Martin Bryant petition

[Aractus]

Hi guys, please sign this petition if possible, it's only 82 sigs away from its goal:

Now I know a lot of people feel that the facts of Port Arthur are clear enough as it is, and that there's little doubt that Martin Bryant is the assailant. I doubt this for a number of reasons, but I'll summarise them:

1. Firstly, this was a mass shooting in which 35 people were killed. In most mass shootings the assailant, or assailants, want recognition for what they've done. Many of them write a letter, or make a video before hand. Many of them commit suicide after their massacre is "complete". Yet in this case we have a man who not only has denied that he was the shooter for the past 20 years, but showed no interest at any time of recognition for his actions. This points to him being at best an accomplice to somebody else, and at worst a pasty who didn't participate in the massacre at all. The fact that he was apprehended at Seascape following a lengthy police negotiation suggests that he had some involvement, but whether he actually killed anyone on that day is a question I want answered definitively - because right now all the evidence suggests that he was simply manipulated by someone else, and that he may not have killed anyone at all.
   
2. Bryant has no memory of the events. This is now a matter of public record, and it was even known by his lawyer John Avory in 1996. As a matter of public record, Avory stated that his client did not want to plead guilty and it took him over a dozen visits to convince him otherwise. It's recorded in "My Story" by Bryant's mother Carleen, that she agreed to visit her son in gaol at Avory's request and told her mentally inept son that if he didn't agree to plead guilty that he would never see her or his sister again. Something the poor lady says she will deeply regret forever. So Bryant was blackmailed into pleading guilty, even though he told his lawyer he was innocent. What right did Avory have to determine his client's guilt?
   
3. In Bryant's police interview they question him over the guns he owns. He says he owns a shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle, and another semi-automatic rifle. Three guns in total. You can read it for yourself, he even explains where he bought them, how much he paid for them, and the fact that he didn't have a gun license.
   
   The guns that he owned was a Colt AR-15, a Colt AR-10 (which was in possession of a local gun dealer at the time of the massacres) and a Daiwoo Shotgun. He is shown the shotgun and the AR-15 during the course of the interview and identifies them as his guns. Then he is shown the other murder weapon, the FN FAL rifle and says he has never seen it before but it's a nice gun. He says it's "definitely not one of his". He has no motivation whatsoever to lie, not when he's already identified the main murder weapon (the AR-15) as his. But the FN FAL rifle was the murder weapon that killed 8 people out of the 35 - so who's gun was it and where did it come from?
   

Here is a documentary, it already exists on YT but I've uploaded it in better quality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-qVjVVnZk

It's not at all my point to claim Martin is innocent. I don't know that, what I know is that there are serious questions about the case that have never been answered, and the biggest question of all is - who was the real mastermind, and who were his accomplices? I don't think that Bryant acted alone - if he did then explain where did the FN FAL murder weapon come from, and why did he emphatically tell police he'd never seen it before when he was willing to identify his other guns? That doesn't make any sense. Guilty or not, Bryant was entitled to plead not guilty and have his case heard before a jury of his peers. As it is his case never went to trial, and the coronial inquests into the 35 deaths were (wrongly) cancelled.