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

[Toad]

Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan... he wasn't shooting at 6"x6" melons on a shelf... he was shooting at panicked people who were moving and ducking and all around him and he was doing it from the hip.

lazs

AND he was doing it with his off-hand; he was left-handed shooting with his right hand.

Wonder how many folks here have tried switching sides with a rifle or a shotgun...let alone from the hip....by a kid who's previous experience was with a Webley Osprey air rifle.



Make light of if all you like Vulcan.

This is a piece of fast shooting that would put Hollywood's Rambo to shame...but you're gobbling it up without question.

And this story stinks from 200 yards away.

[Nashwan]

I am getting this right? All the "facts", like the firing from the hip, being left handed whilst the shooter fired from the right, having no previous firearms experience etc are coming from the same sorts of websites that say the CIA blew up the WTC, the BATF blew up Oklahoma, the US caused the tsunami etc?

And you believe them?

Bryant was captured coming out of a burning house. Inside the house were 3 bodies of people who'd been shot. Bryant had spent the night talking to the police on the phone, had admitted kidnapping one of those in the house who was later found murdered. So at a very minimum he was involved.

Now, the conspiracy theory, as far as I can make out, is that Bryant was the fall guy for a proffesional shooter. But Bryant was at least involved, was at Port Arthur. Why wasn't he killed in the siege? Why leave such a major loose end as a man with very low IQ who, due to his involvement, must have known at least something?

Transcripts of some of Bryant's interviews with his lawyers (where he admits many of the murders), his negotiations with the police during the siege etc are at http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/298CAC6535B47DA1CA25713E0015E537

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I am getting this right? All the "facts", like the firing from the hip, being left handed whilst the shooter fired from the right, having no previous firearms experience etc are coming from the same sorts of websites that say the CIA blew up the WTC, the BATF blew up Oklahoma, the US caused the tsunami etc?

And you believe them?

 

Nope. And it's mighty narrow minded thinking that would quid pro quo that beacuse nutball conspiracy websites shriek about ailens that there's no conspiracy or coverup at Oklahoma City.

Of course, it's so much easier to just blow it all off as BS instead of rolling your sleeves up, digging upstream and checking sources. I've been able to debunk about half the crap disseminated by webites regarding Oklahoma City.

The remaining half leaves ME in no doubt that we (the public) were lied to.

Of course, what you think is not important. What I think is not important.

The truth is important.

[lukster]

After reading that interview I really have doubts that this guy could have done what is reported and what he claims to have done. Did he miss even a single shot? All while shooting left handed which he claims? A rifle through which he had fired only "4 or 5" rounds? Maybe it did happen as the government claimed. I'd sooner believe that Aliens crashed at Roswell though. At least there I've heard the testimony of purported eyewitnesses.

[Toad]

None of it raises questions for you? The following are all "made up"/invented?

The picture of the gun in the ashes and the same gun, unblemished by fire (except for the sling) in the later photo?

The local cops called away and the shooting starts right when they radio in?

The timing inconsistencies:

The first inconsistency is that at 10.40am a witness ( neighbour ) heard 2 shots at Seascape. Another witness heard 6 to 12 shots coming from Seascape around the same time. ( Mr. Martin - owner of Seascape - later was found with 2 bullet wounds ). The problem with this is Martin Bryant was witnessed having stopped for coffee at the Shell Service Station at FORCETT 30km north of Seascape at the same time ( 10.40am to 11.00am ). The witness knew him. Bryant could not be in two places at the same time.

The second inconsistency is Bryant was later witnessed buying petrol at the Convict Bakery Service Station at TARANNA between 11.45am and 11.50am. ( Taranna is 15km north of Seascape and about 15 minutes away ). At the same time - 11.45am - a Yellow VOLVO was seen by another witness, Mr. Copping, backed up to the front door at Seascape with boot and front driver door open ( as if it was being loaded up ). Again Bryant cannot be 2 places at the same time....

...Later, Bryant was next witnessed to visit Roger Larner at between 1.05pm and around 1.15pm and was witnessesed entering the tollbooth by staff at around 1.15pm. The problem with this is the gunman had been in Port Arthur Historic Site and witnessed messing about in the car park for 20 minutes prior to this time and was actually inside the Cafe buying his lunch at 1.15pm.

No fingerprints of Bryant on ANYTHING?

The Trauma seminar at the Royal Hobart hospital; what a coincidence.

The senior staff of the cafe at another seminar..first one ever... set for a busy Sunday right at the time of the shooting; what a coincidence.

The conflicting ID by witnessess actually at the cafe? Official reports of "90 seconds" while eyewitnesses say 5-6 minutes?

The witness that KNEW Bryant and saw the tollbooth hijacking telling the police it wasn't Bryant.

To the point, there is an incredible chain of coincidences, an amazing amount of missing evidence (no projectiles recovered anywhere, weapons conveniently "unshootable" (a bent barrel on the FAL?), a bunch of discarded eyewitness reports.

The whole story hangs not by a thread but by an amazing number of different threads.

[Hangtime]

Yup.. once you become aware that something else was in play; the next question always follows.

"Why?"

And with the Australian Incident.. this one has me floored. I can't come up with any explanation for what happened. Not even a wild guess.

It is certainly obvious, just like Oaklahoma City.. we've been lied to.

[Nashwan]

After reading that interview I really have doubts that this guy could have done what is reported and what he claims to have done. Did he miss even a single shot?

Considering about 15 people were injured rather than killed, he certainly didn't hit everyone where he was aiming.

The picture of the gun in the ashes and the same gun, unblemished by fire (except for the sling) in the later photo?

According to the transcripts of Bryant's interview with the police, he was shown the guns in a badly burnt condition in his interviews with the police. The attorney general for Tasmania, in a letter to the Sports Shooters Association of Australia said the guns were presented to the court in a badly burnt condition for Bryant's sentencing.

Where the idea comes from that the guns were unburnt, I don't know. Possibly unburnt examples were presented to the court to show what they would have looked like before burning. But I'd like to see some evidence unburnt guns were actually claimed to be Bryant's.

And what on earth would be the point of doing so? Is this conspiracy so inept that they collect burnt guns from a building, and present unburnt ones to a court, and hope nobody notices?

The local cops called away and the shooting starts right when they radio in?

I don't understand what you mean. I will confess I haven't read all the conspiracy sites.

The first inconsistency is that at 10.40am a witness ( neighbour ) heard 2 shots at Seascape. Another witness heard 6 to 12 shots coming from Seascape around the same time. ( Mr. Martin - owner of Seascape - later was found with 2 bullet wounds ). The problem with this is Martin Bryant was witnessed having stopped for coffee at the Shell Service Station at FORCETT 30km north of Seascape at the same time ( 10.40am to 11.00am ). The witness knew him. Bryant could not be in two places at the same time.

The problem is the only reports of these witnesses are from the conspiracy sites. Do you have indepedent evidence they exist? Or exactly what they said? Or even that they might have been reporting other shooting in the area?

The "official" timeline has Bryant killing them at 11:45. Bryant admited shooting them, and eventually came out of the house their bodies were in.

The second inconsistency is Bryant was later witnessed buying petrol at the Convict Bakery Service Station at TARANNA between 11.45am and 11.50am.

Again, says who? And how reliable is the witness?

Later, Bryant was next witnessed to visit Roger Larner at between 1.05pm and around 1.15pm and was witnessesed entering the tollbooth by staff at around 1.15pm. The problem with this is the gunman had been in Port Arthur Historic Site and witnessed messing about in the car park for 20 minutes prior to this time and was actually inside the Cafe buying his lunch at 1.15pm.

Bryant was talking to someone who knew him well at just gone 1, a minute or so from the Port Arthur site.  That much everyone agrees on. The shooting started some time after 1:30.

No fingerprints of Bryant on ANYTHING?

What do you mean by "anything"? His guns were burnt. The car he hijacked was burnt. The house he took over was burnt.

And again, any evidence that no fingerprints were found?

The senior staff of the cafe at another seminar..first one ever... set for a busy Sunday right at the time of the shooting; what a coincidence.

Evidence for this? And relevance of this? The government were prepared to organise a massacre, but didn't want the managers of the cafe to get killed, just the workers?

The conflicting ID by witnessess actually at the cafe? Official reports of "90 seconds" while eyewitnesses say 5-6 minutes?

Come on, you must have seen accident reports before now. Different people have very different perceptions of what happened in times of stress. And don't most air crashes have witnesses who report seeing the plane explode in mid air, even when it didn't?

The witness that KNEW Bryant and saw the tollbooth hijacking telling the police it wasn't Bryant.

I don't think he said anything of the sort. I think he just didn't say it was Bryant, but then again he was quite some distance away.

To the point, there is an incredible chain of coincidences, an amazing amount of missing evidence

I don't think so. Just people claiming coincidences using unrelated facts, like the fact that senior managers of the cafe weren't present.

The whole story hangs not by a thread but by an amazing number of different threads.

Actually the "official" version is pretty simple. Madman goes beserk with gun, shoots people, drives off, shoots some more, holes up, burns house down next day. Bodies found in house madman ran out of, madman confesses to many of the murders, claims not to have carried out some others.

There's nothing particulary off about it.

Why no trial? Bryant pleaded guilty. If you plead guilty, you don't get a trial, you go straight to sentencing.

Why held in solitary? A, because other prisoners would have killed him, B, becuase he was a suicide risk.

Why no media interviews? Pretty standard, certainly in the UK, probably in Australia too. Criminals do not, as a rule, hold press conferences in prison.

I see no flaws in the theory that Bryant carried out the killings. There are several major ones in the theory he didn't.

Why did Bryant admit to at least some of them?

Why did Bryant keep the police at bay for hours during the siege?

Why did Bryant admit to his lawyers he'd killed them?

How did the real killers involve Bryant?

Why didn't Bryant tell the police about the real killers? He's stupid, knows he's in big trouble, if someone else had been involved you wouldn't have been able to shut him up, he'd have been blaming them from the first minute.

Why did the "real" killers allow Bryant to live?

How many people are involved in this conspiracy? Why is it the only people who know about it are the nutters on the internet? Why haven't any rival politicians, policemen, lawyers, journalists etc found anything wrong? Or are they all in on it?

[Toad]

The Shooter's News consists of a bunch of non-journalist nutters? I know they have a vested interest  as the "anti" in the gun ban but they're "nutters"?

What Laycock (witness) said about the man at the tollbooth was:

I have known Martin Bryant from the age of 10 years until he was about 23 years old....

I did not recognize the male as Martin Bryant....

Another nutter witness?

There are timeline inconsistencies with more "nutter witnesses" like the tollbooth officer.


Toowoomba 2001

Pretty well details the inconsistencies. Presented by Andrew MacGregor, a Victoria policeman from 1968 to 1985, awarded the National Service Medal in 1985. Another nutter?

[lazs2]

nashwan... so you believe that the shooting he did in the cafe was easily done by anyone who had previously fired 5 or six rounds out of an ar15?   you ever shot an ar15 from the hip?  I would sure hate to see how many jackrabits I could hit with one from the hip at any range.

Do you think you could do it?

you don't find it weird that this deadly marksman was able to do that and then.... later... couldn't hit anything with the same firearms shooting 200-250 rounds?

No witness so far has identified him positively?  One has said positively that he was not the shooter..

Why was his property siezed before a trial and if it wasn't (as was claimed)

Why did a millionaire get a public defender who simply sold him down the river?   He coulda got a really good lawyer.

lazs

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by lazs2
nashwan... so you believe that the shooting he did in the cafe was easily done by anyone who had previously fired 5 or six rounds out of an ar15?   you ever shot an ar15 from the hip?  I would sure hate to see how many jackrabits I could hit with one from the hip at any range.

LOL you must be the worst shooter on the face of the earth lazs if you can't hit a rabbit at a couple of metres.

[Nashwan]

Toowoomba 2001

Pretty well details the inconsistencies. Presented by Andrew MacGregor, a Victoria policeman from 1968 to 1985, awarded the National Service Medal in 1985. Another nutter?

MacGregor a nutter?

Have you read some of his other writings?

"London  Bombing a Mossad false-flag operation

The only people who had prior knowledge of the London Bomb attacks on the 7th July 2005 would have been the perpetrators of the attack.  We have already been informed that the Israeli Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu was warned prior to the event, supposedly by Scotland Yard.  This is not correct.  A later version states that the warning went to the Israeli Embassy and then to Netanyahu, but again it appears that the second story is also flawed.

An article printed in the Jerusalem Post on the 7th July 2005, the same day as the bombing was authored by Efraim Halevi, a former head of Mossad, and dwelt upon the London Bombings, and made mention of facts that were at that stage unknown, such as the fact that the bombs detonated on the trains were detonated simultaneously.  This fact was not picked up on as the original times of the explosions were logged on at the time the explosions were reported.  [“The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place yesterday on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope.”]"



"When the error was identified, the articles placed on the Internet were changed to read ‘today’ instead of ‘yesterday’, but then the next blunder occurred.  The original article was released as an educational discussion paper in its original form.

We can now demonstrate that the former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevi, and his chief, the Former Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu were aware of the London Bombings that occurred on the 7th July 2005 at least 24 hours prior to the event."

Andrew MacGregor contributes a lot to the Adelaide Institute, one of the fringe holocaust denial sites. He writes a lot of conspiracy theories about Jews. So yes, I'd say he was a nut.

nashwan... so you believe that the shooting he did in the cafe was easily done by anyone who had previously fired 5 or six rounds out of an ar15?

From a few feet, against people who are trying to take cover in a crowded resteraunt? Yes.

And what evidence do you have he'd only fired 5 or 6 rounds?

you don't find it weird that this deadly marksman was able to do that and then.... later... couldn't hit anything with the same firearms shooting 200-250 rounds?

You mean could the same man kill a lot of people trapped in a reseraunt at 5 feet range, and then not be able to hit policemen taking cover a few hundred yards away in the dark? Sounds entirely plausible to me, even assuming he was trying to hit them later.

And if it was a different man in the resteraunt, what was Bryant doing firing hundreds of rounds at police in a siege later that night?

Why was his property siezed before a trial and if it wasn't (as was claimed)

I don't think it was. It was administered by trustees because Bryant was incapable of doing so, but that had been the case for a long time. The courts may have frozen his money pending proceedings, but that's not the same as seizing it. And what has it got to do with whether Bryant was the shooter or not?

Why did a millionaire get a public defender who simply sold him down the river? He coulda got a really good lawyer.

I think he did get a really good lawyer.

There isn't a "public defender" system in Britain, and probably not in Australia either. Rather than lawyers who work for the state (socialised law, if you like) as in the US, in the UK the criminal engages his own lawyer, and the state pays the bills if the defendent can't. (and sometimes, even very rich people get the bills paid). In quite a few cases in the UK, the government has paid out over £1 million in legal aid fees.

John Avery, Bryant's barrister, seems to have been very successful, a partner in a well respected law firm.

As to selling him down the river, he had a client who had admitted some of the murders, had been caught after a siege, who in other words was getting life in prison. There was no point opting for a trial where he'd claim he'd murdered most of the people, but not all of them.

Edit, according to wikipedia Australia has a similar legal aid system to the UK.

"It is important to note that legal aid work in Australia is performed almost exclusively by private law firms who account to Legal Aid for their fees, rather than state employees or "public defenders". The amount of money a lawyer receives from Legal Aid is always somewhat less than they would obtain from a private-paying client; however, most small and medium sized firms (particularly regional firms) will do at least some legal aid work because payment, even if modest, is guaranteed. Moreover in some areas of law (especially criminal law) Legal Aid work is often the only work available."

[Toad]

Ah, I see. They are ALL nutters. Even Laycock who knew Bryant and didn't think the man at the tollbooth was Bryant.

It'd be pretty simple for the government to address these nutters once and for all then right?

If every single thing they point out has a logical, plausible, verifiable explanation then why not just settle it?

Did you read that piece or just dismiss it as a "nutter" diatribe?

Perhaps you can track this one down:

In the March 1997 issue of Association of South Australia Police Journal, police superintendents Bob Fielding and Barry Bennett discussed the Seascape siege.

There was some suggestion there may be two suspects. It appeared at one stage that two gunmen, or people or hostages were exchanging gunfire with the gunmen as there appeared to be shots coming from two separate buildings.

There's plenty of smoke on this one but no one seems to even consider there may be a fire.

Except of course the "nutters".

Is Wendy Scurr a nutter too? She was there and she has some problems with the official report.

[Nashwan]

Ah, I see. They are ALL nutters. Even Laycock who knew Bryant and didn't think the man at the tollbooth was Bryant.

No, I didn't say Laycock was a nutter. But I don't see Laycock saying he didn't believe Bryant carried out the shooting.

However, don't you think that if the same person who claims Port Arthur was a government job, also claims the London bombings were carried out by Mossad, that he might perhaps be a bit nuts?

Now, looking for Laycock's statement, I found this:

"On this Sunday 28th April 1996, I did not recognise the male as Martin Bryant. The person I saw shooting appeared to be in the low twenties, about 5 ft 10 in tall, it was impossible to determine his build, (the coat was shapeless). His hair stood out, it was blonde, I thought it was bleached blonde and possibly a female. His hair was shoulder length. His walking appeared to be mannish. "
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalaycock.html

The statement also says Laycock had known Bryant from about ten until 23, in other words he hadn't seen him in the previous 5 years.

Laycock did not say it was not Bryant. He was observing from a distance, so far he could not tell whether it was a man or woman. Under such circumstances it's not suprising he did not identify Bryant. It certainly doesn't rule Bryant out.

This is typical tactics from conspiracy theorists. A witness who failed to identify the suspect becomes a witness who says it wasn't the suspect.

It'd be pretty simple for the government to address these nutters once and for all then right?

Governments generally don't engage with nutters. Look at the cockpit tapes from flight 93 (if I've got the right one, where the passengers fought back on 9/11). Weren't there all sorts of conspiracy theories about why the government wouldn't release them? And in the end, they weren't released to shut up the conspiracy theorists, but as part of Mussawi's sentencing.

Did you read that piece or just dismiss it as a "nutter" diatribe?

I read it. It seemed fairly sane at first. For example, he claimed that the shooting in the cafe took longer, which might be the case. He claims the fire door in the cafe wouldn't open, or was nailed closed, which again seems fairly sane. Then he seems to claim it was deliberately nailed closed to prevent people escaping, which is nuts.

For a start, there are fairly common reasons why firedoors might not open. Lack of maintenance, owners more concerned by burgulars than fire, etc. But for it to have been part of the conspiracy, they'd have had to send someone to close it, and trust him not to speak afterwards. Then they'd have to have at least 1 person in the cafe who would deflect any queries from the rest of the staff about why it was nailed closed. Then they'd have to rely on the staff not drawing attention to the door being nailed closed after the shooting.

There are just too many loopholes in the conspiracy theories. They quickly grow until dozens of people would have to know what was happening, and none of them talked, from policemen to abulancemen to shop staff.

In the March 1997 issue of Association of South Australia Police Journal, police superintendents Bob Fielding and Barry Bennett discussed the Seascape siege.

    quote:There was some suggestion there may be two suspects. It appeared at one stage that two gunmen, or people or hostages were exchanging gunfire with the gunmen as there appeared to be shots coming from two separate buildings.

So it's "possible" someone else was shooting? Any chance it was another policeman on the other side of the cordon? It was dark for most of the siege.

And if it's "possible" another person was shooting, isn't it possible there wasn't?

Tasmania is a small quiet place. The nearest "town" to Port Arthur is Nubeena, with population of just over 250. Port Arthur itself has a population of 200. The peninsula it's on has a population of about 1,500.

How much crime do you think they get? How many shootings do you think the local police had attended? And then one day they have a couple of dozen people shot dead in one location, more dead on the road, and an armed siege. Think perhaps the local police might have been a bit overwhelmed? Suffering a bit of confusion in the heat of the moment?

Is Wendy Scurr a nutter too? She was there and she has some problems with the official report.

But what problems? Google turns up a lot of conspiracy sites making claims, but little about what Scurr has said herself. What I've like to see is what she's got to say, not what other people are claiming she means. See the Laycock stuff above, a man who was too far away to tell the sex of the shooter, becomes in the words of the conspiracy theorists someone who says it was not Bryant.

[Toad]

Wendy Scurr thinks there should have been a coronial inquest

It's possible MacGregor is a total nutter. I don't know him. OTOH, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

Laycock was "working in his photo shop about 150 metres from the toll booth, said the “thud, thud, thud” of heavy weapons fire brought him out of the store." I don't think he could make a "positive ID" from that far away either.

One would think that the cops would know where the cop shooter teams were, wouldn't one?

Tasmania is a small quiet place

Yeah. So again the coincidences are amazing.

On that busy Sunday:

The Port Arthur Historic Site senior staff of the site were sent on a Work Seminar 2 hours drive to the mainland; the seminar started at 1PM, right before the shootings.

One hour before the massacre commenced, the only two policemen on the Tasmanian Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location at Saltwater River by anonymous caller reporting a big stash of heroin. There was no heroin, and four minutes after the two policemen reported their arrival at Saltwater by radio, the shooting started in the Broad Arrow Cafe.

Another work seminar at ROYAL HOBART HOSPITAL for the medical staff, dealing with gunshot wounds and trauma following a terrorist attack. Apart from the fact this seminar just happened to be being held the very day of the only and biggest mass shooting in Tasmania's history what is strange about this is the fact why would such a seminar be needed to be held in a State where such events were unheard of ? Also the time for this seminar to end was just after 1pm - the time when the shootings started in the Broad Arrow Cafe.

The newsies apparently were close by as well. 700 journalists of the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers Association reportedly booked into Hobart for a media conference that was to start the following day.

Odd for such a "quiet place", don't you think? Nah, bet you don't.

Where there's smoke..........

[Nashwan]

Laycock was "working in his photo shop about 150 metres from the toll booth, said the “thud, thud, thud” of heavy weapons fire brought him out of the store." I don't think he could make a "positive ID" from that far away either.

So we agree Laycock says nothing about whether Bryant was or was not the shooter, other than providing a general description that could fit Bryant?

One would think that the cops would know where the cop shooter teams were, wouldn't one?

Usually, yes. But under a lot of stress? I should think there were different police around, the locals and an equivalent of a US swat team brought in from outside. Confusion between the two?

Yeah. So again the coincidences are amazing.

On that busy Sunday:

The Port Arthur Historic Site senior staff of the site were sent on a Work Seminar 2 hours drive to the mainland; the seminar started at 1PM, right before the shootings.

Right. So what relevance does this have to the shooting? Either they knew it was going to happen, and made themselves scarce, in which case it's odd they all knew about a massacre that was going to take place, of their freinds and colleagues, and did nothing to stop it, and none have talked since.

Or someone else knew it was going to happen, and wanted them out of the way. Why? Sentiment? Again suggests it was someone at the site, and again strange they agreed to let other colleagues get murdered.

Or, it was just a coincidence. Staff going off for a conference/seminar/training session/team building exercise etc. Happens all the time, all over the world.

the seminar started at 1PM, right before the shootings.

And if it started at 2pm it would be just after the shootings, and they'd still be out of the way. Can't you see this is just drawing inferences from random facts? The fact some of the staff were away could be indicative of something wrong, but the time of the seminar is simply coincidence, as whatever time it was, it would have suited the same purpose.

One hour before the massacre commenced, the only two policemen on the Tasmanian Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location at Saltwater River by anonymous caller reporting a big stash of heroin. There was no heroin, and four minutes after the two policemen reported their arrival at Saltwater by radio, the shooting started in the Broad Arrow Cafe.

So the police were elsewhere. Happens all the time. Unfortunate in this case, but then again the police rarely seem to be about when you need them.

How many police in the area? How much of their time was normally spent at the Port Arthur site?

If they were there 90% of the time, then it's a major coincidence they were elsewhere when the shooting happened. If they spend about 10% of their time in PA, then it's not a coincidence at all, just normal.

Another work seminar at ROYAL HOBART HOSPITAL for the medical staff, dealing with gunshot wounds and trauma following a terrorist attack. Apart from the fact this seminar just happened to be being held the very day of the only and biggest mass shooting in Tasmania's history what is strange about this is the fact why would such a seminar be needed to be held in a State where such events were unheard of ?

Seminars bring in people from all around. Tasmania is a popular tourist destination for Australians, presumably that includes seminars too. (and I bet you can find a seminar about coastal erosion in Las Vegas, if you look)

But again, what relevance to the conspiracy? I thought they wanted lots of dead people? Why go to the expense of organising a seminar for doctors (which means at least some of the doctors must be in on the plot too) if you want lots of dead?

The newsies apparently were close by as well. 700 journalists of the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers Association reportedly booked into Hobart for a media conference that was to start the following day.

Odd for such a "quiet place", don't you think? Nah, bet you don't.

No, I don't. Seminars are held in holiday destinations to attract people. You see lots of seminars in Las Vegas, for example.

But now the conspiracy has widened to include the media, as well? The government is planning to kill a load of people, and they tell a bunch of doctors, and a bunch of journalists?

Don't you think there's just a chance that some of these people might have spilled the beans? If you were going to organise a conspiracy, would you tell the press?