THREATENED WITH ARREST FOR ASKING A FORENSIC QUESTION
By Ian McNiven
A friend tipped me off about a meeting advertised in the Courier Mail of Thursday, 21st November 2002. The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society Inc. were hosting a presentation by one of the leading forensic investigators into the Port Arthur killings The meeting was to be held at the Nathan Campus of Griffith University Q’ld. After contacting the Forensic Society Secretary and being assured that there was a half hour set aside for questions from the floor and that it was "very informal" and knowing that universities were leading forums for debate and the free exchange of ideas and information, I decided to attend to avail myself of the opportunity of asking questions about some of the forensic investigation that was done at the Port Arthur Café. I expected to get a fair go at Griffith because I attended and Orientation Day with an associate some years ago where the Dean told the assembled parents, "We will teach your children to question everything", but I was soon to find out that the investigation into Port Arthur was not included in that statement.
The guest speaker was introduced by the Queensland President of the Forensic Society, who I believe was a serving Policeman. The presentation was quite professional and almost identical to the article in the Australian Police Journal September 98 Vol 52 No 4. It contained very little information about actual forensic technique and in my opinion was mainly propaganda.
There were two statements made that were of interest to me – The killer never used the FN-FAL .308 rifle until he returned to the boot of the Volvo and that Bryant obtained the weapons used in the killings "on the black market" - more about that later.
When the lecture was finished the presenter told us that we would have 5 minutes of questions before going outside for a tea break and then coming back in for the main question time. He then proceeded to warn the audience about conspiracy theories and that some people didn’t believe that Bryant was the killer and that he wouldn’t be answering questions of a conspiracy nature or words to that effect. This did not concern me as the questions I wanted to ask related to the collection of forensic evidence in the café. When the first question was called for, I had my hand up and got the nod. This is the question I asked – "Was any solid empirical forensic evidence such as finger prints or DNA found that links Martin Bryant to the shootings in the café?’ Having read many of the witness statements, I had a specific reason for asking that. More about that later.
The presenter looked like he had been handed a dirty nappy and proceeded to waffle on about ballistic evidence as a way of avoiding the answer. I thought the answer was quite simple. Just a yes or no. As I was very keen to get an answer, I interrupted the speaker and pointed out that my question was not about ballistics but about fingerprints and DNA. Then I asked again (loudly), "Did you find Bryant’s fingerprints on the bullet cases or any of Bryant’s DNA at the café?" The speaker then started to bluster about ballistic evidence again and then said that they had witness statements. It then became obvious to me that there must be no empirical forensic evidence liking Bryant to the café or the speaker would have said yes, and given an outline of how and where it was collected. When he mentioned witness statements I asked him if he was familiar with the statement of Graham Collyer? The presenter then told me and all the audience that he would talk to me about it outside and shut down the question time.
It also dawned on me why the presenter had warned about conspiracy theorists, because anyone who asked awkward questions could be labelled as such and dismissed. We then went outside for the tea break and I waited for my chance to talk to the presenter.
When he was free I walked up to him with the Collyer statement and asked to discuss it with him. He looked me in the eye, turned his back on me and walked away. I was gob smacked, standing in the middle of the crowd, Collyer statement in my hand and a stupid look on my face. Here was a Senior Forensic Policeman who had given his word to speak to me in front of about 200 people, going back on his promise. I resolved to use question time to ask him in front of all those people why he had lied to me. I was very interested to hear what his answer would be.
I never got to ask the question because as I moved to the door, I was surrounded by some burly gentlemen who said they were policemen and I was asked to step aside, which I did. I asked what the problem was and they told me that I could not go back inside. I pointed out that I had done nothing wrong, that the meeting was a public meeting and I had paid to go in. I waved my receipt. I told them I wanted to go in to ask why their colleague had lied to me and moved toward the door.
One of the burly gentlemen stood in my way and told me if I went in I would disrupt the meeting and University Security would be called, they would call the Police and "people may be arrested" looking hard at me. Can you imagine my astonishment, here I was being threatened with arrest for doing nothing more than asking a simple forensic question. What are these people afraid of, what are they hiding, I thought. I asked the person blocking the door to reflect on the amount of publicity and propaganda that I could milk of I were to be arrested for asking a question. I also pointed out to the group of people who wouldn’t let me go back in that I thought that it was the job of the Police to protect freedom of speech, not destroy it.
While I was debating the importance of our fundamental rights with these people, the Queensland President and Secretary of the Forensic Society were standing beside me and never raised a finger or a word in my defence or the individuals right to question representatives of the state. They never offered a word of apology to me for the way I was treated or offered me my money back. As I was a bit like a possum surrounded by a pack of dingos, in the end discretion triumphed and I went home.
Over the last few weeks my mind has been swirling with questions as to why a simple forensic question triggered such a massive over reaction. After doing some research and looking at the witness statements that triggered my question, the only conclusion I can come to is that Bryant may have had an accomplice, the police bungled the investigation, the accomplice got away and the police are now covering up their incompetence. This conclusion is only informed speculation and I will gladly accept any evidence proving me wrong. When I asked about the collection of DNA evidence it was based on the witness statements of Rebecca M. and her boyfriend Michael B., who sat with the alleged killer on the balcony of the Port Arthur Café. I would point out that very few people, who saw the killers face from close range, survived. These two and the Collyer statement represent the bulk of them. I would also point out that Rebecca’s statement was taken at Port Arthur at 10.35p.m. on 28 April, 1996, the day of the shooting. She and her boyfriend were sitting on the balcony of the café when the alleged killer sat at a table two meters away. I quote from the important parts of the statement – "This male was carrying a tray with his food on it". "His facial skin appeared to be freckly and he was pale" "He was not wearing gloves" –"When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table" – "I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious –" -"The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: "tipping –didn’t actually see it fall") of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria". Rebecca’s companion, Michael B. states, and I quote in part – "He had a really big video camera on his shoulder and was carrying a really big bag" – "When I glanced again he seemed to be scoffing down his food". –"As he tried to get through the door back into the restraunt he couldn’t get through. He had the video camera on his shoulder and he had the bag and a tray in his hand. It was difficult to get the door open for him. Someone from inside opened it for him. He then went inside."
What we have here is clear evidence of the alleged killer, who was not wearing gloves and was carrying a "really big bag" carrying a food tray with a can of drink, in a plastic cup and food plate. We have clear evidence of him eating food and drinking from the cup and then carrying the tray back inside the café. Somewhere between the door and the first people to be killed was a food tray carrying the killers fingerprints and DNA (saliva on the cup and food scraps and utensils) and prints on the tray, eating utensils, can and plastic cup. This information was in the hands of Tasmanian Police by midnight on the day of the shooting, ample time to collect all the food trays between the door and the first victims, early next morning. Did the investigating police neglect to collect this vital evidence or was it collected and failed to match Bryant’s prints and DNA and suppressed. That is why I asked the forensic officer if any of Bryant’s DNA and prints were found in the café. As he is so reluctant to answer and his fellow officers are so keen to protect him I think we need an independent judicial enquiry to get to the bottom of the matter.
And what of the Collyer statement? Why was it necessary to lie to a hall full of people to avoid talking about it. I will quote the relevant sections and then speculate on their importance. "He came through the doors on my right. I noticed him because of his overcoat I think it was green it was the type of colour you don’t see that often that’s why it stuck in my mind. I saw him carrying a long bag. It didn’t seem unusual because all backpackers have long bags. He seemed somewhere about 20. He had long blonde bedraggled hair about 3 –4 below the shoulder. He looked like he might have had a lot of acne. A pitted face. He had scraggly trousers. I don’t remember what colour, I think I probably would identify him if I saw him again. I haven’t seen any photographs of him." - "I looked around and I saw him running from where he had disappeared and he was pulling something from out of his bag. I think he had already started firing it before he got it out of the bag. He was forward of me and to my left slightly at this stage. He seemed to pull out an old SLR from the bag. It seemed to be painted or something it seemed to be a very light colour. It looked like a standard SLR service semi automatic. I have been in the Armed Services. I was an aircraftsman I have had experience with firearms before. I was with the RAF in England for six months or so." Graham Collyer was shot through the throat at close range in the café. He saw the gunman’s face at close range and his statement was taken while recovering in hospital.
I personally think he is a reliable witness as he had military training and part of that training is learning to be observant. At first I thought that the presenter was worried about his clear description of the gunman’s pitted, acne scarred face, which corroborates Rebecca M.’s statement that the killer had freckles. We all know that Bryant is good looking and has a smooth baby face. While this is a big enough problem, I think what was really scaring the hell out of the presenter was Collyer stating that he had been shot with an SLR. I have no doubt that it was an SLR, as any one who had been trained to use one by the military and had to strip and re assemble it dozens of times and had to carry it around everywhere, would recognise one anywhere. Incidentally, SLR and FN-FAL are both descriptive terms for rifles which are virtually identical in every detail. It also has a distinctive shape and is a very long rifle. Therein lies the big problem for our presenter, you see, I think it was too long to fit in the blue sports bag which was left on a table in the café along with the video camera which was alleged to belong to Martin Bryant. If the SLR was too long for the blue sports bag, it must have been carried in a "really big bag" or a "long bag" exactly as the witnesses stated. We know the gunman carried both rifles back to Seascape, so how did he get both of them and the spare magazines back to the Volvo. In the long bag of course. But that is two bags, the long bag and the sports bag on the table. We know from the witness statements that the gunman only had one bag when he went into the café so the only conclusion I can make is that the blue sports bag was inside the long bag with the rifles and spare magazines.
So we come to the nub of the matter. We have a freckled faced or acne scarred pitted faced gunman dropping a blue sports bag and video camera which were alleged to have belonged to Martin Bryant on a table in the café before or during the shootings.
In my opinion this could only have been done to implicate Martin Bryant. This theory can only be correct of G Collyer was shot through the throat and neck with an SLR as he clearly states. I believe that is what happened because it is supported by the performance of the two types of projectile used. This is clearly laid out in The Wound Ballistics Review published in The Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association Vol 3 – N04.
Incidentally our presenter was a co-author. Two types of ammunition were used in the killings, .223 Chinese Norinco manufacture fitted with 55 grain boat tail F.M. 5 (full metal jacket) bullets fitted with a knurled cannular,
the other was a .308 cartridge made in Australia and loaded with a 144 grain boat tailed F.M.J. bullet.
In summary, the Wound Ballistic Review demonstrates quite clearly that the .223 projectile was prone to separation or fragmentation while passing through the victims bodies and almost always left large exit wounds. The .308 wounds were quite different to those caused by the .223. All the victims except one who were shot with the .308 rifle sustained complete perforating injuries and no bullets or fragments were recovered.
In other words the heavier stronger bullet from the SLR tended to go clean through the victims without "exploding" like the .223. I believe Collyer survived being shot clean through the throat and neck because as he states, he was shot with the .308 SLR/Fn FAL. This raises the question, why were no spent cases and projectiles found in the café? Who collected them and where are they ? Why do Police react so strongly when someone asks questions about these things? Why has a major Australian TV Company filmed a documentary about these matters but has been sitting on it for over a year, refusing it show it? Why has our presenter claimed that Bryant bought the guns on the black market, when it has been alleged in the Australian Media that the Colt .223 used in the killings was handed into Victorian Police in an amnesty? If Bryant bought the guns illegally on the black market, why has no one ever been charged with selling them to him. Why has no forensic evidence been produced that links Bryant to the guns and to the shootings in the café? Why on the 30th April was a carpenter sent into the café to paint out the windows and nail the doors shut. Possibly a first in Forensic examination of a major murder site. And finally, when we know that history is replete with examples of mentally deprived people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit, why was Bryant’s plea of guilty accepted without a proper enquiry or even a complete Coroners Inquest? These and many other substantial questions about the Port Arthur killings remain unanswered. It is high time that a properly constituted, fully independent enquiry is convened with all the power necessary to engage in a full and frank examination of all aspects of the Port Arthur killings.