Yes, it's true that this dreadful crime has not, to
this day, been subjected to a Coronial Inquiry, an inquest, that is by
law, essentially held for all suspicious deaths including suicide and some
accidental deaths. All deaths by homicide are subjected to the highest
scrutiny by a coroner for evidence at any trial. Nothing was done for the
Port Arthur victims. Certainly the crime would have warranted an
investigation so why didn't these innocent people, murdered at Port
Arthur, deserve an inquiry into their deaths as citizens and visitors to
Australia?
The official answer was that the government had no
wish to inflict further pain on the victim's friends and family by
subjecting them to a trial. Furthermore, the authorities decided, before
the hearing to convict the alleged killer, that they had their man, who
was, supposedly, caught red handed, despite the fact that there is no
forensic evidence to place Martin Bryant at the Broad Arrow crime scene.
They could save the taxpayers a costly drawn-out trial by just sentencing
Martin Bryant so they decided before the hearing that he was guilty on all
accounts and a coronial inquiry would be withheld in this case. Never been
done before! The most horrific crime in Australian history and no Coronial
Inquiry!
The pity being that, regardless of the pain of
having to relive the events of that day, many victims would have gladly
endured a trial to get a conviction of the real
killer and not some patsy used to appease the anger of the public.
Furthermore a trial could have revealed reasons for the deaths of loved
ones which would have given these grieving people some kind of closure. To
this day the secrecy continues and no one is any the wiser.
By avoiding a trial the prosecution effectively
also avoided the summoning of witnesses who might be required to give
evidence and possibly identify the shooter. If a witness who happened to
have talked to, been shot by or clearly saw the shooter could not identify
Martin Bryant on the stand there was nowhere for the prosecution to go and
all hell would break loose all over again. This was a problem since there
were witnesses who were eager to testify that
Bryant was not the shooter but curiously they were never put on the witness list.
The media accepted the official explanation for not
having a jury trial and again got everyone feeling very emotional about
the victims by poking cameras into their faces to film their private pain,
anger and shattered lives - inciting hatred against a man who was not yet
found guilty of anything at that time. Their vendetta was incessant to
railroad the alleged killer, illegally disregarding the lawful path of
justice in order to get quick results.
It is almost beyond belief that, in this day and
age, a trial and sentence by media, breaking all the rules of fair play
and justice, could brainwash the Australian public into blindly believing
the official report and the media's propaganda but it happened.
In the beginning it was not hard to believe that
the reporting was accurate. To make sure that Martin Bryant became the
most hated man in the country the newspapers went to the trouble of
enhancing his photographs to make his eyes look Manson-like crazy. The
same original photos show a quite, shy looking, ordinary sort of a man of
insignificance.
When I first saw the enhanced photo of Bryant on the cover of The Australian he
certainly looked like a crazy man to me. But at the same time I wondered
how they could be allowed to print his photo before him being formally
identified. He was not at large, or on the run, and when I saw the
original untouched photo on the net I began to feel very uncomfortable
about the way the media was telling this story, especially the way they
hounded the victims to add sensationalism to their sickening over
dramatic, one sided stories. It was obvious that they were setting us all
up for something.
Guilty or not guilty people just wanted Martin
Bryant to "rot in hell" because they read it in the paper and saw it in
the news that he was the killer and that was that. I would not be
surprised that, if asked, most people at that time couldn't have cared
less if he had a trial or not, they just wanted him dead or behind bars
for the rest of his life.
The expression "innocent until proven guilty" never
applied to Martin Bryant at any time. He was never "the alleged killer"
but instead, as every Murdock and Packer medium in the country described
him before his hearing, "the killer", "the murderer", "the sadistic slayer
of 35 people". Only one day after Bryant was captured his face was on all
the major newspaper front pages in the country in every state under the
headings "FACE OF A KILLER" and "THIS IS THE MAN". These accusations were
virtually defamation of his character, no matter how guilty he might be,
because he was in custody at the time but not found guilty by any court of
law.
The television news and current affairs programs
blatantly displayed props which were supposedly at the murder scene and
items carried by the killer when in actual fact the film was shot in the
cafe either before the massacre or after everything had been cleaned up
because the dining room looked as if it was open for business. The weapons
they showed us on TV that were supposed to be the murder weapons were in
pristine condition. Then we were told that they were destroyed in the
Seascape fire but then they later turned up again deliberately damaged and
with missing parts, outside the Seascape Inn. One on the roof of a nearby
shed and the other in nearby bush, after the Seascape burned down. How the
killer managed to dispose of these weapons while exiting the burning
building unarmed and on fire himself is hard to explain and never has
been. Probably because the real killer had already left the building
leaving the patsy to take the rap.
A mediocre lawyer could have done an investigation
and come up with a very good case for this man already condemned of
perhaps the worst crime in Australian history? It was obvious that he
could have afforded the best defence since he was left a small fortune by
a benefactor who thought highly of him in the past.
Now, as described on other pages on this site,
Martin Bryant is not very bright. He has an IQ of 66 and the mind of an 11
year old. A major factor in his defence should have been that the Port
Arthur shooter far surpassed any ability Martin could ever possess even if
he had been trained in combat shooting, which he certainly was not.
Another factor would have been the incessant defamation of his character
by the media, including the malicious altering of his photographs to
incite hatred of him. No DNA was taken from the Broad Arrow Cafe where the
killer ate a meal and handled several items left on the table. One would
think that with so many people shot he would have sustained some blood
splatter on his clothing that could be matched with any one of the victims
and would have proved his guilt beyond doubt.
Yet none of this was entered as evidence that Bryant was at the Broad Arrow Cafe.
Instead the only evidence submitted to convict Bryant was a very grainy
video film, supposedly taken on the day, of a man (impossible to
identify), running down the road away from the cafe. However another video
taken at the same time and from a different angle filmed the same man
(also impossible to identify) running towards the camera operator and
showing the Broad Arrow Cafe in the background where at least three people
were standing on the veranda, looking very relaxed, leaning on the veranda
posts, apparently undaunted by the gunman running down the road or the 20
bodies lying shot to death just inside the door behind them.
This, so
called, "running man" has since been identified as one of the staff
members carrying blankets for the wounded long after the shooter had left,
explaining why people were not running for cover.
It was from this veranda that people watched the "running man" running down this
road away from the Broad Arrow Cafe. There was no explanation or motive
for the murders. Bryant had no criminal record and he didn't consort with
criminals. He didn't smoke or take drugs of any kind or if he had there
were no tests done while he was in hospital to prove that he had taken any
drugs. He was very polite and didn't swear. He called men sir. In fact,
without the media slander he could not be described as anything else but a
fairly uninteresting, clean living man with a bit of a mental problem.
One reporter wrote of his cruelty to animals but
others told of his love for them. During a police interrogation where
detectives questioned him about his expertise with a rifle, he told of how
he used home made cardboard targets and cans for practice on the few
occasions that he went shooting but he never hunted animals. He wouldn't
even shoot bottles for fear animals might injure themselves on the broken
glass. Some of the mis-information about what he kept in his house is pure
sensationalism and typical of media exaggeration to embellish a story.
Where could Bryant have gained the expertise of a
talented combat shooter? The Port Arthur shooter brought attention to
himself by displaying an amazing ability for handling a rifle with
incredible accuracy that far surpasses the average shooter. A performance,
so far, unmatched by anyone else in the world apparently since I have had
my site up since 1996 now and no one has come forward to say that they
know of anyone who can match this killer's unbelievable expertise.
His performance displayed a talent that
could only have been performed by someone who was top of the class in his
field and obviously had more training than popping off cans in the bush on
a couple of weekends. In fact this shooter was a young show-off making
himself conspicuous by exhibiting brilliant intellect in his performance
when he should have been shooting and missing a lot, like an amateur would.
From the book Deadly Deception at Port Arthur by
the late Joe Vialls. "Brigadier Ted Sarong DSO OBE, the former head of
Australian Forces in Vietnam and one of the world's leading experts on
counter-terrorist techniques and their application. In an interview with
Frank Robson in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1999, Brigadier
Serong makes it plain that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible
for the mass murder at Port Arthur. "There was an almost satanic accuracy
to that shooting performance" he says. "Whoever did it is better than I
am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am". He
continues "Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could
reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant ... if it was someone of only
average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more
wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made
me open my eyes first off." Brigadier Serong believes more than one person
was involved and directly infers that the mass murder at Port Arthur was a
terrorist action designed to undermine Australian national security. "It
was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don't
believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led
down a track. He doesn't know where it's leading, and he doesn't much
care...""
After reading Mullen's psychiatric
evaluation, one of Australia's senior counter-terror experts, who had
himself investigated the case, observed to this news service on the
subject of Bryant ostensibly having learned all he knew about weaponry and
tactics from "survival magazines":
"If this guy had weapons and survival skills from
magazines, then that conflicts with his learning difficulties--how could
he understand the books in the first place? Any decent lawyer would have a
field day with this report. They could pick it to pieces. For a start,
Bryant worked out the military aspects of the shooting. Most soldiers
couldn't do that on their own, but Bryant did. What's more, he outsmarted
the police by doubling back to the Seascape--that's not a low IQ.
"Then, look at the planning of the assault, the
equipment required, the weapons stash, the most effective weapons to use,
how much ammunition to take with him, how to use the weaponry, planning an
escape route, creating havoc in multiple areas to keep the authorities
guessing, and so on. Now, how could he have learned all that from books,
with such a low IQ and poor reading skills? This guy had military
training."
Tasmanian Deputy Commissioner Lupo Prins, who
directed the overall police operation at Port Arthur on April 28, 1996,
observed dryly to {The New Citizen} in mid-April 1997, that Bryant had
"set up six different areas of activity--he had police running in circles.
That's pretty good for a guy who's a slow learner."
Forensic Detective Sgt. Dutton admitted to the
media that there was no forensic evidence to place Martin Bryant at the
Broad Arrow Cafe. No finger prints, no DNA, no blood splatter. Was none
collected? Or knowing the outcome of the trial before hand maybe they just
didn't bother to collect any.
These murders were accomplished by a right handed shooter - Martin Bryant was
left handed. The shooter shot 18 of the twenty people killed, in the Broad
Arrow Caf?, with head shots from a semi-automatic rifle (not a fully
automatic assault weapon), fired methodically (one squeeze of the trigger
per shot), from the right hip. The prosecution accused Bryant of
performing this amazing feat is less than 90 seconds although independent
investigators have interviewed witnesses who claim the time taken was
longer and up to three minutes. It seems ironic that the prosecution told
the court that the killer performed this amazing feat in 90 seconds
because this statement alone should have logically paved the way for an
examination of Bryant's expertise with a rifle immediately.
The problem is that people who know nothing about
guns would not know the significance of that point. There are people so
ignorant of guns that they think anyone can point one, pull the trigger
and kill someone, even at close range, every time. These people need to
spend a day at the pistol or rifle range before they profess
to be experts on what it takes to hit a target in the way this gunman did.
His confident, methodical and deliberate actions revealed a man who had
killed many times before and knew how to do it well. Only a seasoned and
professional soldier could have performed in a manner similar to the way
most people do when they are busy at work.
There is no doubt that, for whatever reason, Martin
was lured to the Seascape Inn but he was reported to have fired over 200
shots from that building and hit no one or anything at all.
The real shooter was gone and the patsy remained to act out the final scene.
It would not have been very hard to have talked Martin into an adventure
at the Seascape Inn by anyone who acted kindly towards him but it would
have been impossible for anyone to turn him into a combat killer.
There was no defence for mentally retarded Martin
Bryant. No one to point out that he was incapable of learning to shoot
that accurately without some kind of military training. Although he hadn't
been driving long he didn't even get a licence because in his own words he
stated at the police interview with Inspectors Paine and Warren
Q. Hey Martin, how come you never got about, got
around to getting a driver's licence?
A. Ahh, I
didn't think I'd ever pass or get through the courses 'cos I'm not that
bright.
Anyone who knows anything about guns and rifles knows that one has to learn to shoot over a
period of time to hone skills. Rarely does any talent come naturally. It
would have been far easier, for most people, to have used a pistol in the
confined and crowded area of the Broad Arrow Cafe but there was a reason
the AR15 was chosen.
This weapon has a large magazine capacity, its light, reasonably stable
and its high powered killing ability in the hands of an expert was an
intelligent choice. In the hands of Martin Bryant it would have been a
joke. In most massacres where a nut goes berserk with a gun, as was
supposed to be the case at Port Arthur, there are always far more wounded
than killed. The killed to wounded ratio is explained in more detail
here.
The killed to wounded ratio would have been
a totally different matter even if Martin did have the fortitude to do the
crime, which I don't believe he did. Certainly if he had there would have
been a lot less dead on that day if any at all because anyone not as
confident and proficient with a high powered weapon, as this gunman was,
would have displayed an entirely different demeanor. His lack of judgment
and probable display of anxiety could have caused him to make mistakes
that would have left him vulnerable to being overpowered during the
confusion.
But this guy was so good, he exuded complete
control of the situation in a way that scared the hell out of everyone and
professionally he executed the murders as would a man who had had
experience with weapons for most of his life. Martin Bryant's experience
consisted of, as he put it to Inspectors Warren and Paine:-
Q. How many rounds do you reckon you would've
practised, you know, any idea?
A. Altogether, probably, probably twenty or thirty
rounds out of that AR10 and probably twenty rounds out of that AR15 and
that's about it, mmm.
***********************
There is no evidence of Martin having ever killed
anyone or anything in his life.
***********************
A. I had a couple of targets on boards.
Q. Did you.
A. Cardboard usually.
Q. And how many times would you have shot 'em?
A. Ohh four or five times, then I used to put the
gun back in the car and used to leave and go home.
Q. Did you always maintain a full ahh, full lot of
rounds or not?
A. No because I never, I didn't want to disturb the
peace with having a gun, a gun, 'cos they make quite a big bang.
Q. Mmm.
A. Jump around a bit.
Q. The gun jumps around a bit does it?
A. They kick a bit. It's the sound that's worse,
it's pretty loud.
Q. Mmm.
A. Didn't want to get in trouble with the
neighbours because I didn't have a licence you see when I was target
practising.
Is this an example of the confidence and audacity of a
seasoned killer? 35 kills nineteen with head shots from the hip, 22
injured, and 2 cars crippled in less than 20 minutes with only 64
shots?
At 12.40AM on the 4th Feb 1999 in New York City,
four plain clothes police officers accidentally shot an unarmed black man
on the stoop of his building as he reached for his wallet. The police
mistook the man's action as reaching for a gun and fired 41 shots from a
distance of about 12 ft (3 meters) with 9mm semiautomatic pistols each
holding 16 bullets in the magazine. The man, Amadou Diallo, died from
gunshot wounds after being hit only 19 times.
This scenario should easily demonstrate how easy it
is for trained shooters to miss even from close range. It also serves to
show that you don't have to be mentally retarded to be a lousy shot. These
guys probably shot at the same range together every weekend and probably
demonstrated far better accuracy on those occasions. However, with
adrenalin running high under the pressure of an apparent attack mixed in
with panic and loss of cool these officers were way off their mark. The
Port Arthur shooter displayed no such fear.
He didn't run. He cooly strode about
in full control of himself and his mission apparently under no stress.
Certainly he was not worried about disturbing the neighbours or apparently
being arrested by the police. That's because the local police had already
been taken care of. They were off on a some wild goose drug bust that
turned out to be a phony.
In 1996 a trained Israeli soldier went berserk in
Hebron and fired a complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an
identical Colt AR15 (as used at Port Arthur) into a crowd of Palestinians
at the same range. His thirty high velocity bullets injured nine and
killed no-one at all.
A witness, who eye-balled the Port Arthur shooter
as he was shot in the neck was willing to identify the man while they were
both in the Royal Hobart Hospital. Bryant was not far away in another ward
recovering from burn wounds suffered at the Seascape Inn where he was
taken prisoner yet the witness was never given the opportunity to identify
him. This 5 minute exercise could have cleared Bryant of being the shooter
at Port Arthur even though he would still have to explain what he was
doing at the Seascape Inn. It never happened.
TO THIS DAY NO ONE HAS EVER FORMALLY IDENTIFIED
THE PORT ARTHUR SHOOTER
A solid lawyer for Martin Bryant
could also have, at the very least, pleaded diminished responsibility for
his client since Bryant had previously been found incompetent to
administer his own estate and had been awarded a guardianship by the State
to take care of his financial situation.
In 1993 a case was heard in the Hobart Supreme
Court under the Mental Health Act which resulted in Martin Bryant being
found not competent to administer his own affairs and consequently
unable to make any plea in any court due to
his mental inability. How could Bryant's lawyer not be aware of that? With
that information Bryant could not be convicted of anything. He would have
been sent to a psychiatric institution where he could have been
rehabilitated and maybe eventually set free. Well, they couldn't have that
now, could they? That would not appease the lynch mobs and beside if he
ever got out he might divulge what happened at the Seascape Inn and reveal
the existence of an accomplice who lured him there to have some "fun".
Clearly Bryant had to be locked up in solitary
confinement and have the key thrown away. He would become our very own Man
In The Iron Mask.
Bryant was a very lonely boy because of his
annoying personality. He got teased and liked to get revenge on those who
poked fun at him by doing all the kinds of silly things like chucking
rocks and disrupting class. The kinds of things that modern day ADD
children do except he was raised in a time when the government was closing
down opportunity schools and mental institutions. The civil libertarians
had an idea that people like Martin, who had disabilities detrimental to
the other children in class, should be integrated into society to fend for
themselves. To the detriment of other students he was forced into the same
classrooms and the other children suffered torment and loss of
concentration because of his behaviour. Today we see the results of these
disastrous experiments all the time and, of course, it was not only our
mentally ill who suffered the consequences of these do gooder's fanciful
ideas.
Martin desperately sought friends but besides
several girl friends, who incidentally had never suffered any kind of
violence from him, his father was perhaps the greatest influence in his
life. He loved the boy and tried very hard to change Martin's mental
capacity so that he would become a useful citizen
but Martin's inability to learn
impeded any hope of him becoming capable of taking care of himself. Martin
was devastated when his father committed suicide and it is possible that
he blamed himself for not being able to live up to his father's
expectations as much as he wanted to.
In an interview with Inspectors Warren and Paine,
Martin relates how his father took him diving and fishing. He bought a
Zodiac inflatable boat which he eventually sold to buy two weapons only a
few months before the massacre. One was a Colt AR15 more commonly called
an Armalite which was identified by a Victorian gun collector who
recognized it as one that he had handed in at a previous amnesty and was
paid $1700 for.
He told police that a mark on the barrel of the
Port Arthur weapon described to him by Inspector Maxwell, matched a mark
on his rifle made by his gunsmith. "My rifle also had a collapsible stock
and a Colt sight, just as the massacre weapon has," he said. "I did the
right thing and handed the weapon in and if the police put it back into
the Australian community I would be disgusted. "They told me it would be
sent overseas and used for military purposes."
See STORY OF A RIFLE USED IN A MASSACRE
There are conflicting identifications of the
weapons used that I will not go into because its very in depth but suffice
to say that there were far too many guns floating around that day which
could only have been planted to muddy the waters. There are other sites
which delve deeper into this subject and my links refer to these experts
for more information on this matter. However be prepared to discover the
irrefutable and almost unbelievable proof of evidence interference at the
crime scenes.
Martin didn't grow up with guns and rifles. His
parents would not have approved. He was 23 when he bought a Daiwoo 12
gauge shotgun but he was so afraid of it's recoil that he never even fired
it.
"A. I never, the funny thing is, I never umm, got
round to using it. Even though I bought it, but it scared me the thought
of it not working, and probably ricocheting out." He was afraid of the
recoil.
The parlance used by Bryant when he talks about
guns clearly shows that he is not very familiar with weaponry terms. It
also shows that he was a bit of a wimp when it came to handling guns
because although he enjoyed the feeling of owning one, as many people do,
I think they scared the hell out of him.
Only months before the Port Arthur massacre Martin
acquired two more rifles including the AR15 and for the first time in his
life took weapons out into the forest near Mundunna to practice. He had
purchased another rifle six years earlier but had never fired it because
he couldn't get it to work. A gunsmith told him that he was using the
wrong ammo and he had to be shown how to use this weapon. However he still
couldn't get the knack of it so it remained at the gunsmiths.
WARREN
Q. You went, you used
to go down in that area a fair bit then?
A. Mmm.
Q. Would it be fair to say you go down there mare than
ahh, you know other parts of the State?
A. With the
guns?
Q. Mmm.
A. That's the
only place I used to take the guns.
Q. Right.
A. Nowhere else and it's only been the past six, seven
months that I've actually used the guns. Before that I'd never used them,
before in my life.
***************
A. That's, it's only been seven months that I've been
firing 'em. Mmm
***************
PAINE
Q. Did you think that, did you think it was safe to have the ahh, firearms loaded in your car?
A. Umm, well they've got a safety catch thing.
A safety catch thing?
Thank God for that. Six or seven months practice on his own
shooting cans and cardboard in the bush and he becomes one of the most impressive shots
in the world who describes a part of his weapon as "a safety catch thing".
*****************
It should be noted that during
the interview with Martin and Inspectors Warren and Paine, Bryant's legal
representative at the time gave permission for him to be interrogated
without counsel being present. There are several pages and portions
missing in the transcript especially after Martin talks about the hostage
and the BMW. Did he say something that might have incriminated an
accomplice? Most investigators agree that besides the Martins and the
hostage handcuffed to the staircase there was at least one other person in
the Inn during the siege. Did Martin say something that could have given
up the plan?
There was no way Martin wanted to plead
guilty because in his simple mind he insisted that he had not even been to
the Port Arthur historical site on that day and why should he plead guilty
to something that he didn't do?
At his hospital bed he was charged with only one
murder that being of Kate Scott. He was confused and denied the charges.
However in a strange twist, during the interview with Paine and Warren, he
believed that he had used a gun to stop a Gold BMW at the corner of
Fortesque Bay and Palmers Lookout. He said he wanted to go for a joy ride
in the car and told the woman and a child to get into his yellow Volvo and
the male driver to get into the boot of the BMW. He said he needed a
hostage in case he got into trouble for not having a driver's licence and
he was worried about the man driving off in his car and going to the police. Then
he said he drove to the Seascape Inn to visit the Martins because he
missed them when he visited them earlier in the day. However his knock on
the door was unanswered yet again. For some reason, he says he can't
explain, he said he took petrol out of the BMW (that he kept in his Volvo
because the gauge didn't work) and he poured the petrol all over the BMW.
He said he wasn't sure whether he set the car on fire or not but there was
a huge explosion and that's how he thinks he got burnt. He said that he
thought the reason he was being charged with murder was because of the man
in the boot of the BMW who must have died in there, and he thought he was
responsible for this man's death.
Now here's what really happened. No one died in the boot of the car. It was the real gunman
who stopped the BMW at the toll-booth of the Port Arthur convict site (klms
away from Palmers Lookout) as he was exiting the site and he shot the four
occupants in the car. Then he dragged out their bodies and drove off in
their Gold BMW. When he came upon the white Carolla he slowed down and
shot the woman driver and kidnapped the male passenger putting him in the
boot of the BMW and then drove on to the Seascape Inn. When he got there
he took the hostage out of the boot and into the Inn where he handcuffed
him to the staircase rail and that's where he was burnt to death in the
house fire and not in the car. The gunman might have tried to relate this story
to Bryant and, perhaps because of his mental capacity, he got it all wrong because he didn't have a clue about what
really happened or what he was supposed to say.
Why would Bryant make up this story of taking the
BMW for a joy ride and burning his hostage in the car fire where he
believes he also got burnt? If he gave himself up for what he thought was
a murder, then why didn't he admit to other murders? Or at the very least
tell some equally fanciful story about that part of the day? He couldn't
have been in any more trouble. However, no matter how hard they tried to
get him to say something about Port Arthur
he adamantly insisted that he was never at the convict settlement on that
day. He said he only had $15 and couldn't afford it. When asked how his
Yellow Volvo got there he said that he didn?t know and that perhaps the
woman he let go from the BMW must have drove it there. He showed genuine
remorse for what happened to the man in the boot of the BMW but he also
thought that this was the reason he had been arrested and was facing jail.
He was clearly very worried about this incident. Far more than any of the
accusations against him for the murder of another 35 people because he
believed he had killed his hostage in the boot of the car and would go to
jail for it. However all of the other instances were non events to him
because, as he said, "I didn't shoot anyone".
There were other occasions when he was said to have
uttered strange things that would have incriminated him but if he did say
any of the horrible things that his lawyer John Avery told the press he
had, then it is obvious to any reasonable person who knows anyone like
Martin that he would say anything to keep a conversation going. He was a
lonely person and an attention seeker. After months of solitary
confinement it's more than likely that Martin would have said anything at all
just to keep someone interested in him enough to keep him company. He
could also have used this childish ploy to be aggravating and annoying. He
was obviously being pressured into admitting to something that he didn't
do and could have lashed out with things that he thought Avery wanted to
hear. The shock value would have been entertainment for him as prison
confinement would not have been easy for him to endure without psychiatric
help.
In an interview with Avery for the Bulletin by
Julie-Anne Davies she wrote that, quote "Avery also needed to persuade
Bryant not to press with his not guilty plea." unquote. Avery told her,
quote "I had very little I could offer him in terms of legal solutions."
unquote. That's probably because he didn't even try to build a case for
Martin. Even with all of the evidence he should have had at his disposal
to prove Martin innocent his only plan was to get him to plead guilty so
everyone could go home and forget about him.
Ten years later Avery discredited himself and was
disbarred after revealing confidential interview tapes between himself and
Bryant which he said he believed the public should be made aware of.
However although, on the face of it, Bryant admits to the killings on the
Avery Tapes, it is blatantly obvious by the way he has to be led into each
admission and by the contradictions that Avery helps him 'get it right'
for the records, that Bryant does not have a grasp on what he thinks he's
supposed to say. His eagerness to please and do whatever was required of
him only serves to further empathise his
ignorance and absence of intellect. On several occasions Avery was on one train of
thought while Bryant was on another and Avery took advantage of Martin's
ineptness. He admitted to things that didn't happen such as shooting Mrs.
Martin who was not shot at all but bludgeoned to death or knocking on the Martin's door when
he was supposed to have already shot them previously or not knowing the
magazine capacity of the rifle he was supposed to be so expert with.
The communication levels continuously moved in only one direction and that was to get Martin to
plead guilty. It was also obvious that Martin's coercion had begun long
before Avery had got to him. He had already been instructed on what he
must say and why. As the tapes show Bryant's main concern was how long the
court case was going to take and anything that he could say to get it over
with sooner. He was convinced that if he said and did the right things
that there might not even be a court case.
In his initial interview with Detectives Paine and
Warren Martin confessed to killing a man who was trapped in the boot of
the BMW when he thought he set fire to it. He neither set fire to it or
killed anyone in the car.
The man he thought he had killed was found burnt in
the Seascape Inn. He was obviously told what to say and got it all wrong.
He had no idea at all what he was being charged with and probably still
doesn't know. Martin Bryant should have received professional help years
before he was incarcerated. He saw his first psychiatrist when he was only
six and it was obvious from that time that he had a problem. The
authorities were aware of his inability to take care of himself but they
didn't have a place for him to go where he could get specialised care. His
father retired early to look after him but when he died the only other
person who befriended him was the woman who took him on as a gardener and
left him her fortune when she died. He lived alone to fend for himself in
a huge mansion with a generous income. His mother and sister loved him
dearly but they were not as able to "put up with him" as his dad did and
they suffered the indignity of his imperfections as much as anyone else
who had anything to do with him.
People in the mental medical profession see this
kind of condition all the time. I know at least 2 people with varying
degrees of the same characteristics
but because someone is a little weird, stupid or attention seeking does
not predispose them to committing mass murderer. In fact the very reason
Martin can't be the Port Arthur shooter is because he's all of the above
and it would have been impossible for anyone to have trained a man with
his lack of intelligence to be a combat shooter.
Who ever planned the Port Arthur massacre did not
make a good choice when they selected Martin for the patsy. If the real
killer wasn't such a show-off and Martin's IQ was at least double, the
differences between the two might have been less obvious. It would have
been easy for the gunman to portray Martin by donning a blond wig and
acting a bit peculiar but for Martin to be mistaken for a combat shooter
is ludicrous.
Obviously the authority's plan to put Martin away
with a minimum of fuss would not work unless Bryant pleaded guilty because
a jury trial was the only other option. It was also apparent that the
authorities were nervous about witnesses not being able to identify Martin
seeing him up close in the witness stand so they must have put a lot of
work into getting him to change his mind. They could have used torture of
some kind (some investigators referred to his solitary confinement as
torture) but bribery is most likely since his child-like mind-set would be
easily enticed by offers of fair play and a comfortable confinement.
Whatever they did it worked to a certain extent
since his lawyer was convinced that he had talked him into pleading guilty
and they went to a sentencing hearing with this in mind.
However, surprise, surprise. When the judge finally
asked Martin how did he plead? He replied "not guilty".
I would love to have seen the look on the
prosecutors face, or, for that matter, even the lawyer's face, since he
was the one who would have worked so hard on that answer to be "guilty".
The 'not guilty' plea was not
accepted. The hearing was suspended. Everyone packed up and went home to
start all over again. A 'not guilty' plea was not part of the plan and
Martin Bryant was sent to solitary confinement until he agreed to
co-operate. Finally, in another hearing, he did plead guilty as would a
little boy playing a game. He knew it was silly for him to be doing this
and he laughed and snickered though all 35 counts of guilty, probably
because he felt foolish telling lies.
This action was reported by the ever ravenous press
as being insensitive and cruel, something that I didn't believe for an
instant. I remember when I was 11 and I can only imagine how ridiculous
all of this must have appeared to him. He had no one to defend him or
listen to his side. His lawyer didn't make any attempt to investigate a
case for him and didn't appear to be helping him. From a humane point of
view he shouldn't have been subjected to a hearing in the first place
because of his legal mental status. The whole thing was a sham designed to
quell the anger of a nation stirred up by the press doing their dirty work
for the anti-gun nuts who couldn't even find a very convincing patsy, or
maybe they didn't know how good their shooter was going to be.
What did they offer him that was so attractive?
There was no way that he was going to go free and they must have told him
this. So, what do you offer a man condemned to prison for the rest of his
life? A colour TV set?
Anyone can judge Martin's mental ability by reading
his "psychiatric report on this site" and having done
so you can deduce that the simplest of pleasures might have appealed to
Martin. Things such as a colour TV in a very comfortable cell where he
could play computer games and order any videos he liked. What else is
there in the life of a simpleton but endless entertainment in your own
little realm rather than have a very bad accident and perhaps not survive.
Despite media generated hatred which would have had
the public approving of his death, attempts on his life would have shone a
light on him and reminded the public of the massacre they were determined
to forget. They may even have uncovered some of the truth about his
inability to have committed the crimes he was accused of. Much safer to
let sleeping dogs lie and keep Bryant silent in his "Iron Mask" behind
closed doors forever.
It is especially easy to keep things quiet in the
present climate since the public seem to accept the silence generated by
the media on this subject. Absence of any updates and ongoing hush hush
about the subject keeps the peace and life goes on. Nothing is said "out
of respect for the dead" and Martin Bryant's name is never mentioned. The
authorities and the media have convinced the general public to forget the
man accused of Australia's worst crime. He is behind bars and that is the
end of that.
Those of us who take everything the media tells us
with a grain of salt have heard a different story to the official one. So
many blatant anomalies should aggravate even the most skeptic of us and
anyone who has read the unofficial versions on the Port Arthur massacre
can't help but be curious about questions that the government won't answer
and the media refuses to report.
So what do the people of Tasmania think? In
particular those who live and work in the Port Arthur region and may even
have been there on the day?
PORT ARTHUR REVISITED
I thought the best
place to start asking questions was at the Port Arthur historical site,
which these days is a far cry from the attraction I saw about 15 years ago
on a previous visit to Tasmania.
The park must attract a larger amount of people
these days since the four plus car-parks indicated the expectation of
enormous crowds. A huge and very modern administration block complete with
dining area and gift shop also houses miniatures of the site and
interesting informative entertainment areas to inform the visitor of the
original penal settlement. The lives and woes of the tortured souls who
did their time at Port Arthur are depicted in print, video and mannequins
throughout the center ensuring that the visitor is informed of our early
past and our early inhabitants to this area.
At night there is a ghost tour that takes visitors
on a somewhat eerie exploration of the site and the guides joke about the
spirits of the dead convicts that presumably still inhabit these ruins.
At the end of this tour I thought that this might
be the perfect time to ask if there might be some "ghosts" remaining after
the 1996 massacre and my question was met with astonishment. However, more
than half of the tour stayed behind to hear the answer.
"No, there are no ghosts of the massacre," I was
told.
"Why do you think that is?" I asked
"I don't know," was the reply.
"Do you think it's because the people who
died in the massacre might be from a more enlightened age and have moved
on?" I asked.
"It's because we had a cleansing
ceremony to give the massacre victims closure," someone else answered me.
"And you didn't have a ceremony for all those poor
tortured convicts?" Someone snickered with amusement behind me and I knew
I was being pedantic but I was annoyed by the hypocrisy of the pretence to
have respect for one kind of spirit and not another. These convict ghosts
were raking in millions for the Tasmanian government and the more recently
murdered were not even given a mention.
Earlier I had asked one of the staff behind the
ticket counter as I was buying tour tickets for the day if there was a
tour conducted about the Port Arthur massacre and I got much the same
response. They acted as if the question was insensitive and inappropriate.
A very rude and obviously annoyed man listening in
on what I had to say told me, with attitude, that "people down here don't
talk about the massacre,"
"Why not?" I asked, "the massacre is as much a part of our history as the convict settlement and to
try and hide the facts of what happened only makes the event even more
sinister. And why are you all so angry about predictable curiosity"
"We're not angry, just don't talk about it and we
never mention the killer's name."
"Some of the staff here are still very sensitive about what happened and out of respect
for them we don't mention the murders."
Same old story, even after ten years. Don't mention the massacre and no lies can be told.
Regardless of who I spoke to I was put off with
statements such as, "we don't talk about what happened because some of the
staff who were there on that day are still upset about it," or ?Why would
we want to talk about something so upsetting to most people?"
"Most people are interested in what happened here." I
told her, "and the Port Arthur massacre is an important event that should
be told because to this day it has not been fully explained and we're
being told that no one wants to talk about it out of respect for the dead
or the sensitivity of the survivors. I would have thought that the loved
ones of those who died here would be, at the very least, eager to have a
proper trial to reveal what really happened to their friends and family"
"Have you ever has a tragedy in your life?" was put
to me. If they only knew that in my business the amount of people you get
to know are so many and dear that almost every month we celebrate another
funeral. Celebrate? Yes, because I believe in a soul that lives forever.
Most people accept tragedy and get on with their lives because grief is a
personal pain, not something to be used as an excuse to keep quite. We
learn by our history and we require that the truth be told so that we are
not doomed to repeat it.
We can't suppress what happened at Port Arthur for
fear someone doesn't have a grip on their own feelings. We can't think
about upsetting people by telling the truth. That's what happened in the
first place and grief was used as an excuse not to pursue a trial with all
of the explanations that could have alleviated a lot of pain and made
closure for the victims left behind.
"But, it was the way they died." the attendant said
sadly.
Most of the victims were killed instantly with shots to the head. I should be so lucky to die
so quickly. These people were not mutilated, tortured, hacked up, buried
alive, stabbed or beaten to death. They were not raped or humiliated in
any way. They were executed by a professional killer who knew what he was
doing and had the expertise to accomplish his mission with the maximum
amount of terror. His aim was to put fear into the hearts of ordinary
people and make way for an even more sinister plan.
As an example I went on to tell them about the two
little girls on the Gold Coast sand dunes who were raped and tortured for
hours before being clubbed to death with a lump of wood about the same
time as the massacre and didn't even make front page news because the
weapon used to kill them was not a gun. I found myself being ignored.
To believe that the way these people died is any
worse than the way other people die is what I call insensitive. It's not
the way they died that makes me angry. It's the fact that they had to die
at all. These lives were taken needlessly but not thoughtlessly or in
vain. They died so that Australians can now live without the fear of all
those other non existent mass murders we have never suffered in this land
of terror. Without the deaths of
these innocent men
women and children this country would be over-run with rednecks and gun
nuts going on endless killing sprees. I'm not trying to be funny here. I'm
trying to empathise the audacity of these slimes to use the lives of so
many to save no one because the homicides in Australia have only gone up
since the gun confiscation. Why? The bad guys didn't hand in their guns
and most murders are committed with fists, knives, lumps of wood and
anything else handy at the time. So the whole exercise was just a horrible
waste. These people died for nothing.
Finally, I asked one of the Port Arthur staff if
she felt comfortable with Martin Bryant being convicted without a trial
and the response tone was again one of annoyance.
"He has had a trial; they
found him guilty here in Hobart."
"Actually he had a sentencing hearing, not a trial as is the right of every Australian
citizen," I tried to inform her but she wasn't listening to me.
"He did so get a trial, he's as guilty as sin and he
can rot in hell."
Almost word for word what the Mercury had published
in bold headlines to convince people that justice had been done and to
this day these people were sticking to the printed word of the media. As
far as anyone I tried to talk to was concerned the deed was done the
killer is in jail and we don't want to talk about it any more.
The people of Port Arthur, choose to ignore further
investigations in order to forget. Ignorant of the facts, the hint of
suspicion does not prompt them to take a second look and make sure that
those they mourn get the justice they deserve. One would think that out of
respect for the dead that they should want to make sure that an innocent
man did not take the fall and do the time for the real killer. But it's as if they are not really
interested.
Hours later it occurred to me that the Port Arthur
staff might not talk about what happened because they really don't know.
They may have been there and some may have seen dead bodies, bandaged and
comfort the wounded and perhaps cleaned up the crime scenes afterwards but
because no proper enquiry has yet pieced together all the clusters of
confusion on that day I think it would be hard to make sense of it all.
The gunman did his job too well to be believable but he fulfilled his
mission to inflict the maximum amount of fear and confusion so that no one
person would ever really know what went down that day. The fact that these
people had to wait over 6 hours for the police to arrive would be
terrifying enough because no one knew where the gunman was or if he was
coming back. Hundreds of statements were taken and yet to this day no one,
not even the people who were there, know what, why or even how this
terrible thing occurred, especially at a place like beautiful Port Arthur.
The shooter's brazen, deliberate and quick
execution of his assignment had the desired affect on the public and that
was to incite hatred of the weapons used in the killings.
However, I'd like to make it clear that, as with
most parts of Australia, the further away from the big cities you get the
more genuine people become. In the back blocks of this beautiful state and
at places where fewer tourists find their way we met some really wonderful
people who took us in like family and didn't mind talking about Port
Arthur at all. Trouble was I couldn't tell these guys anything. They'd had
it all figured out years ago and for a while we relaxed in the company of
real Australians who are used to helping out one another and standing by
their mates.
They told us of
dramas that would curl your hair but the difference was that these people
knew how to cope with the hard times without complaint or expectations of
sympathy. The best part about their company was the way they told of their
misfortunes with jokes and laughter as if to spit in the eye of tragedy.
What I felt for these people brought a tear to my eye as happens when you
are so proud of someone. So to all those fabulous "devils" we met here and
there, especially the Lake Leake Fly Fishing Club at the Lake Leake Chalet
? thanks for the free camp and outstanding laughs fellows.
Almost immediately after the killings
semi-automatic rifles were banned in Tasmania, the most peaceful and
safest state in Australia with the lowest crime rate. Influenced by the
Liberal government and the media push to have guns banned ordinary
Australians were branded rednecks and gun-nuts and forced to hand in their
weapons all over the country. It was Nazi Germany all over again. Prime
Minister Howard dramatized the event even further by wearing a flack
jacket in public because he was afraid that these gun nuts might try to
shoot him. Hundreds of thousands of people, not only gun owners, marched
in protest all around the country against the introduction of the laws but
because the media gave them little or no coverage the public outcry was
largely ignored and the gun laws were passed without a referendum.
Full story on disarmament of Australia
IT HAPPENED HERE
On Sunday 28th April 1996, the Port Arthur Historic
Site was the site of a devastating violent crime.
In this area, and at other locations nearby, a single
gunman killed 35 people and injured dozens more. Staff from the Historic
Site were among the victims.
Twenty people died inside this building.
Immediately after the
shootings, there were many acts of bravery and compassion around the site,
as rescuers tended the injured, not knowing whether the gunman was still
in the area.
A man was captured next day, not far
from the Port Arthur Historic Site. He was tried, found guilty, and
sentenced to imprisonment for life with no eligibility for parole.
The crime, which was reported around the world, caused
widespread shock, outrage and grief. Many people still suffer as a result
of the events of 28th April 1996.
It was agreed that a memorial garden incorporating the shell of the Broad Arrow Caf?,
would be established as a place of quiet beauty and calm reflection.
Open to the wind, rain and sky, this garden and these
bare walls are touchstones for people's thoughts about what happened
here.
I took the tour of the convict settlement grounds
which did not include a visit to the Broad Arrow cafe or any mention of
the massacre. Having previously been these 15 years earlier I knew the
general position of it but nothing could have prepared me for what they
did to the building in an effort to obliterate all evidence of the
shootings. The remains are now little more than a few stripped walls
exposing brick-work reminiscent of the convict era. Were it not for a
small plague in the garden surrounding these remains visitors would be
unaware of what happened at this and other sites in the area.
A wooden cross overlooks a remembrance pool at the
back of the building out of sight until you walk towards the cliffs in the
background and the remains of the Broad Arrow is insignificant in it's
present appearance. The area where so many innocent people lost their
lives is not part of the regular tour and easily missed behind a garden
obviously planted to keep the area remote and isolated so as not to bring
attention to it.
I spent some time in this area and listened to the conversations of those who had found
the ruins and knew what had happened here. Their tones were solemn but so
many questions asked that were not answered because unlike the other
buildings where attendants greeted visitors and explained the history
within the walls, there were no guides at the old Broad Arrow. For many
visitors a short inscription on a lonely plague was the only clue to
explain the awful events of that fateful day in April 1996.
Ask why the building was pulled down and you get
the same response. Why were any of the buildings pulled down? To hide the
shame of the events that took place there? As the convict buildings were
once demolished to erase the events of that day so too was the Broad Arrow
Caf? torn down in a futile effort to eradicate history and hide forever
the evidence.
The cover-up continues even as new evidence peels
back the tarnish of deception. I have read the evidence that has since
been raised in at least two independent investigations and I have asked
the authorities to prove this evidence wrong. We have been pushing for a
Coronial Enquiry now for over 9 years and we get nothing. As time goes by,
witnesses die, buildings are torn down and people are fed the same
emotional drama designed to take attention away from the real story.
A man is locked up for the rest of his life for
something that he didn't do. Well, believe it or not, it happens all the
time. But there are some people who don't even want to know whether Martin
is innocent or not. They hate him so much they won't even speak his name.
Despite the more recent investigations they prefer to believe the media?
Afraid to speak out they silently convince themselves the media must be
right. Perhaps the fear of the truth is more terrible than they can bear
because if Bryant didn't kill all of those people that means that the
killer is still out there and that is something
to be afraid of.
Our legal system can hardly be a system of
integrity if our courts sacrifice justice for fear of upsetting witness's
feelings? Where is the fairness in that?
REAL WITNESSES VERSES THE MEDIA'S WITNESSES
Besides publishing Bryant's photos, altered into all kinds of demonic looks, the media concentrated on giving themselves credibility by suggesting that the killer was seen going from victim to victim on his murderous rampage and to this day people think that hundreds of people could identify Bryant because he was seen by so many. The propaganda is ludicrous since even the toughest of vets automatically hit the deck at the sound of gun fire and anyone who looks a little curious or uncertain are tackled to the ground if danger is threatening them. It is true that at first people just heard shots and thought it might be a re enactment of some kind but when it was clear that a dangerous situation was in progress there was no one who got a good enough look at the shooter to identify him. You have only to look at the only photos rescued from that day and they are very blurry. It is impossible to identify anyone from them. So anyone who saw the shooter would only have got a glimpse of him at the most because most people were so terrified they were afraid to move, let alone have a look.
THE BRAVEST WOMAN I HAVE EVER KNOWN
However there were at least two people on the day who got more than a good look at the shooter. One of them was Wendy Scurr who worked at the Port Arthur Site. After the massacre Wendy suffered a great deal of stress. Besides having a bullet whizz past her head as she raced towards the administration building to ring the police she was also the first person on the scene to witness the carnage. Being the triage officer on site she inspected all the wounded and dead and cared for victims before the ambulances began to arrive. Still unaware of where the shooter was she risked her life to tend to all those who had been wounded in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Asked if she saw any of the shooting at the time she said "no", because she was not in the building when the shooting at the Broad Arrow took place but later on, talking to her and getting her to open up, the way she should have been taken care of at the time and was basically ignored by authorities, something came back to her that she had either forgotten about or had no idea that it meant anything. She was never questioned in this area which again illustrates the incompetency of the investigation. This is what we recovered from her traumatic memories of that day.
She had just got off the ferry that goes to Dead Man's Island where the tombstones of convicts still stand. It's not far from the wharf and she thought that she might get something to eat at the cafe before going back to the administration building. As she climbed the steps of the veranda outside the cafe she noticed a blonde haired man staring at her and remembered looking back at him. What she didn't know at the time was, that the shooter was sitting in that very spot eating a meal.
As I mentioned before, it is believed that the original massacre scene was supposed to have been on the island where no one would have escaped except the killer by boat. Because the plans had been changed (it might not have been much a challenge for the expertise of this gunman) he might have been thinking, as she climbed the steps, that he would get her inside the cafe anyway, who knows. Luckily for Wendy she exited the building before the shooting started which would only have been seconds before and not knowing what was happening until a bullet whizzed past her ear she immediately knew something was very wrong and ran to the other block to ring the police.
Trying to convince the police of what was happening was hard since she had no idea but she could hear the gun shots and held the phone out so that the police could hear them as well in an effort to convince them that they had an emergency. Little did she know that it would take seven and a half hours for the police to finally arrive to give support to the terrified people everywhere who had no idea what was happening, where the gunman was, how many shooters there were and what they should do with no one to guide them.
The firing inside the cafe lasted, at the most, a couple of minutes and as the rampage continued in the car park and towards the toll gate Wendy was the first one on the scene inside the cafe to find the carnage. She had no idea where the gunman was and could easily have been his next victim but she was the triage officer of the site and her job was to tend to the wounded and try to save as many lives as she could. What she saw was a war zone. People huddled under tables and behind chairs trying to escape the frenzy but somehow in those few seconds of combat shooting 20 people were killed, 19 of them with head shots. There was blood and tissue everywhere. It was something that only hardened veterans would have ever seen yet this woman went about trying to save the lives of the few survivors. One such young man who had been shot in the throat and to this day they are good friends with similar experiences to share.
This young man, who had been shot in the neck, was recovering in hospital when he found out that the killer was recuperating not far from him in the same ward. He asked if he could identify the man who had shot him and was refused. Had he been allowed a few seconds with Martin Bryant the whole conspiracy would have fallen over because the man they had arrested was not the killer. The real witnesses all agree that the shooter was younger and not as tall as Bryant. He had longer hair which looked like a wig and most importantly he had a pocked complexion suggesting acne scars which Bryant does not have.
With this in mind it was obvious to the authorities that Bryant could not be allowed identification by credible witnesses. These people, and others with similar stories, were not even put on the witness list, essential for a trial, and yet they were the only ones who had seen the killer up close. The only way out was to make up the ridiculous story of saving the victims further trauma by not having a trial at all denying Bryant his sovereign right to be heard and railroading him with just a hearing, thus having no need for witnesses or declarations.
There were witnesses eager to see justice done and the
law shunned them. These brave people are the real heroes of the Port
Arthur massacre because they risked their lives to be willing to tell the
truth. They took the trouble to make waves so that their loved ones did
not die in vain. There has been no explanation of 'why' to those who
suffered the aftermath and if anything this must be the most heart
wrenching pain of all to bear.
It is clear that the DNA evidence would have cleared Martin. So would blood
splatter tests on his clothing. Witness identification of Bryant would
have convinced me but the DPP used none of this evidence and instead
relied on this ridiculous video that proves nothing. The only thing that
convicted Martin Bryant was his coerced "guilty" plea.
Somewhere there are people who planned a massacre
and blamed an unfortunate intellectually handicapped man for the terrible crimes that took place
in one of the most beautiful and peaceful places on earth.
I have gathered innumerable
pieces of information and facts which substantiate a cover-up of immense
proportions
over the past ten years and I am even now still
uncovering more and more information. There is so much of it that it never
ends. For instance we know that a Mortuary truck with 22 body racks in a
refrigerated unit was built before the massacre and sold afterwards. Why
would Tasmania need a Mortuary Unit designed for a disaster of at least 22
people.
Another example was the photo taken of a
black van that somehow arrived before the ambulances and certainly the
police and parked in front of the Broad Arrow Cafe where 20 people lay
dead and others were wounded. This van was never mentioned in any reports
and never seen again.
The frustration of rejection is a hard pill to
swallow and the willingness to stand up and be counted is becoming a more
and more thorny path to walk. One day it will be too late. People will
forget and move on but worst of all history will be written with the lies
and deception of the winners as it usually is and those who deny the truth will be co-conspirators.
In a way I understand the apathy, after all, what
is the point of complaining if the people you're complaining about are the
ones you must complain to. It seems that it is just so much easier to let
Bryant rot in jail and forget about what is right because the real killers
will never be brought to justice and the truth will never be admitted.
It's too hard.
However I know that, as na?ve as some people may
appear to be, there are still some with a bent for fair-play who surface
now and then to give me hope. I heard a radio talk-back host recently
interview a correspondent who rubbished Oliver Stone's movie JFK. The
guest insisted that the movie was not about what happened in Dallas that
day but instead was just a conspiracy story made up by Oliver Stone and
made into a movie for entertainment purposes.
Not what really happened? I was
flabbergasted and angry that this usually intelligent person had the nerve
to dismiss the investigations of one of America's bravest men, Jim
Garrison, who as Attorney General of Mississippi put his career on the
line to bring the truth to the American people in the same way many people
are doing now for the victims of the Port Arthur massacre.
However, the host came back with an awesome comment
when he asked his guest if the official story, that came from the
government, could not also be regarded as a conspiracy considering the
lies that can come from even the highest echelons of government using
George Bush as an example. Are not these people also capable of creating
conspiracies? Are they not in a better position to tell lies than most and
follow them through? They have endless departments on their pay-role to
cover for them and their greatest asset is the fact that most people are
reluctant to accuse their leaders of any wrong-doing. It is much easier to
accuse a lone nutter than an organisation of people who are powerful and
capable of orchestrating events to make sure that things go their way.
Anyone who believes that the patsy did it in both
of these murders is not living in the real world. When you can't get your
head around the idea that a terrorist attack happened on our own soil and
our own countrymen were influenced into giving up the very weapons that
could have defended the innocent on that day, then you're in denial.
Thirty five people were killed at one of the most
beautiful historic sites in our country and only a few weeks later the
Howard government pushed through Draconian gun laws that had no hope in
hell of getting passed without the emotional turmoil that followed the
Port Arthur Massacre.
Wendy Scurr Speaks Out
Wendy Scurr was the first person into the Broad Arrow Cafe after the Port 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 Port Arthur Massacre, if you watch this film with an open mind you will never be the same again. Latest developements with the Murdock Media have reinforced the proof that the media played a big part in the cover-up.
The Joe Vialls
Investigation
One of the original investigators into the PA
massacre, now deceased. His in depth report complete on these pages as
written before he died.
GO HERE TO READ A CONDENSED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL STORY FROM THE BOOK "SUDDENLY ONE SUNDAY".
This is the story that will go down in history but it was written in ignorance by someone who knew nothing of what really happened. Gives no clue to any motive and ignores the fact that there was barely an investigation to prove Bryant's guilt. Compare the stories to satisfy yourself about the truth.
OTHER INFORMATION
AVAILABLE
THE MASSACRE AT PORT ARTHUR"
An investigation from a different angle by ex
policeman Andrew McGreggor who has investigated, researched, published a
book and comes up with some very convincing material to reinforce my
suspicions. His CD book contains Acrobat footage and Real Player sounds of
some events.
PORT ARTHUR V2
Explains a theory on how Bryant could have been
lured to the Seascape Inn to take the fall for the real shooter.
VIDEOS
In the 10 years since the massacre at Port Arthur,
Tasmania, the authorities continue to ignore concerns that there is no
hard evidence to implicate Martin Bryant as the gunman. However there is so much evidence that Martin Bryant
is not the Port Arthur killer that the silence is deafening.
There are videos on YouTube and LiveLeak that have caused some concern because they depict the carnage at the Port Arthur massacre and were never meant to be shown to the public. Supposedly they were meant to be police training videos. I warn that some of these are very graphic but no more so than any others depicting the end of human life. I have told you about what happened - to actually see it in a movie brings a sobering chill to any spine. Here are just three links to differnt sites from which you can watch a multitude of related material including the contraversial Port Arthur massacre Police Training Video pt 1 of 4 which I have not linked to out of respect for the families of the dead.
Port Arthur massacre Police Training video part 4 of 4
A Question of Guilt: The Massacre at Port Arthur (1 of 7)
port arthur massacre martin bryant setup pt1
PORT ARTHUR UNMASKED
by Stewart Beattie is a compiled book on CD of enormous interest to those seeking the truth
about the Port Arthur Massacre. Send a $20 money order, which includes
postage, to
Mr S Beattie
Port Arthur Unmasked
PO Box 8580
Kooringal NSW 2650
and he will post you his account of the Port Arthur massacre Port Arthur Unmasked
WHAT'S
GOING ON: A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
WHO ORDERED THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
GOVERNMENT COVER-UP AT PORT ARTHUR
THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
HOME PAGE
to mention anything on the radio
talk-back programs you were ridiculed or cut off, implying that you were
being inconsiderate and thoughtless. Suggest anything but the official
line about the murders and you were dubbed with the badge of crackpot or
conspiracy theorist. Usually nothing is sacred on TV current affair
programs. They love to dramatize with their often graphic and over-acted
portrayals in detail of horrible events, but nothing about the
after-effects of the Port Arthur massacre.
For ten
years hardly a word in the papers, nothing on the radio and unusual
silence on television where doco hounds and current affair programs will
dig up stories from just about anywhere to get ratings. For months after
the massacre television presenters, like predators, descended on the
grieving survivors and the victim's families like vultures with a tirade
of emotional and in your face dramatic interviews to wring every last drop
of sensationalism from them. Then, when finally they had milked the last
"how do you feel?" out of these devastated people and shown every last
tear they could squeeze into their news and current affairs programs, they
curiously went quiet on the subject for almost ten years.
Roland Browne, then co-chair of the National Coalition
for Gun Control (NCGC), who, with astonishing accuracy, predicted the Port
Arthur Massacre when he stated, "We are going to see a mass shooting in
Tasmania...unless we get national gun control laws." - (ACA ,with Ray
Martin, March 1996)
