Home Suggest a new issue General feedback














Click here to visit our sponsor

Forum

Port Arthur Massacre: Could Martin Bryant be innocent?


Page 5/529 of selected contributions from the readers of PublicDebate. (most recent first)

Return to the issue page Have Your Say View vote results

First forum page Back one page Next forum page Last forum page


Too many coincidences
Posted: September 10, 2001
By: JohnJ

I cannot understand why it took the Tasmania Police SOG, the Victorian Police SOG and the NSW SOG to contain one gunman.

I believe in coincidences, but there are just too many in this case. Ray Groom made minister in charge of everything relating to Port Arthur, the RHH and Code Brown exercises who just happened to have 25 extra doctors from interstate, the Tasmanian Ambulance Service who also happened to have extra personnel. And above all, what was a Black Hawk doing down at Port Arthur the previous night?

In regard to the court transcripts, why have pages been deleted? What don't they want us to know?



Another false claim
Posted: September 09, 2001
By: andrew

Gemma, let us review some of your claims in your last post.

"He seems so desperate to destroy any evidence contrary to the official version."

Evidence is a proof of a fact. Gemma, if it is proof then how could it be destroyed, particularly on an Internet Forum? I would suggest you are claiming hypotheses and conjecture are proof as are references to statements made by persons who the conspiracists appear reluctant to identify.

"I am not even sure that his rantings should be considered "fair play" on this forum."

And are not you the person who demanded those debating and supporting the guilty view should retire forthwith from this Debate and leave it in the custody of those supporting the innocent view? Is that your interpretation of "fair play" and debate?

"...as this site is destined to continue"

You did proclaim months ago that your imminent retirement from the debate would cause it to collapse. Are you disappointed it is still continuing since your "retirement" and thereby deflating your opinion of your influence on this Debate?

"After all, for a man with an IQ of 66 (and I think Andrew even agrees with this fact), to hold out against pressure from police and psychiatrists for some months before eventually pleading guilty to all charges would, in my opinion, be quite a feat. "

Wrong again, Gemma, and another resurrected conspiracist false claim. Bryant was only ever required to plead for the first time after his committal hearing. He pleaded 'not guilty' then changed his plea 5 weeks, not months, later. The psychiatrists and psychologists for the Prosecution and defence and the police did not require him to enter a plea even though he admitted fully his guilt days after his arrest and 9 weeks after his arrest in his police interview admitted to certain crimes.

"Unlike Andrew, I would not consider this type of action as "chain yanking". In fact, if that's what these people consider to be a joke, I really don't like their sense of humour. I would regard what was said as threatening. "

But I did qualify my statement by stating, "any clear thinking mentally fit person can interpret as a bit of chain yanking towards the conspiracists".

"Rubbish. Noel did not take the information as gospel. He had thought of the water storage tank himself earlier, but had dismissed it. "

Read Noel's posts on this Forum around about the time of the exchange of these emails which was months before I became involved in this Debate.

Noel claimed the "terrorists" used scuba gear to escape. And then, months later, he claimed evidence existed that Bryant was subjected through mind control to travel to PA that day by speakers secreted in his house. (That was a conspiracy theory problem to explain how patsy Bryant was forced to be in PA at the precise time to schedule in with the meticulous planning) But when Noel was probed to explain the "evidence" of this mind control he could not say "I had an email from a spook" as he would look like a "crackpot" as the letter suggests. Noel's lame "evidence" was supplanted with even lamer evidence by stating proof exists on the Internet showing it is possible.

"But Andrew seems to excel in the art of fibbing. And disinformation is another art form he has mastered very well. "

You have lamely claimed previously disinformation is a part of my repertoire. But when requested to provide examples of my disinformation your extraordinary claim was the exposing of the numerous examples of conspiracy disinformation was, in itself, disinformation. Go figure this example of conspiracy logic.

"Andrew forgets that MacGregor is pointing out the contradictions in the facts as presented to the public. "

All I have come across are facts that have been fabricated by MacGregor then compared to the official facts to claim his contradiction. I note that after the numerous occasions they have been exposed there has no defensive explanation thrown up in response by the conspiracy believers.

Let us re-iterate one example. MacGregor claims the DPP are falsifying the claim that Bryant was at Seascape at 11. 45am as the last departing guests left at 12. 15 - 12. 20pm and the Martins were still alive. But the departing guests' statements have them leaving at 11. 15-11. 20am. Macgregor just added an hour on to the true time to create a contradiction.

One example of scores occurring throughout his works, Gemma, and coming from a person who has stood in front of audiences falsely claiming he had the police rank of sergeant, was a crime scene investigator and had attended the PA crime scene. He was a uniformed constable and his only identifiable police accomplishment was as a piper in the police Scottish pipe band. Shades of Joe Vialls.

"In Andrew's world view people are obviously "guilty unless proven innocent". I had always understood that in a democratic country a person was "innocent until proven guilty". And that, of course, means allowing all witnesses to come forward, investigating every contradiction, and carrying out all normal procedures to "prove beyond all reasonable doubt" that Martin Bryant was guilty and acted alone. For some reason he does not appear to want this to be done, and accuses anyone pushing for this of not knowing how the legal system works. "

Gemma, you have been the only person pushing this ridiculous line about your interpretation of how the legal system should work. Gentle Muse has stated you have not a clue about the legal system, which supports my view.

Neither the legal system nor I have ever held a view that Bryant should prove his innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury. But having the evidence to be used by the Crown tested at a committal hearing and a finding Bryant had a case to answer plus his own admissions to the crimes to police and the psychiatrists it was futile to hold on to a 'not guilty' plea.

The court process is not there to prove to a few paranoid doubters like yourself, Gemma, that evidence exists. It exists because it was reviewed by a jurist at a committal hearing and was found to be sufficient to obtain a conviction. That evidence was then made available to Bryant's counsel. His counsel would have already been in a position of being unable, through Bar ethics, to run a 'not guilty' defence as he was aware of Bryant's admission to the crimes to the psychiatrist and was now aware he had admitted to crimes to police.

So Bryant's counsel would have sat in Court for months unable to run a 'not guilty' defence. He would certainly be the subject of serious questioning from the Judge about his objectives and then idle away listening to the gory details of each atrocity and the community pain it would create so a paranoid doubter like yourself can be satisfied. That does not happen in a real world, Gemma.

The civil libertarians and their pro bono lawyers have emerged to ensure aspects of the law are recognised in this 'Tampa" refugee Federal Court case. Their stand is unpopular but they have a set mind that proper legal procedure should be followed and prevail irrespective of the consequences. Why have they not been informed of the Bryant case if you firmly believe Bryant was denied natural justice?

BTW, I note the MacGregor CD-ROM promotion site has not been in existence over the last few days. He has moved it back to its original address at:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~asutc/snportarthur.html

First forum page Back one page Next forum page Last forum page