Simon Gittany pulls Lisa Cecilia Harnum into the apartment. Once inside the front door Simon allegedly renders her unconscious in an unspecified manner and carries Lisa for just over 20 steps. He then stands in front of the balcony balustrade and allegedly screams for 5 seconds and proceeds to unload Lisa with enough force to just lightly strike the 15th floor awning with what is theoretically pointed out to be a limb, which in turn changes her course and causes her to strike and heavily damage the 14th floor awning. If she did strike the 15th floor awning with a limb it is very unlikely that it would have altered her trajectory. Lisa continues falling and strikes the ground feet first.

The above is laid out by the Crown to be a plausible explanation for why after the screaming reported by the neighbours things went quiet. It’s worth noting that the neighbours never called the police. In the verdict summation it was categorically stated that the reason Lisa suddenly quietened and remained quiet was because she was rendered unconscious. There is no explanation as to how she was rendered unconscious or how the state of unconsciousness is maintained. Simply stating that this is what happened, does not make it possible. It also brings up a variety of questions, such as:

Why would Simon Gittany scream for 5 seconds and bring attention to himself?
How does an unconscious Lisa retain a hold on her handbag?
How did Lisa barely strike the 15th floor awning yet hit the 14th floor awning with force?
If Lisa was unloaded horizontally how did she land vertically feet first?

The below image illustrate the general measurements of the 15th floor balcony:

The below image illustrates a major flaw in the Crown Case, notice that the silhouette of the unconscious person being carried does not easily clear the balustrade. The unconscious body certainly cannot clear the balustrade in a manner which aligns with Joshua Rathmell’s description of “unloading”:

The image above shows the balcony furnished with the pot plant and the treadmill as it was during the incident, of particular interest here is the size of the gap. The pot plant was not disturbed when the scene was examined. The two images below show the length of the awning and a general view of the park from the building. Note that there appears to be unexamined palm prints present on the left image. The image of the awning also creates the illusion that it sits level with the balcony floor. It’s easy to see why one might mistake the awning to be the same level as the balcony.

Whilst the preceding sequence of events alone is highly debatable, it’s also a key point that ALL of the events used to build a picture of Simon’s character provided by the Crown, are second hand. They are stories at best and something almost always gets warped when these interactions are relayed. The only alleged first hand observation or experience regarding Simon’s behaviour is an alleged abusive phone call. Whilst no party has disputed the occurrence of the call, there is no way to know the composition or accuracy of the content.

In a description provided of the night that the alleged abusive phone call was made, it was communicated that the phone kept ringing from a blocked number. The calls were not answered as the inference was that they were being made by Simon Gittany. Subsequently, another phone call was received later from a blocked number that was answered. It was a client. How does one differentiate whether the calls from the blocked numbers are coming from Simon Gittany or a client? It should be noted that the phone was answered almost immediately and the client was spoken to.