Martin Bryant Innocent?

[The Grim Lifter]

The police took over 1000 witness statements in preparation for the trial.

There are dozens and dozens of witnesses who indentified him as the shooter.

The house he was found in contained two bodies of people he killed there the morning of the shooting and who were enemies of his family. Not to mention another body of a man he took hostage on the way back to the house from the mass shooting site.

Bryant expected to be shot by police when he came out of the house and their professionalism in not doing so is commendable.

Bryant confessed to the crimes and his motivations for them to Dr Mullens who assessed him in preparation for trial.

So why did he plead Not Guilty first.

[agenda21nwo]

So why did he plead Not Guilty first.

For 5 months, while in  Solitary Confinement.  Pretty amazing willpower for a child's IQ.

Sounds more like terror and abuse tactics doesn't it?  We keep you locked up till you confess!!!

[agenda21nwo]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Martin-Bryant-is-Innocent/139621069383740

[disco_stu]

if anyone believes that bryant didnt do this, they are morons.. period.

people were interviewed at the scene and all identified him as the only assailant.

not just one, but many. i suppose they are all in on it?

like the hundreds of people who all kept quiet during the filming of the fake moon landing?, and the well kept secrecy in the twin tower attack.

australia is no where near as corrupt as most places..its always been an honest country.

(mind you, this current government is doing its own bit for corruption).

still, its never been corrupt about things like this... ever..

[disco_stu]

Your main problem is that you are just a child, and you believe fairytales. There was plenty of shots, there was security etc. videos, there were witnesses, evidence and that is 100% fact. What you have choose to believe is conspiracy theory, which all are made by idiots. Their theory is based on one single thing, and that is denying reality. If you deny reality, everything will be possible, but nothing is true. For example, let's pick one random thing about this story, and you prove it with real and concrete evidence: prove that no one of the eyewitnesses identify Bryant as a shooter. It shouldn't be too much to ask, so let see how you prove it?  

^this... correct on all counts.

the main problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on a whole load of people to keep their mouths shut... we all know that its pretty easy to get people talking, especially when there's the chance of making some cash...

and for a story that big, there'd be cash. in fact people make shit up to try to get the cash.

[agenda21nwo]

if anyone believes that bryant didnt do this, they are morons.. period.

people were interviewed at the scene and all identified him as the only assailant.

What you typed is an absolute lie.

Not sure if that is intentional, or because you are ignorant.

[disco_stu]

What you typed is an absolute lie.

Not sure if that is intentional, or because you are ignorant.

ok genius, why then were these people killed?

if bryant didnt do it, who did and why?

you have now set the bar dumber than i ever thought possible...

[agenda21nwo]

ok genius, why then were these people killed?

if bryant didnt do it, who did and why?

More stupidity from you.

Errr, somebody else...?

Why?  Use your pea brain and I'm sure you can manage a few possibilities.

[agenda21nwo]

The mother of Australia’s worst mass murderer says she regrets asking her son to plead guilty and that she’ll always love him unconditionally.

The guilty plea by Port Arthur killer Martin Bryant meant a lot of questions went unanswered, his mother Carleen Bryant said.

“I regret asking him to plead guilty, which denied him the chance to answer a lot of questions,” Ms Bryant told New Idea.

According to the magazine, Ms Bryant questions how someone of her son’s intellectual limitations could have organised the massacre but claims she doesn’t want to spark debate about his guilt or innocence.

“There are conspiracy theories that Martin was not, and could not, have been the gunman,” Ms Bryant said.

“These would have been addressed with DNA, witness statements and fingerprints, to prove it one way or another.”

On April 28, 1996, then 28-year-old Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded another 21 in a shooting spree at Tasmania’s Port Arthur historic site.

Bryant was subsequently given 35 life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Ms Bryant has rarely given interviews but in 2006 told The Bulletin magazine that one of her deepest regrets was agreeing to persuade her son to plead guilty.

Her latest interview with New Idea, on sale on Monday, comes ahead of the release of her book My Story.

Ms Bryant sees her 43-year-old son once a fortnight at the psychiatric section of Hobart’s Risdon Prison and talks to him regularly on the phone.

She says medication has made him dangerously obese.

“The world does not need to remember Martin but he is my son, and I will always love him unconditionally,” she told the magazine, which released portions of the interview.

Bryant was born on May 7, 1967, the oldest of two children to Maurice and Carleen Bryant.

The Tasmanian Supreme Court heard in 1996 that he had the mental capacity of an 11-year-old.

Ms Bryant said her son had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.

“From a very young age, Martin had social and intellectual difficulties, a very low IQ,” she told New Idea.

“He was a misfit and could not make friends or concentrate at school.

“We made sure Martin always had the best treatment and advice but no one ever really knew what was wrong with him. It was heartbreaking.”

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/martin-bryants-mother-i-regret-asking-him-to-plead-guilty-which-denied-him-the-chance-to-answer-a-lot-of-questions/

[Ropo]

When he went to trail he pled not guilty. They wouldn't hold the trial. They made him plead Guilty by having his mother influence him.

Who the fuck ID'd him? He killed everyone around him and anyone who survived was running for their lives.

Ropo can say whatever he likes. I don't believe in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 or anything else. But this is just ridiculous.

As for the USA gun crimes, that's a combination of availability, others doing it and prescription drugs which have now been administered since early childhood so the Pharmaceutical companies can make more money. Get em hooked as a child, have them for life.

Hey assclown, let me repeat the facts for you: HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them? When you fucking idiots learn that facts are facts, and claims from the foil hat morons are NOTHING BUT LIES? How fucking hard it is to you to understand, that you can't just say that the evidence is false, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING PROVE IT BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . And that, dear child, you and the rest of the foil hat gang can't do. It is simple as that. That's why it is quite easy to debug any conspiracy theory: STUPID FOIL HAT CLAIMS LAC ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.

[The Grim Lifter]

Hey assclown, let me repeat the facts for you: HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them? When you fucking idiots learn that facts are facts, and claims from the foil hat morons are NOTHING BUT LIES? How fucking hard it is to you to understand, that you can't just say that the evidence is false, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING PROVE IT BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . And that, dear child, you and the rest of the foil hat gang can't do. It is simple as that. That's why it is quite easy to debug any conspiracy theory: STUPID FOIL HAT CLAIMS LAC ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.

Did you watch the women's video who was there and said it wasn't him? Nope lets just discount it.

Believe what you want. Australia Police and Politicians are complete fucking corrupt liars.

[HonestBob]

Hey assclown, let me repeat the facts for you: HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them? When you fucking idiots learn that facts are facts, and claims from the foil hat morons are NOTHING BUT LIES? How fucking hard it is to you to understand, that you can't just say that the evidence is false, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING PROVE IT BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . And that, dear child, you and the rest of the foil hat gang can't do. It is simple as that. That's why it is quite easy to debug any conspiracy theory: STUPID FOIL HAT CLAIMS LAC ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.

Ropo, you can't argue with these conspiracy theory idiots.  You make sense, they do not, but they can't see it.

[Ropo]

Did you watch the women's video who was there and said it wasn't him? Nope lets just discount it.

Believe what you want. Australia Police and Politicians are complete fucking corrupt liars.

I don't believe what I want, I believe what has been proved by the evidence, no matter if it pleases me or not. That is something you morons should learn, because facts are facts. I haven't watch that video, because I don't watch foil hat crap for one simple reason. There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job. Anything what one silly bitch says on any fucking video doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't work this way: "I have this one new witness, and her overrule all those 123 previous eyewitnesses". You seem to think that everything what you read from the internet, is true, so read this slowly and carefully: YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. That has to be a fact, because you read it from internet 

[agenda21nwo]

I don't believe what I want, I believe what has been proved by the evidence, no matter if it pleases me or not. That is something you morons should learn, because facts are facts. I haven't watch that video, because I don't watch foil hat crap for one simple reason. There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job. Anything what one silly bitch says on any fucking video doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't work this way: "I have this one new witness, and her overrule all those 123 previous eyewitnesses". You seem to think that everything what you read from the internet, is true, so read this slowly and carefully: YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. That has to be a fact, because you read it from internet 

ONE SILLY BITCH...

WOW - the first responder who did more that day than the police.  Way to go big man..

[agenda21nwo]

There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job.

Keep talking yourself into a hole and showing yourself for the fool that you are.

Bryant identified as the gunman?

In terms of the allegation that the witnesses have identified Bryant as the man they saw shooting at the PAHS, the most serious difficulties are raised by Jim Laycock in his statement. Laycock is of outstanding importance in this case, as he is the one and only witness who observed the gunman in the act and actually knew Bryant. In his police statement, Laycock—who, as noted earlier, got a good enough look at the man to be able to estimate his age ("low twenties")—said that he "did not recognise the male as Martin Bryant". He stated only that he saw "a blonde [sic] headed person" shoot Zoe Hall and take Glenn Pears captive.

Another witness, Yannis Kateros, said he had never seen the gunman before. Yet Kateros had lived at Port Arthur since 1991, and, according to Laycock, Bryant had visited the PAHS on about a dozen occasions in the five-year period between about 1991 and 1995.

At least two other witnesses have also stated that Bryant was not the gunman. These are PAHS Information Centre employee Wendy Scurr, who, according to one report, saw the gunman inside the centre immediately prior to the attack, and Vietnam War veteran John Godfrey, who was waiting outside the centre when the shooting commenced. Godfrey viewed the gunman twice. He saw him drive by and saw him put a bag into the boot of his car. "In my opinion the picture I saw in the newspapers was not the same person," he stated in his police statement taken on 7 June 1996. Wendy Scurr has changed her mind on the subject; she no longer believes that Bryant was the man she saw that day.

The mythical "dozens" of witnesses

So when people tell me that everyone knows that Bryant "did it" because people saw him doing it, I tend to wonder which witnesses they can possibly be referring to. To my knowledge, the only witnesses who positively identified Bryant as the gunman were Linda White and Michael Wanders, both persons whose statements were taken a full month after the shooting, after they had been exposed to plenty of media coverage about the case.

On 27 May 1996, White viewed the 14 May police photoboard and decided: "Photograph no. 5 in this folder [i.e., Bryant] is the male who shot us near Port Arthur." However, White's only reason for selecting photo no. 5 seems to have been because of the fact that, in this photo, Bryant appeared to be wearing a top that was "very similar" to that worn by the gunman. "It could even be the same top," she said.

Unfortunately, White's statement is of no value whatsoever. An identification can scarcely be based upon an item of clothing, which can obviously be worn by another person. (Indeed, someone seeking to impersonate Bryant would have taken care to acquire an item of his clothing, or at least a very similar item.) What's more, no previous witness recalled the gunman wearing the same top as that worn by Bryant in photo no. five. White was clearly basing her identification entirely upon a photo she had seen in the media.

As for Michael Wanders, in his statement taken the same day as White's, he picked Bryant out from the police photoboard as "the person who shot at Linda and I on 28/4/96". Unfortunately, Wanders's identification is also of no value. On 28 April 1996, he told the police: "I would not be able to identify the person who shot at us." In his statement a month later, he admitted that he hadn't been able to "get a good enough look at the male to see how old he was or what he was wearing". His statement suggests that, really, all he had seen was a male with long blond hair. Yet, somehow, his original statement did not deter him from picking Bryant out from the police photoboard a month later as the man who had shot at him. It is hard to credit the positive identification of Bryant a month after the attack by a witness who, on the day of the attack itself, told the police explicitly that he would not be able to identify the gunman.

White's and Wanders's statements prove one thing: not that Bryant perpetrated the shootings, but that the laws prohibiting media organisations from publishing photos of accused persons before they have been tried are sensible ones which ought always to be rigorously enforced.

http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html

[agenda21nwo]

More of ropos "hard evidence" LOL

Lack of Bryant's fingerprints or DNA at Port Arthur

Martin Bryant is adamant that he never visited the PAHS on the day of the massacre. Most Australians—if they knew of this denial at all—would probably dismiss it as a lie. A fact that should deeply unsettle them is that neither Bryant's fingerprints nor his DNA has ever been found at the PAHS. This much has effectively been conceded by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, officer in charge of the Ballistics Section of Tasmania Police, in an article he wrote about the case which was published in the December 1998 Australian Police Journal.

There is no good reason why no evidence of this kind exists. An obvious source of fingerprints and DNA would have been the food tray (with a can of Solo soft drink, a plastic Schweppes cup, food items and eating utensils) that Rebecca McKenna saw the gunman eating from immediately prior to the shooting. We know that the tray was recovered by the police, because it is shown in a police training video that turned up in a second-hand shop in September 2004. Although the tray would have contained fingerprints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair from the shooter, there is no evidence that it yielded anything that came from Martin Bryant.

http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html

[Ropo]

ONE SILLY BITCH...

WOW - the first responder who did more that day than the police.  Way to go big man..

So please explain how this bitch on the video could prove that all other evidence, all other witnesses etc. are wrong. 1 witness vs. tons of evidence, security tapes, eyewitnesses, etc.? It will never happen. How fucking stupid you are? You are believing foil hat crap, which not include any evidence at all. You can copy/paste whole internet to here, but nothing but real evidence doesn't chance these facts: Bryant was found guilty by the witnesses and the evidence.

[Ropo]

Keep talking yourself into a hole and showing yourself for the fool that you are.

Bryant identified as the gunman?

The mythical "dozens" of witnesses
http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html

And you prove what? That you are able to find claims from the foil hat web-pages? You must be genius..

[The Grim Lifter]

I don't believe what I want, I believe what has been proved by the evidence, no matter if it pleases me or not. That is something you morons should learn, because facts are facts. I haven't watch that video, because I don't watch foil hat crap for one simple reason. There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job. Anything what one silly bitch says on any fucking video doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't work this way: "I have this one new witness, and her overrule all those 123 previous eyewitnesses". You seem to think that everything what you read from the internet, is true, so read this slowly and carefully: YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. That has to be a fact, because you read it from internet 

You weren't there so the information you are getting is either from the Internet or Media outlets. Of which in Australia are fucking hopeless. They report news just to try and win ratings so run with anything they can.

'Oh Shaphelle says it wasn't her bag'

'Her Mom says it wasn't her boyfriend, oh no wait it is her boyfriend'

I don't believe any bullshit conspiracies. What i do believe is someone who has been identified as having an IQ of 66 cannot do what he is supposed to have done. Someone did it, and they stuck it on a poor sap who is too stupid to know better. He's clearly not smart enough to plan out what happened.

'Bryant was found guilty by the Witnesses and the Evidence'

Actually he wasn't. He pled Not Guility, they pressured him to change it to Guilty, this is a fact his mom went in to make him change.

Being found Guilty implies he pled Not Guilty at a Mention and it went to a hearing where Witnesses took the stand and evidence was shown. The case never took place because the Police and Politicians said the witnesses and families of those killed had been through enough and a trial would be too much more for them. You are looking like a dumbshit here making statements that clearly arn't true because you are saying there was a trial when there wasn't.

[agenda21nwo]

tons of evidence, security tapes, eyewitnesses, etc.?

Name the dozens of witnesses you keep referencing.

YOU CAN'T.

[muscleman-2013]

You weren't there so the information you are getting is either from the Internet or Media outlets. Of which in Australia are fucking hopeless. They report news just to try and win ratings so run with anything they can.

Australian newspaper, BEFORE it went to trial.  Unbelievable.

[agenda21nwo]

Australian newspaper, BEFORE it went to trial.  Unbelievable.

There was no trial.  He pleaded not guilty, and they locked him in solitary for 5 months, until they got him to plead guilty. 

[muscleman-2013]

There was no trial.  He pleaded not guilty, and they locked him in solitary for 5 months, until they got him to plead guilty. 

Is this what they mean by "kangaroo court"?

[Ropo]

You weren't there so the information you are getting is either from the Internet or Media outlets. Of which in Australia are fucking hopeless. They report news just to try and win ratings so run with anything they can.

'Oh Shaphelle says it wasn't her bag'

'Her Mom says it wasn't her boyfriend, oh no wait it is her boyfriend'

I don't believe any bullshit conspiracies. What i do believe is someone who has been identified as having an IQ of 66 cannot do what he is supposed to have done. Someone did it, and they stuck it on a poor sap who is too stupid to know better. He's clearly not smart enough to plan out what happened.

'Bryant was found guilty by the Witnesses and the Evidence'

Actually he wasn't. He pled Not Guility, they pressured him to change it to Guilty, this is a fact his mom went in to make him change.

Being found Guilty implies he pled Not Guilty at a Mention and it went to a hearing where Witnesses took the stand and evidence was shown. The case never took place because the Police and Politicians said the witnesses and families of those killed had been through enough and a trial would be too much more for them. You are looking like a dumbshit here making statements that clearly arn't true because you are saying there was a trial when there wasn't.

And how you got your information? God spoke to you and tell you the facts of the matter? You wasn't there, you didn't see it, were you even born yet?

Have you any evidence that he didn't do it? Nope. Have you an alibi for him? Nope. Is there any evidence about another man, who could have done it? Nope. Guns were his own, he bought the cartridges etc. so what do you need? There is still those 37 people which he shot and wounded, there is still those photos and security tapes, and witnesses. Maybe there was some mishaps about the arrest etc. but do that make him innocent? No, it doesn't. If there was no trial because he plead guilty, do that mean that there isn't any evidence? Or do it mean that there was tons of evidence, which were never needed because he plead guilty? If there wasn't a trial, where do you present your evidence? In the internet?  

And do you know what? I do not research these cases week by week, day after day, 24/7 because I don't have time for this shit. I do my research as I write comments to your nonsense, as I have always done. I don't to need read foil hat crap day after day, because I have common sense, and I know that truth is what one can prove, and you can't prove shit.  Case closed..

[The Grim Lifter]

And how you got your information? God spoke to you and tell you the facts of the matter? You wasn't there, you didn't see it, were you even born yet?

Have you any evidence that he didn't do it? Nope. Have you an alibi for him? Nope. Is there any evidence about another man, who could have done it? Nope. Guns were his own, he bought the cartridges etc. so what do you need? There is still those 37 people which he shot and wounded, there is still those photos and security tapes, and witnesses. Maybe there was some mishaps about the arrest etc. but do that make him innocent? No, it doesn't. If there was no trial because he plead guilty, do that mean that there isn't any evidence? Or do it mean that there was tons of evidence, which were never needed because he plead guilty? If there wasn't a trial, where do you present your evidence? In the internet?  

And do you know what? I do not research these cases week by week, day after day, 24/7 because I don't have time for this shit. I do my research as I write comments to your nonsense, as I have always done. I don't to need read foil hat crap day after day, because I have common sense, and I know that truth is what one can prove, and you can't prove shit.  Case closed..

That's a back peddle and a half. You said he was found guilty by Witnesses and Evidence when i showed that was impossible to have happened. In fact Witness statements don't mean a lot unless they go to court and say it in front of a judge. If they don't turn up then the statement doesn't mean anything. You are still not addressing his IQ. Or that how many people lived in Port Arthur then, it's a tiny town in the middle of nowhere everyone would have known him and just his hair would have stood out.

When, in history, has someone been stuck in jail for 5 months after pleading Not Guilty with no Hearing? Have you seen how many Politicians have lost their jobs in NSW in the past few months due to corruption?

Read this champ. I'm not saying this guy is innocent by any means as he was there but this is why there is no death penalty in Australia anymore, due to so much outcry over the last man killed by hanging. The Police based this guy's Guilty plea on saying when he was alone with them in the car after the arrest he confessed yet he never confessed any other time.

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