Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Martin Bryant...
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > True Crime
Subtemperate
I didnt see this guy mentioned here, so I thought Id post up the story...


QUOTE
For the owners of the numerous shops and cafés at the Port Arthur Historical site in Tasmania, fine weather usually meant good crowds and Sunday April 28, 1996 was no exception. Once the site of one of Australia's most brutal penal settlements, Port Arthur had become the premiere tourist attraction in Tasmania. By 1.00 pm, over five hundred visitors were at the site, enjoying the many attractions that the area had to offer.


Broad Arrow Cafe
By 1.30 pm the pace at the 'Broad Arrow' café had slowed after the busy lunchtime period but at least sixty people still remained, finishing meals or browsing through the gift shop. No one seems to recall seeing the young man with long blond hair enter the café and order a meal, but they do remember his comment when he sat down on the front balcony area to eat his lunch. "There's a lot of wasps about today," he said to no one in particular and began to eat his meal. A few minutes later, he made another remark about the lack of Japanese tourists.

He made no further comments as he finished his meal and picked up his bags and went back into the café. Moving towards the back of the room, he lifted a long, blue sports bag onto a vacant table and placed a video camera beside it. For several minutes he stood staring at a group of diners at an adjoining table before turning his attention to an Asian couple that were sitting near him. Before anyone had realized what was happening, he unzipped the larger bag and produced an AR15 semi-automatic rifle and shot the Asian man, Moh Yee Ng, in the neck, killing him instantly. Swinging the rifle from the hip he pointed it towards Soo Leng Chung, the man's companion, and shot her through the head. Turning his attention back to the first group he lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick's girlfriend in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

The fusillade continued as the gunman selected new targets, the acrid smell of gun smoke hanging in the air as his helpless victims dodged for cover. One man at the front of the room who bravely stood to shout a belated warning, died when a bullet tore through his neck. Husbands were killed as they tried to protect their wives and families, one man receiving massive head injuries when a bullet that had passed through a previous victim hit him. Some were killed instantly but many others lay bleeding from their wounds.

Walking towards the front entrance of the café, the gunman fired methodically, shooting left and right as the terrified crowd scrambled for cover. Fifteen seconds later, a total of twenty people lay dead with fifteen more wounded, many of them seriously. Leaving the Broad Arrow, the gunman walked out into the parking lot where over a hundred people were milling about in confusion. Many, hearing the shots, had started walking in the general direction of the café in the mistaken belief that a re-enactment was in progress. Others, who had been close enough to observe the carnage, ran for cover, screaming warnings to anyone they came in contact with.

Seeing the crowd gathered in the car park, the gunman opened fire. Several tourists fell as the rest, finally aware of what was happening, screamed and ran. Walking towards a tour bus parked nearby, the gunman shot the driver and three passengers. As the latest fusillade echoed across the parking lot, several tourists who were waiting to board the bus crawled under it for safety but the gunman saw them and calmly squatted down and shot them before walking back to his car, a yellow Volvo 244GL sedan with a surfboard strapped to the roof.

The gunman then drove three hundred yards down the road, to where a young woman and her two children were walking beside the road. Pulling to a stop, he fired two quick shots killing the woman and the child she was carrying. When the older child ran away to take refuge behind a tree, the gunman followed her and killed her with one shot. Returning to his vehicle, the gunman then drove a further two hundred yards towards the entrance gate where a gold coloured BMW was parked. Three shots were fired in rapid succession and the car's three male occupants lay dead. After dragging the bodies from the car, the gunman transferred his firearms into the BMW and drove away.

A short distance up the road he saw a couple sitting in a white Toyota and stopped beside them. The female driver froze as the man approached holding a gun and ordered her male companion to get out of the car. The man obeyed, pleading with the gunman not to shoot, but the gunman ignored him and instead, ordered the man to climb into the open trunk of the BMW. The gunman then slammed the lid and returned to the front of the car and fired two shots through the driver's window killing the young woman instantly. With the man still locked in the trunk, the gunman sped away towards a local guesthouse called the Seascape Cottage where the final chapter of the deadly saga would eventually unfold.


Seascape Cottage
As he drove towards the entrance to Seascape Cottage, the gunman saw another vehicle approaching and opened fire, but his bullets missed their target. Turning his attention to the next vehicle, a four-wheel-drive jeep driven by a holidaying couple from Melbourne, the young man fired two shots, one of which tore into the bonnet, the other smashing the windscreen. A second volley of shots ripped through the side windows showering the occupants with glass and hitting the female driver in the forearm. Realizing the driver was hit; the male passenger leaned over and attempted to drive the vehicle to safety but was unable to do so as the throttle cable had been severed by one of the bullets.

Seconds later, a Ford sedan with two married couples on board, drove towards the cottage and were hit by a hail of bullets that penetrated the windshield, wounding the driver. Bleeding profusely from his wounds, the driver of the Ford continued on to where the jeep was parked and managed to rescue the occupants before speeding away to the Fox and Hounds, another guesthouse further down the road. Another vehicle, approaching along the Arthur Highway, saw the man standing on the road with a gun and rapidly changed direction.

After the Ford drove away, the gunman walked back to the BMW and drove down the entrance road and parked in front of the cottage. He then removed his guns from the car before releasing the man from the trunk. After taking him inside the house and handcuffing him to a stair rail, the gunman returned to the BMW, poured petrol over it and set it alight.

Only minutes after the shooting began at Port Arthur, the first police were summoned to the scene. Hearing the emergency radio call, two young constables, Paul Hyland and Garry Whittle, drove rapidly towards the area. As Constable Hyland approached Seascape Cottage, he saw the damaged vehicles on the side of the road and stopped to investigate. Seeing smoke billowing from the car parked in front of the cottage, he drove back down the highway to set up a roadblock. By this time Constable Whittle had arrived and he also parked his vehicle across the highway on the other side of the entrance to seal off the area.

Soon after two other police arrived, the BMW exploded sending them diving for cover. As they maneuvered their vehicles into safer positions, shots were fired in their direction from the cottage. The police held their positions until members of the Special Operations Group relieved them shortly after dark. As they took up flanking positions around the guesthouse, more shots were fired from within the cottage. The operation was further hampered by poor radio reception making it almost impossible for the police to confirm each other's positions.


Martin Bryant
As the hours ticked away, information about the gunman began to seep through. The lone gunman was believed to be Martin Bryant, a twenty-eight-year-old resident of New Town, a suburb of Hobart. Bryant was described as being tall with long blond hair and pale skin, almost albino in appearance and "a little slow." Another piece of information that filtered through caused greater concern. In addition to the AR15 and FN semi-automatic rifles that Bryant was known to be carrying, he had access to several more firearms that belonged to David and Sally Martin, the owners of Seascape Cottage. Given the additional weapons, at least three hostages and the lack of suitable cover around the cottage, a direct assault was ruled out and a specialist negotiation team was summoned.

Off and on for the next six hours, the senior police negotiator, Sergeant Terry McCarthy spoke to Bryant over the phone. During the course of the negotiations, Bryant's only demand was that he be given a "ride" in an army helicopter. Eventually, contact with the cottage was lost when the batteries went flat on the cordless phone that Bryant was using. As the vigil continued, police reinforcements from as far away as Victoria and New South Wales arrived at the scene creating the largest single police action in Australia's history.


The charred ruins
The next morning, Monday, April 29, senior police met to decide the next course of action. Shortly after, smoke was seen billowing from the cottage and at 8.25 am, Martin Bryant ran from the building, his clothing ablaze. As police rushed forward to make the arrest, Bryant tore his clothes from his body and gave himself up. Later, as ambulance officers smothered his skin with ointment, Bryant asked them if it was petrol they were using. He was later conveyed to the same hospital where many of his victims were fighting for their lives. After the fire was put out, more bodies were found inside the cottage. Included in the dead were the Seascape's owners, David and Sally Martin and Glenn Pears, the man that had been locked in the car. Police would later establish that Pears had been murdered sometime during the negotiations and Bryant killed the Martins prior to his arrival at Port Arthur. In a period of just over nineteen hours, Martin Bryant, a man described by locals as being "a quiet lad and a bit of a loner," had killed thirty-five men, women and children and wounded another eighteen making him the most notorious spree killer of all time.


http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/
louie
did he ever say why he did it,, what was his reason, ???????????
Subtemperate
Not that I can remember, there was many a show about him...but none that ever interviewed him about it to my knowledge.

They did point out he had the super brain power of forrest gump, and that in youth he was unable to learn from experiances.. IE ending up in hospital doing something, hed go back and do it again....

...He had heaps of horror and violent movies in the house, so sure the press made a big deal of that....

This was the incident that lead to the changing of gun legislation in australia.
justcallmefox
I would think the combination of a mentally challenged person and many, many horror movies would not be a good thing at all. ohmy.gif
Spacey
Strange time to put this up, considering it will be exactly 10 years on the 26th- creepy.. ohmy.gif

As an aussie, i have to say i remember when it happened and it was a very big case indeed- Martin Bryant is a household name here, and a very interesting case for someone like me.
There is a new development in his case, doctors are questioning his mental state, and there are even alot of people who believe he didn't act alone.

Martin Bryant is someone i would love to interview for my book. Not because i idolise him or condone the things he did, but serves as a classic example of "people gone bad."
I've read some of his old school reports and psyche evaluations which show classic indicators of a future violent offender- torturing animals, social outcast, violent behaviour torwards his peers. I feel our school sysytem should really be looking for this kind of thing to help stop this kind of person from developing into a killer.
I have many theories on the development process of violent offenders and feel that it is brought on the the individuals need for attention, good or bad, his anger torwards his peers, antisocial personality disorder and in the case of Bryant, with an IQ of 66, an imressionable state that caused him to be influenced by violent horror he was obsessed with (no, not saying that all people are driven to crime by violent movies, only those who are readily influenced and have a violent, angry nature)

The Port Arthur Massacre is one of the most prolific crimes in Australia. It totally changed our country, causing the governemt to change our gun legislation. So i guess some good came out of it.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(Spacey @ Apr 21 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]1157442[/snapback]
Strange time to put this up, considering it will be exactly 10 years on the 26th- creepy.. ohmy.gif

As an aussie, i have to say i remember when it happened and it was a very big case indeed- Martin Bryant is a household name here, and a very interesting case for someone like me.
There is a new development in his case, doctors are questioning his mental state, and there are even alot of people who believe he didn't act alone.

Martin Bryant is someone i would love to interview for my book. Not because i idolise him or condone the things he did, but serves as a classic example of "people gone bad."
I've read some of his old school reports and psyche evaluations which show classic indicators of a future violent offender- torturing animals, social outcast, violent behaviour torwards his peers. I feel our school sysytem should really be looking for this kind of thing to help stop this kind of person from developing into a killer.
I have many theories on the development process of violent offenders and feel that it is brought on the the individuals need for attention, good or bad, his anger torwards his peers, antisocial personality disorder and in the case of Bryant, with an IQ of 66, an imressionable state that caused him to be influenced by violent horror he was obsessed with (no, not saying that all people are driven to crime by violent movies, only those who are readily influenced and have a violent, angry nature)

The Port Arthur Massacre is one of the most prolific crimes in Australia. It totally changed our country, causing the governemt to change our gun legislation. So i guess some good came out of it.

What good came out of the new gun legislature? That Australia has the highest rate of home invasions anywhere now, criminals are laughing that we cannot protect ourselves? Do you own a gun? Do you have any idea of any of the gun laws that now face shooters, do you live in the country or on the land where a gun is a neccessity? Its people like you who make these uninformed comments that are eroding our Australian way of life.
Do you know Martin Bryant is innocent? Do you know the killer was an intelligent, skilled marksman, killing 19 people by a single shot to the head in the cafe shooting from the hip and shoulder? Do you know Bryant is left handed? You do know Bryant had an IQ of 66 so tell me how he had the capacity to be able to use a gun in this way, he didn't even have a drivers licence as he himself stated he "wasn't too bright". Do you even understand the relevance of the shooters skill and his low IQ? I am not angry at you, I am so frustrated people are not understanding that this was a set up and that the government is responsible for it. Barry Unsworth stated back in 1987 " We will not have uniform gun laws in Australia until there is a massacre in Tasmania", (because Tasmanian govt didn't want to take guns off thier people) well there it was and there's your new gun laws. Some good came of it.....sure.
Kazahel
Well I agree with some good coming out of it and I'm glad the gun laws changed. I've never considered guns an Australian way of life and I dont really know anyone who has, most Australians I think look at guns as more for the cowboys if you know what I mean. And you only have to look around to see what guns are doing in this world. And in regards to home invasions, I'm glad we dont have people killing others when it wasnt needed. I remember a case of someone getting gunned down as they ran away. So they got shot in the back as they tried to flee as revenge in the heat of the moment because the owner had a gun. And I think from memory he went to jail because he murdered the thief. So I think its good that they arnt so easy to get personallly because I've seen how they have changed peoples lives very quickly.

But I do agree that it is strange that Bryant was such a good shot. I always thought that... I just figured he mustve practised or something and that was just the main thing he was good at.

I guess we'll never really know for sure hey.
REBEL
Firstly i want to say, my heart goes out to all the victims and their families.
It was one of the darkest chapters in Australia's history.
I just have one question about the Bryant case.

Why did it take authorities almost 18mths if not 2yrs to finally go public with full details of their investigations & findings on the case???
When they did decide finally go public, it was spoon fed to us a little at a time.

I think they brought in the new 'pro communist gun laws' before they even worked out and or determined he had a few screws loose and or missing up top. Whoever remembered it as i did, will recall how lightning fast they implemented the new gun laws. I don't own a firearm but they had gun owners hand them in @ record speed with cash or cheque 'buy back' on all illegal firearms just to speed things along even quicker as they knew there would be heavy protest from serious and genuine gun owners.
Australia & world saw with their own eyes that it was a clear cut open and shut case, so why were the police and in some parts government back-peddling and remaining tight lipped on the case toward the media and general public...as i recall even the victims families were screaming for answers.

edit:I think i left two questions.



Those links below is worth checking out. Port Arthur Massacre: Government and media lies exposed.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/palies3.htm

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/MartinBryant1.html
The Puzzler
QUOTE(Kazahel @ Feb 24 2007, 12:33 AM) [snapback]1555247[/snapback]
Well I agree with some good coming out of it and I'm glad the gun laws changed. I've never considered guns an Australian way of life and I dont really know anyone who has, most Australians I think look at guns as more for the cowboys if you know what I mean. And you only have to look around to see what guns are doing in this world. And in regards to home invasions, I'm glad we dont have people killing others when it wasnt needed. I remember a case of someone getting gunned down as they ran away. So they got shot in the back as they tried to flee as revenge in the heat of the moment because the owner had a gun. And I think from memory he went to jail because he murdered the thief. So I think its good that they arnt so easy to get personallly because I've seen how they have changed peoples lives very quickly.

But I do agree that it is strange that Bryant was such a good shot. I always thought that... I just figured he mustve practised or something and that was just the main thing he was good at.

I guess we'll never really know for sure hey.

Yeah OK, I won't turn this into a gun debate...mind you...."see what guns are doing in this world"...do guns have brains and can do things can they?...its the PEOPLE. OK, sorry if I'm a cowboy....but you are right in accepting that Martin Bryant couldn't have done what he did and all I want is for people to think about the country we live in and be aware that we are being treated like idiots by the government. If Martin Bryant is innocent it is a very scary thought, the more I delve the scarier it becomes, ever wonder why Pauline Hanson was so attacked by the media and other people in the government even to the point of being WRONGLY sent to prison, they find ways of ridding themselves of people who might not be so willing to co operate. She dared to be honest.
Mad Manfred
QUOTE
Why did it take authorities almost 18mths if not 2yrs to finally go public with full details of their investigations & findings on the case???


The Australian police are infamous for their bumbling ways.

And I agree with the conspiracy nuts. Martin Bryant couldn't have pulled this off on his own in such a limited time-span.

Whether this was a government sanctioned taskforce to change gunlaws or Bryant wasn't alone, I don't know, but something ain't right.
REBEL
Well said MM.
As i heard some where before, It's not until the dust settles do you start to see things a little more clearly.
crouton
But couldn't some of the survivors identify him? I mean, if he sat there and ate lunch, then started the shooting.....someone who survived must have been able to identify him.
explorer

One person with high powered weaponry and enough ammo can do a lot of damage in a very short period of time.
That's the argument against high powered guns.

weareallsuckers...On what statistical basis do you say Australia has the highest rate of home invasion?
Does accurately shooting a gun require a certain IQ? I doubt it.
Is the apparent stricture of gun control your central concern. Seems to be.

The Puzzler
QUOTE(explorer @ Feb 25 2007, 07:20 PM) [snapback]1557399[/snapback]
One person with high powered weaponry and enough ammo can do a lot of damage in a very short period of time.
That's the argument against high powered guns.

weareallsuckers...On what statistical basis do you say Australia has the highest rate of home invasion?
Does accurately shooting a gun require a certain IQ? I doubt it.
Is the apparent stricture of gun control your central concern. Seems to be.

OK, maybe I should have said ONE of the highest rates of home invasions due to our soft approach on criminals. Criminals are having a field day home invading, raping us and our children because they know we cannot protect ourselves. I don't think there is a place for high powered guns either but it's not just those they have targeted. And shooting a gun accurately such as Martin Bryant was supposed to have done (accurately shooting 19 people in the head from the hip and shoulder in a very short time, matter of seconds, right handed when Martin Bryant is left handed) is extremely hard, you obviously are one of these people who have no idea about guns at all. It's the main point in proving Martin Bryant did not do it. Yes, it concerns me very much, as this set up to kill 35 people includng 2 little girls to disarm me and fellow shooters apparently makes me Government enemy #1. Go to a gun club meet, talk to fellow shooters, we are not all crazed cowboy lunatics. Its my central concern because of the set up, if a government and ASIO can do this dispicable thing just to restrict guns it should be yours too. Read this website and all other links and information you can, here I'll even provide a start for you...http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html and then come back and comment, I'd be interested in what you think. Forget about me and my gun law views, concentrate on the fact that you have been tricked into believing an innocent man has done this. That is the big picture.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(crouton @ Feb 25 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]1556967[/snapback]
But couldn't some of the survivors identify him? I mean, if he sat there and ate lunch, then started the shooting.....someone who survived must have been able to identify him.

He was jailed without a trial, just a sentencing...a travesty in itself, because yes, survivors would have been called as witnesses and if you are interested you can read eyewitness accounts of them saying they did not think it was Martin Bryant. The courts couldn't have that so no witnesses were called and no trial was set, who gets jailed for life with no jury trial? He did plead not guilty at first but it was rejected by the court. It took more than 2 months to convince him it would be in his "best interests" to plead guilty. The courts took his home off him thereby leaving him no funds to get a solicitor anyway, they actually changed the law to allow them to do this. And on and on it goes.....there is plenty of websites to read for more on the injustices of Martin Bryant if you are interested.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(louie @ Apr 12 2006, 01:38 AM) [snapback]1142947[/snapback]
did he ever say why he did it,, what was his reason, ???????????

He pleaded not guilty but the courts rejected his plea, after 2 months in jail, he pleaded guilty, one can only imagine what tactics they used to get him to say that, you can read his mothers story about that one on the internet. He is being kept in solitary confinement, not allowed to mingle with anyone, lucky to be allowed visitors, only his mother has ever visited him as far as I know apart from legal eagles etc, and even his mother has been banished from Risdon Prison now. I heard him called our very own Man In The Iron Mask and I believe thats very true. Locked away forever in solitary, no chance of release, no visitors, nothing. Why?? I feel very strongly about this case and am even scared the people responsible might try and silence me and anyone else trying to inform other people of whats going on, just thought I'd make that known, just in case...............
The Puzzler
Me again, I will add that I have read some new details that could place Martin Bryant at the scene, maybe I am wrong after all. I do feel strongly though that he did not do it but will admit that I am looking into it further before I make any more comments about his innocence. I do not want to offend anyone with my views, especially any of the families of victims, I am just seeking the truth.
REBEL
Maybe i'm just thinking out loud here but...
Sitting there calmly drinking & eating his lunch before getting up to commence his bloody massacre.
Survivors & eyewitness's said the man walked around NOT ran but walk around like a 'zombie' with no fear and no remorse on his face whatsoever whilst on his shooting spree.
He lived with a woman old enough to be his grand mother for years with no sexual relations, just close friends and the clincher was that she told reporters that prior to that day in the many years that she knew him he never showed any signs weird or violent behaviour even though she knew and told police and reporters later that he had in his possession several firearms.
Dosn't make sense.

Make of it what you will.

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/mind...rol_series4.htm
The Puzzler
QUOTE(explorer @ Feb 25 2007, 07:20 PM) [snapback]1557399[/snapback]
One person with high powered weaponry and enough ammo can do a lot of damage in a very short period of time.
That's the argument against high powered guns.

weareallsuckers...On what statistical basis do you say Australia has the highest rate of home invasion?
Does accurately shooting a gun require a certain IQ? I doubt it.
Is the apparent stricture of gun control your central concern. Seems to be.

Here's an answer from a website to your dumb statement - "Does accurately shooting a gun require a certain IQ? I doubt it."

Bryant's "gunmanship"
For many people, the most important reason to doubt that Bryant was the killer is on account of the latter's impressive gunmanship. In 1998, Wound Ballistics Review pointed out that the Port Arthur incident: "...is unique in relation to the wounds for several reasons. Twice as many people were killed as injured (the reverse normally being true)."
What's more, the Broad Arrow Café gunman managed to shoot the first 19 out of 20 people dead with single accurate shots to the head, fired from his right hip. Some researchers maintain that Bryant, who was an amateur shooter with virtually no shooting experience whatsoever, would have entirely lacked the skills to carry out such a feat. A powerful case has been made to this effect by Perth researcher Joe Vialls (now deceased), based on the fact that amateur shooters generally achieve a much lower KIR (killed-to-injured ratio) than did the Broad Arrow Café shooter. In an enclosed space like the Broad Arrow Café, targets would have to be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximise the kill rate. Yet the Broad Arrow Café gunman managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier—an impossible task for a man like Bryant, with an IQ in the mid-60s and his total lack of military training. Vialls concluded that the shooter was a military-trained marksman who would probably rank among the top 10 or 20 shooters in the world.
Brigadier Ted Serong, former head of Australian forces in Vietnam, was just as impressed. In 1999, Serong—who explained that his eyes had first been opened by the "astonishing proportion of killed to wounded"—told Melbourne newspaper the Age:
"There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am."
One reason why most members of the general public have accepted the official story that Bryant was the gunman is that they possess a greatly exaggerated idea of what amateur gunmen are able to do. Not only do amateurs tend to injure many more persons than they kill, they are usually overpowered before they have completed their sinister work. By contrast, the Port Arthur gunman was a thorough professional who was at all times in perfect control. Vialls wrote:
"The shooter in the Broad Arrow Café at Port Arthur demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counterterrorist marksman but made no amateur mistakes. Always in motion and point-shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards."
However, we don't have to take the word of people like Vialls and Serong who never saw the Port Arthur gunman shoot with their own eyes. According to eyewitness (and victim) Neville Quin: "He [the gunman] appeared to be the best-trained army guy I've ever seen; his stance was unbelievable."
Also important to consider is that, according to most witnesses, the Broad Arrow Café shooter shot from his right hip. Not only is Bryant left-handed, he told police he had never fired a gun from his hip. We should believe him. It is doubtful that anyone except a highly trained professional shooter could.
crouton
Okay, say that Martin Bryant is innocent, and that it's a conspiracy to get guns out of the hands of the people. Who would benefit from that? Why would outlawing guns benefit anyone? I admit, I know nothing about guns, and am asking because I really want to know.

Plus, if he's innocent, why was he in the house that burned before they captured him? They didn't find anyone else there, except the bodies of the hostage that had been taken, and the owners of the house. Again, I'm not trying to make a case either way, I just am interested in knowing what you/anyone has to say about this.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(crouton @ Feb 26 2007, 10:58 AM) [snapback]1558100[/snapback]
Okay, say that Martin Bryant is innocent, and that it's a conspiracy to get guns out of the hands of the people. Who would benefit from that? Why would outlawing guns benefit anyone? I admit, I know nothing about guns, and am asking because I really want to know.

Plus, if he's innocent, why was he in the house that burned before they captured him? They didn't find anyone else there, except the bodies of the hostage that had been taken, and the owners of the house. Again, I'm not trying to make a case either way, I just am interested in knowing what you/anyone has to say about this.

Good questions and I don't have all the answers. I will look into the topic more of who would have benefitted from disarming people. It has just driven guns underground into the hands of extremely dangerous people. I believe the Police would have benefited alot, I'm sure they didn't like every Tom, Dick and Harry owning a gun and Police weild alot of power. If fact the New South Wales Police (I see you are USA, New South Wales is a state here in case you did not know) force was so corrupt we had a Wood Royal Commission into Police corruption in the early '90's. My own brother received $50,000 compensation from them for being a victim of Police coverups at the time. I know first hand how much they can be involved in illegal activities and still can't trust them.
As for Martins burns there is no real explanation for them, just more questions, the following information is available (Carleen is Martin Bryants mother):

Next Carleen discussed Martin’s actual injuries, because those reported by the media were wholly inconsistent with the official story of the day, i.e. that Martin Bryant had set fire to Seascape, panicked, then fought his way out of the blazing building. Carleen didn’t know exactly why I was asking, but confirmed that the burns were restricted to "his back and left hand side", pointing to her own left side to illustrate exactly where. "Were there any burns at all to his face, chest, arms or hands?" I asked. "Oh no, none at all" Carleen replied confidently. As any fireman will confirm, the official story of the day is mission impossible. Any person fighting his way out of a burning building does so head-first so that he can see where he is going, arms and hands held high to protect his face from the flames and to deflect burning debris away from his body. It is an instinctive survival response that we all use in life-threatening fire situations.

Minor first-degree burns are enough to make anyone retreat from a fire immediately, the split-second that nerve endings send warning impulses to the brain. Despite this known fact, Martin Bryant remained inside Seascape until burning debris had caused horrific third-degree burns to his back and side, but not to his face, chest, arms or hands. How? The only possible scientific answer is that Martin was lying face-down, either comatose or drugged, and remained that way as burning debris from the first floor above (where the fire started) fell onto his back until the intense pain finally forced him back to consciousness. This is confirmed by video footage of Martin leaving the building, stumbling along like a dazed drunk. Those readers asking themselves "but who else could have started the fire if Martin Bryant was unconscious and the only man left alive inside Seascape, and how did they do it?" might like to consult standard Army manuals under the chapters headed "incendiary devices" and "radio detonators".

Martin Bryant still is adamant he was not there on that day, why bother still saying you didn't do it if you did when there is absolutely no chance of release anyway? I am not sure of anything myself really and continue to delve into this issue to try and find the explanations.
crouton
Thank you for that information. The only thing that I could think of for a reason for guns to be outlawed was if the police were under the thumb of organized crime. There is that old saying 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' holds true. I am not especially in favor of guns, at least handguns, but have no idea what to do about them. Here in Washington state there is a huge loophole in the law concerning buying guns: If one buys from a gun show, one does not have to wait the required time before obtaining that gun. On one hand, it's part of our consitution to be able to bear arms, but on the other hand, too many crimes have been committed with them. And as is being proved down under, if guns are outlawed, the regular law-abiding citizen has little recourse for self protection in his/her own home. There must be a huge amount of corruption, at all levels of government, if Martin Bryant is truly innocent, and this was done to change gun laws. Yikes.
REBEL
Good info weareallthesucker.

One last question, then i'l call it a day on this topic.

In the 10 yrs since this massacre took place and as 'insane and or psychotic' as Bryant was, why is it that he was never publicly interviewed to tell his side of the story to the world???...as i said mentally and completely gone as he was he still had that one right to publicly tell his side of the story.(after all he still claimed his innocence. Surely as clear cut as we as this case was.... claiming your innocence just dosn't make sense unless the lawyer is crazier than the client.
(AND, i am in no way saying that he 'did not' commit any of those horrific crimes.)

Instead all we ever got to see of Bryant was 'edited' police video interrogation (some of them blurry and all most all of them 'subtitled')reports and the man going in and out of court.

No more questions.

edit: I think i left two questions instead of one again.



Rebel out.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(REBEL @ Feb 27 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]1559296[/snapback]
Good info weareallthesucker.

One last question, then i'l call it a day on this topic.

In the 10 yrs since this massacre took place and as 'insane and or psychotic' as Bryant was, why is it that he was never publicly interviewed to tell his side of the story to the world???...as i said mentally and completely gone as he was he still had that one right to publicly tell his side of the story.(after all he still claimed his innocence. Surely as clear cut as we as this case was.... claiming your innocence just dosn't make sense unless the lawyer is crazier than the client.
(AND, i am in no way saying that he 'did not' commit any of those horrific crimes.)

Instead all we ever got to see of Bryant was 'edited' police video interrogation (some of them blurry and all most all of them 'subtitled')reports and the man going in and out of court.

No more questions.

edit: I think i left two questions instead of one again.
Rebel out.

I agree Rebel, lets call it a day on this. Your comment is reflective of what its all about, whether Martin Bryant is guilty or innocent he should have received a fair trial by jury and had a chance of explanation. This is the crux of it all - being jailed for life without a trial is unfair, unjust and illegal regardless of who you are. Over and out.
Kazahel
Free David Hicks!
The Puzzler
QUOTE(Kazahel @ Feb 27 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]1559499[/snapback]
Free David Hicks!

I can't help but think myself of similarities between him and Bryant, jailing a man without trial.......whether he is guilty or not of his so called crimes, give the man a fair trial!!!
Kazahel
Yeah I agree. And I cant believe Hicks is still in there either... considering the American they caught has been sentenced and isnt in there anymore. It's pretty shocking.
brave_new_world
Port Arthur Cover Up

NO INQUIRY


It has been suggested that a full inquiry into the Port Arthur
massacre has taken place. This is not true. There was not even a Coronial
Inquiry although there should have been one. A Coronial Inquiry is required


(a) When foreign nationals are killed


(cool.gif When there are deaths by fire


Thus there was at least a double reason to hold a Coronial
Inquiry. So why was the law broken to prohibit the inquiry?



MARTIN BRYANT - GENIUS


If one accepts the official Tasmanian Police and DPP line
Martin Bryant can only be regarded as a GENIUS - displaying the skill and
cunning of a criminal mastermind unparalleled in world history.


Martin Bryant had such intelligence information and timed
things so well as to wait until a whole series of things were in place
just before, on, or slightly after the 28th April.


1. He got the Tasmanian authorities to have a 22-body morgue truck
available for his handiwork.


2. He organised for senior Port Arthur staff to go away on a Work Seminar
so they wouldn't get hurt.


3. He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in
place two days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.


4. He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end
at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch up all the
wounded quickly.


5. He arranged for helicopter pilots - usually unavailable - to be
available that Sunday.


6. He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was
at a service station 57 kilometres away.


7. He decoyed the local police to be at the opposite end of the peninsula
at the exact moment the shooting began.


8. He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he
arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there at 12.45pm.


9. He managed not to look like himself - as if wearing a woman's wig -
when being filmed in the car park by tourists.


10. He wore a face mask making his face look pockmarked when shooting in
the cafe.


11. He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow
Cafe afterwards so people wouldn't think it was him who did it.


12. He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that
afternoon and make it appear she had been killed that morning.


13. He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was
downstairs talking to police on the phone.


14. He had infrared night vision eyes.


15. He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the
night of the siege.


16. He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling
at police and get severe burns only on his back.


17. He managed to have the world press to have a convention in Hobart on
the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get
better than usual media coverage.


18. He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.


19. He managed to make it appear Tasmania Police had fabricated and
tampered with evidence.


20. He managed to get the Tasmanian DPP lie to the Court about his
activities.


21. He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to
witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him and get
Channel Nine


To fabricate a video - all while in custody.


22. He fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege
by police at Seascape.


23. If you believe the official version, his marksmanship was fantastic -
twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds! There are only
about 100 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the world. They
are the SPOOKS who work for various governments.


THE CONFESSION


He managed to get himself convicted of murder and get life. He confessed
after being held in solitary confinement for at least ten times the
maximum allowable as punishment in war under the Geneva Convention. The
deal was that he got a TV set in his room. After that much solitary men
go mad or confess to anything. Bryant was mentally retarded.


WAS THERE A TRIAL


There was no trial. Just torture (28 days sensory deprivation
which is illegal) and the confession. There is enough material for
investigators to believe he is innocent.


MARTY WAS THE DUMMY CHOSEN TO TAKE THE RAP


When you add up all these things and a lot more not listed
above, it is impossible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion
Bryant was behind this incident - that it was him doing the shooting and
that others weren't involved and that a setup and cover-up hasn't
occurred.


Those who were prepared to leave him to burn to death in
Seascape saw Martin Bryant as expendable.


WITNESSES SPEAK OUT


Wendy Scurr, the lady who called the police while under fire
has toured Australia pleading for a trial for Bryant. She held the phone
out the window so the police could better hear the shot to be convinced
that there was a massacre going on.


WITNESSES GAGGED


Scores of other witnesses can't understand why the media
reports differ greatly from what they saw and heard. The eye witnesses
can't understand why their testimony recorded by police was not used.
Even the police can see that the bulk of evidence points to others.


UNFIT TO EVEN PLEAD


Bryant is so retarded he might know what guilty means but he
would not have a clue as to the implications of a guilty plea. There are
grounds for a trial, a first trial with evidence presented to a jury.


CATCH 22 - SO NO APPEAL


Appeal is impossible now because even a QC can't get access to
Bryant because the prison officers say he doesn't want visitors. Even
Bryant's mother can't get to see him. We only have the prison officers'
word that he doesn't want visitors. From all other skullduggery - why
should they be believed?


EVIDENCE DESTROYED


All evidence of the shooting was removed from the building to
make it a sacred site. This is a standard procedure when the government
does a sting. Remember Waco, Oklahoma, Twin Towers 9-11 etc.


PLEASE DO SOMETHING


Send this everywhere. Give it to police, politicians, media
etc. Some will squirm - too gutless to think for themselves. We might
light a spark of integrity in some and perhaps get the boy a trial...


Lodge an official complaint that there is a Federal crime being committed.
Lodge an official complaint with the Tasmanian police that government
officials are party to a conspiracy to frame Bryant. Request a full
investigation by the Crime and Misconduct Commission into the BRIBING of
the states with promises of diesel subsidies and THREATS to cut state
funding It is a crime to offer inducements or threats to influence
representative in how to vote. I have a letter signed by a Tasmanian
Senator saying they were blackmailed into passing Howard's gun laws. This
I have passed on to the AFP. They are party to a conspiracy because, even
with irrefutable evidence that the states were blackmailed to would not
press charges. They must prtess charges. Then it is up to the courts to
decide guilt or innocence


When politicians appoint police you cane expect corrupt police and bent
screws.


Send this everywhere so all recipients can sent it everywhere - until
justice is done.


Tony Pitt


http://www.users.bigpond.com/tonypitt/id123.htm

Poor bryan. Let him go, I feel really sorry for him.
The Puzzler
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Feb 27 2007, 10:52 PM) [snapback]1560043[/snapback]
Port Arthur Cover Up

NO INQUIRY
It has been suggested that a full inquiry into the Port Arthur
massacre has taken place. This is not true. There was not even a Coronial
Inquiry although there should have been one. A Coronial Inquiry is required
(a) When foreign nationals are killed
(cool.gif When there are deaths by fire
Thus there was at least a double reason to hold a Coronial
Inquiry. So why was the law broken to prohibit the inquiry?
MARTIN BRYANT - GENIUS
If one accepts the official Tasmanian Police and DPP line
Martin Bryant can only be regarded as a GENIUS - displaying the skill and
cunning of a criminal mastermind unparalleled in world history.
Martin Bryant had such intelligence information and timed
things so well as to wait until a whole series of things were in place
just before, on, or slightly after the 28th April.
1. He got the Tasmanian authorities to have a 22-body morgue truck
available for his handiwork.
2. He organised for senior Port Arthur staff to go away on a Work Seminar
so they wouldn't get hurt.
3. He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in
place two days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.
4. He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end
at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch up all the
wounded quickly.
5. He arranged for helicopter pilots - usually unavailable - to be
available that Sunday.
6. He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was
at a service station 57 kilometres away.
7. He decoyed the local police to be at the opposite end of the peninsula
at the exact moment the shooting began.
8. He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he
arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there at 12.45pm.
9. He managed not to look like himself - as if wearing a woman's wig -
when being filmed in the car park by tourists.
10. He wore a face mask making his face look pockmarked when shooting in
the cafe.
11. He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow
Cafe afterwards so people wouldn't think it was him who did it.
12. He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that
afternoon and make it appear she had been killed that morning.
13. He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was
downstairs talking to police on the phone.
14. He had infrared night vision eyes.
15. He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the
night of the siege.
16. He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling
at police and get severe burns only on his back.
17. He managed to have the world press to have a convention in Hobart on
the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get
better than usual media coverage.
18. He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.
19. He managed to make it appear Tasmania Police had fabricated and
tampered with evidence.
20. He managed to get the Tasmanian DPP lie to the Court about his
activities.
21. He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to
witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him and get
Channel Nine
To fabricate a video - all while in custody.
22. He fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege
by police at Seascape.
23. If you believe the official version, his marksmanship was fantastic -
twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds! There are only
about 100 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the world. They
are the SPOOKS who work for various governments.
THE CONFESSION
He managed to get himself convicted of murder and get life. He confessed
after being held in solitary confinement for at least ten times the
maximum allowable as punishment in war under the Geneva Convention. The
deal was that he got a TV set in his room. After that much solitary men
go mad or confess to anything. Bryant was mentally retarded.
WAS THERE A TRIAL
There was no trial. Just torture (28 days sensory deprivation
which is illegal) and the confession. There is enough material for
investigators to believe he is innocent.
MARTY WAS THE DUMMY CHOSEN TO TAKE THE RAP
When you add up all these things and a lot more not listed
above, it is impossible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion
Bryant was behind this incident - that it was him doing the shooting and
that others weren't involved and that a setup and cover-up hasn't
occurred.
Those who were prepared to leave him to burn to death in
Seascape saw Martin Bryant as expendable.
WITNESSES SPEAK OUT
Wendy Scurr, the lady who called the police while under fire
has toured Australia pleading for a trial for Bryant. She held the phone
out the window so the police could better hear the shot to be convinced
that there was a massacre going on.
WITNESSES GAGGED
Scores of other witnesses can't understand why the media
reports differ greatly from what they saw and heard. The eye witnesses
can't understand why their testimony recorded by police was not used.
Even the police can see that the bulk of evidence points to others.
UNFIT TO EVEN PLEAD
Bryant is so retarded he might know what guilty means but he
would not have a clue as to the implications of a guilty plea. There are
grounds for a trial, a first trial with evidence presented to a jury.
CATCH 22 - SO NO APPEAL
Appeal is impossible now because even a QC can't get access to
Bryant because the prison officers say he doesn't want visitors. Even
Bryant's mother can't get to see him. We only have the prison officers'
word that he doesn't want visitors. From all other skullduggery - why
should they be believed?
EVIDENCE DESTROYED
All evidence of the shooting was removed from the building to
make it a sacred site. This is a standard procedure when the government
does a sting. Remember Waco, Oklahoma, Twin Towers 9-11 etc.
PLEASE DO SOMETHING
Send this everywhere. Give it to police, politicians, media
etc. Some will squirm - too gutless to think for themselves. We might
light a spark of integrity in some and perhaps get the boy a trial...
Lodge an official complaint that there is a Federal crime being committed.
Lodge an official complaint with the Tasmanian police that government
officials are party to a conspiracy to frame Bryant. Request a full
investigation by the Crime and Misconduct Commission into the BRIBING of
the states with promises of diesel subsidies and THREATS to cut state
funding It is a crime to offer inducements or threats to influence
representative in how to vote. I have a letter signed by a Tasmanian
Senator saying they were blackmailed into passing Howard's gun laws. This
I have passed on to the AFP. They are party to a conspiracy because, even
with irrefutable evidence that the states were blackmailed to would not
press charges. They must prtess charges. Then it is up to the courts to
decide guilt or innocence
When politicians appoint police you cane expect corrupt police and bent
screws.
Send this everywhere so all recipients can sent it everywhere - until
justice is done.
Tony Pitt


http://www.users.bigpond.com/tonypitt/id123.htm

Poor bryan. Let him go, I feel really sorry for him.

Yes, the info is out there.....when someone who witnessed it tours Australia pleading his innocence, you really have to wonder about it all - the scary part is it could be you next, in the wrong place at the wrong time, how would anyone reading this feel if you were subjected to this, it can happen and has. Be alert, be alarmed.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.