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

Remove this Banner Ad

Lebbo73 said:
😂
Does the truth really scare you so much that you have to defend a lie?
Why anyone would quote a paid psychologist shill to help them sleep better at night is mystifying.
Click to expand...
The truth is out there, MB is guilty . I dont fear the truth, I sleep well at night without having to make up conspiracies to help me come to terms with things.
His involvement is as plain as day. He said so himself .

The crazies that turn to whacko conspiracies to help them come to an understanding of life is the worry. Why would I quote a Doctor who is a COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENTIST is to show that people looking for these crazy conspiracies to justify the way they perceive things need to take a step back and reassess how they come to the conclusions they come to. Does that help you???

What is funny is you tick the boxes of everything he said. :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy: :tearsofjoy:

Take your tinfoil hat of a smell the roses :tearsofjoy:
 
ParapMarkets said:
What scrutiny is that?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a shill. He had the mind of a 10 year old. Are your shills saying he had a guardian throughout his interrogations like he should have had? What legal rights are your shills saying he has had since?

His Mum hasn’t been able to see him all this time. Are your shills saying she has?
There were survivors that knew Bryant that were adamant he was not the shooter and that the shooter had a “pock marked face”. What are your shills saying about the survivors that knew Bryant and that were adamant it wasn’t him?
Click to expand...

Explain to me how IQ has anything to do with the ability to aim a gun and pull a trigger.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Malifice said:
Explain to me how IQ has anything to do with the ability to aim a gun and pull a trigger.
Click to expand...
It certainly affects the planning of the event. His IQ also affects his ability to defend himself legally. The only contact he had in between being arrested and the six months it took for him to plead guilty in solitary confinement was with his lawyer, of whom there is documented evidence his own lawyer bullying a third party to fabricate evidence against him.
 
ParapMarkets said:
It certainly affects the planning of the event. His IQ also affects his ability to defend himself legally. The only contact he had in between being arrested and the six months it took for him to plead guilty in solitary confinement was with his lawyer, of whom there is documented evidence his own lawyer bullying a third party to fabricate evidence against him.
Click to expand...

What planning? There would have been less planning involved in that than if he was catching a flight to Melbourne for a weekend.

Not only was there a mountain of forensic evidence tying him to the shootings, including photographic images and living witnesses, Bryant admitted to it in police interviews before he went in to the big jail.
 
Kurve said:
What planning? There would have been less planning involved in that than if he was catching a flight to Melbourne for a weekend.

Not only was there a mountain of forensic evidence tying him to the shootings, including photographic images and living witnesses, Bryant admitted to it in police interviews before he went in to the big jail.
Click to expand...
6A8DC874-7B44-45AA-928A-A346590B82F2.jpeg
 
ParapMarkets said:
It certainly affects the planning of the event. His IQ also affects his ability to defend himself legally. The only contact he had in between being arrested and the six months it took for him to plead guilty in solitary confinement was with his lawyer, of whom there is documented evidence his own lawyer bullying a third party to fabricate evidence against him.
Click to expand...

What utter bullshit. What 'planning' did he do exactly. He just went there because he knew there would be a lot of people in a small space.

His IQ has nothing to do with anything. He had a lawyer and no lawyer bullies a third party to give evidence against their own client.

There were witnesses that saw this bloke do it. The guns used were his. He was caught in the act, at the servo down the road where he was conducting a seige ffs.

He plead guilty because he freaking did it.
 
Kurve said:
What planning? There would have been less planning involved in that than if he was catching a flight to Melbourne for a weekend.

Not only was there a mountain of forensic evidence tying him to the shootings, including photographic images and living witnesses, Bryant admitted to it in police interviews before he went in to the big jail.
Click to expand...
There wasn’t any forensic evidence though. No DNA, no fingerprints, nothing. There wasn’t anything linking him to the guns either (despite his own lawyer trying to create one). He was also witnessed at a travel distance of 45 minutes away when the shooting occurred.

He plead guilty only after 6 months in solitary confinement (with the mind of a 10yo and being threatened with not ever being able to see his Mum ever again). He also wasn’t originally identified by witnesses, he was only identified after his manipulated photo was front page of every Australian newspaper declaring him as the guilty party.

I was still a teenager when this happened, I had him as the guilty party like everyone else because that’s how the story was told to me. I had faith in our political and judicial system back then, sure I knew corruption existed but I thought for the most part our system worked. After the past 2 1/2 years I have realised how wrong I was, our whole system is rotten to the core and there is no such thing as investigative journalism if it is an important issue for the machine.
 
ParapMarkets said:
There wasn’t any forensic evidence though. No DNA, no fingerprints, nothing. There wasn’t anything linking him to the guns either (despite his own lawyer trying to create one). He was also witnessed at a travel distance of 45 minutes away when the shooting occurred.

He plead guilty only after 6 months in solitary confinement (with the mind of a 10yo and being threatened with not ever being able to see his Mum ever again). He also wasn’t originally identified by witnesses, he was only identified after his manipulated photo was front page of every Australian newspaper declaring him as the guilty party.

I was still a teenager when this happened, I had him as the guilty party like everyone else because that’s how the story was told to me. I had faith in our political and judicial system back then, sure I knew corruption existed but I thought for the most part our system worked. After the past 2 1/2 years I have realised how wrong I was, our whole system is rotten to the core and there is no such thing as investigative journalism if it is an important issue for the machine.
Click to expand...

Why do you need 'forensic evidence' when he ****ing plead guilty, and was caught red handed?

Mate, he did it.
 
ParapMarkets said:
There wasn’t any forensic evidence though. No DNA, no fingerprints, nothing. There wasn’t anything linking him to the guns either (despite his own lawyer trying to create one). He was also witnessed at a travel distance of 45 minutes away when the shooting occurred.
Click to expand...

His weapons were tracked from the time of purchase and they matched with ballistics at the scene, he identified them as his. There's video of him at the scene, photographs at the scene, images of his car driving away and many living witness accounts from the Seascape property to the Broad Arrow Cafe and on the grounds.

There is no doubt, he did it.
 
ParapMarkets said:
There wasn’t any forensic evidence though. No DNA, no fingerprints, nothing. There wasn’t anything linking him to the guns either (despite his own lawyer trying to create one). He was also witnessed at a travel distance of 45 minutes away when the shooting occurred.

He plead guilty only after 6 months in solitary confinement (with the mind of a 10yo and being threatened with not ever being able to see his Mum ever again). He also wasn’t originally identified by witnesses, he was only identified after his manipulated photo was front page of every Australian newspaper declaring him as the guilty party.

I was still a teenager when this happened, I had him as the guilty party like everyone else because that’s how the story was told to me. I had faith in our political and judicial system back then, sure I knew corruption existed but I thought for the most part our system worked. After the past 2 1/2 years I have realised how wrong I was, our whole system is rotten to the core and there is no such thing as investigative journalism if it is an important issue for the machine.
Click to expand...

 
ParapMarkets said:
There wasn’t any forensic evidence though. No DNA, no fingerprints, nothing. There wasn’t anything linking him to the guns either (despite his own lawyer trying to create one). He was also witnessed at a travel distance of 45 minutes away when the shooting occurred.

He plead guilty only after 6 months in solitary confinement (with the mind of a 10yo and being threatened with not ever being able to see his Mum ever again). He also wasn’t originally identified by witnesses, he was only identified after his manipulated photo was front page of every Australian newspaper declaring him as the guilty party.

I was still a teenager when this happened, I had him as the guilty party like everyone else because that’s how the story was told to me. I had faith in our political and judicial system back then, sure I knew corruption existed but I thought for the most part our system worked. After the past 2 1/2 years I have realised how wrong I was, our whole system is rotten to the core and there is no such thing as investigative journalism if it is an important issue for the machine.
Click to expand...
No forensic evidence???
They got him up the road at another house ( he had already killed that couple). The hostage from a later shooting was dead in the house , he had the BMW of another 4 murdered victims .

Why did he try and negotiate an army helicopter to take him to an airport? What was he running from ? How did come to be closely connected to so many murders if he was not involved???

The evidence is overwhelming , Bryant plead guilty in the end as he knew police had the evidence. People witnessed Bryant at the port Arthur cafe.

He was full of spite and revenge, the seascape owners who did not sell the house to him, their neighbor who had reported him to police for stalking , the staff at the broad arrow cafe who dobbed him in for stealing. Unfortunately there was a heap of collateral damage too.

The poor soul’s at the cafe we’re sitting ducks being shot at close range , no one would have missed from that distance .
 
Kurve said:
Bryant admitted to it in police interviews before he went in to the big jail.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that might be incorrect I'm seeing conflicting information now. He admitted in the initial police interview to the guns, denied shooting people.

Not a big deal but thought I should correct.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kurve said:
What planning? There would have been less planning involved in that than if he was catching a flight to Melbourne for a weekend.

Not only was there a mountain of forensic evidence tying him to the shootings, including photographic images and living witnesses, Bryant admitted to it in police interviews before he went in to the big jail.
Click to expand...
😂
 
Lebbo73 said:
The biggest shooting by one person in history at the time and it has never been the subject of a Royal Commission. That says all you need to know.
Click to expand...

Why does it need a $100m Royal Commission? He hasn't cost us enough yet?
 
ParapMarkets said:
What scrutiny is that?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a shill. He had the mind of a 10 year old. Are your shills saying he had a guardian throughout his interrogations like he should have had? What legal rights are your shills saying he has had since?

His Mum hasn’t been able to see him all this time. Are your shills saying she has?
There were survivors that knew Bryant that were adamant he was not the shooter and that the shooter had a “pock marked face”. What are your shills saying about the survivors that knew Bryant and that were adamant it wasn’t him?
Click to expand...
This is interesting because an interview with his mother published in the Bulletin 4th April 2006 she says

"The guy who did it had dark, greasy hair and pocked skin. My Martin has lovely soft baby skin." (extracted from Nexus magazine volume 4, June - July by Carl Wererhoff May 2006)

She could have meant "dank" and not "dark" as most described the hair as blonde.

Carol Pearce who walked past the gunman "collar length, really blonde, fairly straight with a wave, between 18 and 20"

Former RAF officer Graham Collyer who was shot in the throat inside the cafe in a witness statement on 7th May 1996, taken before Bryant's face was plastered all over the newspapers he described the gunman. "He seemed somewhere around 20. He had long blonde bedraggled hair, about 3 to 4 inches below the shoulder. He looked like he might have had a lot of acne. A pitted face."

In a statement from a second interview on 8th May 1996, he noted: "I still haven't seen anything in the media about the person that shot me. I may have been sedated or sleeping since the shooting."


1660268828373.png

1660270435374.png
 
Last edited:
COxone said:
You can tell the people who haven't had much experience with guns in this thread. Bryant's alleged kill to shot ratio is absolutely bananas, even of he was close to the targets.
Click to expand...
Not only that, in part of the videoed police interview he confirmed he was left handed in shooting and had never shot from the hip before.
 
Lebbo73 said:
The biggest shooting by one person in history at the time and it has never been the subject of a Royal Commission. That says all you need to know.
Click to expand...
A Royal Commission is merely an investigation with a means to compel witnesses to testify (I'm sure you didn't know that).
Who didn't they interview that they should have?
 
BlueE said:
This is interesting because an interview with his mother published in the Bulletin 4th April 2006 she says

"The guy who did it had dark, greasy hair and pocked skin. My Martin has lovely soft baby skin." (extracted from Nexus magazine volume 4, June - July by Carl Wererhoff May 2006)

She could have meant "dank" and not "dark" as most described the hair as blonde.

Carol Pearce who walked past the gunman "collar length, really blonde, fairly straight with a wave, between 18 and 20"

Former RAF officer Graham Collyer who was shot in the throat inside the cafe in a witness statement on 7th May 1996, taken before Bryant's face was plastered all over the newspapers he described the gunman. "He seemed somewhere around 20. He had long blonde bedraggled hair, about 3 to 4 inches below the shoulder. He looked like he might have had a lot of acne. A pitted face."

In a statement from a second interview on 8th May 1996, he noted: "I still haven't seen anything in the media about the person that shot me. I may have been sedated or sleeping since the shooting."


View attachment 1474141

View attachment 1474167
Click to expand...

10 years later, she's finally come to accept that he did it

www.9news.com.au

Martin Bryant's mother now believes he is guilty - 9News

Martin Bryant's mother now believes her son was responsible for the Port Arthur massacre that left 35 peopl...
www.9news.com.au www.9news.com.au

Parents always don't believe their child is capable of doing bad things initially
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

Kurve
Conspiracy Theory WWIII - Armageddon
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
316
Views
15K
Johnny_Dogg4
Johnny_Dogg4
Malifice
Conspiracy Theory There actually are people (State and non-State actors) who ARE brainwashing you, and most of you don't actually know it's happening.
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
590
Views
19K
bourbons
bourbons

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top