Apart from minor technical differences and overall bulk, the AR10 looks Identical to the AR15 at a distance, which was exactly the view Bryant had of the weapon when interrogated by Inspectors Paine and Warren on the 4th July 1996. So what was Bryant identifying, or what did he think he was identifying? Large tracts of the interrogation were censored at Bryant's pre-sentencing hearing so it is impossible to be certain about most points, but there is no ambiguity about who named the AR15 for the first time on the interrogation tape. It was not Martin Bryant. The police interrogator says "Now this is a ahh, point two two three Remington",to which Bryant replies: "it's a mess isn't it." Still holding the weapon at a distance the police interrogator continues "Or a Colt AR15", to which Bryant replies: "Yeah, Colt." So courtesy of the police interrogator, Bryant identifies the weapon as a Colt AR15, at a distance where it would have looked exactly the same as the DutchAR10 he knew he handled in Terry Hill's store on 27th March, one month before the massacre. It seems most unlikely the interrogators arranged this in advance, because at that stage they probably did not know about the Dutch AR10 Bryant surrendered to Terry Hill. But intentional or not the result was the same: Martin Bryant damned himself for ever by identifying the Colt AR15 used in the Cafe, when in reality he probably thought he was identifying the Dutch AR10 he had handled in Hill's store on 27 March. But he only did so after highly suggestive prompting by the interrogators, both of whom knew very well that Bryant was an intellectually impaired invalid. That the interrogation transcripts should be censored at the pre-sentencing hearing is inexcusable. Just a single (censored) word, sentence or paragraph could have changed the entire context of the interrogation, and probably would have done if played to the court in its entirety. Why else should it be censored if suppression was not the intent? The sheer extent of the censoring is horrifying and leaves out huge quantities of information. Pages 1-9 are deleted, pages 18 and 23 are deleted, then pages 32, 35, 40, 43, 78, 79, 80 and 81 are deleted. After this pages 91 to 98 and then pages 116 to 141. From page 145 onwards the rest of the transcript is deleted in toto. It is not possible to determine how many pages followed 145 but if we assume the interrogation ended at page 150, we get a better feel for the level of deception in the courtroom. Together, the deleted (censored) pages amount to 55 out of 150, or something like one third of the entire interrogation transcript was with- held from the court. Worse still, the prosecution then explained ". . . the quality of sound and vision are not particularly good, there was some breakdown with the recording facility and the tape has been reconstructed using the audio from an audio tape which was recorded at the same time as the original video, so there is some lack of synchronization at times and the video is not particularly good but I would now seek your Honour's leave to have this interview played to the court." Which interview was the prosecution referring to exactly? Fully one-third of the continuous interrogation transcript had been censored i.e. excluded from evidence, and there were breakdowns in audio and sync throughout the remainder. Without fully verified continuity, Bryant's voice could have been edited-in to say almost anything anywhere on the tape,a possibility that would have ensured the video was thrown out as corrupt evidence by any other court in the western world. But not in Tasmania... Defence lawyer Mr Avery seemed unconcerned. When asked by the judge if he had any submissions regarding the editing and substitution of some of the audio tape involved, Mr Avery responded: "I was not aware of it but I am not troubled by what's proposed, your Honor."