Port Arthur massacre conspiracy

[Dog Town]

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

Port Arthur , Texas , USA

Never was one! We are the only state, to have been a country, though!

 

[MG1962]

Never was one! We are the only state, to have been a country, though!

And we are the only country to have ranches the size of Texas Just thought I would throw that in

 

[Alareth]

Never was one! We are the only state, to have been a country, though!

Silly Texicans

 

[lionking]

I've read quite a bit about the Port Arthur Massacre (too long ago to have all of the relevant details at my fingertips) and while most of the CTs' spoutings are risible there still exist 'facts' that suggest that Martin Bryant might not have acted alone.

At least two of the police officers at the siege reported that gunfire was coming from different parts of the guest house at the same time. I've even heard a recording of Martin Bryant talking to a police negotiator while gunfire can be heard in the background, far away. The police aren't firing, Martin Bryant isn't firing, somebody else is firing, it sounds like, from another part of the house. Also, while talking to the police negotiator, Bryant spots and identifies distant police (or special forces) marksmen, hidden, at night, without any sort of night vision device. There are other incongruities, it's worth exploring the subject a little.

What really leaves one rubbing one's chin are the actions of the authorities after the horrific event. Bryant's lightning quick identification by the press. No full trial or inquiry. Crime scene contaminated and then destroyed...

Lots of other little CT treats exist, also. The purchase and disposal of a colossal mobile morgue by the local authority. The absence of senior management from the PAHS. The coincidence of a hospital full of trauma specialists on the nearby mainland...

Bryant obviously had something to do with the days events. The government obviously didn't sanction the murder of dozens to push through legislation. But, I'm not sure the evidence identified by the CTs can be so easily shrugged off. Not all of it, at least.

(Apologies, I don't have links to hand, I'll try to track them down and post them here.)

Bryant pleaded guilty, that's why there was no "full trial" (which spared survivors the trauma of testimony and cross-examination). The Broad Arrow cafe was bulldozed after he pleaded guilty because it's continued presence was an abomination. Port Arthur still weighs heavy on Tasmanians and Australians generally. Spreading of CT rubbish like this is unpalatable - as I said in a previous post, I know a victim, and the suggestion that "someone" in "authority" had something to do with it simply dishonours the dead.

 

[MG1962]

Bryant pleaded guilty, that's why there was no "full trial" (which spared survivors the trauma of testimony and cross-examination). The Broad Arrow cafe was bulldozed after he pleaded guilty because it's continued presence was an abomination. Port Arthur still weighs heavy on Tasmanians and Australians generally. Spreading of CT rubbish like this is unpalatable - as I said in a previous post, I know a victim, and the suggestion that "someone" in "authority" had something to do with it simply dishonours the dead.

Hear hear!!! One of the reasons the whole nations suffers from those memories is the fact the place was a tourist attraction so a lot of people from a very broad geographic locations were affected.

Tasmania often has seen herself as the forgotten corner of Australia. If there was any positive out of that horrific day - They realised just how much the rest of the nation care about the people down there

 

[uk_dave]

Ahem!?!

I say rebuild Hadrians Wall (In steel and glass, of course, maybe with an observation deck and lots of resturaunts, a gym and a multiplex) now that the oil has run out.

 

[oogly shabubu]

He went to the guest house after he realised he'd missed the returning ferry from the Island of Lost Souls. His intentions so it seems, was to spray the vessel as it docked with gun fire.

Supposition.

The siege at the guesthouse lasted most of the night and only ended when a fire broke out. From memory Bryant had to be transfered to hospital for treatment to serious burns to his back.

From memory, the fire was started by police or the special forces that were present, before they were sure that the 'hostages' were dead.

is still alive, and has never claimed any complicty from other people or help from the goverment

Bryant is practically catatonic, and lets bear in mind that his last tested IQ was 66.

In fact the scumbag is proud of what he did

Evidence?

Anyone wants to believe this need to go talk to the suvivers.

That would've been the point of a trial or an enquiry, wouldn't it?

Talk to the mother who watched her young daughter chased around a tree a number of times before Bryant shot her dead.

That woman was killed at the site. Where did you hear about the chasing around the tree?

Sorry rant over

No problem. But that's all it was. A rant.

 

[Sleepy]

I'm starting to think it is about the reforms to the gun ownership laws that came about as a result of the massacre.

The politicians certainly siezed the oppurtunity to push through some laws that otherwise probably wouldn't have passed.

Very much like the Orwellian U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. legislation in the US. An absolutely enourmous document that I doubt most of the lawmakers had a chance to more than skim through before voting.

Largish sections of both laws were probably prepared well ahead of time. This I'd attribute to hopeful cynicism, not conspiracy.

 

[oogly shabubu]

Bryant pleaded guilty, that's why there was no "full trial" (which spared survivors the trauma of testimony and cross-examination).

Bryant initially pleaded 'not guilty', he was held in solitary confinement with access alowed only to state appointed lawyers and psychiatrists (Tavistock Institute trained, CT fans) until he changed his plea to 'guilty'. Nevertheless, after any event as horrendous as this there is usually an official enquiry, the purpose of which is to determine how the event came about and how it could be avoided in the future.

The Broad Arrow cafe was bulldozed after he pleaded guilty because it's continued presence was an abomination.

I can understand that it was an abomination but it was a crime scene, and it was bulldozed before the announcement that there would never be any enquiry. That just seems suspicious, or oddd, or wrong. I'm not saying it's a conspiratorial act, but you must recognise it's not common practice.

Port Arthur still weighs heavy on Tasmanians and Australians generally. Spreading of CT rubbish like this is unpalatable - as I said in a previous post, I know a victim, and the suggestion that "someone" in "authority" had something to do with it simply dishonours the dead.

As I've stressed previously I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory, I'm merely pointing out that there are inconsistencies and incongruities that persist in the case, things that could have been put to rest by a trial or an enquiry. While what happened at Port Arthur was obviously vile and disturbing it is not uniquely so, there are mass murders, serial killings, spree killings, genocides and atrocities that are picked apart and examined, the purpose of which is to render proof and solutions. If I was a victim of an event like that I'd want to know the truth, as much of the truth as could be identified and measures taken to try and ensure that it never happened again.

I'm not seeing much critical thought here, just knee-jerk reaction and sentimentalism.

 

[Oliver]

The politicians certainly siezed the oppurtunity to push through some laws that otherwise probably wouldn't have passed.

Very much like the Orwellian U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. legislation in the US. An absolutely enourmous document that I doubt most of the lawmakers had a chance to more than skim through before voting.

Largish sections of both laws were probably prepared well ahead of time. This I'd attribute to hopeful cynicism, not conspiracy.

Hey Sleepy.

Are you Sleepy2k16 from the LooseChange Board?

 

[lionking]

From memory, the fire was started by police or the special forces that were present, before they were sure that the 'hostages' were dead.
Where did you get this idea from? So wrong it is sickening.
That woman was killed at the site. Where did you hear about the chasing around the tree?
Yes Nanette Mikac was killed but Bryant chased one of her children behind a tree and shot her.
Nevertheless, after any event as horrendous as this there is usually an official enquiry, the purpose of which is to determine how the event came about and how it could be avoided in the future.
There was a police investigation, a coroners inquiry and a trial. What more do you want? Bryant was guilty and justice done.
I can understand that it was an abomination but it was a crime scene, and it was bulldozed before the announcement that there would never be any enquiry. That just seems suspicious, or oddd, or wrong. I'm not saying it's a conspiratorial act, but you must recognise it's not common practice.
It was bulldozed after the police investigation, do it was not a "crime scene".
I'm merely pointing out that there are inconsistencies and incongruities that persist in the case
"Just asking questions" like the courageous 9/11 CTs. You have no evidence. Put up or shut up.
By the way, the Port Arthur conspiracy theory was originated by gun enthusiasts who were annoyed that their semi-automatic playthings were taken from them. The basis of their beliefs was that it had to be a government/military/police operation (choose your own villain) because someone of such low intellect would not be capable of such skill with a firearm. In much the same way that 9/11 could not possibly be perpetrated by a handful of ignorant, backward Arabs......

 

[lionking]

Sorry about the look of my last post. Meant to have oogly's quotes shaded. Should I have used mini-quote? I will never learn to RTFM (read the "flaming" manual).

 

[MG1962]

Bryant initially pleaded 'not guilty', he was held in solitary confinement with access alowed only to state appointed lawyers and psychiatrists (Tavistock Institute trained, CT fans) until he changed his plea to 'guilty'. Nevertheless, after any event as horrendous as this there is usually an official enquiry, the purpose of which is to determine how the event came about and how it could be avoided in the future.

Garbage - A plea is not required to entered until you are in court. Even then you can change your plea

 

[Brainache]

I honestly had no idea that this CT even existed before this week. Are people making money out of this? If so it just makes me sick.

 

[MG1962]

I can understand that it was an abomination but it was a crime scene, and it was bulldozed before the announcement that there would never be any enquiry. That just seems suspicious, or oddd, or wrong. I'm not saying it's a conspiratorial act, but you must recognise it's not common practice.

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?

Royal Commissions are not called for over homicides. The only exception since 1902 was the Royal Commision into Aborginal Deaths in custody, that focused on the whole issue, not an individual case.

And he only met with State appointed council? In Australia we call that legal aid. The right to legal representation is one of basic rights. Bryant could have dismissed his counsel at anytime.

Finally why would such an event be staged at Hobart's premier tourist attraction?

 

[lionking]

I dont think anyone is making money out of it. The whole thing is so outlandish that nobody should rise to the bait. It just gives CTs oxygen.

 

[Sleepy]

Hey Sleepy.

Are you Sleepy2k16 from the LooseChange Board?

No... just plain old Sleepy. This forum and slashdot are the only ones I ever post on. Not interested in loose change, think they're nuts. I mostly just lurk here in the remote hope that one day a genuine paranormal ability will be discovered by the JREF people. Sometimes when I have time I add my two cents (au).

I remember the Port Arthur incident... the most sickening thing I saw from that was an interview with a gentleman who lost his wife and yound children on the day. A Current Affair interviewer Ray Martin (if I recall correctly) was blatantly trying to wring tears out of the guy, who made a heroic effort to stay composed. I never watched the show again after that.

 

[oogly shabubu]

"Just asking questions" like the courageous 9/11 CTs. You have no evidence. Put up or shut up.

Google and Wiki will provide you with an abundance of information, opinion, conjecture, claims and counterclaims. I know, I've just been wading through it. But, admit it, you're not interested in evidence. You're not even capable of reading my posts. You flatter yourself that you are a critical thinker but you're blinkered, ignorant and conceited. Your 'mind' (for want of a better word) is made up. You're contributing to a thread on a subject you don't even have the decency to do any research on. You won't read. You won't consider. You won't debate. Just pull down the shutters, pat yourself on the back and snuggle up with your unshakeable convictions.

 

[MG1962]

Google and Wiki will provide you with an abundance of information, opinion, conjecture, claims and counterclaims. I know, I've just been wading through it. But, admit it, you're not interested in evidence. You're not even capable of reading my posts.

So when do you plan to answer my questions

 

[oogly shabubu]

Garbage - A plea is not required to entered until you are in court. Even then you can change your plea

Bryant was held in solitary while he intended to plead not guilty. His mother was denied access to him. His lawyer was changed, he changed his intention to plead not guilty to a plea of guilty, after months of solitary with contact only from prison offficers, state appointed lawyers and psychiatrists. When he chose to plead guilty, and a full trial could be avoided, the legal process miraculously sprang into action. They had a hearing of the evidence, uncontested, and a sentencing.

John Howard unilaterally declared there would be no coroner's inquest, not in his jurisdiction and never done before or since.