Nexus - 1305 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE WAS MARTIN BRYANT FRAMED? ARTHUR THE PORT MASSACRE FRAMED? Was MakrrTIN BRYANT Australians were told that Martin Bryant had been responsible for the massacre at Port Arthur two days after it happened. Bryant himself didn't find out for another nine weeks. Part 2 of 3 The police interrogation n4 July 1996, two police detectives who had been appointed by Superintendent Jack Johnston to handle the Port Arthur investigation, Inspectors Ross Paine and John Warren, interviewed Martin Bryant about the case at some length.’ Despite the extreme seriousness of the crimes for which he was being held responsible, Bryant was interrogated without legal counsel present. This outrageous circumstance is exposed in the interview record which begins with Bryant being informed that his lawyer (David Gunson) had "no problem" with the interview taking place without his participation. Inspector Paine: Look Martin, you've obviously got a, a, an interest in firearms as well? Martin Bryant: Well, I have had an interest in firearms. Paine: How many guns do you own? Bryant: I own, umm, a shotgun and a semi-automatic and another semi-automatic. Three altogether. Paine: Where'd you get those guns? Bryant: Oh, umm, I can't really say, I haven't got my lawyer here, so. Paine: Well, we have spoken to your lawyer and he knows that we're talking to you. Bryant: He knows, he knows. Paine: And aah, has no problem with that so, aah. As we shall see, this was an extremely devious means of approaching the Port Arthur issue because, at this stage, Bryant still had no idea of the charges that were about to be foisted upon him and therefore had no idea that the interview concerned the subject that would determine his entire future. In fact, on 5 July, the very day following the interview, Bryant was officially charged in the Hobart Supreme Court with 69 criminal charges arising from the Port Arthur incident. Prior to that, the only crime with which he had been charged was the murder of Kate Elizabeth Scott, who had been a victim of the shootings in the Broad Arrow Café. According to the official record, Bryant was charged with her death in a bedside hearing on 30 April 1996: Paine: Do you know why you're here? Bryant: Know why I'm here, well Inspector Warren was saying in the Royal [Hobart Hospital] that I was on one murder count. Given the incredible magnitude of the allegations that were presented to Bryant for the first time during the 4 July interrogation, a lawyer should certainly have been in the room. In such circumstances, the intellectually challenged Bryant was obviously no good judge of his own interests. Furthermore, Bryant had been placed under a guardianship order in 1994 and was therefore not competent to decide whether a lawyer ought to have been present or not. Only a legally appointed guardian had the right to make that call. To compound the sins of the Tasmanian criminal justice system, the interview was most unprofessionally conducted. The equipment frequently malfunctioned and the conversation was constantly interrupted. The result is said to be atrocious. However, there was no necessity to conduct the interview on 4 July and it could easily have been—indeed, should have been—postponed to such a time as the equipment was working properly. After all, the Port Arthur massacre was the biggest murder case in Australian history. Such adverse conditions therefore had to have been created deliberately. The unprofessional by Carl Wernerhoff © June 2006 Email: cwernerhoff@yahoo.com Website: http://www.ourmedia.org/ user/95839 by Carl Wernerhoff © June 2006 NEXUS = 11 Email: cwernerhoff@yahoo.com AUGUST — SEPTEMBER 2006 www.nexusmagazine.com