A Question Of Guilt – The Port Arthur Massacre

There are many things surrounding the Port Arthur Massacre, supposedly carried out by Martin Bryant, that have never been made public. Some of these facts (with a full emphasis on the word ‘facts’) can be substantiated through public record and witness accounts.

Before making a full judgement, one has to watch this video right through, along with another video entitled, ‘Port Arthur Massacre – Deceit Or Terrorism?’, where a survivor of the incident tells her side of the story to an audience.

Martin Bryant was never brought to trial. He always maintained his innocence, but eventually was forced to plead guilty anyway, possibly to avoid a full trial. The Prime Minister, John Howard, refused to allow a Coronial Inquest into the affair, apparently despite pleas from survivors and others at the time.

This is what retired policeman Andrew MacGregor said about the aftermath of the massacre at Port Arthur:-

“… The next moves made by Mr Howard… are mind-boggling. The Prime Minister stated that since the perpetrator had been apprehended, it would help ease the suffering of the survivors if they did not have to experience the pain of a Coronial Inquest. By making such a comment, Mr Howard has made a legal presumption.

Under Australian law, a person must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Mr Howard must have been aware that stating Bryant was the guilty person was an offence within the meaning of the Act, of contempt.

Australia was looking at ways to tighten up gun laws at the time and needed their own 9/11. There was a large group of American retiree tourists visiting the site on the days of the shootings and some believe that they may have been the intended targets.

Because of a mix-up in ferry timetables, the original plan went out the window and the gunman (or gunmen) carried out a different plan. The videos tell about this and many more thigs that were never reported or were hushed up.

Also, another (longer) video: