/Nexus - 1304 - New Times Magazine/pages/0077/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
The Port Arthur Massa Was Martin Bryant Framed? Continued from page 16 population (as established by psychiatrist Lucifer fire starters inconspicuously, it is Ian Joblin in June 1996), could have unlikely that he could have bought large In any case, there is no evidence that managed his purchases of guns, drums of petrol or two pairs of handcuffs Bryant procured either of the weapons to ammunition and everything else involved in _ without attracting attention. which the massacre has officially been the case so successfully that the police have attributed. utterly failed to establish the origin of so Concerns about lack of evidence No one has even been proven to have sold much as a single item. It is far easier to against Bryant the weapons to Bryant, and no theory exists _ believe that the police simply do not want The lack of evidence for the identification that would explain how he came by them if us to learn who procured these deadly items of Martin Bryant as the Port Arthur shooter he did not buy them from gun dealers. A and how. is a matter that should concern all similar mystery surrounds the ammunition Narratives of the Port Arthur massacre Australians today. Only a few determined used at Port Arthur. also contain mention of other items which — individuals have been brave enough to raise Although Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill allegedly belonged to Martin Bryant. These the matter in public. At a meeting of the admits to having sold Bryant three boxes of items consist of a video camera and a Australian and New Zealand Forensic Winchester XX 1%-oz shotgun shells (code yellow Volvo left at the PAHS tollgate, Science Society held at Griffith University number X12XC) on 24 April 1996—four together with items found inside it: a full in Queensland in 2002, Ian McNiven raised days before the massacre—this is not 25-litre drum of petrol, a 10-litre drum of the subject of the lack of forensic evidence ammunition which was used at Port Arthur. petrol containing seven litres, a grey video incriminating Martin Bryant. If Hill—or anyone else—sold Bryant the camera bag, lengths of sash cord rope, two The presenter, who was apparently ammunition that was recovered from the pairs of handcuffs and three packets of Sergeant Gerard Dutton, of the Ballistics crime scene, then Tasmania Police ought to Little Lucifer fire starters. Not one iota of Section of Tasmania Police, grew angry and have been able to prove it. The fact that proof has ever been provided to prove that had university security threaten McNiven they have never traced the origin of the Bryant owned any of these items (not even and effectively evict him from the meeting. ammunition (or, at least, have never the Volvo, which could have been an McNiven was not wrong to raise the revealed its origin to the public) surely identical model to Bryant's, rather than question of the lack of hard evidence means that it cannot be connected to Bryant. Bryant's unique vehicle). What's more, no against Bryant. It is, after all, extremely hard to believe that one is on record as having admitted to In an interview with the Bulletin of 4 Bryant, with an IQ so low that it would put _ selling Bryant any of these items. Although April 2006, Tony Rundle, who became him in the bottom one or two per cent of the Bryant could easily have purchased Little premier of Tasmania six weeks before the In any case, there is no evidence that Bryant procured either of the weapons to which the massacre has officially been attributed. No one has even been proven to have sold the weapons to Bryant, and no theory exists that would explain how he came by them if he did not buy them from gun dealers. A similar mystery surrounds the ammunition used at Port Arthur. Although Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill admits to having sold Bryant three boxes of Winchester XX 1/%-oz shotgun shells (code number X12XC) on 24 April 1996—four days before the massacre—this is not ammunition which was used at Port Arthur. If Hill—or anyone else—sold Bryant the ammunition that was recovered from the crime scene, then Tasmania Police ought to have been able to prove it. The fact that they have never traced the origin of the ammunition (or, at least, have never revealed its origin to the public) surely means that it cannot be connected to Bryant. It is, after all, extremely hard to believe that Bryant, with an IQ so low that it would put him in the bottom one or two per cent of the 76 = NEXUS JUNE — JULY 2006 www.nexusmagazine.com