It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Martin Bryant: Guilty or Unwilling pawn?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I'm surprised that Wendy Scurr hasn't been mentioned here (unless I missed it). Wendy Scurr was a Port Arthur tour guide and eyewitness to events of the day. She was also a trained ambulance officer who, by her own statement, had attended many shooting victims in her work. She claims that at least one victim had shotgun wounds (disputed). Irrespective of what you believe about the events, Wendy Scurr should be one of Australia's heroes, but not more than a handful of people even know about her, because she has been shunned by both the media and all police and government agencies. Why? Because she simply wants a coronial enquiry. She smelled a 'rat' at the bizarre police behavior at the scene. Wendy Scurr was officially notified by the court prior to Bryant's eventual 'guilty' plea that her testimony wouldn't be needed. Notice in her chilling account (video) that she refers to the perpetrator as "the gunman" -- and not by any name.
www.youtube.com...
(Scurr's story starts at around the Youtube 16:20 mark.)

I personally wouldn't base too much emphasis on what skills Bryant might have or might not have been capable of (although Wendy Scurr does). For instance, childhood friends have cited that he was a skilled spearfisherman with freakish ability*. Nobody really knew about his shooting skills -- but he does indicate in his 'statement' that he was scared of one of his own weapons.
But going down this road calls for speculation, when there are several glaring anomalies with this case that could be pursued: the massive cover up and silencing of witnesses etc.
*Reference "Born or Bred", which is a pathetic attempt by Fairfax press journalists Robert Wainwright and Paola Totaro to distort a manuscript, which they stole from Bryant's mother, Carleen Bryant. However it is difficult to discern between the journo's distortions and the facts. (Yes, I've read it.)
www.abc.net.au...

Bryant was a complete mental mess at his 'trial', who laughed hysterically throughout the proceedings.

Bryant had been held for 6 months before trial -- at times under torturous conditions -- because he maintained his 'not guilty' plea. Bryant's first solicitor David Gunson QC (Queen's Council) quit because he couldn't get a guilty plea from his own client. John Avery took over and after some 6 months imprisonment Bryant eventually did some deal that saw him plead guilty.
Bryant's police statement of events was taken in the absence of his solicitor, Avery. The court was told that the recorded tapes had actually been tampered with and parts were missing of the tape and the transcript. It is on record that Avery stated to the court that he had no problem with the 'doctored' statement and tampered tapes -- taken in his absence. And Avery actually submitted to the court the damming findings of a forensic psychiatrist that totally betrayed his own client (How'd you like this guy for your attorney?).

*The trial simply consisted of a statement that was read by the DPP, none of which was contested by Avery. Ironically John Avery is now a convicted criminal, currently serving out a six-year jail term for fraud. The DPP in Avery's own case accused him of repeatedly lying to the court on several issues. Avery also toyed with selling the records of his many consultations with his client. Client/Attorney confidentiality?

No one has ever explained the shots that rang out on the Port Arthur Site when Bryant was surrounded some killometers away at Seascape. These 'shots', which are noted in a report by the Site's CEO have never been investigated, but several witnesses have testified to these 'shots'.

"At about 5.00 p.m. a report came through that Bryant may have broken out of Seascape and was heading back
to the Site. Shots were then reported as coming from across the Site," Craig Coombs, Chief Executive Officer, Port Arthur Historic Site.

www.ag.gov.au...(084A3429FD57AC0744737F8EA134BACB)~Port_Arthur_Historic_Site_Management_Authority_response.pdf/$file /Port_Arthur_Historic_Site_Management_Authority_response.pdf

Another credible debate should be about the evidence and how most of it was destroyed. As stated previously, Bryant's fingerprints (nor his DNA) were ever found at the Broad Arrow Cafe, and descriptions of him vary. Wendy Scurr who smiled and nodded at the 'gunman' doesn't think it was Bryant. Neither does Stephen Howard, another tour guide on duty that day whose wife was killed in the massacre. And it is either odd or very coincidental that the only evidence is Bryant's distinctive Volvo with a surfboard on top that was left at the scene when the 'gunman' switched cars at the toll gates, taking a BMW after killing all its occupents. This BMW is ultimately burned beyond recoginition and so is Seascape (Bryant's final place of resistance) and all the weapons partially destroyed in the fire.
Later the Howard government has the Broad Arrow Cafe demolished. And Howard maintained that he would 'spare' the victim's families the trauma of a trial. And that was accomplished.
Bryant was never identified in person by any eyewitnesses to the shootings, instead they were shown photographs -- Why when Bryant was sitting in prison? No one was ever allowed to photograph him or to interview him outside his attorney and visits by Mother and girlfriend, Petra Willmott.




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
You'll never get that many coppers covering something up without at least one talking about it. It's not in their nature to help commit the crimes they fight against.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
You'll never get that many coppers covering something up without at least one talking about it. It's not in their nature to help commit the crimes they fight against.


Using that logic you could say that there are no cover-ups.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
That doesn't make sense. What's that got to do with what I said?
edit on 15-11-2010 by DeltaNine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaNine
That doesn't make sense. What's that got to do with what I said?
edit on 15-11-2010 by DeltaNine because: (no reason given)


Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but you need to research the subject matter before generalising it or trying to polarise the debate. Part 2 of the link I posted (Youtube 'Wendy Scurr') deals with police matters by an ex veteran police officer.
www.youtube.com...

I don't agree with many of the points of discussion regarding Port Arthur. I am not saying that the police were responsible for any particular events. What I am stating is that there was a cover-up at all levels. Exactly what is being covered up we do not exactly know. It's a complex subject, which, as I've said you need to research thoroughly given the economy of facts that we actually have.


edit on 15-11-2010 by Fahrenheit451 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join