Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on May 28, 2006, 02:09:00 PM
-
another thread made me go and look at australian gun laws and so I was rumaging around in the internet.... Sadly... the guys telling me how much freedom aussies still have are pretty much dead wrong... it is bad and getting much worse for gun owners..
But... What caused all the gun control? A gun massacre by a lone gunman using a Colt ar15 this guy killed 35 people... twenty of em with head shots that he took from the hip.... the gunman... has an IQ of 66 and two weeks earlier had to ask a gunsmith how to operate the stoner type weapon.
http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/JoeVialls.html
So this is a series of articles on the whole event. I admit that I wasn't too up on it but man... this seems insane. If half of what this guy says is true... no way could this guy Bryant have done the shooting...
The guy pleaded not guilty... he was held in solitary and interogated and all his propety (he was a millionare) was siezed BEFORE he was convicted.... he couldn't afford a lawyer! the junk one they gave him told him that he was gonna go down no matter what but if he pleaded guilty they would allow him color tv in jail.... remember... the guy has a 66 IQ.
The only film is bogus looking and the wrapped up "weapon" seen being carried by a blond guy is too short to be an AR15...
No eyewitness said it was him... several have said it was not.
The shooting this guy did from the hip was 100 times more fantastic than Oswalds shooting (someone who actually had practiced) ten times better than normal miltary marksmen... utterly fantastic.
There was never a trial and all info on the case is sealed for 30 years.
lazs
-
The aussie govenment killing 30 some citizens in order to enact gun control , is much more plausable then a missle hitting the pentagon.
-
guess it doesn't have to be "the government" per se but.... even at that....yeah.. it is more plausable. Lot eaier to hire a pro merc to kill civilians than to get everything together to make a missle look like a 747 hitting the pentagon..... in the case of the pentagon.... there was a lot of investigation involved...
I don't really see any investigation even allowed in this case.
Would seem funny tho that those who claim that our government is evil incarnate also seem to think it odd that we do not trust our government... and..
That their govenment is not as evil as ours.... That our government is capable of all kinds of "black ops" that kill countless people but that theirs could not hire a merc to shoot a clump of civilians....people believe what makes em comfortable I guess.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
The aussie govenment killing 30 some citizens in order to enact gun control , is much more plausable then a missle hitting the pentagon.
Sounds equally plausible to me.
-
paul hogan = hitler
-
Next time lazs use beer as bait.
-
I just want to know how a guy with a 66 IQ got a million dollars.
-
:noid :noid :noid
-
Couldn't resist.... temptation too great...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177130&highlight=million
-
There were eyewitnesses that saw a plane hit the pentagon. How many people saw this guy do the shooting?
-
This article had my attention until he started talking bout JFK and PAN AM flt 103. (didn't the lybians cop to that? also, I have NEVER heard that there was a news story released in New Zeland about oswalt being accused of the JFK thing before it actually happened)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Couldn't resist.... temptation too great...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177130&highlight=million
We're on our way to 2 million now and my IQ is still in the top 2%
I love me.
-
When the military needs to prove a scientific point one way or the other, it invariably tests that point for real, either in combat or by artificial simulation. A good example of this was the recent reaction of the US military to Federal Government claims that the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was blown up by a 2000 pound low- explosive ammonium nitrate weapon, allegedly parked outside the front door of the building by young Timothy McVeigh.
Knowing the ammonium nitrate claim was impossible rubbish, United States Air Force explosives experts at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, promptly constructed a three story test building out of the same materials used in the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma. Then they placed the correct equivalent explosive charge at precisely the same distance from their test building and stood back briefly to admire their "simulator". And what a simulator it was! When the massive charge was detonated on camera the results were exactly as the explosives experts had forecast: the huge open-air blast barely scratched the front face of the building, proving for all time that the White House, FBI, and others in Washington, had deliberately and continually lied about the explosion in Oklahoma City, and of course about "patsy" Timothy McVeigh as well, for political reasons.
The comprehensive results of these scientific tests were printed in a report titled the "Eglin Blast Effects Study" (EBES), a copy of which was forwarded by the commanding general to Senator Trent Lott, majority leader of the US Senate. In a covering letter the general urged Senator Lott to resist White House calls to bring in new counter- terrorist legislation, which if passed would have given federal agencies such as the FBI and BATF new draconian powers over American citizens.
You didn't read about the EBES in your newspaper? This is not surprising, because Eglin's scientific work would have destroyed the Government's lying hype about Oklahoma at a single stroke.
We were lied to?
Say it ain't so !!
-
Though improbable, the truth is that a pre-meditated operation was launched at Port Arthur with the express intent of murdering sufficient innocent citizens to set a new world record
Time for the :noid smiley lazs
-
You guys are too much! :rofl
-
Hang,
What do you think happened in oklahoma. Seriously though this is news to me.
-
ahhhhhhhh. For the answer.. consider what these three interesting events have in common.
Ruby Ridge
Waco
Oklahoma City
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
I just want to know how a guy with a 66 IQ got a million dollars.
He inherited it from a wealthy lady he was working for and living with.
Laz, I whole heartedly agree that there is something very fishy about the whole Port Arthur thing, I dont know what happened there that day, or who was responsible, but I'm pretty sure it wasnt what we were told by the press.
If my reply in the other thread that provoked all this is indeed plain wrong, I guess I better hand in all these illegal weapons, cancel my bookings at the range for the forseeable future, not bother about the 9 mil at work etc...
You said Australians cant own guns anymore, that is BS, I own several, perfectly legally, I use them for hunting and plinking quite regularly and I carry a concealed handgun for work.
They didnt ban guns, they banned semi-auto and auto long arms....end of story. The laws regulating handguns havent changed one bit, nor have the laws regarding bolt and lever action rifles.
"It is bad and getting much worse for gun owners" How is it getting much worse? Have the citizens of Callifornia been told something about Australian gun laws that the Aussies have yet to hear?
I believe our government is as slimy and corrupt as yours is, no doubt about that.
The thing that baffles me is 'what for?'
Why would the Govt or whoever else set something like this up?
To ride the media fed uproar and ban guns and disarm the Australian people?
That didnt happen, a bolt action .303 can kill just as effectively as an AK47 or M16 can, there are still several million SMLE .303s in private hands in Australia along with a multitude of other brands of high powered bolt action sporting rifles.
They only banned semi and full autos. Why didnt they ban guns period?
Say it was to disarm the people....why?
What realistic scenario could need the disarmament of the people of Australia?
What foriegn(or domestic for that matter) force could realistically hope to occupy Australia and keep their troops fed and in ammo, fuel, water etc?
If it could be done, and a force did occupy Australia, what differance would it make if the 'partisans' or 'resistance' were armed with automatic arms or bolt actions, they are still armed, and in actual fact have a much greater lethal and accurate range.
The vast majority of Australia is wide open, flat, very sparcely vegetated semi arid desert....the kind of place you can see all the way to the horizon 25 miles away.
At 2000 yards plus, given the option, I would rather be shot at by someone with an M16 or AK than someone with a SMLE. or Parker Hale.
If the intended purpose was to drastically reduce the ability of the Australian citizen to defend themselves against organised armed attack, it failed misserably, all it did was ensure accurate aimed shots instead of full auto hosing of the general area.
If indeed it was all a big scare campaign , what was the reason for it? What purpose did it serve? It sure as eggs didnt disarm the Australian people.
-
A good example of this was the recent reaction of the US military to Federal Government claims that the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was blown up by a 2000 pound low- explosive ammonium nitrate weapon, allegedly parked outside the front door of the building by young Timothy McVeigh.
It was 5,000 lbs, wasn't it?
So this is a series of articles on the whole event. I admit that I wasn't too up on it but man... this seems insane. If half of what this guy says is true... no way could this guy Bryant have done the shooting...
The problem is far less than half of what he says is true. Which of these claims of his do you believe:
That US agents murdered policewoman Yvone Fletcher in London to turn people against Libya
That the Bali bombing was carried out by Israel using a small nuclear bomb
That Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie by the CIA and Mossad, again to implicate Libya
That Boeing and Nasa sabotaged the Concord that crashed in Paris in 2000, in order to damage the European aviation industry
That Boeing sabotaged American Airlines Flight 587
That America created the 2004 Asian tsunami in order to kill Muslims and damage the Chinese economy
The guy is a loon
-
Conspiracy theorists are always good for a chuckle.
-
blue... you keep saying that you have a 9mm for your "work" I assume that your work is not a clerk at the local shopping center.... I assume that your work is what allows you to carry concealled so I think you are missleading us with how easy it is for citizens to carry around concealed handguns in australlia.
What struck me most odd about the whole story is that at the end when they had this guy trapped.... he was under siege for hours. He fired between 200-250 rounds.... this "shoot em in the head from the hip every 1.5 sec" marksman who could hit a driver of a fast moving car and then dissable it with an engine shot...
This marksman.... in the final hours fired all those hundreds of shots and hit..... no one and nothing. He came out unarmed from a burning building (fire is allways a good way to clean up) and his weapons left behind in a totally burned building were produced as "evidence" later in pristeen condition. Ammo was cooking off for a long time before the building cooled.
As for what was accomplished? Any really useful gun for defense against a government was suddenly banned. All for a pretty easy and cheap price.... It is costing billions for the gun control nuts here in the states to accomplish 1/100th of what was done in australia for the loss of a few civilians.
soros and the UN and the brady bunch have spent billions on more gun control here and have gotten allmost no results.... going backward sometimes....
The cost analysis would seem to favor a few dead civilians for a huge increase in gun control.
lazs
-
The guy may well have been (he's dead) a loon... he may be competely wrong on everything but... why then the secrecy? Why no investigation and why are all his discrepencies left unchallenged by.... well.... anyone. You can see the things he says.. the film the shooting skill then suddenly... when the shoot out happens...lack of it...
the burned up weapons being resurected...
The lack of allowing interviews.. the pics of him running with a "weapon" package that is too small to be any of the weapons.... the fact that a millionare could not get a decent lawyer because all his assets were siezed before the trial? None of it makes sense... so if he didn't do most of it..
Who did and why? Who had the ability and could gain by it?
lazs
-
Oliver Stone should make a movie about this.
Oh wait, he only does crappy films.
Seriously, this is something that seems pretty messed up.
-
Seems like a disguised troll about Australian gun laws to me.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It was 5,000 lbs, wasn't it?
It was a bungled set up/frame of a militia group by the ATF, IMHO.. and there is literally NO doubt we got lied to, evidence was supressed, false evidence introduced and a cover-up was perpetrated..
Klintons ATF, outta control. Now, before you start posting the goofly lil black helicopter icons and the rolly-eye abominations.. educate yourselves. Dig through the links. BE SKEPTICAL.. but keep digging.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
-
Hang these theories are interesting to say the least but I just have a hard time digesting the motive for this. People in govt. would really want to kill 168 people just to frame Tim Mcveigh? They'd go through all that horror just to limit personal powers and increase govt. role? I have a hard time believing that there are people like that in govt that have the power and resources to act on it.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
paul hogan = hitler
If that were true, he would have told Schultz about the Radio in the coffee pot.
-Sik
-
My take? so long as single events can change entire laws and take away peoples rights with no trouble at all.....
That..... said events will allways be suspect.
Do I believe that governments are capable of killing dozens or hundreds or thousands or even millions of their own or other countries citizens and then covering it all up to get what they want? Well..... yeah... of course I do. They have done it in the past, are doing it as we speak and will allways do it so long as it works.
Do we allways catch em? nope. Did they do it at port arthur? How would I know? It does have all the earmarks of a government op that accomplished a great deal for very little effort (risk of getting caught) and a very low price (if you don't count a bunch of worthless citizens).
Do I think governements are powerfull enough and compartementalized enough that one section could be doing something another/the rest knows nothing about? sure I do.
Do I believe in conspiracies.... sure... so long as nothing else is possible cause.... a conspiracy is hard to hide.
Kennedy for instance.... everything the commission said happened was possible.... it is also possible that we don't know. This port arthur thing or Waco or Ok city tho.... big holes in this stuff... no good explantions or... the ones given are not possible.
Planes crashing into the twin towers and the pentagon.... not much other viable evidence to say otherwise.
That kind of thing....
One thing for sure... the Port Arthur thing really does stink. I don't think the aftermath of the killings would have played out the same here.... much more investigation and doubt..... australia seems to have just taken an "oh well" attitude about it.
lazs
-
Hey Laz, have you read "Enemys Foriegn and Domestic"?
-
I think Lazs is an anachronism. And a loon.
-
dont be a fool kid, lazs is smart.
-
I never said he wasn't.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
If that were true, he would have told Schultz about the Radio in the coffee pot.
-Sik
i musta picked the wrong hogan.
ben hogan
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Hang these theories are interesting to say the least but I just have a hard time digesting the motive for this. People in govt. would really want to kill 168 people just to frame Tim Mcveigh? They'd go through all that horror just to limit personal powers and increase govt. role? I have a hard time believing that there are people like that in govt that have the power and resources to act on it.
I think ATF was poised to do a 'save the day' interdiction of a frame/enablement of some crackpot militia group. I think FBI smelled a rat and got onto it. I think ATF jumped the gun or FBI missed a trick.. and the blasts went off because of a major communications screw up at ATF between it's field operatives and operational control.
I don't think the building was supposed to be dropped. I think ATF was supposed to get an 'atta-boy' bone for the 'discovery' of it's planted explosives, the public to be distracted from Klinton's shenanigans with an aide, and the resultant 'public outcry' against the rights militias and dissenter groups were to justify pervious ATF/FBI blunders at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I think that after the fact the government went ape-**** trying to cover it's inter-agency screw up.
And, what i think is unimportant. What is important is the governemnt is definitly lying and supressing evidence. i came to my conclusion after sifting through the info from credible sources (that the government is lying about Oklahoma City) and trying to take a stab at what I think.. not what anybody else says, then you should look at the data and draw yer own conclusions.
If yer like me and your convinced that the government is lying... then whats your conclusion for 'why'? I'd bet my bottom dollar those bombs inside the building were supposed to be FOUND, not detonated, and I have my doubts that ANFO rig was supposed to be touched off either.
-
You are right Laz, among other things,I work in security , and have a concealable licence for work. Whilst in the employ of a registered security firm, I am licenced to carry a firearm, either overtly or concealed.
I had to get it to be able to legally be in possesion of a pair of handcuffs and an extendable baton, the firearm was just a side bonus, its all the same licence.
I allso have a club licence for handguns, allowing me to shoot at the range regardless of wether or not I am 'at work'.
Neither of these allow me to walk down town on my day off with a handgun on my person.
Your average Jo Aussie citizen doesnt have a concealed carry permit, and doesnt walk around armed, but that hasn't changed one little bit for a long time, Port Arthur and the resulting law changes here had no effect on handgun ownership and carry laws, it never has been legal for just anyone to be walking around with a handgun down here.
Apologies if I misled anyone on that point.
I have to agree that the whole Port Arthur investigation seems screwed up and has whopping big holes in it, what I dont understand is why only do half the job, why not in fact ban all guns period, they could just as easily have passed a total ban law as one banning only semi-autos.
I mean, if you are going to go to the extent of setting up a a massacre in order to scare *****e out of Johnny Public, why not take full advantage of the uproar and ban the lot in one fell swoop?
Were it not for that point, I would whole heartedly agree it was a setup to get the guns out of Aussie citizens hands.
The number of rounds fired to headshot kills ratio in the time frame given at Port Arthur is something I hadnt seen pointed out before, and if true, it is a very interesting point.....also that Bryant is left handed, and all reports give the gunman firing from his right hip.
Not to mention the whole lack of coronial inquiry, immediate solitary confinement etc.
The photo of the seagulls sittting just outside calmly eating left over chips, supposedly as the gunman runs from the cafe after letting of 30 or so rounds doesnt quite add up either, even from inside a building, an M16 firing 30 rounds is going to make enough noise to scare a bunch of seagulls into flight.
That photo was definately not taken immediately after the shootings took place.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
BE SKEPTICAL.. but keep digging.
Good advice IMHO
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I think ATF was poised to do a 'save the day' interdiction of a frame/enablement of some crackpot militia group. I think FBI smelled a rat and got onto it. I think ATF jumped the gun or FBI missed a trick.. and the blasts went off because of a major communications screw up at ATF between it's field operatives and operational control.
I don't think the building was supposed to be dropped. I think ATF was supposed to get an 'atta-boy' bone for the 'discovery' of it's planted explosives, the public to be distracted from Klinton's shenanigans with an aide, and the resultant 'public outcry' against the rights militias and dissenter groups were to justify pervious ATF/FBI blunders at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I think that after the fact the government went ape-**** trying to cover it's inter-agency screw up.
And, what i think is unimportant. What is important is the governemnt is definitly lying and supressing evidence. i came to my conclusion after sifting through the info from credible sources (that the government is lying about Oklahoma City) and trying to take a stab at what I think.. not what anybody else says, then you should look at the data and draw yer own conclusions.
If yer like me and your convinced that the government is lying... then whats your conclusion for 'why'? I'd bet my bottom dollar those bombs inside the building were supposed to be FOUND, not detonated, and I have my doubts that ANFO rig was supposed to be touched off either.
Well I will honestly say that I read through the site and it does say some interesting things. It does sound entirly plausable that the ryder truck didn't have the umph to take down the building like that.
but, like I said, it's the motive part I'm having problems with. If in fact there was a cover up at the govt level it sounds more likely to me that this whole thing was a sting operation gone to far and/or the govt doesn't want the world to know about it's screw up.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.... this "shoot em in the head from the hip every 1.5 sec" marksman who could hit a driver of a fast moving car and then dissable it with an engine shot...
Walk into a cafe, think about how hard it is to shoot people in the head (btw it wasn't just headshots, it was neck shots that were counted as headshots) with a rifle at a couple of meters range.
Seriously lazs, did you even read the article?
-
A left-hander firing from the right hip did that, eh?
Seriously, have any of you tried hipshooting a rifle at anything head/neck size and cranking out the rounds every 1.5 seconds?
The guy was obviously a rifle phenom. And learnt it all on an air rifle. Jeez, let him out of prison to instruct Special Forces!
-
Originally posted by Toad
A left-hander firing from the right hip did that, eh?
Seriously, have any of you tried hipshooting a rifle at anything head/neck size and cranking out the rounds every 1.5 seconds?
The guy was obviously a rifle phenom. And learnt it all on an air rifle. Jeez, let him out of prison to instruct Special Forces!
If it takes US Special forces to hit a melon sized target at 2 metres from the hip every 2 seconds (remember , 1.5 is an ESTIMATE/GUESS) then your military is in serious trouble and expect Mexico and Canada to invade as we type.
-
Mexico is invading, they just cant afford weapons.
Canada also invades regularly, but just quick raids for cheap smokes & fuel. Then they go home
-
Ludicrous...pathletic and sad.....
Tronsky
-
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.
It seems hard to believe that such a guy could then fire over 200 rounds when under siege from behind cover and not hit a thing.
I doubt that many here could hit 2 melon sized targets at 12 feet that were moving sideways and up and down in any length of time with a 30 round mag. If you added lots of people on all sides screaming and panicking.... it would be worse not better.
bluedog.... I do not think that the people who were behind this massacre even thought that the gun bans would be this successful... I would say that in the world of incramentalim.... it was a HUGE victory. Gun control nuts from around the world about wet their panties over how you guys folded.... next to the U.S. you guys were the big kahouna... the prize.
now you are simply an example of what can be done by siezing the moment.....slow propoganda and billions of dollars over decades did not do a hundredth of what a massacre accomplishes.
We will see more and we will see more panic laws that increase government control.
lazs
-
I have no idea if any of this has been reported accurately but you'll win the bet lazs. Unless the guy was a highly skilled and talented shooter there's no way in hell he could have shot more than one or two people in the head from the hip. Even those would be extremely lucky shots for an average shooter. The only people that would believe otherwise are the ones that never tried shooting from the hip or at a moving target. Happens all the time and looks easy on TV though don't it?
I took a concealed handgun class a couple of years ago. During the instruction we were told that among Dallas cops involved in shootings, 85% of the first shots missed their targets. These folks are trained and practice regularly.
With all the conspiracy theories thrown around at the US it's kind of interesting to see others reactions.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Couldn't resist.... temptation too great...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=177130&highlight=million
ROFL!!! :rofl
-
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.
(http://images1.reviewcentre.com/sent-in/item95914.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
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 :noid 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/Toowoomba.htm)
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wendy Scurr thinks there should have been a coronial inquest (http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitness.html)
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..........
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
I heard the Yeti was spotted recently.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? ;)
-
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
-
The Aussies banned guns
The USA banned lawn darts
I'm not sure which is more retarded
J_A_B
-
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. ;)
-
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. "
-
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
-
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.
-
nashwan... a little missleading eh? no one positively identified him.. they said a man with long blond hair that looked like him... if a real trial were held they would not positively identify him...
You also misslead with the "he confessed to all of the murders" he did not until his "lawyer" and family and police and everyone badgered him into doing it and he pretty much laughed while "pleading guilty"
All I have seen for "evidence" is a bunch of government hacks all badgering a retard for weeks till they convince him to plead against his original statement and... to not go to trial.
and... the "mountains of evidence" seems to be down to a couple of unburned weapons that were in a fire so hot that it cooked off their ammo and... a video of some guy with long blond looking hair carrying a package too small to be any weapon used in the shootings.
now you claim that in 96 there was no interest in fair trials or getting at the truth like even 5 years later would have. You claim that books have been written about the event but are all by nutters.
Charles Manson and co did even less killing and were even more guilty but.... they went to trial and... a very good book was written "Helter Skelter" that laid out all the sequence of events and the evidence and..
They sold the living crap out of that book at a time even before you claim....that no one cared about killers.. I see the australians here all disagreeing with you about everyone thinking it is open and shut.
I don't see this "huge mound of evidence" you keep alluding to.. I have looked... hell... they won't even let the guy be interviewed...
I think that the reason that the only books that chronicle the events all make it look like a setup is because there is no evidence to the contrary.
I don't know if that is because the police and government did such a poor job and want to hide the fact or if it is because the guy is a patsy who was not alone in this... either way... would love to see an "helter Skelter" type book by someone trusted close to the case.
What would be the harm?
Like I said... give the profits to the families of the victims.
lazs