friend is doing good. Please may all sleuthers forgive this slight intermission. Though relevant to some, it may appear off topic. But it is IMO relevant to right here right now. Lisa Harnum.
Beautiful Lisa Harnum (for what ever reason) thought that Simon Gitttany was her Knight in Shining Armour.
Well she might have thought he was her Knight in Shining Armour for a small period of her life. Until her rose tinted glasses came off.
Hi all, thanks for all the updates. I thought the defence was woeful and as for Mr Strickland having to adjourn to get his facts straight, well, how embarrassing! But then again, how does one defend the indefensible behavior of the accused? He must simply be at a loss for words.....Unfortunately, I am still not confident that there will be a guilty verdict. It seems to me, when reading the case law articles that have been posted here, that the judge has been pandering to the accused and almost appeared apologetic that she had to revoke his bail when she stressed that it was only necessary because of the stage of the trial. I really hope that I am proven wrong though.....
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,778
- Reaction score
- 181,440
I just have to keep thinking positively in this case ... and believe that it is time for SG to be stopped in his tracks, lose his liberty and freedom for a long time, be controlled himself by the rigorous routine of the prison system (and its inmates).
There comes a time in people’s lives when they must atone for their actions – SG’s needs to be now, so I must believe that life will deliver.
I am thinking (and hoping) that Justice McCallum is following the letter of the law, and is wording things carefully to not be seen to be biased or do anything to risk an appeal in the future. Though, I have to admit that sometimes our judges seem a little too ‘nice’ (like the magistrate who granted him bail in the first place)… and our parole boards are ridiculously ‘nice’ (to the perps!)
There comes a time in people’s lives when they must atone for their actions – SG’s needs to be now, so I must believe that life will deliver.
I am thinking (and hoping) that Justice McCallum is following the letter of the law, and is wording things carefully to not be seen to be biased or do anything to risk an appeal in the future. Though, I have to admit that sometimes our judges seem a little too ‘nice’ (like the magistrate who granted him bail in the first place)… and our parole boards are ridiculously ‘nice’ (to the perps!)
Thanks for supplying this link Marlywings.
Appears the general gist of this document is to prove that, Lisa Harnum was of unsound mind, (as evidenced by alighting from a moving taxi, and wrist cutting); and secondly putting the forward the notion that Lisa jumped, thus proving SG didn't "unload" her at all.
And that's the nuts and bolts of his defence.
This is exactly the sort of gutter tactics a Narcissist will use in his own defence.
Had Lisa been capable of extricating herself from this situation, I have no doubt whatsoever, that episodes like that would be furthest from her mind. Ever.
I also suggest that SG drove Lisa to that type of behaviour. Narcissists tend to do just that. It adds weight to their mind games.
Interesting to note that Lisa, George Karam, Simon Gittany and Rachelle Louise who were also present as passengers in the taxi-cab.
How cosy.
Games Narcissists Play
http://thenarcissisticlife.com/games-narcissists-play/.
And interesting that the word SEDUCTIVE has been used in Court, because that too is another common trait of a Narcissist.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...-seductive-pull-of-a-very-skilled-narcissist/.
http://thenarcissisticlife.com/games-narcissists-play/.
And interesting that the word SEDUCTIVE has been used in Court, because that too is another common trait of a Narcissist.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...-seductive-pull-of-a-very-skilled-narcissist/.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,778
- Reaction score
- 181,440
Thanks for the links, LadyBird1.
Hmmm .... who does this remind you of ?!
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...-seductive-pull-of-a-very-skilled-narcissist/
Hmmm .... who does this remind you of ?!
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...-seductive-pull-of-a-very-skilled-narcissist/
Time to deliberation is the thing that has me worried most at the moment.
While a jury trial may have taken longer, I'd imagine the decision would be substantially faster than this.
I know we can't rush good news. But the length of time estimated has me wondering what on earth was credible/plausible that was put forward by the defence?
Marly posted an interesting question about what the most damning piece of evidence was - maybe we should look and see what we think the defence has presented that could constitute "reasonable doubt".
While a jury trial may have taken longer, I'd imagine the decision would be substantially faster than this.
I know we can't rush good news. But the length of time estimated has me wondering what on earth was credible/plausible that was put forward by the defence?
Marly posted an interesting question about what the most damning piece of evidence was - maybe we should look and see what we think the defence has presented that could constitute "reasonable doubt".
Another interesting article (I thought)...
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201202/rage-coming-soon-narcissist-near-you
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201202/rage-coming-soon-narcissist-near-you
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 211
- Guests online
- 1,888
- Total visitors
- 2,099