Witnesses Decriptions Do Not Fit Bryant
Facts That Prove a Deception At Port Arthur
-------------------------------
Email:
editor@shootersnews.addr.com
Numerous witnesses, those that took a careful look at the gunman doing the shooting at Port Arthur that day, describe someone other than Martin Bryant.
When one examines the DPP's witness statements a picture emerges that brings out 2 particular discrepancies between the gunman and Martin Bryant - the LENGTH of the blonde hair and his AGE.
A great number of the witnesses said
the blonde hair extended below the shoulders
as did a great number say
the gunman was in the 18 to 23 age range.
To backup this point there are 2 witness statements which graphically demonstrate this:-
A witness who saw the gunman at the tollbooth when he shot people in a BMW and who was watching in his car says the gunman's hair
"flowed down onto his chest".
Refer Buckley Statement - Last Paragraph. This is reinforced by the frames from the tourist video showing the gunman at the water - see below.
This witness is particularly important because he was in a relatively calm state and standing stationery at the time he was saw the gunman.
Another witness who saw the gunman shooting from the entrance of Seascape described him as
"18-22 years old only a young lad".
She also noted the hair flowing in the breeze.
Refer Maloney Statement
Editor's observation re: witness terminology: curley hair like Bryant had doesn't "flow" but straight hair does.
What is also noted there by Maloney is this hair was
"almost gold in colour".
The problem with this is Martin Bryant's hair colour was not gold but more bleached white as was seen in the papers the next day - left. ( Note this picture left was taken sometime beforehand but its colour matches that of the black and white one below which was taken 3 days before the massacre ).
As you can see Martin Bryant's hair colour is rather dull white - not the striking gold colour Maloney said the gunman shooting from Seascape had.
Another thing borne out by the witness statements is many of them describe the gunman's build as SKINNY or THIN. And that many described the gunman's hair as being STRAIGHT rather than curley ( the true fact is was 90 percent straight with a slight curl at the bottom - this can be seen on the video frame ).
The PROBLEM with all this is Martin Bryant's hair length at that time stopped about an inch ABOVE THE SHOULDERS. And he was was 29 years old and looked it. Martin was not of skinny build either - but slightly beefy. See pictures at bottom of this webpage.
Images of the gunman who was filmed in the carpark after he left the cafe - below right - proves his hair was straight and long and exceeds the shoulders.
Martin Bryant on 25th April 1996 LEFT.
Port Arthur Gunman ABOVE on 28th April 1996.
Some of the witnesses said the gunman's hair was shoulder length and and even smaller number say he was in his late twenties. This discrepancy seems to be caused by several things.- firstly seeing the photos of Bryant in the media shortly afterwards, secondly not really getting a good look at the gunman noting details, thirdly being traumatised, and forthly viewing the gunman from such a position or angle so as not to see the hair or face clearly. Another reason for this is because the hair was in fact tucked under the the jacket the gunman was wearing and only the visible section was seen and recalled by those witnesses.
Regardless of this at least 2 witnesses stated the gunman was NOT Martin Bryant. He was not the man they saw in the media.
So what we have is a large percentage of witness statements describing someone who looks distinctly different to Martin Bryant looked at that time. The two were similiar but there were discernable differences sufficient not only to call into question whether the gunman was Bryant but prove it wasn't.
And what is even more relevant is the video footage of the gunman at the water corroborates the witnesses who say the hair exceeded the shoulders, thus proving the witnesses who said shoulder length only were in error. See picture below. And it is significant most who said the hair was shoulder length - the ones who were in error - identified Martin Bryant as the man they saw.
Despite this the Tasmanian Police & DPP chose to not investigate these discrepancies and took the say so of people who had seen the media pictures of Bryant - most of whom were traumatized witnesses - rather that the witnesses who calmly observed the gunman. This is another thing that needs explaining - why a biased view was taken. If there have been any doubt whatsoever - and it would only required one person to say it wasn't him or say the hair was longer etc... - the DPP would have been required to conduct a thorough investigation of this - but it did not happen.
The true fact was the gunman had been made up to look like Bryant and was wearing a woman's wig. He was much younger and thinner than Bryant.
Refer Lookalike Webpage
Return to Port Arthur Links Page