Society/Culture Australia's Most Evil Prisoners.

[Pie eyed]

To the challenged or blind like a few around here, yes.

Doesn't really matter whether individual posters want to look at what occurred or even have the capacity to think of the whole picture. Some stooges don't understand psychology, some have no empathy or varied enough life experiences, while some can't live their life without categorizing everything. Their opinions have merit, but reading some of this thread, they choose to be close minded and blatantly ignorant to what actually occurred at PA.

On a scale of 1-10, how much stock do you put in 60 minutes as a reliable, honest and accurate news source?

 

[Thats Wright]

On a scale of 1-10, how much stock do you put in 60 minutes as a reliable, honest and accurate news source?

Zero of course. I didn't even know this thread existed until searched after Sunday night. Reference was topical.

 

[Pie eyed]

Zero of course. I didn't even know this thread existed until searched after Sunday night. Reference was topical.

I read the transcript (can't watch those arseclowns they allege are journalists...Wooley...ROFL) and thought it strange that his Mum first claimed she believed he was not even in Port Arthur

because Martin always - when he was questioned, probably for weeks after, before I saw him again - he always said he was never in Port Arthur, at Broad Arrow.

citing witnesses who believed it was not him, and then later when asked;

"how would Maurice (Bryant's father) have possibly handled what happened a bit later?"

in relation to the PA murders had he not committed suicide she answers;

Well, I don't believe it would have happened.

Seems to me on one ahnd she thinks he is innocent and on the other if his father did not commit suicide he would not have committed the murders?


The other interesting thing being that despite the mention of witnesses who claimed Bryant was not there, none were interviewed or even asked for comment an the two surviving witness who where interviewed were never asked a single word about the possibility it was not the man they now know as Bryant?

Either incredibly sloppy journalism or ????

 

[BomberAce7]

David & Catherine Birnie are up there with the worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Catherine_Birnie

 

[Thats Wright]

I read the transcript (can't watch those arseclowns they allege are journalists...Wooley...ROFL) and thought it strange that his Mum first claimed she believed he was not even in Port Arthur
citing witnesses who believed it was not him, and then later when asked; in relation to the PA murders had he not committed suicide she answers;

Seems to me on one ahnd she thinks he is innocent and on the other if his father did not commit suicide he would not have committed the murders?


The other interesting thing being that despite the mention of witnesses who claimed Bryant was not there, none were interviewed or even asked for comment an the two surviving witness who where interviewed were never asked a single word about the possibility it was not the man they now know as Bryant?

Either incredibly sloppy journalism or ????

Who knows what channel 9's motives for airing the interview were. They were apparently the 'chosen' network at the time, could be as simple as slightly changing tact to add a different dimension to their previous integrity in the case. Would think his mother carries a fair bit of guilt, being railroaded by his lawyer to help make him plead guilty. Taking into account the climate at the time, was probably a reasonable call. Her references to breaking toys and the fathers death could also point to her suspicions he played a role at seascape, eg a shoot out in Seascape egged on by the trained second shooter (depending if the recordings of 'Jamie') were actually Bryant. The media seemed to have played a fairly big part in the case, including the apparent attempted gov order of touring 120 journalists through the site while the hostage situation was still in progress (drawing to an end), before the fire and a few hours after the fire truck had been called in. The horror associated with this case, from everything to type of wounds, weapon used, appearance of gunman, the kids, the siege, the fire was in the best interests of the public to be partially suppressed. The frenzied media would only have added to the psyop effect. Seems strange that an untrained gunman in an enclosed environment would aim for head shots only. Seems a very confident approach and the locked escape door would only have aided the gunmans management of the scene. The burnt state of Bryant which allowed his heavy sedation for weeks was an interesting aspect of the case. Is odd to receive burns to only your back and arse, when it probably would have been in the public's best interest if such a gunman was killed at the time. Is odd they were told to take such a killer alive. The whole thing is highly suspicious from accounts the gunman changed clothes 3 times, the gunman pleading innocent all the way through to the burns he had which in a way served as a type of immediate punishment, ability to sedate, change up normal proceedings, acceptance of his involvement and semi cover up of positive identification. Is a very strange case alround and for Bryant to have never gotten his case out, he's either a very simple person, guilty, or a combination of both.

 

[Subprime]

A witness to the PA massacre, Anne Francis, has spoken out against the 60 minutes story...

"I'm just one of probably very many people who are upset about it,'' she said.

"I'm angry at them for running that, and with the reporter saying he had a right to do that because he is Tasmanian.''

She also took issue with claims by Ms Bryant that her son didn't receive a fair trial.

Ms Francis said she and a number of other witnesses were asked to wait to identify the gunman in court.

"There are people who could identify him, but we have never been allowed to get into the court to do it,'' she said.

 

[Pie eyed]

Who knows what channel 9's motives for airing the interview were. They were apparently the 'chosen' network at the time, could be as simple as slightly changing tact to add a different dimension to their previous integrity in the case. Would think his mother carries a fair bit of guilt, being railroaded by his lawyer to help make him plead guilty. Taking into account the climate at the time, was probably a reasonable call. Her references to breaking toys and the fathers death could also point to her suspicions he played a role at seascape, eg a shoot out in Seascape egged on by the trained second shooter (depending if the recordings of 'Jamie') were actually Bryant. The media seemed to have played a fairly big part in the case, including the apparent attempted gov order of touring 120 journalists through the site while the hostage situation was still in progress (drawing to an end), before the fire and a few hours after the fire truck had been called in. The horror associated with this case, from everything to type of wounds, weapon used, appearance of gunman, the kids, the siege, the fire was in the best interests of the public to be partially suppressed. The frenzied media would only have added to the psyop effect. Seems strange that an untrained gunman in an enclosed environment would aim for head shots only. Seems a very confident approach and the locked escape door would only have aided the gunmans management of the scene. The burnt state of Bryant which allowed his heavy sedation for weeks was an interesting aspect of the case. Is odd to receive burns to only your back and arse, when it probably would have been in the public's best interest if such a gunman was killed at the time. Is odd they were told to take such a killer alive. The whole thing is highly suspicious from accounts the gunman changed clothes 3 times, the gunman pleading innocent all the way through to the burns he had which in a way served as a type of immediate punishment, ability to sedate, change up normal proceedings, acceptance of his involvement and semi cover up of positive identification. Is a very strange case alround and for Bryant to have never gotten his case out, he's either a very simple person, guilty, or a combination of both.

No doubt it appears that some unusual decisions were made during and after the events by all involved, but I would contend it was an extremely unusual situation for everyone involved.
It is always an easy matter to have a good idea of what you would have done and/or what somebody else would/should or could have done from the safety of a lounge-room.
We, now, are all looking at this from the perspective of any expected response now, something we take for granted, but which is in large part a response a result of the "lessons" of PA.
All those involved were making decisions based on what they were perceiving at the time, probably tainted by quite a bit of "off the scale" emotional distress.

 

[Slax]

I find it amazing that some people think that once you serve a non-parole period you should be released, Julian Knight got life with a minimum 27 years. If we still had capital punishment there is little doubt he would've been dead for at least two decades now, so why should someone like him or the others mentioned here be even have a right to apply to the courts for a release, hen in jail you forfeit rights and you should have to apply to take something to court through the system.

Knight is infamous inside prison and notorious outside. Narcissistic, he collects all stories that mention him and, according to one prison source, is "extremely concerned in his place in history". So much so that he keeps a record of the world's mass killers, noting his position on the list.
He remains fascinated by guns and the military. A prison source said: "He is perfectly well-behaved in here. If he was released he would love the attention, but once that died away what would happen then?"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-case-for-julian-knight-20140218-32yal.html#ixzz2tiBw7o1U

 

[telsor]

I find it amazing that some people think that once you serve a non-parole period you should be released, Julian Knight got life with a minimum 27 years. If we still had capital punishment there is little doubt he would've been dead for at least two decades now, so why should someone like him or the others mentioned here be even have a right to apply to the courts for a release, hen in jail you forfeit rights and you should have to apply to take something to court through the system.

If the theory is that the prison system reforms people, then there should be a possibility that, once reformed, a person can be released, whatever they did. Of course, for some, it would need some pretty serious changes.

I agree that *some* rights are forfeited by prisoners, but not all...They have the right not to have guards beat them up for example.

I'm not against the death penalty for extreme cases, but I'd say such cases must be beyond *any* doubt (stuff 'reasonable' doubt). I'd have the prosecutor who called for it and the judge who agreed to it up on manslaughter charges if proof later comes in that the executed person was innocent (and attempted manslaughter if he gets found innocent before his execution).

 

[Kim Chambers]

Robert Lowe would have to rate a mention. To sexually abuse an 8 year old girl and just leave her in a gutter dead would have to put him up there as the sleaziest. I'm also pretty sure that in 1978 when that girl went missing in Pascoe Vale he was a suspect, being a travelling salesman in the area at the time, as I was. In the area, but not a travelling salesman. Why is Bilal Skaf in this grouping? He's just a little Lebo weasel who is in need of a good thumping. Protection in prison because of his crime. He should be set on fire.

 

[Power Raid]

After reading their profiles I can't help think the judicial system has let down so many of the victims, their families and society at large.

How many girls must you rape and murder before you aren't given another chance?

 

[skilts]

Robert Lowe would have to rate a mention. To sexually abuse an 8 year old girl and just leave her in a gutter dead would have to put him up there as the sleaziest. I'm also pretty sure that in 1978 when that girl went missing in Pascoe Vale he was a suspect, being a travelling salesman in the area at the time, as I was. In the area, but not a travelling salesman. Why is Bilal Skaf in this grouping? He's just a little Lebo weasel who is in need of a good thumping. Protection in prison because of his crime. He should be set on fire.

It is splendid to see someone decrying violence by advocating its extra-judicial application.

 

[Kim Chambers]

Get out amongst things. The people you're defending are arseholes. We've done our best to make them welcome and their response is to basically laugh at us. You might find that ok, but I don't. Others don't either.

 

[skilts]

Get out amongst things. The people you're defending are arseholes. We've done our best to make them welcome and their response is to basically laugh at us. You might find that ok, but I don't. Others don't either.

I'm not defending anyone.

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

I know.. and the father too. They both think he is just a perfect little boy. Iirc his girlfriend -shudder- stuck by him during the trial, but finally came to her senses later on and dumped him. Being female myself, i sometimes wonder about those women who stay with those types of criminals. Just baffles me....

Well that's Shitslam for you

 

[MrCharisma]

Well that's Shitslam for you

Agreed, Bilal is an innocent victim of Islam, an otherwise good person.

 

[Kim Chambers]

Agreed, Bilal is an innocent victim of Islam, an otherwise good person.

I agree.

 

[skilts]

Get out amongst things. The people you're defending are arseholes. We've done our best to make them welcome and their response is to basically laugh at us. You might find that ok, but I don't. Others don't either.

Your area of expertise, apparently.