Sketch

Graham Collyer was shot in the neck at the Broad Arrow Café. He had a reasonably good look at the shooter, as described in his witness statement linked here.

Graham also sketched the rifle that shot him. Look at the vents and magazine (erroneously called a "clip" in the sketch:

 

 

 

 

Did he mistake the grip pattern on the AR15 as "vents" or was he in fact looking at a FN FAL, the type carried by ex-SASR, mercenary and armed robber David Everett?

 

 

 

AR15 SP1 Carbine owned by Martin Bryant and found in seascape ruins.

 

Curved magazine for the AR15, not the straight one sketched by Graham Collyer.

 

 

 

 

FN FAL #3434 found damaged in the gutter of an outbuilding at Seascape.

 

 

FAL type SLR carried by Everett in Myanmar where he taught marksmanship to the Karen rebels. Cooling vents in the barrel shroud and a straight magazine.

Now, there are many people who know more about guns than me, and I would love some advice about what that sketch could be of. The vents in the barrel shroud don't look like an AR15 but the front sight is the triangle shape (which the FAL doesn't have). The sketch looks like the bastard love child of an AR15 and an SLR, so any pointers or suggestions would be appreciated.

The police appear to be very afraid of the Collyer statement. Here's Ian McNiven's experience:

THREATENED WITH ARREST FOR ASKING A FORENSIC QUESTION
 
By Ian McNiven

A friend tipped me off about a meeting advertised in the Courier Mail of Thursday, 21st November 2002. The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society Inc. were hosting a presentation by one of the leading forensic investigators into the Port Arthur killings  
The meeting was to be held at the Nathan Campus of Griffith University Qld. After contacting the Forensic Society Secretary and being assured that there was a half hour set aside for questions from the floor and that it was "very informal" and knowing that universities were leading forums for debate and the free exchange of ideas and information, I decided to attend to avail myself of the opportunity of asking questions about some of the forensic investigation that was done at the Port Arthur Café. I expected to get a fair go at Griffith because I attended an Orientation Day with an associate some years ago where the Dean told the assembled parents, "We will teach your children to question everything", but I was soon to find out that the investigation into Port Arthur was not included in that statement.

The guest speaker was introduced by the Queensland President of the Forensic Society, who I believe was a serving Policeman. The presentation was quite professional and almost identical to the article in the Australian Police Journal September 98 Vol 52 No 4. It contained very little information about actual forensic technique and in my opinion was mainly propaganda.  
There were two statements made that were of interest to me - The killer never used the FNFAL .308 rifle until he returned to the boot of the Volvo and that Bryant obtained the weapons used in the killings "on the black market" - more about that later.  
When the lecture was finished the presenter told us that we would have 5 minutes of questions before going outside for a tea break and then coming back in for the main question time. He then proceeded to warn the audience about conspiracy theories and that some people didn't believe that Bryant was the killer and that he wouldn't be answering questions of a conspiracy nature or words to that effect. This did not concern me as the questions I wanted to ask related to the collection of forensic evidence in the café. When the first question was called for, I had my hand up and got the nod. This is the question I asked

- "Was any solid empirical forensic evidence such as finger prints or DNA found that links Martin Bryant to the shootings in the café?” Having read many of the witness statements, I had a specific reason for asking that. More about that later.
 

The presenter looked like he had been handed a dirty nappy and proceeded to waffle on about ballistic evidence as a way of avoiding the answer. I thought the answer was quite simple. Just a yes or no. As I was very keen to get an answer, I interrupted the speaker and pointed out that my question was not about ballistics but about fingerprints and DNA. Then I asked again (loudly), "Did you find Bryant's fingerprints on the bullet cases or any of Bryant's DNA at the café?" The speaker then started to bluster about ballistic evidence again and then said that they had witness statements. It then became obvious to me that there must be no empirical forensic evidence liking Bryant to the café or the speaker would have said yes, and given an outline of how and where it was collected. When he mentioned witness statements I asked him if he was familiar with the statement of Graham Collyer? The presenter then told me and all the audience that he would talk to me about it outside and shut down the question time.

It also dawned on me why the presenter had warned about conspiracy theorists, because anyone who asked awkward questions could be labelled as such and dismissed. We then went outside for the tea break and I waited for my chance to talk to the presenter. When he was free I walked up to him with the Collyer statement and asked to discuss it with him. He looked me in the eye, turned his back on me and walked away. I was gobsmacked, standing in the middle of the crowd, Collyer statement in my hand and a stupid look on my face. Here was a Senior Forensic Policeman who had given his word to speak to me in front of about 200 people, going back on his promise. I resolved to use question time to ask him in front of all those people why he had lied to me. I was very interested to hear what his answer would be. 
I never got to ask the question because as I moved to the door, I was surrounded by some burly gentlemen who said they were policemen and I was asked to step aside, which I did. I

asked what the problem was and they told me that I could not go back inside. I pointed out that I had done nothing wrong, that the meeting was a public meeting and I had paid to go in. I waved my receipt. I told them I wanted to go in to ask why their colleague had lied to me and moved toward the door. One of the burly gentlemen stood in my way and told me if I went in I would disrupt the
meeting and University Security would be called, they would call the Police and "people may be arrested" looking hard at me. Can you imagine my astonishment, here I was being threatened with arrest for doing nothing more than asking a simple forensic question. What
are these people afraid of, what are they hiding, I thought. I asked the person blocking the

door to reflect on the amount of publicity and propaganda that I could milk of I were to be

arrested for asking a question. I also pointed out to the group of people who wouldn't let me

go back in that I thought that it was the job of the Police to protect freedom of speech, not

destroy it.

While I was debating the importance of our fundamental rights with these people, the

Queensland President and Secretary of the Forensic Society were standing beside me andnever raised a finger or a word in my defence or the individuals right to question representatives of the state. They never offered a word of apology to me for the way I was treated or offered me my money back. As I was a bit like a possum surrounded by a pack of dingos, in the end discretion triumphed and I went home.