"There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia
until we see a massacre in Tasmania."
New South Wales Premier, Barry Unsworth.
Stated in December 1987 at Hobart after a
Special Premier's Conference in relation to Gun Control.

The police coverage of the Tasman Peninsula consists of a single policeman stationed at Nubeena. On the 28th April 1996, that member was Constable Paul Hyland. Constable Hyland was relatively new to the area, and was a younger policeman with a reputation for being hard on drugs. As with all country policemen in Australia, Constable Paul Hyland worked in with the neighbouring policeman, Constable Gary Whittle who was stationed at Dunalley, about 50 kilometres away.

At some time prior to 1.00 p.m. on Sunday the 28th April 1996, both Constables were instructed to attend at Saltwater River regarding a suspected drug cache. These policemen would have rendezvoused at some point and proceeded together, each driving their own vehicle to Saltwater River. What they discovered at Saltwater River were glass containers filled with soap powder. They reported back to Hobart that they had attended the call, and their discovery just prior to 1.30 p.m.

The Tasman Peninsula is notorious for its black spots in regard to radio signals. However Saltwater River is one of the better points on the peninsula for sending and receiving radio signals. However the black spots are only a ten minute drive from that area. It appears that both policemen were still at Saltwater River when they received instructions to attend at Port Arthur. Both vehicles then travelled 16 kilometres to the Nubeena Police Station. "They received a further radio message to be on the lookout for a yellow Volvo with a surf board on roof racks and decided to head for Port Arthur in different directions. Constable Hyland travelled to Taranna on the Tasman Highway." (Mr Perks stating facts, Court Document page 173)

This means that Constable Whittle would have driven 13 kilometres from Nubeena to the Port Arthur Historic Site, while Constable Hyland would have driven approximately 27 Kilometres to the Fox and Hounds Hotel.

"Constable Hyland travelled to the Taranna turnoff on the Arthur Highway. En route, he received a further message to be on the lookout for a gold BMW sedan. On reaching the turnoff, he received a further message that people had been shot and were at the Fox and Hounds Hotel. Constable Hyland then drove south on the Arthur Highway to the Fox and Hounds, at considerable speed, observing Linda White's abandoned Frontiera on the roadway about a hundred metres south of the Seascape entrance." (Page173 Court Document)

"On his arrival at the Fox and Hounds he spoke briefly with Mr Williams and others and then drove back in the direction of Seascape. About five hundred metres prior to Seascape he slowed when he noticed Constable Whittle's vehicle behind and they proceeded slowly in convoy to the Seascape entrance.

Both police officers then observed the BMW on the grassed area beside the Seascape buildings. By this time it was on fire and there was heavy black smoke billowing from the vehicle. The rear half of the vehicle had not caught fire at this stage. The time was now approximately 2 p.m.

Constable Hyland decided to drive further north up the road to stop any traffic from coming down. As he did so he caught a brief glimpse of a figure running past one of the cottages towards the entrance of the main residence of Seascape. Constable Hyland stopped his vehicle across the roadway about four hundred metres north of Seascape and remained in this position for some time.

Constable Whittle meanwhile had positioned his vehicle at forty-five degrees across the highway outside the Seascape entrance to block northbound traffic. After hearing a loud explosion coming from the direction of the burning BMW Constable Whittle took cover at the rear of his police vehicle. This particular vehicle and the position it was parked is shown in photograph 343 and 336. 343 is a close view of Constable Whittle's vehicle.

A short time later your Honour, Constable Pat Allen reversed his police vehicle from the direction of Port Arthur towards constable Whittle's vehicle. As he did so Constable Whittle heard three very loud shots from the direction of Seascape and bullets passing over Constable Allen's vehicle hitting bush or shrubbery to his right. Constable Whittle moved from his position to a culvert at the rear of his vehicle and was then joined in that position by Constable Allen." (Pages 174,175 of Court Document)

Constable Whittle after he left the Nubeena Police Station travelled to the Port Arthur General Store. Constable Whittle did not attend at the Port Arthur Historic Site. Had he done so, he would have been expected to remain on site and fulfil his duties there. However, Constable Whittle left the Port Arthur General Store and proceeded to backup Constable Hyland at the Seascape Cottage. There is one problem though with the Court Documents and that is the time again. The actual times are not correct.

Police Commissioner Richard McCreadie in his EMA report, on page 5 states, "The first police arrived at 1412 and confirmed activity at Seascape and the burning BMW." McCreadie in a later paragraph also states, "The local police were at the Saltwater River area which is approximately twenty-five minutes travelling time from the site of the carnage, and they were immediately dispatched. They went to the Nubeena Police Station initially and from there one travelled to the Fox and Hounds Hotel via back roads while the other travelled, also by back roads to the Port Arthur General Store. After visiting these sites both police officers continued towards Seascape."

On page 6 of the EMA Port Arthur Seminar Papers, the time of 1336 Initial response units, Dunalley & Nubeena Police Dispatched. However we are not given any of the arrival times in any document. These times would have been recorded, but that information is not available. However the disparity between the times stated in the Court Document and the EMA report is there and it has been noted.

Commissioner McCreadie gives the normal travelling time from Saltwater River as approximately 25 minutes, which is correct, provided the vehicle, travelled by the shortest route. This didn't happen. Both police vehicles returned to the Nubeena Police Station, and then split up, with Constable Paul Hyland backtracking and then having to travel the longer route via Taranna to the Tasman Highway, and then turning right, and travelling past Seascape to the Fox and Hounds Hotel. Again at this location people had to be spoken to, and details noted, before the police units could travel back to Seascape. Constable Hyland contacted Constable Whittle, and both vehicles then proceeded back to the Seascape Cottage. In all probability, the time the police units arrived to blockade the gunman at Seascape would have been closer to 1430 hours, or 2.30 p.m.

Mr Perks though gives us more interesting information on page 180 in the Court Document. "At about 2.10 p.m. that day, Alison Smith, an ABC reporter, left Hobart headed towards Port Arthur with a camera crew after hearing of the shooting incident. While travelling south Miss Smith made a series of telephone calls on her mobile 'phone to various businesses in the Port Arthur area to try and glean some further information. Between 2.30 and 2.40 p.m. she telephoned the Seascape number and Miss Smith gives this account of what occurred: A male person answered the telephone and I said, 'Hullo, hullo.' The male person was laughing hysterically and I again said. 'Hullo'. I then asked this person if I had the right number for Seascape and he laughed again and said, 'Yes'. I said, 'Who am I talking to?', he laughed again and said, 'Well, you can call me Jamie'. I then said, 'It's the ABC calling. What's happening?' He then replied, 'What's happening? What's happening is I'm having lots of fun.' There was a pause and he said, 'But I really need a shower,' another pause, 'if you try to call me again I'll shoot the hostage.'"

I'll shoot the hostage! It is singular, not plural, as in the later conversations with the police negotiator. But this was an incoming call to Seascape Cottage. There was an outgoing telephone call made from Seascape Cottage. Mr Perks continues on page 181 with, "I mentioned yesterday your Honour, Constable Paul Hyland, the Nubeena Police Constable, who arrived at Seascape at approximately 2.00 p.m. to see the BMW ablaze.

At 3.08 p.m. Merrin Craig, the girlfriend of Constable Paul Hyland, answered the telephone at the Nubeena Police Station residence. The caller was a male person who spoke in a very calm voice. Immediately after the call Miss Craig made notes of the conversation that had occurred.

The first words spoken by the male caller were "Am I speaking with the Policeman's - ?" Miss Craig could not make out what was then said because the dog was barking. She told the caller to "excuse me a minute while I quieten the dog." After she had done that she heard the male caller say, "Is that your dogs barking?" and she replied, "Yes." The male caller then said, "Do you know where your husband is?" Miss Craig then said, "Who is this?" The male person replied, "Jamie, you can just call me Jamie." There was a pause, he then said, "Do you know if he is okay?" Another pause and the male caller said, "I know."

When the caller said that Miss Craig expected the male person to say, "Do you want to speak with him?" - in other words, Constable Hyland. And she believed at that moment that her boyfriend, Paul, had been taken hostage by the male person. She was aware of what had been happening at Port Arthur and when the male caller said, "I know where Mr Hyland is." She felt like she'd collapse on the floor. She just stood there for a few seconds trying to remain calm without saying anything. The male then spoke again in a mocking tone, a different tone, saying, "playing with yourself, are we?" Miss Craig held on to the phone for a few seconds and then it was hung up.

It is the Crown case that the person who made the telephone call to Merrin Craig was the accused, Martin Bryant."

It is normal police procedure to identify the vehicle, not the person. The Nubeena vehicle would be contacted as Nubeena Unit, not the vehicle driven by Constable Hyland. What this telephone call tells us is that the gunman 'Jamie' personally knew Constable Hyland, and there was some animosity between them. However there is no known record of Constable Hyland ever knowing Martin Bryant. What is more is that this piece of the siege at Seascape has been deliberately hushed up.

Again there are time discrepancies, this time with the information of Alison Smith of the ABC. The court is informed that "at about 2.10 p.m." This is far from accurate. In her article printed in the Hobart Mercury, Alison Smith informs us that she was alerted to the events when sighting a convoy of ambulances at the ABC roundabout in Hobart, which according to the EMA report were not dispatched until 1430 hours or 2.30 p.m. Travelling time from Hobart to Copping where Alison Smith made her telephone call to the Seascape Cottage is approximately 35 minutes, so the telephone call would have been made at approximately 3.10 p.m. or just after the call by 'Jamie' to Merrin Craig. Perhaps that was the reason why there was so much mirth and laughter inside the Seascape Cottage.

Police Commissioner, Richard McCreadie informs us in the EMA report on page 5 that the siege at Seascape Cottage officially started at 1412 hours on the Sunday afternoon. By that time Constable Gary Whittle of the Dunalley Police Station arrived at Seascape, and reported back to Hobart that there was a burning BMW sedan on the front lawns of the premises. Constable Whittle then came under fire from a high-powered weapon fired from inside the Seascape Cottage.

Seascape Cottage was built at the edge of Long Bay, not far from Port Arthur. To the east of the property was the bay, and on the west the hills rise to form a precipitous backdrop. To the north, the bay and the hills meet, and to the south, past a copse of Australian gums there is a small paddock and then more natural bushland. The Seascape Cottage is set back about 150 metres from the Tasman Highway, which meanders gently past the Cottage, and paddock to disappear in a sweeping left bend. The road is above the Seascape Cottage, and because of the steep hills there are ditches and culverts along the shoulders of the bitumen surface. Besides its tranquil and harmonious setting, Seascape Cottage had one other excellent quality. Its positioning for defence was superb.

The story is told in the Hobart Mercury, of Constable Pat Allen of the Accident Investigation Squad, and of his involvement at Seascape. Allen was on duty with Constable Perry Caulfield, when they were instructed to head towards the Tasman Peninsula. The article states that at Taranna, they saw Constable Martin White of the Sorell Police Station at a roadblock. He was being besieged by visitors who had escaped from the Port Arthur Historic Site, who were thankful that they had finally found a policeman who could protect them.

Constables Allen and Caulfield then passed a roadblock manned by two policemen, and then at Seascape Cottage saw Constable Whittle crouched behind his police vehicle. Constables Allen and Caulfield continued on to the Fox and Hounds Hotel, where Constable Caulfield was dropped off. Constable Allen then drove back to assist Constable Whittle at Seascape. Realising that he was on the target side of his vehicle, Allen did a U-turn and then reversed up the road to where Constable Whittle was sheltering. As the vehicle Constable Allen was driving approached Constable Whittle's position shots rang out, and Constable Whittle then ran across the road into a ditch on the west side of the road, and so putting the road between the gunman and himself. Constable Allen then found himself being the target as two more shots rang out. Allen then grabbed the hand radio and bailed out of the police car leaving it on the roadway. Thus we have two police cars almost blocking the roadway. All this is in the article printed in the Hobart Mercury on Tuesday 26th November 1996.

This was the position when the Dunalley ambulance driven by paramedic Jim Giffard, and containing crewmembers Jodie Branch and Roger Garth, who were the second team to arrive at the Port Arthur Historic Site, just after 2.00 p.m. Giffard was driving, and being unable to hear the warnings in relation to Seascape took the ambulance along the most direct route to Port Arthur, and thus past Seascape Cottage where he found the road almost blocked by two police vehicles. It was a tight fit, and luckily Jim made it without damage to either the ambulance or the police vehicles.

Fine, so now consider this extract from Mike Bingham's book, 'Suddenly one Sunday on pages 106 & 107: "Pat Allen had been in the traffic office in Hobart with another officer, Perry Caulfield, when he had heard the first reports. They headed for the scene. As they approached Seascape, they saw a vehicle on fire. They stopped and spoke to an SOG member, who told them that there were wounded people at the Fox and Hounds Hotel up the road." "Having learned this information from the SOG member, police officers Pat Allen and Perry Caulfield had a choice. They could go the back way via Nubeena to avoid Seascape, or go straight through. Allen had seen policeman Garry Whittle, who had been fired on by gunman as he drove along the highway beside Seascape, hiding behind his car. Caulfield and Allen sped past in the traffic division station wagon straight to the Fox and Hounds." "There was an ambulance there and some wounded."

The ambulance in attendance at the Fox and Hounds was apparently crewed by the husband and wife team, Colin and Robin Dell, and they had arrived at the hotel by driving the detour route via Nubeena. So the first question is what happened to the second police car that Jim Gifford almost collided with as he passed Seascape? The next question is at what time did Constable Allen arrive at Seascape after travelling from the Traffic Divisional Office at Hobart? Considering that he was in Hobart, then it still would have taken him over an hour to arrive outside Seascape, and 90 minutes before he joined Constable Whittle.

The third question is how did the SOG arrive so early at Seascape? Luppo Prins states that it was he who authorised the SOG deployment, and the time given for Prins' notification of the incident was at 1351, according to Commissioner McCreadie. McCreadie also gives us the time of 1557 when the first SOG tasked and proceeding, and 1604 2nd SOG tasked and proceeding. However to confuse matters, McCreadie then gives us different times under chapter 9 of his report titled 'SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP'. Here McCreadie states; "The Special Operations Group was called out at 1347. Three members flew to Taranna by helicopter arriving at 1533 and nine members travelled by road. They arrived on site at 1612. A holding area was first established at the PFCP and a cordon was placed around the Seascape Cottage by 1712." Assistant Commissioner Prins contradicts this last statement by Commissioner McCreadie.

Another question concerns the burning BMW, which was seen by Pat Allen? In this part of the story of the massacre, there are many things that do not fit together, and the most obvious difficulties are the times. Another problem is that Constable Paul Hyland has gone missing. It is obvious that the two police vehicles that were blocking the highway outside Seascape were those of Hyland and Whittle, but Hyland has no further mention in this story. Even Whittle takes a back seat, and Constable Allen gives us the story.

We are told that they were unable to move because they were in range of Bryant's guns. "I stuck my head up and it was shot at," Allen said. "I only did it once." "It was coming towards dark and someone on the radio said that they'd seen him on the roof and they needed to identify him. They needed to ID him so they could kill him if they had to." They gave me the option to stick my head up and I did. I went to look under the wheels, to have a look at Seascape to see if I could see him and a shot went through the bumper bar and bounced somewhere on the road. He knew where we were."

Now here is one conundrum. The gunman is spotted on the roof of an adjoining building. One policeman out of the many surrounding the Seascape Cottage raises his head so he might be able to see by looking from under the police car. The policeman is fired upon before he can even take that look. Now how did the gunman know which target he was required to shoot at, at that precise time? Another conundrum is where did the shot come from? Was it the roof, or was it from Seascape Cottage?

So here is the third conundrum. Why is the gunman on the roof of the adjoining building? The Launceston Examiner gives us the answer. It's front-page report on the 29th April 1996 reports, "When holed up in a house after driving 5 Km from the original shooting site, he began firing at helicopters taking victims to hospital." Then again in the "Time" Australia magazine there is this statement, "AFTERMATH: Survivors of the shooting, top right, faced more danger as bullets were fired at air ambulances." The only way for the gunman to fire upon overhead helicopters was to have a shooting platform. He couldn't shoot at helicopters from inside the Seascape Cottage. That explains why the gunman was on the roof of the adjoining building.

The Coroner attending at Port Arthur, Mr Ian Matterson in his report to the EMA Port Arthur Seminar on page 90, states, "It was agreed that I would arrange for my coronial staff to travel to the scène by helicopter at 1700 hours." "Travel arrangements for myself and my two police officers changed at 1655 when we were advised that air travel in the region of Port Arthur was being jeopardised by continued shooting and that the area had still not been rendered safe by the police."

What Mr Matterson has just told us is that it was considered unsafe for helicopters to be ferrying people to Port Arthur. This corroborates that the gunman had been shooting at helicopters.

It is also rather obvious, that if a person were on the roof of a building shooting at passing helicopters, he would have to be armed. Again the Launceston Examiner tells us, "Police said the man was armed with a number of guns including an M16 combat weapon."

For the police to be able to identify the weapon used, they would have to sight it. The only opportunity for the police to sight the "M16" was with the SOG marksman who initially spotted the gunman on the roof. The M16 and the Colt AR15 are almost identical except for one difference. The M16 is a fully automatic weapon, while the AR15 is a semi-automatic. However if one considers Sergeant Gerard Dutton's article, Dutton informs us that the AR15 and the FN had both been interfered with to make them fire on fully automatic. This gives us another problem. It is virtually impossible to adapt the Colt AR15 to fire on fully automatic. So was the weapon used to fire upon the helicopters a fully automatic M16 firing volleys of shots or was it the AR15 which could only fire shots when the trigger was pulled?

Finally there is Deputy Commissioner, Richard McCreadie's interview on the 'Today" show at 7.51 a.m. on the 29th April 1996, where McCreadie informs the listeners that the gunman had fired over 18 volleys of shots during the siege, which was still ongoing at the time of the interview.

The events would have transpired in this manner. The rescue helicopter taking the wounded to Hobart flies over Seascape and is fired upon. Constables Whittle and Allen, may also have witnessed the shootings at the helicopter/s, but only being armed with a Glock pistol and a Smith and Wesson revolver, neither policeman could act to stop the gunman. The pilot immediately warns the other helicopter crews, and informs the Ambulance Service via their radio. The Ambulance Service informs Police Headquarters via telephone, and Police Headquarters passes on the information again via telephone to the PFCP at Taranna. There the SOG marksman would have been dispatched poste haste to remove the danger.

The SOG marksman spotted the gunman on the roof of an adjoining building at Seascape. He required confirmation that it was the gunman on the roof before he could take him out. Constable Allen in the ditch offered to be the guinea pig and raised his head to have a look from under the police car and a bullet was fired into the bumper bar of the police car.

If the gunman had seen the SOG marksman, then he would have put a bullet above his head as he did to Constable Allen? The most likely reason why the gunman didn't take out the SOG marksman was because the gunman couldn't see the SOG marksman, but he did know who and where Constable Allen was. The only way for the gunman to know this was if he was monitoring the police radio transmissions. So who was it that fired the shot at Constable Allen? It was not the gunman on the roof of the adjoining building who was armed with the Colt AR15, so there had to be another gunman inside Seascape Cottage who was also monitoring the police radio transmissions? The SOG marksman had the person on the roof of the adjoining building under observation. Had this gunman fired the shot at Constable Allen, then he would have been identified, and the SOG marksman could have taken that particular person out.

We are given two further pieces on information. Mr Perks states on page 176 of the Court Document, "And a bullet that struck Constable Whittle's vehicle, a close-up view of that at photograph 352, was later determined by ballistics evidence to have been fired from a SKK semi-automatic rifle."

However, in Sergeant Gerard Dutton's report we are informed that all weapons except the Belgium FN which was found on the roof of the adjoining building, and the Colt AR15, which was found on the periphery of the main Seascape building, had been totally destroyed by the fire. Dutton stated, "It was obvious that Bryant had placed at least one firearm in each room of the guesthouse for easy access. These included a 12 gauge self-loading shotgun, a .30 M1 carbine, a 7.62 x 39mm Norinco self-loading rifle and bolt and lever action rifles." (Page 215 Australian Police Journal) The SKK semi-automatic rifle mentioned here is the 7.62 x 39mm Norinco self-loading rifle.

It is now fair to state that the shot fired at Constable Allen that struck Constable Whittle's vehicle, was fired from inside Seascape, whilst the gunman was on the roof of the adjoining building. However the shot was fired from within the Seascape Cottage, which was entirely unexpected by all police members, and their subsequent radio communications displayed that surprise.

The Tasmania Police now knew they had a terrorist situation, which is why calls were made to the Victoria Police for assistance, and then to the National Crisis Centre in Canberra, which despatched the ASIO Tactical Support Team. Assistant Commissioner Luppo Prins puts it this way in his report to the EMA Port Arthur Seminar, "The Commissioner of Police also communicated with the Crisis Policy Centre in Canberra. The duty Federal Minister was advised of the incident and he in turn advised the Prime Minister. The PSCC provided assistance with the provision of transport of Technical Equipment for use by the Technical Surveillance Unit." PSCC is the Protective Security Co-ordination Centre. It is an 'Intelligence Agency".

The Australian newspaper also gives us some information in their report on the 29th April 1996, where they state, "One report on police radio said, 'He's got some police officers down there, and he's shooting at them, and we also believe that the people that are in Seascape are returning fire at the offender.'"

This is corroborated by Superintendent Barry Bennett in an article put out by the South Australia Police Association in March 1997, which states, "There was some suggestion that there may have been two gunmen or some people or hostages at Seascape were exchanging gunfire with the gunmen as there appeared to be shots coming from two separate buildings." Of course with Glen Pears' body found with two sets of handcuffs on, and the body of David Martin wearing a gag, it would appear to have been rather difficult for these two persons to have been shooting at a gunman outside the Seascape Cottage. Again the police belief and concern about the hostages also points to a different scenario, than persons inside Seascape resisting the gunman.

However there was another aspect of this particular incident. The SES members, who had been monitoring the police communications, also realised the implications, but believed that the police no longer had the gunman confined. They immediately radioed warnings to their associates at Port Arthur. The driver of one of the local fire trucks in attendance at Port Arthur passed on this drastic news to other members, and staff within the Historic Site. News that the gunman was no longer within police confines created more terror for the survivors huddled at the Port Arthur Historic Site, especially as there was no protection for them in the form of police or any other armed guards.

There is one other aspect of this whole scenario, and that is that it was the gunman who was in absolute control of the situation. He was able to do this because the police negotiators and the SOG were split, and had no proper communications between them. Whether there were 57 telephone calls made between the gunman and the police negotiators as stated in the Hobart Mercury report, or 6 as in the EMA report, or 7 as in the Court Document page 183, it doesn't really matter. Another interesting aspect is that both Sgt McCarthy and Dr Ian Sale state that it was the gunman who normally initiated the telephone calls, not the police negotiation team, so again, it is the gunman in control.

This situation is clearly explained by Superintendent Barry Bennett when he stated in the EMA seminar, "The negotiators operating from the P.O.C. and not being readily accessible to the P.F.C. caused some concerns because access to information gathered by negotiators was not fully available to the P.F.C. or indeed the S.O.G. personnel at the incident site. The communications difficulties exacerbated the flow of intelligence. This is a clear example that negotiators are a resource for the P.F.C. and should on all occasions be situated at or near the P.F.C.P. to enable all intelligence or information be available to make the tactical decisions required."

There is some confusion in relation to the actual time when the SOG marksman spotted the gunman on the roof. The police negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy is quoted by Mike Bingham as implying that the SOG was spotted because of a small red light on a radio on the SOG marksman's back, and that would put the time as sometime after dark. However, we are informed that at the time, Constable Pat Allen was prepared to have a look to see if he could identify the gunman, so this gives us the fact that it was still daytime. These are two different occurrences. It is now time to again study what Commissioner McCreadie informs us in his report.

In his report to the EMA, McCreadie states on page 9, under the heading of SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP, The Special Operations Group was called out at 1347. Three members flew to Taranna by helicopter arriving at 1533 and nine members travelled by road. They arrived on site at 1612. A Holding area was first established at the PFCP and a cordon was placed around the Seascape Cottage by 1712. The offender was only loosely contained at that time.

It is now time to compare the police radio communications as shown on page 6 of the same report. 1715 VICPOL contacted for assistance. 1719 National Crisis Centre contacted.

The Tasmania Police SOG would have been extremely competent in containing a single gunman within the Seascape Cottage. Every report up to that particular stage stated one gunman only, so why would there suddenly be an urgent entreaty to the Victoria Police for assistance? Why notify the National Crisis Centre for a single gunman? Why would the National Anti-Terrorist Plan be implemented for a single gunman at a siege at Port Arthur? The answer would be that the SOG marksman, who spotted a person matching the description of the gunman on the roof of the adjoining building, also noted that the shot came from inside the Seascape Cottage, which meant that there was more than one gunman. This would have altered the situation entirely, with many unknown quantities now having to be considered. What this also tells us is that it was at this time that the Tasmania Police became aware that they had a terrorist situation on their hands.

There is one last piece of the jigsaw puzzle to complete this picture. Craig Coombs, the CEO of the Port Arthur Historic Site in his report in the EMA Port Arthur Seminar papers, states on page 40, "At about 1700 a report came through that it was feared that Bryant may have broken out of Seascape and was heading back to the site. Shots were then reported as coming from across the site."

"At this stage (about 1730) the day was drawing to a close. We were assured that there was a group of SOGs arriving by helicopter to secure the Site. I hoped this would help to settle people down and give them hope. I felt at this stage a strange feeling that I was not going to be shot, a feeling shared by other staff members. I moved out in the open and without fear commandeered 3 four-wheel drive vehicles and had them ready to transport the SOGs to secure the Site. Driving the vehicles to the edge of the oval, we awaited for the helicopter to arrive. The helicopter contained two young policewomen who had come off the beat in Hobart."

The SOGs that Craig Coombs had been waiting for had been diverted from the Historic Site to Taranna, as they were needed to assist at Seascape due to the change in events there. There were no back-up crew for the Historic Site, and the only assistance available were the two young unarmed policewomen.

In the book, Suddenly One Sunday, Mike Bingham writes, "At times, Bryant was caught in the sights of some of the marksmen, but there was never a suggestion that he be shot. There are National guidelines for the use of force, and every State is a signatory to those guidelines. Officers cannot kill anyone unless their life is in immediate danger, or the lives of others are in immediate danger" (page 118). Apparently just merely shooting at the police is no longer a threat to their lives, nor is it a danger, according to this interpretation. These guidelines originate from Canberra, via SAC PAV, but as the police have already been shot at, and there was every reason to believe that they would continue to be shot at then, this is not the reason why the police were not permitted to shoot the gunman. There is also a discrepancy in relation to the number of shots fired by the gunman. Newspaper reports state 250 shots were fired, and other reports state 150. The then Deputy Commissioner, Richard McCreadie informed the "Today" interviewer Steve Liebermann on Monday the 29th April 1996, that 18 volleys of shots had been fired by the gunman.

In his book, Mike Bingham wrote, "After dark, for a short time they believed there were more than one gunman, as firing came from beside the chimney of another building on the property. Then a marksman spotted Bryant running between it and the main house. He had another ploy, which was to switch on a light in a room on the bottom floor, then run upstairs and fire random shots. In all, Bryant fired some 250 rounds from his own two guns and from the weapons he found stored in Seascape." (pages 118-9) What Bingham has done here is to scotch any possible rumours that the SOG were facing more than one gunman in a terrorist situation. Consider that we are being asked to believe that one person would be talking to the police negotiators, shooting from the main cottage, and then moving outside and continue to shoot from the adjoining building, and all with absolute impunity from the best trained police in Tasmania.

"Only the flash of the muzzle blast could be seen as he fired a few rounds, put the gun down, crawled along to the next gun, and fired again." Why would the gunman inside the Seascape Cottage leave one weapon after shooting it and then crawl to another? Should something go wrong, then the gunman would have been caught halfway between weapons, and unarmed. Yet this person has displayed good military perceptions with all aspects of the defence of the building he was occupying. Instead of acting like somebody who had picked up military tactics, could this person possibly be two gunmen, both military trained? There is one last consideration and that is night vision. If a person subjects his eyes to light at night then his vision is destroyed. So, why would one person firing volleys of shots at police use such tactics?

There is another aspect, of this particular scene described by Mike Bingham. None of the police would have been able to see inside the Seascape cottage, so the idea that the gunman crawled from one weapon to the other is a presumption. If there was only one person firing the various weapons then it may be fair enough. However if there is the team inside the cottage, then the opinion formed by the trained SOG members that there were at least two gunmen inside the cottage is very correct.

Furthermore, the Police Negotiators claimed to have spent over 2 hours talking via telephone to the gunman. They claim to have started negotiations with the gunman at around 3.30 p.m. The last conversation ended between just after 9.00 p.m. or 9.30p.m. or 9.37 p.m. There are different statements from police on this time, which were taped, with very precise times attached, but that shouldn't cause too much concern if we consider 2 &Mac189; hours of chatting with negotiators between 3.30 and 9.30 p.m. which is 6 hours, and so almost half of that time the supposed lone gunman was unable to keep an eye on the surrounding police, or even shoot at them. However, Constable Pat Allen of the Accident Investigation Squad states otherwise. There was a team of three men in the Seascape Cottage.

In the book, Suddenly One Sunday, Mike Bingham in writing about the Police Negotiators, states, He again became very agitated at the start of their next phone call, claiming he had spotted a police marksman. McCarthy guessed it was probably a small red light on a radio on the SOG marksman's back - a light which is normally taped over during operations. "Ask him to move on… he's gonna shoot, he's trying to shoot…I'll blow this… you know, you know what's gonna happen if…" McCarthy agreed to have the officer moved back. Bryant accepted the assurance, but warned that if it was not completed within ten minutes, the hostages would die. Moments later he stepped up the pressure: "If you don't call him off in five minutes, man, they're all dead."

"A Current Affair" aired this part of the communications between the gunman and Sgt McCarthy on Monday 11th October 1999 on the channel 9 network.

McCarthy: Jamie? Gunman: Yes. Hello. How are you? McCarthy: I'm very well thanks Jamie. Yourself? Gunman: Well, I'm well up to now. The past few 20 seconds. What I've actually found out man, is that one of your boys is right outside, northeast I'd say, with an infra-red scope. Would you just ask him to move on? McCarthy: Right, we'll do that, we'll do that now. Gunman: Cause he's going to shoot, he's trying to shoot, he's going to shoot your main man. McCarthy: No, I can guarantee. Gunman: I'll blow this, umm these you know, you know what's going to happen. McCarthy: I don't want to see anyone hurt, alright, Gunman: You just move him on. McCarthy: Okay, I'm organising that now. I can also assure you that it's not our intention to hurt you or see anybody else hurt, okay. Gunman: Really.

However a copy of the transcript presented to the Hobart Supreme Court has this version of the conversation:

McCarthy: Jamie

Jamie: Yes. Hello. How are you?

McCarthy: I'm very well thanks Jamie. Yourself?

Jamie: Uh well I'm well up til now and the past few twenty seconds. What I've actually found out man is that one of you boys is right outside North East I'd say, with an infra-red scope. I've got one up here that I've found from this persons own um owns this property, he's shining right towards me. If he doesn't leave can you just ask him to move on

McCarthy: Alright, we'll do that, we'll do that. Now

Jamie: cause he's gonna shoot he's trying to shoot he's gonna shoot and make me man, I mean

McCarthy: Oh, oh I can guarantee

Jamie: I'll blow this um these you know you know what's gonna happen if

McCarthy: I don't want to see anybody hurt, alright.

Jamie: You, you move him on

McCarthy: Okay, I'm organising that now somebody's organising now

Jamie: If that light. I mean I've got one here would you like me to name the sort, I'll just get the um infra-red of this blokes ……..Inaudible

McCarthy: Okay, okay

LONG BREAK IN CONVERSATION

Jamie: Ya there.

McCarthy: Yes Jamie, I'm here.

Jamie: Good, good, good, good. Um now the name of this scope is a laser scope. Laser devices now it's the same sort of red dot I've noticed so can you ask your m young man to move on.

McCarthy: Has he, has he moved at this stage, can you see him now?

Jamie: Well there's no doubt he's moved forward

McCarthy: No no, look I, I

Jamie: Has he got a walkie talkie or has he got them ear plugs

McCarthy: I've I've got no idea Jamie I've got no idea, but I can assure you um that we are doing our best to move him at this moment. I can also assure you that it's not our intention to hurt you or see anybody else hurt, okay.

Jamie: Really. But can you actually ask him to move cause I can see him in the dark.

McCarthy: I, I can't physically ask him to move, but um, we're organising getting him moved. Where abouts exactly is he?

Jamie: He's at the front of the actual property at Seascape Guest House.

McCarthy: Right, it's the front

Jamie: behind the

McCarthy: Is that's, that's obviously facing out onto the road is it?

Jamie: Onto the road, yeah

McCarthy: It is onto the road?

Jamie: Yeah facing onto the road toward you look down from the road and you see the front of the house and he's behind some bushes near the front door of the Seascape Guest House yeah.

McCarthy: Right, near the front door of the Seascape Guest House?

Jamie: If that infra-red doesn't go in say ten minutes the hostages die so

McCarthy: Well I, I don't, I don't want, I don't want it, I don't want it er that to happen.

Jamie: Of course you don't sir.

McCarthy: and and look I can assure you

Jamie: Yes

McCarthy: that there is that that it is not our intention in anyway to hurt you.. There's no need for you to hurt anybody.

Jamie: No, I, I, I, not going to but all I want to know is um hhhhave you talked to the helicopter

McCarthy: Ah you know we didn't finish our conversation last time ah about the helicopter and as I said we were talking about flight plans and ah perhaps ah using that helicopter in the morning and um I've got to know exactly for sure I've got to be able to give um Civil Aviation People ah names of persons that are going to be on board the aircraft then we've got to find er a pilot who's prepared to fly the aircraft and a suitable aircraft that will you know convey you and whatever equipment or things that you might need to take with you. So

Jamie: Inaudible

McCarthy: I need you to make some decisions for me. Are, are you, are you able to do that for me now or?

Jamie: I'll tell you what, it's colliding with one infra-red scope to another I mean this man, I've had plenty of experience with guns and scopes, is if he wants to die it's up to him if he

McCarthy: Well

Jamie: If you don't call him off in five minutes man he's, they're all dead.

McCarthy: Okay, just take it easy Jamie

Jamie: small laugh Alright

McCarthy: Just take it easy alright. I don't want to see

Jamie: I'll get back in touch with you in twenty minutes. Bye.

McCarthy: Well, okay. I want to know whether he's moved, okay, so how about us talking while and then hopefully while we're talking um

Jamie: Yeah, yeah

McCarthy: We'll, we'll be able to say that he's actually moved, alright.

Jamie: Okay.

McCarthy: It's no good if I, if talk to you in twenty five minutes cause I don't know what's going on. You're down there, you're the man on the scene.

Jamie: Twenty minutes you've got, right.

PHONE WAS HUNG UP.

Why use the threat of killing the hostages? The answer to the threat to kill the hostages was to demonstrate pressure put on the negotiation team. This demonstrates that terrorists were conducting the siege. Furthermore, how would 'Jamie' know that the SOG marksman had been moved back? Only by monitoring the police radio communications, the special SAC-PAV radio communications, which would have been used to detect just exactly where the SOG marksman was. The SOG wear black, and would have been extremely difficult to see at night, even with night vision equipment. Again, it would also be difficult to source exactly where any little red laser dot originated from.

Furthermore, this particular person has supposedly a few hours before, murdered 33 innocent persons, but now he's bulking at shooting the SOG marksman. We are now also aware that this 'Jamie' person is reasonably adept in the use of firearms. However, there is no evidence at all that martin Bryant was skilled in the use of all the various aspects that 'Jamie' has illustrated.

Again, where one would expect that Sgt McCarthy would sidetrack a Martin Bryant type person, Jamie has ignored him. Jamie also knows the ropes in hostage negotiation. Would Martin Bryant have known these skills?

So what happened at about 9.30 p.m. that may have influenced the disruption of the communications between the police negotiators and the gunman inside Seascape Cottage? According to Sgt McCarthy, the gunman had initiated most of the previous calls and had promised to ring back at 10.00 p.m. but failed to do so.

Well, there was the fact that Martin Bryant's mother was by that stage attending Police Headquarters at Hobart, and this information would have been passed onto the PFCP at Taranna. There was however a more significant move made by the police. Their Negotiator's vehicle had arrived at the PFCP at Taranna, which meant that the police units were no longer divided and could not be played off against each other. This meant that the gunman inside the Seascape Cottage would have lost his command over the situation had he continued with the communications.

To cover this loss of communication, the police blame poor simple Martin Bryant who let the batteries of the cordless telephone he was using run down. But this particular telephone was an extension of the main telephone within the Cottage, and there were other telephones that could have been used. The article in the Hobart Mercury states, "Bryant was given the telephone number of the Police Commander's room and police believe he was trying to phone them when the battery in the Seascape cordless phone went dead at 9.37 p.m. Police had no further contact with him although they kept trying until 2.19a.m. until they handed over to the crew at Taranna." Also Deputy Commissioner Richard McCreadie informed Steve Liebermann "We did have some communication with him through the night, ahh, by using a telephone, but at the moment the indications are that that's continuously engaged, but we can't, we can't say with any authority why that's the case." Flat batteries on a cordless telephone do not cause the base telephone to give out a continuous engaged signal.

There is another problem. Dr Ian Sale was part of the negotiation team at Police Headquarters in Hobart. He has made several comments regarding the person they were communicating with from the Seascape Cottage. However in his interview with Judy Tierney, Dr Ian Sale states that he attended with other police at the Clare Street home of Martin Bryant at about just after 10.00 p.m. on Sunday the 28th April. This then suggests that the negotiation team at Hobart had already broken up, as they were anticipating the role being continued from Taranna. Dr Ian Sale was also supposedly at Taranna assisting Superintendent Bob Fielding in the early morning of Monday the 29th April 1996.

It is now time to look at the police role at Seascape Cottage. The initial uniform constables, Gary Whittle and Paul Hyland, attended at Seascape, saw the burning stolen BMW and radioed back to Hobart. The backup for Constable Whittle was to be Constable Pat Allen from the AIS and he would have taken about an hour from first receiving his instructions to attend at the Tasman Peninsula. He would have done a Light and Siren driving as fast as possible. It would have taken over thirty minutes before Constable Allen could attend to the task of backing up Constable Whittle.

From then until the SOG arrived, it would have been the duty of these two policemen to ensure that the gunman stayed inside the Seascape Cottage. This they were able to do. Mind you, it was also the idea of the team inside the Seascape Cottage to remain inside, so as to draw all the police attention to the cottage, so they could then make their escape, leaving behind one person to take the rap.

According to the SES volunteers who were monitoring the police communications, the warning was continuously stated that the gunman was not to be harmed, as he possibly was part of a "Terrorist Team". So the police thinking was that it was a team inside the Seascape Cottage. Furthermore, all information relating to the siege at Seascape supports the Terrorist Team scenario. However to be left simply with Martin Bryant, then requires the police to be left with egg on their faces, or a complete change of the scenario.

With the media already heavily involved the possibility of admitting the offenders had eluded the police would have diminished greatly. Also consider that if the police admitted that they were unable to contain and capture a small terrorist team in Tasmania, then what would be the outcome of such an attack at the Olympic Games at Sydney in 4 years time.

This then would also explain why the whole SOG team was required at Seascape, and why none of them were available to attend at the Port Arthur Historic Site to give security and comfort to the victims there. It also explains why the Victoria SOG were called in to assist. It would be completely ludicrous to consider that one person, supposedly mentally handicapped and suffering from a schizophrenic disorder would require the whole of the Tasmania Police SOG to be contained.

Commissioner McCreadie also stated in his EMA report, under the chapter regarding the SOG, "One of the first priorities for the SOG after establishing a cordon around the stronghold, was the extraction from danger of two uniformed personnel pinned down by the offender's gunfire. They were in a ditch, behind a marked police vehicle at the driveway entrance of Seascape. The police vehicle had its emergency lights flashing, making it an easy target for the offender who fired several shots in its direction throughout the night.

These officers had a hand held radio with them and they were constantly re-assured until two SOG members belly crawled 300 metres along the mud and leech infested ditch and safely extracted them by 2300."

Constable Pat Allen states in his article, "About 10.30pm, two Special Operational Group members managed to crawl to the stranded officers and led them the 250m back along the ditch to safety."

McCreadie states, "The Holding area for the SOG was moved three times in order to establish a communications link between the SOG Commander and his personnel. The final holding area was set up 300 metres from the stronghold." Ed. This was at the residence of Andrew and Lyn Simmons.

The PFCP Commander, Superintendent Barry Bennett, states in his report, "The SOG staging area was initially established at the PFCP, however this was moved on three occasions during the night, finally to a location on the Tasman Highway approximately 500 metres from Seascape."

Then McCreadie comments on page 9 of the EMA Port Arthur Seminar papers, "At 0730 on 29 April, several SOG members heard the offender shout from the Seascape Cottage, 'Come on, come on', or 'Come in, come in' which indicated that the offender was enticing police to storm the building. At 0747 smoke and fire were noticed coming from the top storey. The fire quickly took hold. At 0821 a male person believed to be the offender emerged from the building appearing to fire indiscriminately from a handgun and his clothing appeared to be on fire. He disappeared from view for several seconds and then reappeared naked.

The police forward commander gave the order for the Emergency Action to proceed resulting in the offender being arrested at 0835."

Superintendent Barry Bennett the PFCP commander's statement is at a slight variance to his superior. He states, "Around daylight on Monday 29th, Superintendent FIELDING was advised that the building at Seascape was burning. The suspect BRYANT eventually came out of the burning house with his clothing ablaze, and he was taken into custody."

Superintendent Fielding also informs us during the 'A Current Affair" special on the incident that when Bryant emerged from the Seascape cottage, he was wearing black. Whatever happened to the white jumper and dark green length coat that the gunman was wearing the day before during the massacre at Port Arthur is not known. There is also the videotape taken by a 9 Network news camera of Bryant staggering out from the Seascape Cottage, dressed all in black, and then falling to the ground. It was good photography, as the camera was positioned at Andersons Road, on the other side of Long Bay.

On page 121 of the book 'Suddenly one Sunday' Mike Bingham writes, "Finally, Bryant emerged from Seascape at 8.24 am, his clothing alight. At first it was thought that he was armed with a handgun and firing it." There is no mention of any handgun in either of the two police interviews with Bryant. There is no other mention of any handgun being found at Seascape, so it must be presumed that the handgun was non-existent. There is no mention of Bryant claiming that he was the hostage.

There appears to be some disparities with the various times. The Police requested that the local Fire Brigade be standing by at about 7.00 am, and it was duly stationed at the Fox and Hounds Hotel, just a couple of kilometres up the road from the Seascape Cottage. At 0747 hours, smoke was seen coming from the roof of the Seascape Cottage. We are told that the fire quickly took hold within the building. This is to be expected of this type of building, which was basically old pine and some hardwood.

At 0821 hours, Martin Bryant was seen to emerge from the building. That is 34 minutes after the building was seen to be on fire. Police were than able to ascend on the Seascape Cottage and arrested Martin Bryant at 0835 hours. That is 14 minutes after he was seen emerging from the burning building. By this time there is little for the fire brigade to do, but to hose down the remnants of the cottage.

What is extraordinary is the police request for the fire brigade to attend prior to the fire starting at Seascape Cottage. How did the police know that the fire was going to erupt? We are aware that the people inside had communicated with the police negotiator the night before, but there was never any actual hint that the building would be set ablaze. We are told that it was Martin Bryant who started the fire, yet Martin Bryant has never confirmed this. In fact, he is at a loss to explain how the fire started. Mind you, the police interview never touches on this topic.

What was really a major jolt though was when a member of the Tasmania Police Task Force, in conversations with various witnesses informed them quite openly and in all honesty, that it was the police at Seascape who not only set fire to the BMW, but also to the Seascape Cottage itself.

The Task Force member stated that the SOG set fire to the gold BMW so as to deny Bryant a means of escape. He also stated that the SOG used a phosphorus grenade that was launched from a rifle to set fire to the BMW. The same means were then used to set fire to the Seascape Cottage. The grenade was fired into an attic window on the roof of Seascape that was facing towards the Tasman Highway. This information is in direct conflict with what both McCreadie and Bugg have informed us, so there must be questions asked as to where the Task Force member obtained this information, how accurate was this information, and if this information was correct, then why was Bryant charged with offences that police knew were not correct?

If this scenario were correct then it would explain another clue that comes from the Melbourne Herald-Sun journalist, John Hamilton who was one of the journalists on the tour arranged by the Tasmania Police at about midday on Monday the 29th April 1996. The first part of this tour was at the still smouldering Seascape Cottage where Hamilton described the scene as being littered with items of furniture and other objects that had been thrown from the Seascape Cottage, and littering the ground in front of the still smouldering building. The clue is the litter, light furniture and other objects including bottles of wine. What was this litter doing at Seascape Cottage?

We are told the only living person inside Seascape Cottage was Martin Bryant, so it must be assumed that Martin Bryant that Martin Bryant was responsible for this litter. So consider just when and how this litter came to be in front of the burnt Seascape Cottage? It is fairly obvious that this litter did not occur during the previous afternoon, what with the gunman being on the roof of the adjoining building, shooting at passing helicopters, or whilst the gunman was inside supposedly shooting at police, and speaking with the police negotiator, Sgt. Terry McCarthy. Nor would it be likely that it was done after dark, as it would have left the gunman vulnerable to apprehension by the SOG at that time, and furthermore there is no mention by the Tasmania Police of such actions occurring. There is though, a very strong possibility that these items were placed in front of the Seascape Cottage during the fire at Seascape, in fact it is the only plausible explanation.

We now have Martin Bryant trying desperately to save items from the burning Seascape Cottage, when he realised that it was on fire. So why would a person who deliberately set fire to a building try and save these articles that littered the scene of the fire?

There are also documents that claim Martin Bryant was heard goading the police during the fire with shouts of, "Come on, come on", or "Come in, come in". It is highly likely that a person trying desperately to save some furniture and other possessions from a burning building would call out for assistance, with such words as, "Come on, come on. Can you give us a hand" or words similar.

This would also explain Martin Bryant's answers to some questions asked of him by his mother during the first visit she was permitted to have with her son at Risdon Prison on Monday the 22nd November 1999. Mrs Bryant asked her son, "You didn't do it down there, kill all those people, did you?" to which Martin Bryant replied, "I don't remember. I should have pleaded insanity." Mrs Bryant then asked, "You weren't on your own at Seascape were you? You couldn't have done that all on your own, shooting at the police and making phone calls. How many were with you?" to which Martin Bryant replied in a lowered voice, "I don't remember how many. It was a police conspiracy."

It is the injuries that Martin Bryant incurred from the fire that also raises concerns. He received third degree burns to his back and buttocks only. He was apparently not burnt on his arms, face or hair. He was according to some, burnt on one hand and wrist, and the skin was apparently covered with gunpowder residue. The burns on his one hand and wrist, if those burns were factual, simply allowed the skin to be peeled off, which suggests a lesser degree of burning, possibly whilst removing his burning clothing, or any other similar scenario.

The fire was first reported at 0747 hours with smoke coming from the top storey. 34 minutes later Martin Bryant was seen to emerge from the building. Again considering the time it took for Bryant to emerge from the building and the burns he had received it is obvious that Bryant had not been in the top storey of the cottage, but rather on the ground floor part of the building. However, Martin Bryant was not the only person in the area when the fire ignited. We are well aware of the police presence, but what has not been so open has been the presence of ASIO, or the PSCC, being the TSU (Tactical Support Unit), which arrived at Seascape Cottage in the early hours of the morning.

The Tasmania Police Ballistics expert, Sgt Gerard Dutton tells us that all of the firearms that had been stored in Seascape Cottage by the owners were found inside the remains of the cottage and were absolutely destroyed. However the FN and the Colt AR15 were not. "Bryant's two murder weapons were also found at Seascape; both extensively damaged but fortunately had not been destroyed beyond salvation. The FN had been smashed and was lying in the gutter of a nearby outbuilding. The Colt was found in the ashes at the periphery of the guesthouse foundations; luckily it had not been exposed to the extreme heat in the centre of the fire as the other firearms and it did not appear too badly affected by the heat. In any case, the two rifles were obviously not in working order in their present conditions." Ohh, by the way, according to local knowledge, before the police found the FN on the roof of the outbuilding, two firemen found it in a ditch. That really doesn't matter, as what must be raised here is the fact that the FN was located outside Seascape.

Dutton makes further notes "Interestingly enough, the trigger and selector lever mechanisms in both rifles displayed alterations that indicated an attempt had been made at some time in the past to convert to, or function the rifles on fully automatic operation. However, I doubt that this was Bryant's doing as he would not have had the ability."

Damage done to the FN was that the barrel had been bent, and the stock broken. Damage to the Colt AR15 was that the pistol grip and been broken off, and there was a spent cartridge jammed in the breech. An accidental excessive pressure in the breech may have caused this damage, or it may have been deliberate, with an obstruction in the barrel. This was the damage done to make both rifles inoperable prior to the arrest of Martin Bryant.

So what we have is one rifle located outside the Seascape Cottage, and the other outside the cottage, but at the periphery, of the foundations of the cottage. Since the fire at Seascape was first noticed by police at 0747 hours, and 34 minutes later, at 0821 hours, Martin Bryant was seen to emerge from the building, with his clothes burning, and that he appeared to be firing a handgun, there must be problems as to how the FN levitated itself up onto the guttering, or wherever it was found.

With the burns on his back, Martin Bryant certainly would not have been able to toss the rifle up onto the outbuilding at that stage. Furthermore, with the videotape of Bryant emerging from the burning Seascape Cottage, and then falling down, there is no way that Bryant could have tossed the FN onto the adjoining building. He emerged on the other side of the cottage.

As for the Colt AR15, Bryant certainly wasn't carrying that rifle either, as the SOG would have been well prepared for such a scenario. So how did both weapons come to be outside the Seascape Cottage before Martin Bryant emerged? How was it that both weapons were severely damaged? Consider this part of the negotiation tapes where the discussion is about 'Jamie' taking his helicopter ride out of Seascape:

McCarthy: Now are you planning on taking firearms with you?

Jamie: Um

McCarthy: I need to know that

Jamie: Oh I (inaudible)

McCarthy: for for safety reasons

Jamie: Not not really

McCarthy: Sorry

Jamie: Um I'm actually gonna have the knife I've got a really good knife

McCarthy: Okay

Jamie: and um actually got a couple on um to the let when I let Sally in the back I'm gonna actually have it next near the pilot's ribs.

McCarthy: Oh yeah okay. Why why

Jamie: Just as a

McCarthy: Do you want to do that?

Jamie: precaution that ah

McCarthy: O right

Jamie: the make to make sure that everything's gonna go that everything's gonna sail alrigh

McCarthy: Okay okay.. Now no so

Jamie: (inaudible)

McCarthy: Can I take it that you won't have any firearms with you then?

Jamie: That's correct.

McCarthy: O, right.

Jamie: ………………Inaudible……………… they'll all be destroyed.

McCarthy: You're gonna destroy the firearms?

Jamie: Yes, break them up.

McCarthy: Okay. What are you going to do with them after you destroy them? You going to throw them outside so that we know they're all outside before you go to the aircraft or,

Jamie: I can do that. Yeah. Would you like me to do that?

McCarthy: Well that, yeah, it'd probably so that we know exactly where they are um

Jamie: Good, good, good, good

McCarthy: Yeah, that would be a good thing to do.

Jamie: Good idea

McCarthy: Um so if you broke them up and, and um

Jamie: I'd I've got a good knife

McCarthy: perhaps through them out of the door or what have you

Jamie: I've got a good knife on me, if I miss um good hunting knife so I hope they're not gonna try anything with

It now becomes quite apparent that the damage to both firearms was deliberate and intentional, which tends to oppose the comments made by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, when he states:

"Both the FN and Colt rifles were obviously in normal working order when Bryant had discharged them. Why he then damaged them is unknown. It could have been an attempt to thwart later scientific examination of them, but if that were the case they would have been better off left in the guesthouse fire."

"What an interesting end result to the examination of the Colt rifle! As a faulty cartridge was responsible for jamming the AR15 and preventing any further discharge, perhaps Bryant flew into a rage and smashed it further due to its faulty condition, not to mention the fright at having the weapon virtually explode in his hands."

It can now be demonstrated that both rifles were deliberately damaged and that this was in accordance to what 'Jamie' had informed the negotiator and his team. Apparently this information had not been passed on to the Ballistic expert, Sergeant Gerard Dutton.

Now, if we also consider the knife, "I've got a really good knife" and the implications of that. The only knife mentioned in the Court Document, or in fact in any other part of the Port Arthur Massacre was by the DPP, Mr Damian Bugg QC, when he states on page 76 of the Court Document; "Your Honour, the bag was left by Bryant in the café after he departed and I would tender that, along with a towel which was found to be in it. There was also some clothing, but I won't tender that, your Honour, the Crown places no relevance on that. There was a towel, a hunting knife - sash cord rope in two lengths. While they are being tendered, your Honour, I will just say that subsequent DNA analysis of the hunting knife and deposits that were observed on it disclosed that there was blood on the knife of a DNA type matching Mr David Martin."

So, were there two knives or only one? What happened to the knife that "Jamie" had at Seascape? Had the knife been found on Martin Bryant, or had it been left inside the Seascape Cottage, or the surrounding area, then it should have been located. There is no such mention of that occurrence. Could the knife that 'Jamie" had have been the same knife found in the bag, which had been left at the Broad Arrow Café? If we also consider that David Martin had been gagged, which means that he would have also been constrained in some other manner so as to impede him from removing that gag, this then must raise serious doubts as to when the Martins were actually murdered.

There is one last comment to make. As Martin Bryant fled from the burning Seascape Cottage, the 9 Network news media was there to capture those moments on television cameras. Contemplate on that for a moment. Only that particular network, which has a contract with the American CNN Network.

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.