|11 Jun 2006 @ 08:05, by Salama Shaquana|
We should be asking for open disclosure or at least a retrial for Martin Byrant.
We are bombarded by the media with stories of injustice, of people held without trial. There is one story however that attracts no coverage at all from the mainstream media and this is evermore curious. This isn’t a recent story. In fact this is the story of a man who has been in jail now for just a little over 10-years for supposedly killing (no lets use the most graphic word – slaughtering) 30-people and injuring many others, on Sunday April 28, 1996 in Port Arthur In Tasmania - Australia.
This one single act propelled the perpetrator of the crime, Martin Byrant, onto the global serial killer list as the second most lethal gunman of all time.
So why is this story worthy of a revisit? Firstly Martin Byrant whilst having languished is jail for just over ten years never went to trial. Apart from two witnesses not one person that was present at Port Arthur on that fateful day picked Martin Byrant out as the gunman. In fact Byrant was never put into a line-up. Of the two witnesses who did single out Byrant they identified him weeks after the event. During this period Bryant’s picture was plastered across every broadsheet and across every media outlet in this country. Locals who knew Byrant and who were at Port Arthur on that fateful day stated that Byrant wasn’t the gunman. Byrant was picked out on a loose description based on the colour of his hair. Witnesses also stated the gunman was in his late teens early 20’s with pockmarked skin. Martin Byrant was in his late 20’s with very smooth skin.
The mystery deepens. Many of the people who were murdered on April 28 were killed by a single shot to the head. Byrant whilst an amateur gunman wasn’t a professional marksman. Any amount of evidence points to a professional and highly trained marksman carrying out the shootings.
Martin Byrant had an IQ of 66. Experts have stated that Byrant had neither the intellect nor capability of planning and carrying out the massacre and particularly he was not capable of shooting with the level of accuracy that was evident. Witnesses stated that the gunman shot with the gun resting on his right hip. Martin Byrant is left-handed.
Byrant stated that he was not guilty and then mysteriously changed his statement to guilty. He was never placed before a jury because the powers that be stated that as Byrant had pleaded guilty there was no benefit to be gained in holding a trail. The justification? Given the gravity of the crime and the impact on both the injured and the family of those who lost their lives on that fateful day a trail would serve no real purpose. What a trail would have done however was expose the injustice of taking a man of low intellect, who based on any amount of (suspect) evidence would indicate was incapable of carrying our such an atrocity and incarcerating this man for 10-years without trail. This event is one of the most audacious travesties of justice ever carried out in this country. Martin Byrant should be entitled to have his case reopen and to be placed before a jury where all of the evidence can be examined.
Please read the attached, it provides a number of clues as to why Martin Byrant was used as a scapegoat.