Prime Ministers say whatever they like to stir up public support, but they don't bypass the law in shooting massacre trials. Bryant was tried and convicted in a court of law to something like 1300 years in jail. You are uninformed, and spouting utter nonsense about something you clearly know nothing about. All you have to do is google for "Martin Bryant" FFS.
Prime Ministers say whatever they like to stir up public support, but they don't bypass the law in shooting massacre trials. Bryant was tried and convicted in a court of law to something like 1300 years in jail. You are uninformed, and spouting utter nonsense about something you clearly know nothing about. All you have to do is google for "Martin Bryant" FFS.
LSWCHP... much as I hate admiting I'm wrong, I am wrong. I do recall that prison sentence. But consider these ponts (not mine)...
by Malcolm R Hughes (criticising the evidence presented by government)
It is impossible for a left-handed person, who had not used a rifle right-handed previously to do what Martin has been accused of doing. The shooting to death of 12 and wounding of 10 in a matter of seconds, is impossible for anybody except a very small percentage of the population.
The shooter also fired from the hip, an art which would take years of practise to get the above efficiency, if that person also had rifle talent. Especially with the fact, that most wounds were head and neck wounds, they were not scattered shots.
In Mike Willesee’s video, Martin’s girlfriend of 8 months tells us that Martin was unable to read. However the drawings and “confession” that John Avery produces only had one spelling mistake, twice. That was when the word “to” was spelt “too”. (Sorry Avery, you will have to better than that.)
John Avery states that the evidence was overwhelming against Martin Bryant, when in fact the only evidence known is in Bryant’s favour. None of Bryant’s fingerprints or DNA was ever produced. Many of the witness statements are incorrect or vague. Those that make sense are to Bryant’s advantage. Such as those supplied by:
Jim Laycock, “I did not recognise the male as Martin Bryant”,
John Godfrey “In my opinion the picture I saw in the newspaper was not the same person”. (Remember the person in the newspaper was Martin Bryant.),
Graham Collyer “He looked like he might have a lot of acne. A pitted face.”
Roger Larner gave a statement that provided an alibi that Bryant was not at Port Arthur when the shooting started.
Rebecca McKenna gave a detailed description of the gunman, his entry, actions before the shootings, the meal he ordered, where he sat to eat and when he went back inside the cafe from the verandah. The description did not depict Martin Bryant, as it should not. He was not at Port Arthur.
Statements by each of those persons have the stamp DPP on them, so we know they were officially provided by police to the Department of Public Prosecutions.
Inspector Ross Payne attempted to coerce Terrance Hill, the gun dealer, into supplying a false statement regarding the sale of weapons to Martin Bryant. He procured John Avery to write an official letter to Terrence Hill threatening that the police would “push on and try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences…. However, it was made abundantly clear that the Director of Public Prosecution is prepared to offer you an indemnity against prosecution if you are prepared to accept that you did sell guns to Bryant.”
Being a law-abiding citizen Hill refused and thus lost his livelihood.
A copy of that blatant illegal tactic against Hill can be found in Keith Noble’s book online, Mass Murder.
The “uniform gun control laws” were drawn up by the Federal Government in June 1995, almost twelve months before there was a necessity for such drastic measures. Prior to the incident, Federal Government web site: (gun.law.gov.au/Guns/releases/releases.htm) gave out this very incriminating information.
“We will also be closely involved in the subsequent development of proposals for reform [to gun control laws], which is expected to commence in May 1996.”[Note, to commence in May 1996, the month following the planned Port Arthur Massacre of April 28, 1996.]
Somebody organised the fire department to be on site at Seascape before there was any hint of a fire. It was most likely an SOG officer who fired a phosphorus canister or such like, into Seascape early on Monday morning. The firefighters in attendance were prevented by police from dousing the flames until the fire was almost out. This allowed the destruction of evidence and the burning of bodies of the dead hostages. I think it was also intended to cause Martin’s death, but he staggered out with his back on fire.
Martin Bryant could not drive a manual-gear car, so it could not have been him killing the occupants of the BMW and then driving off with that car. According to his mother he had difficulty putting together leggo, so he definitely could not work out how to repair the broken down car of the two females outside the Port Arthur gates.
I am referring to a report made by two women. They also said “the person” sold them some marijuana but Martin was not a smoker of marijuana.
In the years after the event I wrote to any pertinent office of government including the Governor General. No one was interested.
Prime Ministers say whatever they like to stir up public support, but they don't bypass the law in shooting massacre trials. Bryant was tried and convicted in a court of law to something like 1300 years in jail. You are uninformed, and spouting utter nonsense about something you clearly know nothing about. All you have to do is google for "Martin Bryant" FFS.
And I'm unvaccinated, of course.
LSWCHP... much as I hate admiting I'm wrong, I am wrong. I do recall that prison sentence. But consider these ponts (not mine)...
by Malcolm R Hughes (criticising the evidence presented by government)
It is impossible for a left-handed person, who had not used a rifle right-handed previously to do what Martin has been accused of doing. The shooting to death of 12 and wounding of 10 in a matter of seconds, is impossible for anybody except a very small percentage of the population.
The shooter also fired from the hip, an art which would take years of practise to get the above efficiency, if that person also had rifle talent. Especially with the fact, that most wounds were head and neck wounds, they were not scattered shots.
In Mike Willesee’s video, Martin’s girlfriend of 8 months tells us that Martin was unable to read. However the drawings and “confession” that John Avery produces only had one spelling mistake, twice. That was when the word “to” was spelt “too”. (Sorry Avery, you will have to better than that.)
John Avery states that the evidence was overwhelming against Martin Bryant, when in fact the only evidence known is in Bryant’s favour. None of Bryant’s fingerprints or DNA was ever produced. Many of the witness statements are incorrect or vague. Those that make sense are to Bryant’s advantage. Such as those supplied by:
Jim Laycock, “I did not recognise the male as Martin Bryant”,
John Godfrey “In my opinion the picture I saw in the newspaper was not the same person”. (Remember the person in the newspaper was Martin Bryant.),
Graham Collyer “He looked like he might have a lot of acne. A pitted face.”
Roger Larner gave a statement that provided an alibi that Bryant was not at Port Arthur when the shooting started.
Rebecca McKenna gave a detailed description of the gunman, his entry, actions before the shootings, the meal he ordered, where he sat to eat and when he went back inside the cafe from the verandah. The description did not depict Martin Bryant, as it should not. He was not at Port Arthur.
Statements by each of those persons have the stamp DPP on them, so we know they were officially provided by police to the Department of Public Prosecutions.
Inspector Ross Payne attempted to coerce Terrance Hill, the gun dealer, into supplying a false statement regarding the sale of weapons to Martin Bryant. He procured John Avery to write an official letter to Terrence Hill threatening that the police would “push on and try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences…. However, it was made abundantly clear that the Director of Public Prosecution is prepared to offer you an indemnity against prosecution if you are prepared to accept that you did sell guns to Bryant.”
Being a law-abiding citizen Hill refused and thus lost his livelihood.
A copy of that blatant illegal tactic against Hill can be found in Keith Noble’s book online, Mass Murder.
The “uniform gun control laws” were drawn up by the Federal Government in June 1995, almost twelve months before there was a necessity for such drastic measures. Prior to the incident, Federal Government web site: (gun.law.gov.au/Guns/releases/releases.htm) gave out this very incriminating information.
“We will also be closely involved in the subsequent development of proposals for reform [to gun control laws], which is expected to commence in May 1996.”[Note, to commence in May 1996, the month following the planned Port Arthur Massacre of April 28, 1996.]
Somebody organised the fire department to be on site at Seascape before there was any hint of a fire. It was most likely an SOG officer who fired a phosphorus canister or such like, into Seascape early on Monday morning. The firefighters in attendance were prevented by police from dousing the flames until the fire was almost out. This allowed the destruction of evidence and the burning of bodies of the dead hostages. I think it was also intended to cause Martin’s death, but he staggered out with his back on fire.
Martin Bryant could not drive a manual-gear car, so it could not have been him killing the occupants of the BMW and then driving off with that car. According to his mother he had difficulty putting together leggo, so he definitely could not work out how to repair the broken down car of the two females outside the Port Arthur gates.
I am referring to a report made by two women. They also said “the person” sold them some marijuana but Martin was not a smoker of marijuana.
In the years after the event I wrote to any pertinent office of government including the Governor General. No one was interested.