it_is_the_light wrote on May 1
st, 2016 at 9:00am:
1. 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?
Evidence?
Quote:2. 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 a 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?
This was proved to be false many years ago.
Quote:3. 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?
It was a case of the person who won the contract to supply Mortuary transport reading his contract and taking it's instructions literally. The truck was an ex-meat supply van which was refrigerated and which he modified for Mortuary transport. When he lost the contract, he attempted to sell the van.
Quote:4. 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.
Yet Bryant admitted to the shooting. There is no need to formally identify a confessed killer.
Quote:Of all the witnesses that saw the shooter, only one knew Martin Bryant from before.
That was Jim Laycock, the former owner of the Broad Arrow Caf�.
He not only knew Bryant, but also where he used sit in the Broad Arrow and what he used to drink and the conversations he used to have with his daughter.
So what did Laycock say about his identification of the shooter? "I did not recognize the male (shooter) as Martin Bryant".
Evidence, please.
Quote:5. 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.
Was it illegal? Please cite the regulations/legislation where this is stated to be illegal.
Quote:6. 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? The police who arrived by boats were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?
No idea. As much of Ms. Scurr's "evidence" has been proved false in the past, anything she claims is suspect IMO.
Quote:7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?
Who claimed three shots were fired at 6:30pm?
Quote:8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the 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 Cafe. 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...", Sgt 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 cafe."
McNiven was a lunatic gun nut. He was removed because he was being disruptive.
Quote:9. 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 cafe 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, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?
Evidence please.
Forum
Pages: 
