Port Arthur Massacre

See also this website: Shooter's News - Port Arthur Massacre (Opens in a new Window)

Note: The Cristian Family is a non violent family and we do not condone guns.

LATEST NEWS:

Lawyers tight-lipped on John Avery's status

Wednesday, 3 May 2006. 18:19 (AEDT)Wednesday, 3 May 2006. 17:19 (ACST)Wednesday, 3 May 2006. 17:19 (AEST) Wednesday, 3 May 2006. 18:19 (ACDT)Wednesday, 3 May 2006. 15:19 (AWST)

Tasmania's legal establishment has thrown a cloak of secrecy over the professional status of high-profile Hobart lawyer John Avery. Mr Avery, 57, achieved national notoriety when he represented Port Arthur mass murderer Martin Bryant in 1996. He was Bryant's second lawyer and oversaw the killer's guilty plea. Last month he caused legal eyebrows to rise when he publicly revealed details of his interviews with Bryant.

The Tasmanian Law Society would only confirm Mr Avery had ceased practising and his legal partnership at Moonah had been dissolved. An after-hours hearing concerning Mr Avery was held in Justice Alan Blow's chambers in the Supreme Court on Monday. The court is releasing no details about why the hearing was held, who initiated it or the outcome.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Port Arthur Coverup
By Ian McNiven
Information About The Deception & Coverup At Port Arthur
Email: editor @ shootersnews.addr.com
You can contact the Website Media Spokesman where this information came from
Ian McNiven. Phone International (0011 61) 428 186 103 or Local: 0428 186 103

Forward By Ian McNiven

The Editor of the Shooters News has given me the honor of writing the forward to this important freedom website. The so called Port Arthur massacre, which we were told was carried out by the "lone nut gun man", Martin Bryant, was used to implement National Gun Laws in Australia. Law abiding gun owners were vilified, demonised and treated like potential mass murderers by the controlled Australian Media, in an attempt to create a mind set of collective guilt for Port Arthur. The vast majority of Australian Gun Owners rejected this program of mass psychological control and kept their guns. This created about 3 million "armed criminals" in Australia. Unfortunately for the two conservative parties in Australia ( Liberal and National ) who brought in the Gun Laws, all these people and their families still vote. This has brought about the political destruction of those two parties and ushered in a period of political instability in Australia, unparalleled in its history.

Thanks to the efforts of a growing band of courageous investigators, a body of powerful, irrefutable evidence, gleaned from government documents and eye witness reports has been collected. This evidence indicates that the Port Arthur Massacre was conceived, planned , carried out and covered up by persons unknown, with the assistance of some elements of the Australian Government, Media, Police, Army and Intelligence Community. If we accept that the Port Arthur Massacre was a planned act to disarm the Australian people and we accept that Waco and Oklahoma City fall into the same category, it is evidence that powerful forces of evil are at work on this planet. If those forces are allowed to seize global control, it will bring a period of trauma for the Freedom Loving People of Earth that will make the holocaust look like a Sunday School picnic. I am talking about the elimination of all persons on this planet deemed to be surplus to requirements. If you think this a bit far fetched cast your mind back into recent history. Russia, under Stalin, 20 million dead, China under Mao, 80 million dead to name but two. Those of you who read this and are inclined to join us in the coming struggle should understand that it will not be easy and that your efforts may not be crowned with glory. I have included this poem which I have renamed "The Patriots Lament" to help you with that understanding.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be,
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced, nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloodied, but not unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me unaffraid.
It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

I close this forward with the simple advice that I gave the assembled patriots at the famous Gympie Gun Meeting.

DON’T GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM, BECAUSE SOME DAY YOU MAY WANT IT BACK.
IF YOU WANT IT BACK YOU WILL HAVE TO BUY IT BACK.
YOU CAN ONLY BUY IT BACK WITH THE MOST EXPENSIVE CURRENCY IN THE WORLD.
THE ONLY CURRENCY THAT YOU CAN BUY YOUR FREEDOM BACK WITH IS BLOOD

------------------------------

Editors Note: Ian was the main voice of dissent allowed on National TV following the May 1996 Gun Grab annouced by John Howard. All will recall his memorable comments at that GYMPIE meeting which received so much media attention. Ian and other patriots like Ron Owen ( left ) were instrumental in ensuring that this fraudulent act of deception at Port Arthur was going to be exposed as their rally calls to the freedom movement have been decisive in ensuring the issue was not going to be forgotten or go away.

-------------------------------

CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF A COVER UP - Facts That Prove A Fraud At Port Arthur

See this webpage for the photos stated in this section http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpaproof.html

The CONCLUSIVE PROOF Martin Bryant was NOT the Port Arthur gunman is demonstrated in the the 2 frames below. The distinct difference in the hair is clearly apparent. On the left is poor old Martin Bryant taken as he arrived at Hobart Hospital in a dazed state with burns to his back and side the day after the incident. On the right is the Port Arthur gunman as filmed by a tourist at Port Arthur Historic Site.

You will note straight, thin, long strand wig like yellow hair of the gunman as opposed to the thick, curley, shorter and almost white come grey hair of Martin Bryant. Bryant's hair is almost like a messy birds nest (like an old style mop you would use to mop the kitchen floor), while the gunman's is strand like - like your average supermodel would have - and yellow (more clearer in the picture below far right and at the bottom of this webpage) - almost as yellow as the Volvo itself. The short curley strands of hair seen on Bryant are nowhere to be seen on the gunman. Many witnessess in fact were struck by the gunman's gold coloured hair.

Even the newspapers who published Bryant's picture the day after the massacre (above left and centre) show his hair as bleached WHITE - sometimes with a dark tinge (above right) - probably because it needed a wash. It is certainly not yellow or gold and was not at the time of his capture.

These images support the conclusion we formed in 2001 when comparing a picture of Martin Bryant taken on 25th April 1996 - 3 days before the massacre - by his girlfriend Petra. Note the LENGTH of his hair - just an inch above shoulder length and somewhat CURLEY. The gunman's hair is long and straight and was swaying in the breeze and hanging down more describable as having a very slight WAVE. It is doubtful Bryant's hair could have "flowed in the breeze" like some witnesses described the gunman's and the image below shows. See Joyce Maloney's Statement http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpagoldhair.html

Martin Bryant on 25th April 1996 LEFT.
Port Arthur Gunman RIGHT on 28th April 1996 with gold yellow hair.

Refer the LOOKALIKE page for more information
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalookalike.html

Needless to say it would be an absurdity to suggest Martin Bryant put his hair in curlers the night of the Seascape seige so he'd look nice for his capture the following day or so people wouldn't think it was him who did the shooting at Port Arthur that afternoon.

So poor old Marty was clearly the idiot they thought they'd found to pin the massacre on and fortunately Marty was more resilient than they thought because he survived the fire at Seascape
(caused by exploding a incendury device of accelerant fuel while he was lying drugged on the floor) which was not only to destroy all the evidence of the others who had been there but to get rid of him as well so the case would be cleanly closed. It was for this reason why things belonging to Marty and linked to Seascape were carefully dropped at Port Arthur Historic Site via the notorious sports bags (see webpage latest news http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalatest.html) deception detailed on this website and in the yellow Volvo left behind at the tollgate (they included the video camera, its bag, his passport, the keys to Seascape and a knife containing the owner of Seascape's blood).

All of this is a disgrace to Tasmania. This website, like most ordinary Australians, takes a dim view of all this particularly what they tried to do to Marty particularly as it was solely to achieve some sort of ideological agenda against firearms and to vilify their owners. Not also forgetting those who were killed and wounded and their families and the trauma caused to others.

Marty, who was one of Tasmania's most disadvantaged sons ( being mentally handicapped ), was used and abused and attempted murder of him. It is for this reason this website exists to right the wrong a bring all those involved to justice. That and the 35 murdered, 22 wounded and many others traumatized - and shooters vilified and defrauded as a result and the whole nation and world hoodwinked.

Based on the above photographic proof we call for Marty's immediate release from custody at Risdon Prison, a full pardon, and given proper compensation for what has been done to him. And this website would also add we would have more than happy to let Marty have any firearm he wants as part of the compensation package.

Other interesting difference for the observant is the fact the gunman's head with the yellow wig ( left ) seems to be disproportionately long vertically to his body - not clearly matching Bryant's ( above left ) - and possibly indicating the gunman may have either had his own hair under the wig or something else ( like the communications equipment ).

NB - the above images of the gunman next to the yellow Volvo have lost their original resolution and we have not be able to get the picture colours in some images exactly right and they appear under their true colour level so we have shown below the true colour of the Volvo - bright canary yellow - so you can compare and appreciate the fact just how yellow the gunman's hair in fact was. It in fact corresponds more to ( and confirms ) the image on the far right below where the colours are reasonably accurate. Bryant's hair was a bleached white not the gold of the gunman. This also confirms the witnesses who said the hair was a striking gold colour were right. The level of sunlight on the day will explain why the hue differs and it appear this gold wig lost some of its gold shine and appears yellow when the sun went under a cloud or the light level thru the clouds changed.

Shootersnews would like to thank Ray Martin from A Current Affair for his assistance in exposing the fraud at Port Arthur.

-----------------------------------

GET THE LATEST NEWS

http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalatest.html

------------------------------------

WHAT HAPPENED AT PORT ARTHUR - Details a Coverup At Port Arthur

On Sunday 28th April 1996 it is alleged Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people and injured 20 others at Port Arthur in the State of Tasmania, Australia using military type semi-automatic rifles. It was the biggest massacre alleged to have been done by a "lone gunman".

Bryant, an intellectually impaired 29 year old, pleaded not guilty for months to the murders until pressure was brought to bear by his lawyer and he eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes. There was no confession by Bryant - in fact at the time of his first police interrogation he strongly and repeatedly denied the accusation.

Immediately following this in what appeared at the time was a knee-jerk reaction under threats from the Federal Government through Prime Minister John Howard all Australian States banned the private possession and use of semi-automatic rifles and implemented the wishlist that gun control groups had been pushing for 10 years.

Since then details have surfaced arising from people who were there on the day and grieved relatives of victims being unsatisfied about the investigation and prosecution of Bryant. There are too many inconsistencies, irregularities and unanswered questions about the incident that raises questions whether Bryant was the murderer and has been framed and whether Tasmanian Police and Governemt Officials were involved ( and whether the whole purpose of this incident was to create an excuse for national gun laws banning semi-automatic firearms and requiring gun registration on the pretext a "lone gunman" did it all himself ). This website attempts to detail what those things are in the public interest.

-------------------------------

Introduction and Credits - Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur

Documents on this website have in the main come from work done by Andrew MacGregor and his associates described in information below. Those wanting more details are asked to buy the CD-ROM Andrew & Stewart Beattie have done on the incident at the address below. It contains a vast amount of other material and analysis of it - 500 megabytes worth ( too much to put on any website ) including numerous videos taken by witnesses there on the day. ( Note : The operator of this website does not receive any commissions etc... in relation to this CD-ROM ).

This website's purpose is to draw people's attention to the main inconsistencies of this incident in the public interest. Commentary text on this site is the editor's and may not necessarily cover what others have expressed and is based on what has been obtained and or reported to this site and content expressed herein are what is believed to be the case. All copies of articles, documents, photographs, audio recordings etc... on this site are made available for viewers for educational purposes.

CD-ROM Price A$20 ( GST & Postage Included ) Overseas US$20 from -

Port Arthur Unmasked
PO Box 516
Narrandera
NSW 2700 Australia

Make money orders payable to "Stewart Beattie".

---------------------------

Unanswered Questions About Port Arthur - Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur

What Was Alleged Martin Bryant Did That Day & Things That Happened Up To His Sentencing:

Before looking at the unanswered questions one needs to be aware of what it is alleged Bryant did that day. The exact details can be found on the DPP's Case Court Transcript page on this site - below is a summary:-

The case against Martin Bryant alleged he killed Mr. & Mrs. Martin at Seascape Cottage Guesthouse sometime before 12.40pm then travelled south 6km to see a Mr.Larner then proceeded into the Port Arthur Historic Site and after an argument with the parking attendant went to the Broad Arrow Cafe and bought lunch. He sat having lunch inside then went outside to finish it. At 1.30pm he then went back inside the Cafe and opened fire with a COLT M16 CAR .223 Cal. Rifle killing 25 people in 90 seconds then left the Cafe shooting at people in and around the car park killing and wounding more - during that time he switched guns to an FN SLR .308 Rifle . He then is alleged to have driven his yellow Volvo out of the site shooting people along the way and at the tollbooth. He then abandons his car and transfers some of his implements to a BMW which belonged to his victims at the tollgate ( he leaves behind the keys to Seascape, cans of petrol and a Daewoo Shotgun and ammo ) . He then stops at the service station up the road shooting more people and takes a hostage who is forced into the boot of the BMW. The BMW then proceeds at high speed 6 km north to Seascape where he stops and shoots at cars on the highway injuring more people. He then takes his hostage inside Seascape and sets fire to the BMW. The time is now around 2pm. Local police wait in a ditch for several hours while shots are fired from Seascape. After dark Special Operations Group Police arrive at Seascape. During the night police talk on the phone to someone identified as "Jamie" at Seascape. Many shots are fired from Seascape during the night but nobody outside is hit.. At 7.45am the following morning Seascape errupts in smoke on fire. At 8.40am Martin Bryant -clothes on fire emerges from the rear of Seascape staggering and unarmed and is apprehended by police with TV News cameras rolling. Bryant remains in hospital isolated for several weeks. He denies committing the shootings to police when interviewed. He pleads not guilty for months. His first lawyer is removed in unclear circumstances and his second lawyer gets him ( reportedly under pressure ) to later plead guilty ( thereby avoiding then requirement for a proper jury trial and scrutiny of evidence ). Bryant's isolation continues to this day with his relatives being refused access to see him.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Below is a summary of the main unanswered questions about the incident in sequence of their happening under topic headings. Some of these points are covered in more detail on other pages on this site. Many more questions are raised on the CD-ROM referred to on the Introduction and Credits page.

PRELUDE

New South Wales Premier Barrie Unsworth said in 1987 "There will not be any change to gun laws until there is a massacre in Tasmania" following the a meeting of the States failing agree on uniforn national gun laws. ( Was this setting the stage ? )

Despite repeated refusal by the States to go down this path why were National Uniform Gun Laws all prepared and ready in Dec 1995 to go to an upcoming meeting of State and Federal Police Ministers due sometme around the time Port Arthur occurred ?

Why did Tasmanian Premier Ray Groom in an unprecedented move resign on 18th March 1996 as Premier ( just 2 weeks after Howard wins 1996 Federal Election ) and take over all Tasmanian portfolios that would have anything to do with a massacre at Port Arthur - Minister for Justice, Attorney General, Tourism ( including the Port Arthur Historic Site ), and Workplace Safety ? Tony Rundle an ex journalist takes his place as Premier.

Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies made shortly before Port Arthur ?

THE MARTIN'S AT SEASCAPE

Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin's - owners of the Seascape ?

How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house only 20 metres away ?

Why is the evidence of the guests who stayed at Seascape overnight inconsistent with that of other witnesses regards the presence of a yellow Volvo before noon ? Were there 2 yellow Volvo's and Bryant being emulated in order to make him the patsy for this incident ?

BROAD ARROW CAFÉ

Why would Bryant want to shoot so many people he did not know - MOTIVE ?

Why was a management work seminar scheduled that Sunday for staff of the Port Arthur Site - only one ever held and none held since - for that day and why was it held at a location 2 hours drive away ? .Was it to get key staff away ? And isn't it also a coincidence it was scheduled for almost the exact time the shooting began - 1pm.

Why was the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to investigate a phoney drug tip-off ( heroin in a bottle which turned out to be soap-powder ) in the most distant part of his police district ( only one ever recorded ) shortly before the shootings started ? And was that diversion also to prevent him from closing the drawbridge to the mainland which would have bottled up the gunman ? And isn't it another incredible coincidence that only 4 minutes after they reported by radio arriving at their destination that the shooting started in the Cafe ?

Why did that caller ring the local police and not dial 000 ( 911 ) - was it was because 000 number is recorded ?

How could Bryant, an unskilled person of low intellect, kill 25 people in the café by head shots and wound numerous others fired from the hip in 90 seconds ?

Why did senior Tasmanian Police keep police away from Port Arthur for as long as possible - 6 hours - when police headquarters was only an hour's drive away ? Was it to allow the crime scene to get messed up ? And why did they let only the small handful Special Operation Group personnel into the Seascape site ?

Why was the Café's emergency exit door that jammed faulty ? Was it deliberately tampered with ? And why did it reportedly go missing after the incident - was it switched ?

THE ROAD TO SEASCAPE

Why was the yellow Volvo left behind with ammo etc… in it at the Tollgate ? Why change cars and at where it was done ? Was it to leave something of Bryant's there at the Port Arthur crime scene ?

Why take a hostage at the Service Station ? Put a man in boot ? Why not just kill him as he had been doing since it started ? Was it to keep police at bay at Seascape under seize standoff conditions until night fell ? Why would he do that or was it to allow other to escape in the cover of darkness ?

SEASCAPE

Why was a trail of destruction led to Seascape ?

Why would Bryant set fire to the BMW ? Was it done by the real gunman to destroy fingerprint and other evidence ? Or was it to create a beacon to attract police ?

Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on the roof of Seascape with a gun ?

Why did so many shots fired from Seascape that night hit nothing given Bryant was claimed to be a crack shot ?

Why did Seascape ignite that morning like an incendiary bomb had gone off ? And why did it happen that morning and not in the dark ? Was it to destroy all evidence inside including making an examination of the bodies those dead inside difficult - in terms of determining time of death ? Why would Bryant want to do that ?

Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded lite such a fire - it would only serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured ? Why would police lite one knowing hostages were inside ?

Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant was grabbed police knowing hostages were inside ? Seascape was only smoking when he was grabbed.

Why did Bryant stagger from Seascape as if drugged and the burns only to the back of his body if lying down ? Was it the fire that woke him up after being drugged by the real gunman and his helpers ?

AFTERMATH

Why was there no positive ID of Bryant done by police by lineup or mug shots as required by law ? Why hasn't anyone identified him positively ?

Why were there no fingerprints found on - the sports bag - the guns - the surfboard ?

Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service, which had a special Chevy Morg Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies which was used at Port Arthur, sell it shortly afterwards - and why would they need such a truck of that capacity - for a State where on average there are 6 murders per year and not all occurring at the same day, place and time ? Why did the operator of the service recently publically criticise Cafe witness Wendy Scurr in a letter to a newspaper for querying this unusual vehicle and its history ?

Why was Bryant's hands and face uninjured when his Colt M16 CAR rifle was found which blew a cartridge in the breech and exploded making it unoperative ?

Why were 2 sports bags found when witnesses said the gunman had only one ?

Were the guns found at Seascape really Bryant's and were they really the ones used on the day ?

Why was the COLT CAR rifle missing the pistol grip and why was the FN's barrel bent and had parts missing from it when recovered from Seascape, and those parts never found ? And how could the COLT - a plastic gun - survive a fire intact ?

Why were police, the media, Justice Minister Ray Groom etc… saying the people in the café were all shot within 90 seconds when witnesses there claim it was between 5 to 6 minutes - why the reduction of the time ? Was it to justify the rapidfire aspect of the guns for a ban ?

Why was the Broad Arrow Café bulldozed so quickly - was it to destroy evidence of what really took place there - like a second gunman backing up the main gunman ?

How did the media know it was Bryant before he was arrested at 8.40 am that Monday morning ? How could the Hobart Mercury know it was him for their morning print run for that day done much earlier than 8.40 am ? The man on the phone's name was "Jamie".

Who doctored video footage of a running man adding the soundtrack of shots from another video and presented this as Bryant ( prior to his trial ) which was also used at his trial as evidence which was shown on Channel 9's Ray Martin Current Affair Program ? Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was a TV Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it the DDP or the Tasmanian Police ?

Why has there been no Coroner's Inquest ? This is something totally unprecedented.

THE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Why did Bryant persistently state under questioning he did not go to Port Arthur that day and did not shoot anyone ?

Why did Bryant plead not guilty for months ? Why would someone do that if he knew he could be identified ? Why was he isolated for months and his mother refused access ?

Why was Bryant's first lawyer removed ? Who removed him ? Why did he only plead guilty after pressure from his new lawyer ?

Why was Hobart gun dealer, Terry Hill, who was alleged to have sold the weapons to Bryant was dragged into court over it and the minute he started wanting to get Bryant and other witnesses into court to testify the action was dropped - as if authorities didn't want any scrutiny of the evidence ?

Also - why did the Tasmanian Police and DPP try to get Terry Hill to admit he sold him the guns by offering immunity ( the guns Bryant said he never owned ).

Why did the DPP censor and edit out so many pages of Bryant's taped police interview ? And how could the recording equipment for that interview breakdown ?

Why have the Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC and other people associated with the case been promoted ?

POLITICAL REACTION - NATIONAL GUN LAWS

Why did Prime Minister John Howard in the say "some firearm owners were going to have to make sacrifices" when annoucing the National Gun Laws he imposed.

Why did John Howard also decide and declare a coronor's inquest into Port Arthur be denied - when it is not his responsibility or jurisdiction to do so ? What was John trying to hide ? Was he trying to protect some of his mates in the Tasmanian and Federal Liberal Party who were involved - Ray Groom perhaps ?

Why did Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer after the imposition of the Howard imposed gun laws following Port Arthur say: "This is all about removing guns from urban areas".

--------------------------

COURT TRANSCRIPTS

This is the court transcript of Martin Bryant's sentencing. It occurred after Bryant suddenly changed his plea to guilty after pleading not guilty for months. A witness present ( former nurse ) when he changed the plea said he looked sick as if in a drugged state. When he was pleading not guilty on previous occassions he was not in that state. It raises the question whether authorities drugged Bryant to have him plead guilty so no trial and proper scrutiny of evidence would occurr. The same questions arise in relation to Bryant's answers to questions when being assessed by psychiatrists when in custody and isolation.

A careful examination of this court transcript when facts and statements of witnesses are cross referenced reveals all the lies and deception put before the court by the DPP. See attachment for this transcript called 19th Day Of November 1996.html.

---------------------------

SEVERE PROBLEMS WITH THE DDP's CASE

What is below is not the complete list of inconsistencies in the Tasmanian DPP's case against Martin Bryant but some of the main ones. These alone are sufficient to call into question the whole case against Bryant. They are referenced from the DPP's case which is on this website - see the court transcript link.

The DPP's allegation against Bryant was that sometime " between 11.45am and 12.30pm on Sunday 28 April 1996 he shot and killed the Martin's " at the Seascape Cottage ( then proceeded to Port Arthur etc... ). NOTE THOSE TIMES.

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.

Apart from this Mrs. Martin was never shot - an autopsy showed she had been bludgeoned by a blow to the skull. So the DDP's claim she had been shot is totally false. Mr. Martin had in fact been stabbed and shot but which caused the death is unclear - so he could have died of a stab wound. The forensics also reveal Mr.Martin had been bound and gagged - something Bryant would have to have done as well as keeping an eye on Mrs. Martin - could it be done ? Additionally why gag Mr. Martin at all if the plan was to kill him ?

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.

The point about all this is THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN THE DPP'S OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE which also CONFLICT. How could errors like this slip by ? THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE ERRORS and they raise serious questions about the whole case and investigation. As a result the Supreme Court was lied to by the DPP's counsel. NB : These sort of discrepancies go on and on and on in this case. There are so many of such significance a diligent DPP would seriously question whether they had the right man.

UPDATE - Proof of many of the points cited above appears on this webpage - DPP Tampers & Withholds Evidence From Court: http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadpplies.html

Ex Policeman Andrew MacGregor on the CD-ROM details far more irregularities than are mentioned above.

----------------------------

DPP TAMPERS WITH AND WITHHOLDS EVIDENCE

At the sentencing hearing for Martin Bryant Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC told the Court the following:- Refer Court Transcript at Page 62--63 (Transcript 19th November 1996.doc)

"There were two interesting observations made late in the morning and at about midday by two people who reside in the area, one Mr. Simmons, heard at about 11 a.m. two shots. He knew the Martins well and he knew on that day that it was Mr Martin’s birthday. Further down towards Port Arthur and near the boat ramp a Mr Doug McCutcheon heard a series of rapidly fired shots and his best estimate of the time of that was about twelve o’clock to twelve thirty. He estimated that the calibre of the rifle used was larger than .22. He has some experience with firearms and some sensitivity about it, being involved in the operation of a fish farm. He claimed that whenever gun shots went off in the district he was blamed for shooting seals. But he estimated that in that volley of shots there would have been six, at the most twelve shots. Later in the day he heard further shooting when Bryant was in Port Arthur. In that late morning how many shots were fired and precisely when is difficult to determine but these two residents heard shooting on that day in the pre-lunch period and the Crown case is that Bryant shot Mr. And Mrs. Martin at about that time."

What is wrong with this is that the claim that shots were heard by Mr. McCutcheon about 12.00 to 12.30pm is a lie. McCutcheon heard the shots between 10.00am and 11.00am. Refer to attached McCutcheon Statement.doc.

The question must be asked why did the DDP change this ? Was it to rule out any suggestion someone else killed the Martin's between 10am and 11am well before Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape ? It would appear so because right after this lie the DDP went on to say:

"Tourists to Tasmania at the time, Donald and Stephanie Gunn, had spent the night at “The Seascape”. They departed at about 11.15 to 11.20 a.m. and at that time David and Sally Martin were in residence, all the other guests had departed, the Gunns stayed chatting to Mr. & Mrs. Martin and then later when they departed they noted that both of the Martins were engaged in chores about “The Seascape”, so at about 11.20 a.m. the Crown case is that Mr. & Mrs. Martin were at the premises on their own. "

These 2 witnesses claim everything was fine at Seascape until around 11.15am when they left. But what needs explaining is the fact that the Gunn's do not mention the gunshots that the other 2 witnesses said occurred before 11.00am eminating from Seascape when they would have been there. This raises a question mark regards their presence at Seascape ( timing of their departure ).

The key point is NOBODY heard shots at Seascape between 11.45am and 12.40pm when the DPP alleged Martin Bryant was there and shot and killed the Martins. McCutcheon who was 500 metres away would have heard them but he says they occurred between 10am and 11am. It is unlikely McCutcheon could be 2 hours out in his timing. And witness Mr. A Simmons, who lived opposite Seascape and was watching the clock because he was waiting for a ride, also heard shots between 10.45am and 11.00am WELL BEFORE BRYANT ARRIVED. Refer to attached Simmons Statement.doc.
(The DDP alleged he arrived after 11.20am, yet other evidence indicates Bryant never got there until 12.20pm).

If the only shots* fired that morning were just before 11.00am then it is a substantial alibi for Martin Bryant in respect of the allegation he killed the Martins of Seascape. These 2 witnesses statements are reinforced by the fact Martin Bryant was witnessed being up to 58 kilometres to the north of Seascape when the shots were heard.

This is because Bryant was witnessed at the Midway Point Newsagency between 10.30am and 11.00am. Refer Kessarios Statement.doc. Another witness saw him around the same time frame
(11am) at the Shell Service Station at Forcett where Bryant spent 8 to 10 mintues having a cup of coffee. Refer King Statement.doc. That would put Bryant leaving Forcett at 11.08am at the earliest. Shots had been heard at Seascape, 58km away, some 20 to 30 minutes earlier. Martin Bryant cannot be at 2 places at one time. NONE OF THIS WAS DISCLOSED TO THE COURT BY THE DPP.

It is further necessary to state this website believes it is in fact more likely the timing by the Gunn's is inncorrect. If they in fact left earlier than they said - at 10.15am to 10.20am - it would fit. There is however another question mark in relation to the Gunn's - namely that that the DPP told the Court they were "Tourists to Tasmania" when it fact they lived somewhere in North Hobart. The fact remains nobody living near to Seascape heard shots between 11.45am and 12.40pm.

It is also important to note while DDP Bugg told this whopper to the Court Martin Bryant's second lawyer, John Avery, the man who allegedly pursuaded him to plead guilty, sat back and did nothing to correct this false statement - or point out the true facts which give Martin Bryant an ALIBI in respect of the Martins' murders - and thereby also cast extreme doubt about what else went on that day at the Port Arthur Historic Site - namely that he acted alone.

Here we have not one but two pieces of critical evidence that gives Martin Bryant an alibi - one the timing of shots being heard much earlier and the other a failure to disclose Bryant whereabouts at that time - not being put to the Court. WHY ? This site calls on the Tasmanian DDP's Office and Bugg to explain why Mr McCutcheon's evidence was altered before the Court in such a manner as to remove any notion Martin Bryant was in fact elsewhere at the time events were occurring at Seascape.

This is a clear case of not only TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE but also WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE that was clearly related to each other - the circumstances of which combined indicates a conspiracy by the DPP to pervert the course of justice because that evidence would have established Martin Bryant to be innocent.

Full credit should go to Andrew MacGregor for discovering the above irregularities in the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*NB: the shots heard appear to be 2 different sets. Simmons was standing on the highway waiting for a car to pick him up and Seascape was in viewing distance a short distance way. He heard 2 muffled shots which he described as being like from a .22 rifle which this site believes were high velocity shots being fired from inside Seascape which were the ones that killed David Martin. This occurred before 11am and more specifically around 10.40am. These shots were too faint for McCutcheon, who lived 500 metres away, to hear. Simmons then got his ride and left just before 11.00am.

After he left there was a second batch of shots fired outside where this site believes the real gunman was test firing the 2 rifles outside Seascape to check them. These were the rifles that were used at Port Arthur Historic Site later that day. Those are the 6 to 12 rapid fire shots McCutcheon heard, and Simmons didn't hear because he had left the area. Martin Bryant, the bunny for what was about to happen that day, was somewhere between Midway Point and Forcett when all these shots were being fired.

-----------------------------

THE MORGUE TRUCK

One of the strangest co-incidences about the Port Arthur incident is the fact the Tasmanian authorities had at their disposal a special refrigerated morgue truck capable of carrying 22 bodies. ( A picture of this truck is below ).

Why this is strange derives from 4 facts. The State of Tasmania had prior to the incident on average 6 murders per year - and they did not all occur on the same day, place or time - that works out to one murder every 2 months - so why would such a truck be needed ? No other State in Australia had one like it. These facts are compounded by the fact the truck was acquired and specially built shortly before ( June 1995 ) the Port Arthur massacre and sold 2 years later ( see fax copy of advertisement offering for sale below ) .

The Coroner in his initial report ( see copy below ) mentions this morgue truck and says how timely it was having one like this available calling it a "highly prized possession".

Was it built especially for the massacre to control access to the bodies from the Broad Arrow Cafe ? .

Why was this truck, acquired at great expense, sold ? Had its use been fulfilled and they knew it would never be needed again ?

Also isn't it a strange co-incidence the number of dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe closely matches the capacity of this morgue truck ?

And why did Tasmanian Police usher away media reporters from this truck on the day ?

Update 8th May 2001 - The latest info reported to this site on this morgue truck is the owner was unable to sell it and 6 weeks ago the mortuary box on the back was removed and put on a Mercedes Army truck - then both vehicles disappeared. That was just after the details of this morgue truck were publically disclosed by the investigator at a public meeting in Queensland. What was an Army truck doing with it ? And isn't the timing of its disappearance strange - trying to hide something ? Is there an Army connection to what happened at Port Arthur ?

Update 31 Dec 2001 - We have had it positively confirmed the morgue truck was constructed around June 1995 - just in time to be up and running and not attract immediate suspicion prior to the massacre.
See Also Coroner's Responsibility at Port Arthur http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpamorgtruck.html for photos and articles on the Morgue Truck.

---------------------------------

THE WORK SEMINAR

One of the most convenient things about Sunday 28th April 1996 at the Port Arthur Historic Site is the fact senior staff of the site were sent on a Work Seminar 2 hours drive to the mainland. The staff circular flyer notifying staff is below.

What is strange about this is the fact it is the only one ever held and there have been none since. In addition it was to be held on a Sunday, not a weekday - and was not held in the area but on the mainland 2 hours drive away at Swansea.

What strikes you about this notice is the flowery almost nonsensical purpose of this seminar - woffle like. Additionally the notice says this is part of a series of workshops - but why were no more held ?

Also the time for this Workshop to start was around lunchtime - 1pm - the time when the shootings started in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Another co-incidence ? Observation - that would be the time of day when the site and Cafe was at its fullest.

Was the purpose of this seminar to get senior staff out of the area for that time of day so their skill and knowledge could not interfere with the gunman's rampage and also to ensure they did not come to harm ?

If so how could Martin Bryant have arranged this ?

---------------------------

LURED AWAY

Many people will wonder where were the local police at Port Arthur when the shooting started ? Answer - they had been lured away from the area.

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. The drive from Saltwater to Port Arthur is a minimum of 30 mins. The mass murder lasted only 17 minutes from start to finish. ( Above passage by Joe Vialls ).

The "heroin" turned out to be soap powder in glass bottles.

Was this anonymous caller linked to the gunman at Port Arthur and designed to send local police away to the furthest point on the pennisula at the time the shooting was planned to start ?

If so how could Martin Bryant have done this ? Did he have a police radio so he could know when the local police had arrived at their destination ? Was he that clever and cunning ? If so why was there no police radio or scanner found ?

Given Martin Bryant was later assessed by psychiatrists as being in the lowest 2 percent of the population in terms of intellect how and when did this flash of brillance occurr ?

---------------------------------

THE TRAUMA SEMINAR

It is not a surprising coincidence given what you have seen on this site so far is to find out there was another work seminar being held that weekend at ROYAL HOBART HOSPITAL for medical staff.

This seminar's topic was 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. Another co-incidence ?

Was the purpose of this seminar to enable those wounded to be patched up as quickly as possible and enable grizzly scenes of wounded people arriving at hospital to be available for the world's media ?

How could could Martin Bryant have arranged for this seminar to have been held this day ? And if it wasn't him who did ? Does then AMA President Dr.Keith Woollard, or Dr. Brendon Nelson who suddenly switched from the ALP to the Liberal Party just prior to the 1996 Federal Election ( both medicos with anti-gun views ) know the answer to this question ?

The story does not stop here - the next coincidence is Emergency Services just happened to have a disaster exercise the previous weekend at Hobart Airport. And prior to that one on the same pennisula as Port Arthur. An amazing number of coincidences.

--------------------------------

THE EMERGENCY PLAN

Just a week before the Port Arthur Massacre Royal Hobart Hospital had finalized an Emergency Disaster Plan and it had been given to staff on the the Friday before the massacre - just 2 days beforehand. Refer article about it below.

Another amazing coincidence. In fact there are so many coincidences about Port Arthur that its surprising it hasn't made it into the Guiness Book Of Records for setting a record for the number of coincidences ( this site has no objection to anyone nominating it to Guiness - and we are positive if they checked things out they would find all these coincidences add to to one thing - proof of a fraud ).

The article goes on to say shortly afterwards they used feedback from the massacre to evaluate their emergency procedures.

How could Martin Bryant have set all this in motion one must ask ?

All of this material indicates quite clearly the Port Arthur Massacre was not only pre-planned with the assistance of Tasmanian authorities, but it was also being used to test and evaluate disaster response by emergency services. The subsequent EMA report clearly sets all this out in detail.

Editors Comment - all of this cold calculated evidence is a national disgrace - to think not only Tasmanian authorities were in on the massacre but were also going to use it for evaluation of their emergency procedures shows a total disregard for common decency and proper standards of government.

See also Special Report One Year On http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpaemergplan.html

------------------------------

BROAD ARROW CAFE AND CARPARK - THE BRYANT LOOKALIKE

The shooting and massacre at Port Arthur Historic Site started moments after a man with long blond hair walked into the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying either 1 or 2 sports bags. One of those bags contained personal effects of Martin Bryant - including his bulky video camera. The question must be asked why would Bryant take those things into the cafe if he planned a massacre, or was it someone else trying to incriminate him ?

Photographic analysis of the gunman who was filmed in the carpark after he left the cafe proves it was not Martin Bryant but someone else wearing a wig made up to look like Martin Bryant.

The two photos below tell the truth of the Cafe gunman. On the left is a picture Martin Bryant taken on 25th April 1996 - 3 days before the massacre. Note the LENGTH of his hair - just an inch above shoulder length and somewhat CURLEY. On the right is a frame from one of the tourist videos taken on the 28th April of the gunman in the carpark - note that the hair length exceeds the shoulders and the gunman has the overcoat collar up to hide the hair length and that the hair is STRAIGHT, not curley. This particular frame on the video came at point when either a breeze blew the hair on left side out from under the overcoat's collar or was the result of the gunman's own movements - irrespective of which you can clearly see the hair length exceeds the shoulder. The ease of movement of the gunman's hair indicates it is a WIG. More frames from that video are below which demonstrate more how straight the gunman's hair is and how the overcoat's collar was used to try and hide its length.

Go to this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant and video shots of gunmen
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snparealgunman.html

In the frame on the right above you can see, if you look closely, how the hair just falls verticle as the gunman leans over - as strands of a wig would. The left frame shows even more strikingly how the collar was up to try and hide the deception of identity. All this indicates the gunman's head is likely to have been clean shaven which accounts for the ease of sway of this wig.

All of this creates a reasonable doubt as to whether Bryant was the gunman at the Port Arthur Historic Site.

On top of this there is no evidence proving Martin Bryant as being the gunman at the Port Arthur Historic Site that day - that he was physically there. Nor is there any evidence known to be left by the real gunman proving it wasn't Bryant but someone else - that raises the question why not ? The answer lies in the meticulous planning of the people involved in this operation who ensured the real gunman was not going to leave anything but a trail of circumstantial evidence pointing at, but not proving, Martin Bryant being there.

------------------------------------

VICTIM DESCRIBES CAFE GUNMAN

Graham Collyer was in the Broad Arrow Cafe at sometime around 12.30pm and eyewitnessed the gunman enter the cafe carrying a long sports bag. Later Graham was shot in the throat by the gunman and was one of the few people to see him and live to tell about it. His statement BELOW gives us an accurate description of the gunman (this is page 2 of a 4 page statement and the most relevant page). See attachment Collyer Statement.doc.

What is of particular note here is the description of the hair length - "He had long blonde bedraggled hair 3 -4 ( inches* ) below the shoulder". This corroborates the photographic evidence on this website about the long hair below shoulder length Martin Bryant did not have. (* The video evidence - right - indicates it was inches not centimetres).

Also of note is Collyer's assessment of the gunman's age and face - 20 years and a pitted acne scarred face. MARTIN BRYANT WAS 29 AT THE TIME and had an unblemished face - see picture left.
(Collyer, who was an experienced former military man, is unlikely to have misjudged the age of the gunman).

Of further note is the fact at the time he made his statement on 7th May 1996 ( a week after the massacre and still fresh in his mind ) he was in hospital and had not seen any media reports of Martin Bryant that had been deliberately allowed to be plastered everywhere and had interfered with many other witnesses recollections.

Another unexplained irregularity is Collyer was recovering in Hobart Hospital only metres away from where Martin Bryant was also recovering from the burns he suffered in the Seascape fire yet Collyer was never asked to go round and identify him. Why was that ? Did someone not want him to say "It wasn't him" ?

Go to this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant and video shots of gunmen
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpacollyer.html

-----------------------------

GUN OWNER TRIED TO SHOOT GUNMAN

Port Arthur Storekeeper Colin TRIFFETT tried to shoot* the Port Arthur gunman when he was at the service station but ammunition storage laws requiring it to be keep locked up separate from the gun prevented him from doing so. If he had managed to do so more carnage would have been prevented. Refer his statement on page 2.

Colin, who saw the gunman shooting at the tollbooth and pull up at the service station, reached for his .22 rifle but the ammunition was locked in the safe and by the time he had got the rifle loaded the gunman had left.

This is a classic example of how gun storage laws prevent saving life and property.

After leaving the area the gunman shot up numerous people along the highway.

This is another fact that didn't come out at the time which was highly relevant to the ensuing gun debate.

This website believes Mr. Triffett should have been given a bravery award for his efforts - given he was facing a man armed with a much more powerful gun and had the odds against him.

(* The fact Triffett attempted to confront the gunman by going outside indicates he was prepared to use the rifle - ie shoot the gunman if need be - and there is nothing wrong with that - its what police do all the time).

Go to this webpage for a copy of Mr Triffett's Statement
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpagunowner.html

Of course if Colin had been successful and killed the gunman, who wasn't Martin Bryant, there would have been an attempt to switch the identities to Martin Bryant who was at Seascape during the gunman's rampage. Bryant would have been killed there and Tasmanian authorities would have switched them.

----------------------------------

SEASCAPE - THE NAKED WOMEN

Tasmanian Police Constable Garry Whittle was one of the two local police stationed on the pennisula who eventually arrived at the Port Arthur area crime scene following their having been decoyed to a phoney drug tipoff which took them out of harms way at the exact moment the shooting began at Port Arthur. He and his collegue Constable Hyland finally arrived at Seascape Cottage after following the well laid out trail of destruction along the highway sometime around 2pm. Whittle's statement to the DPP afterwards details what went on.

What is of note is his statement of seeing a NAKED WOMAN running around outside Seascape while shots were being fired at them. A copy of his statement is below.

What is significant about this as follows -

Firstly, WHO was this person - woman - running around naked while shooting was going on ? And where did she get to ? Why hasn't she come forward and made a statement to police and talked to the media about her experiences that day ?

Secondly, this fact was not disclosed in the media reports following the incident ( despite all the other high level detail that were given out to the media ) and the question must be asked WHY not ? Is there something to hide about this ?

Thirdly, this fact totally contradicts the DPP's case against Martin Bryant there there was only him at Seascape, and possibly a male hostage, at that time. The DPP alleged he killed the Martin's, who owned Seascape, several hours earlier before he drove to the Port Arthir Historic Site.

Forthly, why would someone run around naked while a seige and shooting was going on ? Did that person not run away because she feared getting shot by the gunman ? Why was she yelling and screaming ?

Fifthly, WHY didn't the DPP mention this fact when summing up the events of that day at Bryant's sentencing given that an enormous amount of detail was given in it - especially as this was a police witness who saw it ? ( Refer that summing up on this website - court transcript page ).

This website believes this naked woman was Mrs Martin who was not killed when the DPP claims but had somehow got loose from her captors and was trying to escape but realized she would get shot if she ran out into the gunmans field of view. It appears she was either recaptured or went inside again and ended up being bashed with a rifle butt in the head which explains the injury on her body found later. Only one female body was found in the ashes of Seascape which was hers. This is the only sensible conclusion one can arrive at. If this is the case - that it was her running around sometime that afternoon - the DPP's case against Bryant fails.

Go to this webpage for a copy of Constable Gary Whittle's Statement
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpanaked.html

This is just another example of relevant facts of this incident - facts that point to something else having happened that doesnt support the official line - being hidden and the question must be asked WHY ?

-------------------------------

BRYANT: "...THEY WEREN'T KILLED ?"...

Taped phone calls with Martin Bryant at Seascape that night with Tasmanian Police Negotiator Sgt. Terry McCarthy reveal Bryant didn't know what had happened at Port Arthur that day.

During the course of those calls when told about the shootings at Port Arthur Bryant asked if anybody was hurt and when told yes he said in a genuinely concerned voice "they weren't killed ?".

THESE ARE NOT THE WORDS OF SOMEONE WHO KNEW WHAT HAD HAPPENED THERE THAT DAY.

Even Terry McCarthy remarked Bryant's demeanour was not that of what he should have been for someone who had shot 55 people. He described those conversations as bizzare.

The complete transcript of that conversation is below. You can download audio copy in mp3 format
(requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/werentkilled.zip ), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/werentkilled.mp3 - requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx... ).

This is because Bryant had never left Seascape and had not done anything that afternoon. This is why they came over to McCarthy as bizzare.

Later in hospital Bryant was told by staff more details of what had happened at Port Arthur which he recounted in a police interview by saying he had "been informed" and hadn't shot anyone.

Furthermore ALL OF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS PLEA OF NOT GULTY in later Court proceedings.

Bryant's involvement in this incident, based on the evidence available, indicates he was recruited by others into playing a role in the operation which involved him dropping off his car at Seascape, him staying there, him manning the phone while others fired shots from the windows, and saying silly things on the phone which would be consistent with his role. This is all he did and it is quite clear he was totally unaware he was going to be the bunny for it all. Bryant was most likely told it was pretend play acting out for a training exercise and he naively decided to help out. This is the best explanation that fits. ( And for everyone's benefit this website knows this was an exercise in part by SAC-PAV - wherein they created a real massacre and then had emergency services respond to it and later sat back an evaluated the response ).

But Bryant's words to McCarthy clearly indicates he had no idea what was planned for that afternoon. You can see also in the transcript Bryant's prior asking for a helicopter that McCarthy refers to and he's trying to establish if there is a connection between it and the shootings and Bryant's response is "no no they're not at all". Again Bryant in saying that indicates he didn't know what had happened at Port Arthur ( and was saying things on the phone he was told to say - like ask for a helicopter and call himself Jamie ).

All of this reinforces the other evidence he was not the gunman who shot people in the Broad Arrow Cafe, carpark, tollgate and outside Seascape that afternoon.

TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE SEGMENT:

Jamie: Yeah what what went on at Port Arthur?
McCarthy: Well I was hoping that you might be able to tell me a little bit about what happened at Port Arthur you being down there.
Jamie: Was there anyone hurt?
McCarthy: Well, I understand there’s been er er a number of people hurt at Port Arthur.
Jamie: Oh they weren’t killed?
McCarthy: Well, I don’t know what, I don’t know the full details I know that er er somebody’s been shooting at people down at Port Arthur and er in the mean time ah we’ve also encountered the problem that we have with you, you sort of er want a helicopter and all these things and we’re trying to establish whether
Jamie: Em
McCarthy: that’s er you know the same incidents are related in any way
Jamie: No no they’re not at all.
McCarthy: They’re not.

--------------------------------

"HE'S GOING TO SHOOT YOUR MAIN MAN!"

During the course of the night at Seascape (where Martin Bryant was undeniably there) in his telephone communications with Tasmanian Police Negotiator Terry McCarthy, Bryant (who was calling himself "Jamie"), told McCarthy he wanted a police sniper with an infra-red scope who was apparently closing in to move on because "he’s going to shoot your main man!"

To who was Jamie referring ? Who was "your main man" ?

Jamie's terminology indicates there was another person there with him and he had something to do with Tasmanian Police and that that person was involved in the incident that day otherwise why would he be calling him the "main man" and be a snipers target ?

The remark indicates also Jamie was relaying the information so they would not shoot their own people.

Was this "main man" the real gunman who did the shooting that day ?

This indicates Bryant believed he was playing some role in the events of that day - probably either through manipulation or mind control - but it is unlikely he had agreed or realized he was the fall guy for this operation. That is evidenced by him pleading not guilty for months afterwards and being seen to be in a sick looking state when he finally did.

Note - it is the belief of this website that Bryant was involved in what happened that day - but was not the killer and was being manipulated by others not really understanding what was going on around him. This is the only logical conclusion based on all the evidence available at this time.

Following the main man comment Bryant says "I'll blow this...." which indicates also he was aware at the time he was acting out some part in the seige play they were running that night. (If a SOG sniper had shot the "main man" and Bryant was still on the phone afterwards it would have proven Bryant was not acting alone (how would thay explain another body at Seascape and how could a dead body do the remainder of the things they had planned for that night and following morning at Seascape such as the fire ?) and as a result the whole deception being laid out at Seascape of a lone gunman would be blown - which is what he was referring to.).

The question remains WHO was this "main man" and because he was their "man" is that how he was allowed to slip out the back of Seascape in the dark that night and disappear along with any others who may have been there ? (No other bodies were found at Seascape apart from the Martins and the hostage). Is this why Seascape had to be burnt down - to destroy any trace of others being there and what they had with them ? And is this the main reason why Tasmanian and Federal Authorities don't want a Coroner's Inquest held into this incident - that the existance of and the identity of their "main man" might be discovered and all the others involved ?

The complete transcript of that conversation is below. You can download audio copy in mp3 format
(requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/jamie.zip), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/jamie.mp3) - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx...

McCarthy: Jamie?
Gunman: Okay. Hello. How are you?
McCarthy: I’m very well thanks Jamie. Yourself?
Gunman: Well, I’m well up to now. The past few 20 seconds. What I’ve actually found out man, is that one of your boys is right outside, northeast I’d say, with an infra-red scope. Would you just ask him to move on?
McCarthy: Right, we’ll do that, we’ll do that now.
Gunman: Cause he’s going to shoot, he’s trying to shoot, he’s going to shoot your main man!
McCarthy: No, I can guarantee.
Gunman: I’ll blow this, umm these you know, you know what’s going to happen.
McCarthy: I don’t want to see anyone hurt, alright,
Gunman: You just move him on.
McCarthy: Okay, I’m organising that now. I can also assure you that it’s not our intention to hurt you or see anybody else hurt, okay.
Gunman: Really.

--------------------------------

SEASCAPE - PROOF OF A SECOND GUNMAN

When the gunman arrived at Seascape somewhere around 2pm that afternoon Martin Bryant was alleged to have been shooting at police from Seascape and continued to do so throughout the night. Police did not shoot at him at any time that night. Inbetween this alleged shooting Bryant was on the phone to Tasmanian Police Negotiator Sgt. Terry McCarthy. Bryant ( who was calling himself "Jamie" ), talked to McCarthy about the hostages and various other things in a somewhat confused state on and off that night for several hours..

During the course of one of those conversations, sometime after 6.20pm, Bryant was recorded talking to McCarthy WHEN A SHOT IS HEARD ON TAPE in the background that was fired nearby - from one of the buildings at Seascape. It is impossible to have been Bryant firing it otherwise the blast would have deafened the phone. Also his voice cuts over it indicating the same. A copy of that recording can be downloaded below.

WHO FIRED THAT SHOT is the queston that needs answering.

This shot PROVES there was a SECOND GUNMAN at Seascape that night.

This also backs up Bryant's later statement warning McCarthy they were going to shoot their "main man" if a SOG Sniper did not back off.

Remember it is the whole DPP's case that Martin Bryant acted alone and nobody else was involved - the lone gunman claim. Well that notion has just been blown out of the water.

Was this shot the real gunman firing at police from the other building as was seen by those outside and agrees with other witness claims of at least another person being at Seascape ?

You can all hear it on the audio download below taken off Channel Nine's A CURRENT AFFAIR program with Mike Munro's voice talking to Terry McCarthy afterwards - and the segment with Bryant. The shot is heard in the background after Bryant says: ".....I'm making up some sandwiches....." - coming from nearby ( at the 35 seconds into the MP3 download ). The shot is most likely to have come from another room of the main Seascape building Bryant was located in - upstairs perhaps - but one thing is clear it did not originate from the room Bryant was in.

Download audio copy in mp3 format ( 400KB requires unzipping ). OR

You can download audio copy in mp3 format (requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/proof.zip), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/proof.mp3) - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx...

The complete video of this audio segment is on the CD ROM.

Go to this webpage for a photo of Seascape
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpasecondgunman.html

You can see from this picture of the main building at Seascape ( taken before the incident ) the type of building it is - wooden with tin roof. It is likely that the gunman shooting at police outside was firing from upstairs as downstairs, where the phone was located, is too low to get a field of visibilty of the surrounding area because the building was on downward sloping ground. The shot on the tape is consistent in tone with the muffling effect a wooden structure like this would produce if heard from downstairs.

NOTE: This site has not found any evidence Martin Bryant was even the first gunman - the one who shot the people in or outside the Broad Arrow Cafe in the Port Arthur Historic Site - in fact this site has evidence the gunman there was not him. There is however evidence there may have been two persons shooting from Seascape at one point but whether or not Bryant let off a few rounds into the bush that night is unclear. Accordingly the term "second gunman" used in this webpage relates to what happened solely at Seascape - that there was someone else there shooting.

------------------------------

SA POLICE JOURNAL ARTICLE MARCH 1997

Go To South Australian Police Journal March 1997 Article -
See attachment below SA Police Journal Feature Story March 1997.doc

This article from the SA Police Journal in 1997 contains several things that backup the other material on this site that there was a second highly trained gunman there with Bryant:

That it was noted there it appeared there were TWO SUSPECTS, TWO GUNMEN and SHOTS COMING FROM TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS according to Superintendent Barry Bennett.

That Superintendent Bob Fielding noted they thought the gunman had SOME SORT OF LINE VISION DEVICE. "Every time there was a slight movement in the area he was able to identify and indicate roughly the vicinity of where the SOG advancement and other people were".

All of this is consistent with someone with extremely sophisticated equipment ( not readily available to the public ) being at Seascape and explains how Bryant was able to relay to McCarthy that night that he knew SOG snipers were closing in and about to shoot their "main man". The question must be asked where would Bryant have got such radar like equipment with infra-red capabilities and what happened to it ? Did this "main man" supply this equipment and slip away with it out the back of Seascape in the early hours of the following morning ?

UPDATE 12 October 2001 - it is interesting to find the webpage to the SA Police article has been deleted by the SA Police Association off the internet - however a copy of it has been saved on our website as we suspected as part of the Port Arthur Coverup it wouldn't stay there for long - the above link takes you to that copy. Its original URL was http://www.pasa.asn.au/journalfeature9703.htm. The question must be asked is what have the South Australian Police Association got to hide on this topic ?

--------------------------

SEASCAPE - MOVEMENT OF OCCUPANTS

What is another point of note in his more detailed statement ( apart from seeing a naked woman running around outside Seascape while shots were being fired at them ) is his account of how he and Allen managed to crawl out of the drainage culvert they had been pinned down in since that afternoon with the assistance of 2 SOG members who provided them "with protection and information about the MOVEMENTS OF OCCUPANTS of Seascape" at 10.30pm that night. A copy of his statement is below - refer second last paragraph.

This indicates there was more than one person at Seascape moving around that night.

It also indicates 2 SOG members knew there was more than one person inside Seascape and those persons were moving around.

All of this totally contradicts the fact the DDP's case nobody was involved in the seige but Martin Bryant.

According to the DPP the Martin's were dead - had been murdered that sometime around noon so these occupants couldn't be them. Additionally the hostage taken at the service station, Glen Pears, was later found handcuffed hand and foot and it is absurd to suggest he was moving around loose while Bryant was shooting. Similarly it would be silly to suggest the naked woman observed by Whittle was still running around Seascape and it would pose the threat to those outside. There is only one alternative left - was the "occupants" moving around the "main man" ( and his collegues ) Bryant referred to on the phone ?

What is significant about this statement is because -

Firstly, this confirms other evidence that there was more than one person at Seascape moving around - (1) the shot on the tape proving someone else was shooting from the house, (2) the reference to a "main man", and (3) shots coming from 2 buildings.

Thirdly, this fact totally contradicts the DPP's case against Martin Bryant there there was only him at Seascape involved in the seige at that time. It is clearly implied from this statement the occupants and their movements inside Seascape represented a threat to those outside.

Forthly, WHY didn't the DPP mention this fact when summing up the events of that day at Bryant's sentencing given that an enormous amount of detail was given in it - especially as this was a police witness who saw it ? ( Refer that summing up on this website - court transcript page ).

This website believes this statement about more than one occupant of Seascape moving around late that night not only confirms the fact Bryant was not there alone, but also proves Tasmanian SOG members were aware of this fact given Whittle says the information came from them. These other occupants must have had something to do with the seige that was going on and were not hostages. This is the only sensible conclusion one can arrive at. If this is the case - that more than one person had been at Seascape moving around - the DPP's case against Bryant - that he acted alone - fails.

Note also at the bottom of the first paragraph Whittle says the gunman firing from Seascape had a NIGHT VISION DEVICE. This confirms other statements about such equipment. This was because shots were being fired close to them in the pitch dark of that evening as they tried to retreat from the drainage culvert at some distance from Seascape - unless the gunman had such a device attached to a gun such shooting would have been impossible. Such devices are not available to the public - you don't pick them up at your local KMART or Gun Store and it is likely they are a restricted import - normally only those in the military and police services have access to them. So the question arises where would Martin Bryant have got such a device and what happened to it because there wasn't one found on the 2 rifles found in intact condition ?

Go to this webpage for Proof of Evidence from Constable Gary Thomas Whittle
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpaoccupants.html

Again this is just another example of relevant facts of this incident - facts that point to something else having happened that doesnt support the official line - being hidden and the question must be asked WHY ?

-------------------------------

THE FIRETRUCKS AND THE FIRE

One of the most unusual things about the incident is the fact the FIRETRUCKS were prevented from putting out the fire at Seascape until Seascape was burnt to the ground.

Why this is questionable is because at the time Martin Byrant was captured outside ( unarmed in a dazed state clothes on fire ) Seascape Guesthouse was still intact and only smoke coming out of it ( see colour picture below ) yet police believed the gunman had possibly 3 hostages inside. Surely in such circumstances they would have sent the fire engines in as fast as they could to try and save any hostages inside that were alive. But no police kept the firetrucks back.

You can see below in the black and white picture the fire trucks and the state Seascape was in - burnt to the ground - smoldering ( Source: Australian Federal Police Journal Dec 1998 ).

Was this to ensure all evidence inside Seascape was destroyed - including making an autopsy on the hostages inside impossible ?

Who was it that kept the fire trucks back ?

Associated with this is who lit this fire ? Why would Bryant lite it knowing he was surrounded and the fire would force him outside to be captured or shot by police ? Surely police would not lite it to smoke him out as they thought hostages were inside ? It doesn't make sense.

Was the fire lit to burn all evidence at Seascape that would not point to Bryant and or make it extremely difficult to establish what exactly did go on and when if others were involved ?

Police witnesses present said the fire started at 8.00am that morning as if an incendiary bomb had gone off. But how could Martin Bryant have started this fire if he left the petrol in containers in his yellow Volvo when it was abandoned 6 kilometres aways at the Port Arthur Historic Site Tollbooth ? The DPP claimed at his trial he specifically bought the petrol and used it the set fire to the BMW and Seascape.

Another point is why would Bryant go outside unarmed after his shooting rampage the previous night indicating he wanted a shootout with police ? The fact his clothes were burning indicates he was unconcious when the fire started - because would you stay in a burning building conscious to the point of allowing your clothes to catch fire ? Again it doesn't make sense. The fact the burns were only on one side of his clothes indicates he was lying face down when inside when the fire was going.

See this webpage for photos
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpafiretrucks.html

Seascape shortly before Bryant was grabbed outside.

Note the minimal smoke and no visible flames.

----------------------------------

THE MURDER WEAPONS

One of the most convenient things about the evidence recovered was the fact the 2 guns allegedly used on his rampage were found in inoperative condition that made getting a ballistics match difficult and found in questionable circumstances with parts missing.

Briefly the COLT was recovered having suffered a cartridge blow up in the chamber and the FN had its barrel bent. How and when did all this happen ?

Each weapon's circumstances are on a separate webpage links below.

----------------------------------

THE COLT M16 CAR .233 USED IN THE BROAD ARROW CAFE

This next irregularity is the finding and recovery of the gun - a COLT M16 CAR .223 rifle - at Seascape after the fire. This is the gun alleged to have been used by Byrant to kill the people in the Broad Arrow Cafe

What is unusual about this is the state with which the gun is recovered in and the fact parts are missing from it that were never recovered from Seascape.

You can see below in the black and white picture the gun as it was allegedly found in the ashes and afterwards when it was cleaned up ( Source: Australian Federal Police Journal Dec 1998 ).

What is unexplained is how could nearly everything else be burned to a crisp ( including other evidence of the gunman's activities ) yet this mainly plastic gun be recovered in such a good condition ? Was it the gun used by the gunman and was it really found there ?

Assuming it was found there why is the pistol grip missing and why was it also not found amongst the ashes ? How could it burn and not the remainder of the gun ? It's strange the grip was removed at all ? Why would Bryant have done so ? Was it because the real gunman knew it had fingerprints or blood stains on it ?

It was reported a cartridge had blown up in the breach and had damaged the rifle. Why then did Bryant not have any wounds to his hands and face when that happened ?.

The story of this gun does not stop there - Tasmanian Police and the DPP tried to get Hobart Gun Dealer Terry Hill to admitt he sold the gun to Bryant after Hill was sued for supplying Bryant with the alleged rifle by offering him immunity from prosecution ( see letter from Avery below ). Hill maintained he did not sell him that gun despite pressure placed on him. Was this an attempt to create a link between the gun and Bryant that police and the DPP knew did not exist and were trying to create one ? Were the Police and DPP trying to fabricate evidence in the case ?

Furthermore Martin Bryant at his police interrogation in July 1996 when showed this gun did not recognize the scope on it yet admitted another gun shown to him found in his Volvo was his. ( Note: - It is possible because the Colt was in reasonable condition he mistook it for one he may have had - the inability to identify the scope may infer this ). Another unexplained irregularity.

It is unknown whether police have matched bullets from this gun to any of the shooting victims.

See this webpage for photos and articles
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpacoltm16car.html

-------------------------------------

THE FN SLR .308 USED IN THE PARKING LOT AND ON THE WAY TO AND AT SEASCAPE

More unanswered questions arise from the FN SLR .308 rifle found at Seascape after the fire. This is the gun alleged to have been used by Byrant to kill the people after his rampage the Broad Arrow Cafe - in the car park, on his way back to Seascape, and at Seascape.

This gun, unlike the COLT, was alleged to have been found in a gutter near an outbuilding in smashed condition. It too was recovered with parts missing from it that were never recovered from Seascape.

This gun had suffered loss of internal parts and the barrel had been bent. You can see below in the black and white picture the gun after it had been cleaned up ( Source: Australian Federal Police Journal Dec 1998 ).

What is unexplained is how could the barrel of this rifle have been bent ? How, when and why would Bryant have done this ( given the barrel steel of this rifle is extremely hard ) ?

Assuming it was found there why were parts missing and why were they also not found amongst the ashes ? How could it have been through the fire and not have suffered burns ?

Why would Bryant have left it in a gutter if he wanted a shootout with police as he had indicated the previous night ?.

Was the barrel bent by the real gunman to make it difficult to do a ballistics match later ?

Furthermore Martin Bryant at his police interrogation in July 1996 when showed this gun denied it was his yet admitted another gun ( a Daewoo Shotgun ) shown to him found in his Volvo was his. Another unexplained irregularity.

Again it is unknown whether police have matched bullets from this gun to any of the shooting victims.

See this webpage for photos and articles
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpafnslr308.html

--------------------------------

THE KEYS TO SEASCAPE

The next gem in this saga is the finding of the keys to the Seascape Cottage left behind by the gunman in his Volvo when he abandoned it at the tollgate at Port Arthur Historic Site.

Obviously the reason he had them was because he had locked up Seascape before he left and would need to because according to the DPP's he had shot and killed the Martin's there an hour or so before hand. He could not leave it unlocked as visitors were prone to coming all the time. An example of that is the DPP's quoting the confrontation the Mason couple had with him there about 12.30pm - only moments before he was alleged to have left for Port Arthur.

What is strange about this is if he took the keys with him because he had locked Seascape up - then left them in the Volvo - how did he get back inside when he went back there later ?

Was there someone else there waiting to let the gunman in ?

Was the purpose of leaving the keys in the Volvo at the tollgate to implicate Martin Bryant and create a direct link with him having been at Seascape beforehand ?

Someone might say he took 2 sets of keys. Apart from the fact that is too incredible to believe because he would have no need for two sets - why would he take one set and leave the other ? To implicate himself ?

This absent mindedness does not gel with the cleverness the gunman is reputed to have had that day. Another unanswered question.

---------------------------------

FIRST MEDIA REPORTS - "...HE'S ABOUT 18 or 19...."

During the early evening after the massacre ABC TV news reporter Andrew Fisher got to speak to witnesses leaving Port Arthur and reported the gunman was "about 18 or 19" years old.

You can download audio copy in mp3 format (requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/ABCTV.zip), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/ABCTV.mp3) - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx...

Why this is relevant is because this was one of the first news reports from information from witnesses BEFORE the media was given information about Martin Bryant the following day and his picture was plastered everywhere for people to see ( before the identification evidence was contaminated by that release ). This report about the age of the gunman is consistent with the accurate witness statements made to police. These early reports must therefore be regarded as the most accurate and credible evidence over and above subsequent reports.

Martin Bryant of course was 29 years old at the time and looked it.

This report is further evidence that it wasn't Martin Bryant who was seen doing the shooting at Port Arthur that day.

---------------------------------

WITNESS SAYS GUNMAN NOT MARTIN BRYANT

The late Jim Laycock was co-owner of the Port Arthur Motel situated near the entrance to the Port Arthur Historic Site in view of the Tollbooth and Service Station. On the afternnon of the massacre he saw the gunman hijack the BMW at the tollbooth and the shooting and taking of a hostage at the service station. Laycock had also been the former owner of the Broad Arrow Cafe and had known Martin Bryant. See statement below - page 4 of a 4 page statement.

Laycock told police in his statement he says he DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE GUNMAN AS MARTIN BRYANT.

Here we have someone who saw the gunman in action - someone who knew Martin Bryant - and said it wasn't him.

He goes on to say the gunman was aged low 20s - same as Cafe victim Grahame Collyer did - yet Bryant was 29 years old. His description that the shooter looked female is probably because the gunman's wig was a woman's one as seen in this picture of the gunman in the carpark - right. Wigs are normally designed for women and usually have long feminine strands of hair as seen right on the gunman.

What all this indicates is the gunman wasn't Martin Bryant. Other witnesses claim they saw Bryant at the Historic Site but these statements only relate to him doing lawful things like entering. It may well be Bryant popped in there ( to be seen ) but did nothing more - and slipped out undetected. All the evidence points to this that witnesses saw 2 different people. Either that or they were confused later after seeing media pictures of Bryant.

This statement is sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt Bryant was the gunman.

The question must be asked why wasn't this discrepancy followed up by police and the DPP ? Were they just incompetant or were they confused as to who witnesses saw ? Was it because both Bryant and the gunman were at the site that day and people saw Bryant around the place and also saw the gunman who looked like him shooting up the place later ?

NB: This website believes Martin Bryant in fact was never at PAHS anytime on that day.

See this webpage for Jim Laycock's Statement and photo of gunman
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalaycock.html

---------------------------------

WITNESSES DESCRIPTIONS DO NOT FIT MARTIN BRYANT

Numerous witnesses, those that took a careful look at the gunman doing the shooting at Port Arthur that day, describe someone other than Martin Bryant.

When one examines the DPP's witness statements a picture emerges that brings out 2 particular discrepancies between the gunman and Martin Bryant - the LENGTH of the blonde hair and his AGE. A great number of the witnesses said "the blonde hair extended below the shoulders" as did a great number say the gunman was in the 18 to 23 age range.

To backup this point there are 2 witness statements which graphically demonstrate this:-

A witness who saw the gunman at the tollbooth when he shot people in a BMW and who was watching in his car says the gunman's hair "flowed down onto his chest". Refer Buckley Statement at this webspage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatebuckley.html - Last Paragraph. This is reinforced by the frames from the tourist video showing the gunman at the water - see below. This witness is particularly important because he was in a relatively calm state and standing stationery at the time he was saw the gunman.

Another witness who saw the gunman shooting from the entrance of Seascape described him as "18-22 years old only a young lad". She also noted the hair flowing in the breeze. Refer Maloney Statement at this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatemaloney.html

Editor's observation re: witness terminology: curley hair like Bryant had doesn't "flow" but straight hair does. What is also noted there by Maloney is this hair was "almost gold in colour".

The problem with this is Martin Bryant's hair colour was not gold but more bleached white as was seen in the papers the next day - left. (Note this picture left was taken sometime beforehand but its colour matches that of the black and white one below which was taken 3 days before the massacre). See this webpage for photo http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitdescript.html

As you can see Martin Bryant's hair colour is rather dull white - not the striking gold colour Maloney said the gunman shooting from Seascape had.

Another thing borne out by the witness statements is many of them describe the gunman's build as SKINNY or THIN. And that many described the gunman's hair as being STRAIGHT rather than curley
(the true fact is was 90 percent straight with a slight curl at the bottom - this can be seen on the video frame).

The PROBLEM with all this is Martin Bryant's hair length at that time stopped about an inch ABOVE THE SHOULDERS. And he was was 29 years old and looked it. Martin was not of skinny build either - but slightly beefy. See pictures at bottom of this webpage.

Images of the gunman who was filmed in the carpark after he left the cafe - below right - proves his hair was straight and long and exceeds the shoulders.

http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitdescript.html
Martin Bryant on 25th April 1996 LEFT.
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitdescript.html
Port Arthur Gunman ABOVE on 28th April 1996.

Some of the witnesses said the gunman's hair was shoulder length and and even smaller number say he was in his late twenties. This discrepancy seems to be caused by several things.- firstly seeing the photos of Bryant in the media shortly afterwards, secondly not really getting a good look at the gunman noting details, thirdly being traumatised, and forthly viewing the gunman from such a position or angle so as not to see the hair or face clearly. Another reason for this is because the hair was in fact tucked under the the jacket the gunman was wearing and only the visible section was seen and recalled by those witnesses.

Regardless of this at least 2 witnesses stated the gunman was NOT Martin Bryant. He was not the man they saw in the media.

So what we have is a large percentage of witness statements describing someone who looks distinctly different to Martin Bryant looked at that time. The two were similiar but there were discernable differences sufficient not only to call into question whether the gunman was Bryant but prove it wasn't.

And what is even more relevant is the video footage of the gunman at the water corroborates the witnesses who say the hair exceeded the shoulders, thus proving the witnesses who said shoulder length only were in error. See picture below. And it is significant most who said the hair was shoulder length - the ones who were in error - identified Martin Bryant as the man they saw.

Despite this the Tasmanian Police & DPP chose to not investigate these discrepancies and took the say so of people who had seen the media pictures of Bryant - most of whom were traumatized witnesses - rather that the witnesses who calmly observed the gunman. This is another thing that needs explaining - why a biased view was taken. If there have been any doubt whatsoever - and it would only required one person to say it wasn't him or say the hair was longer etc... - the DPP would have been required to conduct a thorough investigation of this - but it did not happen.

The true fact was the gunman had been made up to look like Bryant and was wearing a woman's wig. He was much younger and thinner than Bryant.
Refer to Lookalike Webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snparealgunman.html

Refer to this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitdescript.html

-----------------------------

WHY MARTIN BRYANT CANNOT BE THE CAFE GUNMAN

Based on the witness statements available to the Tasmanian Police & DPP on when and where people saw Martin Bryant it is impossible for him to have been in the Port Arthur Historic Site ( PAHS ) when the gunman was witnessed doing a host of things because the timing rules it out. This being the case several witness statements provide a complete ALIBI for Martin Bryant and these alone are sufficient to totally disassociate him as being the Cafe gunman, and the original charge at the time of his arrest that he killed the first victim Kate Scott is untennable. This also raises into doubt the goings on later at Seascape because it is quite clear someone was attempting to make it appear it was him at PAHS - ie frame Bryant. Below is the justification for this view. Remember these are the DDP's own witnesses giving their accounts.

Witness statements of seeing "Martin Bryant" before the massacre present serious problems because the timing of them, coupled with what he was observed to have done before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe, does not add up. There are fatal timing discrepancies.

Before going into this we need to be aware of movements of the gunman before the massacre and this is listed below:-

Summary of Observed Events By Witnesses: after arriving via the tollgate the gunman tried to park his car at the waters edge and was told by the parking officer he couldn't. He sat in his car for 10 minutes then it appears he moved it to the spot near the wharf and sat there for 5 minutes. He then went to the Cafe, went inside got some food 5 minutes after queing for it , went outside and sat on the decking 5 mintues, stared at people and talked to himself, then went inside shooting started a minute later. A bare minimum of 25 minutes.

Working backwards is the best way to demonstrate this. To get the FACTS CLEAR the shooting in the Cafe started at around 1.26 to 1.28pm because witnesses were waiting outside the information centre for the 1.30pm tour when the shots were heard and tours went on time. The police received the first alarm call at 1.32pm from staff at PAHS. Video footage at the tollbooth shows the gunman arriving there on his way out of the site at 1.37pm so these times are verified as being relatively accurate.

The problem we have starts with PAHS car parking officer Ian Kingston who had an altercation with the gunman over where he could park the Volvo says in his statement (see this webpage
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastateiankingston1.html) he took up to 25 minutes from the time he first saw him to the time the shooting started. 25 deducted from 1.28pm would mean he saw the gunman at 1.03pm and it would mean the gunman, if he had just driven into the site without stopping, would have been at the sites entry tollbooth 3 to 5 mintues before that - around 1.00pm. Kingston who made his statement to police on the day of the massacre 28th April says he first saw the gunman at 1.25pm but this time was an error because the shooting started at 1.28pm - 3 minutes later (Kingston in a subsequent statement changed it by implication by stating the shooting started at 1.30pm which would put his first encouter with him at 1.05pm) and other witnesses corroborate the fact the gunman sat outside the cafe for up to 10 mintues. But the point is according to Kingston's estimates of time spent sitting in cars etc... the person he saw - the gunman - could have entered the Historic Site no later than 1.00pm

The problem we have with this is twofold:-

Roger LARNER who also made a statement (see this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatelarner1.html) on the day of the massacre when it was fresh in his mind said Martin Bryant visited his farm near Port Arthur Historic Site at 1.05pm. He recognized Bryant in a yellow Volvo with surfboard on it. He had a conversation with Bryant for 5 to 10 minutes making his departure from Larner's at around 1.15pm. It would have taken Bryant another 3 mintues to get to the tollbooth and another few minutes to wait in a que of cars. Making it 1.18pm at the latest Bryant enters Port Arthur Historic Site.

If this is true Bryant was at Larner's house when the gunman entered the Historic Site at 1.00pm.

The point is Martin Bryant CANNOT BE AT 2 PLACES AT ONCE. He cannot be entering the Historic Site at 1.00pm or earlier ( and be seen doing all the gunman did ) and be at Larner's farm at 1.05pm and spend 10 minutes talking to him.

The next problem is tollgate officer Aileen Kingston's statement (see this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastateaileen1.html) reported that Martin Bryant entered the site after waiting behind a row of cars around 1.10 to 1.15pm. Identified as him. Apart from the fact there is nothing illegal about Bryant doing this this timing fits if Larner's estimate of time was out a few minutes. The real Martin Bryant would have arrived at the car park area around 1.18pm ( plus or minus a few minutes ) - no earlier.

It should be noted Aileen Kingston's statement CORROBORATES Roger Larner's statement about the timing and whereabouts of Martin Bryant - that he was not in PAHS until around 1.15pm. This gives credibility to the conclusion Bry

Love for Life

Search Love for Life

Extensive Research Library On Numerous Subjects - Other Serious Issues - Links

Main Menu

Navigation

Mailing List

Active forum topics

New forum topics

Recent comments

Port Arthur Massacre - Martin Bryant

Name:
E-mail: