An innocent man still sits in jail while the real perpetrators have gotten away Scott Free and being in a position of sealing the evidence for 75 years


Quote:

Tasmanian Coroner at the time, Ian Matheson, in a letter to a family member of a shooting victim said he would discontinue the Coronial Inquest because his findings, based on the evidence before him, would go against the Supreme Court verdict after Bryant was coerced into pleading guilty. (see video)

https://cairnsnews.org/2024/12/28/port-arthur-massacre-video-republished-what-really-happened-in-tasmania-on-april-28-1996/

Andrew MacGreggor - retired Victorian Police Officer names names…

https://x.com/janders42654612/status/1873063178709680524?s=61&t=pr9sQbfDnRXI42Hsv2j5ag

Coincidence?

How many coincidences do there have to be before you realise that they weren’t coincidences?

https://x.com/janders42654612/status/1873063178709680524?s=61&t=pr9sQbfDnRXI42Hsv2j5ag

As we’ve discussed recently - and as declassified documents show - the Governments for at least 100 years have used False Flag incidents to engage in WAR or to use them to usher in New Laws to disarm its people or to put them under surveillance 24/7 and treated as criminals who have never committed a crime..

For those of you who like a good read….

https://archive.org/details/DeadlyDeceptionAtPortArthur/mode/1up?view=theater

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, what a load of codswallop.  Port Arthur has been done to death here and elsewhere.  Bryant did the deed, no one else.  He admitted it in court and was as guilty as sin.  He killed 35 people.  Stop bullshitting and leave him to rot in prison.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

If there were dozens of witnesses, survivors, video footage, and police and emergency services reports that Martin Bryant was the shooter, why would you think otherwise? I watched the police interview footage. He was enjoying the attention he was receiving. And when the sentence was carried out, it was only Bryant's mother that has paid Martin any visitations. The short-term fame (or infamy, as the public saw it) for Bryant was only short lived. I bet he wished he could live his life over and chosen a different path. Because living behind locked doors is not doing anything for him, now.

SerialBrain9 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 12:00pm:

An innocent man still sits in jail while the real perpetrators have gotten away Scott Free and being in a position of sealing the evidence for 75 years Quote: Tasmanian Coroner at the time, Ian Matheson, in a letter to a family member of a shooting victim said he would discontinue the Coronial Inquest because his findings, based on the evidence before him, would go against the Supreme Court verdict after Bryant was coerced into pleading guilty. (see video) https://cairnsnews.org/2024/12/28/port-arthur-massacre-video-republished-what-really-happened-in-tasmania-on-april-28-1996/

SerialBrain9  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You plonker - so super cereal about a Port Arthur conspiracy. Never mind all the witnesses. ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU

Gnads - im not here to argue or debate - or to start name calling  ::)

If anyone is interested they can read through the evidence - including - the Tasmanian Coroner who shut down a Coronial inquest because he said that his verdict would be against the Supreme Court ..

The Supreme Court who accepted Bryant’s guilty plea after he was tricked into it after they switched out his lawyers  - who was also working for the prosecution…

On that point alone - he should be set free..

Rather than arguing and debating I suggest reflecting?

Why did one very isolated tragedy in a very isolated place resulting in a federal government involvement that than produced federal government gun laws?

Why did the nsw police be granted a 40% pay rise while doctors and nurses gain nothing?

Those that hold the guns are the politicians protectors!

Well - what is the evidence?  A half-wit pleaded guilty - they might have told him he'd shop-lifted a musk stick or something...

https://media1.tenor.com/m/SbNHxuUpjIIAAAAd/my-cousin-vinny-ralph-macchio.gif

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2025 at 7:50pm:

Gnads - im not here to argue or debate - or to start name calling  ::) If anyone is interested they can read through the evidence - including - the Tasmanian Coroner who shut down a Coronial inquest because he said that his verdict would be against the Supreme Court .. The Supreme Court who accepted Bryant’s guilty plea after he was tricked into it after they switched out his lawyers  - who was also working for the prosecution… On that point alone - he should be set free..

Plonker is tame ... and in light of the number of survivors/witnesses on the day it's a tad hard to believe the bloke didn't do it.

Technicalities of law and it's application or lack thereof, whether that be by the Coroner or the Prosecution is another matter.

How can a defense lawyer be working for the prosecution? How would that ever have been allowed?

Maybe we should go to the 3rd Umpire on this?

Jasin wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 12:27pm:

Maybe we should go to the 3rd Umpire on this?

Look - they needed their half-wit Dutch Socialist to set fire to the Reichstag - nobody GAF about Bryant and most assume him guilty.

An extraordinary performance for a guy with a very low IQ, and one likely to be easily lead in interrogation and susceptible to being offered a 'deal' that was a lie...

It happened with a retread in WA - repeatedly the cops dragged him in and he got used to just signing a piece of paper so he could go home again - until they grabbed him for alleged sexual assault - he had no idea what was going on, signed the paper and ended up in prison. Later released. 

Amazing stories were made up after Bryant pleaded guilty (for whatever reason he did, and many say he was pressured to do so) - apparently he grabbed the steering wheel of his benefactor's car to run it off the road and kill her (but clearly not himself, DUH) - and similar fantasies created by some 'journalist' down there... all showing him in a bad light.

Reading that book was enough to raise a red flag with me... once these kinds of pub stories with no foundation put in an appearance and become 'fact' on repetition it raises the antennae - and I think this entire case should be re-visited.

It was Tasmanian two-headed justice, after all...

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant_complete_interview

This is one of the funniest half-baked conspiracy theories I've seen.

I think Antony Green said it best:

"The Cairns News is not a media outlet. It's a conspiracy theory outlet."

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Court_transcript.pdf
Many were shot at close range, with witnesses.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 7:06pm:

Jasin wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:27pm: Maybe we should go to the 3rd Umpire on this? Look - they needed their half-wit Dutch Socialist to set fire to the Reichstag - nobody GAF about Bryant and most assume him guilty. An extraordinary performance for a guy with a very low IQ, and one likely to be easily lead in interrogation and susceptible to being offered a 'deal' that was a lie... It happened with a retread in WA - repeatedly the cops dragged him in and he got used to just signing a piece of paper so he could go home again - until they grabbed him for alleged sexual assault - he had no idea what was going on, signed the paper and ended up in prison. Later released.  Amazing stories were made up after Bryant pleaded guilty (for whatever reason he did, and many say he was pressured to do so) - apparently he grabbed the steering wheel of his benefactor's car to run it off the road and kill her (but clearly not himself, DUH) - and similar fantasies created by some 'journalist' down there... all showing him in a bad light. Reading that book was enough to raise a red flag with me... once these kinds of pub stories with no foundation put in an appearance and become 'fact' on repetition it raises the antennae - and I think this entire case should be re-visited. It was Tasmanian two-headed justice, after all...

And why wouldn’t you have a Royal Commission?

find out why specific events happened

work out who is accountable

make findings and recommend changes to policies and laws.

Little Johnnie Howard killed any thought of a Royal Commission - took it upon himself to take Australians guns - and has sealed the case for at least 75 years… i wonder why  :-/

The same guy who left Australian soldiers in Iraq even though he knew there were NO weapons of “mass” destruction.. and standing by the “allies” who murdered at least a minimum or a MILLION innocent Iraqis  :(

Who could ever trust this little weasel?

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 8:28pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 7:06pm: Jasin wrote on Jan 3rd, 2025 at 12:27pm: Maybe we should go to the 3rd Umpire on this? Look - they needed their half-wit Dutch Socialist to set fire to the Reichstag - nobody GAF about Bryant and most assume him guilty. An extraordinary performance for a guy with a very low IQ, and one likely to be easily lead in interrogation and susceptible to being offered a 'deal' that was a lie... It happened with a retread in WA - repeatedly the cops dragged him in and he got used to just signing a piece of paper so he could go home again - until they grabbed him for alleged sexual assault - he had no idea what was going on, signed the paper and ended up in prison. Later released.  Amazing stories were made up after Bryant pleaded guilty (for whatever reason he did, and many say he was pressured to do so) - apparently he grabbed the steering wheel of his benefactor's car to run it off the road and kill her (but clearly not himself, DUH) - and similar fantasies created by some 'journalist' down there... all showing him in a bad light. Reading that book was enough to raise a red flag with me... once these kinds of pub stories with no foundation put in an appearance and become 'fact' on repetition it raises the antennae - and I think this entire case should be re-visited. It was Tasmanian two-headed justice, after all... And why wouldn’t you have a Royal Commission?

Well, because we already know what happened and the perpetrator is behind bars.

Case closed.

chimera wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 7:50pm:

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Court_transcript.pdf Many were shot at close range, with witnesses.

That is the roundup by the prosecution after Bryant was persuaded to plead guilty, which he did for whatever reason, not direct testimony.  All this does is lay out the Crown's case - not the evidence, which, due to his pleading guilty for whatever reason - was not presented.

Interesting - Bryant was interviewed over two months after the alleged events, had no solicitor present, the cops told him the interview had been cleared with the solicitor, he was uncomfortably seated (SOP), in pain from his injuries, was hungry, needed a drink, wanted to do or say anything to get out of that jail, did not recognise one of the firearms shown to him or a gym bag, denies owning handcuffs or killing anyone, is bemused as to what he thought was a single charge of murdering someone, discussed a fantasy of hijacking a car and putting the owner in the boot etc, but nothing to do with Seascape other than visiting and knocking, denies any hostility with Seascape owners, makes no comment to that point about being at Broadarrow that day, says he target shot two rounds that day of 5.56  at cans after loading ten rounds thus leaving eight, vaguely recalls an explosion and fire, but cannot clearly say what caused those....

An AR-10 is similar in appearance to the FN used by Australia for years, with an ordinary stock and a straight ten round magazine of 7.62 NATO.  Apparently that rifle was left at Bryant's home with a bunch of ammunition in the hallway ... yet he was asked to recognise a similar weapon which was burnt as being one he had that day.

And that's only halfway through the transcript of his interview by police, who lead and lead, and make suggestions which he denies.

I think this case needs a re-visit.  an honest interview with Bryant would be a good start... by an experienced and impartial judge, say .....

Below are some findings by other authors and experts, including the police themselves, which upon reading may cause you some concern.

Firstly some questions that have been asked:

On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast, for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers.
Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?

Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder.

This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had the policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula.
Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?

Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned.
After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose.
Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?

Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman.

A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.

—> Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses.

—> When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn.

—>The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.

Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours.

Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana where they had a barbecue?  :o

Even the police who arrived by boats and were a stone’s throw away from the main crime scene in the cafe, also failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this lack of protection meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?

Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30 while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?

Same Question – Different Answer.

At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Café. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say “I have here Graham Collyer’s police statement…”, Sargent Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.

When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully – “There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the café”.

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 8:56pm:

Below are some findings by other authors and experts, including the police themselves, which upon reading may cause you some concern.

What causes me concern is the fact that there are people out there like you who believe this stuff.

Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a café table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?

According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur.

Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?

Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage.

While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the ‘siege’ and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as ‘coughs’ but an electronic analysis of one of the ‘coughs’ shows that it was an SKK shot.

Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds.

They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.
Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart.

They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning.

How handy to have 700 scribblers on the spot, churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

“There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania”, said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?

“If we don’t get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us”, said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996.

Who is the “THEY”

who would order the removal of our guns?

Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?

No Respect for the Law. Our law demands that a Coronial Inquiry must take place

(a) when foreign nationals are killed
(b) when anyone dies in a fire.

At Port Arthur several foreigners were killed and three people died in the fire at Seascape.

It is evident that the massacre was planned to happen on the ferry which sailed to the Isle of the Dead every day.

The victims were to be eighty elderly American tourists who had come in two coaches. But the plan went awry because the sailing time of the ferry had changed from 1.30 to 2.00 pm.

And there’s the Key - Eighty Americans….

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 9:03pm:

And there’s the Key - Eighty Americans….

Ask your GP to lobby the government to get your medication put on the PBS.

In less than thirty minutes at six separate crime scenes, 35 people were shot dead, another 22 wounded, and two cars stopped with a total of only 64 bullets.

A moving Daihatsu 4WD driven by Linda White was crippled by a “Beirut Triple”, normally reserved for dead-blocking Islamic terrorists driving primed car bombs around the Lebanon.

One sighting shot, a second to disable the driver, and a third to stop the engine before the primed car bomb can hit its target and explode.

Very few people know of this technique, and only a handful of experts can master it with only three bullets.

This awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all.

As the book “Deadly Deception at Port Arthur” proves in absolute scientific terms, Bryant killed no-one at Port Arthur.

…………………………………………

Any experienced shooter will tell you - Martin Bryant didn’t have the skills to pull off such an amazing display of swift callous shooting accuracy which has never been matched around the world still today…

I have a military background myself and am a champion marksman and I couldn’t dream of pulling such an act…

---

I practiced - as a young man - firing literally hundreds of rounds a day in all positions to achieve accuracy under all circumstances. I could fire from the hip with unerring accuracy. No big-noting and no further comment.  I could probably have done what Bryant is convicted of - probably better - but I doubt he could.  He says he never really fired more than a few rounds at a time and not a huge total.

If this had gone to trial it would have been very revealing, methinks.

Also - I love the way he is - at one instant, a cunning military style ninja hiding tactically and moving tactically around Seascape before the fire - then somehow is seen crossing the yard in full moonlight and back - just ducking out for a piss in the middle of the siege - hold it  for a coupla minutes, lads ...... um ... yes??  Hours of 'siege' and he hit nothing. So which was he?  A ninja or something else?

Bryant was not a marksman.  He was a nervous young man who was actually frightened by some of the weapons in his possession.  He test fired the semi-automatic "street sweeper" shotgun on the way to Port Arthur but it frightened him so much that he left it behind when it came to conducting his massacre.  The Broad Arrow Cafe was registered as being peppered with bullets from Bryant.  Witnesses remarked at the bullets hitting the side of the Cafe when Bryant opened fire.  He killed his victims because the rifle he mainly used was over-powerful for the job - the AR-15.  He basically shot through his victims and his bullets killed multiple victims, one after the other.  Outside the Cafe his missed badly when he fired on various victims.  Bryant had basically no military training and it showed.  He was lucky to hit anything.  All the harping that he was somehow a trained marksman ignore the evidence to the contrary.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 7:28pm:

This is one of the funniest half-baked conspiracy theories I've seen. I think Antony Green said it best: "The Cairns News is not a media outlet. It's a conspiracy theory outlet."

Betoota Advocate ;D

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 8:56pm:

Below are some findings by other authors and experts, including the police themselves, which upon reading may cause you some concern. Firstly some questions that have been asked: On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast, for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence? Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had the policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy? Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence? Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck. —> Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. —> When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. —>The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana where they had a barbecue?  :o Even the police who arrived by boats and were a stone’s throw away from the main crime scene in the cafe, also failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this lack of protection meant to increase the trauma of the survivors? Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30 while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots? Same Question – Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture,the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Café. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say “I have here Graham Collyer’s police statement…”, Sargent Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building. When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully – “There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the café”.

A Tasmanian Police Sergeant has no jurisdiction to threaten an arrest in QLD.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 9:46pm:

Bryant was not a marksman.  He was a nervous young man who was actually frightened by some of the weapons in his possession.  He test fired the semi-automatic "street sweeper" shotgun on the way to Port Arthur but it frightened him so much that he left it behind when it came to conducting his massacre.  The Broad Arrow Cafe was registered as being peppered with bullets from Bryant.  Witnesses remarked at the bullets hitting the side of the Cafe when Bryant opened fire.  He killed his victims because the rifle he mainly used was over-powerful for the job - the AR-15.  He basically shot through his victims and his bullets killed multiple victims, one after the other.  Outside the Cafe his missed badly when he fired on various victims.  Bryant had basically no military training and it showed.  He was lucky to hit anything.  All the harping that he was somehow a trained marksman ignore the evidence to the contrary.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Yet 35 people died and 22 were injured.

So he hit more than enough ...tsk tsk tsk wanker.

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 9:23pm:

A moving Daihatsu 4WD driven by Linda White was crippled .. I have a military background myself and am a champion marksman and I couldn’t dream of pulling such an act…

She survived the shot that hit her car.....3.8-  4 m. in length.

It’s interesting. So many facts that never made the news.
However one simple fact seals it in my mind that it cannot be a government cover up.

Our politicians of than and now simply don’t have the mental power to organise and put into effect such a operation.
Perhaps a overseas government could but certainly not an Australian one.

Daves2017 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 12:31pm:

It’s interesting. So many facts that never made the news. However one simple fact seals it in my mind that it cannot be a government cover up. Our politicians of than and now simply don’t have the mental power to organise and put into effect such a operation. Perhaps a overseas government could but certainly not an Australian one.

Except they had the ability to hone in very quickly getting us all to relinquish our repeater shotguns.
Yeah… and of course *everyone* did…even the honest ones  ;)

I’ve seen it reported that he actually pleaded not guilty to the crime…
From memory… was there a phone call… a tip off for something else…which sent couple of only (local) cops on a red herring a long distance away from where this event took place?
Then there was witness account of some acne scarred guy coming out from knowhere …

Anyway… I’m looking at this and will keep my mind open …

https://books.google.com/books/about/Mass_Murder.html?id=M_EHrgEACAAJ

Quote:

Ian Punt made this Right to Information request to Tasmanian Department of Justice The request was refused by Tasmanian Department of Justice. Also, the documents outlining why this "evidence" needs to be locked away for a further 75 years https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/conspiracycover_up

It was around 2016 when the Government decided all evidence in this case would be locked up and hidden for another 75 years

When the Government wants to hide something for this long you know they have something to hide.

Sophia wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 2:05pm:

Daves2017 wrote on Jan 4th, 2025 at 12:31pm: It’s interesting. So many facts that never made the news. However one simple fact seals it in my mind that it cannot be a government cover up. Our politicians of than and now simply don’t have the mental power to organise and put into effect such a operation. Perhaps a overseas government could but certainly not an Australian one. Except they had the ability to hone in very quickly getting us all to relinquish our repeater shotguns. Yeah… and of course *everyone* did…even the honest ones  ;)

Not just repeater/auto/pump action shotguns..... all semi auto rifles regardless of calibre.

Yet today gun crime remains up there in the stats because criminals don't have a gun license and can get whatever type of weapon they want.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 2:21pm:

It was around 2016 when the Government decided all evidence in this case would be locked up.

Sounds sus , but in fact:
'Court records
During court proceedings, records are kept of everything said by the judge, jury, and witnesses. These records are sometimes accessible to the public.
Case information
Parties to a case in the NSW Local, District, or Supreme Court can use the NSW Online Registry to search for cases, view case information, and download case documents.
Criminal records
Individuals can only request a copy of their own criminal record. Businesses and employers can request criminal records for others.
.'
---
It's not as open as is assumed.

chimera wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 4:13pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 4th, 2025 at 2:21pm: It was around 2016 when the Government decided all evidence in this case would be locked up. Sounds sus , but in fact: 'Court records During court proceedings, records are kept of everything said by the judge, jury, and witnesses. These records are sometimes accessible to the public. Case information Parties to a case in the NSW Local, District, or Supreme Court can use the NSW Online Registry to search for cases, view case information, and download case documents. Criminal records Individuals can only request a copy of their own criminal record. Businesses and employers can request criminal records for others. .' --- It's not as open as is assumed.

Aye - be ancient and Feudal right of the Lord to tell peasant what Lord thinks is proper!  Peasant should just quietly till fields and pay Lord for Overlording....

It's the 21st Century - don't you think it's time 'government' caught up with itself and began to RESPECT its people?  The command us to RESPECT or be bashed disrespectfully ...... you want that to persist in every part of 'government' in this day and age?

The Eternal Civil War Between People and Government - now in the phase of The People v Elected Government over the issue of Divine Right Of Government.... or Right Of the People to rule first and foremost.

Strewth mate, not me what makes up this stuff.
Fact is, all cases are in archives not just M Bryant.

chimera wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 4:26pm:

Strewth mate, not me what makes up this stuff. Fact is, all cases are in archives not just M Bryant.

My beef is with 'government' - when they hide something it is for a reason.  I see no reason to hide the facts of the Martin Bryant case.... if they actually have any.

Wait until I finish that interview.  Give me time...

Oh - and not all cases are subject to 'do not release to public' orders... ask why.

why.

chimera wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 5:14pm:

why.

Why not?  Because as Red Baron (renewed Baronvonrort) said - governments have something to hide... even if it is something as 'simple' as a miscarriage of justice... BTW - there is NO simple miscarriage of justice for the person afflicted by it, and a government will do anything to prevent truth in a miscarriage coming out.*

What astounds me is how some rant and rave and riot over it happening - allegedly in a very tiny minority of cases - to Aborigines, gays and certain ethnics - when what those essentially heavily criminal groups do to the rest of us is pre-dispose the 'justice system' to attack us all in the name if keeping order.  For years it was simple policy to just fit anyone up on sight just to enforce 'law and order' regardless of facts.

Many of you whined and moaned about the poor Abos and gays and such - but did you ever spare a thought for the MAJORITY afflicted in the same way - BECAUSE the Abos and certain ethnic groups caused all the trouble?  93% of women killed by one group tells the tale, eh?  FINALLY!  Genuine Truthtelling definitely offers a new way of looking at things, eh?

For that endemic problem of entrenched miscarriages of justice - in this country - there must be a day of reckoning.  Justice is coming... and it must come before the inevitable Civil War being stoked by stupid politicians, which Civil War will overflow into many sectors of our 'society' as ruined by those same politicians.

* haven't got the direct quote, but Geoffrey Robertson said it well:-

"When disturbed, government responds like a startled octopus, thrashing around in all directions with many legs and not paying any heed to who or what it harms in doing so."

Put that in the context of a government suddenly afraid of what might come from a full and proper review of the Martin Bryant case - and there is more than adequate reason to suspect government would cover it all up, close it off to public scrutiny.

All court cases are a miscarriage ?
why?

chimera wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 6:26pm:

All court cases are a miscarriage ? why?

Not all.  Why do you assume that?

"allegedly in a very tiny minority of cases " ..... you are out of touch with the realities of 'law-keeping', aren't you?

'don't you think it's time 'government' caught up with itself and began to RESPECT its people?  The command us to RESPECT or be bashed disrespectfully ...... '
'Oh - and not all cases are subject to 'do not release to public' orders... ask why.'
'governments have something to hide... even if it is something as 'simple' as a miscarriage of justice... '

It sounded like you claim there's a general cover-up.

chimera wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 8:08pm:

'don't you think it's time 'government' caught up with itself and began to RESPECT its people?  The command us to RESPECT or be bashed disrespectfully ...... ' 'Oh - and not all cases are subject to 'do not release to public' orders... ask why.' 'governments have something to hide... even if it is something as 'simple' as a miscarriage of justice... ' It sounded like you claim there's a general cover-up.

Not really - just an attitude thing - that they have every right to withhold from the peasantry whatever the Lairds feel they are entitled™ to withhold.

I'm of the view that - not only are the people as a body smarter than that - but they are less likely to be hostile and inward-looking if they are told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Where there is NO full knowledge of such things as the Bryant case, the very real fear subsists in the minds of many, though unspoken an d even not consciously thought out, that the same could happen to them - this is the 'halo effect' of ensuring that someone is convicted and the people are kept in the dark about why and how.

Some things, of course, are a genuine matter of 'national security' - but what 'national security' - other than the reduction of the power of the ruling oligarchy to withhold at whim and thus retain power over knowledge (same with 'privacy laws' which give ONLY the ruling oligarchy the right to all private knowledge - hello) - is there about the Bryant case?  I only say 'national security' to give an example - but that phrase opens up many doors.

Would not the general populace be best served with knowing the full facts surrounding the Bryant case?

OK but where is the secrecy different for Bryant?

chimera wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 8:45pm:

OK but where is the secrecy different for Bryant?

That's what we want to know - because there is no reason for it. As Baron said indirectly - if there is no reason - the reason is something else, and hidden in plain sight.

I feel this needs a full and proper airing of all the evidence.  No forensic evidence tied Bryant to the massacre.

Australian Governments constantly hide information for a variety of reasons.

I guess the vast majority are simply too protect themselves from the public finding out how totally incompetent they are/ have been.
Sometimes it’s too protect a dodgy deal they have done with a private company or overseas country.

It’s just how they “govern “ transparently.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 9:39pm:

That's what we want to know - because there is no reason for it.

The reason is that the same policy applies to all cases, in general. Having government secrecy about trials is a different issue from the Bryant details.  Business privacy is different from people asking for details of your tax out of curiosity.

Last two posts show the real issues - government chooses not to display its actions openly - for the very good reason that many of those actions would not pass the pub test.

I ask again - what national or popular interest is served by not holding a full examination of the evidence in the Bryant case ... or at the very least - putting it out for public discussion?

The closest hard evidence produced so far was my posting of his interview two months after the event etc.... where is the rest apart from direct evidence from several who say it could not have been him - acne etc?

This is remarkably like Lee Harvey Oswald - no full review of evidence was made that actually told the truth... look at this for example:-

Note that the first picture shows Connally near correctly turned sideways... two things - he was turned far more than that, and he turned in response to JFK being hit by that bullet that is claimed to have hit Connally as well, so the 'magic bullet' could not have done it all.  The trajectories are wrong for the School Book Repository - much lower and further to the right of that building - and unless Connally was hit by the same bullet 2-3 seconds after JFK - a remarkable feat for a bullet - there was a second gunman to the left - which, via triangulation, means there was a third to the front right.

---

This is what is meant by 'triangulation':-

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christophe-Then/publication/359083409/figure/fig1/AS:11431281154182716@1682689315602/Photo-with-super-imposed-limousine-L-and-potential-shot-traces-to-postulated-sites-at.png

Note:-  If Connally was indeed 'taken out of the sight line' by a shot from the left - it would have to be low down and further to the right in that photo - to miss the windscreen and other passengers etc in the car ... great shot, BTW... and it cleared the line of sight for the head shot by dropping Connally back and out of the way.

All this leaves wide open the question of why the motorcade route was changed to suit that shooting gallery...

Lee Harvey Oswald killed nobody.... and as a result of his assassination the evidence was never properly examined.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 1:38pm:

Last two posts show the real issues - government chooses not to display its actions openly - for the very good reason that many of those actions would not pass the pub test .... where is the rest apart from direct evidence from several who say it could not have been him - acne etc.

Who said the actions don't pass, and why?
'Where is the rest?' Who says there is 'the rest'?  Suspecting a thing is not proof it exists.

chimera wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 1:54pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 1:38pm: Last two posts show the real issues - government chooses not to display its actions openly - for the very good reason that many of those actions would not pass the pub test .... where is the rest apart from direct evidence from several who say it could not have been him - acne etc. Who said the actions don't pass, and why? 'Where is the rest?' Who says there is 'the rest'?  Suspecting a thing is not proof it exists.

Refusal to clear it up indicates subterfuge, and the persistent belief among the selfocrats that they do not answer to the people. Saying a retread with IQ 66 shot all those people for no real reason does not pass the pub test.

Read the interview.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 1:38pm:

.... where is the rest apart from direct evidence from several who say it could not have been him - acne etc?

And ..where....?

chimera wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 3:54pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 1:38pm: .... where is the rest apart from direct evidence from several who say it could not have been him - acne etc? And ..where....?

Been posted here by others.... one was an ex-soldier who said 'acne scarred face'... soldiers are trained to observe... where is the direct evidence that the shooter was Bryant?

Well - what is the need to not show the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Bryant's arrest, incarceration and trial? They've got him behind bars forever - surely the people can be told all the reasons why.

Quote:

Port Arthur Massacre 1996 800 witness statements and only two positively identified Martin Bryant which were submitted after Bryants face had been all over the media. Witnesses Jim Laycock, Graham Colliyer & Peter Crosswell all said the shooter was not Martin Bryant.

Watch the Video…..

https://x.com/man_rocket97805/status/1875365609837621494?s=61&t=pr9sQbfDnRXI42Hsv2j5ag


Quote:

Bryants face had been all over the media.

- Illegally - and not one news outlet has been charged with this crime..

Listen to the Podcast…

Film coming up this year I think …

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k01lj9qmwbf7918x4da7d/BTDTCTEP118ThePortArthurMassacre.mp3?rlkey=9o2pflzswgqd4ma7f1p33gyp3&e=1&st=7snp4yvi&dl=0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCyZbr-7SG0

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 8:13pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCyZbr-7SG0

Brian - the POLICE interview - not this gutter trash ...  even the lead-in is telling the audience this was the guy ... come on... 'you pulled the trigger with your left hand' - read the transcript..... 'that's a shotgun' - he didn't take his shotgun with him, says he was frightened of it since it was so powerful - it was at home ....quick flash of someone running - didn't that turn out to be an Ambo later? ...  film of a white Volvo .. DUH ... dark mutterings 'I could be his next victim' - come on .... that's not fact .... I'll never take a sunday night television program at face value again after that.

This could have been a Hollywood spectacular for all the truth there is in it.

You're adding to the case for a full review of all the available evidence...

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant_complete_interview

About that Gun…

The Prosecutors/Police tried to get a Tasmanian Gun dealer (Guns and Ammo i think)  to lie and say that one of the guns was purchased in his store

He told them NO

They threatened him and told them that police would find something on him..

He told them NO - he won’t lie..

They raided his shop and closed it down putting him out of business. - they took his gun register and has never been returned

---

First page of the police interview Bryant says he never used the shotgun - yet someone said during the Broadarrow shooting (heavy boom) 'that's a shotgun' - and no shotgun was found.

Again - the running man was apparently an Ambo after the shootings had stopped.

I'm not decided one way or the other - I just say there is sufficient doubt there to have the full body of evidence openly reviewed and the public allowed to hear it all - not some filtered, cut and pasted, biased television shock program looking for ratings.

Interesting times. It seems his lawyer went nuts from the stress of Bryant's behaviour and lost his right to practice law.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/transcript-martin-bryant-021416350.html

Who said he shot from the hip and why did he need to?

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 8:50pm:

About that Gun… The Prosecutors/Police tried to get a Tasmanian Gun dealer (Guns and Ammo i think)  to lie and say that one of the guns was purchased in his store He told them NO They threatened him and told them that police would find something on him.. He told them NO - he won’t lie.. They raided his shop and closed it down putting him out of business. - they took his gun register and has never been returned

That news story is like the Jockey Smith conviction for the murder of Lloyd Tidmarsh - "We are unable to produce the murder weapon, Yer 'Onnah - but we submit in evidence a photograph of an alleged similar weapon, which photograph we allege was in the possession of the defendant...."   :D

chimera wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 9:01pm:

Interesting times. It seems his lawyer went nuts from the stress of Bryant's behaviour and lost his right to practice law. https://au.news.yahoo.com/transcript-martin-bryant-021416350.html Who said he shot from the hip and why did he need to?

Hip shooting with stock pressed between elbow and hip allows for more freedom of movement of the weapon - a rifle - shortens it when firing in a small space, swivel whole body, and at that close range no sighted shots were necessary.  Again that is instinctual shooting, and takes a lot of practice and co-ordination, and actually firing at a live human being is something else.

"We've also never seen or heard from Bryant himself, and in that vacuum, he's become an enigma." - Melissa Doyle

Let me repeat that slowly ... we've     never      seen     or     heard     from     Bryant    himself  ...... (hyperbole excluded)  "he's become larger than life"..

Well - I wouldn't say he's 'larger than life' to anyone.... most are probably curious.... I case my personal feelings and say I am quite indifferent as to any 'status' he may possess ... I am interested in whether or not he is really guilty of this set of crimes.

A television show inserting cut pieces of his police interview into convenient spots to support a 'narrative' is not going to do that...  for example - his statement about using his left hand for shooting had nothing to do with Port Arthur - it was in response to a question of how he shot when practicing on tin cans etc.... yet that is interspersed with footage of Port Arthur to insinuate that he is 'admitting' that he shot all those people with his left hand on the trigger.... it's in the police interview transcript in context and it's also right there in that link below. 

Christ - his own lawyer sank him... who paid him? That's another red flag that makes my ears perk up... 

(side-note:- I cannot begin to describe to you the cold feeling inside that came over me when I saw John Connally shot through and through right rear to right front - while turned near completely around and saying to JFK - "WTF??" - meaning no such shot came from the school repository but clearly from the left of the motorcade, with the instant of impact clear when Connally's cheeks blew out and he then fell back out of the line of sight from the Grassy Knoll then wham - once I saw that - frame by frame - my ears began to perk up at any silly story put forward about such things by governments - I discussed the JFK hit with pair of 2 Commando officers once during a quiet moment - laying out pretty much the same triangulation as shown in that diagram I posted - and they simply nodded with a knowing look in their eyes - not a moment of doubt whatsoever from professionals) ....

NEVER trust the media to tell the truth.

All I'm saying here, people - is that if we are going to accept that a man did those crimes - we need to be shown that he actually did... not be treated like mushrooms fed this kind of fine compost.

Footnote:-  I myself have been, in the past, a victim of this kind of gutter 'journalism' - not one single frame of what they presented had any element of truth in it or even any reference to the issues under discussion.... it was all - just like this rubbish about Bryant - suggestions and dark innuendoes without fact.  That reminds me - Channel Seven still owes me for that....

Now - read the transcript - not the BS from that TV show.

Let's try again - the POLICE interview two months after the events and when Bryant was in pain and discomfort from his burns and was isolated for two months and sat on the traditional uncomfortable chair while needing a drink. Was he cold from immobility in that cell for so long? Did it have one uneven length leg so it rocked and felt unstable while his hands were cuffed and affected his balance and gave him no opportunity to save himself if he fell?  Wait one ....   he   was  tied  to  the   chair  it says in the transcript  'get me legs untied' - 'no, leave as they are' ....  WTF - was he going to race out the door after overcoming those cops?  Two months in a cell and he'd make twenty yards.

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant_complete_interview

Now Brian - YOU should know about this kind of interview technique.... it's not guaranteed to give you anything more than what a 66 IQ bloke might think you want to hear, just so he can get up and walk around and be in some comfort instead of pain from his burns and being unable to move much on a hard chair (adds) he's tied to.  He was probably cold and mentally disorientated due to isolation and such and certainly stressed - yet he still denied what they wanted him to say - until later when he changed his plea to guilty.  Someone said they told him that if he didn't plead guilty his mother and sister would suffer and they were already after the gun dealer.

IQ 66 - bet they offered him a deal - "Look - just say you did it and you can go home, OK?"

Presumed Guilty.

"A. Shame me legs are tied up.

Q. Sorry?

A. Shame these legs, I might be able to take them off.

Q. No, leave, leave them the way they are I think.

A. Otherwise I might get in trouble.

Q. Mmm. So don't, don't ahh, play with them you might get yourself in trouble. "

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 8:09pm:

Listen to the Podcast… Film coming up this year I think … https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k01lj9qmwbf7918x4da7d/BTDTCTEP118ThePortArthurMassacre.mp3?rlkey=9o2pflzswgqd4ma7f1p33gyp3&e=1&st=7snp4yvi&dl=0

Oh my good Lord!  :o from 1hr 9 mins  :o :o
Interesting that the govt changed the files to be hidden from 30 years… (just as it was about to be released) to being hidden for over 70 years …. Why why why? And this film maker in the podcast has death threats and warned to let it go… not to dig deep …. that’s enough to prove a cover up eh?  :(

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 9:06pm:

chimera wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 9:01pm: Interesting times. It seems his lawyer went nuts from the stress of Bryant's behaviour and lost his right to practice law. https://au.news.yahoo.com/transcript-martin-bryant-021416350.html Who said he shot from the hip and why did he need to? Hip shooting with stock pressed between elbow and hip allows for more freedom of movement of the weapon - a rifle - shortens it when firing in a small space, swivel whole body, and at that close range no sighted shots were necessary.  Again that is instinctual shooting, and takes a lot of practice and co-ordination, and actually firing at a live human being is something else.

That’s what I remember being said by witnesses that some acne scarred guy came out from nowhere shooting precision from the hip!
And this acne face guy has long blond hair too!

Sophia wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 10:37pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 9:06pm: chimera wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 9:01pm: Interesting times. It seems his lawyer went nuts from the stress of Bryant's behaviour and lost his right to practice law. https://au.news.yahoo.com/transcript-martin-bryant-021416350.html Who said he shot from the hip and why did he need to? Hip shooting with stock pressed between elbow and hip allows for more freedom of movement of the weapon - a rifle - shortens it when firing in a small space, swivel whole body, and at that close range no sighted shots were necessary.  Again that is instinctual shooting, and takes a lot of practice and co-ordination, and actually firing at a live human being is something else. That’s what I remember being said by witnesses that some acne scarred guy came out from nowhere shooting precision from the hip! And this acne face guy has long blond hair too!

I'm only interested in knowing whether or not Bryant was guilty.  His police interview sounds like a kid a lot of the time - and making up stories, and the cops bulldozed him over hours.

A movie you say?  Acne scarred long blond hair.......

Somewhere I thought I read of two gunmen ... that's a lot of people for one guy... semi auto shells would be all over - bullets could still be compared with the Bryant AR 15 even if it was burnt - the bore etc doesn't melt unless temperature is very high and would still be a clear match.... or not.  Why have we not heard about this?  If it was a match it would be pretty conclusive, no?  The plastic stock etc would have been melted.

Could be interesting:-  https://iview.abc.net.au/video/DO2305H001S00

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 4^th, 2025 at 9:39pm:

chimera wrote on Jan 4th, 2025 at 8:45pm: OK but where is the secrecy different for Bryant? That's what we want to know - because there is no reason for it. As Baron said indirectly - if there is no reason - the reason is something else, and hidden in plain sight. I feel this needs a full and proper airing of all the evidence.

Bryants case has the highest level of security in protecting all case information in Tasmania.

Why did they seal it for another 75 years which means it will be 95 years after the massacre?

If they had nothing to hide they wouldn't have to wait for everyone to die before releasing it.

---

Sophia wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 10:35pm:

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 8:09pm: Listen to the Podcast… Film coming up this year I think … https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k01lj9qmwbf7918x4da7d/BTDTCTEP118ThePortArthurMassacre.mp3?rlkey=9o2pflzswgqd4ma7f1p33gyp3&e=1&st=7snp4yvi&dl=0 Oh my good Lord!  :o from 1hr 9 mins  :o :o Interesting that the govt changed the files to be hidden from 30 years… (just as it was about to be released) to being hidden for over 70 years …. Why why why? And this film maker in the podcast has death threats and warned to let it go… not to dig deep …. that’s enough to prove a cover up eh?  :(

Edits:-  That tape is quite revealing and quite shocking... I wish he'd been allowed to go further with the 'redacted' portions of that interview, the torture and such. That is worse than the 'standard interrogation tricks' I posted, and the police interview mentions 4th July - two months or so after.  Bryant was interrogated for hours while in pain and discomfort and with no legal representative present, despite his being officially incapable of handling his money etc.  Those two officers told him, at the beginning, that this interview without representation had been cleared with his lawyer.  Why do I doubt the truth of that?  He was happy to respond to questions - consistently saying NO, I wasn't there, and showed no clear recollection of any parts of the incidents.

Just looked up Paul Moder - 35 years in the film etc industry, and his Port Arthur re-telling.. 1 hr 14 in that one he discusses death threats.  I think I'll hear it all the way through.

https://pureshitauscinema.com/interviews/moder.html

There it is -1m 09 whatever - 'most with head shots' 'fired from the hip' - that takes an enormous amount of training and practice.  Bryant says he never fired more than a few rounds.  Also 'never diagnosed' as having 'dual personalities' or anything.... no attempt.

Well - it IS Tasmania and two heads are expected.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5^th, 2025 at 8:55pm:

First page of the police interview Bryant says he never used the shotgun - yet someone said during the Broadarrow shooting (heavy boom) 'that's a shotgun' - and no shotgun was found. Again - the running man was apparently an Ambo after the shootings had stopped. I'm not decided one way or the other - I just say there is sufficient doubt there to have the full body of evidence openly reviewed and the public allowed to hear it all - not some filtered, cut and pasted, biased television shock program looking for ratings.

This guy jumped into an ambo and disappeared forever - know one knows who he was, what he was doing there or where he is…

I have it on good authority that he was SAS and was killed in that Blackhawk Helicopter crash not long afterwards - about 10/12 died…

Dead men tell no tails….

---

https://www.facebook.com/waspthemovie/

Wait - Bryant says he left the shotgun, which he was afraid of, in his Volvo when he 'hijacked' the BMW and put the 'man in the boot' - which never happened.  I believe it was found in his Volvo.... forensics???

Yeah but, who said he was shooting from the hip?

His girl-friend didn't know what his plans were for that day. How did the cops know in advance so they could organise all the details that are claimed (press club, managers, local cops, morgue truck?) He was seen walking about freely, not kidnapped by cops.

chimera wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 7:56am:

Yeah but, who said he was shooting from the hip? His girl-friend didn't know what his plans were for that day. How did the cops know in advance so they could organise all the details that are claimed (press club, managers, local cops, morgue truck?) He was seen walking about freely, not kidnapped by cops.

The point is - was it actually Bryant?  Cops didn't organise all that - 'someone else' did.... is the story line.

I say trust the Australian people with all the available facts and let them draw their own conclusions .... Truthtelling, innit?

So some one organised things for Bryant's trip on that day? How did they make him fit the schedule, to be arrested there?

SerialBrain9 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 6:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 5th, 2025 at 8:55pm: First page of the police interview Bryant says he never used the shotgun - yet someone said during the Broadarrow shooting (heavy boom) 'that's a shotgun' - and no shotgun was found. Again - the running man was apparently an Ambo after the shootings had stopped. I'm not decided one way or the other - I just say there is sufficient doubt there to have the full body of evidence openly reviewed and the public allowed to hear it all - not some filtered, cut and pasted, biased television shock program looking for ratings. This guy jumped into an ambo and disappeared forever - know one knows who he was, what he was doing there or where he is… I have it on good authority that he was SAS and was killed in that Blackhawk Helicopter crash not long afterwards - about 10/12 died… Dead men tell no tails….

Hmmmm… military style hair (very short sides and back) and is that a camo type top he’s wearing?
Maybe allegedly got rid of him because he developed a conscience?
Re: these “accidents” so coincidentally close to any major event…
In X-Files….
Fox Mulder : If coincidences are just coincidences, why do they feel so contrived?

That other coincidence… the ferry being delayed… so there were more than usual people at the premises.

chimera wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 9:15am:

So some one organised things for Bryant's trip on that day? How did they make him fit the schedule, to be arrested there?

Maybe everyone fit into his schedule of arrival?
Luring him there would be like giving candy to a baby.
Don’t forget to buy tomato sauce cuz we forgot the sauce for our bbq.
(Then…that makes sure he is seen by several people at places he has stopped over at)

That arse Martin Bryant is a complete nutter. Thankfully he will never be released. Those twerps who argue he is innocent are stupid F-wits.

Captain Nemo wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 11:09am:

That arse Martin Bryant is a complete nutter. Thankfully he will never be released. Those twerps who argue he is innocent are stupid F-wits.

He may not be innocent but is he not innocent alone?

What sticks in mind… his low IQ and girlish giggling … if you do psychological profiling it seems he can’t contain expressiveness even if silly smiling or girlish giggling…
Then what is reported someone shooting has no expression on face…
Is that Bryant? Did he have that control of not showing expressions?

Bryant pleaded guilty.  He is as far as the law is concerned, guilty of the crime he confessed to.  All the bullshit people are claiming about Bryant is exactly that, bullshit.  Real events and witnesses rarely follow reality.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 12:00pm:

Bryant pleaded guilty.  He is as far as the law is concerned, guilty of the crime he confessed to.  All the bullshit people are claiming about Bryant is exactly that, bullshit.  Real events and witnesses rarely follow reality.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

No one is saying he didn’t plead guilty.
After pleading not guilty his mother told him to plead guilty to it all otherwise she says he won’t see her or his sister ever again.

Was there ever a proper lengthy court hearing with legal representatives and a Jury and all evidence?
Was there “multiple shooters” as heard in background as Bryant was on phone reporting he was making a cuppa for hostages?

Sophia wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 12:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 6th, 2025 at 12:00pm: Bryant pleaded guilty.  He is as far as the law is concerned, guilty of the crime he confessed to.  All the bullshit people are claiming about Bryant is exactly that, bullshit.  Real events and witnesses rarely follow reality.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) No one is saying he didn’t plead guilty. After pleading not guilty his mother told him to plead guilty to it all otherwise she says he won’t see her or his sister ever again. Was there ever a proper lengthy court hearing with legal representatives and a Jury and all evidence? Was there “multiple shooters” as heard in background as Bryant was on phone reporting he was making a cuppa for hostages?

Making someone Plead Guilty after being physically and mentally tortured is illegal - and again - another reason that he should be released immediately and a Royal or Coronial inquest held to find out exactly what happened and who knew what and when with ALL files being declassified

…..

---

These are the guys who died in the Black Hawks…

---

The 7th face has two ears.

chimera wrote on Jan 6^th, 2025 at 4:11pm:

The 7th face has two ears.

That sounds like a great title for another movie about Port Arthur.