18 FEB 2016

NOT PRIVATE; NO COPYRIGHT
NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION
COPY / FORWARD / LINK WEBSITE FREELY



Dear READERS,

Many thanks to all of you who replied so quickly with encouraging words re the email to David V. AGHION (new Readers please see below). Am unable to acknowledge all the emails that are coming in. The Port Arthur incident is now prompting a lot of communication, supportive reactions, and many things are being planned for the 20th Anniversary of Official Lies in April 2016.

The documented fact that the now president of the Australian Senate - Stephen Parry, Liberal Party* TAS; see wikipedia - has known about the pre-planning related to Port Arthur confirms the official killing and wounding there was premeditated and professionally perpetrated. It was a State psycho-terror operation undertaken to shock and enrage Australians to support gun-control legislation. And to cover up its role in this official massacre, the State set up the mentally handicapped (66IQ) and entirely innocent Martin Bryant making him the patsy. (* The Liberal Party of John Howard who supported NO trial for innocent Martin Bryant. That's right. The mongrel John Howard - another lawyer - who became Australia's worst prime minister.)

Good decent Australians have been investigating and speaking out about the official killing and wounding at Port Arthur for nearly 20 years - unlike the gutless mongrel barristers who work in Tasmania and who have done their best to ignore this evil incident. These barristers have turned their back on innocent Martin Bryant who has been wrongly incarcerated and tortured since April 1996. They have failed their moral and ethical responsibilities by denying Truth and Justice to all the families, relatives, and friends of the Port Arthur victims. It is sickening.

Please bring the documented words of this mongrel of a senator Stephen Parry (President of the Australian Senate) to the attention of the families, relatives, and friends of the Port Arthur victims. To the attention of the media - press, radio, TV. To the attention of your local and federal politicians including the senators. To the attention of your church. SPEAK OUT LOUDLY! Demand corrective action and don't accept any bullshit evasive reply letters telling you it is being looked into. Get poor innocent Martin Bryant out of Risdon Prison before they knock him - his days are numbered.

And please note the next Tasmanian barrister to be addressed will be Sandra Taglieri. It's time the public read what women have said in relation to the official massacre at Port Arthur, and learnt about what Ms. Taglieri - another gutless mongrel barrister and an officer of the Tasmanian Supreme Court - has NOT said about the worst injustice in modern-day Australia.

Sincerely,

Keith Allan Noble

https://www.change.org/p/the-hon-will-hodgman-mp-martin-bryant-deserves-a-lawful...

And you're laughing now Mr. Aghion. Sure you are. Go on - have a good guffaw you mongrel.

If you cannot regain your composure, ask your assistant (Tammy?) to do some library searches for you. Find the report titled: PORT ARTHUR SEMINAR PAPERS; 1997 (Melbourne, VIC). It was published by the Tasmania State Disaster Committee and sponsored by Emergency Management Australia. When you have your copy of this report, find the paper titled: Port Arthur Massacre 1996 - AFDA National Embalming Team - Detailed Report. And when you have that paper in front of you, turn to page 112 where you will find this statement by Stephen Parry who headed the team that embalmed (25 it seems) victims of the official killing at Port Arthur:

"One firm in particular, NELSON BROTHERS, had organised for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be MANUFACTURED READY FOR THE INCIDENT. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well." (added capitals)

Still laughing there Mr. Aghion? You really should check this. If you cannot find a copy of the report just let me know as I and other investigators in Australia have copies. (Copies are listed as being at the State Library and other libraries in Victoria. But those copies have probably been pulled off the shelves by now.) And if you want to talk with Stephen Parry, you'll find him at the Australian Senate where he is the president (sic).

Stephen Parry is an ex-cop from Tasmania. He became an embalmer. Then he became the president of the Australian Funeral Directors Association (AFDA). Then he got himself elected to the senate, wait for it, in 2004 when that mongrel liar John Howard (another lawyer) was prime minister. John Howard who most definitely did not want the legally required trial to take place after the official killing at Port Arthur.

And as you know very well Mr. Aghion, poor innocent Martin Bryant was locked in isolation, coerced to change his plea of innocent, denied a guardian, allowed NO trial, convicted without a shred of hard evidence being assessed by a jury, then incarcerated for the remainder of his life never to be released. And as we know Mr. Aghion, you have never said one word in public to express your disapproval. Please correct me if I am wrong. Even though you have been involved with lawyering since before innocent Martin Bryant was locked up in April 1996, you have done absolutely nothing to right the worst injustice in modern-day Australia.

If you are of the belief that mentally handicapped Martin Bryant phoned NELSON BROTHERS and told them he was going to have a good massacre at Port Arthur and that NELSON BROTHERS should get some new embalming equipment ready, and if you also believe mentally handicapped Martin Bryant told Ray Charlton then of the Southern Region Mortuary Ambulance Service in Tasmania to manufacture a 22-body refrigerated mortuary truck because Charlton was going to need one soon, then you are an incompetent.

All this equipment was ordered, manufactured, and made ready for the pending official killing. Innocent Martin Bryant had nothing to do with it. Just as he had nothing to do with the shooting at the Broad Arrow Café, or at Seascape Cottage, or anywhere else. There is not a shred of hard evidence that proves he did. Will gladly send you a copy of MASS MURDER: Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (2nd edition; 2014) if you can get your head out of the clouds up there on the 26th floor and face the facts - true facts that confirm from beginning to end that Martin Bryant is innocent. And confirm that barristers like you, officers of the Tasmanian Supreme Court, are gutless mongrels.

And you can be sure Mr. Aghion that your name will be listed with the names of all the other Tasmanian Bar barristers on the Obituary Notice - will be distributed internationally - for allowing innocent Martin Bryant to be put in Risdon Prison and left there to die a cruel unnatural death. Instead of fighting to get him out, you are more interested in having your email address unsubscribed. (Perhaps my emails are bothering your conscience - I hope so.)

Well, to hell with you Aghion - you gutless mongrel.

And if you don't like me calling you a mongrel - you fine, upstanding, middle-class gentleman - please let me know. Will certainly acknowledge your correspondence and at the same time ask you why the following does not apply to poor, innocent, soon-to-be knocked Martin Bryant:

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Article 11; UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and,

"A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty following a fair trial. This is why the responsibility falls on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence. Due to the presumption of innocence, a person CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CONFESS GUILT or give evidence against him/herself.... Because of the serious consequences of conviction, the state must prove guilt to a high standard. If doubt remains, the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt and cleared because the state’s 'burden of proof' has not been met." The Presumption of Innocence; Fair Trials International - Temple Chambers, London UK. (added capitals)

many blessings ,

yeah rIGHt .. lets chat about the evidence



port arthur massacre martin bryant setup pt1

Uploaded on Nov 26, 2007
wendy scurr was the first person into the broad arrow cafe after the pt arthur massacre, she has a completely different story to tell from the mainstream media , the police and the federal and state governments, find out just how much disinformation and myths have been created around the pre planned pt arthur massacre ,if you watch this film with an open mind you will never be the same again period. also go to the NEXUS magazine website and download from the their archives section a brilliant 3 part series of articles in PDF format on the event time to take the red pill and wake up to what's really going on in our world.
Category
News & Politics

namaste

11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.

12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.

13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania" said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?

15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?

http://www.itwillpass.com/nwo_port_arthur_massacre_CORONIAL_INQUIRY.shtml

many blessings sir bobby

you have logic ?

this is yet to be displayed from one such as you are ..

you are forgiven



so be at peace

namaste

He Pleaded Guilty...

good enough for me...

He used to sleep with a Pig.. 

Dear master Light,
many blessings.
Many people have dreams of greatness & knowledge but
for most they just hit the canvas:

In 3 hours bryant killed 35 unarmed civilian sitting ducks. I dont find that extraordinary. Serongs an idiot.

Yes, but we are talking about unarmed civilian sitting ducks here. Not hard to achieve an almost 100 percent kill ratio.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 1:00am:
of course it does. are you sure you are ex services Grap?

ian wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 1:14am:


I'm talking about targets.... not about social mores. If Bryant had determined that he would just kill everyone in sight... after talking (apparently)_about killing slopes.... and then set out on a killing spree.. it matters not WHO the victims are.

Don't twist my words.... I'm ex Service and would not kill an innocent civilian unnecessarily.  I'm talking about target definition... not some moral stance that dictates whether or not you will engage a target.

** humph **

0ktema wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 1:45am:


And?

I can't give you a definitive answer on any of those cases.... I can only offer my humble views....

In both the Bryant case and the Falconio case, I have doubts.... and doubt must be expunged if justice is to prevail.

SHOW ME!

I'm not saying one way or the other about the Bryant case because there was no fair trial. A fair trial is the basis of our society. ..well maybe not, but it should be.

Without a fair trial, there should definitely be suspicion IMO.

The same occurred with S11. Evidence was promptly removed before any examination could take place.

I don't believe this "being too painful for the nation" crap. The greater the gravity of the crime, the greater the resources taxpayers will be willing to employ to look into the crime. That's only natural IMO.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 10:23am:



Port Arthur was a false flag operation to get gun control into Australia............and begin.

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 11:04am:



And apart from random web sites who seem to have a lifetimes supply of aluminium foil, any actual evidence?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 11:28am:



Search on vanessa goodwin port arthur coroner provides no useful responses. Please provide a link

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:19pm:

This wouldn't happen to have been while he was inside the burning siege building, and his ammo stockpile was going off in the conflagration, would it?

boxy wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 11:40pm:


Sooooo.. with no opposition and two weapons.... and apparently numerous rounds..... how did he NOT execute all?

It is extremely hard to get a person to kill another..... it is not something that a normal person finds easy.... countless hours and weeks and months of training go into teaching people to do that...... let alone aimed execution shots......

That lends itself to the view that the shooter was a professional and not some amateur.

I'm just arguing the point......

I wonder..... indeed I do....

I will say again, as a trained Army medic..... the general ratio is around 7 wounded to one killed**..... to alter that takes a hell of a lot of work, and a mindset that would not seem to gel with Martin Bryant.  The record of interview shows a simple person who went surfing.....

** in battles such as the Ia Drang in 1965, that ratio was changed due to the propensity of the NVA to execute and torture wounded ... that kind of thing by them lead directly to My Lai.....


*** my apologies for he earlier 5:1.... I was taking into account that propensity on the part of some to execute wounded..... may they burn in hell...

Richdude wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 2:05am:
If you have ever interviewed people who were present at an extreme incident you would know that you would get 10 different versions of the incident from 10 different people, for this reason eye witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. it would surprise me more if all the witnesses gave a similar description. Then i would think something was up. Also, my understanding is Bryant is considered to be schizophrenic, this mean he would have probably experienced dissociation at the time of his killings. 

Quote:
Thats a fairly stupid claim. Australians never had a history of freedom to own guns. In fact more Australians own guns now than ever before.

ian wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:28pm:


Please check your facts!
Growing in the northern suburbs of Sydney there were restrictions on owning handguns but not rifles and certainly not air rifles. Almost every kid had an air rifle and their father owned at least one rifle.
As to Aussies having more guns now - that is hard to believe. 

And finally

1.Two member of NSW Army Intelligence have both, separately and personally confirmed to me that the Port Arthur Massacre was a planned intelligence psyop using international and Australian personel;  a member of ASIO with English accent has backed this up to me personally as well.



2. Barrie Unsworth (NSW Premier at the time) let the cat out of the bag that the planning for the massacre was begun 10 years prior, when he emerged from a state and federal ministers conference in Hobart stating to the waiting media, that unless they get uniform national gun control - why? there would be a huge massacre in Tasmania.



3.The SOG (Special Operations Group) within the Tasmanian Police responded to the massacre according to the SOG Manual prepared in accordance with the November 1995 (how convenient) Anti - Terrorist Plan drawn up by SACPAV (Standing Advisory Committee for Protection Against Violence) - under whose control the plan placed them.   SACPAV is run by the Protective Security Co-ordination Centre in Canberra.. Their (SOG) main job on that and subsequent days was liasing with the media and attempting to shut up witnesses and suppress evidence.





HOW MANY MORE INNOCENTS ARE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW?

See original Website this is Mirrored from:

http://xvleo.tripod.com/id15.html

TIMES

SOURCE

PLACE

BRIEF ACCOUNT DETAILS

0800 hrs

Petra Willmott

30 Clare St. New Town

"I left Martin's house at 8.00 am …28th April".

0947 hrs

p.59 Court Doc

30 Clare St. New Town

claimed police found alarm engaged, so that was the time Bryant left house - Bugg; No Alarm.

1030 hrs

Angelo Kessarios

Midway Pt News Agency

Buys $1.50 gas cigarette lighter, left $1.80 on counter & left quickly.

0945-1000 hrs

Spiros Diamantis

Sorell Supermarket

buys $1.40 bottle of tomato sauce; paid in 5 & 10 cent coins.

1100 -1200 hrs

Gary King (dec)

Shell S/S Forsett

Gary King made coffee for Bryant who drinks it before leaving the forecourt, pays with coins.

1130 hrs

female unnamed

Eaglehawk Neck

"a number of others sightings…in the Eaglehawk Neck area.." Bugg; Mike Bingham, Staff.

1030-1045 hrs

Chris Hammond

Taranna Convict Bakery

Hammond puts $15 worth of petrol into the Volvo's tank.

1100 hrs

Andrew Simmons

"Benbullen" Oakwood

Clearly heard 2 shots of low volume from the direction of Seascape Cottage, opposite.

1115-1120 hrs

D&S Gunn

Seascape, Oakwood

Had stayed overnight; they depart.

1203 hrs

Jai Nichols

The Fox & Hounds

Jai is hitching a ride to Hobart, Bryant drives past him - south

1230 hrs

Maureen Mason

Seascape, Oakwood

Masons call at Seascape; 'squarish' car parked near door; ID Martin Bryant, spoke to him: !CLONE!

1145-1240 hrs

DPP's case

Seascape, Oakwood

D Bugg QC: "Martin Bryant shot and killed Mr & Mrs Martin [inside Seascape]". @ p.64.

1145 hrs

Michael Copping

Seascape, Oakwood

Saw yellow Volvo sedan backed up to door area of Seascape (the "CLONE"?).

1239 hrs

Jai Nichols

Close to Seascape

Bryant overtakes Jai, & he sees Volvo enter Seascape driveway

1240 hrs

Michael Copping

200m S of General store

Gunman driving S towards PA Tollbooth in Bryant's Yellow Volvo.

1240 hrs

Steven Howard

PA Tollbooth

Corroborated by Aileen Kingston who sold the gunman a ticket paid for with $50 note.

1305 hrs

Roger Larner

Palmers Lookout Rd

Talked with Martin for 20 (?) minute or so, drove off. Heard 1st shots from Broad Arrow Café

1310-1315 hrs

Bugg (tourist)

PA Tollbooth

observed yellow Volvo in tollbooth traffic queue.

1315 hrs

Mike Bingham (writer)

"Suddenly One Sunday"

Tells us Martin talked to Roger Larner for "about ten minutes," then drove off north toward PA

1323 hrs

Const Whittle/Hyland

The Coal Mines

logged call; radio VKT Hobart informed, 'drug stash' of heroine is only soap powder

1323 hrs

Ashley Law

Information Centre

First gunshots discharged inside the Broad Arrow Café.

1325 hrs

X Ian Kingston

Tarleton St & Jetty Rd

Driver of yellow Volvo directed to park 'back up Jetty Rd', ignored instruct.

1330 hrs

X DPP Bugg QC

Broad Arrow Café

Gunman entered the Broad Arrow Café & stood at servery for food

1332 hrs

Wendy Scurr

Information Centre

Makes initial "000" call to Hobart Police HQ

1332 hrs

X Sergt Andrew Fogarty

Bellerive Pol Station

An SOG'team leader'; claims departed for Port Arthur (he was most likely already at Seascape)

1346 hrs

K. Fox & G Alexander

PA Tollbooth

First Ambulance from Nubeena arrives at Historic Site (The Mercury)

1335 hrs

EMA report

Hobart

Const Pat Allen & Perry Caulfield depart Traffic Office Hobart

1335 hrs

EMA report

Broad Arrow Café

Ian Kingston's "000" call logged Pol HQ Hobart.

1336 hrs

X Richard McCreadie

(Tas Police) Hobart

EMA Report: claimed first "000" call informing of shootings at the Broad Arrow logged

1339 hrs

EMA report

Hobart

Ambulance service notified, and tasked

1342 hrs

Jim Laycock

Port Arthur - Kodak shop

Jim makes a "000" call to Hobart Police - shootings at Tollbooth, 120m south

1345 hrs

SA Police newsletter

Hobart

Inspector Barry Bennett notified & dispatched for Tarana with two CIB officers

1347 hrs

EMA report

Hobart

Eastern Dist CIB tasked

1351 hrs

EMA report

Pol HQ Hobart

Asst Comm., Luppo Prins informed of the shootings

1352 hrs

Jim Laycock

Port Arthur - Kodak shop

Made second "000" call to Hobart Police informed them of murder of Zoe Hall (white Corolla)

1353 hrs

estimated

Nubeena

Const. Whittle & Hyland arrive at Nubeena

"technical support" - but from where; Canberra? The "Echidna" is tasked.

2230 hrs

Police statements

Seascape, Oakwood

Police confirm "movement of occupants" inside Seascape

2345 hrs

Carleen Bryant

Hobart Pol HQ

interrogation

2100+ hrs

"Jamie"

Seascape, Oakwood

Tells Pol negotiator, Sergt Terry McCarthy the firearms; "…they'll all be destroyed."

2400+ hrs

EMA report

Tarrana

Victoria Police's SOG arrive - flown over Bass Strait, from Melbourne and sworn-in as Constables

0500 hrs

EMA report

Hobart

Departs Hobart for Port Arthur Historic Site

0840 hrs - 29th

Police statements

Seascape, Oakwood

Martin Bryant arrested by Const Paul Hawkins: Coroner Ian Matterson control now secondary

1135 hrs

EMA report

Seascape, Oakwood

Coroner Ian Matterson requested to attend Seascape

1230 hrs

Pol Training Video

Seascape, Oakwood

"global media" entourage is "bussed" to Seascape

0845 hrs

EMA report

Tarana

McCreadie is already there by 0845 hrs - air lifted by helicopter into PFCP at the Devils Park

1400 hrs

Photograph evidence

Seascape, Oakwood

At this time FN FAL rifle still evident lying in roof gutter of out-building's porch

1435 hrs

EMA report

Seascape, Oakwood

Coroner Ian Matterson requested to attend Seascape as "a body has been found."

1700 hrs

EMA report

Seascape, Oakwood

Coroner Ian Matterson departs the area to return to Hobart

Tues 30th April

0400 hrs

The Mercury

Hobart

Published broad sheet-sized digitally altered photo; "THIS IS THE MAN … Martin Bryant 28"

Tues 30th 1450

EMA report

Seascape, Oakwood

Coroner Ian Matterson attends Seascape again; 3rd body of Glenn Pears found

Wed 1st April

Wed 1st April

The Mercury

Chris McPherson; Pres

Delivered state-of-the-industry address to PANPA; 700 Pacific Rim deligates in Hobart for the week

Ah, Keith Allan Noble said something! Hazzah!

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 26^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:


Do you believe that sshhiitt?

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 26^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:


Look walter mikac in the eyes and say that, you fking nutjob

in your nic it says you are from hate town ...

let me say unto thee gordyl... any fool can hate ..

it takes not acumen nor courage to hate as any fool can and does

and your deranged persona is a testimony unto the fact

so well done champy , good show

namaste

And yet somehow all these idiots foget he confessed.

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 26^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:




Any evidence it was forced?


Didn't think so

Aussie 9/11 "Port Arthur Massacre" by Andrew MacGregor - Part 1

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/critical-study-port-arthur-massacre-c...

A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre By Carl Wernerhoff - © 2006 by Carl Wernerhoff
Tue, 10/30/2007 - 20:10 — Arthur Cristian

What’s Going On?:

A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre
By Carl Wernerhoff

Text © 2006 by Carl Wernerhoff
Email: cwernerhoff @ yahoo.com

What’s Going On? is to be regarded as a draft version of a book project which is being made available
privately by the author for the purpose of encouraging a wider knowledge of the case. In no sense is the text to be regarded as ‘published’ simply because a draft has been made available by means of a link placed on the Internet. There is no way that I would formally publish a work that contains as much speculation as this one and which remains incompletely documented. It may be downloaded and shared freely, so long as any original ideas contained in it are not attributed to any other author.

This work-in-progress is dedicated to
Joe Vialls
Ian McNiven
Andrew MacGregor
Noel McDonald
Wendy Scurr
and the handful of other Australians interested in knowing the truth about what happened at Port Arthur

Contents

Preface …… viii

Introduction …… 1

PART I:

THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST MARTIN BRYANT

1. Reasons to question the official story …… 12
2. The police interrogation transcript …… 30
3. The ‘Jamie’ conversations …… 44
4. Guns and ammo …… 59
5. Zilch: the evidence against Martin Bryant …… 70
APPENDIX I: Bryant’s affair with a pig …… 86
APPENDIX II: What does Martin Bryant actually look
like? …… 88
APPENDIX III: See no evil, hear no evil: Petra
Wilmott …… 93
APPENDIX IV: Aileen and Ian Kingston …… 98
APPENDIX V: Wasps and Japs …… 106

PART II:

RETHINKING THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE

6. Smoking guns …… 111
7. The wonderful world of psyops …… 118
8. Towards an alternative account of the Port Arthur
massacre …… 125
9. A provisional, alternative account of the Port Arthur
massacre ……
10. Aftermath ……
11. Conclusion ……

Preface

Like most Australians, this author was deeply affected– and to some extent, emotionally scarred – by the tragedy at Port Arthur in 1996. Like most Australians, moreover, I accepted the word of the government, the police and the mass media that Martin Bryant of New Town, Hobart, Tasmania, had
perpetrated the massacre. My willingness to accept what I now know to have been a bundle of lies was bound up with my ability to effortlessly incorporate the incident into my mental framework.

It seemed to me then that what had happened was really very simple: a generation of young people which had grown up in the shadow of that machine-gun toting icon of the 1980s, Rambo, had produced a couple of young men who craved nothing less than using high-powered weapons to inflict as much carnage as possible. Since there was no Vietnam war and therefore no Vietnamese peasants for them to destroy, the best alternative for these suburban Rambos was to go beserk in their own
backyards. This they did at locations like Hoddle Street, Melbourne, where Julian Knight killed seven people in 1987, Queen Street, Melbourne, where Frank Vitkovic killed eight people four months later, Aramoana, New Zealand, where David Gray killed thirteen in 1990, and Strathfield Shopping Centre, Sydney, where Wade Frankum killed seven in 1991.

Now, to prolong this series of young Antipodean Rambos, was the Broad Arrow Café, Port Arthur, Tasmania, with Martin Bryant playing the lead role.

My understanding of the massacre was naïve, to be sure, but it was consistent with a popular view according to which episodes of mass violence are triggered by images diffused throughout the mainstream culture. Whenever a figure like Rambo emerges as a culture hero, I reasoned, there would inexorably follow Julian Knights, Wade Frankums and Martin Bryants. The meaning for the massacre for me was simply that society is biting off far more than it can chew when it sets up lethal
characters like Rambo as its heroes and role models.

In another fit of naïvete that I now regret, I was also favourably impressed when John Howard of the Liberal party, Australia’s newly-elected prime minister, acted decisively after the massacre to ram through stringent new gun laws of the sort I had long supported. To me, strict gun laws was a Labor party policy – and it was almost unthinkable to me that a Liberal leader would move on the issue. I was pleasantly surprised to see a Liberal party stalwart like Howard champion one of my pet causes. I really didn’t think a conservative had it in him to do something that, in my opinion, was manifestly in the country’s best interests.1

I realized that there was probably nothing that Howard would not do to stay in power long enough to fasten a conservative straitjacket on the country the way the Republicans had done in the United States.

If Howard supported gun control in 1996, I decided, there very probably had to be a sinister reason.
What I learned, as I studied the details of the Port Arthur massacre, was that there was no evidence that Martin Bryant – alone and to the exclusion of all other young men with long blonde hair – had perpetrated the massacre. And, as my knowledge of the case deepened, I realized that Bryant could
not have done it. The book you are about to read captures the key moments of my independent investigation, the stages by which I groped my way to a fuller understanding of that disturbing event.

A word about the Seascape siege is in order. Bryant was apprehended by police the day after the massacre while fleeing a burning building, Seascape Cottage, which was located about four kilometres north of Port Arthur. The public was led to believe that Bryant had been the man calling himself ‘Jamie’
who had kept police at bay during an overnight siege that lasted over 18 hours. By various means, the public was led to accept that the Seascape affair was connected with the massacre, and that the protagonist of the siege was the same individual as the Port Arthur shooter.

That Bryant was somehow implicated in the siege is incontrovertible. He admits arriving at Seascape, we know that his girlfriend (Petra Wilmott) was present there with him, while, as is well known to most Australians, he was captured while fleeing from the burning building on the morning of April 29. Recognition of the fact that Bryant was involved does not mean that he was responsible for killing anyone, let alone that he was the main known only as ‘Jamie,’ who seems to have been in charge of the Seascape operation. In fact, Bryant was probably one of Jamie’s hostages.

While I believe that Bryant was the person Jamie referred to as Sgt. Terry McCarthy’s ‘main man’ – the reason why McCarthy could not allow the Seascape siege to get ‘blown’ – we have no means of establishing exactly what happened or why. While Bryant languishes in jail, effectively forbidden from discussing the case, the other inviduals involved are either dead or unlikely to ever to re-emerge to discuss the affair (‘Jamie,’ Petra Wilmott). There are no independent witnesses to events, leaving us wholly dependent upon the mostly uninformative statements of police and Special Operations Group (SOG) personnel attending the siege.

I do not try to ascertain the truth about the bizarre Seascape siege, therefore. Whatever Bryant’s (and Wilmott’s) true role in the Seascape affair or the extent of our sympathy for its other victims (Noelene Martin, David Martin and Glenn Pears), what happened there is a relatively tame matter compared to the nightmarish scenes that transpired in the PAHS on April 28. 3

While it is always possible that Bryant deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for his role in what happened at Seascape, we have no means of reconstructing a likely narrative of events, incriminating or otherwise. We are much better informed about what happened at Port Arthur – sufficiently

[3 According to the charges against him, Bryant was accused of the murder of Noelene Joyce Martin. However, she is normally referred to as Sally, and this will be the practice throughout this book.]

well-informed that it is possible to state with absolute certainty that Bryant was not involved.

Although I deal with several aspects of the Seascape siege in this book, therefore, I do so only when doing so sheds light on what happened at Port Arthur and the question of whether Bryant was the Port Arthur gunman. This book is about what happened at Port Arthur in one of the darkest episodes in Australian history. For all its sophistication and its numerous unexplained dimensions, the Seascape siege was at bottom a charade whose purpose was to make it look as though Martin Bryant had been the Port Arthur gunman. It was the Australian analogue of the murder of Officer Tippit in Dallas in 1963, which by a convoluted kind of logic led to the conclusion that a man captured in a cinema with a gun had to be the man who killed Tippit and the man who killed Tippit had to have been the man who had assassinated President Kennedy.

This book therefore labours to exonerate Bryant from the allegation that he was involved in the Port Arthur massacre. It mounts no particular case about the nature of his involvement in the Seascape affair, although I lean towards the view that he was a captive rather than a co-conspirator.

A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre

Introduction

Australians reacted with horror and outrage when, on a Sunday evening in 1996, they learned from their televisions that over 30 people had been murdered and many others injured in an orgy of violence in the Port Arthur Historical Site (PAHS), Tasmania, one the nation’s most venerable historical sites, and adjacent locations. They were told that the atrocities had been perpetrated by a young Caucasian man with pale skin and long white hair brandishing a military rifle – a kind of quasi-albino
Rambo – who apparently had a dislike of Japanese tourists.

1. The identity of the alleged offender was made public by the Hobart Mercury on the morning of April 29, 1996, when it was stated that he had been ‘a 29 yearl old schizophrenic from the Hobart suburb of New Town’ whose father had ‘committed suicide 3 years ago.’ The actual name of the alleged offender was made public by the same newspaper the following morning and by all major afternoon papers shortly afterwards - before his guilt had been proven in a court of law. Under Australian law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

2. A photograph of the alleged offender was illegally published by the Hobart Mercury on the morning of April 30, 1996, and by all major afternoon papers shortly afterwards, including Sydney tabloid The Daily Telegraph (which is where I first saw it myself).

NB: The reason why it is illegal to publish photographs of suspects is that it influences witness statements, often making it impossible for them to remember what they actually saw. The wide circulation of photos of Bryant was clearly a major obstacle to identification when one of the most widely published photos was used as photo #5 in the May 14, 1996 police photoboard. At least two
witnesses were honest enough to admit that their memories had been contaminated by their exposure to Bryant’s image in the media.

[‘I have today viewed a folder containing thirty photographs of male persons, and I immediately recognised photo #5 as the person I believe to be the gunman, but I must be honest here with this identification, and say that I have definitely been influenced by media coverage of his photo in relation to an identification.’ – Eyewitness Lindsay Richards (May 29, 1996) ‘I have read an article in Time Magazine, and have viewed a photograph of Martin Bryant within this article … so if I chose Bryant in a [police] photoboard, I would be very influenced by this article.’ – Eyewitness Brigid Cook (May 29, 1996)]

BELOW: Media frenzy: the first picture the nation saw of the alleged perpetrator of the massacre, Martin Bryant (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

3. A Coronial Inquiry, although required by Tasmanian law when a person has died ‘a violent, unnatural or unexpected death, or as a result of injury or accident,’ was waived on purely sentimental grounds by the Prime Minister, John Howard. Not only did Howard have no power to overrule a Tasmanian law, it cannot be overruled by a Tasmanian government official or legal representative. Yet every move made by relatives of the deceased in calling for a Coronial Inquest has been subsequently denied by the Tasmanian Coroner, Ian Matterson, as well as by Tasmania's Attorney General, Ray Groom. The explanation was that an inquiry would only inflict more pain upon the already sufficiently traumatized survivors.

4. Bryant was illegally held in solitary confinement until he finally pleaded guilty in November 1996, a period of nearly seven months. During this period, he was allowed no access to the media, be it radio, television or print, and was therefore kept in the dark as to what Australia was saying about the massacre and his presumed role in it. Although he received a handful of visits from his mother Carleen Bryant and one from his girlfriend Petra Wilmott, these visits seem to have taken place in closely supervised (i.e., severely constrained) circumstances in which the case itself was not allowed to be
discussed. As a result, Bryant was left in total ignorance for over two months of the fact that he was being held responsible for the Port Arthur massace. This is contrary to the fundamental principle that accused persons have the right to know the nature of the charges against them.

5. Bryant’s police interrogation of July 4, 1996, was illegally conducted without any legal counsel or guardian present. What’s more, what has been released of the interrogation transcript shows that until July 4, 1996, Bryant was under the misapprehension the only charge against him was a single
death. Again, this is contrary to the principle that accused persons have the right to know the nature of the charges against them.

6. Neither of Bryant’s defence lawyers - David Gunson QC and Hobart-based barrister and solicitor John Avery – made any effort to defend him. They seem to have understood their role to involve persuading Bryant to plead guilty in order to avoid a trial. The problem with taking such a position is that Bryant denied carrying out the massacre at the PAHS on April 28, 1996. Gunson and Avery therefore failed to fulfill their obligations to their client to mount a defence on his behalf.

7. Since the intellectually disadvantaged Bryant had been declared incompetent to manage his own affairs in a closed session of the Hobart Supreme Court on April 22, 1994, he was not legally able to enter a guilty plea.

8. The police have never properly verified Bryant’s guilty pleas using standard police procedures.
‘Standard procedure in these circumstances is to take the suspect out to the crime scene and ask for details of exactly how he committed the crime(s), i.e. where each victim was standing, what sex, how many bullets, where the weapon was reloaded, etc etc., all recorded on continuous (time-stamped) video,’ explains conspiracy researcher Joe Vialls.

Karen Atkins of Sydney told The Australian (April 29, 1996) that, very soon after the shootings, she had spoken to a woman who had met the gunman in the Café. According to this woman, the gunman had been 'a young fellow, about 18 or 19, he looked like a surfie, he arrived in a Volkswagon and he walked into the cafeteria carrying a tennis bag.'

This description could be dismissed on the grounds that it is secondhand. However, it tallies with the description given by Carol Pearce. According to Pearce, the gunman, who she passed on her way into the Broad Arrow Café, was ‘between 18-20 years of age, he had really blonde hair which was collar length, it was fairly straight with a bit of a wave in it. He was clean shaven, he was average in height and build.’ Pearce’s description is invaluable, as it was given on April 28, 1996, the very day of the massacre. Like the woman to whom Atkins spoke, therefore, Pearce could not have been influenced by the media campaign of vilification against Martin Bryant. No picture of him had as yet been published.6

The same age range is mentioned by former RAF officer Graham Collyer, who was shot in the throat inside the Café. In his witness statement taken on May 7, 1996, Collyer described the gunman thus: 'He seemed somewhere about 20, he had long blonde bedraggled hair, about 3" - 4" below the shoulder. He looked like he might have had a lot of acne, a pitted face. He had scraggly trousers, I don't remember what colour.'7 On May 10, Jim Laycock told police that the man was in his ‘low
twenties.’ Betty Daviess described him as a ‘young male person.’8

Of the individuals who gave their statements to the police before the barrage of images of Martin Bryant appeared in the media, the oldest age estimates are given by Carmel Edwards, who held the door open for the gunman as he left the Café to eat his lunch on the balcony, and Justin Noble, a member of the New South Wales police force who says he saw the gunman

[6 Of course, Pearce could have been the woman Atkins spoke to. If so, this proves that Atkins related her description accurately enough. However, Pearce does not say that she spoke with the gunman, suggesting that we are talking about two different witnesses.]

[7 Noel McDonald, A Presentation on the Port Arthur Incident, 2001, p. 222. Collyer states that he had been ‘sedated or sleeping since the shooting,’ so had not yet had the opportunity to ‘see anything in the media about the person who shot me.’ Collyer’s statement can be read online at:
http://shootersnews.addr.com/snpacollyerfull.html]

[8 http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadaviesstate.html]

exiting the Café after the shooting. Edwards described him as ’22-23 years old.’ Noble described him
'as 20-25 years of age.'

Another witness, Joyce Maloney, told the police he was 18-22.9 Thus no actual witness to the shootings at Port Arthur cites an age above 25. Most describe him as in his late teens or early twenties. (It also appears to be the case that the better look a witness got at the gunman, the younger the age he or she gave to the police.) Yet at the time of the massacre, Bryant was 29 and could not reasonably have been mistaken for anyone under 26 or 27.

This much is obvious from the photograph on the next page, which shows Bryant together with the woman we have been told was his girlfriend, Petra Wilmott. Since the pair reportedly only became romantically involved in February 1996, this photograph has to have been taken within three months of the massacre. Despite its poor quality, it shows Bryant’s face unframed by hair, and so gives a very good idea of what he looked like at the time of the massacre.

The only witnesses who estimated the gunman’s age in the upper 20s are witnesses like Yannis Kateros who only saw him from a considerable distance, most of whom gave statements to the police a week or more after the shooting when the matter of Bryant’s age was already established in the media.10

It is obvious that those who saw the gunman at close distance and who gave their descriptions before anything about Bryant’s appearance had been made public are to be considered by far the most reliable.

[9 http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatemaloney.html]

[10 Kateros, who estimated the shooter’s age as 28, gave his statement on May 10. See Noel McDonald, op. cit., p. 223.]

But there were more than years separating Bryant and the Port Arthur gunman. Only one witness, Rebecca McKenna, got a good look at the man’s face. (Most witnesses saw nothing on account of the long blonde hair.) Although there are problems with her statement (as well as those of her partner Michael Beekman), her description of his appearance – the only detailed description on record – makes disturbing reading for anyone who thinks that he could have been Bryant: I would describe the male as follows: - Approximately 173 cm tall. Slim build. Blonde hair, past his ears, wavy with a part in the middle. Unshaven dirty looking. His eyes appeared to be blue. …. He appeared to be German looking. His eyebrows appeared to be blonde and bushy.

He appeared “dopey” looking, his eyes appeared to be bloodshot. His facial skin appeared to be freckley and he was pale. His face seemed skinny and withdrawn. His ears were fairly large.11

It is interesting that while McKenna’s account of the man’s conversation was widely quoted – he talked about European wasps and Japanese tourists - her description of his face was

I'm not going to read all the previous posts.

Master Light...what is your point?  Is it that Bryant is an innocent man and did not shoot those people?

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 27^th, 2016 at 10:03pm:


Bugger off with your crap.  Are you here telling me that Bryant was not the killer?

Aussie wrote on Apr 27^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:

No many blessings whatsoever Master Wanker

It matters so one such as I

can evaluate whether enlightened as I am or not

ought care less what one so stupid as yourself

is worth addressing given what is so clear

as lack of any brain cell otherwise would know

as enlightened.

Bryant killed them and he and yourself

deserve the peace you warrant which may also involve little sanity.

namaste and be at peace

not any blessings

Love

Aussie

You seem far more upset

than one as gifted as I am

could ever be given I can

paragraph garbage like this

and it is of wonder that you are

yet to tell us whether Bryant killed those people

who are now at rest and miam miam for them

and you are forgiven for stupidity and I cannot

overlook saying

namaste

You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?

1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?

2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?

3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?

4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.

Of all the witnesses that saw the shooter, only one knew Martin Bryant from before.
That was Jim Laycock, the former owner of the Broad Arrow Caf�.
He not only knew Bryant, but also where he used sit in the Broad Arrow and what he used to drink and the conversations he used to have with his daughter.
So what did Laycock say about his identification of the shooter? "I did not recognize the male (shooter) as Martin Bryant".


5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.

6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?

7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?

8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say "I have here Graham Collyer's police statement...", Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.

When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully - "There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe."

9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?

10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?

11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.

I remain intrigued that a man with IQ 66 not only 'acted tactically and avoided being a target' at Seascape that night.... and also 'ran between Seascape and an outlying shed and back'.

FSS... one of the firearms alleged to have been used, but never proven to have been so, was found in that 'outlying shed'.. burnt to a crisp and incapable of any forensic tests, just like the other weapon found in Seascape after the fire burnt out.

Neither weapon was ever identified as a murder weapon at Port Arthur.

Again - in any situation involving intervention of a CT/CQB team - all weapons are surrendered to police authorities for full examination and identified as belonging to the individual members of the insert team, and full tests are undertaken to establish exactly which weapon did what.  No questions asked, but this is a pisser to Team members who have a close relationship with their personal weapons.

Nothing like this took place at Port Arthur with regard to the alleged weapons used in the massacre.

HI ALL

Neither weapon was ever identified as a murder weapon at Port Arthur.

But they where identified as having been handed to the Victorian police force under amnesty. who then sold them to a gun dealer in Tassie, who was supposed to sll then overseas'. instead they where sold in Tassie.

seeing as how two Pig Commissars got up and said sorry, they should have destroyed them as they were supposed to and it will not happen again?

Like I said Stinks at all levels.

12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.

13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania" said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?

15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?

and so ..pls answer these questions if any have the care

or not, yet either way

be at peace

namaste

▲