PORT ARTHUR 'KILLER' Like a ZOMBIE Say's his Mother
Port Arthur Killer, Martin Bryant 39, Australia's worst mass murderer has become an overweight ZOMBIE, states the mother of this creature that killed without cause, 35 innocent people and seriously injured many others in a shooting rampage on April 28 1996. This ex gun toting ogre appears to be losing his marbles and refuses to talk to his mother, doctor or inmates where he is incarcerated in Hobarts prison hospital in Tasmania.
If you do not recall this frightful event happening nearly ten years ago, it can be regurgitated by clicking onto Google, simply (Martin Bryant Port Arthur)lots of info available.
It was on Feb 1 this year while on vacation in Tasmania that I visited Port Arthur, where the remains of one of the first penal settlements in Australia is located. Port Arthur is a great drawcard for tourists visiting Tasmania, 'I wonder why'.
If you do not recall this frightful event happening nearly ten years ago, it can be regurgitated by clicking onto Google, simply (Martin Bryant Port Arthur)lots of info available.
It was on Feb 1 this year while on vacation in Tasmania that I visited Port Arthur, where the remains of one of the first penal settlements in Australia is located. Port Arthur is a great drawcard for tourists visiting Tasmania, 'I wonder why'.
Comments
I guess the slaughter of several hundred Tasmanian Aboriginies in one day didn't count. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, they were all killed within a short time period.
Zombieslayer. pleased to see you back. The Aborigines of Tasmania provoked the Brits to retalliate Thus contributing to their own downfall, this was an act of war not an isolated act of madness by one individual.
To the victor go the spoils of war.
The Spaniards did it to the Mayans and the Incas.
The Romans to the Ancient Brits.
Ghengis Khan to everyone and anyone. John Wayne and the 7th Cavalry to more Nth AM Aborigines you could poke a stick at.
I shall presume that, the FatMouth reporter you have mentioned probably did his sums and history lessons more so than his detractors, the so called plight of the apple Isle's indiginous people and their fight with the Brits took place at least a half century prior to the Island being named Tasmania in 1855 AD. Its previous name was Van Diemans Land.
That got fat mouth off the hook.
Tassie is the ideal place to retire, qtr acre blocks by the sea
aprox 30,000 uncle sam bucks. Tasmania has very strict gun laws. This comment does not seem quite like the original, but is your loss too and you are stuck with it. going to bed now, see ya.
Yes it is true , about 60 British ships from the B P Fleet were involved too, 'The Forgotten Fleet'
(Google- Operation Iceberg)
After searching the internet for music lyrics(although I should have been studying), I was sidetracked even further, for two nights solid, by three or four websites*(See bottom of page for a couple of links), totally unrelated to my search, which have a large amount of info on the Port Arthur Massacre. In particular, the many events apparently reported at the time, that appear not to add up (see the first link)
There are apparently many unanswered questions which suggest that Martin Bryant is innocent, and several theories as to who was actually behind the massacre (these theories probably seem impossible and even more unbelievable than the thought of Mr. Bryant being responsible, as it would mean someone in authority planned the killings).It is probably difficult to do, especially if you were affected at the time, but if you consider the possibility that someone else, other than Mr. Bryant, committed the crime, then the taboo nature of any conspiracy discussion (taboo due to the horrendous nature of the crime)can be seen to be serving to protect the very person/people behind the killings.
I have only read a handful of websites (although they did take two full nights to read), so cannot comment further without hearing both sides of the story (the mainstream media appear to dismiss 'conspiracy' theories but provide no other explanation or answers to the apparent anomalies), which is why there should be an inquiry...something that has never happened....mainly, again, due to the nature of the crime.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the 'evidence' from the above mentioned websites, and in hope of either confirming, in the near future, OBJECTIVELY that Mr. Bryant is the killer, or finding the real killer(s), I would like to summarize what I have read so far. If the 'evidence' on these websites is to be believed (of course, some of it may be false due to the nature of the internet, but everything could easily be followed up if there was a proper inquiry) there is something not quite right. I would like to introduce some points which you may like to investigate and make up your own mind (without being influenced by pictures of Mr. Bryant in the media, which may or may not have been tampered with. RE. ridiculously round, white scary eyes).
Firstly, starting with Prime Minister Howard, when he apparently implied that, since the killer had been caught, there was no need for a trial (again, due to the nature of the crime, it would appear that no-one complained at the time that Mr. Howard was breaking the law by not using the phrase 'alleged killer').
Secondly, Mr. Bryant's photo was illegally printed by the press before his trial, which is another significant point which affects witnesses' statements. These photos were apparently published unbelievably quickly, suggesting that someone gave the media the photos.
Thirdly, the most reliable witness, the only person who saw the gunman's face and knew Mr. Bryant before the killings, said specifically, in his police statement, that the gunman was not him. This witness was not called on by the court, because Mr. Bryant was persuaded (by a new lawyer supplied by the authorities to replace his previous lawyer) to change his plea to 'guilty' (he was threatened with not having a colour TV in his cell), negating the need for a trial with all evidence presented, including all statements given to the police immediately after the shootings and before the media were fed certain details and not others. (A full trial would have officially raised the possibility that there was a missing suspect, instead of websites (and blog messages) raising the issue and being ignored as 'crack-pots'). Incidentally, another key witness, Wendy Scurr, has highlighted anomalies in the official findings, and has been ignored by the mainstream media: http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitness.html
Fourthly, immediately after Mr. Bryant was arrested with burns to his back (note, no burns to his face, hands or front, which you would expect from an inept arsonist....yet another anomaly, suggesting he was sleeping when woken by falling burning wood) the above mentioned witness who stated that Mr. Bryant was not the killer was also yards from Mr. Bryant when both were being treated in hospital afterwards, but no body asked the witness to make a formal identification. The results of this would have been unbiased by media photos. All other witness statements were made hours or days after Mr. Bryant's photo was published illegally and Mr. Howard had already condemned Mr. Bryant.
Fifthly, Police statements also cite other shots fired by an unknown gunman and a naked woman (Mrs Martins? ...so still alive and not killed by Mr. Bryant on the 28th after all) running, screaming outside Seascape)
Sixthly, there are many anomalies with what happened at the burnt cottage 'Seascape', implying there were other people involved, who have since escaped.
As I say, I have only read all this on websites, but I think a big factor causing me to think Mr. Bryant MAY be innocent, is this: if you consider his mental age is 11, it is easy to see how this explains his state of mind, and his actions and comments during and after the siege, ie. a) in court: his laughing and making fun of his situation; b)comments during the siege of Seascape and c) afterwards in police statements: his story during police interview being surprisingly consistent for someone alleged to have murdered 35 people and to be simply blanking this out from his memory; d) him just wanting to go home and see his Mum; e) even after in prison - him being very friendly towards anyone in prison, apparently totally oblivious to the seriousness of his crime; f)asking if a prison officer would bring her children to see him, and when she declined he actioned shooting with his hands).
Often his behaviour since arrest seems to have been considered proof of him being a deranged criminal, but I believe they can also be seen as a deranged innocent man with the IQ of an eleven year old.
I just wish there was an inquiry, so I could sleep at night and get on with my TEFL Masters study!
Regards – Tim
*A couple of the related websites:
Supporting Bryant Not Guilty Theory:
Ian McNiven's:
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snportarthur.html
Supporting Bryant Guilt Theory:
http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/ideas_kill.htm