In total there are eight (8) audio witnesses some positioned inside the building and some positioned outside. Audio Witnesses Inside Hyde Building are the couple on the floor below and the next door neighbours. Audio Witnesses Outside Hyde Building are the student the council workers and Joshua Rathmell.

The Japanese student who is external audio witness one was the closest. The two Council Workers are external Audio Witnesses Two and Three.

Furthest away and behind trees was where Joshua Rathmell, the fourth external audio witness was positioned.

It is interesting to note that neither the council workers nor the Japanese student were accompanied by armed guards to the hearing, whilst Joshua Rathmell was surrounded by armed guards.

Using an Android application on numerous occasions to test the noise levels in the morning at round 10:00 am indicated that the background noise varies between high 75 and mid 80 decibels. Most online sites indicate that with more accurate measuring instruments city traffic noise is usually around 85 plus Decibels.

Even if the sound on the balcony was exceptionally loud, let’s say 100 Decibels (for some perspective here, a rock concert or a jet engine is typically measured to be 120 Decibels this would decrease to 82 Decibels if you are 90 metres away), then the sound heard by someone 90 metres away (keep in mind Joshua was further away than this) would decrease to around 61 Decibels and this figure has been rounded up. Given that the background noise is very likely to have been louder, how is he able to hear it so distinctly and also determine so rapidly which direction the sound came from? The council workers clearly indicated that one believed the noise he heard was not loud enough or distinct enough to cause them to look up and he thought it was a bird. The other council worker was under the belief that somebody had been hit by a car.

The significance of the audio associated with this event is that sound is what Joshua Rathmell stated drew his attention to the event. This is most significant as without the sound no one would have any reason to look up instantly. Which also begs the question, why make a sound unless it is one of distress?

During the walk through video Joshua Rathmell made a very interesting statement ” I must say its very loud all I can hear are buses, cars and walking signs”

One does not need to be an expert to know that the closer you are to a sound the louder it will be. Audio Witness One hears a single loud noise and indicates it was brief. Audio Witnesses Two and Three hear a softer sound, which is understandable as they are further away they also indicated that the noise was brief. Audio Witness Four, Joshua Rathmell in his initial statement indicates he hears a “muffled sound”, given he is furthest away it should be just that. In subsequent statements this evolves to multiple sounds, “Deranged Screams”, compared to that of a junkie on an “Ice Bender” and loud yelling. On at least one occasion he states that he was not sure if the sound came from the park or from across the road.

It has been characteristic of many of the Crown witness statements in this case to have been amended and Joshua Rathmell’s statement is no exception. This must be the only instance where recollection improves with time. This raises many questions:

How does someone further away hear louder and longer sounds after initially stating they heard a muffled sound?
How does he hear several distinct sounds after seeing the “object” falling? This has to infer he hears the body and either the Handbag or possibly a shoe hit the ground.
Why didn’t Joshua hear the sound of the awning being struck?
Is this inadvertent witness Bias?
Is this misremembering?
Is this “false memory”?

112 comments

  1. John says:

    Interesting points – I will consider them.

  2. Kassandra Burge says:

    Regardless of witness statements people will view things differently and their perceptions of events will alter depending on their previous experiences, if any, with violent situations and/or toxic relationships. As a victim of violent relationships since the age of 16 I can sympathise with both Lisa & Simon. They were both involved in a toxic relationship and obviously they both had issues. Just because Simon had a criminal history and he’d been possessive and controlling in the past does not automatically make him a killer. You have no idea how much i can relate to this story and the injustices surrounding Simon’s conviction. There is no way they can take away his freedom for 18 years based on the possibility that Lisa was unconscious before she went over the balcony. It’s merely heresay and the judges own personal opinion based on what she has heard about Simon and Lisa’s relationship. I’ve been in violent struggles, punch ups & even had partner’s hands placed over my mouth in attempts to silence me after an arguement. Because Simon had previous history with Police it’s easiest for the courts to say and assume he’s guilty. And from my own experience with dilusional and manipulative Police i can safely say it would be much easier for them (and it makes them look as if they are doing their job) by putting Simon in jail. No one cares about the Truth. They all simply want someone to blame and unfortunately for Simon it happens to be him. No one knows what happened in those 69 seconds before she went over the balcony except for Simon and Lisa and no Judge should be able to convict and sentence a person to jail for any amount of time unless they are 150% sure what happened in those few seconds. The fact that the forensic experts said it was possible for Lisa to havejumped over the balcony without leaving fingerprints was enough for me. That alone proves that there is reasonable doubt that Simon killed her and if you ask me the Judge who handed Simon that sentence should be thrown in jail herself. Unless you know something for 100% fact it should not be taken into account. And definately not when it’s got the potential to throw an innocent human being in jail and ruin there life. As for the witness number four (the guy who worked for the ABC), we all know how news reporters and tv programs tend to over dramatise different events without consideration to those in which they are talking about. I haven’t had the chance to read the other witness statements properly but i believe the media hype and publicity this story has been given could easily have impacted/swayed witnesses recollection of events. It’s always easir to throw the blame on someone and caught up in other peoples opinions and views of the events. I don’t believe he was given the right to a fair trial to begin with because of all the publicity. Simon hasn’t been given the right to be presumed innocent either. And as a person who has experienced being in trouble with the law and being stereotyped and harassed continually despite numerous attempts to escape from that type of criticism i completely agree with Racheal Louise that Simon is the victim in this and has suffered a gross an unjust miscarriage of justice and should be freed. In a similar instance my partner and i were arguing whilst driving in the car one day. I started getting emotional and defensive over what he was saying. I was very emotional and wanted to block out what was happening. Fight or flight is a natural human response to conflict and upsetting situations. I’m not ashamed to admit i attempted to jump out of the passenger door while my partner was driving 100km/h. Luckily. Enough he managed to grab onto me in time but i didn’t escape completely unharmed. I had bruises from where he’d grabbed me on the arm and pulled me back in, my lip was split cos i his the dash board while struggling and one of my earrings had been ripped out. However i take full resposibility for my injuries and if i had’ve jumped from the car and een killed that would’ve been my fault, not my partner’s, despite the arguing and shoving leading up to it. I acted irrationally because that was my first reaction to an arguement which got out of hand and this is exactly what i believe happened to Lisa. Simon loved her enough to not want her to leave and i dont understand how than can imp,y he went from loving her enough and wanting her to stay, to deliberately making an attempt to end her life. And just because he has possessive and controlling tendencies does not immediately make him capable of murder. I’m no expert at law but have a lot of personal experience when it comes to violent relationships and the judicial system. I hope i’ve been able to add something that might be of some use.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Kassandra, we’re sorry to hear about your struggles in abusive and violent relationships. We sincerely hope that you’re in a better place now. Thank you very much for contacting us, your story is incredibly touching and we greatly appreciate you sharing it. You’ve provided us with an immense amount of insight, and also brought up some points that even we in our meticulous research may have overlooked. It’s telling that you’re able to apply your personal experiences to this situation, without the bias that the hurt from your past relationships would have entitled you to hold on to. We have a great deal of admiration for your outlook. We are inspired and encouraged by your feedback, and if you would like to contact us further please feel free to e-mail us at contactus@freesimon.info – we will respect your privacy if you do decide to share anything else that may be of help to us.

    • R Fowler says:

      do you really believe that people who are subjected to these disgusting dominant relationships, subjected to abuse and cruelty, are really going to write in support of those that abuse them, the cruel, vicious dominating, control freaks who abuse them. I also have experience with the judicial system, I also have experience with people who try to manipulate
      writing letters to yourself don’t really count

      • Administrator says:

        Hi R Fowler, we can only offer our assurance that Kassandra has made her comment independently. Based on that I don’t think it’s very fair for you to trivialise her story without any proof of what you’re alleging. We’ve published your comment, however if Kassandra expresses any offence to it we will remove it in accordance with her wishes.

  3. Elle says:

    These facts are very and of some what interesting. I have said a number of times has this witness 4 just witnessed gittany being too late when reaching out and just assumed he had what he states as off loading the body, what doesn’t make sense why would gittany kill her in his own apartment where he knows is video recording!!

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Elle, you raise some very valid points. We also don’t understand the allegation that Simon screamed for 5 seconds beforehand as this would only serve to bring attention to himself. Thank you for your comment.

  4. Caroline says:

    I have thought the same Elle, what witness 4 saw could very much have been Gittany reaching out to save Lisa’s fall, which coincides with Simon’s statement. I also seem to remember that witness 4 admitted that he had doubts on the accuracy of what he saw due to the distance?? Then how can this judge use that witness as the primary reason for convicting someone of murder?

    There are just too many inconsistencies and lies (by omission) from the media and the crown for me to have ever fully believed their accusations. I believe Simon is guilty of being involved in a dysfunctional relationship, but I don’t believe he is guilty of the murder..

    Good luck with everything!

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Caroline, thank your for your wishes of good luck. Simon, Rachelle and the team here greatly appreciate it.

  5. M B says:

    A question that I am sure has been asked but perhaps needs to be looked at again: If Simon did not ‘pick up and throw her over’ the balcony, then there is only one other scenario. Why did Lisa feel her only chance of getting away would be to risk her own life by climbing over the balcony? What compelled her to believe that her life was in danger enough to risk trying to leave by means of the balcony? Because she had already attempted to leave via the hallway, seeking help and realising it wasn’t there. What drives a woman to desperation like that?  Fear. Flight.  An urgency to live or not face death that is not your choosing. In the Twin Tower devastation, we all saw people jumping to their deaths to escape the flames. Wether they died in the burning building or chose to jump to end their suffering, is not the terrorist still at fault for starting the chain of events that led to them losing their lives? In whatever form? Was Lisa not part of a sequence of events that made her feel as though she had no other option to flee? Is not Simon then ultimately responsible for her death as the fear she had was his doing? Just a thought.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi M B, if you followed the trial you would see that Lisa exhibited a pattern of behaviour in which she would often place herself in a position which could result in personal harm in order to provoke an emotional response. There were instances in which she disembarked from a vehicle that was still moving, on one such occasion she opened the door when the car was travelling quite quickly on Parramatta Road. As residents of Sydney will be aware, Parramatta Road is an extremely busy main road.

      We believe that she acted in a way that she had many times before, that is to say that the risk associated with her action was not immediately evident to her. The Crown and Defence were in agreement on the fact that whilst dysfunctional, Lisa and Simon’s relationship was never physically abusive.

      We feel that there is a extreme difference between attempting to escape a towering inferno, that is rapidly collapsing around you and an argument between a dysfunctional couple.

      The event is most definitely tragic. However, if Lisa was fearful in the manner alluded to, she had many documented opportunities to leave earlier.

      Thank you for your contribution.

  6. Jhon says:

    This remark was inflammatory and has been edited. The user suggests that Simon is guilty and he has shown no remorse. The other remarks are unrelated to Simon’s case (they reference another case) and we are not comfortable publishing these comments here.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Jhon, we’ve had to edit your remark in order to publish it. Have you taken the time to read the information on the site? We feel that it is compelling and presents a very strong case regarding Simon’s innocence.

  7. Daniel says:

    Why was the hard drive for the security cameras taken away by simons brother……this right there should prove he is innocent if he really was and im more than positive that if he didnt throw her off the balcony then the hard drives would never have been removed…… Theres alot that you guys dont know im sure of that and thats because simon knows much more than he has disclosed to anyone close to him….. My guess of what unfolded is that simon carried lisa and tried to threaten her by telling her he will throw her offthe balcony and dangled her body over and somehow he must have slipped or lost his grip and dropped her. i dont think he meant to just throw her over but he was reckless in this and he was so overpowering and people like him who treat women like this and f##k with their minds deserve what he got and more…

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Daniel, some information for you to consider. The purpose behind the cameras was for enhanced security, to monitor the premises when the apartment was unattended. It is worth noting that Simon was the one who alerted the police to the existence of the pinhole camera. This camera is documented as being so well concealed that if wasn’t for Simon providing this information, there would have been no reason to even look for it. Lisa and Simon were both present when the cameras were installed and were both instructed on their usage. The internal camera wasn’t on when they were home. Regarding the hard drive that has received much attention in the media, firstly, it was a back up as an added security measure. Secondly, the hard drive was produced and forensically examined. It was determined that the hard drive had not been tampered with – if data had been removed this would have been obvious to a skilled computer forensics expert. The only method to ensure that no data is retrievable from a hard drive is physical destruction. Even if it were degaussed signs of this level of tampering would have been discovered under examination.

      Consider the autopsy, this showed no signs of a struggle at all. Simon showed no scratches or marks. This makes your theory implausible. The thought that one would allow themselves to be carried and dangled over a balcony is illogical, when one also considers the information shown by the autopsy.

  8. michelle says:

    Simon is now in prison experiencing what he put Lisa through. He imprisoned her against her will. He is manipulative and deserves everything he gets. He was handed down a minimal sentence he deserved to serve life never to be released. His girlfriend is nothing but a media clown. I hope to never see the day he is roaming our streets. He does no good for the society and for a man surrounded by so many women he surely does not know how tp treat

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Michelle, there is no evidence supporting claims that she was imprisoned against her will. On the contrary, it has been documented and mentioned in numerous comments here now, that she was free to come and go as she pleased. This has been corroborated by CCTV footage and also the concierge who worked at the Hyde for the entire period of their relationship.

      Please note while we have left in your remarks regarding Rachelle, we will not continue to publish any further derogatory comments. Rachelle is standing up for what she believes in and she is very well informed regarding pertinent information related to the case. Many of our commenters have also expressed admiration for Rachelle’s stance. It would be far easier to abandon ones morals and take the easy way out, however Rachelle refuses to do so despite what essentially amounts to a hate campaign against her. We feel strongly that violence and abuse against women of any sort is unacceptable – and we find it hard to understand how the general public have justified their behaviour thus far considering the nature of some of the remarks. We believe Simon is innocent, this is supported by much evidence. Rachelle believes that Simon is innocent. Rachelle has chosen a difficult path and in the face of much adversity she is standing by her principles. This is to be admired not pilloried.

      • michelle says:

        Rachelle stands by Simon on the pure basis that he is her cash cow.
        In regards to Lisa being free to come and go as she pleased…is this a joke? What normal person taps in to his girlfriends phone? Places cameras around the house mind you hidden! That poor woman feared for her life and she had every right to. Look where it got her! A young life cut short by a man with a horrible past. Rachelle is just lucky she had the courts to save her from being his next victim. Im sure the public have made up their minds and feel safer at night now that this serial criminal is locked up!!

        • Administrator says:

          Hi Michelle, your claims regarding Rachelle treating Simon as a cash cow are incorrect.

          We feel we’ve presented plenty of evidence here supporting our claims. It has been corroborated both by CCTV footage and the concierge at the Hyde that Lisa was able to come and go freely. We are not condoning Simon’s decision to monitor one of Lisa’s phones. The cameras within the apartment were not hidden, the only camera that was concealed was the pinhole camera in the door, which points outwards. The cameras were all installed with both Lisa and Simon present. They were both instructed in their usage. However, these indiscretion regarding Simon’s monitoring of her phone do not constitute evidence of guilt.

        • Redsonja says:

          Ok…what on Earth has the public got against Rachelle? Do you really think that her parents would be also campaigning for Simon if they thought their child was in danger with him? Really??? Is it because she firmly, and with expressed reasoning, has the belief in Simon’s innocence? Isn’t this her right, to have an opinion? Is the public saying that she should just be quiet and do as she is told? There is no crime in proclaiming one’s innocence even after the guilty verdict – Ronald Ryan’s last words were that he didn’t do it. And now evidence firmly points to him being innocent. Much has been made about Rachelle’s immaculate dress sense, her hair, her demeanour, that she is a media attention seeker, that she was a model – it is the MEDIA, as always, who has focused in on her. She has not been vocal before the verdict – all she did was attend court. I never heard her speak to the media before she walked outside after the guilty verdict. She stood silently in support of Simon, and the media focused on her, how much they compared her to Lisa (doesn’t everyone have a particular attraction – it could be blondes, it could be brunettes). What was Rachelle meant to do – wear ugg boots and track suit pants to court? Really? I don’t know Rachelle, nor the family, but my perception from where I sit is that you don’t judge someone by how they look, and the media couldn’t help but focus on her. This is pathetic…really, inquisition lynch mob style. I am disgusted that this could be so similar to the Lindy Chamberlain media lynch. Lisa’s life has similarly taken a back seat to all of the hype. Anyone who believes that they are wrongly convicted have the right to appeal, on an error of law or if there has been a miscarriage of justice. We need to respect the law of our land which states that we have a right to proclaim and defend our innocence. Tomorrow, it could be someone you know. The onus is now on Simon to show that the judge was wrong, and that is his right.

          • Moderator_3 says:

            Hi Redsonja,

            Thank you for your continued support and kind words. We will pass it on to Rachelle Louise and Simon Gittany.

          • DD says:

            Maybe if she hadn’t made money off someone’s death, then she wouldn’t be treated as a vile and disgusting person. I don’t have a problem with her defending her boyfriend but I do have a problem with a woman who makes money off the death of a beautiful woman who didn’t deserve to die. It’s her actions not her words that get her the spotlight and she knows it. She will continue to milk it for all it’s worth and keep making money from someone else’s misery i.e Lisa’s family. And her re-enactment of the interviewer not being able to lift her off the ground was crap. I weigh 73 kilos and my husband who doesn’t go to the gym unlike Gittany was able to lift me up off the ground no problems. Thats another theory she got wrong yet again. And if she doesn’t like being treated like the vile person she portrays, simple solution – stop making money the easy way by attacking the victim, get a job and earn your money honestly or maybe donate some of the money to charity. She only has herself to blame, no one else.

          • Moderator_4 says:

            Hi DD,

            Rachelle did not make any money. Rachelle spent her entire savings on Simon’s legal costs and they borrowed the rest of the amount for their defence from friends and family. The money from the interview does not even manage to pay back the amount they owe for legal costs. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-accused-of-murdering-ballerina-fiancee-avoids-jury-trial-20131017-2vpi2.html Don’t you find it interesting that the article name is “man accused of murdering ballerina fiance avoids jury trial”? They did no such thing. This was the advice of their legal team.

            Was your husband able to pick you up in the manner described by Joshua Rathmell? We can assure you we have attempted this with many people, including men who work out, and we are yet to find one that accomplishes it with “no problems”.

          • DD says:

            As you have previously pointed out to others on here nobody knows what really happened that day but you and his girlfriend are suggesting that Lisa was lying on the floor when he picked her up – how do YOU know that for a fact? She could have been pushed onto the bed or lounge which would be easy to pick her up. And when someone is in a rage they could easily pick up 50kg, their adrenalin kicks in and they have more strength than they realise. I’m sure you could find someone to pick up 50kg if you really tried. I’ve heard stories of mothers lifting cars up to save their kids because of the adrenalin kicking in. Anything is possible. And watching Rachelle lying on the floor while a man in his 50s who probably has never been in a gym trying to pick her up is laughable, she is definitely a lot heavier than Lisa was and Simon isn’t wimpy looking like the interviewer. You still haven’t convinced me but keep trying, you might get there.

          • Moderator_4 says:

            Hi DD,

            We are not suggesting Lisa was lying on the floor. Our suggestion is the complete opposite as you already know. However, if Lisa was rendered unconscious I am sure you would accept this would put her on the floor? An unconscious body can not hold them self up.

            DD it is the entire event which we find difficult to achieve. Rendering someone unconscious, picking them up, walking 16 steps, opening a balcony door, lifting them over a balustrade which is quite high, screaming for 5 seconds for no apparent reason, throwing them far enough to effectively only graze a 900m awning to swing back and hit the awning below with significant force. You do bring up a point about adrenalin and one can not know for sure the effect this has on the body. Some people are able to lift a 50kg person in the manner described by Joshua Rathmell, but there is still the aforementioned to also be achieved in a time frame of 65 seconds.

            Rachelle actually weighs 49.5kg and Lisa weighed 50kg. So you are incorrect. Rachelle is much shorter than Lisa.

          • DD says:

            When his girlfriend is on national TV lying on the floor re-enacting a dead body and having a middle aged man who has probably never been inside a gym trying to pick her up tells me that she wants us all to believe that it’s impossible for Simon to have picked her up off the “floor”. My previous comment was – how do you know that she wasn’t lying on the lounge or bed which would be a lot easier to pick someone up at a higher distance rather than bending down to the floor? And yes a person can be pushed onto a lounge or bed and rendered unconsious. We have seen photos of Simon holding her over his shoulder so it’s not impossible for him to pick her up unless she just happened to jump up there on his shoulder. I must have missed his girlfriend re-enacting other scenarios of him picking her up in other ways. Please let me know if I’m wrong about that. I just saw her lying on the floor. And as for the police – they always have uniformed officers along for the arrest so I don’t believe that he didn’t know who they were. And could you please tell me were your diagnosis came from for Lisa Harnum – haven’t been able to find that one.

          • Moderator_4 says:

            Hi DD,

            Again, this is not how the witnessed described seeing Simon holding Lisa. Josh Rathmell clearly demonstrated Simon to be holding Lisa with his forearms. This is extremely difficult.

            Regarding your comment they always have uniformed police officers along for the arrest. You are incorrect. There was only two police officers and they were both not wearing uniforms.

            Regarding the diagnosis it came from trained medical staff who observed Lisa for months in Canada. She was diagnosed with these disorders during her hospitalization overseas. The reason you have not been able to find it, is because the media chose not to publish it.

      • DD says:

        Having seen the footage of Simon with his hand over Lisa’s mouth and dragging her back into their apartment would suggest to anyone with a brain that she was in fact being held against her will and was trying to leave an abusive man. And removing her belongings out every day would suggest that she was trying to leave him but doing it so as not to alert him. Meaning that she was scared of what he would do when he found out. So yes she was obviously scared of him and rightly so. So she might have been free to come and go before but certainly not on the day she died. And as for the witnesses and their different versions of what they heard – some people have better hearing than others. Have they given these witnesses any hearing tests? The guy further away could have better hearing than the guy closer to the building. My husband and I could sit a few feet away from each other and he will hear something I can’t, only because my hearing isn’t as good as his. So unless a hearing test is given to each witness then your theory doesn’t make sense because having two deaf children I know that if they both hear the same sound one might hear it loud and the other faintly or not at all. They do tests with a lot of background noise and my kids have to pick out a certain noise – both results always come back different. So it all comes down to what your hearing is. So knowing a lot about hearing loss and tests your theory doesn’t convince me until the witnesses are tested and prove that they all have the same hearing.

        • Moderator_4 says:

          Hi DD,

          If you really believe this. Could you please explain why Lisa did this with her previous flat mate Amalia (female) after an argument they had? Do you believe that Lisa was leaving an abusive female flat mate? Do you believe that Lisa was scared of what Amalia would do if she found out?

          We accept that the video footage is horrific. Simon had publicly apologised for his behaviour and accepted fault. Simon made the mistake of chasing her when she ran and when she began to scream he put his hand over her mouth and brought her back inside the apartment. By no means do we condone Simon’s behaviour. However, his intention was not to hurt or kill her. Lisa Harnum was diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder as well as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. We believe the act of running to the balcony was a histrionic display based on Lisa’s previous displays such as jumping out of a moving vehicle.

          We agree with you about some people having better hearing than others. The diagram on the site does not clearly articulate the distance apart they are. Yuto Yoshioka is directly across the road (about 12m). Joshua Rathmell is significantly further (about 70-80m). No unfortunately there was no hearing tests done as the key witness lives in America and came for the trial.

  9. R Fowler says:

    I sincerely hope this manipulative, dominating, cruel and vicious control freak serves his entire sentence

    • Administrator says:

      Hi R Fowler, we’re not sure how you’ve arrived at this conclusion. Is there a particular point or piece of information you disagree with?

  10. John Kent says:

    Point 1.
    “It is interesting to note that neither the council workers nor the Japanese student were accompanied by armed guards to the hearing, whilst Joshua Rathmell was surrounded by armed guards.”

    Referring to point 1.
    Wow…what a prejudiced and biased one-sided comment to make. Maybe he had a NEED to feel secure on his way to testify in a ‘MURDER’ trial. Maybe he had been threatened or feared being threatened, and who is to say any of us would not have done exactly the same under the same set of circumstances.

    Point 2.
    “My view on this is these folks are your salt of the earth, tell it as I see it folks. No airs and graces the kind of folks you would be happy to catch up with and chew the fat over a beer or two.”

    Referring to Point 2.
    I am willing to bet that if Joshua were less verbose on what he thought he heard and was more like the council workers, I am fairly certain you would describe him as being your “salt of the earth” type and would probably have a beer with him as well.

    Point 3.
    “Given that the background noise is very likely to have been louder, how is he able to hear it so distinctly and also determine so rapidly which direction the sound came from? The council workers clearly indicated that the noise they heard was not loud enough or distinct enough to cause them to look up they thought it was a bird”

    Referring to Point 3.
    Some people with good hearing can just instinctively know from which direction a sound comes from…..what is the big point you are trying to prove here? And IF the council workers were doing their job (and depending on what their jobs were, one could question their diligence in the amount of concentration they were putting into their work AND their hearing. Were they working with noisy equipment minutes before or been subjected to jackhammers in previous jobs, or wearing earplugs or earmuffs etc?)
    Your seemingly innocuous questions on these points makes it appear there is some kind of conspiracy afoot.

    Point 4.
    “without the sound no one would have any reason to look up instantly. Which also begs the question, why make a sound unless it is one of distress?”

    Referring to Point 4.
    I hate to break the bad news to you, but people look up all the time….sometimes with no real reason, and your question about ‘distress’ works BOTH ways. Was the distress caused by someone who had slipped and began to fall….or was it because someone was trying to throw them off a building??

    Point 5.
    “This must be the only instance where recollection improves with time.”

    Referring to your last point.
    What a condescending little comment to make. The truth is that some recollections and memories DO improve over time once we have had the chance to filter out all the superfluous things like excitement and angst and fear and a number of other emotions that can cloud our thought processes.

    Each of your spurious questions – when looked at logically and with emotional detachment, can be seen to have more answers than what you are so blatantly trying to elicit from your readers and, quite frankly, make you look desperate.
    __________________________________________________________

    • Administrator says:

      Hi John, thank you for taking the time to visit the site. In regards to your comment:

      Point 1, we feel that our point is valid. Why were Lisa Brown and Michelle Richmond for example not afforded the same protection if such an inherit threat exists? Keep in mind here that Michelle Richmond alleges that she was verbally threatened in a phone call by Simon.

      Point 2, we’re happy to concede, it doesn’t reflect a fair assessment of Joshua – as we don’t know him personally and we will remove it accordingly.

      Point 3, what evidence do you have supporting your claims regarding ones ability to rapidly discern the source of a sound? We feel the audio evidence and diagram is very valid. If the spot where Joshua was standing were not in the middle of the city and silent, we may be able to understand your point, however the general level of sound would make it very hard to hear. Further to this, even if Joshua was able to rapidly assess the source of the sound, there is no way that he will have heard the sound before the student who stated that he already saw Lisa falling. As the student would be alerted first by the sound due to his proximity to the event, he would also be the first to observe it. The council workers did not have any noisy equipment with them, nor had they used it prior to the incident, as they were working on stairs and moving bricks. Joshua Rathmell made a statement that he asked the council workers “Mate, was that a body?” to which one of them replied “Yeah, it came from that building”. Both council workers stated that they did not talk to anyone. One thought the sound was that of a bird, and the other believed that someone had been hit by a car. Joshua Rathmell made his statement prior to the council workers being found. It’s also worthwhile to note that police said that they spent 100 hours trying to locate the council workers, and Rachelle was the one who found them by phoning the council. We intend to upload more information regarding this point soon.

      Point 4, we feel you’re missing the point. Why would Simon draw attention to himself if he was trying to commit murder? Please note that in Joshua Rathmell’s initial statement, he indicated that he “didn’t see a push” and “didn’t see a jump, but I watched the body fall. I thought it was a junkie throwing rubbish out the window.”

      Another interesting point is that during the committal hearing Joshua also stated “When I first heard the screaming, before I witnessed the incident, that was just naturally what I assumed the screaming was, a junkie somewhere in the park or across the road, on an ice bender”. This to us does not support your theory that even if someone were able to recognise the source of the sound immediately, that Joshua Rathmell was able to do this. He indicates quite clearly here that he believed that there could be multiple sources and locations regarding the sound.

      Point 5, we think that this illustrates an important point. Expert testimony proves that memory is extremely fallible. Studies all point out that recollection doesn’t improve over time, they actually show that people will fill in the gaps themselves from a multitude of sources (such as media coverage, personal experience and even discussing it). Whilst the witness will be convinced that their memory is correct, testing shows that it very rarely is. If you could reference and studies to support your claim, we would appreciate that.

      Thank you again for taking the time to comment.

      • Kathy says:

        How do you know you spoke to the right council workers? Didn’t you also say the police couldn’t find the people involved in the conversation, but Rachelle found them quite quickly? What if she found two completely different people.
        Joshua said to a council worker “Mate was that a body” and the man confirmed it… but later you talk to “the” council worker who says the conversation never took place, and he didn’t know someone had fallen. There’s always a lot of work going on in the city, so there’s plenty of possibility that there were more than 2 council workers in the area on that day.
        Whatever Joshua heard, or whoever he spoke to isn’t as relevant as what he saw. Nobody else walking across the park that day has stepped forward to contradict his statement, although I’m sure others saw Lisa fall.

        • Moderator_3 says:

          Hi Kathy,

          The council workers came and gave evidence at court. They were the only council workers in Hyde Park on that day. The police stated they spent over 100 hours looking for them and were unable to find them. Rachelle sourced the council workers, by phoning the council. The council had documentation of who was working that day and spoke to the two council workers to confirm it was them and they subsequently gave evidence at court after we passed the details on to the prosecution.

          The conversation that took place is extremely relevant. If Joshua Rathmell stated he talked to the two council workers (who were working on the stairs) and asked them “Mate is that a body?” for them to reply “Yes it came from that building”. Rachelle found the two council workers (who were working on the stairs as per Joshua Rathmell’s statement) and they both gave evidence stating no one talked to them.

          Yes others did see Lisa fall. For example Yuto Yoshioka. Yuto Yoshioka was directly across the road. Have you taken the time out to read the content on the website? This may clarify some of your questions.

          • Wendy says:

            If the council had documentation of who was working that day, why did they hand it over to Rachelle and not the police?! What kind of council job only sends two workers?

          • Administrator says:

            Hi Wendy, we do not know why the Police were unable to get the information regarding the council workers. Rachelle was able to find it by making a few calls then following the proper legal channels. The council workers were working on a staircase and moving some bricks. Thank you for your comment.

  11. jhon says:

    WOW, ISNT IT FUNNY LIKE THE MESSAGE I SENT BEFFORE ABOUT HIM BEING GUILTY AS SIN,IT WAS INSTANTLY REMOVED AND THE ONLY REASON YOU LEFT THE R FOWLER COMMENT IS PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT!! VERY CLEVER AND I THINK YOU KNOW HE IS GUILTY AND YOUR JUST AS GUILTY AS HIM AND YOU THINK THIS IS GOIN TO SAVE HIM!!! MY FRIEND ITS! NOT… P.S LOVELY MUSIC BEING PLAYED AS I TYPE. JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED GET USE TO IT! YOU LOST.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Jhon, we moderate all comments on the site, this is so we can filter personal information and ensure that derogatory remarks are not posted. We felt it wasn’t appropriate to publish your last comment as it referenced a separate matter.

  12. jhon says:

    AND ADMIN PERSON, I THINK YOU MADE UP SOME OF THEM PEOPLE THEY ARE TO DETAILED TO BE ORDINARY PEOPLE, YOU ARE A SHIFTY PERSON. TRYING TO PULL AT PEOPLES HEART STRINGS WITH LIES.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Jhon, to suggest that any of the comments here are fabricated is inherently disrespectful of the people who have taken the time to post their carefully considered thoughts. It also trivialises the circumstances some of these individuals have been subject to. You will notice that we post both positive and negative comments, the main factor that we moderate on is to filter out personal information and derogatory remarks.

      • Matt says:

        Jhon. People like you have a clearly mediocre mindset. Pull your head in, allow people to have a say and at least have the balls to put a normal name in when firing off at people who care about someone. I haven’t made my mind up whether Simon is guilty or not however the evidence I am reading illustrates a bunch of limited mentality cops trying to nail someone with substantive evidence and this my friend, is criminal in itself. The fact Simon seems to have a violent past, different connections and a controlling aggressive personality is something he needs help with. However, it doesn’t automatically make him a murderer.

        • Redsonja says:

          Dear Admin, I have a FB page with strict rules about posts by others on my page, and Jhon’s posts would violate my terms. He is yelling (in CAPS) and is being derogatory – i.e. ad hominem, rather than insightful or debating the points (if he disagrees). Perhaps you should consider posting some house rules and then it is known that you will enforce them as you need to – maybe with a note on the homepage linking to people to the rules so that everyone knows them and that posts will be moderated if not compliant. No-one, whether they believe Simon is innocent or not, should be allowed to be abusive (hypocrites!) or to troll your efforts.

          • Moderator_3 says:

            Hi Redsonja,

            Would you like us to delete his comment? We are sorry for publishing it if it offended you and did not mean to do so.

      • Redsonja says:

        I take great offence to your statements Jhon – I am very much a real person who has an interest in the criminal justice system and in this case. If you had half a brain, you would realise that all the comments are distinctly different.

        • Redsonja says:

          Dear Admin, no you definitely did not offend me by leaving Jhon’s comment. Please don’t think that! I am just annoyed at trolls like this who think that they can troll and then proclaim that you don’t have the right to remove them (as you see fit). They have no right to post accusatory statements towards your team. With house rules, they cannot complain that their comments were deleted (if you choose to do so). The rules say they will be deleted if they engage in this behaviour (e.g,many forums have such rules) and you can then refer to those rules, rather than having them argue that you deleted their comments (which no-one else can read) and didn’t agree with their point of view. By leaving Jhon’s comments, everyone can see what a troll he/she is and that their arguments don’t stand up. You are doing an awesome job, and are presenting well considered and articulate arguments here, and are giving others an opportunity to do the same should their views agree/disagree.

          • Administrator says:

            Hi Redsonja, thank you for your comment. We will see if we can get some house rules together, as it will hopefully lead to less comments of a certain nature. We’re happy to hear both sides so some rules on posting may assist us in having more productive discussion.

  13. Matt says:

    Interesting and I have only been following this since the media attention covering the case.
    Domestic violence is absolutely unacceptable and should never be tolerated. It is cowardly. The poor girls family should never ever have to suffer like they are now.
    I saying that, it is not a given that someone is guilty of such a crime.
    Yes of course there were screams and we are all aware from other footage there was a dispute and physical restraint on this lady when she was dragged back into the apartment.
    Did any witness actually see Simon placing her over the balcony or lift and release ???
    Noises are one thing but I would have thought more evidence would be required, regardless of his/there history.
    I am completely undecided on what I believe happened however the noise/screaming issues without anyone seeing the incident makes this uncertain for mine.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Matt, we feel the same way regarding domestic violence and agree that it should never be tolerated. We also extend our deepest sympathies to Lisa’s family.

      The only witness who alleges to have seen the incident is Joshua Rathmell. He describes what he saw as “unloading” – we’ve presented much information on the site regarding his testimony. Essentially, we see some major flaws in what he alleges he saw. Firstly, he reported it sometime after the incident had occurred and therefore was exposed to other information that would have potential to alter his recollection without him realising it. Secondly, his testimony has major flaws when it’s compared against the physical evidence. Thirdly, none of the testimonies provided by the other witnesses corroborate his testimony.

      Thank you for your visit and for taking the time to comment.

      • Matt says:

        Thank you. It does seem in that case, that this is very reliant on one individual’s recollection/statement. It does seem harsh and it makes you feel that if enough evidence can be produced in defence, that a retrial would be the only fair result.

        • Administrator says:

          Hi Matt, we’re glad that you found the information presented here compelling. Thanks for your comment.

  14. Pete says:

    As someone from the public looking into this case I would of found Simon guilty also and I think what you need to do is change your way of thinking. Why? U ask. Well from what I’ve heard from the physiologist, the camera footage, and the witness who wouldn’t find him guilty? You can’t blame the judge. The majority of the public thinks he’s guilty. So what you need to do is stop wasting your time with all the variables as to why this why that and start concentrating on how you can get him off. Simple you need to show evidence as to why lisa went over the balcony in the first place if that’s what your saying happened.If you can’t find that evidence then you have no hope. They obviously had an argument, she couldn’t leave through the front door so she climbed the balcony and slipped off accidentally?can u prove this? The fact lisa had a few issues with bulimia isn’t enough to say her head wasn’t right. Look for evidence why they were arguing that’s the only way, look through phone records was she cheating on him? What was said? Did the neighbour hear any conversation? You need evidence full stop, if you can’t get any evidence as to why she would climb over herself then it just doesn’t look good for Simon cause from the evidence against him it looks bad and looks like his villain.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Pete, thank you for your advice. Here’s a few points for you to consider, we will quote a previous comment we posted for you to read:

      if you followed the trial you would see that Lisa exhibited a pattern of behaviour in which she would often place herself in a position which could result in personal harm in order to provoke an emotional response. There were instances in which she disembarked from a vehicle that was still moving, on one such occasion she opened the door when the car was travelling quite quickly on Parramatta Road. As residents of Sydney will be aware, Parramatta Road is an extremely busy main road.

      We believe that she acted in a way that she had many times before, that is to say that the risk associated with her action was not immediately evident to her. The Crown and Defence were in agreement on the fact that whilst dysfunctional, Lisa and Simon’s relationship was never physically abusive.

      We also intend to post some additional expert evidence in the coming days regarding the lack of identifiable finger prints on the balustrade, as this was instrumental to the Crown case.

  15. michelle says:

    Its funny how I wrote a comment on how I truly felt about Simon being guilty yet it was taken down. Its funny how only positive comments in support of Simon remains shown on this site. He is guilty plain as day and I hope he never walks free what he did was a cowardly act trying to prove he was the dominant male. I hope each and every day in prison is a nightmare for him.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Michelle, we don’t believe that we’ve trashed any of your comments and you are entitled to your view. If you feel a comment has been missed, please let us know and we will try to address this. Can you provide more detail regarding why you believe that Simon is guilty? We feel much of the evidence presented here is compelling, so we ask that you read it if you have not.

      Regarding your last comment, please try to keep things constructive when posting future comments. If you continue to make remarks of a similar nature, we will have to moderate the content at the least if it is to be published. Thank you for your visit.

      • Redsonja says:

        Michelle, you were not there – only Simon and Lisa were. Even the judge filled in the gaps (those crucial 69 secs) with assumption. She does not know definitely what happened. There isn’t a smoking gun, or a bloody dagger to link Simon to the crime. That we think he set it up like a suicide is not enough. At least it shouldn’t be and if it is, pray that you are not before the courts. There is clearly doubt, reasonable doubt, even if it was probable that Simon killed her. Our criminal justice system is about – beyond reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, then the accused must be acquitted. That is the safeguard in our system. You should give a solid rebuttal to support why you think that the arguments presented here are flawed, before you make snap judgements. Have you read the case transcript? I have.

        • Redsonja says:

          I sometimes wonder what the fluoride in the water does to people’s brains – does it make them so compliant to believe what is preached to them? Question everything people – one day, it may be you who needs to defend yourself. All I can say is thank goodness for groups such as Anonymous, who are free thinkers, albeit despised.

        • Naomi says:

          Redsonja, I seem to totally agree with absolutely everything you have said throughout this website. If anything this case has taught me, it’s how cruel and angry some people are out there. Redsonja do you have any legal experience? It appears that you are one of the few people who have an educated opinion on this case. It’s frightening to see how easily people have been influenced by the media. I also have done my own research and although I had doubt initially, I am now quite certain that Simon is not guilty of murder. I am against all kinds of violence, and equally against and compassionate towards people who have been wrongfully convicted.

          I sincerely with the free-simon team strength, I can’t imagine how I would cope if this happened to someone in my family. One thing for sure, I would not give up on fighting for justice, and for their freedom Best of luck, you have my email address, please feel free to ask for support if you think I can help in any way.

  16. Anon says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with John Kent (below.)
    Firstly, the spelling mistakes in your ‘The Case’ section are appalling – it would be hard getting a kindergarten teacher to take you seriously never mind the High Court.

    Secondly, it is disgusting that you feel you can exploit a young woman’s mental health (in relation to Lisa Harnum’s history of eating disorders) as a defence for Simon Gittany, just because a person suffers from an eating disorder does not mean they would throw themselves fifteen storeys off a building, is there evidence (aside from Simon Gittany’s word as he attempts to get away with murder) of these incidents of Lisa supposedly jumping out of moving cars (oh and everyone remember: they were going at high speed)?

    And for God’s sake stop referring to Lisa as ‘Lisa Cecila Harnum’ every time the site references her: everyone knows her name: calling Simon Gittany ‘Simon’ to try and personalise him whilst referring to Lisa as ‘Lisa Cecila Harnum’ to try and depersonalise her isn’t fooling anyone.

    Now, on to the defence’s case and Simon Gittany (because we only use full names, don’t we?) testimony. So Simon Gittany walked back inside his apartment (that is, after wrapping his hand around his girlfriends mouth and dragging her back inside.) put the kettle on, waited for Lisa to take a seat on the couch, asked her “why would you do that?” and then watched her run to the balcony, climb it, slip, tried to help her and then watches her fall – all in 69 seconds. He must have really been pressed for time turning on that kettle.

    Additionally, in one of your sections you ask why Ms Richmond or Lisa’s personal trainer didn’t “take Lisa in.” – I think you’d be hard pressed to find a psychologist that would take one of their patients in. That’s called a conflict of interest, and Ms Richmond would have likely lost her practicing licence for it. Likewise, it was not Lisa’s personal trainer’s responsibility to do this either. It was however Simon Gittany’s responsibility to behave like a human being, shame.

    Also, seeing as the publishers of this website feel freely enough to throw stereotypes of media officials around, might I point out how convenient it is Rachelle found these construction workers months after police stopped looking. I wonder how hard that must have been for an attractive twenty-four year old female, no wonder she’s in debt.

    Now, finally, to my personal favourite aspect of this ridiculous argument: why would Simon Gittany be yelling as he threw Lisa off the balcony? That is, the argument that, had he murdered Lisa, Simon Gittany would have been completely silent. Now, given the fact we know with out a doubt Simon Gittany and Lisa were in a verbal (and physical on Simon Gittany’s part) fight at the time, is it not possible that Simon went into a blind rage (remember, as Rachelle said, he was acting “instinctively”) and screamed as he lifted the weight of his girlfriend and threw her off their balcony? And perhaps it’s just me, but the video footage of Simon Gittany’s elevator ride down to the ground floor looks more like a man that is angry at himself (i.e. ripping his hair saying “what have I done”) before composing himself to put on the performance of his life than a man who has just watched the love of his life voluntarily plummet to her death.

    Now, it can be argued any different way. Some may not be convinced that the prosecution’s case holds without a reasonable doubt. However, at the end of the day, what does exist without a reasonable doubt is that Lisa is not coming back, and ultimately, she plummeted to her death at the hands of Simon Gittany.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Anon,

      No one is exploiting Lisa’s mental health issues we are stating information which came up in court and was not disclosed to the public. Lisa was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and was suffering from anorexia/bulimia. These are facts not opinions.

      Yes there is evidence of Lisa jumping out of a moving vehicle. Lisa’s mother came to court and confirmed that Lisa had told her about the time she jumped out of the cab with George (her boyfriend at the time). This was in the presence of Simon, Rachelle and George.

      We are not referring to Lisa Cecilia Harnum to depersonalise her. There are two Lisa’s in the case. Lisa Harnum and Lisa Brown. However, Lisa Cecilia Harnum preferred to be known as Cecilia, so we were referred to her by her full name for these reasons.

      Michelle Richmond does not have a practicing licence, because she is not a psychologist. She is a self-employed life coach.

      Rachelle found the council workers by phoning the council. The council did not know who Rachelle was nor do they know what she looked like prior to the media coverage.

      This is our personal favourite as well. Why would Simon be yelling as he threw Lisa off the balcony? Are you aware that Lisa was found to be unconscious prior to Simon unloading her? So we definitely agree with you. Why would Simon be yelling as he threw her off? And why would he be yelling if she was unconscious? We do not agree with your opinion of Simon in the lift, but you are entitled to your opinion.

  17. Kelly says:

    I did think he was guilty just by watching the news and what not, just like a lot of other people I guess. I have taken the time to do some reading for myself and now I am not so sure he was given a fair trial at all…

    I wish you luck in discovering the truth.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Kelly, thank you for your comment. We’re glad to receive some positive feedback regarding the information here.

  18. GLENDA says:

    What an absolute circus this has turned into. Simon is GUILTY. Full Stop.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Glenda, would you care to enlighten us as to what has you so convinced? Thank you.

      • Redsonja says:

        Wow, Glenda…that really wasn’t a compelling argument. Somehow I have a vision of torches and pitchforks, rather than a well reasoned argument.

  19. bee says:

    I believe simon is innocent , and I believe there should be a retrial.
    I watched part 1 with the interview with simon’s girlfriend , and all it really showed you was someone that loved his girlfriend and even her mother stated ” simon said that the only place she was going was home ” if she wanted to leave him… so how can this mean he wanted to kill her if he couldn’t have her.. for her own mother to say that on national t.v to me shows he’s innocent by that remark.
    also I come from a violent relationship and the way he acted and the way she was in all the video’s she never seemed scared or under his spell… just someone in love..
    also we have to look at the fight and battle she was having everyday with herself and her own demons… thar alone is a hard illness to handle and already thinking that everybody was against her by thinking shes fat with her bulima problems…
    yes he may off been controlling but she was lost within herself with her illness… she kept that a secret..
    & if she was really that worried why did she fly back to Australia when she could’ve stayed in Canada with her family..
    I feel sorry for her family for there loss but you cant blame an innocent man.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Bee, thank you for your comment. We are sorry to hear that you were subject to a violent relationship and we hope that you’re no longer in that environment. Thank you for sharing your story, your comment is very touching and provides additional perspective.

  20. Anon says:

    I am quite optimistic that you will win your appeal. There are so many inconsistencies, subjective biases, and unreliable evidence for Simon to proved guilty. There exists doubt, and it is not unreasonable.

    I can relate to Simon. My wife and I survived our own tough patch and now have kids and are going strong, so I really do feel for him.

    Remain steadfast and composed and you will get there… with a bit of luck. For that’s all that life is – attempts to justify randomness.

    Those in the media are the real crooks – distortion, bias and manipulation is all they reported.

    Good luck.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Anon, We’re glad to hear things are now going well for you and your wife now. The one sided media coverage received was the primary reason we decided to create this site. Thank you for your kind comment.

    • Stefan Jenkins says:

      Those in the media are crooks? I think you dont understand how the legal system works. The ‘media’ as you put it has no influence whatsoever in the courtroom so what is your point. It is irrelevant what the media says. And also as the defendant chose to have the case heard by a judge and not a jury you would safely assume the judge made the correct decision based on ALL the information and facts that were presented. The media cannot influence a courts decision and its ridiculous to elude to that possibility. The hardest thing is that the accuseds family believes in his innocence. The facts of the case and even the facts provided on this website point to his guilt. And any man who gags and and physically manouvres any female, yet alone a tiny 50 kg female has a lot of explaining to do. The action on the pinhole video with his hand over her mouth is a breach of half a dozen serious laws which can include kidnapping, assualt, assualt and battery, illegally detaining another and threat of violence. No doubt one day he will admit his guilt to a family member or friend, otherwise if he doesnt and trys to live in a lie of innocense his mental health will deteriorate rapidly inside and the rest of of life will be false and bitter. Time for him to move on and start to begin a new life on the inside. If a fellow inmate grabs Simon around the mouth and drags him into a prison cell forcefully how do you think he would feel nd react?

      • Moderator_4 says:

        Hi Stefan,

        You are entitled to your opinion, but we do not agree. The media has a much bigger influence than you think. Perception trumps fact.

  21. Deb says:

    I have followed this case closely and read the judgement in its entirety. I believe Simon Gittany is as guilty as hell and the judge clearly followed a very careful process in deciding what evidence supported the verdict and why. In regards to “Audio” evidence, if Lisa climbed over the balcony and slipped as he says, she would certainly have screamed and/or flailed the whole way down, yet eyewitness statements say the opposite. As for Lisa being “free to leave” whenever she liked, what a joke. Simon systematically went about isolating her from the workforce and her friends, destroyed whatever small amount of self esteem she may have had and exploded in a rage when he could control her no longer. An evil man who preyed on a weak individual by playing on her various neuroses and turning on the charm when he needed to get her back under his spell. Poor girl, what a shame she could not find the courage to leave this coward and bully earlier. I hope he rots in prison. I also hope the authorities do a full investigation into his so called “business” dealings, of which nobody seems to be able to describe in anything other than vague terms.

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Deb,

      With reference to the point of Lisa Cecilia Harnum screaming and flailing all the way down; she hit the 14th level awning, which was stated probably knocked her unconscious because she hit it with enough force to significantly damage it. The expert who examined her body stated the abrasions to the face were consistent with the awning. The concierge who worked in the building was best positioned to observe whether she was “free to leave”. In his statement he clearly articulated that she came and went as she pleased frequently using her own set of keys and swipe card. This was also confirmed by the CCTV footage at the front door which shows Lisa Harnum coming and going as she pleases, without Simon Gittany.

      The crown accused Simon of making Lisa lonely and friendless but when Lisa moved in with Simon, she came to him with no friends. Lisa moved into Simon Gittany’s apartment after a fall out with a room mate (Amalia). Lisa Harnum asked her then-boyfriend George to find her a place. George was married to another woman with his own family and Lisa was not able to move in with him. George was friends with Simon Gittany and he asked Simon if Lisa could move in temporarily. After Lisa Harnum moved into Simons apartment, she broke up with George. Lisa Harnum and Simon Gittany began dating. Amalia was Lisa’s only friend, confirmed by emails from Lisa Cecilia Harnum sent to Joan Harnum where Lisa Cecilia Harnum literally states this. Amalia gave evidence in court that their friendship break up had nothing to do with Simon, it was because of Lisa secretly moving out of her apartment without giving her any notice. Amalia came home, to discover her secretly moving belongings out. Lisa Cecilia Harnum moved out of Amalia’s apartment following a previous argument they had with eachother regarding George. Michelle Richmond gave evidence that Lisa Cecilia Harnum and Amalia fell out because Amalia did not feel right about Simon Gittany. Michelle Richmond gave incorrect evidence, as per Amalia’s testimony (who is not Simon’s friend and does not know him), however Justice Lucy McCallum dismissed this as Michelle Richmond getting confused and stated it was understandable, because Michelle Richmond did not take any notes.

      If Simon is so controlling why is he asking Lisa Cecilia Harnum for permission to hang out with his brother and his friends in the secret recording she made on her Iphone in June 2011 (a month before the incident)? Simon Gittany also refers to a previous fight they have had about this topic, where he says “Remember that fight we had ages ago and I told you this is what I want”. He also says “It is not my fault I have more friends than you do. I spend so much time with you”. Simon is blamed for Lisa Cecilia Harnum being lonely but it is evident from text messages that Simon Gittany apologises to Lisa that she feels this way and it is also evident from text messages that Simon tries to find Lisa friends.

      This is the text message dated the month that Lisa Harnum tragically passed away.
      Simon sent a text to Lisa on the 5th of July 2011 (25 days before her death) saying “You really are so special to me! Your heart is priceless & even the penguin picture is a reflection of your heart. I’m sorry if you get left out but I don’t leave the house or go see a friend to make you feel sad or lonely. I try & love you more than any man loves his girl because I really am in love with you & I know you have no real friends so I try & distract you from that by giving you more than 100%.”

      Lisa replied to Simon “I appreciate that baba. I just feel really lonely sometimes. Even when you are here an I let you do your thing on the computer and distract myself so I give you time for yourself. Why do you think I always come in and see you. I just want to be around you. I somethings think that being alone or feeling lonely is because I have done that to my mom. I am used to being alone alot but it doesn’t mean that I like it. Anyways, I know that you love me and love you and show you love just the same. Just be careful on Your bike okay. Focus on that now okay. I love you xoxo”

      In the secret recording made by Lisa Cecilia Harnum on the Iphone, when Simon asks for permission to hang out with a friend she says “But don’t think that at the same time you can’t have someone else can be included in these things too sometimes”. Simon Gittany replies to this by saying “Of course. But sometimes, sometimes its just us two you know. Like with you and Bec I dont want to get involved- Your nights are your nights and I don’t want to get involved and I am happy with you two you know what i mean spending time together. I think its great. its great for us and great for you and great for her. you know what I’m saying bubba?” Lisa Cecilia Harnum replies by saying “Mmhmm”. Bec is Simon Gittany’s cousin’s girlfriend. Simon Gittany introduced them and encouraged Bec to become friends with Cecilia. This is evident from a text Bec sends Simon Gittany in 2011 asking him when Lisa Cecilia Harnums birthday is so she can take her out because she is aware she does not have any friends.

      Lisa Cecilia Harnum then goes on to say “It hurts my feelings when the only person I have in my life tells me that they don’t want to hang out with me.”
      Simon says “I am here. I am here for you. No, No! I said once a week baby. Listen to what I say”
      Lisa says “Yeah well like you want to spend the whole day with them thats what I don’t understand”
      Simon says “Don’t take it to the extreme, its not a whole day.”
      Lisa says “Cause like you say once a week you wanna do that but you see him like every day anyways cause you guys are business partners”
      Simon says “Yeah but like its different, business bubba and I suppose when we get our shop we will be seeing each other every day because I will be there every day. So you know?”
      Lisa says “It’s like you know what, honestly Simon sometimes the things you say to me can be really mean”
      (Lisa starts crying)
      Simon says “They are not meant to be mean. They are not meant to be mean.”
      Lisa says “Sometimes they can be really mean to me and I don’t ..”
      Simon says “All I am saying is like..”
      Lisa says “I don’t do anything intentionally like ever to hurt your feelings, I don’t do anything like.. I just like being with you.”

      It appears as though Lisa Cecilia Harnum thinks Simon asking to hang out with a friend is “mean”. Do you think this is mean of Simon Gittany? Have you managed to listen to this recording in full?

      With regard to the investigation into his business. This was presented by the media. The following day they published an article stating “They said a media report which suggested the “NSW Police Force drug squad is investigating convicted murderer Simon Gittany over business links with two other men, is not correct” and a decision had been taken to “correct the record”.

      • Deb says:

        Don’t know where to start with all that…
        1. Still no closer to anyone actually stating what this guy does for a living. I suspect that is because it’s dodgy. Don’t even bother mentioning the shoe website which was started after his arrest.
        2. I have listened to the secret recording and posted my thoughts on that thread. I think it shows Simon being a massive manipulator, steering the conversation so that he gets his way because for her to disagree makes her look selfish. In fact, Simon made Lisa give up work, made her give up going to the gym, and told her when to be back at the apartment, so while she may have been free to walk in and out of the building as seen by the Concierge, she was most definitely not free to come and go as she pleased. His abusive text messages clearly show that.
        3. No scream before she hit her head? No scream when she allegedly lost her footing? As if.

        • Moderator_3 says:

          Hi Deb,

          Simon does not work at the moment as he is currently incarcerated. We have already informed you that Simon worked in advertising and sales before he went on to set up his business. Would you like us to source the actual role he filled whilst working in this field? Although, we do not understand what this has to do with the matter at hand.

          There is absolutely no evidence of your claims and they are not true. We have access to all the text messages between the two and they often text each other what they are doing. This includes Lisa Harnum. She does not ask for permission from Simon during the exchange of text messages, and at no point are there references about when she needs to be back at the apartment. Which abusive text messages are you referring to so we can provide you with some clarification? There are over 4000 texts between the two and only 5 or so that are deemed rude. All of these are during an argument. In over a year and a half there are only 5 or so bad text messages. This hardly seems a relationship characterised by abuse.

          We can not speak for the actions of Lisa Harnum we can only provide you with information pertinent to the case. We have no explanation as to why Lisa did not scream. It could be because she was in a state of shock.

      • Deb says:

        I didn’t actually mention drugs in relation to his employment either, so interesting that you raised it.

        • Administrator says:

          Hi Deb, we’ve had a little trouble keeping up with some of the media coverage – were you alluding to a different source regarding your comment?

          • Deb says:

            I’m just pointing out that nowhere in the media has there been any real description of what Simon did for a living. There were reports of a shoe website which had no traffic, and in Michelle Richmond’s testimony she mentioned that Lisa said she did not know what he did for work. Seems very odd to me to be able to afford a flashy lifestyle without your own partner being able to describe what it is you do.

          • Moderator_3 says:

            Hi Deb, Simon worked in advertising and sales before he went on to set up his business. He was working on setting up a Health business with Daniel before the incident. Lisa was involved in this process, she attending meetings on occasions. She also asked for her brother, Jason Harnum to become involved. You may have noticed that on the recoding of a conversation between Lisa and Simon posted on this site that they even briefly mention the business and Simon attending the meetings. Thank you for your comment.

      • DD says:

        You just proved that his girlfriend is a liar as she said on national television that she was the one who introduced Lisa to Simon not some guy named George. And also maybe there was a reason for Lisa not wanting him to hang out with his brother and friends – maybe she was sick of them getting him into trouble i.e. being caught with drugs (he claims they were his friends), being caught with stolen goods (he claims it was his friend who stole the items). Can see a pattern here – he gets caught out but it’s always someone else’s fault. These friends were all leading him astray. Drugs, stolen property, biting off policemen’s ears and we are supposed to believe that in just a few seconds after he dragged that poor girl into their apartment with his hand over her mouth, settled down to make her a cup of tea. Maybe we should ask the policeman who’s ear was bitten off how long it took for Simon to calm down after that incident and did he go off to the kitchen to make him a cuppa.

        • Moderator_4 says:

          Hi DD,

          Sorry, but you have made a mistake. Rachelle did not introduce Lisa to Simon. Lisa was introduced to Simon through her ex-boyfriend George. Rachelle gave Lisa Simon’s number, but they were introduced prior. Simon has acknowledged the mistakes he has made in his youth, but he has been convicted for murder, which he is not guilty of.

          • DD says:

            He hasn’t acknowledged his mistakes – Rachelle said in her interview that Simon said it was his friends fault regarding the drugs and stolen property. And it was the police officers fault for being in his house. That is blaming others, not admitting to your mistakes. You need to replay the interview again. And why would Rachelle need to give Simons number to Lisa when she had already been introduced by George and asked if he would let Lisa move in with Simon? Wouldn’t she already have his number if she was moving in with him? And do you give out phone numbers to strangers? You say Lisa didn’t have any friends so why would Rachelle give out Simons number to Lisa if they weren’t friends? Maybe the reason she didn’t have any friends in the end was because Simon controlled what she did and who she talked to.

          • Moderator_4 says:

            Hi DD,

            Yes Simon has publicly acknowledged his mistakes. Rachelle never said it was Simon’s friends fault regarding stolen property. Simon took the wrap for the drugs for another person, Simon did not disclose this story to Rachelle during the trial. He told her well before it. She was not prepped to give answers, she answered them to the best of her knowledge. Simon is in fault for stolen goods, no one ever said he was not. However the police attended the home almost a year later after this incident and did not disclose their identity to the family. There is a lot of research done about lying on top of someone, it is potentially life threatening, because you stop the lungs from expanding and filling with air. The police officer lying on Simon was a big chap and Simon is quite small at about 169cm.

            Rachelle and Simon met Lisa through her then-boyfriend George. George was married at the time to another woman. One night out Lisa’s friend was very drunk and went to the bathroom. She was gone for over an hour. When Lisa came back up she was upset with George that he had not phoned her to see where she was. During George and Lisa arguing, Simon suggested they all went back to his place. Simon, Rachelle, Lisa and George got a cab from Ivy to Simon’s place. Upon arrival, Lisa Harnum opened the door of the cab that had not stopped and ran down the street. Simon ran after her. We should point out that Simon and Lisa did not really know eachother at this stage, and Simon ran after her, not George. Simon rang Rachelle after to tell her that Lisa did not want George coming upstairs because she was upset with him. Rachelle met Lisa and Simon at the front of Simon’s place and they went upstairs. When Rachelle decided to leave, Lisa said she would leave too. When they were leaving Lisa asked Rachelle for Simon’s number. We will be uploading this night in detail to the site shortly. This night was confirmed by Lisa Harnum’s mother Joan Harnum who stated that Lisa Harnum had told her about the time she jumped out of the moving cab with George. Lisa then had a fight with her room mate Amalia at the time. There is an email from Lisa to her mother Joan Harnum prior to moving out of Amalia’s home stating that “Amalia is her only friend”. Lisa asked George to find her a place. Lisa could not move in with George as he was married with a family of his own. George asked Simon if Lisa could move in with him until he could find her a place. After their argument Lisa secretly moved out of Amalia’s home without giving her any notice. Amalia gave evidence in court stating they had an argument about George and Amalia came home one day to find Lisa in the process of secretly moving out. Simon helped Lisa out by giving her a place to live.

          • Administrator says:

            Hi DD, are you aware that police didn’t identify themselves as Police when they went to Simon’s house? They also were never able to produce the warrant for Simon’s arrest. This is troubling conduct. However, you are correct Simon should not have Do you have any evidence regarding your claims about Simon and Lisa’s relationship besides what you’ve read in the media? We think that some of the information presented here shows that a lot of what the media used was taken out of context. The recording is a very good example of this.

      • DD says:

        I wonder if Bec was made to be friends so she could keep her eye on Lisa for Simon? He was still controlling her by picking her friends for her. And why would you forbid your girlfriend from wearing high heels when your business was selling high heels? It’s called control and he loved having it!

        • Moderator_4 says:

          Hi DD,

          Simon encouraged Lisa to have friendships with many women. This is evident by texts throughout the relationship. Simon also encouraged the relationship between Bec and Lisa because he wanted Lisa to have friends. Lisa did not have any friends when Simon and her started dating. This is confirmed by the email Lisa sent her mother Joan stating that Amalia was her only friend. The fall out between Amalia and Lisa had nothing to do with Simon.

          Simon did not forbid Lisa from wearing high heels. She is wearing high heels in most of the videos all up until the tragic day of her passing. This has been misconstrued by the media. On one occasion when Lisa and Simon were going down to shops Lisa put on very high heels. Simon said he did not think she needs to put on high heels to go down to the shops. They had an argument about this. Lisa wore high heels through out their entire relationship. This is supported by the videos and photos.

  22. Anna Prior says:

    From what i have read and heard on news it seems to me Simon is innocent.
    Not enough evidence to suggest Simon threw her off the balcony
    Sounds like Lisa took her own life and unfortunatley Simon recieved the unfair sentence

    • Administrator says:

      Hi Anna,

      Thank you very much for your feedback Anna. While we can not rule out the possibility of suicide, it is our belief that this was not her intention.

  23. Demi says:

    This whole site is ridiculous. I would like to know the qualifications of the administrator on this site? And his girlfriends (seeing as it’s ‘hers’). If the arguments you’re making are correct and scientifically found, why didn’t simon’s defence team use these in court? And why didn’t the court rule in his favour, especially as it seems you guys think the evidence is so obvious.

    I agree that regardless whether Simon threw her or whether she jumped, neither would have occurred if he wasn’t such a control freak and just let her go when she first tried to leave. So for that reason he is guilty, he imprisoned her.

    I watched the episode on Sunday night, and was not sure why Rachel thought it was necessary to make an excuse for everything? I get that she too is in love and can’t see the real him and what he does as wrong (I believe she shrugged something off as being a sign of his love). I feel sorry for her.

    On the bright side, it’s nice to think he won’t be as tough as he thinks he is in jail, and that his new room mate will make him feel exactly how he made Lisa feel that moment he dragged her inside – scared & useless.

    Can you atleast admit the relationship had psychological abuse!?

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Demi

      The defence ran out of money to pay for experts. We also were not able to get the case adjourned due to witnesses coming from overseas. We will definitely be using this information for the appeal. We were not able to use any information regarding Lisa Harnum being unconscious because this was neither the crown nor the defence case and was a complete surprise to the defence.

      We do not condone Simon’s behaviour and agree with you that he should not have stopped her at the door. However, he has been convicted of murdering her when he is innocent.

      How do you believe Rachelle was making up excuses for everything? She was answering the questions to the best of her knowledge.

      We admit that the relationship had arguments with an exchange of words that may not be deemed pleasant however we do not admit the relationship had psychological abuse. Out of 4000 text messages there are only 5 or so that are rude and they are in the context of an argument. This is over the span of a year and half. Have you managed to listen to the secret recording on Lisa Harnum’s iPhone?

  24. Rebecca says:

    Hi,

    I’ll admit that a few hours ago, I fully believed Simon Gittany to be guilty. However, I can accept that a few of the points you’ve raised here do cast doubt on some of the Crown’s prosecution.

    On this, while it as been a few years since I studied legal studies at school – is there any particular reason a judge decided guilt? I was under the impression that cases such as these would be put to a jury of peers. I honestly think, that a jury would have difficulty reaching an absolutely guilty verdict.

    While I can’t say how exactly if I would ‘vote’ guilty or not guilty – I think there is enough conflicting information to contradict a guilty verdict ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ with the current evidence. Just a thought.

    Is there any reason this case wasn’t put before a jury? Thanks.

    • Moderator_3 says:

      Hi Rebecca,

      Thank you for your comment and feedback, you raise some valid points. We intend to upload more information on our site FreeSimon. The decision to go with a judge alone was due to financial hardship. Simon Gittany and Rachelle Louise borrowed the entire amount of money for the defence. They could not source any more money. They were advised by their legal team they had two options. Option One- To adjourn the court case or Option Two- Judge Alone (because the duration of a trial by jury is considerably longer). The prosecution objected to the trial being adjourned based on the witnesses coming from overseas. The entire amount of money which Rachelle received from the interview proceeds is being used to pay back all the respective parties who lent them money for their legal fees.

  25. Redsonja says:

    I agree with Rebecca – it would have been difficult for a jury to have unanimously found Simon guilty based on the facts as I have read them. What a shame that it is so expensive to mount a defence to such a serious offence.

  26. Paige says:

    I do believe innocent until found guilty, but in saying that my opinions were leaning more towards Simon being guilty, honestly though I came to this conclusion from the media that surrounded
    the case,now after reading more about the case and having more knowledge of both sides to the story, there is reasonable doubt! I think a lot of things were over looked for Simon, I’m not saying he is innocent but I can not say he is guilty either,which is a very loud statement.when you are looking for someone to be guilty than you will only look for things against that person etc, this is what I believe the media did and highlighted many things to portray a whole different situation ie- Lisa’s recording. I feel for both sides and my mind is having it’s own war about who to believe! This website is an eye opener and conveys you just can’t believe everything you read it hear!!!

    • Moderator_3 says:

      Hi Paige,

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

  27. Rodger Davies says:

    Found guilty by a judge and not his peers- enough said. Guilty!

    And is this site here to support or condemn Simon? It seems to be supporting him yet alot of the information on here actually makes him look guilty and proves his guilt.

    In fact alot of your interpretations of the facts and times and distances, and whether things are possible or not are so contradictory this site makes him looks guilty.

    If the aim of this site is to try and prove his innocence i would have someone look over it and remove all the contradictions on these pages and try and keep it a bit more simple and basic. After all if someone is innocent it is almost impossible to prove them guilty. Very few people are wrongly convicted in Australia Criminal history

  28. Rodger Davies says:

    And your interpretations of how sound travels is factually and scientifically incorrect.

    For instance if 2 sounds are made at 60dB- one from ground level and one from 20 storeys up, the sound from 20 storeys up will be heard from a far greater distance- especially from across the street and with traffic.

    In fact ambient sound from traffic etc at ground level would make any ground level 60dB sound inaudible- and the 60dB sound from 20 storeys up would be heard from a distance up to 10 fold depending on true ambient levels.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi Rodger,

      Thanks for that, but what you are talking about is irrelevant to the point of the page. Are you aware that the two people we are comparing are both across the street and in the same surroundings (traffic etc)? One witness is just much further away than the other.

  29. Jeffrey says:

    @redsonja

    re-read ALL your comments. YOU ARE DILLUSIONAL.

    Everything you say is an assumption also.

    You are not a judge.

    You didnt hear all the testimonies

    You are therefore not in a position to judge at all.

    Everything you say here is heresay and your own assumptions.

    All that fluoride in the water you mention has definetly done something to you.

    PS why did you mention fluoride. Let me guess- you argue for arguments sake right? Sounds like it.

  30. John says:

    How did Simon manage to pay for a $1500 per week apartment, smart clothes, etc, when he and Rachelle had to borrow the “entire amount of money for the defence”? Strong contrasts of lifestyles…no regular income, hmmm, how does that happen?

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Hi John/Peter,

      Simon worked from the age of 16. The apartment did not cost this much so we do not know where you got this figure from. And are you aware that Lisa and Simon lived together? They both afforded their lifestyle together. We are not sure what you mean by paying for smart clothes, what evidence is there to suggest he bought smart clothes? Simon had an online shoe business during his relationship with Rachelle. However, Rachelle is an independent female. She works in IT and supported Simon. This is why Simon was denied legal aid, because Rachelle had to disclose her financials, as he lived with her and she was his financially associated person.

  31. JR says:

    Your analysis doesn’t take several factors into consideration and are amateurish at best. This is the typical conspiracy theorist mentality, to throw up exceptions and assumptions that are based on the end result you are trying to achieve. Distance and background noise are only two factors regarding whether a sound is audible or if you can determine what direction the sound came from. For example, I was standing on a ledge about 80 meters off the ground and there was a friend talking to me in a low voice, but it was like she was standing right next to me because there were no obstructions to distort the sound waves or anything to dampen the noise level. You’re trying to sound like you know what you’re talking about by using a few technical terms like db loss, but you’re no expert.

    • Moderator says:

      Hi JR, with your example in mind – do you not think that if this was the case that the Crown would have more than two witnesses? Keep in mind that the two witnesses have also provided testimony that is mutually exclusive. Regardless of our expertise and the analysis it’s indisputable that outside of very specific circumstances sound travels in a particular way – therefore the student who witnessed Lisa already falling would’ve been alerted to the event by sound sooner than Rathmell. This is completely at odds with Joshua Rathmell’s description of events.

  32. Ali78 says:

    Why would she have to be rendered unconscious anyway? All irrelevant when he could have done it easily with her kicking and screaming. He threw her off the balcony that’s all that matters.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Dear Ali,

      Lisa would have to be unconscious for the judge to accept the testimony of the eyewitness.

      Simon could not have “thrown” Lisa from the balcony, as the awning is 900m in length. If Simon “threw” Lisa, she would have cleared the awning and most definitely not hit the 14th level awning. The defence obtained two biomechanical engineers to confirm this. One biomechanical engineer gave evidence at the trial and the prosecution did not dispute his evidence and it was accepted. Are you aware that it was the 14th level awning that Lisa hit with force? This is what makes the crown case so preposterous. How do you propose that Simon unloaded Lisa off the balcony for her to swing back and hit the 14th level awning? Are you aware that Lisa still had a hold of her handbag? To clarify it is a hand bag, not a shoulder bag that goes over your body.

  33. Steph says:

    The points that confuse me:

    – Harnum contacted her counsellor to tell her about her bags in storage (why would she do this if she was not fearful of a retaliatory attack)
    – Harnum contacted her mother saying if anything happened to her, contact counsellor (again, why would she do this?)
    – Despite the previous incident in the moving car; Harnum had tried to leave safely via the door but was illegally detained by Gittany and therefore (in Gittany’s version) after another flare up she headed for the balcony. (why wouldn’t she head for the door again if she could?)
    – The handbag: if she did climb onto the awning herself why would she take her bag with her? I have seen R. Louise saying what about the handbag? well neither story makes sense. If she was unconscious she would drop her bag unless it was on her shoulder and Gittany picked it up with her. If she climbed onto the awning herself why would she hinder herself with a bag? If she were suiciding why would she take her bag with her?
    – above says Gittany notified the authorities regarding the spyware and CCTV however Harnum had a torn up note in her pocket stating there was surveillance in the apartment. This note was in her handwriting. If she feared for her safety and thought he may harm her inside the apartment this would help with the case. She also contacted her mother with the counsellors info as if trying to give every hint incase. I don’t see why else she would write herself a note about the CCTV.
    -Harnum’s mother tried pleading with Gittany in regards to Harnum’s life. Why would she do this unless she had genuine fears for Harnum’s safety.
    – The passport, tickets etc. why would Harnum commit suicide or try and gain attention by doing something so reckless when she was just going to leave anyway?
    – Gittany contacted and threatened the counsellor. I don’t understand why she would lie about anything as she has nothing to gain. Even if she wasn’t supporting Harnum she would get the fame and attention from backing Gittany.

    These are the points I can think of at the moment. I have to submit a case study on the Gittany case and am just building my research. Thanks for providing the alternate side of the story and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my points of confusion.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Dear Steph,

      Harnum contacted Michelle Richmond (who is not a counsellor and holds no counselling qualifications) to inform her that she had put the bags in storage. The reason that Harnum put the bags in storage was because she was following the advice of Michelle Richmond. Harnum did not take this course of action on her own accord. Michelle Richmond advised Harnum this was a backup plan “in case” she wanted to leave in the future. It was the “counsellors” evidence that Harnum was “adamant” she did not want to leave Gittany.

      Are you aware that Harnum and Michelle Richmond argued prior to this alleged phone call to Harnum’s mother? It is difficult to understand why Harnum would tell her mother to call someone she had previously told not to contact her again via text messages.

      You say despite the previous incident in the moving car as if it is irrelevant? Are you aware there was more than one incident regarding Harnum attempting to exit moving vehicles (which was validated by Harnum’s mother) regardless of the event where she actually did exit the moving vehicle. We can not give reason for Harnum’s actions so unfortunately we are unable to answer why Harnum took this course of action.

      It is our opinion that Harnum was not attempting suicide; Instead, was stepping over the balcony to walk along the awning. This explains why Harnum had her handbag. The handbag is a hand bag and not a shoulder bag, it would not have stayed on her arm if she was rendered unconscious. Eye witness accounts suggest the the hand bag was falling momentarily before Harnum. Harnum was formally diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder which is extremely similar to Borderline Personality Disorder. Are you aware that several people with this diagnosis unintentionally suicide after putting themselves in dangerous and risky situations?

      Gittany did not notify the authorities, he told them instantly when they arrived on the scene. The authorities subsequently searched the apartment and could not find the CCTV without Gittany’s assistance. Gittany guided the authorities through how to operate the system. If Harnum wrote the note because she feared for her life, why didn’t Harnum leave the apartment for good each time she left by herself (including the night before- confirmed by CCTV footage) prior to the morning of her death? How could Harnum possibly foresee that Gittany was going to kill her? They had plenty of similar arguments where Harnum threatened to leave (including booked and cancelled flights, which were paid for on Gittany’s sisters credit card). If Gittany was preventing Harnum from leaving why did he facilitate the payment of her flight with his family member’s credit card?

      It is the mother’s evidence that Harnum contacted her with the counsellor’s information; However evidence establishes that Harnum’s mother knew of the existence of the “counsellor” prior to that morning. There is no direct email to Michelle Richmond and in fact there is only a reply from the “counsellor” to the mother. If Harnum’s mother had the counsellor’s email, why is there no evidence of a direct email when the mother has allegedly supplied all emails to the police? If you search the counsellor online she is readily identifiable and her website only has a contact form to send an email. The evidence suggests this is the most likely scenario.

      Harnum’s mother constantly texts her daughter messages like “Are you okay?” etc throughout their entire relationship. Are you aware that Harnum almost lost her life on more than one occasion before she came to Australia? The amount of time that passed where Harnum’s mother did not hear back from her daughter could be a plausible reason for her worries.

      What passport and what tickets? Harnum’s passport and mobile phone were in the apartment and not in her handbag and there was no flight booked and no ticket. In fact there was text messages early morning of Harnum’s death discussing only one ticket for her mother to come down to Australia to be with her daughter.

      Gittany never denied the phone call with the counsellor. He admitted he was upset that the “counsellor” had advised Harnum to put bags in to storage.

      Thank you for your comment.

  34. M K says:

    Whilst you are entitled to your own opinion, there is no need to force your supposed research onto everyone else. You can not say 100% that Simon is innocent because you weren’t there! There are only 2 people who know what really happened that night, and one if them is dead. You do seem very desperate and have an answer for everything which actually makes Simon look more guilty than ever if you ask me. The footage of him dragging Lisa back into the apartment and Simon waving his arms around in the lift are chilling and unfortunately whether Lisa suffered mental illness or not looks to me like he was guilty. You also have no right to discuss her medical conditions as she is not here to defend herself. And just because she had a mental illness doesn’t make her suicidal. On the same token just because Simon was never diagnosed with a mental illness doesn’t mean he does not suffer from mental illness himself. He has been depicted as controlling because he exhibited controlling behaviour, that is undeniable. You may as we’ll leave now Rachelle and maintain some dignity because there is no way he will be out of jail in 5 years. It’s a lost cause.

    • Moderator_4 says:

      Dear MK,

      You are precisely right. It is not our intention to force our opinion on others and we are sorry that it has come across this way. This is our opinion based on the evidence; just as those who voice their opinion that Simon is guilty and have no understanding of the facts of the case (except what has been widely publicised). Are you aware Lisa’s hospital records showed a suicide attempt in Canada?