Go to Google Groups Home
GroupsBETA
 
 • Advanced Groups Search
 • Groups Help
 
Groups search result 2 for port arthur bryant joe

Search Result 2
From: Jeremy Bowen (jammer@fXlashmail.cXoXm)
Subject: Re: Port Arthur
Newsgroups: nz.general, uk.politics.guns
View: Complete Thread (24 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-05-01 01:48:12 PST
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewhurst@wave.co.nz> writes:

> "Xray Delta 1" <xraydelta_1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ae926ca@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > As an Australian, I declare, you Roger Dewhurst, to be a total fuckwit.

As a New Zealander, I agree wholeheartedly.

> > Pauline Hanson suggested that the events at Port Arthur were a conspiracy,
> > and the gun lobby here wouldn't have a bar of it. Since they are the ones
> > directly affected, why the stony silence?
> 
> Answer the questions one by one.  

Done.

> Do that convincingly and others might believe you.  
                           ^^^^^^
'coz Roger Dewhusrt sure won't. He a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

> Now piss or get off the pot.

Make way for Roger Dewhusrt pissing in the wind.

> > > UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 
> > > Despite repeated refusal by the States to go down this path why were
> > > National Uniform Gun Laws all prepared and ready in Dec 1995 to go to an
> > > upcoming meeting of State and Federal Police Ministers due sometme
> > > around the time Port Arthur occurred ?

Ground work and preparation. Maybe it had been ready years beforehand.

> > > Why did Tasmanian Premier Ray Groom in an unprecedented move resign on
> > > 18th March 1996 as Premier ( just 2 weeks after Howard wins 1996 Federal
> > > Election ) and take over all Tasmanian portfolios that would have
> > > anything
> > > to do with a massacre at Port Arthur - Minister for Justice, Attorney
> > > General, Tourism ( including the Port Arthur Historic Site ), and
> > > Workplace Safety ? 

Standard cabinet re-shuffle. New election. Fresh government. Portfolios
get shuffled around. Show me *any* parliament where this DOESN'T happen.

> > > Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary
> > > Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies made shortly before Port Arthur ?

Perhaps they found they were transferring more and more bodies between
hospitals and mortuaries. A simple case of supply and demand. Exactly how
"shortly before" Port Arthur was this truck made ?

> > > THE MARTIN'S AT SEASCAPE
> > >
> > > Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin's - owners of the Seascape ?

He was slightly (completely) crazy.

> > > How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house
> > > only 20 metres away ?

I don't understand the question. What has the proximity of the neighbours
house got to do with anything ?

> > > Why is the evidence of the guests who stayed at Seascape overnight
> > > inconsistent with that of other witnesses regards the presence of a
> > > yellow Volvo before noon ? 

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. In any group of people you will get
some conflicting reports. Ask any police officier who has had to interview
a group of people about a crime.

> > > Were there 2 yellow Volvo's and Bryant being emulated in order to
> > > make him the patsy for this incident ?

No. There is absolutely no evidence of this. It's a lunatic theory.

> > > BROAD ARROW CAFÉ
> > >
> > > Why would Bryant want to shoot so many people he did not know - MOTIVE ?

He was stark raving bonkers.

> > > Why was a management work seminar scheduled that Sunday for staff of the
> > > Port Arthur Site - only one ever held and none held since - for that day
> > > and why was it held at a location 2 hours drive away ?

They *HAD* held one previously. Nothing unusual there then.
Most management seminars are held off-site. *Anyone* who has *ever* been
on one knows this is standard practice.

> > > Was it to get key staff away ? 

No it wasn't.

> > > And isn't it also a coincidence it was scheduled for almost the
> > > exact time the shooting began - 1pm. 

Yes. Staggering. A co-incidence. So what.

> > > Why was the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to
> > > investigate a phoney drug tip-off 

He knew this was phoney before he set out ??? Should he selectively choose
which crimes (or possible crimes) to attend ?

> > > ( heroin in a bottle which turned out to be
> > > soap-powder ) in the most distant part of his police district ( only one
> > > ever recorded ) shortly before the shootings started ? 

Australia is a big country. The population is thinly spread. His police
district is probably quite large because of this. Perhaps the general
public are not experienced with heroin. Joe Public may not recognise soap
powder.

> > > And was that diversion also to prevent him from closing the
> > > drawbridge to the mainland which would have bottled up the gunman ? 

No. This is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence.

> > > And isn't it another incredible
> > > coincidence that only 4 minutes after they reported by radio arriving at
> > > their destination that the shooting started in the Cafe ?

Not really.

> > > Why did that caller ring the local police and not dial 000 ( 911 ) - was
> > > it was because 000 number is recorded ?

Small communitites regularly ring the local police number. They know their
local police. Which caller by the way ?

> > > How could Bryant, an unskilled person of low intellect, kill 25 people
> > > in the café by head shots and wound numerous others fired from the
> > > hip in 90 seconds ?

A large number of people at close range and in a confined space. Lots of
shots fired. Quite easily I imagine. Are you saying it is difficult to
kill people with guns ? He was supposed to be a good shot after all.

> > > Why did senior Tasmanian Police keep police away from Port Arthur for as
> > > long as possible - 6 hours - when police headquarters was only an hour's
> > > drive away ? 

Senior police were on site. Perhaps they were handling the
situation. Regular police were continuing with their normal jobs.

> > > Was it to allow the crime scene to get messed up ? 

No. It wasn't

> > > And why did they let only the small handful Special Operation Group
> > > personnel into the Seascape site ?

To prevent loads of cops stomping around and messing up the crime
scene!!!!!! Get a grip. 

> > > Why was the Café's emergency exit door that jammed faulty ? 

Poor maintenance. Happens all the time. Nothing unusual.

> > > Was it deliberately tampered with ? 

No. Evidence ?

> > > And why did it reportedly go missing after the incident - was it
> > > switched ? 

Did it go missing ? OR did it "reportedly" go missing ??????!!!!!!
Evidence ? 

Maybe they simply repaired the faulty door. It was an emergency exit. If
it was discovered to be faulty, it would be criminal negligence to leave
it un-repaired.

> > > THE ROAD TO SEASCAPE
> > >
> > > Why was the yellow Volvo left behind with ammo etc. in it at the
> > > Tollgate

No cash to pay the toll perhaps ?

> > > Why change cars and at where it was done ? Was it to leave something of
> > > Bryant's there at the Port Arthur crime scene ?

To get through the toll bridge perhaps. Cash in another vehicle maybe....

> > > Why take a hostage at the Service Station ? Put a man in boot ? Why not
> > just kill him as he had been doing since it started ? 

Gunman was F$%^ING CRAZY!!!!! I'm hardly going to expect a rational human
being to think clearly about his actions!!!! For GODS sake get a better
argument.

> > > Was it to keep police at bay at Seascape under seize standoff
> > > conditions until night fell ?

No.

> > > Why would he do that or was it to allow other to escape in the
> > > cover of darkness ?

No. It's because he was mad.

> > > SEASCAPE
> > >
> > > Why was a trail of destruction led to Seascape ?

Don't understand the question.

> > > Why would Bryant set fire to the BMW ? 

In his mad mind it probably made perfect sense.

> > > Was it done by the real gunman to

It *WAS* done by the real gunman!!!! (Language of conspiracy)

> > > destroy fingerprint and other evidence ? Or was it to create a beacon to
> > > attract police ?

No.

> > > Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on the roof of
> > > Seascape with a gun ?

Maybe to bring him in alive if possible ? Confirm he was the
suspect. Quite responsible of the police really.

> > > Why did so many shots fired from Seascape that night hit nothing given
> > > Bryant was claimed to be a crack shot ?

What was he shooting at ? Did he need a night scope ? Were people taking
cover ?

> > > Why did Seascape ignite that morning like an incendiary bomb had gone
> > > off ?

Accelerant maybe.

> > > And why did it happen that morning and not in the dark ? 

What difference would that make ? Is the time of the fire important ?

> > > Was it to destroy all evidence inside including making an
> > > examination of the bodies those dead inside difficult - in terms of
> > > determining time of death ?

No. 

> > > Why would Bryant want to do that ?

He was a crazed psychopath. Rational thought was not high on his list of
abilities. 

> > > Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded lite such a fire - it would
> > > only serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured ? 

In his crazed mind it may have made perfect sense.

> > > Why would police lite one knowing hostages were inside ?

They didn't. Evidence.....

> > > Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant
> > > was grabbed police knowing hostages were inside ? Seascape was only
> > > smoking when he was grabbed.

Was the crime scene secure ? Could the police guarantee the safety of the
firemen ? "It was only smoking" contradicts the previous allegation that
Seascape ignited like "an incendiary bomb". Which one is it ?

> > > Why did Bryant stagger from Seascape as if drugged and the burns only to
> > > the back of his body if lying down ? 

Could he have suffered burns from a conflagration of something flamable
going up ? Ever thrown petrol on a barbie ?

> > > Was it the fire that woke him up after being drugged by the real
> > > gunman and his helpers ? 

No. He was the real gunman. There were no helpers.

> > > AFTERMATH
> > >
> > > Why was there no positive ID of Bryant done by police by lineup or mug
> > > shots as required by law ? 

He was identified by at least one of the people shot but not killed. He
was identified later too.

> > > Why hasn't anyone identified him positively ?

Opinion only. Some consider he has been positivly identified.

> > > Why were there no fingerprints found on - the sports bag - the guns -
> > > the surfboard ?

What was the sportsbag made of ? How often are fingerprints retreived from
sportsbags ? Is this in any way unusual ? 

Were there any smudged prints on the guns or were they wiped
clean. Perhaps there were prints on the guns but simply not CLEAR
prints. This is NOT unusual.

> > > Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service, which had a special Chevy Morg
> > > Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies which was used at Port Arthur,
> > > sell it shortly afterwards - and why would they need such a truck of
> > > that capacity - for a State when there is usually three or less
> > > murders a year ? 

They undobutedly have more than 3 DEATHS a year. The truck would be used
for NUMEROUS *other* bodies, NOT ONLY *murder* victims.

You're a complete nutcase for not recognising this.

> > > Why did the
> > > operator of the service recently publically criticise Cafe witness Wendy
> > > Scurr in a letter to a newspaper for querying this unusual vehicle and
> > > its history ?

Maybe because such an accusation would lead people to think that the
operator of the service was connected to the killings in some way. Not
very good for business. A completely normal reaction.

> > > Why was Bryant's hands and face uninjured when his Colt M16 CAR rifle
> > > was found which blew a cartridge in the breech and exploded making it
> > > unoperative ?

He got lucky.

> > > Why were 2 sports bags found when witnesses said the gunman had only one

Maybe he had a second one in his car. Maybe he swapped them. Easy to explain.

> > > Were the guns found at Seascape really Bryant's and were they really the
> > > ones used on the day ?

Yes.

> > > Why was the COLT CAR rifle missing the pistol grip and why was the FN's
> > > barrel bent and had parts missing from it when recovered from Seascape,
> > > and those parts never found ? 

Maybe they were missing when Bryant brought the guns to Seascape. Maybe
they were thrown away. Did they carry out an exhaustive search of the
entire area. If they had, would it have proved anything ?

> > > And how could the COLT - a plastic gun -
> > > survive a fire intact ?

Not everything gets hot enough in a fire to destroy everything. Ask any
fireman about what survives a fire. Nothing unusual here.

> > > Why were police, the media, Justice Minister Ray Groom etc. saying the
> > > people in the café were all shot within 90 seconds when witnesses there
> > > claim it was between 5 to 6 minutes - why the reduction of the time ?

Stuck in a shootout, minutes seem like hours for the victims. Try it
sometime. 

> > > Was it to justify the rapidfire aspect of the guns for a ban ?

No.

> > > Why was the Broad Arrow Café bulldozed so quickly - was it to destroy
> > > evidence of what really took place there - like a second gunman backing
> > > up the main gunman ?

No. How many people want to eat their lunch where peoples brains have been
blown all over the walls!!!! Get a grip.

> > > How did the media know it was Bryant before he was arrested at 8.40 am
> > > that Monday morning ? How could the Hobart Mercury know it was him
> > > for their morning print run for that day done much earlier than 8.40
> > > am ? 

Police told them who they suspected ? Investigative journalism perhaps.


> > > The man on the phone's name was "Jamie".

What are you on about ??????

> > > Who doctored video footage 

Proof ?

> > > Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it
> > > at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was
> > > a TV Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it
> > > the DDP or the Tasmanian Police ?

Was it the tooth fairy ? Was it done at all ? Proof ?

> > > Why does one of the "tourist" videos show no colour or features on
> > > "Bryant" standing next to his Volvo when surrounding objects like
> > > cars have them ?

Poor quality video recorder. Nothing unusual there.

> > > Why is Bryant's face black - is it to hide the face of the real gunman ?

Bad lighting. Filming in bright sunlight. Face in shadow. Video cameras
are very bad at capturing this.

> > > Why is there a halo around the picture as if electronically pasted ?

Poor quality Am-Cam video equipment.

> > > Why has there been no Coroner's Inquest ? This is something totally
> > > unprecedented.

Waste of time and money.

> > > THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
> > >
> > > Why did Bryant persistently state under questioning he did not go to
> > > Port Arthur that day and did not shoot anyone ?

He was a fruitcake.

> > > Why did Bryant plead not guilty for months ? 

Low intellect. You've said so yourself.

> > > Why would someone do that if he knew he could be identified ? 

Not very bright. He's not appearing on Mastermind any time soon you know.

> > > Why was he isolated for months and his mother refused access ?

Suspected of mass murder.

> > > Why was Bryant's first lawyer removed ? Who removed him ? 

Yes. Was he *actually* removed. If you don't know who removed him, how do
you *know* he was removed ? Maybe he got a better case.

> > > Why did he only plead guilty after pressure from his new lawyer ?

Insanity plea ? Smarter lawyer. Hoping for "co-operation" leniency.

> > > Why was Hobart gun dealer, Terry Hill, who was alleged to have sold the
> > > weapons to Bryant was dragged into court over it and the minute he
> > > started wanting to get Bryant and other witnesses into court to
> > > testify the action was dropped - 

Full story please. 

> > > as if authorities didn't want any scrutiny of the evidence ?

Theory. Proof ?

> > > Also - why did the Tasmanian Police and DPP try to get Terry Hill to
> > > admit
> > > he sold him the guns by offering immunity ( the guns Bryant said he
> > > never owned ).

Selling guns illegally to a moron is probably not good for keeping your
licence. Terry Hill would not want to admit to any wrong doing.

> > > Why did the DPP censor and edit out so many pages of Bryant's taped
> > > police interview ? 

Good question. Does this *ever* happen in other cases ??? If it doesn't,
then maybe you've got a point. If it does, then it's probably for broadly
the same reasons and you don't have a point.

> > > And how could the recording equipment for that interview breakdown ?

Murhpy's law

> > > Why have the Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC and other people associated
> > > with the case been promoted ?

Long service. Normal career progression. People DO get promoted you know.

> > > POLITICAL REACTION - NATIONAL GUN LAWS
> > >
> > > Why did Prime Minister John Howard in the say "some firearm owners were
> > > going to have to make sacrifices" when annoucing the National Gun Laws
> > > he imposed.

Because some firearm owners were going to have to make sacrifices. I don't
think he was talking about slaughtering chickens under a full moon!!

> > > Why did John Howard also decide and declare a coronor's inquest into
> > > Port Arthur be denied - when it is not his responsibility or
> > > jurisdiction to do so ? 

Un-necessary waste of taxpayers money in his opinion. He was the prime
minister. It WAS his jurisdiction.

> > > What was John trying to hide ? 

Nothing.

> > > Was he trying to protect some of his mates in the Tasmanian and
> > > Federal Liberal Party who were involved - Ray  Groom perhaps ?

No.

> > > Why did Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer after the imposition of the
> > > Howard imposed gun laws following Port Arthur say: "This is all
> > > about removing guns from urban areas".

Perhaps because one aspect of the gun control laws was about removing guns
from urban areas...

OK. So, every question addressed convincingly (maybe not to the paranoid
fruitcakes but hey) now where has your conspiracy theory gone. 

It's nutcases like Roger who look for a conspiracy when a simple
explanation will suffice. Some of the things you've questioned are
completely routine and there are perfectly normal rational explanations for
them.

I'm happy enough to believe that politicians aren't always honest but
a state sponsored massacre just to gain support for tougher gun control
laws simply beggars belief. You're a complete lunatic if you could even
consider this possibility in Australia.


Google Home - Advertise with Us - Add Google to Your Site - News and Resources - Language Tools - Jobs, Press, Cool Stuff...

©2001 Google