Eyre International – Bringing You The News No One Else Wants To Bring You

The Hidden Truth Behind The News

The New World Order is now in panic mode as its financial infrastructure is cut off

leave a comment »

The New World Order is now in panic mode as its financial infrastructure is cut off

Part 7 – The connections between Port Arthur Massacre, Tasmania, Australia and Sandy Nook USA


One can see the striking resemblance between the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, Australia and the Massacre in the US at Sandy Nook with almost an identical distortion of facts by all those involved in these “False Flag Tragedies.”

This is a continuation of the story as told by Joe Vialls alias Ari Ben Menashe:


In this series of reports the author has continually claimed that military science proves intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant was incapable of conducting the incredibly efficient massacre at Port Arthur, though some details of military science are classified and have not been released to the public.

The recent mass shooting in the Thurston School Cafe in Springfield, Oregon USA, makes the release of sensitive information unnecessary. A direct comparison between Springfield and Port Arthur proves once and for all time that the shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe on 28th April 1996, was not Martin Bryant, but a highly trained professional marksman.

When the military needs to prove a scientific point one way or the other, it invariably tests that point for real, either in combat or by artificial simulation. A good example of this was the recent reaction of the US military to Federal Government claims that the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was blown up by a 2000 pound low- explosive ammonium nitrate weapon, allegedly parked outside the front door of the building by young Timothy McVeigh.

Knowing the ammonium nitrate claim was impossible rubbish, United States Air Force explosives experts at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, promptly constructed a three story test building out of the same materials used in the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma. Then they placed the correct equivalent explosive charge at precisely the same distance from their test building and stood back briefly to admire their “simulator”. And what a simulator it was! When the massive charge was detonated on camera the results were exactly as the explosives experts had forecast: the huge open-air blast barely scratched the front face of the building, proving for all time that the White House, FBI, and others in Washington, had deliberately and continually lied about the explosion in Oklahoma City, and of course about “patsy” Timothy McVeigh as well, for political reasons.

The comprehensive results of these scientific tests were printed in a report titled the “Eglin Blast Effects Study” (EBES), a copy of which was forwarded by the commanding general to Senator Trent Lott, majority leader of the US Senate. In a covering letter the general urged Senator Lott to resist White House calls to bring in new counter- terrorist legislation, which if passed would have given federal agencies such as the FBI and BATF new draconian powers over American citizens.

You didn’t read about the EBES in your newspaper? This is not surprising, because Eglin’s scientific work would have destroyed the Government’s lying hype about Oklahoma at a single stroke. And so it is with Port Arthur. The military, this time special forces, could easily prove that Martin Bryant was incapable of achieving the stunning kill rates exhibited in the Broad Arrow Cafe, but are unable to do so because the required facilities i.e. simulators used to train counter-terrorist marksmen in enclosed space operations, are shrouded in secrecy for obvious reasons.

The SAS, GSG9, and others are not enthusiastic about public demonstrations. But a recent mass shooting in Springfield, USA, provided a chillingly live simulation of enclosed space operations in a cage very similar to the Broad Arrow. In order to understand how a simulation on the other side of the world proves Port Arthur a pre- meditated covert action conducted by experts, it is first necessary to gain a basic knowledge of enclosed space simulators. Special forces simulators are normally used to literally simulate an environment in which counter-terrorist marksmen might be required to operate, usually a room or rooms of known dimensions, containing both terrorists and hostages. Immediately on entry the special forces marksmen must kill or disable the terrorists but leave the hostages unharmed: a task calling for split-second timing and accurate point shooting. In a murky simulator where the difference between life and death can be as little as 1/10th of a second there is no time to use gun sights.

Point and shoot, point and shoot. With luck the terrorists will die from bullet wounds to the head, but if the counter-terrorist marksman makes a single split-second error of judgment he will surely die instead. To evaluate scientifically whether an amateur like Bryant could equal the very high killed-to-wounded ratio (KTIR) achieved in the Broad Arrow Cafe, the instructors would arrange dummies inside the simulator in the same configuration as the victims on the day. Next an unskilled amateur would be equipped with a Colt AR15, two clips of ammunition and other essential items, before being told he had “X” seconds from point of entry to shoot dead twenty of the victim dummies with single shots to the head, and wounds twelve more, with only 29 rounds. This would be quite impossible for the amateur, as the simulation would prove scientifically.

The biggest drawback would be the amateur’s complete inability to point shoot instinctively, essential in this enclosed environment. The shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counter-terrorist marksman but made no amateur mistakes. Always in motion and point shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards. That he was point shooting from the hip is beyond question. The Colt AR15 allegedly used in the massacre was fitted with a wide-angle telescope sight designed for the Armalite AR180, mounted on the AR15 so crudely that it completely obscured the “iron” sights on top of the weapon. Thus the iron sights could not be used at all, and the range was much too short to use the telescopic sight. Remember that the shooter knew this before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe, so must have been supremely confident in his point shooting ability. Sadly, his confidence was more than justified. To accuse intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant of this stunning performance was quite absurd, a point clearly shared by police interrogators on the 4th July 1996, who openly queried Bryant’s shooting skills, with special reference to point shooting i.e. firing the Colt AR15 from the hip:-

Police: “And ahh, did you ever practice shooting from the hip?”

Bryant: “No never.”

Police: “Did you get pretty accurate?”

Bryant: “No not really.”

Naturally enough the police had no access to counter-terrorist simulators and probably lacked the firearms experience to work out that Martin Bryant was completely incapable of executing the gross crimes of which he stood accused.

But unknown to police at that time, two years later 15 year-old Kip Kinkel was to stage a mass shooting in an identical environment, firing a semi-automatic weapon of the same calibre (5.56-mm). Kinkel’s performance in the Thurston High School Cafe was exactly what any expert would expect from a random shooting event, and proves that Bryant could not have caused the terrible carnage in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Again sadly, Kip Kinkel provided the perfect “live” cafe simulation needed to prove Martin Bryant’s innocence at Port Arthur.

Kinkel’s choice of a cafe for his mass shooting may well have been influenced by the massive international publicity about the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania, and he may have expected to achieve the same spectacular results. His extensive weaponry further indicates a possible “copy cat” event.

Kip Kinkel was carrying a 5.56-mm Ruger semi-automatic rifle with several full clips of ammunition, plus two loaded handguns and a large hunting knife. In addition police found a sizable quantity of loose 5.56-mm rounds in his haversack. Multiple weapons and bags of loose ammo were notable media “features” at Port Arthur. Within seconds of entering the school cafe and opening fire on his fellow students, Kinkel must have realised that he was simply not in the same class as the professional shooter at Port Arthur.

Despite firing fifty one rounds, nearly twice as many as those fired in the Broad Arrow Cafe, Kinkel killed only two and wounded another twenty one. Of the two dead, only one was hit in the head. Nor did he have the expertise to keep his fellow students at bay. While fumbling a clip-change on the 5.56-mm Ruger he was overpowered and brought to the ground. Killer Kinkel had done his murderous best, but it was a best that fell far short of the very professional massacre in the Broad Arrow cafe two years before. In the Broad Arrow Cafe twenty were killed and twelve wounded, while in the Thurston School Cafe two were killed and twenty-one: wounded. So in the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter scored an incredible inverted killed-to-injured ratio (KTIR) of 1.66 to 1, on a par with the best special forces counter-terrorist marksmen in the world.

In the Thurston School Cafe, Kinkel scored a KTIR? of 1 to 10, entirely in accord with random shootings worldwide. Remember once again that every one of the twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe was killed with an accurate single shot to the head, an almost impossible achievement. No doubt psychiatrists and other government apologists will cry “foul” at this point and trot out all kinds of inane academic excuses for the differential in performance between Springfield and Port Arthur. In reality no excuses exist. Kinkel was bought firearms and encouraged to use them by his parents. Bryant was denied firearms and discouraged to use them by his parents. Kinkel was thus a proven experienced shot while Bryant was not.

Kinkel was 15 years old and Bryant had an assessed mental age of 13 years at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, giving Kinkel a two year intellectual edge over Bryant. Any academic or politician still willing to believe that Martrin Bryant executed the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe, should as a matter of urgency visit his or her nearest hospital for immediate psychological assessment. A side issue that has raised its head from time to time since the author started writing reports on Port Arthur, is that Martin Bryant was taking the anti-depressant drug “Prozac”, which in some magical way managed to convert him from an intellectually-impaired invalid into the crack-shot equivalent of a US Navy SEAL. While there is some evidence available that Bryant was prescribed tranquilizers long before the massacre, no evidence has emerged on Prozac, though interestingly, the Murdoch press announced that Kip Kinkel was subjected to the drug by his parents: “They were coping with his bouts of anger by giving him Prozac.”

There is no doubt that Prozac is a highly controversial drug, with more adverse reactions reported to the FDA than any other drug since that regulatory agency was formed. It is also known that one of the reported adverse reactions is “rage”, but rage alone cannot turn an average citizen into special forces marksman material. So while Prozac and others drugs capable of inducing acute adverse reactions may alter brain chemistry to the point where the recipient wants to kill people, no drug on earth can teach the recipient how to kill people. Prozac may or may not have played a part in triggering Kip Kinkel’s killing spree, but it is a red herring in the case of “patsy” Martin Bryant, who was completely incapable of conducting the Port Arthur massacre. Horrific though it was, Kip Kinkel’s performance in Springfield proved Bryant’s innocence completely, but this is unlikely to kick-start Australia’s politicians into action. Most in Canberra stopped worrying about our national security decades ago, deciding instead to sign multiple United Nations “conventions” on behalf of all Australians, without bothering to explain to the voters that 99% of these conventions violate Australian sovereignty. To the average politician in Canberra nowadays, Bryant and Port Arthur are of no importance as he or she grovels before yet another lobby group holding the international purse strings.


Weapon class: Semi-auto Semi-auto
Weapon calibre: 5.56-mm 5.56-mm
Spare ammo clips: Yes Yes
Extra weapons: Yes Yes
Total rounds fired: 29 51
Total fatalities: 20 2
Total head shots: 20 1
Total injured: 12 21
Shooter disabled: No Yes
Killed-to-injured: 1.66 to 1 1 to 10


Now might be the time for a gently warning. Even the most friendly media polls indicate that a significant minority of Australians are fed up to the back teeth with fat-cats in Canberra feathering their own nests while ignoring Australian national security. When the truth about the Port Arthur operation finally fights its way up to greater public consciousness, as it most surely will, many of those complacent fat-cats will find themselves at the back of a very long dole queue. The only way to delay the inevitable is to order a Royal Commission into Port Arthur. Quickly.


New evidence proves Martin Bryant innocent

The new photographic evidence to hand proves Martin Bryant is innocent and increases the demand for a properly constituted Royal Commission.

The fresh evidence coming to light in these photographs prove beyond doubt that the evidence submitted by the Tasmanian Police to support the conviction of Martin Bryant on the charges of murder at the Broad Arrow Cafe was false, and in fact prove Martin Bryant could not have been the blonde man in their photographic evidence.

The police evidence is so blatantly incorrect that, as a result of my investigations and with copies of these photos, I have sent the letter below to the Commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service.

22nd September 1998
Richard McCreadie
Commissioner Tasmanian Police Service
GPO Box 308C
Hobart, Tasmania 7001

Dear Mr McCreadie,


During the last year I have examined the evidence in the case of The Queen v. Martin Bryant, and am writing to advise you that irrefutable hard scientific evidence exists proving that Bryant was not the famous ‘blonde man’ on the video footage tendered to the Supreme Court by the Tasmanian Police Service. Obviously the true identity of the blonde man must now be swiftly established, following which he must either be charged with 36 counts of murder, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or perhaps both.

You may find this scientific evidence difficult to believe after the hysterical media conviction of Martin Bryant in 1996, but the Port Arthur case is no more extraordinary than that of British policewoman Fletcher, which I investigated for four years starting in 1992. WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy in London on the 17th April 1984, and for twelve years 80 million Britons sincerely believed the media myth that Fletcher was killed by a single shot fired by a “Libyan Assassin” located within the Embassy itself.

The hard scientific evidence proved otherwise. WPC Fletcher was killed by a shot fired from an American multinational building located further to the west, and her case is now the subject of an official review by the Metropolitan Police Service. That review is based on fresh scientific evidence uncovered by my independent investigation.

The attached photographic evidence shows a blonde man standing by a yellow car in the bus park at Port Arthur, allegedly Bryant changing weapons after killing twenty civilians in the Broad Arrow Cafe, and two more in the vicinity of the Trans Otway bus. Immediately beyond the blonde man is a large white boat, but as the two photographs on the right prove scientifically, the white boat was not anchored or moored in or near that position at any time on the afternoon of 28th April. In turn this proves in irrefutable scientific terms that the amateur video of the blonde man could not possibly have been filmed on the same afternoon as the crime, but on another date entirely, most probably the 27th or 29th April. It matters not if a dozen boat owners now come forward and swear their boats were present on that particular mooring at Port Arthur on the afternoon of 28th April 1996, hard science will prove every one of them a liar.

Because it is a matter of documented record that Martin Bryant was in Richmond with girlfriend Petra Wilmott on the 27th, and in Hobart Hospital with third-degree burns on the 29th, it is proven in irrefutable terms that he (Bryant) cannot be the blonde man standing by the yellow car with a surfboard on its roof rack. Also, as the car the unidentified blonde man is standing next to was verified by your officers as having been driven by the murderer, Martin Bryant clearly cannot be the guilty party. Having monitored the recent media performance of some of your commissioned officers, it seems possible that you might also be tempted to deflect attention away from this seminal scientific evidence by use of misleading references to “hundreds of eyewitnesses”, “forensic evidence linking Bryant to Port Arthur”, and last but not least Martin Bryant’s “confession”. In my view any such move would be a significant error.

It is already public knowledge that the Tasmanian Police Service does not have a single valid positive identification of Bryant at the Port Arthur historic site provided by a witness in a manner required by low i.e. from a line-up or from a Rogues Gallery of photographs. It is also known there is no fingerprint or DNA evidence available which links Bryant directly to the Port Arthur site, or to either of the two weapons alleged to have been used in the mass murder. The motor vehicle and sports bag owned by Bryant and allegedly found at or near the crime scenes are not valid evidence because both are highly portable items which were not in Bryant’s possession when arrested. Both items may well have been stolen for the express purpose of incriminating him. This is not a new technique, but one that has been used around the world on hundreds of occasions.

Where Bryant himself is concerned, there seems little doubt we are looking at the most gross abuse of human rights in recent Australian history. After this intellectually-impaired young man pleaded ‘not guilty’ in the Royal Hobart Hospital to the initial holding charge of one murder, he was denied remand prisoner rights and effectively held in solitary confinement without access to media reportage until his police interrogation on 4th July 1996. Despite his intellectual impairment, Bryant was not provided with independent advice by the Office of Public Guardians, but was left alone to defend himself against a team of highly trained experts including your own interrogators. Worse, Bryant’s designated “defence” lawyer was denied access to his client during the interrogation. Although Martin Bryant managed to plead not guilty for months on end, it is not hard to comprehend the confusion and fear he must have felt because of these cruel and inhumane practices.

At no time has Bryant confessed to the crimes at Port Arthur, which is not surprising bearing in mind the irrefutable fresh scientific evidence which proves he was not the blonde man on the video tendered to the Supreme Court. No man can provide a detailed confession about a series of crimes in which he played no active part. The fact that Bryant eventually said “guilty” seventy two times at the pre-sentencing hearing on 6th November 1996 has no real meaning, because we have no way of knowing his state of mind after being so cruelly treated for a period of 192 days. What we do know with certainty is that after being similarly harassed and abused in England, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were eventually freed on appeal.

As Commissioner, I believe it is now your duty to open an investigation with the express objectives of identifying, arresting and charging the unknown blonde man on the amateur video footage. Indeed, the future credibility of the Tasmanian Police Service may depend on your prompt action in this matter.

Yours faithfully,




runner1 runner2  

Alleged Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant. Photo on the left was used by the media to convince you of Martin Bryant’s “guilt”. Photo on right taken from a different angle, shows identical three men on balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe, and the man alleged to be Martin Bryant running down towards the bus park at Port Arthur in the presence of a police helicopter. This frame was shot at 2.45 p.m., one hour and fifteen minutes after the mass murder was over! This damning photographic evidence by itself proves Martin Bryant was deliberately set-up, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Remember, a camera cannot lie.


This picture is not clear but no doubt the author has the originals

Notes on fresh photographic evidence

For many years specialized computer software has existed which is quite capable of altering electronic image data so accurately, that in the hands of an expert, video footage can be altered so subtly that evidence of the resulting forgery is difficult and sometimes impossible to detect. Fortunately for law enforcement and justice, expert forgers can be careless, as was the case with the forged video footage tendered to the Supreme Court of Tasmania in R v Martin Bryant, some of which is shown on the above collage.

The eight small frames across the top of the collage were claimed by the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions to show “Bryant” running away from the Broad Arrow Cafe immediately after the mass murder. This claim was later reinforced by the former head of the Port Arthur taskforce, Deputy Commissioner Jack Johnson, who was quoted verbatim in the Melbourne Sunday Age on 28th August 1998 stating: “The tourist video showing Bryant fleeing the cafe has been authenticated.” Both men were wrong.

Under magnification, each frame of the video shows that the face of the running blonde man at all times points towards the camera, with no horizontal, vertical, or twisting motion of the head, and no change in facial expression. All these factors are anatomical and physiological impossibilities for a fast-running human figure, proving that the single “still” photograph of Martin Bryant’s head was electronically superimposed on the torso of a different running man, sequentially on each individual video frame. At higher magnification, pixel distortion between the superimposed head and the original torso confirms this analysis scientifically.

The author recently secured authentic tourist video footage of this same running man taken from a different angle, which provides a fingerprint-exact match with every item of his clothes, with every step he takes as he runs down the road towards the bus park, and with every aspect of the three men standing on the balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe behind him. The real owner of the running torso has black hair and has already been identified. With the exact date and time of the authentic tourist video known, this evidence will be reserved for Bryant’s appeal before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, or a properly convened Royal Commission, whichever comes first.

The large and inset frames on the collage are explained in detail in the text blocks below them, which provide irrefutable scientific proof this man is not Martin Bryant. There are further significant scientific errors which may be of interest to readers.

Alleged Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant. Photo on the left was used by the media to convince you of Martin Bryant’s “guilt”. Photo on right taken from a different angle, shows identical three men on balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe, and the man alleged to be Martin Bryant running down towards the bus park at Port Arthur in the presence of a police helicopter. This frame was shot at 2.45 p.m., one hour and fifteen minutes after the mass murder was over! This damning photographic evidence by itself proves Martin Bryant was deliberately set-up, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Remember, a camera cannot lie.
The blonde man standing by the yellow Volvo in the bus park is wearing a dark-blue donkey jacket, in stark contrast with the running man, who is dressed only in a shirt. Other frames of this blonde man by the yellow Volvo prove he is wearing shoes of a completely different colour to those of the man running away from the Broad Arrow Cafe, as shown in the eight small frames on the collage.

It is an established fact that immediately after exiting the Broad Arrow Cafe, the shooter fired a minimum of five 5.56-mm NATO rounds directly towards the Trans Otway coach shown in both left frames. Despite the five 166 decibel muzzle blasts, each the awesome audio equivalent of a gas gun used to clear entire airfield perimeters of birds, a large flock of seabirds remained sitting apparently undisturbed on the wheelhouse and foredeck of the large white boat in the background during the period when the shooter transited between the cafe and the Volvo. This is impossible if the footage was filmed at the time of the mass murder on 28 April 1996, because these birds would have taken fright at the first muzzle blast, flying directly away from the camera, which is filming from the general position of the Broad Arrow Cafe i.e. from the same direction the five rounds were fired.

As shown on the two frames provided from this sequence, the flock of seabirds are only frightened later by the sound of a single shot fired from the right-hand side of the video camera, and immediately respond by flying off sharply to the left. If backtracked to its only credible source, this single shot must have been fired from the vicinity of the penitentiary ruins: the large building in the centre of the aerial photo shown on the right. At no time on 28 April 1966 did the shooter venture any further south-east than the bus park immediately below the Broad Arrow Cafe, a fact borne out by the forensic evidence, proving this single shot must have been fired by another man on a different day.

Though further evidence is not needed, more forgery and thus deliberate deception can be seen on the frames of the blonde man by the Volvo. If you look carefully you will see a thin white “halo” running from the left of the frame across the top of the parked cars, around and above the head of the blonde man, then across the top of the parked cars to the right, before turning upwards and following the exact line of the edge of the triangular camper roof in the upper right foreground. This “halo” contains no pixels at all, proving scientifically that the still foreground including the blonde man and the cars has been “cut and pasted” into the background showing the moving birds, boat, and distant hills. In other words two entirely different videos were merged together to create a special effect. The obvious question is why would the forgers go to all this trouble?

At the time of the mass murder the Port Arthur ferry “Bundeena” (shown at top centre of the large frame of the right) was lying alongside the jetty next to the bus park. But at 1530 hrs that afternoon the Bundeena was moved out to her mooring and left there unused for at least a week. So if the forgers filmed their blonde man on (say) 29 April, the Bundeena would have been clearly visible on her mooring in the background, instantly proving that the footage was not filmed at the time of the mass murder. So the forgers filmed the white boat (an Alaskan sport fisherman) at a different location and then “merged” it into their custom still foreground of the unknown blonde man. Unfortunately for them their work was technically incompetent, and forgery can easily be proven in any court of law by state-of-the-art image manipulation computer software of the kind used by the author.

As of this date the Tasmanian Attorney General and others have put up spirited resistance to any formal inquiry into this fresh scientific evidence, but it is unlikely they will be able to maintain this undignified posture for very much longer. When fresh scientific evidence is submitted there is a legal requirement that it be properly investigated.

“Experts have deluded themselves into believing that science has grown much too complicated to be understood by anyone but a fellow expert. They also believe that progress can only be made by one of their own – a scholar who carries the proper credentials. However, to believe this, they are very ignorant of the history of their own religion. When any group fails to supply its own criticism, there will inevitably be some nasty outsider, like me, willing to do it for them.”
Rene, Mensa Lectures 1990


FORWARD by Ned Wood

This was the missing link that puzzled me. Bryant’s mother, Carleen, didn’t come to the rescue of her son. Was it because she too was convinced that he was guilty?

The media even tried to make out like his family had deserted him. A Tasmanian journalist claimed that “she, (Carleen Bryant), told Martin that unless he confessed to the crimes, she and his younger sister Lindy would commit suicide”.

These were words that might be uttered by a very emotional woman who was convinced her only son was capable of the horrible murders before he was even found guilty. Strange words indeed from a mother…..but as Joe Vialls points out, Carleen vehemently denies the claim and as the saga continues we find out how senior police, brought this woman in for questioning before Martin Bryant was even identified.

She has been refused visits to see her son who, as yet, has never been tried for the Port Arthur Massacre, only accused before a hearing and sentenced after his “not guilty” plea was denied in order to avoid a trial by jury. A trial which would surely have found him “not guilty” because to this very day there has not been a single soul identify Martin Bryant as the killer. Hundreds of witnesses would have had to have given testimony at a trial which would have exposed the inadequacies of the justice system in this country and proved that not only could Bryant not be identified but that he was incapable of the deed.

A crime which has been hailed as one of the worst in our history has never been properly investigated by the police, never been tried by a jury and to this day cries out for a Royal Commission to answer the leading question…..

who was the man with the long blond hair?


On 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur in Australia, some of the best combat shooters in the world used a total of only 64 bullets to kill 35 people, wound 22 more, and cripple two cars. The first 19 victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe each died from a single 5.56-mm bullet to the head, all fired in less than 20 seconds from the right hip of a fast-moving combat shooter.
This awesome display of marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. In the months and years following Martin’s arrest, much of the public and private strain fell on his widowed mother Carleen.

This is a very small part of Carleen Bryant’s profoundly disturbing story.

Tasmanians are a hardy breed and Carleen Bryant is probably one of the hardiest of them all. Her idea of “taking a break” this year was to navigate her camper van alone from Tasmania to Western Australia with only a CB radio for company, drive half way around WA looking at the sights, then drop in on us for the afternoon before starting back eastward across the Nullarbor Plain. Not being a radio buff, she was disappointed that her CB “wasn’t working too well” but a quick twist of the squelch knob fixed that, and Carleen slowly accelerated out of Perth, happily listening to about twenty truckies chattering incoherently over her CB loudspeaker on channel nine.

Life has been hard for Carleen, probably hardest of all when she realised that her son Martin needed speech therapy as a child, and other remedial help later which led to an invalid pension. As a mother she handled difficult situations well enough but her husband Maurice found it much harder. He was a devoted husband and father and a highly organised man, but Carleen says “it was more difficult for him. Martin was his son and fathers expect their sons to be normal.”
Hard though Maurice tried over the years he slowly but surely became depressed and “mentioned” suicide on a number of occasions. Then without warning in 1993 Maurice took his own life at the family farm at Copping, but long before his death had already taken steps to minimise its impact on Carleen and their children. Carleen was dreading all of the paperwork after his death “because Maurice always looked after that’, but was astonished to find all of the documents she needed placed in a single neat pile where she could easily find them.

Even more astonishing, months earlier Maurice had transferred the Hydro account from their joint names to Carleen alone, ensuring things would run automatically after he died. “Maurice was a very thoughtful man” Carleen says, which indeed he was.

Life then continued as normally as possible until 8 p.m. on the evening of 28 April 1996 when two burly plain-clothes police officers knocked on her door in Hobart and asked, “Do you have a son called Martin Bryant?” When Carleen said yes, the officers took her down to headquarters and bombarded her “with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas”.
But despite being at Police Headquarters during the exact period when a telephone conversation was allegedly in progress between her son at Seascape and police negotiators in the same headquarters building, Carleen was not asked to assist police by identifying her son’s voice. She says that at that point in time she did not know the conversation was taking place, but was later provided with the name of the person who “assisted” police by identifying her son’s voice at 7 p.m. the same evening, a name she provided for the author in confidence. But Carleen says it made no sense because this particular person “hadn’t spoken to Martin since he [Martin] was twelve years old and would not know what his voice sounded like anyway.”

Shades of JFK

Bearing in mind that even the police marksmen in position around Seascape did not discover Martin Bryant’s identity until he stumbled out of the building with his back on fire the next morning, how was it possible for Carleen to be asked detailed questions about her son’s large house and his obscure overseas trips, at Tasmanian Police Headquarters more than twelve hours before he first stumbled out of Seascape into the arms of waiting police? Carleen’s version of events, if chronologically correct, proves that at least one stratospherically-placed police officer in Hobart was already well ahead of the game. Though this sequence appears to indicate direct police involvement in the mass murder itself, there is a more likely explanation which Carleen was not aware of before she visited Perth.

Shortly after the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, a Christchurch, New Zealand morning newspaper printed a detailed story it received on the New York news wire about Kennedy’s “assassin” Lee Harvey Oswald. There was a major problem with this news story, because at the time the New Zealand newspaper went to press in Christchurch, Lee Harvey Oswald had only just been arrested in a Dallas cinema for the alleged murder of a Texas policeman called Tibbet. Several more hours passed before Dallas police even accused Oswald of the murder of President Kennedy. So the Christchurch newspaper inadvertently printed an impossible story, a concocted lie “seeded” onto the New York news wire too early by the real murderers, who forgot that international time zones and thus real-time would allow the New Zealand newspaper to print their pre-arranged cover story hours before the events happened. That single critical planning error proved conclusively Lee Harvey Oswald was only a fall-guy, a patsy arrested and charged on cue by the unwitting Dallas Police Force. It was impossible timing and too many background details which proved conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, and the same impossible timing and background details prove conclusively that Martin Bryant was used for identical purposes. While Carleen was being interrogated at Hobart Police Headquarters at 8 p.m. on 28 April, all the terrified staff and survivors at Port Arthur knew for sure was that the shooter was a man with long blonde hair. There are thousands of men with long blonde hair in Australia, each equally likely to be the man on the trigger, so there was no innocent way police could possibly have already singled out Martin Bryant or obtained knowledge about his obscure overseas travels. So between the time of the mass murder at 1.30 p.m. and Carleen’s interrogation at 8 p.m., someone very carefully pointed the finger, and “seeded” Tasmanian Police Headquarters with an impossible amount of personal information about her son, many hours before he was first positively identified stumbling out of Seascape the next day. Ever since that frightening interrogation more than three years ago, Carleen Bryant, mother of the accused, has been denied a copy of, or even access to, the telephone tape alleged to contain a long rambling conversation between her son and police negotiators. Why?

Nothing could prepare any mother for what happened next. When Martin was transferred from the Royal Hobart Hospital to Risdon Prison as a remand prisoner, Carleen had visiting rights but no privacy with him at all. She was shocked to see her son, badly burned in the Seascape fire and still in great pain, bound to his wheelchair by leather straps. Martin told her that he had asked to have the painful restraints removed but was refused. When Carleen asked who refused, her son nodded towards the prison officers, one of whom then leaned towards Carleen and said “you cannot discuss the [Risdon Prison] staff”. Carleen, suitably intimidated, fell silent. In fact under the Prisons Act a remand prisoner can be restrained on the orders of the Prison Superintendent, but only if under escort outside the prison, or if he poses “a significant danger to others”. By no interpretation could an entirely passive intellectually impaired young man with third-degree burns to his back and left side, isolated behind bullet proof glass, be considered a significant danger to others. But at that time Carleen Bryant did not understand the prison rules and was unable to help her son ease his pain. Nowadays the only coherent reason for Martin’s illegal restraint is obvious. Prison officers and psychiatrists, in the manner of the Spanish inquisition, were determined to intimidate and physically punish intellectually impaired Martin Bryant until he finally “confessed” to a series of crimes in which he played no active part. That such obscene and barbaric treatment is illegal under Australian and international law, and justifiably condemned by Amnesty International as both physical and psychological torture, does not appear to have impeded the Tasmanian authorities at all.

It was only at this point while describing the treatment of her son in Risdon Prison that Carleen’s composure slipped for a second and she shed a tear or two. “He was so terribly lonely” she said, briskly wiping the tears from her cheeks before continuing. It was a cry from the heart of a mother who had been unable to help her son in distress, a cry that went home on this author as surely as a razor-sharp knife.

Next Carleen discussed Martin’s actual injuries, because those reported by the media were wholly inconsistent with the official story of the day, i.e. that Martin Bryant had set fire to Seascape, panicked, then fought his way out of the blazing building. Carleen didn’t know exactly why I was asking, but confirmed that the burns were restricted to “his back and left hand side”, pointing to her own left side to illustrate exactly where. “Were there any burns at all to his face, chest, arms or hands?” I asked. “Oh no, none at all” Carleen replied confidently. As any fireman will confirm, the official story of the day is mission impossible. Any person fighting his way out of a burning building does so head-first so that he can see where he is going, arms and hands held high to protect his face from the flames and to deflect burning debris away from his body. It is an instinctive survival response that we all use in life-threatening fire situations.

Minor first-degree burns are enough to make anyone retreat from a fire immediately, the split-second that nerve endings send warning impulses to the brain. Despite this known fact, Martin Bryant remained inside Seascape until burning debris had caused horrific third-degree burns to his back and side, but not to his face, chest, arms or hands. How? The only possible scientific answer is that Martin was lying face-down, either comatose or drugged, and remained that way as burning debris from the first floor above (where the fire started) fell onto his back until the intense pain finally forced him back to consciousness. This is confirmed by video footage of Martin leaving the building, stumbling along like a dazed drunk. Those readers asking themselves “but who else could have started the fire if Martin Bryant was unconscious and the only man left alive inside Seascape, and how did they do it?” might like to consult standard Army manuals under the chapters headed “incendiary devices” and “radio detonators”.

Carleen continued to visit Risdon Prison and made little lists of questions she wanted Martin to answer, but most of the time felt so intimidated by officials that some of the more important questions remained unanswered. She says constant bombardment by officials pushing the story that “Martin did it” started to make her believe her son may have been responsible for the crimes, but for a number of very substantial reasons could not work out how he could have physically committed them.
Although “Martin was making money cutting lawns and selling his crayfish”, Carleen added “Maurice did not approve of guns and took Martin’s air rifle away. He [Martin] did not know how to shoot properly and never owned any real guns.
Carleen was also mystified by the “cache” of weapons allegedly found inside a piano at Martin’s house by police several days after the mass murder. “When he was away on trips I used to go round there, clean the place up and poke around as mothers tend to do” she says, “Martin knew this and he also knew I didn’t approve of guns. He would never have dared keep any in the house.” Carleen Bryant is not the only person mystified by this impossible evidence.

Soon after the mass murder, two journalists from a prominent newspaper illegally entered Martin’s house searching for clues. Their search included the piano in question, which contained only piano parts. Planting false forensic evidence after the crime to “prove” guilt is far from new and has occurred many times in the past, including the last high-profile case the author investigated, which was the murder of Policewomen Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London during April 1984. The Libyans were wrongly accused of shooting her, and after the Libyan diplomats left the Embassy to return to Tripoli, a specialist army clearance team was sent into the building to search for booby traps or other weapons.
The team carried out one of the most intensive searches in British Army history, from the basement of the building to the roof, but found absolutely no trace of guns, ammunition, explosives or any other incriminating materials. So imagine the Army’s stunned amazement when one week later the Metropolitan Police Service announced that its members had just found two loaded handguns, machine gun spare parts, and more than three thousand rounds of ammunition inside the Libyan Embassy!

It is beyond doubt that a person or persons unknown illegally entered and “seeded” the Libyan Embassy with damning false evidence, sometime during the week separating the army and police searches.

For Carleen things got worse at Risdon Prison, but she vehemently denies the claim of Tasmanian journalist Bingham that “she told Martin that unless he confessed to the crimes, she and his younger sister Lindy would commit suicide.” in Carleen’s view by that late stage any intervention of this sort by her would have been unnecessary. “The continual pressure [from officials] brainwashed Martin to the level where he may have started to believe he was guilty.” This is hardly surprising. Stalin’s communist thought-police in Russia crafted false beliefs like these into an art form, and could eventually convince even the most intelligent of men they were guilty as charged or they wouldn’t be in Lubianka Prison in the first place, would they?

Carleen’s last visit to her son was during November 1997, when she was told by prison officials and psychiatrists that “Martin no longer wants to see you, which is his right”, but at no time has Carleen been able to establish this message actually came from her son. Martin could, for example, have told her face to face but did not. He could also have told her over the telephone but did not. Finally although not a fluent writer, Martin could have sent her a brief note, but did not do so. Outraged by this procedure Carleen says she called the prison and asked “what about my rights as a mother?” Her question went unanswered and the line was disconnected. Neatly manoeuvred into a subservient position by the Tasmanian authorities, Carleen was then circumstantially forced to ask a prison psychiatrist, whose name she provided in confidence, what she should do next, “Write to him” was the answer and Carleen proceeded to do so, at least once and sometimes twice a month.
Still she received no word from her son and during a later visit to the named psychiatrist, Carleen asked what had happened to her last letter. The psychiatrist flicked through his clip board and found her opened letter to Martin near the bottom of his papers. “I sent that three weeks ago” Carleen protested, to which the psychiatrist merely said “sorry”.

It is highly relevant here to ask why any psychiatrist should still be communicating with her son and handling his mail. After all, the crux of the psychiatric evidence against Martin Bryant was that he was “fit to plead”, i.e. of sound mind. A prisoner of sound mind has rights, one of which is the right not be to forced to act as a guinea pig for psychiatrists busily writing learned papers for local or international psychiatric journals about a crime he could not have committed. Had Martin Bryant been found to be of unsound mind and incarcerated in a mental hospital instead, one might reasonably expect such close psychiatric attention, but not inside Risdon Prison as a convicted felon serving life imprisonment.

The psychiatrists will probably defend their intrusive and manipulative position by claiming “Martin Bryant asked to speak to us.” No doubt he did, after contact with all other prisoners and visitors was first effectively severed, i.e. de-facto solitary confinement. No man including Martin Bryant is an island, and all normally need periodic verbal interactions with others to remain sane in the long term. If the only other humans you are allowed to meaningfully interact with are psycho-scientists, the chances are you will eventually ask to speak to them.

The bizarre behaviour of the psychiatrists involved in the Port Arthur case has presented their profession with an impossible credibility problem. Setting aside meaningless psychiatric mumbo jumbo and double talk, the act of entering a historic site and killing or wounding fifty-seven citizens is perhaps the ultimate hallmark of absolute insanity, rendering the perpetrator permanently unfit to plead. Indeed, it is difficult for most normal people to imagine a more insane act. So when Tasmanian and Victorian psychiatrists declared Martin fit to plead, i.e. sane, at the same time they acknowledged he could not have committed the crimes.

Nowadays Carleen Bryant wonders why the police did not go to the trouble of properly verifying her son’s new guilty pleas in early November 1996 using standard police procedures. Many people plead guilty to crimes they could not have committed, a situation that routinely presents police forces around the world with a big problem, especially if the guilty pleas are entered by a person who is intellectually impaired or otherwise mentally deficient. Standard procedure in these circumstances is to take the suspect out to the crime scene and ask for details of exactly how he committed the crime(s), i.e. where each victim was standing, what sex, how many bullets, where the weapon was reloaded, etc etc., all recorded on continuous (Time-stamped) video.
The Victorian Police Service observed this standard procedure meticulously in the case of Julian Knight at Hoddle Street during 1987, as did the New South Wales Police Service after a street shooting in Wollongong in 1998. Both suspects provided ample accurate details at the respective crime scenes on continuous video tape without prompting by police, and both were then properly and fairly dealt with. Nearly three years after Martin inexplicably changed his pleas to guilty in November 1996, the Tasmanian Police Service has still not verified his guilt using this standard procedure, and its continued refusal to do so can realistically be taken as proof of Martin Bryant’s innocence.

When Carleen left Tasmania some weeks ago she was unaware that others had recently spoken out on behalf of her son, most prominent being Brigadier Ted Sarong DSO OBE, the former head of Australian Forces in Vietnam and one of the world’s leading experts on counter-terrorist techniques and their application. In an interview with Frank Robson in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1999, Brigadier Serong makes it plain that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. “There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance” he says. “Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am”. He continues “Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant … if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off.” Brigadier Serong believes more than one person was involved and directly infers that the mass murder at Port Arthur was a terrorist action designed to undermine Australian national security. “It was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don’t believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led down a track. He doesn’t know where it’s leading, and he doesn’t much care…”

Some readers might consider that as a soldier Brigadier Sarong is not qualified to comment on police matters, but they would be wrong. In addition to his acknowledged military achievements he also raised, trained, organised and directed a police force larger than all the police forces in Australia combined. After returning to Australia, as he notes in his book Defence of Australia Analysis: “I did gently but firmly decline a suggestion that I be Victoria’s Chief Commissioner of Police.” Brigadier Ted Serong is thus far better qualified to comment on the chain of events at Port Arthur than the current commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service, who commands a total force of less than one thousand men, none of whom has any knowledge of international terrorism or practical experience of counter-terrorist techniques.

Having broken the ice and had her say in this report, might Carleen now move on to bigger and better things, perhaps an article in the Melbourne Age or maybe even a television interview with the fabled Ray Martin? She says not. “After it happened I had all those [media] trucks parked at the end of my street for a week, they wouldn’t leave me alone and kept asking for pictures.” Even now Carleen Bryant remembers one persistent female reporter who simply refused to take no for an answer. “She kept jumping over my front fence” Carleen says, “then she would walk around the outside of my house, tapping on the windows and calling out my name.” Carleen feels only pity and contempt for all members of the local and international media who so brazenly vilified her son and nearly destroyed his and her lives.

As I stood by the side of the Great Eastern Highway in Perth waving goodbye as Carleen’s camper slowly accelerated towards Kalgoorlie at the start of her lonely 2,000 mile trip back to Tasmania, I must admit to feeling a little sorry for the Tasmanian Government and other officials when they are finally forced to release her son Martin, which they must. Bound by his oath as protector of the public interest, the Attorney-General in particular is obliged to fully investigate all fresh evidence promptly and openly or face serious legal sanctions. There are no political escape clauses whatever. The longer the Attorney-General tries to bury fresh evidence under the parliamentary carpet in Hobart, the more severe those legal repercussions will be.

The only offence Martin committed on 28 April 1996 was that of being gullible enough to be lured to Seascape by others under false pretences. Though certainly unwise behaviour, gullibility is not yet a felony punishable by strict life imprisonment. When Martin Bryant is released, the Tasmanian Government and other officials will have many people to answer to: First the millions of Australians deliberately misled into believing that thirty five of their own countrymen were slaughtered by an intellectually impaired young man when they demonstrably knew this was a blatant lie; then perhaps to Martin Bryant himself who they treated as sub-human and discreetly tortured behind the dark forbidding walls of Risdon Prison. If the Tasmanian Government and other officials find these unpleasant prospects daunting, I can assure them there is something far worse looming on the horizon: Eventually they will also have to answer to Martin Bryant’s angry mum. Rather them than me…

The story will continue in Part 8 and hopefully will finish of the Port Arthur aspect of the current series of articles……..you will progressively see,  as we move into the Sandy Nook Massacre, and eventually into the Norwegian Massacre, just how unprofessional and deceitful the respective Governments have been.

Peter Eyre – Broadcaster – Investigative Journalist – Middle East Consultant – Political Analysis – 14/1/2013

Written by Peter Eyre

January 13, 2013 at 08:51

Posted in Corporate/Government Fraud and Corruption, News

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: