Port Arthur massacre conspiracy

[MG1962]

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

Quiet possibly you are right - thats why we get the smart ones to write our law

 

[MG1962]

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.

In Australia - because we dont have the death penalty. There was no advantage to Bryant to plead guilty. I dont know about other countries but here, we dont have to enter a plea till we are in court.

As far as I am aware, Bryant never offered a confession either. And even if he had, he could contest it once in court with a Not Guilty plea

Signing a confession and pleading guilty are both considered acts of attrition here - meaning you may get your sentence reduced if you own up to doing whatever the police claim you did. In Bryants case he was going to do life regardless of the lead up.

In Bryants case, if the police had not conducted a proper investigation and the case was weak, he would have pleaded not guilty and taken his chances

To give you some further information - this is a quote from an interview with Bryants lawyer over the decision to plead guilty

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/lstories/lr970923.htm


Lynne Haultain: John Avery, I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that you were instrumental in persuading Martin Bryant to plead guilty which was not expected right up until a moment before the trial began because of course he'd said he would plead 'not guilty' and consequently a full trial would have to go ahead. What happened there.
John Avery: Well certainly when I got involved he had pleaded not guilty to the indictment. I'm not sure how much credit, if any, I can take for his ultimate change of plea, other than to say that at an early stage in my involvement with him I realised that he was an unusual individual and a straight up and down lawyers approach to him was not likely to be productive of a result that I saw as inevitable if the matter went to trial.
Lynne Haultain: So what was the approach you took. If you can say it wasn't a straight up and down client/lawyer relationship. What sort of relationship did you do... John Avery: Well let me give you an example. In most cases of this sort, or a normal criminal case, a lawyer will assess the evidence against the client - take instructions and then offer advice as to the likely outcome or where the matter was heading. It was pretty obvious after a fairly short time of perusing the material that the outcome in this case was pretty inevitable. And I also realised at an early stage that to simply foist that upon Martin Bryant in the sense of saying - well, this is what's going to happen, this is what you'll do, or this is my advice - was really not going to work at all. He I believed had to come to the realisation of the inevitability of the outcome himself. I visited him much more frequently than would have been strictly speaking necessary. I regularly had long interview with him of a type that one would say were clearly outside the normal range of what you would talk to a client about. In other words there is no way one could over 12 or 14 interviews have simply talked or badgered him about the events of the alleged crime. So, it was on lots of occasions, simply no more than, I suppose one could say, fire side chats.

 

[lionking]

And it is extemely unusual for a solicitor to advise his client to plead guilty. It just shows how strong the case against Bryant was.

 

[jaydeehess]

Here...

I can't post links, yet...

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

Here ya go..

http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/cttranscript.htm

 

[oogly shabubu]

Thank you, jaydeehess.

That I had to rely on a shooter CT website is unfortunate. I'm not demonstrating any kinship with those guys, what I was trying to demonstrate is that with the tiniest amount of effort you could locate a court transcript, you could also locate witness statements, police reports, scene-of-crime floorplans... but you're not motivated to do that. Despite my repeated protestations to the contrary some of you are happier to label me a CTer and leave it at that. You hear someone say "Don't you think it's strange that..?" and you throw up your hands, scream "CONSPIRACY THEORY!" and run around in ever decreasing circles. 99% of conspiracy theorists are nuts, agreed. Simply placing yourself in polar opposition to them and every thing they say doesn't automatically render you a noble paladin of truth and clear thinking. Sometimes its just fun to pick up an idea, hold it up to the light, think about it, talk about it, then put it back down again. You won't catch Conpiracy Theorist Syndrome from letting your guard down and taking a look at things from the other side of the fence occasionally. And sometimes, early on a Sunday morning, when you're tired and have a bit of a hangover you might even find yourself using one or two too many metaphors.

Basically, I'm surprised at how lazy some people can be.

 

[lionking]

"Fun" is it? You have not tried to prove anything, including the offensive claim that the police set fire to the guesthouse. It seems, thankfully, that you have backed down. I assume the lazy person you refer to is yourself.

Yes, I do feel strongly about this as I know a victim, but this does not mean that I cant deal with issues rationally. And I dont throw around insults like you.

 

[MG1962]

Despite my repeated protestations to the contrary some of you are happier to label me a CTer and leave it at that. You hear someone say "Don't you think it's strange that..?" and you throw up your hands, scream "CONSPIRACY THEORY!" and run around in ever decreasing circles. 99% of conspiracy theorists are nuts, agreed.

Well explain to me why you have suddenly decided to champion this case. In total there have only been three articles written about this conspiracy. 1997, by a woman I know nothing about. 2002 by some 'odd' religious group and a 2004, rewritten in 2006 by one of the worst White supremesist groups in the country.

Every other article is based of those three. So what orginal research have you done on the topic?

And again I ask why this case? There is absoslutely nothing here. It is cut and dried, the due process of law was followed. An entire nation watched this unfold. This wasn't some backwater case in some remote location.

Again I ask. Why this case. Just cause you found some half baked ramblings on the internet. In ten years, no one I know has even heard of a conspiracy surrounding this case. I know no one who has the slightest doubt about what the police say.

Why dont you go research some real mysteries, some cases where things dont add up. Cases where there is still information missing.

I can name four Australian cases straight of the top of my head.

But then again, they dont have vague uninformed internet resources devoted to them. So I guess I answered my own question

 

[Graham2001]

I remember reading in one of Australia's other conspiracy mags 'New Dawn' a Joe Viallis article in which he claimed to have measured the pixels on the Port Arthur footage and concluded on the basis of this that the weapons Bryant was supposed to have used were not the ones actually used as they were 'too long'...

The other things I remember from that time was the 'Sporting' Shooters Association trying to peddle the 'PM is a UN puppet' line, that and the PM facing down an angry mob of gun nuts while wearing a bullet-proof vest under his suit....

 

[sophia8]

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...

Care to quote the legal articles on that? I don't know about Australian law, but it's based on British law. And under British law, every defendant gets a full trial, whatever the plea, with every piece of evidence presented.

 

[maccy]

Care to quote the legal articles on that? I don't know about Australian law, but it's based on British law. And under British law, every defendant gets a full trial, whatever the plea, with every piece of evidence presented.

There's no such thing as British Law. Here's what happens in England and Wales:

The trial opens with the defendant being told the charges against them. They are then asked to plead - to say if they accept the charge by pleading guilty or if they contest it (not guilty). When there are several charges against the accused, the defendant has to plead to each one separately. If the accused pleads guilty, then the judge moves straight to sentence. It's worth bearing in mind that, by pleading guilty, the defendant may receive a discounted sentence because they have saved the court time and money.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/crowncourt.shtml

I believe it's basically the same in Scotland and in Northern Ireland*.

It also applies in the Supreme Court of Tasmania:

The accused may change their plea at any point in the proceedings. If the accused pleads "guilty" then he/she can either be sentenced then and there or be remanded off for sentence on another day. If the accused pleads "not guilty" then the trial officially begins at that point.

source: http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/going_to_court/accused_persons

*Edited to add:

Scotland:

The accused can plead guilty to the charges at any stage in the proceedings. This can be done on a date already fixed for hearing the case or the date of the case can be brought forward for this purpose. Once the accused has admitted guilt, the case proceeds to sentence.

source: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/courtusers/crimcourtattenders/attending_06.asp

Northern Ireland:

Whether the case is sent to the Magistrates', Crown or Youth Court, you will be asked whether you wish to plead guilty or not guilty. If you plead guilty, admitting to the offence, then the court will decide on an appropriate punishment. Your legal representative will inform the court of anything that may be considered in your favour, which is known as a plea in mitigation, and may result in a reduced sentence.

source: http://www.cjsni.gov.uk/index.cfm/area/information/page/atthetrial

 

[maccy]

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.

A confession is not the same thing as a guilty plea. A confession is obtained by law enforcement officers before they pass the case to a prosecutor. A pleas is made in court, under the advice of the defending counsel. If there is a problem with a confession then the defence would be expected to enter a plea of not-guilty and challenge the circumstances of the confession. If the defending counsel fails to represent their client then that is grounds for an appeal - and runs the risk of seriously damaging the lawyer's career.

Can you cite a case where a court has unjustly pressurised a defendant to plead guilty? Also, can you cite a case where a court has threatened a defendants life if they don't plead guilty? Your citations should come from a legal system that is generally considered to be fair and just.

 

[Lonewulf]

Can you cite a case where a court has unjustly pressurised a defendant to plead guilty? Also, can you cite a case where a court has threatened a defendants life if they don't plead guilty? Your citations should come from a legal system that is generally considered to be fair and just.

Well, you're right, a confession isn't the same as pleading guilty.

I really don't have much reference material on-hand, and I really don't feel like digging it up as the point is a minor one. I do believe that a very famous case involved a group of individuals that were accused of terrorism in England. They were accused of being IRA, if I recall correctly. There was a film on the case, but I don't recall the title.

Regardless, there are court systems that have had miscarriages of justice. But I'm not claiming anything about any Australian court in particular.

Mmmh... if I wanted to do a bit of digging, I could probably provide some evidence of certain cases. There's a few examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

Specific case:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Ward

I know this is wikipedia, and not what you asked for. But like I said, I'm not interested in pushing the point, as I consider it a minor one.

Court systems are not perfect, though countries do attempt to prevent miscarriages when a flaw comes into view.

Edit: Usually. Depends on who's in power. (I wouldn't have trusted those british courts in South Africa during Apartheid, or some southern U.S. courts when dealing with a black man a few decades ago, for instance)

 

[Lonewulf]

Care to quote the legal articles on that? I don't know about Australian law, but it's based on British law. And under British law, every defendant gets a full trial, whatever the plea, with every piece of evidence presented.

But that wasn't the claim earlier in this thread...

I'm confused?

Like I said, I don't know much about law, but now I'm getting contradictions in this thread?

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.

'cause I'm lazy, can one of you link to any relevant articles to back up your claim? Or show where I'm mistaken? Am I reading these wrong?

 

[Carnivore]

Well, you're right, a confession isn't the same as pleading guilty.

I really don't have much reference material on-hand, and I really don't feel like digging it up as the point is a minor one. I do believe that a very famous case involved a group of individuals that were accused of terrorism in England. They were accused of being IRA, if I recall correctly. There was a film on the case, but I don't recall the title.

I believe you're referring to the Guildford Four, one whom wrote an autobiography " Proved Innocent" that was filmed in 1993 as "In The Name Of The Father".

These people made confessions under duress but pleaded not guilty at their trials. I don't think it counts as a threat by the court, but the sentencing judge did say he regretted that the defendants hadnt been charged with treason, which could incur the death penalty.

 

[Andúril]

There are probably a lot of Port Arthur's around the former English colonies.

Port Arthur , Texas , USA
Port Arthur , Tasmania , Australia
Port Arthur , Ontario , Canada (now amalgamated as part of Thunder Bay)
Port Arthur China (Now Lushan)
Port Arthur , Scalloway, Scotland

Plus there's also one Port Arthur in Turku, Finland.

I have no idea why they decided to name it that way.

 

[maccy]

Well, you're right, a confession isn't the same as pleading guilty.

I really don't have much reference material on-hand, and I really don't feel like digging it up as the point is a minor one.

I disagree that the point is a minor one. You are suggesting that there is a chance of a miscarriage of justice if a case proceeds to sentencing when the defendant pleads guilty.

Fundamentally, you are saying that the criminal justice system as practiced in the UK, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia (and anywhere else that accepts a plea of guilty as an indication of guilt) is flawed.

You've also said that courts are able to pressure an innocent defendant to plead guilty, possibly by threatening their life. In fact you say this has happened - but you don't give examples.

This is quite a serious accusation which is why I'm being tough on you regarding evidence for it.

I do believe that a very famous case involved a group of individuals that were accused of terrorism in England. They were accused of being IRA, if I recall correctly. There was a film on the case, but I don't recall the title.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four did not plead guilty - the flaws in their cases lay elsewhere.

Regardless, there are court systems that have had miscarriages of justice. But I'm not claiming anything about any Australian court in particular.

Mmmh... if I wanted to do a bit of digging, I could probably provide some evidence of certain cases. There's a few examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

The point is not that miscarriages of justice have occurred. You have to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice occurred because a defendent was allowed to plead guilty when they were innocent and also that this was a systemic failure (ie not the result of an incompetent defence lawyer).

Specific case:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Ward

From the report of the court of appeal:

The appellant pleaded "not guilty" to all counts. On November 4,
1974, she was convicted on all counts, by a majority of 10 to two on
count 1, unanimously on all the others.

source:http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/judithward/ward.pdf

So: she wasn't pressured into pleading guilty. The evidence was examined. The problems lay elsewhere.

I know this is wikipedia, and not what you asked for. But like I said, I'm not interested in pushing the point, as I consider it a minor one.

Are you prepared to retract your statements then?

Court systems are not perfect, though countries do attempt to prevent miscarriages when a flaw comes into view.

I'm not claiming they are perfect. I'm disputing your idea that allowing a defendent to plead guilty and avoid a trial leads to miscarriages of justice.

Edit: Usually. Depends on who's in power. (I wouldn't have trusted those british courts in South Africa during Apartheid, or some southern U.S. courts when dealing with a black man a few decades ago, for instance)

British Courts in Apartheid South Africa? What does this mean?

Can you give an example where racial prejudice has led to an innocent man pleading guilty in the US? The prejudice of a judge or a jury is not relevant to this.

Do you really believe that proceeding with a trial by jury when a defendant has pleaded guilty would counteract a biased judge or jury?

 

[maccy]

But that wasn't the claim earlier in this thread...

I'm confused?

Like I said, I don't know much about law, but now I'm getting contradictions in this thread?



'cause I'm lazy, can one of you link to any relevant articles to back up your claim? Or show where I'm mistaken? Am I reading these wrong?

Sophia8 is wrong, in Australia and the UK (and, I'm sure, in many other places) a plea of not guilty leads straight to sentencing, without a trial to establish innocence or guilt. See the citations in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2312956#post2312956

 

[Lonewulf]

Fine, I retract my statement (though I dont' think that the statement that you think you saw was the one that I intended to actually make...). I was thinking confessions anyways, and I am not aware of any details of a case where a "guilty" claim was extracted. But there are cases where confessions have been forcefully extracted, and I stick by that. I am not claiming that these happened with the courts in New Zealand or Australia, and I'm not getting into specifics, because I don't know many. I don't follow up on cases very often, and I'm not well-acquainted with law and trials.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sophia8 is wrong, in Australia and the UK (and, I'm sure, in many other places) a plea of not guilty leads straight to sentencing, without a trial to establish innocence or guilt. See the citations in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2312956#post2312956

Quick question: If it leads straight to sentencing, and evidence was not scrutinized, then is there any actual possibility that there was a second shooter? I'm not claiming conspiracy, but it seems like potentially significant data could have been overlooked.

Am I getting something wrong?

 

[maccy]

Fine, I retract my statement. I was thinking confessions anyways, and I am not aware of any details of a case where a "guilty" claim was extracted. But there are cases where confessions have been extracted, and I stick by that. I am not claiming that these happened with the courts in New Zealand or Australia, and I'm not getting into specifics, because I don't know many. I don't follow up on cases very often, and I'm not well-acquainted with law and trials.

You're on a skeptics' forum - if you make statements based on ignorance people will give you a hard time.

To bring it back to the OP - the point about confessions is valid (and not disputed here) but it is not relevant to this case. The sentence handed out to Martin Bryant was based on his guilty plea, not on a confession.