Gunsmith Notebook
Gunsmith Notebook
Gunsmith Notebook
Beattie
Brunskill Rd., Wagga Wagga NSW
The National Party's Kay Hull won the seat in the Federal election of March 1998. It was in late
May or early June, I met with a friend as witness to reiterate a letter expressing my growing
concerns in relation to the massacre at Port Arthur. Initially Mrs Hull's reaction was
encouraging, even exhibiting an interest and concern. However, when I formally requested she
take the matter to The House, in an instant the Member did a back-flip; she mailed to me a
veracious rebuke.
Mrs Hull, MHR refused point blank to fulfil her obligation to represent “my will” in the
Parliament, instead choosing to deliberately and arbitrarily disenfranchise me, and her choice
of words was unmistakably offensive. She told me emphatically not to attend her electoral
office, or to write or phone her on the matter. At time of writing to my knowledge Mrs Hull’s
position has not changed. Eight years on I remain disenfranchised.
This situation was the catalyst, which motivated me to begin to examine the whole of the Port
Arthur massacre. In that same year, information on the massacre I posted to Joe Vialls was
dismissed out of hand. That fermented in me a passion to search out, assemble and publish
everything I could on the massacre that occurred at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.
Until recent times, when ever I uttered the words “Port Arthur massacre” it was my personal
experience for all in earshot to go quiet and leave the conversation. Normally bold media
editors either ignored your approach; some scoffed, others spat out rebuke.
Perhaps the journalists' demeanour results from the issuance of a “D” notice to the media
against people such as me, or indeed the whole of the Port Arthur massacre story. († see
special end note)
In 2002 Federal Attorney General, the Hon. Darryl Williams' introduced to the House seven Bills
of draconian amendments along with the horrid "Security Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002",
concurrently with their coalition of the willing partners. While taxpayer-funded fridge-
magnets instructed people to "be alert and not alarmed," in true Orwellian fashion and
concurrently, the Ministry promised to ‘fight terror(ists)’; more than a few people became
fearful – and with good reason - while the majority began hating minority communities as a
past time.
As their 'new order' agenda rolled out - gradually - it has materialised into a bizarre madness:
control by way of fear and trauma. Now theoretical possible "incidents" are selected, about
which scenarios are woven of theoretical possible causes; the theoretical culprit with a
theoretical grudge or cause is then summarily arrested and jailed?
Those wielding the power in America, Britain and Australia at least, have as a solution to the
theories embarked upon actual solutions of clone-like pre-emptive security to theoretical and
therefore nonexistent "threats" to our nations by penalising, and destroying their people's
entire heritage in justice and law, previously their birthright for centuries. In Australia, the
now infamous summit of the unconstitutional 'heads of government' meeting (each of the states
being sovereign), held on 27 September 2005, saw the state Ministers join in a barefaced
conspiracy to defile The Constitution by agreeing to deprive the people of their basic rights and
ancient protections under the law that have guarded against free men and women ever being
arbitrarily arrested and incarcerated without legal counsel or trial by their peers! Until now,
these rights I speak of used to set us apart from despotic republics that currently the coalition
of the willing are seeking to destroy!
It is entirely possible for these draconian laws to see many ordinary patriotic Australians
branded as dissidents at least, or "terrorists" at worst! The definition of the term “patriot” has
been turned on its head by the establishment; black is now white and the lie made holy.
The illusionary "opposition" with Kim Beazley reinstated as "leader" in an extraordinary move
has demonstrated a willingness not only to 'support the Bill' but to outdo anything Ruddock or
Howard drafted; flinging people into jail is one thing, but Kim expressed a willingness to give
the coalition's sinister "storm troopers" power to lock-down entire suburbs so as to search any
and everyone they wish to and still fling them into gaol!
But what of the protests from journalists: Well they screamed blue murder for a time then just
as the legislation reached the Senate they lost voice. Another story caught their attention – a
scandal here, notoriety or violence there; the bread and butter of media barons since time
immemorial. But, in 1995 when an out-of-office treasurer blossomed into Liberal Party
leadership, through television-friendly lenses restraining his box-thorn-hedge eyebrows and
with a wraparound smile concealing his Menzies’ agenda, reptilian-eyes were fixed upon the
Commonwealth’s top job.
Fifty-seven days before the massacre at Port Arthur and on 2 March 1996, John Howard lead a
coalition group of Liberals and a diminishing National Party to a coalition win in the Federal
election. Along with another of his best kept secrets - the GST tax for all - was his hatred for
all guns, and private citizens who wished to keep them; he successfully conceal this hatred
even from some of his coalition Ministers until the opportunity presented itself.
Despite his own rhetoric to the contrary, John Howard did have an agenda and
his duplicity was exposed all in good time, when the dogs of war (on terror)
were unleashed on humanity at Port Arthur on 28 April that year.
I'm confident in stating Howard's agenda had been pent-up and cleverly
concealed for his entire political life, or even longer: hatred is not a
spontaneous emotion! After winning a battle the victor can afford to be
candid. For after the state minister's had surrendered to Howard's threats on
May 10, 1996, he began disclosing his true emotions: “We will find any means
Howard's we can to further restrict [firearms]. Because I hate guns. I don’t think
1996 agenda people should have guns. Unless they are police, in the military or
security industry. Ordinary citizens should not have weapons.” 1
When interviewed for the Howard Ministry's 10th anniversary of election to the treasury
benches on March 2, 1996 and in reference to the national trauma he terms "grief", inflicted by
the terrorist attack at Port Arthur - 57 days after the general election - he was to state:
During the 1995-6 pre-election campaign the contentious GST tax was raised. This broad-based
tax had earlier been a most unpopular Coalition policy objective, while he was shadow
treasurer under John Hewson. Asked in 1995, whether he'd ever adopt the GST again as policy,
Howard replied: "Never ever. It's dead." Draft legislation to impose a GST tax was
commenced immediately the coalition took the treasury benches in 1996 and soon Howard
could reveal his most cosseted agenda exposing his consuming hatred of guns and their private
owners – but first the inanimate gun had to be thoroughly demonised. And all of this from a
politician when speaking in support of his colleagues, including the Liberal's subservient and
diminishing National Party partners, is reputed to have stated: 'We want to assert the very
principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national
political life'…
Even some cartoonists dared to lampoon our treacherous "masters" and I salute them for their
pluck.
I awoke on the morning of my 64th birthday – ironically that 'day of infamy', Pearl Harbour day
2005 – to learn these obnoxious draconian law amendments had passed through the Upper
House with no more than token amendments; the ALP opposition supported the Bill along with
lone and now reviled Qld. NP senator, Barnaby Joyce.
Applied domestically, Howard’s principles of justice are at least quite deplorable! It’s a sad
and disturbing state of affairs, which also threatens those who investigate covert terrorist
attacks - even against Australians like the Port Arthur massacre. Would Federal Authorities
dare suggest that in researching and writing this story I possess "knowledge" or have in my
possession what the legislated amendments term "something" that the new thought police can
link to acts they define as "terrorism"? Even Habeas Corpus — our right for more that three
centuries — has been suspended, replaced by the UN's Babylonian "rule of law"! I'm concerned
for those who live a delusion of "democracy", for in truth we live under a tyranny in
government, one and the same as that which two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson warned all
free men was “inevitable,” and to be on guard against and the very purpose for retaining at all
cost the right to keep and bear arms…
But remember it was an apparent psychic Roland Browne, in 1996 the 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." -( Ray Martin, ACA, March 1996). What "thing" did Roland possess
about which ordinary Australians were ignorant?
Perhaps the explanation is simpler. Maybe Roland Browne by his then position in the Federal
Justice Dept and close association with Tasmania’s Legal Aid Commission, (its chairman then
being no other than Colonel D.J. Gunson SC., Martin Bryant’s second lawyer), was just well
connected to an impeccable source. Does this explain how Browne was already there in the
media room at Police Headquarters in Hobart, when ABC journalists arrived on the afternoon of
the massacre? Is it also not just too convenient, that in 1996 the National Coalition for Gun
Control (NCGC), had as its patron in Perth Western Australia, none other than the then Federal
Attorney General, Daryl Williams? His successor in this high office, Phillip Ruddock, now carries
on to oversee the passage of further amendments to their abhorrent "war on terror" legislation
to see it pass through the Parliament and enforced as “law”.
However, one must realise that collectively good people must speak out publicly so as to
ensure evil does not prosper over the individual. With that very reason in mind, my work is
published in the national interest and in the interest of every freedom loving Australian who
dares to question these tyrant's arrogance, threats, and unconstitutional actions against our
people that are in truth acts of sedition, treachery and treason; under the Crimes Act 1914
such actions are prescribed severe punishment. Would Parliament dare allow the people to
express their will by referendum on such important matters? In the true vein of a legal
mindset, why would Howard risk asking a question on anything, other than for that which he
foreknows their answer? Remember there ‘never ever will be a GST’? The people would have
to conduct their own referendum and realistically that is not about to happen.
It is my hope and prayer that by exposing the Port Arthur tragedy, an unrelenting disquiet and
outrage across the nation will spotlight every horrid individual as they scurry for their bolt
holes to enjoy their superannuation, the amassed rewards of their misdeeds. Of course I
should include among this number, those of the 'international brigade' who've planned and
plotted similar exercises, I can demonstrate were replicated across the globe. These people
should never be allowed to forget the legacy they have foisted upon our nation: that product of
trauma, the illness PTSD, an insidious, silent illness which is manifest to varying degrees among
almost all surviving victims of the massacre.
It is my hope that the shear magnitude of that disquiet does force change - for the good. In
the long run, if nothing is ventured, if you the public are only partially committed to such a
worthy cause, then for generations to come, the destruction of the people’s rights, their
freedoms and their wellbeing will be assured; our children's children will hate us for this
inheritance. To succeed in ANY venture, it is the resolute, steadfast, commitment to a project
that quality of tenacity that will carry the day, and win out for us all, so lets us all partake in
this project of exposing what actually happened that April day at Port Arthur.
If there are some people out there who remain unconvinced that Port Arthur was a psycho-
political exercise, a massive conspiracy - not a ‘conspiracy theory’- then consider this
admission made in a letter to Mr Ron Owen of Queensland's Firearm Owners Association, dated
17 November 1995 - five months before the massacre - from out of the Queensland Police
Service’s Commissioner’s Office:
"At its meeting on 10 November, 1995, the Australasian Police Ministers' Council
(APMC) discussed a proposal to move forwards national uniformity in firearms
legislation."
Of course for what it’s worth, ‘national uniformity in firearms legislation’ spoken of above,
we know was already agreed to by all state police ministers except Queensland, way back in
November of 1987! 4
Two witness documents surely should suffice as irrefutable proof of a conspiracy of global
proportions being put in place by the real architects and partners of "gun control," the
Commonwealth Government’s Ministers and their bureaucrats, firstly drawn-up under the
Keating ALP Ministers, and then delivered by the Howard Lib/Nat Ministers. Keating's
colleagues were informing dealers that the already drafted, uniform gun laws that everyone
thinks resulted from Port Arthur were being "moved forward" before the fact in November
1995. In the latter example, under Howard's hand, although posted after the event on 10
January 1997, its author has inadvertently and obviously used earlier documents promoting
the UN's program timetable that like Roland Browne was predicting a significant event
occurring in “May 1996,” that would fulfil their expectations that in Australia, "gun control"
laws would at that time, “commence”. Bureaucrats appear to work for any master, but
reality demonstrates that they definitely promote and even create machinery that fulfils an
ideology that crosses all present political boundaries! Surely you do not require further
convincing evidence…
Those in authority are our servants. Is it pushing the limits too far to point out that our
servants have a duty of impartial care and service to all of the Commonwealth's people, to
uphold our right to commission at the earliest possible time an open and impartial Coronial
inquiry into all that enshrouds the Port Arthur massacre? That is the least which is owed the
victims, survivors and their relatives who lost loved ones or suffered hurt and injury from that
horrid thespian exercise.
The majority of survivors only were ever able to extract entirely inadequate compensation for
their hurt from the Tasmanian Government as is explained in Chapter 26.
John Howard, in a now familiar manner of a suburban solicitor that he is, at the time refused
to admit any Federal liability that would require them to make monetary assistance to the
survivors available in any form.
One survivor whom I have gotten to know, who lost his fresh, young, bride to the gunman’s
bullets, received a pitiful settlement for his awful loss of less than $80,000 and that measly
sum only after years of legal wrangling! So our collectively benevolent politicians expect this
man to eke out the rest of life at the rate of around $2,000 p.a.? But there is at least one
exception to this rule: the Melbourne-based law firm of Slater and Gordon successfully sued the
employment agency and Commonwealth employer of an unnamed female survivor and secured
an undisclosed six-figure settlement; more on that mysterious case later. 5
So I also ask you to contemplate the circumstances that now surround all who survived that
outrageous terrorist act on 28 April 1996; the Historic Site staff, visitors and service personnel
and even the falsely convicted accused, all of whom suffer continuing hurt, trauma, and
anxiety and who have been abandoned and ignored by “the system” — and pray for them. All
Australians deserve to know what really occurred there on the Tasman Peninsula that autumn
day in 1996, and you can play your part to ensure that it does happen. Remember the power
of one. It really comes down to YOU … for my fellow Australians to obtain the justice they
deserve it comes down to you expressing your outrage. You must speak out and tell all who
cross your path that it’s intolerable that their fellow countrymen are abandoned to suffer such
injustice.
Stewart K. Beattie.
Special Notice:
You will observe the majority by far of photographs within the narrative of this work carry no
acknowledgment to the photographer. There is a twofold reason for me doing so. Primarily the reader
should be made aware, that by far the majority of photographs featuring Martin Bryant in almost every
Australian publication … be they newspapers, magazines and or periodicals - many now digitally altered
by the same people - came from original photographs stolen, as Martin Bryant tells Mr Avery on the 3 Oct.
1996, when 'someone got into the house and took some photographs that I had on my kitchen table …
some coloured photos of myself'. Mr Avery simply chooses to deliberately dismiss the allegation,
already confirmed to this author by a former Tasmanian and journalist there at the time of the break-in.
The second reason is that I believe it is in the public interest that all the photographs be published - the
author.
Continue over - for a Map of the operational area of the massacre at Port Arthur…
For enlarged map, click here
LEGEND: Sorell, 25km from Hobart, where he bought a bottle of tomato sauce. At Forcett, just 7km further east on the
Arthur Hwy, Martin bought a coffee and drank it at the same time the Prosecution claimed Martin Bryant murdered by
gunshot inside Seascape, Mr David Martin and his wife Sally Martin. Oh, & Mrs Martin was not shot, and was still alive &
being pursued about the yard of Seascape by a dark haired male at about 1700 hrs.
3. Copping, near by Martin inherited a farm formerly owned by Miss Harvey. His father died here under bizarre
circumstances about 13 August 1993. North of Copping on 20 October 1992, when Martin was 25-year-of-age
Helen Harvey was killed in a head-on car crash. Bryant suffered a quite serious neck injury. He inherited her
entire estate, later confiscated by the Crown, and sold to mystery buyers...
4. Dunalley, where the swing bridge over the canal was never used as a road block.
5. Eaglehawk Neck; Martin Bryant was witnessed driving south in his distinctive yellow Volvo here at 11.30am.
6. Taranna; Martin bought petrol for the Volvo from Chris Hammond. Police set-up a forward command post here
and a road block just before 1500 hrs.
10. The Coal Mines: Two Constables, Hyland (Nubeena) & Whittle (Dunalley), were there when shooting broke out.
11. The two constables returned and broke their journey at Nubeena. Hyland goes to Fox & Hounds via
Premaydena & Taranna, while Whittle goes direct to Port Arthur & the Tollbooth.
12. Port Arthur: SEASCAPE is indicated by a BLUE indicator 3.4 km north of Port Arthur.
† “D” NOTICES
A “D” Notice is a communication issued to the media by the Defence, Press and
Broadcasting Committee. It outlines subjects which bear upon defence or national security, and
requests editors to refrain from publishing certain information about those subjects.
In other words this pre-wartime control is a legislated “censorship” of published news that has
never been repealed by governments; they always seek to extend their powers but once having these
powers enacted, governments NEVER repeal their legislation. Though successive governments would
have you believe free speech is preserved in what they claim to be a “free and democratic society.”
The origin of the insidious “D” notice was England in 1912, and since 1952 here in Australia they
have been issued by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Committee comprised of 16 representatives of
the print and broadcasting media along with 4 Defence personal of the government. Although they rely
upon a voluntary arrangement, it becomes very obvious the taboos associated the print and electronic
media informing the public of the grave accusations that have been raised from time to time regarding
the Port Arthur massacre the situation remains undeniably VERY tightly controlled, and VERY censored.
This situation is mirrored when one examines the shooting murders at Monash University, and Xiang’s
treatment by the media during and after his sentencing hearing. Mrs Wendy Scurr has learned from a well
placed and reliable source, she definitely had a “D” notice placed on her name – with regard to Port
Arthur massacre. 6
End Notes.
1
Interview, 17 April 2002, 2GB (Sydney radio); Philip Clark program.
2
n.a. "Howard on Howard", The Age, March 1, 2006 - 12:40 pm.
3
John North, President Law Council of Australia, letter to Prime Minister, 3nov05
4
David Armstrong, “Private gun ban in tough new law”, The Daily Telegraph, 11dec87, pp.1-2
5
Andrew Darby, “The fight for compensation”, The Age, 22apr01
6
http://www.naa.gov.au/Publications/fact_sheets/FS49.html
Chapter 1
T
he incessant rain of the past few weeks relented; brilliant sunshine drenched the Tasman
Peninsula that autumn Sunday, 28 April 1996. A tour guide remarked spontaneously to a
visitor, "You’d better get a photo of the sun today; we haven't seen it for weeks."
For the locals, it was in truth the first bright sunshine for very
many weeks. The balmy autumn sunshine even seemed to
calm the waters of Carnarvon Bay as it lapped the convict sea
wall, while crystal-clear ground water rushed to join with the
salt in Mason’s Cove from out of the soggy, lush green lawns,
with their carpet of spent golden leaves from the deciduous
trees as they farewelled summer; a patch of the old country
from the convict days of long ago. Outside, the waters of the
Great Southern Ocean and Tasman Sea were in harmony, quite
calm for that autumn day.
Whether or not you have visited Tasmania, Australia's unique island State, there is an
imperative, essential for your consideration. Made aware of its influence one can believe then
understand much better why - Port Arthur was the site for such evil that to the casual visitor
burst upon this tranquil scene on the 28 April in 1996 and to why this was the appointed
season. After all, did not the shooting massacre achieve that desired outcome espoused by
Robert James Lee Hawke, our former Prime Minister in his address to the Fabians Society
twelve years earlier when he spoke of a "need to change the whole mind and mood of the
nation"? 1
But the imperative I speak of above is an enduring spiritual legacy, forced upon Port Arthur 147
years earlier, which was re-imposed there that day in 1996…
Jeremy was recognized as a “child prodigy” when as a toddler he was reputedly discovered
sitting at his father’s desk reading a multi-volume history of England. Various authors claim he
studied Latin from the age of three. Bentham lived during a time in history of immense social,
political, and economic change in what we know as the Industrial Revolution. The massive
social shifts even increased in the wake of initial, vast changes, which saw America’s War of
Independence (the revolution), the rise of the middle class, and later the disastrous
insurrection in France, its most infamous action, the storming of the Bastille, even celebrated
annually today by ignorant people who actually believe themselves students of history.
These events were reflected in this philosopher’s theories, writings, especially regarding the
existing institutions, and importantly in his practice as head of British secret service at the
time of the French Revolution.
In 1760, he entered Queen’s College, Oxford where he took his Bachelor’s degree in 1763 and
his Master’s in 1766 (at age 16yrs). As a lawyer he was called to the bar in 1769 (at age 21yrs).
It was during this period that Bentham wrote of paederasty’s normality in the decadent Grecian
culture: “Some few appear to have had no appetite for boys, as is the case for instance with
Ovid, who takes express notice of it and gives a reason for it.”
Jeremy Bentham is undoubtedly in this new order with its promoted depravities, best known to
at least a few, for his essay - In Defence of Paederastry (1785). Remarkably, although written
220 years ago, his essay is now published today under the title, “Offences Against One’s Self”.
While at Oxford, in 1776 Bentham wrote a commentary, in which he stridently attacked the
legal writings of that great English jurist Sir William Blackstone and other likeminded men
including Locke. He also repudiated many of the concepts underlying their political
philosophies, such as natural right, state of nature, and ‘social contract.’
In England and so the Commonwealth countries, these are the wellsprings that go to confirm
the foundations of our common law. It appears he was in favour of destroying the very same
immutable rights and freedoms that are today rapidly being stripped away from Australians in
the name of security by the socialist regime, which masquerades as conservative.
While others have written Bentham held a ‘philosophical divergence from traditional English
law,’ I firmly believe he even held our traditional law and our Christian heritage, its very core,
in absolute contempt.
Returning to England in 1788 and at great expense he pursued his 'Panopticon' project for the
next 20 years. Government plans in 1811 to construct his prison were stymied when the King
refused to authorize the purchase of the land and the project was finally shelved. But two
years later Bentham was awarded the huge sum (for those days) of £23,000 Sterling in
compensation for his monetary loss due the cancellation.
But with government ever conscious of savings in ongoing
expenditure of such areas as prisons, they viewed his
'Panopticon' idea with favour. Eventually Pentonville Prison in
London, Armagh Gaol in Northern Ireland and Eastern State
Penitentiary in Philadelphia, America were all to example the
hallmarks of Bentham's 'Panopticon' plan; the latter holding Al
Capone.
His 'Panopticon' is a type of prison building having a concept intrinsic in its design to allow an
observer to observe (opticon) all (pan) prisoners, without the prisoners being able to tell if
they were being observed, thereby conveying in his own words a “sentiment of an invisible
omniscience”. The ‘observed’ in effect unwittingly became the observers; the mere
perception of power (of being under surveillance) rendered its necessity unnecessary. 2
So it was that the picturesque park-like scene beside Mason Cove The Asylum
was shattered by a loud and recurring “banging” or “thudding” Port Arthur
emanating from the Broad Arrow Café, as lunch-hour waned. But it
was the accompanying unmistakeable odour of burnt nitrocellulose powder, which alerted two
Vietnam veterans John Godfrey and his friend Peter Stainforth, that the thudding was in fact
gunfire! The gunshots had been in progress for no more than a minute or so, before the first
“000” emergency call was made to Police HQ in Hobart.
In spite of many official claims to the contrary, this initial “000” call
alerting Police to the shootings in the Broad Arrow Cafe, was made by
Historic Site information officer and tour guide, Mrs. Wendy Scurr on her
own initiative. The call was logged by Constable Barber in Police HQ
Hobart at 1332 hrs. Upon reflection that night, Wendy Scurr had convinced
herself that the police’s inexplicable 6 hour delay in arriving at the Scene
and horrendous delay in securing of the site must have been down to some
failure on her part to convince police during this call of the gravity of the
situation requiring their immediate response.
On the job: Compelled by the realisation of this inordinate delay for police respond in
Wendy Scurr 1996 numbers, Wendy and her husband Graeme went to Nubeena Police station
next day and there Const Paul Hyland showed them both Wendy’s logged call on the station’s
VDU logged at 1332hrs. Her employers also confirmed the time, as did then Assist Comm.
Luppo Prins, in the EMA Report at page 27.
So began the deliberate and ghoulish shooting massacre, which fulfilled the, "…need to change
the whole mind and mood of the nation." Did this massacre not fulfil the thrust in those
serious words issued by Robert James Lee Hawke, our former Prime Minister in his address to
the Fabians Society twelve years earlier in Melbourne on 18 May 1984?
In spite of the facts above, senior police maintained the 000 call,
which initiated their first response, “…was received at the Police
switchboard at 1335,” or 3 minutes after Mrs Scurr’s call. This 000
call was in fact made by an interesting Peninsula character, Ian
Kingston. Ian was at the time unit manager of the Tasman SES and
only recently engaged by PAHSMA in June of 1995 in a casual
capacity as Security Officer on the Historic Site (see Chap 16 for
further details).
Ian Kinston: Historic Site's
security officer for 8 months
In his first signed statement Ian Kingston's imagination ran wild: he
in 1996
makes quite outrageous claims of how his first reaction to the
gunshots saw him run to the front door of the Broad Arrow and enter the café, and when he
saw the gunman about “eight metres” away he “immediately reversed out...” This claim was
even promoted as fact at every opportunity by media and police in their recently escaped
Police Training Video! The claim is simply nonsense. In his statement Kingston claims that
after he withdrew, he made considerable efforts to move visitors standing about the
Information Centre to move away from the shooting.
He then states he went (no running is mentioned), to the other extremity of the Historic Site,
and all achieved in just 3 minutes, for Ian Kingston made 1335hrs call from the Parsonage,
about 425m from the Broad Arrow Café – as the crow flies. So this deed in itself was an
athletic feat of considerable proportions: but how could he have moved all these tourists away
so quickly? You see Kingston's feat becomes a farce, when one reads the statements made by
John Godfrey and Peter Stainforth. As John Godfrey later stated, a crowd he estimated at 50-
75 visitor had been standing about the Information Centre when the shooting began. He went
on to state that he and his good mate Peter shepherded these people across some 360m of
difficult, boggy terrain "covered with grass up to their knees" to the safety of the church ruins,
finding the task very testing, as Mr Godfrey has reaffirmed to me recently. He went on to
reaffirm the visitors exhibited poor mobility, many past middle age and into their senior years.
Interestingly, when Ashley Law entered the parsonage, where it was intended they should
leave the visitors, he discovered Kingston sheltering there, allegedly under a table. This was at
the time John Godfrey and Peter Stainforth were standing on Church Rd, watching the gunman
at the boot of the yellow Volvo that he subsequently abandoned near the Tollbooth. It was at
this stage Ashley Law accompanied by Ian Kingston rejoined John and Peter on Church Road,
with Kingston instructing Ashley to straightaway 'go to the Tollbooth and check on Aileen
Kingston' who was working there. John Godfrey and his friend had earlier concluded that the
gunman would return, and so he suggested to Ashley Law that he (Godfrey) should accompany
him on that assignment. It was from the Parsonage Kingston made his “000” call; perhaps he
was just catching his breath there?
At the time, Maria Kingston – Ian's wife - held the position on Site as a “Visitor Supervisor”. Ian
Kingston made no less than 4 sworn statements to police: 28/4/96, 19/6/96, 24/6/96 with his
final statement made at 2.15pm on 7 October 1996, although the claims made in his EMA paper
are even more revealing and outrageous. Considering all of his statements sequentially, I
would opinion the claims are remarkable. His performance during the staff press conference in
Hobart on Monday 29th was nothing less than amazing. Peter Burke, Paul Cooper and Wendy
Scurr all gave brief accounts of the incident as it affected them. But Kingston made some
quite astonishing claims even while seated there among 3 dumfounded colleagues, especially
evidenced by Paul Cooper’s expression. As Kingston rambled on, a red-faced PAHSMA
executive Michael Langley made a delayed but abrupt appearance and upon his entry
immediately, he closed-down the press conference.
For reasons better known to Kingston, he changed his recollection of the incident with every
updated statement to police; a case of evolving recall? In spite of his blatant unreliability as a
witness, Ian Kingston was the establishment's man – even the only PAHSMA employee to attend
the Abbotsford venue for the EMA seminar where he delivered a paper on the involvement of
Volunteers in the incident. This paper soon attracted stern rebukes through a lawyer from a
number of aggrieved Historic Site staff. You see staff were officially forbidden to attend this
seminar. Ian Kingston’s wife Maria also numbered among the chosen few and she attended the
hush-hush media event, when John Howard, Kim Beazley and Cheryl Kernot made their flying
visit to the Broad Arrow Café on Wednesday 31 April, 1996. On this visit, the VIPs laid flowers
on the steps of the soon to be “destroyed” Broad Arrow Café.
But after the acrid smell of rifle power had drifted from the Broad Arrow, so began an ever so
short interim of quiet. In the wider scene national politics John Howard MHR, the
parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party who with his National coalition had recently been
elected to the treasury benches of the Federal Parliament was to swoop. Capitalising upon the
national outrage and trauma, the time had come for Howard to reveal his latent revulsion for
an armed society: the laws had been drafted and shown to the Queensland Police earlier. The
Attorney General, Darryl Williams, at the time patron of Perth’s chapter of the National
Coalition for Gun Control soon oversaw the disarming of the Australian people.
I have often contemplated: what if a fit young Tasmanian hunter had been in a position to
intervene as the gunman left the café, and had taken-out the gunman with a single shot from
his sporting rifle? But it didn’t happen, as the law-abiding firearm owners were in the habit of
respecting firearm prohibitions in National Parks, such as Port Arthur was.
A Nation Traumatised
Both Howard and Williams burst forth, blaming the gun for this psychopolitical massacre. But
very early on and for a very practical reason Tasmania Police identified the massacre as a
terrorist attack, and for good reason. You see Tasmanian statutes forbad state police tapping
telephone lines. Only 'acts of terrorism' overrule the statute. The law prevented a police
negotiator to establish a telephone-intercept, so as to negotiate with “Jamie” inside
Seascape, unless it was seen as a terrorist act. So terrorism was introduced to our southern
island state, and this alone heralded an urgent need to bring forward the scheduled
Australasian Police Ministers' Council meeting, to 10 May.
But, the "uniform gun laws" as I have mentioned had already been drafted and were being
implemented in Queensland in November of 1995! I should point out
that this key Police Ministers' meeting was not only for Ministers for
Police and their Commissioners in Australia, but also their counterparts
from New Zealand. The APMC was overseen by a busy, eager,
bureaucrat, Daryl Smeaton; an intelligence officer who'd formerly been
advisor to Attorney General Duncan Kerr, ALP Tasmania, in the former
Keating Labor Government. Smeaton coincidentally hailed from
Tasmania and had for a time served as Senior Private Secretary for
Senator Tate (also of the Tasmania ALP), himself later rewarded
Daryl Smeaton incidentally, while the latter is now titled, Rev. Prof. Michael Tate A.O.
Six years after completing his important task and in 2002, Mr Smeaton was appointed C.E.O. of
the Alcohol Education & Rehabilitation Foundation Ltd. Still later, he moved yet again to an
appointment as C.E.O. of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, and quickly proceeded to issue
all sorts of "expert" advice on investment in property and predictions on the industry's future
prospects. At least as early as March 2005, Daryl Smeaton was reported as Chair of the
Catholic Education Commission in the ACT.
In March 1996 on the TV show A Current Affair and after the videoed firepower demonstration
of an SKK carbine – coincidentally of course, the type of firearm – the self-loading type -
targeted by the NCGC, for prohibition and confiscation - Roland Browne stated, “these types
of weapons will never be banned until there is a shooting massacre in Tasmania.” Here
he was reinforcing an earlier almost “carbon copy” statement published in the pages of The
Mercury.
Elsewhere in this narrative the reader can consider other actions and statements of this fleet-
footed “gun control” foot soldier. Also, after reading the account of the 3 gunshots in the
bushes beside Clougha on the Site at 6.30 pm of that Sunday evening, you may like to recall the
following account.
Some “few weeks prior to April 28 1996,” no less than 4 of PAHSMA’s staff witnessed “3 or 4”
gunshots fired within the confines of the Historic Site at night. Site staffs were engaged in
conducting one of the regular Ghost Tours there. Steven Howard, a man very familiar with
centre-fire rifles, had his group of visitors at the corner of Tarleton and Champs Sts, when the
entire group heard the gunshots. The shots generated such concern that he radioed Andrew
Simmons who called police.
Mandy Hatten, another information officer and guide had her group
outside the Model Prison when these shots were discharged, which
she recounted as being “quite close”, and of such concern to her,
that she immediately moved her group of visitors inside to the
safety of the stone walls…
Ashley Law had his group of visitors inside the Prison at the time,
and was said to have described the gunshots as “close” and “of
concern to him”. When Const Paul Hyland received a message from
Andrew Simmons’ regarding these shots, he was en-route to
Ashley Law, Information
Nubeena from Hobart, and so it was a considerable time before he
Officer PAHSMA
arrived in his white police station wagon and the perpetrator was by
then long gone. Was it a coincidence, an omen or a trial-run to test visitor/staff and police
reactions?
So perhaps the NCGC was not so perceptive or even psychic as we all may have thought. Yet
again, is it possible they were quite well connected to the ghostly apparitions frequently
reported as “real” by the many visitors who participated in the popular Ghost Tours at Port
Arthur and were adept in discharging firearms? Or, did the NCGC have at that time a resident
disciple at Port Arthur? You see, I don’t hold that “ghosts” are able to discharge centre fire
rifles - just yet.
An interesting development after the massacre involved all staff who were instructed via a
memo to cease referring to these popular excursions as “ghost tours”. The memo suggested
that sensitive to the recent events perhaps “evening tours” was a more acceptable term for
the aftermath. Ordinary staff members were even encouraged not to discuss the massacre and
so deliberately avoided those colleagues not accepting of the official line.
But returning to April 28, 1996: on the Tasman Peninsula from 1332 hrs, the mayhem that
ensued for 19 hours and 10 minutes instituted a knock-on effect that saw instantly the
reinvigorated attack by the “gun control” network, against the basic right of the people to be
armed for self defence, across Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and to a
lesser effect, the United States of America. In fact, the assault involved all of the English
speaking peoples of the globe. It even saw on 26 April 2002, the people of Germany, at Erfurt
under a direct attack by this “gun control network” of shootings. Their global set-up pushing
“gun control” played out their roll so very well.
But here at Port Arthur, nineteen and a quarter hours after the first shot was fired in the Broad
Arrow Café, and at 0840 hrs on Monday 29, April, with him
tearing at his burning black clothing, an eventually naked
and badly burnt Martin Bryant, was arrested by Constable
Paul Hawkins, an SOG Policeman, near the south eastern
corner of the guesthouse called Seascape and evacuated to
the Royal Hobart Hospital by ambulance, guarded in that
journey by either an SOG in Auscam uniform or was it a
member of the military?
While the siege there was ended, the trial by media of Martin
Dressed in an Aus-cam uniform this
Bryant had already advanced to their judgement of "guilty".
(military?) escort alights from
For on 1 May the headline screamed out, “THIS IS THE MAN”. Ambulance which transported Martin
Bryant to the Royal Hobart Hospital
It was an angry mob beating on a defenceless, intellectually
handicapped adolescent, fuelled by the an hourly fill of choice, prime-time propaganda TV
sound-bites, and tabloid sensationalism by these professionals who dare to call it "News" — 24x7
— until even the angry majority were sickened to the stomach and began turning a deaf ear.
By Martin Bryant’s sentencing, people were conditioned by the grand architecture of this
"stressful event" to accept the "gun control" networks’ antithesis presented to the politicians.
Port Arthur was the horrid thesis; only their synthesis remained undone, soon to be imposed
upon a compliant people after the 10 May 1996, when Australasian Police Ministers met.
In spite of numerous concerted efforts to have a coronial inquest into the matter, all requests
were flatly denied. My files hold an unsuccessful joint application submitted by six individuals.
But as you consider the following narrative, you will no doubt come to realise that at Port
Arthur, the photographs, investigations, examinations, diagrams, the 'statements of fact'
presented to the Court by the DPP and his assistant at the sentencing hearing, and many media
reports besides, clearly do not stand up to scrutiny. The facts I present here reveal a chilling
picture of deception and misrepresentation; the lie was protected energetically at Port Arthur,
even before the first shot rang out on April 28, 1996.
Recently a video came to light, entitled a Tasmania Police training video – with a rider
declaring, "For Police Eyes Only". When the presence of video in the public domain was
exposed by the media, actions by police in four Australian states alone proclaim the video as
genuine. The tape's director was the Tasmania Police Commissioner's Media Liaison Officer at
the time of the incident. The video tape exposes the Tasmania Police hierarchy’s conceited,
proud demeanour, from beginning to end, with the vision and narrative exposing – even if
unintentionally – the deceits and probable acts of criminality that I and other authors have for
so long either exposed or suspected. Remember, today’s police recruits (in 2004) could well
have been as young as 10-year-olds in April of 1996. But would these young people believe
without question such blatant fraud? The prospects are disturbing.
Port Arthur task force investigator Robert Bond, states police obtained some 1060 sworn
statements from "over a thousand" witnesses. Under FOI legislation and from the office of the
DPP we have only been able to obtain 171 statements; in August of 1996 Supt Jack Johnston
was claiming there were "over 747 witnesses … collated … with 1,500 exhibits, 1,200
photographs, 28 video tapes and 20 plans/maps." 4
Such are the discrepancies in this case, a problem common to such controversies I fear. While
the documents we obtained bear the watermark of the DPP's office, I should point out the
documents are not photocopies of a DPP original computer/word-processor produced document
and not the hand written, signed statement. Remember police statements were taken from
witnesses who almost surely were suffering badly the effects of trauma only ever amplified by
the four hundred plus “disaster vultures” * , who descended upon the survivors over those post
incident weeks.
In my opinion some are incomplete, for only those we have obtained directly from the
witnesses themselves, bear the witness’s signature. Some even evidence hand-written
comments and correction included. It also should be noted, that upon reflection by the
signatories in two cases at least, they claimed the text differed to a considerable extent from
their original signed, hand-written statements, taken by police.
Hence in dealing primarily with the firearms allegedly salvaged by police from various locations
I will use not only material from sworn witness statements and Court documents, but also much
other material besides. The firearms we shall deal with presently were salvaged from no less
than six (6) locations:
1. Martin Bryant's Clare Street, New Town residence,
2. The ashes at the periphery of the burnt-out ruins of the Seascape cottage,
3. The porch roof gutter of the adjacent out-building under renovations at Seascape, and
4. Inside that same out-building, as well as
5. Martin Bryant's yellow Volvo sedan registered number CG-2835, abandoned by the
gunman near the Port Arthur Tollbooth.
However, there were various other firearms police deliberately chose not to detail such as the
single firearm recovered from the grass outside Seascape Cottage, as well as the reported
"arsenal" of 43 firearms recovered from the burnt-out ruins of the cottage. These had been
allegedly placed one at every upstairs window inside Seascape, during the siege and were
destroyed in the cottage fire. We shall examine closely those firearms that the Damien Bugg
QC the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) alleged were the primary firearms deployed by
Martin Bryant as the weapons, which caused the deaths and injuries, at seven crime scenes and
we shall look closely into the time frames, especially with regard to the Tollbooth-Seascape
segment. I will show that the DPP failed to produce one shred of evidence linking any of these
*
"The Trauma Trade," The Bulletin, (a RHH staff counsellor) 27/01/2004
firearms with any one of the 34 ♣ people shot to death and the 21 injured in the massacre.
Strangely the DPP even failed to prove any of these firearms were ever discharged at six of the
seven crime scenes.
While the two primary firearms we examine were recovered from the environs of the Seascape
Cottage guesthouse, the DPP is less than convincing in its case presented before the Court that
these two firearms were ever used at The Broad Arrow Café let alone later at any of the other
six crime scenes. Remember that the DPP’s “evidence” was never tested under oath and cross
examination. But before we demolish the DPP's case, and expose the fiction, and
misinformation, which shrouds the primary firearms, we shall deal with the other firearms
entwined within the police investigation and the eventual DPP "evidence" as well.
We will also examine in detail the ammunition alleged to have been used by a lone gunman in
his ghoulish killing spree, and as to the likelihood of this ammunition leading directly and
indirectly to the alleged destruction during a fit of rage of the two primary firearms. The
information presented here has been presented in such a way that should the reader be
entirely unfamiliar with firearms and the ammunition they consume, he or she can become
proficient enough to consider, evaluate and discard the fiction and misinformation, and make
informed conclusions as to what did occur during and after the shooting massacre at Port
Arthur.
After having considered this study, I ask you then to contemplate why
it was that Police, the DPP, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats and the
media chose to deliberately blur the reality, the facts - so
unashamedly - that was the massacre.
In this work are assembled many vital facts that through careful and
sometimes frustrating investigations have come to light. Facts often
Martin Bryant 1996
sidelined by the establishment, and at least one “author” for what
becomes in the long run, obvious reasons. So now, let us examine and consider carefully and
impartially, all of the points I raise. I shall demonstrate for your consideration that:
♣
35 persons died in the massacre, but an autopsy revealed Mrs Noelene (“Sally”) Martin suffered 5
lacerations over the back of the head and an associated depressed skull fracture, indicating blunt force
trauma of considerable force to the back of the head.
• Martin Bryant was not responsible for the deaths and or injuries to people inside
the Broad Arrow Café on that Sunday afternoon of the 28th April, 1996, as he was
not present.
• Throughout, you may consider the almost endless list of critical anomalies that
authorities have chosen by their silence to conceal from the public. As a result of
the authorities' complicit, and dare I say treacherous actions regarding the whole
of this massacre, it has contributed directly to the victims, survivors, their
relatives and loved ones (and not forgetting every Australian ignorant or
otherwise), who have been touched by the effects, left as de facto victims. They
have never received an iota of recompense. When tyranny envelops ministries of
the Crown and the very Governments, the people mourn, for in so doing the
people have been deigned justice, suffered lose of property and their inalienable,
indubitable rights; all of the people deserve nothing less than to know the truth
and see Justice done.
If Martin Bryant did not shoot, kill and injure these people at Port Arthur that day, then think
on it: the gunman or gunmen and their co-conspirators, are all still at large, rewarded,
unimpeded, and that to you the reader, as it is to me, should indeed be a disturbing prospect.
I'm confident in suggesting you will have to AT LEAST reassess any preconceived notion you may
harbour of Martin Bryant's guilt in that which occurred from inside the Broad Arrow Café to
inside Seascape Cottage itself. I cannot promise that for you this will prove an easy task; I can
promise you though this work is my endeavour to present my findings of the incident,
impartially. The authorities of Tasmania and indeed every State of the Commonwealth and
certain members of the Federal Ministry never afforded intellectually impaired Martin Bryant a
trial by his peers as guaranteed in ancient charters and divers covenants – as a result all
Australians are the losers here. In consideration of this work, it is my hope that you gain a
measure of reward, in knowledge and facts exposed within the text.
Endnotes
1
Robert James Lee Hawke, (PM) address to Fabians Society, Melbourne 18.05.84
2
Kim Zetter, "Surveillance works both ways". 14apr05 at, http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/
3
Description of Port Arthur, at http://www.deh.gov.au/ , and other various articles.
The Age, Melbourne newspaper, 15nov98.
4
J. Johnston, Supt Police, letter to witnesses, 14aug1996.
Chapter 2
M
r. Damien Bugg Q.C. with assistant Mr Nick Perks, prosecuted the Crown’s case.
Although (fortunately for Mr Bugg) the statements establishing "facts" read before
Justice Cox * were never tested under oath. The witness statements were likewise never
tested under oath. Most witness statements, gathered by Police are understandably vague:
few among the witnesses were experienced in firearms of any type. But from earliest reports,
and continuing right into the Court Document the primary firearm identified was the Colt AR15
rifle. But as this wasn’t the firearm recovered from the ashes of Seascape, which Police and
DPP appointed as the primary weapon, any identification by witnesses as to the firearm they
saw used being different, were simply ignored by the authorities.
Though from reliable witness identification, I can positively identify it was a rifle used by the
gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café as follows:
*
All those helpful servants of this psychopolitical exercise received their rewards for services rendered. At time of the
massacre Sir William Cox, a Col. in the Army Reserve, was Tasmania’s Chief Justice. But at age 68 years & on
15.12.2004, he was sworn in as Tasmania’s 26th Governor after former UN weapons inspector Richard Butler was
forced to resign amid raging controversy on 9 August 2004.
2
the rife in the gutter at Seascape, S/No. G3434; a self-loading rifle, in ·308Win calibre.
In two photographs published in the December 1998 issue of the APJ at page 218, the firearm
itemised above at "a." is identified as a Colt AR15 "rifle". That description is embedded
throughout the Court Documents as well and only ever served to confuse everyone.
So to point No.1:
After considering carefully witness statements and later conversations
with witnesses, it is now my firm conclusion that the firearm primarily
used inside the Café, was a
Colt AR15 a1 rifle of around
1967 manufacture as seen at
right.
There are so many errors regarding technical firearm related terms and conclusions embedded
in many documents associated with this case I find it hard to excuse it as less than intentional,
on the part of so-called professionals, but as I have stated elsewhere, these errors certainly
enhanced the confusion.
Point No.2:
The DPP and Tasmanian Police Ballistics Section's forensic firearm
examiner Sergeant Gerard Dutton does not correctly identify the Colt
firearm he is referring to in the Court Documents or indeed in the
APJ article or the Police Training Video.
Is it any wonder, the media never did get this firearm's description right either. But they may
very well never have been told the truth at the outset, and so continued in ignorance to use
the Colt AR15 “rifle” tag adding to the confusion. Joe Vialls on the other hand, got the
firearms RIGHT, first time he published: this article was published in The Strategy May 1998.
But the first photographic evidence available to the public authored by Sgt Gerard Dutton,
appeared in the December 1998 APJ and corresponding forensic information, published in the
International Wound Ballistic Review Vol.3, Number 4 of 1998. Joe could not have considered a
single witness statement as he never did have any. So his information must have come from an
inside "official" source! This conclusion alone I believe, is a damming inditement of the real
agenda of Vialls as a prolific writer and confirms his boast of having influential "friends" in the
'intelligence community' families – as to what nationality these "friends" were I can but
speculate.
In the latter IWBR article I refer to of 14 pages, Sgt Gerard Dutton (and by
association his three co-authors) firstly claims the Colt to be a "rifle" then
an "AR-15 SP1". This confusion is a consistent factor throughout the entire
case or The Crown v Martin Bryant. When lies are told, legions of fibbers
are required to support these lies. 3
"It became Hesman's crime scene: the first cop there and the only
senior officer present for most of the afternoon. Paramedics
led him around the dead, dying and wounded in the car park.
Then Hesman walked the 50 metres and climbed the steps to the
Broad Arrow Cafe."
Continuing…
"When Hesman first entered the cafe, he recalls: "I went around Peter Hessman
and did a count and there were 20 bodies. I was surprised, but I
wasn't shocked." He began securing the crime scene, ordering friends and relatives of
the dead from the building. Then it was copybook detection. He noted the shells
and empty magazines on the cafe floor were two different calibres, from two
military weapons. Hesman feared there were terrorists. He examined the victims,
killed by shots to the head, and his suspicions grew." End quote, my emphasis.
So here we are clearly told several vital pieces of evidence. Evidence incidentally that has
been preserved on that hot piece of property, the Police Training Video. Why was this
evidence apparently ignored by the white-haired-boy of Tasmania Forensic Firearm
Examination, the Courts and Prosecution alike? For evident on this video tape and clearly
visible are “shells” of differing calibres and when combined with Hesman's “empty magazines”
- also plural – there on the floor inside the Broad Arrow Café, understandably the scene was
suggestive to this trained policeman a presence of “terrorists” – also in the plural and a
suspicion by Hesman's that was ‘growing’. So what of the official line on the primary weapon?
Well the Colt AR15 SP1 Carbine variant I now believe was not the primary
firearm. My research and investigations lead me to conclude the primary
firearm was a Colt AR15 SP1 RIFLE. The rifle variant has a noticeably
longer forearm hand guard and the barrel is longer also than that of the
Carbine. Also the flash suppressor is of a smaller muzzle O.D., and is
longer that that of the Carbine.
Colt action ID
Point No.3:
Importantly, not a single witness describes the butt-stock of the
firearm used in the Café as being that of a Carbine with its distinctive
collapsible, tubular section.
Significantly, the butt-stock of the "rifle" variant is of a non-adjustable dark coloured polymer
plastic material. It gives an impression of the firearm being of more bulk that the Carbine
variant. All models display the Manufacturer's emblem, identification, model and serial
number, stamped into the metal on the lower left side of the magazine housing.
Sergeant Gerard Dutton has been described by Commissioner Richard McCreadie as "the best
ballistics expert in the nation". † What a pity Dutton chose not to show a photograph of the left
side of the action of the Carbine recovered from the margins of the ruins at Seascape for if he
had there would have been no confusion whatsoever – but of course this disclosure may well
have not served the prosecution's case in the long run.
Of importance here too, is the fact that the Colt AR15 SP-1 at the time of its recovery among
the ashes at the periphery of the Seascape cottage, had in battery a 20 shot capacity straight
magazine, not the model's standard issue 30 shot capacity bent magazine, claimed by the
prosecution to have been used at the Café. At least two witnesses counted the shots, and from
the number new the first magazine had to be of a 30 round capacity. There was a magazine
change recorded as occurring while the shootings were in progress inside the Café. As I noted
in the earlier photograph at the time at least a most reliable witness observed the gunman
carefully and for a considerable time, he has drawn a notebook sketch indicating a straight 20
shot pressed-steel magazine in battery when he sighted the rifle held by the gunman.
Considering the Crown's case would have us accept that intellectually impaired Martin Bryant
shot and killed 20 people and wounded 13 others within the confines of what was in reality a
relatively small, congested, café and souvenir shop, crowded with an estimated 60 visitors
(plus staff), then for a professionally trained lone gunman, this segment of the shooting was for
him a dangerous time; he could well have been overcome if charged by numbers of people at
once.
Therefore, "In the middle of this risky environment, why would the shooter have down-
graded his firepower by installing a magazine of a lesser capacity?" Such a conundrum is
deserving of more consideration, as 'the nation's best ballistic expert' fails to tell us of the
capacity of the replacement magazine, it surely must have been another magazine of 30 round
capacity. We're informed of one Colt .223Rem 30 shot capacity magazine recovered from the
boot of the Martin Bryant's yellow Volvo, the gunman abandoned at the Tollbooth. So could
this not mean there is one 30 shot Colt ·223Rem magazine which remains unaccounted for.
Sergeant Gerard Dutton requested assistance from the Colt Company of the USA to determine
the reasons for the AR15's horrific damage, and it is interesting to note Colt's expert Mr. Taylor
alludes to the above Colt AR15 as being a "carbine" just in passing, but gives no indication of
accurately identifying the model. 4
The following additional firearms were introduced as evidence in the Court Documents as well
as being dealt with in the APJ article by Sergeant Dutton. It would seem to make a more
complete report if we detail them also as follows: -
†
na. The Mercury 3jun04, p.9 In June 2004the then Attorney-General, Judy Jackson (ALP) was reported as stating
that, Justice William Cox, at the time of Bryant's sentencing hearing a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army Reserve, "is due
to retire from the bench in 2006."
5
1) Left: The Daewoo 12-gauge self-loading shotgun.
It reminds me of the tale of the arsenal of weaponry stored inside Seascape, which was
perpetuated right down to the wire and alleged to have been owned by the Martins. Even
Justice Cox was entrapped in this deception when he stated:
“Throughout the night he continued to discharge a number of weapons, his own
arsenal augmented by weapons belonging to the Martins…” 8
You see, Chapman made this candid admission on Channel Nine’s “Today Show” broadcast live
across the nation – including Tasmania where the gunman supposedly had power to watch TV if
he so desired - at 7.57am on Monday 29 April, 27 minutes before Martin was burnt out of
Seascape! Is Prof Simon Chapman psychic also?
But consider, if the firearms average weight was say around 6lbs (2.7kg) that
means Martin Bryant would have had to transported in excess of 258lbs or
317kg of firearms in his Volvo to Seascape, and what about the ammunition?
For example a case of 880rnds x 308W, weighs 56 lbs, while ·223Rem by
contrast a little lighter. Remember, an unnamed informant reportedly told
Police Media Liaison Officer Geoff Easton there was, quote: “shit-loads of
ammo mate” … allegedly stored inside Seascape. So was Geoff Easton’s
informant with this first-hand knowledge of what was allegedly kept inside
Seascape? Did police ever bother to follow up the witness or the claims? No?
The pressed steel But really, can you imagine the distinctive yellow Volvo with a surfboard on
removable SKK its roof-rack loaded above the windowsill-line of the passenger compartments
30-shot mag front and back, with firearms, and thousands of rounds of ammunition aboard
and with containers of petrol in the cabin making four stops along the way and this “arsenal”
escaping the astonished gaze of at least some one? 10
But the Crown alleges the FN FAL and the Colt AR15 Carbine were the only firearms used by the
gunman at the following crime scenes:
1.
Broad Arrow Café: Colt AR15. ‡
2. Bus/car park Broad Arrow Café: Colt AR15, and lastly the FN FAL. ‡
3. Jetty Road: Colt AR15.
4.
Toll Booth: FN FAL. ‡
5. Port Arthur Service Station: FN FAL. ‡
6. Arthur Highway, at Seascape entrance: FN FAL. ‡
An SKK carbine (not a rifle) is mentioned in various documents as being used at Seascape; it is
an interesting firearm having a 30 shot detachable AK-47-type pressed steel box magazine.
The model is variant of the SKS Type 56 Carbine and of Chinese manufacture. The SKK being a
variant of the original Samozaryadniy Karabin Sisyemi Simonova or Russian SKS, and as you can
see the middle "K" in both acronym titles stands for
"Karabin" or "Carbine" in the Russian. The earlier SKS
has a hinged, staggered double row 10 shot clip-
rechargeable magazine, while the later SKK differs
primarily from the early system Russian SKS Carbine
‡
In each case were the FN FAL self loading rifle was said to be used by the DPP, it was in fact an AR-10
never recovered by police; both firearms used by the gunman departed with him from Seascape.
Originally designed by Sergi Gavrilovich Simonov and trialled in
1943, the carbine was chambered in the then newly developed
7·62x39 cartridge and was first deployed on the front in
Byelorussia in 1944. The SKS Type 56 Carbine is of Chinese
manufacture with the “56” designating the model was first made
by China in 1956. It is of a self-loading gas operated system
incorporating a bolt of one-piece, tipping, rear-cocking design.
At 40" overall length, the SKS Type 56 Carbine is fitted with a
Type 56 SKS: rechargeable clip- 20·34" chrome-lined barrel having a 1:9.45" RH twist, and weighs
fed 20 round integral magazine in at 8½lbs unloaded. Both SKS and SKK Type 56 firearms work at
chamber pressures of 45,000psi, and the Norinco 7·62x39 cartridge is loaded with a projectile
weighing 122 grains, producing a modest velocity of 2,410 fps at the muzzle, at considerably
lower chamber pressure and lower external velocity to those of the ·223Rem round from the
AR15 SP-1, an important detail to keep in mind when we consider Chapter 15, entitled "Bangs
and COUGHS".
As I have already stated, the DPP is quite adamant that the FN FAL and the Colt AR15 alone
were used in the shooting murders and the woundings. But the 30cal firearm used at all crime
scenes except Jetty Rd (were the AR15 SP-1 223Rem was used) and Seascape was an AR-10
7.62NATO rifle. But we must be very aware also of the 7.62x39 calibre firearm that was
deliberately aimed and fired at the Police vehicle parked on the highway outside Seascape.
What is also not made clear by the DPP is who fired those shots. It is my finding, that no proof
exists in the DPP's case of who the shooter was, or even if it ever was "Jamie" a.k.a. Martin
Bryant and I will explain the veracity of this in detail in a later chapter.
So the Prosecution's case rests upon the primary two weapons allegedly used in the commission
of murders and attempted murders in the 7 crime scenes on the Tasman Peninsula, on the 28th
of April 1996. The DPP’s case is weak and was never proven beyond doubt.
The Crown introduced the Colt AR15 ·223Rem into evidence in the Court Doc. at pp. 59/9 &
100/1-8, and the FN FAL ·308W at pp. 59/10 & 140/25-27, as being the two prime weapons
used to cause the murders and injuries that weekend. I will show the deception of this claim
as we progress. However, significant is the early mention by Mr. Bugg Q.C. of the Daewoo 12-
gauge self-loading shotgun with its detachable magazine (see Court Doc., at p. 59/12), but
again the prosecution fails to provide any details of the shotgun: no serial number, no
movement history and no proof of ownership. Martin did acknowledge ownership of just three
firearms: an AR-10 rifle (in for repair at Terry Hill’s gunshop), a Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine (almost
surely purchased at the Hobart Gun Show on 20 April) and the Daewoo shotgun. But the DPP’s
omissions I suspect are purposefully and consistently repeated, like for example in the case of
the two sets of S&W handcuffs that legally never existed. The reason for investigating police
consistently omitting such information will become apparent as we progress in our study.
Police conducted a most inappropriate interrogation of Martin Bryant in his isolation cell at
Risdon Prison, handcuffed and wearing leg-irons. But he was also hobbled by the fact that
even his legal Counsel at the time, David Gunson sanctioned the police to conduct the
interview even without him present! With dodgy recording equipment Insps R. Paine, J.
Warren, Det Sgt L. Jones and Det Const S. Bolt are recorded as the inquisitors there on 4 July
1996. Insp Paine raises the question of handcuffs for the first and last time with
prisoner Martin Bryant when he asks:
Q. Ohh. When, the hostage, did you, did he just get in or did you
handcuff him or anything like that?
A. Umm, handcuffed him or anything, no. Ahh, what was that?
Q. Well do you own any handcuffs?
A. No, never, never owned handcuffs in my life.
Q. Ohh right. 12 Wade Frankum
Of this pair of handcuffs the DPP never entered into evidence the two pairs of
S&W handcuffs nor did they enter into evidence any photographs either!
Another curious consideration is the fact that Mr. Perks claims (see Court Doc. p.157/1-5), that
near the tollbooth, the shooter transferred, "a number of items from the Volvo to the BMW,"
which included, the none-existent "two sets of Smith and Wesson handcuffs". For Mr. Perks to
make such a claim as "fact" he must indeed be psychic: there is no statement from a witness,
Martin Bryant stated clearly he never owned handcuffs. No evidence existed to prove the two
sets of cuffs were ever in the Volvo sedan that day. While Smith & Wesson manufactured
various models such as nickel or black finish in models such as #SW-100, #SW-300 or the earlier
1970's #9XX series Smith & Wesson cuffs, but please forget about the handcuffs as THEY NEVER
DID EXIST! If empirical evidence is not formally entered in evidence then that evidence for the
purpose of the case DOSE NOT EXIST. Another smoke and mirrors trick!
You remember the gunman left certain objects in the sports bag on a dining table inside the
Broad Arrow Café including a "Bowie" type knife. I've already detailed the handcuffs allegedly
involved.
Here I need also to point out a quite unique fact; in Sydney and on August 17 1991, 33-year-old
Wade Frankum went to the Strathfield Plaza, where he killed 6 people and wounded another
17. Interestingly during the inquest the Coroner Mr Weller mentioned Wade Frankum was at
the time taking the controversial prescribed drug PROZAC. After exiting into the Plaza's car-
park, Frankum reportedly "hijacked" a car - NSW Reg MTX-536 - driven by an off-duty female
Detective of the NSW Police. Commander Wicks of NSW Police Service was reported as
claiming Frankum said to this driver, words to the effect, "I'm sorry", left the car, put the
muzzle of the SKK under his chin and shot himself. Handcuffs were also recovered by police at
the scene. So Like Port Arthur, the massacre at Strathfield had these elements present also:
1. the primary weapon was a self-loading military style firearm, already primary target of
"anti-gun" advocates,
2. hijacking of a vehicle,
3. a knife as a weapon, with the knife being used first and importantly,
4. handcuffs involved as evidential material.
We are told Police recovered the Daewoo shotgun from the boot of the
yellow Volvo sedan, registration CG-2835 abandoned by the gunman near
the Port Arthur Tollbooth, where he hijacked the gold BMW. On the
Tasmania Police video and in the imprecise segment covering the Volvo,
there we can see the Daewoo just inside the open boot in a most
unnatural pose, with a magazine in battery and carry strap fitted.
Obviously someone had shifted the shotgun – surely it must have been
police. To suggest evidence has been tampered with is a most serious
Daewoo shotgun allegation, and is not an allegation I make indifferently. We shall revisit
displayed in the Volvo another such allegation though shortly.
boot: Note the
·223Rem spent case, Now Gerard Dutton holding up the Daewoo shotgun tells us the magazine
not documented by Sgt is capable of holding 10 cartridges, but according to the Court
Dutton. Documents when the gun was recovered, the magazine contained just 9
cartridges. However, of importance here, is the fact Dutton fails to
inform us whether or not the Daewoo was forensically examined to prove whether or not the
firearm had recently been discharged.
Secondly Dutton chooses not to provide any details at all of the ammunition loaded in the
magazine as to the make, type of shell, or shot size. Remember, with regard to the Café
segment, the time constraint and maximum 29 shot theory and 'lone gunman' scenario was
central to the Crown's case. I believe these factors weighed more heavily upon the whole of
the police investigation than many can imagine. 14
At page 91 of the EMA report we are told that after Coroner Ian Matterson at Taranna received
the "all clear" at 1930 hrs (7.30 p.m.) he proceeded to Port Arthur via the alternate route
through Koonya to begin his duties of examining the crime scenes, commencing at around 2005
hrs (8.05 p.m.) in bus park beside the Broad Arrow Café. After examining 3 crime scenes he
reached the Volvo, where he explains, "Inside the open boot of the Volvo could be seen
firearms and a small white gun shooting target that appeared to have been used. Within
the passenger compartment were several petrol containers." I emphasise the fact that here
Coroner has used the plural, "firearms"; but keep in mind Mr Matterson's indeterminate details
as to the number of petrol containers and their position in the vehicle. 15
Sgt Gerard Dutton states, "Later examination of the Volvo revealed bullet damage,
hundreds of spare cartridges, spare magazines and another container of petrol." Here
Dutton alone informs us of a possible reason for the gunman abandoning the Volvo at the
Tollbooth; nowhere is this fact mentioned by the coroner nor can I find it detailed in the Court
Documents; a press photograph is the only confirmation I can find of the Volvo suffering
“bullet damage”. But Sgt Dutton’s statements are ambiguous as to type of magazines, details
of ammunition and location of evidential items and the situation continues with him stating,
"Also in the Volvo's boot was a 12-gauge Daewoo self-loading shotgun fitted with a ten-
round box magazine. The shotgun was not fired during the Port Arthur incident…": but
had it recently been discharged?
Mr Perks tells us that the gunman "left behind in the Volvo … items …
including the 12-gauge Daewoo semi-automatic shotgun … fitted with
a magazine containing nine cartridges." He further states that also left
in the Volvo were, "...two magazines for the .308 FN rifle, one empty
The bullet damaged
left, rear passenger
and one containing seventeen live rounds…" If this was so, why were
window & quarter
the two 30 cal magazines never entered into evidence, even photographic
pane of the evidence? Were the two “308 FN Rifle” magazines in fact not metric
abandoned Volvo. pattern, and so they would be embarrassingly incompatible with the
“throw-down” FN FAL rifle? 16
Here several other dilemmas are exposed, which immediately beg the question: "What
firearm/s (other than the Daewoo shotgun) did Mr Matterson see in the boot of the Volvo,
which caused him to use the plural form - ‘firearms’?"
To consider fully the implications surrounding the Daewoo shotgun, we must also consider very
carefully witness statements and the following report. A delivery driver for a welding firm in
Vancouver, Washington in the USA, 54-year-old Dennis Olsen was a visitor to the historic site
that day with his 49-year-old wife Mary. No sworn statement from Olsen is among those
obtained by FOI legislation from out of the DPP office. However, from an American source this
media account came to light for your consideration. That Sunday afternoon, Olsen and his wife
were reported as standing in the queue at the servery in the Broad Arrow Café to buy
sandwiches, when the gunman took a rifle from his large bag and
opened fire on the people inside the Café.
Dennis Olsen explained that his wife Mary lay flat on her stomach, but
not Dennis: 'I couldn't just lay down. I felt I had to get up to Steep rock-face behind
survive,' and so when he looked over the barrier, he heard a shot, the Broad Arrow Cafe
ducked, and realized he was bleeding all over his face. Abandoning
his wife to providence as she lay on the floor feigning death, Dennis fled through the back door
and up the steep rock face behind the café and into the bush just beyond.
In the Wound Ballistic Review, Olsen is designated “P13” and his wounds are listed as:
• 1 day in hospital. Lacerations to right side of head, left eye and left chest from
secondary fragments.
However, at p.34 in the EMA papers we find the following:
• "Treating ambulance personnel were quite convinced for some time that Bryant
had used a shotgun in the broad Arrow Cafe due to the significant number of
'peppering' they noted." – My emphasis.
This reference is directed towards patient “P13” Dennis Olsen.
This requires a short explanation. Remember, in reference to administering first aid to those
survivors who suffered gunshot wounds whilst inside the Broad Arrow Café, there are a number
of eyewitnesses, all of whom were either serving or former experienced ambulance officers
whose observations and conclusions must be considered. The second point I would make is that
as professionals they had over considerable time on the job witnessed first hand, call-outs
involving both gunshot wounds and shotgun wounds – there is a difference.
The section of the EMA report mentioned above was compiled by Mr Andrew O’Brien, AFC on
the Tasman Peninsula, and in less than convincing terms, he concludes by stating, Olsen's
wounds, "… later turned out to be [caused by] bony fragments from other victims."
Considering Olsen's line of departure and the his injury being sustained when he pope duo from
behind the servery, I believe the secondary wounding by bone fragments cannot be sustained.
Please note that the authorities were fettered in their determination of what occurred inside
the Broad Arrow Café by 3 constraints:
1. The DPP's case of a lone gunman – the accused Martin Bryant using a .223
calibre firearm only.
2. The gift-shop door with its defective fire-escape latch that contributed directly
to the death of 2 staff and 5 visitors - 7 persons in all – by denying them their
only escape route away from the gunman's bullets, while ever he remained in
the Café, and
3. The DPP's ridiculous and nonsensical and unsustainable synopsis of the 29 shots
in 90 seconds time limit the gunman remained in the Café.
Were these some of the overriding influences that also caused Sgt Dutton to offer the vague
report regarding evidential material recovered from the Volvo's boot like the inconclusive
Daewoo particulars?
Now while dealing with the Port Arthur Tollbooth crime scene, let us consider several other
important anomalies here – even shown to us by police. Mr Matterson tells us that as the
coronial team walked through the crime scenes and came up Jetty Road from the Broad Arrow
Café, just 50-60 meters inside the entrance to the Historic Site Tollbooth, they "…came across
the body of an adult clutching one small child with the body of another young child nearby
behind the trunk of a tree." Mr Matterson is referring here to the deceased Mrs Annette Mikac
allegedly 'clutching' the body of her youngest daughter Madeline, while the body of her eldest
child Alanna was lying some distance away behind a tree trunk.
The Police training video clearly shows the body of Mrs Mikac a quite significant distance away
from that of her youngest child Madeline. So is Matterson's recollections defective, or did
someone tamper with the position of the body or bodies before the crime scene photographer
had videoed the scene?
On Jetty Road, the gunman changed from the AR-10 ·308W, back to the ·223Rem calibre
firearm. Mr Bugg names four of six witnesses to these 3 shootings as John and Caroline
Boskovic, and Peter and Pauline Grenfell. But curiously he opens his synopsis of this segment
by using the statement of a witness he chooses to refer to only as "Mr. Dutton". Now actually
the DPP is referring here to the witness, James David Dutton and by defacto, his wife Joanne
Helen Dutton, whose statements I have on file.
Mr Bugg QC explains to the court that as Mr. Dutton moves away from the threatening scene
he, "looked over his shoulder," seeing Mrs. Mikac shot in the head once, and she falls to the
ground. This act causes Dutton to take his wife's hand and flee further from the scene during
which time he says he heard a further two gunshots; i.e. three gunshots in all. The number of
shots discharged on Jetty Road as claimed by James Dutton and put forward by Mr Bugg cannot
be sustained after further examination. So why did Bugg use the Dutton statement? For then
in the next breath to contradict Dutton's recollections, stating that five shots were discharged
here? Mr Bugg's reasons I shall explain shortly.
James Dutton continues to explain that from the sanctuary of a tree further into the bush, "I
looked up and could see the lady and the dress of the older girl and the younger girl lying on
the ground." His words are suggestive of him being at a lower elevation than the Jetty Road.
In fact the topography at the scene and witness statements dictate that Dutton was at a higher
elevation than the roadway, and therefore above the crime scene.
Although James and Joanne Dutton provided considerable material in their sworn statements
before and after they entered the Historic Site, substantial parts of their statements and the
words they use, upon careful examination simply cannot be sustained as credible.
Both of the Dutton's statements are imprecise. For example, James Dutton states that earlier,
the couple in their hired vehicle were making a U-turn past the Historic Site entrance on the
road to Nubeena, when he saw "…a yellow Volvo with the surfboard on top with one male
driver. I noticed it because of the surfboards [plural] and the weather as well as a surfie
driving a surfboard." A rather curious recollection you surely must agree.
I believe the DPP used James Dutton's statement early in his recount of the Jetty Road events,
in an attempt to legitimise the Dutton's account sighting Martin Bryant driving his distinctive
yellow Volvo sedan with a surfboard on the roof rack earlier that day near Port Arthur. My
investigation leads me to conclude their statements are imprecise.
The DPP's synopsis of Martin Bryant's movements throughout the entire day is weak,
speculative, and inaccurate. If subjected to cross examination I'm firmly of the opinion the
prosecution's case could easily have been destroyed. It can be said it was nothing more than a
smoke and mirrors performance and so Mr Bugg used the Duttons' statement in an attempt to
bolster the Crown's weak case and conjecture up a belief that Bryant entered the Historic Site,
shortly after 1300hrs that Sunday and at the same time corroborate the approximate times
provided by Roger Larner. For after Martin's brief visit to Roger Larner's property on Palmer's
Lookout Road, the Dutton's would have us believe Martin Bryant ‘drove past the Dutton's
heading towards Port Arthur “entrance”’. The key word here is "entrance" and it is a
misleading influence upon the reader. But as the Duttons were the only witnesses who saw
Martin Bryant driving the Volvo south between Palmer's Lookout Rd turnoff and the Historic Site
entrance, the DPP, clutching at straws, tried to legitimise the worth of James and Joanne
Dutton as witnesses and so used their statement in his court statement. But the Duttons’
account is destroyed by another quite thorough witness, in Jai Nichols.
It is a very enlightening fact; the straightforward statement from Jai Nichols was never used by
Prosecutor Mr Bugg QC, in stating his case against the accused.
Jai Nichols was 'dropped off' at the Port Arthur Store by his "pop … at about 12 midday," that
Sunday, intending that he "hitch hike a ride to Hobart ..." While walking north up the Arthur
Highway towards the Fox and Hounds "for two or three minutes," an oncoming Yellow Volvo
with a surfboard on top went passed travelling south, towards Nubeena.
After purchasing a soft drink from the Fox and Hounds, Nichols
continued walking and obviously when about adjacent to the gate
way south of the entrance to Seascape (the next-door neighbours
property), the same Yellow Volvo driven by a male with "sort of
bleachy blonde hair" overtook him travelling north, and as it passed
he saw the vehicle's brake-lights come on as the car slowed and
turned into the Seascape Cottage driveway.
The Fox & Hounds
Martin Bryant was at the wheel both times, and now he was arriving
at Seascape Cottage for the first time that Sunday; a considerable period of time after 12
midday, and if not Martin Bryant, then who? This means that
Martin Bryant did not turn into the Historic Site's tollbooth
after visiting Roger Larner's as the Dutton's statement infers.
Like a number of other visitors on the peninsula that
weekend, were the Duttons simply acting-out a role? Another
author on the subject has also chosen to ignore entirely the
statement by Nicholls, and so his work is badly flawed in
regard to this segment I believe.
Today: just a “shell” of the dining
room remains of the Broad Arrow Mr Bugg used smoke and mirrors to warp the times so as to
Café accommodate his synopsis of the timeline of Marin Bryant's
ETA at Seascape, and we shall examine that in detail in a later chapter.
The predominantly blue "Prince" Sports Bag was thought my most of the
witnesses to be THE bag, the only bag. I myself first wrote that the blue
and white “Prince” sport bag was the outer bag: I was wrong. Many of
those who were adamant that he entered with this same ‘blue’ or ‘blue and
white’ sports bag may very well have entered or re-entered the café after
Discarded: Prince
the shooting had ceased, and seeing the a predominantly blue bag sitting
“inner-bag”, solo quietly on one of the dinning tables they were left with what they believed
drink can, lunch to be irrefutable fact, though this bag was left there to be conveniently
wrapper & the found by police. So how could they be wrong?
missing video camera
with the gunman’s Well after considering this question for a considerable time, finally the
DNA a plenty! penny has tumbled. First and foremost Petra Willmot in her statement says
that, she accompanied her boyfriend shopping, in Fitzgeralds she “thinks,”
and that “Martin bought a bag, an orange and blue/green sports bag,” which she never saw
again. But in anyone’s language, Martin’s purchase in Petra's estimation wasn’t “blue and
white,” unless Petra was/is colour-blind.
A significant number of witnesses mention a blonde haired male entering the café with a
‘sports bag’ or a ‘duffle bag’ and of these witnesses a few make particular mention that it
appeared "heavy". However, many of the witnesses describe the sports bag in various colours,
but most lean towards the 'blue and white bag' discarded by the gunman on a table inside the
café. Ian Kingston, while an unreliable witness on so many details, is adamant in his first
statement when he says, “I stopped a vehicle, a yellow Volvo sedan with surfboards on top
of it.… He had a black bag on the back seat. It was an overnight type of bag…” When the
driver parked contrary to Kingston’s instructions down by the water’s edge, he continued
observing the driver when he ‘…saw the male get out of the car,... he pulled out his black bag,
closed the door and he started walking towards the Broad Arrow Restaurant’. 17
The proprietor of the Sorell supermarket - where Martin purchased a bottle of tomato sauce -
recollected the bag Martin carried to the peninsula that morning was a "large" sports type
"bag". The recovered bag with its items of evidence, a piece of rope, a jumper and a knife,
was itemized as "exhibit P2" photograph #52, but the table number upon
which the bag was resting when recovered by police remains vague,
although the position of the table is obvious there on the PTV tape
footage.
But ask yourself; why would anyone committing a serious crime leave his
bag loaded with evidence behind, while taking yet another bag with him to
his vehicle to escape? It stands out as quite illogical, unless the offender
was intent on successfully deceiving some one with a stack of
misleading evidential material. But what is misleading about these items?
Gunman: Captured by
James Balasko, on a In fact either deliberately or by inept investigation, police and so the court
home video, the were denied the truth yet again. You see witness Rebecca McKenna stated
gunman carries a that "He [the gunman] was not wearing gloves … he placed his video
black duffle bag on
camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch. I noticed that
his left side to the
he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table. 18
Volvo – keeping his
dominant right hand
But realistically, how could police be so incompetent? Don’t forget, James
free; Martin was left
handed.
Balasko captured the gunman placing his black duffle type bag into the
boot of Martin Bryant's yellow Volvo. This is corroborated by two witnesses
incidentally. Terry Sloane stated that before the shooting began, a
male fitting the gunman’s description “bashed” into his left
shoulder while Terry was seated. Then as he later walked back into
the dinning area, the same male “brushed passed,” his left side,
carrying what he described as a “duffle-shaped bag which was
quite long and had two handles in the centre.” Now Sloane had
every reason to take notice of the bag, as its owner seemed intent
on forcing him notice both bag and the male carrying it, and this
second encounter happened just before the shooting began.
Balsko Tape: several frames
Now we know that he most definitely departed the café carrying a
after than above “crop”, a full
frame of gunman at the Volvolarge black bag which he put
boot in the Café bus-park.into the boot of the yellow
Volvo. It becomes quite clear the gunman was intent of
creating a deception with the bag and left behind a
different bag than he arrived and departed with, to Colt AR15 1967 model rifle
maximise the people’s confusion. So I now understand that the black “duffle-type” bag had to
be the outer bag, and it must have been longer that the 74 cm bag left behind, and the longer
black duffle-type bag had to be long enough to accommodate the 986mm AR15 rifle and the
1015mm AR-10 rifle, both used inside the café. This most reliable witness that has confirmed
the weapon was an AR15 SP-1 rifle, is unwavering in his recollection and subsequent
examination of police photographs of the Colt AR15 SP-1
Carbine - recovered from the periphery of the Seascape ashes -
was most definitely not the weapon he saw used by the
AR-10 7.62NATO self loading gunman there in the Broad Arrow Café.
rifle: Also supplied in olive drab
stock & forearm hand-guard. Some witnesses no doubt entered the café after the shooting
ceased, and saw the blue and white bag in the table; hence
their statements. Still others - counselled among many other witness - ensured that the
dominant natured witnesses instilled by peer-pressure the image of the blue and white
“Prince” sports bag as being the only one. No wonder some of the witnesses were quite
confused by this deception. The shooter left the large blue Prince Sports Bag – “Exhibit P2”
with it contents of rope, knife and jumper – but strangely or not so strangely, missing from
prosecution exhibits was the large, black video camera. It was never marked as an exhibit.
Newspaper reports of 4-5 May, announce that the "leading Hobart criminal barrister," Lt Col
David Gunson has been "briefed for the defence of Bryant…"
In the very next paragraph, one report continues by stating Mr Gunson reportedly raised as his
very first issue of disquiet concerning, "…conflicting reports from eyewitnesses about
whether the Port Arthur gunman had a video camera at the site. No camera has been
recovered," the report stated. It seems already, just 7 days after the shootings, some police
at least were doing a panic with this critical evidence simply having disappeared from the
property room! As I mentioned the video Camera is not listed as a Court exhibit. 19
The Tasmania Police training video (PTV), contained considerable footage (that was provided
to the Prime TV and The Weekend Australian incidentally), and on the table towards the North-
Eastern corner of the dinning room, along with other items of interest there sits the blue and
white substitute sports bag. Commissioner Maroney of the NSW Police Service didn't even
answer my correspondence dated 7/09/04 with regard to the "video overboard affair" in which I
detailed 13 serious charges of police misconduct. While his Assistant Director of NSW Police
Service's Forensic Service Group, Acting Insp, Commander Carlene York simply "declined" to
investigate the matter further citing 3 unsatisfactory reasons for her decision. If that wasn't a
direct enough cover-up, I received a second letter from David Chie "customer service manager"
for the ombudsman! Both extraordinary responses when you consider I wrote to neither
bureaucrats! I must say that this is really no surprise though to this author.
In the PTV clip, with the substitute blue Prince sports bag, is easily recognized just a metre
away from the gunman's first victim, William Ng. As the cameraman pans from left to right,
beside and to the west of the bag can be clearly seen the brown tray the gunman carried his
lunch on, firstly to the tables on the outdoor balcony as witnessed by Mick Sargent, and
Melbourne visitors Michael Beekman and Rebecca McKenna. After eating his lunch he took the
outer heavy duffle type sports bag, along with the large video camera, and juggles the tray
with his lunch remnants on it, back into the dinning area to the table, the details of which Mr
Bugg QC, for reasons only know to himself, chooses not to identify by number. There he
removes the Colt M15-Rifle and commences his killing. Before he leaves the dining room, he
takes the blue and white “Prince” bag “Exhibit P2” with its contents within, out of the black
bag, and as they say the rest is history.
But in the PTV video, on the brown coloured food-tray and in-frame, clearly can be seen a
plate with a crumpled cordial cup, and importantly beside those items sits an opened, yellow-
labelled aluminium can of "Solo" soft drink. As the camera continues to pan right, there comes
into frame a large, black, Video camera, with its integral, external, microphone quite visible.
No less than 4 eye witnesses mention the blonde-headed gunman carrying this 'large video
camera' over his shoulder into the Café. Even Mr Bugg QC mentions Martin Bryant's video
camera on a number of occasions in the Court Documents. How could the Prosecution be so
blatantly deceptive and expect us all not to notice this deception?
So what occurred between the crime scene investigators, forensic police and the police
property room officers? For the large black video camera seems to have rematerialized - in the
mind of Det Insp Paine at least - when on 4 July 1996 he interrogates Martin Bryant
(incidentally, without David Gunson present), and suggests to Martin Bryant that he'd left the
camera not on the table, but 'inside the Prince sports bag were it was recovered by police'.
Here Bryant continues to deny ever having been to the Historic Site that day. So what really
did become of Martin Bryant's video camera and what does all this mean?
When Sergeant Gerard Dutton addressed a gathering of some 329 delegates from 20 countries
as a guest of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners in America, a medical doctor
asked him, 'was there any empirical evidence recovered from inside the Broad Arrow Café,
which linked Martin Bryant to the murders'; in America he answered, "No." Though would he
provide a corroborative answer on Australian soil? Well at Brisbane's Nathan Campus of Griffith
University and on the evening of the 21 November 2002, a meeting sponsored by the Australian
and New Zealand Forensic Science Society Inc., was held. This same organization sponsored a
well attended meeting in Hobart in June 2000 that again awarded Mr Dutton considerable
public distinction. But in Brisbane, and when question time was declared, Mr Ian McNiven from
the Sunshine Coast, through the MC asked Gerard Dutton the first question, which was basically
the same as the American doctor had posed. For his trouble McNiven was threatened with
arrest, removed from the meeting, and Gerard Dutton chose to leave the question unanswered,
and question time ceased forthwith! A scheduled video tape of the meeting, promised to be
available later, like the camera, has conveniently … gone missing. 20
It is now my firm belief, Tasmania Police and their counterparts from New South Wales
forensic crime scene examiners collected no empirical evidence from inside the Broad
Arrow Café, linking Martin Bryant to the shooting murders of 20 persons there.
The video footage of the Tasmania Police "training video" – for police eyes only – part of which
was captured inside the Broad Arrow Café with a ceiling fan in motion, shows all cadavers
except two still where they fell. But it also exposes a great fraud perpetrated by the
authorities, Channel Nine Television, and person or persons unknown.
This tape also confirms the existence of empirical evidence sitting quietly there on a café table
the likes of which would excite even the most hardened investigator and so why was this
evidence, never mentioned in the Court Documents? Surrounded by chaos, there beside the
gunman's blue Prince sports bag sits the brown tray on which stands the open, yellow,
aluminium "Solo" drink can, lunch wrapper and plate that had been handled by the Port Arthur
gunman! It would surely have retained finger, thumb, and palm prints, DNA from saliva, sweat,
possibly even hair samples, and as a bonus beside the tray sits the large, black, video camera
the gunman carried over his shoulder. But to me it becomes very clear why this piece of
evidence at least went missing. I believe the gunman was trained in weapons handling, but he
made a huge forensic blunder. Let me explain.
Unaware of the significance of what Michael Robert Sargent witnessed it is now your turn to
grasp the importance of his account, when he stated; "The big blue bag was in this male
person’s right hand, and the video camera which was not in a case, was in his left hand."
You see the gunman should not have been removed the video camera from its grey carry-bag,
for then forensic evidence would have been preserved, uncontaminated on the camera!
However when the gunman removed it from its carry-bag, the empirical evidence on the
camera would certainly have been contaminated with prints and DNA of the gunman.
Unhelpful evidence in any criminal case has a repeated habit of simply disappearing from the
property room or even at the crime scene itself. In the Café, if all such experiential evidence
pointed conclusively in a direction other than toward Martin Bryant, I would defy any of those
involved in the investigation and prosecution of Martin Bryant to deny that all such exhibits had
to fade quickly from everyone's memory and especially the Court system. This item will be
revisited later and when I deal with the burning of the BMW, you may just recognise a familiar
pattern emerging here!
Now to the fraud exposed here. You see, The 9 Network's flagship, the daily evening show
ACA, with special reporter and experienced anchorman Ray Martin at the helm, aired a
documentary entitled, Port Arthur the Inside Story. In a segment of that documentary Ray
Martin explains the gunman "…left the café at one thirty-six. He'd been inside less than two
minutes, yet he'd killed twenty people…" and at the same time the camera seemingly zooms
towards the blue Prince sports bag perched on a Broad Arrow Café dinning table overhanging
its edge. But all of this video clip is a deceit and a fraud.
If I could show you a clip from the Tasmania Police PTV and you could see the true condition
the Broad Arrow Café exhibited, you will realise immediately the 9 Network's special-effects-
people have been a party to a fraud here at least. Now The 9 Network had to be complicit
with this fraud, or are they even more skilled in the supernatural than NCGC spokesperson
Browne is in Tasmania? Did they foreknow the Port Arthur massacre would happen and that the
gunman had a fetish for blue Prince sports bags?
Is it believable, that denied entry to the Café, they settled for a mock-up, and yes, using
digital editing, they "pasted" a photo of a blue sports bag onto a photograph of a dining room
table photo shoot in the café? But I cannot explain when, how, or who had the great foresight
to take the original pristine photograph of a pristine Broad Arrow Café dining room BEFORE the
FACT.
A dining room, with not a thing out of place, save this one table; even with a video camera
(the same one?), sitting on a chair fortuitously pulled-out from the table in the RH foreground
of frame? But, in place of the witnessed "Solo" soft drink cordial can, are several stainless steel
milkshake containers, and various other sundry items, none of which are mentioned by eye-
witness statements. Of course, The 9 Network's producer would have been entirely unaware of
what exactly the gunman had on his tray, as he didn't have the advantage of reading the
witness statements at that early time. I challenge Ray Martin and any of the directors of The 9
Network, to explain to the public satisfactorily, just exactly how this segment of their "Inside
Story" to this horrid massacre was assembled. It puts a whole new meaning on the tile, “Inside
Story” doesn’t it. I can assure the reader, their explanation would be most interesting! But,
don't hold your breath!
Let us progress up the Jetty Road. And I should state clearly here, that while the authorities,
politicians, media and the NCGC, exploited the emotional and traumatic impact of this
segment of the awful massacre to its entirety, that is farthest from my intention here.
However, these details must necessarily be retold here for a very important reason, which
shortly will become evident to the reader.
From the Court Documents and the Wound Ballistic Review, we are informed that when the
gunman brought the Volvo to a halt beside Anette Mikac, Mr Bugg QC stated he “…placed his
left hand on Mrs. Mikac’s shoulder and people were close enough to hear him tell her to get
down on her knees on three occasions, whereupon the gunman shot and killed her with one
shot to the head.” We are told that "almost immediately," the gunman discharged two shots at
the youngest child Madeline, the first from intermediate distance causing a non-fatal wound
entering from the rear of her right shoulder exiting to the front of the same shoulder. The
second shot was a distant shot which struck the child in the chest area, “travelling from back
to front [and] slightly downwards, damaging the spine, before exiting the lower back.” Neither
of these bullets left recoverable fragments we are told.
Mr Bugg QC continues to inform us the gunman then fired two more shots which missed their
intended target, the elder sister Alannah, who by this time had sheltered behind a tree some
5.5 metres to the eastern side of carriageway. Mr Bugg QC further informs us that the gunman,
"…then moved to the tree and shot her at near contact point with the muzzle almost
pressed against the right side of the child’s neck." This tells six shots from the AR15 SP-1
·223Rem rifle in total were fired at this third 4th crime scene. 19
The DPP goes to some lengths to detail the nature of evidence to demonstrate to the Court
that the ‘powder marking’ and a ‘patterned abraded injury’ suffered by the second child were
consistent with “the flash suppressor on the barrel of the gun having been pressed against
the child’s neck, prior to the firing of the gun.” If this is so, and I have no reason to doubt
Mr Bugg QC in this instance, then the Police Training Video exposes a very grave inconsistency
with this version of events.
The statement by witness James Dutton, informs us he heard just 3 gunshots discharged here
on Jetty Road. Yet a few lines away Mr Bugg clearly states that in all 6 fired ·223Rem cartridge
cases were recovered by police at this scene; “…five near the car on the roadside, and one
near the body of the child Alannah behind a tree.” Eight photographs (18-26) were exposed
and entered as prosecution exhibits of this segment. – my emphasis. 21
If the disparity in the claimed number of shots discharged here is not concerning enough, then
consider the following: In the Tasmania Police Video, which must have been captured no later
than 1105 hrs on Monday, 29 April (before the bodies were removed, in preparation for the bus-
load of media people toured this crime scene) and in the frames covering the Jetty Road
segment, it clearly shows a body the narrator identifies as a "young woman" - Annette Mikac –
prone on her right hand side, with the body's torso lying parallel to the alignment of the
carriageway, her feet just off the sealed carriageway's surface. Mr Bugg tells us that the body
of Mrs Mikac's youngest daughter Madeline "lay nearby", and from the video we can see the
child lying on her back, with her left arm outstretched at right angles to her torso, and her
right hand over her chest touching her left shoulder. Importantly, fallen leaves and grass are
under the body, with no bitumen or gravel ballast beside the sealed carriageway visible in-
frame.
The next clip shows the body of her elder sister Alannah in frame, her body lying prone on her
right side, with both arms forward of the body, extended upwards towards her head. The first
frame of the next clip is a close-up of an area under the right arm, with
an unidentified person’s index and second finger of a white surgically-
gloved right hand in the top, centre of the frame. The index finger is
indicating what I can positively identify as a ·223Rem spent case . As the
video continues to role a similarly gloved left hand lowers the deceased's
right arm back to the position shown in the previous clip, to rest on top
of the spent shell case.
From the pages of The Mercury, who at the time interviewed Assistant Spent .223Rem casing
Commissioner Luppo Prins, we learn that the first ambulance arrived at under victims arm on
the Port Arthur Tollbooth at around 1346 hours (1.46 p.m.), although Jetty Rd
mistakenly the report claims the ambulance originated from Dunalley; it came from Nubeena.
The first ambulance was crewed by two volunteer officers, Gary Alexander and Kaye Fox. This
Nubeena ambulance crew could have been on the scene much earlier, but quite rightly, they
adhered to the 'disaster plan protocols', and waited for an 'all clear' message from Peter Morgan
in their communications room at Ambulance HQ in Hobart relaying from the incident scene.
This protocol was in place to ensure the safety of their officers when entering a dangerous
incident site, as dead or injured or ambos cannot assist anyone. Two other crews were
meanwhile proceeding; one ambulance from Taranna, and the other from Dunalley.
Immediately upon recept of Mrs Scurr's second phone call to Peter Morgan, the Nubeena crew
proceeded to the Historic Site. Upon reaching the Tollbooth crime scene on their way down
Jetty Road to the Broad Arrow Café, the two ambulance officers broke their journey to check
for vital signs and then covered the bodies of, "seven victims including the family of Walter
Mikac." So it surely is fair to assume that all seven bodies remained covered and protected
until the Coroner and forensic police examined, and filmed the crime scene. If this is so, then
Mr Matterson's report above, the prosecutions case and the Police video of this segment
present dissimilar accounts. I would suggest you may find it not such an easy task, to resolve
these considerable anomalies. 22
For example, Mr Matterson states the mother was "clutching" her 3-year-old daughter Madeline,
while Mr Bugg QC presenting the Crown's case, does not sustain that position. The Police
Training Video provides yet a third version of the positions of the bodies. The PTV tape show
the bodies of the mother and her 3-year-old daughter Madeline separated by approximately
two metres. What has occurred here? Were the bodies moved and if so by whom?
What about the spent ·223 Rem shell case, pointed out by the surgically-gloved hand in the
official PTV tape, lying there under the right arm of the elder daughter's body? What I can
state clearly here in relation to this particular spent shell casing is this: the spent shell could
not have come from the AR15 rifle (or for that matter an AR15 SP-1 Carbine) which the gunman
employed in these 3 murders. As the scenarios presented by the prosecution and reports by
the Coroner tell me this spent case could not have come to rest there under the victim's arm
other than by post discharge human intervention.
As I mention elsewhere in the narrative, these Colt AR15/M16 variants have an ejection pattern
that makes it impossible for a spent case to have landed there behind the tree under the
deceased's body, either at the time the single fatal round was fired at contact, or indeed when
any of the other alleged 5 rounds were discharged there on Jetty Road during that incident.
I'm forced to conclude that a person or persons unknown deliberately placed this fired case
under the deceased's right arm. Consider: "How did police know to lift the arm to point out the
fired case being there if they had no knowledge of it being there in the first instance?" The
presence of the spent case there under the deceased's arm and the fact that Mr Bugg QC only
refers to the spent case as, "one near the body," only highlights the deceit of this evidence. If
police tampered with this evidence, then how much other evidence received similar treatment
at the multiple crime scenes involved? I'm also stirred to note, that unlike bodies at the other
outdoor crime scenes, none of the positions of the bodies and or vehicles at the Jetty Road
crime scene, the Tollbooth crime scene or the Port Arthur General Store driveway were marked
out. Only the spent shell cases seemed to have been encircled with yellow marker.
End Notes
1
Dutton G., Sgt, "The Port Arthur Shooting Incident," Australian Police Journal (APJ), p.221 - hereafter
simply referenced as the APJ.
2
ibid, p.219
3
Dutton G. “Wound Ballistic Review”, Journal Of The International Wound Ballistics Assoc. of the USA,
p.39
4
Dutton, G. Sgt., “The Port Arthur Shooting Incident,” APJ, Dec.1998, p.224
5
Bugg QC, Court Doc, p.141
6
ibid.
7
Perks, N., ibid, p.189/21-25
8
Justice Cox, Passing Sentence, ibid, p.3 Heather Kennedy, “Last Contact with Martins ‘years ago’,”
Sunday Herald Sun, 4may96; Chapman, S. Prof for NCGC, “Today Show” 7.56am 29apr96 – interview Liz
Hay
9
The Court Transcript Document, p.190
10
Heather Kennedy, “Last Contact with Martins ‘years ago’,” Sunday Herald Sun, 4may96; Chapman, S.
Prof for NCGC, “Today Show” 7.56am 29apr96 – interview Liz Hay Dutton, G. Sgt, APJ at p.215; Perks,
N., Court Doc p.176/18-19
11
Dutton, G. Sgt, APJ at p.215; Perks, N., Court Doc p.176/18-19 PROI, Court Doc, p.73
12
PROI, Court Doc, p.73
13
ibid, pp. 196-7 Police
14
training video
15
Ian R. Matterson LL.B., Magistrate at Hobart - Chief Coroner's Delegate, Southern Tasmania - Coroner
for Port Arthur, Coroner's Responsibilities at Port Arthur, EMA Report, p.90
16
Ian R. Matterson LL.B. Coroner Port Arthur "Coroner's Responsibilities at Port Arthur", p.90; Sergeant
Gerard Dutton, "The Port Arthur Shooting Incident," APJ, dec98, p.209.
17
Ian Gregory Kingston, signed statement, dated: 10.08 pm., 28apr96
18
Rebecca McKenna, witness statement to police, comm.10.35pm., 28apr96
19
Le Grand, "Top detective to head taskforce investigation," The Australian, 4may96
20
Rae Walsh, "Ballistics expert hits an international mark," The Mercury, undated; Ellen Winnett, "Crime
under the microscope," The Saturday Mercury, 17jun00, pp35-36
21
Bugg QC, Court Doc. pp.146; Vol 3, No 4 WBR, p.37
22
Ian Munro & Garry Tippet, The Sun-Herald, 20apr97, p46
Chapter 3
The Colt AR15 rifle story begins in 1948, when the US Army’s Operations Research Office
conducted an examination of small arms effectiveness, concluding that a 22 calibre, select-fire
rifle delivering a high velocity bullet was “most desirable”. Armalite, a small division of
Fairchild Aircraft Corp who at that time operated out of Costa Mesa, California was as a result
of this early determination requested by the US Army to develop a 22 calibre rifle, which
fulfilled those specifications.
Stoner left Armalite in 1960, joining Colt, and in 1962 the US DoD purchased 1000 rifles for
field trials in Vietnam. These trials drew criticism from many levels, as the casualty numbers
climbed directly because of jamming in that Colt trial. In fact even by the time it was adopted
by the US military in 1967 and first designated the ‘XM16E1 5·56mm’ by Army Ordnance but
eventually known as “US Rifle 5.56mm, M16A1” – the rifle was looked upon with a growing mountain
of pessimism among serving military, if they themselves survived its shortcomings. But in all fairness
the problems should have been foreseen…
Promoted by Colt as a “low maintenance” firearm, nothing could be further from the truth.
But in typical bureaucratic nonsensical logic the US Military issued these rifles without cleaning
kits, and lacking instructions to the troops as to how to maintain their M16 - I kid you not!
The ignorant thought ‘no cleaning kits translates to no need to clean the rifle'. This oversight
was bad enough, but the list of woes was substantial: no chrome in the barrel, bolt or
chamber, and “dud” aluminium 20 round magazines.
Even the propellant powder had been changed from the
clean burning IMR Dupont, to standard ball; a disaster.
Standard ball powder contained calcium carbonate
which caused unacceptable fouling in the barrel and gas
tube; the latter became so congested it eventually
blocked altogether and actions simply quit cycling – not
the ideal outcome in the heat of battle. Other
problems included raised operating pressures, which
produced higher velocity and increased wear and tear.
Colt M16A2 in Iraq But by the 1970’s these deficiencies were resolved, and
Colt M16A2 Rifle – spent case over barrels, chamber and bolts were chromed, and the 20
rifleman's right shoulder round aluminium magazine was replaced with a 30
round, bent, pressed-steel magazine. New 'cleaner
burning' ammunition was also developed with a heavier 62-grain projectile designated the
“M855 ball projectile”. Initially the M16 had a 1:12 twist barrel, to suit M193 ammunition, but
the new SS109 ammunition required a faster rate of
twist of 1:7, and now along with the later M16A3 and
A4 rifle with their heavier barrels, and optional flat
top “Pickatinny accessory rail” atop the action, both
are standard issue in the US Military today.
Unlike most other gas operated systems among the various military type firearms of the period,
Gene Stoner's design termed a "direct impingement" type gas system was then unique. In the
Colt M16/AR16 and AR10, gas is bled-off the barrel through a port in the base of the foresight,
and delivered by a small tube on top of the barrel, through the forehand guard past the
receiver and delivered directly under pressure into the bolt carrier, which by its very name,
carries the bolt rearward, to extract, eject the spent case, and then is propelled forward by
the action spring housed in the butt-stock to deliver the next unfired round from magazine into
the chamber and return the bolt to battery. The bolt head with its multi locking lugs rotates to
unlock, and then upon reaching battery again a cam rotates it in the opposite direction into the
locking lug recesses locking the bolthead closed.
We should definitely consider the specifications and dimensions of the rifle that I now firmly
believe was actually used by the gunman in the Broad Arrow Café: the M16A1 or Colt AR15 SP-1
Rifle.
(3.6kg)
• Muzzle Velocity 3,098fps (945m/s)
• Max Effective range 500yds (approx460m)
You may have noted from the specifications above, the large black duffle-type bag would most
definitely have been required to conceal the gunman's rifle of an overall length of 27.8" or
986mm. This rifle variant of the Colt would not have fitted into the blue and white Prince
sports-bag left inside the dining room of the Broad Arrow Cafe - a conundrum constant with the
ongoing deceptions.
Many modification of these variants are possible but I truly believe it would only add to the
confusion if I was to detail them here, save to say shortened barrels require specific
compensators, similar to the Tim LaFrance-type-device which effectively "fools" the rifle into
cycling as if fitted with a standard length barrel, preventing certain malfunction. In the Stoner
direct impingement type gas system, the position and diameter of the bleed-off gas port in
relation to the muzzle and the breach is critically matched to ammunition/powder
combinations to ensure faultless cyclic function. In original issued state, the AR15/M16 rifle
(circa 1965) was issued with a straight 20 round capacity, pressed aluminium magazine, and the
upper receiver group had one obvious feature missing; there was no forward assist plunger
protruding from the upper receiver group’s RH rear.
This forward assist plunger is visible in the later M16A1 of 1967, which also had dispensed with
the early 3-pronged flash hider and adopted the typical “bird-cage” type. By 1967, the slightly
bent 30 pressed steel magazine had replaced the failure-prone 20 shot aluminium magazine,
and in the 1980’s plastic magazines of 30 rounds capacity also came on the scene. But
importantly, many were supplied with a straight, 20-shot capacity, pressed steel type
magazine, as drawn by a witness.
Near Table 14 in Broad Arrow Café a very credible eyewitnesses lay on the floor wounded for
much of the shooting in there, observing closely the gunman. He has recalled in detail the
gunman’s countenance, his hair, skin, eyes and importantly for this segment, the firearm the
blonde-wigged gunman fired while in his line of vision. As
time went by, the witness searched in the periodical
magazines he came across for an illustration that matched
the firearm he's seen the gunman use in the Café.
The eyewitness' sketch of the rifle
Before he located that photograph he drew a sketch of the the gunman used in the Cafe
rifle for me. Later when he produced a photograph
recovered from a periodical, both sketch and photograph confirmed my appraisal: he had
identified the firearm by 3 distinctly unique features, which enables me now to state with
confidence that the primary firearm used by the shooter inside the Broad Arrow Café was a
Colt M16A1 or AR15 SP-1 Rifle and it was not a Colt
AR-15 SP-1 Carbine identified as a "rifle" by the
forensic firearms examiner Sgt Gerard Dutton and
recovered by police in a damaged condition where it
Colt M16/AR15 SP1 Rifle with Fwd Assist had been placed with care at the periphery of the
Seascape cottage - so it wouldn't be too badly
burnt.
End Notes
1. Sources – various, including The M14 Rifle…Hail and Farewell by John Lachuk, Gun Digest,
1965 @ pp.53-59, pub. Follett Publishing Co. Chicago.
Chapter 4
I
t is important in this chapter for me to take you back to 1984 when, through my life-time
interest in firearms and hunting I was personally confronted by the foot soldiers of "gun
control" and their misinformation counterparts. The experience left more than just a bad
taste in my mouth. I should ask that you be patient as I attempt to demonstrate, the civil
disarmament network or global “gun control” network which is driving the gun massacre
phenomenon rather than being just linked to it. They can be likened to the Trojans who fooled
the Greeks, but with a twist; these "Trojans" bear gifts in the form of a “Safe(er and open)
Society”. They are always "Johnny-on-the-spot" people, there with the rent-a-crowd and
under the journalists’ feet ever so close to the mess at every multiple gun shooting, but NEVER
getting blood on the hands (except at Port Arthur ‡‡). Yes those of the "gun control" brigade and
their misinformation network colleagues, distort information circulated in the public arena by
polluting it. In describing their personality the adjectives “dangerous” and “obsessive”, spring
to mind, although over the years I now realise a better description is perhaps zealots to their
cause; even if they are predictable zealots. They and their “buddies” even construct the news.
They are obsessive in imposing their adopted philosophy upon the ordinary people of the world,
no matter what.
In their wake, already we can see examples of the disarmed society's vulnerability to the will of
the 'political army' and its master who, being superior to our common law, rule by any principle
of their choosing.
I’m not overstating their role as "gun control" people when I identify them collectively as
'fanatical global terrorists'. They're not 'bombers' as the term seems to have implied since
9/11. No these are canny terrorists, but terrorist none the less. In this country, the gun-
grabbers have almost succeeded. For decent Australians to dismiss as irrelevant the “gun
control” zealots’ degree of success to date, and its impact upon the generations to come,
would be to their lifelong shame I believe.
In Australia their perverse cause is succeeding; little wonder when the figure of US$30m keeps
cropping up during repeated public presentations as to the cost of staging the massacre at Port
Arthur.
While civil disarmament of the United Sates of America is their ultimate goal, Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, the UK and Germany were all seen as important strategic “back doors” to
their overall campaign.
In recent times the "gun control" network has really stepped out, cleverly making a covenant
with two global organisations perhaps to widen their support-base, or project an appearance of
respectability, but more probably to quicken the pace of disarming ordinary people. They need
to accelerate the real agenda toward a "new order," in their case via the deception of George
Soros and his Open Society concept a society that is anything but “Open”! Unfortunately, its
‡‡
At Port Arthur & directly because someone overlooked the change to ‘winter schedule’ of the Bundeena, their people
did get blood on the hands: 3 shot dead in the Café; 1 slight wounds; 1 received a huge settlement; 1 suicided.
not "new" there is no "order" and the society he envisages, is "open" only in so far as the despots
who rule and who will have full sway!
Oxfam, a humanitarian aid organisation with branches in 12 countries including Australia and
New Zealand, was founded in the UK in 1942, while Amnesty International (AI) has been a "blip"
on my radar of concern for a considerable time. Their actions speak louder than words. They
fight tooth and nail to save some miserable drug-trafficker's life, while ignoring our denial of
trial by jury, and the hijacking of our ancient rights like Habeas Corpus! So these three
organisations are in truth aids to the "gun control" urban terrorists!
But then the conditioned "gun control" disciple when called upon emits civility so as to gain the
intended victim's trust. They appear to be "on your side", a desirable characteristic in turn
promoted by a cooperative - or more correctly a 'controlled' - media, that in reality, acts as a
support network of conduits to endorse the perp's credibility and simultaneously promote
themselves as champions of truth and free speech.
The "gun control" activists cleverly beguile the unwary especially professionals in health, and
the humanities, gathering them as followers and supporters who quickly become almost true-
believers if you will. Anyone who dares to challenge face to face the "gun control" networks'
philosophy will usually attract a swift rebuke via the media at a time and place of their
choosing and without your opportunity to reply. Most find it too onerous to oppose for very
long their barrage. The process, ages old and it often divests all who oppose their agenda of
their precious resources. This experience usually neutralises the "wounded" party.
Many outrageous claims made by "gun control" advocates are all too often published by the
media as fact, a bias, which in today's political climate is beyond challenge: if you cannot hire
the hall, you don't get to speak. When ever the "gun control" network is challenged publicly,
you simply receive the standard hallmark of their ilk; the silent treatment.
A good many of their 'wounded' victims become so confused and disillusioned, they give up in
disgust to “get a life”. Hopefully I can demonstrate some of how this network operates so you
may be able to recognise these terrorists who deploy and work unhindered under the blessing
of a disturbing number of administrations globally.
Below I’ve listed for your consideration just a few of the players and associates in the whole
misinformation league and the niche within which they operate:
• The Strategy Newspaper: edited by Ray Platt, this is an 'alternate' newspaper which
was reported to have once enjoyed a circulation of 30,000 units and still in September
of 2005, the publication promoted the works of “Joe” Vialls (even when deceased?) and
several of "Joe" Vialls' long-term supporters.
Robert Balgarnie until recent times was slated as proof-reader for
The Strategy. Since the "Inverell Forum" was launched in 1988,
Robert has been their recording technician and lynchpin of this
voluntary-run event. Held annually in the Northern NSW city of
Inverell, The Forum assembles many nationally acclaimed
speakers voicing a diverse mix of views and from its inception the
event has been sponsored by The Strategy. Inverell recorder
• Jonathan Pember Graham: Graham was b.c1950 Perth WA and educated in St Pauls
College & Sydney University. Formerly employed by publishing house Macmillan in the
UK and 3M. Author of Dictatorship of Controlled Media and various political articles;
had a regular column, "Phoenix Rising", at page 6 of The Strategy newspaper
commencing in March 1996; former delegate to the NSW Liberal Party's State Council;
former office bearer with their Double Bay Branch (app.1975-1981); Former Vice-
President Australian Civil Liberties Union, associate of Mr. David Thompson, a former
director of the Australian League of Rights; was Vice President of the Conservative
Speakers Club (Sydney). By the Strategy he promoted the work of “Joe” over and
above factual writers.
• GGCN, The Global Gun Control Network and the birth of IANSA: The shadowy GGCN
and its entire network of 'buddies' are in reality a unique portion of the misinformation
or propaganda program that is unquestionably an inseparable 'sibling' of the gun
massacre phenomena; they create (globally) the community alarm of impending
mayhem, then capitalize on the event's resultant trauma among the population to
ensure "party politics" legitimise and implement people control through disarmament.
The uncanny accuracy of their predictions and instantaneous response by a cooperative media
to the events is anything but coincidental. GGCN gives their address as PO Box 11495 London
N3 2FE and they are linked directly to the co-ordinated programs for “gun control” globally. So
geographically speaking, their title is quite accurate. Their Internet site makes for quite
revealing reading at http://www.gun-control-network.org/GCN02.htm. They claim to have
been founded in July of 1996, by “lawyers, academics and the parents of victims killed in
Dunblane and Hungerford.” They go on to inform us, “in February 1997 GCN hosted the first
ever meeting of gun control campaigners from around the world.” GCN eventually evolved
into the Soros sponsored 'non government organisation' (or NGO) disarmament movement - the
International Action Network on Small Arms - or IANSA.
GCN also intimated that their 1997 global gathering facilitated, “close and continuing co-
operation,” globally among fellow agents of this horrid conspiracy, so as to ensure a “common
purpose of tightening gun controls worldwide,” is achieved. I contend they are being too
modest.
So this document confirms GGCN people conspired with people in sovereign nations around
the world to disarm the citizens of their private firearms.
This is corroborated in one of their organs, Disarmament Times, which confirms the new
director of IANSA as none other than the globe-trotting "gun control" advocate, Rebecca
Peters. (Vol XXV, No2 and at page 2 of February 2002)
So what of all the hundreds of innocent men, women and children who suffered injury or
death in the psychopolitical 'gun massacres' of Australia and New Zealand, Scotland,
America and Germany? All were unwitting sacrifices for global “gun control”!
This conspiracy crosses the divides of nation boundaries, party politics, governments and/or
administrations. IANSA boasts a membership of between 400-500 NGOs from between 70-100
countries and the Australian NGO is none other than the AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF
CRIMINOLOGY (AIC). I kid you not:
The AIC is a member of IANSA and the AIC was conceived by a Labor Ministry
and birthed from out of the federal attorney general's office.
Since 1984, Australians have been scrambling to supply the rope with which
these treacherous people will use to hang us all!
In Australia, the first disarmament group (est. c.1983) demanding civilian disarmament called
“gun control”, was Gun Control Australia (GCA), with John Bruce Crook still their aging
president in Victoria, however GCA was overtaken by the National Coalition for Gun Control
(NCGC). 2
But it must be clearly understood the "gun control" advocates are inseparable partners with the
academics of psychiatry who were central to the incarceration 'for the whole of his life' of an
innocent Martin Bryant. The public face of the first "gun control" advocate in the modern era
in this country was Prof. Richard Harding then of Perth. Inspector Colin Greenwood of Scotland
Yard (London) while visiting Perth in Western Australia and after listening to the Harding rant
against firearm owners and guns concluded that '(In Australia) You don't have a gun
problem; you have a media problem'.
Son of Richard Harding, Andrew, in recent times
along with ex-patriot American, Randy Marshall
have both appeared from time to time as
spokesmen for GCA. Then came the Sydney based
group that soon overtook the GCA in prominence:
the National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC).
Founded in 1988, with the convener and founding
Ms Lee Rhiannon “Chair” being the later Greens MLC in the NSW
Rebecca Peters
Parliament, Ms Lee Rhiannon. This urgent “need”
for such an organisation stemmed from the huge defeat of Premier Barry Unsworth (ALP) in the
1988 State election, in what he’d labelled a “gun control referendum”. In that general
election, Nick Greiner won government for the Liberal Party. Soon after and right on que came
the Strathfield massacre. This saw Rebecca Peters rise to
prominence as chair of the NSW chapter of NCGC. But there is also
the New Zealand connection which is an inseparable tentacle of the
"gun control" octopus. 3
Philip Alpers used to call New Zealand home. But with the Port
Arthur mission into the next phase of gun “buy-back” initiated by
Turkey Conspiracy: 2nd from our Federal Ministry, two principles of "gun control" in Australasia,
R; Philip Alpers. R. front; Philip Alpers and Rebecca Peters departed the Pacific for America's
Rebecca Peters. East Coast and New York, were they shortly both
received honorary doctorates by way of tax-free
institutes funded in 2002 by the Jewish philanthropist and Open Society founder,
George Soros.
In 1979, Soros founded in New York, the Open Society Fund and subsequently by
1984 had exported this tax-exempt society to Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Philip Alpers
Union. Soros is directly and heavily engaged in global "gun control".
Based in New York and residing in Baltimore, the now honorary "Dr Peters"
first was involved in the organisation of the not so successful "million Mom
march," and shortly was appointed director of the International Action
Network on Small Arms – IANSA. A Soros sponsored proprietary company,
IANSA shelters under the umbrella of its limited liabilities status while it
retains the rights of an individual as is accorded companies under the crazy
corporate laws of America. On 18 - 19 January 2002, before Peters was
appointment as IANSA’s CEO, the ex-patriot New Zealander Philip A. Alpers
and Dr Peters were there among 22 speakers assembled in Adele Kirsten
Istanbul, Turkey for a Soros sponsored Open Society Institute meeting, the
International Individual Disarmament Symposium. Notice they deliberately
use the noun “Individual”; they intend for the individual citizen to be
disarmed. We shall look closer at Philip Alpers directly.
Then the Istanbul gathering exposed another person of interest: from South
Africa, one Adele Kirsten, and you may consider her credentials a little closer
in Chapter 14, Building the Crown's Case.
Dr Akan, PTSD
specialist
Peters and Alpers were obviously accorded VIP status at this Open Institute sponsored
Convention in Turkey. Top of the list of speakers was “specialist” Dr. Ayhan Akcan. Between
1993 to 1998 specialist Dr Akan worked at “Bakırköy Mental and Neurological Disorders
Hospital, [focusing on] "Chronic Schizophrenic Patients"…, particularly depression, anxiety
disorders, mourning, post-trauma stress disorders and personality.” - My emphasis. 4
But in the wake of Port Arthur, Roland Browne took over as NCGC's
national chairperson, while in Sydney a glassblower, Moshe Pleshet,
was promoted on live television with a stunned Tracey Grimshaw,
as chairman of Gun Control Australia, NSW as he expelled copious
amounts of ‘hot air’ on the subject. Rebecca Peter's departure
from Sydney required a Sydney "face" of NCGC NCGC Sydney:
and so Samantha Lee filled her shoes as "chair" Moshe Pleshet
in NSW.
The Rev Tim Costello, brother to John Howard’s long suffering understudy
and federal treasurer Peter Costello, in recent times has also exposed
himself as a real champion of the global "gun control" network as a part
time spokesman for NCGC in Melbourne.
Rev Tim Costello
The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA): Special Projects Director for the
entire duration of the gun “buyback” was Gary Fleetwood of South Australia. I will provide
further background on Mr Fleetwood shortly.
As you read on, and after considering Chapter 28, I’m confident you will be compelled to have
concluded I'm not being facetious in using such a term to describe "Joe" Vialls. In a blatant
attempt to reinforce his credibility, his résumé of self promotion has since he came upon the
scene, introduced to the majority of my fellow countrymen by The Strategy and his writings of
Port Arthur massacre in May of 1997: as an 'independent investigator with 30 years direct
experience of international military and oilfield operations'.
The effectiveness of propaganda promoted by “Joe” on the massacre at Port Arthur (or for that
matter a considerable number of other controversial events), should not be underestimated.
Much about the man and the persona his words displayed soon provoked me to examine “Joe”
Vialls much closer.
By early January of 2005 I had began to compile the manuscript for Chapter 28 of this work, so
as to enable you the opportunity to consider my findings. By March this
work was in its first review, though I was “stuck” for a title.
Then a further re-write was carried out with the re-write now entitled,
"Joe": possibly “Did Joe Vialls ever paly fullback for Jerusalem?” which is a 2.8 MB file with
Otho Jewell in excess of 16,300 words; this revision was put to bed on May 17.
Vialls: but who
knows? On that same day I forwarded the file as a zipped attachment for
publication to a number of websites, fulfilling e-mailed promises I’d made
to them as early as May 5 2005 of a forthcoming article exposing Joe Vialls as a fraud. My files
confirm continued but unsuccessful efforts to see the article published for a further six weeks
through to June 19, to sites including (Jeff) Rense.com, Educate-Yourself at editor@educate-
yourself.org, Raylean at raylean@charter.net (RumorMill Reading) and much later Joe’s most
recent adopted site, Truthseekers.com.uk.
The article was not posted by a single site, a reaction in itself that to me reveals much of
their agenda! After all, several of these sites numbered among the 40 or so sites that posted
my earlier article in October 2002, “The Doctor behind the Port Arthur Massacre – now living in
Merrylands”.
But in late May, and on behalf of Andrew MacGregor, I forwarded to two of the above Web
Sites, a short article in the form of a critique of a recent Joe Vialls article:
“Danger: Mind Controllers At Work!” - copyrighted by Joe, 15 May and posted at:
http://www.vialls.com/subliminalsuggestion/mind_controllers.html
Acting upon advice, I edited my article heavily and so the edited version appears as Chapter 28
of this publication, running to 24 pages (2.16MB). This version entitled, “Did Joe Vialls Ever
Play Fullback for Jerusalem?”, was finally completed on July 11, 2005 and bearing that title
it was circulated on that same day widely both here in Australia, in America and Canada both
by E-Mail and some even posted off in hard copy. Then I waited to see just how the subject of
my unauthorised biography would react.
In an instant I realised the possibility that my article may have created for “Joe” and his
associates, an awkward situation.
All thanks go to my colleagues as together we examined dozens of “hits” from various search
engines and scores of items some even appearing in hard print. Credibility of the various sites
and the correspondents were checked and slowly a folio of information was gathered. After
considering all the evidence surrounding his alleged demise, I must confess that I remain
unconvinced as to the integrity of all of the content and claims made in those reports.
It then became evident some who’d not as yet read my article, would jump to the conclusion
that it had been written maliciously in an opportunistic climate. Nothing could be further from
the truth. After all, my article was released for publication away back on May 17, 2005 or a
whole 31 days before the first death notice for “Joe” Vialls appeared!
A person undoubtedly at the cutting edge of reality, Rixon Stewart (another alias?) of a site
called Truthseekers (a contradiction in terms!), put his professional grasp of the English
language to print in response to the article I’d forwarded to him at
editor@thetruthseeker.co.uk when on July 22, he wrote:
“You had "attempted to publish", no wonder it wasn't published: you can't write.
Keep your crap about Vialls, and don't bother me again with these obvious lies
about Vialls.”
Gosh, I was cut to the quick … well not quite; after twenty years of confronting the “Rixons” of
this world I was reminded of those lines from Kipling’s poem “IF”:
IF you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowances for their doubting too; etc.
So we should make allowances for Rixon’s “doubt” (or perhaps something more tangible), for
it’s really quite amazing just how so many of those on the NWO team have exposed themselves;
either with the usual ‘silent treatment’ of establishment editors and their journalists
controlled by their mortgage, on through to the Rixon-type team-bonded ranter.
A listed member of The Old Guildfordians of Perth and self-confessed good friend of "Joe
Vialls", Mike Macaulay, posted Joe’s obituary. My research also shows
Macaulay operated at that time as a dealer in new and used computer
parts, computer repairs, peripherals, software and upgrades, out of 30
Edward St in Perth, Western Australia.
Continuing the whole distortion that has become “Joe” of the west, as the Crematorium’s
Administrator is on record as having removed the ashes and so conveniently for some I would
suggest, no religious denomination is therefore on the public record. If “Joe” turned up as a
follower of the Talmud it would most certainly have been inconvenient I would contend,
especially in light of several further controversial snippets I shall explain shortly. Even so the
reported “death” of “Joe” triggered a crop of remarkable, but predictable tributes from the
network of individuals in Australia, America and the U.K. identified in my writings.
No fewer than six death notices appeared in the columns of The West Australian, all of which
carried on the myth of “Joe”. From the pages of his principal hard-copy sponsor The Strategy
and the August 2005 issue carried various items: at page 9, appeared the page-length
double column tribute and another from the editor Ray Platt and wife Evelyn.
However, all of the glowing tributes were to “Joe” – there was not a mention of Otho
Jewell Vialls.
His obituaries revealed a further controversy: early claims suggested Joe “passed
away suddenly and unexpectedly…after a period of illness.” But then another
family friend claimed knowledge of “kidney failure” as the root cause of Joe’s sudden
death, while a third suggested a “heart attack” as the cause of death. But, if you
consider kidney failure, it’s most unlikely someone suffering from ‘kidney failure’
would die “suddenly and unexpectedly” - especially in a city such as Perth with
adequate, competent, medical care at hand and accessible to British nationals on a 'service
pension'.
One of my sources told me that Otho's wife Marilyn, was in the UK at the time, attending to
matters concerning her sister's unexpected death, when she was summoned home to Perth,
arriving just in time to attend her husband's cremation. But the role of confusion’s little
helpers becomes even more remarkable at every move in this whole affair. For in the above
edition of The Strategy, a curious advertisement at page 4 informed readers the book, Deadly
Deception at Port Arthur, was still available for $10 a copy, and that quote: “donations to the
ongoing investigation are also welcome.”
So what does Ray Platt tell us here? Since 1997 we know the amazing “Joe” was able during a
crack in time and before the dust had settled on many a global event, to gather far too much
information, compile, write and publish his unsourced by catchy styled synopsises within hours
of events, employing a journalistic technique that satisfied the imprudent reader. He was the
epitome of a “Johnny-on-the-spot” journalist. So it appears it is the propagandists' strategy, in
spite of "Joe's" brush with the crematoria, that Platt should continue to promote “Joe”, collect
“donations to the ongoing investigation [into the Port Arthur massacre]”, but how is this
"ongoing investigation" to be conducted – from a stone jar on someone’s mantel piece?
Some may accuse me of insensitivity in making this suggestion - but like many others, I’m
outraged by “Joe” and his duplicity and criminality: don't forget he was a fraud at the very
least. I remain unconvinced as to his reputed demise, and I should ask the critics: “Is it not
equally as insensitive - no, perhaps ghoulish is a truer adjective - that The Strategy should
have the audacity to suggest some “ongoing” investigation on the part of a deceased person?”
Or is it more accurate to suggest it as nothing more than them extending "Joe's" earlier, lengthy
campaign, of begging for alms?
Yet another conundrum was attached to the demise of "Joe": posted as if in some sort of a
salute to Joe Vialls, at:- www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=4&1=911&t=911 was an
emblem with the file name saxe-weimer009. A search of the Web produced even further
conundrums, and I share just a portion with you because of space. My
search revealed that founded in 1809, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach was a grand
duchy in Thuringia, also known in more recent times as the Grand duchy of
Saxony, with its capitol Weimer, the lot coming to an end in 1918. If the
reader can throw any light as to the reasons as to why the emblem was
included in the posting of the subject's death announcement I would be
very grateful.
Mystery emblem on
In considering the revelations exposed in Chapter 28, as you read on, you
Internet posting for
may understand my concerns and outrage are well justified. The next issue
"Joe's" death notice
of The Strategy in September, I believe confirms, in the journalistic sense
at least, the role played by “Joe” to that readership has been filled by none other than a co-
conspirator and unswerving supporter - even if temporarily - Tony Pitt and as that TV
commercial goes; “But there’s more!”
Consider Tony Pitt’s rather ambiguous statement at page 13 of September issue of The
Strategy, when he states, “I have the testimony of at least one senator admitting they were
threatened, [with regard to the Port Arthur massacre].”
So why not share the name/s of all the threatened senator/s with the readers Tony? But
understand that high school grammar taught such a statement is nonsensical; at the bottom of
the scale there is “one senator”, with the term “at least” superfluous. This statement is
imbedded in his article encouraging readers to buy up big, Joe’s blue book (i.e. Otho Jewell’s),
Deadly Deception at Port Arthur, a badly flawed narrative from cover to cover.
In the same issue, I also checked-out the credits at page 2 and under the heading of “STAFF”: I
was amazed with what met my eyes: “Joe Vialls (deceased)”. If the editor had omitted the
bracketed “(deceased)”, this inclusion could be forgiven as a ‘typo’ or oversight. But
obviously the editor wants you to believe “Joe” like the phoenix bird, has truly risen from the
ashes, and writes on; but from where? I wonder what alias he writes under this time around.
Bizarre as it may seem, there is yet further twists to this segment of our story and I wager they
are not the last. For in the article I forwarded to America was embedded the only known
published photograph (March 1990) in existence bearing the caption ‘Joe Vialls’. The photo
was published in the March 31, 1990 article in The West Australian newspaper.
You see, back in January of 2005 in conversations with Wendy Scurr and
Andrew MacGregor I had expressed a suspicion that “Joe” Vialls may well
be one and the same person as Ari Ben Menashe who authored the 1992
book Profits of War.
Even Ari’s name caused me to suspect he also used a pseudonym: as the “Ben Menashe” part of
this name is not a ‘family name’ as such, but rather that of a tribe, residing as they have done
for many generations on the sub-continent; a tribe incidentally that have for all those years
claimed Jewish ancestry.
Published in 1992 by Allen & Unwin, Profits of War first came my way in 1993 and I found in the
narrative at pp.119-120 accounts alleging a $US6m bribe paid by Israel as well as further
alleged reprehensible and corrupt acts occurred in Australia in February 1987, naming
prominent players such as the then Premier for Western Australia - Brian Bourke - and the
Western Australian Labor Party.
So in 1993, I formally approached the Member for Riverina at the time Noel Hicks (NP), to raise
these matters on the floor of the House of Representatives. Soon Mr. Hicks advised me that
the matters were in his words “a dead duck.” Shortly Noel Hicks was appointed to the ASIO
committee.
With the above information and interest in Ari firmly in my mind, in January 2005 I travelled to
Sydney to research the person many Australians new as “Joe” Vialls and establish his
background. However due in my opinion to a lack of a compelling photographic evidence
archived on the subject at hand, I chose at that time not to publish my suspicions in the article
I released for publication in May 2005.
Interestingly, the cover of the Australian print of Profits of War tells us the author was born in
Tehran in 1951 to an Iraqi-Jewish family, and further that he immigrated in 1966 to Israel,
where from 1977 to 1989 Ari worked within “Israeli intelligence” and learned to speak six
languages. But importantly, no photograph of Ari was ever published in the Australian print-
run. At Chapter 28, sourced documents show Joe “returned” to Perth (WA) in 1988, while Ari
claims he came to Sydney in 1990; so “Joe” and “Ari” inform us the window of their activities
here is close, but not identical.
However, in 2002, the Australian SBS-TV program “Dateline” ran a story called “Killing
Mugabe”. Captured on video by Mark Davis and his camera, the story covered the alleged
planned assassination of Mugabe, prime minister of Zimbabwe. A repeat was later put to air to
celebrate ‘40 years of Dateline’. In the repeat, a voice-over claimed that with regard to the
story, Killing Mugabe, “…no Dateline story has generated such controversy as this one.”
Many independent news reports from out of Africa at the time repeatedly claimed Ari Ben
Menashe had over a long time gained “a reputation as a notorious fantasist” (Perhaps Mark
Davis should take a second shot at the story?).
From SBS-TV's - Mark Davis 2002 presentation, I was able to extract a frame of the mystery man
Ari Ben-Menashe. At various times it has been claimed Ari Ben-Menashe resided in Canada and
was chairman of a Canadian firm, Dickens & Madson. Another article claimed he managed a
‘commodities brokerage’ Albury Grain Sales of Montreal, neither claim of which I have been
able to confirm at time of writing.
In the book “Profits of War”, Ari Ben-Menashe tells us after flying into Sydney on his Israeli
passport, he took a “sumptuous apartment in the city’s exclusive Darling Point” and there
proceeded to write his book. Now if Ari intended to loose himself into the Australian landscape
under an assumed name, Western Australia’s Perth seems like an excellent choice, pretty
remote from the world. But a photo of Ari in the Australian print run of the book would
undoubtedly have then proven unwise; West Australians can and do read.
However the American print of Profits of War which also went on sale in 1992 sported an
entirely different cover layout, front and back; as well it sports a lovely circa 1990’s
photograph captioned Ari Ben Menashe: when compared either Joe has a double or Ari Ben-
Menashe is one and the same as the person we in Australia know as “Joe” Vialls.
Some time after this action was begun around eighteen or twenty satirical cartoon-like A4
handbills were mailed to me from Tasmania, with a note attached identifying the sender.
While I firmly believe in the principle and basic individual right of free speech and at the time I
thought their content was unworthy of promotion as the subject matter central to the
‘cartoons’ while unmistakeable, all but one conveyed no relevance to the subject of Port
Arthur. Just one of the handbills stood out as promoting an entirely different focus; a
comparison of 'the gunman' and a ‘silly’ Martin Bryant in relation to especially, the Broad Arrow
segment of the massacre at Port Arthur.
The aggrieved party didn’t give up though. Their campaign only escalated,
which saw Mrs Scully return to court on 29 April 2002 in Hobart, which later
culminated in a further hearing in June 2002, before the Federal Court of
Australia, which sat concurrently in Launceston and Sydney to hear the case
of Jeremy Jones v Olga Scully.
Now the reason comes to light as to why I have introduced the reader to the
viall-toon affair. For when the source of the A4 satirical cartoons - the
Mrs Olga Scully
alleged “offensive material” - is identified, the affair's relevance to this
whole story is spotlighted. Obviously the source of the material was never exposed during Mrs.
Scully's hearing, a person I might add who is well known in Launceston and Hobart for her
involvement in attempts to publicly expose the controversy surrounding the massacre at Port
Arthur.
You see in spite of being already warned by this author of the true purpose of Joe Vialls’
disinformation agenda, for the past seven or eight years Olga Scully has promoted “Joe”
enthusiastically and sold a significant number of his books, Deadly Deception at Port Arthur.
Recently I learned Olga Scully stated quite candidly to both my colleagues that none other than
“Joe” Vialls himself was the source of supply of those A4 “cartoons” - as well as the misleading
Port Arthur A4 document.
The purpose of the viall-toon affair is brought into sharper focus, when we consider an article
posted at http://www.vialls.com/archives/archivespage.html written by Joe Vialls entitled,
Jewish B'nai B'rith moves in on Port Arthur "Conspiracy"; in essence it was his reply to what I
would term a ‘powder-puff’ criticism of 4 lines only and his name mentioned once in a
February 2001 report by the AIJAC (Australia/Israel & Jewish affairs Council): "Report on
Antisemitism in Australia".
Even Mrs. Scully is referred to in this report under the same sub-heading "5.9 The Strategy", as
the "holocaust denier Olga Scully, [and her] “20 Brilliant Cartoons”."
The extent of the AIJAC report’s claim, regarding Joe Vialls, is contains in the following short
passage, were it alleges "An article by Joe Vialls attacked “the powerful Jewish lobby in
Washington who “effectively control the US Media”, as part of a claim that Israel
attacked the USS Cole in Yemen," was posted on the Web by him. Please understand; this is
the entirety of the report’s criticism of Vialls.
"In a puzzling move, the Jewish organization B'nai B'rith has moved in on the Port
Arthur Conspiracy (sic), deliberately though subtly attempting to undermine the
author's [Joe Vialls] investigation into the tragedy which took place in Tasmania during
April 1996. …"
Continuing Vialls writes, "As B'nai B'rith knows very well, this is … a blatant attempt to
throw the author's diligent work into the "extreme right wing" and "anti-semitic"
buckets that B'nai B'rith helped to invent in the first place. …
"Asking exactly why a Jewish pressure group like B'nai B'rith should get involved at this
late stage, is as puzzling as asking why the Tasmanian Government paid for a
prominent Port Arthur survivor to receive three weeks continual hypnosis from a Jewish
psychiatrist in Melbourne."
Why is Joe puzzled by this survivors' pay-out? After all, the Tasmania Government was an
employer and so was obliged to pay for mental health care of its employees injured in the
course of their work whist under their employ; surely simply enough to understand isn’t it? But
Vialls continues:
"Most probably there is no connection at all, but nowadays that survivor is playing an
increasingly important role in subtly deflecting attention away from the serious
investigation, into more muddled and speculative areas, where growing public
discontent might be more easily contained."
I’m sure you would have to agree, ‘drawing a long-bow’ seems an inadequate description of
Joe Vialls’ feeble proof of B’nai B’brith moving in on the conspiracy of the massacre at Port
Arthur for starters.
But when it comes to that "prominent Port Arthur survivor" this is a malicious attack upon a
Mrs. Wendy Scurr. You see for those who've not followed "Joe" and his writings on the Net,
since at least 1998, he has at various times, indirectly and directly, launched vindictive and
libelous attacks upon just three people who are still writing, publishing and addressing public
meetings on the massacre at Port Arthur: Andrew MacGregor, Mrs. Wendy Scurr and Stewart
Beattie. You see – just to set the records straight - it was "Joe" who refused point blank to
debate the subject via a live hook-up at the Inverell Forum with Andrew MacGregor.
I may add that in the AIJAC report there is a page and a half of criticism of much that is
published by The Strategy, and most of their correspondents, delivering special attention to
Jonathon Graham for instance. But of our disinformation agent Joe Vialls, their serious,
repeated critic, and source of the alleged ‘hate material’ including the “20 Brilliant Cartoons”
supplied to Mrs. Scully, attracts just a four-lines rebuff?
Now back to Ari and "Joe": In the American print, of “Profits of War” ironically Ari is promoted
as an “Iranian Jew born in 1944”, while the Australian version claims him to be born in Tehran
in 1951. The 1944 birth date is consistent with my estimates of “Joe” I may add – and it adds
yet again to the overall deception! Nevertheless, it should be understood like “Ari”, “Joe”
conveyed in less that subtle terms and in numerous articles, a roiling hatred of Zionists and
when it benefited his standpoint, the Israeli State and Jews in general. “Joe” via his numerous
Internet and print-published articles has also boasted a firsthand knowledge of Israeli ‘black-
ops’ and intelligence techniques employed by the Israelis – also the domain of Ari.
My sources also have identified “Joe” as having a close liaison with at least one Perth-based
former SAS NCO. This former SAS sergeant had in 1969 and 1971 completed two tours of duty
in Vietnam and their rapport was such as to see him attend “Joe’s” cremation at Pinaroo
Valley.
In summary of these revelations I make the following points:
Olga Scully distributed 20 amateurish, allegedly offensive handbills, articles video’s and
the like around Launceston and a street-market there which saw her pursued
relentlessly for in excess of 6 years by Jewish organisations, from a commission, right
on up through the court system to the Federal Court of Australia - the highest court in
the land.
On the other hand “Joe” Vialls supplied Olga with some of the material that was
deemed by the courts as “racial discrimination” manifesting “racial hatred” and
authored a considerable number of copyrighted articles published by The Strategy and
many more published extensively on the Internet in which he repeatedly attacks
Zionists, the Israeli State and Jews in general and not once has “Joe” ever attracted
from anyone among Jewish organisations more than a powder-puff reproach; he even
blamed the same people for carrying out the terrorist attack that was the Port Arthur
massacre!
It is glaringly obvious to this author “Joe” is of a protected species – the perfect
double agent to peddle disinformation or propaganda.
So it would be to the reader’s advantage to consider all the findings and conclusions detailed in
the Chapter 28, and meet for yourself, “Joe”, Otho or who ever he is - the person who conned
all of us, some a little longer than others.
• The Media: mainstream print, radio and television media in Australia and abroad have
since day one of Port Arthur, avoided like the plague anyone who has willingly
presented evidence contrary to the government line. The majority of Australians are
blithely unaware that the public are denied the truth on a host of matters because our
media is controlled and censored. Propaganda delivered to the family rooms of
homes across the world via the media is nothing more or less than a tool of control
some may call a "war".
A colleague was told around 1998 by a highly placed source, a “D” Notice had been placed on
her name. In consideration of the forging parameters it would seem the Federal Ministry
decided that statements made contrary to their accepted line, regarding the Port Arthur
massacre, were classified as “defence-related information”. Repeatedly, my findings when
conveyed through interviews to various print media have been vigorously suppressed. Channel
Nine followed Mrs. Scurr and Andrew MacGregor’s public addresses about Tasmania and to
Sydney – but not a centimetre of their considerable video coverage has ever been put to air.
Nine even approached me near the end of that tour suggesting I travel to Sydney and be
interviewed on the subject; I declined. If Nine was sincere, they would have come to my home
and conducted the interview. They've never made a further approach.
In court transcript document the DPP promotes a synopsis which is contained as central to all
writings by “Joe” Vialls; his 'hard scientific evidence'. His synopsis is no more than a thinly
veiled deception.
If these statements made before the court had been tested by Martin Bryant's defence lawyer
John Avery, many of them would easily have been proven false, and the case against Martin
Bryant would have collapsed. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest, that had Mr Bugg QC not
foreknown that no challenges whatsoever would be initiated by Avery, the prosecutor would
never have dared to make such a weak case.
As the narrative progresses, the synopsis of events promoted by both Mr Bugg and “Joe” Vialls
are easily destroyed. Joe went to quite elaborate lengths to promote this flawed summary of
events at the Broad Arrow Café that, if used in any court action in an attempt to prove Martin
Bryant's innocence, would have seen the court action fail. Many of his theories are easily
proven false. For example, some of Vialls false claimed:—
1. The shooter "…killed 20…civilians in less that thirty seconds…," with 29 shots inside the
Broad Arrow Cafe,
2. The period of time the shooter remained in the Broad Arrow Café after the first shot
was fired was "less than thirty seconds."
3. the ratio of the number of persons killed to those injured, the "kill to injury ratio"
(KTIR), paramount in the Vialls synopsis to prove Martin Bryant's innocence, is badly
flawed,
4. The hoax "running man video" claimed by him to show "a 'medic' with Bryant's head
'grafted' on his torso,” and
5. The missing cruiser, are all no more or less than humbug.
It is not difficult to dismantle the misinformation in these examples, but, once the rooster has
crowed, it’s hard to quiet the chook-run. Although my thanks goes to Mr. Damien Bugg QC for
dismantling the Crown's own case, and Joe Vialls' synopsis in just one sentence when he
stated:-
In the Café the shooter, "…fired twenty-nine shots, very few of them missed a target, and
most of them struck targets when fired at either point blank or close range." (Ref. p.117
Court Doc.) Joe Vialls claims, ad nauseam a total of 29 shots were fired in the Broad Arrow
Café. So do all of the media reports and Joe Vialls’ kill to injury ratio (KTIR) theory is heavily
dependant on that figure.
Twenty (20) persons were killed in the Café including Jason Winter, Kevin Sharp, Mervin
Howard and Elizabeth Howard who were all shot twice – 4 extra shots. That makes 24 shots,
to which we must add the shot that injured the 13 others (not 12 as Joe Vialls claims, ref The
Strategy June 1997), including Mick Sargent shot once, Graeme Collyer shot once, Caroline
Loughton shot once and Rob Elliott, shot twice, a further 5 shots:—
20
4
5
Total 29
I now ask Damien Bugg QC and “Joe” Vialls (deceased) to answer these points:
a.) "Where did the shots come from that wounded the other 9 victims? And,
b.) Please explain what caused the bullet damage to the,
i) The glass shelf on the eastern wall,
ii) The eastern wall,
iii) The window on the western wall, and,
iv) The freezer/Coke machine?" to which we could suggest adding,
v) The shot/s indicated by spent .308W case/s in the dining area.
To add further grave doubts to the misinformation regime's claims, I should point out that the
Wound Ballistic Review (WBR) tells us very clearly that 24 shots from a ·223Rem calibre killed
20 persons in the Broad Arrow Café and 17 shots of the same calibre injured a further 13
persons. The simply maths process of addition demonstrates officially, 41 shots in total were
discharged in the Broad Arrow, not 29!
To heighten the error promoted as fact by “Joe” Vialls and Mr Bugg QC even further, a total of
41 shots has still not included the above 4 instances of bullet damage I mention, so that makes
for a probable total of 45 shots as a minimum!
The following simple facts destroy the fictitious claims of the Bugg/Vialls synopsis:
• the ridiculously low and numerically unstainable ‘29 shots total’, and
• an equally ridiculously short time frame of 90 seconds duration of the lone
gunman shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café.
If we consider the signed statement by witness Ashley Law and his accurate time-line of events
while he was inside the Information Centre, and leading up to when shooting commenced inside
the Cafe, then the above synopsis of Mr Bugg QC and Joe Vialls is utterly destroyed:
• "I was on the phone at approx… 1.23pm to 1.26 pm I had finished my phone
call. During and after the phone call there were constant banging noises. …
Between 1.23 pm & 1.26 pm & hearing the banging sounds, I went outside the
Information Office into the car park. The noises were… becoming irritating and
I remarked to someone maybe Anne HILLMAN “Who’s banging that bloody
iron.”"
So what has Ashley Law told us here? Clearly just as Mrs Scurr has consistently stated; the
shooting commenced some minutes before her 000 call logged-in at 1.32pm. In fact, we can
now say with some certainty, the gunman commenced shooting moments after 1323hrs (1.23
pm), which strengthens considerably the probable duration of the shooting inside the cafe to
have been between 5 to 8 minutes, and definitely not the ridiculously short duration of 90
seconds.
Now the forgoing conclusion as to the number of shots discharged inside the Broad Arrow Café
is arrived at by using the DPP’s proposition as to the one firearm – the ·223 Remington calibre
AR15 SP-1 Rifle. Let us consider a second scenario of what I believe is what actually occurred
in the Café.
When the gunman returned to the table on which the bags rested – the Prince bag inside the
bulky, black bag – again as Mary Lee Olsen of New York State tells us, “the shots stopped for a
while.” A male lying next to her husband at that point said, “He’s gone,” whereupon Dennis
her husband moved quickly to the cover of the Coke machine, causing the gunman to withdrew
the Daewoo 12 gauge shotgun with which he shot Dennis Olsen who’d showed himself
momentarily in that area, and although ‘peppered’ he flees at speed by way of the back door
of the kitchen area. That escape convinces the gunman to again take up a rifle, this time he
resumes with the initial weapon, the Colt AR15 rifle and when emptied, he drops the Colt 30
shot magazine beside the gift shop counter, an action heard and noted by witness, Major
Sandra Vanderpeer and corroborated by Peter Crosswell. This was the gunman’s second visit to
the Gift Shop area of the Café.
The gunman then returns the table at the southwest of the dining room, removes the
predominantly blue Prince Sports Bag from out of the bulky, black duffle-bag, leaving it with
all of the evidence supposedly linking Martin Bryant to the scene there on the table, walks to
the Café entrance, pauses, and then leaves to walk to the Volvo. So now let’s count up the
shots available to the gunman in the café with this scenario:
• ·223Rem, first 17 shots in 15 seconds from a 30 shot mag: 30-17=12 +1 left
• ·308W, 5 shots (4 in 10 sec; more recoil = slower), 20 shot mag: 20–5=14 +1 left.
• 12ga Daewoo shot gun – shot Olsen 10 shot mag: 10-1=8 +1 left.
• ·223Rem last segment (12 remaining mag discarded) reloads new 30 shot mag.
This last scenario presented for your consideration demonstrates that the gunman had at least
80 rounds of rifle fire at his disposal that we are aware of, plus 10 rounds of 12 gauge shot gun
pelleted ammunition. The DPP’s 29 shots hypothesis looks decidedly weak.
There were two witnesses who have told of quantities of live ammunition and spent cases and
magazines from two military calibres seen there on the floor of the Café dining room and a
police photograph above corroborates two calibres at least were there at the crimes scene:
1. The holidaying Victoria Police Snr Const Dennis Gabbedy, who tended to Graeme
Collyer’s critical wounds and aided by an off duty RHH nurse, they kept him alive inside
the Broad Arrow Café until paramedics stabilised him for transport to hospital. Dennis
Gabbedy on his own initiative checked out exactly what that ammunition was strewn
around the floor near were Collyer lay; it was ·308W (7.62NATO) FMJ ammunition.
2. Also directly because of the two types of ammunition and magazines, Tasmania Police
officer Peter Hessman, thought he was dealing with ‘a terrorist attack’ when he first
entered the Broad Arrow Café. 5
Now to the last of those shots as presented by “Joe” Vialls and his Port Arthur summary; Joe
locks himself into his inflexible and unnecessary KTIR hypothesis, supposedly to prove Martin
Bryant's innocence, continually promoting the 29 shots for 20 dead and 12 wounded victims
(there were 13 wounded, not 12 as Vialls has repeatedly written), that occurred inside the
Broad Arrow Café in 90 seconds.
“Joe” Vialls ignored 12 additional shots and between 3½-6½ extra minutes duration to
deliver those additional shots inside the Broad Arrow Café, facts supplied from reliable
documents and supported by credible eye witness statements; “Joe” Vialls was forced to
cease collecting his data at the entrance door so as his KTI ratio appeared sensational and
his scenario is repeated ad nauseum by writers even to this day; it is unsustainable also.
“Joe’s” deceit is compounded by ignoring witness statements (he didn’t perused the witness
statements as he never accessed more than a very tiny sample), so as to prove his KTIR theory:
he excluded many gunshots from his calculations, the minimum of 83 shots fired (for 35 killed,
and 21 wounded) and also ignored the reported 150 to 250 shots fired from the Seascape
environs. 2 If “Joe” Vialls had extended his theory to include all the killings, woundings and
shots fired, up until Martin Bryant was arrested on the Monday morning, then like all smoke and
mirror concoctions, “Joe” Vialls' hypothesis would simply evaporate.
Also, why does Vialls support a very substantial portion of Mr Bugg’s case? After all in truth he
has always promoted the bulk of the establishment line. Both Vialls and Damien Bugg QC,
importantly, exhibit an ignorance of a critical competence the shooter exhibited throughout his
entire operation: it was not the gunman’s devilish "accuracy" that stands out as the majority
were in truth shot execution style from very close quarters. No it was the fact that the
gunman demonstrated an extremely highly tuned discipline that saw him select, and
deliberately NOT shoot potentially easy targets.
You may legitimately ask, "Why would this be so?" The answer is also a fundamental almost
ignored by many authors writing about the subject, for it requires you to understand the
principal goals behind the terrorist attack at Port Arthur.
The primary purpose for the massacre exercise was to affect maximum trauma on the
greatest number of visitors, staff, police, SES volunteers, residents of the Peninsula,
Tasmanians and a whole nation as well. Trauma was primary, so as survivors would join
the crescendo emanating from out of the "Gun Control" Network's NCGC that would trigger
vocal support and timidity across the nation so as to legitimise the Howard lead Federal
Government's pre-emptive legislative moves and heighten their willingness to coerce state
jurisdictions, in which was vested the power over firearm laws and so intimidate a host of
the law-abiding citizens into surrendering their arms and along with those arms all of the
people’s inalienable rights.
Importantly these trauma tactics worked, and they worked yet again when so called “anti-
terror” precedential legislation was forced through the parliaments of this country by
subservient Ministries, which effectively annihilated almost all of the remaining inherited,
inalienable, age-old, basic rights of the people.
That is the reason why good police constables were held back from entering Port Arthur for 6
hours and before their arrival allowed for a further 3 shots to be discharged on site. These
were no coincidental discharges by some 'hunter' but the deliberate act of someone in league
with the whole sordid exercise, and done, so as to maximize the trauma of every man, women
and child entrapped there in the darkened cottages behind locked doors and drawn blinds.
This is yet another example of the demented mindset of those involved – or would anyone dare
to suggest Martin Bryant organised this shooter as well?! Similarly, this is why two responsible
Police Constables were held back and ordered by a superior officer; "this has to happen". As a
consequence Seascape Siege continued on over the hours of darkness so as to enhance this
horrid trauma among the Peninsula’s entire population.
The mindset I speak of also clarifies why Const Garry Whittle, there in the 'front line' and with
heightened adrenalin pumping, was confined to a drain, constrained, and passive, for 19
uncertain hours. Remember also this is the Constable, who in the small hours of Monday
morning Dr Sale saw leaning against a wall at Taranna temporary FPCP. Finally after he'd been
extracted from the drain, he had returned to his home in Dunalley and tumbled into bed, only
to be roused from his (disturbed?) sleep by his superiors; "Come back," was the order. "You
must be debriefed". So he was forced to return to Taranna for debriefing? Even Dr Sale was
reported to have reacted later by stating, "That goes against all common sense." Do you
wonder what the long term effect the sum of these actions has had upon this Constable?
One should understand a cosseted natural bodily function for survival exists, which triggers a
surge in production of the powerful hormone adrenalin in the body when one is confronted by a
“threat” situation. The primary direct effect of sustaining trauma, and thus denying the
body’s natural reaction to a threat – i.e. fight or flight – causes this now constrained adrenalin
to attack certain vital organs and thus it can be said, sustained trauma causes primary physical
damage to the victim’s system with a secondary radiating effect into their mental health area.
While the general community is in the main ignorant of this medical effect, I can assure you
the subject had been studied in depth by the professionals in psychiatry, psychology and the
public health fields for many years prior to 1996. Such gross, extended trauma as was
experienced by many at Port Arthur that day, causes the debilitating psychological condition
called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD, such as is suffered by war veterans for many of
their civilian years. It may well be with the victim in varying degrees for their entire life…
In his published work and at least two articles in The Strategy, Joe Vialls states with a trifling
qualification, inside the Broad Arrow Café, "…the crime scene was almost spookily clean." I
know of no other person, witness or professional, who would agree with Vialls' cavalier
description, not even Sergeant Gerard Dutton. Volunteer ambulance officer Garry Alexander
was officiating at a children's race for the local sailing club when his pager summoned him to
attend Port Arthur that day. In the Sunday Tasman of 5 May 1996, the Vietnam War veteran
was reported as stating with regard to the Broad Arrow Café: "Blood was an inch thick in there
… we had to keep stepping over it"; on the scale of cleanliness – hardly approaching spookily
clean, I would think.
It was suggested by “Joe” as recently as July of 2001, that at Port Arthur, "the weapon of
choice was a cut-down version of the Colt AR15…known as a CAR15." That particular article
goes on the mention the term of "cut-down," "sawn off," "sawn-off," "home made," and
"chopped down" some 18 times throughout; reinforcing no doubt. When I searched out the
source of his information, I came upon a quite remarkable (and convenient) Web-site:
www.isayret.com
This URL was posted on 1 February, 2001, and consisted of one article of 9 pages. Small
changes were made and photographs added at various times but importantly the last two
updates were posted on May 15 and July 21, 2001.
Vialls' article entitled, "Colt Sawn Off CAR15" was published by The Strategy and copyrighted
by the author on July 9, 2001. When this date is considered, the above dates are most
revealing! For the caption on the bottom photograph at page 8 of the "israyret" article is dated
"July 2001".
Joe Vialls copyrighted his article on July 9, so it really he was quite fortuitous that the URL
web-site containing the necessary material to reinforce his article was posted just 25 days
before "C" day for Joe, and in time for him to have his Google Search engine spit out what he
so readily terms "hard scientific evidence". This article legitimised him pointing his accusing
finger at the Israeli Special Forces, but as I have already mentioned, “Joe” was fortunately
immune from any back-lash!
All this intrigue to support his theory that a firearm, back-yard modified, was used at Port
Arthur and he made a false claim also concerning his claimed “decoy” firearm that was
recovered from the ashes of Seascape. His claims are very cleaver diversions; ten percent lies,
eighty percent truth – or am I being too generous? The old Brer Rabbit ploy of “please don’t
throw me in the briar patch, please don’t…”
Undoubtedly the reader is aware that just because a Web-site home page appears to be
legitimate, with up-to-date snappy colour pictures and snazzy lay-outs, its great layout appeal
does not legitimise it or guarantee
the message is true. Also in this
instance, modern computer
technology should almost eliminate 1967 model Colt M16/AR15 rifle
spelling errors. There was no
Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine excuse for the atrocious grammar as against simple typos. For
example; from the first line and at the fourth word in this article
the author spells Intifada – "Intipda", what ever that means. Would it not be reasonable to
suggest, that comrades tasked to post such material surely would know how to spell this (to all
Israeli people surely, a) common term? Even weapon's terminology in the article evidences
many mistakes. You may like to access the Web-site and see for yourself at:
www.isayeret.com and look for file://A:Israeli Defence Forces/CAR15.htm
Yes, from the very first line of the article I copied, there is
evidence of a ruse, and I'm certain Colt has always been willing and
able to supply on special orders of barrel lengths to suit the legal
military end-user's requirements, so why all this rot about
shortening barrels.
Without labouring on the point, I would remind readers that “Joe” Vialls in a quite remarkable
turn was not only in possession of exactly the primary firearms used in the Café but he
published same in an in the May 1998 issue of The Strategy newspaper! Both MacGregor and I
have only recently been able to find corroborative evidence to prove the Colt AR15 SP-1 (1967
model) rifle and the AR-10 ·308W rifle were both used in the Broad Arrow Café. They both
fitted into the large black bag carried by the gunman, but neither would have fitted the blue
Prince Sports bag. But I must ask the question, “From where at that time did “Joe” get his
information?” He beat the official photographs published by seven months! There is but one
source he could have obtained that information at that stage; it must have come from an
informant involved in the massacre.
The official story had the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine as one of the 3 firearms Martin Bryant
admitted to owning. But as time went by Joe was forced to change his story to continue and
add to the confusion; he then lead his readership away towards ‘sawn-off’ and “commando”
variants. But as the two primary rifles used inside the Café were never owned by Martin
Bryant, like the S&W handcuffs and the 20-shot 30 calibre magazines (and even Martin's video
camera) they had to disappear.
We all can make mistakes as I have done, for in my published book bearing the same title as
this work I was wrong about the actual firearms used: I need to say in published article
appearing in the May edition of The Strategy authored by “Joe” Vialls and only in reference to
the firearms used in the massacre Joe Vialls was almost correct, only the model of the Colt
.223Rem was too early.
Now to the video special broadcast on Channel 9's ACA and with Ray Martin the anchor shows a
large, predominantly blue sports bag, perched precariously, even spilling over the edge of a
table, in a abnormally pristine dining room of the Broad Arrow Café; the bentwood chairs all
neatly positioned under the spotless, tables, not a crumb evident;
please compare the ACA blue and white sports bag video clip at left,
with the frame at R., from the police training video. On the
bentwood chair and below the bag rests the gunman’s large video
camera and on the same table can be seen other items including a
metal milk-shake container and meal left-overs.
Nine’s ACA team would have you believe the "lone gunman" was Bogus Props:
also the "lone diner"! Nine’s ACA Broad Arrow
dining room mock-up for Ray’s
Not a spec of rubbish lies on the floor, no blood spatter, no blood- dumb-downed Australian
soaked carpet. Forgive my sarcasm, but I’m caused to recall Vialls’ viewers
earlier statement, ‘the crime scene was almost spookily clean’!
The ACA video clip is obviously a mock-up, a sham and a fraud, a not so “current affair” I
would argue. When you consider what you have been conned with here, the video is proof
positive that the mock-up was done before the massacre had ever occurred, or is the scene a
series of ‘mock-ups”? A digitally altered photograph with the 'blue bag' layered over the
background; a ‘moon-landing-type-fraud? The dining room was in truth at this stage an
absolute shambles!
The media was never allowed into the Broad Arrow Café to video.
When one studies closely the entire footage shown as the ACA
documentary of the “Port Arthur the Inside Story”, that is in fact A Shambles: the dinning
what you are getting; the inside story. Video footage, which room of the Broad Arrow
exposed much more than the Conspirators could have ever imagine. Cafe from the entrance.
Please let me explain.
Geoff Easton was the Manager Public Affairs for Tasmania Police. He was at home with his wife
in Hobart that Sunday afternoon, when at about 1400 hrs the phone rang. Easton continues:
"Peter Hazelwood (my SAC PAV counterpart in the Premiers Media Office as it so
happens) was on the line as government media liaison officer for the weekend, saying
“I've just been speaking to a few journos”, he said, “And they've said that there was
some shootings at Pt Arthur, can you find out what that's all about?”"
SAC PAV belongs to the secretive intelligence and national security “family,” and both these
people are ‘family members’ as it were, and we mere mortals usually only read about them in
stuffy reports from the upper echelons of establishment who drop their names in Senate
Inquiries and the like; ASIO would fit their label. 3
So within minutes, it was agreed between these operatives, that Hazelwood should make the
hour and a quarter drive to Taranna to “feed the chooks”, as the late Joe Bjelke Peterson used
to put it, though wether this action was aimed to serve Premier Tony Rundle or National
security, Geoff Easton fails to say. Though Supt and PFCP Commander Barry Bennet tells us
that he spoke to 10 or 12 media people who’d already arrived at Taranna Devils Park by 4.00
pm and Peter Hazelwood arrived just as he was finishing that briefing. By Monday morning, no
less that 6 media officers were on duty in Tasmania to “feed the chooks” of the world media
that massed for the event!
Before Barry Bennet handed over command to Supt Bob Fielding at the Taranna PFCP, there
were approximately 200 media people held back and milling about at Taranna, and their
numbers were still building. Now the point of recounting this part of the story is required
because we have been continually assured, no media whatsoever were allowed to travel any
further down the Tasman Peninsula, than the police road block at Taranna. One exception to
this lock-out occurred that we are told about. Seems a determined journalist defied the police
exclusion and became lost in the dark countryside, forcing police to send out a ‘rescue’ party
no less. 4
But the claimed ‘media shut-out’ was nothing more than a charade: Channel Nine must
have had arranged exclusivity! Somehow their film and sound crew was strategically
placed on the eastern shore of Long Bay, directly opposite the Seascape Cottage in time to
capture on video the arrest by SOG officers of Martin Bryant after he staggered from the
SOG’s inferno, stumbling to the ground in an attempt to tear off his burning black tea-shirt.
Then there’s the question of who forward-ordered the 2 buses in Hobart on the Sunday evening
so as to be at Taranna – 1¼hours from Hobart - early Monday April 29? These buses were used
to transport the locked-out media on the already planned tour of Seascape (yet to be burnt
down, by SOG police), Port Arthur, the Tollbooth and Historic Site. Remember, unless the
exercise was being stage-managed to a sort of “script”, all crime scenes yet had to have the
cadavers removed by that "highly prized possession," Ray Charlton’s 22-body mortuary
ambulance.
Even CNN had their man on the spot later putting a ‘sound bite’ on tape among the media
scrum on the Arthur Highway outside Seascape – for the folks back home States-side. This
media tour was conducted by Supt “Jack” Johnston, for the then Dept Com Richard McCreadie,
who was by 0845 hrs already at the Taranna PFCP on Monday 29th. In fact, it is Easton himself
who tells us of his fortuitous shared chopper ride to Taranna, with the rising star of Tasmania
Police and soon-to-be its commissioner, Richard McCreadie. But what of those anticipated
arrangements for these buses? How did police public affairs manager Easton, Peter Hazelwood
or even senior Police have foreknowledge as to when and or how the siege would conclude?
Well we can surely take Supt Bob Fielding at his word when he states:
“…I’m satisfied that we made the right decision in fact waiting
and forcing him to come to us as opposed to vice versa.”
His words are tantamount to confirming police set fire to Seascape cottage
which corroborates information we had already obtained from other very
disturbed police officers. In that statement a senior policeman is admitting
that ‘we…forced him to come to us…’ This was in spite of the possibility of The "Prince" sports
hostages being still alive inside, Seascape. But even this state of affairs bag, the video
does not explain busses being tasked in Hobart in time for the media tour! camera & Solo can
Or, with controller “Mick” inside, right until the cottage went up, is it not reasonable to
suggest police knew quite well the hostages were long deceased. Had the controller already
confirmed just Jamie - the fall-guy “perp” - remained alive (even perhaps sedated) to die in
the conflagration so as his remains would later conveniently surrender forensic evidence of
smoke in his lungs evidencing the cause of death a “demented suicide”. Then no accused
would have been available for charges and trial. How convenient for the conspirators.
Just one police officer is on the record as having fired pyrotechnics during the siege at
Seascape – Sgt Fogarty. 5
On the first segment of the Police Training video, like the second more graphic production, and
as the credits roll over, it reads:
• Producer, Geoff Easton – public affairs,
• Production Editors; Mark Franklin, and Josh Wedd.
As I viewed Channel Nine’s documentary recently, “Port Arthur - the Inside Story,” I came to
realise the footage is to a considerable extent, that which Sac Pav officer, come Media liaison
officer, Mr Geoff Easton has put his name to in this Police Training Video as Production Editor:
so was Easton the go-between or the man on the spot who authorised the mystery film crew to
be all set-up on the eastern shoreline of Long Bay, opposite Seascape cottage, in plenty of time
to capture the final curtain of the siege, that important clip which was included in the Police
Training video, referred to as that “right decision”, which ensured Seascape cottage was
turned into a funeral pyre that “forced him to come to us”?
So isn’t it entirely probable police and their federal intelligence counterparts encouraged by a
good ‘pinch’ of bravado, produced the police training video using supplementary footage shot
by Channel Nine so as to screen and brag of their exploits during official get-togethers and the
training of raw police recruits?
Tasmania Police certainly videoed inside the Café, and witnesses such as Mrs Wendy Scurr have
corroborated the authenticity of that video – sadly to her own distress; I can attest to the
absolute chaos inside there. I do not have to explain the extent of the disarray, suffice to say
it absolutely involved every surface, wall to wall and from floor to ceiling. Then I ask you to in
your mind’s-eye - view a clip from the video, "for police eyes only" and consider these points.
As the video camera pans right, the predominantly blue "Prince" sports bag can clearly
be seen in lower right of frame, resting on the table adjacent to a timber external
door, and very near where victim William Ng was seated when the shooting
commenced. We cannot see any chair pulled out from this table, although the side
closest to the cameraman is out of frame. As the camera pans right over the bag, we
can clearly see a laminated wooden serving tray on the table nearest this externa door,
which has various items of interest on it; an opened aluminium can of soft drink, lunch
wrappings etc. As the camera continues panning right, a large, black, video camera
comes into frame on the table next to the bag with its externally mounted microphone
evident. No camera bag is visible and unlike the falsity of the ACA video, the video
camera is on the table, not the chair.
Then we come to other published works. In 2001 a paperback was published on the same
subject, included an illustration of what the author terms a "relatively rare…C-AR15 the
same as Mr. Drysdale's, [and the one] recovered from Seascape." In fact the illustration is
easily identified as a Colt AR15-9mm. Unlike the deliberate premeditated misinformation
emanating from the network of propagandists, in this instance I believe the error only
demonstrates a lack of knowledge of firearms on the part of the author. For I believe Noel
McDonald’s published work deserves much credit for the copious detailed pieces of evidence he
brings to light raising many anomalies and points of grave concern about the whole Port Arthur
ruse.
This next item of misinformation promoted as part of Joe’s hard scientific evidence is a further
subterfuge on his part – echoed by his unswerving supporter Tony Pitt. Right from his ‘breaking
news’ article published by The Strategy newspaper in its May 1997 issue, “Joe” Vialls suggested
the video (released just before the sentencing hearing of Martin Bryant) later known as the
‘Balasko video’ was a “fake” and he further claimed this video footage was not captured on the
28 April 1996, as 'the light was different on the tape to that day at Port Arthur'.
The distinct inference one gets from reading Vialls’ articles published by The Strategy and from
the text of his book is that "Joe" had viewed James Balasko's original video and declared it a
fake. That is a misleading inference, and his findings are false.
But Joe blurs his claims further – more confusion - by accusing the media of having tampered
with the video. On that subject, and an interesting aside, it should come as no surprise that
my two colleagues were almost conned by "Eddy" (of the all-seeing-eye variety); an American
tourist, who made numerous trips to Tasmania, where he’d established a relationship with a
Launceston woman. After meeting "Eddy" and several days of travelling about Tasmania in
November of 2003, he assured me I would receive quote: "A genuine first copy of James
Balasko's video," of the Port Arthur massacre; I'm still waiting, and like a number of other
promises Eddie made, not a thing has materialised. Why should we be surprised? I’ve lost
count of the number of these people, I label as ‘spooks’, who at various times have sidled-up to
one or all three of us during the last seven years; in my experience though, none excelled in
their course on “subtlety” save perhaps for "Eddy".
From the ACA documentary tape, “Joe” even lost a ‘large white boat’, a motor vessel,
anchored in Mason Cove on the afternoon of the 28th. But when all the video evidence is
checked, the ‘large white boat’ is definitely there on the Balasko tape, anchored on the cove.
As “Joe” has never ever visited the area, he simply didn’t know where to look in the video
footage, or is Joe suggesting all of the private videos were fake? Certainly ACA did present
other bogus video footage, but in this instance the “faking” is all in the mind of “Joe”, and
only promoted so as his confusing, erroneous synopsis can lead his supporters further away
from the truth. I believe the amateur video footage in its original uncut state was authentic,
but as soon as an irresponsible even deceitful media - with a not so hidden agenda - took
charge of the footage, their editing and dubbing in itself paints a whole different story.
With anchorman Ray Martin at the helm, the ACA inside story demonstrates clearly a
determination to go further than just to muddy the waters. For when one examines all of the
ACA's tapes put to air, the ruse becomes quite obvious.
In Andrew MacGregor's work he has assembled this tape into various "files" and if you examine
and observe the clips for yourself, you will undoubtedly be able to discover the deception for
yourself. In the video clip file running you will note the following:
1. The file called "running", is a clip captured earlier during the incident to that of the
running man clip, file named blankets in Andrew's work.
2. You will also note there are two parts to the "running" clip;
a. this part is captured by an amateur video cameraman other than James Balasko
and is not a part of the Balasko tape. This clip was shot from the south eastern
end of the Penitentiary Ruins looking almost due north: we can clearly see the
rear of the buses parked against the curb running parallel to the sea-wall.
b. The second part of this clip was captured close to and from a position in front
of the buses, panning from right to left, looking almost due east. Obviously
this clip was captured long after the shooter had departed this area, and he
certainly was not shooting people around the buses.
Now, here the ruse begins to emerge from out of the fog of misinformation. The Balasko tape
entitled in Andrew MacGregor's Deceit and Terrorism as "blankets," was also captured some
considerable time after the gunman had departed the Broad Arrow Café, bus/car parking and
tollbooth areas.
As this clip was being captured, PAHSMA staff and visitors were busy
administering first aid of the wounded survivors. At the beginning of the
Balasko clip ("blankets"), an image of a man running past a camper-van
with a bundle over his right arm of blankets is seen, a voice over has been
dubbed in which by inference from a very distinctive Australian, female
voice in the background suggests, "That's a shotgun," instead of blankets
(with a very audible "click" of the dubbing break). At the end of these
frames of the clip to reinforce this obvious ruse, the same female voice
The Gift-Shop Door
suggests, "see that man running there."
(at R.) with the
defective external
If this is not bad enough, then in the former clip on this tape a male voice
fire escape latch
firmly suggests in response to a different and loud gunshot (not any
blankets over the arm of a running man I would suggest), "That's a shotgun". As if responding to
that claim and I would suggest almost surely the same female voice is heard responding in the
second clip, "yes, that's a shotgun," and then, "See that man running…"
The blatant subterfuge promoted by the dubbed voices-over here is that these are
consecutively captured clips from one camera, when they are clearly not, and they are not
even part of the Balasko video.
In fact the statement provided by James Balasko sitting alongside his fiancé Cynthia Zahorcak
during a television interview, destroys any inference made by ACA, Ray Martin or Joe Vialls for
that matter, that this running man was the shooter. For James Balasko states clearly of the
shooter and several times:
"He walked right by me, not far away from me. Just walked out of there as casual
as can be." You see, the shooter only ran at one stage – inside the café dinning room;
but outside he never did run at any time – he just walked casually.
By September of 1998, “Joe” Vialls' hypothesis of the fake Balasko video was expanded
considerably. For he was now circulating glossy colour reproductions of 8 frames of the Balasko
tape along with a supportive text at $15 a copy, claiming, under magnification, each frame of
the video could be seen to have been tampered with, by electronically superimposing a "still"
of Martin Bryant's head on another torso. Incidentally and as no surprise, “Eddie” the American
visitor to Tasmania in 2002 (with all his broken promises) also went to great lengths to convince
Andrew, Wendy and myself that this particular footage had been tampered with.
Once one is "locked-in" to promoting a falsehood, it surely did become evident as is
demonstrated by Damien Bugg QC, the untruth demands a legion of witnesses or support — in
the form of more and more lies.
“Joe” Vialls almost goes into a state of ecstasy while he enthusiastically explains to his
readership, his trademark of irrefutable hard scientific evidence adding up to not one iota. On
this point, I would remind readers again, “Joe” Vialls is at one with the flawed, and official
Damien Bugg QC's version of the Shooting in the Broad Arrow Café concerning the number of
shots fired and time the shooter spent in there which I have proven to be false. Also “Joe”
avoids entirely the subject of “THAT DOOR”; the eight persons who died unnecessarily after
attempting to escape via the defective external Gift Shop door. Why?
The ACA dubbing, and editing and tampering presented to an unsuspecting public is really quite
reprehensible, and when linked to the fake footage of the blue 'Prince sports bag' and Martin's
video camera sitting in a pristine Broad Arrow Café their duplicity is outrageous. For as I
reiterate, captured in the other amateur clip is featured the same distinctive Australian
female's voice which blurts out after a male responds firstly to a gunshot with, "That's a
shotgun" she mimics "That’s a shotgun" and still later in the clip, "See that man running there";
now isn't this quite remarkable? The same woman making the same comments about the same
incident but captured by two different amateur cameramen, but in this "running" clip, there is
NO image of a 'man running there' captured on that particular clip on that tape! A Case of,
now you see but now you don't!
However, the misinformation is further enhanced by none other than mine host, Ray Martin
who states earlier on the tape, that the only person who managed to capture the shooter on
video, was American tourist, James Balasko. To the duped public this running man is also
purported to be Martin Bryant, the shooter. It is clear from the clip the person running was not
wearing a ¾ length coat as the shooter did. His trousers and shoes were dark, while the
shooter wore white sneakers, and importantly and in particular in this segment, when moving
out from Broad Arrow Café towards the buses, the shooter never did run.
Seven of the staff on duty that day on the Historic Site, who have viewed this video clip many
times, are all in agreement that the person on the clip is a colleague Mark Kirby. Mark asked
Mrs Scurr, ‘what can I do to help Wendy?’ He and Steven Howard were both instructed to, ‘find
some blankets and distribute them among the survivors,’ which he and Steven did, and then
Mark Kirby came out of the Café to take the remaining blankets down quickly to the survivors in
the area of the buses who were in shock.
In June 2000 issue of The Strategy, “Joe” Vialls states in relation to the "exploding" (his term)
Colt AR-15, "most explosions of this kind neatly amputate a finger or two, and shred the skin
on the rest of the hand." As I have stated elsewhere in this text, only very superficial flesh
wounds are usual resulting from such blow-ups, when a person discharges it in a normal
manner. But in his usual manner, “Joe” supplied no corroborative sources for his claim, and he
surely wasn’t speaking from any personal experience; I'm forced to conclude this is just more of
his misinformation.
In June of 1997 issue of The Strategy “Joe” Vialls writes, "the records show 32 people were
shot in the Broad Arrow Café…20 dead and 12 injured." If these are the figures he used to
construct his kill to injury ratio from, then they also are flawed. As I pointed out earlier, there
were 33 persons shot in the Broad Arrow Café; 20 died, and 13 were injured. And these are
just a small sample of a whole host of "fibs" from this source.
The text content of e-mails emanating from <freedom@digitelone.com> for a time informed
readers that one Len Clampett was acting as "director" of "The International Martin Bryant
Innocent Project" or TIMBIP. It is a simple fact that this gentleman like Vialls is an enthusiastic
self-proclaimed multi-talented type person who in my opinion operates within the extensive
misinformation network and was associated loosely with Vialls. Clampett exhibits arrogant
contempt for copyright laws and authors' expressed wishes; a trait of the "Vialls" character.
Even writers with contrasting demeanours compile material which was e-mailed out from the
same site over his name. On the TIMBIP site, posted around 13 December 2001, was the work
of Andrew MacGregor alongside the erroneous material of “Joe” Vialls – and for what purpose?
Guilt by association is the hallmark of these pricks and thorns; without a writers credibility
intact, what hope for a later inquiry? §§ Even when Clampett was asked to, "please remove" all
of Andrew’s work he not only refused, but then engages in a verbal tirade of false charges.
When asked by an American published author, "Who are you?" all of a sudden, Len's campaign
went quiet. When e-mailed by Andrew MacGregor, he refused to co-operate point blank – from
a very far off "bolt-hole". Since returning to Australia Clampett has been remarkably silent.
Interestingly after returning, he was taken in by a farmer in the Inverell district, until quite
recently a copy reader for The Strategy. At least since 2004, this benefactor was listed in the
newspaper’s directory-column under the heading of "Staff" along with Joe Vialls a "Contributing
Reporter".
In reviewing “Joe” Vialls' work on this subject, a stark fact emerges; he concentrates primarily
on events about the Broad Arrow Café. To a lesser degree he covers actually what occurred
inside the café. Indeed he never dealt in any detail with events in the bus/car
park, Jetty Road, Tollbooth and General Store crime scenes. But then there is
the Seascape segment. Here Vialls deals at length with just one of six vehicles
that were shot-up by the gunman on the Arthur Highway before he enters
Seascape; the 4x4 Holden Frontera, driven by Linda White, with her passenger,
Michael Wanders.
By mid 1997 “Joe” Vialls was promoting his own revelation of what he
Senator Ronultimately termed the "Beirut triple" used to "dead
Boswell, NP
block" (both his expressions) the Holden Frontera, which
the couple abandoned about 200m south of the Seascape entrance
adjacent to a gateway marked #6729, which is the property adjoining
Seascape's southern boundary. 6
The reader must surely realise by now that for any propaganda to be circulated successfully to
a targeted individual, it must be delivered by an efficient conduit. Be it by word of mouth,
print media, television, radio, Internet or published works; the conduit must reach the
targeted people for the project to be successful. To this end, as I have demonstrated above
this rather interesting subject has shown to be either exceedingly resourceful, lucky, or part of
a well organised network or all three.
But I would emphasise, that after reading Joe's substantial work it is my opinion, that
influenced by the subject matter, timed releases, the thrust of his narrative and word/term
§§I would ask the reader to keep in mind this modus operandi of the propaganda network, when it come to the so-call media's "10th
anniversary" of the psychopolitical massacre & especially Carol Altmann's Allen & Unwin publication, After Port Arthur
usage, and his associated delivery agencies, that the “Joe” – Otho Jewell Vialls or Vallis
phenomenon did not come about by some spontaneous reaction to events because of some
pent-up journalistic frustrations spilling over from a pensioner with too much time on his
hands. But rather, it is my view in their entirety the articles are the produce of a quite major
global misinformation project.
In the case of determining the "target" people likely to challenge authority regarding the Port
Arthur massacre, one must look to that section of the community that has demonstrated an
ongoing concern, and who seek information on the subject. Is it coincidental that these people
in my experience just happen to also be vocally opposed and concerned as to the direction this
country is rushing headlong towards?
In the case of The Strategy, to those without access to a personal computer and/or the
Internet, it is without doubt almost (but not quite), the exclusive print-conduit of the massacre
at Port Arthur. First published in Victoria's provincial city of Bendigo around 1991, and just
after the inaugural Inverell Forum was held. The newspaper's editor is Ray Platt, a retired
contractor and farmer. When the team of contributing journalists at the newspaper are taken
into account there seems to be somewhat of a paradox here. The editorial thrust evidenced by
subject matter attempts to convince the readership that the newspaper is at least ‘Christian
based’. From inception it claimed to promote, "everything truly Australian and in the nations
best interest [and] the truth irrespective of its source." The newspaper's editorial has always
included an appropriate reading from the Scriptures to support its editorial opinion. A
significant number of 'churches' purporting to be Christian have advertised regularly over its life
and "Parson's Corner" has been a regular featured column. But there are significant
inconsistencies evident.
Ray Platt was formerly an adherent of Ascension Life Centre identity church in Bendigo, while
in his own material, Jonathan Graham proclaims himself as an evolutionist of the Darwinian
school of thought, and therefore anti-Christian. Interestingly, ‘the parson’ (not the
correspondent of the column "Parson's Corner") Neville Andrews who claims himself as a pastor
of the rather obscure 'Independent Pentecostal Church', in the mid 1990's gave as his referee
the name of Ray Platt, editor of The Strategy. I believe it significant, that until the demise of
“Joe” Vialls as a contributor, Ray Platt was his sole print media newspaper support for his
changing synopsis and misinformation regarding Port Arthur, supported in the newspaper by
Jonathan the 'fabled self-destructed bird arising from its own ashes,' — Phoenix Rising — the
syndicated column of Jonathan Graham, that up until recently always appeared on page 6 of
that publication. Graham seems to have ceased his column at time of writing though. It
wasn’t until after Tony Pitt had motored across the continent and visited Vialls that he began
openly promoting the work of “Joe” in print and on Internet postings.
I believe it can be said with all seriousness, that with regard to whatever you like to label it —
intelligence community propaganda or department of misinformation — The Strategy stands tall
among other "alternative" newspapers as their Port Arthur conduit. I do not make the claim
lightly. So let us look at a few more of the facts that have convinced this author that the
newspaper is not all that it would first appear to be. With regard to Port Arthur, while “Joe”
Vialls was in my estimation the misinformation brigade's "main man" — in print media as well as
the Web — The Strategy was his almost exclusive print billboard. Other smaller publications in
Queensland have and do continue, for reasons best known to their editors, to pick-up on Joe's
work from time to time.
Commencing in the May 1997 issue of The Strategy, by "Joe" Vialls' changing versions of the
massacre at Port Arthur has enjoyed support to the tune of in excess of 15,8002Cm of copy, by
2002. And that is unswerving support I would contend.
This figure I might add, does not take into account the copious advertisements inserted by
Vialls commencing in July 1998, promoting his "fresh forensic photos" and "specially sponsored
print run" of Deadly Deception at Port Arthur, and all inserted in spite of “Joe” appealing to
Ray for assistance for even basic office equipment and was then accepting public donations —
even from this author.
Interestingly, while I'm aware that articles were submitted to The Strategy's editor by various
authors on the massacre at Port Arthur, as has been the case with his other unswerving
supporter and publisher, not one alternate view has ever been published. Not surprising
when one considers perhaps as few as 2 or 3 letters to the editor have ever been published on
the subject of the massacre at Port Arthur in the entire life of the newspaper! How possibly
can Ray Platt explain that situation? You see save for a one-off, small two-column article,
published at page 6 of The Strategy’s August 98 edition (the author of which was not even
accorded a by-line), not a single alternate conclusion or finding has ever been published by this
newspaper.
Robert Balgarnie told this author The Strategy had ceased sponsorship of the Inverell Forum in
2000, though I note there lingers a clouded support from the 'old guard' which ensures a
situation reverse: the newspaper is supported strongly by The Forum attendees. One is
prompted then to ask; "Had the newspaper's goal been attained by 2000?" One surely must
realise that hundreds of independent thinking citizens the length and breadth of this country,
concerned as to the crisis the nation seems headed, once assembled annually at Inverell; do
you think for a moment such gatherings would ever have gone unnoticed or unobserved by the
national intelligence family? If the national and international changes that have occurred were
all “unplanned”, then I guess my suggestion would be wide of the mark. But as I have shown in
this work, planning is central to everything to do with the global “gun control” massacres and
their resultant disarmament of citizens in the same countries as the massacres.
To cover the Global Gun Control Network (based in the U.K.), and their Australian cells, the
National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) and Gun Control Australia (GCA), would take much
more space than is available here: it’s a topic that would stand alone. But it requires our close
attention through the post Port Arthur stage I believe.
A brief profile of the more prominent “foot soldiers” should suffice here.
The “gun control” workers first appeared in Melbourne around 1984-5,
firmly backing the gun control push by the socialist John Cain Jnr. John
Bruce Crook came first with his comrade Laurie Levy whose practice was to
invade the duck-swamps of Victoria. On Saturday 30 January 1988 though it
was Laurie Levy – not Crook - who mounted a miserable disruption to the
estimated 30,000 firearm owners who rallied and marched through
Melbourne’s CBD, against the proposed “gun control” legislation of Premier Cain and Minister
for Emergency Services, Steve Crabb. As an aside, the arrogant Liberal, Jeff Kennett was
“booed and jeered when he told the rally his party supported tougher gun laws….”
The Levy/Crook leftist "cell" operated from out of Ross House, a building in Flinders Lane,
Melbourne. Crook used the name “Gun Control Australia” or GCA . In the 1990's Crook was
joined firstly by Andrew Harding, the son of Professor Richard Harding of Western Australia
(one of the founding fathers of "gun control" here). He was the Melbourne
"gun control" spokesman in NCGC's Port Arthur promoted hysteria. Around
this same time Harding was joined by the ex-patriot American and again
"spokesperson" Randy Marshall. Still later and first appearing after the
abortive Monash "massacre", they were joined by the social advocate Rev.
Tim Costello, brother to the long suffering treasurer Peter who for a
decade has coveted Howard's position.
George Soros: Crook's GCA soon had a (senior) partner though, when in New South Wales
International "gun Rebecca Peters burst upon the stage as spokesperson of the Coalition for
control" bank-rollerGun Control (NCGC) founded in 1988 by the Greens Lee Rhiannon. Of
American parents in a family of six children, Rebecca Peters grew-up in
Costa Rica, where her scholastic journey was guided from the outset in 1977 by itinerant
"young hippies" who ran the "alternative school". It was during this period that Peters became
"obsessed with changing the world". Her father worked for the American Government in Costa
Rica and during her later rise to prominence in Australia, "half jokingly," Peters suggests her
dad "probably worked for the CIA," a not so unlikely suggestion I would opine. 6
In 1981 Rebecca Peters arrived in Australia, "with a man she met travelling". Three years later
Peters dropped out of her engineering course at Macquarie University, leaving only one other
female in the course, and went to the ABC. Here she worked as a
researcher and reporter under Andrew Olle, a long time friend of
Ray Martin, before returning to studies to complete her law degree.
NGGC's chiefs realised after Unsworth's swift and decisive defeat by electors in his NSW
attempt to ban guns politically, that they had to change their thesis. Guns suddenly became a
"health issue," and the anti-gunners were partially funded via a medical source. Peters
alternated the role of spokesman with Associate Professor in Public Health and Community
Medicine at the University of Sydney, Simon Chapman, who authored the book entitled Over
Our Dead Bodies. Another little helper from NSW was Stephen Leader, president of the Public
Health Association, and after Port Arthur, Samantha Lee slipped into Peter's shoes as NCGC
spokeswoman in Sydney. (Please note another mention of Sydney University below.)
The ashes of Seascape cottage had barely cooled, and with mission accomplished, Rebecca
Peters departed for America where she enrolled with the John Hopkins University Gun Policy
Center in Baltimore. Soon Peters found reward when she joined one of the tax-exempt
foundations established by "philanthropists" George Soros. His Open Society Institute shadows
gun massacres on an International scale. In `97 alone, the US Violence Policy Center received
US$1.2 million. Similarly, the Joyce Foundation has since 1993 made a reported US$13.2
million available in grants to 55 non-profit fronts of the global "gun control" network. Joyce
works closely with Handgun Control Inc, founded and “chaired” by Sarah Brady in the USA.
Founded in 1974, as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns it was later renamed Handgun
Control, Inc. from around 1980. After Peters' arrival in America, she was soon linked with this
cell and the organizers of the poorly turned-out “Million Moms March”; the MMM organisation
collapsed financially as well as in terms of recruitment, shortly after they held their first rally.
Have you considered the registration number of Martin's yellow Volvo he drove that Sunday?
For even his registration plate seemed to tell a story of preparation and planning long before
the event, but did “silly” Martin plan this?
Martin’s Yellow Volvo was left abandoned by the gunman at the toll-booth when he left the
Historic Site. There you can see his registration number: CG-2835 (TASMANIA – HOLIDAY ISLE).
CG-2835 = Control of Guns or Coalition for Gun-control the goal of State and Federal
Parliamentary Ministries as well as the GGCN’s affiliate NCGC) and their promised mass
shooting that was predicted to occur in Tasmania – Holiday Isle, on 28 April, and were 35
people would be sacrificed on the alter of global control of gun; an irony, or an addition to
the seemingly immeasurable coincidences surrounding the exercise? Or is it a physical
affirmation of the massacre architects by a higher authority?
New Zealander, Phillip Alpers infers an expertise as a researcher with an academic background,
which he definitely has not. He formerly was once a DJ at the local radio station for Gisborne,
a town on the North Island's Northeast coast beside Poverty Bay, which serves a district
population of some 45,500 people. Gisborne is credited with still having "the highest total
crime rate (offences per ten thousand head of population) of the regions and the highest rate
for violent offences, and drugs & anti-social offences," in New Zealand. – (source,
http://www.labourmarket.co.nz/regionalprofile_gb.htm )
Alpers' profile is little more than interesting vagaries. He was formerly a “television
correspondent” and host of a "national consumer affairs programme"; New Zealand's little "Ray"
of current consumer affairs sunshine? But in the latest version of his profile the humble 'DJ'
experience is omitted, perhaps to preserve an 'academic' tone?
It would appear, earlier than 1993 this former DJ/TV correspondent displayed
ambitions to be recognised as an international academic writer and
researcher on firearm issues. Speaking while on his New Delhi sojourn on 30
Philip Alpers
January 1998, he announced, "Some will tell you that the more guns you
among ‘Soros
have, the safer you are…. I don't need somebody with a PhD to tell
Faithfuls’ in
me…," a proclamation that brings his 'Harvard senior fellowship' into a truer
Turkey
focus, don't you think? At this same UN regional workshop on civilian
disarmament, Alpers thanked two NGO's *** for enabling him to address the UN Commission on
Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice and confirms he'd previously addressed similar UN
workshops on firearm issues in Slovenia and Brazil.
It was early in his introduction he claims himself a licensed firearm owner and sporting shooter;
hypocrisy undoubtedly never crossing his honorary academic mind I would opinion. Although
the work I have perused suggests his conclusions are of a dubious standard and mathematically
suspect.
Alpers' agenda was conspicuous by his role in the important Australasian Police Minister's
Council's seminar in New Zealand that sealed the forced acceptance of gun confiscatory laws on
Australia and New Zealand.
Phillip Alpers proudly puts his hand up as the co-producer of the 'official video' documentary of
the not-so-successful Million Mom March. This organisation foundered through lack of support
as well as financially.
While a little of his boasting cannot be avoided I was compelled to reads on: Alpers is editor of
a daily Internet bulletin, Gun Policy News. This cell of the “gun control” network, monitors
media news items involving guns, and disseminates the information gathered daily to their
global network. But a disturbing fact emerged when one logs on to the Gun Policy site at:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/about.php .
For if the reader has recently suffered an inconvenience due to the dwindling public dollars,
lack of trained doctors and nurses in our nation’s hospitals called a ‘health system’ then please
take note: Alpers’ bulletin, the “gunpolicy.org, is hosted (read funded) by the School of Public
Health, the University of Sydney”! Their logo above even displayed beside their statement.
Back in 1997, a most reliable source from Sydney told me that officials in the Shooters Party (of
NSW) - established by John Tingle - showed him documents, which proved a link between a
Sydney university, health department moneys and funding for the NCGC. With the above
revelation made public, I believe it can now be said there is a considerable degree of
permanency in Australian taxpayers funding this obnoxious disarmament movement of private
citizens called “gun control” globally, as the above Internet bragging confirms - nine years on!
We are paying for the ‘rope’ with which these traitors will ‘hang’ us…
It becomes quite obvious that Mr Alpers enjoys mingling among psychiatric academia; perhaps
to blend in and be noticed by the "gun control" network. He has even secured his name to be
there among authors on various research papers like for example, "Mass Homicide: the Civil
massacre". Published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol.
28 Number 12000, this paper saw him team-up with psychiatrists, Christopher H. Cantor and
Prof. Paul Mullen, and even slated as a co-authors of this most revealing 9 page article.
Understandably some New Zealanders have expressed mild outrage at Philip Alpers' anti-gun
tactics from time to time. Without any of the usual global wanderings, (to this
author at least) Mr Alpers' formative years were not unlike a number of others
prominent in the "gun control" movement. At the URL below, I found the following
posted, quote:
***
Philip Alpers mentions that at New Delhi he was speaking under the auspices of the Amsterdam-based
International Fellowship of Reconciliation.
university, “without enrolling”, where he “did drugs and university by day”, and
worked part time by night, (North & South Magazine, July, 1991). He appears to
have then dropped out to “move on the fringes of the hippy drug world”, (NZ
Listener, 24 October 1987)." Alpers did a stint on a local radio as a DJ in Gisborne."
- end quote.
http://www.ssanz.org.nz/News/Articles/20050722.html
A common trait among these "gun control" advocates in ascension is a desire to mingle among
academia where many supporters are ‘housed’. Also a technique common to this group is the
use of 'selective bias' – often in conjunction with appalling maths all adding up to
misinformation. The practice confirms the adage: a lie demands a legion of support. A good
example of Alpers' selective bias can be evidenced in his article entitled “Eleven Years of Mass
Gun Killings In Australia and New Zealand, 1987-97”. It's not the incidents mentioned as
evidence, where the problem lies, but rather the events he chooses not to mention.
In their collaborative essay, Mass Homicide: The Civil Massacre (obviously not intended for
Australian eyes), the authors openly link by common factors 7 shooting massacres:
1) Aug 19, 1987, Julian Knight, Hoddle Street Melbourne; 7 killed, 17 wounded.
2) Aug 19, 1987, Michael Ryan, Hungerford, U.K.; 16 killed, 14 wounded.
3) Dec 8, 1987, Frank Vitkovic, Queen St Melbourne; 8 killed, 4 wounded.
4) Nov 13, 1990, David Gray, Aramoana, NZ; 13 killed, 3 wounded.
5) Aug 17, 1991, Wade Frankum, Strathfield, Sydney; 6
killed, 8 wounded.
6) March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton, Dunblane, Scotland, 16
killed, 13 wounded.
7) April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, Port Arthur Tasmania; 35
killed, 20 wounded.
You will note without exception all of these associates have corroborated in various ways in the
writing of papers and essays that are published by supposedly reputable organisations to
enhance their "gun control" credibility I suspect. For example, in the above mentioned article
by Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, published by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
and headed "Case 7", the authors use 6 paragraphs of 680 words to provide the reader with
what may seem to the naïve a credible profile of Martin Bryant. But remember these authors
are supposedly learned, academics, whose reputed credibility, collectively, should open any
door to official documentation concerning their chosen subject matter.
However in a footnote to the source reference (13) the reader is informed this material came
from a 1999 paper authored by none other than these same three authors (plus P.W. Sheean)!
The next four references are to a single margin note informing readers this text came from a
'report on Martin Bryant … from the court and … The Age newspaper'. While this may sound
acceptable, upon closer examination one realises the report on Martin Bryant referred to in this
instance was authored by none other than one of these very same authors - Dr Paul Mullen!
Why do the authors conceal this fact? Perhaps it is because the majority of the claims made in
this "Psychiatric Report – In Confidence" to the court are in my opinion no more than a
collection of exaggerated, misrepresentations of the facts concerning Martin Bryant, many
claims of which are dealt with by Andrew MacGregor on this CD-
Rom and are easily proven to be hearsay and the use of those
claims are totally unprofessional.
Peters recently described as the 'self proclaimed queen of “civil disarmament,”' soon launched
IANSA’s disarmament campaigns in various counties, including Brazil. In the intervening years
since 1996, her IANSA Brazilian campaign has involved an orgy of public gun burnings and
crushings overseen by the “queen” herself.
With the incidence of private firearm ownership determined in an earlier study (Prof Harding,
1981), and their Australasian mission to an irreversible stage of near finality, the 'Sorosised' gun
grabbers took to their global task with zeal. IANSA had a newly appointed CEO in Rebecca
Peters, who as guest of the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, they turned a city street into a Hollywood-
like film-set for their first big production of "international Gun Destruction Day" in June of
2002. Here the army drove a bull dozer over a reported 100,000 firearms.
Each year destruction events have been replicated to offer-up firearms to the gods of "gun
control" on the sub-continent in 2003 and in mid 2004, IANSA publications claimed firearms
were burnt, like funeral pyres. These burnings and destructions were said to have been staged
in 11 countries around the world including the UK. There in London, Rebecca Peters posed
with a few other disciples - even one from Dunblane - of the Soros financed IANSA for a photo
opportunity beside what they claim as a "huge road roller", set to run-over a few "out of control
… gun replicas"; and all of them potential killers? Unfortunately the Blair Ministry had not been
helpful for Rebecca's photo opportunity, as they must have destroyed already all of Britain's
privatively-owned "real ones". 'Just replicas?' – oh what the heck - and the evil global "gun
control" circus rolls on…
Though this time it seems Peters' program was a 'lulu': Rebecca miscalculated when she
involved the unpopular president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in
her mission of destruction in Brazil. The $200m (US)
referendum held on 23 October, 2005, which if carried would
have seen the sale of all firearms and ammunition to the
public banned, did not go according to the script; more than
67 percent of the 120 million registered voters returned a
resounding “No!”. The outcome has not pleased the Soros
'storm troopers'. Perhaps Brazilians had not taken their
Kampong 2004: a funeral pyre of the medicine; a good dose of "Port Arthur" trauma.
tool to enforce ‘individual freedom’ –
the firearm; a legacy of Rebecca The Washington Post ††† whinged, "the defeat disheartened
Peters & IANSA & the people are no gun control proponents". Rubens Cesar Fernandes, the
safer… director of Viva Rio, IANSA's local "coordinator", was
reported as stating, "This closes the issue now, but maybe
†††
Monte Reel, “Brazilians Reject Measure To Ban Sale of Firearms”, The Washington Post, 24oct05.
the next generation will be able to have this discussion again. I hope the whole world will be
able to deal with this again."
Australasia had been dosed with successive and escalating traumatic gun massacres: from
Milperra (1984) to Monash (2002); 18 years, nine violent events with 84 dead and 57 wounded.
I must mention here the "Queen St Massacre," as it becomes obvious that at Port Arthur, the
real creators attempted to step-up from this earlier slipshod event. Described at the time as a
"failed law student," Frank Vitkovic was nonetheless smart enough to gain a university standard
entrance pass at High School. His solitary gun was an ex-military 30-M1 carbine, which had
been modified so as to fit the sports-bag Frank used to conceal his weapon to walk into the
Australia Post building at 191 Queen Street, Melbourne, on 8 December, 1987. In other words,
the 30-M1 had been modified to fit the sports bag. The amateurish modification caused the
carbine to malfunction badly. Vitkovic vented his frustrations as to the culprit and accomplices
who were 'in the joke', for getting their priorities wrong; sport-bag-size over weapon
reliability. For when he realised he'd been hoodwinked, Vitkovic uttered that now infamous
declaration:
Now Martin Bryant never gained university entrance standard, he even failed
to complete his secondary standard. In fact, Melbourne forensic psychologist
Ian Joblin – who "prides himself on knowing more about the psychology of
criminal behaviour than almost anyone in the country" – was reported by
Professor Mullen as making the assessment that Martin "Bryant was
functioning intellectually in the lowest 1 to 2 percent of the
Frank Vitkovic
population…" with his "…full scale IQ of 66." 7
However, the DPP would have us all believe that Martin Bryant was far advanced intellectually,
to that of the former law student Frank Vitkovic, so that when Martin Bryant went to the Myer
store in Hobart on 15 April 1996, accompanied by his girlfriend Petra Willmott, he even took
with him a "tape measure" so as to ensure the military style firearms already chosen for the
Port Arthur mission would fit into the sports bag. Of course Bryant's desire to purchase the
sports bag would have had nothing to do with his minders having learned from their earlier
mistakes, now would it? While on this key purchase mission; it seems Damian Bugg QC didn't
even bother to obtain a corroborative statement from Myer's sales staff though as to who
allegedly sold the sports bag to Martin. Although the media were quick to focus on the bag
being as a "Prince" sports bag, witness statements show their descriptions to be focused on size
and colour – not to any brand name.
To the mounting list of massacres achieved above, of course I can now add the "Claytons'
Monash massacre". Although for the architects, the head count of deceased was a sandwich
short of a picnic. Monash could not quite be elevated to a world class massacre event. But the
"gun control" foot-soldiers and an excited John Howard didn't allow such trivialities to stand in
the way of the civilian disarmament agenda. So Howard and colleague Daryl Williams moved
rapidly against handgun owners, and as Port Arthur had sufficiently traumatised the pistol
shooters of the nation as well, they meekly handed over their prized sporting handguns so as to
help rid us of that public health menace that lurked within the community – the target
shooters' handguns.
Remember though it was Monash Professor, Paul Mullen, who provided the professional
psychiatric opinion that was exclusively employed by Damien Bugg QC to facilitate Martin
Bryant to be judged capable of standing trial. But importantly it was a trial Martin Bryant
was surreptitiously denied, when his persuasive legal council, John Avery candidly admitted, "It
took hours of talking over 14 or 15 visits to Risdon Prison to bring Martin Bryant around
to the decision to change his plea to guilty…" 8
It is pertinent also to mention the Australian Sporting Shooters Association (SSAA). The SSAA
was established around 1966, there being various earlier state firearms owners' associations.
One would imagine such an organization would have imbedded in its constitution a central
maxim to second The Commonwealth's Constitution and the Bill of Rights for their membership,
because the Bill of Rights of 1688 is of special interest to every Australian as it declares certain
recited rights are the "true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people to be
firmly and strictly holden and observed in all times to come." (Source: Quick & Garran,
Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia p.318, Part III)
Instead, SSAA has always compromised. I believe I'm not overstating the reality by saying they
have bargained away every right their members ever had, pursuing instead some imaginary
"right to hunt" and conduct "sport". For SSAA, Port Arthur was a topic beyond their charter:
"Do not talk about it!" is their pig-headed posture.
In Victoria and by late 1987, a core of well informed citizens had already told Victoria SSAA
President, 47-year-old electronics teacher at Clayton Technical School, Ted Drane, of evidence
they’d collected, demonstrating links between three gun massacres here, one in the UK,
political figures, statements, legislative moves and the shadowy “gun control” network.
Ignoring the advice and during the January 1988 Melbourne rally, Drane insisted, "This is a
local issue. It’s involved in civil rights. …Nothing to do with anybody else. It’s an issue
here," and the rest is history. (Sunday Observer - 31jan88.)
In September of 1997, a small glimmer of hope appeared under the banner
of the SSAA in the form of an insert, "Special Edition" in their monthly
magazine Australian Shooters Journal, entitled "Who's Driving the Gun
Grab?" The Canberra based small team who assembled and produced this
article made a genuine attempt to make a difference and expose those
behind this gun grab. To a point they did a remarkable job at that juncture
SSAA's Special
especially when the short time frame in which they had to operate is Projects Officer:
considered. And, in many instances they got the story pretty right, but Garry Fleetwood
shortly after the report came out, SSAA disbanded the team. Why? This
question becomes even more relevant in light of the fact that the SSAA was absolutely "cashed-
up" with a very significant sum of cash, gifted them by millions of
concerned people right across Australia, many of whom were even
non-members. But then, Garry Fleetwood was not part of the SSAA
executive in September of 1997. SSAA attempted to recruit
individually the independent team members – but they smelt a rat
and refused to have anything to do with Fleetwood.
By May 2001 though it was clear from documents and letters to MP's,
that the SSAA were determined to not change the mode of defence of
John Howard's legacy to
member's rights, exampled by the previous 30 years efforts, even for
the nation: Bob Menzies their reported 125,000 members. Earlier, on February 21 2001,
was called "Pig iron Bob," SSAA's Special Projects Director, Gary Fleetwood issued a Media
perhaps John may be Release stating bluntly any suggestions of, "…a conspiracy involved
called "Pig iron John"? in the 1996 mass shooting at Port Arthur to introduce new gun
laws in Australia," would in Mr. Fleetwood's own words, "draw a
blank". He went on to assure the media that the, "SSAA has proven itself to be a reputable
organization representing the interests of those average Australians, who chose the
shooting sports as their recreational pastime." This statement is totally contrary to the
findings of the independent team who authored the September 1997 'special report' which
exampled conspiracy throughout its entire 14 pages!
It then begs the question: "Did this Special Edition Report prompt a need within SSAA for a
Special Projects Officer"?… and if so I wonder what story the minutes would tells us when the
mover spoke to the motion that when carried, legitimised the new position?
Photographs of this person in the public domain are rare. Fleetwood formerly served in South
Australia Police's Star Force as a senior non-commissioned officer with their 'Special Tasks and
Rescue Division Special Weapons section'. South Australia Police call the group Star Force, a
specialist SOG-type-force which is SAC-PAV, SAS and US trained. Fleetwood has been involved
in the firearms industry for over 40 years through his family’s Adelaide-based business, and also
saw one tour in Papua New Guinea, employed by their Government in the setting-up of PNG's
Firearms Registry.
But with the "gun control" networks mission secure and private firearm ownership fast facing
extinction, Garry Fleetwood has moved-on … to Canberra. Perhaps he's in search of new
challenges and/or greener pastures? He achieved nought in the special needs project of halting
or even denting the "gun control" disarmament program.
In March 2001 Garry Fleetwood went to Canberra and talked with political parties about 'recent
claims' by One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson at that time that there was a conspiracy involving
the 1996 mass shooting at Port Arthur to introduce gun prohibitions and confiscations in
Australia. The following is taken from the SSAA press release at the time:
"That claim will draw a blank with this Association," Mr Fleetwood was quoted as stating.
"We have for some four years tried to stay in the middle of the gun debate - claims of a
conspiracy at Port Arthur have been refuted by this Association ever since they surfaced
after that tragic event," he said. But like other comrades, when the mission was complete he
(also) departed the SSAA. Some time before 2005 Fleetwood joined the Australian Crime
Commission (ACC) and in a document dated 08/02/05 he is referred to as an "analyst".
(http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/)
Oh well SSAA hierarchy seems to have now accepted the fact that when the firearms are all
gone, the executive may as well go bird watching. As recently SSAA NSW announced the
'clinching of a deal' on an 80,000 acre cattle station in north-west NSW near Wanaaring, with
permanent waterholes, 10 km of river frontage, and thousands of acres of lignum wetlands.
This whole piece of real estate adjoins "Nocholeche Nature Reserve" with its reputed 235 native
bird species. So it’s hardly a secret as to what the SSAA's priorities are … but informing their
membership of the truth about Port Arthur obviously does not figure in their agenda as they
busy themselves in a programme which hardly fulfils any of their constitutional obligations to
the membership.
Returning now to Rebecca Peters, for a moment, and in February of 1997, Peters travelled to
Dunblane Scotland carrying messages from some of the survivors of Port Arthur for the parents
of the 16 children killed in that 1996 mass shooting. In the "Good Weekend" article, Sonya
Voumard writes, "guns kill more than 600 people on average in Australia each year says
Peters," an example of deliberate gross error by Peters, amplified by the media; lazy
journalism or deliberate misinformation?
You see official Bureau of Crime Statistics show the average number of persons who were
victims of homicide with a firearm in Australia between the years of 1915 and 1998 fluctuated
from as low as 0·16 per 100,000 in 1950, to as high as 0·78 per 100,000 in 1984 and the
situation has continued with an average over ten years to 1998, of 81 persons recorded as
victims of homicide. That is 650 per cent less than the figure promoted as fact by Rebecca
Peters, through journalist (?) Sonya Voumard, and the Sun Herald! I need to point out this
average figure also includes the horrid 1996 Port Arthur massacre figures.
But expanding on her outrageous claim the journalist writes further that, "underlying Peter’s
concern is her knowledge that most gun deaths in Australia don’t occur during massacres:
they are young men committing suicide or the result of violent domestic disputes." I'm
caused to wonder if Peters was reminded of the case of the homosexual lover of an anti-gun
lawyer from Tasmania who shot himself in the early 1990's?
The statements fed to the media by the NCGC and GCA have always been grossly inaccurate
and misinformation wall-to-wall. In the mid `90's Roland Browne a
legal aid lawyer in Hobart, Tasmania, announced himself as
"spokesperson" of the NCGC there in Tasmania. In November of
1995 it was Roland Browne who predicted a massacre in Tasmania,
which he repeated on Channel 9's ACA, after the Thomas Hamilton
massacre in Dunblane, Scotland on March 13 1996. That fact
prompts a question: "Is Roland Browne clairvoyant, or a prophet …
or is he just well informed?" After Monash, these misinformation
networkers are blaming licensed hand gun owners for the
May-Day 1996, L-R: unprecedented shooting rampage that persisted on the streets of
John Howard MHR., embraces Sydney to reinforce the agenda – handgun confiscations. However
foundation member of NCGC this crime war on the streets is perpetrated by ethnic gangs of
Tasmania Dr Bryan Walpole. thugs armed with Saturday night special hand guns, illegally
“Gun Haters Inc” imported from Asia, the Middle East and criminal acts of robberies,
as well as the recruitment criteria of security guards that was in
the late 1980's relaxed by Government, allowing criminals to enter en-mass and remain in the
security industry. The latter problem was so bad, it caused the Police Minister in NSW in 2004,
to withdraw the security licences of upwards of some 300 normally handgun-toting security
guards, in one fell swoop!
Some establishment churches latched-into this anti-gun misinformation movement. The Uniting
Church lead the charge after the Strathfield massacre in Sydney. A not so surprising stance,
when one takes into account the Marxist-Leninist politics of the church's General Secretary, the
Rev. Harry Herbert who was supported in his stand by the Roman Catholic priest Fr. Brian
Lucas; both stated that, "all guns should be removed from urban areas," while patronising the
'rural folk' by recognising they had an apparent "legitimate use" for guns. The Rev. Harry
Herbert also is the main man behind the establishment and operation of the
notorious "shoot-up parlour" in William Street Sydney so as drug addicts can
legally inject illegal hard drugs; the number one reason for rampant handgun
crime on the streets of this same city of Sydney today!
The "gun control" network tried to rally their perceived "majority" on 5 May
1996 outside of the Parliament in Hobart. Referred to as just a "large crowd",
the people assembled to hear the carefully chosen words of the AMA's
spokesman, Dr Brian Walpole, who later exposed himself as an instrument of
the nation's ASIO team, who thundered, "…the weapons of war must never
Thomas again grace Australia's streets and fields…" Since about 1971, Walpole had
Hamilton real been a "gun control" campaigner and was instrumental in forming with his
name "Watts" friend Roland Browne, the Tasmania chapter of the NCGC. In even
inappropriate terms, the speakers urged their disciples to "maintain the rage". When Walpole's
relationship with NCGC's Roland Browne is exposed, I'm caused to wonder if the emergency
plan activated first by the massacre, RHH's "Code Brown", is correctly spelt.
On the steps of the Parliament in Melbourne, GCA's Andrew Harding was their spokesman in
front of a few banners proclaiming their emotive messages. In Sydney the NCGC rally attracted
about 2,000 people to spread out for the cameras and hear the "gun control" gospel. Shortly,
NCGC recruited the widower Walter Mikac to their membership so as the media could milk the
last drop of emotion from a grief-stricken husband and father at their rallies in Hobart,
Melbourne and Sydney. Walter had lost his wife Nanette and their two children to the
gunman's bullets on Jetty Road. Then later came the shameful failed attempt at civil action
against the firearms dealer Terry Hill, launched by Neville Quinn of Bicheno – who lost his wife
Janet in the Café - on the legal advice of none other than Roland Browne, NCGC's Tasmanian
spokesperson. Such are the many and varied ways, and lengths to which the misinformation
network's little helpers are prepared to go, to mislead and confuse the public, and to destroy
our heritage. What a nice little web of deceit and treachery the "gun control" helpers weave;
but what of the mainstream media's performance?
Well when Tasmanians picked up their morning newspaper on Tuesday, 30 April 1996, the "jury"
was back, and the judgement almost handed down! For that is how Murdoch's newspapers saw
it.
The American citizen, Rupert Murdoch then controlled over half of Australia's print media, not
to mention a fifty percent holding in Ansett Air Lines. His three newspapers distributed in
Tasmania, The Australian, Herald Sun and The Mercury, left readers in no doubt as to the
outcome they advanced, all with full-face photographs of Martin Bryant.
Never mind any suggestion of contempt of Court! In the case of The Mercury
some innovation saw it fold out from its usual tabloid format to reveal a
broadsheet front page, with its full length picture of Martin Bryant, his
impassive countenance there for all to see (including the eyewitnesses yet to
be shown the police photo-board, a month or more away), and headlines
that shouted, "THIS IS THE MAN," and further proclaiming to all, "this is the
man whom Tasmanians want to face 35 murder charges. …this is Martin
Bryant 28…" In flippant contempt for the law, the word "alleged" was
The Mercury’s notably scarce in their linked articles.
contribution to
computer Perhaps these are the principles, and codes to which president of the Pacific
enhanced media Area Newspaper Publishers Association, Chris McPherson, was referring,
fraud! when he made his “state-of-the-industry address” to the 700 delegates from
17 countries in Hobart on Thursday May 2, 1996, saying:
“…the coverage of the Massacre by the Mercury [is] an important example of how
newspapers were able to take a wide ranging and broad view of such an event.” –
The Mercury, p.3.
If it was possible, The Australian pushed the boundaries of responsible journalism beyond all
decency in my opinion. It took Stuart Littlemore of ABC-TV's Media Watch to point out that on
the same day as McCreadie was singing his media praises, The Australian published a
photograph of Martin Bryant in which the whites of his eyes had been digitally altered (or
‘enhanced’ as they termed it). Tampering such as this in my opinion it tantamount to fraud, a
view shared it seems by many other responsible readers; in this case the tampering was
suggestive that the subject was either “possessed” or "mad" or both. The demonising of Martin
Bryant in the public’s mind had begun in earnest, and it really never relented, for as late as 28
April, 2003 the practice was repeated in the pages of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Mercury
(Davies Bros) and in the column, "On this day". The fraud was extended by the accompanying
text exposing the degree of irresponsibility of the publisher: Hobart’s daily claimed the
photograph was captured during Martin Bryant's sentencing hearing on 19 November 1996. But
a check of The Mercury on 19/11/96, the day of the Bryant's hearing featured an artist's sketch
accurately depicting Martin Bryant wearing a light coloured (blue) linen suit, a white open
necked white shirt over round-necked sweat-shirt and a very short hair cut, a fact several
eye witnesses and a prison guard have attested to. ‡‡‡ After all, the co-conspirators desired to
change the appearance of the accused so as the image of the ‘long blonde haired gunman’
was destroyed in an instant to further confuse the positive recollections of witnesses who were
in the court that day.
Though The Mercury's initial photographs (including other Murdoch papers) subjected to their
computer tampering published on 3.5.96, soon emerged as a touchy subject. We are told that
ABC journalists made two inquiries of their colleagues at The Australian, which triggered a
quick rebuke in writing from the Editor-in-chief no less. Paul Kelly with a rather unconvincing
explanation first published in Wednesday's (31may96) edition explained, "an attempt to
remove shadows from the subject's face resulted unintentionally to the complete removal
of colour from the whites of his eyes. No editorial instruction to alter the photograph
was given." Someone must have been deluded if they believed this lame excuse would wash;
no it just confirmed the deliberate intentions to con the readers. But then
Kelly gave an interview to ABC's "AM" program frankly admitting, "The
treatment of the eyes was a mistake”; not exactly 'unintentional shadow
removal' as earlier claimed. The published explanation was repeated on air
almost word for word, but when asked as to how Murdoch's papers came by
the photographs in the first place, there was a very obvious, and very
pregnant pause. Finally collecting his thoughts, the Editor-in-Chief, in an
attempt to pass the buck, suggesting the originals had come from The
Mercury. 19.11.96:
The Mercury's
A journalist with the police at Bryant’s Clare Street home that Sunday sketch of the real
evening of the 28th April, told me this photograph came into the hands of Martin Bryant
The Mercury's journalists as a result of the illegal forced entry made by
police (without warrant) in that first raid on the Clare Street property; the journalists followed
the police onto the premises. So in truth these journalists were guilty of theft and were
‡‡‡
Handcuffed at the rear, Martin Bryant was guarded in the court by two guards, one of whom was 46-
year-old Rod Quarry.
accessories to the illegal forced entry no
less. I wonder how McCreadie could
defend this action as – “professional”?
• The Courier Mail: “believed to be the world's worst massacre by a lone gunman,"
and "probably the worst civilian shooting massacre by a lone gunman in history."
Although in their rush to keep up with the competition The Courier Mail made a not so small
blunder: they published a photo captioned, "a young Martin Bryant",
only it wasn't! A later issue sported an apology even although among
other equally obscure advertisements, which lamely admitted their
photograph actually featured 'Michael Robert Bryant - of Hobart'. No
doubt Robert enjoyed the notoriety; I don't think so.
• The Examiner: “The world's worst gun massacre"
• The Sydney Morning Herald: "the worst massacre by a
single gunman in Australian history."
L-R Frnt: Karen Atkins
with Sandy Lawrence &
• The West Australian: "It was the worst mass killing in
her MD husband in the Australia's modern history."
JMO Port Arthur One editor in chief, either determined to ignore all established
28.04.96 justice, or supporting the conspirators role in the matter wrote,
"Nothing but a bullet for Bryant: Our system of justice demands a
trial. Why?" Well, in spite of such asinine opinion, Martin was spared the "bullet" and conniving
bureaucrats, politicians, health workers and a devious justice system required no media
pressure at all to ensure Martin was denied a trial by jury anyway…
In keeping with their pursuit of "ratings" using exclusive, explicit "sound-bites", the electronic
media for nearly 24 hours were denied all of the visual graphics, locked-out by police. But in
their early attempts to show-case a flair for story telling, several examples are worth
repeating.
In the brisk morning air of Monday 29 April, and at 7.11am Steve Liebmann of Prime TV's
"Today" show did a footpath interview outside Royal Hobart Hospital with "eyewitness" Mr Rob
Atkins – in itself not of any significance. Rob gave an illuminating interview to ABC TV at
Taranna on Sunday evening. Then there his pregnant wife Karen, both are to this story, people
of interest. While no sworn statement was produced out of the DPP's office under FOI, both
Rob and wife Karen really did receive unwarranted media attention, retelling events at the
Historic Site in a gospel according Rob, and his amateur video footage was certainly in demand
as well, being put to air by various channels including ABC-TV, with its accompanying,
interesting sound track commentary. Karen Atkins especially, is remembered by staff at the
Historic Site, when they were summoned to assist a pregnant and distressed Mrs Atkins who'd
retreated up into the attic of the Junior Medical Officer's cottage (JMO), which is accessed by a
very steep, narrow, seventeenth century spiral staircase. Sandy Lawrence and her husband (a
medical doctor), were 'hunkered down' in a cottage, when a staff member burst through the
door calling for a doctor to assist with Karen in the attic room. From Rob Atkins' video, the
New Idea* (11may96, p.10), published a shot of an indifferent Karen Atkins sitting quietly in a
large chair and seated beside her the America Doctor and his wife who came to her aid. Rob
Atkins' video and commentary also evidenced the couple as being close to the JMO's cottage,
early in the shooting, which is quite at odds with his statements to the media.
The couple were first interviewed as they both sat in the front seat of a motor vehicle at
Taranna, with Rob at the wheel. Subsequent frames show yet another unidentified young
female in the front passenger seat, and in still later clips, a middle-aged male occupies the
same front passenger seat. In these initial interviews the Atkins are heard speaking of their
experiences in the first person; as if he and his wife actually heard the gunman utter their
often repeated words, "There's a lot of wasps around today. There's not many Japs here are
there."
This aspect of the Port Arthur exercise, unmistakeably introduced a "racial hatred"
connotation. But, until Port Arthur in 1996, most Australians were blithely unaware of the
meaning of the term "WASPs," save as referring to those of the stinging variety! In this
instance, it is interesting that Martin's girlfriend Petra Willmott in her sworn statement
asserted that on the evening of the 28th she'd heard that, quote, "…the person involved had
mentioned something about wasps and Japs. That is what Martin often says." Note the
word "wasps" is not capitalised here. Not surprisingly, Damien Bugg QC, phrased this
information with much more emphasis in the court documents. After all these claims had to
interlock with a role Martin Bryant was to play out inside Seascape as "Jamie".
Beginning around page 18 of the Police negotiator's transcript, there is some confusion
introduced into the conversation when "Jamie" expresses to Sgt Terry McCarthy an indecision of
whether or not he will take Sally Martin with him on the helicopter ride he has demanded of
police. McCarthy asks "Jamie", "Do you know Sally…"? to which "Jamie" responds, "Oh I've known
her all my life. Yeah," then shortly he volunteers, that "She's been bad news to me." Which
lead him to further claim, "Oof she's a trouble maker, she's part Jewish you know." Now,
this little segment is emphasised by a little scene that unfolded on page 20 of the negotiator's
transcript, where Jamie (remember McCarthy’s own suggestion; ‘as if acting out a role’), tells
McCarthy, that when he was in Miami, America, he'd met a "Jewish couple" while filling in a day
as they waited for a cruise, and as they walked along the street, the couple met "this other
chap" and so they "dumped" Martin. Strange little recount, and akin to his phantasm of
hijacking the BMW (seized by the gunman at the Port Arthur Tollbooth), and the kidnapping of
"Rick", his wife and their twelve-month-old child, and driving down Fortescue Bay road at
"160ks"! After this, McCarthy did not raise the racial subject again. Is it any wonder Terry
McCarthy said it was almost as if "Jamie" was "acting out a role", and he was. Those comments
"Jamie" made concerning Sally Martin, are quite at odds with the recollections of people that I
have met who lived on the Peninsula and knew both families well. So ask yourself this
question: "Exactly in who's interest was it, for Martin Bryant to express such opinions?” Also
remember this opinion was first noticed by girlfriend Petra Willmott, on the 25th April – the
previous weekend – when the pair spent the day in Richmond. The significance of Richmond
being that it is where Blair Saville, the Risdon prison officer who as an agent provocateur, let
slip in his conversation with Martin that Richmond was a possible target for the exercise that
unfolded at Port Arthur; someone it seems in the Police hierarchy at least had heard this
‘target’ mentioned around the traps.
Now, it was the gunman – not Martin Bryant mind – who raised the matter of "wasps" first on
the afternoon of the 28th in conversation with Gaye Lynd and her girlfriend Vicki whose
overheated van had broken down near Seascape. But when the girl's motor refused to turn
over, the blonde-headed man demonstrated his auto-electrics ability diagnosing a loose battery
connection. Remember, Martin Bryant has never ever exhibited having a mechanical aptitude –
in fact, quite the opposite. As the motor was left idling the blonde-headed male asked, "Have
you got anything to sell?" Lynd says she reached into the glove box and showed him a "small
satchel" of marijuana, for which the male paid her $50.
Remember Martin Bryant didn't use drugs and was quite particular with his health care; he
didn't even smoke tobacco. Now before the male drove off, he told the girls that he was going
to the Isle of the Dead to "…get rid of some Wasps," and arranged with the girls to shout him a
cup of coffee in the Café on site; lucky for the girls, the meeting that did not take place.
In conversation though with the girls, the word "Wasps" understandably was thought to mean
wasps of the stinging insect variety. Several eyewitnesses on the balcony of the Café also
heard the term used by the gunman, and likewise assumed similarly. Only one witness there
makes the racial connection, other than the Atkins. Even although the Atkins heard the term
second-hand, WASPs was recounted in every interview the couple gave…and Rob Atkins
certainly inferred that he understood the term to mean White Anglo Saxon Protestant. That
understanding is in my opinion quite significant. For it is interesting to note that in media
circles globally, it is down to one group that continues ad nauseam to play the "race hatred
card" in news items. For instance, it was suggested in the Court Documents that Mrs "Sally"
Martin was of Jewish ancestry and so that was really drawing a long bow in an attempt by the
DPP to promote a racial hatred motive. But their deception when examined closely has no
credibility whatsoever.
In an interview conducted after dark, and outside of the vehicle — most probably still at
Taranna — Atkins told Rod Wallis of ABC-TV, that they were just "eighty metres from the kiosk
when the shooting started." However please note the JMO cottage is 400 yards (437m) due
west of the Café! Clearly neither Rob or his very pregnant wife Karen could possibly have run
the 400 yards - up a more-than-gentle slope over soggy grassed areas, soaks and ditches, in
time for Rob to deploy his video camera (no camera shake from breathing hard visible), to
record gunshots coming from the vicinity of the Broad Arrow Café. Atkins claimed the couple
were sitting on the café balcony, where they overhearing the gunman while eating his meal
nearby … moments before the shooting began.
Rob Atkins even states that they decided not to have lunch when they arrived, so were well
away from the Café, even putting this good fortune down to "luck". It also appears to this
author, that some of the sound track of the Atkins video has been lifted for dubbing onto other
visual footage as put to air by some of the media! But Rob Atkins leaves the viewer in no doubt
of his expertise in assessing as to what is going on, as he films near the verandah of the JMO's
cottage, when he states, "There's the gunshots …It's live action here at Port Arthur." His
wife was so affected by these gunshots down at the Broad Arrow, that considerable concern
was expressed as to her and the unborn child's wellbeing. So much so, that Rob Atkins had the
busy staff at Royal Hobart Hospital check-out Karen and her baby late on the evening of the
28th. Nonetheless, leaving his pregnant wife at their accommodation, Rob did his public duty;
he rose at the crack of dawn, put on a smart grey suit, pressed blue shirt and matching blue-
spotted tie, and made his way to Prime-TV's outside broadcast near the Royal Hobart Hospital.
There with Steve Liebmann…he got the news out – even though the content was a little awry,
and Martin Bryant was yet to stumble with his cloths alight, from the inferno of the Seascape
Cottage. We know Atkins rose at the squeak of day, as already he'd organised for he and his
wife to fly-out of Hobart that Monday afternoon, and cut short their reported Tassie holiday.
Now to another early media example: Prime TV's Anne Fulwood's general knowledge was found
wanting when having to adlib in a "live" hook-up (a quaint phrase when one considers the term)
with America's NBC; not one of 7's better ideas it's fair to say. When Anne responds to her
American counterpart's suggestion, that 'the people of Tasmania must surely, all be in shock,'
in the wake of the massacre, Fulwood responds, "Oh absolutely..," pointing out that of course
this was especially so with Tasmania being, "the very smallest State," expanding on her
geography lesson she continued, "as you are probably aware there's about seven or eight
states in Australia". Gosh, Anne must surely been a diligent student of history and geography
throughout her scholastic adventure! But never mind, Port Arthur's world class massacre was of
a scale that certainly 'put Tasmania on the global map' in the eyes of the media and the "gun
control" collective.
Its text appealed to the reader's compassion in a quite extraordinary way, a manner I can say I
have never experienced in all of my life:
"I have just weeks to live before I go. With my last breath I’m asking 15,000 of
you to work together to Save Australia, please!"
The e-mail went on to inform the reader, "Australia First, One Nation and the Great
Australians have been unsuccessful. Letters and petitions have failed. Wake up
calls and educational forums by Eric Butler, Jeremy Lee, Joe Bryant, Robert
Balgarnie, I and others were not sufficient. The freedom newspapers haven’t won
the day so far."
Although the name-dropping in his urgent "appeal" is significant, precise and in itself,
revealing, it is worthy of note Tony Pitt has been at some time or other closely associated with
each of the individuals and political organisations named, but in reality very many more.
Though is it yet another coincidence that the name of Tony Pitt only came to prominence with
regard to many of the names and or associated organs at critical
times in the life of each of those same organisations, which saw
either their imminent destruction and or demise into obscurity or
irrelevance? But of course far be it from me to suggest we can put
that down to Tony. But the e-mail appeal was only the fist shot in
his final campaign.
After two phone calls from angered recipients, if there was any doubt of Mr. Pitt's agenda
before his mail out and if my callers are any true indication, many people will now suffer no
illusion as to what is going on. Pitt was referred to as a "white ant" by some close observers
during the unraveling of One Nation in Queensland (December 1999) and when his track record
is examined, I don't feel the term is inaccurate. Though his above list of organisations and
individuals who've failed - he says they were "unsuccessful" - is quite incomplete, I question his
appraisal of them: it would depend from on which side you viewed the results I guess. Though
Like "Joe" this is almost past history:
On 27 February 2006, his wife announced that Tony had passed away at 9.15am.
Vail Tony Pitt.
In the case of both "Joe" and Tony, there has been a deal of sole searching as to deleting both
stories from this work. However I decided that as I had written the bulk of this work before
there was any suggestion that Tony was about to pass away, it should stand unaltered for the
public record. I have no animosity toward Tony Pitt, just sadness as to the effort that went
into muddying the truth about Port Arthur. For the mainstream media need no assistance in
that regard. Tony made his choice just as I have.
In recent years Andrew Denton established himself as a sought of a "Parkinson" type television
interviewer with his sometimes weekly ABC-TV show Enough Rope, the vehicle. At 9.30pm on
16 August 2004, as the star spot drew to a close he went to his supposed spontaneous audience
participation of their worst experience type spot, with a female introduced as Robyn Lawler to
present a brief recount of her brother's experience she introduced as "…the Port Arthur
massacre that happened down in Hobart, Tassie…” This faux pas at the outset set the standard
for what was to follow and it wasn’t nerves I can assure you.
One needs to know the female Andrew Denton interviewed that evening, for reasons best
known to her she gave a false name. I'm unaware of her marrying to date and so at time of
writing I'm sure she still goes by the name of Robyn Law, the sister of a former PASMA tour
guide, Ashley Law; his movement are well documented on that day within this work.
It was Ashley Law you may remember who was on the phone inside the Information Centre and
from whose logged phone call we can clearly establish the commencement of the shooting in
the café at between 1324 – 1325 hrs.
After the gunman had exited the Café and paused on the front steps and discharged shots,
along with other staff Ashley began to also move some of the visitors around the Information
Centre towards church ruins across the grassed section that today has the Government Gardens
in its top section. At this stage Ashley has seen the gunman for just a few moments of the
steps of the café at about 50m.
ROBYN LAWLER: "Well, as it happened, three years prior to all this happening,
Martin Bryant used to...live with an older lady who was in with the Tattersall
people, lot of money, etc. In a car accident on the way down to Port Arthur,
Ashley, my brother, was on his way home from work from the city, and he
actually stopped that night and he pulled him out of the car. And they say
that he...they... The police reckon that they [sic] recognised him and that's
why they [sic] didn't shoot him."
The motor accident referred in the Denton interview by Robyn Law (a.k.a. Lawler) occurred on
20 October 1992, about 2 km from Copping on the Arthur Highway.
Miss Helen Harvey, the driver of a car allegedly at the time of the collision with another vehicle
was on the wrongs side of the road, and she died at the scene. Martin Bryant was the
passenger in Miss Harvey’s car, and he sustained serious injuries to vertebra in his neck.
All of the published reports of the day I have accessed confirm Martin Bryant was quote: “cut
from the wreck by ambulance officers,” a position corroborated by a former ambulance officer
of the area.
This refutes the claim of Ashley Law having pulled Martin Bryant out of the car wreck at the
site of the head-on collision near Copping in October 1992.
To add to this rebuttal, Ms Law claimed ‘police reckoned’ Martin Bryant had to have recognised
her brother is balderdash: the ambulance officers who attended this accident and published
reports of the day consistently state Martin Bryant was unconscious at the time he was cut from
the wreckage; unconscious means “unaware”.
In that state of mind, how on earth could Martin Bryant possibly have been able to see Ashley
Law so as to be able later at Port Arthur to recall their previous meeting on the Arthur Highway
near Copping – even if Bryant had been the gunman which he most definitely wasn’t.
Andrew Denton has I believe damaged his credibility to a considerable extent and now has
joined the ranks of those who mislead and misinform on this most serious incident. He chooses
not to answer my correspondence, and so he is no better or worse than the other infamous
people whose names feature in this chapter. 10
Had the ABC film crew beaten Nine’s team by arriving there on Sunday afternoon? Well not
quite. The old ‘file footage’ deception was employed here – not that the production was sub-
titled as such. But closer examination showed the outbuilding (close to the main Cottage
where the FN FAL rifle was later photographed in the gutter of the porch roof), at the time this
video was captured, was not then even evident.
With much planning, plotting scheming and subterfuge, willing assisted by the media and later
covert agents such as the Vialls’ cell, the lie is made reality isn’t it … well almost, but not
quite - yet.
End Notes
1
"Three groups launch arms control campaign in Bamako";
http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=409470
2
Stewart Beattie, essay, “From Citizens to Serfs – the conspiracy to disarm Australia & control the people”
3
Lee Rhiannon, MLC, Press release, "Port Arthur handgun deal remembered", 26 April 2002
http://www.lee.greens.org.au/media/Media02/Mar-Apr/s020426_portarthurgundeal.html
4
http://www.umut.org.tr/ENG/sempozyum/katilicibiyog.htm
5
Andrew MacGregor interview with Dennis Gabbedy; na “Causalities of War,” The Bulletin, April 29
1997, pp.14-17.
6
Tasmania Police shot sequence list; Police Training Video, Easton G., Port Arthur - Media Management
7
Sun Herald, "Good Weekend", April 5, 1997 pp.21-25.
8
The Mercury (Hobart), 9sept97
9
The Mercury, 3may96, p.4
10
Andrew Denton, Enough Rope, ABC-TV Monday, 9.30pm, 16aug04
Chapter 5
T
he twenty-two calibre family of high velocity, rimless
cartridges was pioneered by Remington Arms in 1950, the
first being their ·222 Remington (222 Rem). But the
development of the cartridge the ·223 Remington (223 Rem),
began in 1957, when it was re-developed from a cartridge from
the existing Remington stable of 22 calibres designated the "222
Rem Mag". Remington also changed the last digit to a "3" in their
redeveloped calibre, so as to clearly distinguish the new round
from its predecessor, as the 223 Rem case had a greater
capacity by approximately 2 percent over its predecessor.
Various experimental combinations were produced as early as
October 1958, but the Military round to endure in ·223Rem
produced in September of 1963 was officially type-classified as
"Cartridge, 5.56mm Ball, M193" and in January of 1964, Olin
Corp produced the first run of 500,000 rounds to specifications 1958 experimental Winchester
that already had received special "waivers". Western 224 (223 Rem) rounds
type-classified "M193"
It was some time before this calibre was chambered into commercial sporting firearms, but like
many military designated calibres, the ·223Rem soon became immensely popular and widely
accepted by the shooting fraternity around the world.
As the primary small arm's calibre used by Americans in Vietnam much legend was built around
the calibre which to a lesser extent filtered through to their allies' special units in this drawn-
out conflict. The bullets were said to "tumble" supposedly causing 'horrific body trauma
wounds'. Great propaganda maybe, but in truth “the tumbling bullet” is a flawed theory.
An explanation is called for here; a rifle barrel is machined internally using various methods to
produce a bore and so the "bore diameter" is measured between the "lands". The larger
internal diameter of a barrel is measured between the grooves; the "groove diameter". The
machined, raised section spirals down the barrel at a given
"pitch" and so it is the lands, which spins the projectile as it
is propelled down the barrel. The spiralling or "twist"
causes the forward moving projectile to spin or rotate
which directly influences the projectile's stability,
impacting positively to produce improved accuracy and
penetration characteristics. Although discounted by some
ballisticians, it has been my personal experience that
within a calibre, by the very influences I mention above,
the rate of this twist has a significant influence upon bullet
performance after it strikes the target as well.
From when the projectile leaves the barrel's muzzle, it does not travel for the duration of its
flight with its nose continuously pointing in the direction of the flight. A right-hand twist
barrel causes the bullet nose to point ever so slightly to the right of its flight path, and so the
bullet begins an almost indiscernible "yaw". A left hand twist produces the same result but to
the left. The rate of twist has a direct influence upon controlling this "yaw".
"Twist" is expressed as a rate of one completed revolution in a given number of
inches of forward travel, shown for example as 1:7, being 1 turn in 7" of twist.
The Colt AR15 Carbine with its standard 16" barrel has a bore diameter of ·224"
and originally had a 1:12 twist, but almost surely the recovered Colt AR15 SP-1
carbine would have had a 1:9 twist barrel. Forensically speaking, this is a very
interesting point, as the rifle variant I strongly believe was used by the gunman in
the café would most probably have been fitted with a barrel of a different rate of
twist. This fact alone would have produced a discernibly different angle or "pitch"
in the signature engraved by the lands on any sizable fragment of projectile body
The recovered by police. Like the disappearance of Martin Bryant's video camera,
"Signature" could not the same convenient fate have befallen such a bullet fragment?
engraved on
projectiles In the case of the 1:12 twist barrel in ·223Rem, it is my qualified opinion to be
by the borderline adequate to stabilise a 55gr bullet, but certainly would not stabilise the
barrel lands later 63-grain M855 ball ammunition, hence the reason for changing to a 1:9 twist
in the AR15A2 and on. I must add there are some in the trade who may disagree
with this statement. There are some in the trade who maintain a later 1:8 twist will stabilise
even the 75-grain match ·224" BTFMJ 1 bullet, but that is not the same proposition as for the
lighter bullet.
When the bullet is unstable, accuracy is destroyed, velocity falls-away rapidly and both range
and penetration is correspondingly reduced. As a result, a projectile can only deliver and
transmit its maximum kinetic energy upon the target when stable and travelling at high
velocity and fast revolutions.
In 1964, this author carried out tests with a ·270/303 calibre rifle. The ammunition was loaded
with 116 and 130 grain ·277" projectiles seated in front of a recommended near maximum load
of Noble #41 rifle powder, which produced velocities averaging 2700 fps 2 ., and 2400 fps.,
respectively, at 10 feet. The new barrel which had been fitted to this No4 SMLE Long Branch
action was later found to have a 1:14 twist, and so even at ranges of under a 100 yds, tests
revealed the 130 grain projectile (especially) was penetrating the targets in a classic key-hole
attitude. That is to say the bullet passed through target with the axis of the projectile at 90
degrees to its flight path. In its unstable state, the projectiles shed so much velocity, energy
and penetration, that further tests revealed failure to even flesh-wound light game animals at
around 100+ yards range.
Considering the Colt AR15 A-2 rifle, and using ammunition loaded with 55 gr., projectiles, a
maximum powder charge of the type used in the Norinco cartridges should produce velocities
of say around 3,200 fps*, under normal ambient temperatures of less than 75 degrees
Fahrenheit (or 240C), and so should produce chamber pressures of lower than 43,500 lbs
pressure (C.U.P). While a "proof load" in this calibre produces a maximum breach pressure in
the region of 54,300 lbs. (C.U.P.) -
[ \
End Note
1
BTFMJ = boat tail full metal jacket - bullet
2
The term "fps" = feet per second is used throughout
Chapter 6
W
e must now correct some of the "legends" & myths surrounding the early military
designated M193, 5·56x45mm or ·223 Remington (Rem) ammunition, and the body
trauma it was reputed to have caused. So let us examine the commercially available
·223Rem ammunition loaded like Norinco is with a ·224" x 55-grain FMJ projectile, and the
effect on the target when this projectile strikes soft body tissue.
Several factors must be considered here when comparing this high velocity, small calibre round
to the so-called "full-bore" military calibres of the past and even the 7·62NATO round, for they
do differ quite markedly in construction, velocity, weight, characteristics and impact results.
Human body tissue is composed of between 65-74 percent water, almost all of which is
retained in small cell structures which when compressed burst. It is this major reaction to high
velocity light bullets striking them, which contributes significantly to the extent of body tissue
trauma in wounding. The major factors which cause body tissue wound trauma are:—
1. High velocity, in conjunction with projectile weight, range and revolutions per minute
(rpm), and
2. The striking of hard bone structures contained within the soft body tissue, and most
importantly,
3. Projectile construction.
When compared to the ADI produced 7.62NATO round, Norinco ·223Rem FMJ ammunition
penetration is significantly less, as the bullet deforms and disintegrates after similar
penetration of soft tissue as the diagram above shows and so at between 6 to 8 inches the
latter I would suggest produces in excess of the stated 36 percent fragmentation.
In the case of "P1", the bullet actually struck the victim right of centre on his jaw bone, causing
6 lesions to the mandible, airway compromise (larynx), and the bullet nicking his carotid artery
which caused a small 'intimal tear', before exiting to the right rear of his neck at the jaw-line.
He also suffered paralysis down one side for a considerable When considered alongside others
who sustained wounds caused by the ·223 Remington, the wound sustained by "P3" stands out
at distinctly different. 1
The Wilkinson video tape presents us with an audio record of the first 17 shots discharged in
the café over 10 seconds and when considered after matching it alongside another video
(possibly the McLeod tape) over the ensuing 10 seconds, just 4 shots are discharged. This I
would suggest is when the gunman changed from the Colt AR15 SP-1 ·223Rem rifle, to the
Armalite AR10 7.62 NATO rifle. Note: the gunman did not carry any FN FAL rifle on his
shooting spree to the Historic Site and back to Seascape. It's interesting to note that as Andrew
and I have discovered, the Court Documents tell us that from the yellow Volvo sedan at the
Tollbooth, police recovered 3 magazines; 2 (supposedly for an FN FAL), but importantly straight
20 shot 7.72NATO mags, one empty and one holding 17 rounds. But also recovered was "One
magazine for the colt AR15 rifle containing twelve live rounds." Twelve, plus 17 equals 29
shots; the number of shots the DPP insisted was the total
number of shots discharged in the Café! 2
My point being: this little exercise demonstrates 40 percent of the number whom I believe
were shot with a round from an AR-10 7.62NATO rifle survived their wounds.
I believe if you compare those shot with the ·223 calibre weapon, the above
ratio is reversed.
As far as the Police Training Video evidencing the single ·308" calibre spent
shell casing there on the floor of the Café dinning room and nearby a ·223
Const Debbie May Rem casing, suggests to me that the souvenir collectors missed this one spent
casing that later was inadvertently put on the record by a conscientious
Constable of the Tasmania Police who was as it were, "out of the loop".
The forensic team from NSW who were tasked to examine this crime scene have I believe for
rather obvious reasons deliberately ignored the existence of 308W spent shell casings there on
the floor of the Café dining room. I’m reminded of the weighty evidence ignored by the DPP
demonstrating Martin Bryant was drinking coffee at Forcett Shell at the time Mr Bugg QC
claimed he was murdering David Martin, 61 km away at Seascape!
If you find the forgoing less than convincing, then please consider this account. Around the 12
month anniversary of the massacre, Hobart detective, Peter Hessman gave an interview that I
believe substantially adds credibility to my above conclusions. When Hessman entered the
Café first, he is quoted as recalling, “I went around and did a count and there were 20
bodies. I was surprised, but I wasn't shocked.” Continuing, the article tells us he claims he
began to secure the crime scene – one lone policeman among the hundreds of visitors, friends
and relatives of the victims, paramedics and ambulance personnel and the like, many of whom
were milling about some inside the café as much video footage confirms. The article goes on
to state Hessman’s continuing account: "Then it was copybook detection. He noted the shells
and magazines on the café floor were of different calibres, from two military weapons.
Hessman feared there were terrorists. He examined the victims, killed by shots to the
head and his suspicions grew.” – My emphasis 3
Summarising: Peter Hessman since the massacre had received a promotion by April of 1997 to
detective constable. Secondly it is clear, that when Hessman first entered the Broad Arrow
Café, there was strewn about the floor clear empirical evidence in the form of expended
ammunition and magazines, forcing him to conclude firearms of different calibres and
magazine types had been discharged resulting in repeated head shots among the 20 deceased
persons many shot in the head and so he feared it must have been the work of terrorists; that
is, more than one gunman using weapons of different calibres and magazine types. With regard
to the AR-10 being one of the firearms used to kill a number of persons in the café I rest my
case. But that rifle wasn’t any FN FAL.
Now retuning to the 223 Remington calibre; the calibre's effective maximum range, when using
SS109 ammunition and consulting figures supplied by the ADF, is clearly limited to around 300
yards. 4 This report shows the calibre having a mid range elevation of 5·35" required at just
328 yards at which point remaining energy has almost halved, from 1321 foot-pounds at the
muzzle to just 674 foot-pounds at 328 yards. There are several other points in the report
which should be noted here:
a) The "SS109 type ammunition bears little resemblance to the M193 round that is fired
from the M16A-1 [rifle]." 5
In the Port Arthur shootings, the forensic firearm examiner defined the ranges at which the
victims were either shot and killed or injured as follows:-
1. Contact/close contact; where the muzzle was either touching or within an inch or so of
the target.
2. Intermediate; where the muzzle was most probably at least 39½" from the target and
firearms discharge residue (FDR) was not evident, and
3. Distant; where no FDR was evident and the range exceeded 1 metre.
After taking into account the above definitions, it is interesting to look at this in relation to
people who were killed and others injured with the ·223 Norinco FMJ ammunition, especially in
the Broad Arrow Café and on Jetty Road. A total of 25 were shot and killed with the Colt AR15;
of those 25 shots, 16 were defined as "Distant", 8 were defined as "Intermediate" and just 4
were defined as "Contact/close contact". My point being, the majority of killed and injured
people were in reality very close to the shooter and so it follows that most projectiles from
the ·223" calibre firearm were travelling at close to maximum velocity, claimed by Sergeant
Dutton to be around "3,070 fps" on average. 7
End Notes
1
Sergt Gerard Dutton, Dr Tim Lyons, Sergt Shaun Roach, Sergt John Dickinson, "A Review of the Wounding Effects
of the Colt AR-15 & FN FAL Rifles etc", Wound Ballistics Review Vol3, No4, pp.35-48; the EMA papers Dr David
Smart, Dir Dept of Emergency Medicine, RHH, 'RHH Medical management of Port Arthur Victims, p.53.
2
Court Transcript, p.160
3
na, Cover Story – “Casualties of War,” The Bulletin, 29apr97, pp.14-18
4
J Grant, Capt. OIC SARP Training Team, Report: The Right Choice at pp.52-53.
5
ibid. p.51.
6
ibid. pp.51-52.
7
Sergt Gerard Dutton, Wound Ballistic Review, p.39
Chapter 7
The Colt AR15 rifle one of three firearms used inside the Broad Arrow Café, buss park and on
Jetty Road only, has inherent features that when first manufactured were unique, like for
instance an ambidextrous cocking handle, located centrally at the top rear of the action, hence
right or left handed persons find the actions cocking and
cycling the firearm to chamber the first round from the
magazine in a word easy. The firearm is also
comfortable to carry and shoot. However, like many
Colt AR15 SP-A1: with forward assist firearms of radical design, with its shorter barrel, alloy
replacing steel where opportunity allows and "space-age" material, the firearm has its
shortcomings. The foregoing is also true when one considers the 7.72 NATO variant, the AR10
Rifle although it has integral to its design two departures from the Colt’s variation.
1. The AR10's cocking device while
ambidextrous, it is not located at
the top-rear of the action, but is
rather contained within the loop
of the carry-handle/sight, atop
the action.
2. The calibre 7.72 NATO (or 308W),
when packaged in this Armalite
cannot be classed as a pleasure Armalite AR10 7.62 NATO Rifle – (late model): Of Dutch
to fire. Even in the rifle version manufacture, the variant used at Port Arthur sported drab
it has an even increased and green synthetic butt-stock, pistol grip and forehand guard.
unpleasant muzzle blast to that
of the ·223Rem Colt. The Carbine variant of the Colt I believe can be said to produce
an even more objectionable muzzle-blast when fired mainly due to the Carbine's short
16" barrel and flash suppressor I suspect.
This ejection pattern of self-loading rifles adopted by the military worldwide has always posed
a problem. For significant among all nations' military personnel are those of the southpaw
variety. Hence like the subject firearms of Port Arthur, the "Bull-pup" designs such as the F88
Steyr Aug (above), and Enfield (at right) have this
same inherent flaw, the changed position of the
action in relation to shooter. This problem was of
such a disadvantage, the engineers at Steyr produced
an optional reversed system so as to overcome what
in the Enfield is a grave inherent anomaly. Colt's
AR15 variants and the pattern of their ejected cases
do pose a not inconsequential problem for the
southpaw. Enfield Mod 18a2, the British Army's
carbine
You surely can now understand the dilemma we face in accepting the evidence without
question that the DPP put on record as "facts" in this case, with regard to a supposed left-
handed Martin Bryant (see Court Document at p.216), and his use of the primary weapon at the
Port Arthur Historic site. It would have taken considerable professional instruction and training
to make him expert: training far in excess of the few "plinking" session at static targets that
the Prosecution was able to establish the accused admitted to have undertaken. No evidence
exists to suggest Martin undertook such expert training, and if he did undertake such training,
then why didn't the DPP tell the court the identity of the expert who trained him and the
setting where that training was carried out?
A further consideration should be made here. At pp. 196-7, of the Court Document, Paine says,
"This is a Daewoo 12 gauge shotgun" and Bryant acknowledges, "…yeah I bought that one off
umm, Hill…etc", then on the next page Bryant informs Det Insp Paine in passing, that he never
got around to using it because, "…it scared me the thought of it not working and probably
ricocheting out." At first glance this statement seems of little significance and vague.
But consider: Bryant volunteers that normally he shot a firearm from his left shoulder. He's a
left-handed shooter. Bryant also volunteered that Terry Hill had explained with regard to the
AR-10 ·308W, 'you're using the wrong bullets Martin, you should be using military hard tops'
(i.e. FMJ or Ball ammunition) – (Court Doc p.203). Martin Bryant had taken his AR10 to Guns
and Ammo because it required repair, as Bryant had experienced malfunctions when he’d used
the incorrect ammunition. So here is further evidenced Martin's obvious lack of mechanical
aptitude and limited experience regarding the use of firearms, when Martin informs us of a
malfunction when firing just, “…twenty or thirty rounds out of the AR-10.” - (Court Doc.
p.205). With regard to the Daewoo and his fear that it would 'ricocheted out', he is actually in
effect saying that, 'just the thought of the Daewoo not working properly and probably
"ricocheting out" like the AR-10 did, "scared" him.
I would suggest Martin Bryant incorrect terminology of ricocheting out could well have been
referring to the extremely hot spent cases landing on his chest, and burning him as they
tumbled down his shirt-front on bare flesh, when he shot the AR10 ·308W Carbine, left-handed.
This is despite his obvious ignorance, that shotgun shells are constructed mostly of plastic (or
cardboard) cases with a small, insulated, brass base, so that the spent shell ejected after firing
is not objectionably hot to the touch, though I must say that any shooter who has experienced
a hot case entrapped between clothing and skin down a shirtfront, will never forget it as a
most unpleasant experience.
While dealing with the AR15 and AR 10 firearms, there’s another firearm entwined in the case
against Martin Bryant, which we must cover, and so it may as well be attended here. Mention
is made in various documents of a Daewoo self-loading shotgun; it also is shown in the Police
Training Video. The gun was recovered by Police from the boot of the yellow Volvo sedan,
which the gunman abandoned near the Port Arthur Tollbooth on Jetty Road. But the Court
documents fail to indicate if this Daewoo was
subjected to forensic examination so as to
prove conclusively that it had been recently
discharged or not.
In the Court Document and at p.141, Mr Bugg tells us that police recovered, "a semi-automatic
Daewoo shotgun with a 15 round magazine fitted to it and …twelve rounds in the
magazine." Yet again this cannot be so. For Mr Bugg
has just erroneously increased the Daewoo’s magazine
capacity by 5 rounds! If that’s not bad enough, he’s
yet again blurred the "facts" further by claiming 3
extra shells were in the magazine he has described —
two cartridges beyond the maximum capacity of a
Daewoo magazine!
But in a letter to the Garry Fleetwood of the SSAA Inc., Ray Groom the then Attorney-General
of Tasmania, stated: "A 12 gauge Daewoo self loading shotgun with a detachable box
magazine containing nine 12 gauge cartridges. This weapon was recovered from the boot
of Bryant’s abandoned Volvo Sedan that was left near the Toll Booth when he
commandeered the BMW. Bryant did not use this firearm at any stage on the 28th April
1996." 2
Confusion was obviously in abundance at the time among the entire Tasmanian establishment…
END NOTES
1
Source http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/usas
2
Tasmania Police Video, producer, Geoff Easton, Public Affairs & APJ, dec98, p.209.
Chapter 8
I
n the APJ article and WBR, Sergeant Gerard Dutton confirms the Port Arthur shooter used
Norinco FMJ type ammunition in a Colt AR15 (see p.224). However, we are left to wonder,
“Was the faulty cartridge Mr Dutton determined responsible for jamming the AR15
recovered from Seascape, an original "faulty" factory round, or was it a ‘Hot’ hand load?”
We shall settle that dilemma once and for all presently. 1
In relation to a segment of the shootings around table #9, Mr Bugg QC entraps himself just as
did the authorities in that infamous assassination of John F. Kennedy with a re-run of the
"magic bullet" theory. Commencing his scenario of the segment, Bugg qualifies his statement
of facts to the Court at page 85/2 by saying, "the precise order in which these three men were
shot is not clear," yet he then boldly launches into an explanation that in my opinion is flawed.
The DPP explains that Walter Bennett (DVI #15), was struck in the neck by a "near contact
shot", with the shooter, "…touching them almost with the barrel of the weapon." But contrary
to Mr Bugg's conclusion, in the WBR we learn that Walter Bennett, Raymond Sharpe, and Kevin
Shape (DVI's #15, 16 and 18), were all shot at a range of "distant"; i.e. beyond a metre the
farthest range determined in the report. Mr Bugg claims that the single projectile which struck
a standing Walter Bennett in the neck, passed through and killed him, retained enough mass,
energy, and stability, to continue on, to strike a seated Raymond Sharpe in the head and kill
him instantly. However the report tells us that projectile that killed Raymond Sharpe, struck
him, "…right of the head at top of ear, travelling forward and [importantly] upwards exiting the
forehead region, [and significantly,] no bullet or fragments [were] recovered." 2
When given due consideration you surely can conclude that the explanation by Mr Bugg Q.C.
regarding the path of this single bullet is a flawed hypothesis. For yet again he was
constrained by his knowledge of the faulty exit gift-shop door and the firm conclusions he and
his crime scene examiners had advised claiming the easily destroyed ‘29 total shots’ scenario.
Here Mr Bugg's synopsis would have us believe that there were two
substantial, fatal wounds, without fragmentation around both
wound channels and a divergent bullet path that creates an
improbability factor that would be difficult for a forensic
pathologist to explain away convincingly. It becomes evident
Damien Bugg QC's position had to be maintained so as he could hold
to his contrived sequence of events in the Broad Arrow Café, of the
M193 ammunition wound flawed 29 shots killing 20 and wounding 12 others and this all
diagram – achieved in "approximately one and a half minutes to, at the
by Martin Fackler MD outside, two minutes." 3
I must reiterate that I do agree entirely with the assessment of author Andrew MacGregor,
when he writes, that this misleading concoction is nothing more than, "a complete and utter
fabrication."
When one considers carefully the WBR at pp37-39, the Dutton and his co-authors make it very
clear that of the 25 victims shot and killed at various but relatively close ranges with the ·224"
55-grain FMJ Norinco bullets, in 19 hits on 15 people, no bullet fragments were recovered even
although in many of these instances fragmentation was evident. In other words, fragments
were spread all over the crime scene – the NSW ballistic team simply failed to recover them.
Even Dutton states, "…I was a little surprised to find that perhaps a dozen fired cartridge
cases had been 'souvenired' by members of the public," and he counted 30 shots, not 29. In
12 other victims in all, except in one instance, the projectiles had totally lost original form and
dissected in a majority of instances at the weakest point, near the knurled cannelure, just as I
have noted they would earlier in this narrative. 4
End Notes
1
Sergt Gerard Dutton, "Ballistic Evidence," APJ, p.224.
2
Sgts G Dutton, S Roach, J. Dickinson & Dr Tim Lyons, WBR Vol3, No4,p.38
3
ibid. WBR, p.38; Court Document, p86/1-4
4
Court Document @ p.117
Chapter 9
P
erhaps it is pertinent here to explain briefly one of many construction techniques of FMJ
projectiles, so that the reader can understand why projectiles with inherently different
physical characteristics react in dissimilar ways, producing unique outcomes resulting
from their particular method of construction and material used. You can then make up your
own mind as to that which is written in the Court Documents concerning fragmentation and
shrapnel induced soft tissue trauma. However one small point should perhaps be made here.
In a small number of cases, when FMJ projectiles of strong construction are fired at high
velocity from intermediate to contact ranges to pass through soft body tissue without striking
bone for instance, then to some extent the entry area of the wound-channel can be cauterised:
i.e. blood vessels or veins ruptured by the bullet sometimes do not haemorrhage. Hence on
occasions surprisingly little bleeding occurs.
Norinco The manufacture of projectiles since the 1940's has ADI ·308" x 144gr
224" x 55gr S-BT been developed into a very exacting science with BT-FMJ bullet
FMJ bullet many bullet manufactures producing well in excess
of a 100 different types in their range of light calibres, and all designed to excel in a specific
application. The manufacturing process of rifle projectiles while basically similar for all is at
the same time unique to almost each type, and so I will take the liberty of generalising on
production techniques here.
The Norinco ·224"x 55gr FMJ projectile begins the formation process from a metal disc,
stamped from out of a roll of sheet alloy material which for the purpose of this essay I shall call
"copper," just as Gerard Dutton does. The stamped-out disc is then subjected to various stages
of forming called "cupping" and as it progresses through the process it eventually is cupped into
an elongated tube or envelope, in this case averaging about ·022" wall thickness and ·225-226"
OD, into which a short length of lead alloy wire is injected. In both projectiles we are dealing
with, the wire is injected from the bullet's base towards the nose, while it still is not unlike the
blunt bottom of a straight-walled cup or mug.
The cup with the extruded lead-wire inside is then subjected to several stages of forming which
squeezes the blunt end into a curved tapered nose. The curve characteristic is termed the
bullet's "ogive". At a point approximately one third of the total overall length from the
projectile's base, it is knurled around its circumference, and this formation is termed a
"cannelure" which fulfils several important roles.
When projectiles are pressed into the neck of the primed case during the loading operation, it
is into this cannelure that in factory rounds the neck of the case is crimped, thus aiding in
retaining the projectile in the case to produce a consistent overall loaded cartridge length, and
so provide a clearance called "freebore", to the lands in the rifle's "throat", when the live round
is loaded into the chamber. This constant freebore ensures consistent accuracy and
(importantly) lower initial chamber pressures. A secondary and equally important role for the
cannelure is that of preventing the projectile from "backing-up" into the case as a result of
recoil while retained in the magazine, especially when fired in self-loading firearms.
Unlike some other brands, the Norinco FMJ projectile's cannelure, is the sole means by which
the lead core is locked-into the jacket. This type of cannelure in thin jackets also produces a
weak point in the projectile's envelope, as proven I believe by the Wound Ballistic Review
article. Then as a final phase in production, the bullet passes through several swaging dies,
the lead-wire is trimmed to length and the projectile final swaging to a consistent diameter of
·224".
Now the manufacturing technique for the 144gr FMJ ·308" projectile doesn't vary significantly
from the above, but there are three important disparities: the cannelure in this instance is of a
progressive taper to a 90 degree forward shoulder, and is "knurled" with a plain, shaped, wheel
into the envelope as such. Also the bullet is of a true "boat-tailed" design. With its very
efficient ogive and full boat tail, it has a much superior ballistic coefficient retaining velocity
and accuracy at long ranges. But importantly, the projectile's skirt at the base of the copper
jacket-cup is returned under. The ballistic coefficient by the way, is the ratio of the sectional
density of a bullet to its coefficient form, and so represents the projectiles ability to overcome
air resistance in flight.
Also, the jacket wall made from tougher alloy, and is significantly thicker at around ·033". The
tougher, thicker material ensures that when this bullet strikes a dense, hard target or soft body
tissue, it will preserve almost intact the original shape and total mass, relying on kinetic
energy alone to produce significant wound channel trauma; it is not engineered to shed
fragments. When comparing delivered energy of the ·308W cartridge with its ADI 144gr FMJ
projectile travelling at 2700fps, with that of the Norinco 223Rem with its ·224"x 55gr FMJ
projectile travelling at say 3200fps, the former generates around 2250ft/lbs of energy at the
muzzle while the latter produces 1280ft/lbs or just 56.8 percent to that of the ·308W round;
the deficiency in the ·224" calibre bullet worsens rapidly as the range increases.
However, regarding the Norinco bullet, outcomes are entirely variable. Upon striking hard
material (also bone) and soft body tissue, the nose of the projectile in the Norinco rapidly
deforms and compresses, hence as compression of the jacket and extruded lead-wire core
progresses, the lead core is extruded past the cannelure and immediately begins to back-out of
the open base. Before the nose has deformed back to the cannelure and because of its light
gauge, the jacket begins to fracture at the cannelure and so begin to shed jacket fragments
immediately.
Within the disintegration process timeframe, the lead-wire extruding from the base of the
bullet sheds mass as lead fragments. These lead fragments if produced from a bullet striking
say a concrete floor can produce in some cases wounds not unlike shotgun pellets, although the
entry wound inevitably are never round. One must also keep in mind that while this process is
occurring and completed in milliseconds, the whole mass is spinning at extremely high
revolutions.
After considering the foregoing, I hope the reader can now understand why there was so much
"shrapnel" present as "fragments" said to have caused many of the superficial wounds to
survivors, some, although not life threatening, nevertheless the wounds caused much blood loss
and were deemed by RHH staff as "NT Category #4", and still quite serious. 1 The majority of
those evidencing these superficial wounds received them in and around the environs of the
Broad Arrow Café. It then begs the question: "Who or what prevented the NSW forensic
crime scene examiners from executing a vigorous examination of the Broad Arrow Café so
as to ensure they retrieved a significant mass of fragments and bullet remnants as a
result of the multitude of bullet damage that was clearly evident, in furniture, fixtures,
walls and especially from under the floor coverings?" This relatively confined area within
the café and gift shop should have in effect, acted like a "bullet trap". The Tasmania Police
training video provides proof-positive of this significant bullet damage.
That fragment was found in the body of Zoe Anne Hall, the woman shot The lower of
and killed in the white Corolla, at the entrance to the Port Arthur General 2x7.62mm bullet
Store. Two 308 calibre exit bullet holes were evident on the white Corolla, exit holes to the
both on the right hand side: one exited central panel on RH side of
in the RH side rear panel, well below sill- the white Corolla
height, while the other exited the pillar just to sedan at Port
the rear the driver's side window frame. So Arthur Store
regarding the Norinco projectiles; of the 45 or more shots fired
inside the Broad Arrow Café alone, it can be said fragments must
have been spread all over the immediate area and beyond and even
the other two crime scenes where they were expended. Likewise
The uppermost of two here no bullet material was collected that would surrender any
7.62mm exit bullet damage substantial or conclusive forensic evidence. So I contend that the
on white Corolla ammunition choice of Norinco was not the coincidental purchase of
an intellectually impaired Martin Bryant as Crown Prosecutor Damien Bugg QC and others would
have us believe. Along with the entirely professional selective execution of people inside the
Café the ammunition was chosen after consideration and firsthand knowledge by professional
killers.
Interestingly, in articles published in the rash of articles that have appeared in newspapers and
magazines beginning around 29 March 2006, one sensational writer even made the outrageous
claim that when the gunman exited the front door of the Broad Arrow Café he "began firing at
those now fleeing, with bullets designed to piece steel." 3
End Notes
1
David Smart, "RHH Emergency & Medical Management of Port Arthur Victims, EMA Papers, p.53
2
Gerard Dutton, "Ballistic Evidence," APJ, at p.216
3
Robert Wainwright, "Remembering Port Arthur", SMH magazine, goodweekend, 1apr06, p.24
Chapter 10
T
here is but one reason to explain why the alleged two primary firearms were damaged.
The other firearms are really incidental: those described as a “cache” of firearms
discovered by police in the burnt-out ruins. These firearms were nothing more than props
or padding, for effect. The "cache" of firearms was there to emphasise a perverted public
perception of ‘more guns’ in any situation, equates automatically to “MUCH more danger”. To
such simpletons inanimate objects have abilities beyond our imaginations.
No it was just that the alleged primary firearms had to be damaged. Ask yourself, “How could
it possibly have advantaged the gunman to damage the firearms allegedly the weapons used in
34 of his murders? Discard and conceal, but just damage them? After all, surely there was
heaps of collectable empirical evidence remaining at the seven crimes scenes? Anyway most
people believed (wrongly as it turns out) there were hundreds of eyewitnesses who could
positively ID the gunman as Martin Bryant, propagandas that ranks in this case as a major con.
What if the two primary firearms, were not the same weapons
used, at any of the crime scenes? After all one primary firearm
auditioned and cast to play its part – was “unwell”- laid up in the
repair rack at Terry Hill’s Guns and Ammo shop. Would it not
then be imperative for the schemers and operatives to destroy the
forensic and ballistic integrity of all “throw-down” evidence?
Otherwise the deception would be easily exposed – especially if
the accused were to have had a trial by jury. For the very same
reasons the SOG Sergeant had to burn the BMW and torch the
Sgt Gerard Dutton displays
Cottage so why not the same criminal minds compelled to
the carefully damaged Colt
carefully destroy the ballistic and forensic integrity of the
AR15 SP-1 firearms – carefully – and ensure they were left behind; not totally
destroyed you understand.
But Sgt Dutton showed them off for the media. But when one examines the police firearm
forensic examiner’s photograph of the Colt AR15 Carbine, lying there among the ashes of
Seascape as was published in the December 1998 APJ at p.218, several important details are
revealed:
• Combusted material protrudes from beneath the firearm.
• The firearm has a straight, 20 shot capacity magazine in battery.
• The magazine floor-plate appears to be blown-out to one
side and
• Surprisingly, the very inflammable Uncle Mike's nylon sling
with its equally flammable padding is only partially
combusted.
Sgt Gerard Dutton was the Tasmania Police’s Forensic Firearm The deliberately blown-up
Examiner, and when he examined the Colt AR15 Carbine after Colt carefully subjected to
retrieval, his report in the APJ explains the firearm exhibited the fire: forensically & ballistic
hallmarks, symptomatic of an abnormal, uncontrolled, chemical ally sterile
reaction contained within the cartridge case, which remained there in the breach; it was
blown-up.
But, Sgt Gerard Dutton concludes, "What an interesting end result to the examination of the
Colt rifle! As a faulty cartridge was responsible for jamming the AR15 and preventing
further discharge." I shall demonstrate how Sergeant Dutton's "interesting end result," and
conclusions as to a "faulty cartridge" caused the blow-up are in reality quite flawed, and I will
do so, in spite of today's Police Commissioner Richard
McCreadie, who when obviously referring to Mr Dutton,
recently enthusiastically proclaimed, "We have the best
ballistics expert in the nation – there's no doubt about it." 1
Dutton had previously firmly established his credentials in the NSW Police Service's Forensic
Ballistic Section, because of his success with two important cases; the Victor Chang murder,
and later with Snr Const Andrew Grosse as part of Task Force Air and after a lengthy
investigation in presenting forensic evidence, critical to the successful prosecution of Ivan
Robert Marko MILAT for the ‘Back-Packer murders’ in the Belanglo State Forest in the southern
highlands of NSW. As for the reason given by Dutton for his move to Australia’s southern most
island state he explains, "I was drawn to Tasmania for the lifestyle and cheaper housing."
However, some time after the Port Arthur Dutton massacre, he took part in a Group Study
Exchange to the South East of Florida (USA), and the Bahamas with Rotary International to
“sow the seeds of love,” as a guest speaker, and of course there he received his Distinguished
Member Award. But regarding his overseas trips, just how and when, were monies
appropriated, leave granted and permission given to facilitate his speaking on these matters of
criminal justice? I'm afraid I cannot tell you who signed-off on it all. 2
"Are there factors we are not informed of, which may have influenced the advice
'graciously' supplied that made that advice provided by Colt less than objective"?
I'm sure you find it curious to say the least, that by world standards, an insignificant
jurisdiction of Tasmania Police, should produce a rather low-ranking police sergeant who after
delivering an address to the assembly, is accorded such a rare, impressive, international award
from such a prestigious American organization as the Association of Firearm
and Tool Mark Examiners of the USA. You see I'm not overstating this
point; don't forget it was that very weekend in April 1996 that saw –
coincidentally of course – a reported 700 delegates from 17 countries
assembled in Hobart for the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers Association
conference (for more on the over zealous media see Chapter 3). 3 Bolt+round
But my curiosity is equally aroused by the fact that the more or less a
"brother" organization to the above prestigious group - The International A live 223 Rem
Wound Ballistic Association - was wound-up shortly after producing their round beside the
publication, Volume 3, No. 4, which featured the Port Arthur Shooting article rotary bolt from
prepared by Sergeant Gerard Dutton. Perhaps Port Arthur alone can produce a Colt AR15, less
infinitum significant, coincidental, happenings such as: extractor
•
The 700 PANPA media people in Hobart for the weekend,
•
The Airport disaster rehearsal completed just the previous weekend,
•
25 specialists among the 42 doctors from across Australia who'd barely concluded a
review of the ‘code brown disaster plan’ before the first shots rang-out, and
•
The 22 body mortuary ambulance – the only one of its kind in Australia,
•
A reported 463 trauma counsellors on-tap who spoke to 1000 survivors and family,
•
Aust. Army Engineers on tap to construct temporary seating at St Davids,
•
Military helicopters and crews who flew all night of the 28th - to name but a few.
I have neither the space nor the resources to pursue this particular line of inquiry in this small
publication, but I have at least established to my satisfaction back in February of 2004, that a
James F Taylor was indeed in 1996 employed as an engineer by the Colt Manufacturing Co. Inc,
Hartford, Connecticut. Unfortunately, I have been unable to make contact with him as he no
longer is in Colt's employ, although I would very much have liked to put a number of important
questions to him in an attempt to expose his conclusions to some public scrutiny, regarding
comments he purportedly made regarding the blow-up of the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine.
Equally it can be said, Gerard Dutton asked questions of Colt, that simply upon close
examination and by applied physics, he and his colleagues should have been able to answer
better on the spot and from out of his own department's resources. So let us now examine the
Colt carbine and determine how it came to be "extensively damaged."
As we mentioned earlier, police recovered the Colt AR15 in the periphery "ashes" of the
Seascape Cottage fire. Here it had been placed with considerable care. This is the cottage
incidentally, from out of which 14 hrs of random shooting at Police had occurred from more
than one gunman. Curiously, the DPP Mr Bugg, QC, would have us believe that after the Colt
AR15 blew-up, causing Martin Bryant to fly into a rage and destroy the FN FAL, and then along
with blown-up Colt Carbine, remove them both from inside of the cottage carefully placing the
Colt under the cottage at its periphery and with equal care but considerably more physical
effort, allegedly placed the FN FAL in the gutter of an out building well away from the main
cottage.
Apart from this scenario making little sense, importantly a cooperative Martin Bryant never did
corroborate Bugg's synopsis. On the contrary during police interrogation as well as in the
record of conversation with police negotiator Sgt Terry McCarthy, Martin Bryant destroys Mr
Bugg's summary of this segment entirely! In describing the demeanour of the gunman as being
consumed by "rage" leading directly to his actions that saw the FN FAL physically destroyed, is
entirely at odds with all of the sworn statements of the eye witness accounts of the gunman
throughout the entire incident, not to mention the negotiator tapes. Remember it is the DPP's
contention that Bryant wrecked, but then placed the FN FAL ever so carefully from outside of
the building, as opposed to it being discarded in one of the rooms, among other weapons later
recovered from inside the building, or having been thrown from a window or door-way, as
"Jamie" a.k.a. Martin, agreed was a good idea and indicated he would do. 4
So first let's look at what was recorded by Police at Seascape, regarding the destruction of the
firearms, and we lead into this plan, when Jamie tells McCarthy, "…I'm gonna actually have it
[the knife] next to the pilot's ribs." Then McCarthy, finding the conversation becoming quite
bizarre asks, "Can I take it that you won’t have any firearms with you then?" To which Jamie
replies matter-of-factly, "That's correct…they'll all be destroyed."
To which McCarthy in a tone of disbelief questions, "You're gonna destroy the firearms?" Not
much negotiating going on here, I might add. Rather the intended action or "outcome" is
emanating from inside Seascape. Jamie the alleged intellectually impaired young man seems
way ahead of Sergeant Terry McCarthy here! Or is it simply the "strategy" earlier conveyed by
the former SOG 'controller' to Jamie?
"Yes break them up," chimes in Jamie. But here the bizarre becomes the ridiculous. For
McCarthy leads Jamie by saying, "Okay. What are you going to do with them after you destroy
them. You going to throw them outside so that we know they're all outside before you go to
the aircraft or..."
Question here: "How did Police intend to determine ALL the firearms had been thrown outside?"
Are they psychic? No, but the controller had a strategy even although it is a little transparent.
Also, at this point in time, Jamie (the lone gunman), had obviously not experienced any horrific
blow-up with the Colt AR15. Again no rage at this point, so why later on? Continuing, we find
that shortly at p.54, Jamie tells Sergeant Terry McCarthy, "I'll toss them [firearms] out the
window on the right hand side…of the Seascape yeah house," and further he pinpoints this
window to be on the ground floor "right hand window". But that is not what occurred… Shortly
thereafter the phone goes dead after an interception by a person identified in the transcript as
"Inspector Gray" — so much for Police assurances of the Telecom land-line being a 'dedicated or
isolated land-line'… or was it the appointed stage for contact to cease?
So what can we make of all of this. Well in the transcript of their conversation Jamie
volunteers that at that point of proceedings the time was, "just after nine" or 2100hrs when
Jamie has told police the firearms are yet to be destroyed. But hang on! According to the
expert findings of Sergeant Gerard Dutton, the Colt AR15 - at least - blew-up "accidentally"!
Can you see the contradictions here?
Also why would a Police officer encourage a yet to be positively identified, supposed gunman
and murderer called "Jamie", to destroy vital evidence? Especially when we are told by the
Court Documents, "Jamie" a.k.a. Martin Bryant was the only shooter and firearms are after all
inanimate pieces of wood, (or plastic) and steel. If Jamie was to exit the premises with a
hostage and leave the firearms behind inside Seascape, how would they pose any danger
whatsoever to anyone including police? If abandoned, the firearms would definitely be of no
danger at all to anyone! Remember, as it turned out, the knife Jamie said he had, was at this
time lying quietly in the blue "Prince" sports bag the gunman had abandoned on the table in the
Broad Arrow Café another anomaly it would appear, but let us not be distracted at this point.
Let us now consider what I believe is the reality of what has occurred here. You must realise
that throughout this complicated psychopolitical exercise, the conspirators have made a
considerable number of colossal stuff-ups! For starters, we now can say with a degree of
confidence at least 4 and possibly 6 agent provocateurs were shot dead there that day.
Regarding the firearms, one of two firearms "cast" in the primary role as throw-down look-alike
(never actually to be used in the shootings) was absent without leave – sitting quietly in the
'for-repair-rack' of Terry Hill's Guns and Ammo shop.
While Martin Bryant willingly admitted owning a 223 Remington Colt AR15 Carbine, alleging
he'd obtained it from Guns and Ammo, he was according to the Hobart gunsmith Stuart Wood
allegedly still trying to obtain this model carbine on Tuesday 24 April, four days before the
massacre and the same day he had taken the Armalite AR-10, 7.62 NATO rifle into Terry Hill
leaving it for repair. Obviously Martin was really in a bind and because of his impaired
intellectual capacity, he was unable to resolve the situation; one of the three firearms he'd
been meant to contribute, cast to play the roles of primary throw-down firearms on 28-29
April at Seascape was "unavoidably detained" at Terry Hill's gunshop!
This was yet another major gaffe. Hence, while the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine brought to the
Peninsula that Sunday could be easily blown-up with the specially prepared hot round at the
appointed hour (possibly by the controller Rick or Mick), there had to be some fancy footwork
to physically destroy the "stand-in" .308" cal firearm later carefully placed the porch gutter of
an outbuilding for its 'curtain call' and appointment with the forensic firearm examiner's work
bench. You must understand this must have been a close call as the "G" Series FN FAL rifle was
the sole firearm detailed to match the calibre used in the shootings! So this unique model self
loading rifle was indeed the 'stand-in' that played-out the correct calibre role of the Armalite
AR10 7·62 NATO rifle, the actual weapon I firmly believe was used to wound Graeme Collyer in
the Broad Arrow Café, some of the subsequent shootings in: the bus park, the 4 murders at the
Port Arthur Tollbooth, the murder of Zoe Hall outside the General Store and the woundings
sustained among the 14 people targeted during the ambush on the Arthur Highway outside
Seascape. If the Seascape controller had not smashed-up the FN FAL rifle there would have
been no .308" cal rifle to recover from Seascape.
Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the content and unnamed source of accounts
published at the time in Who weekly, 'not distributed, on legal advice' in Tasmania, in which
the author Kate Halfpenny claimed, the gunman 'removed from a Prince tennis-racquet bag' an
'Ar-15 rifle and an SKS-46' and commenced his shooting in the Broad Arrow Café. 5
But approximately 1hr and 45 minutes later and at around 1900hrs (7.00p.m.), Michael
Cordwell an uncle of Martin Bryant's, called Police Headquarters and inquired if indeed his
nephew was involved in the Seascape siege. An Inspector informed Mr. Cordwell only that,
"…the person involved was known by the Christian name of Martin". Around 2000 hrs (8.00 pm)
Mrs. Carlene Bryant accompanied two Police Officers to Police HQ, but curiously, Mrs. Bryant
was not then asked to corroborate Michael Cordwell's earlier assessment of the tape-recorded
voice of "Jamie" as to being one and the same as Martin Bryant her son. While this attendance
by Carleen Bryant accompanied by Petra Wilmott, would have been the first opportunity for
police to obtain a photograph of the suspect, surprising at about 2030 hrs (8.30 pm), just 30
minutes later, senior police officers where somehow able to circulate a photograph of the
suspect among the SOG officers there!
Instead she is asked detailed questions concerning his overseas trips and particulars about
Martin's home at New Town. How at this early stage of their inquiries did police know of Martin
Bryant's frequent overseas trips? Indeed, how did police evaluate this knowledge as being of
such an urgent priority over and above establishing the positive identity of the alleged lone
gunman "Jamie" being one and the same person as that of Martin Bryant? It makes no sense.
Of course my question becomes irrelevant if Police had already alerted their negotiator Terry
McCarthy of the presence of another and therefore second unidentified gunman (the covert
controller) secreted away inside the cottage. Tasmania Police must have known another
gunman was present inside Seascape; Jamie used the name "Rick". This would go some way
to explain the police pretence of an urgent interest in Clare Street, and Martin's frequent
overseas trips, because I also have learned that the Tasmanian SOG's had been recently earlier
training for an expected "terrorist attack" that was supposed to occur 86km northwest from
Port Arthur at Richmond.
Although this information came from an impeccable source, I would have been less than
receptive to it, had not the agent provocateur Blair Frances Saville, in Risdon Prison – who
right out of the blue - asked the accused, Martin Bryant:
6
"Did you think of shooting up Richmond?"
So there we have an agent acting for Tasmania Police admitting to having foreknowledge of an
impeding terrorist attack in Southern Tasmania. The other question that then can be asked is
this; "Did the police information come from the same source as the earlier forecast
impending shooting massacre that emanated twice, from the lips of NCGC's spokesperson
Roland Browne?"
Further to this part of the siege, the DPP would have us believe that as a result of Jamie's
"Good idea", triggered by the Police's chief negotiator Terry McCarthy, that just two firearms
(and the two of them allegedly were used to murder at that stage, at least 33 persons and so
were crucial evidence in the Crown's case), from among a "considerable number of firearms"
also recovered and "badly effected by heat" from the ashes of Seascape, one was claimed by
police and the DPP to have been "blown-up" accidentally and yet the other one destroyed in
rage? But why did none of the other firearms receive similar treatment? This fact is in itself
quite illogical and inexplicable.
As I explained much earlier, the DPP tells us the FN FAL was destroyed in a rage, but if we are
to believe Jamie, then it was destroyed in good faith. I could forgive the reader if about now
you have become confused, but you are not confused are you? In reality some of the
establishment officials whose names appear in the various reports and court documents are
those who have attempted to confuse us! It becomes obvious to anyone studying this segment,
that what we are being shown here is a complicated EXERCISE vital facts of which some of the
powers-that-be want to conceal. Therefore is it any wonder that in his interview on Channel
9's ACA, the principal Police Negotiator Terry McCarthy was caused to conclude, that his
"bizarre" conversations with Martin Bryant in an imaginary world of "Jamie" seemed to him a
strange young man simply "acting out a role."
After all of this, the only two firearms that were destroyed were
also never thrown from any ground floor or upstairs window
either. Even stranger is the fact that at no time did police and
certainly Detectives Paine and Warren bother to ask Martin as
to what exactly occurred regarding the massive, alleged
"accidental blow-up" of the Colt and the alleged enraged
destruction of the FN FAL! Not one question! Police even
failed to ask how Martin was able to place both of these firearms
outside, unobserved! You surely must agree these anomalies are
Evidence: the 'throw-downs', a more than exceedingly curious, they expose the extent of the
Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine & "G" conspiracy that pervaded the entire exercise I believe.
Series FN-FAL on Sgt Dutton's
bench. 1. No other firearm among the cache recovered from the
ruins was said to exhibit any evidence of physical destruction.
2. No other ·308" calibre firearm was noted as having been among that cache of firearms
either.
5. The grip itself retains the safety plunger, spring and safety select lever. While the grip
was missing, "the safety plunger was still intact" - see APJ at pp. 221-222. This
confirms the AR15 was placed very carefully and not discarded in a rage either.
6. "The magazine fitted to the rifle was empty and all the internal components – the
follower, spring and floor plate – were missing" (see APJ at p.221). The Carbine's
magazine housing was quite distorted, and these parts were never recovered. Now the
photograph (APJ p.218) taken when the wrecked Colt AR15 was "first uncovered in the
ashes," with a straight 20 shot magazine in battery, and not its original 30 shot
magazine. Interestingly, the DPP used both a 20 and 30 shot magazine (see Court Doc.
p.76/19) in a very unconvincing way to calculate their version of the Café shot
sequence. Regarding the Colt magazine found in the Volvo, we're not told what
capacity that magazine was, but simply that it "contained 12 rounds". But what logic
can the court use to argue that such a professional gunman would revert to a smaller
capacity magazine, as the incident unfolded toward the Seascape siege?
7. The AR15's breach bolt was "seized" just back from the fully locked position with a fired
"cartridge case in the breech." - (see APJ at p.221)
8. Upon freeing the breech bolt assembly enough so as to move it to the rear, the fired
case was able to be removed, but was further damaged with, "…the extractor tearing a
large chunk of brass from the head and side of the cartridge case still in the chamber."
This I contend to be incorrect: The gaping hole in the area of the rim of the case occurred
at the moment the case exploded; the brass
being eroded by the jet of super heated and
expanding gas under extreme pressure.
While the mechanical condition of the AR15 Carbine when recovered cannot be said to be
common (apart from it being subjected to fire), I can state such a condition is not uncommon.
The cartridge in the Colt AR15 could not have been discharged unless the round was chambered
and the bolt fully locked in battery. Just as Taylor answers Dutton's query to the contrary
proposition; Taylor says, "the answer is no," so clearly he's saying the Colt could not have been
fired with a partially open bolt. - (see APJ at p.223)
Taylor is quite correct in his answer here, "the bolt had to be locked," or in battery, "at the
time of ignition" (see APJ at A2. p.223). The cartridge was discharged by the normal method of
the trigger being depressed. It did not "cook-off" either, as this would have left the chamber
empty, and hammer "cocked".
But! Why does he choose not to inform us of the hammer's registration, at the time the AR15
Carbine was recovered from the periphery of the guesthouse foundations? (see APJ at p.216)
Was the hammer cocked or in the fired attitude? This important question remains unanswered,
and had it been addressed by the ballistic firearm examiner we would have been able to
establish with more certainty as to the "cause" of the blow-up. So why was this important
question overlooked?
Obviously Sgt Gerard Dutton failed to note the
hammer's attitude when the firearm was
recovered. This was I believe an obviously grave
error. Colt's Mr. Taylor does not make any
comment on this important anomaly. Why? As
we shall learn shortly, a "cook-off" theory would
present Dutton with yet another dilemma.
Fig_iii_Norco223_head Norinco_head-stamp
In a normal firing sequence, when the hammer Norinco 223 Rem
Fig iii Comparison: strikes the firing pin, the pin compresses the factory head stamp:
Two of 3 head stamp primer cup, and by compressing an impact "C J 8" = “Norinco”, &
figures - J & 8 – are sensitive chemical impregnated disk against an year of manufacture
visible on the "blow-up" integral anvil, primary ignition occurs. An “1988”, identical to the
Norinco case (even the extremely hot, fast burning gaseous flame, Seascape round.
crimp signature is shoots into the propellant powder by way of the flash-hole/s, the
identical!) recovered by
propellant powder charge ignites and burns progressively. As the
Sgt Gerard Dutton.
nitrocellulose "powder" combusts, the chemical reaction rapidly
produces and enormous volume of oxygen which enhances the combustion process that in turn
produces rapidly expanding super-heated gases which reach a peak chamber pressure in a span
of just 2 milliseconds. This chemical reaction launches the projectile which in a matter of
from a few inches accelerates rapidly reaching its maximum velocity in approximately 28" of
forward travel, expressed as feet per second (fps).
Sergeant Dutton's (see above @ 7.) statement of, "the extractor was damaged with the claw
bent outwards to a point where it could not support the case head…" This statement locks him
into a contradiction (see APJ at p.222).
In the very next sentence he explains that when the bolt was freed so as to retrieve the,
"faulty cartridge" (see APJ at p.225), it resulted in, "the extractor literally tearing a large
chunk of brass from the case head and side of the cartridge case still in the chamber." Now
think about it: that is impossible.
The expert advice when closely studied in some areas could be said to be imprecise, as a
consequence of which it goes some way to blur the conclusions reached. By introducing into
his determination some mystery batch of dangerous ammunition jetting around the world from
dealer to dealer, is I believe at best unprofessional, but at worst a misleading speculation. If
this expert had specified the ammunition's head stamp, and the precise nature of the
ammunition's defect - which he chooses not to do - his evidence could have been demonstrated
as significant even worthy of consideration. However, ammunition, like the rifles that consume
it have identifying markings that could have conclusively — right there — nipped this conjecture
in the bud! There on the failed case (see APJ at p.219) is the head stamp "J" and the numeral
"8". After considerable investigation, I can say with confidence that the original head stamp
was "C J 8" simply indicating the round was manufactured by Norinco in 1988. (see below)
The Police supposedly checked and test-fired other rounds from this same, claimed "faulty
ammunition". They also deloused some rounds that survived, and chronographed an
indeterminate number. No mention is made of any "faults" in those which they tested.
Curiously they also make no mentioned of harbouring any fear of triggering another blow-up
either.
Neither Gerard Dutton or indeed the DPP give any reason why the live rounds recovered and
tested were not identified by their head stamp, not even any of the 12 rounds recovered from
the Volvo (see Court Doc. p.169/1).
In the WBR Sergeant Dutton tells us both ·223" and ·308" calibre ammunition was deloused for
inspection and also chronographed, but he does not indicate the head stamp or from what
source the cartridges came. There was as Mr. Perks tells us (p.189/25 Court Doc), "a large
quantity of three-o-eight calibre and point two-two-three calibre ammunition," at Clare Street,
but he chooses once again not to inform us if this ammunition carried a head-stamp, brand
name etc., common with that of cases recovered from any of the crime scenes. I've also
learned from a very reliable source that this large quantity of ammunition adjudged by these
experts to be dangerously "faulty" later found its way back into the commercial firearms
trade: a rather curious situation you'd have to agree!
So what did happen to cause such catastrophic damage to the Colt? It really is not so very
difficult to determine. I have concluded that a person or persons unknown, very
knowledgeable in ballistics and/or small arms munitions who had opportunity, motive and with
access to:—
• a ·22" calibre bullet-puller – to remove undamaged a factory seated projectile,
• a quantity of pistol or shot gun powder – having a very fast burning rate, and
• a ·223Rem seating die (preferably with crimp),
Then deliberately and wilfully prepared a demolition reloaded cartridge, discharged the
doctored round in the AR-15 Carbine, so as to pervert the course of justice.
There is yet another possible explanation for such an event that should at least be ruled out
here. During the Vietnam War it was not uncommon for Australian and US military personnel
whilst active in the field, to carry in their kit a handy explosive called C-4. Although meant for
other purposes, it was not uncommon after a successful ambush of enemy forces, for at least
one of the AK-47 or SKS carbines left behind by the enemy, to be booby-trapped. A live
7·62x39 round was deloused by carefully removing the projectile along with the propellant
powder. The powder was then replaced with a full case of C-4, the projectile was re-seated
and the neck re-crimped. The demolition round was then either placed in the magazine, or
chambered and the weapon which was left cocked. When some unsuspecting enemy later
retrieved the firearm and summarily cleared the weapon by firing it, the person either suffered
severe wounds at least or was killed outright by the resultant explosion.
But the Seascape AR15 was not subjected to this method of destruction, as the damage was not
consistent with such a catastrophic event. Though such a scenario must be considered, but at
the time was certainly easily eliminated as even a remote possibility, by forensic chemical
tests upon the weapon by Police to determine what chemical residues were
present in the case, chamber and action, but like the Broad Arrow Café we
are told "…physical examination only" were deployed, as "No chemical
tests were carried out…" and were never planned to be carried out. - (see
APJ Dec 1998, p.217) Fig_ii_blowup
This blast of hot gas possibly even stripped the pistol grip from off its mounting screw, a not
uncommon result in such a ruinous detonation. I have seen such an event erode and consume
entirely that section of the case head which is unsupported over the extractor slot, such as
occurs with a steel fabricator's plasma cutter, and you can see this effect in the photograph of
the "mimic" blow up of the L579 SAKO in 22/250 calibre, see at right.
But it really staggers me that ballistic experts, who carried out this obviously important task in
the investigation, failed to reach a plausible finding. One could be forgiven surely for
concluding a simple and logical determination was at odds with that which the authorities had
determined the Court should hear as "fact," and never tested by Mr. Avery, Martin Bryant's
defence council. Sergeant Dutton went to quite extraordinary lengths to rebuild the damaged
Colt — like the Phoenix bird out of the ashes. But what was this futile endeavour supposed to
achieve? I'm firmly of the belief these actions only expanded the blurred evidence.
Why was an AR15 Carbine in pristine condition given television exposure, instead of the "blown-
up" carbine in the same condition at the time it was recovered at Seascape? Importantly, was
the specimen exhibited by Police on television one and the same as the Seascape specimen?
Would it be too far-fetched to suggest this could have been a "buddy" AR15 Carbine to those
that passed through the hands of the Victorian Police Firearms Registry, "firearms surrendered
during amnesty [that] were meant to have been destroyed"? 7
A provincial newspaper informs us, "two unnamed senior police officers were quoted as
saying the AR15 … allegedly used in the Port Arthur massacre was surrendered to a police
station at Bayswater in suburban Melbourne in 1987, during a gun amnesty called after
Julian Knight shot dead seven people in Hoddle Street." 8
A later article below does little to clear up any ambiguity in the matter, especially with regard
to the movement records toward the end-users, but in reality it raises more questions than it
answers, telling us the total number of firearms in the shipment was in fact a much higher than
earlier claimed, and possibly included various types, makes and calibres…
So when these newspaper reports are carefully considered on this most important matter, we
are informed on the one hand specifically seventeen (17) Colt AR15 firearms only, were
reported as sold to the Bendigo arms dealer, while it appears from a local newspaper in the
city of Bendigo the shipment consisted of a total of 56 high-powered military style firearms.
This latest revelation of a further 39 unspecified firearms included in the sale shipment to the
Bendigo dealer, immediately raises further unresolved questions, (there were 45 firearms
recovered at Seascape).
In an earlier print run of this work, I'd written that a Melbourne newspaper had reported
Victoria Police as selling 17 banned Colt AR15 firearms, previously surrendered to them in an
amnesty, to a Bendigo arms dealer, who paid somewhere near $40,000 for the shipment. The
article stated the sale of the firearms was conditional to them being "sold overseas," a claim
which when repeated by me produced an angry reaction from Mr. Garnet Featherstone, with
him steadfastly denying directly to this author that any such requirement was stipulated by the
vendor. Mr Featherstone phoned me on 13 September 2002 expressing outrage as to any
suggestion that he acted improperly concerning this firearms deal; entirely understandable
given the circumstances. Featherstone repudiated any claim of being subject to any
restrictions having been placed on him, other than those dictated by the firearms laws in place
at the time. However he declined my invitation to explain the movements of the shipment of
AR15's in question and would not provide any details as to the end-user/s, or the state in which
the purchasers resided. But this important part of the story only ever seems to become more
fragmented and contradictory the deeper one looks.
As a retired firearms dealer myself and once even a trade customer of Granite Arms, Mr
Featherstone's trading name, I do hold some sympathy for his situation. However in rejecting
my proposition to clear-up the matter leaves him in a circumstance where the public are only
apt to speculate; that is his choice. Although I'm loath to conjecture, in this instance I have
what I may call a "gut feeling" that if Mr Featherstone were to allow us to peruse his firearm
register, the firearm in question would not number among those he traded. Regarding the Port
Arthur Colt AR15 carbine though, I'm firmly of the belief this firearm had already been removed
altogether from general circulation and so did not number among the 56 firearms I have since
learned constituted the total shipment in the Bendigo deal.
But the above article from the Bendigo Advertiser prompt me then to ponder; “Was the quite
rare "G" series FN-FAL 7.62Nato self-loading rifle, bearing the serial number G3434,
reintroduced into private ownership via the same conduit as did the unspecified "56 high-
powered military style firearms" sold to the Bendigo arms dealer by the Victoria Police
sometime after 1987?”
Before Port Arthur, Victoria Police had a system as about as “unsinkable” as the Titanic, and
when it struck Bill Drysdale's “iceberg”, the system was exposed as having loopholes you could
drive a B-double-semi through! Like the builders of some claimed fail-safe systems,
Commissioner Sinclair defended Victoria Police's “system” resolutely for as long as the
controversy raged in the newspapers – then the media and firearm owners allowed it to die. I
cannot understand why Victoria’s firearm owners allowed the police off the hook, although as
to how this occurred, well as the principal body of the so-called 'powerful gun lobby' SSAA, did
no more than their usual powder-puff protest.
Mr Drysdale told the Sunday Herald Sun, a mark on the barrel of the Port Arthur weapon,
described to him by Inspector Maxwell, matched a mark on the rifle he’d surrendered that had
been 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'. Drysdale was
reportedly adamant the firearm in question, was previously owned by him, and surrendered by
him to Victoria Police in February of 1993 for which he was paid around $1700 in
compensation. 9
In the prevailing financial climate under which Victorian Police were forced to operate at the
time, during the tenure of the Kennett Government, it required of them to be shall we say,
resourceful? As is addressed by Noel McDonald in his excellent book on the subject, the
Victoria Special Operations Group (SOG) sold-off a shipment of firearms, among them, some 17
Colt AR15's, to a Bendigo firearms dealer. For the entire shipment of some 56 firearms in all,
they reportedly received almost $40,000 or around $714 average, for each firearm.
Now while Mr Drysdale surrendered his AR15 to Victoria Police in February 1993 and apparently
was assured it would be sent overseas and used for 'military purposes', this assurance has been
proven hollow, as police later claimed their records show this particular firearm was destroyed
on 9 March, 1994, a claim that since has been proven to be incorrect.
So, with "56 banned firearms…sold back into general circulation," do any of the identifying
details entered into the Bendigo Arms Dealer's firearm register, match with those of the
various other firearms recovered by police from the burnt-out ruin of the Seascape cottage
around April 29-30 of 1996? Does this go some way to explaining why Sergeant Dutton was
reluctant to document the movement of any of the firearms that were in Seascape or even the
three primary firearms? Does it explain why this author came under pressure immediately one
of those caught-up in this situation read of my concerns in print?
We are aware that Insp. Maxwell of Tasmania Police visited the mainland to inquire into the
matter, and that he met with Mr. Drysdale on Friday, 21 June 1996, and was reported to have
been, "ordered by them not to talk to reporters." Insp. Maxwell surely must have met with
Officers of the Victoria Police firearms registry on that trip, but I wonder if he also visited
Victoria's substantial provincial city of Bendigo as well? 10
The Deputy Commissioner of Victoria Police, Graham Sinclair was quoted as saying, "It's
difficult for the force's data to be 100 per cent accurate …," I would suggest an understatement
in light of the same newspaper's report which states that a quiet thorough "…investigation
found police had failed to record in the police firearms database the serial numbers of the
weapons they sold…"
As a consequence, a simple public disclosure at the time by the Victoria Police Commissioner
via his superior the Minister for Police, Bill McGrath, together with a limited examination of
dealer's firearms registry entries and Gerard Dutton's records could have eliminated once and
for all the controversy that has deliberately been allowed to remain unresolved regarding the
origin and movement of the burnt and damaged firearms recovered from the ruins of Seascape
Cottage. This author has been unsuccessful in even obtaining a response to inquiries to obtain
a copy of the reported commissioner's "full report" into the matter as ordered by the then
Minister for Victoria Police, Bill McGrath. 11
But if there is one consistency in this story, it’s the inconsistency of statements reported in the
press by all of those who should know exactly what occurred! From the pages of the Geelong
Advertiser, it seems Commissioner Sinclair's admitted inaccurate record keeping, suddenly
almost self-repaired, and causing more confusion when he was reported to have explained:
'One of the weapons was sold privately in Victoria to an approved purchaser, and four
others were sold to a gun dealer in Victoria. Of those four, three have been sold to
approved buyers who live in Victoria. The remaining weapons were sold outside Victoria
to a gun dealer in Queensland and South Australia.'
You will note Mr Sinclair quite deliberately chooses not to disclose the number of these
"remaining weapons", nor how many were sold to the alleged dealers in South Australia and
Queensland, nor where this unknown number of "remaining firearms" and the make and serial
numbers of them ended up! Really, it's as clear as mud!
This aspect alone of the movement history of the Colt AR15 SP-1 surely raises some very
awkward questions and so I ask you to consider these following points: —
• All of the published and available reports attributed to the Victorian Police Firearms
Registry, other serving police, the then Commissioner and the Minister responsible
shows a litany of claims that in many instances contradict one another. As a
consequence, the matter has to date never been resolved satisfactorily.
• Recent ongoing reports from many reputable sources, including serving Victoria Police
themselves, detailing widespread imbedded corruption at the highest levels of the
force, which has lead in recent days to just one of a multitude of incidents being
addressed. This deplorable situation obviously did not come about over recent times,
but developed far back into the period we are dealing with here.
Although Mr. Bracks has avoided establishing a Royal Commission like the plague, "Australia's
best known anti-corruption investigator, Tony Fitzgerald, QC, has been called in to
conduct a key inquiry into corruption in the Victoria Police." 12
• The veracity of the claim attributed to Deputy Commissioner Sinclair saying, "Our
records show that it [Mr Drysdale's Colt AR-15] was destroyed in April 1994," is
completely shattered if the Geelong Advertiser faithfully reported his other published
claim regarding "ballistic tests".
• Was Mr. Drysdale's firearm destroyed? Considering the above narrative, how could the
gun have possibly been destroyed? This author has not seen an iota of convincing
evidence to support the notion.
• It becomes evident the knowledge of a future "need" or "role" for this firearm, by
person or persons unknown, must have arisen either prior to or at the time the (false)
entry was made in the Victorian Police's Firearm Registry or data base, if indeed any
entry now exists. Is it not then fair to say, ‘the perpetrator had to have motive and
opportunity to falsify the record and having motive, a foreknowledge of a role the Colt
AR15 was to fulfil’? Does this not constitute proof of yet another conspiracy? What
other explanation is there? Why has no one been asked to explain under oath what
really occurred in this instance?
• It has been claimed a "ballistic test" conducted by Police eliminated Mr. Drysdale's AR15
as being one-and-the-same as the "blown-up" Colt carbine recovered at Seascape. How
on earth could ballistic police - even "the best ballistic expert in the nation" – conduct
a ballistic test on Mr Drysdale's Colt AR-15 Carbine, when it was supposedly destroyed
by Simms Metals, more than two years earlier? For remember, senior Victoria Police
claim their records show Mr. Drysdale's AR15 was officially "destroyed" as early as 9
March 1994. How is it that the entire general public have accepted such a blatant
deception!?
Returning now to the Tasmania Police's ballistic examination of the Seascape recovered blown-
up Colt AR15. Nowhere can I find mention in any of the reports that the examiners made a
Cerrosafe cast of the chamber, to measure its dimensions so as to compare them with a
standard chamber, thus determining the extent or severity of the chemical reaction that
occurred. Neither can I find mention of them slugging the barrel.
To preserve all possible remaining evidence, and gather important information, a Cerrosafe
cast could have been made of the chamber, and its dimensions carefully measured with
micrometer. Also a slug swaged through the barrel, miked and both subjected to microscopy;
then with this evidence preserved, the weapon could have been rebuilt if those preliminary
findings so demanded.
I should also note here, that because the rifle experienced this "blow-up" it would have
achieved little if the Ballistic Police had attempted subjecting the Colt AR-15 to any projectile
striation matching, as not only did they not have a pristine bullet recovered from any of the
victims, but the barrel signature would have been so severely altered due to the horrendous
event itself, hence results would have been inconclusive.
It would be an exceedingly rare occurrence for any factory loaded cartridge to ever mimic the
horrendous chamber pressures exhibited in the photographs of the deformed ·223 Rem case at
p.210 of the APJ article. Let me explain.
Manufacturers, ever conscious of the many factors that impact upon their ammunition being
used in firearms of varying mechanical condition, in environments totally outside of their
influence or control, and by shooters of all abilities and intellect, only ever load each different
cartridge combination with powders that entirely or almost entirely fill the case; this
eliminates the possibility of overloads and/or double loads entirely.
Now, suppose a round had misfired, and the hammer blow via the firing pin, had driven the
unfired round just far enough into the chamber for the projectile to become stuck in the lands
at the throat. When the round was extracted manually, the projectile may have been left
lodged there in the throat, with a following live round inadvertently chambered and fired. A
huge overload condition would have occurred! Effectively, 110 grains of projectile would have
been subject to the original powder charge. However the following facts tell me this did not
occur.
1. The neck of the case is "crimped" into the projectile's cannelure to prevent this very
scenario occurring in Norinco factory loaded ammunition and this case appeared at first
to have been originally crimped. But upon a second closer examination of the
photograph it appears it could possibly display a slight variance to a factory original
crimp. Mr. Dutton does not tell us if he eliminated that possibility either, by inspecting
other fired cases from the Broad Arrow Café for instance.
In the case of a barrel obstruction, unless the obstruction was in the form of a projectile as
described in the foregoing (i.e. stuck in the throat) the barrel would exhibit a bulge at some
point between throat and muzzle, so that possibility is ruled out also. Even hard chrome
barrels subjected to such an event while okay to the eye, will when slugged show-up the tell-
tail slight bulge signature.
However, when the projectile is carefully pulled from a cartridge, the powder removed and
discarded, the case re-filled with a fast burning pistol type powder, the projectile re-seated
and crimped, it only remains that the round be fired in the chamber for it to detonate and
destroy much of the rifle. In fact the enormous volume of rapidly expanding gas produced by
such a detonation will forge an exit by the path which offers the least resistance. That is
simple physics. A quite ingenious method by which evidence was destroyed in this case, don't
you think?
I could if asked easily reproduce and mimic identical physical damage as found in the Seascape
AR15 carbine, and almost probably at the first attempt.
The cartridge case Dutton found stuck in the chamber, exhibited head deformation with the
brass consumed in the area where the case-head is unsupported over the extractor groove in
the face of the bolt head. Case-head brass was also extruded rearwards into the ejector way;
the case's flash hole has obviously been eroded enormously by the jet blast of super-hot gas,
from its normal ·078-·080" diameter to something in the order of ·125" in my estimation.
Likewise, the primer pocket, which normally is ·175" in diameter, would have been expanded
to in excess of ·202", or 15 per cent in my estimation. I would also suggest that the overall
maximum length of the case would have been stretched from the normal 1·760" by at least 10
per cent to around 1.936". The case's head stamp has almost been obliterated by the crushing
compression force against the bolt face. Mr. Dutton also does not mention the fact, but I
suspect, the locking lugs of the breach bolt would certainly have been set-back by at least
·015-·020", producing excess head space which contributed to the massive case failure. This
set-back would have been a second witness too the bolt being in the battery position when
it was fired. No mention is made of bolt lug setback in his articles. When the case head
extruded into the ejector way, (see the oval knob-like protuberance of brass material on the
case head in photo APJ p.219), it would have crushed the ejector spring.
Now we must in all fairness consider one other very remote possibility that just this one round
for some reason happened to be a hand load cartridge as opposed to a factory load. This would
introduce an uncommon but still possible condition of the case being incorrectly "sized" by
incorrect die setting or die setting for even another firearm entirely when the round was
loaded. This would produce say ·010" excess head space. In such circumstances the following
would occur:—
When the firing pin strikes the primer, the kinetic energy shunts the cartridge forward into the
chamber until it binds at some forward point, enabling primary ignition to occur. The primer
cup then "pops" or backs-out of the pocket upon primary ignition and the chamber pressures
begin to rise as the powder ignites and burns. Momentarily the case "hangs-up" as the case wall
expands against the chamber and so fill-out to the different chamber shape. Then, as the
pressure builds, it remains "hung-up" at the front or neck section of the case, while the base is
driven by pressure rearwards, stretching the case until it slams into the bolt face, thus
flattening the primer back into the pocket and filling its chamfered mouth in a very
recognizable and distinctive attitude. At most, this would cause the case wall to separate just
forward of the case's base and extractor groove upon extraction, leaving the forward part of
the case in the chamber, thus preventing another round from being chambered and fired. If
the brass was faulty and just short of full case separation this is easily detectable by dissecting
the case; a telltale thin section of the case would be exposed just forward of the head's
extractor grove and primer pocket would be expanded. So it can be said, definitely no such
event occurred.
In relation to the damaged Colt AR15 SP-1 carbine S/Nº SP128807, I can conclude that a person
or persons unknown interfered with just one cartridge, knowingly converting it to a demolition-
round resulting in irreparable damage to the firearm, the evidence of which was further
blurred by the house fire. I believe I'm not being overly critical to suggest the forensic
examination was further exacerbated by various actions within the examination procedure,
which caused Mr Dutton to reach a wrong conclusion, a situation incidentally, which was
ignored and then reinforced by the DPP, and his American award. I would not suggest Sergeant
Gerard Dutton knowingly contributed to this situation, as I believe he has exhibited on at least
several occasions a high degree of honesty and integrity in conclusions he clearly enunciated. I
do believe though that the "expert" advice he received was at least unhelpful. I can only
conclude with regard to the court, that it was subjected to such a cacophony of ambiguous
"facts" because the reality of events conflicted with the verdict the justice system, politics and
the global “gun control” network demanded.
End Notes
1
Sgt Gerard Dutton, APJ, December 1998, p.225; Barbara Pondgratz & Judy Tierney; "Richard McCreadie
– The man behind the uniform", ABC-TVs Stateline, 22aug03.
2
Rae Walsh, "Ballistics expert hits an international mark," The Mercury – n.d.; Ellen Whinnett, "Crime
Under the Microscope," Saturday Mercury 17jun00, pp.34-35; Sgt Gerard Dutton, "Ballistic Evidence,"
APJ, p.222; GCE Team History 19feb03 at:- http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/rotary/gsehis.htm .
3
By-line, "Newspapers proved relevant, publishers told," The Mercury, 2may96, p.3.
4
Court Document, at pp.52-53.
5
Kate Halfpenny, "The Suspect", WHO weekly, 13may95, p.24
6
Statement made by Blair Frances Saville, from conversation with Martin Bryant in Risdon Prison, 1645
hrs, 3aug96.
7
Bendigo Advertiser, "Weapon claims flout law: Drane", 10jun96.
8
ibid inf
9
Phil Maguire, "'The gun may be mine'", Herald Sun, 23jun96, p.3
10
Bendigo Advertiser, "Weapons claims flout Law: Drane" 10jun96; Phil Maguire, "'The gun may be
mine'", Herald Sun, 23jun96, p.3.
11
Wayne Jones, Herald Sun, 16jun96, pp.1&4.
12
Richard Baker, "Top corruption fighter called in", The Age, 2jun04.
CHAPTER 11
T
he FN FAL or in the French, Fabrique Nationale Fusil Automatique Leger was invented by
the engineer, Dieundoune Saive and first produced in 1950 by Fabrique Nationale d'Arms
de Guerre in Liége, Belgium. Of course Germany produced semi-automatic rifles, the G41
around 1942, and the superb G43 from around 1943, which saw much service during WW-II, but
the FN FAL was the first post-war true self loading (semi-automatic) military rifle produced in
Belgium and it was adopted immediately by Britain and all of her Commonwealth countries.
The FN FAL was preceded by another rifle out of Dieundoune Saive's early experiments with
various firearm designs in the 1930's. In 1936-37 he patented his prototypes only to have this
work interrupted when Germany occupied the FN factory in May 1940. Escaping to England he
recommenced his work, which resulted in the Fabrique Nationale Model 1949 (above), better
known to firearm collectors today as the FN-49. In England nicknamed the "SLEM" or "Self-
Loading Experimental Model", the first order for 2000 rifles for field trials by British troops in
the war was only cancelled when it became obvious the end of hostilities was imminent. The
FN-49 was supplied on nine individual contracts in various calibers totaling around 1200
firearms in all upon its launch from Liége in 1947. Although this rifle did not feature in the
Port Arthur incident, it nevertheless was there in the sights of the "gun control" disarmament
schemers; a self-loading military firearm.
Now to the FN FAL: Originally designed for the 7·92mm Kurz round, the FN FAL was soon
adapted for the new calibre, the 7·62x51mm adopted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) created at the conclusion of WW-II. The new calibre was already known in America as
the "308 Winchester" (308W) but in this rifle it was designated "7.62
NATO". The FN FAL-IPW (infantry personal weapon), is a rifle of air-
cooled self-loading design, having a gas cylinder in which a piston is
moved, positioned above the barrel. The gas generated by the
combustion of the cartridge propellant is metered through a manual
gas regulator control into this cylinder. After the piston delivers its
power stroke rearward to cycle the action, it is returned to its forward
position after each shot by an independent return spring in the butt.
From the PTV tape, Sgt
Gerard Dutton briefly
When the magazine ammunition is expended, a hold-open device
describes the FN FAL: no
retains the bolt and its carrier in an open position to allow for
mention of the uniqueness
magazine recharge, and subsequent return to a loaded condition. The
of the "G" series variant
Port Arthur rifle, a "G" series FN FAL Serial #G3434, which is subject of our investigation, has a
high rear aperture sight graduated from 180-550 metres in metre increments, and a round post
adjustable foresight protected by look-alike SMLE ears. The magazine is a straight,
detachable, pressed metal box type with a capacity of 20 rounds; the imperial pattern model
magazine will not interchange with the metric pattern rifle.
NATO adopted the FN FAL in 1953 chambered for the 7.62x51 mm "T65" cartridge along with
thirty-six treaty
countries following suit,
many of whom
manufactured the FN
under licence, some
calling it the "FN
Browning" and
Identical to the rare "G" Series FN FAL 7.62 NATO self-loading rifle
designated the "T48".
recovered by police, damaged, at Seascape: it was a never-used Throwdown
Some 90 countries used
the rifle over the next 50 years, and it was manufactured in eleven countries including,
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, England, India, Israel, Libya, Peru, Singapore, the USA, and of
course in the Lithgow Small Arms Factory (now closed) in Australia.
Via Britain and incorporating their own design modifications and designated the “X8E1” and
“X8E2”, the Commonwealth of Australia imported five "G" series (metric pattern) FN FAL rifles
for trial. Those serial numbers are listed as follows: #50, #G79, #G80, #G83 and #G84.
I should emphasise here, all SAFL & ADI (Lithgow-Australia) manufactured FN SLR ·308 cal
rifles have serial numbers prefixed with the letters "AD" followed by six numerals.
The "G" prefix on the rifle subject to our investigation as
was retrieved from the roof gutter at Seascape indicates
conclusively it was of Fabrique Nationale, Liége
manufacture and therefore made on the metric pattern.
At that time, the then director of the ATT, Dwight D. Avis, determined that the FAL did not
contravene Section 5848 of the National Firearms Act (USA), and so Browning, relying on that
determination, began exporting to America further shipments of the FAL "for sale to American
collectors" and civilian end-users.
From the pages of the October, 1962 edition of the official organ of the NRA, the American
Rifleman, (and today still a popular magazine), is advertised for the sum of USD$180 what they
classed as the standard NATO Military Rifle, which in fact is the FN FAL.
By January of 1963, and over a 39 month period 1,815 of these rifles were shipped into America, and
I suspect many were destined for the sporting market. The company that facilitated these
imports into the USA for civilian use was none other than the company founded by John M.
Browning — the Browning Arms Company (BAC). In addition to those rifles for civilian end
users, The United States Government imported a total of 3,303 FN FAL rifles for government
trials, but my research tells me the highest numbered "G" series rifle imported by the USA is
listed as Ser. No G3134 — just a neat 300 below the Seascape FN FAL.
It was in the early months of 1963, that the ATT became apprehensive as to the ease with
which some military type firearms could be modified to cycle as machineguns. Although
expressing some concerns, the ATT, assured Browning that the FAL's imported before the April
3 1963 determination, were considered "legal" and so that appeared to be the end of the
matter.
To assist in the 1963 ATT determination, BAC supplied ATT a rifle for testing, and recorded as
Ser. No G3084, just 350 away from the Port Arthur rifle. Despite the ATT's 1963 determination
though, all was not to go well for American licensed dealers it seems.
Our search now takes us to America's rugged Pacific North West, to Seattle a city of 520,000 in
Washington State. Here in February of 1968, despite ATT's previous 1963 determination regarding
imported FAL's, the US Federal Government indicted one James E. Jacques, a Seattle firearms
dealer, for "possession of unregistered machine guns". Jacques had five FN FAL's on his inventory and
in the Court documents of this case, United States v Jacques, in which incidentally the charges were
eventually dismissed, one rifle is of interest to us, which bears the Serial No G3357 and even closer
than the rifle previously mentioned above and just 77 away from the Seascape specimen. Here our
search narrows just a tad more. In an article by James O. Bardwell in The Small Arms Review, Vol 4
No. 4 of January 2001, at p.63, the author states this last rifle ‘came via Canada’.
An important fact that cannot be denied with regard to the FN FAL bearing the Ser.No G3434
retrieved at Seascape is this: being a "G" series variant, we know it was manufactured in the
metric pattern and so it follows that parts for this rifle are not interchangeable with those of
an Australian manufactured SLR, all of which are manufactured on the inch pattern, excepting
the flash suppressor. Even a magazine to suit the L1A1 will not fit or operate in the rifle
recovered at Seascape.
One is then caused to ask, "Who supplied Sergeant Gerard Dutton with a metric pattern FAL rifle
from which he was able to cannibalise metric pattern parts, and so facilitate his repair,
rebuild and test firing, of the badly damaged Seascape FN FAL #G3434 ?"
We do know this much: The NSW Police Service ran many advertisements in various newspapers
during the period of Howard's obnoxious "gun-buyback" scheme. In the Sunday Telegraph, February
23rd, 1997 at Page 39 the FN FAL was
obviously seen as a prize by the "gun control"
disarmament regime: NSW Police Service ran
a large advertisement which features an ADI
inch pattern L1A1 clearly recognisable as
such, by the flash suppressor indexing nut,
front sling swivel location, two holes in the
forend pistol grip and even down to the sand-
cuts on the bolt; all distinguishing features of
the Australian SLR variant. This particular SLR shows a 30 round magazine in battery – usually only
ever used in the select fire variant deployed as support when circumstances dictated for the squad
machine gunner. They paid our young servicemen a few "bob" a day to lavish care upon SLR's such as
this, but now they have been turned into brake bands for railway trucks. The ADF never had SLR’s in
general service fitted with scope
sights; that role was filled by
specialist bolt-action rifles. So
would it not be fair to say the NSW
Police Archives was not the source of
Sergeant Gerard Dutton's rebuild
parts, or were they?
"G" series FN FAL 7.62NATO self-loading rifle, scoped.
Today in 2006, and directly resulting from the "gun control" network's bans, confiscations and
destruction of these examples of engineering excellence, their value has risen considerably.
So for those who in an attempt to justify their meekness and boast of the "windfall" in funds for
them to spend on runabouts and fishing poles after visiting the local "gun-crusher", today's
advertisements offer the odd 'second hand scoped "G" series FNFAL in 7.62 NATO - in excellent
condition', for sale in America at US$8,500.
Important Note:
The forgoing was first written-up before the year 2000, and like any ongoing investigation the
known facts only ever grow and develop at a rate that corresponds with the new evidence as it
is uncovered, evaluated and fitted into the story. It is from such newly discovered evidence
that conclusions can be reached and their impact upon the rest of the scenarios that knit the
story together can be replaced so that it begins to reveal itself into a complete “tapestry” that
is the massacre at Port Arthur.
With that in mind, I want to reiterate that two of the three primary firearms, were never used
at any of the crime scenes by the gunman. The FN FAL was a stand-in for the intended stand-
in: the AR-10, 7.62NATO Rifle. This other stand-in, cast to play the part of a throwdown, was
actually quietly sitting in the repair racks of Terry Hill’s Guns & Ammo shop. It missed the que
call! A substitute had to be found at short notice, hence the “G” Series FN FAL self loading
rifle filled the breach. That is why police couldn’t very well have been seen to support a
scenario involving any 30cal firearm having been discharged in the Broad Arrow Café, as the
41½" long FN FAL would not fit in the sports bag. So from the police crime scene examiners
on up through the DPP to Justice Cox, the actuality of the 30cal weapon being used in the
Café simply never happened.
Our investigations show I believe robust evidence that the three primary firearms including the
Daewoo self-loading 12ga shotgun, were discharged in the dinning room of the Broad Arrow
Café, the latter just once.
----------------
Chapter 12
I
n 1955 the United States of America used its power to have all 15 of the NATO treaty
participants adopt as the universal small arms calibre the cartridge they designated "T65,"
commonly known as 7·62 NATO; the commercial equivalent designation being the ·308Win.
It is in essence a shortened version of the USA's old 30 calibre 30/06 military round and was
able to be manufactured on the same machinery. The "T65" round had won out against Britain's
7mm EM2 rifle project.
The calibre has been loaded with various rifle powders and bullet weight combinations as
"standard military ball" ordinance, by many factories in Europe, the USA, Canada, South Africa,
Israel, India and Australia. In my experience imported ex-NATO ammunition were usually
loaded with 150-grain FMJ boat-tail projectiles.
By way of the "Wound Ballistic Review," I mentioned earlier, I can say with confidence, that the
7·62 NATO ammunition expended by the shooter at Port Arthur, was of the type designated as
"F4," as opposed to the earlier designated "L2A2". F4 is loaded with 44 grains of AR2206 Mulwex
powder and a 144-grain FMJ boat-tail projectile all manufactured and loaded by ADI at
Maribyrnong in Footscray. This load reputedly produced average velocities through an L1A1 SLR
of around 2700fps, producing around 2,329 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. Dutton reveals that
in chronograph tests this ammunition produced average velocities of 2730 fps (WBR @ p.39).
The earlier ammunition designated L2A2 was loaded with AR2201 Mulwex powder. Both of
these powders are of a single base nitrocellulose propellant, the latter found to be unstable in
high ambient temperatures.
Achieving consistent accurate hits with this firearm when shot off-hand, at fast moving targets,
would I believe prove not easily achievable unless in the hands of a trained, practiced and
competent marksman, familiar with the rifle. My judgement here I believe, is especially
pertinent, considering at no time was it proved by the Court that Martin Bryant ever owned or
practiced with an FN FAL rifle much less the one recovered from Seascape, that was alleged to
have been used by the shooter in the Historic Site car/bus park, at the Port Arthur Tollbooth,
Port Arthur Store forecourt and Arthur Highway at the entrance to the Seascape Guesthouse.
_______________
CHAPTER 13
When the time frames of the Seascape siege & Police
Negotiator's transcript are examined thoroughly, not only is
the emotion of “rage” illogical & implausible as a reason for
any of the firearms being damaged, but “rage” never figured
as a factor in any document pertinent to the case, save that
emanating from the Police Forensic Firearm Examiner.
C
onsidering the dozens of eyewitness statements and a clip from the audio taped
conversation between Sgt Terry McCarthy and Martin Bryant inside Seascape, the emotion
of "rage" is not evidenced. The various amateur video tapes corroborate the eyewitness'
accounts of even the gunman who caused all the mayhem at the Historic Site walking calmly
and without visible emotion. With regards to all of the firearms at Seascape, "Jamie" did
volunteer to Sergeant Terry McCarthy that he intended to "break them up," (see p.52
transcript); not just one of them. Why then would Martin Bryant have bothered to physically
damage just the FN FAL after the AR15 SP-1 had blown up "accidentally" and then go to
considerable lengths to ensure both survived the fire? The Colt AR15 and the FN FAL were not
discarded: I firmly believe both were PLACED with care (possibly even before the siege
commenced), outside of the cottage, by someone – other than Martin Bryant – who foreknew
the cottage was to be torched. Neither firearm was forensically linked to the Broad Arrow
Cafe, so this action is not only entirely logical but it is surely probable.
Let me state firmly, that like the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine Serial No SP128807, the FN FAL -
Serial No G3434 was not used as a murder weapon by the gunman during the massacre at Port
Arthur. There is ample evidence to state firmly the 30cal rifle used for some of the shootings
in the café, in the bus park, at the Tollbooth, in front of the Port Arthur General Store and on
the Arthur Highway outside Seascape was an AR-10 rifle and like the Colt rifle, it also was
never recovered by police.
There is absolutely no experiential evidence that confirms the "G" series FN FAL was used as a
murder weapon in or near Port Arthur that weekend. I have reached a firm conclusion upon
examination and in consideration of all the evidence to date that the role played by both of
these firearms was that of throw-downs.
I'm sure you can imagine the short twinge of desperation that ran up the spine of the Seascape
controller, when it was learned Martin could not produce his AR10 308W rifle. What to do,
what to do? You see there is no mention of another 30"cal self-loading rifle there among the
cache of firearms later recovered burnt and destroyed in the fire. It may have been a close
call; all that ammunition and no AR-10!
Also of significance, is the considerable anomaly exhibited in the Police forensic evidence
photograph of the Colt AR15 SP-1, lying there among the ashes at Seascape (see APJ at
p.218) exhibiting considerable residue ash of the cottage inferno, lying beneath the
firearm; this is contrary to the law of physics. The Colt allegedly was placed there by Martin
Bryant before he torched the cottage! But that is quite impossible.
I used the adjective “curiously” quite deliberately, because from the mid 1980's of the shooting
massacre at Milperra in Sydney until the shootings at Monash University on October 2002, “fire”
was a tool in just two shooting massacres; Aramoana in New Zealand and Seascape in
Tasmania. The Tasmania SOG trained officer publicly named by my colleague as 'Rick or
perhaps Mick' being the controller inside Seascape during the siege, and from New Zealand
news reports at the time and his testimony under oath before the Commission inquiring into
the shooting of Joe Gilewicz, I believe he was present at the massacre crime scene of
Aramoana…
To the Police Negotiator Sgt Terry McCarthy, Martin volunteered, that under the bed in an
upstairs bedroom he had “some explosives um it’s actually not nitroglycerine um what’s that
other one round plastic um gelignite is it?” But still it must be stated, Martin expresses no
intention of burning the cottage and no suggestion of a desire to use this, “round plastic um
gelignite,” with its alleged “made in China…,” label (Court Doc). But Sgt Terry McCarthy's
support team picking up on Martin’s comment in passing, regarding throwing firearms outside,
had McCarthy convert a notion into a firm undertaking that "Jamie" should, “throw them [the
firearms] outside” to which "Jamie" responded, “Good idea.” No rage exposed here.
None of the DPP's suggestions with regard to the fate of either of the weapons contain logic
and there exists no evidence to support their synopsis what-so-ever as to why the FN was
physically destroyed. Police avoided this subject during the interrogation of Martin Bryant
also, why? The DPP alleged the FN FAL was destroyed in a “rage”, while plain photographs
show the FN was placed with deliberate care to ensure the firearm would be recovered by
police.
As Mr. Perks explains Police recovered the FN FAL "lying in the gutter [of] the balcony roof…of
a small cottage to the south of the main residence," and well away from the Colt's resting place
(see APJ at p.216 & Court Doc., at p.189/5-11). But he fails to
explain when it was recovered, and why it took police five-
and-a-quarter hours to locate it! But, where the alleged
integral Redfield scope and mounts located? After all, the
scope and mounts were claimed by the DPP as allegedly
integral parts of this particular FN FAL rifle. Mr. Perks
explanation to Cox C.J. of where the FN FAL was "discovered" is
at least unhelpful, but was the evidence intentionally so? It
was 4 years and 4 months before the DPP's little diversion
would be publicly exposed.
However, in the March 24 2001 edition of New Idea magazine at pp.24-25 an article was
published which was an adaptation of a much earlier interview central to this article entitled,
"The story that was never told". I'm caused to wonder if the editor was aware just how
appropriate the title turned out to be!
As a result of this revelation, when one carefully inspects the photograph as published at the
bottom of page 211 of the December 1998 APJ, the FN FAL is just discernible in that same
porch roof's gutter centre of the photograph. So the FN FAL was there, while what appears to
be a plain clothed Police officer stands several rungs off the ground on a ladder supported by
the same cottage's western eve, while six of his colleagues stand about below him.
Now I would point out that we are told the media entourage was bussed to Seascape Cottage
and permitted to enter the property at 1230 hrs (12:30 p.m.) on Monday April 29. When
shadow angles were checked in the New Idea photograph at p.24-25, they appear consistent
with that time scale. We must take into account the substantially longer shadows exhibited in
the photograph published in the APJ at p.211 and so I would estimate this particular
photograph was captured approximately at about 1400hrs (2.00p.m.), or two hours after Paul
Brobin must have taken his photograph that was subsequently published in the New Idea.
These extended shadows confirm the bus load of TV and print media photographers and
journalists were allowed to wander through this crime scene, among the Firemen, ever before
Police had swept the area clean, and recovered all the vital evidence.
No wonder CNN's John Raedler issued his now almost legendary declaration regarding media
treatment by Tasmania police. If the various witness statements by Victoria Police and
Tasmania Police SOG officers, including Craig Harwood, are to be considered as credible, then
it is unreasonable to suggest the FN FAL in question should have been recovered, some time
between 0840hrs (8·40 a.m.) at which time Martin Bryant was formally arrested by Constable
Paul Hawkins at Seascape, and no later than 1030hrs (10·30 a.m.) at which time Detective
Sergeant Morrison ordered all SOG's to withdraw to the holding area.
Why did police not recover the FN FAL until after the media were given their guided tour?
Obviously it overlooked in the SOG's sweep for weapons. Also importantly, the FN FAL rifle
is definitely there in the gutter at 1230 hrs and still there at around 1400hrs (2.00 p.m.) on
29 April; why? Several police other than the SOG Sgt Fogarty are obviously being yet again
less than truthful in their statements…
I would also make this point: the FN FAL there in the porch roof gutter as large as life,
published in colour, in this national magazine for all the readers to see, but incredible as it
may seem, its presence was not mentioned at all by either the article's author Debi Marshall,
the photographer Paul Broben or the editor, nor is it mentioned in the company's photographic
library. I wonder if the FN FAL was ever spotted by New Idea staff?
The DPP expects the public to believe as the Court did that FN FAL, said to have been
'destroyed in anger,' was carefully placed in the roof gutter in the hours of darkness unobserved
by any of the SOG officers? So who did place the FN FAL in the gutter? Think on this: from the
audio tapes between "Jamie" and Police Negotiator Sgt. Terry McCarthy, we are told how
"Jamie" was quite aware of Police SOG officers using "state-of-the-art" night vision optics, and
even quite close to the cottage, so how did someone from inside Seascape become invisible to
these well equipped SOG officers, to place with care this rifle there in the roof gutter, and the
AR15 at the cottage’s perimeter, both requiring the person or persons to exit the building and
so be exposed for a considerable period of time?
Now when the FN FAL rifle was retrieved, it was found to have suffered "considerable impact
damage indicative of being struck with force against a hard object" (see APJ at p.219) and a
considerable number of the rifle's parts were "never found", but importantly the barrel was
"bent noticeably towards the left" (see APJ at p.220). One part which is not listed missing but
does not appear in the photograph or the PTV tape is the FN FAL's carry handle.
Please remember that forensic evidence was never presented to the Court, proving that the
damaged FN FAL #G3434 was the firearm that delivered the bullet that killed Zoe Hall as she
sat in the white Toyota Corolla, parked on the driveway of the Port Arthur General Store. In
fact, no evidence was ever presented to the Court, which proved this FN FAL was the 7.62mm
firearm used in the Port Arthur shootings. Consequently, G3434 could well have been prepared
for its role and subjected to "impact damaged" elsewhere and even before the shooting ever
began. If the FN FAL had been damaged at Seascape during the siege would not the Police
crime-scene investigators have recovered at least some of its missing parts there?
Consider also the natural way for a person to swing that FN FAL against "a hard object" to
destroy or render it inoperable. I submit the person would grasp the rifle by the muzzle end,
dictated by the weight distribution (one does not pick up a base ball bat by the heavy end). So
the butt would be away from you, natural underside down (magazine pistol-grip and sling), and
then it would be swung hard against a substantial vertical object so as contact would be made
in the magazine area, the weakest section of the rifle. Here a quite remarkable reality comes
to light. If this did occur, it could be easily proven whether or not a left-handed person
damaged the FN FAL, as the barrel was bent to the left. Try replicating this experiment for
yourself. I wonder if Rick or Mick is left or right handed?
Of interest is other information I received from a credible source that the FN FAL was not
"discovered," laying in the gutter of "the balcony roof" or indeed the porch roof as is shown in
the New Idea article. As I have indicated His Honour, Chief Justice Cox, and Mr. Perks have not
delivered to the public the truth of the matter. So was the FN FAL actually discovered by a
fireman in a ditch nearby? If this is the case, did someone see a need to relocate the FN FAL
and have it remain their for long enough so that the media could "unintentionally" prove for the
court by photographic evidence, that the FN FAL was not discovered in the wrong place? Like
the spent case placed under the arm of a deceased Alannah Mikac in Jetty Road by person or
persons unknown, the anomalies surrounding the FN FAL again calls into question the DPP's case
against the accused as sustainable.
We must now consider yet another rifle recovered by police in their sweep of the grounds.
Acting Sgt Craig Harwood of Victoria Police SOG in his statement tells us, "A further rifle was
located on the grass to the north of the cottage." But no one wants to volunteer a
description of the "rifle" and as you read on, you may be able to grasp the reason why.
From a number of independent and reliable Tasmanian sources, all of whom obtained their
information first hand from serving Tasmania Police, I have been made aware of details of the
rifle Harwood mentions in his statement. I was informed the firearm was a "Heckler & Koch
sniper rifle". After Victoria Police SOG had been withdrawn from Seascape on the morning of
29 April, they were returned to Hobart and debriefed whereupon some were provided
hospitality in the homes of Tasmania Police SOGs, also having just been stood-down from duty.
My informant told me the origin of the information came from a host of one of these billeted
Victoria Police SOG officers.
Now it was at this point, information collected earlier in the course of our investigation began
to throw some light on just why it was that certain people in the Victorian firearms trade and
Victoria police who'd stepped into the media spotlight on the subject of firearms movements in
that state, suddenly exhibited a reluctance to provide frank open answers on the subject.
While unable to corroborate some of the following information, with the witness to these
private conversations understandably now very ill at ease to expand on their statements, I do
believe the story as I understand it should be put on the record for you to consider. My
decision has been influenced especially by earlier mentioned revelations that centre on
Victoria, gun dealers and disposal of police firearms.
Now to get down to some specifics here: my research shows that back when Victoria Police had
the ear of premiers like "Dick" Hamer, requests for equipment were usually taken care of as a
priority. But over the period with John Cain (Jnr) at the helm (he resigned suddenly in August
1990) and his successor Joan Kirner, fiscal rationalism translated into 'No. you can't have it'. At
the end of the 1980's Victoria Police’s SOG unit was well equipped with a number of Heckler
and Koch marksman police special rifles in their armoury. Specifically, they had a number of
H&K PSG-1 7·62 (NATO) Sniper Rifles with integral scope and mounts.
But either Cain or Joan Kirner, really put the "squeeze" on the police budget. Desperate to
update other vital equipment and
with funds denied them, ingenuity
or initiative came into play; the
answer lay with selling-off some of
the police "farm" … in the form
redundant firearms, including a
Heckler & Koch PSG-1, 7.62 NATO Sniper rifle: this number of PSG-1 rifles, there being
'Police Special' version, weighs 14 lb, has as optional a at that time no 'war on terror'. The
Hensoldt 10x optical sight & a 3 lb trigger pull. PSG-1's were then valued at
approximately $2,000 - $4,000
trade. So sometime during the period of 1987-91, along with a considerable number of other
firearms, a number of H&K PSG-1's were 'sold to a Victorian licensed firearms dealer' and
ended up on the tables at Tasmanian gun shows.
In fact, my source claimed to have personally seen "at least three H&K Sniper Rifles sold to
end-user-collectors in Tasmania from a Hobart gun-show," shortly before the 1996
massacre at Port Arthur. So as the uniform national gun laws took effect after May of 1996
this class of rifle was included on the “prohibited” list. I learned that one of these Tasmanian
end users, at the time residing in Tasmania's north, boasted to my informant when he
surrendered his PSG-1 rifle in the 'buy-back', he "received compensation of $16,000" and so he'd
"doubled his original outlay".
Now back to Seascape: My source informed that when the Victoria Police SOG spotted the H&K
Sniper Rifle lying on the grass at Seascape that Monday morning, he told his host later that he
'couldn't believe his eyes' when he recognised the rifle by some damage marks on it as being his
personal H&K rifle, earlier allocation to him when he was an SOG officer in Victoria Police, and
which had been disposed of by Victoria SOG Police some time earlier. So let me ask the
question
Did in fact Act Sgt Craig Harwood (the Vic. Pol. SOG), accompanied at the time by Snr.
Sgt. Morrison and Sgt. Hayes (the latter two now retired officers, are featured in the
Update “Ten Years on etc” later in this work), recognise or even identify the mystery
"further rifle...located on the grass to the north of the cottage", as formerly the sniper's
rifle, allocated to him by Victoria Police?
If this should be the case it then prompts some rather awkward questions of a number of
persons in the Tasmania Police and Justice system, does it not? Is this the reason everyone
from Tasmania Police’s Forensic Firearm Examiner, the DPP and, radiating out to the then
Commissioner of Victoria Police, even a couple of Victorian licensed gun dealers – the whole lot
of them – are demonstrably reluctant to provide straight answers to questions about certain
centrefire military-style-firearms that earlier passed through the hands of Victoria Police to a
certain Victorian licensed gun dealer and on to end users in Tasmania?
But is it then also possible the former SOG officer "Rick" or "Mick" the controller inside Seascape
was the culprit in charge of the cache of firearms including "the further rifle"? To me it at
least seems entirely logical; after all this person is a self confessed trained weapons specialist.
But like the change in the MV Bundeena's schedule it seems to me
the H&K PSG-1 also slipped under their radar…
The above scenario also reminds me again of the Colt AR15 SP-1
.223Rem Carbine that was handed to Victoria Police, and so it
heightens the probability ten-fold I believe that this firearm did
play some part in this whole police fiasco. But now we must deal
Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk
with another aspect of the siege which dominated much of the
conversation between Martin Bryant and the Police negotiator Sgt Terry McCarthy; the
HELICOPTERS.
In the audio transcript of the conversation, the subject of helicopters is raised first at page 2,
with the term used 47 times in the next 48 pages, with a total of 58 pages in all in the
Seascape McCarthy/Jamie transcript; that's a preoccupation second to none in the entire
conversation between these two people!
When the transcript is examined and with regard to these helicopters it becomes obvious, one
is also reminded of the statement attributed to Constable Pat Allen who mentions that
helicopters were operating all night:
"…you couldn't see the choppers, but they were going back and forth all
night …it must have been like what it was in Vietnam." 1 (wav)
We are told in the court documents and the EMA papers that at the time 'no helicopters based
in Tasmania were capable of night operations'. Further more, these same papers tell us that
the contractor Helicopter Resources, while 'operating several other machines from Hobart … it
is not uncommon for three or four machines to be available in Hobart but only one pilot'. 2 So
were these helicopters referred to by Const Pat Allen, part of the Army's fleet of Black Hawk
helicopters attached to 5 Aviation Regiment, Townsville?
Importantly all these rotary-winged air-craft required pilots licensed to fly them and rotary-
wing pilots are scarce it seems, in Tasmania at the time. But with regard to the Townsville
based Blackhawk fleet, this is the same group that just 44 days after the Seascape siege was
concluded, and on the night of 12 June 1996, lost two of their Black Hawk helicopters in a fatal
crash. The two choppers collided at 60-90 knots some 70km north-west of Townsville at around
6.53p.m., plunging 50 metres to the ground and exploding in flames resulting in the deaths of
17 elite troopers (including members of the SAS Regiment), and severely injuring 11 other
personnel. 3
Rumours have persisted from various northern based sources - even 9 years on from this crash -
alleging the pilot out of ‘helicopter No.1’ was dead ‘before the aircraft hit the ground’.
Recently this allegation was confirmed as “credible” by two people; one a troubled "whistle-
blower" from out of the intelligence community and the other a former military officer from
Townsville. One early report into the crash mentioned the term 'accidental discharge' (AD's) as
being the cause. However, I would point out, the SAS personnel do not use the fault-prone F88
Steyr, subject of many such AD-inquiries since this firearm was adopted as the ADF's individual
weapon (IW).
While this author is not prepared to suggest this accident is in anyway linked to the
psychopolitical massacre at Port Arthur, I can confirm some quite strange, but energetic
attempts to steer this investigation towards an incarcerated felon occupying a cell at the time
in a Perth goal since the early 1990s and later convicted of serious crimes; but realistically it
was a deliberate ruse. This male felon was simply too old to be the gunman, as he was 34
years-of-age at the time of the massacre. So I have chosen to include this for no other reason
but to allow you to consider the material and make up your own mind.
All of the emergency helicopters in Tasmania had completed their ferrying operations of
injured victims to Hobart and terminated their flight operations before failing twilight, bearing
in mind that according to meteorological information, sunset that evening occurred precisely at
1715 hrs (5.15p.m.) at Seascape on the evening of 28th April 1996.
We are told in various documents (including Mike Bingham’s Suddenly One Sunday), that there
were no helicopters in Tasmania equipped and certified for night flight operations on the
evening of the 28-29th April — NONE — other than a number of the Australian Army’s Sikorski
UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters that coincidentally just happened to have been brought there
from the mainland some time before that Sunday evening.
But there is yet another possibility, and I ask the question; “Were there
any military OH-6 or AH/MH-6 "Little Bird" type helicopters in Tasmania on
that same evening?” You see I have been informed by a reliable Vietnam
veteran that a number of his veteran friends witnessed up to six of these
helicopters airborne in various locations, including the Sorell district
shortly before and after the Port Arthur incident. Like the large dual
rotor Chinook also seen as partaking in the same exercise in the same
The OH-6 in early US- area, all were painted a dull mat-black suggestive of a paint having a
Army colours radar absorbent ability.
But regarding the Blackhawk helicopters, is it not yet another most fortuitous coincidence? I'm
caused to wonder have the Blackhawk helicopters ever been across Bass Strait since April of
1996. Especially taking into account the fact that the entire Blackhawk fleet that were initially
modified with long-range fuel tanks fitted (for extended flights), which directly lead to
escalating maintenance problems that have over the years been brought to the knowledge of
the general public. One other consideration should be made here. The EMA report tells us
that it was always difficult to secure helicopter pilots on a Sunday, but also just by another
stroke of luck (?) authorities were able to secure the services of no less than three pilots, but
unfortunately they don't enlighten us from where they were drawn at such short notice.
Is it possible that perhaps a couple (or all three) of the pilots just happened to be some of SAC-
PAV "helpers" from the Defence Forces? Although there is no doubt that military helicopters
with night flying capabilities, operated over the Tasman Peninsula on the night of 28-29th April,
should our investigations to establish the origin and type of these aircraft, possibly be focused
further a field, say a source other than that of the Australian Military?
It seems quite logical really, that the three mystery pilots were sourced from the military when
it is pointed out that the three pilots received no public recognition whatsoever for the vital
role they played in the evacuation of survivors to Royal Hobart Hospital for emergency,
lifesaving treatment. This is a quite stark fact, when you consider the media’s appetite to
promote and reward such selfless acts in today's politically correct regime. Media and PR
entities never miss an opportunity to promote the striking of medals, issuance
of certificates, and holding of "ticker-tape" parades and such at the drop of a
hat!
There is just one other firearm that I must mention, which was certainly there in a cottage at
Seascape. In the sworn witness statement of Donald Gunn, taken by Police on 15 May 1996, he
makes it very clear that some time after 9.30 a.m. on Sunday the 28th, at which time, after two
guests that they had sat at breakfast with (the mysterious "Julie" and "Virginia" from Sydney)
had departed, David Martin gave Donald Gunn and wife Stephanie a guided tour, "through a
cottage that was being built", one and the same cottage that on Monday afternoon police
allegedly recovered the FN FAL from out of its roof gutter over the porch. So while on this
"tour" Donald Gunn says he, "…went into the pump room to have a look. Leaning against the
left hand wall was a rifle." He goes on to explain that earlier David Martin had mentioned
that, "…he shoots feral cats that come onto the property, as they kill the bird-life."
Curiously the Police fail to mention this firearm at all in their interview with Martin Bryant.
Why? Police ignore this firearm as if it never existed, just as they did the H&K Sniper Rifle.
End Notes
1
Ellen Winnett, “Port Arthur – Untold Stories,” The Mercury, 26nov96
2
Co-authored by Morgan, P. Morgan, A. O'brien & G. Lennox, Ambulance Perspective, EMA papers, p.31
3
Sydney Morning Herald 13.7.96 @ p.
Chapter 14
E
yewitness identification of a felon from police-constructed photo identification boards
(i.e. mug-shots) is inadmissible evidence in a court of law. At least this was in place in
1996. Today one is not entirely certain just what statutes and procedures, traditional in
our justice system are survivors under present political vandalism. But certainly as I
understand it a witness still must be prepared to point out an accused before the court, a
reality surely lost on many in the general public, whose raucous cries for blood often drown out
the voice of reason. Martin Bryant is a case in point.
How providential for the establishment hoi polloi that their collective minds of vast legal and
worldly experience could be brought to bear on the mind of (psychologically speaking) an
“eleven-year-old” Martin Bryant. How fortunate he should yield to the charm of a senior
counsel and embrace a life of incarceration, when he changed his plea to one of “Guilty” on 30
October 1996? This single act, ensured there would be no trail by jury, just the sentencing
hearing.
In the Court Document, Mr. Bugg QC suggests that in a short period leading up to the Port
Arthur incident, Martin Bryant visited various "gun shops in Hobart" (see Court Doc p.52/19) and
purchased in "October or November of 1993 an AR-10" — 30 months prior to the incident, from
out of a Newspaper advertisement. If this is what occurred, it then begs the question:
"What has the AR-10, ·308W self loading rifle got to do with the
damaged Colt AR15 SP-1 ·223Rem Carbine (or indeed the smashed and
incomplete FN FAL) or the mayhem that ensued at Port Arthur, seeing
as how Police retrieved Martin Bryant’s Armalite AR10 ·308W Rifle
from Terry Hill’s Guns and Ammo Gunshop, where it had been left for
repair as early as the 24th March 1996 - 35 days prior to the
massacre?"
If the Police were so interested in this particular rifle, why did they ignore almost entirely the
arsenal of firearms found in the burnt out ruin of Seascape? Firearms,
which Glen Martin publicly denied as ever having belonged to him or
his parents, David or Sally Martin, but which were at least allegedly
discharged at police during the siege? Who transported them to
Seascape – for Martin did not carry them there, and he was never
charged with any associated offence!
I also know and have verified with a witness, that Martin Bryant
Glen Martin visited the Hobart "gun-show" on the weekend of the 20-21st April
1996, and my trade source tells me Martin Bryant, "spoke to him for
at least an hour...he wasn't interested so much in modern stuff (i.e. military firearms) on my
table, but was fascinated with the antiques. He talked for most of the time about the rolled
brass cartridges used in the Martini Henry 450/577 and the like. He's no fool you know, as he's
made out to be, but a polite young bloke and his conversation I would have to say was quite
intelligent."
The law is supposed to be common sense…and the Crown's introduction of the AR-10 was only
ever done, because they have a problem. They had no empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant
with the FN FAL, or the scope-sight they repeatedly attempted to associate with it. Martin
Bryant was still adamantly denying having "ever seen that one" as late as page 288 of the Police
Record Of Interview (PROI) Court Document. It becomes obvious the AR-10 was only ever
entered into evidence because of the prosecution's pathetic attempt to make the flimsiest of
connections between the FN FAL and AR-10; both firearms sharing a common calibre of
·308Win!
This I believe is nothing more than the old ploy of guilt by association. The AR-10 is the first
weapon identified by Mr. Bugg Q.C., (see court Doc., at p.53/2) and it still is being mentioned
at least at page 276 of the PROI Court Document even although the AR-10 had a 35 day
water-tight alibi! Damien Bugg's exercise in this regard was to succeed in blurring the
evidence further and insulting the intelligence of a generally firearm-ignorant public.
On page 54/4-5 of the Court Document it is claimed Bryant stated that "he had purchased
elsewhere…an AR15," but at p.203-4 of the PROI Court Doc., and after Paine referred to the
firearm on the floor as a "point two two three calibre" which he said we "recovered," Paine
then asks, Q. "Ahh, from ahh, I believe ahh, from a repairer, being repaired…Does that ring
any bells?" To which Bryant replies, "That one was repaired for me, that other one, that
AR10…that, I took that over to Terry Hill." Responding, Paine excuses, "Ohh, so I've got
them confused." Can you see the distraction being created here? But truthfully, Paine didn't
even confuse intellectually impaired Martin Bryant…
It was earlier that Warren had asked Bryant, Q. "Have you ever had a three O eight?" - [i.e. a
·308"] A. "Three O eight, yes. Had a three O eight…That was one Terry Hill was repairing,"
- (Court Doc., PROI at p.202). So here Bryant readily admits to owning a ·308W calibre firearm,
an AR-10 ·308W, and he did not confuse this firearm with the Colt AR15 ·223 Rem Carbine or
indeed any FN FAL which he stated he’d never seen before.
Bryant freely admitted to having purchased and owned three firearms: 1.) the Daewoo 12 ga.
self-loading shotgun recovered from the boot of his Volvo abandoned at the Tollbooth, 2.) a
Colt AR15 Carbine in ·223 Rem and, 3.) the Armalite (incorrectly referred to as a “Colt”) AR10
·308Win Carbine handed to Police by Terry Hill. But I should point out that interestingly,
Martin Bryant did not actually ever admit to owning the individual Colt AR-15 SP-1 Carbine
shown to him by Police, which they recovered from the perimeter of the Seascape cottage.
With regard to the 'arsenal' of firearms at Seascape, "Jamie" was recorded in the Seascape
phone conversations, and @ p.9 of the transcript where he confirms that he, "…only owned a
couple of guns.." and that "…all these other guns are here and everything."
We now need to deal with the other side of the story concerning the licensed firearms dealer
Terry Hill. When Martin Bryant walked into the Guns & Ammo store on 24 March 1996, muzzle-
first over the counter he shoved a bundle; a towel-wrapped Dutch manufactured AR10 7.62Nato
rifle. Routinely, every firearm that came over Terry Hill's counter attracted a safety
inspection, and on this occasion to his horror he discovered not only 17 live soft-point sporting
rounds in the magazine, buts also a live round in the chamber!
An outraged Terry Hill told me he of his shock and reacted by scolding the customer, “Why are
you carrying this thing around loaded!?” Whereupon the young man responded by producing
a valid firearms licence, endorsed for, "prohibited and fully automatic weapons". But the
licence was in the name of "Martin Ryan". During the interview I learned that Bryant had made
several subsequent visits to Guns & Ammo, purchasing three gun cases on Wednesday April 24,
and later (possibly Friday 26th), three boxes of 12ga shotgun shells. But strange as it may
seem, Police have never made any attempt to uncover who supplied Martin Bryant with his
forged licence …
Two days after the massacre and on Tuesday 30 April, Terry Hill read the front fold-out page of
The Mercury with fully exposed face captioned: “This Is the Man … Martin Bryant 28”. He
thought they had the name wrong, but positively identified the photograph as that of his
customer with the Armalite rifle left for repair, Martin Ryan. So Hill phoned Police and spoke
to Const Hortele volunteering information regarding the identity, movements and firearm
details concerning the male featured on the Mercury's front page, telling the constable he
believed this person was the holder of a firearm licence in the name of ‘Martin Ryan’ who'd left
his Armalite AR10 ·308W rifle at the Guns & Ammo gun shop for repair. Now another important
point also needs to be made here.
You may remember that around 1.10 p.m. on the morning of 28 April, Martin Bryant visited his
acquaintance of 15 years, Roger Larner who lived on Palmers Lookout Road near Port Arthur.
As he alighted from his distinctive yellow 244 GL Volvo, Roger Larner at first failed to recognise
his old acquaintance as since last they had met, Martin had grown his hair long, an experience
repeated by another witness early that morning, who'd known Bryant previously as a customer;
Angelo Kessarios proprietor of Midway Point News Agency.
I have also been able to confirm that Martin only began growing his hair long in June of 1994.
Consequently, as Bryant had produced to Terry Hill a (laminated) photo ID Gun License
bearing the name of Martin Ryan, it must have been forged quite recently and long after June
of 1994 for instance, as the photo showed the subject to have long blonde hair. So after Terry
Hill's phone call to Police that Tuesday 30 April, he went to Police HQ and surrendered the
Armalite AR10 rifle, serial number #1590, to Const Hortele, receiving a police receipt.
With formalities out of the way he was thanked sincerely for his public spirited cooperation by
the constable and was escorted below, to inspect the yellow Volvo in the police property
security compound, but alas no one could find a key to the gate. However while there at the
mesh gate, Terry pointed out to Const Hortele, Martin Bryant’s grey wallet still sitting there on
the dash-board of the Volvo sedan; the same wallet from which Martin Ryan had removed his
firearm licence when he deposited the Armalite AR10 for repair on 24 March. However the
attitude of Police was shortly to somersault as soon as the Port Arthur Task Force was formed,
to carry police investigations forward.
About Thursday 2 May, Terry was behind
the counter of his gun shop, when a
phone call came in from a police officer
attached to the Task Force, who
identified himself as Peter Hesman. This
is one and the same as the SOG officer
referred to as “Detective Hesman” by
his colleague Inspector John Warren in
Armalite AR-10 7.62 NATO rifle his proof of evidence statement.
Hesman informed Terry Hill he was calling from Bellerive police station, suggesting that police
had information that Terry Hill allegedly at one time owned a Dutch manufactured AR-10, then
amending his position by asking Terry if he was
related to an Andrew Hill, suggesting that the firearm
Terry had surrendered to Police just two days earlier
on 30 April. It seems police may well have had this
conversation with Terry Hill on a speaker phone, as
very audible and certainly above the other background Armalite AR-10 A2 ·308W rifle: identified
chatter Terry heard clearly a different male voice by eyewitness as identical to the rifle used by
interject saying, “Oh, no, no, no, not related.” the poked-faced, stocky, gunman inside the
AR10-A2_rifle Broad Arrow Café to critically wound him.
After careful thought and checking of his register, Hill was able to inform police that this same
Armalite rifle had been earlier deposited "on consignment" for sale by commission at Guns &
Ammo, by a Mr Andrew Hill who at the time allegedly worked as a cameraman for ABC-TV and
was no relation to Terry Hill the gun shop proprietor. Some weeks before the rifle was
returned for repair by Bryant on 24 March `96, Andrew Hill had collected the rifle, allegedly
telling Terry Hill, "I've found a private buyer," with Terry reminding the customer to be sure he
fulfilled his obligation of ensuring his 'private buyer had the correct licence' before he handed
the rifle over.
Terry Hill also alleges that he later discovered this same former owner, the other “Mr Hill”,
enjoyed a close friendship with a certain policeman and allegedly used to regularly shoot his
AR10 with this policeman-friend, other members of the SOG and members of the Naval Reserve
at a local police firing range.
So it is not so hard to understand why perhaps Terry Hill soon felt the heavy hand of authority,
via a blatant conspiracy, and a criminal attempt to coerce or intimidate Terry Hill, via a co-
conspirator – his own solicitor at the time incidentally - Mr. John Avery. For Avery attempted
to have Terry Hill falsely admit to having sold firearms to Martin Bryant in the first instance,
and even this very same AR10, 7.62NATO rifle.
The article goes on to explain that on one occasion when Bryant was in the Guns & Ammo shop,
Martin had told Terry Hill that, “his solicitor had organised the paperwork for him so that he
could obtain a licence.” And, who was the Bryant family Solicitor at the time? Well, we are
certainly informed that John Avery acted for Martin’s mother, Carleen Bryant. As well we are
informed that Mr Avery acted for Martin, after David Gunston stood aside and so I believe it can
be said, metaphorically speaking, Mr Avery wore a number of “hats” - legally.
It is a sad fact - not confined to Tasmania Police - that when under pressure from an outraged
public and stirred on by an enthusiastic “gun control” network, the media and politicians for “a
result” at any price, all too often police officers make blunders. But in my opinion “blunder” is
not the proper term in this instance. For the suggestion that Terry Hill supplied Martin Bryant
with the firearms or indeed any firearm rested on police obtaining evidence to prove the fact.
They could not, as no evidence existed and so they chose to employ the most reprehensible
tactics imaginable against an innocent man to gain an advantage.
It was bad enough that Police resorted to such unprofessional and unlawful actions in the first
place, but to then like spoilt brats deprived of getting their way, go and destroy a man's
livelihood: that is quite reprehensible! But, Terry Hill's problems didn't stop there. Hardly had
Terry Hill time to catch his breath, when in July of that same year, a vexatious civil suit was
launched in an attempt to prove liability on the part of Terry Hill - accused for a second time -
of supplying arms to Martin Bryant.
At the time, it was reported 'the plaintive may seek to subpoena Martin Bryant to appear as a
witness'. Apart from the fact the litigation duplicated actions launched in America by “gun
control” activists there, the action set precedence in this country. As for Bryant being slated
as a witness; I believe that single fact ensured the civil action would never proceed to court.
But at the time, Terry Hill wouldn’t have been aware of that position. Though it was not until
14 March 1998 - two long, stressful years - that The Mercury newspaper announced the civil
action had been formerly discontinued by Mr Quin, due to “stress”. At the time, an
undoubtedly also very stressed Terry Hill was reported as calling for a Royal Commission into
the whole Port Arthur massacre, including the known false police allegations against him that
lead to the Quin action – possibly the first private citizen to do so.
Neville Quin of Bicheno on Tasmania’s Northeast Coast, who launched this Civil Action, had
gone to Port Arthur that Sunday with his wife Janette and two other friends. When the gunman
exited the Broad Arrow Café, Janette and her husband were standing a short distance from the
Café near the Trans Otway bus. It was beside this bus that Janette was firstly shot and injured
by the gunman with the Colt AR15 rifle before the gunman recovered the FN-FAL rifle from the
boot of the yellow Volvo and returned to shoot her a second time, fatally. The gunman also
pursued Neville Quin onto the Trans Otway bus, where he shot and injured Mr. Quin, stating
just before he fired the shot, "No-one gets away from me!"
Mr Quinn's civil action against Terry Hill transformed his family’s experience into nothing less
than a “nightmare vendetta”: the action only proceeded on the legal advice of the then
Chairman of Tasmania branch of the National Coalition for Gun Control, the rabid “gun control”
advocate and Federal Justice Department employed solicitor, Mr. Roland Browne.
This is the same prophetic individual who prior to the Port Arthur massacre stated, for national
television viewers on Channel 7, "We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania of the likes
you have seen in Strathfield and Hoddle Street, unless we get national gun control laws."
In my younger days, I spent a long stint as a sales-rep, cold selling for a reputable national
company. So by nature I had learned to be a keen observer of human foibles, a practice
continued later in my business as a gun dealer, with customers, opposition gun dealers alike.
So you can understand I find it just a little curious that so much police attention was directed
towards just one gun dealer in Hobart, Terry Hill. In spite of
Terry's willing co-operation with police, beginning on Wednesday
1 May, for many months to come, Terry was their target.
Woods was further reported to have stated Bryant's first visit that week occurred on Tuesday 23
April, when he attempted to purchase an AR15 (i.e. a Colt AR15 223Rem), and was told this
model firearm at the time was not available, but would cost him around $3500 - $3800. The
report continues with Woods claiming Martin Bryant returned for a second visit on Friday
morning of April 26 – two days before the massacre. This time he made a request of Woods to
repair an Armalite AR10 308W rifle that Bryant claimed was 'missing some parts' and he inferred
not having the gun with him at the time. The same report goes on to demonstrate Stuart
Woods was aware of considerable alleged movements in that same week before the massacre
of Martin Bryant in relation to the firearm and another unnamed gun shop; obviously Terry Hill's
Guns & Ammo. 2
Recent enquires have prompted a further allegation, regarding the enormously wasteful, costly
and hugely unpopular Howard "buy-back" scheme and several prominent people then in
Hobart’s gun trade. The allegations centre on alleged preferential treatment by the firearm
regulatory body in their dealings with two parties. It has been alleged the Don Jones group of
Kempton, manufacturers of the AAA range of arms, was able to secure a substantial
compensation settlement by submitting ‘containers of defective, scrapped, parts’ that were
subsequently valued by a police approved valuer and compensation paid out. It has been
further alleged Stuart Woods secured exclusivity in the greater area of Hobart as the police
sanctioned and approved 'firearms valuer'.
However, from this segment of the story a stark fact emerges, which destroys the prosecution's
fable of Martin Bryant owning and using a Colt AR15 SP-1 .223Rem Carbine in the Broad Arrow
Café at Port Arthur that Sunday; the one subsequently recovered by police from the ashes at
Seascape in a damaged state.
You see, Martin Bryant had only reached the stage of attempting to purchase an AR15 on
Tuesday 23 April, and obviously he had still had not advanced past attempting to do so when he
returned to Woods' gunshop on Friday morning of April 26. Even the title of the Herald Sun's
Article – "Desperate bid for a gun", witnesses the desperation of young Martin to obtain this
type of firearm. By this stage Bryant's controller must have been more than a little concerned
as well, as obviously a part of the plan was going awry. For this is just two days before the
massacre and obviously Martin's inquiry as to the immediate availability of parts for the
Armalite, demonstrated his helpless predicament: no AR15 223 Carbine, and his only 308 rifle –
the Armalite AR10 rifle was laid-up for repair at Terry Hill's Guns & Ammo shop. It was a major
spanner in the "gun control" works scheme: both guns cast to play their role as "primary
firearms" in what was to be a world class event and both of them
were unavailable on the day! I'm thinking there must have been
some urgent phone calls or faxes between Tasmania and the
mainland about this time…
Incidentally, when it comes to gun massacre counselling, Pastor Anderson has "form": he
“counselled” survivors of the 1987 Massacre in Queens Street, Melbourne. It was Anderson in
his wisdom that ensured Walter Mikac was shepherded on the Monday morning to witness the
grotesque scene on Jetty Road for a viewing the bodies of his wife and two young daughters as
they still lay there almost 24 hrs after they had died.
It was this unlikely 'man of the cloth', who exposed himself as more than just a church of Christ
pastor, when in an unsolicited phone conversation with a friend of one of the victims he
exposed himself as in possession of knowledge that had to have been gleaned from an address
book known to have been carried on the victim's person. That address book was never ever
returned either. It would be difficult to convince me that the pastor does not number among
the 21 plus colleagues who were easily identifiable as agents provocateurs proving I would
contend that Port Arthur obviously harboured some huge attraction for their ilk on the 28th
April 1996.
From an article published by The Bulletin, many interesting events that occurred during and
after the siege at Seascape cottage on the evening of 28-29 April are confirmed. For instance
Dr Ian Sale verifies that he was already present at the Taranna FPCP in the wee small hours of
Monday Morning the 29th April, when Const Garry Whittle was transported to the Police
Forward Command Post there from the wet culvert beside the Arthur Highway outside
Seascape. Dr Sale must have been a very busy man: Dr Ian was present in the rooms with siege
negotiator Terry McCarthy very early on. He also accompanied police on their forced entry raid
late that evening on Bryant's Clare St home and then he must have carried on to Taranna and
was there for the remainder of the night. After Bryant's arrest, Dr Sale returned to the Royal
Hobart Hospital before 1026 hrs, at which time Martin Bryant was admitted to the hospital's ICU
suffering category 1 burns. 3
We have never been told of the copious attention of mind manipulation deluged upon Martin
Bryant in the weeks and months ahead – until he caved-in and changed his plea to "Guilty".
John Avery admitted to 14-15 visits to his cell in Risdon, but of Dr Sale's Risdon sojourns – we
can only speculate; could he have topped John Avery? At least though, from the transcripts
released to the public in the April 4 2006 edition of The Bulletin, we can see the
ineffectiveness of psychiatric programming on a subject of such impaired intellect. What a
mess they made of it… Clearly, a confused mind when overloaded with information becomes
manifestly scrambled with the "new" stories nothing less than argumentum ad absurdum.
But returning to Constable Whittle: after he had been earlier rescued by SOG Police, from a
gutter beside the Arthur Highway outside Seascape, the constable went off duty, returning to
his wife at Dunalley, showered, and went to bed, only to shortly be forced to awaken, rise and
take a phone call from his superiors. They summoned him, ‘come back you must be
debriefed’. Dr Sale tells us he later saw Whittle ‘leaning against a wall’ at the Taranna PFCP:
“That goes against all common sense,” Dr Sale was reported as stating.
The Bulletin article goes on to recount just how trauma was amplified for a third time that day
in the experience of hundreds of visitors, SES personnel and staff who were held by authorities
at the Historic Site that night:
"Workers and visitors – confused, scared, angry, and vulnerable – were herded into group
debriefing sessions. Later, Sale interviewed some of them. “They could barely remember
anything,” he tells The Bulletin. “They were so wired up. It was a ludicrous thing to do.”"
Wendy Scurr told me, "We were treated just like animals." A bowel of water was placed in
the middle of the room and a ladle was placed in the bowel. "We all sat around in a circle.
Most of us were as dry as a wooden god, and we had to share the ladle to get a drink. A
pet dog strolled in and it shared our bowel of water… it was terrible." Among these
"herded" people were a considerable number of witnesses; their police statements surely could
hardly have survived untainted.
In the weeks that immediately followed the massacre, PAHSMA management redefined the Site
maintenance man's job description, and he became with out so much as a shred of training the
official on-site 'counsellor'. As his role in the nailing up of That Door was never actually dealt
with officially, his new role proved a disaster! Mrs Scurr told me recently, that shortly after a
visit to his office matters divulged in confidence were repeated word by word to her by two of
the staff and with hours of her consolation! She was threatened, that failure to attend sessions
would see workers compensation interfered with. Mrs Scurr and other colleagues were
outraged and it wasn't too long before Edwards had a sea-change when he secured a position in
the employ of Risdon Prison.
In the first fortnight after the massacre, 'a reported 463 counsellors spoke to 1000 people,'
prompting Dr Sale to liken this obscenity to 'a public infection control program'. The Bulletin
article goes on to confirm what has been for this author obvious from my earliest research into
the massacre at Port Arthur:
"Now, most experts agree Port Arthur was a high watermark in misguided dogma.
"A Royal Hobart Hospital staff counsellor later complained that some counsellors,
whom she tagged “disaster vultures”, flew in from interstate despite her urging them
not to. She was affronted by their “aggressive” approach, which, she wrote, “added
greatly to the tension and stress of an already difficult situation”.
"Counsellors will tell you that the zealous push for debriefing may have prevented
some victims from developing PTSD. But how do they know? They don’t. No one
does. There is no consensus on the best form of treatment." 4
Before we leave these "disaster vultures", it was 9 May 1996, that Pastor Anderson returned to
Melbourne where at the Fawkner Cemetery he preside over the funeral of Nanette, Alannah
and Madeline Mikac, whose remains where laid to rest in the Mikac family plot; four
generations of the Mikac family are now interred there. Walter buried Nanette in a blood-red
coffin, with blood-red lining…
By July of 1996 Walter Mikac officially joined the NCGC, being trundled out onto the podium at
all their important East Coast “gun control” rallies, including Hobart. Described by the media
as "the man who became the face of the tragedy", he certainly became NCGC's emotional
promoter and the raison d'etre in Australia at least for their global disarmament program
called “gun control”. During this campaign a television news service reported that Walter was
about to marry, as Walter had abandoned the Peninsula and returned to his former home town,
the city of Melbourne where he took-up residence.
When the "gun control" network brought 3 couples who were the
parents of children who died at Dunblane to Port Arthur and while
I can find no request having been made for this visit by survivors,
the NCGC used Walter Mikac and friend in a publicity seeking role
to attend the photo-session beside the newly erected Cross
memorial.
Scots Visit Port Arthur:
Seventeen persons in all died at Dunblane Parents of Dunblane massacre
Primary School massacre in Scotland on 13 victims at Port Arthur memorial
March 1996: 15 five-year-old primary school with Walter Mikac standing
children, their teacher Gwenne Mayor and the second from right
perpetrator Thomas Hamilton (who suicided).
But the ongoing "gun control" program of private disarmament rolls on.
Two years later on August 14, 1998 in Melbourne, Walter presented what
was described as, "an inspirational address," to a charity lunch for the
Alannah and Madeline Foundation which he
Crown Princess established to help child victims of crime. During his
Mary of Denmark: presentation he told the guests of a "very special
International Patron woman," at his table, perhaps in an endeavour to
of the Alannah & quash earlier rumour of 'marriage', revealed to guests
Madeline Foundation as a Prime-TV Channel 7, 'part-time sports reporter,'
Kim Sporton of Melbourne. In the first week of April
2000 the couple married in Melbourne.
So there: John
The credibility of this Foundation was greatly enhanced, when on 13 Howard MHR, the
October 2005, Jen Kelly of The Sun Herald reported lovely Danish Crown National Patron of the
Princes Mary, herself a former Tasmanian, was "named the international Alannah & Madeline
patron of the Alannah and Madeline Foundation" akin to 'royal Foundation.
endorsement'. Seems the foundation’s chairman John Bertrand of yachting
fame had invited the Danish Royal to join the group which has as its national patron none other
than John Winston Howard.
On the 28 April 2000, the fourth anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, about 1,000 people
were reported to have made a pilgrimage to Port Arthur for the dedication of a memorial pool
and garden beside the destroyed and skeletonised Broad Arrow Café. But, as
the newspaper’s sub-heading commented: "Newlywed Mikac stays away…" 5
Then there was 51-year-old Tony Kistan who died in the Broad Arrow Café.
Kistan was until at least 1982, a notable and enthusiastic political activist in
South Africa opposing the apartheid policies of the Botha Government.
These revolutionaries were united under the convenient disguise of the
Congress of Democrats, founded in 1953, by the Lithuanian Jew, and Colonel
in the KGB, the “revolutionary”, Joe Slovo a revolutionary "buddy" of the
Port Arthur victim
later black president Nelson Mandela. In 1949 Slovo married his first wife
51 year old
Ruth First, the daughter of the then treasurer of Communist Party of South
Tony Kistan
Africa. From 1963, Slovo was exiled from the country, under the Suppression
of Communism Act, and the couple were also banned from attending all public meetings,
though Ruth First remained in South Africa to take a hands-on role in running the ANC after
1963.
So in spite of the façade of the Salvation Army, the “Red Shield” seems for Tony Kistan more of
an antonym than a paradox. The anti-apartheid movements united by the Congress of
Democrats were outwardly at least actively tied to the “gun control” network just as Nelson
Mandela’s legacy demands to this very day. The case of Tony Kistan appears to be entirely
inconsistent; outwardly and at every opportunity he and the family are promoted as devout
Christians, But as I understand it, Tony was a Salvation Army employee, not a convert, perhaps
a quite convenient arrangement.
As a member of the Facilitations Committee of the Peters-led IANSA in the Republic of South
Africa, Kirsten has received numerous honours for GFSA's work in “gun control”. In 2000 she
was named 'South African Woman of the Year' in the category, of ‘media and communications’.
Then there was the American couple, Dennis Olsen, a 54-year-old delivery driver and his wife
Mary, a Hallmark greeting-card store manager of Vancouver, in Washington State, America.
Mary survived unscathed, while Dennis suffered what were first assessed by Wendy Scurr in the
bush behind the Café as “shot-gun wounds,” a judgement seconded by ambulance personnel
who tended his wounds. Designated wounded victim #P13 in the WBR at p.42, he was
hospitalised for a day, and his wounds were listed as, “lacerations to the right side of the head,
left eye and left chest from secondary fragmentation.” It must be remembered the official
line had to be maintained due directly to “that door” and the restricted time factor which
insisted that the Daewoo shotgun was never discharged, or even “used” at the Historic Site
that day.
From The Nando Times (30apr96) of the USA, who interviewed Dennis Olsen while he and his
wife were still in Hobart, it was reported that Olsen said, “upon his return, [to America] he
probably will get up on a "soapbox" and talk in even more passionate terms about his long-held
belief in gun control,” an experience plainly Dennis Olsen was not unfamiliar with. Put
bluntly, American - Dennis Olsen - was yet another “gun control” activist. Could I be forgiven
for suggesting he was yet another "gun control" foot-soldier who that day was deployed and on
active duty in the field? On the home front of Tasmania, before and ever since Port Arthur,
Roland Browne is quoted ad nauseam in Hobart’s Mercury, in the "gun control" network's all-out
support for the Federal Government’s expanding gun prohibition program. The "gun control"
activists are not separated by national borders or oceans and NCGC pursues their global agenda
in all of Australia at every opportunity still today.
It was the fleet footed Roland Browne I should remind you, who greeted the first ABC
journalists to arrive at the Hobart Police headquarters media room, to be briefed on the Port
Arthur shootings; he beat the press. Roland must surely have ranked important enough in the
scheme of things to have been informed by none other than Geoff Easton, after all Easton was
the Police Commissioner’s own media man. After Browne's earlier well reported, prophetic
proclamations, honestly, can that be classed as a "quick" response?
Now back to the Police interview. Importantly, try as the police might, Bryant was adamant
about not owning or even having seen the FN FAL before, the second of two primary weapons
allegedly used at Port Arthur. In the Court Doc., PROI, at p.196, Bryant willingly acknowledges
ownership of the Daewoo shotgun, p.197 and at p.208 he of an AR15 ·223Rem, but importantly
not necessarily the one shown him by Police, then at pp.202-204, he acknowledges ownership
of an AR10 ·308 Win that he says was "repairing at Terry Hill".
But! At pp.201, 202, 208 and 276, and as late as p.144 of the 146 page PROI, Martin Bryant is
still emphatically denying ownership or ever having seen the FN FAL and the scope and mounts
Police and the DPP assert were integral with it. Martin Bryant says, (p.201 & 202) "I've never
seen that one before. Never. That's not one of mine". And with Warren holding up a scope
claimed somehow to be part of the FN FAL, Bryant says, "No I've never seen that scope before
in my life" (p.208). Again, and with Warren holding up the FN FAL and a scope one more time,
Bryant reiterates, “...No, no, I've never seen that one before. Never."
Even very early in the PROI at p.107, Warren tries his level best to trip Bryant up, into
admitting he "had those three" (including the FN FAL) with him in the Volvo that Sunday, to
which Bryant answers, "I, I had two guns with me, I took for target practicing. I took the
shotgun and the little other gun, the Colt," and understandably and without legal counsel
present, he continues, "And I must have got that burnt that little, little one in the middle."
One of only two instances where Martin Bryant weakens under a relentless lengthy unlawful
interrogation by Police all conducted without his counsel present…
But importantly, police never did establish when and from whom Martin Bryant purchased the
"…little other gun, the Colt…." Remember, according to a Mercury article, Martin Bryant was
still trying to procure a Colt AR15 .223 firearm from Stuart Wood's gun shop on Friday, 26 April,
just two days before the massacre. But you will be able to consider a further revelation that
I believe goes a considerable way to explaining this reported claim by Stuart Woods, and to
exactly where Martin purchased "that little one", his Colt AR15 SP-1 carbine.
But Paine will not let go of the tenuous 'calibre-link' between the FN FAL and the Armalite AR10
rifle. He labours on suggesting to Bryant, "Now you say you've never seen that three O eight
[FN FAL] before but you did in fact own a three O eight. Bryant answers freely, "Yeah,
definitely…inaudible…, AR10." And then when questioned as to when he'd purchased his AR-10
·308W he replies, "…this is going back six, seven years now" and continues, "Out of the paper,
out of the Mercury." (Court Doc., PROI at p.202).
I believe I have shown this 'six or seven year' estimation to be somewhat inaccurate on the part
of Martin Bryant even a lie. But the window of opportunity for Martin to have made the
purchase from Andrew Hill had to be after he had obtained his forged licence, to be sporting
his recently grown long blonde hair; so the purchase of the Armalite AR10 7.62 NATO (308W)
rifle occurred sometime after June of 1994. But remember for police to have established this
date, and the details of previous owner as Andrew Hill would have been quite unhelpful to the
whole prosecution's case; the media then may well have been able to have exposed Andrew
Hill's alleged policeman-friend and naval reserve friends shooting together on a police shooting
range with Martin Bryant.
It would appear Police failed to inform the DPP whether or not they had bothered to check the
Guns & Ammo firearm register. For had they checked, they would have discovered contained
in Terry Hill's records the details of previous owner, Andrew Hill of Hobart. Also don't forget
the extent of persons that could have been deeply implicated in the Terry Hill conspiracy
affair. For such a revelation, would have forced them to publicly exonerate firearms dealer
Terry Hill and that meant a loss of face and possible exposure of all the conspirators to
litigation and even possible criminal prosecution.
So Bryant freely admitted to owning the Armalite AR-10 7.62 NATO rifle. Also with regard to
his later response to Paine's question "Did Mum know you had these guns?" A. "Mum never
knew, no"; this means the prosecution believed that even although Martin... ("I'm not that
bright," see page Court Doc 207), was nevertheless clever enough to successfully conceal for a
very considerable time, at least 5 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition from all of
the family including Carleen Bryant and girl friend Petra Willmot, who he'd had an intimate
relationship with for at least 2 months.
Before I leave the above PROI document and Martin Bryant's interrogation, I should draw your
attention to the fact that nowhere in any of the various articles (e.g. the APJ), is there a
photograph of the Redfield Scope and mounts supposedly integral with the FN FAL rifle. That
I'm sure you'll agree is quite incredulous.
It almost defies belief that the interviewing Police, Inspector's R. Paine and J Warren, would be
so naïve as to believe for a moment that this Redfield Scope and mounts could be an integral
part of the FN FAL rifle (see p.17 of the PROI), when it is obvious there appears to be no way
of fixing the sight to that type of rifle. I find the situation even stranger to say the least, the
DPP should have accepted such nonsense as evidence and that Mr. Avery sat there muted,
allowing his client to be "stitched-up" by such irrelevant, inadmissible, nonsense. Were police
terrified at the prospect of a trial in which a credible eyewitness could have come forward and
describe in detail the rifle used in the Broad Arrow Café, bus park outside, the taking of the
hostage Glen Pears and murder of his companion Zoë Hall, and in the ambush and woundings of
the people on the Arthur Highway outside Seascape providing a description that ruled out the
possibility of that firearm being a scoped FN FAL?
You see, as I have explained, the "G" Series FN FAL was an emergency late "stand-in" to fulfil
the role of the "30calibre throw-down", because Martin had been unable to retrieve his AR10
·308W rifle for that role, as it left for repair at Terry Hill's Guns and Ammo shop. One should
also be aware, that to the layperson eyewitness, unfamiliar with firearms, the profile of the
second rifle used by the gunman, the Armalite AR10 ·308W rifle (clean), could mistakenly be
seen to have a scope sight fitted, where as the profile lines of an FN FAL exhibits a clean top
action line – hence I believe the attempted deception by police! This becomes very clear, an
inarguable fact I would suggest and when the repeated
observations are noted by
witnesses in their
statements they often
AR-10 ·308W rifle: Note the profile suggest the rifle/s used
in the café had 'a scope "G" Series FN FAL, scoped: Note
sight fitted'. However, those witnesses familiar with the profile
(military) firearms make no such claim. (L: AR10-A2_rifle R: G-
series_scoped
Martin Bryant volunteered to police exactly how the mysterious purchase of the AR15 Carbine
was financed (see Court Doc. at p.210). He explained he used part of the $4,000-plus
proceeds, realised from the sale of his inflatable Zodiac and its 25 hp Evinrude outboard motor.
This claim goes some way to fitting with other known movements of Martin. But, we now know
Martin sold his Zodiac, unexpectedly less than 3 weeks prior to the Port Arthur Massacre. So
why is there no attempt by the DPP to establish details of that sale, details I'd suggest that
would have added substantial weight to the prosecutions brief…or would they have?
Consider this possibility: Martin Bryant realised the cash from the sale of the Zodiac some time
after the 7th of April and headed for the Hobart Gun Show of Saturday 13 April 1996. So with
his forged gun licence in the name of Martin Ryan and sporting his recently grown long blonde
hair style Martin Bryant was seen by witnesses to attend the Hobart Gun Show held in the Wrest
Point Casino and he told several people he’d purchased a new “little one”; was he referring to
the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine? For early in my inquiries an informant has stated he’s seen Martin
Bryant doing the rounds at this gun show. The informant further alleges that a knife maker
from up Sorell way he referred to as “AB” spoke to Bryant as he moved about before leaving
the premises. In that conversation he further alleged that when a fine hand-made knife was
offered to Bryant by the stall-holder, Martin replying in words to the effect, 'Oh sorry, I can't
afford that much today, as I just bought this little one', patting a package he raised which
partially exposed a firearm, the muzzle of which and bulk indicating it to be a Colt AR15
carbine. My informant further alleges that earlier he'd sighted a Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine, "with
a collapsible stock", for sale on the table of a certain well known Hobart Gunsmith, who was
definitely not Terry Hill. Now here a conundrum arrises:
Why would Stuart Woods allegedly tell reporters Martin had enquired
of him if "an AR15 was available" on 23/04/96, if Martin Bryant had
already purchased a Colt AR15 Carbine at the gun show on 13/04/96?
Was there an ulterior motive for Woods to suggest Martin Bryant did
make this inquiry?
Now the circumstances surrounding both the Zodiac's purchase and sale are like almost all that
is on the periphery of the Port Arthur psycho-political adventure masked with intrigue and
unbelievable coincidences. Nevertheless, let us look at this segment a little closer also.
From when the Bryant family bought a weekender shack near Port Arthur in spite of media and
one writer’s slant to the contrary, Martin befriended a number of the Peninsula's local youth.
His father Morris Bryant introduced the lad to skin-diving in the waters thereabouts, and this
later expanded into scuba diving.
His friend and benefactor Helen Harvey died in a two-car collision 1.6 km north of Copping on
20 October, 1992. Helen Harvey's Mazda 121 was said to have veered into the path of an
oncoming Ford Fairmont. In less than 12 months and on 14 August his father Morris died under
quite dubious circumstances on Martin’s farm at Copping. His body, with a lead-weighted
diving belt wrapped around his neck and upper torso, was recovered by police two days later
on the 17th from a dam on the property. Police also recovered a strip of 30mg Serapax tablets
on the body, from which approximately 18 tablets were missing; hardly a factor of significance
to have influenced Coroner Edward Vickers' verdict of the death as being 'consistent with
suicide,' I should think. Local resident was quoted in a lengthy article at the time as saying 'I
really think his father's death has a lot to with this [massacre] said Jodie Hodgett. He was
blamed for his father's death by the whole community pretty much … and he's carried that
with him.' Ironically, I believe neither the journalist nor Hodgett realise just how accurate the
statement is, although their understanding of it may be entirely at odds with reality! 6
Martin was already by this stage a keen scuba-diver, a past time that suddenly expanded for
him. My inquiries show that during the early 1990’s, Martin was not isolated and friendless, as
the media and some authors would have us believe, but instead he had a small circle of
friends, some on the Tasman Peninsula, while others scattered about, one even named from
the Pelverata area.
The story goes that while Martin was on a visit to Melbourne in 1995 and while walking down
Elizabeth Street he sighted an inflatable craft in a window display, and placed an order. This
seems to be how Martin did business. Now, another source actually took Mr Andrew MacGregor
to a Zodiac agent in Clarendon Street, South Melbourne, where one staff member claimed
Bryant purchased an 11'6" Zodiac inflatable. The same person (who claimed to be a staff
member) alleged that Bryant had first "arrived on a motorcycle". This informant further
alleged that as it was "off season" in the marine trade, and the inflatable was not on the
ground floor showroom, but upstairs (a claim I believe is difficult to sustain, as it would mean
Bryant had his inflatable for at least 6 months before he purchased the power unit for it).
Continuing the story teller alleged that after looking it over, but not making a deposit, Martin
placed 'a firm order' and promising to return later, allegedly taking a flight back to Hobart that
same day. But who loaned an unlicensed Martin Bryant the motorcycle? My inquiries revealed
in 1995 you couldn't hire a motorcycle in Melbourne, even if appropriately licensed.
Now this same source informed Andrew MacGregor that he was "surprised" when Martin
returned at all and collected and paid for the Zodiac, allegedly making this crossing of Bass
Strait aboard the Spirit of Tasmania. But even more incredible is the allegation that Bryant
arrived to collect the Zodiac driving a Mitsubishi van, and paid for the Zodiac with cash.
This allegation raises another question: It has been clearly established that Bryant surely had a
forged firearms licence, and the former SOG, and at Seascape the “controller”, was well
placed within the covert section of Police to effect that issue, but who supplied (a still
unlicensed Martin) with the Mitsubishi van? The informant then further alleged Martin was so
impressed by the good deal, that while staff prepared the inflatable for transporting, he
slipped away, returning shortly with a case of Guinness; what else would we expect than
Martin's favourite – mentioned 8 times in the various court documents - than a tip from an
appreciative customer.
There are a number of claims in this segment that even with the guided tour for Andrew
MacGregor, has not convinced either Andrew or myself of the story being credible. For be
aware, that the Victoria Police SOG would undoubtedly be quite familiar with the same
dealership's staff and premises.
I can confirm that from inquiries that I instituted in light of the forgoing, Martin Bryant
certainly did purchase a 25 hp Evinrude, which he used to power his Zodiac inflatable from a
well known marine dealership in Campbell Street Hobart somewhere between January and
February of 1996; no more than 3 months before the massacre.
From the PROI in the Court Documents we learn Bryant originally bought the yellow Volvo
sedan, registration number CG-2835, for towing the 11'6" Zodiac with its 25hp Evinrude
outboard, on his scuba-diving expeditions, when he stated, "…I didn't use the Volvo very much,
once I sold the boat…," somewhere between the 1/04/96 and 12/04/96l. But any fondness he'd
amassed for scuba-diving turned sour when obviously on one if not his first trip out, disaster
almost overtook the adventure. It appears that accompanied by his first girlfriend Janetta
Hoani, Martin launched the Zodiac at Recherche Bay. The sea conditions were reasonably
slight, but an unfavorably low air temperature persisted, and the pair made their way down
past the South East Cape to near Hen Island. All was going well, when the first tank of fuel ran
out. Upon switch-over to another (full) tank, and unbeknownst to Martin a fuel line connection
"came off". With the abyss that was Martin's mechanical aptitude, his repeated attempts to
start the fuel-starved Evinrude failed. With the pair shaking uncontrollably from the cold, the
situation was looking grim, when a fisherman picked them up after they'd fired a distress flare –
a close squeak that convinced Martin the Zodiac was 'for sale'.
The same South Melbourne informant though alleged Martin Bryant had later around the 7 April
1996, placed an order with his firm for some small spare parts for the Zodiac craft, just three
weeks prior to the massacre but that Martin never did pay for or collect the parts. Now if the
allegations from this source are not credible as I suspect they are, then understandably his last
claim that of him never being questioned by police regarding the Zodiac transaction is true.
From my own inquiries I can state with confidence that Martin Bryant’s estimation of “less than
3 months” having elapsing before he disposed of the inflatable unit does check out. I can also
reveal that I'm quite aware of who the mystery person was who purchased Martin's 11'6" Zodiac
with its 25hp Evinrude motor and trailer. Remember Martin tells us he only received
approximately $4,000 or less than half of the "nearly" $9,000 all-up cost of the unit new, but
still enough cash to cover the cost of purchasing his 'must buy' and 'type-cast' Colt AR15
Carbine.
In fact I can state confidently that a well known Hobart entrepreneur engaged in the up-market
sector of the hospitality industry purchased Martin Bryant's inflatable: the only question that
remains, was the buyer coincidentally attracted to the bargain price or not?
I believe time has proven the messenger who guided this investigation to South Melbourne is at
least dodgy and at this stage all but one piece of information is proven as untrue. However I
felt you should have the chance to consider the story. I now believe the reason for this
elaborate hoax has everything to do with muddying the waters around that important mystery
male at Seascape, their main man – Rick. Of one thing I can be certain, persons other than,
and in addition to "Jamie", were simultaneously inside Seascape, during the siege, besides
Martin Bryant and the killers' victims. I will deal with Rick elsewhere, be patient please. But
of Rick - the phantom of Seascape - in the negotiator's transcript was mentioned no less than
39 times: in contrast police ask just once about "Rick"!
They never dared to probe the burning question of how "Rick" vanished in the aftermath of the
inferno at Seascape! All of the investigators' unwillingness to exact closure on the "Rick" or
Mick aspect is strongly suggestive of them in fact being complicit in exactly who Rick is – yes,
is!
The exposure of the identity of Rick unquestionably in my opinion would prove so very
embarrassing, even catastrophic to the whole of the exercise and destroy entirely the official
line of a "lone gunman," Martin Bryant. It would seem entirely logical that it was Mick who
murdered first David Martin and then Sally Martin.
Though the DPP implies that "Rick" and Glen Pears are one and the same, that is nothing more
than yet another of their deceptions! Glen Pears was originally from Tasmania, he was not
from Victoria, and he lived at the time in Sydney. Also Martin in the personality of "Jamie" was
sure that the lone "hostage" (Glen Pears), which he unconvincingly believed he'd captured at
the Palmers Lookout Road turn-off and locked in the boot of the BMW - reported in early media
reports as burnt to death in the boot of the car - but as Martin tells us in the Court Document,
as he bangs on the back door of Seascape, the car exploded. - (see Court Doc. PROI at p.103,
107 etc).
But Martin Bryant's vague and uncertain recollections of what he himself actually did, between
0105 hrs on Sunday 28, and 0835 hrs on Monday 29 April, are entirely consistent with him
having been subtly influenced to act out a role, just as Police Negotiator, Sergeant Terry
McCarthy told Ray Martin in his interview with Win TV's, A Current Affair. Little wonder he
commented that the experience for him was "bizarre".
I find it difficult to accept that Glen Pears – at least in the personality and mind of "Jamie" –
could have been considered to figure in any negotiations towards helicopter rides out of
Seascape on the night of the 28-29 April 1996, if he "believed" Pears died in the boot of the
BMW, as he certainly expressed a belief that Pears had died that way when interviewed by
police. However, as we know police set alight both the BMW and the Seascape Cottage this
segment must still cause some of them nightmares at least!
Shooting Practice
When Martin Bryant was questioned about learning to shoot his firearms, the Crown's case is
less than convincing. It would have taken a great deal more extensive and intensive training
with the two primary firearms, overseen by qualified instruction before Martin Bryant could
reach any minimum level of competency, even if he were not mentally impaired.
Even with extensive expert advice and training some people are never able to be classed
"proficient shooters," but let's give Martin the benefit of the doubt. But, consider this
information; a reliable informant who travelled on a Cruise Liner remembers Martin well on the
voyage, and observed Martin over a considerable period of time shooting a shotgun over a clay-
target trap affixed to the stern of the ship. From his personal observations he commented that
Martin Bryant shot at a large number of clay targets, but try as he may, Martin failed to hit a
single clay-pigeon. In fact, the observer commented that he really believed, 'Bryant couldn't
hit the broad side of a barn, but he appeared to enjoy himself all the same'.
The Police questioned Bryant regarding the location and extent of his firearm practice which
the Crown would have us believe transformed Martin Bryant into a proficient special operations
combat marksman.
Martin told the two detectives that he used to go to a, "spot between Dunalley and Eagle Hawk
Neck," and turn down a road there to a "forestry place." He went on saying he used to "shoot
trees…[and] tin cans, [but] never bottles, no not bottles `cos they break and they could injure
the animals.." Bryant also volunteered that he "never shot animals" either.
When the Police suggested he'd taken along "targets" he admitted, "Yes", just home made
targets made from cardboard, with circles drawn on them, and the total ammunition consumed
in this amazing transformation is claimed to be just 'several hundred rounds' in total. (Court
Doc., PROI at p.215-216)
Detective Paine asked Martin, "And umm, when you practiced your shooting, did you, where did
you hold the gun?" To which Bryant (A) responds: —
A. Up like this, on my left.
Q. So you're left handed.
A. Umm, I write with this hand.
Q. Ohh that's right, sorry yeah.
A. I but this is me finger.
Q. So if you held a gun, you would pull the trigger with your, a finger on your left
hand?" [To which Bryant responded,]
A. Yeah that's right, yeah.
Now let's look carefully at this point. Martin wrote with his right hand and at least believed he
shot a firearm from his left shoulder. This is not an uncommon trait among shooters in my
experience and I myself did shoot right or left handed with equal speed and accuracy. But I
also shot regularly then, perhaps as much as every other day.
So I have made this point here for no other reason but to indicate clearly that even with
Martin's supposed intellectual disability it is possible for him to be ambidextrous. However, in
my own case, while I very much favoured my right hand in shooting, and sport, I did play some
sport left handed. I could also shoot equally as well off either shoulder. But I must stress my
shooting experiences occurred in situations not comparable with the pressure situation the
gunman worked under in the Broad Arrow Café and elsewhere. So consider the following
especially in relation to this fact.
At page 140 of the Court Document Mr Bugg Q.C. states, "Your Honour, throughout the
incidents that I described to you today most people who had an opportunity to observe Bryant
stated that he appeared calm, unrushed and not showing any signs of emotion..." Although, I
have no hesitation and every confidence in stating, the eyewitnesses Mr Bugg is referring to
here, never laid eyes upon Martin Bryant that April day, anywhere inside the Broad Arrow Café.
Considering Martin Bryant’s left handed shooting posture this is completely at odds with at
least four eyewitness statements and there are no witness statements to the contrary: why did
the DPP choose to ignore this fact? Consider that the gunman was shooting at seven separate
and uniquely different crime scenes, all of which demanded of the gunman differing weapon
skills, but still he aimed and shot the firearm while it was held at his right side, or his right
shoulder and therefore:
Repeatedly, the gunman is witnessed as being right-handed, while Martin
Bryant is by choice shown to be left handed by police interrogators.
Martin Bryant had quite limited sessions of shooting — at most a few hundred rounds into
motionless, static, paper targets — it is an impossible proposition for him to have transformed
himself into the right-handed calm, mechanical gunman that controlled entirely at least five of
the six crime scenes on the Tasman Peninsula in 1996, using two firearms of markedly different
handling characteristics, different recoils, length of pull and weight of trigger pull. One
firearm weighed a whopping 10·5 lbs. (4.76kg) loaded and was 148 cm long, while the other
was a mere 6 lbs 13 oz (approx. 3kg) loaded and was just 86 cm long…
Eyewitness accounts at the six crime scenes on the Tasman Peninsula state, the shooter fired
his firearm from his right hand side. Therefore, consider the Court Doc., PROI edited version
and beginning with Bryant's second answer to Paine's question of, "How many guns do you own?"
Bryant replies, "I own umm, a shotgun and a semi-automatic and another semi-automatic.
Three altogether." Later in this document it is clearly established Bryant was referring to
1.) Colt AR15 ·223Rem,
2.) Armalite AR10 7.26NATO (·308W) Rifle (in Guns and Ammo for repair) and
3.) a Daewoo 12ga self-loading shotgun, which the DPP and Gerard Dutton claim was not
fired during the incident but was recovered from the Volvo's boot abandoned at the
Port Arthur Tollbooth.
Again I ask: where did the FN FAL rifle come from? I’m firmly of
the position Martin Bryant purchased the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine
from a stall at the Gun Show staged at the Wrest Point Casio on
Saturday 20th April. So why were police so taciturn when it came
to establishing any of the three primary firearm's movement
history? I’m forced to conclude the answers would have proven
quite embarrassing to cert person in positions of power able to
deployed coercive influences upon police asking the questions that
Hobart’s Risdon Prison: forced them to abandon and/or perhaps even ignore such routine
A poignant reminder of Martin police investigations of firearm movement history, in favour of
Bryant’s situation; "No Exit –
their own "security" (such as was deployed against the innocent
Go Back."
firearms dealer Terry Hill). Risdon_entrance
If one considers the documented evidence and does not ignore his
mother's assessment, I believe I can confidently state Martin Bryant
was intellectually incapable of preparing a cartridge and then to
comprehend that as a result of such a cartridge’s preparation it would
“blow-up” the Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine.
I’m also comfortable with my conclusions regarding his last trip to the Tasman Peninsula as a
free man, that as no empirical evidence was collected by police from the Broad Arrow Café,
linking Martin Bryant to any of the shooting murders in and about the Café I can but firmly
conclude Martin Bryant was never at any time there inside the Broad Arrow Café on Sunday
the 28th of April 1996.
Conclusion
Immediately after Martin Bryant staggered from the inferno that was the Seascape cottage
suffering quiet serious category 2 burns, but importantly alive, those central to this awful
exercise were forced to face the prospect of an unwelcomed trial
by jury and the distinct possibility of their scheme unravelling
before an angry public. This outcome was further amplified by
the fact there were some millions of average Australians among
this same citizenry who were facing reluctantly the forced
surrender of their treasured private property – their firearms - to
this same authority.
Martin Bryant's Cell in Risdon The time has come for some weight questions to be answered and
Prison's hospital. the questions will be raised as this work is brought to a conclusion.
End Notes:
1
Das, Sushila - in Hobart, The Age newspaper, 22nov96, p.6.
2
Wayne Jones, "Desperate bid for a gun," the Herald Sun, 4may96.
3
"The trauma trade", The Bulletin, 27jan04, at http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/
4
Ibid, passim
5
n.a., The Mercury, p.1, 15aug98; Whinnett, Ellen & Barbeluik, Anne, The Mercury, p.1, 29apr00
6
Kate Halfpenny, "The Suspect," Who Weekly, 13may96, pp. 28-30
Chapter 15
T
he Seascape segment of the Port Arthur massacre begins with the not-so-ordinary
“guests” who lodged with Sally and David Martin, on the night of Saturday, April 27. All 4
guests stand out as – quite unusual. As I have already demonstrated the massacre was
nothing more or less than a horrid exercise, continuing along that scenario, please let me set
the scene.
Stephanie and Donald Gunn: had booked ahead, this couple motored up from their Hobart
home, and checked in on that rainy, Saturday afternoon at 1.45pm. Later at 4.30pm, two
other guests arrived, who Gunn claimed were named Julie and Virginia – no surnames even
suggested as possible here. That is a telling point I would suggest. He also claimed they both
hailed from Sydney. But is Donald Gunn’s recollection of the girls accurate or had he possibly
been … mislead? On the last count, I think not.
For as accurate as I can be, these female guests’ names were almost surely Lynne and Jean and
if I'm correct, then they hailed from Melbourne. For I believe this pair was also – “on the job”!
While the Gunns dined out, returning at around 9.00pm and socialised with the Martin’s for a
while, the two mystery female guests went to the Historic Site to experience Port Arthur’s
popular ghost tour, and if working, take the opportunity to check-out the site for the exercise,
on the morrow. Upon their return to Seascape the 4 guests retired for the evening.
On the Sunday morning, it is claimed just the six sat down to breakfast together at about
9.00am, with “Julie” and “Virginia” (or was it Lynn and Jean), departing Seascape 30 minutes
later at around 9.30am. Though strangely neither Donald nor Stephanie recall the colour
and/or even the make of the vehicle these female guests were driving. Strange, especially
when all the evidence is considered carefully, the vehicle has to be a rather distinctive model
244Gl Volvo sedan in an equally distinctive Volvo yellow. I do wonder if they ever made a
statement for police … Julie and Virginia that is. What a pity I have no signed statement by
either female in my files as yet. I'm betting the DPP couldn't furnish one either!
But then also for many years now I’ve pondered the identity of the two females who admitted
ownership of the “clone” yellow 244 Gl Volvo sedan on the Historic Site. The facts suggest to
me that they are the same pair who Donald Gunn is referring to here and I’m sure we will meet
them both again near Clougha on the Historic Site.
Remember that Sunday 28 April, dawned a beautiful, mild, sunny day; perfect for sightseeing -
the purpose of their stay at Seascape according to Donald Gunn.
But curiously the Gunns seemed to have - hung about - delaying their departure from Seascape
until quite late in the morning. You see Donald states he and Stephanie departed "about
11.15am – 11.20am".
Even after taking to the road the couple confined their sightseeing – the claimed purpose of
their trip to the Tasman Peninsula - to Stewarts Bay, White Beach, and Nubeena, where they
broke their sightseeing to play tennis at the local school until 2.00pm; hardly a 'seeing the
sights tour' I should think.
From Nubeena they drove via Premaydena to reach Eaglehawk Neck in about an hour and a half
(3.30 pm), where they say they learned from the lady at the café, there was “a gunman on the
loose”, and so they then tootled off home, where they arrived within the hour, at 4.20pm.
This rather nonchalant indifferent understanding of events doesn't fit with people across the
nation- let alone on the Peninsula. Before they left Nubeena the sky would have been filled
with helicopters as was reported by locals and the raucous scream of police and ambulance
emergency sirens would have been quite difficult to ignore! But from Donald Gunn, not even a
line to acknowledge awareness of that commotion.
Donald Gunn’s stated departure time of “about 11.15am – 11.20am,” conflicts with at least two
other witness statements, and indeed the DPP’s case itself. This time puts Stephanie and
Donald Gunn in the time zone at Seascape when allegedly shots were fired that killed David
Martin! And we know that at this time Martin Bryant was miles away at Forsett. Can you now
see the problems Donald Gunn's statement causes?
Not only was Martin Bryant witnessed 61km away from the Martin’s, drinking coffee at the
Forcett Shell service station when the DPP claims he was murdering David Martin inside
Seascape, but is it possible Donald and Stephanie Gunn got their facts wrong? Or were they
indeed at Seascape at the time of this murder? Mr Bugg QC, simply cannot have his cake and
eat it too, no matter how intense his desire to do so.
A Sunday Drive
Now upon this supposedly tranquil, sunny morning beside
the waters of Long Bay, we have to introduce the young
intellectually impaired young man, Martin Bryant.
No. 30 Clare St, New Town
Martin made an unhurried, almost scripted journey from
Hobart down the Tasman Peninsula, departing - so Mr Bugg claims - from his Clare Street home,
at 9.47am that Sunday. He left New Town behind as he drove over the Tasman Bridge and
along the highway he went, making weird stops and purchases: at
about 10.30am, from Midway Point Newsagency he stops to buy a
disposable (butane) cigarette lighter - but Martin didn’t smoke.
Seven to ten minutes further along he again breaks his journey at
a small supermarket in the main street of Sorell, (now a
newsagency), where he buys a
bottle of tomato sauce – have
Midway Point News Agency
you noted a pattern
developing? He's being shown-off, noticed. The minimum
duration possible to drive the Arthur Highway between
Sorell and Port Arthur is 55 minutes. I have timed this trip
myself (before the road was upgraded) and can confirm 55
minutes is achievable - just.
Forsett - Shell petrol station
In the cental part of Sorell, Martin turns right at the traffic
lights, and entered the Arthur Highway. On he drives for 7km through Forcett to the Shell
service station, where he stops to chat with Garry King, who
makes Martin a cup of coffee. King estimated this time at
between 11.30am and midday.
Crown Prosecutor, Damien Bugg QC, chooses not to name this witness or give a time, as no
doubt about now you are beginning to realise that the time line Mr Bugg QC is presenting to the
court as fact is becoming decidedly feeble.
But Mike Bingham (Suddenly One Sunday, p.158) corroborates a statement we know was given
to police by a female witness and Peninsula resident who made a positive ID of Martin Bryant,
driving his yellow Volvo through Eaglehawk Neck at 11.30am,
‘happily engrossed, jumping up and down in time to the music he
was listening to in the car’.
Martin still had 19km before he would reach Port Arthur. But at
about 11.45am Martin Bryant yet again broke his journey 6km
south from Eaglehawk Neck at the Taranna Convict Shop &
Bakery, operated by Christopher Hammond. Mr Hammond noted
the “yellow coloured Volvo” that “came into the store car park Taranna Convict Shop & Bakery
for fuel…I put the petrol in and he paid me with a ten and five - now abandoned
dollar note….” Note that Mr Hammond has suggested he fuelled the
Volvo – there’s no suggestion of filling fuel-cans. At Taranna Martin
would have been delayed from 3 to 5 minutes and there remain a
further 6 km to Seascape, and a further 4 km to Port Arthur.
But, Martin Bryant cruises past Seascape, on through Port Arthur and
turns left into Palmers Lookout Rd, continuing for about 2.5km on past
Roger Larner cMay 1996 the fork in the road where he visits his old acquaintance Roger Larner,
a segment of his journey as witnessed by Jai Nichols who we shall
deal with shortly. Roger Larner who's property fronts Palmers
Lookout Rd, timed Martin’s arrival, “at 1.05 pm,” (1305 hrs), and
it is Mike Bingham who tells us Martin departed after ‘about ten
minutes’ – or at about 1.15pm.
Now the young teenager Jai Nichols was dropped off at the Port
Arthur General Store by his grandfather at about 12 noon that
Sunday. He intended to hitch a ride to Hobart. Jai first walked
Roger Larner's place c2002
the 2.6 km to the Fox and Hounds. Here and after “waiting for
two or three minutes,” beside the northbound lane, he states he saw, “a yellow Volvo with a
surfboard on top coming down the highway…,” towards him, southbound towards Port Arthur;
the vehicle proceeded on past him. Some minutes later he recommenced walking towards
Hobart, and just short of ·7km from the Fox and Hounds and as he approached Seascape, the
same yellow Volvo overtook him, its brakelights came on, and it turned right, into Seascape,
and went right on down the driveway.
Nichols described the driver as having, “sort of bleachy blonde hair, he looked like a real young
looking bloke,” and he hadn’t seen him before around Port Arthur. So in reality, Jai Nichols
was the last member of the public, documented as having sighted Martin Bryant, before he was
secreted away in Seascape not to reappear until SOG’s arrested him naked and badly burnt
outside Seascape at 0835 hrs on Monday 29th.
Damien Bugg QC goes to considerable lengths to detail those parts of the statements of
witnesses such as Michael Copping, John Mason and Doug McCutcheon that by stretching their
ambiguities he is able to have them support his synopsis of Martin Bryant’s yellow Volvo having
already arrived at Seascape by as early as 11.00am, so as to buttress the flawed time line to
account for time of death of David and Sally Martin.
Now to the “clone” yellow Volvo: Mr Copping stated he “saw a yellow Volvo parked at a
slight angle outside the front door the MARTIN’S HOUSE.” But was it Martin Bryant’s Yellow
Volvo? Now we must consider very carefully the mystery female guests allegedly from Sydney,
and allegedly called Julie and Virginia. Now it is understandable that all of the participants in
this horrid conspiracy were left no alternative other than to distort the story so as to save their
collective hides. If it was a planned exercise, then surely that is not too difficult to accept.
So is this what actually occurred with regard to some claims made in the signed statements –
importantly never tested under oath - that were made to police by some visitors to the “Pink
Palace on that Saturday evening before the fateful Sunday of the 28th of April 1996?
You see I suggest these two females are one and the same two females who admitted to being
in charge of a yellow Volvo identical to that of Martin Bryant’s that PAHSMA staff discovered
secreted away in dead ground on a street behind the “Clougha” cottage.
This “clone” vehicle was discovered by Paul Cooper while the gunshots rang out at the Broad
Arrow, at about 1335hrs. Cooper stated that he “recognised it,” as one and the same as “the
gunman had been in the boot of earlier [parked beside the water].” The car had been hidden
on Tramway Street which runs East and West up dead ground to the South of Clougha and it
was therefore out-of-sight to the hundreds of people fleeing the shooting over the greater part
of the Historic Site’s grounds.
Paul Cooper asked several women close by if they had seen “anyone in the Volvo as [he]
believed the gunman must have been in the near vicinity.” One admitted to being the driver.
He advised them both ‘not drive the vehicle as it was a restricted zone, and as the gunman was
driving a sedan identical to theirs – they could well be inadvertently shot at’.
Within a few minutes, the gunman had departed the Site via the tollbooth. But very shortly
these two females must have returned to their yellow Volvo sedan, and moved the vehicle to
Church St, whereupon another member of staff stopped the female driver and yet again urged
her to leave the car, lock it up and take shelter with the other visitors in the site cottages.
However this unidentified female driver surreptitiously departed the environs undetected by
any of the Historic Site staff, even evading the gatekeeper on the Champ St barrier beside the
Port Arthur Motor Inn!
Consider though this important point: for those who managed this disgusting exercise, it would
have been mandatory for them to ensure Seascape Cottages did not host any nasty surprises in
the form of a guest or guests, with some latent ability experience or expertise for instance,
that could have been employed to intervene successfully in their disgusting plot, an action I
should think which could have disrupted or even jeopardised the entire exercise.
It is also my considered opinion, that it would have been necessary for the terrorists to have
taken control of the complex and its occupants on late the Saturday afternoon, so as to deny
any uninvited and therefore unknown guests who could have come to the assistance of David
and sally Martin and so jeopardise the exercise. Therefore I conclude that the Martins would
have been hostages from sometime late on the Saturday afternoon before the massacre.
The planners would have demanded some considerable lead time window of security of their
programme by having their people monitor the site chosen as the control centre - Seascape.
So I would ask you to give sober consideration yet again to this question: Were Julie and
Virginia in truth Lynne and Jean? And - did they perhaps not at that time hail from Sydney,
but instead from just across Bass Strait and from the mainland city of Melbourne?
After consideration of the immediate forgoing, was the “… yellow Volvo parked at a slight
angle outside the front door the MARTIN’S HOUSE,” seen by Mr Copping, in fact identical in
model and colour to Martin Bryant's Yellow Volvo, the "clone" yellow Volvo sedan later seen by
various reliable witnesses for some considerable time in restricted areas of the Historic Site
after the gunman had departed the precincts.
I can state with confidence that when Martin’s yellow Volvo 240 GL departed Seascape for the
vehicle park outside the Broad Arrow Cafe, it was not driven by Martin Bryant. The driver must
have been the yet to be identified blonde-headed gunman. Martin Bryant I believe must by this
point have been in the care and control of a person called “Rick” or "Mick". Possibly other
accomplices were involved, and together they must have subjected Bryant to a form of
constraint (mentally or by drugs for instance) so that he remained inside Seascape not to
emerge until Seascape was a raging inferno and out of which he staggered with his clothes
alight, at 0824 hrs next morning.
How can I state Martin was not behind the wheel when the yellow Volvo departed for Port
Arthur? After all, Mr Bugg tells us that it was Martin Bryant who came upon two young female’s
in their broken-down van beside the Arthur Highway. But Mr Bugg accepts that Bryant assisted
the young ladies with his auto electric skills, a claim I can refute with some established facts
and simple logic:
1. Martin Bryant has confirmed on a number of occasions and over a long period of time
that he was totally lacking of a mechanical aptitude. He could not discover that a
broken fuel-line on his outboard was the cause for his inability to restart the motor.
2. Also, confirmed by Professor Paul Mullen and even again during Martin’s conversation
with Roger Larner, to name but two witnesses, Martin stated that he would have
nothing to do with smoking and the taking of drugs such as marijuana.
You see the blonde-headed driver who alighted from Martin’s yellow Volvo beside the Arthur
Highway just south of Seascape exhibited many key characteristics completely at odds to that
of Martin Bryant.
• This blonde male exuding the “musty smell” of ‘weed’ or marijuana and the male
‘did a deal’ on the side of the road, paying Ms Lynd with a $50 note for a satchel of
Marijuana.
• Martin never ever used or associated with illicite drugs. For years he’d been a health
fanatic.
• The Volvo driver demonstrated a comprehension of and skill in basic auto-electrics.
• Conversely, Martin was mechanically ignorant; he always carried a can of petrol in his
Volvo because, “…the, it, it was the gauge was pretty, fairly faulty you know.” * Also
during his one and only jaunt in his 11’6” Zodiac with its 25hp Evinrude outboard he
and Janetta Hoani his girlfriend at the time almost died from exposure at sea, when
Martin could not restart the Evinrude when the first tank of fuel ran out; he didn’t
know to turn the fuel tap on.
But the gunman driving the yellow Volvo have just departed from Seascape Cottage had pulled
over to assist Gaye Lynd and her friend. Unable to restart the overheated engine, the blonde
haired male exuding his musty smell, leant into her van, held a loose lead tight to the battery
terminal, so as to start the overheated, dead motor. As Gaye Lynd and her female companion
let the motor idle, that is when he did the $50 drug deal. Remember also, Martin payed for
every other item on that trip from Clare Street to Port Arthur down the highway with heaps of
small change. From the break-down site the gunman made his way through the Port Arthur
Tollbooth, down Jetty Road to the car park, after defying parking instructions issued by Ian
Kingston when he parked the Volvo at the waters’ edge some 50 yards from the Broad Arrow
Café entrance door.
Here we shall break the sequential order of the story, taking it up once again after covering
the police reaction to Mrs Scurr’s 000 emergency call timed at 1332 hrs and made from the
Information Centre, at about which time the gunman was preparing to depart the Tollbooth
and progress toward Seascape Cottage.
_________________
*
From the PROI in response to a question from Insp Paine.
125
Chapter 16
W
e are not privileged as to who decided to split the force at
Nubeena. But Const Garry Whittle proceeded directly the 11
km to the Port Arthur Tollbooth, while Const Paul Hyland
carried on via Premaydena and Taranna thence south to the Fox and
Hounds just north of Port Arthur a trip of a total 24.5 km.
Port Arthur Tollbooth
But at the Port Arthur Tollbooth, the gunman had in the most callous
exhibition taken the lives of four occupants of the gold or tan coloured BMW adding to his
gruesome trail of murder back down Jetty Road to the Broad Arrow
Cafe. Nearby the Tollbooth at the entrance to the Historic Site,
Martin Bryant's yellow Volvo sedan with a surfboard on its roof-rack
stood abandoned with its rear RH passenger window exhibiting bullet
damage. The car everyone would later remember even to surrender
Martin's passport. A false signpost if you will, pointing to Martin
Bryant; 'Look, I've been here'. But for those who hadn't seen him
actually hijack the BMW sedan, the abandoned Volvo was a
LH rear compartment frightening riddle: 'Where's the gunman now… lurking in the bush?'
window, bullet damaged
However, somehow the DPP’s assistant Mr Nick Perks, was able to tell us that at this point the
gunman transferred certain items from the yellow Volvo to the BMW; 'the Colt AR15 rifle, a
quantity of ammunition, two sets of Smith and Wesson handcuffs and most probably at least
one container of petrol.' - (Court Transcript, p.157)
Point "4" could well have been included in the chapter, "Building the Crown's Case" I think.
Also, the probability of this last item "4" being transferred I challenge and shall expand upon
my reasons for doing so later in the narrative. Remember, without at least one container of
petrol, the prosecution's theory as to the circumstances surrounding the torching of the BMW is
implausible.
Beginning with Robert Salzmann out of the BMW, the gunman changed from the 223Rem calibre
weapon, once again taking up the FN FAL 308W self-loading rifle as his weapon.
But before they had even left the Coal Mines site, Garry Whittle tells us in his statement, VKT
came back by radio to inform the Constables of a major incident at Port Arthur: Whittle timed
this call at 1335hrs, although Deputy Com Richard McCreadie states the time to be 1336 hrs.
[0+4min]
At 1339 hrs [0+7min] the Ambulance Service was notified of the incident. 1 But, as few details
were known at the outset, little information would have been transmitted over the open Police
Radio channel to the Constables. At 1345 hrs [0+13min] Inspector Barry Bennett was notified
and dispatched for Taranna, with two CIB personnel departing from Bellerive a minute later.
At 1351 hrs [0+19min] Assist Com Luppo Prins was notified, and the MIR room was activated.
But the two Constables who'd been at the Coal Mines were meantime returning the 19 km to
Nubeena Police Station, over an exceedingly narrow, poorly aligned, rough, but sealed road;
the journey would have taken them some 15-19 minutes, making their ETA at Nubeena Police
Station of 1353 hrs [0+21min].
Perhaps just a minute before the two Constables arrival at Nubeena, and timed at 1352hrs,
eyewitness Jim Laycock made his second "000" call from the Kodak Express shop at Port Arthur,
to inform police in Hobart of the shooting of a female and abduction of a male just 50 or so
metres across the highway and before his very eyes, at the entrance to Port Arthur's General
Store.
Digressing for a moment, Police Radio VKT in Hobart, were undoubtedly not alone in the
monitoring of radio traffic on their single channel #6 analogue system that day. We are aware
of proven covert monitoring taking place, in addition to any legal amateur scanning activity by
members of the public, media journalists and the like. There is also at least one documented
reference of additional unspecified radio equipment deployed and in use, vaguely described as,
“SAC PAV radio equipment”. 2 However we have learned from a police sergeant tasked within
the operation, that the above quote certainly understates the true situation.
End Notes
1
McCreadie, Richard, Port Arthur – an Overview of Police Response, p.6
2
ibid., p.8
Chapter 17
J
im Laycock stated that the gunman departed the Port Arthur
General Store, and after just about 3 minutes had elapsed, Const
Chris Iles arrived on the scene, and parked his marked police vehicle
outside Port Arthur's Kodak Express shop operated by James Laycock's
daughter Melanie and his son-in-law Yanni Kateros. Here he spoke to Jim
Laycock at about 1355 hrs [0+23min]. Const Iles had approached Port
Arthur from the north down the Arthur Highway. As Const Iles'
movements that day are … officially speaking … the most closely guarded
secret of the exercise, I can but speculate, surely he must have passed
the gold BMW before the gunman had alighted from his vehicle parked at
the Seascape entrance and so before he began shooting at the 5 Witness: the late
southbound vehicles. The Constable's eventual actions are suggestive of "Jim" Laycock
panic. But certainly in those first few minutes, Constable Iles'
unannounced, unplanned presence in the area must just as surely have caused the individuals
secreted covertly in and about the general area who were running the operation an onset of
heightened nervous tension I should think?
The gunman had shot Zoe Hall from her left side 3 times with the FN FAL
7.62 NATO rifle with only two exit holes evident in the vehicle: the RH
side pillar and the RH side rear door. Once At this point eyewitness Kyle
Spruce corroborates Jim Laycock’s account of what occurred next:
Constable Iles for no apparent reason, and on the spur of the moment,
Bullet damage,
changed his mind, leaving Jim Laycock standing
Corolla RH pillar
there on the driveway, he roared off alone in his
marked police car, at high speed, north up the Arthur Highway, and for
the purpose of this narrative, Const Chris Iles has now literally
disappeared off the face of the earth… [ETD: 1358 hrs or 1.58 pm -
0+26min].
Bullet damage, Corolla
RH rear door So it would appear Chris Isles departed the cross-over at Port Arthur
General Store, 5 minutes before Const Garry Whittle departed Nubeena,
or 13 minutes before his estimated arrival of 2.11 pm, at the entrance to the Historic Site's
Tollbooth, just 100 yards away from Port Arthur's Kodak Shop. 1411 hrs [0+39 min].
About here, there arises quite a mystery: As Const Iles initially approached Port Arthur from
Taranna he should have passed the BMW at some point; either travelling north, or parked at
the Seascape entrance. Yet another scenario is possible: had the gunman completed his task
on the highway outside Seascape and parked near the cottage and all the wounded from the
ambush, withdrawn to enter the premises of the Fox and Hounds? This last scenario seems the
logical one to me. But then, what happened when the constable departed driving off north up
the Arthur highway past these same positions at high speed? As by this stage, if Const Iles
drove past the entrance to Seascape - 3.3 km up the highway from the General Store - he
would have done so at an estimated time of 1404 hrs – just approximately 3-4 minutes after
the gunman had finished his highway ambush and withdrawn into the environs of Seascape
Cottage.
It was at the estimated time of 1409 hrs, Const Hyland had received a radio message from
Hobart Police HQ informing him of the wounded from the five targeted vehicles ambushed as
they passed south by the Seascape entrance having been given shelter in the Fox and Hounds.
So the question remains, where did Constable Iles disappear to? Remembering he had at this
time a clear run north through the gunman's shooting gallery outside Seascape, as he had
withdrawn inside the environs. So the fleeing constable could well have driven on past, then
left the Arthur Highway for the sanctuary of a forest track that as a local policeman for many
years, he would have been very familiar with.
Now a little Peninsula background is warranted here: Const Chris Iles was the former Nubeena
Policeman, prior to Const Paul Hyland’s posting there in the autumn of 1995. Hyland took up
residence in the Nubeena police house with his girlfriend Merran Craig, although I’m unsure as
to Hyland’s former position and posting. But for some considerable period up until 1995, Chris
Iles was the well known, local Port Arthur area “cop”.
Some time ago a former Peninsula local confirmed that during his time at Nubeena, ‘Chris Iles
was known to associate with Ian Kingston’, who in those days operated the Trading Post, a sort
of op-shop at Port Arthur, while he also worked a gravel truck on the Tasman Peninsula.
Certainly well before 1996, and also just prior to Paul Hyland’s posting to Nubeena, this same
informant alleges that ‘a policeman together with a local identity’ were subject to police
prosecutions and court actions, 'in relation to illicit drugs'. The informant went on to allege,
'both the accused were slated to have simultaneous hearings', strangely (or not so strangely for
Tasmania), the hearings were moved to the Launceston Magistrates Court, and the matters
were never reported in the southern based newspaper The Mercury. Somehow – perhaps again
because it is Tasmania – my informant alleges 'the policeman was convicted but retained his
employment', with Tasmania Police and received inconsequential disciplinary action but also
that 'the magistrate gave him a non custodial sentence'. Allegedly, his partner-in-crime also
received a 'non-custodial sentence'. In the wash-up of the case, allegedly the unnamed
policeman was transferred, effective immediately.
My inquires also suggest it wasn’t until after Hyland came to Nubeena in the autumn of 1995
that Ian Kingston was elevated to the position of SES unit manager for the Tasman group. Of
course as regards Constable Chris Iles, his new posting was north to his new Police Station at
Sorell, 52 km north up the Arthur Highway, in that same year. So Iles stumbled on the crime…
So back to the situation at Port Arthur and consider, “What exactly was this former Nubeena
policeman doing cruising 41 km down the Arthur Highway and out of his jurisdiction?”
Coincidentally of course his journey - all the way to Port Arthur - just happened to coincide
with the joint Dunalley and Nubeena police investigation of an anonymous report of an illicit
drugs “stash” which turned out to be nothing more than an unidentified white powder at the
Coal Mines, 30 km from Port Arthur, and about as far away that the Nubeena police can get
without leaving the Peninsula.
The joint investigation by Hyland and Whittle no doubt involved radio chatter over the open
Police analogue radio - at least between Police HQ in Hobart and the two Constables. Radio
traffic I would suggest that would surely have attracted the attention of this former Nubeena
Policeman. Also of interest is the fact that it was in June of 1995 Ian Kingston was employed
by PAHSMA and entrusted with the responsibility for security for the Historic Site on a part-
time basis, while he continued in his role as Unit Manager of Tasman SES.
Though because Const Chris Iles is not on the public record as taking any further part
whatsoever in the Port Arthur incident, I’m forced to raise the following points:
“What triggered Constable Iles’ abrupt, and unwarranted withdrawal from his
former community, and the abandonment and disregard for the wellbeing of the
male hostage, he’d been informed was abducted in the locked boot of the gold
coloured car heading north?”
But even further questions are raised; Keeping in mind that eyewitness Kyle Spruce stated
that he told Const Chris Iles, the gunman driving the BMW, “had someone in the boot”, and Jim
Laycock named this policeman as Const Chris Iles, I also ask these questions:
1. Why was Chris Iles not mentioned in any of the official reports?
2. Why did he abandon the community people he knew, and who knew him well, and so
leave all these people’s wellbeing in the lap of the gods?
3. What heavy influence was brought to bear that caused him to vanish?
When Const Iles had driven off to the north, if he did pass Seascape, he certainly had an
exceedingly small window of time to pass over that section of the highway and not get caught
up with the gunman and the BMW at the entrance to Seascape, or indeed to miss out on passing
Constable Hyland driving south.
I'm prompted to remind you of the debacle that was the Aramoana shooting massacre in 1990, §
which saw Police Sgt Stewart Guthrie shot and killed with his own hand gun and I would suggest
that the unionised police environment would have demanded that in any such future exercise -
like the Seascape siege - the highest authority within the force would ensure police not be
placed in any danger of being shot and killed, not only by offenders, but especially by
colleagues – even if those colleagues were operating in covert roles. Mind you, if I’m right,
then no one bothered to tell the front-line uniformed police of this proviso, most likely not
even after the fact! After all, in relation to exercises involving matters of national security
that are placed under “D” Notices, police would surely operate on a need to know basis only,
wouldn’t they?
But there is one other possibility. Perhaps Const Iles left the Arthur Highway, and entered the
Port Arthur Caravan Park and secreted himself away there until the pandemonium of the
massacre had died down somewhat, then after darkness fell, to blend in with general police
traffic about the Peninsula. The caravan park I speak of here is sited on an isthmus of land
which borders Stewart Bay to its north, and it has a vehicular entrance from the east side of
the 2.6km stretch of highway, between the Port Arthur General Store and the Fox and Hounds.
Without speculating, this seems to me to be the only other possible explanation for the
disappearance of the “Thin Blue Line”. But this small but important incident is in reality right
up there among the most perplexing unsolved mysteries of the Port Arthur massacre.
______________
§
(See pp. 37-39 Template for Terrorism at Port Arthur)
Chapter 18
W
e pick up the story with Constables Garry Whittle and Paul Hyland having just returned
from the Coal Mines to (Hyland’s) Nubeena Police Station. Here both constables pause
for VKT in Hobart to update Hyland via a more secure land-line on developments in the
shooting incident at Port Arthur. Constable Garry Whittle departs Nubeena first at
approximately 1403 hrs, [0+31 min], advancing southeast directly towards Port Arthur and the
Historic Site's Tollbooth. When Constable Paul Hyland departs he proceeds north via
Premaydena the 17 km to Taranna on the Arthur Highway and 10 km north of Port Arthur,
apparently in a hope they would apprehend the offender/s in a pincer movement.
So at about 1403 hrs, Garry Whittle was first to depart Nubeena, going directly to Port Arthur,
a short trip of 11 km over reasonably aligned and sealed road surface; trip duration, about 8
minutes. This would put Whittle at the entrance to the Historic Site Tollbooth by about 2.11
pm or 1411 hrs [0+39 min].
Coincidentally (?) at this same time - 1411 hrs [0+39 min] - both of
Tasmania Police Marine Division’s sea-going motor launches Van
Diemen and Vigilant were tasked and dispatched down the Derwent
River 'at full speed' headed for Port Arthur. Obviously someone
believed these launches could fulfil an important role. But the
massacre was unfolding entirely on land… So understandably I know
of no one who has confirmed sighting either motor launch in
One of the "ghost" police
Carnarvon Bay on the 28th or 29th of April 1996. It becomes
launches
abundantly clear from a report originating from Assistant
Commissioner Luppo Prins, reported as stating that in the early stages "we" had an expectation
that the attack would involve the ferry Bundeena, loaded with passengers as being the primary
target. 1
By studying the profiles and performances of individual senior officers of Tasmania Police, I can
offer a firm opinion that Mr Prins did not number among those who were 'in the loop' or 'in the
joke' as it were, regarding the Port Arthur exercise. I would also opinion that as Assist Comm.
Luppo Prins used the pronoun "we", he was in effect confirming more than himself holding with
that reported belief. As a consequence, I'm also of the firm opinion this suggestion did not
come from Comm. John Johnson as he was managed sideways to fulfil a role within the
Premier's Department, and the belief would not have been expressed from lower ranks, so I
believe it originated from a close colleague - Deputy Comm. McCreadie.
It also is interesting to note, on that Sunday evening before departing the PAHSMA staff had
departed from the inappropriate ‘debriefing’ in the Backpackers’ Hostel, Ian Kingston also had
voiced the same belief, even although the gunman had long departed the Historic Site without
ever going near the Bundeena and was supposedly under siege inside Seascape. For Kingston
volunteered to Site staff, words to the effect, 'He [the gunman] was insisting to park down
near the water … you know he was trying for the ferry'. In fact, in his statement to police, Ian
Kingston states he saw the gunman walk from his Volvo with a video camera over his shoulder
and his black bag and go into the Information Centre where the ferry passes were dispensed.
Though like the architects of the exercise, Tasmania Police had failed to take into account the
rescheduling of ferry trips to the Isle of the Dead, because the winter timetable had
commenced that very Sunday. That year, Easter fell 3 weeks before that Sunday, the 28th
April. Traditionally, after Easter the scheduled trips of the Bundeena were reduced from 8
trips a day to 4 trips a day with a total of just 2 trips out to the Isle of the Dead. However,
with the sudden flush of tourists that Sunday - the first warm, sunny day for weeks - and it
being a weekend to boot, Ann Hillman who was in charge of ticketing that weekend, had
instructed Wendy Scurr to advise the ferry skipper that an extra tour would be scheduled that
day and this extra trip would depart the timber jetty at 2.30pm. From ticket sales, Ann
Hillman was able to further predict the ferry would be filled to capacity.
This would mean, 128 passengers would be aboard, plus the crew and a
tour guide as it birthed. On the jetty waiting to board for the next trip,
there would have been a further 128 visitors: Two hundred and fifty six
people mustered like sheep in a race, ready for slaughter! The gunman
had the firepower and the necessary items to carry out his killing there to
maximum effect. Even the unexplained, recent shipment of military
A current PAHSMA
blankets for the Historic Site would have been coincidentally timely. The
entry receipt also chilling reality had the schedule change not been overlooked is that the
covering an Isle of death toll could have been seven fold higher than he achieved in the
the dead cruise at Broad Arrow Café.
2.00pm.
Reminds me of what Robert Burns wrote all those years ago, as their plans
and schemes had ‘gang aft a-gley’ giving them ‘nought but grief and pain’…
The gunman was surely forced to implement 'plan-B': the Broad Arrow Café. Although
dispatched at full speed, both motor launches must have somewhere in the course of the trip
been recalled before they reached the calmer waters of Masons Cove. After all, their arrival
may have been seen by some people there that day as even more than odd.
But regarding the recall of these launches, who issued the order to return to base and when
was it issued? You see no recall is mentioned in any official report; too embarrassing? The
proposition of them having been tasked for a waterborne intervention involving a perceived
attack on the Bundeena is strengthened by the actions of Anthony Nightingale (identified as
one of two ASIO agent), who jumped to his feet and yelled out, “No No, Not here!,” before he
was shot dead. 2
The Major Crime Squad was tasked at 1413 hrs, [0+81 min] – (EMA Report at p.6).
Meanwhile as the Nubeena Constable, Paul Hyland, approached Taranna via Premaydena and at
a time estimated at about 1400 hrs Hyland received a radio message informing him of 'shot and
injured people were sheltering at the Fox and Hounds Hotel'.
From Taranna, and alerted to the change in vehicles, with the gunman now driving a BMW, he
drove a further 7.5 km south past Seascape, to the Fox and Hounds Hotel. Const Hyland makes
no mention of sighting the BMW as he came over the rise and drove past Oakwood, as the short
highway ambush was already complete, with the gunman withdrawn into Seascape cottage
confines. Hyland himself tells us he received updated information at Taranna (a small
‘window’ there allows radio reception) and so he, quote, "…kept a lookout for a gold BNM (sic)
sedan." He also notes the presence there on the highway '100m south of the driveway into to
Sea Scape … an aqua coloured 4-WD vehicle stopped on the southern lane'; Linda White's
abandoned 4x4 vehicle. 3
Constable Hyland does not mention sighting Constable Iles in his marked police vehicle either,
not surprising when one considers the whole exercise. Constable Hyland had about 24.5 km to
cover from Nubeena to the Fox and Hounds, more than double the journey of Const Whittle and
the first 17 km of the journey involved a poorly aligned sealed, but narrow road and so his
estimated time of arrival at the Fox and Hounds is 1422 hrs – 2.22 pm [0+90 min].
Meanwhile Const Garry Whittle who’d arrived about 11 minutes earlier had, I believe, gone
directly to the Port Arthur Tollbooth. For reasons never revealed to the public (and certainly
contrary to his own account), we have established facts, that I believe show clearly Const
Garry Whittle must have broken his journey at the Tollbooth. The reunion of Constables
Hyland and Whittle has yet to occur after which they drive “in convoy” to Seascape.
So Garry Whittle has at least 25 minutes in which to view the bodies of the 7 deceased persons
lying around the Tollbooth and in his line of vision on the upper portion of Jetty Road, before
proceeding the 100 or so yards to Port Arthur Kodak Shop. But what took Hyland so long to
beckon Garry Whittle to join him?
At 1425 hrs the Police Negotiation Team is tasked. 4 At 1532 hrs police had first learned of a
male hostage having been forced into the boot of the BMW and driven off north from the
entrance to the Port Arthur General Store. Deputy Comm. Richard McCreadie has included the
above time under his heading he termed a “response”. Did police act upon a “hunch”?
Having reached the Fox and Hounds, Const Hyland tells us “four or five persons” approached
him in the driveway, and there he states he “attended to” a male with an open wound on his
left hand. This assistance would have taken some minutes to complete. Interestingly, the
injured male he attended to was designated “P9”; 50-year-old Mr Simon Williams, a Canadian
Embassy official who suffered a “fractured 2nd metacarpal”. Though Const Hyland fails to
mention Simon Williams’ wife Susan, (“P10”) who suffered extensive damage to her ring and
middle finger on her left hand and had her left little finger amputated by the bullet. But
Hyland does mention being “directed to” an injured female lying on a bed. Obviously these
diversions would have accounted for a delay there of at least twenty-five minutes minimum. 5
(Ready to depart 1447hrs; 0+1.15min)
The interval of Paul Hyland’s delay at the Fox and Hounds was the governing factor for his
radio call requesting assistance from Garry Whittle. These eyewitnesses could only have told
Hyland of the last known sighting of the gunman, on the verge at the entrance to Seascape.
Hence Whittle had a minimum of 40 minutes in which to examine for vital signs at least the 8
deceased: 7 around the tollbooth, and Zoë Hall in the Corolla at the Port Arthur General Store.
In May of 2001, with Andrew MacGregor and a former local resident, we retraced the
movements of the various individuals implicated in the incident. This exercise gave us
invaluable local experience, such as timing, attainable trip durations, distances, road
conditions, topography and the like.
Now in consideration of solid evidence that came to hand over the last 6 years, it is now my
firm opinion, that during those 40 minutes, Const Garry Whittle had to be the one who
identified a particular deceased person near the Tollbooth on Jetty Road: Russell James “Jim”
Pollard, and segment that is fully addressed in Chapter 21, “He’s Out!”.
Although for reasons that only Constable Garry Whittle can explain, he specifically does not
mention ever having attended the Port Arthur Tollbooth scene. Instead he states he observed
"a small number of persons around the toll booth and three people outside the business
premises Kodak Express [at Port Arthur]." This account specifically does not mention
deceased persons. Was Garry Whittle trying to tell us as much information here as was
acceptable to his superiors? In light of the nature of this whole affair, surely Garry Whittle’s
statement would have been perused by his superiors before it was forwarded onto the DPP? It
is my considered opinion after gathering and perusing considerable evidence, clearly the
statement or “Proof of Evidence” from Const Garry Whittle has been considerably filtered.
In this instance and concerning the identity of Russell James Pollard, because of the timing of
the message relayed to NSW Police at Bingara, and then passed on to Julie Butler, Const Garry
Whittle had the origin of the information passed to Police HQ, and if not Whittle, then I ask,
who possibly could that messenger have been?
Now back to events as they progress toward Seascape. In relation to the Kodak Express shop,
some minutes earlier, Jim Laycock, his daughter Melanie and husband Yanni Kateros, were in
their photo lab that the couple operated on the western side of the Arthur Highway, situated
100 metres outside the historic site. The Kodak Express shop is no longer operating, but the
building was still standing idle when I last visited the area, almost opposite the Port Arthur
General Store’s southern access.
From witness statements we learn that Mr Jim Laycock, had recently purchased a half share in
the Port Arthur Motor Inn having 9 months previously relinquished his lease on the Broad Arrow
Café, which he’d operated for many years. That Sunday afternoon while Laycock was in the
rear of the Kodak Express premises, he stated he heard ‘five loud gunshots’ which alerted him
to something being amiss. His son-in-law Yanni Kateros, a former soldier in the Greek Army, at
once identified the gunshots as made by a full-bore “military” calibre rifle, near to the
Tollbooth, about 100 metres to the south.
As Jim Laycock and son-in-law Yanni Kateros exited the front of the premises to see what was
going on, a car with three young Australian males pulled into their driveway and one of them
warned the pair, “there’s a madman gone crazy in the site, he is shooting people … get the
police and ambulance.” Laycock himself made two phone calls to Hobart Police, with the first
he timed at 1342 hrs (1.42pm) – [0+10min]. While the operator held the line, Laycock went
back outside and observed “2 crumpled bodies” on the drivers’ side of what he later knew to
be a BMW near the Tollbooth, information he then conveyed to the operator.
At 1347 hrs the Eastern Districts CIB Task Force was tasked; EMA Report p.6.
Jim Laycock made a second “000” call, timed at approximately 1352 hrs (1.52 pm), and this
call was made after the gunman had locked a male hostage (Glen Pears) in the boot of the
BMW, and hurriedly departed the scene after he fatally wounded the hostage’s companion (Zoë
Hall). Jim Laycock states he witnessed the gunman raise his rifle to waist height and seemingly
without aiming, fire two or three shots through a closed, left, front car window which killed
the female (Zoë Hall) seated in the driver’s seat of the white Toyota Corolla.
Laycock estimates that no more than 3 minutes elapsed after the gunman had shot Zoë Hall,
before at the wheel of the hijacked BMW and with hostage Glen Pears in the boot, he took-off
at speed, disappearing north up the Arthur Highway towards Taranna, and a further 3 minutes
had Police Constable, Chris Iles stopping, observing and disappearing north also. The time now
is 1.55 pm or 1355 hrs – [0+23min]
As mentioned above, Jim Laycock had just weeks before relinquished operating his lease on the
Broad Arrow Café. PAHSMA had taken over the operation, installing their manager Peter
Bourke; effectively the Historic Site had then become solely, a State Government business
enterprise.
Jim Laycock had known Martin Bryant, firstly as a local boy, later as a teenager and later as
young man. In consideration of all the other eyewitness accounts, and without exception, Jim
Laycock’s statement can be said to be precise, detailed and credible. As well, the witness
statement provides police with a unique and crucial observation, when he stated that he had,
"...known Martin Bryant from age 10 years until he was 23 years old." Yes, Jim Laycock
had known the accused for thirteen years, and knew him even as, "…one of the local kids".
But on that sunny Sunday afternoon, Jim Laycock observed the gunman for between 5-10
minutes in the clear, sunny, light of day, and yet he stated quite adamantly: -
Jim Laycock provided police with two statements: the first statement dated 10/05/96, by
which time it was common knowledge Martin Bryant was the accused, and
it was in the last few paragraphs of that first statement he makes his firm
judgement. He also deliberately describes the gunman as a “blonde
headed person … [who] appeared to be in then low twenties about 5’10
tall,” and that description did not describe Martin Bryant, and
corroborates the description of witness John Godfrey. At the time Godfrey
described the gunman as follows: "Long blonde hair, full face, large eyes -
his eyes looked like they had a frightful appearance - clenched teeth, no
hat, dark top. The male appeared to be lounging in the vehicle and was
not driving quickly. He looked directly at me, but made no effort to turn
towards where we were." When I again spoke to the witness recently he
30.04.96
was adamant: "I was no more than forty metres away. He was not tall, The first of the
even sitting in the car I could tell he was not a tall person. He had an digitally-enhanced
ill-fitting wig on that was tilted. He looked directly at me, and I can "madman-eyes"
tell you he definitely wasn't the same person that was on the front media photographs
6
page of the newspapers a few days later."
In Mr Laycock’s second statement dated 01/07/96 he was caused to defend what he’d stated to
the press – you guessed it – concerning Martin Bryant. For the press some how knew Bryant was
guilty and so ‘sink the boots in,’ was the media’s standing orders it seemed. Though earlier in
May of 1996, one magazine at least swam against this tide.
The article quotes the witness as saying, "Martin to me never looked like a physical person.
He was always gentle, he was quiet, he spoke softly," says Laycock. "Because he was
simple he got into trouble and was bullied. He'd look straight at you and ask silly
questions," he stated. Sadly, I cannot ask Jim Laycock to expand upon his very significant
statements, as sadly he passed away a few years after the incident. 7
About 13 minutes after Const Iles had vanished at Port Arthur, and keeping firmly in your mind
the uncertain analogue radio coverage that prevailed around Port Arthur, Const Whittle states
that after he’d parked outside the Port Arthur General store, he communicates his latest
assessment of the incident to VKT in Hobart.
What caused the police radios to operate just fine here - that one day?
You see Dist Supt Barry Bennett provides readers with a comprehensive
account of his movement on the day. In Hobart, Bennett and his wife
had been on their way to a barbecue around lunch time that day when
he was summoned by phone to 'come back in' to Police HQ (Hobart), to
attend a shooting incident at Port Arthur. When he arrived he met with Interrupted Sunday:
Asst Comm. Luppo Prins, who assigned Bennett to take charge of the At Taranna, Supt Barry
operation, depart immediately for Taranna, and he is reported as stating Bennett’s talks to ABC-
his arrival time at Taranna PFCP at "about 3.00 pm," – [i.e.1500 hrs]. So TV reporters
Barry Bennett was OIC at Taranna Police Forward Command Post. 8
According to an official report, Assist Comm. Prins had not been notified of the shooting
incident before 1415 hrs. 9 Yet again I find this time supplied by Richard McCreadie,
questionable. In briefing Barry Bennett, Luppo Prins tells him he'd dispatched Supervision Insp
Wild [1345 hrs ‡ : 0+13 min], although this is his only mention of this officer, and strangely this
officer doesn’t figures anywhere else in the entire story.
Bennett borrowed a flashing red light from the Traffic Division, attached to his unmarked
police sedan and drove himself to Taranna, obviously at very high speed. His trip time is
almost credible but it prompts me to give his probable ETD as definitely no later than 1355 hrs.
Bennet also makes the observation he found it difficult to communicate via his radio on the
way; channel 6 was in use for the incident and was grossly overloaded. Upon arrival at Taranna
however he deliberately states radio transmission was unsatisfactory being very, "scratchy and
very poor"; in fact he is forced to arrange an open land-line with Hobart so as they can
communicate with some degree of satisfaction.
Taranna Devils Park is a private wildlife park then operated by former media person, John
Hamilton. Now when Barry Bennett arrived he tells us 'some young constables had taken over
the office and with concurrence of the owners had started to set up the four command posts',
while a road block had already been set up and maned at the Nubeena turn-off, just south of
the PFCP.
In light of Barry Bennett's recount of events, does Fielding's claimed arrival time stand up to
further scrutiny? In the article attributed to Supt Bob Fielding, he claims he was at home when
he got the initial call into the Operation Centre (at Police HQ). So roughly speaking he and
Bennett had similar initial impediments to their arrival times. Both officers must have been
informed consecutively at worst. But Fielding chooses not to elaborate on the circumstances
surrounding his receival of his initial summons. But he tells us that before he left Police HQ,
he was assigned to "…go to the Forward Control post and take over from Supt Bennett" -
(my emphasis): his primary task it would seem. Why would this be so? Obviously, Fielding was
not taking his orders from Assist Comm. Luppo Prins. I suggest Fielding's orders almost surely
were delivered to him by the then Dept Comm. Richard McCreadie. It becomes, who by his
action and deeds demonstrates from very early stages that he'd begun to gather control of the
whole of the police operation.
Police command protocols dictate that once an officer is put in command of an incident, he
stays until his assignment is complete. If the incident is prolonged, such as was the outcome
here, then he is found somewhere to take time-out to rest and put his head down if necessary;
but he retains his command and is kept informed of any developments.
‡
Richard McCreadie, Police overview, EMA papers, p.6
Considering the cavalier admissions exposed by Police training video 'for police eyes only', the
past controversies associated with certain SOG officers named in the Mahoney Inquiry of March
2000, into the July 1991 death of Joe Gilewicz and various other controversial homicide cases,
the internal politics of Tasmania police become ever so clear. In the critical segment of the
siege at Seascape Supt Bob Fielding makes a quite extraordinary admission regarding how
Martin Bryant was forced to come to the police. When combined with comments on the status
of the hostages, I believe it is clear that relieving Barry Bennett of his command takes on the
significance of an imperative, prior to him ordering the SOG to commence any type of action
that could be termed as taking the initiative; McCreadie was
manoeuvring the troops for that important final phase.
We are told Barry Bennet gave a second press conference and from the Police Training Video,
we know it occurred after darkness had closed in. Two other facts emerge in the article
attributed to Supt Barry Bennett: firstly he claims that Det Insp Warren arrived at the PFCP and
was assigned to "go to the incident site and to take charge of the detectives and the
investigation." I've found no documented evidence the order was ever acted upon. Did Supt
Fielding countermand Bennett's orders at some time and is that why Warren returned to
Hobart? For remember we are told that DI John Warren lead the first police contingent,
accompanied Dr Ian Sale and some of the local media, to make their (now known to be) illegal
forced entry into Bryant's Clare St residence, late that same evening.
The second claim is even more disturbing. Mentioned directly after his account of DI Warren's
assignment, he deals with the arrival of Inspector Freeman at the PFCP. In this instance, Supt
Barry Bennett, writes, "Inspector Freeman arrived and I tasked him with the security of the
incident site. That is the historic village and where the bodies were in the fort." 10
Supt Barry Bennett tells us he gave two briefings to the media, the first at around 1600 hrs
with just 10 or 12 attending his first briefing. He also tell us Peter Hazelwood arrived at the
end of that briefing and so I would suggest this SAC-PAV man out of the Premier's Department
would have organised media briefings at Taranna from this time forward.
Although no time is provided for Barry Bennett's second briefing when 'around 200' gathered
about him, I can say with certainty it occurred after darkness had fallen at 1731 hrs, as the
photograph attests.
Clearly, while the order may well have been issued to Inspector Freeman - and I have no reason
to believe it wasn't issued - but the fact is the order was never acted upon. Inspector Freeman
is not mentioned in any other document in my files. As I have stated elsewhere, one lone
uniformed policeman, "Detective" Peter Hessman was delivered by a police car to the Broad
Arrow Café at 1626 hrs, the vehicle then departing the site. Later, just after 1730 hrs, two
unarmed female police officers were delivered by helicopter. So who countermanded Supt
Barry Bennett's most important and second assignment given directly to Inspector Freeman
upon his arrival at Taranna, to go and secure the Historic Site where the incident had first
occurred? Is it possible that Bob Fielding also intervened and countermanded this order? This
anomaly demands the close attention of any future open inquiry as the 6 hr delay was so
devastating to the health and well being of so many people – some still to this day.
After all, for selected nations, 1996 marked the acceleration into that age of international
terrorism with the followers of Islam pointed out as the 'bad-guys'. You see Johnson was of
another era. In 1992, when John Johnson and his 2 Australian police colleagues were in Dakar,
among 143 delegations at the 61st General Session of Interpol,
"terrorism" was not listed as being on the session's agenda. It
seems that Richard McCreadie had got the establishment “nod”.
Let us now return to the two uniformed, local Constables, Paul Hyland and Garry Whittle. At
an estimated 1447 - 1453hrs, the Dunalley Constable, Garry Whittle, departed Port Arthur
General store in response to a radio call from Const Paul Hyland, and he proceeds north up the
highway to join his colleague. On the way he was stopped by two motorists both of whom
informed him of people being shot near the Fox and Hounds Hotel, 2.6 km north up the
highway. We are also informed that is was at 1447 hrs [0+15 min], "the Fire Brigade [was]
notified.” 12 This timing I find curious; shades of their ordering out prematurely the water-
born response. But we know senior police were in fact complying with recently established
police protocols here. The point being, this fire brigade call-out, timed at 2.47pm, is simply
too early for police to be reactionary. There exists no documented evidence indicating they
had been informed before this time that the BMW had been torched!
Please keep this in mind, and we shall return to this first act of arson
all in good time.
Now to Garry Whittle. After his brief distraction, he passes the Fox and
Hounds and joins Paul Hyland about 500m south of the Seascape
entrance heading north. As they proceed, Whittle mentions passing by
“a 4x4 vehicle” about 150m short of the Seascape entrance; the aqua Lynda White’s Holden
blue Holden Frontera, parked in the southbound lane, adjacent to an Frontera: abandoned
access gate to the adjoining property to Seascape, and we shall deal 150m south of the
with this episode shortly. Seascape entrance.
Regarding the constables arrival at Seascape, Richard McCreadie tells us, “the first police
arrived at 1412 and confirmed activity at Seascape and the burning BMW.” Now this time
is quite impossible. For I would hasten to remind you that Constable Garry Whittle had one
minute earlier, at 1411 hrs, only just reached Port Arthur! 13
Also consider this same exercise put Const Paul Hyland at his primary destination, the Fox and
Hounds, at 1422 hrs some or 10 minutes after McCreadie’s report claims they had completed
their tasks at Port Arthur and the Fox and Hounds and made their way to Seascape. The time
recorded in the EMA report is so impossible, it would have meant Paul Hyland had no injured
people to see at the Fox and Hounds, as he would have came south down the Arthur Highway
before they had been targeted by the gunman! However, perhaps Mr McCreadie was
inadvertently referring to the mysterious SOG, who I would opinion must have been already
there in the environs of Seascape, before the BMW was torched, and we shall meet him
directly.
Const Whittle parks his marked Police vehicle across the road south of the Seascape entrance
as a road block, and Hyland moved-off in his vehicle north, up the rising slope past the
Oakwood sign, over the crest and into the left-hand bend, until just south of the entrance to
“Benbullen”. Here he too sets up a road block stopping all southbound traffic.
But meanwhile back at the Port Arthur Historic Site, 471 Tasmania police personnel and ten
Victoria SOG officers that arrived that evening were yet to materialise. When the first police
were logged into the Historic Site at 1626 (4.26pm), perhaps Tasmania Police were testing the
theory of “the Power of One”. An hour and four minutes later at about 1730 hrs, police
presence was boosted 200 percent, when two, unarmed, female Constables, fresh from the
Police Academy stepped from a helicopter; the result of a promised reinforcement by a SOG
group.
The ‘thin blue line’ spread among the 500 visitors and dozens of staff over the whole of the
Historic Site was indeed to remain thread-like … for yet a further two hours! 1930 hrs – [0+6
hrs] At last the Historic Site is declared secure, but for six traumatic hours everyone there
could only hope that the gunman did not return!
To this end let us look a little closer at the possible reasons behind the Bennett-Fielding
assignments and orders countermanded at Taranna.
At the time of the massacre at Port Arthur, Barry Bennett was 49-years-of-age having been a
Tasmania Policeman for 31 years. Along with 24 other recruits he did his training in the
Sackville Street Academy in Hobart in 1965, graduating as a "junior constable" first tasked as a
'driver for detectives, watch sergeants, duty inspectors and policewomen'. With just 2 years on
the job, in 1968 he volunteered for a tour with the UN police in Cyprus, and at the end of his
tour of duty and 21-year-old, he toured through Europe for his leave-time.
Upon his return to Tasmania and sporting a beard, Bennett was assigned to the drug squad,
then in its infancy with just 2 members; former Deputy Comm. Keith Viney and one Terry
Cashion (a name you may wish to follow in the article on this disc by this author, "Template for
Terrorism…etc")
Still later, he again transferred back into the Drug Squad, this time with Terry Cashion and
Luppo Prins. Bennett credits this early experience in the Drug Squad to the 'opening of doors
to an influential career in the CIB'. In 1992, he was assigned commander of the SOG, a rank he
held until he was posted as Superintendent in Eastern District which he held in 1996 which
included the Port Arthur area. In 1972, what began as a minor dispute with his immediate
supervisor at the Glenorchy CIB blew out of all proportion resulting in him being suspended for
six months. He fought the matter through the Magistrate's Court in Hobart, with 3 of the 4
charges being dismissed and him being found guilty of being absent from duty for 15 minutes
and fined the grand sum of $15; he returned to work immediately.
At the time of the massacre at Port Arthur, it should be remembered Barry Bennett was a
trained negotiator in siege situations with 14 years experience and was also the immediate past
Commander of the SOG. At Pelverata in July 1991, it had been Barry Bennett who was the
negotiator who pleaded with the Vietnam veteran Joe Gilewicz 'to abandon his siege', telling
him to “Please, please, don’t go outside with a gun”. The results at Pelverata was a hugely
embarrassing episode for a number of police, none more so than Richard McCreadie, resulting
in the very controversial Mahoney Inquiry in 2000, also addressed in the above mentioned
article, "Template for Terrorism…etc" - one volume of the report of which still remains
"Restricted".
I believe this is the primary reason the police negotiator and his team had to be kept in Hobart
and way from Taranna; so the negotiator's mobile van arrived late? I'll bet it did! There was
one senior officer who could not have dared to have the initiative and ingenuity of Bennett
with his 14 years experience as a negotiator and former SOG commander influencing the
required outcome of the siege; after all, was Bryant meant to even survive?
When all of Bennett's past police experience is considering, the countermanding of Luppo Prins'
assignment issued directly to him for the remaining operations out of the Forward Command
Post at Taranna, by a colleague of same rank Bob Fielding, comes sharply into focus.
After Bryant's sentencing the EMA Port Arthur Seminar was held in
Abbotsford, Melbourne on 11 and 12 March 1997. Some 5-6 Staff members
of PAHSMA were refused permission to attend; Ian Kingston alone was sent
to Melbourne. My inquiries have found that these same staff members –
most survivors of the massacre - remained unconvinced that the Ministers,
Parliament, the bureaucrats, police and their employer, the Government
of Tasmania, were giving due consideration to addressing their interests
and any of the matters they continued to raise of their ordeal, a
conclusion only heightened when they read of the outrageously false Security officer: Ian
claims, in the paper Ian Kingston presented in the Melbourne Metropolitan Kingston 1996
Fire Brigade's Theatre Number One during the final stages of the EMA's March 1997 seminar.
In that paper for instance, just some of the claims made were:
• In the Summary it states he "…was present at the Broad Arrow Café during the period
when many of its patrons were shot."
• "Was involved in organising the immediate evacuation of people from the Café itself,
other visitors in the immediate vicinity in and around the Port Arthur Site and for co-
ordination of local Emergency Service Volunteers (Fire, ambulance and SES), once they
arrived at Port Arthur.
• For a short period, he assumed "…the responsibility of weekend supervisor in the
absence of the Senior Management," away at the weekend seminar at Swansea,
In the body of Kingston's presentation he went on to claim that he,
• "…ran into one of the entrances of the Café…[where he] came across two bodies…"
• He further claimed, "I saw a number of people shot," before he got out of the Café and
further claimed, as he came out of the door, "…people were flocking in thinking it was
a re-enactment of some sort."
• Upon exiting the café he "…evacuated as many of the people as [he] could in [his]
immediate area."
• He claimed the have shouted out "fire", in the café, where upon "…people started to
leave the Café area."
The last claim is a gem; it really is in the same league of foolish logic practiced by Anthony
Nightingale who in the Café got to his feet and informed all in earshot, "No no, not here!" to be
immediately targeted by the gunman and shot dead.
But all of the above claims attributed to Ian Kingston are easily proven as false if you consider
the evidence I have presented throughout this work. In fact, for the majority of the period the
gunman was on the Historic Site, Kingston had secreted himself in The Parsonage some 425m
from the café and was discovered there after the gunman was observed to have departed the
Tollbooth.
When these offensive claims were put on the public record by Kingston, five PAHSMA staff
members instigated legal action by letter dated 4 August 1997, which after some time caused
Mr Kingston to issue an unreserved written apology. However, two staff members decided to
take their grievances further by going directly to the top person in SES; the Director of
Tasmania SES, Joe Paul. But in 2006 Kingston’s outrageous claims § are again published! 14
§
In 2006, Kingston was quoted as stating, he should have “hid behind the door and waited until he (the
gunman) came out and scruffed him.” So Kingston is still at it. Continuing, he explains, “I just left [the
job] because of the circumstances, and because, I suppose what was happening at the Site, what was
In their meeting with Joe Paul, Mrs Scurr told me that exchanges became quite heated as they
listed the false claims the Tasman Unit Manager had put on the public record. But yet again
they seemed to be 'hitting a brick wall', which caused Wendy to suggest; "We are being lied to
here Joe!" This triggered an immediate response with his words to the effect: 'You think we
[the SES] have been lying! You should go and ask the police about the lies they've told you!'
Continuing, Mrs Scurr told me that she and her companion were so outraged by this claim they
straightaway went to Police headquarters to see Barry Bennett, a policeman both had gotten to
know on his visits to the Peninsula where he met with ambulance volunteers and the like in the
wake of the massacre. They were determined to put Joe Paul's suggestion 'that police had lied
to the public about the massacre' directly to Supt Barry Bennett. The Superintendent was
unavailable, and determined not to let the matter rest, Mrs Scurr made a firm appointment to
see him about a week later.
At the appointed time Mrs Scurr met with Barry Bennett, out of his office in the upper levels of
Police Head Quarters in Hobart and she put Joe Paul's allegation directly to him which made
him 'visibly upset'. He promised to take the allegation made along with other grave concerns
straight to a higher level. As Wendy Scurr departed the hallway, Bennett's raised voice was
clearly heard to state, "Luppo! Get in here … Now!" Had Bennett realised this probing was
not about to go away? Had the allegations made by Mrs Scurr and the concerns she had raised
caused Bennett to catch on to what actually had occurred there – right under his nose at
Taranna? Did he then begin to 'rock the boat'? We may never know, but consider this following
development.
On 16 February 1999, an incident occurred which Barry Bennett understandably has been
quoted as describing as “the worst day of my life.”
During this time of post massacre turmoil Richard McCreadie made an official visit to the
Historic Site. Staff on duty that sunny Friday, 24 October 1997, were instructed to assemble in
the Government Gardens on Site at 11.20am. The new Commissioner arrived in his smart blue
uniform with his shoes shining like mirrors and presented the Deputy Mayor and his wife with
certificates of appreciation from Tasmania Police for catering that nourished the visitors held
for 10 or more hours in the Motel and Backpackers Hostel for counselling etc. Peter and
Maureen Wilson operated the Port Arthur Bakery, but had to resort to recovering food from the
happening in my life.” In August 1996 his 13 year marriage ended and after he was found in flagrante
delicto & left his employment there in November of 1996. Former wife Maria Stacey won promotion.
Broad Arrow Café to supplement their supply; but the staff had to “eat crow” that night.
While McCreadie never apologised for the police’s 6 hour delay, or his failure to investigate the
3 shots on the site after dark that Sunday, arrogantly he offered advice to those assembled
contrary to all medical opinion at the time: '…forget April 28 and get on with your lives'. 16
So is it any wonder those Peninsula survivors still when I last spoke with several of them,
wonder openly and anguish that by some awful chance their actions ignited a sequence of
events that resulted in an unstoppable and dreadful consequence… Nothing ever came of
Bennett's promises, and nothing is now expected; all of these Tasmanians I'm told understand
first hand the extent of corruption that pervades the thin blue line. 17
End Notes
1
n.a., The Mercury 31dec96)
2
#0154 Tasmania Police Training Video; McCreadie R., EMA Report p.6
3
Hyland, Const Paul, to prove – statement, undated.
4
Richard McCreadie, “An Overview of the Police Response,” EMA Report, p.6
5
Mr Perks, Court Doc., pp. 169-170;
Dutton, “Port Arthur Shooting,” Wound Ballistic Review, Vol 3 No. 4, p.42.
6
John Godfrey, witness statement; interview
7
Kate Halfpenny, "The Bizarre life of Martin Bryant," Who weekly, 13may96, p. 28
8
Jenny Flemming, "Port Arthur", PASA Police Journal, Vol.78, No3. March 1997, p.5
9
Richard McCreadie, “An Overview of the Police Response,” EMA Report, p.7
10
Ibid, p.6
11
Geoff Easton – voice transcript, Police Training Video.
12
Richard McCreadie, “An Overview of the Police Response,” EMA Report, p.6
13
Hyland, Const Paul, to prove - statement; McCreadie R, “…Overview of The Police Response,” EMA
Report, p.5.
14
Sarah Price, “The remains of the day”, The Sun-Herald 9apr06, pp.55-58
15
Late News, SES News, Queensland, July 2000.
16
Neil MacKinnon, PAHSMA Staff memo 15oct97; notes by W. Scurr, 24oct97.
17
Barry Bennett, Assistant Commissioner, "Crime and Operations", pub, Dec. 2001,
Tasmania Police Journal, pp. 17-21, at:
http://www.pat.asn.au/uploaded/62/290039_04taspolicedec01.pdf.
Chapter 19
T
he gunman’s “shooting gallery” outside the Seascape
property, covered a 400 - 500 yard (365-450m) stretch of
the Arthur Highway. At its northern extent, a sweeping
bend on elevated ground immediately south of the entrance on
the carriageway’s western verge to what was then Andrew
Simmons’ property “Benbullen,” south over the crest at this bend
extending down along a 300-yard, dipping straight, past the
Oakwood sign, past the entrance to Seascape (where the gunman
The Seascape ambush site
stood), through a culverted-dip at its lowest elevation, at a looking SE towards Seascape
sweeping left-hand bend, about 210 yards south and beyond the entrance; dist. LH
entrance to Seascape, to its southern extent near a cottage on
the left or eastern verge of the Arthur Highway.
In the Court Documents, at pp.164 -172, (see Deceit & Terrorism court Doc folder) the DPP’s
Assistant Counsel Mr Nick Perks, presents his hypothesis of the highway shootings segment as
fact. I’m afraid his theories do not stand up to close scrutiny. It becomes clear when all
evidence I've collected is considered, the five cars involved have been “shuffled” so as to
support Mr Perk's hypothesis which he presented to the Court as fact. At the conclusion to this
segment, you will be able to consider weighty argument as to why the authorities should desire
to shift attention away from the occupants of a bright red Ford Futura sedan, who while
injured, (the husband and wife are both Canadian nationals), survived the ambush that day.
So let me explain what occurred here by putting the 5 targeted vehicles in what I believe is
their correct sequence.
After shooting Zoë Hall at Port Arthur the gunman drove the BMW to Seascape at high speed up
the Arthur Highway, and upon reaching the entrance, in the words of eyewitness John ROOKE,
the BMW, “cut straight in front of me,” and parked in the Seascape gateway. ROOKE was
southbound, driving to Port Arthur at a sedate 50 kph. The eyewitness states he saw the
gunman alight, move quickly to the eastern verge, behind the left rear of BMW, and
immediately raise a rifle, aim, and fire two shots (from the AR-10 ·308W) at John ROOKE.
FIRST TARGET: Datsun 180B sedan driven by John Rooke. John Rooke was alone, driving the
first vehicle to enter the gunman’s Arthur Highway “shooting gallery,” and hitched to his
Datsun 180B, Rooke had a trailer-load of rubbish. Mr Rooke estimated he was no more than
“about 20' away” when the gunman opened fire, but fortunately both shots missed. This action
by the gunman constituted count 60 on the indictment, charge of attempted murder against
Martin Bryant. (I firmly believe Bryant was at this time inside Seascape with and controlled by
his friend "Rick" or "Mick")
After Rooke passed the gunman, and before rounding the bend at the bottom of the incline,
(about 60 yards or so past the entrance to Seascape), in his rear-view mirror, he states he saw
the windscreen and the front, passenger side window, “get blown out” of a “red Falcon” sedan
following him towards Port Arthur; I must agree on this point with Mr Perks, and believe John
Rooke has mistaken the sequence although he did see this event, a position we shall examine
directly and clarify.
SECOND TARGET: a blue Holden Frontera 4x4 with 29-year-old Linda White
at the wheel and beside her, later fiancé – and now husband - Michael
Wanders as a passenger. I’m now firmly of the belief this was the vehicle
succeeding John Rooke. These two young people were “sightseeing” that
sunny day, and as they drove in their words “slowly”, south towards Port
Arthur, Linda had just commented on the pretty sight of the pink cottages of
Seascape to their left, when she noticed a male with a rifle by his side,
standing on the left verge of the road. Thinking it was part of some show, 2nd Target: the
she slowed even more as they approached him. The man raised his rifle and Frontera suffered
bullet damage &
fired, the windscreen “shattered,” and a hole appeared in front of her face
stalled 120m south
at eye level. At that instant she felt a stinging sensation at her left cheek,
of the entrance
and when she looked down, realised her right forearm had sustained a severe
injury. In fact, designated "P8", Linda sustained fractures of the ulna and radius of her left
forearm, and extensive muscle damage, which required surgery and 4
days in Royal Hobart Hospital. Lynda White’s Frontera and the Police
Traffic vehicle were added “props” for the huge media group, bussed
in on Monday around 1230 hrs.
Linda White and Michael Wanders in the Frontera had been targeted
by a volley of 3 or possibly 4 shots, one of which disabled the throttle
cable, causing the vehicle’s motor to die and it rolled to a stop
Seascape cottage around the culverted bend, coming to rest adjacent to a road sign
informing northbound traffic: “Seascape 200m”.
However when the Frontera rolled to a stop, both occupants alighted and hurriedly changed
places, only then did they discover the motor wouldn’t start as the accelerator was dead.
WANDERS began running towards Port Arthur but suddenly realised Linda was running north to a
burgundy red Fairlane facing south and stationary in the dip. It was the driver Doug Horne,
had been wounded when they passed the gunman, and he stopped while he and his male
passenger attempted to swap places. But Doug eventually stayed behind the wheel, and for
the moment, we shall pause the scene at the abandoned blue 4x4 Holden Frontera, and return
to the third target; the burgundy Fairlane.
THIRD TARGET: a burgundy red, Fairlane driven by Douglas HORNE with 4 passengers was the
third target to pass the gunman. This third vehicle was described by various eyewitnesses as a
‘big dark car’ and yet another witness as a “red” car and by a third as a “Falcon”. Although of
bulkier dimensions than the Ford Falcon, the Ford Fairlane sported many similarities and some
even identical parts, hence the eyewitness’s confusion here. But seated beside Doug Horne
and in the front passenger seat was Neville Shilkin, behind him his wife Helen, and behind
Doug, sat his wife Fay.
John Rooke truly believed he was correct in his statement thinking that the red Futura driven
by Simon Williams was next in line to him and so the second car. But as I will demonstrate, it
was an illusion created by the three succeeding vehicles, changing the sequence by which they
exited the ambush site.
In his statement Rooke explains how he had determined what he saw in the rear-view mirror,
when he states, that in the red Falcon, “there was only the two Williams’ in their vehicle”.
Quite so, but there was only two people in the blue 4x4 Frontera as well, and he confirms this
observation some time after the Williams had arrived at the Fox and Hounds in their red
Futura, and at the same time confirmed to his own satisfaction both its windscreen and front
passenger windows were shot out.
But after much consideration I’m firmly of the opinion that John Rooke was confused as to the
fleeting image he’d seen of a vehicle shedding exploding glass as viewed in the left-hand rear-
view mirror of his Datsun 180B as he entered the sweeping left-hander, as the scene
disappeared from view. You see it is my recollection that the fully imported Japanese
manufactured Datsun 180B sedan, had as original equipment two external, rear-view mirrors
which incorporated anti-glare properties, and an optical quality which by reducing the image
size “distorted” the driver’s view.
Remember Rooke was towing a trailer loaded with rubbish, and so his internal mirror was likely
obstructed. So as he entered the left hand bend 60 yards after Seascape, he would had to have
used the external, left hand mirror, to sight the car being shot at. No doubt Rooke saw glass
exploding from a windscreen and side window of a vehicle. Importantly this vehicle was I
believe the blue 4x4, and remember it would have been 60 yards distant, with its surfaces in
full shadow, and so its colour would have appeared darker and difficult to identify in an
instant.
I firmly believe it was not a “red Falcon”. For I contend that ROOKE was in all probability
persuaded to hold this belief, because the red Fatura (Falcon) was the first car, that
overtook him, while he was parked about 300m past the Seascape entrance near a white
cottage, with its windscreen and side window blown out. As John Rooke alighted from his
parked Datsun 180B, the red Futura came into view right beside him, and it exhibited obvious
gunshot damage, all of which occurred in a considerably short time frame.
Now, following close behind the red Futura, came Doug Horne in his Burgundy Fairlane, also
damaged by gunshots. Distracted by the obvious, Rooke has understandably failed to see the
blue 4x4 Frontera, parked, silent, and now abandoned on the road, 100 yards further to his
rear. When Rooke arrived at the Fox and Hounds, 4 or 5 minutes later, the Williams’ red
Futura had “just pulled up”, and he later learned its two occupants were – Mr and Mrs
Williams.
You see Linda White and Michael Wanders had in panic, climbed into Doug Horne’s burgundy
Fairlane stationary in the dip in the moments before ROOKE had alighted from his Datsun, and
consequently, the memory of the indistinct image in the rear-view mirror was superimposed by
the reality of the first car that passed him; the “red Falcon” driven by Simon WILLIAMS. When
John ROOKE arrived at the Fox and Hounds, he acknowledges the vehicle that followed the
WILLIAMS’ car, which he describes as another “Falcon”; however I firmly believe it was in fact
the burgundy Fairlane driven by Doug HORNE.
THE FOURTH TARGET: a red Ford “Futura” (Falcon) sedan, driven by Mr Simon Williams, with
his wife Susan in the passenger seat was the fourth vehicle to pass through the gunman’s field
of fire. Mr Williams was in fact a Canadian Embassy official stationed in Canberra who was
holidaying in Tasmania with his wife. As an aside, interestingly, Williams never made any
statements to the press, a task that fell to his senior officer, the deputy Canadian High
Commissioner, Gardner Wilson. Now John Rooke stated that he heard 4 shots in all fired at the
vehicle that followed him, which he mistook to be the red Falcon. We know that at least 3
shots struck the Frontera, while the police shot sequence we obtained, records just one bullet
struck Simon and Susan Williams’ vehicle. Simon Williams states that he overtook ‘a reversing
white car,’ before passing the gunman, and this was in fact a Silver-grey Magna. He also states
after his windscreen and both front side windows exploded, he became “…aware that a
burgundy coloured car was stopped in the left lane,” which he overtook and continued driving.
As I have mentioned above here is the weighty evidence showing that Rooke’s second ‘red
Falcon,’ was in reality the burgundy red Ford Fairlane and not surprisingly, another
eyewitness Michael Wanders, also refers to this Fairlane as a “Falcon”.
THE FIFTH TARGET: a silver-grey Mitsubishi Magna sedan. The fifth vehicle targeted in this
ambush, entered but did not pass through the gunman’s field of fire. This vehicle was driven
by Anne Elizabeth Wardle, and was carrying 3 female passengers.
Anne Wardle states while travelling south and as the Seascape cottages came into view to their
left, importantly, they were following a vehicle, which she “can’t describe”. This I believe
had to be the blue 4x4 Holden Frontera; none of the occupants of the Magna described, this
vehicle or saw it targeted, as they had yet to see the gunman. Also, if this ‘indescribable’
vehicle had been John Rooke’s Datsun, Anne may well have not been able to identify the make
or colour of the car, but she certainly would have recognised and remembered a trailer loaded
with rubbish towed by it and closest to any following vehicle.
Anne Wardle further states that when she reached a point about
half way down the incline towards the Seascape entrance she
recognised as a threat, a male standing beside the road with a
gun. She stopped her car in the southbound lane. That puts
Anne Wardle at between 150 - 200 yards from the top of the crest
on that straight downhill section. Now effected by alarm, Anne
struggled to engage reverse gear, and no sooner had began
The Gunman's Range: looking
reversing against the traffic flow, when two vehicles travelling
north from Seascape entrance
south and close together, overtook the reversing silver-grey
past the Oakwood sign (L dist) to
Magna.
the “crest”, from the gunman's
position beside the hijacked
Seated in the front passenger seat with Anne Wardle, Sylvia Riley "Sepang Bronze" (gold) BMW.
mentioned seeing a “big dark coloured car,” in front of them as
they entered the downgrade past Seascape (the 4x4 blue Frontera I contend), and yet another
“big dark car” followed by “a red smaller car” that overtakes them. I believe although
somewhat vague in detail, it is nevertheless a corroborative statement of other witnesses.
Wardle then moved over into the northbound lane, deciding it a safer option, as she reversed
towards the crest beyond the Oakwood sign; this crest and bend would obviously have
concealed her vehicle to any south bound traffic approaching from Taranna. Part way to the
crest, all 4 females witnessed the windscreen and side windows of the Futura explode. Though
none of the four witnesses in the Magna mention sighting the gunman shooting at the Fairlane
driven by Doug Horne that preceded the red Futura down that straight.
However with regard to the ambush of the red Futura we learn of an important observation:
Silvia Riley, sitting beside Anne Wardle in the Magna, states that as the red car approached the
gunman, he walked almost to the centre line on the road, and shot the car at point blank
range. Importantly, when targeting every other vehicle, the gunman remained at the side of
the road when he shot at the occupants. After considering carefully all the witness
statements, it becomes obvious the occupants of the red Futura were singled out for special
attention: Why? We shall return to this point directly.
After making a distinctive, and more concerted effort to target the Canadians, Simon and Susan
Williams, the gunman turned his attention to the silver-grey Magna, about 190 or so yards
north, still wending its way in reverse up the slope to the crest, and he fired just one shot,
which penetrated the windscreen at the bottom of the drivers’ side corner.
The four women’s statements confirm that at this point, a degree of terror had gripped them,
and no doubt those last few yards over the crest must have seemed to them to take an eternity
to cover. Anne continued reversing the remaining few yards or so into the driveway of
“Benbullen” where she turned to the left, and drove off
towards Taranna. Remarkably all 4 women were unharmed.
Anne Wardle states that, “a short distance along the road, I
spoke to a male person collecting firewood on the right side of
the road.” This person almost surely would have been Douglas
McCutcheon, who did make a statement to police, but for some
curious, unexplainable reason, not only does he not mention his
encounter with four, terrified, excited, females in a silver-grey
Magna with a bullet hole on the windscreen, but he goes so far The entrance to “Benbullen”, at
as to deny ever having sighted any of the shot-up vehicles from the time home to Andrew & Lyn
Simons, Andrew being employed
outside Seascape; again a rather curious attitude.
by PAHSMA as a manager.
Anne Wardle and her companions drove north to the Shell service station-come-Convict Bakery,
operated by Christopher Hammond at Taranna, where they ordered - I would suggest - ‘a very
strong’ coffee. After the 4 women had finished their coffee and their nerves had calmed
somewhat, upon leaving the Bakery they met with police who’d by then arrived at Taranna and
set up road blocks and to whom they gave statements of their encounter with the gunman.
This short but confusing segment of the massacre will undoubtedly for long time to come cause
authors writing on the subject to hold differing views. But I believe upon close study of the
available statements, the reality of the event unfolds. To protect an untruth, one must
surround it with a legion of untruths. So now you draw your own conclusions.
A considered summary of the episode on the Arthur Highway, shows the gunman’s actions
directly effected 13 persons travelling in 5 vehicles, and it was carried out in the surprisingly
short time frame of no more than one to one and half minutes at the outside. From John
Rooke’s statement I can also estimate pretty well when this ambush was terminated at about
1400 hrs (4.00pm), or 22 minutes before Const Hyland arrived at the Fox and Hounds.
From the shot that killed Mr Robert Salzmann near the Tollbooth, the gunman had re-
commenced shooting with the AR-10 ·308W, he continued using that rifle until the last round
was fired, on the highway outside Seascape which struck the windscreen of the silver-grey
Magna driven by Anne Wardle. The gunman discharged a total of 23 rounds of 7.62NATO (308W
FMJ) ammunition in this ambush. You will note from the statement by Mr Perks for the DPP,
and perhaps relying on the public’s ignorance in the heat of the emotional sentencing hearing,
he has promoted himself as psychic, when he mentions the transfer of “two sets of Smith and
Wesson handcuffs” (that never existed) and a container of petrol to the BMW while the gunman
was still at the tollbooth. What evidence did he possess which enabled him to state this as
“fact”? None of the eyewitness accounts, no part of transcript of interview of Martin Bryant
and definitely no photograph entered into evidence support his statement; truthfully it is
misleading rubbish. His statement that “most probably” the gunman removed “at least one
can of petrol” into the BMW is in the same vein as there is absolutely no evidence to support
his allegation. – (Court Transcript, p.157)
The gunman had already demonstrated his discipline, and astuteness regarding magazine
capacities, and the significance of maintaining his firearm in a loaded state at all times when
inside the Broad Arrow Café. Therefore I’m not speculating when I suggest, that outside
Seascape he would most certainly have maintained these same disciplines. Hence when he
fired the first shot here at John ROOKE he would have commenced with either a fully loaded 20
rounds in the magazine of the AR-10 or a magazine less the 2 rounds (the court claims 3 rounds)
he discharged when he shot and killed Zoe Hall in the white Corolla. That being established,
and the likelihood he had more ammunition at hand, after just firing 9 rounds, why then did he
break-off his ambush, and not use some of the 11 (or 8-9) remaining round in his magazine, at
least to disable the Magna’s engine (which faced him), and kill the four occupants?
After all some pundits claimed he was a diabolically accurate shot (Joe Vialls). We are told his
object seemed to be to kill as many people as possible. It is an inarguable fact that there was
one vehicle in particular that was singled out though for a concerted attempt to kill the
occupants, above any of the other 4 vehicles – the Canadian Embassy official and his wife in the
red Futura. After this couple had past out of range of the gunman, there was just a single,
passing shot fired, to convince the occupants of the already retreating silver-grey Magna, to
clear out, so they did not hang around and see what else transpired.
Now to expand on why it was that the two Canadian nationals attracted special treatment
when they entered the gunman’s field of fire:
Among the almost endless list of happenings, politicians like Ray Groom would have us believe
were “coincidental”, just 11 days before the massacre, and on the 17 April, the Canadian High
Commissioner from Canberra paid an official visit the Historic Site. But in the same
newsletter, Site staff were also informed, “Our new Minister, Ray Groom, and the director
of Tourism will be on site on Thursday, 18th April, and will be joining the Ghost Tour.” It
seems the ‘Minister for everything-to-do-with-Port Arthur’ saw it necessary at that time, to
pass a critical eye over the Historic Site. The question remains; for what reason did Ray Groom
pay an official visit to the Historic Site at this “11 hour”? Just another coincidence … I think
not. 1
You see there are many very good reasons for Canadian interests in an exercise that would add
weight to their concurrent global “gun control” program. For in Canada until 1977, there was
no permit, licence or what ever, to purchase, keep, carry store or use, ANY long arm. Before
1934, handguns required no licence. The global “gun control” network and their global
apologists in successive Canadian administrations had for a long time been actively pursuing
their goal, the eradication of private ownership of firearms in Canada.
In 1991, Canadians saw Bill C-17 enacted and 4 years later came C-66, but both Bills were made
irrelevant by the freedom loving, suspicious-of-authority, non-compliant, ordinarily law-abiding
Canadians. One of the new requirements held that the 10 percent mobile population, ‘notify
police of their changes of address’. It failed, they would not comply; even with the threat of a
severe penalty of 2 years gaol! This non-compliance has carried forward to this day with no
sign of abating. By 2001-2002, of an estimated 16.5 - 20 million guns nationally, 4 million guns
remain unregistered! Non compliance of handgun registration remains at an estimated 70
percent – and this is occurring in spite of the Canadian Government expending the obscene
estimate of CAN$1.5 - $2 billion, to establish their firearm registry! 2
The Canadian pressure for “gun control,” is led still today by Ms Helen Cukier (at right), a close
comrade of Ms Rebecca Peters incidentally and president of the Canadian Coalition for Gun
Control (CGC).
So can you now imagine the impact and momentum that could have been
achieved by Canadian authorities, had the “Bundeena” schedule
The Montreal gunman: remained unaltered, and it had been targeted instead of the Broad Arrow
Marc Lepine Café?
• A couple of hundred or more shot, burnt, and lifeless bodies
recovered from the icy waters of Masons Cove, many of them Canadian seniors, as well
as a Canadian Embassy Official and his wife ambushed and shot dead in their car?
I believe it can be argued successfully there was at least CAN$1.5 billion of good reasons that
support my synopsis put forward here.
Post Script
In the political fall-out after the "escape" into public hands of the Police Training Video, the
“newsbreaker” run by The Mercury, makes it abundantly clear the Commissioner Richard
McCreadie showed not the slightest concern when the positions - still held by three of his
senior officers - were advertised as vacant. These contracts were not to be renewed. Luppo
Prins, Bob Fielding and Syd McClymont were as the headline read “cut adrift” and the officers
could not hide their indignation and a reshuffle § was to result.
Then on Saturday 6 March 2005, another article announced, "After 42 years on the job, one
of Tasmania's highest ranked and most respected police officers is retiring. Assistant
Commissioner Luppo Prins will be farewelled by Tasmania Police tonight at a dinner with
230 colleagues, professional associates and friends." A feature article followed on March
12, in which it confirmed his retirement would take effect on March 23, 2005. 4
In that same month while he still held the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Tasmania Police,
Luppo Prins travelled to Canada as a guest speaker - possibly as an appeaser. You see someone
didn't even give him the opportunity to retire with grace; his first inkling to the reality when he
read of his position advertised as vacant in the newspaper! He would be guest speaker at the
first Fraser Valley Law Enforcement Conference with the convention theme slated as, “Mass
Murder in the Home, the School and the Workplace: Spree Killers and Annihilators”.
§
When considered against the background of the unsolved murders of 1993 and 1995 in Tasmania’s Northeast of two
young females, both foreign nationals, it is interesting that the article also predicted a promotion for the former officer
in charge as St Helens (recently posted to Glenorchy) Insp Fiona Lieutier to fill one of the vacant positions of a
Commander.
He joined 9 other guest speakers listed to present 13 hours of official police stories covering six
cases of mass murder including:
• The 13 March, 1996 massacre at Dunblane Primary School,
• The 28 April, 1996 massacre at Port Arthur and
• The 20 April, 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado.
On Tuesday March 15, 2005 Luppo Prins presented his 1½ hr “Port Arthur Tasmania” address,
beginning at 800 hrs, which was billed at this convention as "the most horrific incident of mass
murder in Tasmanian and Australian history and one of the worst ever reported worldwide."
I made a request for a transcript of Luppo Prinn’s address, prior to the cut-off date for
registrations, but was turned down and via e-mail, being informed all such conference material
was deemed "restricted". Why should we be surprised, after all, the victims must never be told
anything about the life changing incident they experienced? We are left to wonder just what
slant Mr. Prins put upon the details of the story he related to the international VIP guests,
which must remain concealed from the public for ever it seems. 5
End Notes
1
Port Arthur Historic Site Staff Newsletter, 18apr-01may96
2
Pierre Lemieux, “Resisting a bad law,” The Gazette (Montreal), 16jun04
3
http://www.theinfozone.net/salw1.html ; Outdoor Canada Magazine, Minuteman article by
Ms Cukier, Ms Peters & Ms Stohl – Aug 2004
4
Heather Choy, "Top cop lays down his badge," The Mercury, 6mar05 p.15; Heather Choy, " Still
haunted by murder," The Mercury, 12mar05, p.8
5
http://www.fvlec.org/speakers.html Fraser Valley Law Enforcement Conference 2005
Chapter 20
A
fter several years of examining the culture which persists within Tasmania Police,
exampled in the article on this disc titled Template for Terrorism at Port Arthur, it
becomes obvious the young people who choose employment in the force perhaps having
the highest of ideals as they go off to the Academy, graduate to work under office politics
possibly more callous than any other state in the Commonwealth; have a falling-out with the
"top brass" and an unscheduled “sea change” comes about swiftly thereafter.
Nevertheless such an environment does on occasion produce a pleasant surprise for the better I
would suggest. Case in point is this information that came to light. Early in this inquiry we
learned from a former policeman who was, in late April 1996, actually assigned to “set-up” and
“operate” one of these ‘shiny toys for big boys’ on the Tasman Peninsula. He referred to this
“toy” as his colleagues did, by the acronym of the “BFST” (translated to us as the “big f-----g
shiny truck”). We also discovered that the “big shiny toy” was shipped to Hobart from the
mainland in the belly of Hercules military transport plane, on the Sunday evening. To
accomplish this mission on a Sunday in an extremely limited time-span, there just had to have
been prior arrangements made.
The officer who ran this mobile communication van was I believe Andrew
Gunston, later as police sergeant to be labelled
by a most uncomplimentary nickname when he
was the victim of a vindictive campaign
emanating from within Tasmania Police which Former Police
ended in the courts and saw him leave the force. Sgt, Andrew
Gunston
What I'm saying here yet again is this; other mainland people
pre-empted the massacre! Think on it: to get the "BFS truck",
the Hercules aeroplane fuelled-up and ready to fly, and the
A typical American police
communications "field van" in
RAAF crew all assembled at the departure point, does not
2004
happen in just a few hours!
Ten years on, such mobile communication vans maybe fairly common to many
state police jurisdictions in America, but I would suggest such equipment items
remain uncommon to State police 'stables' here in Australia, at least until after
the 'war on terror' was triggered by "9/11". I’m reminded of an earlier major
incident in which it took the full might of the Australian Army 24 hours to get
urgently requested heavy equipment, 55 minutes away at Puckapunyal, down
the highway to Melbourne when the Westgate Bridge collapsed!
After its arrival at Taranna, the "BFS truck" was deployed somewhere on the Former SOG:
Arthur Highway about the area to the north of the Seascape Cottage, while the Michael Charles
siege was in progress. Of considerable capacity, the "BFS truck" had fitted to Dyson
its chassis a large aluminium pantec in which was housed a control module to run radio
communications, repeater equipment, listening devices as well as a thermal imaging device. It
most probably involved the use of equipment contained inside the "BFS Truck" that Insp Bob
Fielding explains ensured they, “established a line between the SOG strongholding [sic] area”
and the Police Forward Command Post (PFCP) at Taranna, with the vehicle having to be moved
twice so as “to sustain the connection.” 1
The Violent Incident Management Plan (VIMP) drawn up by personnel such as former SOG Sgt
Michael Dyson and with the office housed in a covert department of Tasmania Police. I suspect
that officers in this department were surely part of the national network of BCI, as our
information has it that Dyson was for a period, just prior to the Port Arthur operation, based in
Melbourne and working with the Victoria Police. At any rate, their VIMP called for the
deployment in this instance at Seascape of a device called an “echidna”.
But some time after Supt Bob Fielding had taken over the role of Forward Commander, he was
later to express lingering frustration, as the execution of “their” plan was frustrated by the
terrain at Seascape, with it proving to be entirely unsuitable to deploy their “echidna”. The
hi-tech machine had to remain packed away in the "BFS Truck". Apparently the device’s
umbilical cable only stretched 300m, and so the SOGs could find “…nowhere to hide the
operator….”
So much for “their” Violent Incident Management Plan, conceived by experts no doubt! The
operator was even apprehensive of a likely failure should they have tried to negotiate the
narrow bridge over the creek at the bottom of the steep driveway into the Cottage, let alone
the other problems.
But the physical size and weight of the "BFS Truck," meant that it must have been shipped to
Tasmania before the massacre. For surely the smallest budgeted police jurisdiction in the land
did not have the financial capacity to have even the echidna in their SOG stable, let alone this
'BFS Truck'? Due to the time constraints, it was quite impossible for the federal authorities to
have transhipped all of this gear in response to the incident; it must have arrived before the
fact.
You see the National Crisis Centre was only contacted by Tasmania Police on Sunday evening at
1719 hrs – (5.19pm), and it was into this organisation attached to the Premier's Department
that Comm. John Johnson was managed out of the media lights sideways, shortly after his first
and only media conference on Sunday evening. But curiously it is documented that ASIO
dispatched “technical support” at 2215 hrs or 10.15pm that Sunday night … but from where,
Canberra or Hobart?
You see, Hobart Airport would have been already closed to all operations, long before any
aircraft originating from anywhere on the mainland at 10.15 pm could arrive. So I would
contend it seems obvious this 'technical support' was on-shipped at 10.15pm from Hobart, not
the mainland. Or perhaps ASIO coincidentally had a contingent of technical support personnel
in Tasmania at the time – tripping over a thousand journalists and the nation’s entire specialist
trauma surgeons no doubt! After all, in August 2004, at least one Commonwealth employee
supposedly on holidays in Tasmania must have in truth been 'working' that Sunday at Port
Arthur, as this claimed "nurse" received a hefty "six-figure pay-out" through the County Courts
of Melbourne for her hurt and injury. 2
In the book Suddenly One Sunday, at p.111, Bingham writes that, “Phones are surprisingly good
at detecting background noise….” He claimed that 3 of the police
negotiating team in Hobart used leads off the not-so-secure land line
into Seascape to listen intently for background noises which would
indicate the presence of others in the building; sobbing, voices etc.
Looks like “echidna” had been scripted to make its grand entrance,
after the portable phone was switched off and contact lost with
1st Helicopter & that “Jamie” at which time Bennet had relinquished his command to Supt
"Black Van" Bob Fielding. It must have surely been a long frustrating night at
Taranna for some of the VIMP architects - and even for the controllers
inside Seascape…
Remember here at Seascape according to Police, they were confronting the devilish mind of a
lone gunman; intellectually impaired, Martin Bryant with a mind, capable of operating at a
fraction above a level that ninety percent of eleven year olds were capable of. 3 It boggles the
mind to imagine the outcome if these incompetents are ever
confronted by the real thing!
As the first clip launches, the narrative infers we are seeing the
first Squirrel helicopter arrival. The EMA Report shows the first
helicopter was “tasked” at 1359 hrs, while Luppo Prins puts the
first ‘Squirrel’ arrival there at 1456 hrs (2.56 pm); the EMA
papers tells us it departed at 1430 hrs. So if Prins’ time is
Mystery "black van" (centre):
correct, then with a flight time of just 14 minutes to Port Arthur,
cropped from an amateur's still
it took 42 min to get the first chopper airborne. But in the next
photograph showing the 2nd
helicopter landing
of the 2 clips, we see another ‘Squirrel’ helicopter, this time
parked much closer to the picket fence, and car park. Luppo
Prins tells us that the subsequent arrivals of helicopters occurred at 1507 hrs (3.07 pm), 1540
hrs (3.55 pm), with the last one arriving at 1616 hrs (4.16 pm). 4
In the background of both amateur video clips, is captured a distinctive, commercial-type but
quite out of place black van, with all its windows blacked-out, parked there in the middle of
the roadway, out front of the Broad Arrow Café. We also have on file a still photograph of the
black van showing the second helicopter landing, which corroborates the first ACA Video clip.
Other still photographs demonstrate the mystery black van had not arrived when the first
ambulance and paramedic vehicles first parked out front of the Broad Arrow Café.
Interestingly, the black van captured on both clips parked in the same spot, just so happens to
be configured similarly to those used by a particular Commonwealth agency. The ACA’s
(Turner) video clips and the photograph we have, confirm the van’s approximate arrival time,
but in themselves do not verify the mystery van’s departure time.
However, we do have on file an accurate running log record compiled by a PAHSMA staff
member, which evidences some 161 vehicular movements logged as passing through the
boundary of the Historic Site, between the hours of from 3.10pm (1510 hrs) to just after 5.40
pm (1740 hrs). From these log-sheets, photographs and Video tape, I can confidently say that
the mystery black van arrived on site after 1510 hrs (3.10 pm), and departed 2 vehicles after
1740 hrs (5.40 pm).
In other words, the black van remained within the precincts of the Historic Site, parked for
most of its stay there, right out front of the Broad Arrow Café, for a minimum of some 2½ hrs!
The black van was parked maybe just a few yards away but close by the only distinctive fawn
coloured campervan that appears in many of the photographs and video tapes captured of the
Broad Arrow cafe that Sunday afternoon, parked adjacent to the oval’s picket fence, just west
of the small guard-house.
Now the "black van" account doesn’t end there; we also have learned from an eyewitness who
when driving north past Seascape that Sunday afternoon, observed white smoke rising from a
gold coloured car, parked well to back of the allotment at Seascape. Reacting naturally he
wanted to assist in putting out the fire, so he stopped his vehicle at Seascape's entrance, and
ran down the steep driveway into the grounds. However hardly had the witness gained the
narrow bridge in the driveway over the creek, when two heavily built males, whom by their
authority and demeanour were taken to be police, confronted this witness.
Without displaying any identification, the eyewitness was told bluntly; “Clear out now!” and
then, “Get the hell out of here – you're not needed,” or words to that effect.
A little perplexed, and before he turned to retreat, the eyewitness observed just beyond the
farthest male, 'a black, people-mover-type van with all of its windows blacked out', parked on
the pavers near the cottage. This incident occurred in that very small window of time,
between when the BMW was set alight, and Constables Garry Whittle and Paul Hyland arrived
on the scene at the estimated time of 2.58 pm (1458 hrs). One of the persons this witness saw
in the grounds of Seascape undoubtedly would have been the "Fat Controller" – who went by
the name of 'Rick' or 'Mick'.
When all of this little intrigue is considered, it prompts me to ask: How many persons arrived
and departed in this Commonwealth registered and operated black van? What role were the
occupants tasked to do with regard to the massacre? The van beat every policeman to the
Café, and could hardly be termed reactionary in the true sense of the term. Surely those in
authority would not suggest we accept that Martin Bryant had such influences that he also
engaged a Commonwealth employee to act on his behalf? Who drove the van onto the Historic
Site and what activities was the driver involved in there at the Broad Arrow Cafe? Did the van's
presence there have anything to do with the cadavers of two deceased agents inside the Broad
Arrow Café? Oh, and by the way, because of the Historic Site’s staff member’s thoroughness,
we even have the black van’s Commonwealth registration number!
So you can appreciate when Terry McCarthy made the comment during the ACA interview for
Port Arthur – The Inside Story, that Martin Bryant’s language was suggestive of him working to
a script does clarify somewhat here I believe as many a truth are spoken in jest.
We have also learned from another witness, that military personnel of unknown identity and
with some ambiguity signed-out of the military barracks at Hobart on Saturday 27 April, 1996,
an all-wheel-drive “army truck and trailer,” onto which they loaded considerable and various
equipment they had brought with them to the depot. The truck and trailer were returned,
sometime before the informant returned to duty early on Monday morning. Following his
normal routine, he made an inspection of the vehicles, all garaged, present and correct – well
nearly. Relief turned to a smouldering anger, as the truck and trailer came into view in such a
mess they looked like they’d just completed the Paris to Dakar rally - mud from top to bottom,
unwashed, contrary to standing orders.
Could this truck and trailer have been used to deploy “technical support” in addition to the
"BFS Truck" reported as having been forthcoming from the Federal authorities? Was it used to
deploy and operate a radio repeater and other covert communications equipment, secreted
somewhere on the abundant tree covered high ground of the Tasman Peninsula for the duration
of this - “exercise”? If so as you can see like an SOG, controller and covert agents, this
equipment was in the field well before the balloon went up.
Two ‘Squirrel’ helicopters were tasked immediately, while a third Bell ‘Jetranger’ was put in
the air later and used first to ferry a contingent of SOG’s to Taranna, tasked at 1557 hrs and
arriving at the PFCP with the officers briefed by Supt Barry Bennett at approximately 1600 hrs.
The first ‘Squirrel’ to arrive at Port Arthur carried two paramedics, with the second machine
following five minutes later, carrying three paramedics. When considering the movements and
claims made by Lynne Beavis – see chapter 26, “Unhelpful Casualties” – it is interesting to note,
that no “nurse” from Melbourne is mentioned by the authors of the EMA Ambulance Perspective
report, although they do praise the work of an "off-duty Hobart nurse" and two doctors visiting
the site as interstate tourists – one of those being the Vietnam veteran and Sydney orthopaedic
surgeon Dr Bill Maguire and his wife Dorothy. 5
Post Script
Former SOG Michael Charles Dyson, in 1996 held what can well be described as 'a position of
privilege' in a covert department within Tasmania Police where among other things he
assembled VIMPs. In the years following the massacre at Port Arthur, he established what
today in Tasmania could be said to be the State’s premier security firm, Dyson Corporate
Securities, on Cascade Road, South Hobart.
As Managing Director with a staff of 12 males and a total of 30 personnel I can but suppose he
approves entirely of the company philosophy promoted: "Be nice to people, nice gets nice,
and all things being equal, courtesy can be very persuasive", a real “Hawaiian Holiday” type
viewpoint I would suggest and reminiscent of the atmosphere promoted by “Jamie” in the early
phone conversations police made with the Seascape Cottage that Sunday afternoon as
evidenced in the audio segments released to the public.
Recently I was reliably informed by local people that the firm has taken over security matters
for the Launceston Hospital and the TT-Line ferry services to the mainland. Michael became
almost a household name in Tasmania from 1991- 2000 in all of the controversy that surrounded
the SOG shooting of Joe Gilewicz. At the Pelverata bush cottage, and as “Alpha-1” Dyson was
the SOG Assault Team Commander in that 1991 police killing of the Vietnam veteran.
I have had the (unpleasant) honour of a phone conversation with "Charlie" – his second name is
Charles – when on a speaking engagement in central Queensland back in September 2004.
Andrew McGregor was engaged as a guest speaker and had just finished addressing a public
meeting in Launceston on Friday evening October 31st. Earlier that morning Mrs Scurr had
flown to Mackay and was met by our hosts. After a night train trip to Sydney on Thursday 30th,
I too flew to Mackay that Friday afternoon and friends, who met me at Mackay, drove me the
73 km to the west and our host's home at Nebo. That evening at Launceston, Andrew named
the controller inside Seascape and as the evening wore on a phone call came through with Mrs
Scurr first taking the call from a person who would only give his name as "Charlie".
In his conversation he told Mrs Scurr he was 'formerly a policeman' and that he was 'there on
the day,' but coy as to exactly what role he fulfilled. He didn't believe Mrs Scurr accusation
that his colleagues had 'let down' everyone at Port Arthur with a six-hour delay in response to
her call. When he turned his conversations to a series of questions, she referred the phone call
to me, and so I took the call.
Again all I could extract from the caller was that he was calling from Tasmania and his name
was "Charlie" a 'former policeman', whereupon I suggested that my name was actually "Dick
Smith". After a very short conversation which was heading nowhere, I told him that I wasn't in
the habit of talking to people claiming to be former policemen who refused to give their name
– especially like “Bill” or "Charlie"! I suggested, "You obviously have us under surveillance, as
you have phoned this private phone number." It was at this point he became quite agitated,
quietly threatening me in his tone and language before he slammed the handset down and the
line went dead. It didn't take us too long to work out who “Charlie” was; Mick or Michael
Charles Dyson. Yes he was the Tasmanian "Son Of God" at Pelverata who loved to dance about
from tree stump to tree stump with his "Rambo knife" stuffed down his high-top jack-boots and
his assault rifle oiled-up ready to go; a "McCreadie trooper" to the last, our "Charlie"!
End Notes
1
Jenny Flemming, Port Arthur, SA Police Journal, March 1997, p6.
2
Christine Caulfield, "Big compo for Port Arthur massacre nurse", The Mercury, 10aug04
3
Mr Avery, the Court Documents, p.337/10
4
na., The Mercury, 31dec96, p.21; McCreadie R, EMA Report p.6; Mike Bingham, Suddenly One Sunday
p.93; P. Morgan & G. Lenox, The Ambulance Perspective, EMA report, p.31
5
P. Morgan & G. Lenox, "The Ambulance Perspective," EMA Port Arthur papers, pp.30-33
Chapter 21
W
ith the blonde haired gunman having driven from the bus/car park beside Masons Cove,
and with gunshots still ringing out close at hand - as close as the Port Arthur Tollbooth
460m to the north - Information Officer Wendy Scurr was one of the first people to
enter the Broad Arrow Café at about 1350hrs. Indelibly stamped
into Mrs Scurr's memory by her St Johns First Aid training was the
instruction in such situations: For the officer to be able to
administer life-saving first aid to survivors, you must first survive
yourself.
So Wendy somehow scrambled down that cliff face and into the Café dining room. Today the
cliff that barked Wendy's knees and destroyed her stockings is the backdrop to the still waters
of the memorial pool that quietly honours those who died close by in 1996. As I've mentioned,
Wendy was a very experienced and qualified St John’s Ambulance First Aid Instructor and
former volunteer ambulance officer and on-site First Aid Officer.
So Mrs Scurr entered the Café with the weekend Supervisor Sue Burgess, and colleague Steven
Howard. Initially stepping around bodies, Wendy headed for the Gift Shop area for a prompt
search of the area, for her supervisor’s daughter Nicole, and Steven’s young wife of just 3
years – Elizabeth - had both been working there that morning. Hoping against hope that they’d
both escaped the awful carnage and somehow had fled the building; Wendy found both young
women deceased. Immediately Wendy's St Johns training came to the fore: she just had to
take charge in the Café and at once Sue and Steven were allotted outside tasks. Steven
Howard was to go and retrieve blankets from the bulk store inside the Information Centre.
So began in earnest Mrs Scurr’s role as the Historic Sites First Aid Officer, and she went first to
the small wash-room next the kitchen to retrieve the closest First Aid equipment - like scissors
(needed to remove clothing etc) to examine and classify wounds. Bandages of sufficient size
†
See bookmark on this disk, Statements: My Experiences At Port Arthur on the 28th April 1996 by Mrs
Wendy Scurr.
and quantity were also an urgent priority. Working methodically, she found to her annoyance
yet again, no scissors! Frustrated as someone had yet again removed them, so a helper was
assigned to find scissors and ‘all the bandages you can carry!’, also to be retrieved from the
bulk-store in the Information Centre.
Mrs Scurr’s full attention was directed at the overall efficiency and success of the First Aid
phase in and about the Broad Arrow Café and remarkably, in the café every one of the
wounded alive when she entered was saved and they recovered. As the gunshots faded into
the distance, other PAHSMA staff joined in the rescue effort. But, NONE of them knew where
the blonde headed gunman was, or indeed if he had a partner in crime! Richard McCreadie
later remarked:
“In an environment of trauma created by the event and the fact that the location
of the gunman was not known … a prevailing atmosphere of fear, confusion and
panic existed.” 1
- Richard McCreadie
A feeble remark when one realises emphatic, repeated requests for ‘police protection’ at the
Historic Site were ignored by Police; would McCreadie dare to claim his brilliant team didn't
keep him informed? In a visit on 24 October 1997 when he addressed the assembled staff in the
Government Gardens he demonstrated this indifference and contempt for the wellbeing of
these same people… At the very time this “fear, confusion and panic” prevailed among the
many hundreds of visitors and staff scattered around the Port
Arthur Historic Site, Senior Tasmanian Police, laid on a barbeque
for the 400 plus police officers held back at Taranna, just 10 km
north from Port Arthur.
The first police presence at the Historic Site consisted of the lone policeman (and former SOG),
Const Peter Hessman. He was delivered by police vehicle down Jetty Road to the Broad Arrow
Café. The running log shows him as entering the Historic Site at 1626 hrs (4.26 pm) and was
gone just 4 minutes later and by 4.30 pm. This deliberate assignment of a single policeman to
somehow secure the crime scene, must have originated from an order issued by senior police at
Taranna PFCP. Bennett who was still at that stage OIC there states he had earlier that he'd
assigned Det Insp Warren to take charge of detectives and the overall investigation, while
assigning Insp Freeman to the task of "securing the incident site".
Surely no sane person would be game to suggest a single Tasmania Policeman could possibly
secure a crime scene on a site which covered in excess of one hundred hectares? But that was
the reality and so Hessman was the first armed policeman to attend the Broad Arrow Café. It
becomes obvious as our story continues this policeman was there to perform an indistinct role:
the Broad Arrow Café and car/bus park crime scenes remained very accessible to visitors and
staff alike for all the afternoon! In reference to this scene, Richard McCreadie made this
strange and quite inaccurate statement:
“A holidaying police officer from New South Wales stepped forward and began
marshalling all the survivors and bringing some organisation and control to the scene.”
Was the Assistant Commissioner attempting a lame excuse to divert some attention away from
the negligence of his own colleagues whose advance to Port Arthur was halted at Taranna PFCP
for an inexplicable 6 hours?
The ‘holidaying policeman’ referred to here is Justin Noble, and after consideration of his quite
remarkable statement, one would have to concede that to claim he delivered ‘organisation and
control’ is a fantasy.
For apart from exhibiting an athletic capacity, and the ability to present fastidious, sterile
accounts, of his extensive movements, its compilation obviously only sprang forth after much
consultation with statements all ready collected and available in the BCI office at Police HQ in
Hobart, he really dispelled any doubts in the power of one; more on Justin’s role later.
Justin made claims of having “…formed an outer perimeter of the site,” single-handedly even
manning Tramway St and Remarkable Cave Rd intersection for a time. Though one policeman
on holidays, a Snr Const from Victoria, Dennis Gabbedy, did indeed perform more than his
public service that day in the café; he remained at the side of Graham Collyer to tend his life-
threatening, category 1 wounds and certainly kept him alive until the paramedics stabilized his
vital functions and finally evacuated him on the 3rd helicopter, arriving at RHH at 1602 hrs. 2
About an hour and fifteen minutes after the departure of the last wounded survivor aboard the
Squirrel helicopter was air-lifted out, another chopper returned to deliver promised police
reinforcements to secure the 100 acre Site at about 1730hrs. As it landed on the oval and the
doors opened you can imagine the dropped-jaws round about when just two constables
alighted! Both unarmed young policewomen, off the beat in Hobart; Ali Denns and Rhani
Ahmed.
Before they had time to think, like many of the staff and visitors they were subjected to a good
reinforcing dose of the “trauma” McCreadie refers to above. Constable Ali Denns must have
been assigned to the Tollbooth area, as courtesy of a video clip from Nine's ACA, the fresh-
faced Constable explains it this way: “A fire engine came roaring along the highway and the
driver sort of screamed and said, that um, ‘He’s out! He’s out! The police don’t know
where he is, he’s shooting, he’s coming this way’,” towards Port Arthur.
Craig Coombs confirms this report came through, although his timing of the claimed “break-
out” he notes to have occurred at 5.00 pm (1700hrs); this time is obviously a little awry. 3
Such was the confusion, at Historic site, little more than 4.5 km from the Seascape Cottage and
a gunman thought to have escaped the police cordon and on the loose. For by now the earlier
controversial incident was “doing the rounds”: remember it was SES and Firemen volunteers
who had quite rightly eavesdropped on radio traffic passing between Constables Garry Whittle,
Pat Allen and an unidentified higher ranking officer (SOG Andrew M. Fogarty?), via the single
dedicated analogue frequency used by both SES and Police. The radio conversation confirmed
that the two uniformed policemen were intent on intervening on behalf of a naked female
hostage Sally Martin, being pursued by the gunman around the yard of Seascape, early in the
siege, when they heard the repeated instructions; “do not shoot, this has to happen…’ Richard
McCreadie was most definitely correct in his description regarding the “confusion” that
pervaded the atmosphere about the whole of the Historic site that day! 4
However on that Sunday afternoon, Mrs Scurr recently told me that sometime before 6.00 pm
that same evening, she had withdrawn to the Port Arthur Motor Inn, and there witnessed the
same uniformed policeman seated at a table, “loading bullets, quite large bullets, bigger than
a twenty two – into either a magazine or a revolver, I’m not sure which.”
My further study revealed that Peter Hessman was at that time also attached to the SOG unit:
was that his true role there that day? We are able to estimate with reasonable accuracy that
his encounter with Aileen Kingston had to have occurred at between 4.30-5.15pm, and we
know Hessman had no torch. He would have to have completed his search of the Volvo, well
before twilight advanced into total darkness at about 6.25 pm, remembering that sunset
occurred that day at Nubeena at precisely 5.15p.m. 5
I'm forced to conclude, while Constable Garry Whittle visited the Port Arthur Tollbooth
margins, at some time well before 4.30 pm (1630 hrs), he did not confirm the identity of the
deceased male; Russel “Jim” Pollard. This task was completed by an agent provocateur, out of
grave concerns as to the ramifications of his death when considering unknown relationships
with persons prominently recorded in the address book carried on his person.
I believe a likely person to have identified Jim Pollard was Justin Noble the BCI Constable
supposedly on leave from the NSW Police and holidaying with his wife, but driving his own car
which carried Victorian registration; a rather unconvincing cover story you must admit.
This particular incident was partly addressed by the information that came from a protected
source in Canberra, and one and the same source who confirmed that the uniformed policeman
twice requested “permission to shoot the gunman,” which was twice denied. Further my
source explained that the reason the requester found this denial so distasteful was the fact
that he had just visited the Tollbooth area and seen for himself, “8 dead people shot by the
gunman.” Now, his claim here of 8 deceased persons, means that Const Whittle had time to
see for himself the bodies of the three Mikacs, Helene and Robert Salzmann, Russell James
“Jim” Pollard, Rosemary Nixon and Zoë Hall.
On Sunday 28th April 1996, Julie Butler had arranged for local Bingara Police, to travel out to
the property and meet with her to clear-up a totally unrelated stock matter. At the pre-
arranged time of 2.00 pm, Julie and her mother sat in their vehicle waiting at the agreed
rendezvous; but the police did not arrive. Our rural people are very patient and
understanding, and so the pair sat quietly chatting, and listening to the car radio. Three hours
later and as the familiar theme began, heralding the four o’clock radio news, Julie alighted
from the vehicle to greet the local Bingara “cop” she knew quite well.
Now the Butler property is twenty three and a half miles - or a forty minutes drive over gravel
roads - away from Bingara in Northern NSW. With the handshakes and an apology for his
delayed arrival done with, and before Julie had time to begin with the formal matters at hand,
her uniformed policeman friend in serious tones told her that she should listen carefully to
what he was about to say. Continuing, he explained that before leaving Bingara Police Station
his superior had instructed him, in words to the effect, 'Don't breath a word of what we have
just learned to Miss Butler at your meeting today'.
Obviously the policeman had agonised over his superior's instruction as he drove the forty
minutes over the dusty gravel road to the Butler property – after all, back in 1996 there were a
few country cops left that believed as members of the constabulary, they enjoyed trust and
good friendships of the people of their community built on by them fulfilling their obligations
and trust to members of the community they lived among. So, choosing his words carefully,
the Bingara policeman told Julie to make sure she watched the evening TV-News services, as
there had been ‘a serious incident at Port Arthur in Tasmania that would affect her directly’.
Cleverly the local “Cop” had reached a compromise position that appeased both parties. Julie
Butler’s thoughts leaped instantly to the only person she new who was definitely at that time
holidaying in Tasmania: Russell James Pollard, her very dear and long time good friend.
Julie Butler first met Russell Pollard or “Jim” as he preferred, on the University campus where
Jim was employed as a supply officer for many years. Pollard had told friends (and it seems at
leat one of his family), that he was originally from Britain and that he’d enjoyed a 'very
successful career in the RAF'. Jim was in 1996 still married but amicably separated from his
wife Dawn. But when he'd reached retirement age at the university, he moved to the coast,
and instead of putting his heels up as most of us are inclined to do, he decided to set up a
rather unusual law practice. Jim had earlier identified a need among
retired people, less well-off than most, who while in desperate need of
legal advice, counsel and representation, often missed-out on advice for
lack of means.
So then at around 68 yrs, Jim went back to law school at Southern Cross
University of Lismore and subsequently graduated in 1996 as a Fellow in
Law. He’d told his old friend that he intended to take a short holiday to
Victim 1 from the
relax before establishing his law practise to serve the legal needs of the less
BMW: fortunate on a pro bono basis. Jim's only son Phillip has suggested recently
Robert Salzmann, in an article, that Robert Salzman then aged 58 years, was in fact an "old
58 yrs. army buddy" of his father's, a claim repeated from an earlier article I was
then reluctant to quote, although as to other details in the earlier article I
can but say the claims are entirely at odds with eyewitness reports at the time of the
massacre. Though this last claim caused me some considerable problems: How could Salzman
and Pollard have possibly been 'old army buddies' when there's a thirteen year age difference!
Anyhow, Pollard had also told a long time friend that he'd formerly had a 'very successful war-
time career in the RAF in Britain' – a claim repeated after his death by his brother to the same
friend. When considered carefully, the stories just don't stand up I'm afraid, as former RAF
officers – in those years nicknamed the "blue orchids" – would never pass themselves off as
'army buddies', as they saw themselves from a higher station than the lowly army Tommy. So
what of the claims of Russell James Pollard having come originally from Britain? More on this
claim shortly. 6
In the weeks preceding the massacre, Jim Pollard had told his long time friend that he’d
decided to take up an offer made by his claimed new-found friend Robert Salzmann, to join
him and his wife Helene on a trip to Tasmania and while there meet-up with friends of the
Salzmanns, Kenneth and Rosemary Nixon of Hobart. Jim also confirmed to this friend he
planned upon his return to the mainland, he was going to attend the forthcoming Right College
reunion with Miss Butler. So what exactly does all this mean?
After having discussed the matters at length with Miss Butler on several occasions, and
considering all information very carefully, I believe the facts speak for themselves. Bingara
Police were aware of Miss Butler’s friendship with Jim Pollard. So it then becomes obvious that
via police communications and sometime between 1450 hrs and 1520 hrs (3.20 pm) or at least
some 40 plus minutes before 1600 hrs, Bingara Police at the Bingara Police Station had learned
very shortly after Russell James Pollard had been shot in a shooting incident at Port Arthur in
Tasmania that he was deceased. It was at 1600 hrs (4.00pm), that documents confirm the
arrival through the Tollbooth of the first Tasmania Police officer, Const Peter Hessman to the
Historic Site. But he had no opportunity to establish a preliminary identification of Mr. Pollard
as he didn't break his journey there at the Tollbooth. The local Bingara policeman's subsequent
reaction to the information received would seem to suggest the Tasmania informant also
curiously exhibited a primary desire to confirm the nature and/or extent of the friendship that
existed between the deceased and this local friend Miss Butler.
Police cannot notify next of kin (or friends for that matter) of any death, before the deceased
is legally declared “dead” by a medical practitioner. So here we have a situation, whereby
someone had opportunity and reason to establish the identity of Jim Pollard lying there on
Jetty Road near the Tollbooth and pass the information to police at Bingara, by way of an
inquiry, rather than a notification meant for the deceased next of kin. A prominent notation in
Jim Pollard's address book had to be the key, which initiated this action, but the question
remains, “As Pollard's next of kin had no association with Bingara, was that action triggered by
a pressing need by some unidentified person to confirm the identity of persons noted
prominently in Jim Pollard's notebook?”
Interestingly, none of Jim Pollard’s immediate family including his son Phillip, his brother
Keith, twin sister or his wife Dawn (from whom he was separated), have ever received any of
Jim Pollard’s personal effects, which included:
1. A valuable gold wrist watch,
2. His wallet - and importantly,
3. His address book.
The Police Training Video clearly shows Mr. Pollard’s body, furthest from the camera on the
western shoulder of Jetty Road, wearing dark sport slacks and a white shirt. His upper body is
hidden from the camera and so I cannot say if he is wearing his gold watch or not. 7
It is also interesting that Russell James Pollard was one of the last victims to be formally
identified, when his son Phillip flew to Hobart from the mainland, but I can also state he was
the first deceased victim to have interstate friends know of his death. Recently it was claimed
his next of kin had never received a death certificate, a claim at time of writing I'm unable to
confirm. Nevertheless:
1. What became of to Mr. Pollard’s valueless (but to the family sentimentally priceless)
address book?
2. What happened to Mr. Pollard’s Wallet and personal papers?
3. What happened to Mr. Pollard’s valuable, gold, wrist watch?
4. Why have the family not received his personal effects?
5. Who identified Jim Pollard as deceased and so made the call to Bingara Police?
6. Has a death certificate for Mr. Pollard been issued, and who signed it?
My inquiries always come back to the same question: “Who among those we know of on the
Historic Site at the time had opportunity and reason to remove all of the personal items
from the deceased Jim Pollard and using information contained in his address book, to then
make inquires of police in Bingara that alerted a friend he had been involved in a fatal
incident at Port Arthur?” I shall now try to address this question.
Let us look at the information we have accessed, which deals with the Tollbooth incident in
relation to the movements affecting the original occupants of the BMW. The first witness to
mention 'a gold BMW' on Jetty Road was Debra Buckley. Debra and her husband Thomas 'at
about 1.45 pm' had passed through the Tollbooth in their red Commodore Holden Avis rent-a-
car and began the decent on Jetty Road that then led to the Broad Arrow Café car park.
The couple noticed 'a large group of people' jogging across the grassy area about a 100m away,
when a male beyond a gold coloured BMW in front of them, yelled out to them something like,
'don't go down there, there's someone with a gun'. Thomas immediately began reversing their
car back up Jetty Road and then turned about (probably at the Church Road intersection)
driving back up towards the Tollbooth. Debra Buckley tells us the "gold coloured BMW which
was directly ahead … [was] reversing and turning to head back in the same direction
[also]." So the 'gold coloured BMW' in question, had also gone through the Tollbooth, down
Jetty Road then reversed and turned around to retrace its journey to the Tollbooth and parked
in the incoming or wrong lane – so providing a clear run for any vehicle leaving the Site.
Thomas Buckley went to Aileen Kingston in the Tollbooth to be told she was aware of the
shooting and that the police had been called.
Debra Buckley also tells us she then had a short exchange with a male in the gold BMW who had
dark complexion 'perhaps of Greek extraction' she says; this was Robert Salzmann and she
conveyed to him the seriousness of the situation. She then turned and saw the gunman down
Jetty Road who was in the process of killing Mrs Mikac and her two daughters. At that point,
Debra and Thomas Buckley abandoning their Commodore and left the area on foot, so they
leave our story. 7
The BMW was stationary, parked wrongly in the incoming lane, just beyond the pedestrian
crossing at the northern extent of the Tollbooth traffic divide, so blocking all traffic attempting
to enter the Historic Site via the Tollbooth's left hand lane, but at the same time giving an
unobstructed exit to the gunman about to depart the Historic Site. From this point in time
there is a few moments gap in witnesses' statements from when the gunman regained the Volvo
on Jetty Road and drove the 60 or so metres up to where he stopped, still facing north in the
outbound or correct lane, directly opposite the parked gold BMW. Consequently we are
unaware of the movements if any, of the four occupants of the BMW sedan in those next crucial
moments.
However the continuity of the story is taken up by the three occupants of a red Ford Corsair as
they arrive to enter the Site by the Tollbooth. Debra Rabe, at the time worked at St John
Ambulance headquarters in Hobart. On that Sunday Debra, with her two-year-old niece Ashley
Rabe, 'a work colleague' from Adelaide Freda Cheok and her son Nicholas, were all enjoying a
day-trip to the area from her home in Hobart. Debra was at the wheel, when they pulled up
about a car's length from a ‘gold’ coloured BMW parked in the wrong lane and blocking their
entry path. They tell us that a well presented gentleman wearing glasses, ‘in his sixties’ was
seated in the driver's seat of the gold BMW; this was Jim Pollard. Beside Pollard a female was
seated who was waving Debra to "go back"; this was “Rosemary” Mary Rose Nixon.
Nicholas Cheok was seated in the front passenger seat beside Debra, with his mother Freda
Cheok in the rear seat behind him. Nicholas’ attention was focused on a yellow Volvo which
had a surfboard on a roof rack he saw parked facing north in the northbound or outgoing lane,
directly opposite the gold coloured BMW and therefore in his estimation ‘about two sedan car
lengths away’ from Debra Rabe’s car. The witnesses goes on to tell us, a person with long hair
was at the wheel of this ‘older style car’, a Yellow Volvo and a 'short haired female in her
fifties' was seated beside the driver; this we now know to be Helene Salzmann.
With the BMW's female passenger (Rosemary Nixon) still remaining seated in the front
passenger seat and continuing to wave them back, Nicholas states that he then saw a man
alight from the rear compartment of the driver's side of the yellow Volvo sedan: he was
'probably in his mid sixties and … of average height'. This male was Robert Salzmann who
remained standing beside the Volvo while the driver, a male with long blonde hair alighted.
Nicholas Cheok continues by telling us that from the body language of these two males, he
could tell they were arguing. He further states that the gunman turned to look towards the
people in the BMW, then as he walked around the front and down the left side of the yellow
Volvo to its rear, he ‘distinctly remembers he looked directly at [the witnesses in the red Ford
Corsair]’, before the Volvo obstructed his view as to what the male was now doing.
Importantly though Nicholas did not see the boot-lid raised up, and therefore I can confidently
state the blonde-haired male went into the passenger side rear compartment, not the boot, as
Nicholas had an unobstructed view if the boot lid of the Volvo had been raised.
The blonde haired male then walked back around the rear of the Volvo carrying two long arms
(one on a sling over his shoulder) and returned to again argue with the male still standing
beside the Volvo. Now this last point becomes quite critical in us arriving at a sound conclusion
to this segment. For if these witnesses’ recount of events are correct, and I see no reason to
doubt the statements, clearly the two passengers must have entered the Volvo without duress
or force of arms. Even more importantly Robert has been seated on the same bench seat
beside two long arms! In light of Debra Buckley informing the occupants of the gold BMW of
the shootings and the volley of shots that confirmed her story just 60m away down Jetty Road,
one must then ponder these three questions:
1. Why did Robert and Helene Salzmann enter the gunman's Volvo?
2. How was the gunman able to feel so comfortable as to allow a male (hostage?) to sit
behind him and beside 2 rifles he's just used to murder 15 people minutes earlier? And,
3. Why didn't Robert Salzmann remove the firearms as he alighted and really intervene in
the massacre?
We are then told that as little as ten seconds passed at this point before the blonde haired
male raised the gun to inline with Robert Salzmann's chest with the muzzle very close to his
body and he fired and the man fell to the ground and did not move. I can positively state the
Police Training video shows the body of Robert Salzman lying stretched out lying on his back,
face up and parallel to the driver's side and close to the yellow Volvo which is parked right over
the pedestrian crossing at the northern extent of the Tollbooth divide, facing north, his head to
the northern extent of the white lines in the pedestrian crossing (the position shown in the PTV
tape is entirely consistent with Nicholas Cheok's statement).
At this point Pollard alighted from the driver's seat of the BMW,
walking around the front of the BMW and approached this armed
male who'd just shot and killed his 'old army buddy' Robert Salzmann
standing beside the Volvo. Upon reaching the gunman, Pollard was
said to utter but a few words to him, before the gunman again raised
the rifle (a 30cal firearm) and with the muzzle again close to his
chest and the gunman looking back towards the occupants of the red
Ford Corsair, he shot Jim Pollard dead. Contrary to what has been Bullet damage: both the
published in The Daily Telegraph (attributed to his son Phillip) on left hand rear window and
April 22, 2006 at page 61, and the citation for the bravery award to the quarter pane of Martin
Robert Salzmann, the claims of both Salzmann and Pollard Bryant's Volvo abandoned at
attempting to disarm the gunman near the tollbooth can not be the Tollbooth were bullet
sustained when all the witness statements are considered. damaged.
Returning now to the witnesses' accounts of the incident we find that while Debra Rabe
‘casually put her car into reverse,’ Nicholas watched the gunman walk around the front of the
Volvo for the second time, open the front passenger door and stand behind that open door. He
then reached into the car for the female Helene Salzmann and after the red Ford Corsair had
moved no more than 'two car lengths' the woman was dragged to her feet and shot beside the
rear passenger side door of the Volvo which accounts for the bullet damage only ever referred
to by the DPP indifferently.
With Debra Rabe's attention now solely focused on removing the vehicle from her boxed-in
position in the que (as another car had stopped behind them), the gunman was still under
observation by her passengers. Freda Cheok tells us that that as Debra had reversed into a
space (on the eastern side of the road) and looking to her left, she saw the blonde haired male
gunman trying to drag Helene Salzmann who he'd already shot as she was 'crouched down on
the ground', around and across the road in front of the Volvo at its driver's side front corner.
Rosemary Nixon still remained seated in the front of the gold BMW as Debra drove away fast
from the scene. 8
At this point another witness arrives on the scene. Graham Sutherland, his wife Stephanie and
two sons were in a V6 Maroon Magna sedan. As they approached the Tollbooth, Mr Sutherland
stated, he saw the tan-coloured BMW still parked facing him, and the Volvo still parked in the
outgoing lane, both ‘slightly in front of the toll booth facing towards [him]’.
Sutherland goes on to state, ‘to the driver's side I saw a body laying on the road way, I think
face down,’ this had to be Rosemary Nixon. He also stated, of the BMW ‘the driver’s side door
was open’ and continuing he states: “The body was completely out of the vehicle. The feet of
the body were close to the driver’s door and the head was pointed on a 45 degree angle down
towards the Historic site. I think there may have been a white top on this person/body with
fawn trousers. I though (sic) this person was male.” Now when the above accounts are
compared with the Court Transcript it becomes obvious there are some problems here.
As a consequence, to this investigator the positions of the bodies of Jim Pollard, Helene
Salzmann, and Mary Rose Nixon as shown in the Police Training Video and the account as
provided in the Court Transcript are not entirely consistent with that which is indicated by
witness statements. In the short sequence in which the three bodies are shown on the video,
the camera position must have been well to the east of where the gold BMW was parked when
the three were shot and killed and marked "B" by Nicholas
Cheok on the Court document "NEC.1". To assist the reader to
understand better, I have included an enhanced and modified
diagram that clearly shows the reader three car positions: the
'Sepang Bronze' gold BMW, the red Ford Corsair and the yellow
Volvo as well as Robert Salzmann's body. During this video
clip captured on Monday 29th, the camera does not pan; it
just looks west, across and at right angles to the carriageway,
with the three cadavers spread out across the sealed surface:
Mrs Nixon wearing white sneakers, red slacks and light top is
closest to the camera, lying face down at almost 45 degrees
to the alignment of Jetty Road, with her head to the right or
north; next Helene Salzman can be seen lying on her back,
wearing a dark purple jump suit, head towards the camera
and her feet touching the double centre lines on the
carriageway. The body of Jim Pollard seems to be partly off
Enhanced and modified "NEC.1": the sealed surface, feet towards the camera head obscured,
witness diagram of Tollbooth wearing dark shoes, dark slacks and a white shirt. I believe
the position of this last body strongly suggests it may have been moved at some time between
when the victim was shot and the video was captured, as the position is inconsistent with that
established by several of the witness statements. Consequently, to that end this segment of
the investigation is incomplete I believe.
Now to quickly recap briefly the forgoing segment: For those who ran this psychopolitical
exercise it becomes obvious that the tollbooth was a critical area of usual entry to the primary
field of their operation, an area I would suggest they would most definitely had to have
ensured some form of observation and or control over. For instance, if an armed policeman
had inadvertently entered the primary field of operation a most adverse and exposed outcome
may have unfolded – and they could not allow that to happen. So yet other covert agents
would have to have been allocated the role of controlling the tollbooth area. Who were those
controllers?
When the inexplicable actions are considered of Robert and Helene Salzmann and indeed the
actions of there companion Jim Pollard, I’m forced to abandon my earlier held belief that Jim
Pollard was innocently caught up in a covert action on the part of his hosts. It seems yet again
the body count of covert agents has risen considerably; is it now probable that 4 or possibly
even 6 covert agents died by gunshot while on the job there that day? This I might add has
been an unexpected development for this author and so it caused me to investigate these
persons who formerly I had considered were simply innocent victims and we shall address my
finding very shortly.
In the Court Transcript, Mr Perks states before His Honour Justice Cox at page 162, "in all
eleven .308 calibre fired cartridge cases were subsequently recovered from the vicinity of
the tollbooth. All had been discharged in the FN self-loading rifle." 9
Let me state very clearly here, the gunman redeployed an AR-10 7.26NATO rifle at the Port
Arthur Tollbooth, not the FN FAL rifle. But first let's do the math: The first shot fired here
from the 30cal firearm was in the murder of;
• Robert Salazmann – shot once, then
• Jim Pollard - shot once,
• Helene Salzmann - shot once and
• Rosemary Nixon - shot twice
Then when Mr Sutherland arrived at the Tollbooth, in the maroon Magna hire car, the gunman
fired two shots at his vehicle, one striking the driver’s side door just to the rear and above the
door handle, while the other bullet struck the bottom driver’s side corner of the windscreen –
luckily the occupants were only shaken and sustained no injuries, so
• The Maroon V6 Magna - was shot twice
Then Mr Colin Prout was at the wheel of a white Ford Fairlane hire car with two male friends
and as they approached the Historic Site entrance Colin heard two loud gunshots. These would
have been the two shots which struck the maroon Magna which was departing at speed. Now
ahead of the Mr Prout’s white Ford Fairlane was another vehicle – possibly green in colour – and
at that time Colin Prout states, ‘My attention was drawn, as I heard a further two gunshots to
the green car…’ So
• The green car - was shot twice
Interestingly, Mr Perks for reasons best known to him has deliberately retold this segment out
of sequence. But as you can see, there have been nine (9) shots in total. So my first question;
1. How does the DPP account for the other two shots? Secondly,
2. How can Mr Perks state all eleven .308W cases were discharged in the FN Fal?
You see, not a shred of ballistic or forensic evidence was introduced to the Court, which
sustains Mr Perks’ statement; in truth for his part, this is a purely speculative statement.
Now to address the results of my research of Robert Salzmann and Jim Pollard: I first turned
my attention to the claimed successful career of Russell James Pollard in service to Britain's
Royal Air Force, the RAF.
Just as I did when investigating "Joe" Vialls, I searched the RAF service records of Great Britain
but could find no one by this name having ever served in the RAF during WW-II. I also searched
those records for Jim's claimed "old military buddy", Robert Salzmann and must admit I wasn't
really so surprised when no one by that name was listed as serving in the RAF or indeed any of
the military services according to those records I could peruse. In desperation, I turned to
search the RAAF - Royal Australian Air Force records. To my surprise I found Russell James
(Jim) Pollard had indeed served in our own Air Force and the following are the documented
service records located there:
Name: Pollard, Russell James
Service: Royal Australian Air Force
Service Number: 71593
D.O.B: 24 March 1924
P.O.B: Hamilton, NSW.
D. O. Enlistment: 16 Oct 1942 at age 18 yrs
D. O. Discharge: 21 August 1945
Next of kin: Pollard, Gertrude
Rank: Leading Aircraftsman
Posting at Discharge: 1 School of Tech Training
WW2 Honours & Gallantry: None to display
POW: No
I would point out that in the case of Jim Pollard, having been in the RAAF for just 2 years and
ten months and rising to no more than that of LAC, his short time of service could hardly be
termed a “successful career”, even if it was with another air force. From his date of
discharge, I can say with certainty Mr Pollard left the service at the first available opportunity
to demobilise. Now with this little surprise absorbed, I then searched for a death notice to
confirm a link that one 'Pollard, Russel James, aged 72 yrs' had died in 1996. I can confirm a
death notice was published for Russel James Pollard which also stated his age at 72 years in his
local newspaper, the Newcastle Morning Herald of 9 May 1996. Now Jim was killed at Port
Arthur on 28 April 1996, just five weeks to the day after his birthday and he was reported to
have been aged 71 years. This age controversy can possibly be explained by the date of his
enlistment on his service record; perhaps Jim put his age up to enable him to be state his age
as 18 years – a common enough practice among young males wanting to join the services in
Australia in 1942. 10
Further searches showed there were death notices published for Robert Salzmann and his wife
Helene, on 4 May in the Lismore Northern Star, and further legal notices for Robert and Helene
appeared on 27 January 1997, in the same publication and I can also confirm that it is recorded
both were buried in section “KG” of the northern NSW Mullumbimby cemetery. But of no
surprise to this author is the fact that I'm not able to confirm anybody going by the name of
Robert Salzmann, born in 1938, as having ever served in either the RAF or the RAAF during WW-
II, which suggests the claim is simply a furphy. 11
The Salzmann couple have proven quite a mystery. At time of writing though I can confirm
from information which appears to have been supplied by Helene Salzmann's 'close friend', Per
Odner, it is suggested the couple at that time had two sons both of whom lived in Switzerland
but again curiously this source also claims Jim Pollard and Robert Salzmann, 'met in the air
force during World War II and "had been friends ever since", a friend said.' The couple were
also reported as then having resided in the northern NSW town of Ocean Shores (p.c.2483),
where Mrs Salzmann was known as a 'prize winning gardener' of the district. The Swiss
connection with the Salzmann family seems also to spill over into the life of Jim Pollard, for in
answer to a journalist’s question to her position on “gun control”, Mrs Emma Jay, aged 70
years of ‘Northern NSW, [and a] friend of Port Arthur victim Jim Pollard’ is quoted as
responding, "This business about gun control is a joke really. I come from Switzerland
where everyone is taught how to treat weapons sensibly and with care. In Switzerland
everyone keeps a gun in their own home and we don't have any problems with them." 12
When combined, the evidence surrounding the forgoing is strengthened considerably I believe
when one considers events proximate to the missing personal effects of Jim Pollard in
conjunction with the actions of what Deputy Commissioner Richard McCreadie described
quaintly as, "a holidaying police officer from New South Wales [who] stepped forward and
began marshalling all the survivors and bringing some organisation and control to the
scene." 13
I can do a little better than a seemingly cautious Police Commissioner here and the officer is
definitely not Const Garry Whittle either. Surely his profile would have to be that of a person
whose covert role (like those of at least another eight to ten or more persons involved) must be
concealed from the public. We also have this officer's statement, a real tome that took him a
full working day to compose. The first person who fits all the criteria of that culprit is a
Bureau of Crime Intelligence officer, who while simply identified as a NSW policeman on
holidays, nevertheless is I believe none other than Justin Noble who’s 8-plus page statement,
to the unwary would seem to exhibit a policeman with extraordinary powers of recall and little
else. But the document in fact oozes intelligence! One crime scene of significance he must
have visited but so noticeably mentions almost casually was the Tollbooth. Why?
Contrary to the prescribed police protocol, this police officer alone didn't provide his
statement to his superiors at his station upon his return supposedly to NSW, but instead he
supplied his voluminous statement, compiled in various places around Hobart, to colleagues in
BCI head office in Hobart. His action I would opinion, confirm Justin Noble as a BCI officer and
that would go some way to explaining why his rank is never mentioned by anyone including
Comm. McCreadie, even the make and model of his car remain concealed although I can state
it was Victorian registered. Inadvertently his rank is given as "constable" in the bravery awards
citation. BCI is a rather strange department, housed among state police, but federal in its
operation, just as the Federal Police are. In this case though, why would a NSW policeman be
driving his own vehicle on holidays in Tasmania, when his 'own vehicle' carried Victorian
registration of OEY- 903? Was he actually stationed in Melbourne and if so what was his special
assignment; Port Arthur?
If in fact Justin is a BCI officer and he was the culprit who removed the personal effects from
the deceased Jim Pollard, then this would go some way to explaining why numerous people -
determined to conceal their identity incidentally - were suddenly exhibiting heightened
interest in anyone listed in the address book of Jim Pollard for months after, to the tune of
upwards of possibly 50 phone calls to one such individual alone in reference to Jim Pollard.
Even Parson, Alan Anderson numbered among those privy to names out of Jim Pollard’s address
book! This then identifies the parson Mr Anderson as also having covert connections. All
because it would seem, Pollard was a companion of Robert and Helene Salzmann and Rosemary
Nixon, all of whom died at the Tollbooth that day. These anonymous callers even volunteered
some quite personal detailed information about events near the tollbooth also; not the sort of
information members of the public would have uncovered so early-on after the incident you
must understand. Incidentally, while his wife Kathryn accompanied Justin Noble and so
witnessed much of what he saw in the initial stages on the Historic Site, strangely no statement
by her is among my files. 14
You can now understand why the "Bingara bolt from the blue" was quite rightly identified by
both Andrew MacGregor and me to be of such importance in the process of unravelling what
occurred during the shootings that occurred around the Port Arthur Tollbooth.
Now let us return to explaining why so many people believed the gunman had escaped the
police cordon around Seascape. Several important points need to made here: Asst Comm. for
Crime and Operations, Luppo Prins, was notified of the shooting incident at 1:51 pm (1351 hrs),
while he tells us, “The initial report of the Port Arthur shootings was received at the
Hobart Police Radio Room at 1332 on Sunday, 28 April 1996,” confirming it was Mrs Scurr
who made the first 000 call. Interestingly, this time is at odds with the initial call time
provided by the later Police Commissioner, Richard McCreadie. Luppo Prins also tells us his
first action was to authorise deployment of the SOG. They were dispatched to Taranna 10 km
north of Seascape, where the PFCP was established in the Devil Park. It was here that a
barbeque was laid-on to feed the eventual 400 plus police, while the 100 acre Historic Site was
yet left unsecured by them and the staff unfed! It is very clear, that senior police entirely
failed in their duty here. 15
Hundreds of visitors, PAHSMA staff, and emergency services personnel – many still locked in
cottages with lights off and blinds drawn scattered around the Site - were forced to endure six
stress-filled hours of waiting, before armed SOG police in numbers adequate to the situation
arrived by bus no less, to escort these traumatised people to the safety of the Port Arthur
Motor Inn and the Backpackers’ Hostel nearby. Oddly though, we are not informed from
whence these SOG’s were “bussed”. After all, was not every available SOG officer the length
and breadth of Tasmania at that time deployed in the role of “total containment” of the
gunman at Seascape?
It also must be realized, that long before these armed SOG police arrived on the Historic Site,
the eyewitness Lee-Anne Goodwin tells us that, “at about 6.30pm that night I was on the
veranda of CLOUGHA with Brian ALISON and John FEATHERSTONE, fellow workers at the
site. All three of us heard three shots, which came in rapid succession from the right
hand side, toward the Remarkable Caves. The shots sounded as if they came from the
bushes next to us, and it sounded like a high pitch sound
similar to a rifle. Although edited-out from his original,
comprehensive, hand-written and signed statement, eyewitness
Steven Howard corroborated this above account entirely to this
author and stated it was certainly included in his original
handwritten statement to police.
Very shortly after these 3 gunshots were fired near Clougha, Left: Mrs Scurr indicates where
Robert McLoughlin entered the Port Arthur Motor Inn’s reception witnesses believe 3 shots came
room, searching for his wife Vicki who was a staff member from close by the "Clougha"
working on the Historic Site that day, in the hope that she had escaped the attack unscathed.
Upon making his entrance, he was confronted by a policeman, Peter Hessman who quietly
made an announcement to the staff caring for the traumatised visitors sheltering in the Motel,
with words to the effect that; “The gunmen (plural) are out and we don’t know where they
are, keep everybody inside, draw the curtains and switch-off the lights.” Mrs Scurr has
since told me the curtains would not close properly, and she refused this police directive to
switch-off the lights, as in her qualified estimation it was only going to further amplify the
trauma people had suffered already. In the minutes that followed, Mr McLoughlin found his
wife, and on his insistence, the couple departed the Site immediately.
My point is this. Who fired these 3 shots at about 6.30 pm near Clougha? Considering that as
Peter Hazelwood would have us all believe, the SOG had their “lone gunman” at that time,
subjected to “total containment,” inside Seascape, why did police ignore entirely these 3
gunshots and they made no attempt to investigate, expose, or make an arrest of the culprit? In
fact the only public document confirming these 3 shots being fired on
site was put on the record by Craig Coombs who stated: “At about
1700 a report came through that it was feared that Bryant may
have broken out of Seascape and was heading back to the Site.
Shots were then reported as coming from across the Site.” Could
not police inaction in this instance imply a clear knowledge of exactly
what did occur in this instance? After all other instances I have
exposed here of complicity even responsibility, like for instance the
Map of the Port Arthur admission to the burning of Seascape is suggestive of a motive at
Historic Site, c2000. least; there were so many agents on the Site that day, surely
opportunity is not in question. 16
Picture if you will, men-folk with their women and children there in the gathering gloom of
eventide, in unfamiliar surroundings; with wide streets, scattered buildings and ruins throwing
long shadows over this 100 acre Historic Site. They were all on foot, all unarmed, some locked
in darkened period cottages, dead bodies scattered about, with a gunman out there
somewhere, and police obviously unwilling to come and protect them… The already 5 hours of
trauma was certainly reinforced in every one of those people who
heard those 3 further gunshots as they waited quietly over the
ensuing hour. Surely their plight must have seemed to have no
conclusion as they waited and waited. PtArthurMap2
Walter Mikac had come to the Site and ended up down Jetty Rd
near the Café area in search of Nanette and the two girls and
located the family car parked there by the waterfront. It was 2006: The current map of
somewhere around 1800 hrs (6.00 pm) and a Nubeena volunteer Port Arthur Historic Site
ambulance officer had mentioned to Dr Ireland that the bodies of after the extensive
two children were on Jetty Road. So while the Dr Ireland and Kaye redevelopment carried out
Fox walked up Jetty Road to check the bodies, she instructed Paul over the last ten years.
Cooper the Historic Site tour guide to escort Walter Mikac up to the security of Clougha
cottage. Shortly the doctor arrived at Clougha where she conveyed the awful news to Walter
and it was just minutes later that they all witnessed the three gunshots that rang out from the
bushes close by. Even the green light emitted by the photocopier had to doused as all of those
inside were administered a further dose of trauma in what she described as an 'atmosphere of
terror'. 17
At this point let’s return to the very fastidious NSW Policeman, supposedly holidaying in
Tasmania and who provided invaluable assistance on the Historic Site that day – or so Comm.
McCreadie would have us believe. As I have already mentioned above, I was forced to conclude
Justin Noble was out of the BCI office and working on a special case as he was driving his own
motor vehicle (never described) but which had Victorian registration of OEY-903.
At page 6 of his nine-page statement, Noble mentions that he and wife Kathryn, entered a
“cottage on the south east corner of the intersection of Tramway Street and Remarkable
Caves Road,” where it appears his wife sheltered and he made several phone calls to police HQ
in Hobart. Eventually, after directing traffic and making sundry calls to police in Hobart from
this cottage, he seconded the owner, a male he states went by the name of “Dale” to
accompany him to the Tollbooth area about which his recount is minimal, where he yelled his
name out to “SES Ian KINGSTON, and [sic] SES officer [who was] north of the toll booth my
name and that I was a member of the NSW Police Service…”
But at this period in the sequence of his movements around the outer limits of the 100 acre
Site, Justin Noble could not have yelled out to Ian Kingston north of the Tollbooth, as Ian
Kingston had not set up any SES Control there at that time. Secondly, Ian Kingston would
certainly love to have been able to include a NSW policeman in his many statements if he had
been yelled at by Noble; that is certainty! But Ian Kingston makes no mention of any NSW
policeman having identified himself in the area of the Tollbooth. Now this yelling to Kingston
was supposedly to gain permission to enter the Site down Jetty Road past the Tollbooth, but
this is illogical, for at that time no police lines had been established, so why the request for
permission? Perhaps though it gained him some ‘padding’ for his attendance and duration at
the Tollbooth crime scene, considering the occupants of the BMW lay dead and strewn about
road there, especially just in case a witness inadvertently came upon him occupied in what
ever it is BCI officers on covert operations do at crime scenes among bodies.
He then claims that with permission granted by Kingston, he and Dale ‘ran 400 metres south’
and out onto the oval where he met Brian Edmonds, a Tasmania policeman, when he
approached one of the (Squirrel) helicopters. Now we are told elsewhere that Edmonds went
into the Information Centre and phoned police HQ to demand they get some police down to the
Historic Site as quickly as possible, but he doesn’t mention an encounter with Justine Noble
either. Can you see a pattern developing here?
Now this fastidious, pedantic policeman Justin Noble, stated Edmonds “asked” him and his
companion Dale “…to ensure that the site was fully evacuated on the southern side and that
all persons were moved to the carpark at the front of the information centre.” This allegation
is quite at odds to what the volunteers and PAHSMA staff had already achieved, (as attested by
various video tapes) even before the gunman departed the Site, when they had moved all of
the visitors away from the car park to the safety of the cottages in the Southwest extent of the
Historic Site environs!
Now keeping in mind the quick turnaround time of Squirrel helicopters collecting then
evacuating the surviving wounded from the Historic Site to Hobart and the fact that as a crew
member, protocol demanded that Edmonds stay with his helicopter, but Noble would have us
believe that after clearing all of these people from the Site and returning with them to the
Information Centre, Noble states he “…then returned to where Brian EDMONDS was
standing”. If the foregoing is not nonsense, then consider this: Noble then claims that after
“Dale” was given permission to ‘return home’, Noble and Edmonds (still standing about
twiddling his thumbs it would seem), entered the Information Centre and continuing he claims
“Brian and I then began to speak to victims and witnesses to the incident and obtain their
details.” This is nothing less than unmitigated rubbish!
Now within the statement Noble notes the names of various people to whom he spoke, among
them ‘Peter’ (Hessman), Ian Kingston (the latter even although he was at such distance that he
was forced to yell out to him - once), but of the person whose home he and his wife Kathryn
entered, and with whom he allegedly traversed the entire 100 acre site, he only ever refers to
him as “Dale”, and to my knowledge Dale (?) never ever made a statement to police.
Is it not fair to suggest that as he mentions, no note taking was effected as he propelled
himself at speed about the Site, then a position in BCI would have undoubtedly been of great
worth in checking the witness statements to provide the ‘padding’ of names to promote an
account of his movements almost believable to the unwary? In the fashion of someone trained
in police methodology, like Lynne Beavis and her mention of “Cheryl SCURL” (Wendy Scurr who
had nothing to do with Beavis), Noble employed the same almost-correct right-sounding name
from a fastidious, trained mind, when he almost gets the witness Kyle Spruce’s name right;
“Kyle SPROULE”. A poor attempt that is a dead give away to any competent investigator I
would suggest.
However, from the Information Centre where he claims he took names and details of witnesses
under the guidance of a detective “Peter” (Hessman), he then tells us he and his wife went to
the Port Arthur Motel (where Hessman sat among staff and visitors) and he claims there he
received permission from an attending policeman (not named, who he knew must have been
Peter Hessman) to return to the car park, collected his car and in his own word, “[He] then
left the scene at about 7.00pm and returned to [his] hotel accommodation.”
Here a significant admission has been made by a simple oversight on his part: As earlier stated
I was sure of my ground in suggesting Justin Noble was heavily involved in the events of that
day in a covert role and the person most likely in my estimation to have fulfilled a role as Site
controller for the operation, but now my allegation is magnified substantially I believe. This
pedantic policeman forgot to mention that BEFORE he left the Historic Site at about 7.00pm,
and I would suggest just after he left Hessman and vacated the motel dining room, THREE
GUNSHOTS rang out, echoing about the hills and bays of the Port Arthur Historic Site at 6.30pm
at which time, Noble by his own admission was engaged in some activity or other not witnessed
by any person but importantly was still on the 100 acre grounds of the Historic Site outdoors
and apparently was very deaf; or was Noble wearing hearing protection and did he fire the
three mystery gunshots? Noble certainly had opportunity, but did he also have motive? It is my
opinion he did.
The above detailed senior Tasmania Police negligence is bad enough, but remember I haven’t
mentioned police also deliberately left 5 crimes scenes relatively unsecured and open to
contamination and tampering even if by BCI officers and the like, for that entire 6 hour period
as well! Even the bodies on Jetty Road were rolled aside to make room for an ill directed bus
carrying the walking wounded to make its way onto Nubeena Road! ‡
Three police over 5 crime scenes equals ‘unsecured’ in anyone’s opinion surely. Noble, the
holidaying policeman of great assistance had ensured all was wrapped-up and departed the
area of operation just after the 3-shot – the international “all-clear” had sounded – which
incidentally could be heard at Seascape just as shots at Seascape were heard at the Historic
‡
Ian McElwee was at the wheel of this bus having just gone through the entire massacre in and around the Broad
Arrow Café & then almost 5 hrs later was tasked to drive his bus via Premaydena back to Hobart. Without police
supervision he departed by Jetty Road, instead of leaving via Tarleton & Champs Streets past the Port Arthur Motor
Inn.
Site. But the power of one – Hessman; there is a limit to just how thinly one policeman can be
spread over 5 crime scenes. He did take some details from those who chose to cooperate, but
many (approximately 100 or so vehicles), were recorded as departing, as there was no one in
authority to prevent their departure! When considered, along with all of the other anomalies,
this negligent, inappropriate inaction by police must surely have been deliberate and what
temerity for McCreadie and his mates in the Ministry to boast of their pride in the police
response! 18
Upon learning of the massacre from Peter Roach who phoned them from the Site Information
Centre, the supervisors immediately started-out to return. Two of the vehicles, after having
travelled about 222km on the return trip, were logged onto the Historic Site at 3:50 and 4:04
pm respectively. After at least a two and a half hour drive from Swansea via Nubeena, the
second staff vehicle still beat Peter Hessman's chauffeured arrival by police vehicle which had
just 28 km to cover from Taranna with siren and flashing lights to clear the way after Barry
Bennett issued the orders to Insp Freeman upon his arrival there at about 1500 hrs! 10
When, and from whom did policeman Peter Hessman receive his orders to proceed to the
Historic Site that day? Why was Hessman left there alone and without transport? While police
deliberately left to chance hundreds of visitors, staff and emergency personnel already
mentioned above, plus the five crime scenes, for many hours it seems strange that when
Graeme and Wendy Scurr returned to the Historic Site on Tuesday 30 April so as to recover
Wendy’s motor car, still parked in the staff car-park near the Information Centre, both were in
for a surprise. Wendy was transported to the car-park to identify her vehicle by two policemen
in their vehicle, and then one of the police drove her car back to the entrance, before handing
it over. Obviously in Australia, Police priorities are chaotic; sadly they demonstrate much
more care and consideration for motor vehicles, than they do for the welfare of the citizens of
the communities they police.
End Notes
1
McCreadie, “Port Arthur – An Overview of Police Response”, EMA Report, p.6
2
McCreadie, EMA Report, p.6; Justin Noble, Statement 30/04/96, taken at BCI Offices, City Police
Station, Hobart; var. witness statements; EMA Papers, p.53
3
Craig Coombs, “PAHSMA Response,” EMA Report, p.40.
4
Protected source, former Federal Policeman, corroborated volunteer fireman.
5
Australian Surveying & Land Information Group, Sunset Results at http://geodesy.auslig.gov.au - 4apr01
6
na, The Daily Telegraph, 22Apr06, p.61
7
Debra Jane Buckley, witness statement to Police (undated)
8
Various signed witness statements of Debra Rabe, Nicholas & Freda Cheok
9
The Court Document Transcript, Queen v Martin Bryant, p. 162/5
10
Salzmann Robert & Helene, at http://www.rootsweb.com/~nswsdps/ausds013.htm; RAAF Service
Records at, rootsweb.com/~nswdps/ausdp208.htm
11
Compilation: Margaret Henderson, Index to Obituary/Death Notice File, October 2005, Richmond River
Historical Society.
12
RAAF Service Records, http://www.rootsweb.com/~nswdps/ausdp208.htm ; Newcastle Morning Herald
of 9may96, Deaths; na "The innocents killed for no reason," The Daily Telegraph, 1may96, p.6; na, The
Age 19jul96, p. A7
13
Richard McCreadie, Comm. of Police, "An Overview of the Police Response" The EMA papers p.6
14
Justin Mark Noble, witness statement, 30apr96, at BCI Offices, City Police Station, Hobart.
15
Richard McCreadie Comm of Police, Port Arthur – An Overview of Police Response, EMA Report, p.5;
Police Training Video, Luppo Prins; Craig Coombs CEO, “PAHSMA Response”, EMA Report, p.40
16
Peter Hazelwood before the Senate Standing Committee - Adelaide
17
Carol Altmann, After Port Arthur, pub. Allen & Unwin 2006, chapter 7, pp. 119-120
18
Mr J. Purden, PAHSMA employee, vehicle movement log 28/4/96 at Motor Inn entrance.
Chapter 22
I
n this chapter you may consider crucial information that came to light in August of 2001,
during my research and investigation carried forward with the mutual cooperation and
assistance from Andrew MacGregor, as I promised earlier in the narrative.
Upon the gunman regaining the Port Arthur Tollbooth area, he had a confrontation with the
two male occupants of a sedan. Robert Salzmann alighted from the rear seat, and after
arguing beside Martin Bryant’s Yellow Volvo, Salzmann was shot dead with one shot from the
FN FAL rifle. Jim Pollard then alighted, and was promptly shot dead, with the two females also
shot and killed inside the car, but then callously dragged from their seats to be dumped on the
bitumen surface. Such actions on the part of the perpetrator mark him as a brutal, cold, killer.
From the Court Document, the gunman allegedly then transferred various items into the gold
BMW 733i sedan and hijacked the sedan previously driven by Robert Salzman and drove it out
onto the Arthur Highway, heading north through Port Arthur.
The blonde haired gunman then drove off at high speed north up the
Tasman Highway pausing at the entrance to Seascape, were he Bullet damage & a blood
proceeded to shoot randomly at the 11 persons in 6 vehicles all stain on the drivers' seat
southbound of the Arthur Highway dealt with in chapter 19. The DPP of the White Corolla tell
a poignant story.
alleges the gunman fired between 9 and 13 shots from the FN FAL at
these people. Returning to the BMW he then drove down into the Seascape cottage yard. I
cannot say with certainty though as to who then shifted the BMW to the western boundary of
the property where it became bogged to the axle. Mr. Perks tells us it was parked beside a
"line of poplar trees", though in fact they are not ‘Poplars’ at all, but a double row of more
than 24 Pencil Willows - Salix chiliensis. (See Court Doc @ pp.164-172)
The then Assist Comm. Richard McCreadie states in the EMA report that at Seascape, "the first
police arrived at 1412(hrs),” (2:12pm). So officially at least, it was from this point in time the
siege at the Seascape cottage began.
In our early investigation I was searching for a breakthrough, that crack or weak link in the
official line of what Andrew and I suspected was a sham. So sensitive to our finite resources,
many months of mundane investigative work had to be done; reading and rereading through in
excess of a thousand pages of witness statements, Court documents, and a filing cabinet
bulging with associated material. One needs to have a ‘win’ occasionally, a circuit breaker to
re-enthuse one's tired mind. But then a pleasant visit and weekend workshop from my
colleague Andrew MacGregor proved persistence does bring reward, a result among many along
the way that has certainly reinvigorated my determination to complete the task.
Now, in dialogue that even Sergeant Terry McCarthy described as "bizarre" and almost farcical
Seascape "negotiations" ensued, (there are various statements of times here). So from about
1530hrs intermittently to sometime between approximately 2100-2130 hrs the supposed
gunman "Jamie" — later identified as Martin Bryant, was under siege inside the Seascape
guesthouse. As early as page 2 of the court document's record of those various conversations,
"Jamie" is talking about wanting to go for a ride in a helicopter, and by p.43 he has been
worked around to detailing his intentions for that helicopter ride to Hobart Airport and plane
flight out to Adelaide via Melbourne.
It is at this point of the two-way conversation, "Jamie" volunteers by his own watch that the
time is, "just after nine" (2100hrs 9.00 p.m.). Note please that at this point in time, Jamie’s
conversations indicate absolutely nothing to support the two primary firearms have been
destroyed: Jamie’s exchanges all use future tense.
So had Sgt Terry McCarthy been led to believe there was another gunman secreted away inside
Seascape? I believe so; even if only to confuse the commander, the “Sons of God” and the
negotiator. After all Tasmania Police SOG Officers believed there was definitely more than one
shooter! If this was the case, I wonder who exactly did Police suspected was other gunman?
And before we leave this question, I must remind you, that at p.3, paragraph 2 of the Proof of
Evidence statement made by Constable Garry Whittle. We recount what occurred as both he
and Constable P. J. Allen were extricating themselves from the line of fire on the highway out
front of Seascape, along a ditch some 200 metres in length, timed by him at "10:30 p.m."
Whittle states that, "one of the SOG members" had told him and his fellow constable they
believed the Police were under surveillance from Seascape via a "night viewing device". As
Constables Whittle and Allen crawled along this ditch, Constable Garry Whittle stated, "...the
two members of SOG provided us with protection and information about the movements of
occupants of Seascape" (my emphasis) — "movements" of "occupants"; both in the plural tense.
You may remember, in his debriefing notes, Const Whittle states, “At one stage saw a female
running around the back yard naked. Yelling and screaming.” No hair colour is mentioned.
That had to Sally Martin, for if not Sally Matin, then who? But when it comes to the Constable
who was posted into Nubeena by senior Police Officers, Const Paul Hyland, the story takes a
ever so slight twist.
Const Hyland: “As I was moving my vehicle 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.”
Have you noticed how carefully he has choosing his words? Paul
Hyland has for reasons that appear obvious to this writer, but
certainly would be better known to himself, he introduced a
significant slant to his account of this critical opening segment of
the siege. Firstly he has not assigned a gender to his description of
the person - a quite deliberately choice seeing as how he believed
David & Sally Martin: But the person appeared naked. However, equally, he has chosen to
neither had “black hair” & introduce a degree uncertainty as to the person’s dress or lack of it,
Martin Bryant could not have by stating the person only “appeared to be naked”. Can you
murdered David Martin as at understand what is going on here? Without attempting to do more
the time the DPP claims than introduce some sense into the situation, there certainly was a
David was killed, Martin 'black haired person' at Seascape that afternoon, but it was neither
Bryant was 61 km away David or Sally Martin, nor was it Martin Bryant! I would suggest it
drinking coffee at Forcett! had to be “Rick” (or more correctly “Mick”) the controller and mate
of “Jamie”; and he did then have black hair. After all, Martin knew all about him; his wife, her
education standard, where his parents lived etc. But obviously the black-haired person could
not have been Sally Martin; a silver-grey haired lady in her senior years. Equally it could not
have been David Martin either, with his wavy silvered hair! I do not doubt the veracity of Const
Whittle’s recollection of events and yes, he was naturally taken aback when he saw a naked
female being pursued around the yard of Seascape screaming, with the Martin’s dog also
barking its head off on the end of a chain. This segment has done Paul Hyland no favours I
would suggest and so he moves to the “left” in my estimation, as he must have been “in the
loop”.
The Prosecution is locked into their flawed hypothesis presented unchallenged as "fact" in the
Court contending Sally and David Martin were murdered in the forenoon just to fit their less
than accurate timeline. However at 2230 hrs, on the Sunday afternoon the SOG officers and
the Police Constables at Seascape believed there were also "movements of occupants" (both in
the plural) in the cottage and this wasn’t the hostage Glen Pears either as we shall see
directly.
The Police and SOG officers concluded the source of "movements of occupants" within Seascape
was attributable to gunmen (plural). Think about it: non-shooters are of no direct threat to
police besieging a site and logically kidnappers are not in the habit of letting their hostages
wander about in a besieged dwelling, especially not in this cottage. For Sgt Gerard Dutton tells
us that upon examination, “burnt firearms were found in all areas of the ashes”. 1
Can you imagine, with ‘a firearm in every room’ and copious quantities of ammunition all over
the place, hostages allowed to roam free would have proved at least - risky? So Constable
Whittle's statement is weighty evidence supporting the proposition of there being more than
one gunman in the Seascape cottage.
The DDP's case which insists Martin Bryant was the lone belligerent in the Seascape siege and
indeed for the entire incident cannot be sustained when all the evidence is considered, and the
statement made by Const Garry Whittle alone is entirely at odds and contrary to the whole Mr.
Bugg's synopsis.
In a candid interview, sparked by a then forthcoming Federal election, Mr. Damien Bugg was
reported as saying that there was, "An overwhelming body of evidence [that] pointed to
Bryant's guilt, and not one piece of evidence had since emerged that would in any way counter
that." His statement now stands condemned as contemptibly untrue. It would achieve little to
challenge this QC to a public debate on this matter alone; I suggest it draw no more than a
scoff of it being ‘unprofessional’ for him to comment. But during Martin Bryant’s sentencing
hearing, the "defence" sat muted and compliant, never airing such material that you have read
above… such mulish defence can but attract condemnation!
Checking our Video tape library back in August of 2001, and in particular that segment
commonly known as the "Jamie Seascape audio tapes”, Andrew MacGregor and I had decided to
each concentrate on different aspects; I was listening for and watching out for background
material.
As the voice of the anchor-man trails-off and the unusually high pitched almost cultured,
effeminate, voice of "Jamie" fades-in, for a moment in time, I could not believe my ears — a
gunshot! Long experience told me, "You have heard a gunshot, and there is NO mention or
possibility of one occurring, is there?" After all it has clearly stated by senior police:
“Police did not fire any weapons during the incident…”
- Then Assist Comm., Richard McCreadie. 2
I will expand upon McCreadie’s careful choice of words in his statement shortly. But
importantly, Police did not discharge any firearm intentionally or otherwise towards any
suspect during the Seascape siege, and so I ask:
“Who, other than Martin Bryant, discharged this firearm inside Seascape as
captured on the audio tape?”
If this is a gunshot fired within the cottage, concurrent with the alleged “lone gunman Jamie”
engaged in an uninterrupted conversation with Sgt Terry McCarthy, then surely you now
recognise the significance of the event on record here.
Here is irrefutable evidence of a GUNMAN other than Martin Bryant in the Seascape
cottage during the siege!
Now let’s clear-up the event exposed by this video clip of the "Jamie Seascape tapes” which
incidentally appears at page 15 of the transcript and is designated "COUGH". After long and
sober consideration of the tape’s sound-track and picture we decided, because of the crucial
significance of our find, there was an urgent necessity to at the earliest time have the tape
examined and evaluated by an expert in audiometry, acting as an independent arbiter.
Subsequently, a copy of Nine’s video tape and the widely distributed CD-ROM, “Deceit &
Terrorism” with the file copy nominated “cuppa" and you can listen to that audio tape here. It
is the only known record of this particular gunshot. In May 2004, I received from an anonymous
source, a very good quality copy of a video tape entitled Tasmania Police Training Video
referred to and quoted, throughout this narrative as the PTV Tape. Within the second session
of that tape and approximately at 12:23 there is a 23 second clip of another segment of the
“Jamie” tape, which includes some of the conversation between “Jamie” and Sgt Terry
McCarthy transcribed at page 6 of the written transcript of the Court Document.
The recorded gunshot, along with other various known true gunshots from the Wilkinson Tape,
were together shipped to an audio expert for comparison and his independent report. The ACA
video tape known to have contained clips from the armature video tape footage captured by
Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson from Corio in Victoria, visitors that day to the Site, had earlier been
accepted as genuine gunshots captured on the Historic Site when gunshots rang out from the
Broad Arrow Café and the original tape was introduced into evidence by the Court as "Exhibit
P.3" (see Court Doc. p.102).
These recorded shots allegedly originated from the discharges of the Colt AR15 ·223Rem
Carbine inside the Broad Arrow Cafe. The transcript of the “Jamie” conversation with Sgt
Terry McCarthy was also entered into evidence and mentioned by Mr Perks, at pages 43 to 99 of
volume 2 of the Crown papers.
Upon our realisation of the significance of my discovery of this shot recorded as “COUGH” we
were prompted to ask this question:
“Can we find any other (possibly) companion events recorded in the transcript of
the audio tape as a "cough" that are suspiciously similar.”
A quick examination revealed there were in fact a further 19 similar events, all confirmed by
the police transcript!
The first event appears at p.3 and they continued irregularly but in an unmistakeable and
curious pattern at various places with 22 incidents recorded with the transcript ending at
p.58, with the last such incident recorded as “Cough” on page 57.
Inquiries have drawn a blank as to the existence or otherwise of any surviving police audio
"Jamie" tapes. Little wonder I should say, so the transcript is the only instrument of record
remaining, save the channel 9 video. Hence this fact prompts the question, "Under what
circumstances did the master tape of this transcript go missing, and why was there no copy
made of such important evidence, and then secured?" It is my understanding of police
procedure, that such tapes are considered by the SOG and their companion negotiating teams
as vital for use as training aids: so much for that likelihood. The transcript though makes for
interesting reading, with these events recorded as either, "COUGH," "Cough" or "cough";
forms, all there to read, consider and wonder...
So here is a copy of the transcript of the phone conversation, between Sgt Terry McCarthy, in
the Major Incident Room (MIR) at Police HQ in Hobart and "Jamie", a.k.a. Martin Bryant, over a
claimed but in practice a not-so-isolated land-line. "Jamie" is speaking on a portable telephone
inside Seascape on the evening of the 28th April 1996, just some minutes after 1815hrs (6:15
p.m.), and approximately between 6.25 p.m. and 6.40 p.m. by "Jamie's" wrist watch. I have
included the section of conversation each side of the target event, as follows:-
p.15
McCarthy: "I want to assure myself that everybody in there are okay. Are they all okay at
the moment?"
Jamie: Aw well, I've been given them a cuppa tea an…
McCarthy: You gave them a cuppa tea? Where are they at the moment?
Jamie: I can't tell you that.
McCarthy: Well okay. Okay then…
Jamie: They're Okay,
McCarthy: I take it no body been harmed?
Jamie: No, no one's been harmed they're on a double bed at the present.
McCarthy: Right, no body's been harmed (break in transcript)
Jamie: I've got twenty to seven `cause of I'm making up some sandwiches
McCarthy: COUGH [e.t.t. 00:35 is a discharge (BANG!) transcribed "COUGH"]
p.16
Jamie: these people got, um salad and some steak here…inaudible…
McCarthy: Right.
Jamie: and some eggs an I'm gonna fry up bacon and eggs for them
McCarthy: Uh hu ……
(Note: "e.t.t." = elapsed tape time. Refer to Deceit & Terrorism - the Massacre at Port
Arthur, a CD-Rom book by Andrew MacGregor; go to folder marked "avi" and "cuppa"
file then @ e.t.t. 00:35sec.)
As we are denied the chance to access and check out for ourselves the events which the
authorities have transcribed as a "cough," when isolated and assembled they occur as follows,
please note the pattern:—
Just two events are transcribed "COUGH" in CAPITALS; the first @ p.15 of the transcript
(emboldened above) and the second at page 27 in the transcript document. I cannot tell you
why that is the case. But could I be forgiven for suggesting that some honest soul wanted the
public to have this audio/visual experience and access, via the ACA tape and/or even
unwittingly reproduced for all interested people alike by Mr. Andrew MacGregor in his CD-Rom
book, Deceit and Terrorism – The Massacre at Port Arthur?
But is this fact not curious? Every cough event is attributed to Terry McCarthy; he "coughs" 22
times!
Now this may not seem impossible, it may even seen highly probable to some, especially if
Terry was a chain smoker for instance. But really … a single expulsion transcribed "cough" - try
it yourself! And…here it occurs even many times in the middle of Jamie's conversation when
McCarthy is not speaking? Even more curious is the fact that it is a single, short, sharp, cough,
prompts me to suggest if anyone should attempt to duplicate this distinct sound by coughing
they would find it a little tricky. I challenge any one to produce a person who can reproduce
22 successive coughs in that manner that when recorded will produce a similar audio pattern as
we captured here.
In this audio tape the event when captured in a sentence is yet again just "COUGH", and done
so without even drawing a breath or a break in the conversation and then we are expected to
accept that McCarthy was even compelled to do so while not in conversation?
But in each case the events are attributed to Terry McCarthy only? The one time we are able
to listen to this "COUGH" it can be said to mimic so very clearly, so unmistakably, the
audiometry sound wave form of the shots recorded on the Wilkinson Tape attributed to the
shooting at the Broad Arrow Café.
I would emphasise the fact again, that EVERY "cough" without exception is a SINGLE event
and the one at p.15 has been proven to be of high frequency.
Even more interesting to me personally, is the fact that we are not told of one shot being fired
from the Seascape cottage in the siege, that specifically originated from the Colt AR15 Carbine
in ·223, but remember we are told that numerous times a 7·62x39 type 56 carbine was
discharged inside Seascape. When first we compared the Wilkinson tape shots with the
"COUGH" shot, experience told me that when an expert examined this tape the report could
well state the two sounds originated from different, but like sources.
Why not two coughs or three or four if McCarthy was clearing his throat? But common sense
tells me that a person's cough does not produce an audio sound wave signature approaching
anything near "high frequency".
The independent audiometry professional was informed the subject matter of the report we
required, did concern the Massacre at Port Arthur, but he was not told of our suspicions as
to the nature of the noise recorded as "COUGH" and indeed he was not made aware as to
our belief as to what we’d heard or that the segment was transcribed. He was simply
directed to that section of the tape as being the "target sections" which we required him to
evaluate and report on, namely, that of the Wilkinson Tape first "shot" as the control sound,
the other sound being that section coming over Jamie's speaking voice on the Seascape Tape as
defined above. He was asked to produce a "sound wave signature" of each and to record them
for archiving purposes, and make on this material a written report.
In Fig.1 (below) we see at top the sound wave signature recorded as "COUGH" in the
Fig. 1
transcript of the Court documents at p.15 with
the source attributed to Police Negotiator, Sgt
Terry McCarthy. At the bottom we see the sound
wave signature of the first shot from the Wilkinson Type 56 SKS Carbine (Chinese)
tape outside the Broad arrow Café. Please note and compare the duration, the
modulation, and the frequency pattern of both sound waves. You will note the difference
in the two sound wave patterns, although duration and peak modulations are very similar,
with only pattern of frequency slightly different, just as I suspected the report should
show.
In Fig. 2 we see the initial or "attack" sections only, of both sound wave form signatures
along with the Sound Technician's analysis of the comparisons of the two sound wave
forms as follows:-
Fig. 2
In the case of the Colt AR15 ·223Rem rifle, with its comparatively small bore to case capacity
and relatively faster burning powder, higher chamber pressure, higher velocity, and lighter
projectile produces a sharp "crack" as the projectile and vented propellant gas leaves the
muzzle, far in excess of the speed of sound as is evident when any such high velocity/small-
bore firearm is discharged in an unrestricted environment and is heard by bystanders in close
proximity.
While in the case of a 7·62x39 calibre Type 56 SKS (or
SKK) carbine discharge; it's my qualified opinion this
is the source of the gunshot recorded on the "cuppa"
file and in this instance the firearm would have been
1967 Colt AR15 A-1 SP-1 .223Rem rifle discharged inside the cottage. This calibre burns a
comparatively slower powder which produces a lower (45,000psi) working pressure propelling a
heavier 122gr bullet at a slower even modest velocity of 2,410fps through its significantly
larger bore size (larger by some 37·5 per cent). Collectively these factors produce a slower
velocity sound wave, hence its distinctive duller "thud" rather than the "crack" and sharp curve
produced by the 223Rem from the AR15 a-1 rifle.
So in reference to a single shot taken from the Wilkinson tape, our sound expert concludes
that:
“These repetitive sequences are of a high frequency thus suggesting a high
velocity and/or a high density source. A normalisation of this waveform to the
above ["cuppa" file] sample (as has been done) also indicates a much higher
SPL of the source (Sound Pressure Level) showing it was louder too.
Please remember, it is my belief that the mystery gunman (Rick or Mick) who discharged the
gun shot released inadvertently to the public via the media and submitted for test and
evaluation, would have discharged the firearm in a room a short distance away from "Jamie",
almost surely above, and as the Fogarty Statement suggests, also with the muzzle at least
pointing towards but more than likely protruding from a window opening, which has the effect
of slowing down the velocity or deflecting high velocity air returning past the shooter from the
muzzle, which in effect dulls the sound wave modulation or volume,
significantly. This is the physics principle upon which firearm noise
suppression devices are based.
In conclusion of the sound wave form tests, it seems an irony, that because
of the firearms prohibition and destruction called a “buy-back” scheme
which resulted from this shooting massacre, we are unable to replicate these
tests privately so as to witness yet for a second time our findings. For us to
conduct such a test privately would involve travel to America where an
Comparisons L-R:
American could supply the firearm and carry out the discharge; what odds
30M1-A carbine,
Rebecca Peters or even John Howard would be most reluctant to assist in
7.62x39 Russian,
such an endeavour, even in the cause of truth…
.223 Remington
End Notes
1
Dutton, APJ, Dec98, p.215.
2
McCreadie, EMA Report, p.9
Chapter 23
A
rson in 2003 cost Australians a staggering
A$1,350m. Though to arrive at the real cost to
the nation’s people, it would surely be closer to
the truth if a significant portion of the A$5,880m cost
designated as “fraud” in crime, was factored-in,
wouldn’t it? 1
"Once upon a time, a group of youths would steal a car and take it
for a joyride, then abandon it without doing too much damage.
Today, they take it for a joyride and then set it on fire to destroy
any evidence." 2
The Burnt-out BMW
In considering arson linked to crimes committed by "sheltered" criminals
as it applies in Tasmania, I can state my inquiries indicate the method is popular; a number
almost exhibit a signature in the crimes I’ve looked into where certain people of interest crop
up from time to time in such cases.
But at Seascape, the prosecution pointed the finger of accusation at intellectually impaired
Martin Bryant acting alone. The list of his charges in this country set a precedence:
• 35 counts murder,
• 20 counts attempted murder,
• 3 counts inflicting grievous bodily harm,
• 8 counts inflicting wounds,
• 4 counts aggravated assault,
To which the DPP Damien Bugg QC, added two more serious charges, the criminal acts involving
the BMW and Seascape Cottage itself:
• 1 count of unlawfully setting fire to property, namely a motor vehicle, and
• 1 count of arson of a building known as “Seascape”.
WRONG!
First and foremost Martin Bryant never ever confessed to any one of the 32 shooting murders,
nor the murder of the Martins either in spite of media hyperbole to the contrary; except by
way of a taped interview conducted by his lawyer John W Avery on 3rd and 11th October, 1996
and somehow published – in spite of them surely being subject to client/lawyer privilege – by
The Bulletin on 4 May 2006.
The supposed confessions of Martin Bryant as contained in the alleged transcript of the
audio taped ‘Avery interviews’ are so at odds with what actually occurred in the course of
the whole of the massacre incident, Bryant’s "admissions" would have in actuality damaged
considerably the prosecution's case had they by some twist been admitted into evidence
and tested before the Court.
Although it took ‘hours of talking over 14 or 15 visits’ by Mr. Avery to convince Martin
Bryant to enter a plea of “Guilty”, importantly the plea does not equate to a confession of
guilt! With regard to the BMW, he expressed only in the vaguest possible terms a notion of
holding up a male driver "Rick" in a BMW and politely telling the driver he wanted to take his
car. When one unravels just who Rick or Mick is, then it becomes very clear the notion had
been implanted into Martin's mind, and was in fact fantasy masticated with facts and real
people. It was as if EVERY STATEMENT Bryant recounted willingly to police about the BMW had
been put into his head – and his recall of those recollections was so garbled as to be even to an
unbiased or independent reader quite unconvincing as to any actual involvement. Nothing I
have read convinces me that any of his recounts of the events approaches anything required by
a jury verdict of being guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Martin tells his interrogators firstly that he hijacked the BMW at the
corner of Palmers Lookout Road – which to his interrogators must have
seemed at least believable, the accused having told them he'd visited
Roger Larner’s place. But then to affect the hold-up and hijack Martin
says he politely, “asked them to get out of the car… [and] … I put him in
the boot because I had a gun.”
Critical forensic Okay, but what did the Crown’s ruthless “killer” do with the female and
evidence destroyed: child? Well Martin explained, “I got, then his wife or girlfriend got into
courtesy of an SOG.
the Volvo with the child and I left, I drove off.” Remember this is the
Early media reports
alleged killer whose murder and mayhem you have been reading of
suggest 'a hostage was
throughout this narrative; a killer who minutes before had cold-
burnt in the boot'; is
bloodedly gunned down a mother and her two small daughters on Jetty
this why the coroner's
Road! This is the killer who shot two females in the BMW and dragged
team took 23½ hrs to
locate the 3rd body?
their bleeding bodies out of the car and then dumped them like garbage
onto the roadway! This is the killer who told one of his victims, 'No one
gets away from me'. Surely you must agree there's an inconsistency here. 3
Well, I guess - if you ask a silly question… Obviously Martin had not a clue as to what the
reality of the BMW story was. After all how could he, if he wasn’t there? Martin couldn’t stick
to the script, because the “playwright” was removed from the scene, and obviously had been
poorly briefed on the finer details of exactly the sequence, and reality of what the gunman had
been witnessed doing, hence their “performer” could not be convincing!
For Det Inspectors Warren and Paine, their confusion was certainly not to abate, when Martin
without a pause, changed the hijack location from Palmers Lookout Road, to Fortescue Bay
Road intersection – 8km away, and 3 km north of Seascape! Remember when the gunman
returned to Seascape from the Tollbooth with Glen Pears in the boot, he stopped for some
minutes at the entrance to Seascape.
After studying carefully all of the transcripts available, it is my firm opinion that from out of
the questions from police and without their realisation, it is as if there were key-words
triggering the fantasies implanted in the 13-year-old fantasy-like mind-set. For example: The
word “drive” could fit this proposition, so note what happens when Det Insp Paine asked
Martin:
The gunman had no time to spare in a very tight schedule to have driven the BMW north to the
Fortescue Bay Road, and “rally” back to Seascape - even at “140Ks”. I reiterate he simply did
not have that time to spare. Also we know the driver of the BMW did not have “a heap of
petrol” with him – two cans of petrol were left in Martin Bryant’s yellow Volvo back at the
Tollbooth! Forgotten? I really cannot speculate. But let us look a little closer at the 'several
cans of petrol' supposedly left in the Volvo.
At page 160 of the Court Document, Mr Perks elaborates on what is claimed to have been
recovered by crime scene investigating police for the Volvo abandoned on the western side of
the carriageway on the pedestrian crossing at the northern extent of the Tollbooth traffic
control lanes. Perks states that two petrol containers were recovered from the Volvo; a
"…twenty five litre gasoline container containing twenty litres together with a second ten
litre drum containing seven litres of petrol…" Perks goes on to explain that "Photograph 140
shows the smaller container of petrol in the rear seat," while "[photograph] 156 shows the
front passenger’s seat of the Volvo and the large container of petrol …etc"
Now here a problem emerges. From the witness statements of three persons who arrived at
the Tollbooth in a red Ford Corsair sedan, we can tell you that two persons had willingly and
without duress or threat of arms entered the Volvo sedan driven by the gunman: Mrs Helene
Salzmann had entered and sat for some time in the front passenger seat, while her husband
Robert had entered and sat in the rear passenger compartment behind the gunman. I can also
tell you from the same witness statements I can confirm that after Robert Salzmann alighted
from the right rear passenger seat of the Volvo, the gunman retrieved two firearms from the
left hand side of the same rear passenger compartment, where Mr Perks claims a 'ten litre
drum' of petrol was sitting, and returning by the rear of the vehicle the gunman shot Robert
Salzman in the chest killing him instantly.
But while this took place, all the while, Mrs Helene Salzmann supposedly sat in the front
passenger seat, somehow sharing the compartment with a '25lt gasoline container' and "one of
the packets of Little Lucifer fire starters and another part partly obscured underneath the
glovebox area." Can you see the problems Mr Perks' statement of facts have created for the
prosecution here? To consider my conclusions as to the bizarre behaviour of the Salzmann
couple and their two companions, Rosemary Nixon and Russell "Jim" Pollard who still occupied
the 'gold coloured BMW', you can find my detailed explanation at Chapter 20, titled "He's Out".
So if the gunman left behind the 27 litres of gasoline allegedly contained it two receptacles in
the passengers' compartments of the Volvo sedan abandoned at the Tollbooth, as well as the
packets of Little Lucifer firelighters, how did Martin as he claimed, splash 'heaps of this petrol'
he brought with him for the purpose around the interior the BMW at Seascape and burn it? Like
Martin drinking coffee at Forcett Shell, the prosecution yet again would have us believe the
petrol could also be in two places at the one time – and then even survive the fire intact!
Then there was Det Insp Warren asking Martin to recall Warren visiting Martin in Royal Hobart
Hospital’s (RHH) ICU burns unit:
WARREN
Q. Do you, you've already said that you remembered me going to see you at the
hospital?
A. Ohh yes. Mmm.
Q. And that I told you that you were being charged with ...
A. A murder count.
Q. A murder.
A. Yeah.
Q. What recollection have you got of that?
A. Must've been the hostage, the bloke in the BMW must've died.
Q. That's what you think it is is it?
A. Mmm.
Remember Martin had right from the outset denied emphatically having been onto the Historic
Site on the 28th of April or having shot anyone that day. It is illogical to expect the name Kate
Scott - the victim whose murder he had first been charged with - should have been retained by
the intellectually impaired mind of Martin Bryant as a murder victim if he could with a clear
conscience state over and over, ‘I killed no one’.
Perhaps I should ensure the reader can consider the first exchange between Det. Insp. Warren
and Martin Bryant referred to above which is on the record at pages 43 and 44 of the PROI that
were incidentally concealed from the public and the Court Record – censored. You may be
excused after considering this extract below; why on earth would Warren foolishly revisit the
subject as is quoted above. For that earlier exchange in part went like this:
WARREN
Q. You remembered that, you remembered me talking with you at the hospital
okay?
A. Yes.
Continuing shortly Warren asks:
Q. If you understand
A. Mmm. Was that, you, I think I saw you upstairs too. You came up with a man
with a moustache in a suit and I said how are you and he turned around and he
said, I’m not talking to you and I thought well what have I done and he said I’m
just not talking to you.
At this point Warren obviously decided to discreetly change tack immediately as he was only
getting further into murky waters; this fact is confirmed by the sensor’s scissors! So who
indeed was the suited male sporting a similar police badge to that of Det Insp Warren, and who
Bryant has here identified as having a moustache? He was adamant Warren had visited him
displaying a police badge and apparently attired in a rather distinctive “yellow jacket”.
But continuing, Warren presses for Martin’s recollection of the name of Kate Scott, asking if
that name now did “register” with him, Bryant answers:
"No. I mean I let the lady go into the Volvo, I didn't hurt her or anything. No I
don't register, it doesn't register."
But as if acting out a script, as his recount of events unfolded, he suddenly was confronted by
the realization the hostage “…must've been trapped in the boot, the hostage.” Further on
in his chronicle he volunteered, “I don't know whether I lit the car up or not but there was
an explosion. … I don't recall [where I tipped the petrol?] because it was a vast explosion
and I had my gun strapped around me. … the AR15 there.”
So if we believe the Crown’s case, then it all seems quite bizarre that anyone would accept
that Martin Bryant should willingly admit to having hijacked a car he knew to be a “gold BMW”,
the occupants of which he thought wrongly to be a man, women and a child, then repeat the
implausible conversation like; "Hey mate, can you get out please, `cos I'm gonna take your
car." Then for him to mix up the place where all this occurred? Locations and events which
fail to latch-in with a plausible story and with the hostage locked in the boot, to then casually
drive into Seascape to take a Devonshire tea! Come on now…really…
After considering all the other evidence and upon re-reading that which surrounds this segment
alone I found it inescapable not to conclude that a significant volume of the evidence when
considered indicates heavy psychiatric involvement with the accused well before, during and
after the fact, for what are now undeniable and convincing motives. Martin Bryant was
subjected to no less than eight psychiatrists and a psychologist, up until his sentencing hearing;
that is a deal of psychiatric attention in anyone's estimation. Dr Ian Sale gave closer attention
to Martin during the siege and after his arrest and through his remand than one sees provided
by a 'personal physician' to the Royals. Keeping these facts in mind let us return to the burning
of the BMW…
From the Court Documents and in particular the PROI with Martin Bryant we find this reference
to the burning of the BMW at p.244:
WARREN
Q. What do you mean, you must've played around with the petrol?
A. Set fire to the, to the car.
Q. Yeah.
A. Mmm.
As the effect of the barrage of accusations of wrongdoing sank in, without so much as counsel
by his side, he was convinced by what had tumbled out of his mouth, like — poured forth from
a vessel as it were, that he'd actually hijacked the car, but he still refused to concede any
killing or injury of people other than “the man in the boot”. Not unlike the volunteer on stage
at some second-rate hypnotist show; but then it is evident some despair set in, when Det. Insp.
Warren asks Martin how he felt about the man burnt to death in the boot of the BMW. Martin
responds in his simplistic honesty: “Pretty awful. Mmm.” 6
Several prominent in the railroading of Martin Bryant at every opportunity repeated a claim
that Martin at no time showed remorse – here not only does exhibit simple remorse, but he
expresses remorse for an act that police knew he did not commit! Police knew one of their
colleagues burnt the BMW and while ever they can convince Bryant to admit to burning the car,
then it was helpful for their ego that he feel remorse for burning Pears to death in the boot.
So again: "Did Glen Pears burn to death in the boot of the BMW?"
But what of this line of police questioning, there had to be a motive for it – a motive that could
be summed up perhaps by echoing Martin's own realization of this awful act; a ‘pretty awful
[motive]. Hmm’.
Martin Bryant’s recollection of the 28th and 29th April 1996, from when he departed Clare
Street until he was put into the ambulance at Seascape was but a fragmented reality, mixed
with extended periods of a total blanks, undispersed with snippets of surreal fantasies. But as I
have stated, Martin demonstrated he had a surprisingly good memory as to many small
incidents. As well, when in conversation concerning his past movements and his life in general
and bearing in mind Martin’s intellectual disability, he exhibited a pleasant disposition and a
willingness to respond candidly to the Police questioning, even if
showing a child-like naivety.
But the potency of fire upon people’s psyche was always to be part of
this evil brew that was Port Arthur for the survivors, the accused and
public at large; remember only an oversight on the part of the planners
when a ferry schedule changed to its winter timetable that weekend,
otherwise the MV Bundeena would have been burnt to the waterline
with a full compliment of visitors, staff and crew, subject to fire,
gunshots and drowning!
So now we should consider all that surrounds the burning of the BMW.
The vehicle hijacked at the Tollbooth was a tan or gold coloured 1980
model BMW 733i sedan, registered in the name Mr & Mrs Nixon carrying
The DPP's "fuel-air Tasmania plates of reg. DI-5858. Mr Nixon had purchased the car
bomb igniter": second-hand in 1991, while visiting Bermagui in NSW and it was owned
WARNING! Personal use jointly by Sidney Kenneth Nixon and his wife Mary Rose. On that
of this butane lighter to Sunday, it had been loaned to their friends Robert and Helene Salzman
ignite a 'fuel-air who were accompanied by their friend Jim Pollard so they could visit
explosive device' exposes
Port Arthur; Mary Rose had accompanied them. When purchased the
the user to a health risk
BMW was as new, and valued in 1996 at $18,000. The Mr Nixon had
& a possible life-
maintained the vehicle meticulously.
changing experience.
The DPP does not inform the Court as to why the gunman abandoned
Martin Bryant's yellow 1979 Volvo 240 GL sedan, reg. CG – 2835, near the Tollbooth on Jetty Rd.
The Volvo sustained bullet damage, but I can find no attempt by the DPP to explain to the
Court how this occurred – little wonder when one reads the account as graphically described by
witnesses at the time of the shooting of Robert and Helene Salzmann, Jim Pollard and
Rosemary Nixon! It is a segment in the massacre the prosecution has avoided like the plague.
There were in fact two windows evidencing bullet damage in the yellow Volvo abandoned at
the tollbooth; the rear left-hand passenger side window and the quarter-window in the same
door. I have explained this incident you may remember in the earlier Chapter 21, “He’s Out”.
Curiously though, there is no record either of Police ever questioning Martin as to why the
Volvo was abandoned at the Tollbooth. Perhaps like the trail Martin laid with strange
purchases along the way to Port Arthur that morning, the Volvo seems only to have played out
a role, scripted to be recovered there like a prop in a stage play, so as to offer up its cargo of
evidence. Here I’m of the opinion the Court document exposes a significant deception of what
the Volvo was supposed to have surrendered up as evidence. Mr Perks for the DPP explains the
sequence of photographic evidence for his Honour, Justice Cox at page 160 of the Court
Document transcript thus:
• Photograph 140 shows the smaller container of petrol in the rear seat.
• 150 shows the Daewoo shotgun in the boot of the car, together with one of the
magazines.
• Photograph 151 is another view of the boot of the car which shows a home made
target made of cardboard.
• 156 shows the front passenger’s seat of the Volvo and the large container of petrol
and alongside that, your Honour will see one of the packets of Little Lucifer fire
starters and another part partly obscured underneath the glovebox area.
• Photograph 157 shows a loaded magazine in the glovebox.
Now as you can see Mr Perks has deliberately got a little ahead of himself for no other reason
in my humble opinion, but to confuse; he was ahead of the photographic evidence you see, for
following Photograph 157, Mr Perks lists these photographs:
• “736 is another view of the boot after the car had been removed to Police
Headquarters. This time the magazine from the shotgun had been removed.
• “740 and 741 show the target that was removed from the boot. This target
contained three bullet holes” [but importantly no supportive ballistic evidence in the
form of a calibre determination is included - author]
• “742 is another view of the petrol container in the rear of the car. Alongside that
is a cardboard box.”
Page 161:
• “743 shows the contents of the cardboard box, as I’ve indicated, 439 live three 0
eight rounds.
• “751 shows three packets of Little Lucifer fire starters after the removal of the
petrol container.”
Page 162
• “755 shows the grey camera bag, 756 the contents of that bag including the six
‘Seascape’ keys and 757 a closer view of those keys.
Between photographs number 157 and 736 there are some 579 photographs; a considerable an
inexplicable break in the sequence. Mr Perks even admits to this later sequence of some 7
reasonably sequential photographs being only captured, ‘after the [Volvo] car had been
removed to Police Headquarters’. If this admission had been made in a trial before a jury, it
would have drawn a strident objection from the defence lawyer that I believe would ordinarily
have been upheld by the Bench. The mind boggles as to what police were able to do to patch-
up the prosecution case – back at the ranch, so to speak. As I have stated elsewhere in my
work I believe the box of 439x7.62NATO (308W) rounds alone could well have added as
padding, so too the ‘six Seascape keys’ inside the Volvo.
When studied, you will find like the two sets of S&W handcuffs and as good as any vaudeville
magician, Mr Perks has made these items disappear!
As I have demonstrated, the FN FAL was only used as a ‘prop’, a ‘throw-down’ and as it was a
“G” Series metric FN FAL, I’m very confident in stating police would not have had spare metric
magazines, as the common (for Australia) SLR mag was not interchangeable. So the magazines
photographed in the Volvo I’m certain were also police ‘throw-downs’, or 20-shot magazines
to suit the Armalite AR-10 7.62 NATO rifle. As mentioned also, since Martin had not been able
to recover his AR-10 from Terry Hill like the changed Ferry Schedule this caused those who ran
the operation huge problems, which only ever would have been exposed during a trial by jury
and an energetic and principled counsel. There is even more evidence these magazines were
planted there in the Volvo – after it was abandoned. Let me explain:
At Page 162, Mr Perks then makes this extraordinary statement to His Honour: “in all eleven
.308 calibre fired cartridge cases were subsequently recovered from the vicinity of the
tollbooth. All had been discharged in the FN self-loading rifle.” How could this be so?
This is conjecture gone mad. I can find not a shred of evidence to suggest Sgt Gerard Dutton
was able to provide for the Court with any ballistic or forensic evidence linking the FN FAL
recovered from the gutter of the outbuilding at Seascape to any of the spent 7.62NATO (308W)
cartridge cases, collected by police crime scene examiners at any of the 5 crime scenes where
the DPP allege the FN FAL was discharged.
In essence, Mr Perks' has “verballed” these two magazines, and he puts them in illogical even
improbable locations of the Volvo. Neither was photographed: not in the boot, not in the rear
seat compartment, not in the front seat compartment nor in the glove box and they were
never physically produced and entered into evidence for the Court. You see the two FN FAL
magazines, like the hand cuffs, did not exist!
Martin’s passport #H024967 with its ID photo was definitely there when the Volvo was
abandoned, because it was used by Const Hessman to have Aileen Kingston ID 'the gunman',
even although she'd hardly seen him for more than a moment as Aileen for all the time the
gunman was near the Tollbooth, had locked herself in the toilet. Recently though I have
learned of two other items that were in the Volvo, but never mentioned in any of the official
documentation I have studied:
• Two Historic Site admittance tickets on the dash near a grey wallet. **
But now let us return to Seascape and examine more unconvincing, tails of conjecture. Mr.
Perks told the Court, that “after securing Mr. Pears inside the house it is the Crown case that
Bryant returned to the BMW, splashed petrol liberally over the interior of the vehicle and set
it alight.”
Mr Perks' statement demonstrates a total ignorance on his part regarding the outcome should a
person attempt to ignite a motorcar with a disposable gas cigarette lighter, when its interior
has been "liberally splashed with petrol"! You can't throw a gas lighter into the car. For Martin
Bryant to have lit the BMW with his gas lighter he would not have come out of Seascape badly
burnt, he would have come out burnt to a crisp, long blonde hair burnt-off right back past his
ears and no eyebrows whatsoever remaining! If indeed he survived…
My inquiries among those professionals who recover burnt-out wrecks suggest that for very
logical reasons the accelerants of choice in such criminal endeavours are almost always diesel
or turps, but never petrol. But even so, how could Mr. Perks state this scenario as “fact”? I
reiterate that Ian Matterson cited “several petrol containers” – presumably with their contents
intact - still sitting there quietly, one in the front passenger compartment and the other in the
rear compartment of the Volvo abandoned 4.2km away near the Tollbooth on Jetty Rd! Is the
Prosecution suggesting someone returned them to the tollbooth refilled?
**
This claim has come to light recently from a PAHSMA staff member working at the tollbooth on the day.
The Prosecution was at all times comfortable conjecturing as to what occurred regarding much
that supports the Crown’s Case, including the purchase of the cigarette lighter, containers of
petrol being used as an accelerant in the BMW fire, but somehow the petrol remained in safe
storage in the Volvo 4.2 km away. I would love to ask Mr Perks, “Are you suggesting that
with petrol liberally splashed about in the car’s interior, Martin could have flicked his
butane cigarette lighter and ignited what was then in reality a fuel-air bomb?”
Remember a throw-away butane lighter’s flame extinguishes the instant the thumb is removed
from the trigger; I reiterate, it could not be thrown alight, into the car. No mention is made of
Mr Matterson and his investigators recovering any fuel containers or the remains of Martin’s
cigarette lighter from the burnt-out BMW or indeed the Seascape environs either. So let’s now
look at the alleged explosion in the BMW.
“Once inside, using the two sets of handcuffs he had brought with him, he
handcuffed Mr. Pears’ wrists behind his back. The second pair of handcuffs was
linked to the handcuff on the left wrist with the free cuff being closed and secured
around some immovable object within the house.” 7
So what is Mr Perks suggesting here? Is he saying the hostage was removed from the BMW’s
boot and taken inside Seascape Cottage, then for the first time handcuffed and immobilised,
with Martin Bryant having gone back outside, moved the BMW to the grassy patch, somehow
located a container of petrol (never produced by the prosecution), splashed the contents about
the interior of the car, flicked his butane lighter, ignited the fuel-air bomb, then returned
approximately fifty metres to the back door of Seascape, knocked loudly on the door so as to
be let in by a Glenn Pears (supposedly handcuffed and “secured around some immovable
object within the house”) and all at the same instance that the car exploded?
1. This hypothesis is nothing less than childish nonsense! Sadly the Chief Justice His
Honour William Cox (now the governor of Tasmania) accepted it as fact! Primed in
such a fashion the explosion would have occurred at the time of ignition, not minutes
later when Martin reached the cottage door. While Martin Bryant certainly did not
have a defective memory, try as he might to sound convincing to his interrogators,
Martin Bryant is quite unclear and confused as to the sequence of this segment of
events.
2. If the gunman ever had removed Glen Pears from the boot of the BMW to be secured
inside the cottage as is suggested by Mr Perks, before the BMW was shifted to the
grass, primed liberally with petrol and ignited, why was Martin knocking on any door?
Who had in the intervening minutes locked the door? Who did Martin expect to
open the door for him – Glen Pears double handcuffed to an immoveable object?
The DPP's Case gets sillier by the minute! But I guess "Rick" or "Mick" the covert
controller could well have been on hand to open the door for Martin.
But remember at one stage in his confused mind Martin Bryant even reasoned to police that – “I
must've been in the car when it went up 'cos I got burnt…” – further exposing the complete
unreliability of the accused Martin Bryant’s contemporaneous evidence. Sgt Terry McCarthy’s
suggestion of Martin Bryant ‘playing out a role’ seems close to the mark. But before we go too
far let me make a firm concluding statement about the alleged two sets of S&W handcuffs.
In the body of the court transcript, the alleged two sets of S&W handcuffs are mentioned about
16 times; 9 times in the body of the transcript twice in the PROI with Martin Bryant and five
time in various references to reports and such.
First let us see what Martin Bryant has to say about these handcuffs. At page 73 of the court
transcript Insp Paine asks Martin Bryant:
Q. Ohh. When, the hostage, did you, did he just get in or did you handcuff
him or anything like that?
A. Umm, handcuffed him or anything, no. Ahh, what was that?
Q. Well do you own any handcuffs?
A. No, never, never owned handcuffs in my life.
In her statement provided to police on 4 June 1996 Petra Willmott stated, “I have never seen
handcuffs at Martin’s house.”
Now, the DPP went to some lengths to introduce “handcuffs” into the case against Martin
Bryant in their rhetoric. The police who interrogated Bryant as I mentioned also attempted to
introduce handcuffs into the prosecution’s case against Martin Bryant. But do you know, I
don’t believe that handcuffs have ever been established as experiential evidence in the case.
Let me be clear on this point: Handcuffs were never entered into evidence by the DPP in
the case of the Crown v Martin Bryant. How can I be so sure of my claim here? Simple really,
not one photograph captured by forensic crime scene examiners was ever entered into
evidence demonstrating they existed, nor was a single set of S&W handcuffs physically entered
into evidence by the prosecution.
Now let us return to the alleged torching by Martin Bryant of the BMW car. Picture if you will,
Martin Bryant suffering “Category 1 burns,” from the fuel-air explosion at the BMW, returning
into the Seascape Cottage, and tearing about the cottage and onto its out-building's roof, firing
off 250 gunshots through the night, throwing furniture from the upper floor windows, never
once complaining of the pain during his conversations with Sgt Terry McCarthy, but remaining
there inside Seascape untreated for 16hrs and 46 minutes until Ambulance officers
administered First Aid after he was arrested at 0840hrs next morning? Such a proposition is
also nothing more than humbug.
Mr. Perks was forced to admit Martin Bryant’s account of the BMW hijack and kidnap of Glen
Pears, “was at total variance to the facts as we know them to be.” It most certainly was at
odds with the facts, but no more so than the Prosecution's synopsis! No, Mr. Perks never did
tell us what those facts were, and I’m firmly of the opinion, he could not sustain his version of
events, if witnesses who’s statements he used to make the Prosecution’s case were ever
subjected to cross examination under oath. 8
No where in the PROI did Martin Bryant recount the hijack of the BMW, its burning, and kidnap
of the hostage Glen Pears, that a jury would accept as believable. The transcript repeatedly
demonstrates a willingness on the part of the accused to co-operate, but nothing I have read in
the psychiatric report written by Professor P. E. Mullen, is suggestive of Bryant suffering a
failing memory. However this was the end result – his recount of this event just could not have
occurred in the manner presented to the court.
Mr Perks alone claims that, “…Bryant got out of the vehicle, removed Mr. Pears from the boot,
and took him inside the main Seascape cottage….” 9
Was the hostage in fact ever removed from the boot of the BMW,
before it was burned? Why was the wreck removed from the scene
with such indecent haste? Why did it take the coroner's team so long
to locate the third body? Why did the coroner not report the exact
location at which the third body was found?
You see, the Coroner Mr. Matterson had control of all the crimes scenes until at 0840 hrs on
Monday 29th April, when he was informed that Martin Bryant had been taken into custody, at
which time he informed Insp Warren that his role as Coroner was now 'secondary'.
So let’s examine a person who figured prominently at both of Seascape’s fire scenes. Sergeant
Andrew Mark Fogarty was a Team Leader with Tasmania Police SOG unit at that time, and he
states he was "shift supervisor" on 28 April at Bellerive Police Station, on the north side of the
Derwent River at Hobart.
Although the EMA report states the first SOG members were "proceeding" at 1557hrs,
dispatched by Bell “Jet Ranger” to Taranna and once there briefed by Supt Barry Bennett –
some 2 hours and twenty minutes after Mrs. Scurr's call was logged by Police, Mr Fogarty beat
them all to Seascape.
As is covered earlier, Sgt Andrew M. Fogarty offered a quite unconvincing account of his arrival
at Paul Hyland’s road block at the northern boundary of Seascape’s property, at which time the
car had been burning for some minutes at least.
Did the SOG Sergeant pre-empt the gunman’s program, or did he have other police business on
the Peninsula? You may come to accept the latter.
The BMW was moved off the pavers at the Cottage south past the
outbuilding under construction and onto a grass covered, sodden area to
the south of the outbuilding that stands also to the south of the main
cottage. It is pure conjecture on the part of the prosecution to say Martin
Bryant did even this much! A photograph of the burnt out car, shows the
very deep wheel-tracks that cross the deep gutter and show clearly just
how the car was stuck fast in the waterlogged ground there.
The conspirators at Seascape had 36 minutes to get the car well alight,
before the two Uniform Police arrived, outside the entrance at about 1458 In the Seascape yard,
looking west: At LH
hrs (2.58 pm), thus the perpetrator was concealed. So why didn’t Det
foreground, sodden
Insps Warren and Paine ask Martin Bryant: Why did you burn the BMW?
area were the BMW
was bogged & burned
Consider: if Martin Bryant never drove the BMW, just as Barry Bennett
a quagmire even in the
suggested is his experience these days, would it not have been imperative dry.
that the perpetrators of this violent incident ensured no unhelpful forensic
evidence was left behind in the BMW and so like the Video camera it should disappear from the
evidence pool? But intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was not capable of such criminal
cunning! The cottage itself would have proved a minefield for the DPP, had it been left
standing so as forensic examiners could have combed an intact cottage at their pleasure. Did
police press Martin for a reason as to why he allegedly burnt the cottage? I cannot find the
reference. After all he was adjudged sane, and a sane person would not burn himself out of his
“stronghold,” would he?
Garry Whittle’s debriefing notes show that at the time he first sighted
the BMW, it “had smoke coming from it”. Unfortunately he doesn’t note
the colour of this early smoke. I believe it surely would have been a
contrasting mixture of white smoke from the ignition device, with darker
smoke from the interior fittings that were beginning to combust. He also
stated, “...later heard an explosion and could see fire at the rear of the
Bogged & burnt-out, the
car.” At that stage it would have most definitely been mostly black
BMW looking SW.
smoke rising from the vehicle.
Note: no frames were
included on the PTV
Tape showing the boot
The 733i BMW, sedan has a metal fuel tank, slung
area. under the rear passenger seat, with the fuel filler
located on the drivers side (RH side), just
forward of the taillight assembly. After considering the three police
statements on the BMW, they are consistent and do I believe suggest
the seat of the fire was forward of the Burnt-out BMW looking
rear compartment. After the fire had west, note wheel track
consumed the flammable interior visible in L background
fittings, the rubber hoses connecting
the long filler-pipe to the fuel tank would have been consumed
allowing the flames access to the now heated and heavily
vaporising bulk of the fuel in the tank, thus igniting it and
causing a secondary, muffled, explosion.
29/04/96: Yellow arrow indicates Garry Whittle terms it an “explosion” – a single event. While
deep wheel tracks. But the Hyland mentions hearing later, “small muffled explosions,”
BMW is already gone! Was rather than a single event. But Paul Hyland does say that when
there evidence of a body having first observed burning, the rear portion of the BMW was alight,
been burnt in the boot? and both note the explosion/s occurred later. The event
described as an “explosion” surely is
inconsistent to it occurring at the time of ignition of the interior, as
would have been the case had it been turned into a fuel-air bomb by
first liberally dousing the interior with petrol as Mr Bugg suggested
was fact.
The Coroner Ian Matterson left Hobart for Port Arthur at 0500 hrs on
the Monday morning and when requested to attend the Seascape
Cottage scene at about 1135 hrs he arrived there for the first time, 3 Former Coroner: Mr Ian
hours after Bryant had been arrested. He spoke to Insp Kemp, tasked Matterson
to inspect that crime scene. After speaking to Kemp near the still hot
ruins, and choosing his words carefully I would suggest, he states he was taken to where the
BMW wreck stood, and that while he was aware “a person” had been taken to Seascape in the
boot of the vehicle, “there was no body inside the wreckage.” Continuing, Matterson states,
“At this stage no bodies had been recovered at this site.” 10
Here I would make several observations. Mr Matterson does not indicate the amount of effort
he or his officers made, in making their search for the body of Glen Pears. Also he specifically
fails to mention in the EMA papers, if the locked boot lid was lifted at this time and if the boot
interior was inspected. Remember that the cast alloy of the lock body on the boot-lid would
almost surely have melted in this hot fire, and so it would have required a square or large
screw-driver-type instrument to be inserted through the lock to trip the latch and open the lid.
The lid incidentally would have required being propped open in some appropriate way, as the
hold open device would have been made inoperative also by the fire. Doors (other than the
drivers side door, which appears have been left open at time of ignition), may initially have
required the use of force to jemmy them open, and surely would have remained open if this
had been carried out.
There is another point I would make. For anyone to have approached the burn-out wreck,
would have required them to have at least been wearing long rubber boots, as the ground there
was a saturated, boggy soak, so wet in fact that it would have seen anyone bog well over ankle
deep in mud. This fact is proven by the depth of the wheel tracks, made by the bogged BMW
still evident in 2001 and personal observation. The area is subject to a spring that surfaces in
that area.
At 1435 hrs (2.35pm) on that Monday, Ian Matterson is again summoned to Seascape, as a “body
had been found.” Upon arrival Matterson learned that further body had been located, stating,
“I viewed a badly burnt head, torso and legs of one body in the south-west corner of the
building and a smaller, but similarly burnt body half-way along the western side of the
house.” Importantly the crime scene examiners still had not located the third body. 11
Mr Matterson departed the Historic Site around 1700 hrs (5.00pm) on Monday evening, and next
morning, Tuesday the 30th of April, he presided of the Magistrates Court in Hobart. After
lunch, he again drove to Seascape arriving there around 1450 hrs (2.50pm), to be advised,
“…the third body had been located inside the burnt-out house.” 12
That was the extent of the Coroner’s description as to where the third body was recovered
from: just “inside the burn-out house”. Why such a general statement? He goes into some
detail as to here the other two bodies were found, so why not the third body?
Not only has Mr Perks mislead the court at to when the bodies were located, but also the
circumstances are entirely at odds with the Coroner Mr Matterson’s detailed account contained
in the EMA Report! So for the Court, Mr Perks has just evaporated 24 hours and 25 minutes
of searching for the third body: so much for his understanding of the adjective “meticulous”.
In November 2002, in the Nathan Campus of Griffith University Queensland, the Australian and
New Zealand Forensic Science Society Inc., held a presentation featuring a leading forensic
investigator into the Port Arthur killings, Sgt Gerard Dutton of the Tasmania Police.
A witness who attended the presentation told me that during the course of that presentation
the audience were shown photographs of just two bodies, in situ among the ruins of Seascape.
Both bodies exhibited having been subjected to a very hot fire, and appeared reduced to skulls
both being visible and the cadaver severely reduced in size and it caused the speaker to remark
that DNA 'was not able to be collected' because of the severe state of deterioration of the
cadavers. No handcuffs were visible in either photograph, and neither body was identified by
the speaker. Why was the third body not shown in this presentation?
This goes a considerable way I would suggest, to explain why Mr Perks again uses such vague
terms when he states that:
“The results of DNA profiling carried out on a blood stain on the knife recovered
from the prince bag Bryant left behind at the Broad Arrow Café indicates a high
probability that Mr. Martin or Mr. Martin’s blood was a contributor to the stain.” 14
What a quaint statement. Exactly what is Mr Perks suggesting here? By what yardstick has Mr
Perks measured this evidence, so as to arrive at a conclusion of no more than a "high
probability" being exhibited in such a DNA test result? Why does my mind spring to the
prosecution's claim of sound-deadening material being blood in the Holden sedan in the Lindy
Chamberlain case?
Mr Perks simple chooses for us to trust him, it would appear. His suggestions do not approach
to within a country mile of being beyond all reasonable doubt! If, and it’s a very BIG IF, the
blood found on the knife left inside the Prince sports bag recovered from inside the Broad
Arrow Café was even highly “probable” to have been that of Mr Martin's blood or that of Martin
Bryant’s it goes not further than exampling I believe the Prosecution's cavalier attitude at their
blurring of the facts. If that allegation is not enough of an insult to the average person’s
intelligence, Mr. Perks adds insult to injury by suggesting Martin's blood was a “contributor to
the stain.” That then begs the question, "As there is no evidence of Martin Bryant
exhibiting a wound consistent with having being cut by the hunting knife (part of Exhibit
P2), subjected to DNA tests by police, from whom did the blood come Mr Perks suggest as
'contributing to that blood stain?"
At 0821 hrs, police statements tells us smoke was first seen coming
from the Seascape Cottage, and it is further stated that 15 SOG
officers had been assembled for a special assault in no less than 3 Fire: From the Taranna
specially fitted out vehicles – a claim I find quite unconvincing. road block, smoke from the
However, it was officers from this group who arrested a badly burnt Seascape Cottage inferno
(on the back of his body and arms only) a now naked Martin Bryant, can be seen on the skyline in
the soft light of morning.
14 minutes later at 0835 hrs.
The ruins of Seascape were too hot for crime scene examiners to
commence their search for the bodies until after the media had
been allowed onto the environs to photograph the site at 1230 hrs.
So it took just approximately an hour and a half at most to locate
the first 2 bodies. Then if the third body was found inside the
burnt-out ruins of the cottage, why did it take officers a further 24
hours and 25 minutes for them to locate it? Could this delay have
occurred, because the examiners did not locate a third body in the
ruins, but that indeed a later more zealous inspection of the BMW
located the remains there in the boot?
Does the foregoing go someway to explaining why the forensic pathologist was prompted to
report that although the State Forensic Pathologist and two forensic odontologists investigated
the site, “there was a perceived need to remove the bodies
from the scene quickly and examination [at the crime scene]
proved to be more hurried than ideal.” 15 Consequently I'm
prompted to ask firstly:
1. “From whom did this 'perceived need to remove the
bodies from the scene quickly', originate?” and
2. “What was the motivating factor for this perceived need,
the location of the third body inside the BMW?”
Seascape smoulders: BMW can
be seen at LH, middle distance. Still with the BMW and when Mr Perks presents the Prosecution’s
Two fire engines in the driveway précis of events, he states the gunman “…drove down the
while 8-10 firemen & a lone Seascape driveway and across a grassed area bordering the
policeman stand to right of the southernmost cottage, pulling up alongside a line of poplar
cottage ruins. trees,” as per aerial photograph numbered 401. 16
Here Mr Perks exposes just how absurd the Prosecution’s synopsis is. Previously I mentioned
the BMW could not move in any direction; it was bogged to the axle. From the aerial
photographs we can scale off the measurement and accurately calculate that the BMW bogged
its way for approximately 32 metres until it became stuck fast in the quagmire. From
photographs taken on Monday 29 April just after midday, we can see there are just two, deep
footprints, well away from the front, left hand guard, of the BMW, as if someone has
attempted to approach and been forced to retreat from the quagmire.
Seems Mr. Perks has forgotten he’d already told us (Court Doc. p.157), of the gunman
transferring a “Colt AR15 rifle, a quantity of ammunition, two sets of Smith and Wesson
handcuffs and most probably at least one container of petrol.” 17
If Mr. Perks is insists on his ‘and most probably one container of petrol’, I can see no evidence
as to this being correct, as there were two containers left in the Volvo! However I note that
Mr. Perks has most definitely identified the Colt as an AR15 rifle – not a Colt AR15 SP-1
Carbine such as was recovered from Seascape, a Freudian slip
perhaps?
Now apart from failing to explain how he alone was able to complete this difficult action alone,
the scenario has caused Mr Perks some other problems. For starters there was a female
hostage (Mrs Sally Martin being the only female hostage seen alive by uniform police that were
to arrive shortly), inside the cottage when the gunman returned to Seascape. To aid her
control there, the prosecution would have you believe when Martin Bryant departed Seascape
and gone to the Historic Site at 1240 hrs., he'd locked all the doors of Seascape and taken the
tagged keys with him. After all, if someone had called at Seascape while he was absent for the
hour and twenty minutes, it would not have been helpful for such a caller to be able to enter
the premises now would it? But here again their story has gone awry.
You see, the tagged Seascape door keys, essential for the gunman's quick and easy re-entry into
Seascape Cottage upon his return, were left as a trail of evidence in the Volvo abandoned at
the Tollbooth! So how did the lone gunman make his re-entry? Did he force a door? Even
more bizarre is the fact that Martin's garbled recollections had him telling his police
interrogators that he was 'nocking hard on the back door of Seascape for someone (like Mick or
Rick?) to let him in, at the moment the fuel-air bomb - the BMW - exploded.
The BMW's boot-lid is released from within the driver’s compartment, but would the gunman
have been able to release the boot-lid safely with Glen Pears uncontrolled and lying in the boot
at this stage according to Mr. Perks when he initially exited? The hostage by that time would
have reached the conclusion that to survive the situation, he would have to eject from the
boot like a rocket I would think. Perhaps "Rick" or Mick was standing over the release…
So the gunman alone supposedly transferred Glen Pears, and his two firearms, black duffle bag
ammo and gear to inside the house, from the paved area, and alone double handcuffed Pears
before he shifted the car and set fire to it and according to Martin's recollection, don't forget
the hostage had to open the locked door of the cottage for him to re-enter.
If the gunman did unload the BMW on the paved area near the cottage, don’t forget the driver
(gunman) still had to have moved the car to where it was burnt-out and then extricated himself
from the car as it sat there in the quagmire; but I see no evidence to support this having
occurred. Remember, it was Mr. Perks who suggested someone was intending to let Martin
Bryant in. Again I ask “someone”!? Like who - “Rick” or “Mick” perhaps? Remember according
to Mr Perks the hostage was fettered with two sets of handcuffs to some immovable object!
Not to mention the contradictory time of death of Mrs Sally Martin who has yet to be seen
running naked about the yard.
After inspecting carefully all of the photographs I have on file, no evidence of footprints can be
seen near the rear of the BMW. It is undeniable: there is no physical evidence that anyone
entered that area close to the boot of the BMW, at least until after the photographs had been
taken by the media and aerial shots captured shortly after midday on Monday. I believe this to
be weighty evidence that indeed the boot of the BMW had not been thoroughly searched
perhaps the boot-lid not even lifted when those images were captured by media photographers
some time after 1230 hrs on Monday. Why would they have bothered as the search for the
bodies in the ruins could not be undertaken until the embers cooled down?
That is why I now firmly am of the conclusion that the third body was
found eventually, not inside the house but inside the boot of the BMW,
some time before 1430 hrs the next day – Tuesday 30 May. Here I must
pause in the story of the BMW, and we shall return to it shortly.
Nevertheless we’re told that as Allen and Caulfield reached the next
road block manned by Const Paul Hyland, Const Pat Allen states he
"spoke with Sergeant A Fogarty and Constable P. Hyland," before
they continued past Const Whittle’s position at high speed to deliver
Const Perry Caulfield to the Fox and Hounds. Here Pat Allen turned
Sgt Andrew Mark Fogarty: around and headed north again returning to join Const Garry Whittle
the "Peter Brock" of
and he reversed his vehicle up the highway, parking close to his
Tasmania Police.
colleague, and we shall return to them shortly.
Now we must regress for a moment and return to Bellerive. I'm not surprised by Const Paul
Hyland's vagueness as to times, origins and details about his first assistance, SOG Andrew
Fogarty who arrived at his position on the Arthur Highway at Oakwood and from his statement
it would appear he intended by its text, to delay Fogarty’s arrival. The explanation of "after a
period of time," is about as imprecise as the Constable could be. However, both Hyland and
Pat Allen clearly states that Fogarty was there at Hyland’s road block position before he and
his colleague Caulfield arrived to run the gauntlet past Seascape to the Fox and Hounds.
Sgt Andrew Fogarty claimed he was the "Bellerive Uniform shift Supervisor" at the Bellerive
police station sited in the northern suburbs of Hobart when, precisely at 1.32 pm, so he states,
"he became aware," of an incident occurring at Port Arthur. This claim at the outset of his
statement sets the tone and degree of deceit of the entire document. This claim cannot be
credible. Remember the first incoming call from Port Arthur taken in the communication room
at Police Headquarters, 7-8 km as the crow flies across the waters of the Derwent River in
Hobart, was logged there at 1332 hrs. Consequently I suggest that we should look very closely
at the rest of the claims made by this Sgt SOG team-leader, his journey to Seascape and
whether or not corroborative evidence exists in his support.
Andrew Fogarty’s statement has stretched the truth past the limit. From the outset; how could
he possibly have learned of the incident at the same time Mrs Wendy Scurr made the first 000
call to Hobart Police HQ’s radio room? Did he have a “tap” on Peninsula phone lines, or like a
few others of the players in the exercise is he a psychic? But let us stick with his make-believe
just for the exercise.
From 1332 hrs, we can estimate it would take say around 3-5 minutes for Sgt. Fogarty to have
left the office and commenced his journey. He had to drive several kilometres over narrow
suburban streets to a round-about before taking-off at high speed up the extent of the 9 km of
duel carriageway on the Tasman Highway. Then on over the two narrow causeways, filled with
Sunday traffic, through the main shopping centre of Sorell, and then at the traffic lights turn
right onto the sealed, but poorly aligned, narrow, and undulating Arthur Highway towards
Seascape: a trip of some 94 km.
While late in the month of April of 1996, the tourist season was on the wane, as it was the first
warm sunny day for weeks that Sunday, the highway was filled with tourists and locals taking
advantage to get out and visit Port Arthur, Tasmania's most popular destination. So if Fogarty
drove this route between 1.30pm and 3.00pm on that April day in 1996 even with sirens blaring
and lights flashing, his journey would normally have taken between 1¼ — 1½hrs minimum.
Consider also, where the SOG Team Leader was required to store his personnel "SOG kit";
helmet, boots, BPV, weapons, pyrotechnics and any other of his SOG paraphernalia?
Remember at the time he says he was "shift supervisor"…
From his claimed time of alert (1332hrs), and Sgt Fogarty's arrival at Const Paul Hyland’s
roadblock 250m north of Seascape, where the Constable states
he commenced his running log at 1415hrs, Fogarty claims he
followed an Ambulance down the highway, to this road block.
As this timing puts him at Hyland's position before Const White
who'd driven from Sorell Police Station, I would have to
opinion that Mr Fogarty is simply telling fibs.
Without wishing to harp on the point, but again I remind the reader, because of the Port Arthur
region's topography, the Tasman Peninsula especially from Copping through to Dunalley, and
then from Murdunna on through Eaglehawk Neck to Port Arthur there were extensive black
spots for radio communications with Hobart; mobile telephones simply were “not in range”
anywhere in the Port Arthur district. In fact the section of the Arthur Highway between the
Fortescue Bay Road intersection, north of Seascape and Port Arthur, follows roughly the
contour of the land beside the eastern shoreline of Long Bay, and rising from its western verge
for that entire length, is a mountain range of considerable elevation that acts like a natural
barrier against any mobile transceiver operation thereabouts.
It seems to me amazing that our Sgt Fogarty quite happily states his time of arrival at Seascape
as approximating that which Paul Hyland noted as having commenced his Seascape "log" - 1415
hrs, remembering at the estimated time of 1400 hrs Paul Hyland had just come through
Taranna from Nubeena.
To achieve this miracle Sgt Andrew Fogarty is stating he drove the 94km from Bellerive to
Seascape in 43 minutes. Please do the math yourself!
This means that Sgt Fogarty is claiming he drove down the Arthur Highway at an AVERAGE
speed of 131 km/hr, give or take a kilometre! That makes for an average speed of 81.41
mph. Seriously, I have driven this same route from Port Arthur to the Bellerive Police Station
down the Arthur Highway, and yet we are expected to believe such errant nonsense?
If that is not hard enough to swallow, then picture if you will the scene, with the domestic and
tourist traffic, all taking advantage of that first sunny Sunday afternoon for some time –
sightseeing, and the Sergeant there, alone at the wheel of his standard 1996 Police vehicle,
thundering along the twisty Arthur Hwy darting in and out among the traffic at in excess of
125km/hr, chatting away on his UHF radio, mike in hand, organizing a roadblock here (at
Denison Canal) and a roadblock there (at Taranna), and even along the way becoming “aware
that a vehicle was on fire in the grounds of ‘Sea Scape’." No, this was not the mad hatters’ tea
party of "Wonderland" fame, but the deception these people would have us believe is reality, I
would suggest is in the same league as Lewis Carroll’s writings!
One surely is aware that in high speed emergencies executed under such circumstances over
such an extended journey and upon poorly aligned, narrow uneven road surfaces, I would
suggest you ask any experienced emergency service person from Policeman in the traffic
division, ambulance driver, or fireman, and they will all tell you it demands of the driver a 100
percent concentration on the road, so as to keep one's vehicle upright and progressing toward
the scene so as not to turn one emergency into two.
I find it outrageous that anyone could judge this police statement as having a grain of
credibility.
But you may ask, “Why all this deception?” Simply because we have learned that Sergeant
Fogarty, the SOG Team Leader, was the first officer to arrive at Seascape, well before the
uniformed officers. As I mentioned earlier, we have also been told that an SOG officer set the
BMW alight with a phosphorus grenade and remember both Constables Hyland and Whittle saw
the BMW already, on fire, with smoke coming from the vehicle,
when they arrived there. The rabbit has been pulled from the hat –
and would opinion the SOG officer has done so all on his own.
If Sgt Fogarty did indeed arrive at Seascape long before the local
uniformed police, which is the only sane conclusion I can reach,
then consider this interesting piece of information.
Fast moving: 1996 SOG team
leader Sgt A M Fogarty. In 1995 Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of Tasmania Police SOG,
transferred to a covert department primarily responsible for anti-
terrorist exercises that were commonly referred to as Violent Incident Management Plans or
VIMPs. In the Mahoney Inquiry of 2000, examining the SOG shooting death of Joe Gilewicz on
the morning of 16 July 1991, witness to that shooing, "Mick" Dyson boasted of his first hand
experience while in New Zealand in 1990 conducting “three months officers training in the
New Zealand Police College.” 18
It was while there in New Zealand and at Aramoana on 13 November 1990, David Gray shot
dead 13 people including Police Sgt Stewart Guthrie, while 3 others were injured. Sgt Guthrie
was shot dead with his own service pistol. It is very clear from the reports of the day that an
Australian SOG police sergeant numbered among those in “an anti terrorist unit [that] was
in the area helping to co-ordinate the scene.” New Zealand had no such designated squad of
police at the time. 19
In the case of the massacre at Port Arthur, I need to make three points here:
1. After the Aramoana debacle which saw one of their ‘brothers’ die, OH & S embedded in
the region’s powerful police unions would have demanded a repeat outcome be
avoided at all costs to warrant cooperation in any future exercises.
2. This accounts for the substantial covert involvement of police, right from the VIMP
through to and especially at and about the primary control centre of Seascape.
3. These facts demonstrate why a Tasmania Policeman issued the order to a uniformed
colleague; “Do not shoot – this has to happen.” As the gunman had already been
extracted from Seascape moments before, does it not make sense that the male
pursuing a naked Sally Martin around the environs of Seascape was most likely the
controller himself - called "Rick" (or "Mick"?) - the former SOG who helped co-ordinate
the scene at Aramoana?
In relation to Seascape, it is undoubtedly the VIMP, to which Forward Commander Supt. Bob
Fielding at Taranna was referring to when he stated, “…our formulated plans for the
resolution of the incident … I had signed off on most of those by about 7.00am.” - (see
Jenny Fleming, “Forward Command at Port Arthur,” PASA Police Journal, March 1997, p6).
Here I believe it is appropriate to ask: “Did the plans referred to by Bob Fielding and which
had him stating that he’d 'signed off on most of them by 7.00 am,' contain actions Barry
Bennett was not prepared to sign off on?” Indeed, as it is all over now, what was
contained in those VIM Plans that Fielding considered?
But returning the ‘minuteman’, Sgt Fogarty, you know he is his own worst enemy, as he is
determined to destroy any credibility he may ever have enjoyed, when he states:
“At about 4.00 pm Senior Sergeant MORRISON arrived at my location and I gave him
a detailed briefing regarding events which had occurred and the location of various
uniform personnel I had placed.” 20
Why does Fogarty bother telling yet another bare-faced lie? You see, Richard McCreadie in his
chronology of the Police response states, at 1557 hrs (i.e. 3:57pm, or 3 minutes to 4 o'clock)
the first "SOG [was] tasked and proceeding", to Taranna aboard a helicopter and upon
arriving there it was Supt Barry Bennett the OIC of the PFCP at Taranna who tells us himself
that it was he who briefed these SOG officers.
Sgt Morrison did not proceed with this first section, but departed with the second
contingent of SOG, at 1604 hrs by road and so Morrison could not have reached the PFCP at
Taranna until approximately 1720hrs (5.20pm) and then he still had to go forward to the
Seascape perimeter. It is patently obvious Sgt Fogarty is trying (unsuccessfully I should say) to
protect his nether regions! 21
I’m now firmly of the opinion, that in relation to the Police involvement in the siege at
Seascape, this revelation in itself is proof of a conspiracy. How then was it remotely possible
for Sgt Andrew Mark Fogarty to be providing a "detailed briefing" to Snr Sgt J. S. Morrison who
was yet to depart for the scene from Hobart by road?
Back in 2001, we also were made aware, that shortly after Const Pat Allen had joined Const
Whittle pinned down by gunfire in the roadside culvert just short of the Seascape entrance, the
constables observed the gunman pursuing a naked female around the grounds while a dog was
howling and barking. The male perusing the naked female was never identified as having long
blonde hair. As the gunman had already been withdrawn before police arrived in a black van,
I’m forced to conclude this “gunman” had to have been the controller “Mick” or “Rick” from
inside Seascape.
You surely can understandably now, why it is that Const Garry Whittle choses not to expand on
this brief notation made in his debriefing notes at Taranna, at 11.25 pm that Sunday night.
Although this same incident is recounted by his colleague Const Paul Hyland, he choses word
that to the casual observer appear to undermine Whittle’s clarity somewhat. But it is Sgt
Fogarty himself who attempts to weaken both of his colleagues’ statements, by stating almost
casually, that Hyland had "told him" the person running was a "male" when in fact Hyland's
statement makes no such claim as to gender.
When all is considered that we know about the Seascape segment these little intrigues, are
very much clarified. For at the time, Allen with his hand-held radio sought permission from a
Police Officer senior in rank to him for permission to shoot the gunman, saying words to the
effect, 'I have the gunman in my sights: permission to shoot,' and with the answer coming
straight back over the radio, a direct order, repeated I would point out, for a second time
emphatically, "Do not shoot, this has to happen. I repeat do not shoot this has to happen".
Now, the unidentified naked female running and screaming around the yard, pursued by a
male, had to be Sally Martin and this means Mrs. Martin had not been murdered in the forenoon
that Sunday as was the DPP’s Case. If the reader remains unconvinced, then I ask this
question:
“If this distressed, naked female, being pursued about the precincts
of the Seascape cottage was not Mrs Sally Martin, then who was it?”
The denial of permission to intervene and save that female I may add is sadly consistent with
an article which stated: "Police…had the gunman in their sights several times inside the
Seascape guest house, but the order to shoot never came." To explain this incident, Insp Hank
Timmerman, the SOG Commander stated in the same article that, "our law precludes us from
taking that course of action." It seems yet again that protocols and procedures signed off on in
the VIMP had precedence over the lives of Sally Martin, David Martin and Glen Pears.
I find it contradictory that Supt Bob Fielding who relieved Barry Bennett of his command at
Taranna should state, “…the main objective was to negotiate the safe release of the
hostages…that was the primary objective…to negotiate the release of the hostages.” The
reality of the outcome runs entirely contrary to this statement by Supt Fielding and indeed he
even contradicts his own statement at a later date as you will see shortly. 22
“…very mindful of the fact that there was possibly 3 people in the house, ah
er, I had to decide, ah er, were they alive ah er, if they were alive, should I
allow them to be burnt alive or, or be consumed in the fire; did I send the
SOG in.
The immediate action plan that had been presented to me,
presented me with a very difficult decision because their
plan, because their estimate of casualties was in excess of
30 percent – which is a huge number of people, police
officers to lose in an assault so I had to balance up the
advice I was getting as to the likelihood of er the people,
the hostages still being alive or risking the lives of further
people to er effect an arrest and maybe rescue the Supt Bob Fielding:
23 OIC of the 'Seascape
hostages in a burning house.”
operation' from PFCP at
It becomes painfully obvious from the nonsense contained in these Taranna, shows his
statements and the reality at the coal-face that the wellbeing of satisfaction with the
outcome, after forcing
hostages was compromised by the authors of the VIMP, among whom
Martin Bryant from the
former SOG Michael Dyson was prominent.
Seascape cottage.
“Rick” or "Mick" was to the "string-puller" or producer of the Seascape location 'shoot': "Act 7,
scene 4" of the psychopolitical production, the massacre at Port Arthur. He was the
"controller" up until the final moments of the last scene, when the star was left to play-out his
role to the bitter final curtain – but against the odds another stuff-up: the star survived…
When I sat and viewed for the first time the now infamous Police Training Video, it staggered
me to hear these words from "Relief Forward Commander," Supt Bob Fielding:
“…I’m satisfied that we made the right decision in fact waiting and forcing him to
come to us as opposed to vice versa.”
Information I received, the source of which was a former Federal Policeman, made it clear that
the request to shoot the gunman first denied was certainly repeated for a second time and the
entire transmission was witnessed by SES volunteers monitoring the open police channel radio
traffic, as they waited near the Fox and Hounds on the Arthur Highway to be ordered forward.
Think what effect that had on their morale and respect for the Tasmania police service they
were bound to assist. Those words above confirm to my ears just who it was who burnt
Seascape!
This information also contained the allegation that a police audio tape containing this very
incident did exist and that shortly after the massacre, that tape was re-played to federal police
(SOG) officers during their debriefing session back in Canberra. I also learned that when the
realisation sank in of what the federal officers had heard regarding police being denied
permission to intervene on behalf of a female hostage under threat who was murdered there
later, it directly led to two federal police officers resigning their position very shortly
thereafter.
Further to this information, early in August of 2001 we learned from another source that
federal police SOG officers had been mustered at short notice, and flown to Hobart on Friday
evening of the 26th of April, 1996 — although for what purpose, we are only able to speculate.
Of course it's possible this action simply proved to be just another fortuitous coincidence, but I
doubt the reader would be convinced.
You see the narrator on the Police Training Video, tells us that other than the Victoria Police
SOG who were flown into Hobart on a charter flight that Sunday evening, all others arrived on
commercial flights on the morning of the 29th; but for what useful purpose?
I was informed by a very close friend of a serving Tasmania Police SOG then stationed up the
east coast, and who played a primary role in the Seascape Cottage siege, that before he
entered the SOG cordon around Seascape he received a direct order with words to the effect,
"You are not to shoot the blonde headed gunman under any circumstances." But the male
pursuing sally Martin was not blonde headed. Also and from so many different sources, the
true position is clear: the gunman was not to be shot, and so the wellbeing of the hostages was
secondary, as 'not to shoot…under any circumstances,' left this marksman no latitude
whatsoever.
If this rigid protocol – not to shoot the gunman – had not been set firmly in place it only stands
to reason the possibility of “Rick” or "Mick" being accidentally shot and killed by some
policeman or other, would have been heighten considerably to a strong probability.
So where was the audio recording equipment located that facilitated the recording of this radio
traffic? Does the tape still exist? What was meant by, "this has to happen"? All my research
tells me this order had to have been passed on to the uniformed Constable by the highest
ranking Officer in the immediate area at the time, and if this is so, the order must have come
from Sgt Andrew Mark Fogarty, for Supt Barry Bennet was yet to reach Taranna. Yet again it
seems an unavoidable conclusion of the Sergeant being ‘in the joke’ so to speak.
1447 hrs (2.47 pm), and the Eastern (Police) District Superintendent, Barry Bennett and his CIB
taskforce were “activated” and Bennett was then formerly OIC of the overall operations at the
PFCP recorded as established just 5 minutes later in the business premises of the Devil Park,
Taranna. This is in spite of Bennett not arriving there until around 1500 hrs (3.00 pm).
District Commander Barry Bennett tells us that because SOG Officers at Seascape operated on
their secure radio network, they were isolated and without outside radio contact, even from
the PFCP at Taranna. 24 But remember this was not the situation among ordinary Police whose
radio operations were on the open analogue channel 6.
Although when at the Seascape cordon this analogue channel was incapable of even reaching
out to the PFCP at Taranna just 6.6 km up the highway and certainly could not be monitored
back in Hobart, just back near the Kodak Shop in Port Arthur, Const Whittle told us that he,
“went back to car and conversed with VKT.” I'm told by a former volunteer ambulance
officer from the peninsula that sometimes radio contact was possible near by the Kodak Shop
on the football oval. So perhaps Whittle was correct in his statement. But then again had a
transponder been sited in the area that weekend to operate on the Sunday? 25
Returning now to Sergeant Fogarty; we have been informed that an SOG officer definitely set
fire to the BMW. The ONLY "SOG" Officer that was on the ground at the outset was Sgt Andrew
M. Fogarty. His recount of his movements that day amount to nothing more than a very
amateurish attempt to conceal the reality in that regard. Remarkably, 12 minutes before
Commissioner McCreadie wrote that "police arrived", Fogarty light-heartedly states, "at about
2.00p.m. I become aware that a vehicle was on fire in the grounds…," as if he was still en
route. In line of sight does not equate to en route. Among police it is clear, everything ran
like poorly maintained clockwork, in their account of events it becomes obvious confusion
reined supreme. Time yet again has proven to be for Tasmania Police and others, the guardian
of truth. I am forced by numerous facts exposed in the foregoing text to conclude that Mr
Fogarty surely set the BMW alight.
But if considered carefully, it soon becomes evident as to why the burning of the BMW was so
vaguely mentioned in police statements, given passing attention when police questioned the
accused, and even avoided by the Court.
One must ponder: Martin Bryant was charged and convicted of the murder of Glen Pears, and
with the deliberate burning of the BMW: it seems like Sally and David Martin these were also
false charges, and his convictions for them is nothing less than a travesty of justice.
Now Constable Pat Allen's statement requires our scrutiny here. He firstly drove south past
Seascape through both roadblocks to ferry Constable Caulfield to the Fox and Hounds,
returning to a position short of the Seascape entrance were Garry Whittle lay, noting as he left
the vehicle the time was 2.25 pm (1425 hrs), or just 10 minutes after Hyland had commences
his running log.
Rather strangely though there is a break in his recount of events here of almost 3 hours, for the
next time mentioned is 1730hrs (5.30 pm), when Pat Allen states that he was informed there
was, "movement on the roof of one of the outer building at Seascape," and he climbed from
out of his cover in the culvert and, "saw movement on the roof of the building south of the
main building." It was on the porch roof sited on the eastern side of that building, that the FN
FAL was recovered by police on Monday afternoon. That porch would have been concealed and
out of the line of sight from the culvert location where the Constables Garry Whittle and Pat
Allen were located.
But importantly we should ask 'what did occur in those 3 hours that was too unimportant to
note?' Though Pat Allen’s physical movements in response to that radio message confirmed the
existence of two suspects in the buildings at Seascape, as well as verifying their ability to
monitor the Police radio frequency. For the quick response of a gunman in a different position
firing a shot into the bumper bar of Garry Whittle's Police vehicle is surely confirmation
enough.
Two Nubeena ambulance units were tasked immediately; one from Crewed by volunteers:
Nubeena, crewed by Garry Alexander and Kay Fox, who entered past the A Peninsula ambulance
Tollbooth first. After finding no injured and covering the deceased makes a fast turn at
bodies, they drove down Jetty Rd to the Café. Taranna to head via
Nubeena toward Port
Arthur. But how did
The other Nubeena ambulance was crewed by husband and wife team,
the media arrive here in
Colin and Robin Dell who had the ambulance at their home in Taranna.
time to capture this
They were instructed to approach the Fox and Hounds via the detour of
footage?
the Nubeena back road, so as to avoid the shooting gallery outside
Seascape and so they were probably yet to reach Nubeena (11 km from Port Arthur) at the time
a Dunalley ambulance was about to pass by Seascape, 6.6 km from Port Arthur.
This ambulance was driven by off-duty paramedic Jim Giffard, who was called out from his
farm to join the Dunalley crew Jodie Branch and Roger Garth, to make the rush south to Port
Arthur and arrived outside the Broad Arrow at just after 1400 hrs. This crew had failed to hear
radio instructions for them to take the Nubeena back road route, and so were actually ahead of
the closer crew as they sped directly southward down the highway past Seascape.
Now, before we progress further, let's look closer at a little more of the gospel according to
Fogarty; his bizarre statement accounting for his arrival at Seascape: "About 2.15pm I
followed an ambulance along the Arthur Hwy and arrived at the location of Constable
Hyland near Seascape…I stopped and the ambulance continued." I've been able to confirm
that indeed 2 ambulances travelled south by this route past Seascape that afternoon, as is
confirmed also by Const Hyland (below). But in Fogarty’s statement, he makes one reference
to a single ambulance.
Const Hyland in addressing his “initial time” there at his road block clearly states that, "…two
ambulances had also driven past me heading south," before Sgt Fogarty arrived at this road
block. It is only then and in his next paragraph that he advises us of the arrival of Sgt A
Fogarty, and that “upon his [Fogarty's] arrival I commenced a log…," stating further that he
remained at his position until he, "left the scene at about 4.00 a.m. the next morning…"
It is within this segment, statements given by just two policemen expose some worrying
contradiction.
In examining the sequence of ambulance call-outs, the routes they took, their destinations,
and arrivals at the Tollbooth, Historic Site, and the Fox and Hounds that afternoon, we are able
to demonstrate a further anomaly within these police statements. Four road ambulances in all,
responded and attended the wounded. Colin and Robin dell of Taranna were instructed to
attend the Fox and Hounds, the rest made for the Broad Arrow Café; 21 persons in total were
attended to.
Yes, 2 ambulances did pass through Hyland’s road block that afternoon, north of Oakwood. But
the first ambulance heading south through his road block on the Arthur Highway that
afternoon, encountered two police vehicles at the northern roadblock. “Off duty paramedic
Jim Giffard was called from his farm [near Taranna] to join the Dunalley Crew.” 27 This
ambulance was the second to arrive at the Broad Arrow Café and upon arrival there the driver
told Mrs Wendy Scurr, he got a, "hell of a shock" when he came to the rise just before the
entrance to Seascape, and was confronted by, “two police vehicles blocking the road".
Continuing, he told Mrs Scurr in words to the effect of, 'how the hell I squeezed between the
vehicles and did not leave a side mirror behind, I'll never know…' This was Jim Giffard and for
him to have “squeezed” his ambulance between two police vehicles, Andrew Fogarty had to
have had his vehicle already there and in place at Paul Hyland’s road block. This was the
first ambulance to pass through Hyland's road Block. This being the reality, it is simply
impossible for Sgt Fogarty to have followed the second ambulance into Hyland's road block! 28
But Hyland has, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, has been inadvertently enmeshed
in the Fogarty deception, amplified when the SOG Sgt put the incident on the record. Hence I
must ask this question of both officers:
"How could two ambulances have driven past Hyland as he stated, in the initial period when he
alone manned his road block with just his vehicle across the road, if the first ambulance driver
Jim Giffard, the only one to have gone past Seascape was forced to squeeze his ambulance
between two police vehicles at that road block?
These deceptions only developed at the same rate as the whole exercise continued toward its
finality, and then on past the sentencing of Martin Bryant.
After all as has been said several times already, the BMW was already well alight for some
considerable time before Fogarty’s stated time of arrival in the area. So I won’t beat about
the bush with Sergeant Andrew Fogarty any more.
From out of his very own statement he has proven to be a totally discredited witness to the
events surrounding the entire massacre at Port Arthur and the Seascape siege segment of it.
Obviously when read carefully, like his colleague Paul Hyland’s statement, both would have
caused the prosecution grave concern, had Martin Bryant stood trial before his peers. Neither
policeman's evidence would have survived, if subjected to cross examination. It becomes
painfully obvious the original strategy never accommodated a gunman surviving the house-fire.
To conclude this chapter, what purpose, or more correctly, whose purpose did all this nonsense
and deceptions serve? This charade must have been acted out as part of a very elaborate and
important program. Surely it doesn't require me to spell out the agenda it served. Equally you
surely aren't of the opinion that all of these anomalies resulted from the actions of a couple of
bumbling 'cops' or the impaired intellect of Martin Bryant? Even his mother Carleen has
maintained to this day: "My poor Martin. He couldn't have shot all those people down at
Port Arthur. He didn't have the brains to do it." 29
No I firmly believe the evidence I have produced here stands tall among all the other grave
anomalies the DPP employed to attempt to prove their case against one very insignificant
member of Tasmania's society in 1996, intellectually impaired Martin Bryant. But it was staged
for much bigger fish in the global pond than those immediately implicated! Yes fire was the
criminal's eraser at Seascape, and the criminal was not Martin Bryant.
The police themselves suggest the probability of two gunmen, one of whom had black hair. I'm
strongly of the belief there was not two gunmen inside Seascape; the gunman with the
'pockmarked face' was extracted from Seascape immediately upon his withdrawal to there from
his highway ambush, and the only other gunman there and therefore the murderer of Sally
Martin was "Rick" or "Mick" and not Martin Bryant. It had to be "Mick" or "Rick" the controller of
the fall-guy "Jamie" who in all probability never fired a shot. So what became Mick or Rick? If
he has a conscience, my understanding of the nature of logos ensures that those who have
burdened themselves with such awful untruths will see their deceit tear at their mind in
building waves which will eventually consume the physical person.
As all these snippets of information I have put on the record came to light in the various
documents, statements, reports, and interviews during the course of our investigations, I
believe together they confirm the massacre was most definitely not the spontaneous unlawful
act of a lone gunman, but rather a sophisticated exercise, with long term, high level security
planning and involvement which must have emanated from out of the federal government level
and if not from out of that entity, then from out of what other powerful entity?
End Notes
1
NA, “Crime costs Australia almost $32 billion each year,” Media Release, Aust. Institute of Criminology,
9apr03
2
Assistant Comm Barry Bennett, Crime and operations, Tasmania Police Journal, Dec. 2001, pp. 17-21
http://www.pat.asn.au/uploaded/62/290039_04taspolicedec01.pdf.
3
PROI Court Doc, p.232
4
PROI Court Doc, p.234
5
PROI Court Doc, p.235
6
PROI Court Doc p.245
7
Matterson, Ian, “Coroner's Responsibilities at Port Arthur”, EMA Report, p.91
8
Perks, N., Court Doc p.172
9
ibid, p.191
10
Matterson, I., “Coroner's Responsibilities at Port Arthur”, EMA Report, p.93
11
ibid, p.94
12
ibid id
13
Perks, N., Court Doc. p.186
14
ibid , p.197
15
Lyons TJ, “Forensic Overview of the Port Arthur Tragedy,” EMA Report, p.97
16
N Perks, Court Doc., p.171
17
N Perks, Court Doc., p.157
18
Mahoney Inquiry, day 40 @ 4124 & Day 6 @ 427; Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry & the
Law, Vol 28, No.1, 2000
19
Internet article, New Zealand News, at www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=7 , 02may01
20
Sgt Andrew M. Fogarty, No 1413, Tasmania Police, Undated, "Statement to prove,"
21
R. McCreadie, EMA Report, p.6 20; Jenny Fleming, “Forward Command at Port Arthur”, PASA Police
Journal, March 1997.
22
ibid ; na “Police unable to shoot,” Sunday Herald Sun.
23
Supt Bob Fielding, Police Training Video
24
Fleming J., Port Arthur, Police Journal of SA, March 1997, p.3
25
Const Garry Thomas Whittle, 1171, Proof of Evidence statement, undated.
26
Morgan P., O’Brien, A., & Lennox G., The Ambulance Perspective, EMA Report, p.31
27
Ibid, p.30
28
Interview with Mrs W. Scurr, May 2001.
29
Julie-Anne Davies, "Making of a Monster", The Bulletin, 4 April 2006, p. 19
Chapter 24
M
artin Bryant never experienced the right to a trial by jury. His cavalier legal counsel Mr
Avery may well hold to the opinion that this was entirely Martin's own decision, though
it’s a conclusion I cannot support. His sentencing hearing was presided over by 60-year-
old Chief Justice of Tasmania, William Cox.
Since 1993 William Cox had been Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery, Tasmania Defence
Region, and earlier he was a member of the Army Reserve from 1954–1975. Although a
Tasmanian, born on 1 April 1936, William Cox was educated at the Catholic, Xavier College in
Melbourne. In December 1995, the Queen approved his appointment as Tasmania's Lieutenant-
Governor, a position he held until he vacated his role as Chief Justice, and eventually he
became Governor of Tasmania in 2004 in the wake of the controversial sacking after just 10
months in the office of the former UN Arms Inspector, Richard Butler after he'd received a
golden 'hand-shake' of some $650,000. … just to go. So it was William Cox who officiated over
Martin Bryant's sentencing hearing and it was he who accepted the Court Documents that were
put on the public record of the bench he presided over.
Part of these Court Documents is that which is termed a "Statement of Fact": a detailed
chronological reconstruction of events as they unfolded from Martin Bryant’s early childhood
until he was interrogated by police on 4 July 1996 according to the DPP. This record sums up
the Case against the accused. But nothing the prosecution stated in this part of the Court
Documents has ever been tested under oath and no defence Counsel has ever cross examined a
single witness under oath, mentioned in that statement. As a consequence and after a close
examination of this statement in the case of the Queen v Martin Bryant it is I fear, from
beginning to end, a litany of blurred events that others may choose to call bare-faced "lies".
Here is an example of just one "fact", as recorded in the Court Document presented to Lt-Col
(res) William Cox, Chief Justice for Tasmania, by Mr. Bugg QC, and his assistant Mr N. Perks.
This statement of "fact" was further expanded upon by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, who was later
described by Commissioner of Police Richard McCreadie as "…the best ballistic expert in the
nation – there’s no doubt about that." In an article published in the December edition of the
APJ and at p.216, I would opinion that Sergeant Gerard Dutton chooses quite inappropriate
language as he begins to explain the exploding ammunition at Seascape as "an item of trivia"!
Is "trivia" the material which is called "evidence" in the Courts? For it is recorded in the Court
Documents at page 186/10-13 that Mr. Perks blurs His Honour's judgement when he states:
"The fire at Seascape continued to blaze out of control for some considerable
time, fire services were unable to approach because of the continuing danger
created by exploding ammunition." 1
So according to the Court this is a statement of "fact". According to 'the best ballistic expert in
the nation,' it is trivia. I believe both these people are deserving of contempt:
Please consider these questions:
• Is Mr Perks suggesting ‘exploding ammo’ justified Supt Bob Fielding holding back the
fire brigade from dousing the flames of Seascape and making any attempt whatsoever
to save the lives of any of the three persons thought to be held as hostages in the
cottage?
• Who before His Honour, Justice William Cox would have dared to call evidence Trivia?
I don't believe I'm being pedantic in using a word such as "inappropriate" at the very least to
describe Mr. Dutton's poor word choice of "trivia evidence". At the same time Mr Perks
suggestion that it justified holding back the fire brigade is a nonsense!
In the cause of the death of Mrs. Noelene (“Sally”) Martin, Mr. Perks says, "The autopsy
revealed…a number of small fragments of lead shrapnel … located in and around the left
shoulder area and chest cavity..." and he goes on to suggest the "fragments" indicated, "a gun
shot injury," but quickly adds, "…although injury caused by exploding ammunition during the
fire could not be ruled out as the cause of that." 2 - My emphasis.
This is not trivia! I believe it is nothing less than misleading humbug! Here Mr. Perks quite
seriously refuses to rule out the possibility that projectiles from "exploding ammunition" may
have reached such velocity from out of unsupported cartridge cases to have penetrated clothes
and flesh to the depth of a chest cavity and even fragmented in doing so? Mr Perks has grossly
misled his honour and the Court and is deserving of nothing less than contempt.
Worse still, the defence Mr. Avery allowed proceedings to continue without so much as a single
objection whatsoever?
Let me set the records straight: Ever since the advent of the Safety Cartridge, primers and
smokeless powder, small arms ammunition when exposed to fire poses minuscule danger to
life. There is every good reason as to why such ammunition was termed a Safety Cartridge.
Let me put it this way: if Firemen had rushed-in to control the fire at Seascape and with a slim
hope of saving life, and even have been able to preserve some empirical evidence, as late as
when Martin Bryant staggered unarmed from the cottage, aerosol cans of hair spray and insect
spray etc, normally stored in the pantry and kitchens of the average Australian home, would
have posed a greater hazard to life and limb, than the "thousands of [safety] cartridges" spread
about. 3
At the risk of boring the reader with an item of "trivia", please examine what one the world's
most respected ballisticians of the twentieth century, Julian S. Hatcher, Maj-Gen, U.S. Army
ret., has to say on the subject of "Small Arms Ammunition as a Fire or Explosion Hazard".
"As for any possible explosion hazard from small arms ammunition,
even in large quantities, it can be said with confidence that there is
no such danger."
To reach his conclusion Julian Hatcher carried out extensive tests, and here is what he
observed when he took a 30/06 cartridge for example and replicated it to have exploded, in a
person's shirt, breast pocket. Hatcher used a bar of soft soap to replicate body tissue.
"This made a dent on the soap about a quarter of an inch deep. That
would have been a mean bruise. We found the cartridge case had
burst open and thrown small bits of brass around, and had left a
smoky smudge about an inch long on the cloth. [The cloth had not
ignited.] The only damage suffered by the cardboard box [there to
retained all of the cartridge components]
was a slight mark where the bullet had
struck." 4
If this is trivia, then what must we conclude of the rest of
the material which Mr Perks and Damien Bugg QC presented
to the Court called “evidence”? Or, to put it another way,
does this mean in the Courts of Tasmania, the Prosecution
can in our system of justice lie and or mislead under
licence?
I can state categorically, that if fragments of a projectile were indeed recovered from the
chest cavity of the deceased, it is my qualified conclusion that if Mrs. Sally Martin was shot,
then she was shot either in the first instance, or in a secondary manner. These are the only
rational conclusions one can reach.
So after considering this chapter and hearing Mr Perks ridiculous ‘facts’ and Mr Dutton’s expert
opinion: “Do you consider this evidence ‘trivia’?”
End Notes
1
Perks, N., Court Doc. P.186/10-13
2
Perks, N., Court Doc. p.187/8-17
3
Perks, N., Court Doc., at p.186 & APJ at p.215
4
Julian S. Hatcher, Hatcher's Notebook, 1st print 1947, this 3rd ed 2nd print, 1966, The Stackpole Co.
Harrisburg, Pa. U.S.A., at pp. 531 & 536.
Chapter 25
I
n this chapter I would ask you to consider the documented examples of just two of many
firearm “blow-ups” that came over the work-bench of my gunsmith shop. To my knowledge
every “blow-up” that came over my work-bench was accidental, in as much none of the
firearm owners had deliberately prepared a round to damage or demolish the firearms I
inspected.
After you have given the evidence I present here due consideration, you should then be in a
position to make an informed judgment as to the veracity of my conclusions on the matters and
those allegation never tested under oath but simply presented to the court and entered onto
the record as a statement of fact.
I must point out that I remain entirely unconvinced the specific Colt AR15 SP-1 Carbine, Ser
#SP128807 was ever fired at any person during the massacre at Port Arthur or the siege at
Seascape on the 28-29 April 1996. It is my firm conclusion this particular Colt AR15 SP-1
Carbine, which police recovered from the ashes of Seascape was in my qualified opinion
deliberately blown up at some time before the firearm was brought to the Seascape Cottage.
But this chapter is included primarily for your consideration as irrefutable evidence, paralleling
the event to which the Colt in question was subjected.
Included in the chapter are four photographs, each of which contain captions explaining the
consequences of the "blow-up", which is actually an uncontrolled chemical reaction.
Please also consider the written evidence explaining the events which caused the damage to
these firearms pictured, the first of which occurred in December of 1984 and which has been
taken from my notes recorded at the time.
I believe I have presented here, hard physical evidence in the form of several documented
accidental events, which parallel what I believe was a deliberate planned event, alleged to
have been accidental in as much as Mr Dutton claims resulted from a “faulty batch of [Norinco
factory] ammunition”.
The damaged Colt AR15 SP-1 .223Rem Carbine was in my qualified opinion no more than a
“prop”, placed carefully at the periphery of the cottage so that it would be subjected to less
than destructive heat to enable police to recover, test and make reports as to its condition
even although as a direct result of the extent of its damage precluded it from ever being linked
forensically as the firearm which caused the deaths of 25 persons and the wounding of 14
others in the massacre at Port Arthur.
I will leave it to the reader to decide as to what extent these documented accidental events
parallel what I allege was the deliberate damage to the Colt AR15 SP1 Carbine, recovered from
the perimeter of the burnt-out ruin of Seascape.
Now to the first photograph Fig i we see all of
the recovered metal-work of a Sako Model L579
"Forester," turn-bolt action rifle, Ser/No. 98639
in the calibre 22/250 Remington. Prior to the
blow-up event, the rifle was in original, A-1
condition.
The Report
When the barrel was pulled, it was barely
"snug". After the barrelled action was
clamped in the Barrel Vice and a Brownell's
action-spanner snugged-up on the receiver, Fig i: Mod., L579 Sako "Forester" turn-bolt
normally it would take a good stiff "yank" on rifle. From top L-R: mag follower; "W" spring;
the 3ft extension handle, to break the union floor-plate/trigger guard; barrel with blown
between barrel and receiver. However in cartridge case still fused to chamber insitu;
this instance, because of the blow-up, it was receiver; bolt stop (its fixing screws both
unnecessary to employ an extension to the sheared-off); trigger assembly. Below the
8" handle. I realised although the barrel was receiver lies the turn-bolt body & below it the
snug, the receiver could be unscrewed a firing pin assembly. Note: indicates the
quarter turn by the action-spanner handle assembly's retaining lug which almost sheared
alone, then with the spanner removed I was
off in the blow-up. If this had occurred it
able to unscrew the action entirely without
would have caused life threatening injuries to
effort all the way by hand - unaided.
the shooter. The rifle's walnut stock was
Upon examining and measuring the broken into three pieces.
receiver's internal thread dimensions, it
became obvious the receiver had been expanded by internal pressures to such an
extent the barrel was overly sloppy in the thread.
The owner told me he'd obtained "telephone advice" from a friend (perhaps now a 'past
friend'), so as to "use-up some old powder" that he had on hand, and so the owner had
hand-loaded a small quantity of ammunition to supply an immediate need.
He fired the first cartridge only of the hand-loads. The cartridge was loaded with 30
grains of NY300 powder behind a 50gr projectile with a Remington 7½ primer. The
22/250 calibre is designed to operate at normal chamber pressures of around
52,400lbs with a proof load maximum in the vicinity of 60,000+ lbs. The round fired
exceeded this pressure by many thousands of pounds -- End report.
NY-300 is designated as a "Small Capacity Case - rifle powder" and is no longer available in
Australia. The powder NY-300 was developed originally for the diminutive 22 Hornet case, with
a recommended maximum load of 9 grains behind a 45gr x ·223" (not a .224") projectile.
The Hornet case if filled to maximum would hold 11·8grns, or 30% above a recommended load
in that calibre/powder combination and that load would exceed safe maximum pressures to
such an extent as to cause total primer pocket failure leaking gas badly. But! When 30gr of
NY-300 was loaded into the 22/250 Remington case,
the chamber pressure generated could well have
exceeded 150% above a "proof load" chamber
pressures for that calibre possibly reaching 130,000 to
160,000 lbs!
The photograph at left, Fig ii shows the remnant
cartridge case, still in the chamber, of the barrel
removed or "pulled" from the receiver. A quarter of
Fig ii: its case head circumference including the extractor Fig iii:
The "witness" flange has been consumed which extends down the The "accused"
length of the case (inside the chamber and so hidden) for approximately half its overall length
and still with the case fused to the chamber wall as it was when delivered to the Gunshop.
The next photograph Fig iii, is of the Norinco .223 Rem case claimed by Gerard Dutton to have
come from a 'batch' of faulty ammunition. Norinco do not
manufacture their ammunition in numbered "batch" lots. I want
to state clearly that the Dutton theory has no basis in fact. Sgt
Gerard Dutton the highly trained forensic firearm examiner did
not produce a shred of sound forensic evidence to support his
scenario.
The next photograph at left, Fig iv
illustrates the bolt aligned in the
Fig iv: note the sheared off battery or locked position as it
"pimple", blown away extractor would in the action body and you
and discoloured bolt-head. will note the extractor claw is
missing, blown away at time of
detonation. Compare this example to that of photograph left, Fig v: The Norinco case
Fig iv photograph at right of the blown-up cartridge case (223Rem) from the Seascape
recovered by Sgt Gerard Dutton, from the AR15 SP-1 Carbine blow-up of the Colt AR15 SP-1
which the DPP claimed was wrecked by 'faulty ammunition' at Carbine. Extruded "pimple"
Seascape. Note the evidence of extreme pressure that has remains in this instance.
caused brass from the case walls and head to partially fill-in the extractor groove, and also
extrude into the unsupported margin arrowed, of the case normally remaining beyond the
chamber mouth. Note the brass "pimple" extruded into the ejector recess, by the extremes
pressure in both Fig iii and iv, arrowed and evident as a protrusion from the head of the
223Rem Norinco case in Fig iv, has been sheared-off by the lifting of the turn-bolt to open the
action as is indicated by the shinny spot.
You will note also in both cartridge cases (photographs Fig ii and Fig iii) there is a considerable
amount of the case head or ejector flange missing, continuing right to the flash hole in the
centre of the primer pocket. This brass has been eroded away by the extremely hot jet of
escaping gas and torn out as gas takes the path offering the least resistance toward the
extractor slot, an unsupported portion of the case head.
This erosive action works not unlike a steel fabricator's plasma cutter. The extractor along
with the extractor spring and plunger have also been blown away by the blast of escaping
superheated gas, the blast extent also witnessed by the now discoloured bolt-head in Fig iv.
No remnants of the primer cup or its integral anvil were recovered. The spring loaded ejector
plunger in the bolt face was also missing; its spring crushed.
Now returning to the first photo Fig i, of the Mod L579 Sako turn-bolt rifle parts; you can see
all recovered metal components of the rifle. Note the following from the top L:
1.) Magazine follower was distorted and - not worth repairing (NWR),
2.) Magazine "W" spring is distorted,
3.) Floor-plate trigger guard assembly is visibly distorted, while king-screw and tang-screw
were both stripped and missing,
4.) Magazine housing has been expanded considerably, by escaping gas, and please note,
the explosion split and smashed the walnut stock into three separate pieces.
5.) Bolt stop assembly was torn from the receiver and mounting screws sheared-off
6.) Trigger assembly was the only assembly to survive undamaged.
7.) Bolt body suffered relatively minor damage but was still NWR, and unusable unless
subjected to an x-ray test.
Now to the firing pin assembly (FPA): The firing pin spring retaining collar, situated at the
forward (left) extremity of the main spring in the photograph, acts like a piston within the bolt
body when subjected to the rapidly expanding volume of escaping gas, channelled directly to
this "piston" via the firing pin hole.
Hence the escaping gas compressed the entire firing pin assembly past
the full extent of its rearward travel. The kinetic energy generated in
this compression being delivered to and restrained by the small firing-
pin retaining lug, arrowed in the photograph. This firing-pin retaining
lug was set-back ·100" and in my judgement was close to shearing point.
If that firing-pin retaining lug had sheared-off, it would have caused the
shooter to suffer grievous bodily harm, most probably resulting in death,
as the FPA would have become a lethal projectile, propelled rearwards
at high velocity. Fig vii: Sako receiver
looking into the lower
In our next photograph Fig vi we have a view looking right into the locking register for one
forward threaded receiver where the barrel is normally screwed home. of the 2 bolt lugs to lock
Past the extent of the threaded receiver tube you can see at 6 o'clock the action. Note the
the shiny metal surface of the 'lock-up' surface where one of the bolt- setback ·020"
body's two locking lugs bears when in its battery position. You can see
with the naked eye that the bearing surface has been dramatically set-back by the locking lugs
impact at the time of the detonation a very visible and measured at ·020".
Under normal usage this locking surface would survive unscathed without any appreciable wear
for tens of thousands of rounds.
Seven days after this blow-up, when the owner brought the firearm to
my Gunshop for inspection and report, he was suffering badly with
tinnitus (ringing of the ears) and was noticeably hard-of-hearing.
He told me he had suffered a "bad headache for 3 days" as well. Both hands and his face had
small superficial wounds that were now healed and he had earlier removed a wood splinter
from his hand.
In other "blow-ups" I have been called upon to examine, one other in particular stands out and I
should mention it here.
This second incident involved a Marlin model 336, lever rifle in 444 Marlin calibre. Again the
owner had obtained phone advice from a "friend" for a reduced load using a non-recommended
powder of a volume approximating one third of the maximum case capacity so as to achieve
sub-sonic velocities.
In this instance the powder load was of a small volume in a large volume case, which normally
dictates the powder would have been mixed with a "filler" material to expand the overall
volume and ensure even distribution within the case, a practice incidentally, I would most
strongly advise against, unless done with greatest of care and under experienced advice. In
this incident, the shooter had loaded magazine tube with several other similarly hand loaded
rounds. He fired the first round from a prone position. All went
well. He worked the lever elevating the next round from the
magazine up and forward into the chamber, while at the same
time the muzzle was held slightly lower than the breach. These
actions spread the small charge of powder along the length of the
case, from head to neck. When this second round was fired, the
primer ignited the entire charge of powder from the flash hole to
the projectile at the front of the case. Instead of burning
Figure iii: Remains of a Marlin progressively, the entire powder charge detonated.
Mod 336 444Marlin lever rifle
blow-up.
Looking at the photograph of the Marlin model 336, you will note a 4 ½" section of the barrel
from rear sight to breach has been torn away. The shell case above those pieces mimics their
appearance. The receiver was blown into two pieces and the head of the bolt distorted,
loosing the extractor and ejector. The locking block almost sheared off and if it had failed the
bolt would not have been retained in the action, even although it failed. If the locking block
had failed in the sequence of the event before the action failed, the shooter may well have
suffered life threatening injuries. Scope mounting screws were stripped from the receiver, and
along with scope sight blown away. The magazine tube (bottom right - above) was almost
guillotined when it was torn from the receiver, and blown downward. Bits and pieces of
metalwork and wood from the Model 336 Marlin were spread all over the paddock. The shooter
survived, but his rifle did not. The wreckage he recovered and brought for my inspection you
can see, was almost unrecognisable as having come from a relatively new Marlin 336; so bent,
torn apart, twisted and distorted the bits and pieces were.
The owner (Anthony) told me he sought medical advice and was told the damage to his hearing
was permanent. Such is the enormous energy generated under unique circumstances when in
ignorance the careless hand-loader fails to adhere to the rules of reloading all safety
cartridges. Firearm owners only ever experience a blow-up out of carelessness or inexperience
on their part. I can firmly state faulty factory ammunition as being the cause of such events is
so rare as to be extremely unlikely. Mr Dutton never told us if he bothered to determine what
type of powder residue was left behind in the discharged and blown-up cartridge. This single
oversight is very telling to this author.
In the case of the round that allegedly destroyed the Seascape firearm, the Colt AR15 SP-1
Carbine, Ser #SP128807 recovered from the periphery of the Seascape Cottage, I can state with
confidence, Martin Bryant could not have prepared the round pictured at Fig iii and Fig v in this
work so as to blow up the firearm. He was intellectually incapable of doing so, and secondly
no evidence was produced to suggest Martin Bryant possessed the necessary componentry and
reloading equipment or knowledge to do so.
Therefore I'm compelled to conclude that a single round was deliberately deloused and
deliberately reloaded with a powder different to the original factory load, by a person or
persons unknown, and that round was chambered in the Colt AR15 Carbine, the firearm
discharged (very likely with a lanyard) and secreted at the periphery of the cottage. Episodes
such as these leave tell-tale signatures, which to the qualified examiner are unmistakable and
easily understood.
_____________________
"Errors like straws, upon the surface flow;
He who would search for pearls must dive below."
John Dryden
Chapter 26
Later in the Café environs after Drs Pam and Steve Ireland † arrived, they
Into the Breach:
were shortly joined by a retired GP who assisted in keeping survivors
Drs Pam & Steve
alive along with Paramedics. But Mrs. Scurr easily recalls the male she Ireland of Nubeena
first observed beside Mrs Loughton as it was his rather strange footwear treated the wounded.
that stuck fast in her mind; “long white Wellingtons” (rubber boots of In the aftermath, the
the type slaughtermen wear). Other witnesses have said they noticed a couple were abandoned
male companion with this person, but his own account makes no mention by their own controlling
as to who this friend could have been. Neither son could have been his body & government
‘companion’ as he tells us both were ‘helping outside’, although neither alike.
are mentioned in any of the witness statements that I have studied
either.
†
Directly as a legacy of the post trauma, and 'psychological shock' the Ireland's 18 year marriage failed, with Steve
moving to mainland. Then the radiating effects of the massacre touched Pam yet again in 2003, after her only son
James returned from his employment near Alice Springs to be with his mother. Then on a Tuesday evening in
September, he left his mother a text message; "Sorry to do this to you, but it's the easiest way out. I'm in the shed. I
love you Mum, James." He was just 19-years-old. But the Tasman Peninsula still has a hold on Pam. Today with a
partner she lives on a farm at the lovely Crescent Bay and practices under her maiden name; Dr Pam Fenerty.
Hans tells us he and his two sons “Ben” and Warren, then aged 20 and 17-yrs respectively,
came to Tasmania from their Stirling home for a holiday. The three males had just completed
a ‘five-day 75km Overland Track between Cradle Mt to Lake St Clair’ before they arrived at
Port Arthur on the evening of Saturday April 27. Witnesses have said the party were seen
taking overnight accommodation at the Backpackers Hostel on-site, although what transport
they used to get to Port Arthur we cannot say. Also we are not informed if the party partook in
that evening’s Ghosts Tour, although this would seem entirely likely.
But next day - Sunday 28th - and at about 1326hrs, when the first muffled shots were
discharged inside the Café, Hans was reported to have stated he and both sons were “200m
away from the café.” However his citation by the Australian Bravery Association tells us: “Mr
Overbeeke was in the car park with his two sons when he heard shots coming from the
Broad Arrow café.” Here an immediate problem arises, as the accounts are quite
contradictory. But even if one account was correct (and neither of them are as I shall
demonstrate), a further claim not only fails to clarify either account, but exacerbates the
inaccuracies in both accounts; let me explain:
If one consults a map of the Port Arthur Historic Site (and I have also been there several time
myself), it becomes obvious that ‘200 metres away’ from the Broad Arrow Café would place Mr
Overbeeke and his sons far outside of the limits of the old upper and lower vehicle parks
adjacent to the Broad Arrow Café beside Masons Cove! But favouring his 200m separation from
the Café, the Who article further suggests, "Immediately, he ordered the then bemused
tourists in his vicinity to hide in bushes 250m away."
At this point Hans Overbeeke has entrapped himself in his own web of deceit. For acting as
spokesman for an unnamed son, Hans is quoted in a caption under his photograph as stating:
“My son ran past me and said, ‘Dad, they’re shooting people.’” 3
So what are we told here? One of Overbeeke's two sons has just “run past” Hans who at the
time claimed he was 200 metres from the Broad Arrow Café informing him people were being
shot inside the Café. This indicates:
1. Hans and his two sons were most definitely not together in the car park as his
citation clearly states. Nor were they,
2. ‘200 metres away from the café’ either as was reported and also,
3. Only one of his two sons is ever mentioned as interacting with Hans, but
without him nominating which son he is referring too.
If Hans was 200m away from the Café when the first shots rang out and he
“Immediately” began ordering people in his vicinity to hide in the bushes
250m away, then Hans had commenced issuing those orders before his son
could possibly have run past him and alerted him to what was going on.
Also his unnamed son would have to have been in earshot, when the first
person, a "…female with short grey hair came running out of the Café
and she said, ‘There’s a man in there murdering people get out of her
[sic] fast’", so as to have been alerted to the killings at the earliest
possible time. The description of this female by witness John Godfrey and Anne Hillman:
others is I believe Mrs Anne Hillman. In charge of Ticket
Sales on that Sunday
in 1996
For up until this person's flight out of the Café's front door, people
between the Café and the Information Centre were unaware there were people being shot and
killed as a result of the “banging” or “thudding” they could hear, which many suggested
appeared to have been coming from the Café roof. If Hans was as claimed 200m away from the
Café during the initial minutes of the shooting, this separation alone would have accounted for
a significant time lapse between when the first shots were fired until when his son ran past him
with the alert, “Dad they’re shooting people”; that is unless Hans was expecting gunshots to
ring out. 4
But let’s consider further claims regarding this person of interest. His Bravery Citation tells
us:
“He and his sons immediately started to move people away from the café area to
the ruins of the church and to patches of undergrowth where shelter was
available.”
Now really, this version of events is absurd. There were three males whom I will identify and
several females that carried out this action: John Godfrey, Peter Stainthorpe (both Vietnam
Veterans) and Ashley Law, a tour guide on the Site. Hans Overbeeke was not involved in this
action. Surely Hans must hope people won’t access and consider all of the witness statements
and check the veracity of them. How could this person possibly be in two places at once? If
Hans was 200m away when the first shots were discharged in the Café, then he surely would
have been far outside the zone of voice influence over people between the Broad Arrow Café
and the Information Centre who were even resisting the urging to move away to safety
quickly, issued by at least Ashley Law a staff member and two Vietnam veterans, John Godfrey
and Peter Stainthorpe the later standing there among them!
The other points I would make here is these: When the first shots were discharged inside the
Broad Arrow Café, some 40 to 45 people (over half of them aged North American visitors),
were standing about the Information Centre. Because of their war zone experience in Vietnam
John Godfrey and Peter Stainthorpe smelt the burnt nitrocellulose powder from expended
ammunition issuing forth from the Café entrance and realised a life-threatening shooting
incident was in progress. They immediately began urging the crowd about them to move away
quickly from the imminent danger. But it took the dramatic escape of the ‘…female with
short grey hair,’ to convey her graphic warning before even these visitors believed and began
to move away to the west.
Now the various accounts in reports attributed to Hans Overbeeke cause further serious
problems. You see, with regard to either he or his sons immediately moving people away from
the café through a post’n-rail fence and across the open ground, 350m west to the church
ruins is easily proven just nonsense.
The ‘McLeod video’ corroborates a signed statement to police by witness John Godfrey and his
detailed submission to authorities on that phase of movement of people from the café area
and the sequence of those events. The man in the slaughterman's white rubber boots does not
feature in that tape. It's clear John Godfrey, Peter Stainthorpe and Ashley Law were the three
males responsible for that phase when the three supervised visitors to move to the safety of
the church ruins. As Mr Godfrey correctly stated, it was he and the other two men who moved
conservatively, '20–30 aged North Americans' away from the Information Centre near the Café
to the church ruins. The video evidence is unsupportive of Overbeeke’s reported claims that
people were ordered by him to take refuge in the bushes and then did so. One can conclude
Mr Overbeeke was awarded a medal that rightly should have gone to other persons.
After the “gunman” departs
Recounting his version of events, Hans Overbeeke was reported as stating that ‘his sons where
helping outside’ when he entered the Broad Arrow Café. Now I ask you to consider the
disparity in the documented impact upon two people when they entered this slaughter-house.
Do you remember that quote (elsewhere in the text) made recently by Dr Bill Maguire - after
nine years had passed? He was formerly an Australian Army doctor in the Vietnam War and he
recounted the scene indelibly stamped upon his memory, when he first entered the Broad
Arrow Café by stating:
“I never saw anything quite to equal what I saw when I went inside the Broad Arrow
Café.”
On the other hand, Hans Overbeeke is quoted as stating that when he entered the café, “It
looked like a re-enactment, it didn’t look real – but it was real enough.” Does this not
sound like a person almost disconnected from the carnage? We are further told he also noted
matter-of-factly “…Most of them were shot in the head.” Obviously he is confirming that he
took a close look at the 20 or so bodies strewn around the café and gift shop, corroborating
other witnesses' recollections of his actions there.
The Australian Bravery Association’s medal citation tells us, “Mr Overbeeke went to the café
where he provided first aid to the injured…” If Hans had been providing serious ‘first aid’ to
any one of the 3 victims who remained alive in the Café then he would not
have had time to make these observations. However Mrs Scurr and others
remember him taking a close interest in the whole scene inside the Broad
Arrow complex.
The Who magazine article tells us Hans Overbeeke – not his sons mind -
carried out four specific actions; he (1.) “…found blankets to warm the
shocked, (2.) made tea, (3.) manned the Broad Arrow’s only phone and
(4.) applied bandages to the wounded.”
Steven Howard
Let’s deal with these claims individually:
1. Blankets: As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, when Mrs Scurr
entered the café with her two colleagues she allotted them tasks. On this CD-ROM
there’s an article entitled “My Experiences At Port Arthur On The 28TH April
1996,” Mrs Wendy Scurr provides the following quote: “I asked Sue [Burgess] and
Steven [Howard] to go and help outside. Sue was manager and was needed.
Steven went in search of blankets for me.” So Steven Howard
went to the bulk store in the Information Centre and
retrieved those blankets. More on the blankets shortly… Mr.
Overbeeke does not state where he collected the blankets
from that he alleges he distributed.
2. Made Tea: Mentioned by a witness and confirmed by Mrs
Scurr (who’s attention was alerted by medical protocol) is a
“…man [who] kept bringing out cups of tea.” The man Peter Croswell – P15
making this tea and taking out cups-full to
uninjured survivors was in fact Peter Croswell,
"P15", who incidentally had suffered 3 separate
gunshot wounds to his buttocks and was later
conveyed to the RHH were he spent five days in
care. 5
The EMA papers tell us that this café phone was “manned” by, quote: "a visitor of
great skill who later just disappeared into the night … [he] acted as an operator
just relaying messages on and off the Site." So what are we being told here? 6
It is clear from official documentation and his reported claims we've gathered that
Overbeeke acted as a “phone operator” or phone monitor; he was judge and jury
as to all incoming and outgoing telegraphic traffic “off and on the Site”.
Interestingly PAHSMA’s CEO was in charge of the whole Site until senior Police
arrived, and he has not stated that he put this ‘visitor of great skill’ in charge due
to some claimed former SES experience or other; it appears the visitor simply
stepped into the role, or was he nominated by a superior there at the time?
So a queue was formed quickly, stretching right off the end of the Café verandah
and prospective callers with pen and paper recorded their own relevant personal,
details; name, address, contact phone number, along with the person’s contact
name and details, destination phone number etc., and of course their short
message. In other words ‘monitor’ Hans – not the caller - passed on or did not pass
on as the case may be, the visitor's original message. So who would have retained
all of the intelligence that Hans accumulated?
During the considerable period of time Hans Overbeeke acted as phone monitor
and corroborated by video footage, we know that at least by 1456 hrs a strange
black van with blacked-out windows – earlier observed at Seascape - and bearing
Commonwealth registration was parked right out front of the entrance to the Broad
Arrow Café. This van remained there in the middle of the roadway for a further 2
hrs and 44 minutes until it departed at 1740hrs as attested to by the Tollbooth
log. Now that is in the scheme of things is a considerable period of time! Its
presence begs questions, like for instance:
Which Commonwealth department was responsible for this van with the
blacked-out windows?
Who was the driver of the van?
Did the driver carry any passengers in or out and/or what equipment was
brought onto/or off the Historic Site in the van?
With whom did the occupant/s of the black Commonwealth registered van
converse for 2 hrs and 44 minutes?
Did anyone from the 'black van' have any contact with Hans Overbeeke while
there?
Even more importantly,
Who authorised the use of this Commonwealth registered van and what was the
purpose of the occupants’ 2 hrs 44 minute mission there?
3. Bandages: The entire scope of First Aid administered by Hans Overbeeke was
confined to just one female survivor (P1) and the aid administered by him can be
described as quite limited. Under the supervision of a St John's First Aid officer,
Hans applied a pressure pad dressing in the form of a freshly laundered and folded
'tea towel', to stem the flow of blood. After inquiry and long research and apart
from this instance, I have been unable to uncover any evidence to corroborate
claims made regarding Hans Overbeeke applying First Aid to the injured – plural.
But what occupied the balance of the time Mr Overbeeke spent in and around the Broad
Arrow Café as he claims he entered the premises after he saw the gunman depart up Jetty
Road? Well we need to consider the observation of two other witnesses here.
a. A visitor and trained nurse there that day, Jennifer Moors, was inside the Gift
Shop, east of the dining area of the Café when the first shot rang out. Mrs.
Moors sheltered with 4 others behind a hessian screen in the alcove at the
faulty exit door. After the gunman had left the Broad Arrow Café, her niece
Sarah Vanderpeer lifted the screen out past a body, so her auntie was able to
extricate herself.
After checking the two young female staff members lying behind the counter
for signs of life, Mrs Moors moved into the dining area. Within a short space of
time there she observed, “Mr OVERBEKE (sic)… attending to a body,” which
she marked as table No.12 on the café diagram. Could this body have been
that of either Andrew Mills or Anthony Nightingale? A point to keep in mind as
this segment unfolds. Now three points should be noted here:
1. Her professional training obviously alerted Mrs Moors as a witness, that a
breach of police protocol had occurred, and so she ensured she knew
who it was that she had observed breaching that protocol.
2. Later, when providing her statement to
police, Jennifer Moors demonstrates the
degree of her concern over the incident by
noting the person’s name; ‘Mr Overbeeke’.
3. As a trained nurse, importantly she uses the
phrase “attending to a body” rather than
perhaps ‘checking a body for vital signs’.
So what actually did occur in this one recorded event of 'attending The man in the white
to a body'? Was Mr Overbeeke actually searching the victim for ID slaughterman's boots
for instance? Were there instances of Mr Overbeeke 'attended' to
other bodies in the same manner that went unnoticed in the rush to save lives?
b. In spite of the magnitude of the task of triaging, administering first aid,
supervising colleagues and assisting three doctors, paramedics and Volunteer
Ambulance officers present – Mrs Wendy Scurr distinctly remembers Mr.
Overbeeke ‘walking around the whole of the Café stepping around and over
bodies’, and in her words; “checking-out the whole scene” – his demeanour,
actions and his footwear stood out as more than unusual. As well she noticed
he hardly uttered a word. But this could not be put down to him suffering
shock – as he tells us clearly the scene had little effect upon him.
c. The first Police rescue Helicopter touched-down at about 1456hrs. Shortly
before 1507hrs (when the second helicopter touched-down), Hans Overbeeke
can be observed assisting to carry the first stretcher patient (P1) from the Café
down and onto the oval to the doorway of the first rescue helicopter. When
the other stretcher bearers all leave, he remains being the last person to
remove himself out of the cabin, close the door and walk away from the
helicopter. But he doesn’t return with the other helpers to the Café, instead
he walks away on Jetty Road to the east out of frame. 7
Though it was some of these same blankets from the same bulk store that were captured on an
amateur video (the Turner tape – of Horsham Vic.), in the arms of the so called “running man”
who almost surely shows PAHSMA employee Mark Kirby running blankets down to the survivors
near the buses.
A coach driver there on the day Ian McElwee, also searched for and retrieved blankets for
survivors in and around the bus park. In her statement Lynne Beavis mentions retrieving
blankets, though these came from storage on one of the other Coaches and not from the Site’s
bulk store. Reiterating, there exists no corroborating statements to support the reported
claims attributed to Hans Overbeeke of 'finding blankets and passing them out to survivors'.
From what I would suggest are early frames of the “running man” Turner video, captured from
the eastern extremity of the Penitentiary wall (incidentally, from where Lynne Beavis and her
sister Jean claim they ran to the Café), a male in a white top, dark trousers and striking white
boots, darts from right of frame, out of the foyer of the Broad Arrow
Café and in 3 strides is down the steps at the western end; here the
continuity is shattered, edited by the handy work of the team at Nine
network. In this edited version of the tape that went to air, a colossal
subterfuge was perpetrated with dubbed gunshots ringing out, and
studio captured voices apparently dubbed in which suggests, ‘it’s a
shotgun’ and ‘see that man running there’. The tape is totally
confusing and misleading to any unwary viewer! ‡ The "running man" video:
Made infamous by
But another clip of the same tape confirms Mr. Overbeeke spent a fraudster Joe Vialls who
period of time leaning casually against the verandah post alone at the claimed it a "fake". It
top of the steps at the entrance to the Broad Arrow Café as can be seen simply shows a staff
as a backdrop to the “running man”. Neither of Hans Overbeeke's sons member taking blankets
is visible in this footage though. Indeed the considerable amateur video to the wounded near the
tape footage we have on file captured that day around the Broad Arrow buses! The fraud was in
Café does not show anyone we can identify as either young man. the sound-track editing
by Channel Nine.
You should note the 'running man' video tape I refer to here was
captured a considerable time after the shooter had departed the scene. Captured in the
background of that video and I would suggest of equal interest is the male with white boots
leaning, left hand on the verandah post in the first two frames of the series of still-frames
lifted from the same amateur video tape. It was these frames "Joe" Vialls first circulated in
September 1998, claiming Bryant's head was superimposed on the body in his attempt to
promote the tape as a "forgery". Not surprisingly, the same ruse was attempted by an
American who visited Tasmania on several occasions and after November of 2003 he came up
with the same suggestions. He handed out as gifts to some of those he befriended of a baseball
‡
See chapter 4, Trojans & Viruses.
cap bearing the insignia "CIA". Although the caps were given in jest, it could well have been
the only frank gesture made by him and was not lost on me or my colleagues, by the way. The
video was indeed a forgery, but NOT in the manner described by Vialls or the American. In the
foreground of these two still frames is a male member of the Historic Site staff (not Hans)
carrying the blankets down to the buses.
I mentioned above the lasting impact the scene inside the café had upon the former military
surgeon Dr Bill Maguire, an effect supported by many professional emergency workers
experienced in aiding victims of motor vehicle accidents and the like. But what stands out as
unusual regarding this member of the public Mr Overbeeke is exampled when almost casually
he tells us the wall to wall devastation inside the Café had little effect on him. He tells us that
when his party returned to Hobart he didn’t partake in trauma counselling although his sons,
who he claims 'helped outside', were reported to have received trauma counselling back at
Hobart. As if to excuse the nil effect, he is quoted as stating further, “It affected me more to
see the pictures in the paper.”
If correctly reported, this statement raises even more questions about Hans as there were
never any photographs of any of the victims or the wounded survivors captured at the
crime scenes published by any media.
Or is Hans referring to the 35 thumbnail photographs that were lined up side by side in the
pages of the broad-sheet dailies such as was published in the Weekend Australian on 4-5 May
1996? These thumbnail photos came into the public domain just a week before the Who article
was published and sadly to say they even reminded me of the “kills” pilots in WW-II used to
paint on the side of their fighters’ fuselage, like 'kill trophies'…
But the controversy surrounding Johan Georges Overbeeke and his sons Benjamin and Warren
has only heightened as time wore on. It took 18 months for the wheels of officialdom to grind
out the list of those recommended for awards for acts of bravery during the massacre, and you
may be unpleasantly surprised just how the award system was in my opinion, sullied.
Out of the Port Arthur massacre incident 71 citations were awarded. For an "act of
conspicuous courage", Robert John Elliott then of the Melbourne suburb of Vermont, was
certainly deserving of the Star of Courage medal he received. In an attempt to intervene, Mr
Elliott "P2" tried to grab the gunman in the café and immediately suffered extensive muscle
damage in conjunction with a badly fractured left arm, as well as a wound to his head.
Nine individuals, ‘for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances,’ were awarded the Medal of
Bravery. Included in this group was mother of two, Mrs Lynne Beavis, another person of
interest whom we shall consider in detail presently.
Thirty-five individuals were awarded a Group Citation for Bravery which read ‘for a collective
act of bravery considered worthy of recognition’; five of these recipients receiving the award
posthumously.
Some of the group citation recipients found the award experience so offensive they either have
given their award into the trust of others, or simply refused to accept it at all. At least one
person who answered the invitation made a very detailed submission to the Australian Honours
Secretariat; his assistance to a considerable number of visitors in their senior years and the
bravery of others he mentioned was simply ignored. In the case of Mrs Wendy Scurr, she has
entrusted the medal awarded her, to the St John's Ambulance Brigade, and today it rests
behind glass in the Nation Headquarters in Canberra.
Mrs Beavis on the other hand was reported as stating, "At the time [I] didn't want to receive
the award; it didn't mean that much. … But as time's gone on I guess it's important." 8
But it is among the twenty-six visitors listed as ‘recommended for brave conduct,’ that our
Hans Overbeeke numbers and it was his receipt of this award that cemented an association of
significance I believe, in the intrigue surrounding the whole of the terrorist exercise that was -
the massacre at Port Arthur.
Hans Overbeeke's Citation of Bravery Certificate (CBC) entitled him to join the Australian
Bravery Association. At the association’s inaugural meeting of February 2000, Hans Overbeeke
CBC stood for and was elected as the association’s inaugural NT/SA, ABA State Vice President.
Also of interest is the first national president elected at the same February 2000 meeting:
Major John Thurgar SC MBE OAM RFD, of Bredbo, NSW. In light of the known heavy involvement
of the security and intelligence ‘family’ during the Port Arthur incident, the Overbeeke-
Thurgar connection in itself I believe, shouldn’t be underestimated or
relegated to a trivial status or just yet another coincidence. One question
that some have raised is this: in light of Overbeeke’s inaccurate claims as to
his actions that day, apart from telephone monitoring skills, who would have
dared to nominate Mr Overbeeke for such a high award for bravery? I'm sure
if his nominator was identified, that could well prove of added interest.
All “Skilled-up”
At age 17yrs John Thurgar, joined the Australian Army in 1967 as No.250334
and served firstly in New Guinea. He later saw 8 months active duty in
Vietnam from February 1970 to late October 1970, with 1 SAS Sqn. So Mr John Thurgar SC
Thurgar is SAS trained, as is our present GG. MBE OAM RFD
Discharged in 1973, Thurgar joined the Army Reserve, completed officer training to then serve
as an officer in 1 Commando Company (Sydney), 2 Commando Company (Melbourne) and the
Reserve Staff Group in Canberra. Later in 1974 he joined the then Commonwealth Police,
which later became the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in 1979, within the uniform and
plainclothes branches.
In the AFP John Thurgar served four tours of duty with the UN Civilian Police on Cyprus at the
rank of Chief Inspector and during those 4 tours he was awarded the Star of Courage (SC) for
rescuing a Greek Cypriot farmer from an unmarked mine field. Many Tasmania Police also saw
service at various times in Cyprus with this same UN deployment.
But it’s his later skill resume within the AFP that that is of significance to this story; Mr Thurgar
served in the Training, VIP Protection, Witness Protection, Counter Terrorist and General
Duties Divisions.
Of these later acquired skills, I’m undecided as to which in particular could be suggested as of
primary interest to the story and his subsequent links to Hans Overbeeke. But now we have to
address the credibility of the allegations in reports attributed to Hans regarding the supposed
actions by Benjamin and Warren that day. 9
But the necessity for this search is heightened I believe, if for no other reason than the
irrefutable evidence I have detailed above, which clearly demonstrates a significant degree of
imprecision within the reported claims attributed to Hans Overbeeke when recounting his
actions on the day, and that which I have been able to glean from those inaccurate reports.
Interestingly, as mentioned earlier, no signed statement was ever included among the hundreds
of signed witness statements we obtained from authorities, which is attributable to Hans
Overbeeke or indeed either of his sons; that in itself is quite odd. The
Overbeeke trio almost slipped by my investigation, but for two witnesses. I’ve
read and re-read the witness statements, and can find no reference to any
action that could be attributed to anyone resembling Hans or either son,
besides the single act of 'attending to a body', which comes to light in the
signed statement of Jennifer Moors.
Ben Overbeeke
I find it even more bewildering when one considers Benjamin was then a
blonde-haired 20-year-old of medium build; isn’t it surely an irony, that a
significant majority of eyewitnesses estimated the youthful gunman they saw in and about the
Café - “the accused” – to be a blonde male 18-20 years-of-age. On the other hand the alleged
perpetrator Martin Bryant was just 10 days short of his 29th birthday, and tall…
I’m perplexed by an inability to explain what role either son of Johans Overbeeke played out
on that day. However after considerable investigation I have been able to establish that
Benjamin Overbeeke is reputed to have committed suicide a while after his Port Arthur
experience; I can but ask why?
There is yet another telling part to the Overbeeke story. As is mentioned elsewhere in the
text, the Port Arthur Attorney-General's Discretionary Fund was raided by the Ministry and
emptied of funds. But there were 207 claims lodged against this fund for 287 individuals.
Claim number AD808/1/118 was lodged by Johan Overbeeke. The father tells us clearly in The
WHO article his sons Benjamin and Warren were both right in the thick of this traumatic event,
yet he has chosen not to lodge a compensation claim that would have surely seen benefit to his
own flesh and blood? I'm firmly of the opinion this omission on the part of Hans was deliberate.
Could it mean that just as the account provided of his claimed actions is easily proved a deceit,
could it be that officially one or both sons were not visitors on the Historic Site that Sunday?
Oh by the way, these compensation records have a "D" notation attached – 'Access Denied for
25 years'…should we really be surprised?
My Sister & I…
Nine days after the massacre, Lynne Suzanne Beavis stated, “my sister, Jean ANDREWS and
myself flew to Tasmania for a ten day holiday.” Please keep this opening statement by Mrs
Beavis in mind as by her statement alone to police, the sisters’ story unfolds. Of equal
importance; no police statement from Jean (or Joan) Andrews is held in my files, if indeed one
exists; or did the authorities choose not to release it?
Beavis tells us she was 40 years-of-age (b.08/03/56) in 1996 and that she resided in the
delightful outer-eastern suburb of Melbourne, Mt Evelyn. Though from two articles, one in
March 2002, the other 8 years after Port Arthur in August 2004, there seems to a three year
discrepancy, suggesting that she may well have been 45 years-of-age.
My inquiries show Lynne’s sister Jean (a.k.a. Joan) Andrews in 2001 at least, resided with her
husband in a Park St apartment in the inner-north Melbourne suburb of Moonee Ponds.
When considered alongside her extensive list of outrageous claims within the rest of her
statement, I can but conclude her statement is not credible. You see earlier she told us, she
and Jean had been in Tasmania for nine days and the recommendation for Seascape had
been made to her while in Melbourne, in fact before the sisters had departed. Tourists by
necessity book accommodation in advance. I believe her claim is yet another furphy that of
course cannot be checked out, but if she made the phone call, then be aware her claim
suggests it was made just an hour or so before sundown on that Saturday. Further she alleges
(but again it cannot be checked out) that her phone call went unanswered. As I have stated
elsewhere in this work by that time on Saturday April 27, Seascape cottage would have had to
have been under the full control of covert agents.
In the first weeks after the massacre Lynne Beavis was interviewed by Sarah Henderson, for
ABC-TV’s 7:30 Report, in Melbourne. Her sister Jean on the other hand, fortuitously escaped
the public eye entirely. Unlike Lynne, Jean even chose to avoid the two reunions attended by
50 or so survivors attended in Melbourne. But interestingly, at these Melbourne reunions, Mrs
Beavis chose to establish a close relationship with the same survivor whom Mr Overbeeke gave
very close attention to in the café remaining with the patient right until the "Squirrel"
helicopter's door was latched. But as time has passed by the covert main players in this
exercise have undergone a transformation almost like a metamorphosis. A number here at the
Café have by their foibles been exposed under a truer, brighter light: Lynne Beavis, her sister
Jean Andrews (Neville Andrews was not there on the day) Mr Overbeeke, Andrew Mills, Tony
Kistan and Anthony Nightingale have all not escaped the lime light.
The Lynne Beavis portrayed by the media, exposes a contradiction that stands out like a sore
thumb: introduced at every opportunity as a ‘nurse’ it was inferred she was what the public
would understand to be a certified nursing sister:
“Lynne Beavis is a nurse who helped save shooting victims at Port Arthur in 1996. … ‘I
was so scared but I am a nurse…,’”she said.
Or this timid reference:
“A nurse from Melbourne, who did not want to be named,…”
Or this court report:
“A NURSE who said her life was ruined…etc,” and we shall revisit this controversial
article shortly. 11
The claims as to her being a “nurse”, if considered singularly, Mrs Beavis may even try to
dismiss them lightly, or suggest it was some misunderstanding on the journalists’ part.
However, collectively these claims published of her being a “nurse” confirm a deliberate,
misleading pattern over a considerable term.
But in her formal, signed, police statement - Lynne Beavis only ever refers to her primary skill
once: “I have a nursing background….” I would point out a nursing “background” is not
equivalent to ‘being a certificated nurse’, a conclusion further confirmed by her own recount
of her alleged actions after the gunman had departed the car park near the Broad Arrow Café
that day.
It took eight years and an extraordinary article by Christine Caulfield, a journalist from a
Murdoch paper, to expose a true picture of Lynne Beavis’ occupation in which she’s described
as an “occupational health and safety nurse.” Along with other revelations, this article brings
into focus a truer picture of the role Lynne, her sister Jean (and for that matter later on
Neville Andrews) and the part played in the whole of the exercise that was the massacre, even
although Jean and Neville Andrews are not mentioned in the Caulfield article.
Beavis must have become an OH&S “nurse,” very soon after these positions were created in
Victoria. For if we look at the requirements as laid down by the authorities for entrance as an
OH&S nurse, we find that persons employed prior to 1980 in OH&S as a ‘nurse’ at either ASIA or
MSIA level, saw the government of the day, ‘for a number of reasons,’ quash the need for the
applicant to undertake any ‘extended tertiary study in nursing’. The Minister’s bureaucratic
scribes claiming that this would be ‘inappropriate, for such people’; a rather simplistic excuse I
would opine, as the many years of ever decreasing nationwide pool of certificated nurses to
draw upon a more likely excuse. In the case of Lynne Beavis though, her actions are suggestive
of her never having numbered among that shrinking pool of certified nurses.
When earnest consideration is accorded Lynne Beavis’ statements made on national television
one is forced to conclude:
Beavis had little knowledge of even basic first aid skills, and
Demonstrated no practical hands-on nursing skill to treat sick and injured people.
So let us try to piece together some of the movements of Lynne and Jean on the day.
Beavis would have us believe Jean was there by her side; a claim that conveniently “pads” her
account as the need arises. I believe this is no more than a ploy to account for movements
over a significant period of time and for which neither have any independent corroboration.
If we consider the substance of the ABC-TV, 7:30 Report interview with Sarah Henderson in
ABC-TV’s Melbourne studios (probably conducted early in June 1996), her behaviour was
indicative of a badly traumatized person. Nevertheless, so many of Beavis’ claims do not stand
up to scrutiny. Her allegations are not corroborated by, or in harmony with accounts provided
by a number of other credible witnesses.
Although as I suggest above, Lynne Beavis appeared badly traumatized, when it’s all said and
done, it could well have been just an ‘academy award performance’ before the ABC's cameras.
By her presentation though, Beavis destroyed once and for all any preconceived notion the
viewer may have held that Sarah Henderson was interviewing a trained nurse.
During the bulk of the interview, Sarah Henderson asks just 2 questions of Lynne Beavis
producing a response of more than 750 words.
It’s fair to say that Lynne Beavis was accorded latitude, far in access of the norm; she was
never interrupted or manoeuvred through her story; it was her version of events, a version
never scrutinized. She wasn’t even asked to explain or expand on her
claims of a single issue in the incident.
Information Officer: When considered carefully alongside a number of other credible witness
Paul Cooper statements, the document Lynne Beavis supplied police, while cleverly
constructed, in my opinion constitutes 5 pages of “theatre”; a vague,
imprecise and generously ‘padded’, emotional account of her claimed movements, punctuated
regularly by suggestions of corroborative support available from her sister. In her statement:
“My sister” is used 13 times, (i.e. actions allegedly witnessed by Jean) while,
“we” - in reference to joint actions by Lynne and Jean is employed no less than 48
times.
Almost suggestive of the notion; ‘Don’t question my movements lest you force me to call on
my sister who’ll corroborate my claims’- a strategy as old as time. To put it another way,
Jean was been given an alibi and in a backhanded way Lynne believes she has given herself an
alibi.
It also is of considerable significance that in her signed statement she mentions by name a tour
guide on the day, Paul Cooper. For after studying this case closely, I would contend Paul
Cooper is noted very deliberately by Mrs Beavis on those three occasions. I suggest this is so
after considering the degree of inaccuracies of claims she makes, which expose the degree of
importance she has placed in this ‘name dropping’ or ‘padding’. You see, Mr Cooper was a tour
guide also on the previous evening’s (Saturday the 27th) Ghost Tour; the same tour said to have
been taken by two mystery females – allegedly called ‘Julie and Virginia’ – who were guests at
Seascape that same night. An aspect of the massacre covered in chapter 15. 12
On the Sunday afternoon, it was the same Mr Cooper who came across a couple of mystery
females he subsequently discovered were occupants of a “clone” yellow Volvo sedan they had
parked in a restricted and concealed area, on Tramway St, near the Clougha. Were these
mystery females in each case named Lynne and Jean? What better subterfuge could have been
employed to confuse every person who heard the advice of the 'gunman is out!' and saw with
their own eyes his yellow Volvo?.
If I’m correct, this does go some way to explain the glaring discrepancies and apparent
inventiveness within the Beavis statement. You see, if Jean Andrews had been witnessed
anywhere in the south western sector of the Historic Site, near the “clone” yellow Volvo, after
the shooting, her presence there could be explained away by Lynne’s claim in both her police
statement and the 7:30 Report interview, in which she infers Jean took survivors (south) “up”
to tea rooms. However that doesn’t explain how Lynne could be in two places at once. Can
you see the importance for 'padding statements' if my conclusions are correct?
You see, during the minutes involving the frantic efforts to stabilize the seriously wounded as
the ambulances rescue helicopters and paramedics arrived, the “clone” yellow Volvo
disappeared off the Historic Site; this final manoeuvre even evaded detection by any of the
staff. It happened this way:
John Godfrey and Peter Stainthorpe agreed with Ashley Law that he should have the large
group of North America visitors move into the safety of the Government Cottage as he
inspected the Parsonage deciding it was too open. Also involved in this operation were two
other staff members; Vicky McLaughlin and Paul Cooper. While the two Vietnam Veterans were
north near the Church ruins on Church Road, they had planned to intervene should the gunman
return down Church Road to the area of the Church. So both veterans had the tollbooth area
under surveillance.
As they watched, they saw the gunman at the boot of Martin Bryant's Volvo, parked below the
tollbooth, and then saw him disappear up past the Tollbooth carrying items to another vehicle.
Then Ashley Law returned to tell his new-found friends, that to his surprise he'd found a male
staff member hiding under a table in the Parsonage. It was at this point, Ian Kingston came out
of the Parsonage and 'yelled at Ashley Law to go up to the Tollbooth and check on the
wellbeing of Aileen Kingston who was working there'. John Godfrey told me recently that
when this instruction was issued, he immediately voiced his concern as it posed a definite risk
to Ashley Law's wellbeing as neither of the veterans had seen the gunman leave the Tollbooth
and so he suggested, 'Perhaps it would be a good idea if I was accompany you Ashley'.
But Ashley Law did approach to within 50m of the Tollbooth alone
seeing, "a body with a small pack on their back lying face down on the
Toll Road," and the Volvo parked with the driver's side door open.
Realising to approach any nearer was "stupid", he ran straight back to
the JMO cottage. Though shortly Ashley Law did go up to the Tollbooth
in a vehicle with Geoff Meyers the manager of the Motor Inn and he
noted "in the 10 odd minutes I was away someone had placed a white Information Officer
plastic garbage bag over the head" of that same deceased person on Ashley Law
Jetty Road.
It was right in amongst all of this activity that Ashley Law was central to yet another heart-
stopping incident, involving the “clone” Volvo and this time a lone female driver. This second
incident was witnessed by a number of people but we shall have Ashley Law provide his
account:
“Between the church and the JMO’s a yellow Volvo appeared behind us. People
screamed, it was then realised it was somebody on site with an earlier model
Volvo. I yelled to Vicky [McLaughlin] to stop the driver and tell them to get out –
the reason being that if police arrived they may mistake the driver in the car [as
the gunman]. Vicky was moving the people inside & Anne Hillman who was on
duty in that building.” 13
So, numbers of reliable, independent people witnessed the presence of this yellow “clone”
Volvo, appearing at significant and different times and in restricted locations, which involved
two females one of whom was absent on the last occasion. The other significant factor to
consider is the obvious dramatic effect upon traumatised visitors and staff alike, because this
yellow Volvo sedan was so like the gunman’s yellow Volvo it caused the visitors to scream out
with fear.
You must understand that contrary to her signed police statement, Lynne Beavis and her
sister Jean had definitely not flown to Tasmania for any ten day holiday. Lynne Beavis was
in fact working; she was on the job at the Broad Arrow Café and its precincts that day as is
proven by the fact she received an undisclosed six-figure workers compensation settlement
before the County Court in Melbourne in August 2004. The next question I believe we need an
answer to is this: “If Beavis was working while she and Jean Andrews were at the Port
Arthur Historic Site that Sunday and as she was not delivering ‘grief counselling’ that
afternoon or the evening, what was her job description there that day?”
It is quite plain that Lynne Beavis was working closely with her sister Jean, and so I believe
they cannot be separated. What ever they were doing, was a collaborative effort. So what
role was Jean (or Joan) Andrews fulfilling? While Lynne also lodged a claim, D808/1/8, against
the Port Arthur Attorney-General's Discretionary Fund, strangely her sister Jean Andrews
didn't. 14
You see in 2004, we are told Mrs Beavis’ job description was indeed that of a ‘grief counsellor’
after being recruited by the international company called Audiometrics of 814 Glenferrie Road,
Prahran and hired to support Commonwealth Bank staff, a responsibility I should point out,
expected of her in spite of the fact the article tells us she had “no formal training”. We are
also told she successfully sued the ‘job agency’ Audiometrics along with her employer the
Commonwealth Bank, receiving “a secret six-figure payout” as she was repeatedly
hospitalised suffering PTSD and herself at no time receiving ‘critical-incident stress
counselling’. 15
In her police statement, three times Mrs Beavis claims both her and sister Jean kept to their
planned itinerary, and flew out of Hobart at 2200hrs (9.00pm) back to Melbourne. Here several
important details need emphasized:
To reach Hobart Airport and arrive in time to board their 9.00pm flight back to Melbourne, the
sisters had to allow for the extended 2 hr road journey from Port Arthur as the direct route
past Seascape remained closed by police. But yet another incident at the Historic site that
evening adds considerable weight to a further conclusion that Lynne and Jean must have
departed the Historic Site for Hobart well over an hour before police gave the all clear and
long before 1830hrs.
You see it was at that time, 1830hrs (6.30 pm), 3 shots rang out on the Site thought to have
originated from the area beside the Clougha. This incident re-enforced the notion among many
of the hundreds of visitors, staff (and not forgetting the one armed and two unarmed uniform
female police at the scene), that the lone gunman had escaped the police cordon around
Seascape, returned to the Historic Site and discharged those 3 shots.
Examining all available material in the public domain, I can find no reference by Lynne Beavis
to this most important and traumatic incident. Therefore I'm compelled to conclude the sisters
must have departed the Historic Site before 1830 hrs.
Although in her statement Lynne tells us that after police and SES personnel began cordoning
off the areas in the vicinity of the Café, “We then assembled in the top car park area [near the
information centre] and I gave my details to Police before we left…,”
There are many other claims made by Mrs Beavis, which I also find of significance.
Remember Mrs Beavis is supposedly a “nurse” and she casually notes ‘giving her details to
police’ before herself and Jean depart, though no time is provided. I can say with surety that
Detective Hessmann must have been the recipient though, for the two young rookie Constables,
Ali Denns and Rhani Ahmed who’d arrived at 1730hrs, had to have been tasked to guard the
Tollbooth and upper Jetty Road crime scenes; remember it was Ali Denns who tells us that a
‘fire engine came roaring down the highway’ and they heard the driver yell out ‘he’s out, he’s
out, the police don’t know where he is, he’s shooting, he’s coming this way’.
The point here being for the Constables to have witnessed that event, they had to have been
near the highway (around the tollbooth) and their witnessing this event certainly could not
have happened down Jetty Road near the Café! The two female Constables were not anywhere
to be seen near the Café either as the wounded were finally processed and in the care of
ambulance officers, as attested to by Wendy Scurr.
Also, Beavis deliberately makes no mention as to what form of transport they arrived and
departed the area by, nor where their vehicle was parked. Other visitors and staff were not
allowed to remover their vehicles from the car park. The sisters certainly did not muster with
the rest of the visitors and staff at Port Arthur Motel, as likewise there is no mention of them
walking there either. I’m left to wonder as to where, for how long and by whom were the
sisters debriefed?
The Caulfield article claims Mrs Beavis was hired to ‘support Commonwealth Bank staff in
Victoria and Hobart traumatized in critical incidents such as armed robberies’; in the first
place why the whole of Victoria, but just Hobart alone in Tasmania? Secondly, crime statistics
show that in Victoria and Tasmania throughout those years, bank hold-ups and the like were
inconsequential. Also, since when has the Commonwealth paid-out compensation to staff not
only on holidays, but it would appear outside of her defined workplace area? The article
claimed Mrs Beavis was flown to Hobart, after the event, ‘to counsel up to 200 bank workers
who had lost loved ones in the tragedy’. She may have made a return visit, but how could she
possibly have counselled "200 bank workers"?
This claim was central to the plaintiff’s case, that is, "the day after the mass shooting",
Monday, 29 April 1996 (having returned to Melbourne from Hobart on the 9.00pm flight the
evening before), Lynne Beavis was, "flown to Hobart to counsel up to 200 bank workers who had
lost loved ones in the tragedy." The article goes on claim that directly because of her having to
counsel allegedly the impossible figure of ‘200 bank workers’, in conjunction with her having
no formal training in trauma counselling that her life was ruined.
After amassing and examining carefully an extensive compilation of documents, the allegation
of Lynne Beavis being flown back to Hobart on Monday 29th to carry out this quite
extraordinarily extensive counselling program of “200 bank workers” is ludicrous! In my
qualified opinion the number of "200" is just a little exaggerated.
But I do accept it entirely probable that Lynne Beavis did return to Hobart on a commercial
flight early on Monday morning and then with a companion made their way to Port Arthur and
thence to the Broad Arrow Café. The only vital piece of evidence missing from the admissions
allegedly made in this article is the time and duration of Beavis' visit into the Café on 30 April.
The Caulfield article alleges her legal counsel, Mr Ross Sicilia, explained that in the days
following the massacre Mrs Beavis ‘was forced to accompany a bank worker to the morgue to
identify a dead relative'. Yes, and the adjective used in the article is "forced" and by that word
use and giving both the journalist and the subject the benefit of the doubt I take it they mean
in the sense or of being "obligated" to carry out this task. The article goes further in relation
to this action by quoting legal counsel as stating:
"She had to walk into a room of dead people, all suffering gunshot wounds. A
lot of these people were mutilated or disfigured by a high-powered rifle. We're
talking about people who couldn't be recognised," Mr Sicilia said. 16
By inference, the reader is being told the 'room [full] of dead people' Lynne Beavis was
obligated to enter, were somehow on show in the morgue; this is grossly misleading.
There was just one room of dead people and that was the Broad Arrow Café dining room and
adjoining Gift Shop. Now the press were being accorded unprecedented privileges, that was
placing undue pressures on the Coroner Mr Ian Matterson who tells us, "prior to 0800 I
received a telephone call indicating there was a desire by a government Minister to allow
a bus load of press personnel on site around 0900." 17
This call obviously outraged the Coroner… But importantly he tells us that when the press were
bussed to the Motor Inn, briefed and then walked up Church Road to the Tollbooth, they had to
follow a strictly laid-down path and were not allowed to approach the Broad arrow Café any
closer than 300m.
We are told that while the Coroner's team were working below the Tollbooth on Jetty Road at
about 1045 hrs the Coroner was informed that Dr Pam Ireland, the Nubeena GP had "sought
permission to enter the site." At 1105 hrs his report goes on to inform us Pam Ireland arrived
with Walter Mikac and was granted the only documented visit to any of the crime scenes there
onto Jetty Road near the Tollbooth, to view the bodies of his wife and two daughters. But if
Lynne Beavis accompanied a relative (?) into the Broad Arrow Café to identify the body of
Anthony Nightingale, then that has escaped entirely all official records. 18
Then there is Matterson's claim regarding the press bussed to the Motor Inn. Recently claims
attributed to a photographer of The Mercury, Leigh Windburn, suggest the bus-load of press
were driven past Seascape the Fox and Hounds to where the white Corolla in which Zoe Hall
had died and that was still parked, with 'its window shattered and a large burgundy bloodstain
across the sheepskin car seat cover', in the entrance to the Port Arthur General Store. Then it
is claimed the bus took the media the 100 yards or so to the Tollbooth. This account continues
by claiming that here, 'some of the journalists by this stage were so traumatised, especially the
women, that they didn't get off the bus'. 19
This was most certainly not the only official line under challenge! For the claims made by the
coroner Mr Matterson in the EMA papers are now in question when recent revelations are
considered. Recent publications claim no fewer than four persons were in that party on Jetty
Rd, with the additional persons being Keith Moulton, the father of Anette Mikac and Kaye Fox
the volunteer ambulance officer from Nubeena so quickly on the scene the day before! 20
You see, not only had the "six Crime Scene and two ballistics personnel … from New South
Wales," not completed their work in the Broad Arrow Café by 2.00 pm (1300 hrs), they had
almost probably not even arrived at Port Arthur by this time. Various documents including the
Coroner's report in the EMA papers, tells us that N.S.W. police forensic investigators were
tasked to investigate this Café crime scene and were flown into Hobart on commercial airlines
early on Monday morning of the 29th. So is it possible that Beavis accompanied by a mystery
"bank worker", did take an exclusive visit into the Café under these quite extraordinary
circumstances on Monday 29th of April before NSW forensic police had begun their examination
of that crime scene? As the Coroner fails to mention this entry into a crime scene by Beavis,
and her entourage, does this not constitute tampering with evidence? Yet again the public
have been deliberately misled, in this instance by Ms Beavis' legal counsel Mr Sicilia. 21
If the covert revisit by Beavis to the Café with her companion/s, while the 8 NSW forensic
officers were yet to carry our their investigation of this crime scene and if the purpose of her
entering the dining room was to have a "bank worker" positively identify a deceased
Commonwealth Bank employee and a "relative", then the subject of this adventure had to have
been Anthony Nightingale, a loans officer with the Commonwealth Bank at Keysborough a
suburb of Melbourne, who when gunfire erupted in the dining room had jumped to his feet and
yelled out, “No, no, not here!”, prompting the gunman to target him and shoot him dead. But
who was the relative § of Anthony who accompanied Beavis back into the café on Monday 29th?
Are they seriously suggesting the CBA flew this mystery relative and Beavis to Tasmania and
drive down the Peninsula to identify the body? To my knowledge this was the only such
excursion of compassion undertaken by anyone in this incident and all to identify just one
among all of the 35 deceased on the very next day? Surely this episode is nothing less than a
typically poor attempt by the "firm" to cover-up collateral casualties of a covert action that
didn't go according to plan. The forensic evidence contained not only within but by the whole
Broad Arrow Café complex was certainly that Monday under a concerted attack by various
persons entrusted with the crime scene's security and integrity.
§
Anthony Nightingale was the only Commonwealth Bank employee mentioned in any documents that I have accessed
who was shot and killed inside the Broad Arrow Café. However, Anthony was not married & was buried with his
parents in their grave in Fawkner Cemetery, Melbourne.
If we consult the Bugg Report we find the following astonishing admissions, only the time of
commencement and conclusion have been omitted by its author:
“On the 30th April 1996 a carpenter employed by the Authority was required to
paint out the windows of the Café building and secure the doors and windows (with
the exception of the disabled persons entrance door) against unwanted entry. This
was effected by nailing the doors and windows to their frames. At the time this
was done the person concerned, who had heard of the suggestion that the door had
not opened, checked the lock with the aid of a Police officer who was inside the
building at the time. The Police officer operated the handle inside, whilst the
carpenter examined the tongue of the door locking mechanism from the other side.
The tongue moved slightly but would not retract sufficiently to enable the door to
open.” 22
In effect, what has been put on the public record here is a brazen admission by the Director of
Public Prosecutions for Tasmania, Damian Bugg QC, that he was very aware of a felony having
been committed by Police and PAHSMA's maintenance man. Police should
have been tasked to secure all crime scenes including the Broad Arrow Café to
ensure their integrity was maintained. Instead Damian Bugg cannot hold some
higher ground here in the hope of securing immunity. He has exhibited a gross
indifference to police having willingly and knowing participated in acts of
tampering with and or even destroying vital evidence of a crime scene and has
done naught about this unacceptable situation. So how would a further
entourage traipsing through the dining room, doing who knows what,
contribute further to this outrageous corruption! Andrew Mills:
agent
It should also be pointed out, the 'carpenter employed by the Authority' was in fact Mr Peter
Edwards. It was he who allegedly nailed-up the doors and windows of the Broad Arrow Café,
although I would contend that the southern glass door with the faulty fire escape latch-set
wasn't nailed up on Monday 29 April; this door must have been nailed-up at an earlier time.
Though the obvious question remains; "Nailed up by whom and for what purpose"? Allegedly it
was Mr Edwards who also blacked-out the windows. Edwards for a short time was promoted to
the unlikely role of staff counsellor although PAHSMA was soon forced to remove him from that
position. In the case of Mrs Wendy Scurr, she was informed by Edwards on at least one
occasion that if she failed to attend counselling sessions in his office, then hope for any
workers compensation would be diminished. Mrs Scurr then attended, but sat with her arms
folded and refused to utter a word. When challenged as being
uncooperative, Mrs Scurr explained that she wouldn't be saying a
word to him, as after the previous visit and within the hour, other
staff called her and repeated exactly what had been said to him in
confidence and he was told in no uncertain term where he could go.
Edwards left the employ of PAHSMA at the Site not too long after the
massacre and took-up a position in the clerical area of security at
L-R: Tony & Sarah Kistan Risdon Prison. Now let us return to the Beavis matter.
When all the information collected is considered I'm forced to conclude that Lynne Beavis has
links with at least 3 persons who died in the Café:
1. Anthony Nightingale seated alone at table 8 and facing towards the servery.
2. Mr Tony Kistan and Mr Andrew Mills both from Sydney and seated at table 12.
After Andrew MacGregor received information from ‘retired security force members’ relatively
early in this investigation, he publicly named Anthony Nightingale and homosexual Andrew
Bruce Mills, as both ASIO agents in the employ of the Federal Government at the time of their
untimely demise. While Nightingale was unaccompanied at table 8, the court documents tell
us Mr Mills was seated at table 12 and in the company of Sarah and Tony Kistan. As already
detailed by me in Chapter 14, Tony Kistan until at least 1982, is remembered by his son as
‘always a political activist’ in South Africa opposing the apartheid policies of the Botha
Government.
What this tells us is that Kistan was heavily involved with the communist ANC in South Africa,
and in 1982 he fled that country along with his family, opting to settle in Sydney, where Tony
gained employment with the Salvation Army. In 1982 a parcel bomb had killed Ruth First, the
first wife of the late Joe Slovo, the exiled Lithuanian Jew, KGB Colonel and leader of the ANC,
before the Kistan family had left for Australia. The public record demonstrates Nelson Mandela
hotly resented Cape-Coloureds involved in the ANC; when parcel bombs started arriving in the
mail, a healthy reason to emigrate I should think.
Thirty-nine-year-old Andrew Mills was formerly from the inner Sydney suburb of Summer Hill,
and he moved to Tasmania and chose to live at Port Arthur in March of 1996 supposedly to
enjoy the 'quiet life' – just 2 weeks before the massacre. It would appear that a supposed
relative - Charles Thomas Bruce Mills – lodged a claim - AD808/1/105
– against the Tasmanian Government's insurance fund. Mills was an
executive officer employed by the chemical firm of CIBA and was
reputed to be involved in an education scheme called 'Landmark'.
While a resident of Summer Hill, he is reputed to have organised the
'Summer Hill Parade'.
"Partners" in 1996:
Andrew Mills & David
His partner David Capper, also formerly of Summer Hill and a noted
Capper
friend of the Kistans, came to reside with Andrew in Port Arthur. At
that time Capper was employed in Hobart and was at the time of the massacre working at the
Clarence Hotel.
A former friend Ms Sandra Groom of Summer Hill was reported to have stated that Andrew Mills
planned to open a guest house on the Peninsula and so that is why he chose to reside there.
But Mills had for a significant time been a 'close friend' of Tony Kistan and was seated with
Tony and his wife Sarah when the shooting commenced in the Broad Arrow Cafe.
Aged 44 years, Anthony Nightingale was witnessed rising to his feet and crying out “No no, not
here,” but nowhere in any of the eye witness statements that I have examined does anyone
actually name Nightingale as the person who rose to his feet and cried out “No no, not here.”
Crazy as it may seem, it was the DPP who named Anthony Nightingale as that person! This
surely was a Freudian slip. For in doing so, Bugg let the cat out of the bag! If witnesses didn't
inform Damien Bugg QC who uttered these words, then how did he know the person's identity?
Nightingale was seated alone, but the DPP’s … dare I say gaffe … tells me that a colleague or
close friend and witness to the shooting must have informed the DPP, for how else would Bugg
have known who uttered those words? It becomes obvious because of the sensitive nature of
such a witness’ purpose there surely would dictate their employer would have desired little or
no attention. It seems an irony that a search of "justice" has only opened-up a can of worms.
So Bugg makes another blunder – so what? Perhaps, like the gunshot recorded while "Jamie"
spoke to the police negotiator, and Mrs Beavis' court appearance this could be described as a
fortuitous coincidence – for the public good at least in these instances.
Then there is the small article (330 words) to consider, that was published in the periodical
WHO magazine. The narrative tells us that the gunman had ‘left in his car,’ when Beavis began
to run for the café; so far so good. But then Lynne, referred to again “as a nurse”, is quoted as
stating, "As I was running, we made eye contact and I could see his gun sticking out the
window." Now just a moment! The article has just informed us that the gunman had departed
in his car; that is past tense. How then could Lynne Beavis claim she and the gunman had eye
contact as she and Jean (or Joan) ran from their cover at the SE end of the penitentiary ruins
towards the Café? What all of this means is that to begin with between 225 and 260 metres
minimum separated Beavis from the gunman's car! I would contend this claim attributed to
Beavis is a physical impossibility. Oh, and the gun she saw out of the Volvo's window; the
gunman was in the driver's seat on the opposite side of the vehicle to Lynne. Words fail me…
As if to punish the reader’s intelligence, Beavis is reported as stating further, "As I walked
towards the café, the doors and windows kind of exploded with people."
1. In the first instance, in her statement to police, and even when she was making her
outrageous claim of "eye-contact" above, she states she was "running" not walking.
2. There were 4 exterior doors in total at the Broad Arrow Café;
The rear door; hidden from her view,
The western door; no one exited that door from the dining room and
The exterior (fire exit) door on the southern or front wall of the Gift Shop
the lock of which was inoperable.
The front entrance door to the foyer was the only door in Beavis’ line of sight.
Then there is the reported claim of people exploding out of windows:
1. Just one window on the western side, also hidden from Beavis' line of sight, which
exhibited bullet damage and we know this damage occurred moments before Wendy
Scurr made her initial “000” call logged at 1.32 pm.
There’s not an instance recorded of any person “exploding” through a window and why would
they be exploding through windows when the gunman had already departed up Jetty Road? 23
If the foregoing has not caused enough problems for any credibility Lynne Beavis ever enjoyed,
then consider this ruse: At the time the shooting began, she tells us her immediate thoughts
were, "…that kids were standing on the bluff at the rear of the cafeteria and throwing pine
cones onto the roof…"
Upon hearing these “thuds” Beavis claims that they both ran from the western extent of the
Penitentiary ruins to the eastern limits of the ruins before she was alerted by others visitors
that the “thuds” were actually gunshots. Why would anyone have run 150m to the eastern end
of the ruins because pine cones were being tossed on the Café roof by kids? Lynne and Jean
may not have been expecting gunshot in the Café, nevertheless, her stated reactions tells
me both were expecting gunshots!
After accepting a warning from other visitors, we’re told the sisters moved further away (into
the ruins) to the shelter of “a small brick wall” - an internal wall of the Penitentiary ruins - and
so the Broad Arrow was out of sight to them.
Here a remarkable incident occurs: as the gunman ceased this first killing phase in the Café, he
reloaded before exiting the Café foyer, then stepped out and paused on the entrance steps. At
this point and in Lynne’s own words, he "fired one shot which appeared to come on (sic) our
general direction." This is at odds with other eyewitnesses, one of whom stated, once the
gunman was “…down off the balcony of the Café … one or two of the shots he fired in a south
eastern direction. He then turned and started shooting towards the Penitentiary.” 24
On the first visit to Lynne’s home by Victoria Police, they showed her a manila folder
containing 30 coloured photographs of males. Not forgetting Beavis was at no time closer to
the gunman than approximately 225m from the Broad Arrow Café steps - nevertheless from the
photo board Lynne Beavis identified the gunman as a photo captioned “number 5”.
How could this be so? Well this can be easily understood when one realises the “police photo
board” had 30 coloured photos on it, 29 of which were just ‘mug-shots’, but importantly one
photo alone, not a mug shot, but a half-length photograph presented the only blonde, long-
haired young male on the board and Numbered No.5! This blonde male was even wearing
clothes similar to or the same as that worn by the gunman on the day!
This action on the part of police has been confirmed as consistent throughout there inquires by
other witnesses, and you must understand such evidence is quite inadmissible in a Court of law,
so police must have been aware that there was no likelihood of any trial by jury for the
accused and the 'mug boards' were nothing more than aids to convince witnesses the
perpetrator was Martin Bryant.
While peering from behind their refuge at the eastern end of the Penitentiary ruins, Lynne and
her sister (if indeed she was with her) could look directly up the straight of Jetty Road,
towards the Tollbooth. So, unlike many hiding behind the Café and round about in the bush, I
believe Beavis and her sister were tasked to be at the eastern end of the ruins at the appointed
hour so as to be in the vantage point there to observe the Jetty/Café precincts at the cessation
of that segment of the operation. She knew exactly when the gunman had at least departed
the immediate area.
Now Mrs Beavis states, “I looked over the wall again and saw a yellow coloured Volvo sedan
drive out of the top car-park and head towards the toll-gate. This vehicle had a surfboard on
the roof. I recognised the driver as being the same person who had been standing on the
verandah with the gun.”
This is a truly remarkable feat. For the Volvo was passing across her field of view, right to left
and so she would only have barely been able to see the driver if at all, sitting farthest away
from her and visible across the interior through the vehicles passenger side window with his
face in partial shadow. Remember this second identification by Beavis was like wise
accomplished from a quarter of a kilometre away!
Among the hundreds of witness statements I can find no reference directly to Lynne Beavis or
her sister or to actions that I can identify as being those of either of them – that is other than it
being my qualified opinion, both these sisters were involved with the “clone” yellow Volvo
sedan there that day.
Remember the two females questioned by Paul Cooper near the Clougha cottage? The fact
didn’t escape this writer’s attention that of all the staff on site that Sunday, Paul Cooper alone
is named by Lynne Beavis no less than on four occasions in her statement to police.
The absence of a reference to Beavis by anyone doesn’t fit with the claims she and others
make, in her signed statement, reports and interviews. I wonder who nominated Lynne Beavis
as worthy of the Bravery Medal issued, “for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances”. In
part her citation reads:
“…Ms Beavis, a nurse, administered first aid and assisted the traumatised tourists
and relatives of the dead even though she could still hear a gun discharging and did
not know if the gunman would return. When doctors and ambulance officers arrived
she continued to assist them with the injured.” - My emphasis.
Many of her claims in the police statement and Beavis' citation (as is also the case with Hans
Overbeeke), are pure fabrication and fantasy. Close examination of witness statements,
interviews and the non-existence of corroborative evidence to those claims demonstrate
clearly the extent to which the ABA and the citations for both these individuals entirely
misrepresent the facts regarding of their actions on the day.
One of the most telling realities, which expose the fraud of Lynne Beavis, is confirmed in her
own account: Let’s retrace the path Lynne Beavis (and her sister Jean) supposedly took as she
ran headlong from her refuge at the eastern extent of the Penitentiary ruins, to the foyer of
the Broad Arrow Café. In the 7:30 Report interview, Sarah
Henderson suggests:
But she deliberately chose NOT to ‘go to them’! Her movements were as follows: along the
seawall, across the bridge and over the creek, west around and beside the oval, with its picket
fence at her left-hand side, through the lower bus park at her right hand side, right past the
tiny guardhouse, past a camper van on her left, across Jetty Road and up to the Café entrance.
Lynne with her "nursing background" ignored entirely the 4 wounded and/or dying people she
says she was aware of lying there on the ground in and about the buses. Beavis almost had to
trip over Bridget Cook who was first triaged by the first ambulance officers Garry Alexander
and Kaye Fox when they arrived at the Broad Arrow; she lay near the little guard house, with
category 2 wounds to both thighs. Bridget Cook by herself stemmed the bleeding with the
apron she wore, as she proudly recounted to Mrs Scurr - her colleague and First Aid instructor -
who attended to Bridget's wounds again after emerging from the Broad Arrow. Lynne Beavis
falsely claims it was her who assisted Bridget Cook. Ian McElwee assisted Bridget first.
Beavis repeats the claim that she entered the Broad Arrow Café on 3 occasions; but in her own
words, "I couldn’t really help these people and I left the cafeteria for the third time".
Beavis rendered no First Aid assistance to any of the survivors in the Broad Arrow Café. On two
of these three visits Beavis just retrieved “cloths”. Lynne Beavis on one of her three trips
inside claimed, having come from the kitchen from the café dining room and “overheard” a
staff member making a phone call in the office; she returned to interrupt a “Cheryl Scurl” to
tell her, ‘No, the gunman wasn’t driving a BMW, but a yellow Volvo’. Three point here: Beavis
is almost surely referring not to a female named "Scurl", but to Mrs Scurr, even although Mrs
Scurr cannot recall having seen and/or spoken to Mrs Beavis inside the Café that afternoon. As
well, I know of no one inside the Broad Arrow Café administering First Aid to the injured who
would have been aware of the vehicle swap at the tollbooth while they were processing the
wounded! I also find it curiously convenient she should be reinforcing the yellow Volvo as the
vehicle…remembering the clone yellow Volvo.
It is my qualified opinion after consideration of all the evidence, from her refuge in the ruins,
when Lynne Beavis realised the massacre operation had gone to plan "B" and was going down
inside the café, she knew her Commonwealth employed colleague, Anthony Nightingale (a
junior officer I should opinion) and Andrew Bruce Mills (formerly from Sydney), were literally in
the wrong place at the wrong time, there at 'ground zero'; did protocols
dictate she enter and check-out who exactly was left alive?
Can you imagine the shock and confusion if a field team had lost two of its
officers? Upon entering the front door and finding two (or three) agents shot
to death, is surely is no wonder, through tears and with a shaking
voice on national ABC television she later stated: “…[I] now look
at it and think, I wish I never went into … that cafeteria”?
Nevertheless surely by her own free will, and subservient to no
apparent protocol or obligation we are told of, she did go in and
out 3 times – so she tells us, and then it would appear she was
obligated to revisit the room full of dead bodies on Monday. An
obvious proposition comes to mind here: The 'obligation' which
was in force on Monday which 'forced' her to enter the room of Lynne Beavis BM
dead people seems entirely logical to have existed and to be in place on the Sunday
– after all Ms Beavis was working wasn't she?
Some may believe it quite unfair of me to criticise any of the people for their actions or
inaction there on that day of mayhem. But does that mean we should ignore and by that
ignorance condone certain people allegedly doing the bidding of covert forces so as those same
people are then honoured while truth itself becomes victim because of their willing
participation?
It has been alleged this close association was the cause for a trusted friend's isolation;
Overbeeke supervised her after the shooting, could the powers-that-be have seen a need for
Beavis to take over this role back in Melbourne? Wildcards can prove a disaster in such
circumstances.
Little wonder so many who gave of their best during this awful terrorist attack and are worthy
of the highest awards we could give, have been forced to confine and share the knowledge of
their brave acts with closest friends, loved ones or perhaps God Almighty, alone.
I mentioned previously, Robert Elliott; he was awarded the Star of Courage, the second highest
civilian medal for bravery in our system of awards and he rightly deserved that award. But the
order in which recipients are listed on the ABA list, only amplifies the insult I speak of. Hans
Overbeeke is listed at No.2, Lynne Beavis at No.4, Jean Andrews at No.19, but what of Robert
Elliott? His name appears way down at No. 21!
As if to deflect curious eyes away from identities and true relationships, Lynne Beavis and her
sister Jean Elizabeth Andrews, both are listed in a manner among the citations that can be
described as nothing short of illusory. At No. 4 it reads:
“Ms Beavis and her sister…etc.” But importantly her sister Jean is not named nor
is it pointed out that Jean is a fellow bravery award recipient listed 15 places below
her sister at number 19!
Here “Ms Andrews” is listed and yes she had a “sister” accompanying her that day,
but again no mention of her “sister” Beavis receiving a medal for bravery or even
that it came from out of the same incident. But, of the 120 words contained in
Jean’s citation of her supposed “conduct considered worthy”, at best it could be
reduced to one short sentence, but still only legitimised by the word of one witness,
her sister Lynne Beavis, who stated, “my sister started shepherding people up to the
tea rooms.” 25
I'm sure most fair-minded Australians would surely see these examples of the side-show that,
like a caravan tagged along after the awful massacre at Port Arthur, the Bravery
Medal/citations, the 'special case' of the workers' compensation writ settlement as nothing less
than an affront to every survivor and the memory of everyone who died there that day. I can
but conclude Lynne Beavis really has put a whole new meaning on that phrase of being “on a
working holiday”.
The primary injury sustained among survivors of the massacre - not physically injured - but in
some cases just associated with the Port Arthur Historic Site, was Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD). However, when those employed by PAHSMA – a Tasmania Government
business operation – attempted to claim workers compensation, to their utter disbelief this
particular injury had been removed as a 'claimable injury' from the Worker’s Compensation Act
in November 1995! Hence the entire staff and indeed all the volunteers in ambulance SES and
the like who went to the assistance of victims were denied the ability to lodge a claim for this
devastating injury. However, this was not the case with Lynne Beavis you understand.
Someone decided it was prudent to oil a ‘squeaky wheel’, or was retirement seen as an option:
Beavis lodged her claim in Victoria, and note also again I remind you that she was employed by
the Commonwealth and won her claim in spite of the statute of limitations enacted for this
massacre by the Tasmanian Ministry which had long run out.
But the ultimate insult to Port Arthur victims seeking redress from their
employer - the State Government - for the hurt they suffered there that
day, was played out by the Rundle Ministry two years after the massacre,
Premier Rundle when they raided and emptied a reported, '320 trust accounts, charitable
awards the hand of funds, and special purpose accounts,' in late May of 1998.
gratitude to
Victoria's "Sons Of The report tells us some $12.7 million earmarked for distribution among
God" – veterans of the people with special needs was plundered by the Ministry in that raid.
Seascape tragedy Ironically, much of the money had been donated by the public and some
even held in a Port Arthur massacre staff recovery fund – all gone.
For the PAHSMA employees working on site that day, the pathway towards a just compensation
settlement was simply impassable. For those whose claims were associated with the Broad
Arrow Café location, the issue of the faulty lock on the controversial Gift Shop fire escape door
after no less that four government sponsored and failed enquiries only ever quarantined them
from justice. So it wasn’t until late March of 2000, that 14 writs in total were lodged for
damages. The rest simply gave up in disgust…
But just before the statutes of limitations expired, and by 18 August 1999, four of those
claimants in total had had their writs settled. Only the writ issued by Steven Howard then
remained outstanding. However the outcome can only be described as appalling. To example
their situation, ongoing medical bills for Mrs Scurr alone were running at a reported $80,000
per anum - to May of 1999. So how were these people expected to recover a life destroyed by
PTSD with settlements reported as ranging between $5,000 and $95,000? Remember the
Tasmania Ministry's pre-emptive removal of PTSD as a legitimate medical condition for worker’s
compensation?
Though in the case of Lynne Beavis the statutes of limitations apparently did not apply…
To redirect litigation toward governments, litigants were confronted by a legal minefield called
“Tasmanian Justice”. Some I have interviewed told me they had by 1998 accumulated legal
debts of around $20,000 and a Hobart-based-lawyer advised Mrs Scurr, “If you try to take this
matter to Court, you will lose your home.” In these peoples' cases, the price of justice was
just too much to bear. The Melbourne based law firm Slater and Gordon, before the County
Court in Melbourne in August 2004 (and 8 years after the massacre), won for their client Mrs
Lynne Beavis, a "secret six figure payout". But when Mr Graeme Scurr approached the firm and
appealed for them to litigate on behalf of his wife Wendy, he was refused point blank. 26
In recent days I learned first hand from another Tasmanian who having read with disgust The
Mercury newspaper's article of the Melbourne nurse who'd secured an undisclosed "six figure
settlement" as a result of the trauma suffered from her experiences with the massacre at Port
Arthur. From his own enquiries he'd discovered her identity. He told me that not only had he
personally been denied an award for his actions in the face of adversity that day, but as a
survivor he suffered a brooding contempt for the outrageously inadequate settlements many of
his friends and acquaintances had suffered at the hands of the Tasmania authorities. So within
days of the article's appearance he phoned Slater and Gordon to protest the iniquity of the
Beavis settlement, only to be assured in part; 'Oh, but hers was a very special case'. It
certainly was in the eyes of the County Court of Melbourne, for it appears that the
identification of this one victim (of 'friendly fire') inside the Café equated in the eyes of the
court to 200 counselling sessions…at least.
So what happened in the case of the untold numbers of visitors in similar circumstances? At
the time, Tasmania was restricted to a maximum settlement of up to $20,000 for each Victim
Of Crime (VOC) claim. The Commonwealth could not be budged to assist: supported by
Howard’s well practiced whinging justifications, the Federal Ministers took on the image of the
original Scrooge. My inquiries show as a rule survivors received a pittance from Tasmania,
which in most cases did not cover even their medical expenses!
Understandable when one is aware of these facts: by the State’s VOC legislation, Bryant was
compelled to pay a $50 fine for each conviction: 72 convictions totalled $3,600 in fines paid by
Bryant in the first instance into consolidated revenue.
First came the public appeal which was said to have raised approximately A$3.5m, and its
disbursement went something like this: there were some 142 Victorians who numbered among
the 300 or so people meaning when divided equally the appellants would receive approximately
A$11,666.oo each. Some A$3m was appropriated by the Tasmanian State Parliament via the
Criminal Injury Compensation fund. By malicious political manoeuvring the Ministers of Her
Majesty’s Tasmanian Government oversaw precedential legislation enacted allowing The State
to confiscate Martin Bryant’s estate, which added a further A$1.3m to their coffers to make a
total of A$7.8m for disbursement. When divided equally, this would theoretically give each of
the 300 people some A$26,000, though in reality a quite different story emerges. In the case
of Ron Neander, his wife Gwen was among those shot and killed in the gift shop; the various
settlements claimed to have been received by Ron Neander have since been published:
While victims were not faring well in the compensation stakes, Tasmanian Premier, Tony
Rundle, estimated (accurately I would suggest) it had cost his administration $30 million in
dealing with the tragedy, a figure you might keep in mind when considering the whole of the
international entities' implicated in this psychopolitical campaign. Of course a Premier crying
poor is common place in the Australian Commonwealth system of government and so the State
bureaucracies surely could not be expected to miss out on Federal assistance!
From the same document above, we learn that the A$2.5m appropriated by Federal Parliament
to be expended on 'community recovery', was completely expended upon the very controversial
A$4.5m Visitor's Centre constructed in a redevelopment of the Site to cater for the projected
increase in tourist numbers visiting the Site.
Had the accused stuck to his plea of 'Not guilty' and succeeded in engaging (costly) but
impartial legal counsel interstate, it was probable this whole subterfuge would have been
exposed. Politicians were in an obvious panic when Martin insisted he was 'Not guilty'. So as to
deprive the accused of necessary funds to engage his necessary legal representation outside of
Tasmania (can you imagine the possibility of accused ever proving his innocence by engaging
Tasmanian legal counsel?), the Ministry introduced a Bill on 3 October 1996 for a first reading
which when passed and enacted set a worrying precedent: the legislation allowed the
“judiciary” to confiscate Bryant’s reported $1.5 million worth of assets and disperse the funds
as supplementary to the donations collected from a sympathetic public to victims and their
families.
This action by the Ministry even included the residue of his 'third-party' settlement, secured for
him by Perpetual Trustees as a result of serious injuries he sustained in a car accident near
Copping 4 years earlier. This third-party settlement was awarded after he suffered 'bilateral
fractures through both his first and second cervical vertebrae', when the Mazda 121 sedan
driven by Miss Harvey on the Arthur Highway 6 km west of Copping crashed on 20 October,
1992. This coincidental accident ensured a later accused actually had assets that a seemingly
benevolent Ministry could be seen to conveniently confiscate and re-distribute among the very
people they were at the same time depriving of even the basic support on the Tasman
Peninsula!
But who benefited from those Government hand-outs that were forthcoming? Well, consider
just two bizarre windfalls:
1. A quarry owner near Nubeena allegedly received no less than $35,000 'for envisaged
loss of business' after the massacre, while
2. A farmer operating 'nocturnal wildlife tours' near Dunalley - as a side line - allegedly for
the same reasons received a payout of $146,000!
My point being, neither individual was directly affected by the massacre in any way
whatsoever, nor were either party at Port Arthur or the Historic Site that day. Even the self-
confessed anti-gun activists Dennis Olsen (and wife) Mary of Washington State, were 'looked
after' with their health and mental situation monitored closely for a considerable time by our
federal agents, after they'd returned home to the United States.
It also should be noted that while the people effected by the massacre at Port Arthur were
subjected to a Tasmanian statute of limitations to any claim for damages of 3 years (to 1999) it
would seem to this author that Mrs Beavis' claim was given some special status, as her
settlement did not occur until about 9 August 2004, or 5 years outside this statute! 29
When is a pastor not a parson?
Over the past half century I have gotten to know a significant number of ‘men of the cloth’.
Of all these men none could be classed monetarily “wealthy” or having exhibited
extravagance, although to a man I suppose they would argue to have riches far beyond what
gold could ever buy. My point being, almost all of them were frugal by necessity. They were
not known to trip about to satisfy any selfish curiosity.
"The Parson": To appreciate the Parson’s role in all of this, the reader should consider the
Neville Andrews entire chapter “I think it fair to warn you” by Andrew MacGregor, which
explains the circumstances surrounding their introduction and meeting, as well as his associates
and their roles. Now Neville’s business card is really quite vague:
I suggest you enter the church name into any internet search engine and try to expand your
knowledge of the organisation, but please don't hold out that Google will come through. Like
the extent of his business card information, it will be almost a nil result. But my card at least
via a rather distinctive scrawl, confirms his private phone and Moonee Ponds residential
address.
It was after my colleagues and I had mentioned in our public presentations our findings of a
probable Victorian connection between the alleged "female visitors" to Seascape, a "clone"
Volvo and Victoria rather than Sydney as their origin, that "the Parson" appeared first on my
radar as a suspicious 'blip'.
You see shortly after those revelations he phoned me on three occasions and he seemed very
desperate to speak with me face to face. I suggested, “What’s the urgency? You can interview
me for a lot less expense by phone; fire away!” But you know, he was quite insistent and
eventually I relented and arranged that he should call me upon him reaching the city limits, so
as I could explain were we would meet. A mutually acceptable time was made, and I
specifically told him I was not prepared for him to come to my home.
But he was an hour and a half late; no phone call to let me know, just straight to my home. As
he introduced himself at the front door, he was quite intent on getting a foot in the door, but I
asked him to go and wait in his car and then I escorted him in my car to a local coffee shop.
Once there in the outdoors, he rambled on about nothing in particular just pumping me for
anything that would be helpful as to the extent of our latest up-to-date findings. He did a lot
of scribbling. But I deliberately gave him little of substance. Even a local acquaintance – a
former City Councillor - interrupted our conversation insisting we both pose for a snapshot and
I was fortunate to secure a copy for the record. It was a really wacky interview and when he’d
driven off - literally as the sun was setting – I was left to ponder why on earth he’d bothered?
His first contact with writers on the massacre subject came when he introduced himself to Noel
McDonald who then lived near the city of the Geelong in Victoria. After ten minutes of phone
conversation, the dubious nature of his enquiry caused Noel to terminate the call and hastened
to call Andrew MacGregor who recounts the circumstances in his work, Deceit & Terrorism –
the massacre at Port Arthur, in the Chapter entitled; "I think it's fair to warn you". In each
case and out of the blue, he was unable to hide his desperation to obtain copies of all of the
work McDonald and McGregor had completed in this investigation; but for whom or what
purpose?
At the time Neville Andrews was expending all of his energies visiting selected survivors and
such about Tasmania and attempting to secure what ever our investigation had uncovered and
recorded in our writings, I should point out that Lynne Beavis - sister to Jean Andrews - was yet
to have her writ against the Commonwealth, and Audiometrics settled before the County Court
of Victoria. I was quite unaware at the time of Neville's visit that Lynne Beavis had served a
writ for a claim and of course her substantial settlement was quite some way off at the time. I
suppose it could well have proven unhelpful to her settlement claim, if the allegations I have
raised here had come into the public domain before the matter was concluded.
End Notes
1
Julie McCrossin, ABC Radio National, “Life Matters” 17aug05; Bronwen Gora, "Too busy to feel", The
Sunday Tasman, 5may96, p.11.
2
The National Archives, file series No. A2478/18, Canberra; http://www.affordair.com.au/
3
Julie Beun-Chown, “Nightmare in Broad Daylight”, Who, 13may96
4
Signed Witness Statement by John Godfrey; Eyewitness, Mrs. Wendy E. Scurr
5
Sgt G. Dutton, Dr. T. Lyons, Sgt. S Roach (Syd) & Sgt J Dickinson (Syd), WBR – Port Arthur Shooting
Vol3, No 4, at p.42.
6
Beun-Chown, "Nightmare in Broad Daylight," WHO, 13may96, p.36;
http://www.braverydecorations.com/ Australian Bravery Assoc’s Citations of Bravery Medal
Recipients; Craig Coombs, CEO PAHSMA, EMA Report, p.40
7
Signed Witness Statement – Jennifer Moors; Interview, Mrs W. E. Scurr; Ray Martin, Nine’s A Current
Affair.
8
n.a., "Port Arthur massacre – 1996", WHO magazine, 4mar02, p.28.
9
Various Internet Postings including: Australian Army White Water Assoc; Gallipoli Battlefield ANZAC
DAY Tour; Australian Army History Unit and other sources.
10
Beun-Chown, "Nightmare in Broad Daylight," WHO, 13may96, pp.34-38
11
http://www.foxediting.com/Lazydog1.html, 30/01/2005 9:50:06 am; D.D. McNicoll, Bruce
Montgomery, Chip Le Grand & Kimina Lyall, “Savagery erupts in afternoon of terror,” The
Australian, p1; Christine Caulfield, “Payout for Port Arthur massacre nurse” The Courier Mail,
10aug04.
12
PAHSMA Ghost Tour Roster, 4/4/96 – 1/5/96.
13
Ashley Law, tour guide, witness statement, p.4.
14
http://search.archives.tas.gov.au/
15
Christine Caulfield, most Murdoch company-owned newspapers inc. the Courier Mail 10aug04.
16
ibid
17
Ian Matterson, LLB, Magistrate Hobart, Coroner's Responsibilities at port Arthur, EMA papers p.92
18
Ibid, p.93
19
Carol Altmann, After Port Arthur, chapter 6, p.105
20
ibid, chapter 2, p.30
21
Ibid, p.94; the Police Training Video
22
Damian Bugg, QC, "An Inquiry into the Door at The Broad Arrow Café & Related Matters", p.17
23
n.a., “Port Arthur massacre – 1996”, WHO magazine, 4mar02, p.28
24
John Michael RIVIERE, witness signed statement to police
25
ABA’s Web Site posting, http://www.braverydecorations.com/
26
Matthew Rogers, “$12.7m raid on Tassie charities” The Mercury, 17Nov98; Michael Paine, “Survivors
face compo crunch,” Sat. Mercury, 20mar99; Catherine Anderson, “Massacre grievances” Sat.
Mercury, 17Apr99.
27
Carol Altmann, After Port Arthur, chapter 4, p.68
28
Tumarkin, Maria. Journal of Australian Studies, 3jan01
29
Andrew Darby, "The Fight for Compensation," The Age, 22apr2001; Christine Caulfield, "Big compo for
Port Arthur massacre nurse" The Mercury, 10aug04.
This material is claimed to be
Crown Copyright:
Chapter 27 i.e. it's owned by "We the People" for
whom Commissioner Richard McCreadie is
a servant…
A
s this re-write and update progressed through 2004 yet another piece of the Port Arthur
jig-saw snapped together for the public to ponder.
A front page story of The Weekend Australian, August 28-29, 2004 declared: "Massacre video
bought for 10c," and so the story of the Police Training Video was broken to the public. Its
disclosure sparked an immediate reaction of outrage and indignation from Comm. Richard
McCreadie of Tasmania Police. So commenced what I have since christened, "the video
overboard affair". 1
One important consideration should be mentioned at the outset of the chapter is the possibility
of the circumstance surrounding the passage of the video into the public domain was no
accident.
Decent police – and no doubt there are many serving Tasmania Police who are just that, decent
honest cops - may well have decided it should be leaked to the public. But there yet again
could equally have been an ulterior motive for the villains of the establishment to have it
leaked the material, sack a few fall-guys and weather the public storm in the knowledge that
when the calm returned, the population would have been further detached from the canker
and apathy would flourish. So it is up to you to ensure the latter motive – if it should be true –
fails.
Coincidentally on the Sunday evening of that same August weekend, the much
promoted and unavoidable polling day was announced by John Winston
Howard for the next Federal Election - 9 October. Simultaneously, Latham
and Howard agreed the issue central to that election was to be "truth and
honesty in government," with the question arguably attracting most attention
being what in 2000 the media had dubbed, the 'Children Overboard Affair' -
hence the chapter title, surely an irony.
John Howard:
“Now honestly…” However, understandably the 'truth and honesty' issue in the
election campaign was abandoned before it could take root, just as both
attributes became the first victims as the various police jurisdictions became
involved in four of the eastern states to recover the video overboard.
But this segment of our story begins all the way back to the day of the massacre
though its "escape" from police custody occurred back in March of 2004. Then,
Olga Scully
six days after the story was broken by The Weekend Australian, and on 3
September, The Mercury, a Murdoch owned newspaper, identified the buyer of the 10c video
as Mrs Olga Scully of Launceston, echoing the interview conducted by the ABC-TV of Mrs Scully
the night before. It came to light that Mrs Scully had purchased the video tape for 10 cents on
one of her irregular calls at the Hobart Tip Shop, where she purchased numbers of discarded
video tapes for the cassettes and tapes.
Tasmania is a parochial society, and so it’s not unusual that Mrs Scully was acquainted with a
number of the people who survived the attack at Port Arthur back in 1996.
"Thinking it might be of interest, she passed it on to former Port Arthur worker Wendy Scurr,"
and after Mrs Scurr received the video in late March she watched the first segment, not
knowing there were 2 further tracks on the tape. Mrs Scurr told me that she and a friend who
visited watched it in all innocence yet again close to the anniversary of the tragedy and they
left the tape running after the second track while they chatted and made tea. It was only
then, that the third track began and they return to watch, that the surprised viewers as they
sat wondering what the third track would show.
"We just sat there totally shocked and disgusted and angry," Mrs Scurr was reported to have
said later. 2
It was sometime in late March, I also received 2 video tapes through the mail; over a period of
a few days neither of which had anything to indicate the senders' identity, and the first tape
was simply labelled, in pencil "PA #4". The only thing I can confirm is that neither tape was
sent to me by Mr or Mrs Scurr.
Over the days ahead it became obvious to Graeme Scurr, that his wife's health had begun to
deteriorate, to such an extent that he was forced to have her attend her doctor, who
hospitalised her around the 25th May.
Mr Scurr operated at the time a modest wool buying business, in the midlands, and as if that
didn't take all of his time to operate successfully, but during this period, both Wendy and her
husband Graeme were beset with family obligations which further distracted any attempt to
deal with the video tape matter; their immediate attention to those more urgent family
matters was a priority they could not ignore.
Then on 31 May 2004, Mr Graeme Scurr wrote to the Hon David Llewellyn MHA Minister for
Health and Human Services, Minister for Police and Public Safety, explaining the circumstances
that had brought about a critical decline in his wife's health. In the text, he likening the video
to a "loaded gun" that had been left unsecured by a negligent Tasmania Police. Coincidentally
earlier in January 2004 in the Hobart Magistrates Court, when convicting a 38-year-old father
Robert Wilton, Magistrate Sam Mollard said in his opinion it was a "basic obvious precaution to
store a gun safe in a place where it can't be seen,"! 3
In closing, and with his memory of the Ministry's indifference over his wife's plight ever since
the massacre 8 years earlier, his patience evaporated over this tape debacle; Graeme Scurr
advised the Minister that this time he was determined to gain "satisfaction" so as he could
ensure his wife would receive adequate treatment to correct her sudden deterioration. David
Llewellyn deliberately chose to ignore Mr Scurr's appeals, simply passing the buck to his 'silicon-
suited chief'.
However without so much as a call from Llewellyn, whom incidentally Mr Scurr knew well from
his school days, Insp Ross Paine of Tasmania Police called at the couple's Kempton residence,
to serve two letters on Mr Scurr.
Both letters he served were dated 30 August and from their content it is obvious certain senior
police were now calling in their favours. Llewellyn may have been passing on the
componentry, but clearly it was Comm. Richard McCreadie making up the "ammunition," for
still others to "fire".
Acting on instructions from McCreadie, the new DPP, Tim J. Ellis stated he was instituting
proceedings to "recover the Tasmania Police video concerning the Port Arthur shootings,"
claiming that "any unauthorised copying of the video constitutes a breach of the Crown's copyright
by virtue of Section 101 of the Copyright Act 1968," a questionable claim, seeing as how "the
people" of Tasmania (just as is the case in other states of the Commonwealth), are the Crown
whom Ellis serves … an incidental reality to these autocratic signatories. Upon sound legal
advice the claim is allegedly fallacious. Nevertheless, in the last paragraph, the DPP
threatened: "If you fail to comply with these requirements proceedings will be instituted
against you without further notice in respect of the breach of the Crown's copyright in
the video".
I must point out that T.J. Ellis also knew the Scurr family well, with Wendy even travelling
to school in the same bus as Tim Ellis did; Tim was an only child of the driver of the same
school bus no less! The point being, the DPP would have been aware Mrs Scurr was the last
person who'd wantonly breach the law not to mention her poor state of health at the time.
On the other hand, Richard McCreadie's letter served on Mr Scurr at this meeting, delivered
a quite extraordinary message; the text confirmed Insp Ross Paine as the courier and the
anticipated "surrender" of all copies of the Video Tape was the purpose of the letter. Apart
from rather strange grammar in the first paragraph, the second and final paragraph stated:
"I would like to confirm my undertaking that if you surrender all of this material
forthwith then I will secure it in such a way that it will be retained for any lawful
purpose that you would seek to have it put in the future. In this process I
guarantee that whatever you provide will be retained as far as possible in the
condition in which you surrender it."
In light of past experiences, one must immediately ask the question: "Did any one verify the
quality of sound and vision of the tapes at time of surrender and before witnesses?" I fear
not. For remember the conveniently damaged video tape of the PROI in the case of the Crown
v Martin Bryant? Remember Comm. John Johnson had assigned Richard McCreadie as the
officer in charge of the whole Port Arthur investigation. It was McCreadie's officers whose
damaged video sound tapes were struck out of the Court Documents in Martin Bryant's hearing,
and here he expected the public to believe 'the leopard has changed its spots'?
So the Crown (We the people) was denied from hearing the (illegally obtained) Bryant
interview in its entirety. Oh and the bearer of this letter, Insp Ross Paine; remember he was
one of the two primary officers in that interview. You'll also remember this is the same Ross
Paine who headed up the allegedly illegal police break-in at his Clare Street property on the
Sunday evening of the 28th of April 1996. But back to the video story…
Mr Scurr surrendered a single copy he'd acquired especially for that purpose. He further
informed Paine the original video tape 'was in safe keeping' pending a satisfactory outcome to
the situation. But despite reports in The Mercury to the contrary, he informed Insp Paine that
if police so desired, he was prepared to waive all "patient privilege" so as police could collect
the original video tape from Mrs Scurr's Hobart doctor, who'd been charged with its safekeeping
as evidence. I'm still unsure as to whether or not police have ever bothered to collect the
original escaped video tape from that doctor.
On the 23 June, Mr Scurr wrote a second letter, reminding David Llewellyn of his previous
correspondence and informing him, of the realisation, that in spite of the not inconsequential
cost and disruption to him in carrying on his livelihood, he was forced to convey his wife to the
mainland to receive specialist treatment from a leading doctor there, commencing on June 26.
The Minister David Llewellyn did reply this time, acknowledging receipt of both letters. In this
correspondence, Mr Scurr left the Minister in no doubt, that if Llewellyn chose not to resolve
the matter forthwith, then he intended to pursue the matter publicly, hence the article
published by the Weekend Australian, which appeared on 28th August.
On Monday 30 August, parliamentary leader of the Greens Party, Peg Putt MHA, was reported
as accusing police of 'failing to keep the video tape under lock and key' and also 'failing to
retrieve them when notified the tapes were in public hands'. In the report, Ms Putt even went
so far as to suggest the 'images' (there was just one image), published by the Weekend
Australian was 'beyond the bounds of human decency'. This investigator can only scoff at the
clamour for high moral ground by these contemptible Tasmanian Politicians, when they have
rejected repeated calls by people from across the land for at the least, a coronial inquiry to be
held. However the buck-passing was underway and senior Tasmania Police were in damage
control. 4
Since Port Arthur, "Jack" Johnston had received promotion to Deputy Police Comm. and if he
was reported accurately in The Mercury of 29 August 2004, then on several points the truth was
treated with absolute contempt. For I'm very aware that at no time did Mr Scurr refuse to
hand over the original copy, as very simply he did not have the tape to hand it over. Mr Scurr
was also not obliged to reveal the identity of the person who bought the tape for 10c at a Tip
Shop, and at their first meeting, Mr Scurr informed Insp Ross Paine, where the original tape
was, and who to contact to effect recovery; Johnston was well aware of that fact, and the
Scurrs had no equipment to copy video tapes.
Dept Comm. Johnston also was reported as claiming that 'whoever made the tape within the
department has used some inappropriate licence'. A claim I believe which has no basis in fact.
Much of the footage was put to air by a national television carrier as Port Arthur the Inside
Story, so who provided that tape footage? Did that copy fall off the back of a tip-shop-truck
also? If Tasmania Police produced the tape in question - as the credits suggest - then that fact
alone raises some very serious questions:
1. Who knew to place a camera crew on the opposite shore to Seascape on Long Bay,
at the appointed hour that would end the siege, and so capture video images of a
seriously burned Martin Bryant emerging from the rear door of Seascape Cottage,
stagger a short distance away from the fire, rip-off his burning clothes to be then
formally arrested by Constable Paul Hawkins, an SOG Policeman? From that
location only the easterly aspect of the Cottage was in line of sight!
2. As the relief police forward commander at Taranna, Supt. Bob Fielding is featured
on the Police Training video admitting to forcing Martin Bryant to come to police
(by burning the cottage), instead of vice versa, then under what circumstances was
the camera allowed to be manned on the opposite shoreline?
3. Who authorised this footage to remain the so-called 'exclusive property' of the Nine
Network and what arrangements were made for the Nine Network to gain that
material? Did Nine supply the camera crew?
But let's back up a little to the early developments in the saga: It was Mr Scurr who'd written
twice to the minister, not ever receiving so much as an acknowledgment, for the first letter.
Until the Minister received the second letter there was no movement from his department.
After all, Llewellyn had been alerted to the tapes' existence in May, but directly because of his
procrastination and senior Tasmania police who demonstrated a reluctance to even retrieve the
original "10c Video", the matter was only set to escalate. These facts are cause for concern
that the release of the video into the public domain may well have been deliberate on the part
of parties in the Ministry or indeed Tasmania Police, a position actually conveyed in a
conversation to a journalist at the time by the Deputy Commissioner Jack Johnston. Mr
Johnston was one of three senior police whose contracts were not renewed in the months to
come.
During all of this time, the Minister, David Llewellyn, and just two of his colleagues in the
Parliament, Peg Putt MHA and the Liberal shadow minister expressed outrage at the video's
"escape", and even professed a concern directed towards other survivors having possible access
to it. Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara then became involved and
was reported as stating, "Whoever did this (discarded the video) should be kicked straight out
of the force and charges should be laid on them because they have re-traumatised people." 5
The Port Arthur Historic Site's CEO, Stephen Large joined in, when he
reportedly stated that 'news that the footage was in the public domain
could harm the historic site's recovery from the massacre,' a rather quaint
position I should think.
Further he was reported as stating he was, 'concerned for staff that were
on duty when gunmen … went on his murderous rampage'; a position
difficult to accept as genuine when one considers the overall disgraceful
treatment staff received there that day from everyone in authority from
We're moving on: Minister Groom, the Police and the executive of PAHSMA ongoing for ten
"A $30 million years now!
tourism development
planned for Port "We're obviously disappointed this has happened now," Mr Large said. "It
Arthur will include (the massacre) was eight years ago and a lot of us have moved on but
60 five-star villas these things aren't helpful." I wounder why the balance of people other
set among drystone than those he termed "a lot of us", apparently have not been able to move
walls and gardens." on, and I wonder what that number is likely to be? No doubt among the
'lot who've moved on' at Port Arthur, are the likes of Barry Jones,
(chairman of the board) and Greg Farrell (both at left), Steven Large and of course the muted
staff that guide the tourist about to swell the coffers of this "premier", government enterprise
tourist attraction. But Mr Large won't be too concerned at all about the tourists that will
converge on the Historic Site to celebrate what I'm caused to describe as a "kitsch concert"
there on Friday 28 April 2006 – 10 years on; even the gun-grabbing John Winston Howard will be
there to bond with the newly elected ALP Premier, Lennon and to gloat and promote his
wonderful disarmament of the citizens of Australia… but not the 'Middle Eastern’ crime gangs
of Sydney of course! Barry Jones is slated to take a prominent role in their “10the
Anniversary”, as is Keith Moulton.
Continuing he is quoted as stating, "Obviously some close to the massacre will not be very
happy at all but we have learned to cope with it, as long as not too much is made of it (the
video's release)." 6
By Tuesday, 31st of August 2004, the Mercury claimed inside knowledge that officially there
were just five copies in all in existence. In their article while they reported that "Richard
McCreadie said he was concerned that copies of the tape had been made," his very next
sentence exposes where this reported concern stemmed from, when he warned the public that,
'making or distributing copies was an offence that could be prosecuted under the Copyright
Act'.
In the same report McCreadie announced the establishment of a 'hotline for victims',
undoubtedly a sham if there was just five copies out there. For you should be aware images
very much more graphic than are contained on this tape have already been shown publicly at
various venues by the police themselves! There was the public viewing at Griffith University in
Brisbane on 23 Nov 2002, reputedly a fund raiser for scholarships no less and at that showing
the cadavers subjected to the inferno of Seascape were screened openly. No rider for the
shocked audience either I believe. Then there is the case of "potential police recruits" being
taken to police headquarters in Hobart to view the material. What hypocrites!
But as I stated, from the media reports McCreadie believed just five copies had been made and
accounted for, to date. A newspaper report dated 31 August confirmed the tape had come
from Hobart Resource Tip Shop, a claim that was "doubted" by Comm. McCreadie in the same
newspaper the very next day! 7
In the earlier report, an employee of the Resource Tip Shop - Iona Johnson - suggested that
while it was impossible to confirm the tape was purchased there, 'Tasmania Police did regularly
use that service', an admission that was to prove costly for her, as we shall see shortly. So
whether or not the video tape was dumped on purpose by one among a growing number of
outraged, honest, police officers, within the Tasmania Police itself is a question I cannot throw
any light upon. 8
Southern Cross Television's channel 10 out of Hobart contacted me on the Friday 27th as their
news journalist had learned that I had a copy of the controversial footage from an un-named
source. I admitted that not only had I viewed the tape, but that indeed I had a hard copy of
the tape.
Somewhere among all of this, Channel 7 Melbourne's flag-ship current affairs show, Today
Tonight conducted two interviews with Mrs Wendy Scurr, and another key witness covering
events that occurred inside the Broad Arrow Café. Some of that interview went to air in
Tasmania, and the affiliates of Southern Cross on the mainland, except Prime in the Riverina,
which does not carry Seven's current affairs show.
Late on Tuesday evening of 7 September 2004, I arrived home to learn two detectives from
Wagga Police had visited my home that day, making inquires about recovering all copies of the
video tape I had shown the press. They left their contact details and promised to return.
Also that same evening, I learned that none other than Insp Ross Paine of Tasmania Police had
phoned Mr Andrew MacGregor, inquiring into whether he had any copies of their escaped video
tape – but Andrew had already forwarded his copy of the tape to a friend in Queensland; no
further inquiries with Andrew have been made to date it seems.
After considerable thought on the matter, I decided to take
the advice offered by Act Supt Rod Smith as mentioned
above, and so on Wednesday 8 September, at 1000hrs the
two detectives arrived at my door, introducing themselves as
Act Insp Rod Smith, and Det Sgt Mark Feeney. The handover
of my video tape proceeded, but only after they had read and
accepted an open letter addressed to Commissioner for New
South Wales Police, Ken Moroney and. 10
L-R: Act Insp Rod Smith, the author
& Det Sgt Mark Feeney of NSW
In that open letter to Com. Ken Moroney, I informed him that
Police
after studying the police training video, I believed it
confirmed criminal acts possibly also involving officers of New South Wales police in matters
that had been improperly inquired into, as no coronial inquiry had been conducted into the
"deaths of the six, persons then residing in the State of New South Wales, listed as follows:-
1. Zoe Anne Hall, 28 yrs, then of Kangaroo Point,
2. Glenn Roy Pears, 35 yrs, then of Sydney,
3. Russell James “Jim” Pollard, 72 yrs, then of Brunswick Heads,
4. Mr Tony Kistan, 51 yrs, then of Summerhill
5. Mr Robert Salzmann, 58 yrs, then of Ocean Shores
6. Helene Salzmann, 50 yrs, then of Ocean Shores."
Both Smith and Feeney read the letter thoroughly at least until they came to the particular
section quoted above. The letter conveyed 13 serious allegations requiring urgent investigation
after 8 years of joint investigation on the part of former policeman Andrew MacGregor and
myself.
Rod Smith lead me to believe the video tape that I was handing him, would be 'forwarded
…with all due care and haste,' as I had instructed, directly to Comm. Moroney at Darlinghurst,
"The relevant authority."
Oh how foolishly trusting I was: that night Prime-TV news told of a different outcome. Next
morning, I personally confirmed by phone with the "crime manager" Act Insp Rod Smith, that
the tape was indeed "on its way," - SOUTH, directly to Richard McCreadie Commissioner of
Tasmania Police, via Smith's command structure. I had been duped.
I have no doubt whatsoever if these allegations had ever been tested before an impartial court
on the mainland (if that now is ever possible), they would be proven to have no basis in law,
though in the hillbilly state of Tasmania that may have proved quite difficult to achieve.
One must understand that The Weekend Australian had captured
and published at least 5 photographs of this material, and
Southern Cross Television has a full copy of the tape as I
understand it, as have various television stations both in Tasmania,
northern and Riverina NSW.
As I write this account a rather ominous piece of news came to hand from Tasmania. The
Resource Tip Shop which saw a staff member interviewed by a Mercury journalist and
confirmed as the place from where Mrs Scully bought the original tape for 10c, is situated
about 5km south of Hobart on McRobies Gully tip site. At 11.30 pm, Saturday 11 September,
the Tasmania Fire Service was alerted to a fire in the Resource Tip Shop; the premises were
raised to the ground. A spokesman for the fire crews at the scene confirmed via an electronic
news service, that 'the fire had been deliberately lit'. The same spokesman also 'ruled out' the
wood heater which provided heat for staff as the cause of the fire.
Arson is a not so uncommon tool used by criminals in Tassie, for a variety of criminal reasons –
even as a warning to their entire ruthless demeanour. Seascape examples arson well done; it
seems the 'sons of god' need practice to hone the arson skills! So the "torch" appears from time
to time, when the nefarious habits of criminals are exposed to an extent that they feel
threatened. It seems an irony that Hobart CIB was involved from the outset to investigate a
fire, the cause of which was also reported by The Mercury as "unknown".
This deliberate act coincidentally fits with an otherwise odd visit by police to the Scurr
residence at 2215 hrs on Friday 10 September – the day prior to the Tip Shop fire. It just so
happens that Mrs Scurr had called me and we were in conversation at the very time the two
police officers knocked on the door.
Mrs Scurr had been absent attending to family obligations for some time, and her car was still
absent from its usual spot outside the home. It would have appeared to most, that Mrs Scurr
was still absent, although she had actually returned to her home at about 1230 hrs that day.
Both police seemed, in the words of Mrs Scurr, flustered or taken aback when she answered
their knock. You see her doctor had warned senior police not to question Wendy, because of
her health. But it would appear the spokesman this time did some quick thinking, saying they
were making inquiries into a supposed disappearance of one David Gow. Acting upon
information received they alleged Gow had visited the Scurr premises earlier that day, driving
a blue Mitsubishi vehicle. Both Wendy and her husband told the police no such visit had taken
place, and that in fact they had never known anyone called David Gow, whereupon the police
left. I'm caused to wonder if Mr Gow was really ever – missing or indeed found.
Also of note is the fact that acting on instructions directly issued by Richard McCreadie, police
also visited the home of Vicki McLaughlin on the Tasman Peninsula
after Mr Scurr told them that the couple had the only other copy of the
tape he knew of. The couple were not at home at the time of the
unannounced visit. However, the McLaughlin's have installed at the
premises recording security equipment, and when they did return, it
showed police on their property videoing all the vehicles and environs.
I wonder if the SOG will need to be deployed to capture the last of
their "escapee" video tapes.
Now to the Tape itself, and to what the Police Training Video actually Shattered and cast
reveals: all the revelations are raised at various points throughout this adrift: collateral damage
work and they reveal in my opinion many acts of criminality, felonies of the massacre at Port
and the like. In fact and not surprisingly, the video features in the Arthur & a "Video
main the people who I would describe as "their people" – the people Overboard affair".
who by their circumstances of career, employment and obligations
were and are easily controlled.
My copy of the tape had three distinct sections or tracks. The first could be described simply
as a promotional video of Tasmania Police – for prospective recruits perhaps. The second,
while mimicking much of the content contained in the third track, does not show any graphic
footage containing explicit images of the crime scenes; it's a sanitized version. However, the
third track not only contains all of the second track footage, but graphic pictures from 5 of the
7 crime scenes with all but 5 of the victims' bodies in situ. Strangely or in truth not so
strangely, there is no footage whatsoever of the inside of the boot of the burnt-out wreckage
of the BMW; no cadavers at the Seascape crime scene at all. Remember 2 of the 3 cadavers
recovered at Seascape have been shown publicly in Brisbane, so why are they missing from this
police record? But as well as the visually overt content, the tape also has on record
extraordinary verbal admissions by senior Tasmania Police and footage also of bureaucrats. As
the saying goes, 'a picture is worth a thousand words', but when in some instances we get to
consider words and images, what a bonus!
There was further fall-out due to this saga. On 26 October, 2004 a newspaper article
announced that a new impersonal industrial tool was employed so as contracts of three senior
officers of Tasmania Police were not to be renewed; a case of "Richard's Revenge"?
Luppo Prins, Bob Fielding and another 56-year-old Commander are all to go – quietly - into
retirement. Described to me by a long time Hobart resident as a 'good straight cop',
Commander Syd McClymont, confirmed he would finish work in August of 2005. While Luppo
Prins was to finish at the end of March 2005, Bob Fielding who wasn't prepared to comment is
to finish up in July 2005. The article went on to confirm that Luppo Prins has always been
highly respected by his colleagues and the junior ranks, and inferred he was hurt by not even
being accorded the opportunity to announce his move, and so retire in dignity. The political
move has understandably been reported as causing "unrest within police ranks." When
questioned as to whether or not any of the three officers had requested contract extensions,
which were subsequently turned down by the organisation, Comm. Richard McCreadie replied:
"No." The article went on to state, Mr. McCreadie "would make no further comment." 12
This whole affair has emphasised and laid to rest any doubts that for anyone to dare to write
about the massacre at Port Arthur is most definitely not condoned by the establishment, and
the "D" in my experience seems to stand for DON'T!
Meanwhile I must remind the reader of the urgent letter to the Commissioner for New South
Wales Police Ken Maroney, for there has still been no resolution to
the matters I raised. When I learned on 9th of September that Act
Insp Rod Smith had not sent the Video to his Commissioner, I
decided immediately that I should meet with my local State
Member for Wagga Wagga, Daryl Maguire MP. During our meeting I
asked that he intervene on my behalf which he did by
correspondence shortly. But in this instance, to the naked eye the
slow wheels of officialdom seemed to be motionless.
You see, the first reply to my open letter of 9.9.04 was dated
17.3.05; New South Wales Police had procrastinated for 27 weeks! Though it was fortunate
my State MP at least he didn't write, warning me off!
In all fairness to Daryl Maguire MP, he gave me a good hearing on the 9th September and it is
only when you consider the fact that I never did receive any form of acknowledgment
whatsoever from Comm. Ken Moroney to whom I'd addressed my correspondence, that fact
alone conveys a strong message. Instead the reply came directly from
New South Wales Forensic Services Group's Act Director, Carlene York.
Now this caused me to look a little closer as to what exactly was going on
here. Supt Carlene Anne York appeared in the 2005 Australia Day Honours
list receiving the Australian Police Medal (APM). Shortly after receiving
her award, she was promoted to Acting Inspector and posted to NSW
Police Service's Strategy and Review division. 13 But then another
promotion and shift and she now holds no less than two positions;
Director, Biometrics Institute and Commander, Criminal Identification
Specialist Branch, NSW Police Forensic Services Group. 14 Perhaps all of
this activity surrounding Ms York may go some way to explain the date on her letter to me and
the well worn folds on the paper indicating it had certainly done the rounds of the “In” and
“Out” trays of Macquarie St and more I should think. This I believe can be explained by the
fact the letter is dated 2 February 2005 which means it had suffered a 42 day delay in delivery.
I can but wonder why. I gave the matter much thought, and
concluded it would be a waste of time to pursue the matter at that
stage; but obviously the charges I had made had caused more than a
few senior officers of the New South Wales Police at least some
considerable concern. Their silence on the matters raised was
deafening!
The hollow outcome does confirm to this writer more than ever we deserve nothing less than
an open judicial or coronial inquiry into the 35 deaths and the two counts of arson there in the
Tasman Peninsula that occurred on the 28-29th April 1996. We are waiting Mr Commissioner
Moroney…
Now I ask you to consider the following short summary of other strange coincidences that raise
further questions to those already covered in the narrative. For instance, I can confirm that in
April of 1996 at least Dr. G.R.H. Kelsall was senior lecturer of Forensic Pathology at the Clinical
School, University of Tasmania. But in the year 2000, a cursory check of the Telstra's White
Pages and state land title records revealed that as Acting State Forensic Pathologist for
Tasmania (he assisted T.J. Lyons the State Forensic Pathologist for the Port Arthur
investigation), Dr. George Robert Henry Kelsall and his wife Valerie Ita, are recorded as
residing on the Tasman Highway, Port Arthur in 1996, on property having a common boundary
with Seascape's northern extent.
So the Kelsall's and the Martin's of Seascape were next door neighbours. Is this just another
example of one of life's coincidences to add the long list of phenomena which sustain the
mystery enveloping the entire shooting massacre at Port Arthur?
Then there was the phone conversation made by ABC reporter Alison Smith. I believe it can be
argued successfully, the DPP did not establish that the male person Alison Smith spoke to at
about 2.10pm when she phoned Seascape and who told her, "…you can call me Jamie," was in
truth Martin Bryant acting as Jamie.
Did police ever ask Alison Smith to listen to the voice of Martin Bryant on the negotiator tapes
and so identify Jamie's voice and the person she spoke to that afternoon? There is no evidence
to suggest that this check was ever carried out.
I do know that an eye witness has told us emphatically, that as he lay in the Café wounded, he
not only kept a visual contact with the gunman for most of the 7-8 minutes he shot his way
around the room, but that also the gunman spoke to him. This witness recently for the first
time listened to the voice of Jamie on the Police training video, and immediately he stated
quite adamantly: 'that is not the voice of the gunman I heard speaking inside the Broad Arrow
Café'.
Then, leaving aside the hostages, there is a key person who figured prominently in the
Seascape Siege who is demonstrated as not one of the hostages; the male person who was
referred to by "Jamie" as "Rick".
Remember this Violent Incident Management Plan (VIMP) was drawn up inside a quite small,
specialised, covert department, housed within Tasmania Police whose sole charter was to
address anti-terrorist operational plans. The one person we know who was a principle officer
of that small, covert department was the only permanent (former) SOG in the Tasmania Police,
Sergt Michael Dyson. So from out of the mouth of Martin Bryant - then caused to use the name
"Jamie" - this male he then knew as "Rick" was their "main man."
This fact emerges when one considers this section of the transcript of Sgt Terry McCarthy's
conversation with Jamie – a.k.a. Martin Bryant, that I was able to transcribe myself from the A
Current Affair video tape. I must add that importantly the Court received into evidence a
different version! (see p.572 on the CD-Rom) which is at page 31 of the Seascape transcript,
but my own transcription reads as follows:
McCarthy: Jamie?
Jamie: Yes. Hello. How are you?
McCarthy: I'm very well thanks Jamie. Yourself?
Jamie: Well, I'm well up to now. The past few 20 seconds. What I've actually found
out maaan, is that one of your boys is right outside, northeast I'd say, with an infra-red
scope. Would you just ask him to move on?
McCarthy: Right, we'll do that, we'll do that now.
Jamie: Cause he's going to shoot, he's trying to shoot, he's going to shoot your main
man.
McCarthy: No, I can guarantee.
Jamie: I'll blow this, umm these you know, you know what's going to happen.
McCarthy: I don't want to see anyone hurt, alright,
Jamie: You just move him on.
McCarthy: Okay, I'm organising that now. I can also assure you that it's not our
intention to hurt you or see anybody else hurt, okay.
Jamie: Really…
Note: Here, Jamie does not say: "…he's going to shoot me," instead he has been primed to
express a certainty that Police SOGs were about to shoot "their main man," and his words are
very explicit on that point.
Also, long after the siege, and when Police finally got to interview the accused on 4 July 1996 –
or some 66 days after his arrest – the police interrogators, Inspectors Warren and Paine,
certainly played down the importance of Rick. How can this be so? After all Rick (or was it
"Mick"?) was mentioned no less than 30 times in the telephone negotiations between Sgt
Terry McCarthy and "Jamie" while in the Courts Documents, and during the police record of
interview (PROI) "Rick" is first mentioned at Page 249, only once by police and once alone in
the answer to that question by Martin Bryant!
But beginning at p.3, of the transcript of the phone conversation between "Jamie" and Sgt
Terry McCarthy, strangely it was McCarthy who introduces this male "Rick" into the
conversation, not Martin Bryant! How could that be so?
But Sgt McCarthy immediately is suggesting that Rick is the hostage in the imagination of the
mind out of which "Jamie" was invented. Who put the name of "Rick" or was it "Mick" before
McCarthy – was it Dr Ian Sale? Remember Sale was there with the negotiators. This was the
name promoted as being the man kidnapped by "Jamie" at Fortescue Bay road turn off you may
remember.
So what I'm suggesting here is this: the negotiator works with a support team in a room next
door, both parties being separated by glass. These other colleagues next door have full access
to both sides of the conversation, but no voice contact with the offender. They use message
boards on which they post suggestions, answers etc., that may assist in a resolution – well
that’s the theory I suppose. So did one of these colleagues perhaps Dr Ian Sale, display a
message suggesting McCarthy introduce (the trigger) "Rick" or "Mick"?
Now regarding the mystery male "Rick", simply Martin Bryant's intellectual and comprehensive
capabilities preclude him from being able to concoct the identity for a start, and then attribute
such sophisticated compilation of subject matter that is discussed between himself and Sgt
McCarthy concerning "Mick" and especially his not so imaginary wife and child. If it is Mick,
then at that time he did have a wife and child – now divorced.
So these people were not imaginary, they had simply been put into an imaginary landscape…as
it were. 'By whom?' you may well ask; by a very close psychiatrist perhaps? Martin Bryant had
never achieved much in his life, up until his travels it was … dull? But then came Port Arthur
and Seascape, and as he readily recounted to John Avery:
JA: "…Remember you said that it was…"
MB: "Exciting"
JA: "Exciting and …"
MB: "Thrilling"
And to sum up his new-found experiences he continued:
MB: "Yes, it was truly exciting, really exciting … the most exciting thing I'd
ever done in my life which was something different…"
AND IT WAS! This experience for intellectually impaired Martin beat any trip to the best
virtual reality games parlour! He was cast in a role at Seascape and in his mind he was in
command of an operation just like a movie star; he was an "Arnie Schwarzenegger"; he wasn't
killing anyone and just as Sgt Terry McCarthy was compelled to conclude, “it was as though he
was acting out a role.” 15
"Jamie" spins a tale that "Mick" (or Rick) supposedly "wants" to catch a 7 o'clock flight back in
Melbourne and attempts to extract a commitment by McCarthy for a helicopter ride to Adelaide
via Melbourne where Jamie suggests, "I mean you could drop Rick off…"
Just moments before 3.45pm and at p.25 of the transcript of their conversations, McCarthy
demonstrates obvious confusion, but Jamie's mind-set engenders a similar memory problem
which forces him to ask McCarthy,
Jamie: "What was your name, Rick was it or…"
McCarthy: Terry.
Jamie: "Terry that’s right. Terry I’ll write that down now."
At page 23 of the transcript, "Jamie" volunteers that Rick is 34 years of age. Bryant also
introduces into the conversation that Rick has parents living at Lauderdale, and that he wants
to phone them. Mick was certainly about 34 at the time and he did then have parents at
Lauderdale. Now how does that rate on the scale of coincidence!
While McCarthy quite logically repeatedly informs Bryant: "you're making the decisions" and
that clearly was not the case. But obviously McCarthy or a colleague was quite absorbed by
this male "Rick" "Mick", as he continually reintroduces him into their conversation. Then at
p.27 McCarthy asks Bryant:
McCarthy: Right. What about his [Rick's] wife. Do you know anything about his wife?
From this question we eventually learn that Rick's wife is highly educated with a university
degree, when in a totally disjointed way Jamie states, “I know how high up in things she is.
Yeah… the intelligence and everything university and everything. …she's passed that
[university] and she's got full time work … In work, higher than what you are… ," referring here
to the Police Sergeant, Terry McCarthy.
Rick is conveying via his medium Jamie that his wife is, "In work, higher than what you are…"
It's almost as if there is a bit of 'on the job' rivalry raising its head here! Far be it from me to
stretch a long bow and speculate, but we have already examined a very important individual to
the scheme of this operation and certainly a key man in the exercise, and his name even
rhymes: is Rick really Mick? For even the demeanours are alike.
It would seem reasonable to suggest that McCarthy is nearly driven mad through much of the
transcript as he repeatedly and persistently attempts to extract the surname of Rick from
Bryant. Finally his persistence is rewarded with more disinformation as Jamie blurts out that
Rick is a lawyer – a ploy that Bryant could not have conceived alone, which would seem
logically was said to convince the negotiator, that Rick was in fact Glen Pears, who he most
definitely wasn't? Again I must emphasis such ploys are beyond Bryant's intellect.
Then this facade is extended way past any believable concoction on the part of Martin Bryant,
in a long discourse involving lengthy almost pointless talk about helicopters, when suddenly
Martin Bryant poses the question:
Jamie: "Yeah. While I’m on the phone um Ricks wondering how did the ABC
actually lay get in touch with me." – My emphasis
To which even McCarthy can't disguise his astonishment when he exclaims:
McCarthy: Rick was Rick wondering that?
Now here the deception is laid bare. For if this Rick was indeed a hostage, double handcuffed
to an immovable object inside Seascape why on earth would Rick logically have been suggesting
wonderment to his captor, the gunman in control, trying to work out how an ABC journalist
came to phone Seascape when in his predicament his prioritising of how to stay alive would
most definitely not included wondering how Alison Smith had known to call Seascape.
No doubt you have realised by now, that I'm suggesting a form of mind control in operation
here. Well perhaps you should consider this document, and then dismiss such a suggestion as
far fetched:
Now to the "coughs": A sound wave form signature, recorded concurrently with the voice of
Jamie a.k.a. Martin Bryant, noted in the transcript of the Jamie Tape as "COUGH" is irrefutable
evidence, that Jamie (who was talking concurrently on the portable telephone) did not fire
that particular gunshot. It is I believe proof of a conspiracy. So who was this other shooter?
Could it have been Rick?
Not one shred of ballistic or forensic evidence was presented to the Court linking either the
AR15 or the FN FAL firearms to Martin Bryant, or to them ever having been used on the 28 April
1996 to murder or attempt to murder persons in the Broad arrow Café, the car and bus-park,
Jetty Road, the Tollbooth, Port Arthur General Store or Arthur Highway at the entrance to
Seascape and in the cottage itself. So where are the firearms that were used at these crime
scenes?
At least two gunmen were observed simultaneously at Seascape by Police and an SOG officer, a
fact overheard and passed on by volunteer workers at a Police road block, and confirmed yet
again by one of the two female Police first brought to the Historical Site by helicopter. These
statements all add enormous weight to the ramifications of the "cough" sound wave form status
as a shot. Was blond-headed Martin Bryant either one of these shooters at Seascape? I'm now
firmly of the opinion he played a part at seascape, that of acting out a role under someone's
psychiatric influence and I will demonstrate shortly more on this point.
There were 20 sounds recorded in the Court Documents as "COUGH," "Cough" and "cough", only
one of which has survived on tape. Examined and evaluated I have no reason to doubt it is a
gunshot. No police fired any shots in the Seascape siege. Martin was on the telephone and
paid no attention to the gunshot. Who fired this shot and was this shot among 19 others
similarly noted in the transcript of the audio tape?
So how did Martin Bryant become involved, for if that question is answered the horrid
psychopolitical exercise would be exposed. What is the identity of the felons other than Rick,
known to have partaken in detaining hostages, one of whom – a female - was still alive when
Police first arrived outside Seascape? How did Martin Bryant handcuff Glen Pears single-
handedly and control Sally Martin (who was still alive when Police arrived at Seascape) all at
the same time? Remember the gunman was never seen to have a handgun either. So how were
these co-conspirators extracted from Seascape before first light would have given away their
presence? Were these agents extracted before first light, by a Blackhawk helicopter or perhaps
an AH-6 "Little Bird" helicopter like the flight which was witnessed in flight near Sorell shortly
after the Port Arthur massacre? After all witnesses described it as like being in Beirut or
Vietnam there were so many of these helicopters flying about all night.
A Tasmanian manufactured AAA-SAR ·223Rem Carbine was collected by Police from "the
hallway" of Martin Bryant's residence at Claire Street New Town on May 3rd. We are now aware
that Police entered the premises of Martin Bryant in Clare Street on the evening of 28 April
without a warrant.
Accompanied by Ian Sale, Police did not find anything untoward on that first adventure, other
than some ammunition wrappers. How is it possible, that when they re-visited Clare St, various
gun-cases, cleaning gear, cases of ammunition and the AAA-SAR Carbine were all strewn about
the hallway as if waiting to be collected! The DPP tells us at p.59, that Bryant's Clare Street
home was security alarmed. How did Police negate this monitored alarm system even in their
first unwarranted entrance?
Now returning to the cache of firearms that Police chose not to identify individually that they
claimed were there inside Seascape. Bugg refers to these firearms in the court document as
"other weapons" (at p.52), while Sergeant Gerard Dutton terms them "various other firearms"
and they are mentioned by "Jamie" in disbelieving tones as, quote "…all these other guns are
here and everythink." Whose firearms were they? But please consider the fact that no where
in the Court Documents will you find the number of firearms recovered from the ruins of
Seascape on the records.
For this information, we must turn to a newspaper report which tells us that Mr Glenn Martin,
the son of Sally and David Martin formerly of Seascape was reported to have said:
"…there was no truth in reports that guns used in the massacre may have belonged
to him or were stored in the Seascape Cottage owned by his parents. …he was
appalled by reports that he had an arsenal of 43 guns stored in his parents' pretty
cottage…"
Forty three firearms pus three makes a total of 46 firearms, many thousands of rounds
(described as "s…t loads" by Geoff Easton), plus containers of petrol…can you imagine all of this
packed into the very distinctive yellow Volvo with its surfboard on the roof pulling in for coffee
and refuelling at Taranna and no one noticed? Where did these firearms come from? The fact
is that the cost alone, of buying those 46 firearms was outside of the ability of Martin Bryant
living on his tightly controlled and Public Trustee Company administered budget!
• It has, during the course of this investigation, become clearer that as the Colt AR15 SP-
1 recovered from Seascape is not the weapon purchased by Martin Bryant from Terry
Hill, then does it not appear there is at least one other Colt, most likely a Colt AR15
SP-1 Rifle still out there some where. Awaiting a further "mission"? Little wonder the
Police did not ask Martin too many probing questions, as just like the golden rule for
Barrister's at law — 'never ask a question you don't already know the answer to' —
Martin's answers could have blown the whole case up in the DPP's face!
• We now know, the Tasmania Police had "not planned" to carry out "chemical tests" on
the victim's clothes "due to cost and time" and so the DPP had had no corroborative
evidence to link either the Colt AR15-SP1, or indeed the FN FAL rifle to ANY of those
persons murdered at the 6 crime scenes.
Remember, it was the SOG's as I said before, who deliberately and knowingly destroyed an
untold amount of evidence when they burned the Seascape cottage and the BMW sedan. Am I
being facetious in asking, "Would Tasmania Police benefit with an injection of new blood of the
intellectual calibre of Martin Bryant?"
• On page 19 from the witness' sworn statements, is mentioned the discovery by an SOG
officer of a firearm, "on the grass to the north of the cottage", after Bryant was
arrested. Under what circumstances was this firearm abandoned there, who owned the
firearm and what are its details? The Crown never suggested Martin Bryant had access
to this area or that he placed the weapon there. Nor did they question him as to being
the owner of that firearm. Why? Earlier I raised the suggestion that it may have been
inadvertently dropped from one of the mystery helicopters mentioned by witnesses as
flying over the scene repeatedly during the night. This is a relevant suggestion in light
of the fact that "SAC-PAV [was] in action" at Port Arthur, as is claimed in their own
documentation on the Web at: www.sac-pav.gov.au/action/portarthur.html
In their own words, they are quite clear that, "The PSCC was involved in the [Port Arthur]
incident very early, dealing with requests for advice and assistance," and that front line
assistance is said to have been supplied by three entities, the first entity listed is "The Defence
Force." The question therefore which begs an answer is this. Various documentation of the
event informs us clearly that no helicopters were available in Tasmania which had clearance
for night flying, so did the Defence Force make available to the PSCC (and so then SAC-PAV)
Blackhawk helicopters reported to have been seen in the Hobart area that weekend? If the
military did so, what part did the helicopters and their personnel play in the Seascape siege?
It is fair to say the above questions if answered would expose a whole raft of deficiencies in
the Court's findings in all of these matters. It is bad enough if now these anomalies alone
remain unanswered. However in the case of the gift shop door there are considerable deceits
for the public to unravel. Early in the report compiled by Damien Bugg QC, he states that, "the
lock fitted to the door was one which provided the choice of having the outside handle
deadlocked or able to be opened and, independently of that operation, the interior handle
deadlocked or able to be opened." What prevented Damien Bugg QC from simply stating the
details of lock fitted? Was he unable to read
and discern such a simple matter for himself
and state, 'the lock-set fitted to this door
was a #929 Lockwood Exterior Escape
Deadlatch'?
Mr. Bugg continues that he was, "satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish that
the door locking mechanism on the subject door had started to malfunction at some time prior
to the shootings on the 28th April 1996." and further that the, "handle on the inside of the
door appeared to not open the door even though unlocked. [But that] by the 28th April it
appears, that the intermittent malfunction had become permanent."
Clearly the door lock was malfunctioning and this malfunction prevented 5 visitors and 2 staff
from making the only option of escape open to them at the time from the gift shop to reach
possible sanctuary from the shooter's bullets via this exterior escape door and it directly and
unquestionably did contribute to the deaths of those 7 people.
In his report regarding the fire exit door to the Broad Arrow Café, the then DPP, Mr Damian
Bugg QC, stated that the Port Arthur Historic Site employee who was nailing all the doors and
windows shut and painting out the window glazing and with the assistance of a policeman, both
of them tested the door lock, and found it to be inoperative. I wonder how peacefully these
two individuals sleep at night.
The questions here are; why did the New South Wales Police permit the interference with a
murder scene of the acts of nailing the particular door which was involved with the death of
about six persons? Why did the New South Wales Police not make any report into the matter of
the fire exit door that couldn’t be opened? And was this particular door nailed shut prior to
the arrival of the New South Wales forensic Team?
These facts alone tell us that the door was inoperative, but Mr. Bugg then states, "I am
satisfied from the interviews I have had that the inference can be drawn that Nicole Burgess
and, probably also Elizabeth Howard, knew by the 28th April 1996 that the doorway at the
south eastern front of the Broad Arrow Cafe did not open from the inside out due to a
malfunction."
I must point out, both of these lovely young women died there knowing their only route of
escape was barred by an inoperative door lock. If the foregoing is not bad enough, then
consider that on 30th April 1996, "a carpenter employed by the Authority," was instructed to
"secure" the door and windows by, "nailing the doors and windows to their frames.”! This
account is contradictory to other statements in the DPP's own report. This constitutes
deliberate and wilful interference with a crime scene on the part of some individual; the point
is who instructed this individual?
But it gets worse: over the signature of senior locksmith from the firm Jacksons Security of 123
Murray Street, Hobart, we find he clearly adjudicates the type of latch function when he
states:
"The lock's
internal
rose rules
out the
possibility
of the
handle
having
another
function except fire escape".
After scrutinising both reports by Commissioner Doyle and that of Damien Bugg QC with regard
to the Gift Shop door, I can say with confidence Commissioner Doyle was objective, while the
DPP was Judge, Jury and Executioner and he most definitely
harboured a conflict of interests.
Ray Groom in terms that leave a cold shiver to run down my back,
and on national television no less stated, "Cause of the murders,
was not a door ... ah, I don't believe that, that door issue, is a
principle factor in the matter." Ray Groom is not only less than
convincing, but his statement is totally at odds with the DPP, and
Ray Groom: Embarrassed &
Commissioner Doyle both of whom are quoted above. It was I
struggling to contain his
anger Groom stridently
believe at least improper of him even to make comment, but in law I
defends blatant felonies!
believe it would be called by another term; but then, the cliché
The Minister claimed “that reads, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'. (Source, the Bugg
door” was not a factor in the Report). This is the same Minister who’s twisted principles were
deaths of any of the 5 people exposed, when he assured a Site staff-member, ‘Don’t worry, Mrs
pilled up & shot dead in that xxxxxxx, I have the b……d handcuffed to the bed and lying on his
alcove and against it. burns’. *
The grave injustice concerning the gift shop door is further heightened, if that is possible, by
Commissioner Doyle (ref 8.12 at p.58-62 of the Doyle Report), where he stated, "certain
evidence given at the Bryant Trial is either incorrect, or not factual!" This is after all only
stating the obvious, and that has been my position since reading the Court Documents from day
one. It requires me to also point out, that in June 1997 Special Commissioner Max Doyle was
deliberating upon findings of inquiry into “matters affecting the Port Arthur Historic Site and
other associated matters”, seven months after Bugg had presented his deplorable discourse
before Justice Cox that is termed "fact" in the Court Documents.
It is interesting to note that in a letter over the signature of Ray Groom, dated 20 November
1996, and addressed to Mr Steven Howard - the PAHSMA employee whose wife was murdered
behind the counter in the gift shop - where he states and I quote:
“Preliminary work on dismantling the café will commence on December 2, 1996
with work scheduled to be complete before Christmas…”
What indecent haste! The grave and serious matters of “that door” had not even been dealt
with yet! You will note also the sanitised term Ray Groom uses here; it could hardly be termed
“dismantled”. Let's call it for what it was: The Broad Arrow Café was partially “demolished”,
that is a much more accurate term. For if the structure had been “dismantled,” then the
survivors and staff members who lost loved ones and workmates behind “that door”, fitted
with its fire escape latch set may not have felt so betrayed, if it was not so in-your-face
obvious, the structure had to be demolished and as much of the distinguishing features such as
that door-way ripped out and destroyed for ever. Unless of course, the structure was in truth
carefully dismantled, with the door latch being deliberately targeted and deliberately damaged
so as to destroy its integrity as material evidence, then I would accept "dismantled". I wonder
where this latch set is today. If this should prove to be a more accurate conclusion, could it
not be that someone tampered yet again with evidence? I wonder if anyone ever owned up to
dropping a beam upon it – accidentally of course.
So many allied events beg further inquiry; the list is quite extensive. But, I must say they are
quite beyond this writer's charter of matters pertinent to the title of the publication. I feel
almost overwhelmed, when I contemplate even just a few anomalies not covered here. Many
*
Delivered face to face at a small meeting with the Minister at Taranna in early May of 1996.
of PAHSMA’s staff members were outraged by the cover-up, so on 24 October 1997, the new
Commissioner of Police visited the Historic Site. He made prior arrangements for management
to organise “an informal gathering of staff,” near the fountain. Here it had been arranged for
Aileen Kingston to accept on behalf of the staff a citation, “for the help [they] gave Police on
and after the 28th April 1996.” One is prompted to ask Richard McCreadie, “Who are the
police you believe staff were able to help?” McCreadie had at his disposal a boasted 471
Tasmania police – 2 unarmed police women fresh from the academy plus a former SOG armed
with a pistol were all he sent, for 6 long hours. Surely the ratio was tipped in favour for
McCreadie's team of 3 to receive a generous measure of help from the 500 or so people on the
Historic Site that day…
Not so surprisingly, in his speech Richard McCreadie urged the staff to “forget April 28” as “it is
time to get on with life,” a diagnosis incidentally that is entirely at odds with mental health
professionals, but understandably in harmony with all in authority – even including the
government appointed health insurance medico; they all have much to conceal and a lot to lose
when their collusions are exposed to the light of day. 16
My hope is that in time and with patient research those who are investigating this event with
an open mind, and no hidden agenda, will assemble their material for all Australians to
consider and then demand of authority an open Coronal Inquiry for starters. Nothing less will
suffice.
Until the people of Australia are shaken by reality and throw off the blight of indifference,
ignorance and even embarrassment (as has been demonstrated in recent days by the video
overboard affair) and somehow come to realise that the Port Arthur massacre which involved 7
crime scenes, was never conceived, planned and accomplished by the mind and physical
actions of Martin Bryant acting alone. These and at least 6 other mass shooting murders go
right to the foundation of our very existence, our freedoms and our heritage. Port Arthur
created the trauma that moved across a nation, it was the tool for cultivating the psychic
condition of the masses to accept the horrific law changes that are now enacted, and it was
the necessary "excuse" that ensured acceptance also of implementing national firearm
prohibitions and confiscations already written by Daryl Smeaton by November of 1995, and
imposed them upon a nation that then had no firearm problem. Yes, the chicken did come
before the egg.
Finally at this stage I must mention very briefly the compensation of victims.
Documents before the County Court in Melbourne show that on August 9 2004 "a [45-year-old]
nurse who said her life was ruined after counselling victims of the Port Arthur Massacre … won
a secret six-figure payout after suing her employers." Her lawyer Mr Ross Sicilia of the law firm
Slater and Gordon was reported to have said, "more than 2000 people affected by the tragedy,
including 690 emergency workers, received critical-incident stress counselling," after the
massacre. The plaintive launched her action against job agency Audiometrics and the
Commonwealth Bank and settled for an undisclosed amount. 17
Her employer had flown the nurse to Hobart to counsel up to 200 bank workers who the article
claimed "had lost loved ones in the tragedy". This I find a quite extraordinary claim that surely
is spurious. In the article, Mr Sicilia is quoted as stating that during her time Tasmania carrying
out her tasks, "She had to walk into a room of dead people, all suffering gunshot wounds. A lot
of these people were mutilated or disfigured by a high-powered rifle. We're talking about
people who couldn't be recognised." This I find quite unbelievable. For a start, the bodies
were all transported to the Hobart morgue, and if indeed some of those the nurse counselled
had her accompany them to identify one or even several bodies, then she would have been
escorted to a viewing room with just the body or bodies there to be identified. There is no
way this nurse was among the carnage like that which Mrs Wendy Scurr and her colleagues and
volunteers had to endure for many hours as the victims were triaged, treated and shipped-out!
This is a ludicrous situation, which emphasises the gross injustice of the treatment of the
PAHSMA staff such as Vicky McLaughlin, Wendy Scurr, Steven Howard, and many others
besides. 18
End Notes
1
Carol Altmann, "Port Arthur massacre video for 10c", The Weekend Australian, 28aug04, pp. 1-3
2
Mark Baker, "Gruesome video of Port Arthur victims is bought for 10c – Massacre tape uproar,"
The Examiner, p.1, 29aug04
3
Gavin Lower, "Sorry dad bites bullet", The Mercury, 8jan04.
4
Claire Konkes, "Please explain calls as horror video fury grows," The Mercury, 30aug04.
5
na, "Call for sacking over Port Arthur video", The Age, 28aug04.
6
Ibid; John Caples, "$30m plan a boost for Port Arthur," http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=328136,
04feb06
7
Wade, Rohan, "Video furore grows: Police concerned after copies made of chilling footage,"
The Mercury, 30aug04; Wade, "Snag to Video swoop," The Mercury, 01sep04.
8
ibid, 01sep04.
9
Paul Enever, "Massacre On Tape," The Daily Advertiser, 2sep04, pp. 1-2.
10
Enever, "Man surrenders Port Arthur video," The Daily Advertiser, 9sep04, p.3; Mark Miller,
Snr legal officer Legal Services, Tasmania Police #MMSO, 6sep04.
11
Enever, "Massacre On Tape," The Daily Advertiser, 2sep04, pp.1-2.
12
Ellen Whinnett
13
www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?PartID=4778; The Daily Telegraph, January 26, 2005
14
http://www.biomet.org/bi/.
15
Interview between Martin Bryant, John Avery & James Hannon, Risdon Prison, Fri 11.10.96; Channel
Nine's ACA, "Port Arthur the Inside Story"
16
PAHSMA memorandum 15.10.97
17
Caulfield, Christine, "Big compo for Port Arthur Massacre Nurse", The Mercury 10aug04.
18
Ibid, Caulfield, 10aug04,at:
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10397400%255E3462,00.html
…an unauthorised, brief, biography
Chapter 28
Michael Mazur shot back an arrow – ditto: "Jeff, who is D. Michael?" And the score was fifteen
all. What agenda is exposed when someone uses a “question” to answer a question? After a
year and a half, this unauthorized, brief, biography may provide some of the answers.
Australians on the eastern seaboard knew nothing of “Joe” Vialls until long after 1996.
His first article published by The Strategy newspaper of May 1997, erroneously promoted a
'fake video', which at the time was claimed to have been handed to a journalist by a Tasmania
Policeman. For Australians, and by this article, “Joe” had arrived! Soon, logging on to ‘surf
the Web’, produced hits and links to "Joe Vialls" popping up like mushrooms after warm autumn
rain.
These articles confirmed an ability to gather obscure photographs, maps, diagrams and
include them in his now familiar eye-catching, breaking-news articles on the Web, sometimes
within hours of the event – that to the unwary - marks him as a remarkable, armchair internet
journalist. One generous, even respected commentator slates “Joe” at NO5 in the world…
On the Web his articles have usually been attributed to “Joe” - Joe Vialls. In excess
of 112 articles attributed to him were at one time posted on the Web. Some 19 articles dealing
with the Port Arthur massacre alone, have been accredited to "Joe Vialls". But there also have
appeared a variety of pseudonyms: Joe Vialls, O.J. Vialls, Joe Vialis, Joe Vallis, and Joe
Viallis; could “Joe” and Agent Fescado be one and the same also? For a considerable time
now his Web-postings link him directly to his residential address in Perth, Western Australia,
with his bank, account details and number all displayed. His direct appeals for cheques and
cash in “almost any banknotes” are linked to a dedicated - ‘Joe Vialls Donation Page’.
“Joe” has always claimed English ancestry and along with his wife and family is
reported as having returned to Perth in 1988, and the family moved into Merlyn Drive of
Carine, a suburb just north of Perth’s CBD. From the transitive "returned" an initial Perth
arrival remains a mystery.
In March 1990 though, “Joe” was introduced to the readership of The West Australian
newspaper, as a victim of government, allegedly injured in the 1980's by covert, government
sponsored mind games, but the readership had to wait a further nine months to learn, as CEO
of a failed engine technology developer, he played a central role in the company’s failed
takeover bid for The Daily News.
On 31 March of that year, The West Australian published a full two-page article in their
Feature, "BIG Weekend", headlined "MIND GAMES". For West Australians, “Joe” Vialls certainly
had arrived there. Introduced by Mark Thornton, in the broadsheet's astonishing 2-page
feature story, the introduction of “Joe Vialls” - exclusively to West Australians - was big, bold,
and most definitely not low key, by any measure. The narrative focused on information
provided in the main by the subject himself with some scant corroborative evidence possibly
provided by means other than face to face interviews, of the two English based psychologists.
“Joe” persistently pleaded his case of being, 'hypnotised unknowingly at some time and very
strong post-hypnotic suggestions made which [in 1990 were allegedly] still affecting his life'.
The quite bizarre claims made throughout the narrative of "Mind Games", even had
journalist Mark Thornton at times in his writings, almost unable to hide a degree of scepticism.
“Eminent psychologist” Prof., Lionel Haward (now deceased) was quoted as defending Joe's
theories. But the veracity of the professor’s advice was destroyed, by the publishing of this
very article! For Thornton explains that the good professor himself advised “Joe” to vanish to
Australia so as to allow the furore (which “Joe” claims he actually instigated), to blow over.
One would have to conclude though that "BIG Weekend" article's revelations run
contrary to all of the professor's professional advice; it could hardly be claimed “Joe” really
wanted to - "vanish". So to what purpose and whose agenda did this propaganda serve?
Until late 1997 at most, I took “Joe” Vialls at face value. I thought he was no more
than just another lone champion in Australia, supposedly working to expose the intrigues
surrounding the Port Arthur massacre, and to have an innocent Martin Bryant's conviction
overturned. But it was “Joe's” unwarranted, dismissive persona ubiquitous in his replies to my
letters, which indicated something was amiss; so I decided to take a closer look at Joe Vialls.
His earliest letters to me (23 May 1998) bore no indication of "family" arms. However
by 5 May 1999, his letters sported the arms (at right) with a diagonal red belt bearing three
diamonds on a white shield, a cross right upper and knight's helmet
overall (no crown). However just as is the case with much that "Joe"
circulated, his heraldry changed! In 2003 this form (at left) was posted
on the Internet. But I wonder what crown he was beholden to?
Joe also introduced himself to an enquiring readership globally via Nexus magazine,
through his published article entitled "The Magic Cruise Missile" in their April/May 1993 edition.
This début was followed by three further Nexus articles (April-Sept 1994) in Volumes 215, 216
& 217, entitled "The Terrorist Factory" (very much later, posted on the Web).
Joe claimed the latter’s text was lifted from a book manuscript, entitled "Mike-Alpha-
Delta-3" (an acronym for "MAD-3"), a work obviously more than just an idea, long before his
Perth interview of March of 1990. In the Nexus articles “Joe” claims the manuscript had
earlier been submitted to publishers Collins in Sydney (Australia), and although first appraisals
looked promising, they rejected the project. Here I shall make three points:
1. “Joe” Vialls would have the reader believe the story line in Mark Thornton's "Mind
Games" article is a factual, 20-year-account of his life.
2. “Joe” Vialls would have readers believe that the narrative of "The Terrorist Factory" is
a fictional work based on fact.
3. After reading both narratives, one is forced to conclude they mirror one another.
To dismiss “Joe,” Vialls with some disparaging label would be very silly. He may well
have a strange disposition veiled with intrigues, but as late as November 1998, he was
obviously causing some who interacted with him concern as to his mental condition, for at that
time he circulated a copy of a letter addressed to him,
reformatted with a heading to read: "For Publication". The
letter appeared to have originated from out of the Office of
Health Review in Perth, in which the complaints officer
Stephanie Boyd wrote to "Mr J Vialls" in part:
Otho Jewell, a.k.a. “Joe” Vialls, has always inferred English roots. A family history
search demonstrates the name of “Vialls” in its various forms appearing rather late in English
records with the first Otho Vialls born in 1814, while listings in our subject's form of “Vialls”
proved uncommon, the reoccurring given names are unique.
1 Otho Vialls
+Jane
........ 2 Otho Vialls 1814 - b: September 1814 in Fulford, Yorkshire, Eng.
............ +Helen Maria Jewell - m: 9 January 1869 St Pauls, Chichester, Sussex, Eng.
................... 3 Otho Jewell Vialls 1870 - b: Abt. 1870
....................... +Mary Jane Anslow 1876 - b: 1876 in Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
....................... m: 1897 Elham, Kent, Eng.
............................. 4 Otho Vialls - b: January 1900 in Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
Census: 31 March 1901 Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
............................. 4 Alice Vialls 1898 - b: 1898 in Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
Census: 31 March 1901 Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
............................. 4 Marione Vialls 1901 - b: 1901 in Belfast, Ireland.
Census: 31 March 1901 in Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
............................. 4 Helen Jewell Vialls 1903 - b: 1903 in Elham, Eng.
Census: 31 March 1901 Folkstone, Kent, Eng.
................... 3 Anna Evelina – Ch: 1834, Melbourn, Cambridge Eng. FHL #990296 1558-1851.
---------------------------------
In considering the above English records we can but ask: "Are not these the ancestral
family of our subject?" My search of records also indicated just six further males named
"Otho" in all English records who may well be descendants of Benjamin and Fanny Flockton -
but I cannot confirm a direct relationship. It is from among a different line of surely the same
family that the 1871 census shows an Otho Vialls aged 56yrs – also born in France but then a
"British subject" – along with his wife Emma aged 41yrs, were "Master" and "Matron" of a
Nottingham "workhouse" and in charge of in excess of 350 people; young, old, male and female
but all from among the district's poor. The notorious "workhouse" of the period along with its
usual tyrant master and helpers that was so well portrayed in the stage-play "Oliver". Research
proves the surname in its various forms is more prevalent on the Continent. Therefore in
English family history, it is significant that Benjamin's birth (Jan 1816) and the above
workhouse master Otho (b. c1815), were both recorded as being once French citizens.
England's 1881 census shows the male #2 Benjamin (by then aged 65 years), residing in
Melbourn, Cambridge (Eng), giving his employment as an "actuary [in a] savings bank". Twenty
years later the next census of 31 March 1901, it would appear possible that Benjamin was
deceased. However if he were alive he could well have been out of the country at the time,
but remember he would have been by then 85-years of age. The Otho Jewell Vialls above (#3 -
born Folkstone, Kent, 1870), as #275424, served in the Nottinghamshire Yeomanry, Sherwood
Rangers from 1914-1920, and as a Regimental Quarter Master Sergt, he was 'mentioned in
dispatches' and awarded Meritorious Service Medals and Territorial Forces Efficiency Medals; it
would appear possible that he is our subject's grandfather? 5
In his inimitable style, “Joe” himself gave his "official" name - Otho Jewell - an ever
so slight "spin" when he wrote his 1994 Nexus article, "The Terrorist Factory", a now familiar
'in-your-face' introduction to his main character around which the yarn is entwined. Dumped
before the reader, the first two words of the very first sentence reads, "Otto Jewell"! This
article was later posted on the Internet. 6
When one compares the narrative in the West Australian "Mind Games" article
published of March 31, 1990, with this Nexus article published in 1994 - bearing in mind it was
drawn from a manuscript completed I would suggest some time before March 31, of 1990 - the
dates and detail of most events referred to in the works are in harmony.
Though much of our subject, Otho Jewell a.k.a. “Joe” Vialls' life before his return to
Australia, has by necessity been drawn from Web-posted-articles, letters, statements, claims,
quotations, newspaper articles and some original documentation in the main attributed to "Joe
Vialls" himself. If Otho Jewell Vialls had been frank with his readership as to his bona fides
from earliest published writings under the nom de plume “Joe Vialls”, the questions raised on
the Jeff Rense Web Site and need for this unauthorised biography may not have arisen.
The earliest recounts “Joe” provides us of his life are quite fragmented so "possibly"
and "probably" appear often, in part because of paradoxes created by the sourced articles. It is
therefore appropriate that you are able to at least consider the relevance of some activities of
the his fictional character Otto Jewell, and then compare these (fictional) claims with the
(factual?) assertions and reports about Otho Jewell Vialls, by the author “Joe Vialls”.
After the reported death of Otho Jewell Vialls on 17 July 2005, current records of the
Metropolitan Cemeteries Board of Western Australia ‡ show his birth year as I’d previously
estimated correctly as 1942/3. During the 1950s and 'as a teenager' he claims he attended
secondary schooling in Germany, but for reasons best known to “Joe,” he chooses not to reveal
the circumstance surrounding his scholastic Germanic adventure, and to what level and or even
the location or name of the school.
Though the earliest employment Joe mentions is with the Royal Air Force (RAF);
there’s nought about any earlier employment, so it’s possible that he joined the RAF around
1959/60. If he entered the RAF before 1964 he could have entered either as a "boy entrant" or
as an "Aircraft Apprentice". His references to RAF service are deliberately vague. Ordinarily an
ex-serviceman is proud of early career moves, especially with the military services, but “Joe”
Vialls is definitely an exception to this rule. After all, a squadron designation and service
‡
Pinnaroo Valley Memorial Park, application number #PC00003945
duration could surely not be claimed to be "classified" information. But in "The Terrorist
Factory" his thinly veiled character Otto attained 27 years-of-age in 1970, which is in accord
with Joe's claimed 1950's secondary schooling in Germany I should point out.
My Web search of accessible RAF records of previous service between the years 1960-
1975 proved fruitless; no person with the surname “Vialls” was found.
Today America imposes its will, albeit the agenda of another lesser nation in the area,
on the Arab states boarding the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, but from the Suez Crisis, and at
least until 1971, England alone imposed its ‘colonial’ military presence over this strategic part
of the Middle East. In 1961 the RAF even assisted Kuwait in military actions against Iraq. But
in 1970 Iran was their prime concern. At that time records show the RAF's 845 squadron was
flying Wessex helicopters off HMS Bulwark in the Gulf, but of RAF land-based squadrons
thereabouts, I can only confirm their "complete withdrawal" occurred in December of 1971.
In a letter to the editor of the West Australian, “Joe” states that early on the morning
of 20 February 1970, he was flying in the lead machine, of a group of five RAF Wessex
helicopters which had lifted-off from a RAF land base at Sharjah, on the Persian Gulf, and
further that the flight subsequently "carried out one of the most thorough searches in the
history of air-sea rescue." But another article claims “Joe” as a "flight engineer with the RAF –
not a pilot". 7
In another instance Joe promotes an early rather vague RAF association, when in an article by
“Joe Vialls” dated March 2002, the author tells us “In the early sixties we were sent out to find
the crash site of an English Electric Lightning Mach 2 fighter, which went in vertically at
nearly 400 miles per hour during an aerobatics display [in Britain].” My
search confirmed a collision did occur between two F3 British Electric
Lightning jets, during a Farnborough Air Show. One limped back to base
and landed safely while the other piloted by Flt Lt Cooke crashed.
Cooke was so badly injured he never flew again. His aeroplane was
captured on film, in a nose-down vertical attitude about to plow into the
ground, near the little village pub at Wattisham, with the ejected pilot
and seat-chute visible near the aircraft; at the time a widely circulated
photograph. But, let’s be specific about this crash. It occurred not
roughly ‘in the early sixties’ but in the first year of that decade 1960;
surely an easy year to remember in RAF serviceman’s career. As to any
involvement by “Joe” in wreckage recovery, I cannot confirm nor refute
8
Imminent Impact: This the claim.
extraordinary
photograph captured Now let’s consider what his doppelganger Otto Jewell tells us.
moments before impact Fictitiously speaking of course, Otto flew in the left-hand pilot's seat of a
of the crash of an F3 helicopter's cockpit, thence to a port
Lightning at Wattisham door-mounted heavy machine gun as he
which had earlier flew over Oman, also "back in 1970".
participated in the Narrator “Joe” goes on to relate how Otto
Farnborough Air Show completed a conversion course on a
c1960
Northrop F5F jet fighter; a not
inconsequential achievement I should say. So apparently flight
engineer “Joe” is relaxed about his plot to have Otto Jewell
The Northrop F5E4
convert - under mind control – in a jiffy from rotary-winged air-
craft to the pilot of a fixed-wing jet fighter; a quantum leap – especially for a flight engineer!
In 1997, “Joe” explains, “In 1992 … I first decided to investigate WPC [Yvonne]
Fletcher’s murder the most serious obstacle I encountered was the British media…” Now
here “Joe” creates a conundrum; supposedly Joe Vialls and his family returned to Perth,
Western Australia in 1988, and he has just told us it wasn’t until 1992 – 4 years later - that he
decided to begin investigating the murder of WPC Fletcher who was shot dead in St James
Square, London eight years earlier, in April 1984. Interestingly, he would also have us believe,
by repeated inference that he was personally and intimately involved - at that time - with this
1984 assassination; he tells us he was as close as possible to 'ground zero'. Though strangely,
the bane of his life - the Fletcher murder – is not raised even in passing in his 1990 interview
with The West Australian entitled “Mind Games”. Even although Joe’s alter ego Otto Jewell,
as The Terrorist Factory mind-controlled gunman, supposedly shot WPC Fletcher. Then, after
11 years and having fled to Perth, Western Australia (to vanish?), and by a most unconvincing,
undated, alleged copy-facsimile, “Joe” expected to convince his readers that a Joe Layburn
was flying to Perth, to sort out the evidence described by the author of the facsimile - Richard
Belfield of Fulcrum Productions - as ‘elusive and contradictory’. Simply “Joe’s” supportive
documents fail the initial credibility test. I’m unconvinced as to its authenticity. But I must
point out, this situation almost mirrors his 2001 Sorry Day project to have Martin Bryant
released; again his documented evidence was fragmented and not credible. 9
Of course, his discovery by the media in 1994 would have had nothing at all to do with
Mark Thornton's 2-page article in the BIG Weekend feature of The West Australian of March of
1990, “Mind Games”, now would it? But as to this alleged UK media interference, in searching
the U.K. media archives I can present no evidence to substantiate his claims.
For any reader of Joe Vialls' Australian writings it quickly became apparent, the
shooting murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher was promoted at least as dominating his thinking for
as many as twenty years, as references to the assassination pop-up repeatedly and even in the
very first lines of his first published writings on the Port Arthur massacre. Now it may be
prudent to consider more of the allegations raised in the "Mind Games" article of 1990. In his
latest Web posting (2005), and by displaying two letters on alleged company letterheads, “Joe”
attempts to authenticate his close association with the American Hughes Corporation; a
company he tells us hired him in 1983. 10
A subsidiary of Hughes Corp, Hughes Tool Company Ltd (by 1987, Baker Hughes) was a
major supplier to the oil drilling industry of their multi-cutter drill bits (patented early last
century), as well as invert drilling fluids supply and associated specialist advice.
It is interesting that Joe chooses not to share with us the circumstances by which he
allegedly gained the necessary knowledge and experience, so as in 1983 to be recognised as a
"specialist in drilling fluids technology". For in that year he claims Hughes Tools Company hired
him to provide expertise to the Indian Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (IONGC), drilling in their
West Bengal project, which he tells us required the company's "classified" (?) invert fluid system
to be used in IONGC's 'very deep oil well' there, claimed by Joe to have been scheduled to drill
to 23,000 feet, and the Thornton article never mentions the name of the oil well.
“Joe” makes no mention of any oilfield operational experience prior to the Bodra #3
well in West Bengal, and as a flight engineer in the RAF, he surely was never called upon to
employ “drilling fluids technology"! But in his own recounts, and after just 4 years (by 1986),
he's done with oilfield operations - according to Mark Thornton's article, although how he
squeezes all this “experience” in and beats any Houdini trick I’m aware of! But I must concede
there’s a claim at least of an advisory role carried on after returning to Western Australia in
1988 but no mention as to any company name; coincidentally the same year (and in July) that
saw 167 oilmen die in a conflagration of Piper Alpha, the Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia)
Company’s oil rig in the North Sea.
But drawing upon his very own claims in his own articles lets get it right; "Joe" Vialls
tells us he accumulated just 4 years in oil. Is it therefore not reasonable to downsize Joe's
oft-repeated, almost mandatory introduction, of '30 years experience in military and oilfield
operations' to a realistically revised 27 years - at least?
Four years in oil and say 23 or so years in the RAF? But in considering the above, are
his claims of accumulated experience at all accurate - or even
possible in a single life-time? If he joined the RAF in say 1959 aged
17 yrs – and he’s left the RAF and was employed by Hughes Tool Co.
by 1983 as “an expert”. That accounts for 24 years RAF service by
age, say 41 years. Five years later he flees to Perth in W.A. and his
photograph features in “Mind Games” in March 1990. This means
"Joe", sorry Otho Jewell Vialls has by 2005 hit say about 63 years-of-
age.
Now we shouldn't be surprised, when Mark Thornton writes that after Joe had
effectively repaired the allegedly 'carefully sabotaged well,' in West Bengal, (before his return
to England) and during the early months of 1984, he felt that he was working under immense
pressure, until after returning to Calcutta and while sitting in the Oberoi Grand's coffee shop,
he claimed to have experienced "a blank period in his memory," of two hours. Thornton goes
on to explain that support for Joe's theories was obtained from English psychologists Raymond
Seal, and (the now deceased) Prof. Lionel Harward, although importantly the latter makes the
point that Joe’s mind control claims were only ever prima facie.
Here Bowart has destroyed any notion that WPC Yvonne Fletcher was assassinated by a
covert agent under mind control as claimed by “Joe”. Equally, when considered beside
articles such as the Terrorist Factory the case can be successfully argued it is now possible to
point more confidently towards the probable assassin who pulled the trigger. It’s a ploy ages
old to use the plausible story line in a novel to bury a historical truth. Is this why Joe
proclaimed to the world his prima facie case of mind control experience in the first instance?
If the facts exposed thus far are not concerning enough, Joe was further reported to
have claimed Walter Bowart had communicated with him and when our subject had attempted
to procure a copy of the book, "Strangely … Bowart's book had sold out [and] he was not able
to find any copies of it for sale." In a style I would suggest more befitting our subject, it is
further claimed his psychologist "Professor Haward searched England for [the book] without
success until he eventually found a copy in the library of an obscure private girls' school."
This claim is simply outrageous, as the quotation three paragraphs above, came from
Nexus magazine published five years after “Joe’s” absurd interview went to print. Duncan
Roads the Nexus editor makes no reference either of experiencing difficulty in obtaining a copy
of Bowart’s work, an excerpt of which entitled “Interview with an Assassin,” was published in
the April-May 1995 issue of Nexus, at p.39. In the Thornton article “Joe” was reported to have
mentioned an initial print run of 100,000 of Bowart’s book.
Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart, was first published in the USA by Dell
Publishing Co Inc in January 1978, and later in Great Britain by Fontana/Collins also in that
same year, but importantly eight years before Joe’s eminent therapist was forced to run a copy
of the book to earth ‘in the library of an obscure private girls' school’. The dates also suggest
“Joe” surely was conducting his drag-net among the vast array of bookshops in Perth – Western
Australia. So what of the claimed scarcity of the book? My inquiries show that while out of
print, and 27 years after its release, new copies of Operation Mind Control are still obtainable
15 years after “Joe’s” quest and not even hidden in some obscure private girl’s school either!
Coincidentally Joe mentions that Collins (of Sydney Aust.) was the same firm who
turned down his approach to have "Mike-Alpha-Delta-3" manuscript published. But another
thought has come to mind; by 1989 Joe had already settled in Carine, so I find it ludicrous that
we are expected to believe he was still consulting with his U.K. psychologists. Come on!
You should also be aware Joe openly brags; "many years ago I was involved with
counter terrorism in the UK, and on rare occasions I liaised with the British SAS and MI5…"
He went on to explain this allowed "…all units involved … have a drink together in a pub…"
So when did the powers-that-be begin seconding flight engineers out of the RAF into anti-
terrorist units? I wonder which ‘service’ was primary. 12
In Mark Thornton's article we are told, over 1983-4, in West Bengal and working for
Hughes Tool Company, our subject "reversed the careful sabotage" to the oilwell, claimed to
have been the work of the CIA, and saved IONGC's Bodra #3 oil well from being blown off face
of the earth and the local village along with it. But can anyone explain what he means by
"careful" sabotage? Our subject then goes on to claim, he worked under increasing pressure in
early 1984, and in June of 1984, he returned to England on "scheduled leave".
But by 2004 and for reasons best known to Joe, he re-wrote his account of the super
hero who ‘reversed the careful sabotage’ of the Bodra #3 well. Yes twenty-one years on, it
would appear that saving the well, the village and its people was just a good story.
For in 2004 the story was now exclusively for West Australian consumption, as the
World-Wide-Web targets a global readership. Not only does he put an entirely different twist
on the outcome of the sabotage, but he also gives very different reasons for it, alleging
circumstances surrounding the American CIA sabotage stating, "after bribing a handful of
corrupt central government officials, US intelligence sent in professional American saboteurs,
who managed to wreck the drilling project while the author was away on a visit to Sydney
in Australia."- my emphasis… No mention either of his hypnotic mind control experience.
So "Joe" is telling us now he was away from Bodra #3 in Sydney – an earlier visit to
Sydney in Australia in 1983 - but still not legitimising his use of the term “returning” to Perth.
Remember his scheduled “leave” in June was still to come, so if his visit to Sydney wasn't for
pleasure, it must have been for business; but what business? 13
In Mark Thornton’s feature article, he chooses also to suppress the circumstances under
which he left the employ of Hughes Tools about June of 1984; was he summarily dismissed?
However “Joe” is reported as claiming he was soon "offered lucrative jobs," taking a
position with Drilling Fluids Consultants (DFC), of Holland. But did he remain in England, close
to the North Sea oilfield served out of Aberdeen? While with DFC, and in January of 1986 -
eighteen months after leaving Hughes - Joe claims to have been twice summoned to meet with
his superior. On the second occasion, this involved a 'long journey to Aberdeen in Scotland'.
While driving there, Vialls claims he had what Mark Thornton described as "his mysterious car
accident." Psychologist Raymond Seal reportedly claimed his patient, "must have been in a
hypnotic trance, when he began the manoeuvre [realising] what he was doing only after the
car was already spinning out of control at 120km/h." Now we can add, 'expert defensive
driver' to his resume! Yes Joe (or was it Otto?), survived and under circumstances unexplained,
with a “neck brace” fitted, he resumed his journey. This raises many questions; how could the
120km/h spin been 'out of control' if the car didn't roll or crash? But for “Joe” to have required
a neck brace, is suggestive of the vehicle coming to an abrupt stop – crashing. Was the neck
brace supplied by a hospital visit? Doctors are not reputed to carry such aids at the surgery –
again suggestive of a crash or ambulance call-out. 14
Some background of MFCTV’s director is warranted here: Born around 1927 of Jewish
parents, the family escaped from their home in Poland before the outbreak of WW-II seeking
refuge in England, where she lives today in north London. Aged 19, Helen was in uniform
(possibly British and sporting a peculiar shoulder patch), and somehow she was among
personnel of the allied forces who went into Belson concentration camp some months after
Camp No.1 was burnt by the military so as to destroy the typhus fever germs and other disease
that was raging at that time (ed. Note; due to Churhill’s orders refusing the Red Cross request
for humanitarian aid to be air-dropped to this and other camps). Amnesty International was
set up in 1961 the same year Helen Bamber joined them, playing a key role in exposing the
collaboration of doctors with regimes engaged in
torture, campaigning on behalf of health workers who
were their victims. §
A most interesting Bamber interview was published in the
Spring 2004 edition of the Jewish quarterly magazine,
Jewish Renaissance, a magazine which includes the
worthy statment in its charter; "a mission to raise the
profile and esteem of Jewish culture." On this occasion
Helen Bamber is interviewed by psychologist/journalist
Golda Zafer-Smith; to 'find out how the Human Rights
Activist came to devote her life to helping University of Dundee 2001: Helen Bamber
the oppressed'.
(see http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/).
Alas though, when one considers America’s adventures in their preposterous "war on
terror" and outrageous detention practices in recent times at facilities directly or indirectly
connected to them such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Guantánamo Bay (Cuba), Cairo and
Morocco, one could say it was most fortuitous indeed that Helen Bamber should have
established her foundation at that time; she’ll never be short of patients in
what obviously is an American sponsored growth industry of terror.
In one instance “Joe” repeatedly levels harsh criticism at the UK based documentary
maker Dispatches and especially the published co-author Lester Coleman, but never his partner
Donald Goddard; as if they dare to write contrary to the ‘gospel according to Joe’. It is
possible that claims made in this particular Dispatches documentary were not entirely correct,
but nevertheless, Dispatches did lay the blame for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, right at the
feet of elements of British and American intelligence. They concluded the murder of this
unarmed female "Bobby" ignited a trans-Atlantic campaign to set-up Libya as the rogue Arab
State for the Reagan era and far beyond.
Remember “Joe” Vialls claimed while employed by Hughes Tool Company, he’d
returned home to England on 'scheduled leave' in June 1984, and further, that "shortly after"
§
Source: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/research/centres/Helen_Bamber/about/index.shtml
he commenced a lucrative position with DFC, based in Holland. But now "Joe" tells us he can
be in two places at once - and he chooses to conceal the purpose of this visit to Sydney
mentioned earlier and in a recent article attributed to Joe Vialls, he writes:
"I was directly involved with Hughes Corporation at 8 St. James Square,
during the critical period 2 April 1984 to 24 January 1985."- My emphasis. 17
You can see by his carefully chosen words, “Joe” wants the reader to believe by
inference at least, and that during this nine month period he had 'direct involvement … at 8
St James Square'. Posted with his latest updated article of in excess of 7000 words on the
Fletcher case, are allegedly genuine copies of two business letters on company letterheads he
uses to buttress this claim. While one letter is just legible its text is blatantly unconvincing in
many respects, while the other letter is illegible – just like many photographs Joe posts in his
articles, and any attempt to expand the latter destroys all clarity; a deliberate strategy?
In 1984, and prior to Joe’s scheduled leave in June, he was working under increasing
pressure on the Bodra #3 very deep oilwell in West Bengal. But in the first of these two letters
he infers at least that on March 27, 1984 rather than residing in West Bengal he supposedly is in
residence at the Holiday Inn, Singapore; but no room number, unit number nor a street
address. Unless of course it could be considered credible to dispatch a letter from the Oberoi
Grand, Calcutta giving the Holiday Inn, Singapore as your address? Conversely, while Joe has
told us of his crucial supervisory role on the drilling platform using "classified" drilling fluid, in
the next breath he would have us believe he could flit-off to Singapore (or Sydney) even
although he’s about to return to England on “scheduled leave”? Why all the contradictions?
Joe would also have us believe the purpose of this rather odd business letter addressed
to "O.J. Vialls" (Otho Jewell Vialls) at Holiday Inn, Singapore, was in reply to a letter he'd
written dated Tuesday, 27 March 1984, requesting an airline ticket from Frank T. Albert. But
obviously Joe's request had been addressed to Frank's office in Singapore, not St James Square
London, and to whom he claims to have been "directly involved" and responsible to!
Now the alleged author of the reply letter, dated 2 April 1984 - Frank T. Albert - is also
shown as a Group Vice President of the firm's Far East Operations based in Singapore. So how
was it that Joe supposedly at this time, no closer to Singapore than the Oberoi Grand in
Calcutta, had written to Frank Albert in the first instance, giving his address as c/o Holiday Inn,
Singapore? Why did he not address his request to St James Square, London?
Also we are expected to believe that Frank T. Albert was unable to meet Joe as he
would be "…enroute to Australia on April 8, 1984," presumably a date Joe had suggested he
would meet him to collect the air ticket – but where was he intending to meet Frank Albert?
The vagaries of the letter only compounds the doubtful quality of claims our subject makes
with regard to his return to England on scheduled leave in June of 1984, and for that matter his
latest outrageous claims of 'direct involvement at 8 St James Square' in London from 2 April,
1984. The publishing of these letters I would opinion, only ever throws doubt upon any
involvement by "Joe" in the West Bengal drilling operation in the first instance.
It is impossible for our subject to be in two places at once. It is just rubbish for him to
suggest "direct" involvement with Hughes Tool Company at 8 St James Square commencing on 2
April 1984, when as is clearly stated in 1990, he was at that time in West Bengal, and not
returning to England on 'scheduled leave' until June of that year! But I suppose he could blame
it all upon hypnotic mind control games.
In addition to this substantial anomaly, remember that in the 1990 interview by The
West Australian, Joe was clearly reported as having stated, that shortly after his return to
Britain in June 1984, and from among several offers, he accepted a lucrative position with DFC
of Holland. But the above claim has him still in the employ of either Hughes Tools Company,
on the 24th of January 1985, and also this date can in no way be construed as falling "shortly
after" June of 1984 either! 18
PanAm Flight 103, involving a Boeing 747 - “Maid of the Seas” – originating out of
Heathrow bound for America which was brought down as it passed over the Scottish Borders'
township of Lockerbie on December 21, 1998, killing all 259 passengers and crew, and a further
11 residents of the village, who were struck by falling wreckage.
As a further aside, from a trusted and reliable eyewitness heavily involved in that
aftermath, I have learned first hand that in the first hours of the catastrophe, a quite extensive
area of the crash site was quickly "sealed-off" by people dressed in noticeably look-alike
apparel who all displayed 'unmistakeable, American accents'. Unless you had a ‘green pass’ I
was told, these people simply refused your passage, even when the necessary ID of a senior
rescue service person was produced.
In January 2000, Joe posted an article entitled, "“Setting Up” Libya for the Lockerbie
Bombing". But I cannot find evidence to support any position that would suggest a controversy
having arisen among the mainstream media as a result of any claim attributable to Joe
published previous to his January 2000 article. With regard to Lockerbie however, unlike the
his article covering the multiple shootings massacres of Columbine (USA), and especially the
Erfurt shooting massacre (Germany), and Bali bombing (Indonesia) where Joe's exclusive
articles were posted on the Web within hours of the event, it took him almost 2 years to post
the January 2000 article on this much politicised aeroplane bombing.
In his PanAm Flight 103 article and amongst his now expected disparaging remarks
directed toward the key whistleblower Lester Coleman, Joe makes this claim: “Not one of the
personnel I have so far contacted at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, remembers liaising with or
receiving intelligence from, Lester Coleman…” Please consider this: “How is it, that Otho
Jewell a.k.a. Joe Vialls, ex-serviceman disability pensioner, strapped for cash, former
RAF flight engineer, living all the way down under in Carine, Perth, Western Australia, has
such renown, such globally distributed friends in key positions in the intelligence
community, so that when he calls-up Fort Bragg (USA), he easily penetrates security and
asks the right person such sensitive questions?”
Lester Coleman, I should point out, was an agent of the Defence Intelligence Agency or
DIA. The DIA has been described as 'the most discrete intelligence agency in the world'. I also
understand the DIA employs a reputed 57,000 people, on a budget five times that of the CIA
and it doesn’t operate out of Fort Bragg either.
The DIA supposedly is based in two centres; Arlington Hall in Virginia, and Bolling
Airforce Base, near Washington, D.C. Now, intelligence organisations reputedly have an
ongoing jealous rivalry, which is the root cause of occasional faux pas. Deliberately addressing
this fact, the DIA reputably chooses not to fraternise at all with any outside intelligence
people; not even the CIA. So I would confidently suggest the DIA would not talk with people in
Fort Bragg either. Why did Joe bother to make inquiries there, unless perhaps he foreknew the
answer and that answer was helpful to a story he was attempting to reinforce.
In his now familiar style of story telling, Joe has again sown subtle seeds of doubt and
irrelevancies into the minds of his readers on the subject of Lockerbie by simply casting equally
subtle aspersions upon a key whistleblower and his prime target - Lester Coleman - so as to
promote his own cosseted conclusions. In doing so it raises this question: “If Joe Vialls is
correct in his conclusions about PanAm 103, then why was this key whistleblower Lester
Coleman set-up by his former employers the DIA, involving a DIA/FBI (not the CIA note),
engineered “sting”, had him arrested, charged, convicted and gaoled for committing a single
fraud because he'd obeyed to the letter his controller’s instructions to apply for a passport in
an assumed name?” Coleman was immediately gaoled.
Coleman’s imprisonment is difficult to fathom until one realises he was about to travel
to Holland and present his testimony on the PanAm 103 bombing under oath and before the
Scottish Court established at Kamp Zeist Airbase, in Holland, where two Libyans stood accused
of the bombing. Mr Coleman occupies a cold American gaol cell; at no time has Joe suggested
any willingness to tell his story under oath before a court of law in the public interest … and
Otho Jewell a.k.a. “Joe” Vialls still resides – free - in Western Australia.
As the Lockerbie PanAm Flight 103 is far beyond the scope of this work, I’d strongly
suggest the reader consider the many Internet articles on this subject, though don’t be
surprised not to find Joe's theories in relation to it hardly are picked-up-on by any of the
authors.
With regard to the Port Arthur massacre, many people wrongly believe Joe Vialls was
the first author to be published; he was not the first. Vialls' initial article appeared in the May
1997 issue of The Strategy, some six months after several articles and Suddenly One Sunday by
Mike Bingham, were published.
In the numerous articles attributed to "Joe" and in correspondence over his distinctive
signature he proclaims his expertise in a vast array of fields. Though not in a single article
does he produce convincing, corroborative evidence in support these claims, apart from a
fictional story based on fact and a duplicate interview with a media he openly spurns. So it is
not surprising that a reader recently suggested, "To read Joe Vialls is to confront an
intellectual tsunami! The question emerges - are you enlightened or infected...?" 19
With regard to his references to the intelligence entities, the familiar manner Joe uses
to describe almost inconsequential domestic issues among the major bodies and the Israeli
body in particular, are suggestive of intimate, or even a first-hand experience.
His written work has attracted a variety of criticism from an array of writers and
readers ranging from "brilliant" to "speculative", "fawning and fatuous". But I would opinion his
writings are suggestive of person who cannot take betrayal lying down. Understandable, when
you consider the diverse descriptive profile in the mass of articles attributed to him Joe is
variously described as:
1. a former RAF Wessex helicopter flight engineer,
2. a military marksman, who’s been shot and wounded twice,
3. formerly an RAF ground staff,
4. Oil-pollution spokesman for the Democrats (a political party of Aust.),
5. an ex-British private security expert,
6. a veteran British military analyst,
7. an aeronautical engineer,
8. former member of the Society of Licensed Aeronautical Engineers (London), 20
9. has held a high level security clearance with NATO,
10. a former member of the NATO armed forces,
11. GM of (Perth Based) HMR Engine Co Pty Ltd (1990),
12. Perth based specialist in drilling fluids technology,
13. Carine based business consultant,
14. an Australian-based freelance journalist with over 30 years direct experience in
international military and oilfield operations,
15. a former petroleum engineer,
16. Internet journalist and former (?) MI6 agent,
17. an Australian journalist and military authority,
18. a former combat veteran living on a miniscule disability pension,
19. an expatriate US military analyst based in Australia, and even
20. Joe Vialls, the Australia-based Media Disinformation investigator…
In a letter Joe writes of having to 'push every button available' and call-in 'a few
favours from some heavy friends' so Australia's federal Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (BCI),
would reverse a decision impacting adversely upon a family member. In this instance he also
bragged of ticking-off other high placed friends in ASIO. But how in a recently adopted
country, could such friendships have been nurtured by associations in any of his former
vocations of oil-drilling and/or RAF service? Oh … I forgot; perhaps from his drinking
companions in London. 21
But a host of inconsistencies are to come. In a letter (dated 1998), to this author, and
promoting himself as almost IT illiterate, he wrote; "Circulate [this letter] far and wide, and
lobby for something called a “flatbed scanner” and software called “Aldos Photoshop”
etc…" It left the distinct impression that the operation of a PC for Joe was a fresh experience.
But his clever inference in this instance is nothing more than a deliberate deception.
For on page one of TWA "Mind Games" article (31.3.90), is featured a large photograph
(see above) of the person advised to flee to Australia and keep his head down, with a caption
that reads: – "Joe Vialls: unwitting victim of hypnotic trance". I would point out that the
subject is seated, hands on the keyboard of a lay-down tower, 486 PC with its now dated 5¼"
floppy drive, a 15" monitor sitting on top, and a printer to the right. In March of 1990, the 486
PC was surely the very latest PC in Australia and available just months earlier…
So Joe surely could not still be a novice with computers 8 years on, when he wrote in a
manner suggestive of a lack of IT knowledge? Oh, and this photo wasn't captured in any office
of the West Australian newspaper either, for hanging on the wall you will note behind his PC is
a photograph of what appears to be a large American-form off-shore oil platform, but why not
a photo of Bodra #3 derrick in West Bengal, such as he posted in his August 25th 2004 article?
From at least 1997, Joe has claimed repeatedly to be of limited means, which in itself
carries no shame. But self promotion as a former combat veteran living on a miniscule
disability pension and on “zero cash” and begging alms is something else; especially when from
the outset in Australia at least the process included promises never kept. Is it credible to
present as a lone investigator, single-handedly operating an extensive internet operation, the
logistics of which alone far outstrip the image deliberately projected by him of a cash-strapped
IT illiterate with a canny finger on the pulse of global intelligence and multinational intrigue
from every corner of the world? Am I being to unkind using the term global beggar?
Recent articles have an eye-catching active “link” (below left) to a dedicated "donation
page" at the bottom of which he laments his diminishing circumstances. In recent times “Joe”
Vialls has complained the “paid service charged to [his] credit card” - home page
http://geocities.com/vialls/ - was abruptly shut-down and two days later, he was “suddenly
banned by PayPal”. Along with this ban, he claims donations from Americans all went west
without explanation; the degree of Joe’s expressed indignation would seem to suggest his loss
was not insignificant. I wonder if formerly his average monthly take from this exercise ever
affected receipt of his disability pension.
So it very appropriate to ask Mr Vialls, what the total amount of donation monies is
presently held to run this action on behalf of the people of Australia in relation to the matter.
Also when is the action in the case of Martin Bryant v the Crown, slated to precede Mr Vialls?
Also imbedded in the appeals for monies in Australia at least, there have been claims
that donations will also enable him to proceed with his “ongoing investigation"; now while the
Bryant retrial seems to have slipped from his agenda. Or have I missed “Joe” publishing any
credible or new evidence in the past seven years or so on the Port Arthur massacre?
While we are on “money” I would also suggest few people are aware of just how Joe’s
first booklet on Port Arthur was published. The narrative and photos were compiled from his
articles published earlier by The Strategy. The layout, printing and distribution in September
1997 was carried out by Mr Eddie Novak who was himself then definitely of limited means and
confined to a wheelchair.
I have been sent hard evidence of several significant donations that have been made
directly to Joe by private, senior citizens. In two cases I'm aware of he allegedly suggested by
inference that these donations would be put towards a retrial of Martin Bryant or a Royal
Commission into the Port Arthur massacre. After all, Joe claims to have “large tracts of
sensitive and classified information [that is] computer cross-referenced to equally
classified scientific data,” which he says he will only table before a legal forum he chooses
not to detail. After six or seven years to consider such promises, I can forgive the donors from
suggesting a whiff of fraud here.
I’m aware of at least three separate occasions on which Joe was invited by sponsors,
who offered to fly him from Perth to Launceston (Tas.) and Inverell (NSW), so as he could
deliver his hard scientific backed synopsis on Port Arthur massacre publicly, and have a chance
to debate the subject with one of our number. But Joe Vialls refused point blank; and his lame
excuses? He’s a heavy smoker, unable to endure a few hours of in-flight no smoking, but in an
unguarded moment the claimed former flight engineer blurted out that he ‘hated flying’. A
quaint statement when one is made aware that he did make the claim that he was the pilot
who flew Ian Smith out during the Rhodesian emergency all those years ago…
Now to a recent episode that requires some explanation, as it unfolded in the board
rooms, banks and stock exchanges of Australia, bearing in mind Otho Jewell a.k.a. “Joe” Vialls,
told us he “returned” to Australia in 1989 and 9 years on feigns to this author his novus status
as regards operating a PC, even although Newspapers and journalists in particular were among
the first to turn to the PC word processor.
Prior to 1990, West Australian Newspapers Ltd (WAN) published the only metropolitan
morning newspaper in Perth, The West Australian, in addition to several regional newspapers.
Late in 1989 – the after Otho Jewell a.k.a. “Joe” Vialls, had returned to Perth - WAN
expressed an interest in purchasing all issued shares of United Media, which meant if
successful, they would effectively wholly own, and control the Daily News, which historically
had been returning hefty losses to its shareholders.
On Christmas Eve, December 1989, the Trade Practices Commission (TPC) was informed
by liquidator Ross Norgard, a principle of the accounting firm Aurther Andersen & Co, that the
Daily News Pty Ltd’s masthead and library had been sold to HMR Engine Co Pty Ltd, who
intended to relaunch the newspaper, in a slimmed-down operation by March 1991. 22
HMR Engine Co Pty Ltd was reported as a "Perth based company" listed on the "second
board" of the Hobart (Tasmania) stock exchange. A business consultant was reportedly
preparing a business plan for the stockholders of HMR Engine.
Now for a surprise; this "Carine consultant" was also managing director of HMR Engine
Pty Ltd, and reported as none other than Joe Vialls (not Otho Jewell Vialls) and in the midst of
all this company turmoil, curiously, HMR’s managing director was accorded wide exposure in
The West Australian’s lead feature article “MIND GAMES,” as a man who “would be extremely
susceptible to clandestine hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestions of the kinds he has
described.” 23
The Daily News had run up overwhelming debts of A$18m, and the electronic media
(TV) was squeezing evening newspapers to death - world wide; WAN knew the paper was
beyond rescue but its collapse had a curious twist; WAN held a stacked hand and didn't want
any part of any evening newspaper.
It would surely be ludicrous to suggest the likes of West Australian Newspapers would
bother involving themselves in any scheme or intrigue to bolster share prices in an obscure, and
failing engine technology company, by financing its new CEO, and a "dummy" bid of $350,000
for the masthead and library of a newspaper that would if the bid was successful make the
Daily News in reality a reborn "opposition". I don’t believe they did so.
But other questions do hang heavy in the air, like: “How on earth was Joe Vialls with
his claimed former oil drilling fluids technology expertise, expected to prepare a
"feasibility report" for a failed newspaper's revival that would convince investors he
could stage a rescue of the failing newspaper, without a strong background in either
journalism, newspapers, publishing or all three professions?” Unless of course, his
propulsion into global Web-journalism, evidences a former craft his modesty influenced him to
conceal. This is contrary I may add, to the "Joe" I've researched and his predictable audacious
persona…
Covert intelligence agents and propaganda gurus with obligations to foreign nations I'm
sure don't usually sit about on street corners feeding the pigeons. It stands to reason such
people actually have to adopt at least partially overt livelihoods, as a shelter for their covert
function. It is well recorded through history that the craft of "journalism" has been used by
governments from time to time as a cover for their agent provocateurs. I’m reminded of an
article by Len Boselovic [Post-Gazette - 28feb03] that tells us George Soros and his Open
Society Institute distribute no less than US$500m annually, to promote his global agenda of a
new order; I wonder if the odd amateur Internet-scribe benefits from such philanthropy?
So I ask you to consider anther twist in this story: as controversy mounted and the
debate hotted-up concerning the 9/11 attack in 2001 on the Pentagon in Washington, among
the host of Internet postings on the subject there was one article that really caught my eye.
The article was dated 31.7.03, and its authorship was attributed to Dick Eastman. Dick
Eastman is accredited on various sites as being a 'newsgroup activist and economist,' giving his
address as; 223S, 64th Ave. Kakima, Washington, 98908 – (USA).
But in the midst of Eastman's 2003 article Dick makes this bold statement: "Internet
journalist and former (?) MI6 agent Joe Vialls says he found this on a video cassette…etc"-
end quote. 24
In August 2003, “GS” e-mailed query, with the subject line “MI6”, asking Joe Vialls just
one question; “Would you mind telling me of your association past or present as an agent
of MI6?” A naïve approach in any estimation as no agent either past or presently serving,
would dare answer in the positive. “Joe” responded “On an equally ridiculous note, would
you mind telling me of your association past or present as an agent of the Mossad?” 25
Only by the time of writing, this lone e-mail query had evolved within the text of a
letter, into allegations that suggested the original e-mail query was made by a ‘ten a penny…
agent provocateur’ (Andrew MacGregor) having posted on the Internet a “link” supposedly
having been forwarded out of concern to our 'lone investigator' Joe. However for the many
thousands who by now have listened intently to Andrew MacGregor’s public presentations on
Port Arthur’s massacre (and I’ve heard about 8 of them), and considered his explanations and
conclusions to all that surrounds this appalling event, I would simply ask Otho Vialls: “Why do
you choose to be hold-up in Carine begging alms, and NEVER present your theories to any
of public, face to face, as Andrew MacGregor has done in 5 States of Australia?”
“Joe” uses inappropriate and defamatory
language directed toward various parties including this
author, and goes on to state, “Put simply there is no
such entity as MI6 outside of Hollywood, and no British
source would dream of using such a meaningless
"James Bond" term.” He also clearly reaffirms his
knowledge on the subject by writing the entity is actually,
Vauxhall Cross: home to Otho Jewell “the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), which works
Vialls' non-existent MI6 the south bank of the Thames, [and] is generally
considered subordinate to the CIA and the Mossad….”
In this instance “Joe” has shown himself to be classing the intelligence community, and
simultaneously, inferring his placement not among certain lower class families in the
intelligence community! In his writings, Joe (quite rightly) expresses contempt for the people
involved in the assassination of Yvonne Fletcher. But in the post-hypnotic-blocked mind it’s
entirely understandable that some latent desire is manifest to ensure we’re drawn away from
MI6 and the CIA as ever being his “bride”, so I guess that leaves the "Mossies" conspicuously at
the top of the heap.
Interestingly though in the same document Joe assures his correspondent, quote: "But
none of us would socialise with “those SIS crazies″ on the South Bank at all." 26
So we can take it that Joe is sharing here his vast “experience” (or is it expertise) in
matters concerning the real “spooks” as he attempts to distance himself from MI6. You see
Joe's position of “no such entity as MI6” is deceptive at best, for in a letter dated 23.05.1998,
he writes: “MI6 got caught with their hands in a Swiss till pulling that stunt back in
nineteen sixty-something, and so far as I know have not been stupid enough to repeat the
exercise since then.”
As late as 7.3.2004, the copyrighted date on another of his published articles Joe is of
two minds when the text reads:
Let me make it crystal clear: the law courts of Britain confirm the existence of MI6.
On 12th April 1999, “Richard J. C. Tomlinson a former MI6 officer” who’d been stationed in
Geneva, Switzerland, made a sworn statement which he used before a English Court in an
action associated with the case of the death of the Princess of Wales on a Paris street.
A quick search and you can confirm for yourself, MI6 today operates under a new act of
the British Parliament called The Intelligence Services Act 1994, which defines MI6's role among
other things, as ‘providing information relating to the actions or intentions of persons outside
the British Islands ... [in relation to] the interests of national security, with particular
reference to defence and foreign policies’… etc.
This is the same MI6 that has been roundly criticised recently along with Tony Blair and
the serving Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government by former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig
Murray, as a result of their indefensible implication as closet-accessories to American
sponsored gross, and on-going torture in Uzbek prisons, when he said; “You won’t find MI6 in
any country where you can’t buy a ‘Cappuccino’.” 27
Whether you choose to refer to Britain’s international intelligence agency as MI6 or SIS
is in the long run academic, but for Joe Vialls to argue contrary positions regarding the entity’s
existence or non-existence to promote his own agenda – what ever that may be - must surely in
the minds of sane people demolish any shred of credibility he ever accumulated regarding his
version of events at Port Arthur in April of 1996. But with regard to the entity commonly
referred to as MI6 Joe insists “no British source would dream of using such a meaningless
‘James Bond’ term.”
From my school days I learned the primary skill employed by cheats is the “display”,
and it surely hasn't changed; that artful ability to project with confidence a story that holds a
target’s interest despite the substance of the claims contained in a story being lies. For the
“con” to succeed, the fraudster requires a sound knowledge of human nature; often people
accept a false claim at face value, as they don’t bother to check the source, or do the math
themselves. A recent article was posted at http://geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html bearing
the provocative title: “French Claim About Pentagon Jet is a Sick Joke – Captain Charles
Burlingame’s widow is unlikely to appreciate the humor,” and the author was "Joe Vialls,
March 2002" and is a case in point.
Joe proclaims his expertise in physics, and ballistics, yet exhibits ignorance in both
areas. Bearing in mind a considerable amount of key evidence in the Port Arthur massacre case
involved firearms used to murder 33 of 35 people, and wound (all) 21 others; you can
appreciate ballistics playing a critical role in making a report of substance in this instance. For
the reader to understand how irrelevant the writings of Joe Vialls are with regard to this case,
carefully consider the following two examples of his competency in those areas of physics.
Case one is drawn from the text of a letter over the signature of “Joe” dated 11
October 1997, in which he is explaining to a correspondent and eyewitness to the massacre,
the dynamics of sound, in this instance a gunshot. In this example he's referring to the
gunshots inside the Cafe, heard by many witnesses, many of whom at the time were outside
and adjacent to the Broad Arrow Café, and referred to by them as "thuds". In an attempt to
explain how these witnesses had mistakenly heard many more gunshots that the 29 shots
central to the hypothesis promoted as fact, both by “Joe” Vialls and the Prosecutor Mr Damien
Bugg QC, our physics master Joe segregates these thuds into "sound pressure waves" and
"muzzle blasts" – effectively attempting to halve the number of discharges, in a sneaky attempt
to convince the witness she’d been fooled by "physics". But you see Joe only fooled himself,
when he wrote, quote:
"The Mach 3 wave is so awesome that special forces would never normally
fire such a weapon [as an AR-15, ·223Rem] in an enclosed area on account of the
pressure wave's known ability to cause injury." - My emphasis
Sorry Otho, but the speed of sound at sea level (as is the case at Port Arthur) at 15 degrees
Celsius, (approximately the temperature on that day), is 1225K/Hr (761 M.P.H.) or 340m/sec.
To put it simply, it is simply impossible to propel - even an “awesome” sound – and even using
the theories of physics according to “Joe” at three times the speed of sound itself - “Mach 3”.
In a shameful, patronising attempt to deceive a badly traumatised witness, Joe has succeeded
in ignoring the keystone of physics law in relation to the speed of sound; effectively, he claims
to have discovered how to propel sound at 3 times the speed the laws of physics dictate as
possible!
Case two is Joe Vialls’ article entitled, “French Claim About Pentagon Jet is a Sick Joke
etc.”, in which the author states in part, quote:
“…we are about to take a short though very simple crash course in the
dynamics of flight. Not for us the overly complicated scientific equations and
accredited "experts" who manage to confuse everyone apart from their own
students,”- end quote.
Clearly Joe Vialls is consistent; propaganda requires him to ignore long established and
proven laws of physics, to preach the gospel of physics according to “Joe”, just as he does in
the book, Deadly Deception at Port Arthur – and so there is indeed in the book deadly
deception - from cover to cover. But consider a raw sample of his grasp of the laws of physics,
in this case, when he states, quote:
“In the simplest terms … the energy produced by any object hitting another
object, is the product of the first object’s mass [weight] multiplied by its velocity
[speed].”- end quote.
This statement by Joe is yet again simply a falsity, though it demonstrates an entire
ignorance of the primary laws of physics. Two points before we proceed:
Joe has confused "weight" and "mass" as being one and the same in this equation;
simply Joe, weight is not mass; weight is the effect of gravitative force on an object as
expressed by a unit of measure, while “mass is the quantity of matter in a body.” -
Websters Dictionary, 1899, p.899.
Joe's simple formula is simply wrong! Let us consult the standard reference book still
used by ballisticians, gunsmiths, historians and the like today in America, bearing in mind, this
formula works for aeroplanes, rockets just as it does for any other projectile or bullet. So to
the problem as is explained in Hatcher’s Notebook, by Julian S. Hatcher Maj Gen US Army Rtd.
at page 588, quote:
“Given the velocity of a bullet at any point, and the bullet weight in grains, to find the energy of
the bullet in foot-pounds at that point.
wv2 wv 2
“Formula: Energy in foot-pounds = ½ mv2 = ½ = where w is the bullet weight in pounds
g g
and g is the value of acceleration of gravity, 32.16 f.s. per second.
“As there are 7,000 grains in a pound avoirdupois, the bullet weight in grains must be divided by
7,000 to bring it to pounds, and must also be divided by gravity to bring it to mass instead of weight.
wv 2
“The formula thus becomes . And, as 2 x 32.16 x 7,000 = 450,240, the formula simplifies
2 gx 7000
wv 2
down to bullet weight in grains times velocity squared divided by 450,240 or simplified .
450,240
“If multiplication instead of division is preferred, it will be found that 1 divided by 450,240 =
0.000002221, so in this case the formula becomes, Energy into foot-pounds = 0.000002221 wv2.”
________________________
“Joe” projects himself as an intellectual whiz kid but uses flippant, meaningless "duck
speak" to continually pad his writings, but in this instance, Joe has been really caught out. The
falsities introduced into his assessment of the crash of Flight 1862, which floundered into the
12 story apartment block in the Amsterdam suburb of Bijlmer in October 1992, and into which
he deployed his false conclusions to support a hypothesis regarding the 9/11 incident at the
Pentagon 9 years and 4 months later, has achieved for him at least three interesting outcomes:
1. Used as “padding” in his 9/11 Pentagon “investigation” his grasp of physics exposed by
his writing on the 1992 Bijlmer crash has destroyed any credibility he ever accrued
among his readership regarding matters in which physics are involved, and
2. He has by these conclusions destroyed any credibility attributed to him by Australians,
as to his conclusions made on any of the matters with regard to the Port Arthur
massacre investigation, that also involved ballistics and or physics.
"In a statement to Lobster editor Robyn Ramsay, Vialls now believes he was
programmed to kill WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan People's
Bureau in London, 1984.
"According to Ramsay, Vialls says he fired on the policewoman from the
office of the Hughes Tool Company, a firm long linked to the CIA."
The above article you will note is suggesting it was "Vialls" himself who did the deed;
an assassin? And, most definitely in this instance the author is not attributing the act of
murder to Vialls’ alter ego “Otto Jewell” from out of his novel transcript of “Mike-Alpha-Delta-
3", posted on the net as “The Terrorist Factory”! Such a revelation may cause most rational
people a heightened concern as to an apparent evaporating credibility at least or even a
character reappraisal when it comes to considering just how it was that writing under the
pseudonym of “Joe” Vialls from Perth in Western Australia, he got right so many of the finer
details about the massacre at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996. Details such as:
1. Identifying exactly the two primary firearms used inside the Board Arrow Café:
first the Colt AR-15 .223Rem assault rifle in The Strategy of May 1997, then
12 months later in May of 1998, he added the Armalite AR-10 .308W rifle; a
full seven months before Gerard Dutton’s article was published detailing the
firearms police and the DPP wrongly claimed were used in the shootings and six
years before Andrew MacGregor and I had photographic evidence before us that
sorted out all this misinformation and confirmed claims made by witnesses -
Dennis Gabbedy and Graham Collyer – of the presence on the floor of the Broad
Arrow Café of a substantial quantity of unfired 308W rounds and also 308W
spent casings. For it wasn’t until in 2005, that a very reliable witness acting on
his own volition searched out an illustration of the .223 rifle he identified as
the make and model rifle he saw fired in the café by the gunman. Also,
2. when Wendy Scurr confronted “Joe” Vialls with a detailed description of the
gunman, furnished to police by the witness Graham Collyer, who stated that
“He looked like he might have had a lot of acne. A pitted face,” Vialls
responded in an instance: “No. Chicken pox.” Confirmation I believe that he
personally knew the gunman and that person’s history…
It has also been brought to this author’s notice, that Vialls has allegedly bragged of possessing
‘spent cartridges’ collected from off the floor of the Café which prompts me to ask, “Is it
drawing too long a bow, to suggest that “Joe” collected those casings from off the floor of the
Broad Arrow Cafe personally?”
Lobster, edited by Robin Ramsay, is promoted as "the Journal of parapolitics" –
('umbrella' politics?), and a recent search of their archives yielded five hits on "Joe Vialls":
The latter, rakes over the same issues Joe Vialls raised four years earlier during Mark
Thornton’s "Mind Games" interview published by the West Australian in 1990.
Israel Shamir is a widely posted Internet author, and recently he made some interesting
observations concerning some Internet writers, all of whom he contends are possibly working to
the same agenda. Bearing in mind Israel Shamir's roots, I would ask you to carefully consider
the ethnicity of those whom he considers he's exposed as frauds, when he writes: "In my view,
there is no difference between Barry Chamish and Henry Makow on one side and David
Icke and Gordon Thomas and Joe Vialis, on the other side - all of them are fantasy writers
inventing Illuminatis, Grey Aliens and Israeli agents conquering America." Could we not
include Australia in Israel Shamir's equation here? For he goes on to write: "Theoretically,
Icke and Viallis are 'on our side', but as a matter of fact, their vision of the world is so
far from reality that it can cause similar effect to the one described by Rowan. People
who are excited by Vialis often send me Chamish, too. As for me, I have no interest in
them all, Jews or anti-Jews." Now this assessment may shock some, but Israel Shamir wrote
it, and I believe the reader should have a chance to consider his opinion. Another long-time
author of the Web, Dave McGowan, in a recent e-mail circulated Newsletter, describes our
subject Joe as “an easily-discredited disinformation-peddler.” So indeed; “Who is Joe Vialls?”
Conclusion
Perth (Australia) is conveniently isolated; distance and the outback void of the Nullarbor Plain,
separate Perth from the major national populations of the eastern states. It’s logical that with
our subject residing in Perth, the situation could be likened to a boxer having a reach
advantage; he can stay there jabbing at his opponents while existing for the term of the fight –
just out of reach.
Using the alias of “Joe” Vialls, Otho Jewell Vialls has unquestionably been the leading,
regular feature writer for the “one colour” alternate, monthly newspaper in Australia - The
Strategy - from May issue of 1997, on through to issues right up to the first quarter of 2005.
He’s maintained his position with the newspaper in spite of it being demonstrated to the
paper’s editor why his synopsis of events at Port Arthur in April of 1996 are a mixture of some
facts padded with distortion and error, or as one observer commented to me recently, with a
liberal helping of "baking soda" to ensure the story "rises" so as to titillate the undiscerning
among his readership. In The Strategy newspaper “Joe” received staunch support for years
from a fellow columnist, Jonathon Graham in his regular column “Phoenix Rising”, no longer
published.
Joe also received unwavering support from as early as 17 April 1997 in promoting his
flawed synopsis of Port Arthur massacre by a former RAAF WO (Tech), Mr Tony Pitt of
Maryborough in Queensland. Beginning around 1989 Mr Pitt (like Ray Platt of The Strategy),
began publishing a one colour periodical newspaper, a project which he's continued up to the
present under various banners, all of which proclaim them as among freedom’s little helpers,
though in recent years Mr Pitt has changed the format to include some colour.
But apart from him motoring across to Perth and meetings with Joe, a close
association between them is very evident at time of writing at
Kaminski http://www.wealth4freedom.com/free; Joe wrote the article and Tony Pitt
published it. But you should note not published on Pitt’s own web site or in his
newspaper, and remember like Ray Platt, editor of The Strategy, Tony Pitt is quite reluctant to
publish any articles about Port Arthur, which expose documented, provable, evidence, contrary
to those promoted by Joe Vialls.
Who would deny Joe exhibits an extraordinary ability to produce repeated, extensive
articles of many thousands of words, and far and above other journalists on the Web, “Joe
Vialls” alone has all the trappings in those articles, much of which global news services never
get to publish; diagrams, detailed maps, photographs etc. But Joe does the research, writing,
layout and publishes, all on his lonesome. Does he work alone – well he tells us he does, and
emphasises the point by begging for donations. Does he really suffer some physical disability
resulting from RAF service? Or was it counter terrorism? It seems logical though, that when
those of the covert intelligence services reach their used-by-date, their chief would make some
sort of “pension” arrangement surely?
John Kaminski the prolific and thought provoking Internet commentator recently wrote:
"Searching for the truth is ugly, frightening and dangerous — and the only worthwhile
choice."- skylax@comcast.net
In the final analysis, mind games, the thread that weaves throughout this narrative
from beginning to end have been used to bend the core beliefs of nations of people since time
immemorial. Variations of these mind games which produce a form of personal slave-like-
control have been shown by various reports as the subject of experimentation, development,
and deployment, by the covert arm of governments of major and minor powers for many years.
These covert entities serving a hidden hand of a “government” not elected by the people, have
I believe deployed the Reesian theory of War at will among our nations’ citizens (and abroad),
at least since the early quarter of the twentieth century. But surely by now, you have come to
realise the mind games in this narrative have until now been played upon you. I hope and pray
this work has gone some way to right the balance.
But could we hope that Otho, a.k.a. “Joe” would revisit the free advice line, as he did
to another Australian correspondent back in 1997? In that instance he made the remarkable
advisory connection to another man of mystery who like our subject also expressed a desire to
reside beside ‘the most beautiful harbour in the world’, of Sydney Australia, when he
recommended accepting the counsel of Ari Ben-Menashe. ** Joe wrote, “Before you probe any
further, minimum defensive equipment should include a sawn-off M60 in a very large
shoulder holster. Ari Ben Menashe might be able to direct you to the cheapest arms
bazaar.” I’m reminded of that age-old proverb which goes, "many a true word is spoken in
jest".
Again quoting Kaminski who recently wrote: "Love is contagious, you
know. And the revolution for a decent world begins in your own
heart."
**
Profits of War, by Ari Ben-Menashe, Allen & Unwin -1992 see above.
Well, since writing this article and posting it on the Web, there has been a further interesting
and explosive development. At http://judicial-inc.biz/Viialls_Ben_Menashe.htm and entitled
“Was Joe Vialls Really Ari Ben-Menashe?” you can now consider this subject seriously and reach
your own conclusions. Here you will discover compelling information that leaves me compelled
to suggest we can now add yet another pseudonym to “Joe” and Otho Jewell Vialls; that of Ari
Ben-Menashe.
At the time Ben-Menashe claimed he was residing in Canada, and the Zimbabwe
Information Centre News, using a report by Brian Hutchinson in Montreal quotes Ben-Menashe
as stating, "I had been to Canada many times in the past," while talking over his cellphone,
somewhere in Montreal; "I liked it. I had lots of friends there." The same news service tells
us Ben-Menashe’s partner is one Alexanda Henri Legault, originally from Maine in America and
Legault’s wife, Francis Legault, was then the company’s financial director.
Legault, is also reported to have come to Canada from Maine in 1982 and was
introduced in 1993 to Ari Ben Menashe by and immigration lawyer, Richard Kurland whom Ari
hired in June 1998. As an employee he was paid US$8,000 per month plus expenses; but his job
description had naught to do with immigration it seems. Though it was these associates who
from December, 1994, had run a company they formed, Carlington Sales Canada Corporation.
Many articles can be found on the net filled with allegations involving the partners in various
ways concerning alleged defrauding of considerable sums of money in deals in food stuffs and
the like. But I would suggest you the reader do some searching in this regard, as it involves
massive intrigue outside the charter of this investigation. Save to say this:
Since writings were complete for this publication, further investigation and questioning
of witnesses directly concerned with the massacre at Port Arthur has occurred to confirm the
revelations that have been published on the Internet which you may consider by clicking on this
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpagangof3.htm in reference to the crucial role fulfilled by
the subject of this chapter.
End Notes
1
Complaints officer, Office of Health Review, 469 Wellington St Perth, WA. 13nov98
2
Mark Thornton, “Mind Games,” Features The West Australian, 31mar90, p.1
3
Western Australia Electoral Roll 1991 & 2004
4
1881 Census UK; Free births, deaths & marriages of England; English census, 31.3.1901.
5
Ibid; http//www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
6
Joe Vialls, "The Terrorist Factory," Nexus, April-May `94, p.11
7
Joe Vialls, "Coming to terms with 'Sydney' sinking, The West Aust., Big Weekend, 11dec93, p.5
8
Joe Vialls, “French Claim About Pentagon is a Sick Joke,”
http://geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html?20055 ,
March 2002.
9
The Strategy, May issue, 1997; various files(inc #Fulcrom1.jpg & Fulcrum2.jpg) @
http://vialls.homestead.com/
10
Thornton, "Mind Games", Feature – BIG Weekend, The West Australian, 31mar90, p.2
http://www.vialls.com/zionist/yvonnefletcher.html
11
Walter Bowart, “Interview with an Assassin,” Nexus magazine, April/May 1995, p.39.
12
Letter over signature of “Joe”, dated 7.11.2003
13
Thornton “Mind Games” The West Aust - BIG Weekend31mar90, p.1 Joe Vialls, “Russia Proves 'Peak-
Oil' is a Scam”, 25aug04
14
Thornton, “Mind Games”, Feature – BIG Weekend, The West Australian, 31mar90, p.1
15
http://www.torturecare.org.uk; http://www.shoah.free-online.co.uk/801/NWO/wavies.html ;
Thornton, "Mind Games", Feature – BIG Weekend, The West Australian, 31mar90, p.2
16
University of Dundee, Discovery Lecture 16apr01 @ http://www.dundee.ac.uk/pressreleases ; BBC
London, Helen Bamber: Profile, 26jun02 @
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/helen_bamber.shtml
17
Joe Vialls, “Zionist Murder Unarmed Police Woman” @
http://www.vialls.com/zionist/yvonnefletcher.html 7jun04
18
ibid , Thornton, “Mind Games” TWA, 31mar90, Feature, p1
19 .
posting #260204 @ http://www.qikrux.com/qikrux_diary.htm posting #260204, 3.01.05
20
http://geocities.com/mknemisis/airbus.html
21
Letter over signature “Joe” dated 14oct99.
22
Various original documents including from www.oecd.org 1996
23
Thornton, "Mind Games", Feature – BIG Weekend, The West Australian, 31mar90, p.2;
http://www.delisted.com.au, 18apr05
24
Dick Eastman, “Decoys and the Pentagon
Attack”,http://physics911.ca/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=7 31jul03
25
E-mail to joevialls@yahoo.com , Sat, 16aug03 @ 9:01 PM; Reply - Sun, 17aug03, 7:12 AM.
26
Letter over signature “Joe”, dated 7nov03, p.2
27
Evan Williams, Foreign Correspondent, ABC-TV, 29mar05
28
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/.
29
na, “Zimbabwe plot video 'a smear',” The Guardian, 14feb02
Chapter 29 - Update
A
s the re-write and revision of the 6th edition of A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port
Arthur was put to bed on the 28th March 2006, I sat back in anticipation of a short
respite before the need to distribute and satisfy the interests of the many good
people in this country and abroad, desirous of knowing our findings as to what occurred in
all that surrounds the 1996 psychopolitical massacre at Port Arthur. My anticipated rest
was cut short – even before it began!
Wendy Scurr first told me that she had been contacted by a writer Carol Altmann, back
around June of 2004 with the intention of interviewing her for inclusion of her recollections
of the incident and the aftermath in a book she had been commissioned to write for Allen &
Unwin. The book was to be launched ten years on after the massacre. I spoke by phone
with Altmann and made an offer of assistance to clarify and expand upon the findings we
had made and to answer queries that may have arisen out of my conclusions. I also offered
to furnish her with copies of original documentation. That never
happened.
As time went by I conversed by e-mail, and this year first on January
29, to wish her 'all the very best' for her book launch as the projected
dates set to release the books firmed.
Eventually via web-postings from Allen & Unwin the release date was
set for 6 April 2006 with a preliminary launch to be made at Port Arthur
Historic Site and later on the next evening of the 6th at Fullers
bookshop, in Collins Street, Hobart. In an insensitive but quite
revealing move, the VIP chosen to launch her published work was none
other than the Governor of Tasmania, Sir William Cox; one and the same when, as the Chief
Justice for Tasmania, he presided over the obnoxious sentencing hearing for Martin Bryant. 1
Some background of Altmann is in order here. Born into a 'robust' family of seven in
Warrnambool in 1965, and aged about 26 years, in 1991 she began work as a journalist with
Messenger newspapers rising to chief-of-staff. For a time she worked for the Adelaide
Advertiser and until 1997 was their state political reporter. After an upset in her life she
moved to Hobart 'to start afresh' as bureau chief for The Australian newspaper. During her
sojourn there and in April of 2003, an article titled "Compassion for forgotten killer," was
published in the Weekend Australian authored by her. The narrative was claimed to have
come directly from a former Risdon Prison inmate simply referred to by her as "Rob". 2
Altmann quotes the former inmate as saying of Martin Bryant: 'He doesn't seem like an evil
bloke … there are a lot of very vicious people out there who will rob your house, bash you
up, rape your wife, steal off your grandmother, they would do anything – I just can't put
Martin Bryant in that category'. The inmate further is reported to have said, 'I think he
deserves compassion – "hate the sin, love the sinner," if you will…' 3
It is claimed that it was due to this article published while in Hobart that she was engaged
by Allen & Unwin to write the book, After Port Arthur and 'so began a six-month trawl of
records, transcripts and story clippings before conducting her first interview for the book'.
She also made contact with the author, the late Margaret Scott, who provided Altmann with
a considerable amount of background information and is said to have 'an
Media Fraud
At left is a computer-generated fraud, first published by The
Mercury 28.4.03, it was used enthusiastically by many editors to
reinforce or re-demonize the media legend of ‘moronic Martin
Bryant’. During the media’s month-long ‘10th Anniversary’
campaign it appeared in no less than 5 publications, many of which
including the erroneous Mercury claim of the original having been
lifted from a frame of the Sentencing hearing video. It is a
fraud. But that didn’t stop Allen & Unwin from publishing it in the
Carol Altmann’s book along with the erroneous caption at the last
page of the centre collage of glossy photographs, facing page 55.
My point being: Is the present B'nai B'rith Australia/New Zealand president – James Altman-
by any chance of the same family as the author Carol?
Also one fact about this 10-years-on propaganda campaign needs to be made here:
It was the Allen & Unwin publication After Port Arthur, authored by Carol
Altmann that was the starter-motor that enlivened this month long “gun-control”
campaign in 2006.
Who exactly is at the helm of the campaign though is for the reader to speculate – I'm not
prepared to get into theorising about those conspiracies. But who would be game to claim
the literally cart-loads of published articles – spewed out onto the newsagent's shelves over
a matter of several days were somehow 'just another coincidence' of a energetic media and
not the result of a good old fashioned conspiracy? Though this media propaganda circus is
not all bad news; far from it!
After observing closely the "gun control" network, the demeanour and rhetoric of their
comrades for in excess of 32 years, I can state with some authority I believe, that only a
reckless soul would dare defend Carol Altmann against a charge of being very comfortable
in the midst of the "gun control" network mob. Chapter 13 titled "Biting the bullet: Gun
Law Reform," from the outset conveys the NCGC line of attacking law-abiding citizens
carrying on lawful business. While at the same time proudly recounting the actions of the
ACA media team who flew to Hobart and consciously engaged in a conspiracy to illegally
obtain 'two military-style semi-automatic weapons plus ammunition' to then somehow
legitimise their criminality by demonstrating the ease of becoming criminals. How can Ms
Altmann promote such premeditated criminal actions as being the yardstick of a law-
abiding society and a credible work? Although I must agree it certainly feeds her now
exposed real agenda. But the question remains: why did the Minister of the Crown, Dr
Frank Madill (upon whose desk they dumped their ill-gotten arms) fail to act and simply call
his police and have the offenders arrested! The principles of people who conduct such
theatre are indefensible. While the author dares to make the case that firearm related
deaths have fallen since 1991 because of Howard's confiscations and prohibitions called
'uniform gun laws' - which they aren't – then why does she ignore the streets of Sydney
today which have taken on a character more befitting the Capone-era when mob hits in the
alleys of Chicago were the daily norm.
Typical of a "gun control" network's foot soldier and in Chapter 13, Altmann boasts AIC
statistics to justify her case. But to make a point, she uses the argument that 'particularly
in the category of suicide (deaths),' firearm related deaths fell 47 percent between 1991
and 2001, which ironically includes the often claimed 'worst firearm massacre in the world'
at Port Arthur. You see even including the massacre of 35, that year's firearm related
deaths figure in Australia had dropped considerably! If that is not a conundrum of
consequence, then has she bothered to consider the DOZEN or so suicides that have
occurred since the massacre among the peninsula families not involving firearms? No doubt
those families' tragedy and pain has not been lessened one iota because a means other than
a firearm was chosen by a tormented person as the solution to end their problems in life! It
seems to me the author's agenda has gotten in the way of reality as even she relates so well
at Chapter 7 when dealing with this very heartbreaking experienced by the medical
practitioners of the local district …
The majority of articles that have appeared since their "D-day" of 29 March 2006, have been
extracts from Altmann's book, or edited versions of her work all published as a huge
national promotion, of the book; almost a 'down-under'-sized Harry Potter book launch!
The book's official launch was confusing to say the least; web postings contradicted
information direct from inquiries to the publisher. This confusion spilled over into
McCreadie's "plods". On Wednesday the 5th, Altmann launched her book at the Port Arthur
Historic Site, a quiet affair by all accounts for Carol and her female partner. But it seems
someone in Tasmania Police was expecting big trouble at the city
launch of a local author's novel, when no less that 15 police
guarded the bemused guests!
I'll bet Mrs Scurr was staggered, considering Tasmania Police could
spare just a lone policeman to secure the one hundred acre site of
a massacre reported to be the worst such crime in the world, until
reinforcements of two unarmed female constables arrived much
later, a situation that continued for 6 hours! But on Thursday
evening After Port Arthur was officially unveiled in Hobart by a
tentative Governor who was "reluctant" to accept the invitation,
while just three indifferent, uniformed police, were observed to
stroll past on street patrol…
The campaign had a 'false-start', as it were, launched by the up-
market women's magazine Madison, which to their credit, front-paged the article with the
heading - The Port Arthur Conspiracy, Did Martin Bryant Act Alone? Their April edition was
delivered to newsagents a full week early.
The lead article, "Port Arthur a decade on" was authored by Alan J. Whiticker. I would
have expected better from a former teacher from Sydney who is credited with authoring at
least two other titles in an Australian crime series – I hope he doesn't feel inclined to
expand on this effort as his article is plagued with errors. The magazine had journalists
interview and write two embedded complimentary articles; the first with Ron Neander and
a second with Mrs. Wendy Scurr. Both these were published without a by-line, a pity
really, as the lass who interviewed Wendy Scurr did a reasonably balanced article, despite
several errors that I would suggest had been added to weaken her statements and amplify
the "theorist" label inevitably tagged on all who challenge the authorities account of the
day. But Wendy’s interview certainly put into print for the first time many concerning
unanswered anomalies and it evidenced a courageous editor who published. Perhaps the
magazine’s readership was judged as better informed than the expected readership of the
book that I believe will fail its intended purpose.
Then during Nine's Today Show on the 29th March, Garry Linnell *, the magazine's chief
editor launched the Bulletin's major contribution. In this case author Julie-Anne Davies has
treated her subject evenly and I believe reporting accurately her subject's stories as
presented to her, a refreshing change from the “norm” at this time, and a credit to her
editor. Unlike Robert Wainwright of the Sydney Morning Herald, Julie-Anne not only has
Mrs Carleen Bryant, actually living where she does, but presented a word picture of Martin
Bryant, that the hoi polloi of journalism find demeaning. Carleen has always been the
forgotten victim in all of this. But the Bulletin article makes several telling points:
"‘My Poor Martin,’ Carleen says. ‘He couldn’t have shot all those people down at Port
Arthur. He didn’t have the brains to do it.’" Not a lot of "conspiracy theory" here; just
an honest assessment by a mother about her son she had raised. Also his mother observes,
'[Martin] had beautiful shampooed hair. The guy who did it had dark greasy hair and
pocked skin. My Martin had lovely soft baby skin'. Then there is the corroborative
evidence of Avery's persuasive 17 visits to Martin's cell: Davies writes, 'One of the deepest
regrets is agreeing to the request from [John Avery] to persuade her son to plead
guilty. It worked'. An unnamed doctor who consulted with Bryant in his Risdon Prison
Hospital cell, it reported to have claimed recently that Martin is 'an overweight shambolic
wreck … If the community wanted a severe punishment for Mr Bryant, then they have
it. What he has now is far worse than the death penalty', say his doctor. The Bulletin
has done the community a service in my opinion for again putting these few known facts
before the public. 7
So we as a society – and more especially those like the then sadistic attorney general Ray
Groom † - have not moved on at all I would suggest in 2006: for Bryant’s present treatment
is not a bit improved upon that meted out by the sadistic warders of a 19th century
Bentham creation, the Port Arthur Separate Prison. The only thing missing at Risdon it
seems is the cat-o-nine-tails and “screws” in slippers…
In her article Davies has also skilfully extracted some quite revealing admissions from some
of these major players; like Prof Mullen, and psychologist John Joblin. In
the case of Joblin he reiterates the possibility of "autistic withdrawal" in
which case the assessment of the psychological state of Bryant's mind,
"should be revised"; pardon? Has this leading psychologist admitted Martin
Bryant is autistic? For a person to suffer withdrawals from autism, would
not the person have to suffer from the condition in the first instance? What
Joblin has told us is this: Martin Bryant was not fit to plead – and the
"State" could not tolerate that situation!
*
Published in The Bulletin, 4may99, Garry Linnel was credited with an article titled "Inside the Gothic world of
Martin Bryant", the content of which demonstrates he had access to much of the same Avery material back then.
†
In May of 1996, and in a conversation with Peninsula survivors of the massacre, while Martin Bryant was in the
RHH burns unit with category 1 injuries, Ray Groom assured these people with words to the effect, ‘don’t worry,
I’m making sure the bastard suffers, because I’ve got him lying on his burns and handcuffed to the bed.’
Then there was the interview with Tony Rundle (the then Liberal
Premier) and of course the deceptive synopsis from the Tasman
Peninsula’s local eccentric Roger Larner. Bryant simply never drove
from the Larner's on Palmer's Lookout road to the Historic Site; instead
Martin is witnessed as driving straight past the Historic Site entrance
through Port Arthur and down into Seascape for the first time that day.
Considered carefully though, even her interview of Maria Stacey (former
wife of Ian Kingston) is quite helpful; the carefully chosen words
quoted, are as if a blind has been lifted in one of Port Arthur’s darkened
Weekend Australian
cottage, illuminating the bones concealed by authorities that will come
1-2 April 2006: back to haunt every single plotter of that terrible day.
another ‘digital The Bulletin also published several of a young Martin Bryant’s school
masterpiece’ from reports and on the web-site transcripts of what should have been three
the ‘back-room boys’ ‘privileged conversations’ between Martin and his legal counsel John
of the media.
Avery. While Avery is entitled to hold with his opinion that he did not
breach his client’s confidence, by releasing these transcripts, why am I reminded of
examples of Avery's principles in dealings with another client at the time, Terry Hill? With
regard to this latest Avery controversy I shall deal with the developments of this affair
latter in this chapter. ‡
However read on their own, these transcripts would to the layperson seem damning.
However, when all matters surrounding the pre hearing period are carefully considered,
they are I believe a treasure trove of corroborative material supporting all of our findings
and so collectively the transcripts and papers wound the conspirators’ fabricated version of
the story. I congratulate the Bulletin for publishing. As a consequence, many aspects of
the psychopolitical campaign have been accorded publicity, necessary so as to bring the
truth of events into the light of day!
Then the contribution by the Australian Women’s Weekly appeared: an extract lifted
directly from out of Carol Altmann’s book and part of the story of the Nubeena medical
practitioners Pam and Steve Ireland. Through the eyes of Pam (she now goes by her maiden
name Fenerty), we hear some of the story; a disturbing walk in the aftermath among the
ordinary folk of the Tasman Peninsula which deeply affected her family.
The day for April fools’ pranks produced a rash of ‘lift-out’ supplements to the weekend
newspapers: among them The Weekend Australian, Sunday Telegraph and Sunday Herald
Sun. I jarred my way through the article by Robert Wainwright. Even the first journalists'
reports on this complex incident, exposed a weakness common to all of these articles:
inaccuracy. The SMH didn't escape this failing. But the characteristic is balanced I believe
by frank recollected morsels the journalists reproduce from survivors and families of the
victims of that day and for that alone we should be thankful that while freedom of speech
maybe quite ill, it's not altogether dead; so more pieces of the story continue to come out.
Featured among almost every publication is Keith Moulton, as apparently the "gun control"
camp didn't count on Walter not taking to the media this time around. From among several
of these publications for example, Keith Moulton makes some claims quite at odds with that
of the coroner, Ian Matterson. Moulton’s claims should at least be considered carefully.
Moulton you may remember was the father of Nanette Mikac, who along with her two little
daughters was so callously executed by the gunman on Jetty Road. This terrible act
became the rallying point for the NCGC's "gun control" campaign. Walter Mikac has been
reported as not speaking with the media this time around, no doubt a disappointment to
the NCGC moles. 8
‡
See Template for Terrorism at Port Arthur, by Harry Peck on this disk at p.6.
A first point to consider is made by Moulton who clearly states that some time after 6.00
pm (1800hrs), he was "stopped at a road block set up on the road to Port Arthur.
Nobody was being allowed through, for fear the gunman was still at large," so far so
good. This at least is corroborating the fact that the 100 acre site was not yet secured by
police who thought the gunman was still at large. But the next day, Monday 29th April, he
claims Pam Ireland arranged for 'Keith and Walter [Mikac] to be let through the thick
police cordon that surrounded the site'. Then, 'with Steve and Pam Ireland supporting
Walter, Keith was joined by volunteer ambulance officer Kaye Fox,' these five persons
walked past police lines to the bodies of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters on Jetty
Road. This is entirely at odds with Mr Matterson's official EME Report who stated just
Walter Mikac and Pam Ireland breached the police line of the still-sealed crime scene. 9
The Weekend Australian lift out "Magazine" produced a feature article by Mark Whittaker,
"THE EVIL WITHIN" and they're up to its old tricks again. The full-page digitally altered face
with poked-marked acne face and neck overshadows even the 'padding' in this article which
misrepresents totally Martin Bryant. Nothing Whittaker can write will redeem this fraud,
save to suggest the message contained in the title "The Evil Within", could well be pointed
'within' i.e. perhaps toward the author or editor? Their agenda was launched on May 3 1996
and it continues unabated. Take a look at the deliberate tampering to change his
appearance by clicking on the link. Only desperation and guilt - ten years on - forces a
publisher to tamper with photographs so as to alter a convicted felon's appearance to be
almost compatible with the eyewitnesses' description of the gunman. At right, is the
original photograph of Martin Bryant from among those coloured photos stolen from the
kitchen table of his Clare Street home on the evening of the 28th of April. You will note
The Australian's digital treatment to make his skin appear blotchy or pockmarked and the
saturation of the reds are highlighted and the dark tones to emphasise the heading of - evil.
Is that professional journalism or just prostituting a malicious ability?
Although I would have to concede, important information can be gleaned out of the story
from tit-bits mentioned almost unintentionally by the
writer in passing. For example, the admissions on the part
of Rod Quarry, reported as Risdon 'prison's head of
security,' as to the treatment of the prisoner Martin Bryant,
confirms as I've mentioned earlier that the authorities in
2006 have regressed to those who guarded the unfortunate
convicts occupying the cells of Port Arthur, now just
crumbling ruins of that horror.
Quarry boasts that Martin Bryant is denied mail by a sleight
of hand carried off by prison staff: it's put in his "property".
As Martin is serving a 'whole of life term' he brags, Martin
will be dead when he gets it. A little like placing birdseed Martin Bryant 25.4.96: From one
just beyond the reach of a caged canary and no better that of a number of original photographs
Guantanamo Bay! stolen from the kitchen table after
an illegal entry to Bryant's Clare
But a scrap that we should thank Mark Whittaker for is Rod Street home on the evening of 28
Quarry's account of Martin Bryant's appearances on the 19th April 1996.
November 1996 attending his
sentencing in the Supreme Court at Hobart, before Chief Justice,
Mr. William Cox. In Madison's interview with the survivor Ron
Neander and in reference to this above hearing Neander, is quoted:
"Bryant is still very much in my mind. He was so offensive in
court. He had a big smirk and as he was leaving he was taken
past us – the victims – and he gave us a little wave." What a pity
I'm unable to show Ron the 'smirk' on the face of the Minister of the
The Chief Justice Crown on his way to a briefing on the fruits of his scheming that had
William Cox ripened that Sunday afternoon, or the 'smirk' on the senior
policeman as he admitted to the burning of Seascape… But what about Ron Neander's
claimed "little wave"?
Rod Quarry corroborates the accuracy of the Mercury's sketch artist with Martin sporting
John Avery's suggested short hair-cut, and dressed in a light-blue linen suit, white shirt over
a white skivvy. This account destroys the Mercury's fraud of 2003, repeated in Carol
Altmann's book - the last photograph of the centre collage. As to Neander recalling Martin
giving any offensive "little wave" as he left the court to begin his whole-of-life prison term,
that is simply impossible. You see Martin Bryant was handcuffed behind his back. Come to
think of it, why shouldn't Martin have given a snigger growing in disgust as each of the 72
charges were read out – if those charges were false?
That same mad weekend, at least two more dailies that I am aware of ran with this
propaganda. The Sunday Telegraph ran a two page article in their 'news in review' section.
With the headline in question form, "Still Asking WHY" emblazoned across – yes you guessed
it, a black and white form of the Allen and Unwin choice for the Altmann book; the digitally
altered 'mad' photo as appears earlier in this chapter. Their target was of course Martin
and yet again they used Keith Moulton to fire the bullets aided by the images of the Mikac
family. The text was simply a cut and paste of Altmann's work.
To cap off the April fools weekend, Brisbane's Sunday Mail, a Murdock rag, just had to join
the yapping hounds with a "Sunday Extra" rash of articles. They included a full page on the
growth industry: black market firearms and ammunition, an industry that has grown
directly from out of the "gun control" culture established by the NCGC and Howard. But in
the rush to set the lead page, someone forgot to implant the digitally altered photograph!
This time the full original stolen photo, unaltered, was there for all readers to consider.
Captured just days before the massacre by his girlfriend Petra Wilmott it depicts accurately
the innocent countenance of a fair-skinned young man with his 'beautiful shampooed
blonde hair and soft baby skin' without a blemish and his clear blue eyes, something the
editor of The Australian apparently can't stand! For this photo is not the face of the
gunman as described by many of the eye witnesses who were up close and personal to him
that day.
But there still was a window of opportunity for the “gun control” propaganda campaign to
escape collision with the traditional religious aspect of the Easter Festival.
The Weekend of the 8th and 9th of April saw the media I believe, go past the limits of Port
Arthur 10 years on: but they still provide more 'free to air' intelligence.
The Sun-Herald published a two-page article in the Sunday Extra feature by Sarah Price. It
was refreshing in that for a change, the material collected for the article was original.
Interviews with three who where there on the day provide recollections which expose some
interesting points. Even if in the case of Ian Kingston he insists he stood in the Broad Arrow
Café's dining room as the bullets flew about and yelled out "Fire", a claim uncorroborated
by a single witness statement. Kingston also confirms he, 'stopped working at Port Arthur
in November that same year', a rather strange way of putting it I would opinion.
He and wife Maria divorced and both have remarried. Kingston now operates an
earthmoving business. While Maria Stacey (her now married name) remained at Port Arthur
and was promoted to the position of 'director of tourism' for the Site. Stacey confirms that
at least one workers' compensation claim remains outstanding – ten years on…
The single factor that is repeated throughout all of the media stories which had the
greatest harmful impact upon every survivor and person there on the day is the lack of
support after the incident; from John Howard down through the Ministers of the Tasmania
Government they all must share the burden of guilt in this negligence.
But crime does pay: Stephen Large is quietly proud of the 20 percent increase in tourism to
the Peninsula since 1996. The article goes on to inform the readers that although Sarah
Kistan found it difficult at first she has forgiven the gunman and moved on. In the
intervening 10 years, Sarah has somehow found the resources to put her two boys through
university. Nesan is now employed – like their late father Tony before him - with the
Salvation Army, only he is a pastor at Auburn in Sydney's west. On the other hand Adrian, a
sports consultant, with his expectant wife and son is about to make a move to Moree in
northern NSW where he will work with indigenous children.
But Sarah tells us she won't be spending April 28 at Port Arthur this year… no she will be
'surrounded by family in her native South Africa, part of a three-month trip she
started in a few weeks ago in the United States'. "Visiting America was my husband's
wish," she says. "He loved travelling. We did Europe, so he wanted to go to America.
One of my sons said 'why don't you do it?"' 10
Then the bizarre manifested itself, as if the foregoing has not
already nudged into that class. The Mercury's Sunday
Tasmanian just had to top all the foregoing stories:
Using the term loosely, "journalist," Kelvin Healey by-lined an
article sensationally head-lined, "Port Arthur massacre F-
111 plan"; Wow! It came straight from the horses' mouths.
I'm not sure what is lurking in the drinking water at Kelvin's An RAAF F-111c: media
place, but someone really should check it out! What reports have Jim Morrison
absolute bunkum this fellow has written! The fact is the claiming those in charge of the
conspirators had so well prepared for their siege at Seascape, Seascape siege, considered
that they already had all the gear flown in to Hobart in deploying an F11 against
preparation which included the BFST (the 'big f……g shiny intellectually impaired Martin
truck) with communication gear, heat sensing equipment and Bryant, criminal mastermind with
the 'robot that wouldn't reach'; the "Echidna". So why on his IQ of an 11-year-old as well as
earth would Ray Groom and his buddies have to consider the 3 hostages whom police were
overflying Seascape with a supersonic F-111 jet? But hang unsure were alive or dead, until
on, Fielding tells a different story to this; he forced the Bryant was arrested.
gunman to come to the SOGs! Anyhow, such details would never have filtered down to the
black-uniformed 'grunts at the front'; Jim Morrison and his mates with their sand-papered
trigger fingers, running on pure adrenalin in the 'tense scene of battle-zone chaos'… After
all, I'm learned from a reliable source that back in 1991 the then police negotiator only
learned of Joe Gilewicz being 'taken out' when he heard the sniper's shot through his
handpiece. Not much forward information flow there…
But Kelvin has exceeded even Harry Potter's fertile schoolboy imagination, when he wrote
that these jack-booted "sons of god" of the territorial army, togged out in black cover-alls,
bullet proof vests and what-not, somehow, 'could feel searing heat from the blazing
Seascape cottage,… and going up in the inferno the exploding roar of a deadly
stockpile of ammunition. A colleague, Act Sgt Craig Harwood of Victoria Police, seems to
indicate this is all bunkum and that like Topsy, Jim
Morrison's recollections of events there have over ten
years, expanded I believe. The 'F-111' claim was
volunteered by a former SOG of McCreadie's 'best' and his
Victorian colleague and the problem is these individuals
actually believe their boasts and these same robotics would
have the hide to call my findings "conspiracy theories"? So
let's deal with a few more of their outrageous claims:
• "…the [SOG] group team had their fingers on
their triggers and guns focused on the killer."
This claim is just so infantile; the writer and the informer
should be occupying a padded cell. Picture if you will, the
"suspect" (that should have been all that was known by Retired, L-R: Jim Morrison
anyone at the time Martin stumbled from the inferno with (former Tas Police SOG) & Michael
his clothes alight), exited the south-eastern side of the Hayes (former Vic Police SOG)
cottage while smoke and flames enveloped the building. survivors of the 'battle-zone chaos'
My point being the SOG team was spread around in a created by intellectually impaired
cordon, in pairs, some assembled near the entrance so Martin Bryant, mastermind of the
very few of them would have been in line of sight even oft repeated, 'world's worst
with "fingers" on their "triggers"! Personally I have only individual shooting massacre' of the
ever managed to use one trigger finger on one trigger at a 20th century… & they believe it!
time…unless of course they use two firearms at once – now this is getting silly.
• "Our thoughts were with a hostage rescue…"
When the whole of the siege operation is considered, the hostages were accorded
appalling consideration from the outset. The female hostage Sally Martin may well have
been saved if uniformed police first on the scene had not been refused permission (by their
colleague Mark Fogarty) to shoot the dark haired male pursuing her around the yard. But
that would never have done, as the cat would have been out of the bag; Martin Bryant was
not acting alone. But the dark haired male could well have been the "controller"! Oh
dear.
• Jim Morrison reportedly told Kelvin, "The killer's failure to catch a ferry before
the massacre probably saved more than 100 lives". Continuing the report
states, "Mr Morrison said it was important the public realised the death toll
could have been worse. He confirmed that shortly before the massacre began
at the Broad Arrow Cafe, Bryant tried to catch a ferry, which carried 128
people, to the Isle of the Dead."
This scenario so far corroborates the actions of senior police officers who tasked both
Tasmania Police marine division's seagoing launches. But then Morrison shoots himself in
the foot! As Kelvin writes:
• "Bryant tried to catch a ferry, which carried 128 people, to the Isle of the
Dead. But he was not allowed on because he parked his car illegally nearby."
There is not a shred of evidence that supports this last gaff. It may be too simple for
Morrison, Michael Hayes and indeed Kelvin Healey, but the Bundeena's schedule had
changed to the winter timetable and so the gunman had to go to 'plan B'. Or, can Morrison
or Hayes explain why both police launches were tasked, then just as quickly returned to
base? Perhaps if Morrison bothered to ask his former colleague "Mick" (he was inside the
cottage for majority of the siege), he could explain the whole segment in words of one
syllable. Then there is this little gem from former Victorian SOG Michael Hayes:
• "If he had just cracked a twig…," Michael said, explaining the tension of the
moment. "For a millisecond everyone focused on Bryant…" 11
Could Michael have a short term memory disorder? As it seems he's forgotten that just
moments before the pair are reported to have told us of 'the exploding roar of a deadly
stockpile of ammunition' in that 'battle zone of chaos' which could well have drowned
out the odd cracking twig you would think! Surely their contribution qualifies to be
accurately called "Flemington confetti". Bet you are as relieved as I am that they are now
retired trigger-pullers…
The Sunday Herald-Sun ran a further three associated articles of survivors’ interviewed
who’d lost their loved ones there. Interestingly one without a by-line confirmed that the
sister of the late Nanette Mikac, Mrs Hibbert along with her father Keith Moulton 'have
played key roles in organising the 10-year anniversary service at Port Arthur'. 12
I would have to be naive to consider this is the last of this campaign as these insensitive
people will undoubtedly be on the street corner to catch and pass the gossip at every
opportunity so as to please the masters of their mortgage and their minds. I wish no harm
to the Carol Altmann's of this world with their trendy same-sex partners of the 'new age',
but as they are not about to go away, they must realise neither are the likes of this author.
Murder will out, and I believe when it does the blood and gore is going to splatter widely,
and those who have willingly prostituted their "craft" may have blood on their hands that
will not wash away and not surprisingly, that day is yet a day closer than yesterday.
The articles continued for in excess of the full month of April 2006 and the media were
forced to change their focus when three gold-miners at Beaconsfield in the Northern
Tasmania were trapped by a rock fall caused by a seismic event. The Beaconsfield tragedy
deepened when the body of one of the miners was recovered; but the story eclipsed Port
Arthur’s ‘10 year anniversary’ as the days turned into weeks – two weeks in fact and both
survivors walked from the mine cage and into the light of day. The television media had
ever senior news reader on site for two weeks! They turned street leading to the mine site
into Winnebago Way…
So for the duration of the Port Arthur’s ‘anniversary’ not one word that has appeared in
print during this propaganda campaign directly assisted a single soul on the Tasman
Peninsula or the survivors spread across this nation and for that my heart is heavy. Their
daily battles go unnoticed by the very people so engrossed in their own selfish agendas. It
took even more grief to force organisers to cancel their "concert" when tragedy struck down
yet another local family who’s roots to the Peninsula go back to the very first settlement of
Whiteman there: Patric Johnson, 59 yrs, his son Jason 36 yrs and step-grandson Josh
Colgrave, 16 yrs, were all drowned at sea on Sunday, 23rd of April - what a very heavy price
to pay for tranquillity.
But the money tyrants gathered with the evil spirit that pervades and destroys the beauty
that Tasmania once evoked in the minds of those who loved the place and now the
unpleasant sounds that will soon accompany the silence of the place, as construction is
soon to pervade the bush about Port Arthur; the accommodation of tourists is priority one
for Barry Jones and the directors of PAHSMA.
End Notes
1
Carol Altmann, e-mail 30jan06 9:51 AM, Subject, re: Book launch; Fullers Bookshop, Events.
2
David Sly, "Redressing the scares of Port Arthur", Independent Weekly 19apr06,
http://independentweekly.com.au/ , Allen & Unwin book launch etc
3
Carol Altmann, "Compassion for forgotten killer," The Weekend Australian, p12
4
Carol Altmann, After Port Arthur, pub Allen & Unwin, 2006, pp.99 & 101
5
ibid, p.101
6
Gedaliah Afterman, “PM to receive B'nai B'rith's top honour”, 8may06,
http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=533
7
Julie-Anne Davies, “Making of a Monster”, The Bulletin, 4apr06, pp17-27
8
Sarah Price, "The remains of the day," The Sun-Herald, 9apr06, pp.55-58
9
Carol Altmann, "APA",pp.28-30; Robert Wainwright, "Remembering Port Arthur", SMH's
goodweekend, p.25.
10
Sarah Price, "The remains of the day," The Sun-Herald, 9apr06, pp.55-58
11
Kevin Healey, "He was in our sights", Sunday Herald-Sun, 09apr06
12
Kelvin Healey, "Port Arthur massacre F-111 plan", the Sunday Tasmanian, 09apr06
13
Matthew Denholm, “Bryant's lawyer attacked,” The Australian, 30mar06
14
Greg Barns, "Memo to The Bulletin: Martin Bryant has rights too", The Institute of Public Affairs
12apr06, http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=3962
15
na, ABC News-online, 6.19pm, 3may06; Alison Ribbon, "Bryant lawyer quits in mystery", The
Mercury, 03may06.
16
Philippa Duncan, “Top lawyer struck off: Avery blasted for ‘heinous’ client thefts”, The Mercury,
17may06
T
he Scot, Lord Shaw once wrote:
"Strictly Verboten"!
But after considering the forgoing narrative, who'd deny a host of officials have veiled this
event in secrecy? Who would scoff at a suggestion that there was from the 28th April deployed
in this nation, “sinister interest and evil in every shape”? So, the Port Arthur massacre must
be given publicity.
Mrs Carleen Bryant: ‘Martin, you couldn't possibly have done all
that they say you did down there [at Port Arthur] that day?’
Did you know the word conspiracy derives from the Latin "spirare – to breath or blow
together"?
Some conspiracies are conducted to bring about an outcome of good things, even the public
good. Yes it's true; I have conspired with Andrew MacGregor and Mrs Wendy Scurr in this work
for the public good. But also, when considered, even the smallest segment of this event those
who desperately try to keep the anomalies and discussion of the massacre in "darkness", or
published en-masse of propaganda which only confuses every reader … would they dare to deny
they — breathed, planned or plotted together, at some time before and even after the event?
As well, the Port Arthur incident is swamped by fortuitous coincidences far in excess of any
believable ratio one could say was approaching normal; they are overwhelmingly extensive.
But what of one important outcome, a significant reason for this psychopolitical exercise – the
synthesis or prohibition and confiscation of firearms in the name of “gun control”?
It has been my experience when addressing public meetings on the subject that generally most
people, even those who at the time generally supported the catch-cry of “uniform gun laws”,
now have come to realise the folly of that position. Consider the writings of Mrs Wendy Scurr
who wrote:
“After 11½ hours I was able to return home. My first words to my husband Graeme
were, ‘You’ll have to teach me how to use our rifles.’ I have never had the need
to learn to shoot but my attitude has certainly changed now. Our rifles are all that
allows me to stay home alone now; they are my ‘minders’.
“I would love to have a revolver to take with me when I leave the sanctuary of my
home, but I cannot obtain one,” because of the law.
“Much to the surprise of the general public,” she explains, “A lot of staff and I’m
sure many of the visitors feel as I do.”
“A lot of people [who want to ban firearms] may have had a much different attitude
if they’d been there and experienced the hopelessness without security and
nothing with which to defend ourselves, or our loved ones.” End quote.
And so in keeping with the above advise from Lord Shaw, I make no apology for the
suggestions, questions and conclusions I make in the forgoing narrative, as it does give the
matters — PUBLICITY!
In the process of writing about this matter, I learned that like the Victorian Police, who had
their special area for exercises in Gippsland's remote Wonangatta Valley, so too since before
1968, the Tasmanian Police used the Tasman Peninsula as their exercise grounds; they regularly
camped on the Nubeena Football Oval and conducted their accreditation and refresher
exercises around the rugged terrain of the Tasman Peninsula.
Tasmania Police were not only a familiar sight around Port Arthur, but the Tasman Peninsula
was a very familiar terrain to all of them. In fact, on the afternoon of 28 April 1996, Graeme
Scurr on his farm near Nubeena responded to a query from his son as to the sudden
proliferation of helicopters in the skies over their district at the time by saying, “Oh it’s
probably just another one of their blasted exercises…”
Garry Alexander the volunteer Ambulance officer from Nubeena was even to comment, "If it's
a training set-up and they haven't told someone, gee I'll go crook." His annoyance of this
probability perhaps even vindicated by Director of Tasmanian SES, Joe Paul who in 1997 wrote,
"Several exercises have been conducted since 1995 that have been designed to assess the
emergency services response capability to an event on the Tasman Peninsula, which
includes Port Arthur." 2
Finally though the April 28 1996 shootings, rekindled the brutal history of Port Arthur, but it is
much more than the fate of 35 innocent lives or the hurt, physical injury and trauma to so
many, still ongoing, suffered by their loved ones and every one of the survivors, even as
traumatic and disturbing as that may be. Several documents claim 2,000 were counselled after
the event, and my own interviews on the Peninsula confirm the whole of the districts'
community of 2,250 has suffered ongoing, adverse health effects. Many have been forced to
move far away to regain some measure of normality in their lives.
The Director of Public Prosecutions in charge of prosecuting the case against Martin Bryant
mentioned throughout this work – Damian Bugg QC - was Tasmanian born and he completed all
of his education in Hobart and on through to attaining his law degree at University there. Bugg
was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Tasmania in 1969. In the Hobart law firm
Dobson Mitchell and Allport, he was their senior litigation partner, and was appointed DPP for
Tasmania in July 1986. In 1987 he established and chaired the Electronic Recording Committee
responsible for implementing video recorded police interviews – like the (faulty) edited version
of video-taped record of interview used against Martin Bryant. In 1988 he established and
chaired the Forensic Science Services Committee and it is claimed, "[He] has written and
spoken about victims' rights, pre-trial disclosure, committals and procedural reform." 3
But after all of such credentials this work raises very many concerning allegations as to the
shroud of evil secrecy, which conceals and envelops much of the occurrences before, during
and after the massacre as well as various judicial manoeuvres. Then please consider this
statement by Mr. Damien Bugg QC long after the Howard led Federal Ministry appointed him to
the newly created position of Federal DPP in August of 1999.
"… I think it is rather sad that people who are ill-informed about the circumstances of
this matter seem prepared to make comments about such a significant social tragedy
that have no basis in fact."
- Damien Bugg QC; SMH, 22.02.2001
In the 2005 Australia Day Awards Damian Bugg was appointed among 5 in the state as Members
of the Order of Australia, 'for a career dedicated to law enforcement, particularly in the role of
director of public prosecutions at state and federal levels'.
It may matter little to the ignorant and even less to the "dumb-downed mob", but sadly, if we
ordinary people allow such treachery and arrogant disregard for justice that I have exposed
here to be ignored, history shows such a degree of treachery will destroy all of the classes
of humanity in the long run.
For at Port Arthur, treachery in the form of a substantial conspiracy was most certainly in
evidence throughout. Certain senior police officers and their colleagues were
unquestionably culpable; their delay alone of nearly a full working-day in duration, to
provide adequate security to as many as five hundred people on the Historic Site that day
is gross culpability in anyone's judgement.
So in concluding my small contribution to a review and publicity of this dreadful affair, I cannot
help but be appalled by the further and continuing lies, half-truths, deceit, injustice and
seemingly indifference, perpetrated not only against the incarcerated, the survivors, and
Tasmanian people, but upon our whole nation of people.
There once were a goodly number of scoffers. Since the appalling events of September 11 in
New York and Australia’s subsequent enticement into the duel adventures of Afghanistan and
Iraq, the mocking has ceased. In this matter, of one thing I can be sure: murder will out.
As a consequence, those who’ve dared pervert the course of justice to such an extent,
certainly should be brought to account, tried for their part in the crime, and if and when found
guilty, prosecuted to the full letter of the law.
In the early stages of this project, I was impartial as to the exact role Martin Bryant played out
in the whole incident. However after deep and long consideration of all the evidence that I
have been able to scrutinize I can confidently state Martin Bryant did not, in fact could not,
have murdered David Martin at Seascape. I can state confidently Martin Bryant was not the
gunman who shot and killed 20 persons inside the Broad Arrow Café at Port Arthur on the
afternoon of April 28, 1996. If not Bryant, then who was the perpetrator?
I can also state confidently that I have been able to demonstrate in the forgoing, that a person
other than “Jamie” – a.k.a. Martin Bryant - discharged a firearm inside the Seascape Cottage
on the evening of Sunday, 28 April 1996: that is “objective fact” of a conspiracy.
I have also been able to clearly demonstrate that the two primary firearms alleged to have
been the weapons used to murder thirty-four people at Port Arthur were not made inoperable
in the manner or accidental event the Forensic Firearm Examiner and the Crown would have us
all believe occurred.
While Martin Bryant was most definitely implicated in the Seascape Siege segment of the
crime, the exact extent of that implication has never been properly examined nor tested
before a jury of his peers. But I can also state confidently, that the DPP for reasons kept
utterly concealed from the public, ignored at least the sworn statements of two eyewitnesses
that put Martin Bryant at least 64km away from Seascape Cottage at the time the Crown
alleged that he murdered Mr and Mrs Martin.
I have played my small part in informing the public, it is now up to others to demand the
matter be brought before an open Coroner’s Inquiry and/or retrial by jury, to expose the
deception and get to the bottom of the matter.
However, quite categorically, I'm caused to reflect deeply after careful study over 9 years and
the reading of millions of words on the subject to conclude Martin Bryant does most definitely
deserve a fair trial by his peers at very least. Martin Bryant did not receive anything remotely
resembling such, on 19 November, 1996 before Mr Justice Cox, now Tasmania’s Governor.
Those who died at Seascape and Port Arthur are deserving of the obligatory Coronial Inquest
they have been denied. The statute law required it, the then Attorney General was obligated
to insist upon it happening; the people asked and pleaded for it to occur and they have been
denied. Even John Howard himself interfered in this State matter at the time by making public
comment claiming it would have a deleterious effect upon the survivors and loved ones of the
deceased. What treachery!
During the State’s gala event on Thursday October 5th 2004 - the Launceston Show - Tasmania
Police fielded a promotion booth. The State was then without a Governor as the former UN
weapons inspector Richard Butler had been forced to resign in a storm of controversy after
kicking and screaming all the way to a pay-out deal. The temporary Lt. Gov., Justice William
Cox (who sat on the bench throughout that "justice debacle" they called a sentencing hearing
for Martin Bryant) was apparently unavailable, for 'second in line to the vice-regal throne,
Justice Peter Underwood,' was filling in. It appears the Justices in Tasmania just don’t get it!
For seated among the official party, Underwood was reported as wearing a "cute little sticker"
which declared “COPS ARE COOL”! It is very apparent the problems I speak of in Tasmania are
systemic.
Can the people determine as to whether or not these systemic problems are terminal? In the
re-shuffle among high state-offices, Peter Underwood stepped up to Tasmania's Chief Justice of
course. The article went on to mention, although Police Comm. McCreadie was with the
official party, he hadn't reciprocated by wearing a sticker declaring, "Judges are cool". 4
But on the one hand why did ALL these experts, make so many bungles, yet be so
coincidentally fortuitous with regard to their preparedness on the other hand? The experts
being from across the spectrum: hierarchy of the State Police, SAC-PAV, psychiatrists, forensic
crime scene examiners, doctors, photographers, ballisticians, politicians, lawyers "gun control"
advocates and even the media, not to mention those who boast their titles as "professional
grief counsellors" — what ever the title infers — they all erred. I certainly cannot hold that all
these people are incompetent fools and bunglers, far from it. For like most psychopolitical
subterfuges of this age, they have almost fooled a nation - for a time.
Only more diligent investigation and open, public inquiry will provide truthful answers in the
long run. Some of those who take for granted that precious freedom — free speech — like
newspaper editors for instance, still today cannot resist some scoffing, and dismissive quips
toward any who dare question the authorities on this event. Although now at last their
demeanour has changed for the better I must say.
Why, in the case of my local newspaper The Daily Advertiser, Editor Paul McLoughlin even
authored a two part article titled, "Everyone loves a good ol' conspiracy theory" and Port
Arthur was listed at number one in the first part of that article. He put forward 8 points to
support his hypothesis, and 5 of those points are fact. But as you've no doubt already realised
even although he has access to our work his true position is just "THEORY" confirmed by his
choice of title. Is he not still scoffing at least or even shooting the messenger? 5
By the sheer weight of knowledge from out of statements from the witnesses to the Port Arthur
incident, one is persuaded to conclude that the whole of the people of Australia are burdened
with a great raft of treachery, enforced by assented, unconstitutional legislation, which is not
“law”, for it denies the people of their heritage and their birthright.
Such pre-emptive legislation could I believe be successfully argued before an impartial Court
(should that now ever be possible), and judged as ‘legislative action beyond the powers of
the State and Federal Parliaments and the Government’. These matters are I believe to the
Ministers of the Federal and State Parliaments ultra vires.
Simply, our basic Rights I speak of were unquestionably reaffirmed in the Magna Carta in 1215,
which is statute law in Australia. An original copy of the Great Charter is even preserved to
this very day, kept contemptuously behind glass, in the Federal Parliament and despised I
contend by Canberra's successive Ministries who refer to the Ministers as "My Government":
Humbug!
Are you aware that this covenant was drawn-up between the people and the monarch a great
many years before any politician was legislating enactments in any Parliament of the Realm?
This is also the fountain head of America's Bill of Rights, and their embattled 2nd Amendment.
Why do we allow this deplorable situation to persist?
Therefore why shouldn’t we maintain a patient confidence that ultimate justice - for the whole
of the people, and for those who were sacrificed and maimed, on the new world order’s “gun
control” alter at Port Arthur, is achievable in the future? While the present circumstances
remain, all Australians - who are in reality victims of Port Arthur – should I believe have the
chance to consider: why not let us all enjoy that experience of one of life's finest privileges,
that of being an advocate for those whose remains lie cold in the ground, or who rot in a gaol
called Risdon and are unable to defend themselves. It remains for each of us to do at least
this.
End
End Notes
1
http://www.portarthur.org.au/pashow.php?ACTION=Public&menu_code=400.300
2
Mike Bingham, Suddenly One Sunday, Pub Harper Collins, p.90; EMA Port Arthur Papers, p.3
3
"Biography of Damian Bugg", Government Lawyer, No32 Dec 2004, p.2.
4
Ellen Winnett, “Cop That”, The Insider, The Mercury, 9oct04
5
Paul McLoughlin, "Everyone loves a good ol' conspiracy theory," The Weekend Advertiser, 1apr06, p.23
SB 1
John Avery allegedly made up to 17 visits to Martin Bryant in his cell at Risdon Prison. The
following transcript are claimed to be from just three (3) of those interviews between Martin Bryant
and his lawyers in Risdon Prison Hospital. This transcript is a copy of its original typed form as was
published on the web-site of The Bulletin magazine – April 4, 2006 in association with the article
"Making of a Monster" by Julie-Anne Davies, as published in The Bulletin dated 4, April 2006.
NOTE: Footnotes & text bracketed [thus] has been added by this editor, Stewart Beattie.
This first transcript is of the second Interview at Risdon, taking place on Thursday,
October 3, 1996
JWA: Well there is no way we’re working for the Police, I can tell you
that, right.
Okay, let's just talk about what I am here for, right. I have reviewed
your case since we spoke last Tuesday [1st Sept * ] and I now know as
much as I need to know about it. Obviously, I haven’t been through acres of material and
this sort of thing. I have gone through the statements that I think are appropriate and I
now know the weight of evidence against you, right.
MB: Yep
JWA: Now having done all that, I have formed the view that I am prepared to act for you
subject to a few limits, or a few conditions, right. Now I want to go through those and see
whether you’re content on that, right.
First thing is that I think if you want me to act we’ve got to be frank with each other. I
won’t bullshit you but equally there are no games that I want you to play, right.
Understand that?
MB: Yes
JWA: I will want to get from you, not today but in the next day or so, full instructions,
right.
MB: Yes
JWA: On the whole thing. And finally, I don’t want you to have any false expectations and
I won’t give you any, right.
JWA: Now within those broad parameters, do you want me to act for you?
*
This document tells us an earlier interview (interview one (1), which had been conducted in Risdon
Prison between Avery and Martin Bryant on Tuesday 1st Oct. David Gunson remained MB's solicitor
up until Mon 30th September, the date of MB's Committal Hearing, when the accused pleaded "Not
guilty". SB
SB 2
JWA: You’re happy about that, that we talk frankly with each other. I’ll do what I can for
you but you’ve got to be frank with me, right.
MB: Okay, will there still be a case. I mean will there still be a trial?
JWA: Well, we’ll talk about a trial or what we’re going to do in a moment, right. Now for
the next thing is do you understand legally why Mr. Gunson can’t act for you anymore?
JWA: Well, it's not really that. Let me just explain something to you in simple terms, right.
If someone is charged with assaulting someone. Let’s use a simple example. There’s a
fight in a pub and someone punches another person and he is charged with assault of that
person. If that person goes to a Lawyer and says yes, I punched him but I’m going to go to
Court and say I didn’t do it, it puts the Lawyer in a position of conflict because he can’t
allow his client to go to Court and lie
MB: Oh yes
JWA: Right, now David Gunson I gather has found himself in an ethical problem because of
what you have told him and what you want to do now, right.
Now I am telling you that because I am not going to ask you today what your instructions
are. We’ll go through that as length if not over the weekend then early next week and I’ll
spend a couple of hours. We’ll then decide where we go but I just want you to be aware of
why if sometimes Lawyers get in an ethical problem that is how it happens.
Generally it’s because the client tell them something and then wants to do something
different, right. So that's just explaining that to you.
Now, having said that, if you want me to act I will do so and I will appear in Court
tomorrow and tell the Court that I am now acting for you and we will proceed down that
path.
MB: Oh good
JWA: Now are there any parts of the evidence or anything like that that you haven’t seen
or you want to see again. Let me just give you examples. There’s a video interview when
you were interviewed in July that seemed to go all afternoon, remember that, it went
forever.
MB: Oh yes. I was hoping my Lawyer was going to be there. The Police said that he was
informed and there wasn’t any reason for him to be there. †
†
MB makes reference here to the illegally obtained PROI: this can be likened to the case of The
Crown v Thomas recently in Melbourne Supreme Court, where evidence in the form of statements
obtained illegally by two AFP officers while Jack Thomas was detained by Pakistani police in a
Karachi prison cell. The AFP officers had warned him, "Under Australian law you are entitled to
consult with a legal practitioner or a lawyer." Thomas replied, "I'm no lawyer – I've got no bloody
idea what I should do … I'm dumb, I'm totally in the wilderness here." But the evidence was used & he
was sentenced using that illegally obtained evidence to 5 years goal on 31 March 2006.
SB 3
JWA: Right, well I think I should at some stage show you that interview, right, or parts of
it. I am not going to spend 3 hours, it would just be like watching t.v. for 3 hours, but
some parts of it I think you should see, right.
MB: I think I know the part … the part where I pointed to myself
JWA: The part when you pointed to yourself and said “Me” right.
JWA: Not going to help me – it is going to put you right under. But all I’m saying is if you
want to, I can arrange in due course for you to see that.
JWA: You don’t want to see it, okay. Are there any witness statements you haven’t seen
that you would like to see?
MB: Yes.
JWA: Right, have you heard the negotiating tapes when you were on the phone?
JWA: Well if you like I can bring them over sometime and play them on this recorder, right,
and you can say yes that’s me or no, it's not, right. Because there is a lot of information on
those and a lot of indication that you wanted to go in a helicopter for a ride, all that sort of
stuff, but if you want to we can play them for you. I don’t want you saying Oh, I’m not
sure about that.
MB: Okay
JWA: Now the other thing is, has David Gunson discussed in detail what the Psychiatric
reports reveal?
MB: Not really. All I’ve heard from David, he said that everything seems to be alright,
everything seems to be alright in there.
JWA: Alright, well that is something else we will need to discuss in detail. In broad terms
they say there is nothing wrong with you, you’re not mad!
MB: No.
‡
MB exhibits an excellent memory for dates, people's names etc., but here he doesn't recognise his
own voice while doing the most exciting thing he's ever done in his life?
SB 4
MB: Yeah
JWA: So okay, is there anything else that you want to see or read or look at that you think
might be evidence against you?
JWA: Alright, okay. Let me just ask you something. One of the things that came out when
I was reading the psychiatric material is what you used to do at school and what you liked
doing. I think your best subject seemed to be art.
JWA: Do you want to do some? Do you want to do some about this? Do you want to do
some drawings? How long since you’ve done any?
MB: It’s been ages since I was at school. I haven’t done any since I was at school.
JWA: No, no not today but if I bring some paper over, what do you prefer, crayons or
something like that?
JWA: We can start, if nothing else, to piece this together even through some illustrations
or something like that, right. I collect art so I could like you to sort of start
MB: Oh good
JWA: Okay, so do you think you might be interested in that if I get you some?
JWA: Paper and crayon and you can start piecing all this together through your hands,
right.
MB: Yep
JWA: Yes, they’ve squared things off. They are content for me to act.
MB: Oh good.
JWA: So there is no problem with that. I have said to them that I will. Well, I’ve said that
I will form a view on your case in the next couple of days and I will report to them and then
see where the whole thing is going. I mean let’s turn to your case. It’s pretty obvious that
it all points to you being guilty, doesn’t it?
MB: Yes
SB 5
JWA: I mean let's be frank, we can’t invent stories that you weren’t there or anything like
that. If you follow the evidence through and you have read those statements, they have
you at Seascape, they have you, it would appear, killing the Martins, leaving and going
down to Port Arthur etc etc. Now all that seems to have come out, doesn’t it. I can’t
magically say none of that happened. I can’t magically find a defence that you were in
Hong Kong or somewhere else.
JWA: But today isn’t the purpose of going through that. When I next come back I will have
this going and you and I will talk the day right through
MB: Yes.
JWA: And I repeat we’re going to look each other in the eye and I don’t want any stories or
bullshit, right, because the time for that is over. We’ve got to look at where you’re
heading with this and I want to put on the best front I can for you bit [but?] I’m not going to
bullshit and say magically you’re going to be out of here in 6 months or whatever because
you know that’s not going to happen, I know that’s not going to happen
JWA: You’re not going to ever leave here mate I don’t think
MB: Mm
JWA: You know that, don’t you eh. I mean I would be kidding you if I said you were going
to get out of here in 5 years or 10 years or whatever. You’re going to have to start putting
your mind as to what you’re going to do here for the rest of your life. Whether it’s basket
making…
JWA: Or sewing up the Policemen’s trousers or whatever, I don’t know. That’s something
you’ve got to wrestle with right. I mean you’ve got a mind you can start thinking of what
you’re going to do.
JWA: That’s right, but all I want to confirm with you today is do you want me to act?
§
MB: Yes
JWA: And we’ll talk next week about whether you’re going to go trial or whether you’re
going to plead guilty.
MB: Yep
§
Here MB is asked by John Avery, "do you want me to act [as your legal counsel]? Martin
clearly answers in the affirmative, "Yes." End of story. From this point Martin Bryant's
conversations with his lawyers are under privilege, so why has this transcript been released, and
who released it? Mr Avery or the prison authorities?
SB 6
JWA: We don’t have to do that today. I’m not interested in that at the moment and I am
not here to make you plead guilty, right.
MB: Uh uh
JWA: But I’m not here also to say we’re going to run a long trial just for the sake of a long
trial, it doesn’t do you any good and it doesn’t do the broader community any good right.
You’ve got to come out of this now with some respectability, right.
MB: Yep.
JWA: I’m probably the only friend you’ve got in the world so we’ve got to try and help each
other.
JWA: Well I’m here to help you right. You haven’t got anyone else that wants to.
MB: Is it true what David said that not many Lawyers will represent me?
MB: A lot of them are helping the injured with their claims
JWA: Well lets face it. I mean a lot are. There’s been a lot of injured people and they
have to get Lawyers to get compensation for the trauma they have been through. I mean I
will be frank with you. I have already copped some flack for suggesting I will act for you
because a lot of people out there see you as someone who shouldn’t have anyone acting for
you.
JWA: But I repeat, I will do what I can to assist you but you’ve got to help me. Now are we
clear on that? Can we strike a deal on that basis?
MB: Yes.
JWA: Alright. What do you want me to get for you apart from the art paper and some
crayons. Anything else you want that might help us?
MB: I just want to hear all the evidence and what other people have got to say about me.
JWA: Oh we’ll talk that through. You’ve got the statements and we’ll go through that
and…
JWA: Well, we’ll talk about that later and but I repeat if your defence is going to be that
you weren’t there, then we are not going to run a trial on that if the overwhelming weight
of evidence
JH: Yeah
JH: Yeah
JH: I was thinking you probably wouldn’t mind a Tracks magazine or something, a surfie
magazine. I don’t reckon you’ve seen much of that at all.
MB: (laughter) No
JWA: Have you had any magazines or anything you’re allowed to look at
JWA: Yeah. What are you doing with your time? How do you occupy yourself?
JWA: Sleeping!
MB: Having a shower each day and sleeping and reading up all about what the witnesses
say.
MB: All the Police, ah, they’re not Police, someone got into the house and took some
photographs that I had on my kitchen table.
JWA: Right
MB: I think it was that night. Sunday night the 28th. ** A reporter just broke in and what,
what they’ll do!
**
Here MB has told his newly engaged lawyer John Avery that his property has been stolen due
to an illegal entry to his Clare St home. Det Insp Warren lead this raid, accompanied by Dr Ian
Sale followed by journalists – but Avery deliberately ignores the ramifications of such criminal
acts and immediately changes the subject.
SB 8
JWA: Well, you’re a big story, mate, you’re really important now.
JWA: I mean, Ivan Milat and these fellows are chicken feed.
MB: Yes, they’re tame aren’t they compared to what I’ve alleged to have ...
JWA: Well, alleged or what, the reality is … Is there anything you want us to get you, any
magazines you want?
JWA: Well you don’t sleep 24 hours a day. What do you do for the rest of the time when
you’re not sleeping?
MB: Just going through the reports for an hour or so then just going back and laying down
again and just dreaming of the outside world.
MB: Yeah, she comes in about every 3 weeks. Apart from that there’s no-one. It will be
good when I’m allowed to mix with the other prisoners but that will be a long time
probably.
MB: Hm.
MB: Get to me
MB: Hm, Hm
††
JWA: We’ll have to arrange for you to have a haircut won’t we?
††
Please note it is John Avery who makes the suggestion that MB should change his appearance
by cutting off his distinctive long blonde hair.
SB 9
MB: Yes but I can’t have a hair cut until after the Court case
MB: He said to me the other day you can’t till after the Court case. I’ll have to try and
brush my hair a bit and keep it tidy.
JWA: Alright
JH: (indecipherable)
JWA: Alright, well let’s leave it at that today. You want me to act. I’ll act for you right.
I’ll be back in a couple of days and we’ll have a couple of hours going through what
happened, what you did, why you did it. Right and then we’ll talk about trials or what.
JWA: Well it will just be your instructions to me, right. I’m your Lawyer. I can’t pass it on
to anyone. I won’t be saying what you said. It’s what you instruct me. Right. Lawyer’s
discussions with clients are privileged right. They can’t go somewhere else and tell
someone.
MB: I don’t know if I can recall (indecipherable) ... or recall being down there. I can’t
recall a lot of what occurred but we can talk about that.
JWA: Well we’ll see where we go alright but I mean the reality is you’ve certainly made
lots of admissions to lots of people that it was you, “me”.
JWA: Yeah
MB: That was when they left the room and came back. I must have said something like
that, but I don’t recall, honestly I don’t, but I don’t recall pointing at myself
JWA: Admitting it. That is a total confession, that’s what that’s called.
MB: Hm
JWA: If you have a trial, that’s the first bit of evidence they will put up and they will play
that video and say here he is pointing to himself and saying “its me”.
JWA: Well it could be. I mean that’s the best bit of evidence they’ve got isn’t it, Martin
Bryant pointing to himself and saying I’m the mass murderer. They don’t need much more
do they.
MB: No.
JWA: Anyway, we don’t have to talk that through today. The purpose of today I repeat is
to see whether you’re content with me as a Lawyer. To deal with it and that we are going
to be frank with each other and not set any unreal expectations. I’m not going to come in
here and say you’re going to be out next year. You won’t be having any rabbit stews with
Mum, I can tell you that.
MB: No fear. If a person murders one person, I think they get about 21 years.
JWA: Right, well you’re charged with murdering 35 – what’s that give you … 700 years. If
we cut that in half what’s that – 350. If we cut that in half, it's 100. So you’re not going to
get out are you. You are going to have to get very friendly with these Warders because
they are going to retire before you are even an old man.
MB: At least they are being kept in a job, that’s one thing.
JWA: They’re being kept in a job, yeah (laughter) Yeah they are. Alright, well look I’ll get
you some crayons, some big sheets of paper, if only to sort of help you bring it all out. It
might just give you something to start bringing out to assist you and it will help me
understand you.
MB: Well, they are trying to brain wash me to not having a trial
JWA: Well, I am not going to try and brain wash you on anything. If you want to have a
trial we’ll have a trial. All I am saying, we have to look at what a trial is going to be about
and we’ve got to look at the inevitability at a trial that you will be found guilty.
JWA: I would have thought there was enough evidence to convict you without that. Heaps
and heaps of people saying you’re it, you were there, they’ve even got a photograph of you
off the video walking round with a gun at Port Arthur shooting everyone. So you’re pretty
distinctive.
MB: Yes
SB 11
‡‡
JWA: Apart from this fellow who looks a bit like you, long blonde hair
JWA: Well only just to say he’s the fellow with the balaclava. So I think it's pretty
inevitable that you will be found guilty whether by pleading guilty or having a trial but by
pleading guilty I suppose you are going to save a lot of people a lot of heartache and a lot
of trauma, make your family feel you’ve done the right thing, make the community at least
think you’re not a monster
JWA: An evil monster. You’re sort of like Hannibal Lecter §§ expect you don't eat people.
MB: We know what happened to him, he was an old man when he did the crime
JWA: See somewhere in the papers I don’t know whether it was when the police spoke with
you, you spoke of Ivan Milat, we’ll he’s only chicken feed compared to this isn’t he?
MB: Is this the biggest case you’ve ever done with murders?
JWA: Well I’ve never acted for anyone who has murdered 35 people before, no I don’t
think any Lawyer in the world has.
MB: What, 2, or 3?
‡‡
Here John Avery acknowledges the existence of at leas some eyewitness statements of the
gunman only 'looking a bit like' MB. That is interesting…
§§
It can be easily seen that those in direct contact with MB have been in varying degrees
demonising the accused. Even JWA is as guilty of this as any. No doubt Dr Ian Sale wasn't
attempting to convert MB to thinking himself a saint…
SB 12
JWA: Well that equates in Australia and Tasmania to about 12 or 14 years, that’s just for
one.
MB: Well we’ll just have to see how things can work out
JWA: We’ll see how it works out. We’re not going to worry out whether you get 300 years
or 100 years but I suggest if you get 50 or 60 years, at 29 you’re going to be old and grey
aren’t you
MB: But it will be good when I can mix with other prisoners. It will be better than being in
the cells.
JWA: The problem with that is that the other prisoners would probably want to do you in at
the moment
So you’ve got to be realistic about that too, that’s why you’ve got to start thinking of
occupying yourself gainfully or usefully rather than just sleeping and breathing.
MB: I will spend along time in the Hospital - it’s hard to see where they will put me.
JWA: They might have to keep you here for the rest of your days, keep as you’ve said these
fellows in a job looking after you.
JWA: Well, have you asked to go out there and have a run around?
MB: Yeah
JWA: But you haven’t done much of that. You haven’t at all or not very often - in the
exercise yard you’ve got?
JWA: Okay, well we’ve had enough banter. Let’s get together in the next couple of days
when we’ll talk more about what happened because really we haven’t talked about that
today, and today wasn’t for that purpose and I repeat to see whether you’re comfortable
with me acting and I am comfortable with you and I think we’ll shake on it. I’ll shake your
hand and I say I’ll do my best for you and you’ll say that you’re not going to bullshit me and
we’ll work it through together
MB: Yeah
SB 13
JWA: Alright. Okay. We’ll I’ll have to come round. I’ll see next time if we can overcome
these (referring to handcuffs). I think that’s unnecessary.
3rd Interview
(Martin proceeding to show John some of his drawings of the events of the shootings)
MB: I did do some drawings. Are they large enough do you think?
JWA: Right.
MB: And that’s where I did my target shooting usually between Murdunna and Eaglehawk
Neck
MB: I found that important. Well, this is more important isn’t it, where the Martins, where
the Seascape Guest House is
MB: Yep, that’s the top, that’s where Pears was, there †††
JWA: Right
MB: The Police allege that I was shooting out at them, I can’t recall
***
11 October is a Friday.
SB 14
MB: The Fox and Hounds, that’s the car that was parked near the main house, the Seascape
Guest House and there’s the two smaller houses on the property
‡‡‡
MB: Yep, and that’s the Martins. That’s where I shot them, on the bed.
JWA: Right, right, okay, well that’s fine, and this is the…
MB: And another thing, I don’t know how…the recording was last time but I said something
about a bus, I remember shooting people around the bus but I don’t recall going on the bus
JWA: You don’t recall going on the bus? Alright so, okay…
MB: And I recall um shooting people in the cafeteria but I don’t recall injuring anyone at all
JWA: Alright, okay, well that’s fine. Well, I’ll take those with me. Just to bring you up to
date mate, I’m going to Melbourne to have a talk with Paul Mullen, remember Professor
Mullen
JWA: No
§§§
JWA: No, I’m going next Wednesday
‡‡‡
Here JWA has ‘extracted an admission’ from MB of yet another version of the murder of Glen
Pears. The PROI, illegally obtained from MB on 4 July 1996, shows no admission as to him
killing Glen Pears in the house, how could MB's memory be shown to improve upon his
contemporaneous accounts? After providing an unreliable account of igniting the BMW fire, he
is forced to agree with his interrogators that Glen Pears was burnt to death in the boot of the
BMW 'I s'pose' says MB. If Avery and the DPP are in agreement on the Court documents
account, then it is tantamount to admitting an SOG officer who we know ignited the BMW
caused the death of Glen Pears! So now we are being teased by the inference that MB has
suddenly had an inspiration enabling him to draw a picture of the death scene in the house!
Considerable psychiatric assisted memory recall I would suggest is manifest here!
§§§
The Wednesday after October 11, is Wednesday 16th October; Avery goes to Melbourne for
talks with Forensic psychiatrist, Dr Paul Mullen & John Joblin & he would have us believe he
has still not been retained by MB?
SB 15
MB: Yeah
JWA: I think they may want to see you again, so I’ll have a talk to the Trustees about that
MB: Oh good
MB: Oh yes
MB: Yep
JWA: Alright, well we’ll see if we can sort that out. You asked me about Julian
MB: Hm
JWA: What else to bring you up to date. I’m going to see the Director of Public
Prosecutions next Thursday to discuss matters with him, so I’ll come and see you next
Thursday after I’ve done … and after I’ve been to the Crown, alright! ****
MB: Yeah, yeah. I saw Damien Bugg on the day I went to Court.
JWA: Right, yeah, so that’s really about where we're at at the moment
MB: Right
JWA: I did try and contact your Mum but I just got an answering machine
JWA: So, I’ve left a message for her to give me a hoy sometime, if she wants to, or
whether she will
****
"Next Thursday" = Thursday 17 October 1996
SB 16
JWA: Right
MB: (indecipherable)
JWA: No
MB: I think they were there last week for a few days
JWA: They were I think the second time I saw you, or the first time, but no, they’re not
anymore, so there’s no…
MB: Oh, I suppose they’ll show in Court, show the guns and things like that
JWA: Well, I mean obviously that’s part of the evidence you know, they they will have to
go through. What … what’s your current feeling as to how you want to plead? Have you
given any further thought to that in recent times?
JWA: Well, you can, but I mean given what you’ve told me, the reality is …
MB: On some charges I can plead guilty to and some not, am I allowed to do that?
JWA: Well you can plead to some and not guilty to others. What sort of ones do you think
that you might want to plead not guilty to?
MB: I don’t recall. All I can recall is people sitting down in the cafeteria
JWA: Right
††††
MB: Just the people that I’ve shot, sitting down
JWA: Right
JWA: So what you’re saying, you accept that you killed people but you don’t think you
injured, or you don’t remember injuring people?
JWA: Yeah. Alright, well we don’t have to worry about that at the moment.
MB: Yep
MB: Hm
JWA: The other thing I just wanted to ask you, I think I did talk to you last time about this.
How long do you think looking back in your mind now, you’d been planning this?
JWA: 1-2 years. Had you ever sort of had a dummy run before or almost got to doing it
before?
MB: No never
JWA: No
MB: Its only been past … or since after Christmas this year
JWA: Right, that you seriously thought about it or seriously started thinking about it?
MB: Yeah
††††
Here a problem of considerable proportion arrises: MB has admitted to shooting just the
people who 'were sitting down' in the Broad arrow Café dinning room! 13 of those when shot to
death in the café were in the words of Sgt Gerard Dutton, ‘lying on the floor in the defensive
position', only 3 were sitting, while others were on their feet! This account from the accused is
worthless being totally unreliable if used in court! It proves nothing, except that the accused
could not present a convincing account of his movements at any of the crime scenes.
SB 18
JWA: What did you think you were going to get out of it. I mean you must have known you
were going to get caught.
JWA: Yeah, but I mean when you thought you wanted to do that did you also think well I
know I’ll get caught or did you think you’d get killed or what did you think?
MB: I thought I’d either get caught or get killed and I thought killing the Martins
MB: I thought that if I killed the Martins I would go to jail for life, right.
JWA: Yeah
MB: And I thought well if I kill a lot of people it really won’t make much of a difference
JWA: In other words if you kill 10, its not much difference as far as the time in jail to
killing one person
JWA: Hm
What was the motivating thing though to kill anyone. Just looking back, I mean was it for
pleasure
MB: I just wanted to kill the Martins because I didn’t like them … When I was a child they
gave me a bad time
JWA: Yeah
MB: Yes
JWA: Right, you hated them. Was there anyone else you hated?
MB: No, no-one. No-one’s been bad to me, just … mainly Mrs Martin that I wanted to kill
but I thought I’d kill Mr. Martin while I was there
JWA: But you were conscious were you, when you were thinking of that and planning to do
that, that you’d get caught? Or did you ever seriously think you’d get away with it?
MB: I thought they’d shoot me or I’d get caught and go to jail, either one
JWA: Right, What are you going to do for the rest of your life here?
MB: I don’t really know. Just live day by day. I don’t know.
JWA: Right
JWA: Right, now you’ve done some drawings for me, did you enjoy doing that?
JWA: So do you want me to get you some more, have you got plenty of ...
JWA: Well, alright, why don’t you keep doing some. Even if it’s only just therapy for you
and you know do some bigger scale ones if you want to
JWA: Yeah, that's fine but if you want to do bigger ones, why don’t you just do some of
what you … of anything
JWA: I don’t. I’ve got a few friends who do. I’ve got a watch, its a diver’s watch
JWA: Yeah, but no I don't. That’s obviously something that’s been pretty important to you
JWA: Remember when we spoke last time I asked you what you felt like when you were
killing those people. Remember you said that it was…
MB: Exciting
MB: Thrilling
JWA: Yeah
‡‡‡‡
MB: The most exciting thing I’ve ever done in my life which was something different
JWA: Yeah
JWA: And did it really just get out of hand. I mean, you obviously didn’t plan to shoot 30
people. When you decided you were going to shoot the Martins, how many people did you
think after that or was there no thought process, just …
MB: Um, no thought … I don’t think it was a thought, no thought process. I just thought I’d
go out and kill a lot of people
JWA: Did you physically know by the time you were back at Seascape how many people had
been killed?
JWA: Yeah
MB: No
JWA: No, no. Do you want to tell me anything at the moment. I mean today’s just an easy
day. I didn’t want to have to burden you with
§§§§
JWA: Right. How did you find the other fellow, Lucas?
JWA: Yes
‡‡‡‡
This statement corroborates the conclusions of Sgt Terry McCarthy the police negotiator who
concludes on the video for Nine's ACA, words to the effect, 'it was as if Jamie was acting out a
role'.
§§§§
So Mr Lucas is from Adelaide & is a "criminologist": but where does he fit in?
SB 21
JWA: Has he
JWA: Right.
JWA: Was he
MB: I think that’s what you call him. I don’t think he was a Psychiatrist, just a …
JWA: No
JWA: Right
MB: Oh yes, anytime. Hm. But I don’t think much of Dr. Sale either
JWA: Right
MB: Yeah, he works for the Prosecution. I don’t think he’s got his own private…
JWA: Oh, he’s in private practice but he does a lot of work for the Crown, so … but anyway
Ian Joblin and Paul Mullen, you’re happy about them
*****
MB: Yep, oh yeah. He came to see me twice actually, Dr. Sale
JWA: Right
JWA: Right
MB: He has this…(indecipherable) and I said what, did I do that, did I point to
myself…(indecipherable) that was a ball’s up wasn’t it - what I had done then
JWA: Yeah, can’t be helped now, that’s water under the bridge
*****
MB tells us Dr Ian Sale had by 11 Oct., earlier visited MB in Risdon twice, but for what
purpose and when? After all Sale was working for the prosecution – not the defence.
SB 22
JWA: Well what we’ll work along is this. We’ll work along the basis that you’re probably
going to have to plead guilty to the people you’ve killed, right. We’ll look at the other
aspect later.
MB: Hm
MB: Hm
JWA: Because I think you know as well as I do that I think you’re going to be convicted of
that, don’t you
JWA: And there’s no sort of sense us thinking we can pull rabbits out of the hat
MB: Will you actually, um, then make a statement in writing to that, or what happens?
JWA: Well, I mean it depends on which way we end up going right. If you were to plead
guilty right, what happens there is the Crown still have to put a lot of evidence before the
Court to tell the Court what happened. I mean we all know what happened, the world
knows, but the Court has to be formally told that and what we would have to do then, you
and I, is work out what I’d say on your behalf
MB: Yep
JWA: Now you could tell the world through me whatever you want to about it or you could
say like some people in this situation "I’m not going to say anything"
JWA: Whatever we say right or don’t say but all I’m saying you might want the world to
know what motivated you to do this or you may not. You may say well I want everyone to
know. That’s something you’ve got to think on - whether you want me to tell all the world
what you’ve told me. You may say no John that’s between you and me and you might say…
MB: But they’ll have to get witnesses to any injured … some of the injured victims
JWA: Yeah, I mean certainly if it gets to that they will have to call some witnesses. In
fact, I’m going to talk to the Crown on Thursday as to that right
MB: And people on the bus ‘cos I didn’t go on the bus. I don’t recall going on the bus and
the bloke that lived that was shot through the neck -yeah I don’t believe any of that, that
that actually occurred
SB 23
JWA: But how would it, I mean if it didn’t occur clearly they must have got injured by
someone mustn’t they
JWA: And there wasn’t anyone but Martin Bryant walking around was there
MB: No
JWA: So, you know, you’re the fellow in the long coat
JWA: I know you’re not sorry, I’m not going to ask you if you’re sorry ‘cos I know you’re not
- are you?
MB: No. I’m in here and they’re looking after me well and, … they’re ear-wigging now
JWA: Look the last thing I’m ever going to say to you is are you sorry ‘cos I know you’re
not, are you?
MB: No
JWA: You’re not going to con me and say you’re sorry for what you did, are you
JWA: Does it still give you some excitement as to what you did?
MB: Yeah, I don’t know. I might come out in Court and tell everyone what happened. I
don’t know. I might be the best thing to do, mightn’t it?
JWA: We’ll worry about that later right. That’s something you and I have to work through,
right. As to whether you say it or I say it on your behalf
JWA: Well it might. I mean it might be more diplomatic for me to tell the world what you
want to say rather than see you smiling and grinning and you know ...
JWA: You might have someone jump over that glass cage to get you
MB: (laughter) I don’t think so, no. One bloke came up … I suppose you heard about one
bloke stood up and said I’m a coward
SB 24
MB: Who
MB: Mr. Pears’ brother - oh, it was his brother was it?
JWA: Yes. You know Pears was the last guy you shot
MB: Oh, I thought it might have been Mr. ? He was the first in the Broad Arrow and he gave
a …(indecipherable)
JWA: About what time, just changing the subject, about what time would it have been
when Mr Pears was shot. Would it have been after midnight. He was the last one you shot,
wasn’t it?
†††††
MB: It would have been about 6 o’clock that morning.
MB: Yes
JWA: What did you talk about. Did you talk to him much?
MB: Just … I don’t think he mentioned that he had any brothers or sisters, I don’t think
JWA: Did you tell him you were going to shoot him?
MB: No I didn’t say anything. I don’t even know where I shot him now
JWA: Right
MB: No, I can’t think of anything else. What’s the weather like outside?
†††††
No shots are documented as having come from the Cottage at about 0600 hrs on 29th April
1996 though… More psychiatric assisted memory recall (invention) perhaps?
SB 25
JWA: Yes
MB: Oh, you used to drive around - I used to see you driving around in it
MB: Yeah, and your wife had the station … van didn’t she?
JWA: Yeah, yeah. She remembers you up at Peter and Michael’s shop
MB: Yeah
MB: Peter always used to have children. They used to become … his wife always used to
have children, always look down and say
JWA: That’s right yes. Yeah, they’ve just come back from a holiday. They went to
Queensland.
JWA: Okay, well let's leave it at that. You keep on with the drawings. Anything you want
to do, right!
MB: Okay
JWA: Because I’m sure that well even if its only for therapy, they’re useful. I’ll find it
useful
MB: I know
MB: Good
JWA: And I’ll see Professor Mullen and Ian Joblin and I’ll have a talk to you then, about
them, and also about witnesses and this sort of thing
MB: Alright
JWA: Okay, keep your chin up mate, I’ll see you then, alright.
INTERVIEW CONCLUDED
Editor’s note: After reading this reproduced transcript and the accompanying article as published by
The Bulletin in their 4 April 2006 edition, the reader surely can grasp why John Avery was ‘jumped
on’ from a great height by the law fraternity of Tasmania. I can but conclude other powerful figures
escaping the limelight of the Avery affair and who were pulling the strings, as you can surely
appreciate those with the most to lose in sorry affair would certainly be hell-bent on gagging this
source. Though in my humble opinion, John Avery is now in a worse position than ever – he’s broken
their code of silence still has the documentation, the audio tapes and whose discounted existence may
be due solely to the mercy by some not so faceless nervous people…not a comfortable situation I
would opinion. SB
These are scanned copies of a selection of Bryant's school reports.
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
1 of 8
1145 hrs Michael Copping Seascape, Oakwood Saw yellow Volvo sedan backed up to door area of Seascape (the "CLONE" Volvo).
1239 hrs Jai Nichols Close to Seascape Bryant overtakes Jai, & he sees Volvo enter Seascape driveway.
1240 hrs Michael Copping 200m S of General store Gunman driving S towards PA Tollbooth in Bryant's Yellow Volvo.
1240 hrs Steven Howard PA Tollbooth Corroborated by Aileen Kingston. The gunman entered the Port Arthur Historic Site.
1305 hrs Roger Larner Palmers Lookout Rd Talked with Martin for 20 minute or so, drove off. Heard 1st shots from Broad Arrow Café.
1310-1315 hrs James Dutton (tourist?) PA Tollbooth James & Joanne Dutton observe yellow Volvo in tollbooth traffic queue (???)
1315 hrs Mike Bingham (Journo) "Suddenly One Sunday" Writes Martin talked to Roger Larner for 'about 10 minutes', then drove off north toward PA
1323 hrs Const Whittle/Hyland The Coal Mines logged call; radio VKT Hobart informed, 'drug stash' of heroine is only soap powder.
1323 hrs Ashley Law Information Centre First gunshots discharged inside the Broad Arrow Café.
1325 hrs X Ian Kingston Tarleton St & Jetty Rd Driver of yellow Volvo directed to park 'back up Jetty Rd', ignored instruct.
Const Justin Noble
1328 hrs (BCI) Oval Heard the first shots fron the Broad Arrow Café
1330 hrs X DPP Bugg QC Broad Arrow Café Gunman entered the Broad Arrow Café & stood at servery for food.
1332 hrs Wendy Scurr Information Centre Makes initial "000" call to Hobart Police HQ.
X Sergt Andrew
1332 hrs Fogarty Bellerive Pol Station SOG 'team leader'; claims departed for Port Arthur (reality is he's already at Seascape).
1346 hrs K. Fox & G Alexander PA Tollbooth First Ambulance from Nubeena arrives at Historic Site (The Mercury).
1335 hrs EMA report Hobart Const Pat Allen & Perry Caulfield depart Traffic Office Hobart.
Estimated: Paul
1335 hrs Cooper "Clougha" Historic Site Paul finds "Clone" Volvo secreted on street (south) of Clougha, speaks to 2 females (Lynn & Jean?)
1336 hrs X Richard McCreadie (Tas Police) Hobart EMA Report: claimed first "000" call informing of shootings at the Broad Arrow logged.
1338 hrs Peter Morgan TAS - ambulance received information of a shooing incident at Port Arthur:
Ambulance service notified, and tasked: 2 Nubeena, 1 Dunalley + Paramedic Giffard
1339 hrs EMA report Hobart Taranna
1342 hrs Jim Laycock Port Arthur - Kodak shop Jim Laycock makes his 1st "000" call to Hobart Police - shootings at Tollbooth, 120m south.
1345 hrs SA Police newsletter Hobart Inspector Barry Bennett notified & dispatched for Tarana with two CIB officers.
1347 hrs EMA report Hobart Eastern Dist CIB tasked.
1351 hrs EMA report Pol HQ Hobart Asst Comm., Luppo Prins informed of the shootings.
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
3 of 8
1352 hrs Jim Laycock Port Arthur - Kodak shop Makes 2nd "000" call to Hobart Police informed them of murder of Zoe Hall (white Corolla).
1353 hrs estimated Nubeena Const. Whittle & Hyland arrive at Nubeena Police Station.
1355 hrs Estimated: Ashley Law Church Ruin - Hist.Site Told Vicky McLaughlan to "stop the driver"… "Clone Volvo" driver told to get out; Jean (?).
1355 hrs estimated Port Arthur - Kodak shop Const Chris Iles arrives Laycock enters Patrol Car, driven across Hwy; dec is checked.
1358 hrs estimated Port Arthur General Store Laycock ordered out of Patrol Car, Chris Iles roars off at high speed - north and disappears.
1359 hrs EMA report Hobart FIRST HELICOPTER tasked for Port Arthur Historic Site, 14 minute flight time.
Cnr Champ & Church
App 1400 hrs estimated (Site) Two women are ordered by PAHSMA Staff to leave their ("Clone") yellow Volvo; it later vanished.
1400 hrs EMA report Hobart Peter Hazelwood SAC PAV Premiers Dept calls Geoff Easton, Mng Police Public Affairs.
1400 hrs estimated Arthur Hwy - Oakwood Arthur Hwy ambush shooting has now ceased & gunman retreated with BMW into Seascape.
estimated-unnamed
1402 hrs wit Seascape, Oakwood Runs down driveway to assist at burning BMW. Stopped by 2 police; "get out! You're not needed."
1403 hrs estimated Nubeena Const Garry Whittle departs for Port Arthur.
1411 hrs estimated Port Arthur Tollbooth Const Garry Whittle arrives Port Arthur Tollbooth.
1411 hrs EMA report Tas Pol Marine Div. Van Diemen & Vigilant tasked at "full speed"; they never arrived at PA.
1412 hrs Richard McCreadie EMA report, McCreadie claims first police arrived Seascape (YES, Dyson inside cottage).
1413 hrs EMA report Hobart Pol HQ Major Crime Squad tasked.
1415- hrs Police statements Oakwood, Arthur Hwy Sergt Andrew Fogarty falsely claims to have just arrived at Const Paul Hyland's road block.
1415 hrs estimated Taranna Devils Park Tas Pol Bob Fielding takes over Bob Hamilton's animal park & est, Police Forward Command Post.
1405 hrs estimated Nubeena Const Hyland departs via Premaydena towards Taranna.
Hyland received TX; people shot and injured sheltering at Fox & Hounds - ordered to
1409 hrs estimated near Taranna proceed.
1422 hrs estimated Fox & Hounds - P. A. Const Hyland arrives F & H; assists only "P9", Simon Williams (Canadian Embassy official).
1425 hrs Police statements Oakwood, Arthur Hwy Const Perry Caulfield alights from vehicle at the Seascape entrance on Arthur Hwy.
1430 hrs EMA report p.31 Hobart 1st Squirrel departs for PA with 2 paramediacs aboard.
Fire brigade tasked BEFORE BMW fire - did this call-out come from Sergt Fogarty at
1447 hrs EMA report Port Arthur/Pol HQ Seascape?
1447 hrs estimated Fox & Hounds - P. A. Departs north up Arthur Hwy towards Oakwood, joined by Const Garry Whittle.
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
4 of 8
1447 hrs EMA report Hobart Pol HQ Barry Bennet Eastern Dist Superintendent's CIB task force is activated.
1425 hrs EMA report Hobart Pol HQ Negotiator team is tasked - but stays in Hobart.
1456 hrs EMA Luppo Pins Hobart First Helicopter arrives at PAHS Oval. evacuated Carolyn Loughton (58 minutes after tasked!)
1458 hrs Debrief statement Const Garry Whittle Const Hyland states the BMW (bogged), "..on the grass lawn...facing east. This vehicle was on fire."
1458 hrs Police statements Seascape, Oakwood Sergt Andrew Fogarty materialises out of know where at Const Paul Hyland's road block!
1500 hrs Barry Bennett Taranna PFCP "Some young Const had started to set up PFCP in Taranna Devil Prk"
1507 hrs EMA report - Prins P.A. Oval Second Squirrel helicopter arrives to evacuate wounded.
Mystery (Commonwealth registered) black van arrives & parks outside Broad Arrow
1510 + hrs Tollbooth Log Port Arthur Café.
1520 hrs Julie Butler Bingara, Nth NSW NSW Police at Bingara Police Station told of James Pollard's death (at PA Tollbooth).
1530 hrs Sergt Terry McCarthy MIR Hobart Pol HQ First land-line phone contact by Police with "Jamie" inside Seascape.
1540 hrs EMA report - Prins P.A. Oval Third Squirrel helicopter arrives on oval to evacuate wounded.
1550 hrs Tollbooth Log Historic Site First PAHSMA vehicle returns from managements staff retreat weekend Swansea.
1557 hrs EMA report Hobart Pol HQ First Tas Pol SOG's tasked to Taranna PFCP by Jet Ranger helicopter.
1600 hrs Julie Butler Bingara, Nth NSW Informed by NSW Police from Bingara of James Pollard's death. (40 min drive).
" Barry Bennett Taranna PFCP Begins FIRST Media Conference. NOTE: at conclusion PETER HAZLEWOOD arrives.
1604 hrs " " " " Second PAHSMA vehicle returns from managements staff retreat weekend at Swansea.
1604 hrs documented Hobart Second SOG contingent departs by road in charge; Snr Sergt J. S. Morrison.
1616 hrs EMA report - Prins P.A. Oval Fourth & last Squirrel helicopter arrives on P. A. Oval to evacuate wounded.
1626 hrs Tollbooth Log Historic Site First lone Policeman, Detective Peter Hessman is delivered to the Broad Arrow Café.
1630 hrs " " " " Police vehicle logged departing Historic Site Tollbooth.
Sally Martin is pursued by black haired male, Police: “permission to shoot the gunman”;
1700 hrs SES personnel Seascape, Oakwood told, “do not shoot, this has to happen…’
1700 hrs CEO Craig Coombs Report to Historic Site: "He's out". Thought the gunman had escaped Seascape containment.
1715 hrs Internet print-out Nubeena Sunset! As per the Australian Surveying & Land Information Group.
1719 hrs EMA report Canberra ACT National Crisis Centre contacted by Comm. of Tasmania Police.
1730 hrs CEO Craig Coombs Historic Site Promise of SOG Police "imminent" arrival to Port Arthur Oval; it DID NOT HAPPEN.
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
5 of 8
1730 hrs Police statements Oakwood, Arthur Hwy Const Pat Allen tells us of "movement on the roof" of one of the outbuildings.
1730 hrs EMA - Craig Coombs Broad Arrow Café/Oval 2 Policewomen Ali Denns & Rhani Ahmed arrive - unarmed; tasked to tollbooth
1740 hrs Tollbooth Log Historic Site Mystery black van departs Broad Arrow Café exits Tollbooth 2 vehicles after 1740hrs.
Keith Moulton: no one allowed to proceed: "gunman still at large"; eventually arrived at
1800 hrs Sun/Telegraph,2apr06 Nubeena-PA road-block hostel
1830 hrs Staff statements Historic Site 3 GUNSHOTS DISCHARGED near "CLOUGHA" TERRORISES 100's of PEOPLE LOCKED-IN COTTAGES.
1830 hrs (est) Tas Pol Tape Channel 9 A gunshot on audio tape proving conclusively other person/s present inside Seascape.
1900 hrs Michael Cordwell Hobart, Pol HQ Martin's uncle phones Pol HQ asks if his nephew is involved with the Port Arthur siege.
1930 hrs Wendy Scurr & staff Historic Site FIRST contingent SOG ARRIVE & escort staff from cottages to P.A. Motel & Back Packers hostel.
1930 hrs Ian Matterson Tarana, Devils Park EMA report; The Coroner tells us he received the "all clear" for Historic Site at 1930 hrs.
2000 hrs Carleen Bryant Hobart Carleen was escorted from her home to Hobart Pol HQ; she was not asked to identify son's voice.
2215 hrs EMA report ASIO dispatched "technical support" - but from where - Canberra? The "Echidna" is tasked.
2230 hrs Staff leave Youth Hostel Staff refuse to stay any longer at de-briefing and depart – Lee-Anne Goodwin
" Police statements Seascape, Oakwood Police confirm "movement of occupants" (plural) inside Seascape.
" Dr Ian Sale 30 Clare St. New Town Police force an entry & find nothing but ammo wrappers; journalists steal photographs.
the property of Martin Bryant, see Avery transcripts of taped interview with Martin 3 Oct
`96
2230 hrs Police statements Taranna PFCP SOG Officers issued with photographs of the "SUSPECT" - BUT FROM WHAT SOURCE?
2345 hrs Carleen Bryant Hobart Pol HQ interrogation conducted at Pol HQ.
Jamie Tells Pol negotiator, Sergt Terry McCarthy re. the firearms; "…they'll all be
2100+ hrs "Jamie" Seascape, Oakwood destroyed."
2400+ hrs EMA report Taranna Victoria Police's SOG arrive - flown over Bass Strait, from Melbourne and sworn-in as Constables.
Monday 29
April
29/05/1996 Court Doc. p.189 Clare St New Town Police raid Clare St residence for second time
0500 hrs EMA report Hobart Coroner Matterson departed Hobart for Port Arthur Historic Site.
0747 hrs Police statements Seascape, Oakwood First smoke, Seascape Cottage reported as 'on fire'
0752 hrs: Hobart McCreadie interviewed by Steve Lieberman
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
6 of 8
(Note, Coroner only advised remains [of Glen Pears] had been located in house. (OR, in BMW?).
AFTERMATH ACTION PLACE BRIEF ACCOUNT DETAILS
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
7 of 8
1-May-96
President PANPA addressed 700 delegates from 17 countries of the 'Pacific Rim' in
Wed 01/05/96 The Mercury - article Chris McPherson; Pres attendance.
Bedside Remand
1-May-96 Hearing RHH Magistrate Peter Dixon presided: MB forced to lie on his burns; psychiatrist Ian Sale present
1-May-96 Memorial Service St David's Hobart Trading suspended on the Stock Market & Chain Stores observe a minute's silence
Anonymous "bomb
3-May-96 threat" Royal Hobart Hospital RHH staff and nurses evacuated; a search revealed it as a hoax.
" Hobart PANPA conference concluded.
" Court Doc.p.89/20 Clare Street Police make 3rd raid on Bryant's premises; hall-way cache of arms and ammo found.
4-May-05 "gun-control" rally Hobart A reported 2,500 people attend. Roland Browne: "We're at the beginning of the journey…"
" Article – The Australian Hobart David Gunson briefed to defend Bryant & voices concern: No video camera was recovered.
5-May-96 "gun-control" rally Sydney, New South Wales NCGC's Rebecca Peters headed the rally of a reported 2,000 in Hyde Park.
5-May-96 In May Gunson engaged Joblin. MB transported to Risdon Prison hospital: psychologist Ian Joblin spends 4 days with Bryant.
6-May-96 The Mercury - article Hobart PANPA Exec.Dir. Frank Kelett announced a donation of $10,000 for the Port Arthur appeal
20-May-96 The Mercury - article Hobart Coroner Ian Matterson announced he was to take pre-arranged leave on 6/05/96.
21-May-96 Statement Pol HQ Hobart Carleen Bryant is interigated by Sergt Lynnette Faye Jones
Magistrate Michael Hill presided: 1 count, murder of Kate Scott; MB's defence, Phillip
22-May-96 Indicted for murder Risdon Prison, video link Zeeman
6-Jun-96 Questioning Hobart Police HQ Gun dealer Terry Hill attends Police HQ for "discussions"; his barrister John Avery with him
6-Jun-96 Letter to Terry Hill Moonah, Hobart Over John Avery's signature: attempted coercion involved Bugg, Avery & Tasmania Police.
Justice Underwood: held in absentia, Martin Bryant not involved, remanded to 9
14-Jun-96 Re-indicted Supreme Court Hobart September.
DI's Warren & Paine, DS Jones & DC Bolt interrogate Bryant without legal counsel or
4-Jul-96 Bryant interrogated Risdon Prison guardian!
5-Jul-96 69 further charges laid Supreme Court Hobart These charges were laid also in absentia; Bryant not in Court. David Gunson appears for Bryant.
Replaced 9/09/96
30-Sep-96 Hrng. Supreme Court Hobart All 70 charges read out - Bryant in a clear voice "Not Guilty" to all. Barrister John Avery - observer
" Gunson stands-aside Supreme Court Hobart 3/10/96, Avery taped explains to MB why: couldn't allow MB to court & lie and plead "Inocent"
1-Oct-96 The Bulletin 4/4/2006 Risdon JW Avery admits to his first interview with Martin Bryant - transcript published by The Bulletin
Time-line Of Events Preceding, During & After
The Massacre at Port Arthur
8 of 8
2-Oct-96 The Mercury - article Hobart Lt Col. David Gunson "stands aside"; John Avery "tipped" to become Bryant's legal counsel.
3-Oct-96 Tas Parliament Hobart Unprecedented legislative action to 'freeze & seize' Bryant's A$1.5m assists proceeds.
Martin tells Avery "No, they haven’t put me out in the exercise yard [to date]": for 5
" The Bulletin Risdon months or about 150 days!
" The Bulletin 4/4/06 Risdon JW Avery is taped interviewing Martin Bryant - transcript published by The Bulletin
3-Oct-96 The Mercury - article Hobart The Mercury of 4/10/96 announced barrister John Avery is now Martin Bryant's legal counsel
11-Oct-96 The Bulletin Risdon Avery: 3rd interview with Martin - taped.
app 14-Oct-
96 Retaliation ? Hobart Police target an innocent Terry Hill; his gundealer's licence is revoked.
16-Oct-96 Avery travel to Melbourne To meet with forensic psyciatrist Prof Paul Mullen & Ian Joblin who'd both already met MB.
17-Oct-96 Avery to meet DPP Hobart October 11, John Avery tells MB he is to meet DPP, Damian Bugg, then to Risdon to MB
31-Oct-96 Correspondence Hobart Barrister John Avery still engaged with police regarding matters pertaining to Terry Hill.
Public funded civil action Quinn v Terry Hill launched; Quinn's solicitor Rowland Browne,
1-Jul-96 Civil court action Hobart NCGC
3-May-99 The Bulletin Garry Linnell John Avery: 'It took 14 to 15 visits to bring MB around…to plead guilty."
Justice William Cox, then a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army Reserve; later Governor of Tasmania