Explosive equipment was for special effects in a movie scene : Melbourne Indymedia

A Brisbane court has heard explosives allegedly found at a Queensland teacher's home last year was capable of destroying a car and sending shrapnel several hundred metres.

The man has been facing a terrorist scapegoat hearing in Brisbane.

The prosecution alleges 41-year-old John Howard Amundsen allegedly forged license documents and allegedly used a fake name to buy 53 kilograms of explosives in April last year.

Police allegedly found two containers of Powergel explosives that were allegedly studded with five inch long nails along with detonators and transmitters at his Aspley home.

Prosecutor Glenn Rice told the court testing of the device showed it was capable of destroying a car and sending the nails several hundred metres.

Mr Amundsen a teacher told the court the equipment was for special effects in a movie scene.

So how did the DPP get it so wrong? Why did they initially claim that he was a terrorist? Surely the police had questioned him at some stage and had already known the real truth about the matter. So why were all Australian's told lies about terror by the prosecutor? A solicitor of the court? And by John Howard's ABC?

The prosecutor, Glen Rice, had previously told the court the charges of preparing for a terrorist act and making a hoax threat have been dropped, but did not say why?

So why do prosecutors for the John Howard government lie? Should prosecutors lie? Well not according to the rule of law!

Further any prosecutor or [solicitor of the court who lies should be immediately sacked on the spot and never given their licence to practice law again. Why are we putting up with this nonsense from the DPP?

Why wasn't Glen Rice sacked as a fraud and a liar to the Australian people?

Is that what the DPP should have done? Why didn't they sack him?

Now it is reported that he still is a teacher? So why was he initially reported as and ex-teacher? To diminish his credibility, that's why! So how can you believe the ABC or the DPP?

The hearing is expected to run for three week.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1869859.htm

Related:

Prosecutors drop terrorism charges against ex-teacher

Why because the Howard Government lied to you again and ramped up false fears in the community along with this list that I have compiled here for your perusal!

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/140271.php

QLD errorism suspect prepares bail application?

Appearing via video link today for a mention, Amundsen regularly spoke over the magistrate, saying he wanted to make another bail application because he now has technical information to prove that the devices in his home were not bombs.

http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/20627

I'm an avid terrorist hearing watcher and I must say I feel that I have revved up a bit by the ABC believing their promotional material that this was a real terrorist hearing only to be let down yet again by another load of rubbish.

Aren’t there penalties for false advertising!

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

"The prosecution alleges 41-year-old John Howard Amundsen allegedly forged license documents and allegedly used a fake name to buy 53 kilograms of explosives in April last year. Police allegedly found two containers of Powergel explosives that were allegedly studded with five inch long nails along with detonators and transmitters at his Aspley home. Prosecutor Glenn Rice told the court testing of the device showed it was capable of destroying a car and sending the nails several hundred metres."

"Mr Amundsen a teacher told the court the equipment was for special effects in a movie scene"

You imply that we, reasonable readers, should conclude that Mr. Amundsen is telling the truth? That this was for a movie prop? Did you not leave something out. What was his explanation for the fake ID (I'm making this movie ingonito)? What was his explanation for the nails? (in movie making NORMALLY the visual effect of shrapnel hitting is by simultaneous tiny charges at the hit points as this is MUCH safer than acutal shrapnel. Did he explain how the film crew were going to avoid being hit by real shrapnel? The camera gear?

Seized...the Bin Laden book and other items police say they found when they raided the home of John Howard Amundsen. Inset: John Howard Amundsen and other items found by police.
Photos: Paul Harris and Channel Nine

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bin-laden-in-the-classroom/2006/05/10/1146940613219.html

Mr Rice said Mr Amundsen allegedly sent two emails from a hotmail account called "qld.jihad" to the Queensland Police Service's counter-terrorism unit outlining "high population centre targets" that had been selected.

"The word 'kill' wasn't used but the prosecution would contend it's implied in the content of the text of the email - that was what was intended," Mr Rice said.

Mr Amundsen, who was representing himself, interrupted proceedings to deny he had sent the email, saying he had an "anti-Islamic fundamentalist viewpoint".

Mr Amundsen also called video surveillance footage showing him entering and leaving an internet cafe to which the emails were traced , as "a forgery".

The hearing continues before Deputy Chief Magistrate Brian Hine.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21367577-1702,00.html

It is one thing to find out facts about a case but another thing to turn a possible domestic argument into a full scale terrorist fear for political reasons. If you don't see the difference then I do.

Either Bin Laden has come to town or there is another explanation. If the police, prosecutors and reporters are not capable of distinquishing between one thing or another then why do they have a job?

Why would you believe the police? Why would you believe the prosecutor?

If it is true that the terrorist plot is made up as the teacher has explained then what we have is very bad frame up!

If it was a domestic argument then let it be so and let them prove it. But if it was a terrorist plot then let them not try people or attempt to try people based on a lie.

That is not the police job or the job of a lying scheming prosecutor.

All I need to know is Fake ID, *NAILS* on the explosives, religious person (of any religious persuasion) and I find it hard to believe.

I don't see any film companies or directors coming forward saying he was their explosive expert on their film. And no explosive expert would put nails on a fucking bomb anyway.

This is the biggest load of shit I have ever seen. If he's legit I am fairly confident the jury will see that in the course of the trial. But sounds pretty far from him being legit.

Hating howard and GWB does not mean we should support people who are plotting to blow innocent people up. Get a grip you fucking losers.

He's not trialed yet so any allegation has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is one thing to claim bin laden came to town and alleged email sent.

Then say no, he's not a terrorist and 'drop the charges'.

So if they dropped the bin laden idea and charges then they lied about the emails too.

So if you ask me they could just have easily lied about the nails.

If it is a domestic dispute that is what it is. So why the scapegoat terrorist frame up?