He put the tray on this table, set down the video camera and then opened the duffel bag. From it, he took the blue sports bag and at least two firearms: an AR15 SP1 Carbine and a USAS12 shotgun.
We all know what happened next.
This post won't dwell on the massacre itself, rather I want to raise the critical issues that this table represents. Let's start with what we can see:
1. The blue sports bag. The only information we have linking Martin to this bag is a statement by Petra Wilmot. Here's how Martin responded when the police asked him about it:
For readability, I've noted where Martin is speaking, keep in mind that often, we mumble MM-MM to mean "no", usually while shaking our head. Because there's no video to accompany this, it's difficult to determine if Martin is mumbling "MMM" for "yes" or "MM-MM" for "no":
PAINE
Q. Martin, I'm gonna just get Mr Warren to pick up that ahh, sports bag on the floor and show it to you.
Martin. It's a nice one isn't it.
Q. It's a very nice bag.
Martin. Mmm.
Q. Seen that before?
Martin. No never, never seen that before.
Q. Well I believe you.
Martin. I've got a couple of sports bags. I've got a rubber black one upstairs at Clare Street I bought ...(inaudible) ...
Q. Well I believe you bought that in Myers or Fitzgeralds or somewhere in town, accompanied with a, a young women earlier this year.
Martin. Earlier with a young woman, I don't recall buying that.
Q. You sure?
Martin. No, not at all. If I said that that was mine, I'd say that was mine but.
Q. Ohh.
Martin. No.
WARREN
Q. have you ever had a bag, a bag like that?
Martin. Bag like that, I've got a couple of sports bags. I've got a red one, I can't, ohh a bit like that and a blue one, just all blue at home but.
PAINE
Q. Do you recognise the brand name there?
Martin. No.
Q. It's a Prince brand.
Martin. Ugh ugh, no.
Q. Because it's funny, you said, did you say you liked playing tennis?
Martin. Tennis. I haven't played tennis for about 12 months or so with Mum.
Q. Yeah. 'Cos Prince make, principally make tennis equipment, shoes and gear and racquets and.
Martin. Mmmm.
Q. Did you know that?
Martin. No I didn't.
Q. Ohh.
Martin. No.
Q. Thanks Mr Warren.
Martin. Ohh with my girlfriend you reckon I bought that.
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Martin, You, you said that you think I bought that bag in Myers. You said the.
Q. I said I believe you bought that in Myers or Fitzgeralds in the company of ahh, a young woman, yeah. And you said.
Martin. No.
Warren:
Q. Do you think you might, you could have done and you just can't remember or you?
Martin. No I don't recall having a sports bag, at the last time I bought a sports bag was, like this one I bought in Franklin.
So Martin remembers the bags he owned and where he bought them. He just doesn't recognise this bag that the shooter left at the scene of the crime.
2. The can of Solo. The shooter drank from the can while he ate on the balcony. No fingerprints or DNA from the can were presented to the court. There's not necessarily a conspiracy here - Martin's guilty plea short circuited the trial so there was no need to present evidence. But an inquiry should order the relevant tests be done to confirm Martin did drink from that can of Solo.
3. The plate and utensils. Same as the Solo can. The knife and fork should be fingerprinted and DNA tested for saliva
4. The video camera. Nobody knows if the camera was running at the time of the shooting, because the tape has never been released. Martin didn't take his camera with him to Roaring Beach, so either this isn't Martin's camera, or the shooter stole it to frame him. More from the transcript:
Q. Martin, on the day you went to Roaring Beach at Port Arthur,
Seascape, did you take your camera with you, a movie camera?
A. Did I take a movie camera, no I didn't take a movie camera but I
have got a movie camera. Q. You have got and I suppose you've used 'em when you've been overseas?
A. No, it's only a small camera.
Q. Small camera. Are you a good photographer?
A. Yeah, good photographer, yeah. Yeah.
Any inquiry should demand the video from Tas police to see if it was running during the shooting.
In summary: The only reason why Martin is in prison is his guilty plea. There is no evidence linking him to the Café shooting, and there is reasonable doubt that he was there. A retrial at the very least, and preferably in inquest, is what the victims and their families deserve.
The Lindt Café siege saw 3 dead, including the shooter. The inquest report is almost 500 pages:
http://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/findings-and-recommendations.pdf
It's time the Port Arthur victims were honoured in the same way.
This video camera makes a very special appearance in my novel, The 2nd Empty Chair: The Port Arthur Paradox. You can buy it from any of the links in the side panel - it would make an awesome and thought-provoking Christmas present.
No comments:
Post a Comment