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

[enzeder]

Screenshot from video
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19701702/court-hears-balcony-murder-accused-rage/

 

[SouthAussie]

I can see why a Judge Only Trial are not so good.
Channel 7 almost tipped this case over.
It is one person (the Judge) who has to be almost completely isolated from any other information about the case in hand - and I don't know if that is possible.

I have reservations that SG's trial is solely based on lack of funds or the length of the time the trial would have taken - I think the choice of a Judge Only Trial is a strategic maneuver - one where his lawyer may think there is an advantage over not having the Public Jury decide on the evidence.
JMHO

.

Completely agree with you FigTree. SG's lawyer definitely knew that SG has a better chance in front of a judge only, than in front of a jury who will know that this is an abusive control-freak who was going to run this relationship on his terms, and his terms only.

So SG's lawyer presented a semi-believable scenario to the judge of lack-of-funds to defend a lengthy trial, and inability to meet Legal Aid's criteria, he had SG's parents put up their house to reinforce his story, found that the witness was going to the US soon, dug up anything he could ... and the judge decided she couldn't risk a mistrial or appeal and let them have it.

It is all crapola. I'm sure there probably would even be a decent lawyer out there who would take this case pro bono, or for a less expensive fee, just to build his case file and public profile. The judge let it go too easily IMO. And it sucks! Because now we count on one person's opinion as to his guilt .. a person who will strictly go by the letter of the law (and we know what that is like sometimes - look at the parole laws!)

I think this week we will get to the pointy end of the trial. Let's hope the has his bail revoked during deliberations, and let's hope that the judge sees his abuse on the day, the witness testimony, the lack of Lisa's fingerprints on the balcony enclosure, Lisa's screams for help, her handbag going over the rail on her arm, for what they truly were. A precursor to murder. lease:

 

[operationspirit]

I think this trial could go either way. To me the only substantial evidence is the eyewitness testimony from the man walking to work. The lack of fingerprints on the balcony is suspicious, but no damming.

If the eyewitness testimony does not hold up, then the judge would not have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

It's hard to believe that this incident wasn't caught on camera somewhere.

 

[SouthAussie]

Hi All,

I've been following the case in the media and online. Does anyone know if it is possible for the public to attend the trial and listen to the proceedings in court? I've found the location of the trial on the Supreme court website but there's no mention on whether the public are are allowed inside.

Also, if you are allowed in, how do you find out what will be discussed on a particular day? Is there an agenda?

Many thanks,

Welcome operationspirit! :seeya: I see no-one has answered your questions yet - probably because we don't really know the answers.

But going by other trials that we have followed here, public is allowed in (first come, first served), with no agenda provided - other than knowing that the defence has rested their case so it is the prosecutions turn, or the prosecution has rested their case so it is time for rebuttal - indicators like that.

Don't know if this is accurate in this case though. :dunno:

Substantial Evidence
I think this trial could go either way. To me the only substantial evidence is the eyewitness testimony from the man walking to work. The lack of fingerprints on the balcony is suspicious, but no damming.

If the eyewitness testimony does not hold up, then the judge would not have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

It's hard to believe that this incident wasn't caught on camera somewhere.

Fortunately, circumstantial evidence does count - if it logically paints a damning picture that is irrefutable by a reasonable person making reasonable conclusions. (I find that they use that word 'reasonable' in lots of legal-speak. ) At least, I believe that is how it goes (?)

 

[Brightbird]

Welcome operationspirit! :seeya: I see no-one has answered your questions yet - probably because we don't really know the answers.

But going by other trials that we have followed here, public is allowed in (first come, first served), with no agenda provided - other than knowing that the defence has rested their case so it is the prosecutions turn, or the prosecution has rested their case so it is time for rebuttal - indicators like that.

Don't know if this is accurate in this case though. :dunno:



Fortunately, circumstantial evidence does count - if it logically paints a damning picture that is irrefutable by a reasonable person making reasonable conclusions. (I find that they use that word 'reasonable' in lots of legal-speak. ) At least, I believe that is how it goes (?)

If by damning you mean that the evidence doesn't support another scenario (i.e. that she stepped over the railing) then yes I think you're right. But I find the legal details confusing in most cases so MOO.

I found this link semi-helpful in understanding circumstantial evidence - it's about the instructions a judge should give a jury.

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/circumstantial_evidence.html

From the link:

But if you find that such a conclusion is a reasonable one to draw based upon a combination of those established facts then, before you can convict [the accused], you must determine whether there is any other reasonable conclusion arising from those facts that is inconsistent with the conclusion the Crown says is established. If there is any other reasonable conclusion arising from those facts that is inconsistent with the guilt of [the accused], the circumstantial case fails because you are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of [the accused’s] guilt.

 

[SouthAussie]

If by damning you mean that the evidence doesn't support another scenario (i.e. that she stepped over the railing) then yes I think you're right. But I find the legal details confusing in most cases so MOO.

I found this link semi-helpful in understanding circumstantial evidence - it's about the instructions a judge should give a jury.

http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/circumstantial_evidence.html

From the link:

I'm thinking that the facts that:

1. Lisa's mum was on her way to help Lisa leave, and that they were laughing and joking immediately before her death
2. Two friends were also helping Lisa leave
3. Lisa was screaming for help and banging on her neighbour's door
4. Lisa had packed clothes and stored them at a storage facility
5. Lisa had her passport out and ready
6. Lisa had a suitcase sitting by the front door

.... all lead to a very reasonable conclusion IMO that Lisa did not want to die and had a plan to continue to live her life, and to live it back in Canada with her mum and brother and sister-in-law and niece and nephew.


(Another member pointed me to a tribute page for Lisa, with photos and messages from family and friends. Don't think we can post the link though.)

 

[Brightbird]

I'm thinking that the facts that:

1. Lisa's mum was on her way to help Lisa leave, and that they were laughing and joking immediately before her death
2. Two friends were also helping Lisa leave
3. Lisa was screaming for help and banging on her neighbour's door
4. Lisa had packed clothes and stored them at a storage facility
5. Lisa had her passport out and ready
6. Lisa had a suitcase sitting by the front door

.... all lead to a very reasonable conclusion IMO that Lisa did not want to die and had a plan to continue to live her life, and to live it back in Canada with her mum and brother and sister-in-law and niece and nephew.


(Another member pointed me to a tribute page for Lisa, with photos and messages from family and friends. Don't think we can post the link though.)

I agree that the evidence does not support the theory she committed suicide. I'm still not even sure if that's the defences argument? Seems their argument is she went over the railings of her own volition but they're not sure why.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ast-phone-call-with-daughter-who-fell/5037970

Gittany's lawyer Philip Strickland, SC, argues Ms Harnum went over the railing of their balcony and Gittany tried to help her, but she fell to her death.

He told the court although her motive for going over the balcony was unknown, it may have been suicide or a cry for attention.

The defence argues that she was conflicted and confused and suffered from low self-esteem.

What I'd like to know is how the defence explains her lack of fingerprints. I don't think they're using the 'ballerina leap' theory anymore?

I also don't think the evidence (video and screaming) supports the defences claim that they went back into the apartment and calmly sat down to have tea. She was terrified of him for some reason.

I'd convict SG but then I wouldn't have a huge problem with the idea of wrongly convicting him either, after the way he treated her in the lead up to her death. Maybe that sounds bad, but I think that's how my mind would work if I was on a jury and there wasn't 'proof' one way or the other.

 

[Marg from Oz]

Firstly could someone enlighten me on what BBM means? I have racked my brains over this but can't come up with anything that makes sense.

Looking at the balcony and the ledge. I can't work out how she would have done a ballet leap over it. He was supposedly close enough to see her leg buckle. Then he was close enough to go over the balcony and stand on the ledge himself. We saw how macho he was in dragging her into the flat. He would have been able to grab her and throw her back into the flat. That ledge was quite wide so he would have had to give her a forceful shove to push her off the ledge. When he said he was grabbing at her to save her i have the horrible feeling that she was holding on to the ledge and he was pushing her off. Then the witness said he thought he had thrown a black bag off the balcony. Trying to save someone is an entirely different movement to bending over a railing and trying to grab her limbs.

Also i wonder when this new girlfriend will wake up. He is such a control freak before long he will be trying to control her. About the supposed secret she had from him. I sent believe there was a secret. He had to come up with an excuse for spying on her and it had to be a legitimate reason that would not point to his obsessive controlling nature.

 

[FigTree]

Firstly could someone enlighten me on what BBM means? I have racked my brains over this but can't come up with anything that makes sense.

It means Bolded By Me
I'm the same - I get all those initials mixed up too

 

[sleepinoz]

New pictures show new side to Lisa Harnum as Simon Gittany murder trial enters final week

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ne...nters-final-week/story-fnii5s3y-1226756912341

 

[sleepinoz]

Firstly could someone enlighten me on what BBM means? I have racked my brains over this but can't come up with anything that makes sense.

RSBM

I find this very useful as far as the letters go - Websleuths Lingo - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[sleepinoz]

Firstly could someone enlighten me on what BBM means? I have racked my brains over this but can't come up with anything that makes sense.

RSBM

Very useful link for the Lingo - Websleuths Lingo - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[SouthAussie]

New pictures show new side to Lisa Harnum as Simon Gittany murder trial enters final week

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ne...nters-final-week/story-fnii5s3y-1226756912341

Boy, Lisa sure was a skinny minny. What the heck was she doing lifting those weights in the gym footage? Doing it for him, I suppose . Must have been quite a toll on her very thin body!

Wonder if the defence is going to try to back up some of their claims this week.


"The defence argues that she was conflicted and confused and suffered from low self-esteem."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...ast-phone-call-with-daughter-who-fell/5037970


While I can see the low self-esteem, primarily caused by SG's constant controlling and demeaning behaviour toward her IMO, I cannot see her inner conflict and confusion. She seemed pretty on-track to me ... bags packed, clothes stashed, friends helping, passport ready, mum coming to get her ... as enzeder said, mind made up and no turning back.

 

[MsAnais]

New pictures show new side to Lisa Harnum as Simon Gittany murder trial enters final week

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ne...nters-final-week/story-fnii5s3y-1226756912341

I see a quote by SG in the above article:

"Cecilia was obviously very beautiful," he told the trial. "She would wear revealing clothes, sometimes with no bra. I would tell her she should continue to look beautiful but just to tone down how much she was revealing of her body so she didn't attract the wrong sort of attention and give out the wrong signals."

He told the trial that he now believed he should not have told her what to wear, and said he had been "a jealous" partner

What a load of BS. He's trying to sound moderate, like a caring partner rather than a complete control freak who wanted her hidden from other men.

It must kill him to have to 'allow' RL to wear her skin-tight clothing to court (in a very see-through attempt to show that he's not a controlling ogre!!). Although I do see that her cleavage has been concealed under more conservative clothing for the last bit.......

 

[SouthAussie]

Although I do see that her cleavage has been concealed under more conservative clothing for the last bit.......

RSBM

Yes, and her eyes are downcast and no longer looking at other people ......

Sound familiar?

 

[MsAnais]

RSBM

Yes, and her eyes are downcast and no longer looking at other people ......

Sound familiar?

Oh, you are horribly right SouthAussie!!

So it has begun.....................:facepalm:

 

[enzeder]

New pictures show smouldering beauty of Lisa Harnum as Simon Gittany admits he was a 'jealous partner'

 

[mirage1]

I think this trial could go either way. To me the only substantial evidence is the eyewitness testimony from the man walking to work. The lack of fingerprints on the balcony is suspicious, but no damming.

If the eyewitness testimony does not hold up, then the judge would not have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

It's hard to believe that this incident wasn't caught on camera somewhere.

it could go either way only because judges are so clueless, and give too much benefit of doubt when there is none because of their blind allegiance to the law.

In reality, all the evidence points to her murder. Why would the eye witness testimony not 'hold up'? multiple witnesses all say pretty much the same thing. They are not lying and just making it up.

Her lack of finger prints on the balcony directly refutes his side of the story. This is damning.

 

[enzeder]

NOVEMBER 11, 2013

Simon Gittany's defence team links anorexia to suicide at his murder trial over Lisa Harnum's death

 

[Makara]

Image source.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...tands-by-her-man/story-fni0cx12-1226745590668

Quote Source.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-jealous-partner/story-fni0cx12-1226756912341