sooo ausie's.... did Bryant do it?

[Toad]

I think they'd have to ask Laycock. There's no indication of him staying at the shop or moving towards the tollbooth. But if he was 150 meters the entire time, I think it would be hard to postively ID him.

I'd think the cops knew which buildings held cops. Otherwise the SWAT team wasn't worth spit.

The whole setup of seminars, the timing and the attendees is just amazing coincidence. Amazing. Almost unbelieveable, really. It's not who they were trying to kill or save, it's just....amazing... that the staff, the medical folks and the newsies were all in the right place at just the right time.

Did you read the Scurr link?

[lazs2]

nashwan... the interview you pointed me to said that MB had not fired the Ar15 until that day and then he had only fired it at some cardboard targets he made.... 5 or 6 shots.

vulcan...  if you think hitting a 6"x6" target that is moving in all different planes from the hip at 12' is easy then you have never fired a rifle from the hip..... I would be willing to say that you couldn't do it with a shotgun with half the accuracy of the gunman at port arthur.

I don't know what the news media is like in australia... here....it is mostly (85% or better) liberals who hate guns... they have a reputation for blowing all gun stories out of proportion and they have an agenda towards gun control.   I would not expect them to want anything but more gun control.   I would not expect them to want to investigate anything that might thwart that agenda.

What about the survivor in the hospital who claims that the gunman was defenitely not Bryant?   Can you discount that?

As for shooting in the dark... it was not dark the whole time bryant was firing.... woulda been very light in fact if the police had shown up over this minor little shooting incident.... they had better things to do I know but they could have maybe hussled a little in light of the carnage...  

In any case... it would seem that a lot of the cops were behind cars at stones throw distance in the light... why couldn't this marksman hit even their car?  I mean... he didn't need to fire from the hip... he could rest the gun on something stable and fire away....  200-250 rounds...  certainly he had time to walk some rounds in?

The whole thing stinks...  It may not be as bad as it looks...if not...why not do a full investigation?

lazs

[Red Tail 444]

I heard the Yeti was spotted recently.

[Nashwan]

The whole setup of seminars, the timing and the attendees is just amazing coincidence. Amazing. Almost unbelieveable, really. It's not who they were trying to kill or save, it's just....amazing... that the staff, the medical folks and the newsies were all in the right place at just the right time.

The right place for what?

The doctors were about 100 miles away in Hobart. How many of them actually got involved in treating the wounded?

The journalists were 100 miles away in Hobart. On an annual conference that seems to bounce around Australian cities. Scheduled months in advance.

Again, either the organisors of both conferences were in on the conspiracy, or it was a coincidence. And neither conference serves much purpose. If the doctors weren't there, there would be little difference in the shooting. Possibly 1 or 2 wounded people might have been saved, making the death toll 33 instead of 35.

Is that worth the risk of telling a group of doctors the government planned to carry out a mass murder of their own citizens?

Likewise, if the journalists weren't in Hobart for the conference, the local journalists and camera crews would still be there. Other journalists would probably be willing to travel to Tasmania for the largest killing spree in Australian history.

Again, it hardly justifies the risk of telling journalists the government planned a mass murder of their own citizens.

Did you read the Scurr link?

Yes. She doesn't seem to be saying anything as extreme as the conspiracy nutters. From what I can gather from google, she thinks it was a terrorist attack.

nashwan... the interview you pointed me to said that MB had not fired the Ar15 until that day and then he had only fired it at some cardboard targets he made.... 5 or 6 shots.

Any chance he might have been lying to the police? He addmitted having the guns for about 5 months, iirc.

What about the survivor in the hospital who claims that the gunman was defenitely not Bryant? Can you discount that?

What survivor?

As for shooting in the dark... it was not dark the whole time bryant was firing.... woulda been very light in fact if the police had shown up over this minor little shooting incident.... they had better things to do I know but they could have maybe hussled a little in light of the carnage...

Sunset at Hobart on 26th April 1996 was 5:21. Port Arthur is SW of that, so would be a little earlier.

I believe Bryant got back to the guesthouse at 2 pm, the first police arrived about 4, the swat teams not until after sunset.

He left the building at just gone 8:30 in the morning, sunrise at Hobart was 6:57.

Nearly al lthe siege was in the dark. (and we have no idea how seriously he was shooting, whether he was aiming at people or just firing unaimed shots out of a window to discourage the police.

In any case... it would seem that a lot of the cops were behind cars at stones throw distance in the light... why couldn't this marksman hit even their car?

On at least one of the conspiracy sites it says at least one of the cars was hit. One of the sites Toad linked to, I think.

The problem with "facts" like these is that they don't get widely reported, which means the nutters are free to make up what they like. Do you have an authoratitive description of the shooting from the guest house? How many shots fired, what time, whether Bryant was in view of a window whilst shooting, etc?

The whole thing stinks... It may not be as bad as it looks...if not...why not do a full investigation?

There has been a full investigation.

[lazs2]

So nashwan...you are convinced that a thorough investigation has been done?  that bryant was lying in the interview about the all important and life saving revelation that he only fired the gun that day and only 5 rounds?  yet.... anthbing that supports the authorities story.... he is telling the absolute truth about?

this poor moron is as convicted as he can  be and he still only admits to a few of the shootings.   I am sure he did shoot people... that he shot people that he couldn't miss...  people at point blank range... all the other killings were done by someone who was not a mental defective and actually knew how to shoot.

I don't know who did the shootings or why.  I just think that blaming em all on bryant is wrong.   I find it hard to blame terrorists since none have come forward so... what would be their point?   I don't find it in the least unbelievable that the government is behind it.   they gained by it.   They seen that the model for oppressive gun control is not through "education" (propoganda) or that lying about firearms doesn't work or that spending billions doesn't work.... they have seen what does work..... a massacre by a "madman".    Why not arrrange one?

lazs

[Nashwan]

So nashwan...you are convinced that a thorough investigation has been done?

Yes, the police investigation seems fairly thorough to me.

that bryant was lying in the interview about the all important and life saving revelation that he only fired the gun that day and only 5 rounds? yet.... anthbing that supports the authorities story.... he is telling the absolute truth about?

No. I think Bryant, like most criminals, hedged and evaded a bit.

As to how amny rounds he'd fired, he said to his lawyer:

"On the way to Port Arthur, using this track I usually go down and take some targets with me and I took the shotgun for the first time that I’d never used and I never got round to using that

JWA: Right, what was the other gun that you took?
MB: The AR15
WA: Right, and that was the one you bought from where?
MB: Terry Hill
JWA: How long before had you brought that roughly?
MB: Two months
JWA: Right, had you used it before that day?
MB: I hadn’t and I bought the shotgun about six weeks before
JWA: Right
MB: I’d used it twice before at the same spot, just target practice
JWA: Right
MB: Just four or five rounds
JWA: Right, this is the rifle?
MB: Yep "

He seems to be saying at the start that he hadn't used the rifle before, then that he'd used it a couple of times before. Then he says 4 or 5 rounds, and three or four rounds this time:

"MB: So, um, I drove off and went to the place where I do target shooting
JWA: So you stopped and did some target shooting, you say
MB: Yes
JWA: How long?
MB: Three or four rounds "

7 to 9 rounds seems remarkably few for three seperate shooting trips,
 

I am sure he did shoot people... that he shot people that he couldn't miss... people at point blank range... all the other killings were done by someone who was not a mental defective and actually knew how to shoot.

All the shootings were at point blank range, or close to it.

Bryant admitted shooting people in the cafe. From conversations with his lawyer:

"MB: Then I thought to myself, I’ll go in and have something to eat and drink, so I went in to have something to eat and drink at the Cafeteria, sat down outside and, um, I could just hear a few people, there was a few people talking outside

JWA: Yeah

MB: And then I left and I thought “Oh golly, there’s this Oriental couple in there”. I had my gun in the Volvo and I thought I’ll go down and get my gun.

JWA: Right

MB: And go in and I’ll put my gun underneath my jacket, I had a long jacket on

JWA: Right, yeah

MB: I put …I went in and sat next to the Oriental couple and I thought I’ll shoot them

JWA: Just keep your voice up

MB: So I thought I’d shoot them

JWA: What for, was it just…?

MB: Just thought I’d shoot them

JWA: Right, okay

MB: So I shot them and the next thing is I realised I used about 2 or 3 rounds and I don’t recall shooting anyone else and I raced out

JWA: But just stopping you there, you do accept you did shoot other people there I assume

MB: No I dont

JWA: Well, who else could have if you didn’t

MB: I don’t really know

JWA: Alright. Well you accept that you shot 2 people, right?

MB: Then I came out, got in my car, raced off in the car, drove off and I drove past the Fox and Hounds and there’s a turnoff, there’s a BMW there, I thought I’ll stop the BMW

JWA: Was it going or stationery

MB: Stationery, because I stopped and realised there that it was straight in front of me

JWA: Yeah

MB: There was a child and a lady as a passenger and a man driving and I said I just want the wife to get into my Volvo and, um…so I could kidnap the husband so I put him in the boot of the BMW and drove off.

JWA: Right

MB: Drove down to the Seascape Guest House ‘cos I had friends I knew, the owner of the Guest House

JWA: Who, who were…

MB: The Martins

JWA: They were friends, were they?

MB: Yep, I knocked on the door, there was no answer so I thought I’ll … I’d shoot a few bullets in to the BMW

JWA: Right

MB: So I got it out, then I thought…

JWA: What did you think you would do by that? Shoot the man in the BMW, do you mean the bloke in the boot?

MB: Yeah, I missed him because the bullets went in the side of the door instead of … the next thing is I recall an explosion. I must have … I had some petrol, I recall an explosion and the next thing is I woke up in an ambulance. I don’t recall anything else so … I don’t know how things are going to go for me. "

Now if Bryant shot the first two in the cafe, but someone else did the rest of the shooting, there must have been two shooters in the cafe, right? Yet Bryant didn't see another shooter, and quite a few people in the cafe survived (from memory, there were about 60 people in there, 25 or so were killed)

None of the people in the cafe reported seeing two shooters, either.

How can you have two men in a cafe with assault rifles shooting, and everybody only sees 1?

The conspiracy theories just have too many holes.

Bryant, in the same interview with his solicitor, went on to admit to more of the killings:

"JWA: Right, now either you are deliberately lying to me or you consciously can’t remember some aspects but it seems to me that sooner or later we have to accept the reality of what’s going to happen, right.

MB: That’s right

JWA: See, we are simply not going to be able to show you weren’t there.

MB: No, because ...

JWA: Because people, everyone identifies you, you’re an identifiable person, right?

MB: Yeah (laughter), in the Volvo with the surfboard on top

JWA: Everything, everything

MB: Someone even took a homemade video of me reversing out

JWA: And there’s a photograph I can show you next time I come from that video showing you walking around near the buses with a gun in your hand, right?

MB: (laughter)

JWA: Now it can’t be anyone else, can it?

MB: No"

"MB: And then started shooting

JWA: And you did

MB: Yep

JWA: And were you conscious of how many people you were shooting or not? Were you counting the persons?

MB: No, I just looked around and thought this is the best place to sit, next to the Oriental couple, because they were all spread round that way. I thought I’d sit here and move myself round that way, it happened so quickly I just got, I just started shooting

JWA: Right "

He then goes on to describe the shootings, going around the site, boarding a bus, hijacking a car, shooting people all over.

If Bryant didn't do it, why did he admit to it? Why did no one see two shooters?

[lukster]

The way he he keeps changing his wording could be due to simply like you said, hedging, or, it could be he is remembering and repeating parts of a story fed to him. Why would he say raced off in his car and then say drove off? Doesn't that sound like one is a recital and the other a memory? Of course he could simply be recalling the story he has likely told many times over.

[Nashwan]

The way he he keeps changing his wording could be due to simply like you said, hedging, or, it could be he is remembering and repeating parts of a story fed to him.

He had an IQ of 66. He was recieved money from the state because he was judged too mentally deficient to work.

That a: accounts for why he keeps changing his wording, and b: makes it really unlikely he could stick to a story fed to him.

Do you know what a retarded person, accused of a terrible crime they didn't commit, would do? Blab. Tell the whole story, men in black helicopters, threats not to say anything, the whole lot. Not continue to recite a story they'd been fed, for months and months on end, to the police, to prison officers, to shrinks, to his own lawyer.

And of course, if it had been a conspiracy, why risk relying on the story of a man with an IQ of 66? Why not kill him, make it look like a suicide. It's not exactly unusual for spree killers to kill themselves at the end of their rampage.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Nashwan
He had an IQ of 66. He was recieved money from the state because he was judged too mentally deficient to work.

That a: accounts for why he keeps changing his wording, and b: makes it really unlikely he could stick to a story fed to him.

Do you know what a retarded person, accused of a terrible crime they didn't commit, would do? Blab. Tell the whole story, men in black helicopters, threats not to say anything, the whole lot. Not continue to recite a story they'd been fed, for months and months on end, to the police, to prison officers, to shrinks, to his own lawyer.

And of course, if it had been a conspiracy, why risk relying on the story of a man with an IQ of 66? Why not kill him, make it look like a suicide. It's not exactly unusual for spree killers to kill themselves at the end of their rampage.

I have to agree with that last part. Maybe the conspirators had low IQs too?

[lazs2]

nashwan... when I read the interview I get that he took the shotgun out several times and shot it.   Not the Ar15.... It is pretty simple... at no time does he say that he fired more than a few rounds out of the Ar15 ..  The gunstore owner said that bryant had asked some questions just a few weeks before on how to operate the Ar15.

As for being a patsy?  why not?  the guy had a rich fantasy life to go along with his low IQ...  He allmost didn't make it out alive in any case... he came out of the house on fire.   My guess is that he was meant to die.

He didn't die sooo.... He could not be allowed to go on trial.  He could not be allowed to ever get his story out.  I am really surprised that he hasn't had a fatal accident in proson by now.

Do you find it odd that a millionaire did not get the best lawyer that money could buy?  hell...  in the U.S. even if he had no money the lawyers out to make or keep a rep woulda been on him like stink on the governments story...

And... they woulda not plead guilty and not had a trial... that much is certain...  It seems that his relatives were used to persuade him to plead guilty without ever having a lawyer with his best interests involved.

It just looked to me like about a dozen people all against a man with a 66 IQ and not outside help for him.

Maybe it is simply that the way of australian justice is so weird to us in America but.... nothing like it would happen in the U.S.  It would have been a media circus for a year with the most high powered lawyers in existance..

the thread is revealing too...  the australians in the thread here aren't buying the governments story in total.... the rest of the brits are all going "quite right old bean... very well done and all that.."  "nothing wrong here lads"

Oh... by brits... I mean... if you got the queens picture on your money... your a friggin brit.

lazs

[J_A_B]

The Aussies banned guns

The USA banned lawn darts


I'm not sure which is more retarded




J_A_B

[lukster]

Originally posted by J_A_B
The Aussies banned guns

The USA banned lawn darts


I'm not sure which is more retarded




J_A_B

From wikipedia:

"It should be noted that the specific incident that caused lawn darts to be made illegal also involved beer, and that, when engaged in responsibly, the recreational use of lawn darts is no more dangerous than baseball."

If one had to go it wasn't gonna be beer or baseball.

[Nashwan]

As for being a patsy? why not? the guy had a rich fantasy life to go along with his low IQ/quote]

Do you think a man with an IQ of 66 can hold his story? After he's been in prison a week or two, and he wants to leave?

He allmost didn't make it out alive in any case... he came out of the house on fire. My guess is that he was meant to die.

So a well planned conspiracy, that managed to kill 35 people, without anyone seeing a shooter other than Bryant, and  they can't kill one retarded man when they have him alone in a house?

It's about as credible as the evil overlord explaining his plan to the hero before killing him, allowing the hero time to escape and providing him a way to defeat said evil plan.

He didn't die sooo.... He could not be allowed to go on trial.

How many trials do you know of where the criminal confesses and pleads guilty? The whole point of a trial is to determine guilt, if you plead guilty you skip to sentencing.

Bryant did of course have his day in court for sentencing, as this usenet post of 7th Nov 1996 shows:

"While it wasn't going to be in the same class as Valery Fabrikant defending
himself in the murder of four colleagues at Concordia University by
saying they deserved it for cheating him out of academic credit, or the
rapist in England who kept the victim on the stand for most of a week, the
trial did show promise, as shown in this exerpt from the CNN site
( http://www.cnn.com ):

  Bryant, 29, laughed and smirked as he pleaded guilty to a total of
  72 charges, including the 35 murders in an appearance in the
  Supreme Court of Tasmania to discuss his trial.

  As each charge was read out, Bryant either leaned forward
  towards a microphone and mumbled "guilty" or he looked around
  the room, eyeballing survivors of the massacre and relatives of the
  victims and loudly said "guilty." "

Strangely enough, none of the survivors stood up and said it wasn't Bryant who carried out the shootings. Perhaps they're all in on the plot too?

Do you find it odd that a millionaire did not get the best lawyer that money could buy?

Who says he didn't? From what I've read of Avery, he was a very prominent lawyer.

Not every lawyer would have taken the case on, of course. Bryant's first lawyer walked out because Bryant admitted the murders to him, then wanted to plead not guilty (lawyers aren't supposed to help their clients lie).

His second lawyer, Avery, wisely got him to plead guilty. There was no point in any other plea, the evidence was too strong.

hell... in the U.S. even if he had no money the lawyers out to make or keep a rep woulda been on him like stink on the governments story...

They would in Australia if there was a case to argue. But when you've got the gunman coming out of a siege, with murdered bodies in the house the police have had surrounded all night, the eyewitnesses from Port Arthur itself, the people who were in the cafe with him when he started shooting, etc, there's not much to argue in court.

And... they woulda not plead guilty and not had a trial... that much is certain... It seems that his relatives were used to persuade him to plead guilty without ever having a lawyer with his best interests involved.

He had two lawyers, both with his best interests involved, unless you are claiming both lawyers were plants.

Doesn't it occur to you that faced with overwhelming evidence, Bryant's best interests were to plead guilty? And any lawyer who's client has told him he carried out the crimes is not supposed to allow his client to claim he didn't carry out the crime. About the only option in this case was to plead not guilty on the grounds of insanity, but the shrinks who saw Bryant said he was sane.

As Bryant himself didn't want to plead insanity, and even a successful insanity plea would make no difference to Bryant (he'd still be locked up for ever) there was no point in trying an insanity plea.

It just looked to me like about a dozen people all against a man with a 66 IQ and not outside help for him.

Apart from two lawyers, and independent shrinks.

Maybe it is simply that the way of australian justice is so weird to us in America but.... nothing like it would happen in the U.S. It would have been a media circus for a year with the most high powered lawyers in existance..

Not in most cases, no.

Even OJ had a very slight case to argue, in that he could claim he was framed by the police. Bryant, with so many eyewitnesses, and running out of a house where he'd murdered 3 people and held the police at bay for hours, had nothing to argue. He couldn't argue he wasn't there, couldn't argue he didn't do the shooting.

Incidentally, regarding there being "no proper investigation", this on usenet posted early October, quoting from "The Age" newspaper:

"Mr Bugg [head of prosecutions] aims to complete the case this year with the trial beginning
on 19 November and likely to take at least three weeks. A jury will be
chosen from a pool of Hobart people.

In addition to 35 murder charges, they must consider 20 of attempted
murder, eight of wounding, four of aggravated assault, three of
causing grievous bodily harm, one of arson and one of setting fire to
a car.

Police have prepared for Mr Bugg a big prosecution case, including 830
witness statements with 1500 exhibits, 1200 photographs and 28 video
recordings. He has said he will try to reduce this. "

[lazs2]

but not one witness identified him positively at the cafe shootings.   So where is this mountain of evidence at that we can all look at?

All I have seen is a video that shows a man looking like him carrying a package that is too small to be either weapon.   All I see is on retard and the governments people and his family all telling him to plead guilty even when he insisted that he only killed a couple of those people..

Why would not a lawyer have said.... "Ok...you admit to killing these 4 or 6 or whatever... we will fight the rest."  

That is not what happened... read the interview with his so called lawyer.... it is beyond belief... it is a lawyer (a government lawyer)  telling his supposed client to come clean and admit to murders he says he didn't commit..

Who's side was this guy on anyway?

maybe this bryant retard really did do all those amazing things all on his own... it just doesn't seem possible and there are too many loose ends...

Why not make all the evidence available to the public and let some people investigate the whole thing?

with these mountains of video and pics and witnesses and all.... well gee... they should be able to put any doubt to rest pretty easily..

If nothing else... wouldn't the whole thing... based on real evidence.... make a darn good book whose profits could go to the victims?

lazs

[Nashwan]

but not one witness identified him positively at the cafe shootings.

Of course they did. Quite a lot, in fact. Of course, the conspiracy nuts dismiss them because a newspaper published a photo of Bryant, which "contaminated" anyone who identified himl.

So where is this mountain of evidence at that we can all look at?

With the Australian police, I imagine.

Why would not a lawyer have said.... "Ok...you admit to killing these 4 or 6 or whatever... we will fight the rest."

Because he also admitted the rest.

maybe this bryant retard really did do all those amazing things all on his own... it just doesn't seem possible

What exactly doesn't seem possible? Shooting people at point blank range in a cafe? Boarding a bus and shootin people in their seats? Shooting people in a car?

and there are too many loose ends...

No, there aren't. There are conspiracy theorists distorting and making up facts. A good example is Laycock's statement. Laycock is portrayed as a man who knew Bryant well, and said it wasn't Bryant at Port Arthur. Laycock actually had a minor aquaintance with Bryant, hadn't seen him for 5 years, never with the long hair he had at the time of the incident, saw the incident from so far that he couldn't tell whether it was a man or woman shooting. He most certainly did not say it wasn't Bryant shooting.

I've yet to see any genuine loose end.

Why not make all the evidence available to the public and let some people investigate the whole thing?

If you look on the net, the conspiracy theorists have photocopies of witness statements. That suggests they have had access to the whole thing.

And the fact that the best they can come up with is things like Laycock saying he couldn't see who it was should tell you about what the bulk of the evidence says.

Joe Vialls certainly seems to have had access to the police case.

with these mountains of video and pics and witnesses and all.... well gee... they should be able to put any doubt to rest pretty easily..

What, like the US government could end doubt about the moon landings, JFKs assasination, Elvis Presley being dead and planes hitting the Pentagon?

The truth is, only the nutters dobut these things, and nobody's really interested in going to great lenghts to disprove the ravings of madmen.

If nothing else... wouldn't the whole thing... based on real evidence.... make a darn good book whose profits could go to the victims?

No. There have been books about Port Arthur, those focusing on the events, and quite a few focusing on the "motivations" of people like Bryant. But I doubt there's a market for books about the evidence of Port Arthur, apart from amongst the people who want to believe in conspiracies. For everyone else, it's simply an open and shut case. No intricate detective work, no long history of a policeman trying to track down a clever criminal, just lots of photographs of bullet wounds, bullet holes, bullet cases, witness statements etc. Hardly riveting.

Of course, if this had happened 5 years later, the evidence would probably be all over the net, but in 1996 the mainstream media, and particulary government, presence on the web was minimal.