Port Arthur massacre conspiracy

[oogly shabubu]

So tell us under Tasmanian law - what is the law of evidence preservation. Were examination of the victims undertaken? Was cause of death established? Were witness statements taken?

Examination of victims was undertaken and cause of death established, obviously. Witness statements were taken. Loads of evidence was gathered but it was presented uncontested. Martin Bryant was never formally identified, though. A simple and basic enough process. Eyewitness statements exist that categorically state that the gunman was not Martin Bryant. In a traumatic situation like that, eyewitness statements can be wrong, though. For what it's worth, yet again, I don't think Martin Bryant is innocent. What I believe is that there are bewildering anomalies and circumstances surrounding the case. I'd like to see them examined and explained. It's depressing, especially when you come to a website like this that's supposed to champion critical thinking, that if you mention anything... anything... that's tainted by conspiracy theory everybody just rolls their eyes and wanders off muttering 'crackpot' or 'troublemaker'. Using Google, your own good judgement and an hour of your time you will definitely put a few question marks over at least a few of the circumstances surrounding that horrific event.

 

[joesixpack]

Not to start a 2nd ammendment debate,

I find it interesting that Texas and Australia had such different reactions to simmilar incidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

The Texas legislature responded by removing almost all restrictions on citizens with regards to conceiled weapons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

The Aussie government responded with tighter gun controls

Now, I grew up in Texas, and I've known plenty of Austrailians. Frankly, except for the accent, I can't tell much difference.

 

[MG1962]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

The Aussie government responded with tighter gun controls

Now, I grew up in Texas, and I've known plenty of Austrailians. Frankly, except for the accent, I can't tell much difference.

Well we have never had the gun culture like the US. In a sense Port Arthur was the last straw. We'd had the Hoddle Street massacre, then then the Westfield shootings.

The thing that struck people was the fact that the laws were so lax, Bryant was able to get hold of a virtual armory, even though he was clearly not fit to own a gun.

Wether the legislation introduced after the event did or will do any good is still a matter for debate. I have seen plenty of statistics on both sides to argue their case.

I guess it comes down to what a society expects. What a Texan will consider unacceptable, is considered good governance by an Australian, and it is doubtful either will ever convince the other they are right

 

[MG1962]

Loads of evidence was gathered but it was presented uncontested. Martin Bryant was never formally identified, though. A simple and basic enough process.

And why is that?

There is actually a very simple and basic reason for this. I wonder if your hour on Google found that answer for you

 

[oogly shabubu]

And why is that?

There is actually a very simple and basic reason for this. I wonder if your hour on Google found that answer for you

What's your problem?

 

[oogly shabubu]

Bryant was not identified at the PAHS, on the phone to police negotiators he identified himself as Jamie, police on the ground thought there were at least two gunmen at Seascape, when he ran out of the siege building with his back on fire he claimed to be a hostage. Why wouldn't he be officially identified?

 

[oogly shabubu]

I'm not forcing you to research this, MG. I wouldn't want you to expose yourself to anything that might cause you to question any firmly held beliefs or, worse still, actually think.

 

[joesixpack]

...
I guess it comes down to what a society expects. What a Texan will consider unacceptable, is considered good governance by an Australian, and it is doubtful either will ever convince the other they are right

Well, my point was not to convince anyone. My point was that I was surprised that Aussies would act differently than Texans. It strikes me as, well, unaustralian


http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Unaustralia

 

[Lonewulf]

Do I even need to count the Ad Hominems...?

Oogly, your insulting others isn't really helping your argument at all.

 

[oogly shabubu]

Do I even need to count the Ad Hominems...?

Oogly, your insulting others isn't really helping your argument at all.

I think if anything I'm being placatory, given the responses to my posts. I'm trying to open a dialogue based on curiosity and inquiry, all I'm getting is attitude. I try to answer people's questions and I get a finger wagged at me... is that typical behaviour for this board?

 

[MG1962]

Bryant was not identified at the PAHS, on the phone to police negotiators he identified himself as Jamie, police on the ground thought there were at least two gunmen at Seascape, when he ran out of the siege building with his back on fire he claimed to be a hostage. Why wouldn't he be officially identified?

Because he pleaded guilty. Once that happens the crown does not have to present a case. You cant know what information the prosecution had, because it was never made a public document, because it didn't need to.

 

[MG1962]

Well, my point was not to convince anyone. My point was that I was surprised that Aussies would act differently than Texans. It strikes me as, well, unaustralian

Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were I just had this image in my head of a Texan and Australian sitting in a bar explaining each others gun laws. Each blinking, then looking at the other like they where crazy lol

 

[MG1962]

I'm not forcing you to research this, MG. I wouldn't want you to expose yourself to anything that might cause you to question any firmly held beliefs or, worse still, actually think.

What have beliefs got to do with anything. At the time Tasmanian police were heavily critised over their actions. If there had been more to it, the media would have been all over it like a shag on a rock.

Your arguement is like so many of this nature. A lack of something proves there is something else. In Australia we have due process. If a case has issues it gets reffered up to higher courts. We have appeal systems and review processes. Bryant in all these years has never attempted to take advantage of any of it

 

[oogly shabubu]

Because he pleaded guilty. Once that happens the crown does not have to present a case. You cant know what information the prosecution had, because it was never made a public document, because it didn't need to.

Here...

I can't post links, yet...

You could've easily located www-dot-shootersnews-dot-addr.com/cttranscript.htm

Add the 'dots' yourself. If you can be bothered. I doubt it, though.

You really couldn't even be bothered to look, could you?

You're really giving 'thinking' a bad name.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Inappropriate remark removed.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[oogly shabubu]

In Australia we have due process. If a case has issues it gets reffered up to higher courts. We have appeal systems and review processes. Bryant in all these years has never attempted to take advantage of any of it

You're not even worth arguing with. You're a moron. You've probably got a lower IQ than Bryant.

Second warning. Stop insulting other posters.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Lonewulf]

I think if anything I'm being placatory, given the responses to my posts.

I looked up "placatory" in the dictionary. Then I looked up "placate". None of the definitions quite fit your posting style.

I'm trying to open a dialogue based on curiosity and inquiry, all I'm getting is attitude.

The best way to open a dialogue is to not call those that disagree with you various insults and names, and also proclaim that they are incapable of thinking. I think that you'd honestly find yourself much more capable of continuing a conversation by attempting to remain polite.

I should know, I suck at it.

 

[Lonewulf]

Because he pleaded guilty. Once that happens the crown does not have to present a case. You cant know what information the prosecution had, because it was never made a public document, because it didn't need to.

I don't know much about law, but this somewhat perturbs me. If a man pleads guilty, then the court can bypass a lot of necessities, such as evidence for conviction and the like...

In the past, various courts have used this by attempting to extract confessions, sometimes by threatening the lives of the accused. I'm not claiming that that's the case here, however.

I don't know enough about the case myself to really comment one way or the other. It seems very likely that there was only one shooter. Unless any evidence is presented on the contrary, I'll have to go with that theory.

 

[lionking]

Here...

I can't post links, yet...

You could've easily located www-dot-shootersnews-dot-addr.com/cttranscript.htm

Add the 'dots' yourself. If you can be bothered. I doubt it, though.

You really couldn't even be bothered to look, could you?

You're really giving 'thinking' a bad name.

Why couldn't you have been in that cafeteria on that day?

So you are relying on a shooter nut website. Shooter yourself? It might explain a lot.
No amount of insults will add up to any proof. Are you suggesting that MG should have been in the cafe and shot? If so, you are in breach of forum rules.
Again, like 9/11 CTs, you put on the mantle of "seeker of truth", "critical thinker" and "open minded" to spew out rubbish without a skerrick of evidence, relying on Joe Vaillis' and shooters' websites. Oh and Wikipedia. If you want to convince anyone that people other than Martin Bryant took part, you have to do much better. And it is you, the proposer of some outlandish government or establishment conspiracy, who has the onus of proof, not me.

 

[Lonewulf]

So you are relying on a shooter nut website. Shooter yourself? It might explain a lot.

Just don't think that just because someone likes guns, they run around painting conspiracy theories like this...

I say this 'cause I'd go out and shoot more if I didn't have other hobbies/responsibilities, and I have an interest in firearms.

 

[lionking]

Here...

I can't post links, yet...

You could've easily located www-dot-shootersnews-dot-addr.com/cttranscript.htm

Add the 'dots' yourself. If you can be bothered. I doubt it, though.

You really couldn't even be bothered to look, could you?

You're really giving 'thinking' a bad name.

Why couldn't you have been in that cafeteria on that day?

I'm not saying all shooters are nuts - I've been shooting (once) myself. What I am saying is that believers in the Port Arthur conspiracy tend to be shooters angry to the state of apoplexy about bans on semi-automatics.

Just don't think that just because someone likes guns, they run around painting conspiracy theories like this...

I say this 'cause I'd go out and shoot more if I didn't have other hobbies/responsibilities, and I have an interest in firearms.