The following is a list of the Impossible or Implausible events that the Crown alleges occurred. The Crown has relied mainly upon the testimony of Joshua Rathmell. They have been sequenced together to create a highly debatable and inherently implausible scenario.
Impossible or Implausible, events in order:
Render the individual unconscious: How does one render somebody unconscious instantly? How do you achieve this without leaving a visible mark or any sign of trauma to either party? How do you ensure the individual remains unconscious for the entire duration of the 65.3 seconds?
Lift and transport the individual: Make no mistake, picking up an unconscious person requires significant strength. To transport them quickly and efficiently (remember this is alleged to have happened in 65.3 seconds) requires a combination of strength and endurance. Our experiments show that a larger male, weighing 100kg or more can perform the lift and carry of a female weighing 50kg with some exertion. Simon at the time weighed around 62 kg. Does this sound familiar to you? We recommend that you check the link to Gordon Wood’s case. Is this plausible given the time restriction? Could she have been dragged by her feet? Unlikely as this would have caused severe friction burns, which were not evident at the autopsy and would not have been affected by the fall. Could she have been dragged by her arms? No, as her shoes remained on her feet until after she fell – at which point a shoe was likely dislodged.
Turn right through the balcony door: The balcony door must be open as the additional time required to facilitate opening the door would further hamper the Crown Case. However, the balcony door was typically left closed.
Turn left on the balcony: When the scene was examined the shoes that were neatly arranged on the balcony were not disturbed.
Continue to the railing: Negotiate the limited room between the treadmill and make sure not to disturb the potted plant. If the potted plant had been knocked over there would have been soil and pebbles on the balcony. The potted plant was delicate, unstable and if disturbed would have been knocked over very easily – the pebbles and soil would cause a significant mess. Simon left the apartment immediately to call the lift, however, he returned briefly to grab a t-shirt. This is based on a learned behaviour as the lifts frequently took a very long time to call, especially on the weekend. He then proceeded to rush down to check on Lisa. He did not have access afterwards to clean.
Pause in front of the balustrade and scream or yell for 5 seconds: Firstly, why would one yell? To bring attention to the alleged event? For what purpose?
The last point is of particular interest here. In the first description of events provided by Joshua Rathmell to a police officer over the phone he states that he hears a “muffled sound”. This would make sense as he is over 90 meters away from the alleged sound source, which is coming from the 15th floor and he is also situated behind trees. The closest witness hears a brief loud sound and the others witnesses who are closer than Joshua also hear a soft and brief sound. In subsequent statements Joshua states he hears screams whilst the other witnesses do not markedly change their statements. How do those closer hear a softer sound of a shorter duration? This is left to the imagination.
This sequence of events is at odds with the concept of a “blind rage” as the alleged event has also been described as cold, meticulous and calculated. This makes no sense. Does an individual in a blind rage stop to consider his options? When does an individual in a blind rage make cold and calculated decisions?
During the committal Joshua Rathmell was questioned by the defence about a reference made regarding a sound that reminded him a junkie on an “ice bender” during the walk through video. When asked what he meant by that, he stated that having lived in Paddington and Darlinghurst he was familiar with people completely out of their wits, yelling and screaming. Interestingly enough, when he first heard the screaming he assumed that it was a junkie somewhere in the park or across the road on an “ice bender”. This was before he witnessed the incident. This is difficult to rationalise as it makes little sense. The time frames for Joshua Rathmell to determine the alleged source of the sound and witness the incident are very strict. Joshua Rathmell’s testimony is not corroborated by any of the other witnesses.
Once again, note the reference here – he is no longer talking about a “muffled sound”. It’s evolved into a screaming sound that could have easily been coming from somewhere in the park or across the road (the time frame is a few seconds, if that). Joshua Rathmell then looks up to the 15th floor and observes the alleged incident. The background noise level in this area of the city is nearly always consistently around 75 to 80 decibels. Joshua Rathmell also acknowledges that it is loud in the park during the filmed walk through.
He was also asked that given the extremely short time frame and given the distance from the event whether there could be some doubt as to the accuracy of his observations, to which he replied, “Absolutely.” I find this very troubling if the key witness is accepting of the fact that there may well be some doubt with the accuracy of his observations, then how is it possible for there not to be reasonable doubt?
Finally, having accomplished all of the previously detailed Improbable or Implausible tasks Simon has to now unload the unconscious individual. The balustrade is 1200mm high. Simon with his arms parallel to the ground (as described and demonstrated by Joshua Rathmell) measures between 900mm to 1000mm. There is no way based in reality that Simon can perform the action described by Joshua Rathmell. Perhaps Simon could cause the balustrade to dematerialise? Alternatively, Simon could instantly grow taller by over 12 inches.
Everything else that surrounds this case is a distraction and unnecessary obfuscation to hide the real issue. The real issue is that the events as described and subsequently summarised by the Crown during the trial are Impossible or Implausible.
Demonising and Character assassination means the individual is presented in a lesser light, this does not equate to guilt.
Many things in life work beautifully on paper, they may also be articulated succinctly – however when the full facts and common sense are applied to the situation they rapidly become Impossible or Implausible in practice. In the case of Regina V Gittany, reality took a back seat and it has been theorised that the Impossible or Implausible became possible.
Please feel free to leave a comment below.