Nexus - 1306 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

transcripts of conversations between Bryant and Avery, published by the Bulletin (4 April 2006), shed a great deal of light on the sudden transformation.’ transcripts of conversations between Bryant and Avery, published difficult to interpret this letter as a warning to her not to contribute by the Bulletin (4 April 2006), shed a great deal of light on the in any way to the further demonisation of the accused. Virtually sudden transformation.* the only way Scurr could have "delayed" or "complicated" the trial was if she had thrown a spanner into the works by publicly The threat of a trial declaring that the man she saw at the PAHS that day had not been However, before we discuss what can be learned from the Bryant—which we now know is her position—or if she had Bulletin-published transcripts, it is important to emphasise that the reported the existence of hitherto unsuspected accomplices. first transcript supports the conclusion that the DPP was This letter could therefore be regarded as a deliberate attempt extraordinarily anxious to prevent a trial from being held: by the prosecution to pervert the course of justice by ordering a Bryant: ...Mr B., do you know Mr B.? witness to shut up. It is the authors of this letter—Damian Bugg, Avery: I know Mr B., yes, and Mr D. QC, and DPP clerk Nick Perks—who should therefore be under Bryant: Well, they are trying to brainwash me to not having a scrutiny.* trial. A further insight into the deviousness of the DPP's strategies derives from Bryant himself. On 3 October 1996, Bryant told It is intriguing that the Bulletin has suppressed the names of the Avery that he was not allowed to cut his hair, which by that stage two individuals who, unacknowledged in was so long and unruly as to resemble any public source concerning the Port Arthur dreadlocks: case, were clearly part of some irregular or Bryant: ...I can't have a haircut until after extra-legal form of pressure being exerted on the Court case. Bryant. (I know of no one involved with Avery: Who said that? Bryant's case whose surname begins with Bryant: I mentioned that to one of the "D". However, "Mr B." might well be officers. Damian Bugg, QC.) i Avery: Oh, did you? If Bryant were really guilty, there would " ---having pleaded Bryant: He said to me the other day, seem no reason why a trial should not have guilty to all charges, "You can't till after the Court case". I'll have been held. On the other hand, it would be Bryant was never to try and brush my hair a bit and keep it consistent with the case that Bryant was set tidy. up that a trial be averted at all costs. Bryant escorted over the clearly raised the stakes by pleading "not crime scene to Given that the only thing Bryant had in guilty" to all charges on 30 September 1996. At this stage, the DPP at least went through the motions of preparing for the possibility that there would be a trial, with a provisional date set for a first session on 18 November 1996. Throughout October 1996, the DPP's focus was on strategies for controlling such a trial. One strategy was clearly to sift through the body of witness testimony and eliminate witnesses who posed a problem for the prosecution. One witness scrubbed at this point was Wendy Scurr. Despite her status as one of the more high-profile witnesses, Scurr was sent a letter by the The Avery transcripts Office of the DPP, dated 15 October 1996, informing her that her During October 1996, John Avery engaged in untold hours of witness testimony "will not be necessary in the trial of Martin "discussions" with Martin Bryant at Risdon Prison Hospital. Of Bryant". By far the most interesting part of this letter—which the 20 meetings the pair had during that period, only the does not even consider the possibility that Avery might call her as transcripts for parts of three have been made public. (Whether a witness for the defence—is a passage in which Scurr was these transcripts are accurate verbatim records of the warned against speaking to the media prior to the trial: conversations must remain in doubt. Their accuracy clearly "Because you are not called as a witness it does not mean that = cannot be confirmed without having access to the original you can freely discuss issues in a public way. We would be most recordings.) concerned if there was any inappropriate pre-trial publicity about The first transcript, which preserves part of a conversation that this matter. We would ask that you exercise caution if you are took place on 3 October 1996, is from most points of view the approached by any representative of the Media as it would be most important; the second and third present a Bryant echoing the unfortunate indeed if the trial process was in any way delayed or _ police tune like a trained parrot. How Avery got Bryant to the complicated through inappropriate pre-trial discussions."* point that only five days later he would casually discuss the The intimidating tone of this letter defies belief. By 15 October massacre as if he had really perpetrated it is a subject that is common with the Port Arthur gunman— other than being male and under 30— was his long blond hair, it is hardly surprising that he was denied a haircut. The DPP would have wanted Bryant to preserve the image of the "blon Rambo" in case his distinctive appearance became a factor during a trial. In any event, Avery's successful interventions in the case soon spared the DPP the immense trauma of orchestrating a trial, and when Bryant appeared in court in November he hai in fact had a haircut. verify that he had perpetrated the criminal acts to which he had "confessed". 1996, Martin Bryant was already the victim of the most ignored in the published transcripts; only unedited transcripts of prejudicial pre-trial publicity in Australian history. Given that the complete conversations would provide the necessary clues. there is virtually nothing Scurr could have said to foster a more Avery's major concern was apparently to persuade Bryant away anti-Bryant climate than that which already existed, it would be from persisting with his "not guilty” pleas, as doing so would The threat of a trial However, before we discuss what can be learned from the Bulletin-published transcripts, it is important to emphasise that the first transcript supports the conclusion that the DPP was extraordinarily anxious to prevent a trial from being held: Bryant: ...Mr B., do you know Mr B.? Avery: I know Mr B., yes, and Mr D. Bryant: Well, they are trying to brainwash me to not having a trial. .-having pleaded "guilty" to all charges, Bryant was never ened eae ae verify that he had perpetrated the criminal acts to which NEXUS * 13 escorted over the crime scene to he had "confessed". OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2006 www.nexusmagazine.com