Why Martin Bryant Cannot Be The Cafe Gunman ----

Evidence That Proves Martin Bryant Innocent -------------------------------- Email: editor@shootersnews.addr.com

Based on the witness statements available to the Tasmanian Police & DPP on when and where people saw Martin Bryant it is impossible for him to have been in the Port Arthur Historic Site ( PAHS ) when the gunman was witnessed doing a host of things because the timing rules it out. This being the case several witness statements provide a complete ALIBI for Martin Bryant and these alone are sufficient to totally disassociate him as being the Cafe gunman, and the original charge at the time of his arrest that he killed the first victim Kate Scott is untennable. This also raises into doubt the goings on later at Seascape because it is quite clear someone was attempting to make it appear it was him at PAHS - ie frame Bryant. Below is the justification for this view. Remember these are the DDP's own witnesses giving their accounts.
Witness statements of seeing "Martin Bryant" before the massacre present serious problems because the timing of them, coupled with what he was observed to have done before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe, does not add up. There are fatal timing discrepancies.

Before going into this we need to be aware of movements of the gunman before the massacre and this is listed below:-

Summary of Observed Events By Witnesses: after arriving via the tollgate the gunman tried to park his car at the waters edge and was told by the parking officer he couldn't. He sat in his car for 10 minutes then it appears he moved it to the spot near the wharf and sat there for 5 minutes. He then went to the Cafe, went inside got some food 5 minutes after queing for it , went outside and sat on the decking 5 mintues, stared at people and talked to himself, then went inside shooting started a minute later. A bare minimum of 25 minutes.

Working backwards is the best way to demonstrate this. To get the FACTS CLEAR the shooting in the Cafe started at around 1.26 to 1.28pm because witnesses were waiting outside the information centre for the 1.30pm tour when the shots were heard and tours went on time. The police received the first alarm call at 1.32pm from staff at PAHS. Video footage at the tollbooth shows the gunman arriving there on his way out of the site at 1.37pm so these times are verified as being relatively accurate.

The problem we have starts with PAHS car parking officer Ian Kingston who had an altercation with the gunman over where he could park the Volvo says in his statement he took up to 25 minutes from the time he first saw him to the time the shooting started. 25 deducted from 1.28pm would mean he saw the gunman at 1.03pm and it would mean the gunman, if he had just driven into the site without stopping, would have been at the sites entry tollbooth 3 to 5 mintues before that - around 1.00pm. Kingston who made his statement to police on the day of the massacre 28th April says he first saw the gunman at 1.25pm but this time was an error because the shooting started at 1.28pm - 3 minutes later ( Kingston in a subsequent statement changed it by implication by stating the shooting started at 1.30pm which would put his first encouter with him at 1.05pm ) and other witnesses corroborate the fact the gunman sat outside the cafe for up to 10 mintues. But the point is according to Kingston's estimates of time spent sitting in cars etc... the person he saw - the gunman - could have entered the Historic Site no later than 1.00pm

The problem we have with this is twofold:-

Roger LARNER who also made a statement on the day of the massacre when it was fresh in his mind said Martin Bryant visited his farm near Port Arthur Historic Site at 1.05pm. He recognized Bryant in a yellow Volvo with surfboard on it. He had a conversation with Bryant for 5 to 10 minutes making his departure from Larner's at around 1.15pm. It would have taken Bryant another 3 mintues to get to the tollbooth and another few minutes to wait in a que of cars. Making it 1.18pm at the latest Bryant enters Port Arthur Historic Site.

If this is true Bryant was at Larner's house when the gunman entered the Historic Site at 1.00pm.

The point is Martin Bryant CANNOT BE AT 2 PLACES AT ONCE. He cannot be entering the Historic Site at 1.00pm or earlier ( and be seen doing all the gunman did ) and be at Larner's farm at 1.05pm and spend 10 minutes talking to him.

The next problem is tollgate officer Aileen Kingston's statement reported that Martin Bryant entered the site after waiting behind a row of cars around 1.10 to 1.15pm. Identified as him. Apart from the fact there is nothing illegal about Bryant doing this this timing fits if Larner's estimate of time was out a few minutes. The real Martin Bryant would have arrived at the car park area around 1.18pm ( plus or minus a few minutes ) - no earlier.

It should be noted Aileen Kingston's statement CORROBORATES Roger Larner's statement about the timing and whereabouts of Martin Bryant - that he was not in PAHS until around 1.15pm. This gives credibility to the conclusion Bryant was elsewhere at the time the cafe gunman was in PAHS and had been for some 20 minutes. We have 2 witnesses saying Bryant was not at PAHS until 1.15pm.

But the tollgate operator's statement still leaves us with the problem - her statement that Martin Bryant - positively identified - entered around 1.15pm means this Martin Bryant could not have been the man already inside PAHS - the one others saw moving cars and sitting on the decking of the Cafe talking about WASPS and Japs. And if the person she saw did go to the carpark and cafe then witnesses would have seen TWO people looking like Martin Bryant. That was not observed happening so only one person of Bryant's description was at the Cafe and was the gunman and it could only have been the man who was already inside PAHS and entered well prior to 1.15pm - the gunman.

Now its time to look at the witnesess who saw the gunman in action.

Cafe Witness Rebecca McKenna sat outside talking and looking at the gunman. Refer her detailed statement. She says he was sitting outside on the cafe decking talking to her and staring at her - the description of him does not match Martin Bryant. Bryant does not have freckly skin nor could be regarded as ugly or have a skinny face ( refer pictures of Bryant and picture of Bryant ).

Jim Laycock, co-owner of the Port Arthur Motor Inn, witnessed the events at the tollbooth and service station shooting when the gunman left PAHS. He described the gunman as being low 20s in age and with a womans hair. Laycock in fact had known Martin Bryant in earlier years and said he did not recognize the man as Martin Bryant.

Similarly Grahame Collyer who was shot in the Cafe says the same. 20 years old with pocked face. Refer Webpage

And Ian Kingston stated he wasn't 100% sure the man he saw in the car park was Martin Bryant.

Most of the other witnesses who saw the gunman up close describe him as being in the 18 to 22 year old age range. Bryant was 29 and clearly looked it ( refer the Lookalike Webpage on this site for pictures particularly the B&W pic taken 3 days before the massacre ).

All these close eye witnessess to the gunman do not clearly describe Martin Bryant as the shooter in PAHS. The person described is younger than him, not as attractive, thin face and has different hair or features. And whats more these statements being taken directly after the incident must be regarded as the most accurate description of the gunman and what they saw happening.

So whats the answer ? Is it the case these witnesses saw 2 different people who looked like Martin Bryant that day - the real Martin Bryant who simply entered the site at 1.15pm then disappeared, and other person who entered sometime around between 12.45pm and 1pm and later ended up looking like Bryant ( by putting on a wig ) and was the gunman ? If this is so there would have needed to be 2 yellow Volvos of same model at he historic site that day. There was and the odds of that happening are a million to one.

This conclusion may explain why some witnesses describe Bryant and other witnesses - particularly the ones who were in the Broad Arrow Cafe and saw the gunman - describe someone else. This may explain why the media was given photos of Bryant for publication the next day so as to further confuse witnesses so that the real gunman would be able to get away with it.

NB The above is merely mentioning the possibility of this happening - it is what the witness statements indicate. This website's editor is not 100% satisfied it really did. But it was what was presented to and available for scrutiny by the Tasmanian Police and DPP.
Based on witnesses statements the correct time line for the Cafe Gunman is as follows:-

Gunman Arrives at Tollbooth undetected no later 12.45pm - note: he could have been there much eariler
Gunman Arrives at Car Park - argues with Ian Kingston 12.51pm
Gunman Sits in Car in first spot - 10 minutes - 1.01pm
Gunman Moves Car to Waters Edge - 2 minutes - 1.03pm
Gunman Sits in Car - 5 minutes -1.08pm
Gunman Walks to Cafe with video and sports bag - 2 minutes - 1.10pm
Gunman Waits in Que To Buy Lunch - 5 minutes - leaves cafe 1.15pm
Gunman Sits on decking outside Cafe and talks to people - around 10 minutes - 1.27pm
Gunman Goes into Cafe and opens fire - 1 minute - 1.28pm

Gunman Arrives at Tollbooth Leaving - actually recorded on video at 1.37pm

WHY THE GUNMAN MUST HAVE ENTERED BEFORE 1.15PM

Doing a detailed calculation of the time line starting with Roger Larner's time of seeing the real Martin Bryant at 1.05pm we would find based on witnesses statements of what the gunman was observed doing that around 40 to 55 minutes depending how many minutes were really spent sitting in cars (* see tally below - maximum time shown ) would have elaspsed before the shooting commenced. This would put the shooting starting at around 2pm at the latest. This of course didn't happen - the shooting started at 1.28pm. So the Martin Bryant Larner saw and the tollgate officer saw could not have been the one Ian Kingston and the Cafe witnesses saw who was the Cafe gunman. This means Martin Bryant could not have been the Cafe gunman.
* Time Estimate Made Up As Follows - THE CALCULATED TIME LINE USING BRYANTS SIGHTINGS WORK OUT TO 2PM START OF SHOOTING - & PROVE WHY BRYANT CANNO'T BE CAFE GUNMAN

Arrives At Larner's 1.05pm
Talks for about 10 minutes - Leaves Larner's - 1.12pm
Arrives at Tollbooth - seen by A. Kingston 1.15pm
Waits at Tollbooth 4 minutes - departs 1.19pm
Arrives At Car Park - argues with Ian Kingston 1.25pm
Sits in Car in first spot - 10 minutes -1.35pm
Moves Car to Waters Edge - 2 minutes - 1.38pm
Sits in Car - 5 minutes -1.43pm
Walks to Cafe with video and sports bag - 2 minutes - 1.45pm
Waits in Que To Buy Lunch - 5 minutes - 1.50pm
Goes out an sits on decking outside Cafe and talks to people about WASPS and Japs - 10 minutes - 2.00pm
Goes into Cafe and opens fire - 1 minute - 2.01pm


But that 40 to 55 minute time estimate does fit another witness sighting of someone in a yellow Volvo. Michael Copping, a local who knew the Martin's of Seascape, stated he saw a yellow Volvo with a figure in it heading south to the Historic Site just north of the Port Arthur town at 12.35pm to 12.40pm. It was the same car he had seen at 11.45am parked at Seascape backed up to the door. This timing fits. If we take the start of shooting at 1.28pm then deduct 40 to 55 minutes we get around 12.40pm the time of entry of the gunman to the site.

This of course means a yellow Volvo may have arrived at PAHS at around 12.40pm. It doesn't mean the gunman arrived in that Volvo looking like Bryant in it because if that had happened tollgate staff would have observed and reported ( and thought it strange at the time ) 2 yellow Volvos with a blond haired man in them entering the site. So one must conclude, based on witness statements, the cafe gunman slipped in the Historic Site undetected and met up with a yellow Volvo later. This of course means Martin Bryant was being setup.

But did Copping merely see the real Martin Bryant heading to Roger Larner's place at 12.45pm ? Maybe - maybe not. Unfortunately we have no confirmation that the car he saw car actually went into the Historic Site moments after it passed him on the road. Perhaps someone else was driving the Volvo Copping saw and it did go into PAHS which the gunman joined up with once inside.

The confirmed presence of another yellow Volvo exact same model at the Site that day that later disappeared without trace and was filmed causally departing the car park / cafe area while the shooting was going on up a road it shouldn't have been on which was an exit out of the site ( the old entry road in fact ) raises questions about what was going on.

We have 3 sets of facts based on witness statements: [1] Only one blonde haired man was seen going into PAHS in a yellow Volvo that day at 1.15pm and he was identified as Bryant. [2] Another yellow Volvo exact same model and age had entered the site and was in the site at the time the massacre occurred. [3] The gunman was first seen in the carpark at around 1.05pm while Bryant was with Roger Larner. These 3 things can only lead to the conclusion some sort of switch and deception was going on making it appear Bryant was there - nobody but Bryant seen going in. The opposite deception occurred at Seascape where only Bryant was grabbed coming out.

It should be noted nobody paid any attention as to who was leaving PAHS after entering. So if the real Martin Bryant did in fact enter at 1.15pm then left a few minutes later nobody would have taken any notice.


It should be emphisized the above analysis is based solely on the witness statements available to the Tasmanian Police and DPP. It is there to demonstrate that sightings of Martin Bryant and his whereabouts do not add up

Given this website has deduced this from witness statements the question must be asked why didn't the DDP and Police figure this out and see there was a big problem ? Any idiot who bothered to look at these statements can clearly see that Martin Bryant was being seen at 2 places at the same time.

The fact remains THESE WITNESS STATEMENTS indicate Martin Bryant could not have been the blond haired man who was in PAHS moving and sitting in the Volvo in the car park nor the man who went to the cafe. Roger Larner and Aileen Kingston give Martin Bryant an ALIBI that he was not the Cafe Gunman and if he was not CLEARLY SOMEONE ELSE WAS and also that SOMEONE was attempting to frame Bryant. Given these goings on at PAHS - it is sufficient justification to assume Bryant was not alone at SEASCAPE either and a deception was being pulled there too. References later to two gunmen, movements of occupants, the "main man" and shots being fired from upstairs while Bryant is on the phone support this ( refer other pages on this website ).

It should also be pointed out the witnesses who report Martin Bryant's whereabouts - Larner and A. Kingston - merely report him doing nothing illegal. No alibi witness there says they saw Bryant shooting people. Same at Seascape. But those that describe the man who did the shooting in the cafe and car park - the gunman - describe someone who is not fitting the age or facial description of Martin Bryant.

While what is above may not have been exactly what went on on the day it is sufficient justification to have Martin Bryant's case reopened. Martin Bryant is simply a victim of circumstance - that he is proportedly seen going into PAHS, and postively grabbed coming out of Seascape - there are no witnesses with 100% reliability to him shooting anyone during the whole incident only disoriented talk on a phone which embarrassingly revealed someone else shooting from Seascape during the seige. The whole deception is based on the real gunman not being seen going in or going out leaving poor mentally handicapped Martin Bryant to take the wrap.

These statements actually give Bryant a SECOND ALIBI and rules out him being the Cafe gunman. The first alibi was that witnesses heard shots at Seascape when he was travelling between Midway Point and Forcett some 50km north of Port Arthur which is discussed on another webpage on this site Refer DPP Tampers & Withholds Evidence .

NB: This webpage is the editors conjecture. Others investigating this incident may or may not sanction it but at the bare minimum these witness statements do say something is amiss ( this is what the editor is satisfied about ). And thats another something the DDP didn't point out to the Court at Bryant's sentencing hearing and the question must be asked why.

Return to Port Arthur Links Page