Nexus - 1304 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

forensic evidence of this kind, surely, is that none of it Everything to do with the knife is extremely suspicious indeed. incriminated him. Since David Martin was murdered by being shot twice rather than It is true that Damian Bugg, QC, is on record as giving the by being stabbed, the sole point of stabbing him would seem to impression that a sample of Bryant's DNA was found on a large have been to plant a sample of his blood on the knife. The only knife that is suspected of having been used to murder David Martin reason for "Jamie" at Seascape to specifically inform Sergeant at Seascape Cottage, a few kilometres from the PAHS. Bugg said McCarthy that he had a large combat knife in his possession would that the knife was subjected to a "very refined test" which allegedly have been to provide a link between Martin Bryant and the murder yielded "a DNA sample which was unable to be identified initially of David Martin. So Jamie appears to have been trying to frame but it has now been identified as being consistent with that of | Bryant. This is very hard to explain if we believe that Bryant was Martin Bryant". (The public has never been told what the source himself Jamie. Why would Bryant have wanted to incriminate of the DNA was—whether it was blood, for example, or some _ himself? And even if Bryant had been perverse enough to want to other substance. If it was Bryant's blood, this would imply that incriminate himself by leaving the knife he had used to stab David Bryant was a victim rather than a villain.) Martin some place where the police would be able to find it later, It is, however, a mystery how Tasmania Police came by this why did he subsequently deny murdering him? knife. According to the official story, the knife was found inside a Abundant examples of Bryant's fingerprints and DNA should Prince sports bag that was discarded by the gunman inside the have been retrieved from the Volvo driven by the gunman into the Broad Arrow Café. However, after the gunman exited the café, Port Arthur Historic Site, but no such evidence was recovered from several witnesses looked inside the bag and none of them observed the vehicle—a circumstance that seems most difficult to explain. a large knife there. Nonetheless, there is an explanation—one What's more, "Jamie", the perpetrator of the that, understood in its true light, amounts to subsequent siege at Seascape Cottage (by the evidence that the yellow Volvo used by the way, the official claim is that Bryant was Port Arthur shooter was not Bryant's. "Jamie"), mentioned having a large combat A little-known fact about the case is that the knife in his possession during the course of a . Volvo was left in the open air, at the tollgate, phone call with police interrogator Sergeant . according to most for the night of 28-29 April. (It was still there Terry McCarthy on the evening of 28 April. If this is the knife Bugg is referring to, then it at the tollgate at 9.00 am on 29 April, when Peninsula resident Michael Copping, a witness witnesses, the could only have emerged from the Seascape Broad Arrow Café to movements of the Volvo on 28 April, saw it fire in a condition that rendered it useless for while on his way to collect PAHS worker forensic purposes. shooter shot from Steven Howard from Port Arthur. By the way, The mystery over the knife may explain is ri i Copping didn't identify Bryant as the driver, ysrery Y exp IS rig Ip. pping y Bry; why Bugg's terminology verges on the devious. The DNA on the knife, he tells us, is "consistent with" that of Martin Bryant. However, DNA either is or is not a match. If the DNA matched Bryant's, Bugg should have been able to say so. The term "consistent with" is semantic sleight-of-hand designed to encourage the misperception among those who know nothing about DNA testing that the DNA had been Bryant's. In fact, the term "consistent with" means little in this instance. It could plausibly refer to DNA sequences found in every although he said in his statement of 10 May that he had known him "through casual contact".) With the vehicle's rear passenger-side window missing (the gunman presumably removed it as a means of minimising the noise/blast effect of shooting from the driver's seat), fingerprints and DNA inside the vehicle would have been vulnerable to the effects of night moisture. In fact, according to police, the overnight moisture eliminated all traces of fingerprints and DNA. The question inevitably has to be asked of why the police did not take due care to one of us. It is entirely possible that the ensure the preservation of whatever DNA sample to which Bugg is referring fingerprints and DNA were inside the is also "consistent with" both your DNA and mine! car. At this stage—and recall here that Bryant was not taken into In any case, it is obvious that the presence of Bryant's DNA on custody until the morning of 29 April—fingerprints and DNA the knife would do nothing to prove that he was the Port Arthur inside the car represented essential proof of the perpetrator's shooter. Even if his DNA had been found on the knife, and we identity. As darkness descended on the Tasman Peninsula on 28 were so rash as to draw the conclusion that the presence of his April, the only reason to connect the massacre to Bryant was a DNA proved that he had killed David Martin (which of course it _ passport that reportedly had been found inside the Volvo at around doesn't), this does not constitute evidence that Bryant was the Port 4.30 pm by a detective. At this time, the fingerprints and DNA Arthur shooter. The man who did stab David Martin could have from the Volvo therefore represented the most reliable means of been party to a conspiracy to frame Bryant. He could have stabbed determining whether the greatest homicidal maniac in Australian both David Martin and Martin Bryant with the same knife, for history had really been Bryant (as the presence of the passport instance. If so, the relevant question is whether anyone else's DNA suggested) or someone else. It would have been absolutely critical was on the knife, in addition to that of David Martin and Martin _ to preserve them in as perfect condition as possible for use during Bryant. The real killer's DNA could have been all over the knife, future criminal proceedings. but we will never know because Tasmania's Director of Public The fact that a major portion of the evidence required for the Prosecutions was only interested in telling the public about a purpose of identifying the perpetrator vanished overnight invites sample that was "consistent with" Bryant's DNA. only one sound conclusion: the police wanted it to vanish. Not only is Bryant left-handed, he told police he had never fired a gun from his hip. witnesses, the Broad Arrow Café his right hip. Not only is Bryant left-handed, he told police he had never fired a gun from his hip. JUNE — JULY 2006 NEXUS © 15 .-according to most shooter shot from www.nexusmagazine.com