4 APR 2016


Last month, I had an email exchange with Derryn Hinch. Below this email of 4 APR 2016, is my email of 17 MAR 2016 to him. Given Derry Hinch has been a mainstream media mouth for 50 years, I found his words shallow and subjective. Here is his closing email of 24 MAR 2016 to me:

"On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Derryn Hinch wrote: Not an affectation. Just run out of time for replying to rubbish. Actually I thought I did reply and tell you how compelling the Sunday Night sorry (sic) was with the Bryant tapes. Regards Derryn Hinch. Sent from my iPad."

Of course I did not find the so-called Bryant tapes aired by Channel 7 on Sunday Night to be compelling in anyway. Many of you have emailed me and said you were disgusted by them. But Derryn Hinch says he found them compelling. That he did tells us the low level of his thinking on the related subject. On 24 MAR 2016, I emailed the following back to him:

"You refer to audio visual tapes that were never presented to a jury and viewed in their entirety during a trial;
You refer to audio visual tapes made of a mentally-handicapped person having an IQ of 66 who was completely alone and who at times was shackled to a chair, and who had been coerced and isolated for at least two months (if the tape dates are correct);
You refer to audio visual tapes of an interview made of a person who had no legal representation before or during the so-called interviews;
You refer to audio visual tapes that have never been made available in their entirety to the witnesses and to the public;
You refer to audio visual tapes in which Martin Bryant makes statement after statement that either proves his innocence of raises reasonable doubt;
You refer to audio visual tapes that clearly show Martin Bryant holding an imaginary rifle in his left-handed manner whereas the shooter in the Broad Arrow Café shot in a right-handed manner;
You refer to audio visual tapes that do not address the shooting at the PAHS tollbooth where witnesses describe a shooter who was not Martin Bryant;
You refer to audio visual tapes that do not address the shooter at the general store who James/Jim Laycock (who personally knew Martin Bryant) said was not Martin Bryant;

You refer to audio visual tapes that do not address the shooting at Seascape Cottage where there is not one witness who saw Martin Bryant shoot a firearm; etc.

Could go on Derryn, but clearly you only see and hear what you want to see and hear. This is a common failing.The audio visual tapes are conclusive proof mentally-handicapped Martin Bryant was abused, manipulated, and denied proper legal representation. At at trial in a sound court, said tapes would not be allowed as evidence as they were presented by Channel 7. (Ask yourself why over 30 percent of the transcripts were never made public?)

You can spend all night talking to people. And lots of people have stated the shooter carried a heavy sports bag into the café. He also carried in a large video camera and left it there along with a sports bag. The cops never bothered to lift the fingerprints off them. Why? This heavy sports bag is nothing new. It certainly does not prove Martin Bryant was the shooter.That you have spoken with Ron Neander who lost his wife does not prove or suggest anything beyond that man's tragic loss. It proves nothing about the identity of the shooter. In fact, and as you have been told earlier by me, Mr. Neander admitted in his written statement that he could not identify the shooter.

And finally here Derryn, I struggle to understand how you can write such rubbish. I'm not getting reflections or insights from a sharp mind. I'm not getting facts that reveal you have studied the incident-related literature. Perhaps you have been drinking - it is now after 01:00am on the east coast of Australia. And since I commenced answering your email, you have sent me another email. Suggest you slow down and think more.

There was NO trial and there is NO hard evidence Martin Bryant was the shooter. Read some of the literature Derryn. You seem to be fixated on audio visual tapes that are absolute crap which only disprove everything you seem to believe. My offer still stands re any of the free pdfs.

And just for the record - of course I feel sorry for Ron Neander. That his wife was shot is appalling, just as all the other deaths are. It's all WRONG. And so too is the setting up of a mentally-handicapped boy-man to take the blame. Justice has not been served to Mrs. Neader, or Mr. Neader, or to any of the other victims plus their families, relatives, and friends. The truth has not been told and justice has not been served to all of them, to all Australians. And justice has certainly not been served to innocent Martin Bryant who is living in hell for crimes he did not perpetrate and could never have perpetrated...."

Derryn Hinch is, like so many others in and out of the mainstream media, incapable of dealing with truths that conflict with his/their fixation. To him/them, the fact that there are audio visual tapes in which Martin Bryant appears and speaks confirms their beliefs - even when it does NOT confirm his/their beliefs. Avery has actually admitted coercing Martin Bryant and stunned-mullet Willesee just took it all in as if unethical Avery had done the right thing.

Will leave you with the words of Chester Porter QC, the notable Australian barrister/author. They appear in his book THE CONVICTION OF THE INNOCENT: How the Law Can Let Us Down; 2007: p. 19: " If a person has an IQ of seventy, it is not very difficult for experienced detectives to persuade him of her to confess to almost anything."

Martin Bryant had an even lower IQ of 66. After being kept isolated for months he would have said anything - and there is no doubt that he did. It seems to me that the corrupt audio visual tapes in which Martin Bryant appears would never be accepted as evidence in a trial - which is just another reason there was NO trial, NO coronial inquest, No public enquiry, NO royal commission, etc.

But we are expected to believe that Derryn Hinch and Channel 7 and Mike Willesee and the cops have got the whole Port Arthur incident right. We are expected to ignore everything (and there's a lot) that does not fit the official narrative. We are expected to accept it is a good thing that a boy-man has now been in prison for 20 years for crimes he did not perpetrate.

Well, a growing number of people around Australia do not accept or believe the corruption, lies, and cruelty associated with the official narrative. A growing number of troubled Australians are now speaking out.

Mentally-handicapped Martin Bryant should be released immediately from Risdon Prison on humanitarian grounds - and, because he is innocent!


Keith Allan Noble

Derryn Hinch
Host - Hinch Live


As mentioned to you last Sunday (13 MAR 2016), am now extremely busy in relation to the official incident at Port Arthur. Last week was the busiest I have experienced since getting involved several years ago in the investigation of this incident. The work never stops. People are looking for answers which the State has never provided. People have a right to the truth.

Someone told me you might be interested in what is happening and I wrote you a serious and polite email: "If you would like to receive copies of what I send out nationally & internationally please let me know." A list of related works was at the base of my email. All the works, except the Whitton and Molomby books, are available to everyone for free. But you did not respond to my offer, so I take it you were not interested.

After my inquiry, you emailed me and said: "Intrigued you (Noble) can call a mass murder an 'official incident'."

It doesn't add up Derryn. If you are genuinely intrigued, why did you not take up my offer and ask for a work explaining why a growing number of people around Australia say what happened at and near Port Arthur in APR 1996 was an official incident? If you are genuinely intrigued, why would you refuse information related directly to your stated intrigue? (Or was your use of the word intrigued meant to convey your sarcasm?)

The said mass murder is identified as an official incident because it was not organized by mentally-handicapped Martin Bryant. The evidence for this is hard and there is plenty of it. There is not a shred of evidence that Martin Bryant was involved in any way in the planning of the incident. That he was at Seascape Cottage is not doubted. Why he was there and what he really did there has never been made clear with hard evidence. All there has been is a lot of official opinion expressed as if it was the truth.

Surely you are intrigued that there was NO trial, NO coronial inquest, NO public enquiry, NO royal commission, etc. And please don't say Martin Bryant pleaded guilty - he pleaded NOT guilty for over six months (APR-NOV 1996) until they broke him with illegal isolation and coercion, and with a corrupt defence lawyer John Avery who forced a guilty plea upon Martin. No you say. Well go and listen to Michael Willesee's words and John Avery's admission of this on that Channel 7 show (6 MAR 2016). And here are some words confirming that coercion from Carleen Bryant, Martin's mother: "Avery had been unsuccessful in persuading Martin to plead guilty. He thought that if I could help to encourage Martin to change his plea, perhaps something could be done for him.... I am ashamed to say that I told Martin he would never see Lindy (Martin's sister) or me again unless he pleaded guilty." (My Story: p. 133)

Now Derryn, are you intrigued by the fact that John Avery was supposed to defend Martin and his NOT guilty plea? Avery was paid to defend Martin, not to coerce him and put pressure on his mother to tell her own son to accept Avery's plea of guilty. Surely you find this intriguing.

And once you take John Avery's plea - it was not Martin Bryant's freely given plea - of guilty out of the equation, the official position collapses completely. Then Tasmania would have heard the families, relatives, and friends of the victims raising their voices. Because if the State could not get something to stick on the mentally-handicapped and innocent Martin Bryant, the State had no case at all. And because the State coerced Martin Bryant and allowed a corrupt defence lawyer to adopt the role of an assistant to the mongrel prosecutor (Damian Bugg), the State has allowed the real gunmen (plural) to remain unnamed and untried. In short Derryn, Martin was set up, wrongly convicted, and cruelly imprisoned based on a coerced confession and with not one shred of evidence ever being tested during a sound trial.

Two minutes after you sent me your first email, you sent me a second email - let's call it a postcript. In your postscript you told me the following as if it confirms Martin Bryant is guilty: "That sunday night (6 MAR 2016) I spent many hours with Ron Neander, whose wife Gwen was killed by Bryant in the Broad Arrow Cafe gift shop. Minutes before he was standing behind Bryant in the food queue and wondered why his sports bag looked so heavy."

What you have stated is quite clear. But unfortunately, it is contaminated with a false attribution. Tragically, Mrs. Neander was fatally shot and is no longer with us. (She would have been 87 this year.) Now we only have Mr. Neander relating his experience. And yes, it was a terrible experience. On 29 APR 1996, less than one day after the shooting in the cafe, Ron Neander said this in his written statement: "The male was talking to someone in the line (food queue), and then they apparently got a table together. I couldn't see him sitting down, he was out of my view."

Have studied written statements of the witnesses and I do not believe there is any other witness who stated the gunman, who walked into the Broad Arrow Café carrying a heavy sports bag and a video camera, got a table with another person who was at the café. The gunman was at the café and purchased a meal. His plate of food and a can of softdrink were on a tray which he carried to the outside eating area. It seems he was on his own and he did not get a table with another person he met in the line (food queue).

Mr. Neander does not say exactly where he and his wife sat at the café. He does not say they sat outside which is where several other witnesses said the gunman sat with his meal. But Mr. Neander does state this clearly: "I couldn't see him sitting down, he was out of my view." So in his witness statement (29 MAR 1996), Mr. Neander reveals that he did NOT have a good view of the facial features of the gunman, and he does NOT describe any facial features. When the Neanders had completed their meal, Mr. Neander said this about himself and his wife: "We were standing off the side of the seating area in the souvenir shop." So it seems Mr. & Mrs. Neander were not staring at the gunman while waiting in the queue to get their meals. Mr. Neander admits he could not see where the gunman sat to eat his meal. And when Mr. & Mrs. Neander completed their meal they went into "the souvenir shop" presumably to look at souvenirs.

Now Derryn, I am willing to bet you are getting angry. Well control yourself. Get your objective mind working - not your subjective everyone-knows-Bryant-did-it mind. This is what Mr. Neander states in the same witness statement (29 APR 1996): "I cannot remember what the gunman was wearing exactly or don't really recall his facial features. I don't think I would recognize him if I saw him again."

Now that is what Ron Neander stated less than 24 hours after the official incident at Port Arthur in which his wife died. The only thing Mr. Neander said about the gunman related to a personal description is this: "The male had long blonde hair and was wearing a three quarter length duffel coat. I think it was a dark colour."

So the best Mr. Neander could come up with as a description is that the gunman was male, that he had blonde hair considered long but no description of the length was given, and the gunman wore a duffel coat possibly dark in colour. That's everything. Mr. Neander did not know Martin Bryant. Mr. Neander had never seen Martin Bryant. And Mr. Neander does not state in any way within his written statement of 29 APR 1996 that he saw Martin Bryant. Mr. Neander has written that he saw a man with long blond hair wearing a duffel coat. Well I have blond hair, it could have been me for all Mr. Neander knew at that time. (Note there was only one witness who personally knew Martin Bryant before the official incident at Port Arthur. And this is what James Clement Laycock said in his his written statement (10 MAY 1996) after he saw the gunman: "I did not recognize the male as Martin Bryant." LEAKED DOCUMENTS; 2015: p. 441)

But the State could not use this witness statement from Ron Neander - or any of the many other similiar statements from witnesses - to set up Martin Bryant. Something had to be done so officials could get this lone-nut mass murderer behind bars forever with NO trial. So Tasmania Police showed photoboards to the witnesses so those witnesses could pick out the image of the person they never saw, or did not notice, or could not remember. And there would have been little doubt that the witnesses would pick the image that officials wanted them to pick, because the mainstream media had told the world a million times plus that the gunman was Martin Bryant - THIS IS THE MAN the Hobart Mercury newspaper published over a full-page image of Martin Bryant. In Tasmania and around Australia, you would have had to be deaf and blind to have missed that name and the many images of Martin Bryant which were printed in papers, transmitted by radio, and broadcast on television.

Photoboards, pained witnesses, careful consideration - GOTTCHA BRYANT. To the unthinking, it all sounds so credible, so convincing. But it broke every applicable rule in the book on identification.

This is what the investigator Andrew S. MacGregor stated about those Tasmania Police and their photoboards. And if you don't know, Mr. MacGregor is a former senior constable with Victoria Police. He knows about photoboards, and he has quite a sharp analytical mind.

MacGregor states: "I am not aware of just how many of the Photographic Identification Boards there were, but at least one witness described it for me. There were numerous police mug shot photos of various males, all in black and white. However the only photograph of Martin Bryant was a coloured photograph, so that it immediately stood out as different. If you refer to Linda White's statement in regard to the board she viewed she even states that Martin Bryant is wearing the same clothing that he was wearing when he shot her, which was totally incorrect and demonstrates that Linda White has confused the newspaper photograph of Martin Bryant and the person who she fleetingly saw before he shot her. But even more, we now get to know exactly where the ID photo of Martin Bryant came from. The photographs left on his kitchen table that he later stated were stolen from him." (sic; MASS MURDER; 2014: p. 380)

So how does this relate to Mr. Neander? Well indeed it does relate to him. Because on 3 JUN 1996, Mr. Neander was shown a photoboard and this is what he says in his written statement of the same date: "I have been shown a photographic Identity Board by Detective DOOLEY. The ID Board consists of 30 photographs of male persons. I have sighted this ID board. After looking at the photoboard, I believe that the male person whose photo is numbered No. 5 is the gunman that I saw at Port Arthur." (sic)

So five weeks after Mr. Neander gave his first statement (29 APR 1996), he gave a second statement (3 JUN 1996). In his first statement he admitted the following: "I cannot remember what the gunman was wearing exactly or don't really recall his facial features. I don't think I would recognise him if I saw him again." But in his second statement 35 days later - after a miraculous memory recall - Mr. Neander viewed a Tasmania Police photoboard and singled out the image of Martin Bryant.

In 35 days, Neander went from not being able to recall any facial features and not being able to "recognise him if I saw him again," to identifying the exact image the cops wanted him to identify. The exact image the mainstream media had broadcast into his brain over the preceding 5 weeks.

Not only that, Neander had a miraculous recall about the physical description of the gunman. In his second statement (3 JUN 1996), this is what Neander said he remembered 35 days after he admitted he could not even remember the colour of the shooter's duffel coat: "In relation to the description of the male gunman from the Port Arthur incident, I can add the following: - He was about 5'8"-9" in height. He was of slim build. He was Caucasian. He had shoulder length, scraggy, blonde hair. He appeared to be clean shaven." Think about it. After a fleeting glimpse of somone in a food line in a packed and noisy café at a busy lunch time, and 35 days later, Neander is telling us the height of the person to one inch. One wonders if after another 35 days, Neander would have remembered the man's eye colour, his shoe size, whether his fingernails were chewed or filed, or whatever else the cops wanted him to say.

Those who have studied the Port Arthur case will have noted the change in the hair description to make it seem more like Martin Bryant's hair. In his first statement, Neander said "long blonde hair." But in his second statement, Neander said "scraggy, blonde hair," a description more damning of Martin Bryant whose hair could be described that way. Note Neander did not describe hair falling below the shoulders, or flowing onto the chest, or passed his shoulders, which is how many other witnesses described the gunman's hair.

And for the record, the average time between the official incident at Port Arthur and when the witnesses gave their written statements was about three weeks. This means that during this period, witnesses were exposed to a media onslaught of condemnatory words about and manipulated demonic images of Martin Bryant. To say every witness would have remained objective and unbaised would be blatant stupidity and deceitful. And if we remove the statements from those witnesses who gave their statements within the first 24 hours before the mainstream media flooded the nation with hate about Martin Bryant, the average time between the incident and when the witnesses gave their written statements rises to about five weeks (35 days). Some witnesses actually gave their statements after 85 days, 87 days, 94 days, 103 days, and 108 days had passed. No reference text on criminal identification would approve this, especially given the extremely negative environment of hate toward Martin Bryant which was created around Australia.

So Derryn, this is just one of the reasons why the mass murder at Port Arthur is correctly qualified with the adjective official. If Martin Bryant was the gunman, the evidence against him would have been overwhelming. Recall the heavy sports bag that Mr. Neander and so many other witnesses described. Well it would have been covered with Martin Bryant's fingerprints if Martin Bryant had carried it into the Broad Arrow Café. So too would the video camera which the gunman also took into the café. And that sports bag and that camera were still in the café after the gunman departed. He left them behind. They can be seen on the video allegedly made by Tasmania Police. (see images in the book MASS MURDER) But the cops never lifted any fingerprints off that bag, or off the camera. In fact Derryn, the cops had NO fingerprint evidence at all. Just as the cops had NO DNA evidence, NO GSR evidence, NO fibre evidence - absolutely NO forensic evidence whasoever. Do you not find it intriguing that 35 people were killed and 23 were wounded, yet the cops had no forensic evidence? This stinks to high heaven. It is not justice.

The gunsmith Stewart K. Beattie states the following in his article Port Arthur Massacre which appears on loveforlife.com.au (1 JUN 2008): "There is not one shred of evidence that I have found that can positively link either of the DPP primary firearms entered into the court documents with any of those shooting murders. Inconclusive physical examination only was employed and that quote: 'No chemical tests were carried out and were not planned because of cost considerations and time considerations.' One person is murdered and they do these chemical tests. Thirty-five people are murdered and they ignored them."

Deceived people said it was Martin Bryant. Corrupt officials in Tasmania said it was Martin Bryant. So many witnesses (includes Ron Neander) were not going to be left out - so they too said it was Martin Bryant. But if you analyze the facts objectively without allowing yourself to be influenced by the opinions of others, it hits you right between the eyes - Martin Bryant is innocent. And there are written statements from witnesses who confirm that the gunman who they saw was NOT Martin Bryant.

The fact that the State has wilfully ignored all the exculpatory evidence in the witness statements tells the public that the incident at Port Arthur was officially premeditated, planned, and perpetrated by professionals and most definitely NOT perpetrated by mentally-handicapped Martin Bryant - a 66IQ boy-man, whose tortured mother Carleen Bryant says this about him in her book: "He struggled with simple things such as how to remove a wheel from a bicycle, how to construct something from a Meccano set or build a simple airplane such as young boys enjoy making." (My Story: p. 134)

Finally and to answer your question - no, I did not watch the first Channel 7 show on 6 MAR 2016. Nor did I watch the second Channel 7 show on 13 MAR 2016. I couldn't as I live in Vienna, Austria, where Channel 7 is not broadcast. Have been told that the negative reaction around Australia to the two Channel 7 shows has been enormous. All such shows are extremely helpful to investigators. It is obvious that John Avery is a troubled person. One investigator stated her conclusion to me - Avery's words are a stream from his guilty conscience. This is what president Michael O'Farrell of the Tasmanian Bar wrote (25 JAN 2013) to me: "Mr Avery...thankfully was not a member of the Tasmanian Bar." (see the article Unsavoury John Avery in MASS MURDER: pp. 603-612) You do not need me to tell you about this larcenous lawyer. Am not predicting it, but it would not surprise me or disappoint me one bit if Avery went for a neck-stretch to drop himself out of his self-inflicted pain. He is a corrupt and cruel person.

Clearly, the whole purpose of the two Channel 7 shows was to again push the corrupt official narrative and to further demonize innocent Martin Bryant. But the people have woken up to mainstream media bull. A 2-page pdf document (PORT ARTHUR 20 YEARS) dated 2 MAR 2016 is freely available. It contains a list of over 20 significant Port Arthur incident related points, which it was predicted Channel 7 would NOT address. Let me know if you would like a copy so you can see for yourself which of the points Channel 7 did NOT address.

Don't stay intrigued Derryn. Engage, read, think - supporting deception and repeating lies does not convert them to truths. The mass murder at Port Arthur was an official incident. And an innocent boy-man has been in prison for 20 years for crimes he did not commit. Not a shred of hard evidence has ever been presented and assessed during a sound trial. There was NO trial - and, any plea given by a person with an IQ of 66 is meaningless, even more so if that plea was forced by coercion. That it was accepted by a judge (the corrupt William Cox) does not confirm the process was correct. It proves how corrupt the Tasmanian legal system is.

Mentally-handicapped Martin Bryant should be released immediately from Risdon Prison in Tasmania on humanitarian grounds - and, because he is INNOCENT!



(Am perplexed. According to wikipedia.org, you intend to stand, or have stood, for "a Senate seat as head of the Derryn Hinch Justice Party." It seems you are concerned about justice. Well, the official incident at Port Arthur is the worst injustice in modern-day Australia. Any person with a brain who expresses a genuine concern for justice does not blindly accept what the State does in every case equates with justice. Corrupt convictions and wrongful imprisonment is a terrible fact around Australia, not just Tasmania. I urge you to engage with the Port Arthur incident, read the literature, think for yourself - address this appallingly cruel injustice which has now gone on for 20 years. The biggest story in your lifetime is right in front of you.)
Dr. Keith Allan Noble; author
Unit 72 B, Am Heumarkt 7
1030 Vienna, Austria
t. 43-1-9712401

Port Arthur Massacre