"He wasn't going bang bang bang bang -
it was bang and then he'd pick someone else out and line them up and shoot them."
Phillip Milburn, a witness of the Broad Arrow killings
We have all been told that the gunman during his reign of terror inside the Broad Arrow Café fired 29 shots from a Colt AR15, which resulted in the deaths of 20 people and the wounding of 12 others. That is a complete and utter fabrication.
We have also been told that the gunman was only firing the Colt AR15 "for approximately 1˝ minutes to at the outside, 2 minutes" (Damian Bugg page 117 Court Document). That is another complete and utter fabrication. The Wilkinson videotape records 17 shots fired within a period of 15 seconds. It is worth consideration to make a comparison of this recording of the shots with the statement of how these shots were used by the DPP. Mr Damian Bugg QC, in his opinion of how people were murdered by these shots.
The shots on the Wilkinson tape, if we start off at zero seconds were recorded in this time sequence. 1st shot, 000 seconds, 2nd shot, 0.55 seconds, 3rd shot, 1.75 seconds, 4th shot, 2.50 seconds, 5th shot, 3.10 seconds, 6th shot, 5.20 seconds, 7th shot, 6.20 seconds, 8th shot, 6.80 seconds, 9th shot 7.35 seconds, 10th shot, 7.60 seconds, 11th shot, 8.00 seconds, 12th shot, 9.30 seconds, 13th shot, 11.05 seconds, 14th shot, 12.60 seconds, 15th shot, 13.50 seconds 16th shot, 13.80 seconds, 17th shot 15.70 seconds. The video continued to record until 16.76 seconds.
Now if we consider the statement made by Mr Damian Bugg QC, that these shots resulted in 12 persons being killed and another 4 wounded, it does seem to stretch the imagination, especially when there is a period of 1.80 seconds where 5 shots are discharged. Mr Bugg tells us that the first two shots killed Mr Moh Yee Ng and Miss Sou Leng Chung. (Court Document page 78) Mr Ng was shot with "the muzzle of the firearm was close to him". Miss Chung was "this shot was distant because of the lack of gunpowder stippling or searing." (Court Document page 79)
"The third shot struck Mr Sargent and the fourth shot killed Miss Scott." (Court Document, page 79) "There is no indication from the examination of the body of Miss Scott as to the range of that shot, but he would have been quite close to her at the time of firing the gun." (Court Document page 81)
"Mr Nightingale stood up when the shooting started and called out 'No no not here', he was then shot, a single shot to the neck area" (Court Document page 83). The time lapse between the fourth and fifth shots is 0.60 of a second. Firstly a person cannot utter the words spoken by Anthony Nightingale in that short period of time. Secondly, it takes more than 0.6 of a second to turn 180 degrees and then fire a shot.
"Having shot Mr Nightingale Bryant moved at close quarters to shoot Kevin Sharpe, Wally Bennett and Ray Sharpe." "That shot which struck Mr Bennett in the neck in the right side left an exit wound on the left side and medical and ballistic evidence indicates that on exiting that bullet then struck Mr Ray Sharpe, also killing him." "Mr Kevin Sharpe was shot twice." (Court Document page 86) These are the 6th, 7th and 8th shots fired according to Mr Damian Bugg, but medical evidence suggests otherwise.
"Bryant then turned towards table number twelve - Mr Mills was shot in the right rear of his head behind the ear at an intermediate range - Mr Kistan was also shot whilst standing up and the estimated distance of the muzzle of the gun from him at the time of shooting was two to three metres. He was shot in the left rear of the head." (Court Document page 88) These are the 9th and 10th shots.
"At this time it is believed that Mr. Bryant shot Mr. Colyer." "He could see Sarah Loughton on the floor in front of him and knew that she was dead." (Court Document page 95) That was the 11th shot. Please remember though that shots 7,8,9,10 and 11 were fired in only 1.80 seconds. Two shots at the Sharpe and Bennet table, then changing to Mills and Kistan and then changing again to Colyer, all in 1.80 seconds defies belief. There is no consideration for recoil after each shot was fired. It is an impossibility. Graeme Colyer states that Sarah Loughton was shot before he was, as he had pushed Sarah Loughton towards the door in an attempt to save her.
Mr Bugg then states that the next to be shot were the Howards, which is on pages 95-98 of the Court Document, and takes in three shots, 12, 13 and 14. Then the Loughtons are shot which, according to the DPP, Mr Damian Bugg, would be shots 15 and 16. Then Mr Bugg informs us that, "Mr Robert Elliott was shot twice as he moved, once in the upper arm and once in the head." (Court Document page 101) These are shots 17 and 18. However, the Wilkinson tapes only recorded 17 shots in an overall period of 16.76 seconds, which means that the second shot fired at Mr Robert Elliott should have been recorded as well as the first. It wasn't. Another problem is that the 17th shot on the Wilkinson tape emits a whine as in a ricochet.
This whine would have been created as the bullet travelled through the air, which as the bullet would have been travelling at approximately 3000ft/sec, means that this bullet exited the café, as it would have travelled about 1,500 ft during the time this whine was emitted.
Several survivors from the Port Arthur massacre contest these statements made by Mr Damian Bugg QC. For some unknown reason they were informed that they would not be required to attend and give evidence at the trial of Martin Bryant, should he plead "Not Guilty".
During the sentencing of Martin Bryant, relatives of Ray Sharp were concerned that the evidence in relation to the shot that killed this particular victim in that the DPP Mr Damian Bugg stated that it was the bullet that killed Wally Bennett then continued on to kill Mr Ray Sharp, and that this information was determined by medical and ballistic evidence. That is not correct. Ray Sharp was deliberately targeted by the gunman and shot without any relationship to the murder of Walter Bennet, and the medical and ballistic evidence demonstrates that implicitly.
Sergeant Gerard Dutton wrote an article for the Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association titled "A Review of the wounding effects of the Colt AR15 and FN FAL rifles used by Martin Bryant in the Port Arthur shooting incident April 26 1996; Tasmania, Australia." In this article, Dutton lists the various victims of the shooting and their specific wounds. By comparing the different body numbers with those listed on page 110 of the EMA Port Arthur Seminar Papers, it is possible to identify Mr Ray Sharp as "Body 16 - Male, 67, 85 kg, 170cm, shot once, (.223). Distant entry to the right of the head at top of ear, travelling forwards and upwards, exiting the forehead region. No bullet or fragments recovered."
Now if we also consider another piece further on where Dutton states, "The wounds seen in most cases from the café were typical of small calibre high velocity missiles. Entrance wounds were small and neat, with the exit wounds large and irregular. Those to the skull, ie. most shots generally had a "burst" types injury at the exit. Several of the victims had re-entry and re-exit wounds, consistent with the victim in a defensive attitude at the time of discharge. The re-entry and re-exit wounds were larger and more destructive, caused by the now destabilised or fragmented bullet, or by secondary bone or bullet fragments as a result of the initial impact."
It is now demonstrated via Dutton's article, which lists this information as coming from Dr. Tim Lyons, the Director of Forensic Pathology, Tasmania, that the DPP's case concerning the murder of Mr Ray Sharp is far from correct, as that particular entry wound is listed as distant, not a re-entry wound. We now also have evidence of another shot being fired inside the Broad Arrow Café.
Furthermore in the same article, Sgt Dutton states; "Thirty .223 calibre fired cartridge cases were located in the café" and "This is also seen in the café where thirty fired cases were found." Not 29 as stated by Mr Damian Bugg QC.
The next example I will use to demonstrate the fabrications is that of the death of Jason Winter. Mr Bugg tells us that he was shot twice and "he was probably in an upright position coming out from behind the area in which he was sheltering" (Document page 111). "and his body fell partially under a table" (Document page 112).
Mr Bugg continues on page 113, "He was sheltering with Mr Dennis Olson and his wife Mary, and after that pause in the shooting he was heard by the Olson's to say, 'He's gone' and then he started to move and it was at that time he was shot. Shrapnel from those shots struck Mr Olson in the hand, head, left side of the chest and left eye."
The first question that comes to mind is how does a person fall partially under a table? The answer is simple. Jason Winter had been sheltering under the table. Mr and Mrs Olson were sheltering behind the servery.
The question in relation to the murder of Jason Winter, is how do fragments from a shattering .223 bullet then change course and strike a person sheltering behind a servery wall, a change in direction completely against all the rules of physics that I was taught at school. The answer is it didn't.
When Mr and Mrs Olson returned home to Vancouver, Washington in America, Geoff Spencer, a reporter from the Associated Press interviewed Mr Olson. Here is what that report had to say in regards to Olson's injuries. "The couple dropped behind a low partition separating the cafeteria line from the dining area. Olson said, 'I couldn't just lay down. I felt I had to get up to survive.' When he looked over the partition he was hit by small pieces of flying debris as bullets ricocheted around the room. Olson suffered minor shrapnel wounds to his face and chest. Olson said, 'I crawled up to the end of the wall where another man was under a small table.' The two waited until the shooting had stopped. Then the man said, 'He's gone.' 'At that moment the gunman backed up and saw him under the table and shot him in the head.' Olson said.
We now know that the fragmentation wounds Mr Olson received did not originate from the shots that killed Jason Winter, and Mr Bugg was in receipt of that information. The question then is raised as to where did the shot that created Olson's wounds originate from? The answer again is that when Olson had a look at the gunman and what was happening, he was seen, and the gunman shot at him, but missed, striking the concrete floor or stone partition and this shot or shots created Olson's wounds. As there were no other victims in this area of the building, then it must be assumed that Olson himself was the target. We now have another shot fired by the gunman. Furthermore, when ambulance staff questioned the peppering effect of Olson's wounds, believing them to be made by a shotgun blast, they were informed that Olson's wounds were made by 'bony fragments'. That was not correct.
Now consider the fragmentation from the wound of Jason Winter. In his article printed in the Wound Ballistic Review, the Tasmania Police Ballistics expert, Sergeant Gerard Dutton lists the wounds received by Jason Winter as, "Body 22 - Male, 29, 93.5 kg, 199cm, shot twice, (.223). (i)Distant entry to the right rear of the head, travelling forwards and slightly downwards, exiting the right temple region. One tiny fragment of lead recovered, weight: 0.92 grains) (ii) - Distant entry to the outside of the little finger of the right hand, exiting the inside of the finger, re-entering the middle of the right palm and re-exiting the back of the hand. These wounds were typical of a defensive attitude. Primary (bullet) fragments and secondary (bone) fragments from the hand have then caused multiple injuries to the right of the head, neck and shoulder, some of the fragments entering the upper right chest. One tiny piece of jacketing removed from the shoulder, weight: 0.42 grains. Two fragments recovered from chest, consisting of the nose portion of a small calibre FMJ bullet (no bearing surface attached), weight: 6.708 grains; and a small fragment of lead, weight: 0.57 grains."
It is interesting to note that Jason Winter was shot in the back of the head, and also through the front of his right hand. However what we do learn from this is that there is very little evidence to suggest that the shot through the back of the head had actually fully fragmented. We are now also aware that the fragments from the shot through the hand did fragment, but struck the body of Jason Winter and so would not have struck Dennis Olson. Another interesting facet of this information is that Jason Winter was shot from the side, most probably from about where the 'Prince' sports bag was discarded, and not from the front area of the café that Damian Bugg infers.
In the aftermath of the carnage that occurred within the Broad Arrow Cafe, the walls, ceiling and floor were covered with body matter. Sergeant Gerard Dutton makes comments on this situation in his article where he states, "Fired cartridge cases littered the floor while bullet damage and blood spatter were apparent on the walls." For this 'blood spatter' to have been deposited on the walls, it would have had to been accompanied by bullets or bullet fragments. Dutton makes a further comment in relation to bullet damage being, "Separate bullet damage to victims, buildings and vehicles etc at some of the scenes was in excess of the amount of cartridge cases located." It must be noted that the Broad Arrow Café was the only building that suffered bullet damage during the massacre.
However in the New South Wales forensic team sketch plan of the Broad Arrow Café, which was attached to the Bugg Report, there were only six fragments of bullet jacketing, one actual spent bullet, two pieces of damage to the walls, four pieces of damage to carpet, one damaged window pane, one damaged sliding glass door and one damaged glass shelf. However, Sgt Gerard Dutton in his article printed in the Wound Ballistics Review gives us a more detailed description of these fragments. Dutton states; "Bullet fragments were recovered from only nine of the dead and four of the injured victims from the café. A further seven fragments were recovered embedded in walls or on the carpet, some showing biological tissue contamination. The café fragments were all Colt related and consisted of: (1) to (3). Three base portions of the jacket of small calibre FMJ bullets, minus the lead core and broken at the cannelure. Weights: 15.8 grains, 14.38 grains and 17.49 grains. (4) to (5) Two flattened nose portions of small calibre FMJ bullets; one broken approximately 3 mm behind the cannelure, weight: 15.pp grains. The second broken just below the cannelure, weight: 15.94 grains (6) to (7) Two small pieces of copper jacketing. Weights: 3.05 grains and 6.12 grains.
These two descriptions of bullet fragments located within the Broad Arrow Café are from police ballistics experts, and so one would expect that there would be similarities. There are few similarities except for the number of fragments. A .223 bullet weighs approximately 55 grains says Dutton ("The .223 cartridges were of Chinese Norinco manufacture, fitted with 55 grain boat-tail FMJ bullets"). What has happened to the remaining bullet fragments that would be expected to remain within the confines of the shootings?
The bullet that wounded Mick Sargent has vanished completely, as though it never existed. There is no trace of it. The bullet that killed Kate Scott has vanished. One of the two bullets that killed the two Malaysians has also vanished, the other has left one tiny piece of copper jacketing weighing 0.51 grains. Other people were wounded by bullets that according to the documents presented to the Supreme Court in Hobart by Mr Bugg never existed.
Furthermore, Mr Bugg claims that fragmentation of bullets that killed the Sharpes and Mr Bennett, Andrew Mills and Tony Kistan caused wounds to Gary Broome, John and Gaye Fidler, Thelma Walker and Pamela Law, but where is the equivalent fragmentation damage to the walls and other areas of the café. There is none. Fragmentation is indiscriminate. It does not select its target, yet according to evidence presented by Mr Bugg, that is exactly what happened.
Again, Dutton's article in the Wound Ballistic Review states in the cases of Kistan, Mills, Bennett and Ray Sharpe, that no bullet or bullet fragments were found in these victims, which means that the bullets exited as a whole and thus produced no fragments until they struck another solid object.
We are informed that most of the bullet fragments tended to stay inside the bodies of the shot, and yet we are given evidence that fragments from shots that killed victims inside the café then exited the bodies of the victims and caused further injuries to human bodies only. In considering the small amount of actual damage reported to the café walls and fittings, with the supposed number of shots fired, being 29, or as Dutton says, 30, then it can be calculated that the actual chances of bullet fragments exiting a shot victim and then causing further damage to another victim is almost zero. However there were several patrons within the café injured by fragmentation, which demonstrates that the information given is incomplete and highly inaccurate.
Again in Dutton's article in the Wound Ballistics Review, Dutton states; "Bullet fragments were recovered from only nine of the dead and four of the injured victims from the café." That simply means that 11 of the dead bodies did not contain fragments. Just what did happen to those bullets?
It is now appropriate to review the other victims of what Mr Bugg calls shrapnel wounds. All of these people were either seated or lying on the floor and the shots that Mr Bugg states the bullet fragments originated from people who were standing when they were shot. Consider then that the gunman was firing the rifle from the right hip and most of the deceased were headshot. This means that these bullets' projection would be in an upward motion, away from the people seated, or lying on the floor. Any possible fragmentation would continue to have this same upwards motion, though not necessarily the same precise motion.
The first mentioned by Mr Bugg is Mr Gary Broome, who was seated at the table where Kevin and Ray Sharpe, together with Wally Bennet were murdered. This table was in the southwest corner of two walls one of brick and one of stone. These walls were perfect for creating bullet fragments.
The Sharpes and Wally Bennet had been standing when they were shot, and Mr Bugg states the fact that the bullet that struck Mr Bennet in the neck, killing him then went on to strike Mr Ray Sharpe in the head. This puts the bullet in an upward trajectory. No fragments from this shot would have struck Gary Broome on the left side of the face. Kevin Sharpe though was not only shot in the head, but also in the arm. If this bullet that struck Kevin Sharpe in the arm was on a horizontal trajectory, then the bullet would have struck a wall at the correct height and there is every possibility that fragments from this bullet may have caused the wound to Gary Broome's face.
On page 87 Mr Bugg states, "Mr. Broome underwent surgery on the 29th April for left side lacerations to his face caused by the passage of the bullet and there was removal of metallic objects from his face and some bony fragments". What this means is that Mr Broome was not only shot by a bullet, but also received fragments from another bullet and some bone fragments. These bone fragments would more than likely have come from the wound in the arm of Kevin Sharpe. What we do have here though are wounds caused by a bullet, fragments of a bullet, and bone fragments. Two bullets, one striking another person at roughly the same height as Mr Broome's face. Since Gary Broome was seated, the likelihood of the fragments coming from the head shots that killed the Sharpes and Wally Bennett are remote. We now have another shot, another headshot, which is unaccounted for in Mr Bugg's statement of facts.
However, Broome was not the only person wounded among those seated at the two tables in the southwest corner occupied by the visitors from Victoria. Mrs Gaye Fidler and her husband, John Fidler were also wounded. They both received fragmentation wounds to the back. The source of the fragments that caused these wounds would have been from a bullet or bullets that fragmented after striking the wall behind the Fidlers. That is another shot fired inside the café. Mr Fidler though also received another wound to the forehead. In an interview with the ABC in October 1999, Mrs Fidler described the situation in this manner.
"Bryant had aimed a shot at John's head, which as John turned, went straight across John's head and cut across his forehead. With that John himself came down to the floor." We have just been informed that the gunman fired a shot at the head of John Fidler, which Mr Bugg has not informed the Supreme Court of. Gary Broome and John Fidler now join the ranks with Mick Sargent as being extremely lucky in surviving being shot in the head by the gunman at Port Arthur.
Mr Bugg continuously informs us that bullets fragmented after striking one of the deceased persons. This is not quite correct, and goes against what Sgt. Dutton has informed us. Mr Bugg must be aware of it as he continually informs us of the ballistic and forensic experts that have detailed this information to him.
The .223 Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) ammunition is also known as "M193"and is reputed to have minor fragmentation problems at close range. The .223 projectile is smaller and travels with a greater velocity, than the larger .308 ammunition. At close range, a strong bone such as a cranium may cause a .223 to shatter, but then it would shatter at the point of impact, and enter as fragments creating terrible damage. The shot that killed Kate Scott was not fired at close range, and literally pulled the brain from out of the skull and it fell into the bowl of chips that she had so recently received. This suggests that that particular bullet remained intact as it entered the cranium, and then the bullet continued through the cranium, pulling the brain with it.
Most of the other victims were shot at close range, but only nine had fragmentation damage and the café walls were strewn with blood and tissue that had been ripped from the shot victims by the exiting bullet and bullet fragments. Therefore, amongst all this blood and gore that was splattered on the walls and ceiling, there must have been some of the bullet fragments that caused this blood and tissue to be expelled from the victim's bodies.
Furthermore, if the .223 round struck a solid object such as brick, stone or concrete most of the energy is spent in the shattering of the round, which creates the fragments or splinters. This is why most fragments stopped after passing through the skin. People sitting near stone or brick walls in the Broad Arrow Café would have been subject to wounding by fragments, if the bullets were fired at a horizontal projection. So if we consider the Fidlers who were sitting against the café rock wall, then there is a proper explanation for the fragmentation wounds they received on their backs.
However, we are told that most of the fatal shots were fired in an upward projection, which removed most possibilities of fragmentation wounds coming from those shots. There is however another possibility and that is the tile or concrete floor. People lying on the floor would also risk being wounded by fragments of a bullet striking the floor very near to them.
So on page 92 of the Court Document where Mr Bugg states, "Thelma Walker and Pamela Law at table 15 were struck with shrapnel or fragments from the shots which killed Mr Kistan and Mr Mills." he is stating a load of bunkum. Both these shots exited the victims intact, so there was no fragmentation or 'shrapnel', as Mr Bugg QC calls it, from these shots to strike these two ladies.
Mr Bugg continued with, "Mrs Walker sustained shrapnel wounds to the right temporal region, to the back and right ankle. Mr Crosswell pulled both women at that table to the floor and as Mrs Law was being dragged to the floor she felt a graze to the rear of her head and while on the floor felt stinging sensations to her right side. It appeared at the time that she had been shot directly, but further examination revealed that the injuries were also shrapnel caused."
However in his statements documented on the 'A Current Affair' program, Peter Crosswell contradicts Mr Bugg again. Crosswell states, "I have a recollection of one of the ladies lifting her head up and having her hat blown off, which at the time I thought was her head, but it was the hat. And then he stopped shooting and he was standing towards the front door, and at that stage I honestly thought that I was perhaps the only person left alive and he was just looking around for people that didn't have holes in their head, and I thought well, this is it. This guy was just going to walk up behind me and shoot me, and then he just ran out of the room."
So Mrs Pamela Law apparently lifted her head, and she was shot with the bullet grazing her head, and removing the hat she was wearing, and this attempted murder occurred at the latter part of the shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café, not at the time Kistan and Mills were murdered. Mrs Law now joins Mick Sargent, Gary Broome and John Fidler as survivors of headshots.
Besides the actual bullet wound to Mrs Law, any fragmentation wounds to these women could only have come from bullets that fragmented after striking the floor. There appears to have been two shots fired at Mrs Walker, as fragments would not have been isolated to only the right temporal area, back, and then to the ankle. Whether fragments from the same shots also caused wounds to Mrs Law cannot be determined with the evidence given by Mr Bugg or Peter Crosswell's statement, but it is a fair deduction that at least three shots were fired at these ladies.
On page 94 of the Court Document, Mr Bugg states, "Patricia Barker and her companions were at table number 13 and they reacted and took cover under the table on the floor. Mrs Barker received shrapnel wounds to the right upper arm, left hand and left cheek. These injuries were sustained by fragments of shrapnel most likely from the fatal shots towards Mr Kistan and Mr Mills. She sustained those injuries before she was able to get to the floor."
Here is evidence of another shot being fired inside the Broad Arrow Café, as there is absolutely no way in which these fragments came from the shots that killed either Kistan or Mills. If we consider the manner in which a person lying on the floor would position their arms and hands so as to protect their heads, then the fragment wounds occasioned by Mrs Barker is consistent with her sheltering in that position whilst lying on the floor. Dutton refers to this position as "defensive attitude" in his article in the Wound Ballistics Review.
What we now have are shots at Ray Sharp (1), Olson (1), Broome (1), the Fidlers (2), Law (1), Walker (2), and Barker (1) that are in addition to the 29 shots supposedly fired by gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café. That is a total of a minimum of 38 shots now recorded as being fired within the Broad Arrow Café. There is though evidence of more shots being fired within the café.
Just prior to the shooting, a young waitress brought a bowl of chips to Kate Scott. This waitress, Colleen Parker was standing back checking out the area when the longhaired young man next to her produced a rifle from his bag and started to shoot the customers. The waitress was frozen with shock as she witnessed the event of the Malaysian couple, and then Mick Sargent and Kate Scott being shot. What actually saved the young waitress was that when the gunman turned and shot Anthony Nightingale who was behind him, the gunman actually knocked the young waitress who then realised that what she was seeing was real, and she turned and fled from the scene. As she fled, the young waitress passed the Coca-Cola dispensing machine, and the ice cream freezer.
Later, her workmates were amazed at the young girl's good fortune, as there was a bullet lodged in the Coca-Cola machine. Not only that, but there was at least one other round in the ice cream freezer next to it. Apparently, after shooting Anthony Nightingale, the gunman then turned and fired shots at the fleeing waitress, but missed her and hit the Coca-Cola machine and freezer instead. Mr Bugg did not mention these shots, nor were the rounds shown in the sketch plan produced by the New South Wales Forensic team.
Mrs Wendy Scurr was at the Information centre, when she heard the loud sounds emanating from the Broad Arrow Café. When the noise continued, she set off to investigate the noise, and headed towards the side door at the western side of the café, when something whizzed past her head. At the time she didn't realise what it was, but it made her stop. Moments later a person rushed through the front door screaming that people were being shot in the café. Wendy Scurr then returned to the Information Office and obtained an outside line and dialled 000 to call the police. This call was logged on at Police Headquarters as being received at 1.32pm.
A couple of days later, when they were permitted to return to the Historic Site, Wendy Scurr with her husband Graeme, went back to the Broad Arrow Café, where Graeme pointed out to Wendy the bullet hole through a pane of glass in the window near the door which she had been heading for at the commencement of the massacre. Again the bullet hole is not shown on the sketch plan produced by the New South Wales Forensic team.
There is now a minimum of 41 shots fired by the gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café, 38 of which are calculated from the Court Document where Mr Bugg is stating facts and three others that have been ignored. Of course several people outside the Broad Arrow Café have given estimates of between 40 to 50 shots being fired inside the building. One of the two Vietnam veterans who was waiting with the tourists at the Information Centre, states that there were 20-25 rounds fired inside the café, before they were warned that there was a massacre being committed inside the café.
Mr Bugg is extremely adamant that two witnesses heard the gunman reloading the Colt AR15 in the gift shop, and that after that there were no more shots fired within the building. One of those witnesses was an Army Major, Sandra Vanderpeer, who was in the gift shop area, quite near the area where the empty rifle magazine was found. However, Vanderpeer states that the shooting lasted for about 5 minutes in the café, and she believes that the shooting continued after she had heard the firearm being reloaded. Mr Bugg neglects to inform us of that little detail, and to demonstrate his point, Mr Bugg introduces an unidentified Asian gentleman, of whom the police were able to interview on the 16th November 1996, only three days before Mr Bugg was informing the court.
Now we have another contradiction. Peter Crosswell during his interview with the ABC's Judy Tierney for the 7.30 report, states that the gunman, after shooting two victims, one possibly Jason Winter, then went to the front door, and paused there for about 15 seconds while he reloaded, and then left the café. This information is corroborated by Gaye Fidler, who states in her interview on the ABC on Monday 25th October 1999, that the gunman went to the front door of the café and paused there for about 6 seconds, while he reloaded, and then left. We now have two witnesses stating that the magazine was reloaded at the front door of the café, and that the gunman never went near the gift shop counter after reloading. This means that there were two magazines discharged within the Broad Arrow Café, which places the amount of shots fired as anything between 40 and 60, without any allowance for the claims by Mr Bugg, of the alleged live rounds found inside the café.
Furthermore, Mr Damian Bugg states that the number of shots fired within the café were calculated by the number of spent cartridges found within the confines of the Broad Arrow Café. On page 113 of the Court Document Bugg states, "Twenty-nine spent shells were retrieved from the café". Then on page 117 of the same document, Bugg states, "He fired twenty-nine shots". Mr Bugg continually stated that all this evidence was from ballistic and forensic experts, and Mr Bugg used this to override the evidence of survivors. However it is appropriate to consider the ballistic expert's comments on this matter.
Sergeant Gerard Dutton wrote in his article printed in the Australian Police Journal, "Keep in mind that crime scenes with many injured persons will be contaminated fairly heavily by medical personnel and by those in confusion and shock following the incident. Therefore any inferences drawn from the position of evidence like cartridge cases cannot be relied upon 100%. Also, cartridge cases may not give an accurate indication of the amount of shots fired as some cases may be taken by civilians, whether inadvertently or otherwise." To highlight this contamination of evidence, there was one spent cartridge case (FCC13) placed on top of the table under which Jason Winter died.
However, in his article printed in the Wound Ballistic Review Vol 3, No. 4, Sergeant Gerard Dutton states; "Counting the separate bullet wounds to all of the deceased, the gunman discharged seventeen shots into bodies 1 to 12, in comparison to twenty four shots into the other 20 victims inside the café building. This amounts to forty one bullets having found their mark out of what is still an unknown total of actual cartridges fired during the incident." "Thirty .223 calibre fired cartridge cases were located in the café; two .223 and two .308 fired cases were in the carpark, plus one received from a bus driver later;" "One example is the carpark scene, where the bullet damage documented in victims and objects, exceeded the number (in this case four) of fired cartridge cases recovered. This is also seen in the café where thirty fired cases were found. With twenty four separate bullet wounds to the twenty dead and a further thirteen wounded from this scene, the number of fired cases seems minimal, even allowing for injury to two victims from one bullet. It is certain that the number of cartridges fired at the various scenes would have numbered closer to seventy or eighty,"
Dutton never at any stage states exactly how many shots were fired inside the café. Dutton also tells us that only nine of the dead and four of the injured had bullet fragments. That equates to 15 bullets as some victims had been shot twice. We then have a further 7 fragments recovered from inside the café. If we take it that these seven bullet fragments were bullets that have not been considered in the previous 15 bullets, then we have a total of only 22 actual rounds accounted for. What happened to the other bullets that were fired inside the Broad Arrow Café?
Again, in this particular article, Dutton tells us that in eleven killings, the bullets exited without fragmenting, and in another seven, the bullets exited as fragments, with only two bullets staying within the body. That means we have eleven actual bullets and seven groups of fragments, from the dead alone that should have left some actual damage within the café walls, floor or ceiling.
Part of the Bugg report was a copy of the sketch plan prepared by the New South Wales Police Forensic team, which lists in the key, various items detected by this forensic team. FCC equates to fired cartridge case, of which there are twenty nine shown on the plan. Bullets and bullet fragments of which there were 7 items are listed as FA to FG. Damage to the building of which 9 items are listed is shown as DA to DI. There are 4 items of damage to the carpet, 1 to a glass sliding door, 1 to window glass, 1 to glass shelf and 2 to the actual walls. Contrary to Mr Bugg's statement pertaining to the unidentified Asian gentleman, there were no live rounds listed as being inside the Broad Arrow Café, but they were there, .308 live rounds were indeed on the floor of the Broad Arrow Café, near the front door where the gunman exited.
The first of the damage to walls was DA, which was on the west wall where the two Malaysian visitors were shot. The only other damage to walls was listed as DH, which was on the east wall of the gift shop, well away from where any body was actually found. The damage to a glass shelf was in the same area, and listed as DI.
After the police forensic team had completed their task within the café, and the room had been cleaned, staff and family members were permitted to enter the café to view the scene of devastation that had occurred on that particular Sunday. The father of Colleen Parker, one of the waitresses studied the number of bullet holes in the café walls and was moved to comment that the gunman was not a good shot as there were a number of bullet holes which showed that the gunman had obviously missed his intended victims. Naturally Mr Parker did not count the large number of bullet damage to the walls, but there were more than the two items of damage listed on the sketch plan attached to Mr Bugg's report. Mr Parker had noticed the very same evidence as that stated by Sergeant Gerard Dutton in his article printed in the Australian Police Journal, in the chapter 'Crime Scenes' on page 213.
It is interesting to note that police recovered from the Volvo sedan 3 magazines, two for the Belgian FN, of which 1 was empty and the other contained 17 rounds, and one Colt AR15 magazine containing 12 rounds.
There is one last comment to make and that is if the gunman was professionally trained and everything points to that, then he would have ensured that he had a full magazine before starting off on his next stage of the exercise. He also would have ensured that he had a clear path to travel in before moving out of the Broad Arrow Café. Witnesses observed the gunman exiting the Broad Arrow Café carrying the 'Prince' sports bag on his shoulder, and as he navigated the steps down the front of the café, the bag slipped off his shoulder, and the gunman then hoisted the straps back onto his shoulder. Other witnesses also saw the gunman place this bag into the boot of the Volvo.
Now if we consider that many witnesses spoke of the bag appearing to be heavy, then the bag may have contained the Daewoo shotgun as well as the Colt AR15 semi-automatic rifle. Perhaps this is what Inspector Paine meant when he put it to Martin Bryant during his interview, "We believe you went to the Broad Arrow Café with that bag over there, containing some guns and your video camera."
The second fabrication has to be the time frame that has been put forward as to the actual time the gunman spent inside the café. Mr Damian Bugg QC states on page 117 of the court Document, "Your Honour, it is hard to express in any finite terms the precise period of time Bryant was in the café but I would put to this court that he was in there for approximately one and a half minutes to at the outside, two minutes, whilst he was firing his gun."
Later in July 1997 when he prepared his report into the door at the Broad Arrow Café and related matters. He delved further into the matter of the time frames.
"Six persons, employed by the Authority, who were present at the Historic Site at that time, but not in the Broad arrow Café, have questioned that estimate maintaining that Bryant was in the Café firing his weapon variously for 4 minutes up to 6 minutes and they place some significance upon this issue. Others have told me that "time" is a big issue.
I have tried, whilst discussing this matter with some persons concerned, to indicate the reasons why this time estimate was given by me in the Court. Obviously, if there had been a trial, all relevant witnesses would have been called and the jury would have had to make a determination of Bryant's guilt or innocence of the various criminal acts with which he had been charged and their verdict would not have reflected time estimates or time periods."
So six people at the Site at the time criticise the time periods. Since they were not inside the Broad Arrow Café at the time the shooting started, they were not affected by the sudden eruption of absolute shock and horror, until some time later. There were the two tour guides, Ashley Law and Vicki McLaughlin, with Sue Burgess their supervisor. There was Ann Hillman, the Tour Co-ordinator, and Steven Howard who was on lunchtime relieving duties. Paul Cooper was also in the area, along with the car park attendant, Ian Kingston. There was also Wendy Scurr who had entered the centre just prior to the shooting with a bucket of chips and had handed the chips around to her workmates. She was not due to begin her next tour on the ferry until 1.45 p.m. when it started taking on tourists to embark at 2.00 p.m.
Ashley Law the tour guide who played a heroic part in moving visitors to safety was on the telephone talking to a friend, when the sounds started to emanate from the café. His workmates jokingly suggested that someone was taking to Ashley's car with a sledgehammer. Ashley puts the time down as 1.27 p.m. when the shooting started. (Justin Noble, the off-duty NSW policeman puts the time as being 1.28pm) As the noise continued to emanate from the café, the guides and the supervisor became concerned, but as they were due to lead the next tour off at 1.30 p.m., Wendy Scurr went to check on what was happening at the café.
Wendy Scurr originally headed for the front door of the café, but then changed her mind and veered towards the side door. Something whizzed by her head, which caused Wendy to stop for a moment, and wonder what it was. Then a person ran out of the front door, screaming that a gunman was shooting people inside the café.
Who was this person who was able to run from the front door of the Broad Arrow Café? Mr Bugg QC informs us on page 88 of the Court Document that, 'Mr Kistan pushed his wife towards the door.' Mrs Kistan was the first person able to flee from the front door of the Broad Arrow Café. In fact very few people were able to escape through either door, as the gunman controlled that area. Mrs Gaye Fidler informs us that she noticed people fleeing through the door on the west side of the café. Mick Sargent and John Riviere also were able to flee through the west door. The only person recorded exiting through the front door was Mrs Kistan, and if it was she that alerted Anne Hillman, Wendy Scurr and others of what was occurring inside the café, then we have an approximate time of the shot that was fired at Wendy Scurr. That time is immediately before or after the murder of Andrew Mills and Tony Kistan.
On page 105 of the Court Document, Mr Damian Bugg QC states, "The first tape, the Wilkinson tape, stopped after fifteen seconds and it recorded seventeen shots." "But if one goes back to the Wilkinson tape, which stopped recording sound after fifteen seconds, in those fifteen seconds twelve people were dead, one had suffered grievous bodily harm, five were wounded and four had suffered significant injuries in Bryant's attempts to murder them."
The tapes record the sounds of shots being fired. There is absolutely no record anywhere of those recorded shots actually causing death or injury. There is no account of the shots that were fired at Colleen Parker. There is no account of the shots that wounded Gary Broome and John Fidler. There is no account of the shot that was fired through the windowpane at Wendy Scurr. Here we have another six shots fired up to the murder of Andrew Mills and Tony Kistan, that Mr Bugg has declined to inform the Court, and the Australian public about.
It is also a physical impossibility for Wendy Scurr to have arrived at the position where she was targeted by the gunman inside the supposed 15 seconds as stated by Mr Bugg QC. If however, we take the time for Wendy Scurr to arrive at that position where she was targeted by the gunman as anything from 30 seconds or more, then we have the recorded sounds of 21 shots being fired in the first 25 seconds which would have occurred before the murder of Andrew Mills and Tony Kistan, and before the gunman moved into the gift shop area of the building.
Two Vietnam Veterans who were with the tourists outside the Information centre also had problems recognising the sounds as actual gunshots. These Vietnam veterans were more than concerned when Ashley Law came out of the Information Centre, and asked what was going on. It was the smell of cordite that alerted these two veterans to the seriousness of the situation. In his statement to police one of the veterans stated, "I had heard about 20-25 rounds when I said to Peter if he could smell cordite. He said he could smell it also. At the same time a large female with short grey hair came running out of the café and she said, 'There's a man in there murdering people get out of here fast.'" What had alerted the staff member, Ann Hillman was when Mrs Kistan had managed to escape after being pushed through the front door by her husband, just before he was shot.
With the warning now given, the tour guides, who were already with the tourists assembled outside the Information office, with the aid of the two Vietnam veterans, started to herd the visitors away from the café to safety, while Wendy Scurr went back into the Information centre, picked up the phone, obtained an outside line and dialled 000.
This call, logged onto the police computer at 1.32p.m. was answered by Constable Michael Barber, who listened with disbelief as Wendy Scurr reported what was happening at the Port Arthur Site. The constable required all the normal data, such as name, address, telephone number etc, and stated the necessity of ringing back to confirm the authenticity of the call. Wendy Scurr replied that she wouldn't be there to answer the call, as it was too dangerous. To convince the unbelieving constable that what she was saying was gospel, Wendy took the telephone receiver, and held it outside the door, so that the constable could hear the continuing sounds emanating from the café. Finally realising something was very wrong at Port Arthur, Constable Barber wished Wendy Scurr good luck as she finished the call.
This call is estimated at lasting up to two minutes in its entirety, but was never recognised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was never to be used in evidence in the trial of Martin Bryant, as Wendy Scurr was notified prior to the Court date, that she would not be required to give evidence, mind you at this stage, she would have identified Martin Bryant as the gunman.
If as Mr Bugg constantly informs us that the gunman was inside the Broad Arrow Café shooting from 1.30 p.m. and this shooting lasted for 90 seconds to no more than 2 minutes, before the gunman exited the Broad Arrow Café, then Wendy Scurr and the other staff, Sue Burgess and Steven Howard would have been targeted by the gunman, before Wendy Scurr was able to speak to Constable Barber on the telephone.
Police received another call logged in at 1.34 p.m. Again there is little recognition of this call. The first call to receive official blessings was the call made by Ian Kingston, the part-time security officer and parking attendant at the site. His call was logged in at 1.35p.m. Kingston stated that there were at least seven dead in the Broad Arrow Café.
It was Kingston who became the main prosecution witness of the massacre. However his description of the events within the Broad Arrow Café in the EMA report defies belief. Legal action taken by staff of the Port Arthur Historic Site obtained an apology, and an admission from Ian Kingston that his statement was not factual. This however did not stop Ian Kingston from continuing in his role as Mr Damian Bugg's star witness of the events at Port Arthur.
Let us consider the actions of Wendy Scurr and the tour guides, Ann Hillman and Ashley Law a bit closer. At 1.27p.m. Ashley Law is on the telephone chatting to a friend. We do not know if it was 1.27 and 10 seconds, or 1.27 and 55 seconds, but we do know that it was 1.27 p.m. These people all heard the loud heavy thuds emanating from the café, but it would take a while and the sounds continuing to raise their curiosity enough for Wendy to go and investigate. Again when she headed off towards the café, Wendy would not have been in a hurry, rather she would be trying to work out just exactly what could have been causing the sounds. Mind you, once she was aware of the situation, then speed would have been the order of the day.
The next aspect of time is again the various tour guides. When the tour guide supervisor realised what was happening inside the Broad Arrow Café, she and Steven Howard began contacting house attendants and the tollbooth by the internal telephone system to inform them of the situation, and have the guides shepherd the visitors to places of safety. This was difficult, as many people had heard the noise, and took it to be part of some attraction, and because their curiosity was aroused, were actually heading into the killing zone. In an effort to make the visitors move away from the car park area, Ann Hillman did a Regimental Sergeant-Major act and bellowed, "Move", which was what actually started the crowds to move away from the danger area. For this to take place, the time must have been in excess of the time stated by Mr Bugg.
The heroism and dedication displayed by Ashley Law and his co-workers and the two Vietnam veterans in moving the tourists away from the Information centre towards safety cannot be underestimated. The thing though is that these actions all took time, and if the gunman had only been inside the café for 1˝ to 2 minutes, then the majority of the tourists would still have been within the vicinity and excellent targets for the gunman. Not only that but it would have taken some time for the tour guides and Wendy Scurr to become concerned enough about the noise emanating from the café to investigate. This is why time is such a big factor to so many at the Port Arthur Site.
But Mr Bugg is correct in one part of his statement in relation to time. He states in his report that "the jury would have had to make a determination of Bryant's guilt or innocence of the various criminal acts with which he had been charged and their verdict would not have reflected time estimates or time periods." This is perfectly correct, so why did Mr Bugg introduce the fabricated time of 1 ˝ to at the outside 2 minutes whilst he was firing his gun? The only feasible explanation is to move responsibility away from a broken fire exit door lock. You see, if time was not an important issue to Mr Bugg, then he would not have pursued the arguments with the vigour he has demonstrated over the issue, he would have conceded the point.
There is another important statement that Mr Bugg put in the July 1997 report. "If there had been a trial, all relevant witnesses would have been called." It has already been noted that Wendy Scurr was notified that she would not be required to attend court as a witness. She was not alone amongst the staff and survivors from the Port Arthur site to be informed that they would not be required to attend court as witnesses. Steven Howard, who lost his wife in the Broad Arrow Café, and who was one of the first staff members to enter the building after the gunman had left, was also informed that he would not be required to attend and give evidence. Another witness who was informed he would not be required to give evidence was Graham Colyer, who was shot inside the Café.
Colyer was a British ex-serviceman, and noted the movements, and gave a good description of the gunman. Colyer was adamant that the gunman was taller and thinner than Martin Bryant, his hair was completely different, and the gunman's face was badly marked with either very bad acne or chicken pox scars. Not only those who questioned Mr Bugg's facts prior to the November court-date were notified that they would not be called as witnesses.
The Wilkinsons from Corio, whose videotape captured the first 17 shots, were also advised that they would not be called as witnesses to give evidence. This means that Bugg could not use their videotape in any trial of Martin Bryant, but it was a crucial part of Bugg's case against Bryant. What would cause the DPP to make the decision not to call the Wilkinsons to give evidence at the forthcoming trial of Martin Bryant? Both Wilkinsons state that they saw the gunman exiting the Broad Arrow Café, and as he stepped down the front steps leading from the café towards the buses, the sports bag, which he was carrying on his right shoulder slipped off, and he casually hoisted the bag back to his shoulder.
The 'Prince' sports bag was also a vital piece of court evidence, and the DPP has always maintained that the bag never left the Broad Arrow Café, yet here was direct evidence conflicting this supposed fact. This evidence also conflicts with another aspect of the case against Martin Bryant, in that it demonstrates that the gunman did in fact return to that part of the café where the shooting started in order to retrieve the bag. This jeopardises the whole concept of the gunman shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café for only 90 seconds. The Wilkinsons' evidence demonstrates that the time element of the DPP's case is not factual. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the witnesses' statements that the DPP overrode with his ballistic and forensic evidence were in fact correct.
On page 111 of the Court Document, Mr Bugg states, "Some people described Bryant moving backwards and forwards through the café. When one considers that we are probably now talking about him being in the café shooting for about, at the outside, thirty seconds, the one movement backwards and forwards is on the estimate of the ballistic experts and people who closely examined the scene the likely interpretation that people had." Mr Bugg is stating that this is his scenario brought about by the so-called forensic and ballistic experts, and he is ignoring the evidence of the witnesses in the café at the time of the event.
Of course Mr Bugg does not tell the Supreme Court, or anyone else that the gunman returned and collected his sports bag, which was left on the table where he started shooting, and hoisted that bag onto his right shoulder prior to leaving the café. If this sports bag also contained the loose .308 ammunition that Mr Bugg refers to as being inside the café, then it is possible that this ammunition spilt from the sports bag as it was being carried from the café.
Mr Bugg's account of the events is that the gunman moved into the gift shop area of the building and shot Nicole Burgess, and Elizabeth Howard. The gunman then killed Mr Dennis Lever, and then returned to the café area and shot Mr Peter Crosswell, wounding him in the buttocks. After that the gunman shot Mr Jason Winter, who was of the belief that the gunman had left the building, and so emerged from under the table where he had been hiding. Mr Bugg then contends that the gunman returned to the gift shop area and then shot Mr Ron Jary, Pauline Masters, Peter Nash, and was then heard by Major Sandra Vanderpeer to change magazines, in the gift shop, leave the empty magazine by the gift shop counter and then exit the building. This again is not quite correct. Vanderpeer states that the shooting continued after the gunman changed magazines.
Remembering that Mrs Fidler and her husband John had been seated at the table in the southwest corner of the café, we now get a completely different picture of the events. In her interview on the ABC radio, Mrs Fidler stated, "He then headed back in our direction, still killing people, and Merv was under the table, and he said to us, "Oh, he's coming back." He could see his legs. With that we really just closed right down and just never moved. And apparently he stood at John's head. We closed our eyes too. He looked at John to see if he was dead, looked under the table at the rest of us, and then turned and walked out. A baby cried and that distressed me greatly because I heard somebody call out, "No, don't." It was the baby's father. Then I heard a shot and I heard the father groan and swear and then another shot and he was dead, but I presumed that one of those shots had killed the baby too that he was shooting and that really saddened me. He left the café and went to the front door, and there was no shooting for about 6 seconds. At this time I believe Bryant reloaded."
Peter Crosswell corroborates this statement by Mrs Gaye Fidler during his interview with Judy Tierney of the ABC, which was screened on the 7.30 Report while Peter Crosswell was still a patient at the Royal Hobart Hospital. Crosswell then made a similar statement on his interview for the 'A Current affair' program.
Besides deliberately ignoring the fact that the gunman had returned to the table situated at the southwest corner, and stood over victims ascertaining whether or not they were dead, which all takes time, Mr Bugg stated the facts so as to contend that the last shots were fired within the Gift shop area, where the empty magazine was discarded. Mr Bugg also ignores the fact that the gunman returned to the table and collected the 'Prince' sports bag, and carried it with him to the Volvo, and placed it in the boot, where later only the Daewoo automatic shotgun as found.
In her interview on television, when Gaye Fidler was asked just how long did the massacre at the Broad Arrow Café take, Gaye replied, "Two minutes, two minutes. It was the longest two minutes imaginable." Of course Gaye Fidler was not thinking about the time during the event. The time was something she was told about later. What Gaye Fidler did though was to give the audience her statement of the account inside the Broad Arrow Café, which was corroborated by Peter Crosswell, and completely different from that given by the Director of Public Prosecutions, in what has been called the strongest case ever assembled by the Tasmania Police.
Again Mr Bugg states in his July 1997 report, "Likewise, I have on occasions, referred these people to the comments of other persons who were actually present in the Café at the time, who have been unable to estimate times or, when they have estimated times, said that they did not have much confidence in their estimates because either time appeared to stand still for them or alternatively the impact of what was occurring totally disoriented them."
This comparison between those people inside the café and those outside the café is extremely flawed. When the shooting commenced inside the Café, then pandemonium would have erupted, and naturally most people would have been unable to think of anything else but survival. Graeme Colyer, who had been shot through the neck and was lying on the floor, almost bleeding to death, was able to see the gunman moving back and forth through the café and gift shop areas for what he believed was about 4 ˝ minutes. Both Graeme Colyer and Peter Crosswell remark on watching the gunman's white footwear as he stalked past them, hunting for anyone who may have survived. Then again there is Vanderpeer's statement where she gives an estimate of 5 minutes while the gunman was in the café shooting.
However, outside the café, the time was given by clock-watchers that the shooting started at 1.27 p.m. This was noted before the actual pandemonium flowed from the café. Again these witnesses, in carrying out the tasks they performed to save the lives of so many visitors, would have been very conscious of the time factor, as they didn't know when they would run out of time and the gunman would emerge from the café, and continue the killing outside. Again, once the gunman did emerge, then the time factor became irrelevant as the battle to survive commenced.
Mr Bugg then states in the July 1997 report, "I have listened carefully to each of the submissions made to me by the persons who contend that Bryant was in the Café for a substantially longer period of time firing his weapon. I regret that I cannot agree with the submissions made to me. Because of the apparent significance of this issue I will, in detail, explain by reasons.
(a) Two video recordings made at the time and commencing before Bryant started shooting in the café correspond identically for the first 15 seconds on shooting. The first recording ceases after 15 seconds of shooting and records 17 shots, the second recording ceases after recording 25 seconds of shooting and records 21 shots, with 17 in the first 15 seconds. (At 15 seconds 12 people were dead and others wounded)."
What Mr Bugg has here are two recordings taken from outside the Café, and simply record a number of shots. There is absolutely no evidence of which of those shots, recorded by sound alone, were responsible for the killing of the victims inside the Café. Furthermore, this evidence lasts for only 25 seconds at the most, and so there is no evidence here that can positively state that the shootings continued for another five seconds, five minutes or five years. With 21 shots fired in 25 seconds, then there are only 8 more shots to be fired in the next 65 seconds, according to Damian Bugg's calculations.
All the evidence though states that the visitors were being attracted to the Broad Arrow Café because of the continuing noise. Jacqui Lane in her article printed in the June 1996 issue of Police news says it best when she wrote, "I thought they were part of a re-enactment, mainly because they were very slow and regular. Bang, bang, bang once every two seconds or so." "Bang, bang, bang, slow and regular, on and on for about five minutes."
However, had the noise stopped or was reduced greatly, then the attraction would also have diminished. Again, if 17 shots were recorded in 15 seconds, and 21 shots were recorded in 25 seconds, then on the balance of this time period, there is every likelihood that 60 shots would be fired in 90 seconds. There are also the shots recorded on the 000 call made by Wendy Scurr to the police which was logged on at 1.32 p.m. This recorded telephone call would demonstrate clearly that the gunman was still shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café at 1.34 p.m.
(b) "On all the evidence available through forensic and ballistic examination of the scene I have been advised that a maximum number of 29 shots was fired by Bryant in the Café. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Bryant entered the Café and commenced firing his weapon to which was fitted a 30 shot magazine which was discarded, on striking empty, near the counter in the souvenir craft shop. The weapon was reloaded and no further shots were fired by Bryant in the Café after reloading (two witnesses present at the time heard the reloading and stated to Police shortly thereafter that no shots were fired by Bryant after he reloaded)."
As stated previously, the maximum number of shots fired inside the Broad Arrow Café is a fabrication. There is no evidence as from where the gunman produced his second magazine for the Colt AR15, and thus it is open to speculation that any number of magazines that the gunman may have secreted upon his person could have been used in the massacre.
But who are the two witnesses that Mr Bugg states heard the gunman reloading prior to exiting the café? We are aware that Major Sandra Vanderpeer heard the reloading in the gift shop, and she states that she believes the shooting continued after that took place. The second witness is Ronald Gibson. Peter Crosswell and Gaye Fidler both heard the gunman reload at the foyer of the café, after the gunman fired two shots into Jason Winter. There are of course other witnesses who may have stated exactly what they saw and heard, but Mr Bugg is careful not to name these witnesses,
We are also aware that evidence given by Graeme Colyer, Dennis Olson, Gaye Fidler, John Fidler, Peter Crosswell and Wendy Scurr has either been totally ignored, or worse, manipulated to completely destroy the factual events.
Also, consider the statement of the Police Ballistic Expert, Sergeant Gerard Dutton, "Therefore, any inferences drawn from the position of evidence like cartridges cannot be relied upon 100%. Also, cartridge cases may not give an accurate indication of the amount of shots fired as some cases may be taken by civilians, whether inadvertently or otherwise."
(c) "The longer time estimates given by the persons to whom I have spoken must be read in contrast with estimates given by a number of other persons. They were preoccupied with tasks, including directing people away and making calls to Emergency Services whilst Bryant was shooting."
Here we have an admission from Mr Bugg that there is credence in the longer time estimates. For the tour guides and Information Officer to react in the way they did, they must first become aware of what was happening inside the Café. This awareness took over sixty seconds, and then the tasks that were performed would have taken well over two minutes. Mr Bugg also admits in this statement that Wendy Scurr was making her 000 call to the police while the gunman was still shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café.
"I also take into account that all of this must be seen in the light of the horror and violence of the situation and the disorienting effect that these factors would have on any person's perception of time. A number of persons, some within the Broad Arrow Café, concentrating only on the firing in the Café, gave estimates approximating the time estimate I gave to the court."
What Mr Bugg is trying to tell us here is that anyone who made a time estimate close to what he elected was more credible than others who were in a position to give a detailed time of when the massacre began. Mr Bugg again ignores the initial call to the emergency services, and the time spent on that call which was recorded. Why was this record of the call to Constable Barber not used by Mr Bugg to reinforce his argument, if he was correct? If Mr Bugg was aware of a discrepancy, then that could explain why this particular tape was never produced as evidence.
There is one last concern with this statement made by Mr Bugg, and that is the apparent conflict with his previous statement, "other persons who were actually present in the Café at the time, who have been unable to estimate times or when they have estimated times, said that they did not have much confidence in their estimates because either time appeared to stand still for them or alternatively the impact of what was occurring totally disoriented them." Does this mean that Mr Bugg was prepared to use estimates of time based on evidence from people who admitted to being totally disorientated by the event? Again Mr Bugg is also ignoring the evidence of Major Sandra Vanderpeer, and her estimate of five minutes.
(d) "In informing the Court of the time Bryant was in the Café firing his weapon I had to take into account all the witnesses statements to Police and the estimates they gave in those statements while the incident was fresh in their minds. None of the persons recently spoken to, who have suggested a longer time, provided any "Bryant in Café shooting" time estimate to Police. Only one of these persons made any relevant time estimate to the Police at the time (that person now estimates a Café shooting period of 5-6 minutes)."
Does this mean that Mr Bugg was only using statements made to the police seven hours after the Port Arthur massacre, when the witnesses were under immense strain, and were tired, and in poor conditions to perform properly? Seven hours of waiting for the police to attend, and then the hour to travel to Rokeby to make such statement and so time to chat with other survivors and swap stories. Does this mean that no witness was at any future stage permitted to clarify points that may not have been clear in their original statements? Is it possible that the police taking statements from people outside the Café concentrated solely on what these witnesses did in that particular area, rather than endeavour to take in the whole scene, due to that limited time, and the immense workload of witnesses that had to be interviewed? Could it be that none of the six witnesses gave any time frame for the shooting inside the Café, because their interviewers never pursued that vital line of questioning?
We are informed in the EMA Port Arthur Seminar Papers on page 12, "The Task Force continued until the 16th August 1996 and in that three months interviewed 865 witnesses, obtained 1055 statements." This means that the police interviewers at Rokeby would have been extremely frantic on that particular Sunday evening.
Mr Bugg though changes his mind. From "None of the persons", we then get "Only one". It is worthy to see the treatment given to this particular statement.
"That person's statement to the police on the 1st May 1996 reads, 'It would have been around about 1.30 p.m. when I heard what I could best describe as a thudding sound coming from the Broad Arrow Cafeteria' (the witness then described hearing continuous thumping sounds coming from inside the Café. Then followed a description of a number of observations made and actions taken by the witness through to a point where the statement continues, ' it was around this time I believe the tone of the gunshots changed to a more of a cracking noise. I could also hear the echo of gunshots' (obviously indicating that the weapon was being fired outside the Café). The statement continues, 'from here we went up a hill behind the Information Centre upon clear ground for a while. I then thought we'd better get some cover and we did so. I believe around about this time there was a pause in the shooting. I believe this would be around about 1.35 p.m.'
If the times taken for Bryant to reload, leave the Café and start shooting outside, together with the witnesses subsequent actions are taken from the five minute period which the witness estimates had elapsed then this witness's time estimate provided to the Police at the time are not inconsistent with the estimate given to the Court. That estimate, I repeat, was confined to the time he was in the Café shooting."
It must be pointed out that "around about" is an estimation only. It is not precise, and is not intended to be taken as such. Around about 1.30 p.m. is very capable of being 1.27 p.m., which was the time noted by the tour guides. Furthermore the around about 1.35 p.m. could easily be 1.40 p.m. They are estimates only and are not to be used as precise measuring instruments. If we consider this time frame in conjunction with the video tape of Ian McLeod which showed the Volvo sedan driving towards the tollbooth just prior to the murder of the Mikacs, where the time was shown as 1:36:57, then the time estimate was not far out.
This particular statement though is that of Wendy Scurr, the Information Officer on the day. Please note that Mr Bugg has removed the occurrence of Wendy Scurr setting off to the Café, seeing a person flee from the Café, and then return to the Information Centre where she rang the police, all the time whilst the gunman was still inside the Café shooting people. Please remember that Wendy Scurr held the telephone receiver outside the door so that Constable Barber could hear the shots, which were still being fired at persons inside the Café. It was shortly after Wendy Scurr, Steven Howard and Sue Burgess left the Information Centre, and headed towards the rear of this building to the cover provided by the natural growth on the side of the very steep hill, when the gunman emerged from the Café, and according to Ashley Law, fired at the fleeing staff. According to Mr Damian Bugg all this occurred within a time frame of about one minute.
Mr Bugg states in his report of July 1997;
(e) "The witness Kenneth Pearce at 9.45 p.m. on the 28th April told Police that he was present in the Broad Arrow Café when Bryant commenced shooting. He said, "Several of us ran to the gift shop and hit the floor. I could hear shots continuing out in the restaurant. I would say he let off 25 to 30 shots. I think this only took a matter of minutes, then I could hear the shots continuing outside." Mr Peter Kelly, another person inside the Broad Arrow Café, estimated that the shooting lasted approximately 2 minutes."
The question is what time length is a 'matter of minutes'? The statement made by Kenneth Pearce would have been made at the Tasmania Police College at Rokeby, 8 hours after the event. This statement would have been taken by a policeman completely uninformed as to the extent of what Mr Pearce had endured, or the actual events of Port Arthur. Please remember that the massacre commenced at 1.27 p.m. according to the tour guides, or about 1.30 p.m. according to the Police and Mr Bugg.
After having survived the harrowing experience inside the Café, Mr Pearce was then obliged to wait in an atmosphere of fear and trepidation not knowing where the gunman was and with the possibility of the gunman returning to continue the havoc. The police never arrived in numbers sufficient to secure the site until 6 hours after the massacre. They arrived at 8.00 p.m., which was after the 6.30 p.m. scare when three shots were discharged within the Port Arthur Site creating sheer terror amongst those forced to wait for the police. Mr Pearce would then have been required to make the one hour journey to Rokeby, and wait for his turn to make a statement. I wonder if there was any followup made by the Police or Mr Bugg's office to determine if Mr Pearce had any further relevant information, which he could have assisted them with. I doubt it.
There is another observation. The Bugg Report was instigated by the Doyle Report. The Special Commissioner, Mr Max Doyle had written to Mr Damian Bugg and offered him advice on how to overcome some of the difficulties that were caused by Mr Bugg's comments.
Mr Damian Bugg QC ignored the advice of Mr Max Doyle. Furthermore, Mr Bugg retained his stance and refused to budge from his statements made during the sentencing of Martin Bryant. This tells us that the Doyle Report was a toothless tiger, a bureaucratic device to show work being done when there is nothing being done.
There is one last aspect to consider in Mr Damian Bugg QC and his stance in relation to this matter. Mr Bugg has always espoused that he was only using evidence presented to him by the police, and that he had no actual input into the preparation of the court brief. However with the stance taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his report on the locked door, Mr Bugg must now take responsibility for the presentation of that document, and the stated facts within.
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.