Port Arthur
Roger Dewhurst
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur ---------------------- Email:
shoote...@optusnet.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
What Was Alleged Martin Bryant Did That Day & Things That Happened Up To His
Sentencing:
Before looking at the unanswered questions one needs to be aware of what it
is alleged Bryant did that day. The exact details can be found on the DPP's
Case Court Transcript page on this site - below is a summary:-
The case against Martin Bryant alleged he killed Mr. & Mrs. Martin at
Seascape Cottage Guesthouse sometime before 12.40pm then travelled south 6km
to see a Mr.Larner then proceeded into the Port Arthur Historic Site and
after an argument with the parking attendant went to the Broad Arrow Cafe
and bought lunch. He sat having lunch inside then went outside to finish it.
At 1.30pm he then went back inside the Cafe and opened fire with a COLT M16
CAR .223 Cal. Rifle killing 25 people in 90 seconds then left the Cafe
shooting at people in and around the car park killing and wounding more -
during that time he switched guns to an FN SLR .308 Rifle . He then is
alleged to have driven his yellow Volvo out of the site shooting people
along the way and at the tollbooth. He then abandons his car and transfers
some of his implements to a BMW which belonged to his victims at the
tollgate ( he leaves behind the keys to Seascape, cans of petrol and a
Daewoo Shotgun and ammo ) . He then stops at the service station up the road
shooting more people and takes a hostage who is forced into the boot of the
BMW. The BMW then proceeds at high speed 6 km north to Seascape where he
stops and shoots at cars on the highway injuring more people. He then takes
his hostage inside Seascape and sets fire to the BMW. The time is now around
2pm. Local police wait in a ditch for several hours while shots are fired
from Seascape. After dark Special Operations Group Police arrive at
Seascape. During the night police talk on the phone to someone identified as
"Jamie" at Seascape. Many shots are fired from Seascape during the night but
nobody outside is hit.. At 7.45am the following morning Seascape errupts in
smoke on fire. At 8.40am Martin Bryant -clothes on fire emerges from the
rear of Seascape staggering and unarmed and is apprehended by police with TV
News cameras rolling. Bryant remains in hospital isolated for several weeks.
He denies committing the shootings to police when interviewed. He pleads not
guilty for months. His first lawyer is removed in unclear circumstances and
his second lawyer gets him ( reportedly under pressure ) to later plead
guilty ( thereby avoiding then requirement for a proper jury trial and
scrutiny of evidence ). Bryant's isolation continues to this day with his
relatives being refused access to see him.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Below is a summary of the main unanswered questions about the incident in
sequence of their happening under topic headings. Some of these points are
covered in more detail on other pages on this site. Many more questions are
raised on the CD-ROM referred to on the Introduction and Credits page.
PRELUDE
New South Wales Premier Barrie Unsworth said in 1987 "There will not be any
change to gun laws until there is a massacre in Tasmania" following the a
meeting of the States failing agree on uniforn national gun laws. ( Was this
setting the stage ? )
Despite repeated refusal by the States to go down this path why were
National Uniform Gun Laws all prepared and ready in Dec 1995 to go to an
upcoming meeting of State and Federal Police Ministers due sometme around
the time Port Arthur occurred ?
Why did Tasmanian Premier Ray Groom in an unprecedented move resign on 18th
March 1996 as Premier ( just 2 weeks after Howard wins 1996 Federal
Election ) and take over all Tasmanian portfolios that would have anything
to do with a massacre at Port Arthur - Minister for Justice, Attorney
General, Tourism ( including the Port Arthur Historic Site ), and Workplace
Safety ? Tony Rundle an ex journalist takes his place as Premier.
Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary Truck
capable of carrying 22 bodies made shortly before Port Arthur ?
THE MARTIN'S AT SEASCAPE
Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin's - owners of the Seascape ?
How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house only
20 metres away ?
Why is the evidence of the guests who stayed at Seascape overnight
inconsistent with that of other witnesses regards the presence of a yellow
Volvo before noon ? Were there 2 yellow Volvo's and Bryant being emulated in
order to make him the patsy for this incident ?
BROAD ARROW CAFÉ
Why would Bryant want to shoot so many people he did not know - MOTIVE ?
Why was a management work seminar scheduled that Sunday for staff of the
Port Arthur Site - only one ever held and none held since - for that day and
why was it held at a location 2 hours drive away ? .Was it to get key staff
away ? And isn't it also a coincidence it was scheduled for almost the exact
time the shooting began - 1pm.
Why was the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to investigate
a phoney drug tip-off ( heroin in a bottle which turned out to be
soap-powder ) in the most distant part of his police district ( only one
ever recorded ) shortly before the shootings started ? And was that
diversion also to prevent him from closing the drawbridge to the mainland
which would have bottled up the gunman ? And isn't it another incredible
coincidence that only 4 minutes after they reported by radio arriving at
their destination that the shooting started in the Cafe ?
Why did that caller ring the local police and not dial 000 ( 911 ) - was it
was because 000 number is recorded ?
How could Bryant, an unskilled person of low intellect, kill 25 people in
the café by head shots and wound numerous others fired from the hip in 90
seconds ?
Why did senior Tasmanian Police keep police away from Port Arthur for as
long as possible - 6 hours - when police headquarters was only an hour's
drive away ? Was it to allow the crime scene to get messed up ? And why did
they let only the small handful Special Operation Group personnel into the
Seascape site ?
Why was the Café's emergency exit door that jammed faulty ? Was it
deliberately tampered with ? And why did it reportedly go missing after the
incident - was it switched ?
THE ROAD TO SEASCAPE
Why was the yellow Volvo left behind with ammo etc. in it at the Tollgate ?
Why change cars and at where it was done ? Was it to leave something of
Bryant's there at the Port Arthur crime scene ?
Why take a hostage at the Service Station ? Put a man in boot ? Why not just
kill him as he had been doing since it started ? Was it to keep police at
bay at Seascape under seize standoff conditions until night fell ? Why would
he do that or was it to allow other to escape in the cover of darkness ?
SEASCAPE
Why was a trail of destruction led to Seascape ?
Why would Bryant set fire to the BMW ? Was it done by the real gunman to
destroy fingerprint and other evidence ? Or was it to create a beacon to
attract police ?
Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on the roof of Seascape
with a gun ?
Why did so many shots fired from Seascape that night hit nothing given
Bryant was claimed to be a crack shot ?
Why did Seascape ignite that morning like an incendiary bomb had gone off ?
And why did it happen that morning and not in the dark ? Was it to destroy
all evidence inside including making an examination of the bodies those dead
inside difficult - in terms of determining time of death ? Why would Bryant
want to do that ?
Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded lite such a fire - it would only
serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured ? Why would police lite
one knowing hostages were inside ?
Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant was
grabbed police knowing hostages were inside ? Seascape was only smoking when
he was grabbed.
Why did Bryant stagger from Seascape as if drugged and the burns only to the
back of his body if lying down ? Was it the fire that woke him up after
being drugged by the real gunman and his helpers ?
AFTERMATH
Why was there no positive ID of Bryant done by police by lineup or mug shots
as required by law ? Why hasn't anyone identified him positively ?
Why were there no fingerprints found on - the sports bag - the guns - the
surfboard ?
Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service, which had a special Chevy Morg Truck
capable of carrying 22 bodies which was used at Port Arthur, sell it shortly
afterwards - and why would they need such a truck of that capacity - for a
State when there is usually three or less murders a year ? Why did the
operator of the service recently publically criticise Cafe witness Wendy
Scurr in a letter to a newspaper for querying this unusual vehicle and its
history ?
Why was Bryant's hands and face uninjured when his Colt M16 CAR rifle was
found which blew a cartridge in the breech and exploded making it
unoperative ?
Why were 2 sports bags found when witnesses said the gunman had only one ?
Were the guns found at Seascape really Bryant's and were they really the
ones used on the day ?
Why was the COLT CAR rifle missing the pistol grip and why was the FN's
barrel bent and had parts missing from it when recovered from Seascape, and
those parts never found ? And how could the COLT - a plastic gun - survive a
fire intact ?
Why were police, the media, Justice Minister Ray Groom etc. saying the
people in the café were all shot within 90 seconds when witnesses there
claim it was between 5 to 6 minutes - why the reduction of the time ? Was it
to justify the rapidfire aspect of the guns for a ban ?
Why was the Broad Arrow Café bulldozed so quickly - was it to destroy
evidence of what really took place there - like a second gunman backing up
the main gunman ?
How did the media know it was Bryant before he was arrested at 8.40 am that
Monday morning ? How could the Hobart Mercury know it was him for their
morning print run for that day done much earlier than 8.40 am ? The man on
the phone's name was "Jamie".
Who doctored video footage of a running man adding the soundtrack of shots
from another video and presented this as Bryant ( prior to his trial ) which
was also used at his trial as evidence which was shown on Channel 9's Ray
Martin Current Affair Program ? Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it
at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was a TV
Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it the DDP or the
Tasmanian Police ?
Why does one of the "tourist" videos show no colour or features on "Bryant"
standing next to his Volvo when surrounding objects like cars have them ?
Why is Bryant's face black - is it to hide the face of the real gunman ? Why
is there a halo around the picture as if electronically pasted ?
Why has there been no Coroner's Inquest ? This is something totally
unprecedented.
THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
Why did Bryant persistently state under questioning he did not go to Port
Arthur that day and did not shoot anyone ?
Why did Bryant plead not guilty for months ? Why would someone do that if he
knew he could be identified ? Why was he isolated for months and his mother
refused access ?
Why was Bryant's first lawyer removed ? Who removed him ? Why did he only
plead guilty after pressure from his new lawyer ?
Why was Hobart gun dealer, Terry Hill, who was alleged to have sold the
weapons to Bryant was dragged into court over it and the minute he started
wanting to get Bryant and other witnesses into court to testify the action
was dropped - as if authorities didn't want any scrutiny of the evidence ?
Also - why did the Tasmanian Police and DPP try to get Terry Hill to admit
he sold him the guns by offering immunity ( the guns Bryant said he never
owned ).
Why did the DPP censor and edit out so many pages of Bryant's taped police
interview ? And how could the recording equipment for that interview
breakdown ?
Why have the Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC and other people associated with
the case been promoted ?
POLITICAL REACTION - NATIONAL GUN LAWS
Why did Prime Minister John Howard in the say "some firearm owners were
going to have to make sacrifices" when annoucing the National Gun Laws he
imposed.
Why did John Howard also decide and declare a coronor's inquest into Port
Arthur be denied - when it is not his responsibility or jurisdiction to do
so ? What was John trying to hide ? Was he trying to protect some of his
mates in the Tasmanian and Federal Liberal Party who were involved - Ray
Groom perhaps ?
Why did Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer after the imposition of the Howard
imposed gun laws following Port Arthur say: "This is all about removing guns
from urban areas".
--
Roger Dewhurst,
ROTORUA, N.Z.
Politicians and babies nappies
should be changed frequently,
and for much the same reason.
Xray Delta 1
Pauline Hanson suggested that the events at Port Arthur were a conspiracy,
and the gun lobby here wouldn't have a bar of it. Since they are the ones
directly affected, why the stony silence?
Roger Dewhurst <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9cali2$lm0$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
D
evidence from survivors that Bryant lined them up and shot them - a positive
ID??
Dave Joll
Why do paranoid gun geeks feel the need to spam this sort of
nonsense to groups where it is off-topic, whenever they feel
the cold wind of responsibility breathing down their necks?
Bill Smith
wrote:
FWIW, I don't buy into the conspiracy fantasies, but how do gun owners
in general bear responsibility for what happened in Port Arthur?
Bill Smith
Roger Dewhurst
"D" <s_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ae93385@news...
No positive ID. No fingerprints. No forensic evidence. No coroner's
enquiry. No proper trial. No evidence tying the weapons to Bryant. Answer
the questions posed.
Roger Dewhurst
"Dave Joll" <jol...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9cbksn$hpg$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Try answering the questions. When you can you might be entitled to your
view.
>
>
>
>
Roger Dewhurst
"Xray Delta 1" <xrayd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae9...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> As an Australian, I declare, you Roger Dewhurst, to be a total fuckwit.
> Pauline Hanson suggested that the events at Port Arthur were a conspiracy,
> and the gun lobby here wouldn't have a bar of it. Since they are the ones
> directly affected, why the stony silence?
Answer the questions one by one. Do that convincingly and others might
believe you. Now piss or get off the pot.
D
five days after the Port Arthur shooting and went to stay at my normal
lodgings. I was absolutely amazed at the way in which that shooting
affected the Tasmanian people. My friends - rough and ready Aussie
battlers - were just stunned and dismayed by the event. In fact I still
believe that the massacre did something to Tasmania - changed the vibe of
the place somehow.
I also have to concede that there was some peculiar stuff going on with the
police and Bryant at the time I arrived - some of the newspaper stories just
did not quite ring true. I have never really questioned him as being
responsible, but it sure did seem strange that he could shoot so many people
in such a short space of time and them miss everyone else. I have a
recollection that one of survivors told the inquest that he saw Bryant
shooting inside the cafe - I think that the witness lost his wife and
daughter, was shot himself, but was overlooked when the wounded were
executed.
I might go with a conspiracy theory if it had an objective - nothing was
achieved except for the murders and the impacts on family , friends, and the
Tasmanian psyche. If you know Australia you will know that gun control
hasnt actually been too effective - so what else was there?
Bryant was a nutter (so what? there are plenty around the place) - but it is
just not plausible that men in black suits chose him to be the means to some
improbable end.
D
Roger Dewhurst
"D" <s_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ae9f80e@news...
> I do quite a lot of work in Hobart - have done since 1979. I arrived
there
> five days after the Port Arthur shooting and went to stay at my normal
> lodgings. I was absolutely amazed at the way in which that shooting
> affected the Tasmanian people. My friends - rough and ready Aussie
> battlers - were just stunned and dismayed by the event. In fact I still
> believe that the massacre did something to Tasmania - changed the vibe of
> the place somehow.
I can well imagine that.
>
> I also have to concede that there was some peculiar stuff going on with
the
> police and Bryant at the time I arrived - some of the newspaper stories
just
> did not quite ring true. I have never really questioned him as being
> responsible, but it sure did seem strange that he could shoot so many
people
> in such a short space of time and them miss everyone else. I have a
> recollection that one of survivors told the inquest that he saw Bryant
> shooting inside the cafe - I think that the witness lost his wife and
> daughter, was shot himself, but was overlooked when the wounded were
> executed.
There was a description of someone vaguely resembling Bryant but not
identifying him. He was identified elsewhere though!
>
> I might go with a conspiracy theory if it had an objective - nothing was
> achieved except for the murders and the impacts on family , friends, and
the
> Tasmanian psyche.
Barrie Unsworth, politician, "It will need a massacre in Tasmania before we
can get gun control" or words to that effect.
>If you know Australia you will know that gun control
> hasnt actually been too effective - so what else was there?
Politicians rarely get things right even with the benefit of hindsight. Do
you really expect them to get it right when foresight is required?
>
> Bryant was a nutter (so what? there are plenty around the place) - but it
is
He has a very low IQ. That does not necessarily make him a psychopath.
Someone like Bryant is an ideal choice if someone is to be framed. Could
you have picked a better choice to put in the frame?
Again I invite you to go through that list of questions one by one and deal
with the issues. Among those not listed, there are two more. Bryant is
left handed. The gunman right handed. Anyone firing a weapon of that type
in an enclosed space will be incapacitated as if by a stun grenade unless
provide with ear protection. If Bryant had fired those shots without ear
protection he would have been incapable of answering any police questioning
for days. He would have been deaf. Where was his ear protection? None was
reported. Did he have the intelligence necessary to know that he would need
it?
If the case was open and shut why was he not put on trial?
> just not plausible that men in black suits chose him to be the means to
some
> improbable end.
What about Barrie Unsworth? Why did Howard block a coroner's enquiry? What
about all the other questions that need answers. Perhaps you have more
faith in the integrity of politicians than I do.
Michael Dix
After Dunblane and Port Arthur, the UK and Oz governments
seemed to be operating on the theory that all gun owners are
dangerous psychopaths. The governments believed the question
was not if gun owners would go berserk, but when.
Roger Dewhurst
"Michael Dix" <mj...@best.com> wrote in message
news:3AEA4117...@best.com...
Add the Canadian government and suggest that the NZ government, or at least
some idiots in it, are inclined the same way. Perhaps it needs one
psychopath to recognise another!
Motorists Advocate
"Roger",
Don't let facts get in the way of a cover-up will you:-)
Say's I, remembering something of a 30 year embargo on evidence...
Tis best sometimes to let things go Roger - it's much easier that way.
News: This past week the campaign has begun to ban automatic pistols by
coincidence.
J.H.P
Jeremy Bowen
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> writes:
> "Xray Delta 1" <xrayd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ae9...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > As an Australian, I declare, you Roger Dewhurst, to be a total fuckwit.
As a New Zealander, I agree wholeheartedly.
> > Pauline Hanson suggested that the events at Port Arthur were a conspiracy,
> > and the gun lobby here wouldn't have a bar of it. Since they are the ones
> > directly affected, why the stony silence?
>
> Answer the questions one by one.
Done.
> Do that convincingly and others might believe you.
^^^^^^
'coz Roger Dewhusrt sure won't. He a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
> Now piss or get off the pot.
Make way for Roger Dewhusrt pissing in the wind.
> > > UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
> > > Despite repeated refusal by the States to go down this path why were
> > > National Uniform Gun Laws all prepared and ready in Dec 1995 to go to an
> > > upcoming meeting of State and Federal Police Ministers due sometme
> > > around the time Port Arthur occurred ?
Ground work and preparation. Maybe it had been ready years beforehand.
> > > Why did Tasmanian Premier Ray Groom in an unprecedented move resign on
> > > 18th March 1996 as Premier ( just 2 weeks after Howard wins 1996 Federal
> > > Election ) and take over all Tasmanian portfolios that would have
> > > anything
> > > to do with a massacre at Port Arthur - Minister for Justice, Attorney
> > > General, Tourism ( including the Port Arthur Historic Site ), and
> > > Workplace Safety ?
Standard cabinet re-shuffle. New election. Fresh government. Portfolios
get shuffled around. Show me *any* parliament where this DOESN'T happen.
> > > Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary
> > > Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies made shortly before Port Arthur ?
Perhaps they found they were transferring more and more bodies between
hospitals and mortuaries. A simple case of supply and demand. Exactly how
"shortly before" Port Arthur was this truck made ?
> > > THE MARTIN'S AT SEASCAPE
> > >
> > > Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin's - owners of the Seascape ?
He was slightly (completely) crazy.
> > > How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house
> > > only 20 metres away ?
I don't understand the question. What has the proximity of the neighbours
house got to do with anything ?
> > > Why is the evidence of the guests who stayed at Seascape overnight
> > > inconsistent with that of other witnesses regards the presence of a
> > > yellow Volvo before noon ?
Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. In any group of people you will get
some conflicting reports. Ask any police officier who has had to interview
a group of people about a crime.
> > > Were there 2 yellow Volvo's and Bryant being emulated in order to
> > > make him the patsy for this incident ?
No. There is absolutely no evidence of this. It's a lunatic theory.
> > > BROAD ARROW CAFÉ
> > >
> > > Why would Bryant want to shoot so many people he did not know - MOTIVE ?
He was stark raving bonkers.
> > > Why was a management work seminar scheduled that Sunday for staff of the
> > > Port Arthur Site - only one ever held and none held since - for that day
> > > and why was it held at a location 2 hours drive away ?
They *HAD* held one previously. Nothing unusual there then.
Most management seminars are held off-site. *Anyone* who has *ever* been
on one knows this is standard practice.
> > > Was it to get key staff away ?
No it wasn't.
> > > And isn't it also a coincidence it was scheduled for almost the
> > > exact time the shooting began - 1pm.
Yes. Staggering. A co-incidence. So what.
> > > Why was the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to
> > > investigate a phoney drug tip-off
He knew this was phoney before he set out ??? Should he selectively choose
which crimes (or possible crimes) to attend ?
> > > ( heroin in a bottle which turned out to be
> > > soap-powder ) in the most distant part of his police district ( only one
> > > ever recorded ) shortly before the shootings started ?
Australia is a big country. The population is thinly spread. His police
district is probably quite large because of this. Perhaps the general
public are not experienced with heroin. Joe Public may not recognise soap
powder.
> > > And was that diversion also to prevent him from closing the
> > > drawbridge to the mainland which would have bottled up the gunman ?
No. This is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence.
> > > And isn't it another incredible
> > > coincidence that only 4 minutes after they reported by radio arriving at
> > > their destination that the shooting started in the Cafe ?
Not really.
> > > Why did that caller ring the local police and not dial 000 ( 911 ) - was
> > > it was because 000 number is recorded ?
Small communitites regularly ring the local police number. They know their
local police. Which caller by the way ?
> > > How could Bryant, an unskilled person of low intellect, kill 25 people
> > > in the café by head shots and wound numerous others fired from the
> > > hip in 90 seconds ?
A large number of people at close range and in a confined space. Lots of
shots fired. Quite easily I imagine. Are you saying it is difficult to
kill people with guns ? He was supposed to be a good shot after all.
> > > Why did senior Tasmanian Police keep police away from Port Arthur for as
> > > long as possible - 6 hours - when police headquarters was only an hour's
> > > drive away ?
Senior police were on site. Perhaps they were handling the
situation. Regular police were continuing with their normal jobs.
> > > Was it to allow the crime scene to get messed up ?
No. It wasn't
> > > And why did they let only the small handful Special Operation Group
> > > personnel into the Seascape site ?
To prevent loads of cops stomping around and messing up the crime
scene!!!!!! Get a grip.
> > > Why was the Café's emergency exit door that jammed faulty ?
Poor maintenance. Happens all the time. Nothing unusual.
> > > Was it deliberately tampered with ?
No. Evidence ?
> > > And why did it reportedly go missing after the incident - was it
> > > switched ?
Did it go missing ? OR did it "reportedly" go missing ??????!!!!!!
Evidence ?
Maybe they simply repaired the faulty door. It was an emergency exit. If
it was discovered to be faulty, it would be criminal negligence to leave
it un-repaired.
> > > THE ROAD TO SEASCAPE
> > >
> > > Why was the yellow Volvo left behind with ammo etc. in it at the
> > > Tollgate
No cash to pay the toll perhaps ?
> > > Why change cars and at where it was done ? Was it to leave something of
> > > Bryant's there at the Port Arthur crime scene ?
To get through the toll bridge perhaps. Cash in another vehicle maybe....
> > > Why take a hostage at the Service Station ? Put a man in boot ? Why not
> > just kill him as he had been doing since it started ?
Gunman was F$%^ING CRAZY!!!!! I'm hardly going to expect a rational human
being to think clearly about his actions!!!! For GODS sake get a better
argument.
> > > Was it to keep police at bay at Seascape under seize standoff
> > > conditions until night fell ?
No.
> > > Why would he do that or was it to allow other to escape in the
> > > cover of darkness ?
No. It's because he was mad.
> > > SEASCAPE
> > >
> > > Why was a trail of destruction led to Seascape ?
Don't understand the question.
> > > Why would Bryant set fire to the BMW ?
In his mad mind it probably made perfect sense.
> > > Was it done by the real gunman to
It *WAS* done by the real gunman!!!! (Language of conspiracy)
> > > destroy fingerprint and other evidence ? Or was it to create a beacon to
> > > attract police ?
No.
> > > Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on the roof of
> > > Seascape with a gun ?
Maybe to bring him in alive if possible ? Confirm he was the
suspect. Quite responsible of the police really.
> > > Why did so many shots fired from Seascape that night hit nothing given
> > > Bryant was claimed to be a crack shot ?
What was he shooting at ? Did he need a night scope ? Were people taking
cover ?
> > > Why did Seascape ignite that morning like an incendiary bomb had gone
> > > off ?
Accelerant maybe.
> > > And why did it happen that morning and not in the dark ?
What difference would that make ? Is the time of the fire important ?
> > > Was it to destroy all evidence inside including making an
> > > examination of the bodies those dead inside difficult - in terms of
> > > determining time of death ?
No.
> > > Why would Bryant want to do that ?
He was a crazed psychopath. Rational thought was not high on his list of
abilities.
> > > Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded lite such a fire - it would
> > > only serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured ?
In his crazed mind it may have made perfect sense.
> > > Why would police lite one knowing hostages were inside ?
They didn't. Evidence.....
> > > Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant
> > > was grabbed police knowing hostages were inside ? Seascape was only
> > > smoking when he was grabbed.
Was the crime scene secure ? Could the police guarantee the safety of the
firemen ? "It was only smoking" contradicts the previous allegation that
Seascape ignited like "an incendiary bomb". Which one is it ?
> > > Why did Bryant stagger from Seascape as if drugged and the burns only to
> > > the back of his body if lying down ?
Could he have suffered burns from a conflagration of something flamable
going up ? Ever thrown petrol on a barbie ?
> > > Was it the fire that woke him up after being drugged by the real
> > > gunman and his helpers ?
No. He was the real gunman. There were no helpers.
> > > AFTERMATH
> > >
> > > Why was there no positive ID of Bryant done by police by lineup or mug
> > > shots as required by law ?
He was identified by at least one of the people shot but not killed. He
was identified later too.
> > > Why hasn't anyone identified him positively ?
Opinion only. Some consider he has been positivly identified.
> > > Why were there no fingerprints found on - the sports bag - the guns -
> > > the surfboard ?
What was the sportsbag made of ? How often are fingerprints retreived from
sportsbags ? Is this in any way unusual ?
Were there any smudged prints on the guns or were they wiped
clean. Perhaps there were prints on the guns but simply not CLEAR
prints. This is NOT unusual.
> > > Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service, which had a special Chevy Morg
> > > Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies which was used at Port Arthur,
> > > sell it shortly afterwards - and why would they need such a truck of
> > > that capacity - for a State when there is usually three or less
> > > murders a year ?
They undobutedly have more than 3 DEATHS a year. The truck would be used
for NUMEROUS *other* bodies, NOT ONLY *murder* victims.
You're a complete nutcase for not recognising this.
> > > Why did the
> > > operator of the service recently publically criticise Cafe witness Wendy
> > > Scurr in a letter to a newspaper for querying this unusual vehicle and
> > > its history ?
Maybe because such an accusation would lead people to think that the
operator of the service was connected to the killings in some way. Not
very good for business. A completely normal reaction.
> > > Why was Bryant's hands and face uninjured when his Colt M16 CAR rifle
> > > was found which blew a cartridge in the breech and exploded making it
> > > unoperative ?
He got lucky.
> > > Why were 2 sports bags found when witnesses said the gunman had only one
Maybe he had a second one in his car. Maybe he swapped them. Easy to explain.
> > > Were the guns found at Seascape really Bryant's and were they really the
> > > ones used on the day ?
Yes.
> > > Why was the COLT CAR rifle missing the pistol grip and why was the FN's
> > > barrel bent and had parts missing from it when recovered from Seascape,
> > > and those parts never found ?
Maybe they were missing when Bryant brought the guns to Seascape. Maybe
they were thrown away. Did they carry out an exhaustive search of the
entire area. If they had, would it have proved anything ?
> > > And how could the COLT - a plastic gun -
> > > survive a fire intact ?
Not everything gets hot enough in a fire to destroy everything. Ask any
fireman about what survives a fire. Nothing unusual here.
> > > Why were police, the media, Justice Minister Ray Groom etc. saying the
> > > people in the café were all shot within 90 seconds when witnesses there
> > > claim it was between 5 to 6 minutes - why the reduction of the time ?
Stuck in a shootout, minutes seem like hours for the victims. Try it
sometime.
> > > Was it to justify the rapidfire aspect of the guns for a ban ?
No.
> > > Why was the Broad Arrow Café bulldozed so quickly - was it to destroy
> > > evidence of what really took place there - like a second gunman backing
> > > up the main gunman ?
No. How many people want to eat their lunch where peoples brains have been
blown all over the walls!!!! Get a grip.
> > > How did the media know it was Bryant before he was arrested at 8.40 am
> > > that Monday morning ? How could the Hobart Mercury know it was him
> > > for their morning print run for that day done much earlier than 8.40
> > > am ?
Police told them who they suspected ? Investigative journalism perhaps.
> > > The man on the phone's name was "Jamie".
What are you on about ??????
> > > Who doctored video footage
Proof ?
> > > Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it
> > > at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was
> > > a TV Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it
> > > the DDP or the Tasmanian Police ?
Was it the tooth fairy ? Was it done at all ? Proof ?
> > > Why does one of the "tourist" videos show no colour or features on
> > > "Bryant" standing next to his Volvo when surrounding objects like
> > > cars have them ?
Poor quality video recorder. Nothing unusual there.
> > > Why is Bryant's face black - is it to hide the face of the real gunman ?
Bad lighting. Filming in bright sunlight. Face in shadow. Video cameras
are very bad at capturing this.
> > > Why is there a halo around the picture as if electronically pasted ?
Poor quality Am-Cam video equipment.
> > > Why has there been no Coroner's Inquest ? This is something totally
> > > unprecedented.
Waste of time and money.
> > > THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
> > >
> > > Why did Bryant persistently state under questioning he did not go to
> > > Port Arthur that day and did not shoot anyone ?
He was a fruitcake.
> > > Why did Bryant plead not guilty for months ?
Low intellect. You've said so yourself.
> > > Why would someone do that if he knew he could be identified ?
Not very bright. He's not appearing on Mastermind any time soon you know.
> > > Why was he isolated for months and his mother refused access ?
Suspected of mass murder.
> > > Why was Bryant's first lawyer removed ? Who removed him ?
Yes. Was he *actually* removed. If you don't know who removed him, how do
you *know* he was removed ? Maybe he got a better case.
> > > Why did he only plead guilty after pressure from his new lawyer ?
Insanity plea ? Smarter lawyer. Hoping for "co-operation" leniency.
> > > Why was Hobart gun dealer, Terry Hill, who was alleged to have sold the
> > > weapons to Bryant was dragged into court over it and the minute he
> > > started wanting to get Bryant and other witnesses into court to
> > > testify the action was dropped -
Full story please.
> > > as if authorities didn't want any scrutiny of the evidence ?
Theory. Proof ?
> > > Also - why did the Tasmanian Police and DPP try to get Terry Hill to
> > > admit
> > > he sold him the guns by offering immunity ( the guns Bryant said he
> > > never owned ).
Selling guns illegally to a moron is probably not good for keeping your
licence. Terry Hill would not want to admit to any wrong doing.
> > > Why did the DPP censor and edit out so many pages of Bryant's taped
> > > police interview ?
Good question. Does this *ever* happen in other cases ??? If it doesn't,
then maybe you've got a point. If it does, then it's probably for broadly
the same reasons and you don't have a point.
> > > And how could the recording equipment for that interview breakdown ?
Murhpy's law
> > > Why have the Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC and other people associated
> > > with the case been promoted ?
Long service. Normal career progression. People DO get promoted you know.
> > > POLITICAL REACTION - NATIONAL GUN LAWS
> > >
> > > Why did Prime Minister John Howard in the say "some firearm owners were
> > > going to have to make sacrifices" when annoucing the National Gun Laws
> > > he imposed.
Because some firearm owners were going to have to make sacrifices. I don't
think he was talking about slaughtering chickens under a full moon!!
> > > Why did John Howard also decide and declare a coronor's inquest into
> > > Port Arthur be denied - when it is not his responsibility or
> > > jurisdiction to do so ?
Un-necessary waste of taxpayers money in his opinion. He was the prime
minister. It WAS his jurisdiction.
> > > What was John trying to hide ?
Nothing.
> > > Was he trying to protect some of his mates in the Tasmanian and
> > > Federal Liberal Party who were involved - Ray Groom perhaps ?
No.
> > > Why did Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer after the imposition of the
> > > Howard imposed gun laws following Port Arthur say: "This is all
> > > about removing guns from urban areas".
Perhaps because one aspect of the gun control laws was about removing guns
from urban areas...
OK. So, every question addressed convincingly (maybe not to the paranoid
fruitcakes but hey) now where has your conspiracy theory gone.
It's nutcases like Roger who look for a conspiracy when a simple
explanation will suffice. Some of the things you've questioned are
completely routine and there are perfectly normal rational explanations for
them.
I'm happy enough to believe that politicians aren't always honest but
a state sponsored massacre just to gain support for tougher gun control
laws simply beggars belief. You're a complete lunatic if you could even
consider this possibility in Australia.
Jeremy Bowen
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> writes:
>
> > Answer the questions one by one.
>
> Done.
Hey Roger. Gone awfully quiet all of a sudden ?
Roger Dewhurst
"Jeremy Bowen" <jam...@fXlashmail.cXoXm> wrote in message
news:ug0een...@tality.com...
No done. You merely spouted a few personal opinions.
Stephen
Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> writes:
>
> > "Xray Delta 1" <xrayd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ae9...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > > As an Australian, I declare, you Roger Dewhurst, to be a total fuckwit.
>
> As a New Zealander, I agree wholeheartedly.
>
If Roger is a total fuckwit then I'm glad we have a few around like him. If it
wasn't for people questioning things where would we be now. A lot worse has
happened through the times than what has been put forward in this thread. There
seems to be an emphasis on the Australian government doing something like this.
What about some well organized group doing it and fooling the government as well.
Do you think that it's possible for something like this to happen at all. Has this
type of thing happened in some other part of the world. Millions of people have
died while many millions of others have believed that nothing was going on. I am
not a member of any political group or gun organization.
Only time will tell.
Regards Stephen.
Joe Bridgehouse
now having read about the incident, keep it up Roger......Wouldn't worry too
much, just remember the old poem that goes something like.
First they came for the books....I did nothing because I had no books,
Then they came for the Priest, I did nothing, as I was not a Priest.
Then they came for the Jews, I watched as I was not a Jew
Then they came for me!!, but nobody helped
So Bollocks to em Roger
Joe B
Roger Dewhurst
"Stephen" <s...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3AFA272D...@alphalink.com.au...
Thanks. I think much of the unwillingness to examine the matter with an
open mind comes from a belief in the decency of politicians, particularly
one's own. It is so easy to believe "A leader in a western democracy could
not do that sort of thing". Well they can. Mitterand and his Defence
Minister did it in New Zealand with the Rainbow Warrior a few years ago.
They only succeded in killing one person but easily it could have been more.
Roger
Peter Metcalfe
> First they came for the books....I did nothing because I had no books,
> Then they came for the Priest, I did nothing, as I was not a Priest.
> Then they came for the Jews, I watched as I was not a Jew
> Then they came for me!!, but nobody helped
Quote Pastor Niemoeller correctly or not at all.
--Peter Metcalfe
Joe Bridgehouse
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15661d895...@news.qsi.net.nz...