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

[BlueE]

The local cop and the local museum curator, who was the first on the scene, have since day one realized it was a cover up and fought hard to get the truth out there. Scurr abd MacGregor. That says a lot. On the ground regular people in positions of standing. Not to mention many other grounded people like the local gunsmith who understands the finer points of that side of the evidence.

Terry Hill the owner of the gun shop Bryant was supposed to have bought a gun. However Hill denied ever selling him a gun. Instead relates the story of Bryant coming into his shop with a AK10 30 days before, which he confiscated from Bryant and still had it at the time of the massacre.

Police tried to pressure Hill into saying Bryant had bought a gun from him but Hill refused to lie.

According to Schulze, after the massacre Roland Browne from the Coalition filed a civil lawsuit against Terry Hill for providing the firearms to Bryant.

Hill started defending the lawsuit. He was going to subpoena all the records that had been confiscated from his shop and possibly call Martin Bryant as a witness!

Somebody got to Roland Browne and told him to withdraw the lawsuit. Hill objected to the lawsuit being withdrawn until his legal expenses had been paid. The Coalition for Gun Control had to pay Hill’s legal expenses in order to withdraw the lawsuit.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Combat stance pivot shooting from the hip on his non preferred side, shooting 17 bullets killing 12 and injuring 10 in 15 seconds. Then continuing in the gift shop killing eight more. Café and gift shop in around 90 seconds, he fired 29 shots killing twenty people (19 with shots to the head), and wounding 12.

Expert accuracy, speed and organisation for someone with the mental capacity of a 10 year old! This wasn't an indiscriminate spraying of hundreds of bullets, but a methodical, accurate killing by one shot to the head. Respected and experienced former ADF Brigadier Ted Serong is quoted saying, showed shooting ability that equaled the best in the world. If that doesn't ring alarm bells I doubt if anything will.

According to various articles and policeman Andrew McGregor, he was under court ordered guardianship on diminished capacity regarded a child under the law which this required him to have a guardian (Perpetual Trustees?) present at all times wrt legal matters. This didn't happen and neither did his request for a lawyer during the interview. The police instead said, "It's Ok your lawyer knows you're talking to us".

He pleads "Not Guilty" in his November 1996 hearing and instead of a trial date assigned, is put straight back to solidary confinement and given a new state appointed lawyer, Avery. Instead new hearing dates of 11 – 12 March 1997 were set, when after admitted coercion by Avery in 13 or more visits and him being told his mother or sister never be allowed to see him again, he changed his plea to guilty.

Then Willessee's interview with his second lawyer Avery, while supposed to be a damning indication of Bryant's guilt, only showed that Avery shut him up from the very beginning by forcing him to agree with the prosecution case even thought he'd admitted Bryant had "no memory" of killing anyone.

In the "missing" police videos of his questioning shown in the Willessee report, Bryant was repeatedly told he did it, even though he clearly didn't understand in his answers what it was he did. He was lied to being told there were many witnesses that all said it was him that was the shooter. How does that affect a mentally incapacitated person over many months of questioning?

Although a hit job on Bryant, the release of those video clips from many different sessions, from different interrogators without a lawyer or guardian appearing once and Willessee's interviewing of lawyer, the psychologist and noting the incredible accuracy of Bryant's shooing, has accidently put on record a different view.

Bryant showed naïve, childlike responses, admitting he was a left handed shooter, never shot from the hip, denied ever seeing the gun or the bag the guns were in, wasn't able to pass getting a drivers license and could only drive an automatic, hadn't been to Port Arthur for 6 years, hadn't shot anyone.

Willesee Narration: “Bryant denied he killed 35 people…”
Interrogator: “You took one of the guns out of the bag and opened fire in the cafe”
Bryant “Why would I do that?”
Interrogator: “I don’t know, you tell me.”
Bryant: “Why would anyone do a thing like that?… I wouldn’t hurt a person in my life.”

DETECTIVE JONES: What would you think about a person who has killed 35 people? What would be your opinion of that person?
BRYANT: That’s a wicked, awful, horrendous thing… I don’t know
DETECTIVE JONES: And you won’t-
BRYANT: And they reckon others were injured?
DETECTIVE JONES: There were many injured. There was two little babies. Killed. Shot. There have been many witnesses who have given very graphic descriptions of you being responsible for killing those people.
BRYANT: It is sad isn’t it? It’s horrendous. Horrific. For anyone to go down there and do a thing like that, Mrs Jones?

D: Now, you want to see these photos? They’re not very pleasant
BRYANT: You can show me if you want
D: Right, there’s the Broad Arrow cafe, OK? You can see a couple of people lying there.
BRYANT: And you reckon I’ve got something to do with this?
D: Seen enough?
BRYANT: What about the dead people? Where does it say, say about them?
D: Well, what do you want it, what do you want it to say? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
BRYANT: How many people were killed or…
D: Well why would it have “Port Arthur Massacre”?
BRYANT: Where does it say how many? Does it say… say how many people were killed there – or?
D: Now, you convinced now that there were 35 people dead?
D: I’ve told you what you’ve done.
BRYANT: What have I done?
D: You’ve killed 35 people
D: And injured several others


BRYANT: I’m sure you’ll find the person who caused all this. Me.
D: I don’t find that a very funny statement at all Martin, to be quite honest
BRYANT: You should’ve put that on recording
D: Oh, it’s still recording at this present stage so that is on the recording

This is supposed to be a confession? Despite pleading not guilty after months of coercive questioning without a lawyer or guardian, instead of properly going to trial, was put back into enforced solitary confinement. Had another lawyer appointed who admitted coercion and threats during his enforced solitary confinement despite vital witnesses who saw the gunman and identified he wasn't Bryant, with no fingerprints or DNA testing from the cafe, the Volvo left at the toll gate or blood splatter on clothing?

Bryant was more than capable of carrying out the event.
You show a limited understanding which very typical of conspiracy theorists. You speculate and expect everyone to accept this as fact.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Terry Hill the owner of the gun shop Bryant was supposed to have bought a gun. However Hill denied ever selling him a gun. Instead relates the story of Bryant coming into his shop with a AK10 30 days before, which he confiscated from Bryant and still had it at the time of the massacre.

Police tried to pressure Hill into saying Bryant had bought a gun from him but Hill refused to lie.

According to Schulze, after the massacre Roland Browne from the Coalition filed a civil lawsuit against Terry Hill for providing the firearms to Bryant.

Hill started defending the lawsuit. He was going to subpoena all the records that had been confiscated from his shop and possibly call Martin Bryant as a witness!

Somebody got to Roland Browne and told him to withdraw the lawsuit. Hill objected to the lawsuit being withdrawn until his legal expenses had been paid. The Coalition for Gun Control had to pay Hill’s legal expenses in order to withdraw the lawsuit.

Your a bit confused, Hill lied to protect his own arse for illegally supplying arms to Bryant.
someone withdraws a law suit……. Port Arthur was a conspiracy

 

[BlueE]

Your a bit confused, Hill lied to protect his own arse for illegally supplying arms to Bryant.
someone withdraws a law suit……. Port Arthur was a conspiracy

It's not me that's confused as Hill never sold any guns to Bryant. He confiscated and had in his possession at the time of the Port Arthur shootings, a AK 10 that Bryant brought into his shop.

The law suit by Roland Browne from the Coalition for Gun Control against Hill for supplying a gun to Bryant was withdrawn because he hadn't sold or supplied any gun to Bryant. The Coalition for Gun Control had to pay Hill’s legal expenses in order to withdraw the lawsuit.

Police pressured him to say he supplied a gun, but he hadn't so they withdrew their claim.

Just the facts.

 

[BlueE]

Bryant was more than capable of carrying out the event.
You show a limited understanding which very typical of conspiracy theorists. You speculate and expect everyone to accept this as fact.

So says you?

Even when presented with facts that aren't disputed, over the accuracy, speed and organisation of the shooter?

Killing 12 with a single shot to the head and injuring 10, with 17 bullets in 15 seconds in a chaotic situation with people yelling and lunging at him?

Then a further 8 deaths and 2 injured. Twenty deaths, 19 with a single shot to the head, 12 injured with 29 bullets in around 90 seconds, by a left handed shooter, shooting right handed from the hip, who has the mental age of a 10 year old?

That a respected, highly experienced and decorated former Brigadier of the ADF says, only one or two people in Australia would be capable of carrying out?

How did the fire escape door become locked or wedged or didn't open that Wendy Scurr says was responsible for eight deaths? Was that also pre planned or an accident?

A faulty or deliberately locked or wedged shut door being responsible for eight deaths would in every other occasion in Australia trigger an Inquest. People would need to know if there was a fault in fire doors if this was responsible for eight deaths, except here!

 

[Slartibartfast]

So says you?

Even when presented with facts that aren't disputed, over the accuracy, speed and organisation of the shooter?

Killing 12 with a single shot to the head and injuring 10, with 17 bullets in 15 seconds in a chaotic situation with people yelling and lunging at him?

Then a further 8 deaths and 2 injured. Twenty deaths, 19 with a single shot to the head, 12 injured with 29 bullets in around 90 seconds, by a left handed shooter, shooting right handed from the hip, who has the mental age of a 10 year old?

That a respected, highly experienced and decorated former Brigadier of the ADF says, only one or two people in Australia would be capable of carrying out?

How did the fire escape door become locked or wedged or didn't open that Wendy Scurr says was responsible for eight deaths? Was that also pre planned or an accident?

A faulty or deliberately locked or wedged shut door being responsible for eight deaths would in every other occasion in Australia trigger an Inquest. People would need to know if there was a fault in fire doors if this was responsible for eight deaths, except here!

Hahaha, door is wedged. its a conspiracy!!!!
Dont you see your line of thought is constantly drawing a long bow??
shooting from point blank range , always going to end in tears.
Get over his disability , it means little . He was high functioning still .

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's not me that's confused as Hill never sold any guns to Bryant. He confiscated and had in his possession at the time of the Port Arthur shootings, a AK 10 that Bryant brought into his shop.

The law suit by Roland Browne from the Coalition for Gun Control against Hill for supplying a gun to Bryant was withdrawn because he hadn't sold or supplied any gun to Bryant. The Coalition for Gun Control had to pay Hill’s legal expenses in order to withdraw the lawsuit.

Police pressured him to say he supplied a gun, but he hadn't so they withdrew their claim.

Just the facts.

Here is the transcript of interview where police ask about the guns. To this day Hill still has not had his gun licence back, wonder why?? Just facts.

 

[Slartibartfast]

 

[Slartibartfast]

As late as 2016 Media are still reporting that Hill was the gun dealer who illegally sold Bryant the weapons.
Why is this story still up if it is not true??? Why hasn’t Hill sued news.com for these lies. Any litigation lawyer would take this on for no win no fee , it would be an easy earn if it was not true????

You should also post links to your references if they are so credible??
I think I have seen the one you are quoting and it is just a laughable, angry diatribe. A fantasy story.

Bryant didn’t have a gun licence, but was free to purchase guns, including an AR15 semiautomatic assault rifle, his preferred weapon at the mass shooting, from a licenced arms dealer.

In a disturbing scene, Bryant asked to look through the weapon’s sight, affectionately calling it a “sweet little gun”, when it is presented to him by police.

He told police how he was never asked to produce a licence by local arms dealer Terry Hill, whose store was raided and closed down by authorities following the murders.

“I just said I had the cash on me, and he said ‘that’s all right’,” Bryant told detectives.

Bryant had also purchased a weapon he found advertised in The Mercury newspaper.

https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/martin-bryant-if-guns-werent-advertised-it-wouldnt-have-happened/news-story/be31e37a4c7e48584406c59000f23485

 

[BlueE]

As late as 2016 Media are still reporting that Hill was the gun dealer who illegally sold Bryant the weapons.
Why is this story still up if it is not true??? Why hasn’t Hill sued news.com for these lies. Any litigation lawyer would take this on for no win no fee , it would be an easy earn if it was not true????

You should also post links to your references if they are so credible??
I think I have seen the one you are quoting and it is just a laughable, angry diatribe. A fantasy story.

Bryant didn’t have a gun licence, but was free to purchase guns, including an AR15 semiautomatic assault rifle, his preferred weapon at the mass shooting, from a licenced arms dealer.

In a disturbing scene, Bryant asked to look through the weapon’s sight, affectionately calling it a “sweet little gun”, when it is presented to him by police.

He told police how he was never asked to produce a licence by local arms dealer Terry Hill, whose store was raided and closed down by authorities following the murders.

“I just said I had the cash on me, and he said ‘that’s all right’,” Bryant told detectives.

Bryant had also purchased a weapon he found advertised in The Mercury newspaper.

https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/martin-bryant-if-guns-werent-advertised-it-wouldnt-have-happened/news-story/be31e37a4c7e48584406c59000f23485

The media are reporting Bryant said it was Terry Hill that sold him a gun.

And he did say that.

A very simple minded person, who said a lot of things that made no sense.

Hill was being sued for providing Bryant the gun but Court action was withdrawn. One of the lawyers in this Court action was Avery, who went to to be Bryant's lawyer.

Hill was threatened by police to have his license removed if he didn't say he's supplied the gun to Bryant. Hill refused and his license was removed, not for supplying a gun to Bryant, which the police haven't alleged, but for minor infractions.

In an interview by Shultz, 34 days before the massacre Hill had Bryant's AK 10 in his possession, because Bryant entered his shop with it loaded and told him he'd have to go to police to get it back. Bryant says he'd taken to to Hill for "repairs".

A "gunsmith's notebook" discusses the guns and discrepancies between facts and testimony in laborious detail. None of the guns that were used in the shooting were owned or in Bryant's possession at the time of the massacre.

 

[Exe Gesis]

So Bryants testinony that he didnt kill anyone is dismissed as a lie and Bryants testimony that he bought guns from Hill is asserted as truth.

vs

He told the truth that he didnt kill anyone but was lying that Hill sold him the guns.

vs he was lying or telling the truth about both.

Point being...there is a lot of iffy stuff, 50:50 going on thruout the finer details of the case....suspect things the prosecutors did and said, suspect things that abound in the official story relating to timelines, discrepancies and fabricated/planted/"lost" evidence. As well as suspect things about Bryant's side of things.

It isn't open-shut in favor of guilt whatsoever.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The media are reporting Bryant said it was Terry Hill that sold him a gun.

And he did say that.

A very simple minded person, who said a lot of things that made no sense.

Hill was being sued for providing Bryant the gun but Court action was withdrawn. One of the lawyers in this Court action was Avery, who went to to be Bryant's lawyer.

Hill was threatened by police to have his license removed if he didn't say he's supplied the gun to Bryant. Hill refused and his license was removed, not for supplying a gun to Bryant, which the police haven't alleged, but for minor infractions.

In an interview by Shultz, 34 days before the massacre Hill had Bryant's AK 10 in his possession, because Bryant entered his shop with it loaded and told him he'd have to go to police to get it back. Bryant says he'd taken to to Hill for "repairs".

A "gunsmith's notebook" discusses the guns and discrepancies between facts and testimony in laborious detail. None of the guns that were used in the shooting were owned or in Bryant's possession at the time of the massacre.

Civil Legal actions are withdrawn for many reasons but have no connection to any other legal proceedings, cost versus gain is the main one but it is not indicative that the topic itself was not of criminal merit or truth. Again you draw this long bow due to a civil action being withdrawn means Hill was completely innocent of Any offending.
It was very evident to police Hill was a shonky gun dealer and the best they could do was remove his licence which they did and he has never got it back.
Yes his licence was removed legitimately, no conspiracy.
Stop with the simple minded crap as though it indicates something. It is so naive. He was a capable adult.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So Bryants testinony that he didnt kill anyone is dismissed as a lie and Bryants testimony that he bought guns from Hill is asserted as truth.

vs

He told the truth that he didnt kill anyone but was lying that Hill sold him the guns.

vs he was lying or telling the truth about both.

Point being...there is a lot of iffy stuff, 50:50 going on thruout the finer details of the case....suspect things the prosecutors did and said, suspect things that abound in the official story relating to timelines, discrepancies and fabricated/planted/"lost" evidence. As well as suspect things about Bryant's side of things.

It isn't open-shut in favor of guilt whatsoever.

His denials of allegations being put to him by police are quite different to his own willingness and pleasure to participate in the interview. I got the impression he would have chatted guns for days with the cops.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No one has ever discussed why Bryant is so intrinsically linked to so many facets of the day if it was not him ???

I am not married to any particular outcome but the evidence to date is quite clear.

 

[BlueE]

Civil Legal actions are withdrawn for many reasons but have no connection to any other legal proceedings, cost versus gain is the main one but it is not indicative that the topic itself was not of criminal merit or truth. Again you draw this long bow due to a civil action being withdrawn means Hill was completely innocent of Any offending.
It was very evident to police Hill was a shonky gun dealer and the best they could do was remove his licence which they did and he has never got it back.
Yes his licence was removed legitimately, no conspiracy.
Stop with the simple minded crap as though it indicates something. It is so naive. He was a capable adult.

Have to disagree about Hill. He surrendered the AK10 to police as soon as he saw Bryant's photo in the paper. However he was confused about the name as Bryant had shown him a gun license, when he brought the gun into the shop with the name Martin Ryan. Bryant told Hill his lawyer had helped him get a license.

Don't know who that is, if true, but Avery had represented Mrs Bryant. But the point is he had a license in a fake name and a gun that according to Hill was taken away from him 34 days before the massacre.

It's not me with the "simple minded" business. It's multiple assessments by trained professionals, from a young age until the latest in prison.

When leaving school in 1983, he was assessed for a disability pension by Dr Eric Cunningham Dax, who wrote: "Cannot read or write. Does a bit of gardening and watches TV ... Only his parents' efforts prevent further deterioration." Bryant received a disability pension, though he also worked as a handyman and gardener. In an examination after the massacre, forensic psychiatrist Ian Joblin found Bryant to be borderline mentally disabled with an IQ of 66, equivalent to an 11-year-old.

After he'd received the inheritance Maurice decided that a court order, under the Mental Health Act, was the only way to take control of Martin's financial affairs and have them managed independently. According to Wikipedia his mother subsequently applied for and was granted a guardianship order, placing Bryant's assets under the management of Public Trustees. The order was based on evidence of Bryant's diminished intellectual capacity.

It's not clear from the supporting article if the Public Trustee was appointed his guardian, and if there were two applications one by his father for financial affairs and one by his mother for guardianship.

Martin Bryant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BlueE]

No one has ever discussed why Bryant is so intrinsically linked to so many facets of the day if it was not him ???

I am not married to any particular outcome but the evidence to date is quite clear.

Linked by the narrative and not any physical evidence, including fingerprints or DNA on the yellow volva car abandoned at the toll gate or on the tray and eating utensils drink can or guns left behind.

They said they found fingerprints on the Prince bag left behind but this was introduced to him in questioning which he denied ever seeing before and can't be sure if his prints wern't introduced then. Seeing all the video would confirm.

Reliable eyewitnesses that clearly saw the gunman, one who'd known Bryant for 13 years who'd witnessed the Zoe Hall shooting, said Bryant wasn't the gunman, and that he was at the Port Arthur site at all.

I've watched a video of a lecture Wendy Scurr and policeman Andrew (his video wasn't available) gave. As a trained paramedic her description of the scene in the cafe and gift shop was horrific. There was so much blood and tissue it was dripping on her head and body from the ceiling as she was tending to wounded, and came off in handfuls as she put her fingers through her hair afterwards. Realising an emergency fire door exit had been locked, wedged shut or somehow malfunctioned trapping around eight, including the daughter and wife of her two workmates from the adjacent building, who were with her trying to give assistance, was devastating for them.

She was the first to ring 000 at 1.32 pm and because it took 6 hours for help to arrive, during which time she was inundated with requests for not only first aid but assistance that normally would be police responsibilities. She thought maybe she hadn't communicated the urgency of the situation in her call, so visited the call centre with her husband the next day and talked to the person who took the call. They had logged the call correctly at 1.32 pm and the logs showed they'd passed it on almost immediately for urgent police and ambulance attendance.

She saw and nodded to the gunman as she was walking past him to her building before the shooting started. But she was told her statement was not wanted and she was not called to give any evidence despite her first hand eye witness accounts and importance in those first 6 hours, before more than the two local police arrived.

Despite the horrific situation she was involved on the day, before she passed away, she actively campaigned and insisted that the gunman wasn't Bryant.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Include fire and emergency service people who heard on the police CB radio a chief policeman tell other police to not engage the shooter, "this has to happen".

 

[Mudguts12]

Why did the Tas government purchase a mortuary vehicle with a capacity of 16 bodies in 1995 when Tasmania averaged only 1 murder every 2 months at the time as one of the most peaceful states in Australia? And then dispose of it in 1998?

Why was the only person that both witnessed the shooting and already personally knew Martin Bryant ignored in his statement that it wasn't Bryant?

Why did every other witness at the time of the shooting identify the shooter as being around 20 years old with acne scarred skin, where Bryant was 29 at the time with smooth skin.

How was the gunman shooting from his hip on his right side with the accuracy of the top 10-20 shooters in the world accordingly to experts (i.e. 'He was the best trained army guy I've ever seen, his stance was unbelievable' according to one witness) when Bryant was left handed.

And for everyone saying its like shooting fish in a barrel - close range is considered to be gun barrell on body. He shot from an average distance of 12 feet where being off by 3 degrees can lead to a complete miss. His kill rate has already been extensively detailed.

Dunno why he would be setup as a patsy, it just seems too much of an extreme false flag for introduction of something like gun control, its not like Australia has a lobby as powerful as the US, but its my opinion that its not as cut and dried as people like to believe.

 

[Nothing]

Why did the Tas government purchase a mortuary vehicle with a capacity of 16 bodies in 1995 when Tasmania averaged only 1 murder every 2 months at the time as one of the most peaceful states in Australia? And then dispose of it in 1998?

Are murders the only reason for a mortuary vehicle? What about people who just die of heart attacks etc?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Are murders the only reason for a mortuary vehicle? What about people who just die of heart attacks etc?

Still sus how they buy a 16 person one just before and then get rid of it just after. Did heart attacks and other deaths by drowning etc all suddenly stop too.

 

[Mudguts12]

Why was there no DNA testing done on the vehicle or in the cafe to link Byant to the murder? In fact the only evidence they had to link Bryant to the murder was his passport left in the Volvo.

Out of all the witnesses only 2 identified Bryant as being at the scene of the massacre, but this didnt happen until a month later, and they admitted it was only due to his long blonde hair and similar clothing (by their recollection, but admitted it may not be the case) in the photo.

Who was 'Jaimie' in touch with Police at the time of the Seascape shoot out, for the apparent sole purpose of providing more background evidence to help link Bryant to the massacre?

Even the Tassie premier admitted later that the evidence linking Bryant was very tenuous.

 

[Nothing]

Still sus how they buy a 16 person one just before and then get rid of it just after. Did heart attacks and other deaths by drowning etc all suddenly stop too.

Was the morgue out of action? Being refurbished? Were they needing to transport from Launceston to Hobart (or vice versa) due to some reason? There's a myriad of reasons why something like this could happen. If it did happen that the Tas govt bought one.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Was the morgue out of action? Being refurbished? Were they needing to transport from Launceston to Hobart (or vice versa) due to some reason? There's a myriad of reasons why something like this could happen. If it did happen that the Tas govt bought one.

True. But like the guy said in the original post, and like i said myself before, this whole case isn't open-shut guilty. People really do need to be more critical and impartial. There's a lot that doesn't add up.

 

[Mudguts12]

Was the morgue out of action? Being refurbished? Were they needing to transport from Launceston to Hobart (or vice versa) due to some reason? There's a myriad of reasons why something like this could happen. If it did happen that the Tas govt bought one..

Vehicle was custom built in 1995, passed in at time of original sale. Was subsequently picked up by the army (apparantly). I think this is the original for sale ad.

 

[apollo_creed]

How is it acceptable that a moderator of this site is a Port Arthur conspiracy theorist?

Absolutely disgraceful. Innocent lives lost and we have an absolute peanut ‘moderating’ stuff somewhere on this forum. Calling witnesses liars and labelling it one big all in conspiracy.

No standards at all on here? No accountability for extreme views?