Conspiracy Theory Martin Bryant and Port Arthur - Conspiracy or Cheddar?

[Malifice]

People still have conspiracy theories about the Port Arthur massacre? Seems like these people are the gun lobbyists. Anyway, since Port Arthur, Australia has had 0 massacres so the public policy has been successful.

As much as I support what you are saying here, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[winty]

The conspiracy theories are ******* great, considering a whole lot of people saw him do it, and he's on film holed up in the B&B.

If you put stock in the Port Arthur conspiracy theories, you need your head examined, and are a good argument against allowing widespread gun ownership in the general population.

Actually, a lot of people THOUGHT they saw him, but they only saw someone from a distance with long blonde hair doing the shooting. It was only because Martin Bryant's photo was plastered over the front page of every major newspaper in Australia the next day that a majority of eyewitnesses thought "Well, that must've been him." Funny how the testimonies of people who worked at Port Arthur and knew Martin Bryant and said it wasn't him were never listened to, but the word of complete strangers who recognised Bryant from his picture in the paper was upheld as gospel.

The strange thing is the shooter was having a meal before he did the shooting, and left his rubbish behind afterwards, yet no-one thought to take the rubbish and try and get fingerprints or DNA off it. Real good policing that.

 

[Macca19]

30 hits and 20 kills from 29 bullets in 90 seconds?

Yes.

Some people act like he had a snipers rifle and was knocking people off from 2km away with a strong breeze. He had most of his kills in the space of about 20 seconds, all people who were either sitting down or standing still and a large number shot from behind, all in the space of about 3-4 metres. Now ive never shot a gun before and doubt I ever will, but I'd be pretty confident in hitting a bunch of still targets from point blank range with a semi automatic weapon. What he did wasnt exactly skillful.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

This is a massive oversimplification of the events and I honestly can't be stuffed spending the next two days filling in the picture for the uninformed.

Just give me a tin foil hat and go about your life in ignorant bliss.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Exactly right.

Some may mention his lack of intellect as a reason why he couldn't possible have shot with that accuracy, though I would argue that shooting a gun is a relatively simple task that is made complicated by rationale thought and morality.

Someone lacking in those thought processes would find doing this shooting very simple.

I made the same comment in the conspiracy thread that's floating around about Port Arthur. His lack of intellect may have actually been an advantage to him in killing so many.

The other argument about his kill ratio is rubbish too. He started off practically shooting fish in a barrel and once he struck moving targets at distance outside of the cafe then his accuracy dropped off dramatically.

 

[RandB]

I made the same comment in the conspiracy thread that's floating around about Port Arthur. His lack of intellect may have actually been an advantage to him in killing so many.

The other argument about his kill ratio is rubbish too. He started off practically shooting fish in a barrel and once he struck moving targets at distance outside of the cafe then his accuracy dropped off dramatically.

This and the fact that he grew up with guns. The fact he was mostly shooting from the hip (to my mind) illustrates his ease and nonchalance at using an assault rifle rather than an inexperience with one. I'm not suggesting he was a pro but he was in control of the AR rather than the other way around by the sound of things.

 

[winty]

Here's some interesting viewing if you have a spare 2 and a half hours or so.

This and the fact that he grew up with guns. The fact he was mostly shooting from the hip (to my mind) illustrates his ease and nonchalance at using an assault rifle rather than an inexperience with one. I'm not suggesting he was a pro but he was in control of the AR rather than the other way around by the sound of things.

Obviously you've never read the transcript of his police interview...

Q. Circles. And umm, when you practised your shooting, did you, where did you hold the gun?
A. Up like this, on my left.
Q. So you're left-handed?
A. Umm, I write with this hand.
Q. Ohh that's right, sorry, yeah.
A. I, but this is me finger.
Q. So if you held a gun, you would pull the trigger with your, a finger on your left hand?
A. Yeah that's right, yeah.
Q. Ohh right. And aah, did you ever practise shooting from the hip?
A. No never.
Q. Never?
A. Uhh uhh.
Q. Ohh right. And did you get pretty accurate?
A. No not really 'cos like I said I only used that AR15 about twenty rounds in that one and, and not many round, more rounds in the AR10. So, and I, I never got round to using the shotgun because of it ... (inaudible) ... I heard from Terry that it had a bit of power to it.

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant

Pretty decent effort for someone who never practiced shooting from the hip to kill 20 and injure 12 with 29 shots while shooting in that manner.

 

[RandB]

Here's some interesting viewing if you have a spare 2 and a half hours or so.







Obviously you've never read the transcript of his police interview...



http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant

Pretty decent effort for someone who never practiced shooting from the hip to kill 20 and injure 12 with 29 shots while shooting in that manner.

I hadnt previously read that but it doesnt change my perception on this. My impression is that he was clearly comfortable with fire-arms. In my view the mere fact he did shoot from the hip supports this.

 

[Heisenberg_]

This is a massive oversimplification of the events and I honestly can't be stuffed spending the next two days filling in the picture for the uninformed.

Just give me a tin foil hat and go about your life in ignorant bliss.

I think I will take the view of a person with military experience so has a handle on weapons over somebody who thinks far too highly of their opinion.

 

[Glenno23]

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant

Pretty decent effort for someone who never practiced shooting from the hip to kill 20 and injure 12 with 29 shots while shooting in that manner.

So he couldn't lie in that situation?

 

[winty]

I think I will take the view of a person with military experience so has a handle on weapons over somebody who thinks far too highly of their opinion.

Even the eyewitnesses who had military experience (Vietnam vets and the like) who can't believe a simpleton with an IQ of 66 and a mental age of 11 could have pulled off what Martin Bryant was accused of doing?

 

[Clown Prince]

I was at a game of country footy. The games commentary was interrupted to break the story.


Whenever there are major incidents that people find shocking, or hard to come to terms with there will always be conspiracy theories. And that is what they are, theories, not fact. Bryant killed those people, hard to imagine yes, but he did it.
Some people just don't want to believe things like this can happen, and find some solace in supporting other versions of events that make it easier for them to come to grips with. When other people who do support the mainstream view of these events, those that support the conspiracy theories usually get their back up and deride those who don't support their view by calling them naive, or sheep, or just plain stupid. Simple fact is that due to any number of factors the mass media cannot dissect every aspect of every case and put forward multiple versions of events. While this happens, you will get people with ample time and less constraints trying to pick holes in everything.
It is a bit like the 9/11 conspiracy theories, people find the actual version of events so abhorrent that they look for other possibilities. The simple fact is though to actually pull off a conspiracy the size of which 9/11 theorists would have us believe would have to mean hundreds of thousands of people being "in" on it and staying completely silent for their entire lifetimes, a very highly unlikely scenario.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I was in bed with a shocking hang over as it happened.

A pity they didn't take him out when he was caught up in that house. Absolute scum.

The house from where he fired over 200 shots and couldn't hit a thing?

 

[winty]

Whenever there are major incidents that people find shocking, or hard to come to terms with there will always be conspiracy theories. And that is what they are, theories, not fact. Bryant killed those people, hard to imagine yes, but he did it.
Some people just don't want to believe things like this can happen, and find some solace in supporting other versions of events that make it easier for them to come to grips with. When other people who do support the mainstream view of these events, those that support the conspiracy theories usually get their back up and deride those who don't support their view by calling them naive, or sheep, or just plain stupid. Simple fact is that due to any number of factors the mass media cannot dissect every aspect of every case and put forward multiple versions of events. While this happens, you will get people with ample time and less constraints trying to pick holes in everything.
It is a bit like the 9/11 conspiracy theories, people find the actual version of events so abhorrent that they look for other possibilities. The simple fact is though to actually pull off a conspiracy the size of which 9/11 theorists would have us believe would have to mean hundreds of thousands of people being "in" on it and staying completely silent for their entire lifetimes, a very highly unlikely scenario.

If Martin Bryant did actually do it, where is the mountain of overwhelming forensic evidence linking Bryant to the crime? You know, stuff like fingerprints on the guns and the two sports bags the shooter was carrying, DNA, stuff like that.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

If Martin Bryant did actually do it, where is the mountain of overwhelming forensic evidence linking Bryant to the crime?

Conveniently bulldozed in to the ground and then fast tracked through the legal system.

I think he was wittingly or unwittingly involved at some level. However, the whole story does not start and finish with him.

 

[winty]

Conveniently bulldozed in to the ground and then fast tracked through the legal system.

Didn't help matters that it took police about 6 hours to secure the crime scene when Hobart's only an hour and a half drive away.

It wasn't exactly fast tracked either. It took Martin Bryant about four months of solitary confinement, and the promise that he could have a TV if he would plead guilty before it even made court.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Didn't help matters that it took police about 6 hours to secure the crime scene when Hobart's only an hour and a half drive away.

It wasn't exactly fast tracked either. It took Martin Bryant about four months of solitary confinement, and the promise that he could have a TV if he would plead guilty before it even made court.

The solitary confinement thing is sold to the gullible public as a means of protecting a prisoner.

Sometimes this is true.

Of course, this is also a means to bring psychological pressure to bear on a human being.

Remand jails are a consistently abused mechanism, and many prisoners are never eventually convicted of the charges that placed them in remand prisons in the first place.

 

[Clown Prince]

Instead of trying to cry foul over the majority of us who believe the widely accepted views of events in the Port Arthur case, how about the two major protagonists on this forum explain to the rest of us why the police and Tasmanian and Federal governments would support a conspiracy on this case? Give us a credible reason why there would have been a cover up. Not speculation, a credible alternate version of events.
The kill rate thing is very easily explained, as many others (including a trained soldier) on here have already explained.
I do not buy into the gun reform thing for one second. We do not have a strong gun lobby in this country like the US, and the Howard government would have faced little opposition getting the gun laws passed. The majority of Australians at the end of the day would have either supported the laws outright or been ambivalent enough to vote (or not publicly oppose them via MP's) for them anyway.
Lack of DNA evidence is not uncommon in a case in 1996, and it certainly wasn't anywhere near as advanced as it is now. DNA was not a commonly used tool in the mid 90's and certainly not used widely in an underfunded state police force like Tasmania's.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Instead of trying to cry foul over the majority of us who believe the widely accepted views of events in the Port Arthur case, how about the two major protagonists on this forum explain to the rest of us why the police and Tasmanian and Federal governments would support a conspiracy on this case? Give us a credible reason why there would have been a cover up. Not speculation, a credible alternate version of events.
The kill rate thing is very easily explained, as many others (including a trained soldier) on here have already explained.
I do not buy into the gun reform thing for one second. We do not have a strong gun lobby in this country like the US, and the Howard government would have faced little opposition getting the gun laws passed. The majority of Australians at the end of the day would have either supported the laws outright or been ambivalent enough to vote (or not publicly oppose them via MP's) for them anyway.
Lack of DNA evidence is not uncommon in a case in 1996, and it certainly wasn't anywhere near as advanced as it is now. DNA was not a commonly used tool in the mid 90's and certainly not used widely in an underfunded state police force like Tasmania's.

Gotta love those "tell us what you think, but certain things have to be taken for granted" requests.

 

[winty]

Although this might be skating too close to conspiracy theory territory, I thought the following was interesting to say the least:

You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?
1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?
2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?
3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?
4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.
5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.
6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?
7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?
8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say "I have here Graham Collyer's police statement...", Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.
When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully - "There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe."
9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?
10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?
11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.
12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.
13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!
14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania" said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?
15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?
16. No Respect for the Law. Our laws demand that a Coronial Inquiry must take place (a) when foreign nationals are killed (b) when anyone dies in a fire. Prime Minister John Howard acted illegally when he ordered the Coronial Inquiry to be abandoned.

http://www.itwillpass.com/nwo_port_arthur_massacre_CORONIAL_INQUIRY.shtml

 

[Malifice]

There were witnesses to most of the murders in the Broad Arrow Cafe, the Car park and the Gift shop where 30 odd of the victims (in total) were killed.

Dozens of unrelated people saw him kill dozens of other unrelated people at three different spots.

Including survivors who (presumably) are committed to the 'lie' to the point of taking a bullet for it.

He clearly lied about a bunch of stuff in the interview, initially even denying he was at Port Arthur at all.

An IQ of 66 does not hinder a persons ability to kill.

Are all these people lying... or is Bryant?

 

[Malifice]

Although this might be skating too close to conspiracy theory territory, I thought the following was interesting to say the least:



http://www.itwillpass.com/nwo_port_arthur_massacre_CORONIAL_INQUIRY.shtml

I'm going to assume you're pro Gun.

The implication above is a Conspiracy at State and Federal level so Machiavellian it beggars belief.

 

[winty]

I'm going to assume you're pro Gun.

The implication above is a Conspiracy at State and Federal level so Machiavellian it beggars belief.

Actually, I'm anti-gun. I just like to see that justice has been done, and I don't think it has been in Martin Bryant's case.

 

[Clown Prince]

Gotta love those "tell us what you think, but certain things have to be taken for granted" requests.

In other words, you have got nothing. Other than maybe a anti-gun laws view.
Seriously, if there is a legitimate argument as to why state & Federal governments would cover things up in relation to this case, present them for debate.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Gee, some offensive views in this thread.