-- The OLD 911oz Forum (Read Only) --

[Hereward]

Linda Smith
The Herald Sun
June 12, 2007 12:00am

LONG-serving prisoners such as mass murderer Martin Bryant should be legally allowed to die instead of serving their full jail sentences, says euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke.

Speaking at the end of a three-day visit to Tasmania, Dr Nitschke said incarcerating prisoners for life was equivalent to "eternal torture" and should not be tolerated by society.

He said prisoners should be given the option of taking a drug to peacefully end their lives, especially Martin Bryant, who has made six suicide attempts in Tasmania's Risdon Prison and has been treated at hospital twice this year after slashing himself with razor blades.

In previous attempts to harm himself Bryant swallowed a toothpaste tube, took an overdose of Rohypnol, and tried to choke on bandages.

"Locking prisoners like Martin Bryant away is all to do with punishment, and if you punish them forever you are effectively torturing them forever," said Dr Nitschke.

"People say you should not let that bastard off the hook so lightly. They want to see revenge forever and they want to see that revenge played out in front of them.

"But let's be honest about the fact that when we put people in prison forever, it's tantamount to torture. What we're doing to people like Martin Bryant is punishing them forever.

"And I don't know if I feel terribly comfortable with the notion of endless revenge."

Dr Nitschke said there was no denying that Bryant -- whose prison papers were marked "never to be released" after he received 35 life sentences for killing 35 people at Port Arthur 11 years ago -- had done terrible things.

But he still deserved the right to end his suffering.

"He's done evil and horrible things and deserves a huge incarceration," Dr Nitschke said. "But either there should be a plan for his rehabilitation and release or infinite incarceration plus or minus the chance to leave with death."

He said there would need to be safeguards, including assessments of a prisoner's physical and mental wellbeing before assisted suicide could occur.

And it was not intended as a quick fix for prisoners who were having adjustment problems in their early days in prison.

But he believed that in some cases it would be suitable.

While he has never spoken to Bryant, Dr Nitschke has had contact with other prisoners on the issue of euthanasia.

[Hereward]

Allow me to share an anecdote which hilights just how far we still need to go in order to bring clarity (not to mention rationality) to the question of what really happened in the Broad Arrow Cafe on the 28th April 1996.

I was at a friend's place discussing my interest in developing a wide ranging news website which would cover many important issues hidden from the general public, and especially issues within Australia.

A person at the table, lets call her Jill, said, "for example?".

So I answered with "how about getting Martin Bryant released from jail".

Gill's reaction was typical of the vast majority of people one meets socially: she said something like "I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. Everyone knows he did it, there were dozens of witnesses blah blah, he confessed blah blah, and on and on.

When I tried to introduce a few facts into the discussion such as his "intellectually disabled" IQ of 66 and the fact that he was never placed in a line up, could not (according to a psychiatrist) distinguish his fantasies from reality and could barely remember what he did yesterday, and his face was put on the cover of a newspapers with the headline "The Killer" within 24 hours, long before even charges were laid thus making it all but impossible to get an untainted witness identification ... i was told again "I'm sorry but I am not even interested in this"...

I just did some googling to try to find references to those initial newspaper stories, but I cannot find a single one.

Here is the infamous "photoshopped" pic which I believe was on the front cover of The Daily Telegraph within 24 hours of the massacre:



Here is another crazy image from ABC News published recently (Mar 27, 2007):



And here is an image from a Shooters News article:



I did not bother getting into a discussion with my friends about the number of headshots he managed to achieve inside the cafe, or the hit to kill ratio which indicates that the shooter(s) was/were highly skilled, and the fact that the police were unable to attend the crime scene for hours after the shootings allowing the perpetrators plenty of time to make a clean get away.

The "I'm sorry" response really means "shut the fuck up or get out of my house".

Funny thing is people act like that about 9/11 too.

If anyone can dig up any of those early press artioles about Bryant please let me know. I want to start collecting research material.

My memory is that the first full page story with photo was published the following day, and this is substanbtiated by the Shooters News article which I linked above.

[Erik]

Martin Bryant is a very important issue. The response you got is typical for the brainwashed main stream idiot.

But as I have discussed before, people need to know they are programmed. Once they know this they can then deprogram, but if they don't know, they'll just stay in this catatonic state and vomit whatever they've been told as fact, because that's how life works for them.

Who cares about the real investigation, Channel 9 said so, it must be real. Rather sad how people are.

You know I would like to go to Tasmania and see if I could see him, see if I could say "we know you didn't do it" See how he would react.. Dunnoo..

Who's up for a Tasmanian trip?
_________________
Come to http://vtil.org/bbs/ for more alternative information.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it becuse Conscience tells him it is right. - M. King

[Lin Kuei]

I think a good idea would be to start up producing a Loose Change type documentary about Port Arthur, and we could get an interview with Wendy Scurr, the first paramedic on the scene - whose attempts at getting answers contrary to the official story and more in line with her experiences have been blocked due to being something along the lines of too politically sensitive... whatever that means. The mountains of evidence are overwhelming enough to convince anyone something is terribly wrong with the official story, when presented in a concise fashion. I'd be game to get the ball rolling.

[Erik]

Hey that's an idea, making our own loose change for Port Arthur...

[/me reminds himself to get a camera]


It's a task, and would need alot of work but maybe we could organise something.
_________________
Come to http://vtil.org/bbs/ for more alternative information.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it becuse Conscience tells him it is right. - M. King

[shiizaa]

Thank you so much for this psot Hereward. I was recently talking to JB about having a talk about MB at this truth conference. I think it essential that any truth conference in Aust. has to have this a side subject.
Fancy wanting him dead now. Maybe something is about to come out. On the weekend there was an aritcle about Walter Mikac. I was perplexed, why would they be talking about him.?? Went to bed last night wondering this actually why Mikac is being interviewed around a time that is not related to the anniversary???.
Too many people are starting to ask questions.

[Von Curtis]

When it happened in 1996 I was too busy running after kids in nappies so I just
took it as the MSM said it and that Martin Bryant did it.
Now I have read that only an expert marksman could do what was done.
Sure needs an investigation as we all know now that there is huge collusion between police , government , intelligence organizations and media!!

[Erik]

This has been posted before,

http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snportarthur.html

but worth another posting.

I've not made a movie before, where do we start? Concept, Screen play, filming planning, site filming, interviews, editting, publishinh?

Or as found here...
http://www.cd-writer.com/10steps.html

The Digital Filmmaking Pre-production Process

Step 1: Film Concept
Step 2: Writing your script
Step 3: Drawing your storyboards
Step 4: Film Funding
Step 5: Cast & Crew
Step 6: Location, Location, Location
Step 7: Shooting Script
Step 8: Scheduling
Step 9: Call Sheets
Step 10: Equipment

Can we do this?
_________________
Come to http://vtil.org/bbs/ for more alternative information.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it becuse Conscience tells him it is right. - M. King

[able]

although i could see this being trouble in a press release i support it 100%!

besides me being the closest to tazzie..........

imagine pulling this off!!!!!!!!! what a victory for truth!

flood this thread with links of whatever you know on the subject!

or make another if you want to keep this clean.....

why should this one innocent man be on the cross the rest of his life for the corporate fascists?

im in if you need me!
_________________
what if i say i will never surrender?

[Hereward]

For me there is a whole lot of research i would need to do as a first stage before thinking about a documentary. I would expect to spend months on this in order to establish what are facts and what is merely hearsay.

I would keep an open mind at all times and not be trying to prove anything in particular.

I don't need to believe Martin Bryant is innocent.

My main goal would simply be to establish if there is reasonable doubt that Martin Bryant is guilty. i would try to stay away from grand conspiracy theories which cannot be proved, for obvious reasons.

In my opinion this is not something to mix with 9/11 Truth in the same venue - doing so could end up with mud on everyone's faces.

We have to limit our credibility gap with the general public, not widen it.

[Hereward]

... as someone once said, "softly softly catchee monkey".

[able]

agreed...
_________________
what if i say i will never surrender?

[Loaded]

Would you like Martin Bryant's police Interview transcripts & Psychiatric report?
_________________
enter Q33 NY in the wingdings font

[Erik]

Sure if it's not in the link I posted, link away!
_________________
Come to http://vtil.org/bbs/ for more alternative information.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it becuse Conscience tells him it is right. - M. King

[The Watcher]

I read an article about this online a couple of months ago. While I don't doubt that Bryant may actually want to be put out of his misery, this seems to be a convenient way to close the case once and for all. This would be a great subjuct for a documentary, and I agree Hereward, the best approach would be to avoid claiming as fact anything that may be open to debate (if not ridicule) and just present the myriad of solid reasons to plant reasonable doubt in the minds of the viewer. Andrew MacGregor seems to be someone who has tirelessly pursued this case, while putting some of the more unsubstantiated claims to rest. He has a book available in CD-Rom format called DECEIT AND TERRORISM AT PORT ARTHUR and there's also a video presentation of a lecture he did - both seem to be available here: http://www.nutech2000.com/category5_1.htm

I don't know anything about the website that sells them so please don't consider that a 'plug' or personal endorsement, I just stumbled across it recently. As to whether this issue should be 'mixed' with 9/11, perhaps it would be best at this stage to work on each one individually. I've had people who rolled their eyes at the idea of 9/11 being an inside job soften up considerably once they saw Press For Truth or Mysteries, yet still react very defensively over the Port Arthur thing. Maybe it's the 'close to home' factor, but I suspect the P.A.M. is going to be a tougher sell for Australians to get their heads aroundfor some time. Lastly, without wishing to enter into the gun debate on either side, while I support sites like 'Shooters News' on this issue, they really need to rethink some of the tactics they've used in the past. Statements like the one they made about 'Bob Brown and his poofter mates' being responsible for more deaths via AIDS than gun owners are NOT going to help people wake up to this one.
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpabobbrown07.html