21 FEB 2016

You are listed as a member of the Tasmanian Bar, and your office is at 128 Macquarie Street, Hobart. People can phone you on 3-6220 6020 and 0419-314988. You will be 51 on 27th November, you have two sons, and you have a liking for netball. As for lawyering, you have been at it since 1988. You claim you have "particular expertise in personal injury law of all kinds." You also say your practice includes "Coronial Inquiries," and that you " have conducted many hearings and trials." (All quotes about you in this email are from your Curriculum Vitae dated 20 AUG 2014.)

So here you are, a middle-aged female barrister with over 25 years of legal experience. You are a former president of the Tasmanian Women Lawyers, you have a family, and you still have enough energy to be involved with serious ball bouncing: "I was appointed to serve on the Board of Netball Tasmania, the peak body responsible for administration of Netball across all age groups in Tasmania. As a past player and avid follower of Netball, I feel privileged to be able to still contribute to Netball."

It's not bad - you're a successful person in life. But...... But something is not right. With all your legal education and experience, plus the fact you "have prepared and had published or delivered, various papers, articles and text material," why is it that we cannot find a single reference to the Port Arthur incident in your writings? You know - the official massacre in April 1996 at Port Arthur in little Tasmania. It happened just 95 kilometres away from your Derwent & Tamar (in gold lettering) office. The Royal Hobart hospital is less than 500 metres from you. And the supreme court building is no more than 250 metres away. There is no way on earth that you did not know about this incident.

From 1995 to 2008, you worked at Phillips, Taglieri - Barristers & Solicitors in Hobart. There, you said you "appeared as Counsel in numerous cases in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and other courts and Tribunals in Tasmania." So why is it that you have, until now, completely ignored your sister Carleen Bryant and her mentally handicapped son Martin? You're a woman. You're a mother. How can you talk law, study law, practice law, appear in supreme court trials, etc., and legally ignore Carleen Bryant and her son. And legally ignore all the families, relatives, and friends of the victims?

What sort of law is it that you are involved with Taglieri?

In her heart-breaking book My Story (2010; Ludeke Publishing, Hobart; ), Carleen Bryant shocks thinking people with these words: "I wondered why it was that Martin was initially questioned without having a lawyer present. These were, after all, horrendous charges and at no time should he have been questioned without legal assistance, especially given his intellectual impairment which would have been quite obvious from the start." (p. 134)

Now you could say you didn't know this. You could say you were too busy bouncing netballs around. But you know now Taglieri. So what are you going to do about it? Well, you are going to do absolutely nothing - that's what you are going to do. And why? Because you are a gutless mongrel barrister more concerned about netball than you are about truth and justice and a mentally handicapped boy-man who, after six months of forced isolation, had a guilty plea rammed down his throat by a corrupt mongrel lawyer who was supposed to defend Martin - your colleague John Avery. But the corrupt judge William Cox never said a word about this official crime, which Cox participated in. So it must be all okay to you.

Here are some more words from Carleen Bryant's book: "Colonel Ted Serong DSO OBE, former head of Australian Forces in Vietnam and one of the world's leading experts on counter-terrorist techniques, in an interview with Frank Robson in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1999, said of the Port Arthur gunman: 'Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am. Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant'." (pp. 136,137) But you're not into hard ballistic evidence or expert witnesses. You are into more serious stuff like netball.

How about some words from a younger woman, witness Petra Willmott who knew Martin Bryant. This is what she says in one of her witness statements (28 APR 1996): "I have never seen Martin with any firearms of any type," and "the only enemy I know he has is a male called Tiger. This male calls Martin up. Martin doesn't like to answer the phone as he thinks it may be this Tiger. I don't know who Tiger is or why Martin doesn't like him." Then she says: "He doesn't remember a lot of things that I say and he forgets what he's doing sometimes." (p. 1)

Of course none of this evidence was presented to a jury, because there was NO trial for Martin Bryant. The State did not want anyone to know about Tiger and what Tiger's connection to the incident at Port Arthur was. But you never spoke out about there being NO trial. You are an officer of the Tasmanian Supreme Court. Yet you just let your pig-mongrel lawyer colleagues (Avery, Bugg, Cox) set up innocent Martin Bryant and then have him caged forever at Risdon Prison. You never said a word about any of this. If you did, please send me a copy of your formal objections to the supreme court.

Here are some words from a former manager at the Port Arthur Historic Site. Her friends were killed during the incident, she had to quit her job, and she lost all her faith in the Tasmanian legal system, which certainly is NOT a system of justice. This is what Robyn Cooper has stated in her article titled My Day which appears in full in the book MASS MURDER: "It was some two hours later, that I was picked up by a friend from the youth hostel and finally reunited with my husband and son soon after. I have been unable to work since the massacre, and am diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is less than a thousand words My Day, but the day of 28th April 1996 will remain with me for the rest of my life. I am very disillusioned with the present system which is denying survivors of this tragedy the opportunity of presenting their testimony in the cause of truth and justice." (p. 177)

Metaphorically, you kicked poor Robyn Cooper right in the guts. NO trial for her to present her evidence. NO trial for all the many witnesses who said they agreed to attend a trial and give their evidence. But you have never said one condemnatory word in public about there being NO trial. You've been way too busy with netball to be concerned about innocent Martin Bryant having all his legal rights denied and subsequently being tortured.

How about Brigid Ann Cook. Here are words she wrote in her witness statement (30 APR 1996), which are quoted in MASS MURDER: "Then after she herself was shot, she refused to falsely identify Martin Bryant as the gunman because, as she said: 'I have read an article in The Time magazine and have viewed a photograph of Martin BRYANT within this article so if I chose BRYANT in a photoboard, I would be very influenced by this article.' While most of the Australian population was clamoring to blame innocent Martin for everything, Brigid Ann Cook stood up after she was shoot down, and said no - this is immoral and I will not do it. Thank you Brigid." (p. 401)

How about these words of Ned Wood. She is incensed and states this in MASS MURDER: "Outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I just couldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing of his photograph to make him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac to the innuendos that his house was an arsenal for military weapons.... Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media. When he pleaded 'not guilty' at his hearing, the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused. He was, in actual fact, refused a trial." (p. 202)

So, should we be looking for papers and reports you wrote in which you severely condemn the media for publishing manipulated images? Images which intentionally whipped up mass hysteria, hate, and death threats against innocent Martin Bryant. Should we be looking for your barristerial writings in defence of Martin on this? Methinks not.

And the best comes last. Not negative words about the corrupt official narrative or the unethical and immoral way in which the State wrongly condemned and incarcerated innocent Martin Bryant. No. What we have is screams from an unidentified woman at Seascape Cottage. NO trial conveniently means NO identification - but you don't care. This is what Patrick James Allen of the Tasmania Police wrote in his statement: "At about 6pm I heard the sound of a high pitched yelling and screaming coming from the direction of Seascape." Troubling. And this is what his copper mate Paul Barry Hyland said in his statement: "I saw a person running past one of the cottages towards the entrance of the main residence. This person appeared to have black hair and appeared to be naked." And this is what their cop mate Gary Thomas Whittle wrote in his statement: "...saw a female running around the back yard naked. Yelling and screaming."

According to your corrupt colleague Damian Bugg, poor Sally Martin, who co-owned Seascape Cottage with her husband David, was killed with him before midday on 28 APR 1996. But Sally Martin had grey hair. So who exactly was this naked, black-haired woman reported by the cops? And why was she screaming and who was she running away from - at 6pm that Sunday night? But without a shred of hard evidence, your colleagues (Avery, Bugg, Cox) blamed everything onto innocent Martin Bryant.

Things like this never publicly identified, naked, black-haired woman. Things like Helene Salzmann who was told about the shooting at the Broad Arrow Café, but who then willingly went to a yellow Volvo and sat on the front passenger seat right beside the driver-gunman - after this person had killed the three Mikacs in viewing distance from Helene Salzman. In their written statements, several witnesses who saw Helene Salzmann in that vehicle described the driver-gunman as having hair BELOW his shoulders, which Martin Bryant did NOT have on the day of the incident at Port Arthur. Nobody should ever wonder why the State had to ensure there was NO trial. What would have been revealed is explosive.

Up until today, you have never stated anything in public that conflicts with the corrupt official narrative. As for that screaming naked woman at Seascape who it seems was fleeing for her life in terror, well she might have been disemboweled or had her head smashed - after being sexually abused. (It has been suggested that Mick/Rick Dyson then of Tasmania Police knows about this screaming, naked, black-haired woman - and many other things that went on a Seascape.) And as for that Helene Salzmann, several witnesses state she was shot at the tollbooth. More of your sisters sacrificed to bring about gun-control legislation it seems.

And how about you own words today Taglieri? Are you telling people Martin Bryant did it because everyone knows he did it? Did your legal studies include false identification and all the associated horrors that go with this common and tragic practice? Have you bothered to study how the corrupt and incompetent Tasmania Police went about setting up Martin Bryant with false identifications? Have you ever read the statements of and noted how many witnesses declared the gunman was NOT Martin Bryant? Including the only person that day at Port Arthur who knew innocent Martin - James Laycock who wrote this in his statement (10 MAY 1996): "I did not recognize the male as Martin Bryant." But gutless mongrel barristers don't give a damn about such things. There's just no money in it for them.

You are a disgrace. A perfect example of the worst of your profession. Your own Curriculum Vitae confirms your insincerity and callousness. You claim you have: "...a solid grounding in respect of all areas of civil and criminal law." But to hell with Carleen Bryant who desperately needed legal help then, and now. And to hell with her handicapped son who had his house and Tattersalls income robbed from him by the State, and who is now about to lose his life. You claim experience with "Coronial Inquiries." But you have never said a public word about there being NO coronial inquest for the families, relatives, and friends of the victims of the official killing at Port Arthur.

Legally there was supposed to be a coronial inquest. But corrupt people in high places stopped it dead because such an inquest, if properly conducted, would confirm to the world that Martin Bryant is innocent. You have acquiesced and let other mongrels deny truth and justice to Martin and his mother, and to all the people of Tasmania, mainland Australia, and from overseas who were involved with the incident at Port Arthur.

What will you say to your two sons when the subject of innocent Martin Bryant comes up? And it will come up when they knock him at Risdon Prison. Will you tell them he deserved to die? Will you tell your sons that the mentally handicapped son of Carleen Bryant: "...SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY CASTRATED WITH A RUSTY BLUNT KNIFE AN THEN WASHED WITH SULFURIC ACID THEN SENT TO GALLOWS" (sic)? This appeared on the topix.com website (22 MAR 2013).

All of the above, and all of the horrible comments directed at Carleen Bryant and her innocent son have happened and are happening with your consent. As the literary Adrienne Rich states it one of her books - Lying is done with words and also with silence. You have never spoken out. Not once Taglieri. Not once. Poor Martin is there in a cage - a little boy out of his mind, sobbing: Can I come home now? Taglieri, you don't have a clue about Truth and Justice. You know lawyering. And billing. And bloody netball.

Instead of being another gutless mongrel barrister, you could pull the Tasmanian Women Lawyers together and do some moral and ethical work. Get innocent Martin Bryant out of Risdon Prison on humanitarian grounds before they kill him inside. If you don't, his murder will be on your conscience forever. As a young woman, you attended St. Mary's College in Hobart where you were taught values - decent, human, Christian values. You have your two sons - get Carleen Bryant's son back home with her.

Dr. Keith Allan Noble; author
Unit 72 B, Am Heumarkt 7
1030 Vienna, Austria

t. 43-1-9712401
POSTSCRIPT: The next Tasmanian barrister to be addressed will be Greg Barns. Earlier emails with images sent to barristers Cameron Scott (TAS) and Daniel V. Aghion (VIC) are available on the Internet, and from me.
Statements of Port Arthur Massacre Witnesses
leaked from DPP Office, Hobart, Tasmania
2015; 112 pp.
free pdf: murder.research@gmail.com
News Corp Australia Articles Inciting Hatred & Killing

2105 SEP 22: 21 pp.
free pdf: murder.research@gmail.com

Readings Related to Injustice in Australia
2015 (2nd edition; 796 pp; 100 Authors, 80 Inserts, 66 Readings)
free pdf: BIGWORMBOOKS@gmx.net
paperback: bookfinder.com

Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia
2014 (2nd edition; 696 pp.)
free pdf: BIGWORMBOOKS@gmx.net
paperback: bookfinder.com