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). |
These two statements originated from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and not from the police. The police obtained over 800 statements from witnesses, and other evidence and delivered these items to the DPP whose responsibility it was to prepare a case against the defendant, Martin Bryant.
It was these two statements used by the media to sensationalise the attack at Port Arthur that have raised amazement amongst anyone educated in the skills of shooting. There is ample evidence to not only dispute these two statements, but to show they were complete and utter fabrications.
The first example I will use to show 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 second question is how does a fully jacketed bullet shatter into splinters or fragments when hitting a human body? Please remember that Mr Bugg states most of the wounds were caused by ‘shrapnel’, a misnomer for the metal fragments from a shattered bullet.
In his article printed in the Australian Police Journal, the Tasmania Police Ballistics expert, Sergeant Gerard Dutton states, "All identifiable bullet fragments but one recovered from tissue at the morgue or during surgery had been fired from the Colt; thus only one fragment recovered was associated with the FN rifle.
Even taking into account the locations of the wounds and the various tissue/organs struck, the smaller .223 calibre bullet was obviously more prone to breaking up and remaining within the body. Conversely, the .308 bullets had tended to exit the bodies, the bullets not having shed fragments from impacting and travelling through tissue, so although the .223 and .308 bullets outwardly look quite similar, (apart from size) their terminal effect was very different."
What this means is that there would have been very little fragmentation from the .223 leaving the victim’s body, to continue on and create further damage to other persons within the approximate area of the Broad arrow Café.
The third question 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 the report had to say in regards to his 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 the fragments from 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.
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. 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 projection. 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 the once in the arm. If this bullet that struck Kevin Sharpe in the arm was on a horizontal projectory, 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". |
However, Broome was not the only person wounded among those seated at the two tables in the 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. Mr Fidler though also received another fragmentation wound to the forehead.
It must be realised that for bullet fragments from the one round to strike a person on the back of the body and at the same time strike them on the forehead is almost impossible. What we have here are two shots, one possibly wounding Kevin Sharpe, but the other is unaccounted by Mr Bugg’s statement. 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.
For conventional fully jacketed rounds to fragment, or shatter into splinters, the round must strike a solid target, such as bricks, stones or concrete. The .223 round is smaller and it strikes an object with a greater velocity, and thus needs less of an impact to shatter, 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 literally pulled the brain from out of the skull and it fell into the bowl of chips that she had so recently received. Most of the others killed received similar damage, and the café walls were strewn with blood and tissue that had been ripped from the victims who had been shot.
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. However most of the fatal shots were fired in an upward projection, which removed most possibilities of such wounds coming from those shots. There is however another possibility and that is the 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.
| 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." |
The fragments that caused the wounds to these women could only have come from 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 the wounds to Mrs Law cannot be determined with the evidence given by Mr Bugg, but it is a fair deduction that at least two 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.
What we now have are shots at Olson (1), Broome (1), the Fidlers (1), Walker (2), 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 35 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, 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 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 38 shots fired by the gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café, 35 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. Mr Bugg is extremely adamant that two witnesses heard the gunman reloading the Colt AR15 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.
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, the first 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 38 and 60.
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". |
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.
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.
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, 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 one of the waitresses studied the number of bullet holes in the café walls 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 the father 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.
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.
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. |
|
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 on 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 Mc Laughlan, with Sue Burgess their supervisor.
Also present was Ann Hillman the tour co-ordinator, along with Steven Howard who was on lunchtime relieving duties, Paul Cooper was also in the area with 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. 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.
The tour guides who were already with the tourists assembled outside the Information office, then started to herd the visitors away from the café to safety, and 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 had 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 to 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 at least 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 that she would not be required to attend as a witness.
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 police 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. Possibly a minute. 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 to visitors move away from the car park area, Ann Hillman did a Regimental Sargeant-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-worker 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 this much 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 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. Those who questioned Mr Bugg’s facts prior to the November court-date were notified that they would not be called as witnesses.
| 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.
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. 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.
| (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 that Peter Crosswell and Gaye Fidler, both heard the gunman reload at the foyer of the café. 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, for his own personal reasons. 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.
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 still 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 his 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?
| (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?
| 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.
This particular statement though is that of Wendy Scurr, the Information Officer on the day. Please kindly note that Mr Bugg has removed the occurrence of Wendy setting off to the Café, seeing a person flee from the Café, whilst the gunman was apparently in another part of the building, 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 shot 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."
|
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 7.30 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 one last 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.
Written by Andrew S. MacGregor.