Bryant's mother defends her son

Bryant's mother defends her son

www.smh.com.au

Martin Bryant's mother believes that if his father had not committed suicide then the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania would not have happened.

Carleen Bryant spoke about her son on Channel 9's 60 Minutes tonight where she was asked what her dead husband, Maurice, would have thought of the Port Arthur murders that her son was convicted of.

"Well I don't believe it would have happened," she answered.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Martin Bryant entered the Broad Arrow cafe at the historic Port Arthur site where he opened fire and killed 35 people on April 28, 1996.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.abovetopsecret.com


Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

She goes on to describe that he was a little 'different' as a child and that 3 weeks ago he was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. Now while that is all very interesting, it is her last comment that got my attention.....

Bryant has never spoken about the events of the massacre to Carleen, who said in the interview that she believes he is innocent.

She said that for weeks after the incident he claimed that he was never in Port Arthur and she believed him and that there was no evidence against him.

"A lot of people on that day came forward after, people who had known Martin for years, that as far as they were concerned they didn't recognise the gunman as Martin Bryant," she said.

This is very interesting, especially in light of the questions posed within Ozweatherman's Thread as to whether the Police and the Australian Government engaged in a cover-up in order to impose strict gun-control laws on the Australian people due to this heinous event.

Just some food for thought.

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Actually I believe he would've done it no matter what, hes obviously a sick person
I blame the countries for allowing nut jobs to purchase guns, they need stricter rules, more backround checks, dont sell arms to people who are depressed/drug addicts/convicted felons and so on

reply to post by MORBlD


Have you read Ozweatherman's thread? There are some serious questions posed as to the identity of the gunman, its a good read.

reply to post by Kryties


No I have not but I will check it out

reply to post by Kryties


Ok i just read it, its nothing more but speculation, according to the OP, he claims there was a cover up, and they did all this just to ban automatic weapons and all that other good stuff, could be who knows, my gut tells me the dude was crazy and killed a bunch of people

reply to post by MORBlD


Its good that you trust your gut as opposed to evidence. By the way, Ozweatherman was just relaying the story, he didn't make it up himself. There are people from all walks of life, policemen included, that believe Martin Bryant may be innocent.

But I guess mainstream media has got such a stranglehold on the Australian public, jamming BS and fear down our throats 24/7, that the true story may never be known.

reply to post by Kryties


well maybe people should continue investigating what happened on that day if theres so many holes in the official story given by them, then you'll get to the truth

reply to post by MORBlD


That's a little difficult when the people who should be investigating it consider it 'case closed'. The very same people implicated in the cover-up.

Kind of like 9/11 really.

reply to post by Kryties

I do not know much about this case, but from what you have shown here, I see a major contradiction.

Martin Bryant's mother believes that if his father had not committed suicide then the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania would not have happened.

She said that for weeks after the incident he claimed that he was never in Port Arthur and she believed him and that there was no evidence against him.

If she does not believe that he is guilty, and that he was not even there at the time, then how would his father's suicide have any effect on the situation at all? If it is her opinion that this act was committed by someone else, then if his father was alive, it still would have happened.

To clarify, I am only going by these 2 statements. I am not concluding anything as far as the actual event is concerned.



reply to post by MORBlD
Your avatar is very annoying. That is just my opinion, but I can already tell I will not read hardly anything that you write as long as that annoying flash is also on my screen.

Hmm. I just refreshed the page on another tab before submitting this reply. I see you have already changed your avatar so thank you. I will still share my opinion of your other one though.

I forgot to watch this, I had seen it advertised and had planned to watch 60 minutes but forgot all about it.
I am glad she defended her son as the commercial for the interview made it appear the opposite.

MORBlD you looked at ozweathermans thread for less than two minutes go back and read the whole thing, it is quite an interesting conspiracy you might actually change your opinion on Martin Bryant and as Kryties mentions its kind of like 911 but without all the no planes and space beams.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


I don't claim to know what she meant by that seeming contradiction, but my best guess is that she absolutely believes her son is innocent but wants to be heard, so she headlines it with a half-hearted story about the fathers suicide in the hopes of getting more people to read it and perhaps question the whole thing.

She could even be claiming that Bryant's reactions after detainment were caused by the fathers suicide, rather than being the cause of the massacre. Its a little vague actually, she could mean many things.

Imagine you were the mother, and you fully believed your son was innocent but the media and the populace don't want to entertain that theory. What would you do to get your voice heard then?

reply to post by MORBlD


Perhaps if readers of this thread and those who post here were to read the book: What’s Going On?: A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre.

its available here:

loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/critical-study-port-arthur-massacre-carl-wernerhoff...

Sorry I cant seem to llink to the document, you may have a completly different view on this event.
Only last week I finished reading this and it changed my views completely

I challenge you all to read it.

cheers

Research is still under way despite the Official 30 year Moratorium Ban on the subject.

Much of the Police evidence has been found to be shakey at best and manufactured at worst, although not officially. Bryant's main weapon, allegedly used in the shootings, had been handed in to a Sydney Police Station only months beforehand. Bryant attended a clinic in Sydney where he was seen regularly by an "employee" of the Tavistock Unstitute in London... the centre of "mind control" where Mengel (sp?) was taken to work for the British.

When president of a small research group I was privvy to reading a report by our Military marksmen who claimed at least 4 shooters had to be present to obtain the number of head and heart shots in the Cafe that day. I've also seen video footage taken by a tourist showing three men in black suits at the door of the cafe during the shooting inside.. one was filming it.

I've seen research by other people that shows Police photographic evidence was manufactured.. example, the photos of Bryant after the alleged shooting as he approached a Helicopter pad. In the background is a largish vessel which does not appear in the photos taken on the day of the shootings.. hence the photos must have been set up and taken at a different time.

All this was about, was Disarming the Australian people by using a Patsy.. the old time honoured tradition seen many times around the world for different reasons.

I think there are many questions that make this very suspect, a perfect opportunity to take our rights to guns away. But of course this is australia and our government would never do such a thing. How could this young man with very little shooting experience be able to be so accurate and murder so many people? Very very few of the worlds best marksmen could accomplish what Martin Bryant supposedly did. But what are we to do...he will rot in prison and the truth will never be bought out...29 shots fired at the Broad Arrow...19 fatal headshots, 1 other fatality and 12 wounded. all in an estimated 90 seconds...hmmmm

reply to post by Kryties


Very much so. The guy was sentenced without the right to a trial. A tragic miscarriage of justice.

Wendy Scurr who worked at Port Arthur and knew Bryant, and who was there that day, claims it wasnt him doing the shooting. Yet her testimony was ignored.

This psyop was all about gun-control which if my memory serves me correctly was rushed through parliament shortly afterwards without proper debate.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

reply to post by Nonchalant


Cheers for that link mate, that's one I haven't seen before. I'm reading through it at the moment and it's riveting stuff.

reply to post by Kryties


Nice thread. Made me think if there is so much evidence for his innocence then what was the evidence against him then?

Wasn't there some Australian MP who said 6 months beforehand that the only way Automatic weapons would be banned in Australia would be if there was a shooting massacre in Tasmania?

Also, while the Police were interviewing him over the phone while he and a few of the victims were holed up in the house, didn't they hear gun-shots in the background? Bryant was just rambling about making sandwiches for everybody to the cops and a few shots were heard.

And how could somebody with an I.Q of 60 shoot from the hip and pop so many heads open?



Another thing, what was it, three days after the shootings, his face was all over the papers?

All sounds like a cover-up to me.


I still remember going down to the Police Station with my dad and handing in our Semi's, wrapped up in towels. The Cop opened them up and says, "Wow, nice guns." All I remember thinking was "Yeah, I bet you'll add these to your own collection, you dog."

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Kryties

 

Nice thread. Made me think if there is so much evidence for his innocence then what was the evidence against him then?

Shaky, blurry video and the fact he was there. As far as I can make out that's about the crux of it.

Originally posted by IIIiIIIIIIiIII
Wasn't there some Australian MP who said 6 months beforehand that the only way Automatic weapons would be banned in Australia would be if there was a shooting massacre in Tasmania?

I remember that too actually, I'll scour the net later on and try to find it.

Originally posted by IIIiIIIIIIiIII
I still remember going down to the Police Station with my dad and handing in our Semi's, wrapped up in towels. The Cop opened them up and says, "Wow, nice guns." All I remember thinking was "Yeah, I bet you'll add these to your own collection, you dog."

I owned a sweet little air rifle as a kid, my grandfather handed it in along with his collection of shotties and various hunting rifles he'd collected over the years. Damn I loved that air rifle.....