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

[rocker_oz33]

He was arrested at the ****ing scene of one of the murders, with a dead hostage in the boot of a car he had hijacked, after setting fire to a Servo, and with the murder weapons (registered to him) on his person.

Not sure if you've been keeping tabs, but within hours of mass killings, the perpetrator/ suspect is usually named.

There is literally zero odd about naming him. There was no Court suppression order in place, so they're going to name him.

The photo was in the front page of the ****ing papper and on ****ing TV.
Ages before is was send to jail by a ****ing judge..

Before an csi evidence aswell.

 

[Malifice]

I'm pointing out Bryant had to be persuaded by his lawyer to plead guilty

You're acting as if this is something strange. It's not.

His Lawyer told him to plead Guilty because the evidence was overwhelming against him.

• Scores of independent eyewitnesses.
• Caught at the scene of one of the murders, in a stolen car, with a dead hostage in the boot of the car, and in possession of the murder weapons (that were registered to him). All of which he admitted in the above taped Police interview.
• Video footage of his car parked at Port Arther (even though he denied being there).
• His duffle bag, with rope, zip ties and a hunting knife (with his DNA and the DNA of his first victim) left behind at the Cafe in Port Arthur where he began his shooting spree.
• His videotaped admission to the Police during the interview.
• His admissions to his psychologist that he committed the massacre.

Mate, what about that screams 'innocent' to you?

 

[Malifice]

The photo was in the front page of the ****ing papper and on ****ing TV.
Ages before is was send to jail by a ****ing judge..

Before an csi evidence aswell.

This happens routinely.

Here is the Christchurch shooter on the front page of the paper literally the day after the shooting:

 

[Malifice]

Run n Spread

If you (or anyone else) were to come into my office for legal advice, and if I'm dealing with a brief of evidence containing:

• Scores of independent eyewitnesses, naming you as the killer.
• You were caught at the scene of one of the murders, in a stolen car, with a dead hostage in the boot of the car (who you admit to killing), and in possession of the murder weapons (that were registered to you). All of which you admitted in a taped Police interview.
• Video footage of your car parked at the scene of the crime.
• A duffle bag, with rope, zip ties and a hunting knife (with both your DNA and the DNA of the first victim) all belonging to you, left behind at the scene of the murder.
• A videotaped admission to the Police during the interview.
• Admissions from you to your psychologist that you committed the massacre.

I'm doing everything in my power to persuade you to plead Guilty.

Unless I can somehow get all the above evidence excluded from the trial, no Judge or Jury in the world is going to acquit you.

It's entirely up to you of course, and I can only act on instructions (and in WA an offence of this nature would invoke mandatory whole of life sentence, so there is an argument for 'hit and hope' to be made, because either way you're going away for life) but come on mate.

He ****ing did it.

 

[rocker_oz33]

This happens routinely.

Here is the Christchurch shooter on the front page of the paper literally the day after the shooting:

View attachment 2333770

OK.

There's some about PA that's abit dodgy.

The government even months before joking unless there's a nass shooting the gun laws won't change.

The people who worked there said it happened differently than the mainstream story.

I'm not sticking up for Martin.
There's a part of this case noone is talking about.
What is it ?

 

[Malifice]

OK.

There's some about PA that's abit dodgy.

There is precisely zero about it that's dodgy.

 

[rocker_oz33]

There is precisely zero about it that's dodgy.

I disagree.

 

[Run n Spread]

There is precisely zero about it that's dodgy.

There is a heap that is dodgy.
Sure could very well be Martin Bryant is guilty but it doesn't exclude the fact dodgy stuff has gone on

 

[rocker_oz33]

Hmm. Would be standard to declare the house part of a crime scene under investigation.
Also who leaked the address?
Guessing the leaker would've had to have been connected to the police/response on the day. Not much known beyond that.

He had two houses .
A farm house and house I think in newtown in Hobart.

 

[Run n Spread]

Run n Spread

If you (or anyone else) were to come into my office for legal advice, and if I'm dealing with a brief of evidence containing:

• Scores of independent eyewitnesses, naming you as the killer.
• You were caught at the scene of one of the murders, in a stolen car, with a dead hostage in the boot of the car (who you admit to killing), and in possession of the murder weapons (that were registered to you). All of which you admitted in a taped Police interview.
• Video footage of your car parked at the scene of the crime.
• A duffle bag, with rope, zip ties and a hunting knife (with both your DNA and the DNA of the first victim) all belonging to you, left behind at the scene of the murder.
• A videotaped admission to the Police during the interview.
• Admissions from you to your psychologist that you committed the massacre.

I'm doing everything in my power to persuade you to plead Guilty.

Unless I can somehow get all the above evidence excluded from the trial, no Judge or Jury in the world is going to acquit you.

It's entirely up to you of course, and I can only act on instructions (and in WA an offence of this nature would invoke mandatory whole of life sentence, so there is an argument for 'hit and hope' to be made, because either way you're going away for life) but come on mate.

He ****ing did it.

1. Independent eyewitnesses including those who knew also said it wasn't him
2.Caught. He ran out of the burning building. Facts still need to be established.
3. Did he deny been there? Movements need to be established
4.Why was no DNA and finger prints taken from the food tray?
5 and 6. Admissions were made later. The video tape where he points and said me. He didn't seem to be coherent or know what was happening.
He should have had a lawyer and guardian present.
There was more than enough for the defence to at least ensure was processed correctly.
Avery even when interviewed years later had an uncomfortable zeal that it was his job to ensure he pleaded guilty no it wasn't.
That's the thing it is up to the defendant. Lawyer acts on instruction.
Shit Bryant even requested his lawyer and was told he knows about this don't worry?

 

[rocker_oz33]

There is a heap that is dodgy.
Sure could very well be Martin Bryant is guilty but it doesn't exclude the fact dodgy stuff has gone on

I agree.

 

[rocker_oz33]

1. Independent eyewitnesses including those who knew also said it wasn't him
2.Caught. He ran out of the burning building. Facts still need to be established.
3. Did he deny been there? Movements need to be established
4.Why was no DNA and finger prints taken from the food tray?
5 and 6. Admissions were made later. The video tape where he points and said me. He didn't seem to be coherent or know what was happening.
He should have had a lawyer and guardian present.
There was more than enough for the defence to at least ensure was processed correctly.
Avery even when interviewed years later had an uncomfortable zeal that it was his job to ensure he pleaded guilty no it wasn't.
That's the thing it is up to the defendant. Lawyer acts on instruction.
Shit Bryant even requested his lawyer and was told he knows about this don't worry?

 

[Malifice]

I disagree.

Dude.

• His lawyer persuading him to plead Guilty is NOT dodgy. It routinely happens (and would happen to you to, if you approached a lawyer facing a charge, and the evidence against you was overwhelming).
• His photo being released the next day is NOT dodgy. This literally happens in every single major crime where a suppression order has not been made by the Court.

He's an incel loser with violent sociopathic tendencies, a history of dealings with psychologists (who noted he was prone to violence, had thoughts of mass killings, and took joy in the suffering of others) who owned and was in possession of the firearms used at the killings at the time he was caught, and was caught at the scene of the final murders, with a dead hostage in the boot of the car he had stolen (all of which he freely admitted).

Scores of eyewitnesses said it was him. They gave an account of his appearance, what he said at the Cafe before committing the murders (he talked about 'a lot of Wasps about today') the fact he had a bag with him (the bag was also Bryant's, was found at the scene of the crime where the witnesses said it was, and had a hunting knife with the DNA of not only Bryant on it, but also of the Seascape victim on it, a man who Bryant had a grudge against, along with rope and zip ties).

He admitted committing the massacre to the Police in a taped interview, to his Psychologist (where he gave reasons for why he did it as well) and finally to the Court when he plead Guilty.

Do you have any reasonable doubt after all the above that he didnt do it? Why are scores of witnesses lying? How did his bag get there with his DNA on it (and the DNA of the dead due from Seascape)? How did some other killer, get his guns, shoot a lot of people, and then get his guns back to Bryant in time for the Police to catch him? Why did Bryant (seemingly for no reason whatsoever) hijack a car near Port Arther minutes after the shootings, take a hostage, murder the hostage who owned the car, and flee down the road, and undertake a siege?

Why - and how - did all of those things happen?

Watch the video for ****s sake. He's an idiot, and has diminished capacity, but he clearly knows he's done a terrible thing, is clearly lying about it to the Police (all of which evidences his ability to tell right from wrong).

He plead Guilty because he ****ing did it. His Lawyer is no Jedi, capable of getting him plead Guilty to an offence that carries an almost certain life sentence.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Dude.

• His lawyer persuading him to plead Guilty is NOT dodgy. It routinely happens (and would happen to you to, if you approached a lawyer facing a charge, and the evidence against you was overwhelming).
• His photo being released the next day is NOT dodgy. This literally happens in every single major crime where a suppression order has not been made by the Court.

He's an incel loser with violent sociopathic tendencies, a history of dealings with psychologists (who noted he was prone to violence, had thoughts of mass killings, and took joy in the suffering of others) who owned and was in possession of the firearms used at the killings at the time he was caught, and was caught at the scene of the final murders, with a dead hostage in the boot of the car he had stolen (all of which he freely admitted).

Scores of eyewitnesses said it was him. They gave an account of his appearance, what he said at the Cafe before committing the murders (he talked about 'a lot of Wasps about today') the fact he had a bag with him (the bag was also Bryant's, was found at the scene of the crime where the witnesses said it was, and had a hunting knife with the DNA of not only Bryant on it, but also of the Seascape victim on it, a man who Bryant had a grudge against, along with rope and zip ties).

He admitted committing the massacre to the Police in a taped interview, to his Psychologist (where he gave reasons for why he did it as well) and finally to the Court when he plead Guilty.

Watch the video for ****s sake. He's an idiot, and has diminished capacity, but he clearly knows he's done a terrible thing, is clearly lying about it to the Police (all of which evidences his ability to tell right from wrong).

He plead Guilty because he ****ing did it. His Lawyer is no Jedi, capable of getting him plead Guilty to an offence that carries an almost certain life sentence.

I'm not saying he didn't do it.

Parts of this case dont smell right.

We are not in a court room we are on BF.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It wasn't tested in court because he plead guilty. He admitted to the ****ing crime, because the evidence against him was overwhelming.

His low IQ and diminished mental capacity, his early plea of Guilty, and his young age.

They are all mitigatory in sentencing.

He pleaded guilty because a state appointed bent lawyer told him to. A lawyer actually acting in his interests would have said to him don't talk to the police as you are likely to incriminate yourself, which he did big time. Only talk to a defence-retained psychologist, with advice that the psychologist’s findings would only be disclosed if the defence choose to use the psychologist’s testimony in court.

A good lawyer would also advise that a guilty plea would not be mitigatory. Regardless of plea, if found guilty he was facing life imprisonment without parole. So even though the prosecution's case appeared to be strong he was entitled to the presumption of innocence and have the evidence tested in court. A guilty plea also removed the possibility of an appeal.

I'm not arguiing the ins and outs of whether Bryant was guilty. More about whether he received fair legal representation. Then there's the 75 year seal on the evidence. Then, just in the last week, the removal from public viewing of a presentation about the 75 year seal.

 

[rocker_oz33]

3 blokes standing on top of the Cafe after wards.One of them going though dead people pockets ...WTAF.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

I've already answered those questions, but I'll do it again.

Didn't catch those answers. I've gone back and read the thread again and can see now that you touched on #1 previously but I certainly didn't see you address #2.

1. I've yet to see any evidence about any 'sealing of evidence' on this matter. There was a video, but it apparently no longer exists.

OK, hopefully I can assist.

Martin Bryant’s crime was at the time the world's worst killing spree by a lone, civilian gunman. It horrified and changed Australia – and its gun laws – forever. And yet legal records of the crime were sealed and remain under lock and key after the Tasmanian government passed legislation to block the dissemination of information about Bryant.

Port Arthur massacre a story that must be told, not buried

There are still lessons to be learned about what happened in the lead up to that sunny Sunday in 1996, when Bryant walked into a tourist cafe and started shooting. A touted new film might help us learn them.

www.smh.com.au

It turns out that the records were sealed for 30 years initially but then another 75 years was ADDED to that making the total 105 years!!! 30 year sealing in 1996 and then in 2016 a 75 year extension was added.

The initial decision to seal these documents for 30 years, and the subsequent extension to an unprecedented 105 years in total, has created a situation where vital historical information remains inaccessible to researchers, historians, journalists, and the general public. This prolonged secrecy inevitably fuels speculation, erodes public trust in governmental processes, and hinders a comprehensive understanding of this tragic event and its aftermath.

**Subject: Formal Request for Public Access to Port Arthur Massacre Records** - a Freedom of Information request to Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office

I am writing to formally request access to and the complete public release of all archival materials held by your office pertaining to the Port Arthur Massacre. This request follows my separate communication to the Tasmanian Government Information Strategy Unit (GISU) advocating for the...

www.righttoknow.org.au

The fact that 800 witness statements were taken and only two identified Bryant as the gunman is cause for concern in itself. The fact that the records have been sealed for 30 years after the passing of special legislation and then that 30 years was substantially extended, seems even more so.

2. I don't exclusively practice in Family law.

Thanks for clarifying that. Can't see where else in the thread you did so.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Youtube video too. Will be interesting to see if this one also gets pulled. Talks about 35 tapes going missing.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

I'm pointing out Bryant had to be persuaded by his lawyer to plead guilty after a period of months

There's a post earlier in this thread where BlueE states that Avery told Bryant his mother was going to refuse to see him again unless he pled guilty. For someone with the mind of a child that would have been the tipping point.

 

[Malifice]

He pleaded guilty because a state appointed bent lawyer told him to.

Does that lawyer have Jedi powers to override Bryants mind?

Bryant plead Guilty because his lawyer told him the case against him was a slam dunk, and because Bryant was the ****ing killer.

A lawyer actually acting in his interests would have said to him don't talk to the police as you are likely to incriminate yourself.

He didnt have a lawyer when questioned (this isn't the USA) and the Police repeatedly told Bryant he was being videoed, and everything he was saying would be used in evidence (the Police here do that as well).

From the video of the interview, I've seen Bryant clearly understood this, as he was seen asking the police if the camera was still on after he confessed to the massacre.

That Bryant choose to incriminate himself by freely admitting to taking a hostage, murdering that hostage, owning the guns used in the massacre (that he had on him) and ultimately admitting to the massacre is on Bryant.

Only talk to a defence-retained psychologist, with advice that the psychologist’s findings would only be disclosed if the defence choose to use the psychologist’s testimony in court.

You cant do that.

Only Lawyers retain professional privilege in Australia. Things you say to your doctor or Psych are not covered by any protections.

Whatever Bryant chooses to tell a medical professional is discoverable and fair evidence.

A good lawyer would also advise that a guilty plea would not be mitigatory.

At the time it was indeed mitigatory to enter an early plea of guilty. Julian Knight in Victoria murdered several people and did not (at the time) get a whole of life order.

Coupled with his mental state and young age here was a very very slight possibility of a chance of parole.

I'm not arguiing the ins and outs of whether Bryant was guilty. More about whether he received fair legal representation.

What was unfair about it?

If Bryant instructed his lawyer to enter a plea of Not Guilty, and defend the charges, his Lawyer would have done that.

Bryant ultimately chose to enter a plea of Guilty (following his lawyer's advice). He didnt have to regardless of what his lawyer was saying.

Heck, as well as instructing his lawyer otherwise, he could have simply sacked his lawyer and sought different representation or represented himself.

 

[Malifice]

The fact that 800 witness statements were taken and only two identified Bryant as the gunman is cause for concern in itself.

Scores of witnesses identified Bryant as the Gunman.

Read the transcript I posted above. They're named.

Can you explain to me why:

• Several independent eyewitnesses, named him as the killer.
• He was caught at the scene of one of the murders, in a stolen car, with a dead hostage in the boot of the car (who he freely admitted to killing), and in possession of the murder weapons (that were registered to him).
• There is video footage of his car parked at the scene of the crime at Port Arther in the parking lot, despite him saying he stopped only for a chat at the toll booth and then left immediately.
• A duffle bag, with rope, zip ties and a hunting knife (with both his DNA and the DNA of the first victim, whom he had a grudge against and wanted to kill) all belonging to Bryant, were found at the scene of the murders in the Cafe.
• Numerous witnesses saw Bryant leave that bag there at the Cafe, then mention something about 'Wasps' before he began shooting everyone.
• Bryant confessed to the crime on a videotaped Police interview.
• Bryant confessed to the crime to his psychologist.
• Bryant confessed to the crime, by entering a plea of Guilty.

Lets just start with the hostage.

Why did Bryant, just down the road from Port Arthur and minutes after the attack, flag down a car, hijack it, take the driver hostage, murder the hostage with the exact same guns as used in the massacre, drive the car to a servo down the road, set the servo on fire, and admit all of this to the police?

 

[Frank Bunn]

It turns out that the records were sealed for 30 years initially but then another 75 years was ADDED to that making the total 105 years!!! 30 year sealing in 1996 and then in 2016 a 75 year extension was added.

The initial decision to seal these documents for 30 years, and the subsequent extension to an unprecedented 105 years in total, has created a situation where vital historical information remains inaccessible to researchers, historians, journalists, and the general public. This prolonged secrecy inevitably fuels speculation, erodes public trust in governmental processes, and hinders a comprehensive understanding of this tragic event and its aftermath.

Why would records be sealed for 105 years? The only other cases I can think of where records get sealed like that are related to matters of national security. eg The Petrov affair, the Hilton Hotel bombing, the Maralinga nuclear tests,
ASIO files on politicians including Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke.

If ASIO were somehow involved in the Port Arthur massacre they would want that kept quiet. What if they knew of Bryant's intentions but failed to prevent him going through with it? Intelligence services have been known to infiltrate, manipulate or even encourage potential offenders.

Counter-terrorism police encouraged an autistic 13-year-old boy, with an IQ of 71, in his fixation on Islamic State in an undercover operation after his parents sought help from the authorities.

How Australian undercover police ‘fed’ an autistic 13-year-old’s fixation with Islamic State

Court finds counter-terrorism unit’s conduct fell ‘profoundly short’ of minimum standards expected of law enforcement officers

www.theguardian.com

 

[Frank Bunn]

I've already answered those questions, but I'll do it again.

1. I've yet to see any evidence about any 'sealing of evidence' on this matter. There was a video, but it apparently no longer exists.

2. I don't exclusively practice in Family law.

1. What you said was that you would comment on the sealing when there was evidence for it. But you have remained willfully ignorant on the subject.

2. You did not already answer this question.

People can make all sorts of claims on the internet to bolster their argument - about their job or what degree they have. But fanciful anecdotes aside, lawyers are ethically bound to only take on matters they are competent to handle. A criminal law mattter should be handled by a criminal law specialist. This is reflected in legal aid panels having different lists, designed to give the public confidence that people who receive legal aid funding are represented by practitioners who are among those most suitable for their particular matter.