

  

  

  

  

  

  

|
Forum
Port Arthur Massacre: Could Martin Bryant be innocent?
Page 3/529 of selected contributions from the readers of PublicDebate. (most recent first)
Were others involved
Posted: September 17, 2001
By: Joe Blogg
The question relating to Martin Bryant is not whether he is "innocent" or not, as he is guilty. There are too many witnesses. The question is whether other people were involved or not, either in planning and/or carrying out a limited part of the massacre.
On this I still have an open mind. However if other people were involved, it is very professional, and the cover up has been very well done.
There are only 2 choices - either a man with an IQ of 66 (is this correct?) has planned a massacre that resulted in 35 dead, and many wounded with firearms controls brought in as a result. Or he was set up in some way, with his willing cooperation.
I am not a firearms lobbyist, and in peacetime no one needs modern automatic firearms. Repeating rifles are quite adequate for almost all contingencies. And I do not have a firearm.
However I have concerns about the timing of the massacre, and whether a group of people who would justify a number of short term deaths in order to save more later, were involved. The place needed to be isolated, the police distracted, access restricted, and a guilty party convicted. It was either the work of Martin Bryant alone, or others were also involved.
Martin Bryant is not innocent. And basically any idiot can load a firearm and pull a trigger. I remember talking to a gun dealer some years ago and he made the comment that some of the best shooters in his experience were people who were, in his words, "not very bright". The reason was that they usually had steady nerves, and were not distracted by other things.
The difficulty I have is that Bryant planned and carried out the whole thing unaided. Certain political events both before and after are also noticeable.
I have no difficulty believing he could kill people. I suspect he killed his father, and perhaps his benefactor.
The question is not "is he innocent? " but "were others also involved?"
These are facts
Posted: September 11, 2001
By: Andrew
Anonymous asked the following questions.
"Bryant's ability to predict the time and place to drive without being apprehended by the Police seems uncanny don't you think?"
Are you suggesting his low IQ would make it difficult to relate to noting the movement of police at certain times in certain areas and make route and time adjustments to avoid them after having been previously fined? My pet dog behaves to the wise saying 'once bitten twice shy' and he is a smart canine without an education but with an IQ, if it could be tested, far inferior to 66.
Page 60 of the Court transcript "The proprietor said that he had had, at that time the assumption that Bryant had an early work commitment to be arriving at his shop at such an early hour of the day. But, in fact, Bryant's real reason for doing so was that he was living in the Copping District, he did not have a driver's licence and he therefore drove at a time, at that time in an attempt to avoid police detection."
"Given his considerable means why did he not attempt to gain a licence and acquire whatever number and type of firearms that satisfied this devout interest?"
Extract from police interview:
Q. Hey Martin, how come you never got about, got around to getting a driver's licence?
A. Ahh, I didn't think I'd ever pass or get through the courses 'cos I am not that bright.
Q. Did you ever get ahh, stopped by the police or anything like that?
A. Well on the way back from Kingston I did, one day with the Honda Civic for, for not having it registered. And then he's asked for some ID, I said I haven't got, he asked for ID. He said what about your driver's licence. I said I haven't got a driver's licence. Ohh he said, that makes things difficult. So then like I didn't appear in court 'cos I didn't have to 'cos I got a fine of about two hundred dollars.
Extract from psychiatrist's report - "He has never acquired a gun licence, partly because he was afraid of difficulty answering questions about safe gun usage."
"It is interesting that none of the three weapons i.e. the AR15, the Browning and the Daewoo shotgun could be traced and although Bryant pleaded guilty he did not give up the source of supply. I would have thought that weapons such as the AR15 would have been imported in very low numbers or was it thought that all three were illegal imports? "
Conspiracists or DPP have never ever mentioned a Browning weapon. Martin Bryant admitted in precise detail in his police interview the source of the AR 15 and Daewoo weapons was Terry Hill. MacGregor is again misleading you.
"You have noted the number of. 308 rounds purchased and expended but the figures for the. 223 are missing."
The parts of the police interview read out in Court were to demonstrate Bryant's lack of remorse and capability to field questions for the purpose of sentencing. It was not required to be evidentiary in a Sentencing Hearing. In the part of the police interview Bryant admitted to purchasing 80-100 rounds when he purchased the AR 15 from Hill. I could speculate that the balance of the interview not published may have covered in detail his other 223 ammunition purchases but I won't :).
"The fact that he was reported by his neighbours for discharging weapons is interesting. "Was this before or after the shootings at Port Arthur? Similarly, was the attempt to buy parts to convert the weapons to automatic reported to Police before or after? If it was beforehand what action was taken? "
Before. Yes, before. No action was taken which riled the SSAA and Graeme Campbell MHR for Kalgoorlie (read Hansard 1997 on firearm legislation debate) who believed the Tasmanian gun laws were adequate and, if enforced, PAM would have been avoided.
"Was the recovered ammunition found at Bryant's home shell casings or fired, damaged projectiles? Did this confirm that firing had actually taken place at that location? "
Don't know. I would suggest if neighbours complained to police about discharging of firearms at his residence then there were spent projectiles and cartridges in the area. In his police interview he admits to target practising and causing problems with neighbours through disturbing the peace.
"Do the shells ejected from an AR15 go straight up or to the right? Does the cycling of the action upon firing push the muzzle up, to the right or to the left? I am presuming that the weapon used was 'right handed'. Did Bryant actually fire from the hip on his non-dominant side or is this myth?"
Anonymous, I am just a simple alleged spook. How would I know in which direction cartridges eject or the behaviour of the weapon? What is your point? The overwhelming eyewitness and forensic evidence identified Martin Bryant at PA as the killer, he admitted the crimes, motive and premeditation to the psychiatrist and he made a judicial confession to the crimes. So one must conclude with some confidence Bryant carried out all the actions of the perpetrator of those crimes even if he emulated Buffalo Bill's wild west shooting tricks from the left side, right side, in a mirror, over his shoulder, between his legs, blindfolded etc. Bryant shot right-handed because all the evidence identifies him and he identified himself as the killer in bowing to the weight of overwhelming evidence.
"The police who arrived after 23 minutes - what time was that? How many were there and where did they come from? Were they specially trained officers?"
Around 2.00pm. Three. No.
"Were any of the weapons fitted with a telescopic sight? "
In the part of the police interview read out in Court Bryant admitted to paying an additional $500 for a scope for his AR 15 bringing that weapon transaction with Terry Hill to a total of $5,000 - about $3,000 over market price.
"I would concede that 150 metres is a reasonable distance and I do not know what cover was available to the Police, how many people were present or how many rounds were fired in their direction. Are these figures available? "
Estimated from 150-250 rounds. Would not be from counting of spent cartridges as the Seascape fire caused thousands of rounds of ammunition to explode.
"I have not read the Dutton paper but conclude from your comments regarding Colt's testing that Bryant's AR15 was severely damaged by faulty ammunition during firing. Was Bryant injured by this? What was the ammunition fault? Given the potential lethality what public notification was provided by Colt or the ammunition manufacturer? How much. 223 ammunition and how many. 223 firearms were in the cottage apart from Bryant's AR15? "
No medical report to my knowledge was issued on Martin Bryant's injuries. According to the Dutton report after long consultation with Colt ammo was at fault. Suggest you read it. Take the public liability question up with the Colt's Manufacturing Company Inc. if you consider it important in establishing in your mind some aspect of evidence relating to the criminality of Martin Bryant. Final question - don't know and irrelevant.
"Why did Bryant set fire to the house knowing that he had no other means of escape other than through the Police cordon? Did he have any record of pyromania as you suggest? Was any physical evidence available on the clothing that Bryant discarded outside the cottage or on his body that linked Bryant to any of the shootings? "
Read the psychiatrist's report. Bryant expected to be killed by police as part of his planning. There was no intent to escape. Only Bryant knows why he went to PA with in excess of 30 litres in cans of petrol, Little Lucifer fire lighters and, for a non smoker, purchased a cigarette lighter on the way at Midway Point. Or why he set fire to Seascape. As the forensic evidence was not required to be 'published' through a jury trial only those intimate in its collection and part of the prosecution/defence could answer that final question. MacGregor is not privy to evidence that has not been released despite his claims.
What criminal offence (s) are you referring to in regard to Hill? If this was available to Police then why didn't it happen?
I never made reference to Hill committing a criminal offence. You said he "only" loses his licence to trade which may be interpreted he got off lightly and should have been punished more severely. Offences committed under the firearms legislation carry penalties from fines, licence cancellation to criminal charges. You will have to question the authority that decided licence cancellation was a sufficient penalty under the circumstances.
"Sorry, I am not a conspiracy theorist, just an interested bystander. If it helps I will admit that I don't believe everything the Government and the Media tell me."
These are not government media releases or media content with editorial interference. These are facts drawn from sworn witness statements and stated in a court of law for the purpose of sentencing. Are you suggesting the government have influence over the judiciary? The decision in the "Tampa" refugee Federal Court case, subject to the Government appealing, would be another example to refute if this is your claim.
|
|