“They were waiting. They initiated. It was inherently an offensive act,” stated Associate Professor Josh Roose from the witness box.
The extremism, religion and violence expert’s staccato summary of Gareth, Nathaniel and Stacey Train’s actions came during an at-times heated cross-examination at the Wieambilla coronial inquest over the classification of the attack as an act of terrorism.
Three weeks into the Queensland state coroner’s inquest into the deaths of six people after a stand-off at a remote property on December 12, 2022, the focus has turned to the profiles and motivations of the Train trio.
After considering thousands of documents including emails, text messages, social media posts and more, Roose wrote in a report prepared for the inquiry that the trio’s violence was a terrorist attack motivated by premillennialism, an apocalyptic branch of Christian belief.
The question of whether the Wieambilla attack was a terrorist act, as it was classified by Queensland Police Service and ASIO in February 2023, is an important one. The designation has consequences for who responds to the attack, how an investigation is resourced, and shapes how it is understood afterwards — something that’s particularly important for an inquest investigating how to stop something like this happening ever again. And, judging by the lines of questioning by lawyers representing various parties at the inquest, it appears to be a contentious decision.
Like many other aspects in a case like this, the decision is complicated by overlapping but different understandings and philosophical approaches. The exact definition of terrorism is debated in academia but revolves around the idea that it is a violent act intended to cause a political outcome. Roose used the federal criminal code’s definition of a terrorist act and was satisfied that the Trains’ actions fulfilled that definition.
Coming from the perspective of someone who studies radicalism and extremism but not the underlying psychology or pathology, Roose focused on how Gareth Train, in particular, transitioned from someone with “thin” conspiracy beliefs into a “thick ideological adherence” through his communications with American conspiracy theorist Donald Day Jr in YouTube video comment sections.
Prior to this, Gareth had sought out Australian conspiracy theorists Riccardo Bosi and Mike Holt but ultimately found the “connection he was looking for” in Day Jr, Roose said, who has pleaded guilty to charges including threatening an FBI agent and illegal possession of firearms. Day Jr’s encouragement and recognition of Train marked a transition into a more violent conception of their Christian end-times beliefs, Roose said.
Roose said that the Trains’ preparation for the ambush, including ordering Ghillie suits and bulk coffee, along with videos posted in the lead-up to the attack that appeared to show Stacey Train trying to recruit others to their belief system, meant that the shooting fulfilled the definition of an act of terrorism.
After his initial testimony, two parties’ barristers questioned Roose about whether the Trains’ state of mind and actions disqualified the terrorism classification. They raised the previous day’s testimony by forensic clinical psychiatrist Dr Andrew Aboud, who said he believed the trio suffered delusions, and asked whether their mistaken belief that they were under attack by “demons” and “devils” suggested that the motivation wasn’t political but instead defensive. Aboud had previously declined to answer whether he considered it terrorism but questioned whether there was a political motive.
Roose, who had read Aboud’s report and watched his testimony, stated that his own testimony was mostly “complimentary” to the forensic psychiatrist’s. One important area of disagreement was over a video posted by Gareth taunting police in the lead-up to the attack. Aboud argued that the video was Gareth’s flawed attempt to scare off police, whereas Roose argued that this was part of his anti-government rhetoric.
“They were motivated by a religious ideology in which the police — the public state actors — were devils and demons and they were in a war,” he said.
The cross-examination was at times terse. At one point, a barrister asked Roose to answer the questions strictly. Roose seemed to anticipate lines of questioning and provided additional context in response to questions.
“If this was a Salafi Jihadist case, I don’t think we’d be having a lot of these questions asked,” Roose said.
