Seascape - Movements Of Occupants ----

Evidence That Points To A Deception At Port Arthur -------------------- Email: editor@shootersnews.addr.com

Tasmanian Police Constable Garry Whittle was one of the two local police stationed on the pennisula who eventually arrived at the Port Arthur area crime scene following their having been decoyed to a phoney drug tipoff which took them out of harms way at the exact moment the shooting began at Port Arthur. He and his collegue Constable Hyland finally arrived at Seascape Cottage after following the well laid out trail of destruction along the highway sometime around 2pm. Whittle's statement to the DPP afterwards details what went on.

What is another point of note in his more detailed statement ( apart from seeing a naked woman running around outside Seascape while shots were being fired at them ) is his account of how he and Allen managed to crawl out of the drainage culvert they had been pinned down in since that afternoon with the assistance of 2 SOG members who provided them "with protection and information about the MOVEMENTS OF OCCUPANTS of Seascape" at 10.30pm that night. A copy of his statement is below - refer second last paragraph.

This indicates there was more than one person at Seascape moving around that night.

It also indicates 2 SOG members knew there was more than one person inside Seascape and those persons were moving around.

All of this totally contradicts the fact the DDP's case nobody was involved in the seige but Martin Bryant.

According to the DPP the Martin's were dead - had been murdered that sometime around noon so these occupants couldn't be them. Additionally the hostage taken at the service station, Glen Pears, was later found handcuffed hand and foot and it is absurd to suggest he was moving around loose while Bryant was shooting. Similarly it would be silly to suggest the naked woman observed by Whittle was still running around Seascape and it would pose the threat to those outside. There is only one alternative left - was the "occupants" moving around the "main man" ( and his collegues ) Bryant referred to on the phone ?

What is significant about this statement is because -

Firstly, this confirms other evidence that there was more than one person at Seascape moving around - (1) the shot on the tape proving someone else was shooting from the house, (2) the reference to a "main man", and (3) shots coming from 2 buildings.

Secondly, this fact was not disclosed in the media reports following the incident ( despite all the other high level detail that were given out to the media ) and the question must be asked WHY not ? Is there something to hide about this ?

Thirdly, this fact totally contradicts the DPP's case against Martin Bryant there there was only him at Seascape involved in the seige at that time. It is clearly implied from this statement the occupants and their movements inside Seascape represented a threat to those outside.

Forthly, WHY didn't the DPP mention this fact when summing up the events of that day at Bryant's sentencing given that an enormous amount of detail was given in it - especially as this was a police witness who saw it ? ( Refer that summing up on this website - court transcript page ).


This website believes this statement about more than one occupant of Seascape moving around late that night not only confirms the fact Bryant was not there alone, but also proves Tasmanian SOG members were aware of this fact given Whittle says the information came from them. These other occupants must have had something to do with the seige that was going on and were not hostages. This is the only sensible conclusion one can arrive at. If this is the case - that more than one person had been at Seascape moving around - the DPP's case against Bryant - that he acted alone - fails.

Note also at the bottom of the first paragraph Whittle says the gunman firing from Seascape had a NIGHT VISION DEVICE. This confirms other statements about such equipment. This was because shots were being fired close to them in the pitch dark of that evening as they tried to retreat from the drainage culvert at some distance from Seascape - unless the gunman had such a device attached to a gun such shooting would have been impossible. Such devices are not available to the public - you don't pick them up at your local KMART or Gun Store and it is likely they are a restricted import - normally only those in the military and police services have access to them. So the question arises where would Martin Bryant have got such a device and what happened to it because there wasn't one found on the 2 rifles found in intact condition ?












































Again this is just another example of relevant facts of this incident - facts that point to something else having happened that doesnt support the official line - being hidden and the question must be asked WHY ?

Return to Port Arthur Links Page