Statements such as :
"You disregard Laycock's testimony......etc" No. I simply said that to repeat the words of Laycock is honest.
To construe it to mean (as you say) that "Laycock ....did not think the shooter was Martin Bryant" is dishonest.
He did not say that. You make things up.
"Most witnesses were influenced by the media pictures published next day of Martin with his photo enhanced crazy eyes."
Where is your proof of that? Utterly without any evidence.
"He pleady guilty after being tortured"
"Is your name Judge Roy Bean?"
One of your constant whacky way of engaging people to speak with you is to offer these kinds of attempts to insult. You have asked this type of question to posters, over and over again. "Are you a psychologist?" for example. Many, many times you do this. That reveals your anger but does nothing to advance any sensible discussion with you.
Now, the bobbydazzler of all time. "He pleady guilty after being torture."
Now folks, I ask you. Here is a poster stating that Martin Bryant, the perpetrator of that horendous mass murder in Port Arthur, was "tortured". Because it was suggested to him to plead Guilty by his legal representative? That is not illegal.
I rest my case m'lord.
When you are asked to make sense of the senseless you rant and rave, insult people, misunderstand, attempt to argue the most stupid things or just ignore their requests for you to make sense. That, of course, makes sense because you make no sense at all.
You justify the possibility of a man wearing a blonde wig and then justify this with suggesting that they can be bought cheaply.
Weird humour, but you have it in spades.
You hate authority, people with power, and it seems, the truth.
HE DUN IT!!!!
