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

gun-control-gun-control-2nd-ammendment-barak-obama-socialist-demotivational-poster-1241628719

406128_461343730593798_840959126_n

This is the final chapter of the Australian Port Arthur Massacre and I am sure you will all come to the same conclusion that this was not only one big cover-up but also those that concealed the truth did so in a most unprofessional way.

Here is the closing parts of Joe Vialls (if that was his real name) story and could we assume that he was actually there?

10. OFFICIAL MARTIN BRYANT STORY PROVED AN IMPOSSIBLE LIE

At 8 p.m. on 28 April 1996, less than seven hours after the mass murder at Port Arthur, Martin Bryant’s mother Carleen was suddenly taken to Tasmanian Police Headquarters in Hobart. Unknown to Carleen, in another part of headquarters at exactly the same time, police negotiators were allegedly engaged in a long conversation with a man at Seascape they later claimed was her son. Despite being Martin Bryant’s closest relative, at no time was Carleen asked to identify his voice, and she has never been allowed access to the telephone tape. Hard evidence suggests that a senior police officer ruthlessly ordered Carleen Bryant’s forced visit to headquarters that evening, in order to later “authenticate” the impossible premature police identification of her only son, Martin Bryant.

Police and security services have standard procedures for every situation they are likely to encounter, especially sensitive situations where armed offenders and hostages are involved. Though the prime objective of any hostage negotiation team is obviously to “win”, i.e. resolve the crisis without anyone getting hurt, there are standard techniques used throughout, aimed at giving the active negotiator an edge as quickly as possible.

One of the most important is obtaining a positive identification of the offender, enabling agencies to swiftly locate enough background details to provide an insight into his behaviour, and time to contact relatives for assistance where necessary. As every trained negotiator in the world knows, an emotional hostage-taker is likely to respond far more positively to the pleas of a close relative than to a complete stranger.

As a mother Carleen Bryant would have been ideal in this role, the person most able to pacify her son and ask him to lay down his arms. However, Carleen could only achieve this if the suspect at Seascape was really her son. If police believed the voice on the phone from Seascape was that of Martin Bryant, why did the senior officer who ordered Carleen’s interrogation deliberately isolate her away from the radio room? Sadly, there are no innocent answers to this critical question.

Police were very short of personnel that Sunday, and the three experienced plain-clothes officers involved in Carleen Bryant’s transportation and interrogation that day should have already been at Port Arthur. So exactly who was the shadowy senior officer responsible for holding back these three experienced officers, then ordering them to take Mrs Bryant to headquarters, where she was swiftly isolated and used so effectively to cement the official story of the day? Only an open Royal Commission can provide these and other essential answers.

Media reports distorted truth.

Few people in Australia and overseas realise that Tasmanian reporters were told within six hours of the mass murder that the “lone-nut” responsible was a man called Martin Bryant, then holed up at Seascape, and in the rush of excitement that followed they completely forgot to ask where this impossibly accurate information came from. Diligent independent investigation revealed most never gave it a second though, either at the time or over the years that followed. As one senior accredited reporter tried to explain:

“There’s nothing suspicious about that. Mr Martin, the son of the Seascape owners, told police he thought it might be Bryant because he’s heard about the man with long blonde hair and the yellow Volvo, and Martin Bryant had apparently threatened his parents over a farm purchase some years earlier.”

Times DO NOT add up

However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.”

Next we have “Martin Bryant’s passport had also been found in the Volvo abandoned by the toll booth… “No it had not, at least not at the time the official story claims. The only police present at Port Arthur at 6.30 p.m. were the two young police women taken off the beat in Hobart, and possibly an Inspector Warren of later Bryant interrogation fame, Coroner Ian Matterson and his team of forensic examiners did not arrive at the crime scene(s) until much later.

As Ian Matterson recalls “On arrival at the Police Forward Command post set up at Taranna we were advised that the Port Arthur historic site had still not been rendered safe for entry by our team and we waited until 7.30 p.m. before we received the all clear” … “On site at 8.05 p.m.

Coroner Matterson then started an examination of each crime scene, starting with the bus park below the Broad Arrow Cafe, then the Broad Arrow Cafe itself, followed by the scene at which the Mikac family died, before eventually arriving at the tollbooth and the yellow Volvo. Though Ian Matterson does not provide a precise chronology for this period, it is reasonable to assume he spend at least thirty minutes at each crime scene, meaning he reached the Volvo around 9.40 p.m. at the earliest. He notes “On a road hump near the toll gate and beside a yellow Volvo lay an adult male. Inside the open boot of the Volvo could be seen firearms and a small white gun shooting target that appeared to have been used.” So the earliest that Martin Bryant’s passport could have been found was 9.40 p.m., three hours later than claimed in the official story.

Let us be generous and assume that either Matterson or Warren fossicked around in the Volvo and found Martin Bryant’s passport at 9.40 p.m. That was exactly one hour and forty minutes AFTER Martin’s mother, Carleen Bryant, was frog marched to police headquarters in Hobart.

Because of Carleen Bryant’s inexplicable treatment that night, we are forced to assume that the as-yet unidentified senior officer at headquarters decided to hold these three experienced officers back for use as her escorts and interrogator, but how could he possibly have known in advance this would be necessary? Obviously he did know, and dispatched his three plain-clothes men to Mrs Bryant’s house in Hobart nearly two hours before Martin’s passport could possibly have been discovered in the Volvo at Port Arthur.

Carleen was completely isolated from the radio room, and at 8 p.m. was “bombarded with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas.” The officer went on to ask whether her son owned a yellow Volvo with roof racks, which she said he did. He then asked whether it had a surfboard on top. Carleen responded “I don’t know”. This activity outside the direct chain of command then provided “corroborative evidence” that Martin Bryant was the shooter at Seascape,

This then forms the last part of the official story: “However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.” The registration details did not “come through” as seductively suggested by the official story, but were already deep inside the Tasmanian Police Headquarters building itself, unwittingly provided in person for the three plain-clothes officers at 8.30 p.m. by Martin Bryant’s trusting mother.

Puzzled, I asked “At that time, had police broadcast any appeals over the radio for information on men with long blonde hair and yellow Volvo cars?” There was a short pause “No, actual details were kept to the minimum” he replied. “Did Mr Martin tell you [the media] that he’d given police this information?” A longer pause, “No, we saw him standing outside police headquarters and thought it was him.”

“Well then, did the police tell you [the media] that Mr Martin had provided headquarters with this information?” A pencil could be heard tapping on the desk at the other end of the telephone line. “No they didn’t in fact. Until then the only suspect on the police white board in operations was an aboriginal, who apparently wanted a helicopter ride to South Australia. Martin Bryant’s name was added to the white board later.” These media claims were all unsubstantiated rubbish. The Bryant family sold their seaside shack near Port Arthur nearly four years earlier and Martin Bryant’s last visit was more than two years before the shooting, at which time he had short instead of long blonde hair, and drove a Honda not a Volvo. Mr Martin Jr. did visit headquarters on 28 April but not about Martin Bryant. As police media liaison officer Geoff Easton writes “A young man called at the Public Inquiries counter and asked for me. He was to tell me he was a relative of the Martins, the owners of Seascape, and that he had a cache of weapons stored there, and, in his own words, ‘Shitloads of ammo mate!’”

Planted identification?

Wherever the “instant” identification came from during that afternoon it was not from Mr Martin Jr., nor anyone at Port Arthur. Nobody at the historic site could have provided the identification because not one of the staff or survivors had been interviewed by police, and were still in fear of their lives. Though two police SOGs [groups of armed policemen] were dispatched from Hobart at 3.57 p.m. and 4.04 p.m. respectively, they never reached Port Arthur. As Chief Executive Craig Coombs notes “At this stage, about 5.30 p.m., the day was drawing to a close. We were assured there was a group of SOGs arriving by helicopter” … “I commandeered 3 four wheel drive vehicles and had them ready to transport the SOGs to secure the [Port Arthur] Site. Driving the vehicles to the edge of the oval, we waited for the helicopter to arrive. The helicopter contained two young policewomen who had come off the beat in Hobart.”

Understandably in the circumstances, the two young policewomen off the beat in Hobart did not conduct group or individual interviews. This gaping black hole in the evidence did nothing to deter other reporters hell bent on reinforcing the “official” story. In a book which brazenly uses unproven anecdotal evidence to demonise Bryant, its author tries to explain this impossible identification by claiming “Around 6.30 p.m. a call to Hobart headquarters from a member of the public in Hobart suggested that a man called Martin Bryant could be the man holed up in Seascape because he had an obsession about the owners, David and Sally Martin.” He continues “Martin Bryant’s passport had also been found in the Volvo abandoned beside the tollbooth at the entrance to the historic site. However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.”

Again this media claim was unsubstantiated rubbish, predictably similar in parts to the rubbish provided for the author by accredited senior reporters, but this time with the imaginative additions of a passport and vehicle registration. We will now prove point by point that the official story of the day was a fairy tale, a creative lie designed to protect members of the police and others who would otherwise be terminally embarrassed by their access to impossible quantities of accurate information about Martin Bryant at an impossible time, and face prosecution as a result.

A REAL terrorist incident.

The claim “a member of the public in Hobart suggested that a man called Martin Bryant could be the person…” has already been partly dealt with, but further explanation is necessary to destroy it completely. At the time of this alleged call Tasmanian Police Headquarters was in uproar, with officers solely concerned about how many shooters were involved, and at how many locations. This is proved by Assistant Commissioner Luppo Prins, who writes “The Police command structure for management of the Port Arthur incident was essentially along the lines of a SACPAV terrorist incident.” Forget the word “essentially”. At that time and until the next morning police operated rigidly along these lines to contain the real terrorist incident they were facing, including interaction with the Crisis Policy Centre in Canberra, briefings for the duty Federal Minister and Prime Minister, and the deployment on Tasmanian territory of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation’s Technical Surveillance Unit. Though there were doubtlessly many calls to headquarters from the public about Jack Smith, Harry Evans, Tom Spratt or Martin Bryant being the likely culprits, police would have filed the lot for examination at a later date. Dozens of excited members of the public call at the height of nearly every major emergency, but unless a caller offers hard evidence directly related to the crime scene, all calls are filed until much later because police are far too busy with the current operation, especially when that operation is of the full-blown SACPAV terrorist variety. To even suggest the two words “Martin Bryant” would have caused officers to suddenly stop in their tracks and say, “Of course, it must be young Martin from Newtown!” is both absurd and operationally impossible.

Next we have “Martin Bryant’s passport had also been found in the Volvo abandoned by the toll booth… “No it had not, at least not at the time the official story claims. The only police present at Port Arthur at 6.30 p.m. were the two young police women taken off the beat in Hobart, and possibly an Inspector Warren of later Bryant interrogation fame, though it is unclear how Warren could have reached Port Arthur when the heavily-armed SOGs could not. At 6.30 p.m. all police, staff and survivors were hiding, and no one was poking around in the dark interior of a yellow Volvo surrounded by dead bodies. Coroner Ian Matterson and his team of forensic examiners did not arrive at the crime scene(s) until much later. As Ian Matterson recalls “On arrival at the Police Forward Command post set up at Taranna we were advised that the Port Arthur historic site had still not been rendered safe for entry by our team and we waited until 7.30 p.m. before we received the all clear” … “On site at 8.05 p.m. I conversed with Inspector John Warren, the officer in charge of the major crime scene.

Having assessed no person had, at that stage, been apprehended and charged with any offence arising from the deaths on the historic site, I advised I would take over the area as a coronial site with the operation to be conducted in tandem with his major crime investigation.”

Coroner Matterson then started an examination of each crime scene, starting with the bus park below the Broad Arrow Cafe, then the Broad Arrow Cafe itself, followed by the scene at which the Mikac family died, before eventually arriving at the tollbooth and the yellow Volvo. Though Ian Matterson does not provide a precise chronology for this period, it is reasonable to assume he spend at least thirty minutes at each crime scene, meaning he reached the Volvo around 9.40 p.m. at the earliest. He notes “On a road hump near the toll gate and beside a yellow Volvo lay an adult male. Inside the open boot of the Volvo could be seen firearms and a small white gun shooting target that appeared to have been used.” So the earliest that Martin Bryant’s passport could have been found was 9.40 p.m., three hours later than claimed in the official story.

Even this discovery time may be premature, because Matterson continues “Attempts by police photographers, ballistic experts, investigators and the forensic pathologist to commence their investigation were hampered by a lack of suitable light. Whilst there was an urgent need to commence the investigation and remove all the bodies, it was agreed the need to ensure a precise investigation of the highest standard of both bodies and exhibits made it imperative to wait until first light the following morning.” A single dark blue passport is a small low-visibility object, which would normally take a very long time to find under a hefty pile of firearms, targets and ammunition.

Let us be generous and assume that either Matterson or Warren fossicked around in the Volvo and found Martin Bryant’s passport at 9.40 p.m. That was exactly one hour and forty minutes AFTER Martin’s mother, Carleen Bryant, was frog marched to police headquarters in Hobart by two burly plain-clothes officers and interrogated by a third, all of whom should have been down at Port Arthur investigating the worst mass murder in Tasmanian history. Remember that the Tasmanian Police Service was stretched to the limit, evidenced by it sending two inexperienced young policewomen off the Hobart beat down to Port Arthur, to protect hundreds of terrified survivors still in fear of their lives.

Because of Carleen Bryant’s inexplicable treatment that night, we are forced to assume that the as-yet unidentified senior officer at headquarters decided to hold these three experienced officers back for use as her escorts and interrogator, but how could he possibly have known in advance this would be necessary? Obviously he did know, and dispatched his three plain-clothes men to Mrs Bryant’s house in Hobart nearly two hours before Martin’s passport could possibly have been discovered in the Volvo at Port Arthur.

Based on known standard procedures used by all police forces when faced with a SACPAV terrorist emergency, the senior officer in question was certainly not in the operations centre, i.e. the direct line of communication from main switchboard to radio room etc., because all activities in these areas are strictly controlled for the duration of the emergency, with no opportunity at all to subvert proceedings. Carleen was completely isolated from the radio room, and at 8 p.m. was “bombarded with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas.” The officer went on to ask whether her son owned a yellow Volvo with roof racks, which she said he did. He then asked whether it had a surfboard on top. Carleen responded “I don’t know”.

This activity outside the direct chain of command then provided “corroborative evidence” that Martin Bryant was the shooter at Seascape, corroborative evidence that could later be used to blur over fatal errors in the grossly premature and thus impossible timing of his initial identification. This then forms the last part of the official story: “However, it was not until about 8.30 p.m., when details of the vehicle’s registration came through, that police finally knew the identity of the person they were dealing with.” The registration details did not “come through” as seductively suggested by the official story, but were already deep inside the Tasmanian Police Headquarters building itself, unwittingly provided in person for the three plain-clothes officers at 8.30 p.m. by Martin Bryant’s trusting mother.

That Carleen Bryant was kept strictly outside the official chain of command is proved by the fact that direct identification of her son could have been established in a few seconds, simply by her listening to the conversation then in progress between police negotiators in the radio room and the suspect at Seascape. If it was Martin she would have been able to provide direct identification immediately, and quite possibly have talked him out of the building, thereby greatly minimising risks to others. The use of close relatives for exactly this purpose by police and other negotiators has already been explained. Therefore the only valid reason for keeping Carleen outside the chain of command was that someone either knew or suspected the man on the telephone was not her son, and had no intention of allowing her to discover this. Carleen herself reinforces this view when commenting on the person used by police to “identify” the voice on the telephone from Seascape: “he hadn’t spoken to Martin since he [Martin] was twelve years old and would not know what his voice sounded like anyway.” It is perfectly reasonable to claim that the impossibly early “positive identification” of Martin Bryant was leaked to the media by the same senior officer responsible for setting Carleen Bryant up at police headquarters later the same day, a sequence that must have required a lot of advance planning.

What will remain unclear until a Royal Commission examines all the evidence, is how the senior police insider became involved in this atrocity in the first place. Was he unwittingly tricked into a series of reckless acts by the group directly responsible, or was he in a vulnerable position and open to blackmail? Alternatively, he may have been a witting player who actively assisted with the chain of events for his own ideological reasons. Obscure but more likely is another ploy, one that has been used before on covert operations. The insider may have been sucked in by a proposed plan of action which appealed to his patriotism or sense of duty, and only found out too late that the plan had gone much further than he had agreed, thereby compromising him and ensuring his permanent silence.

In the case of the premeditated murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London during April 1984, a senior officer foolishly allowed himself to be influenced by powerful outsiders, members of the secretive private “club” to which he belonged, who suggested a limited operation in which Fletcher’s bare legs would only be lightly peppered with shrapnel, producing a bit of blood for the TV cameras and generating sufficient public outrage to have the nasty Libyans deported from Britain for ever. When instead of being lightly peppered with shrapnel, Yvonne Fletcher was almost cut in half by a high velocity assault bullet fired from an American multinational building, the compromised senior officer understandably felt quite unable to approach his Commissioner and confess “It wasn’t supposed to go that far…” From start to finish at Port Arthur and Seascape, all information provided for the media was filtered by Tasmanian Police Headquarters in Hobart. In addition, by mid-afternoon an air exclusion zone was in place to prevent media aerial photography, and the police forward command post at Taranna actively stopped all members of the media from approaching any of the crime scenes.

Police were in total control of the flow of information at all times, and it would be futile at this late stage for officials to claim that some mysterious civilian outsider burgled police headquarters, scribbled Martin Bryant’s name on the operations white board, then ordered two sworn police officers to drive across Hobart to fetch Carleen Bryant. The hard facts prove that this sequence of events could only have been planned and executed successfully by a senior officer with direct access to police headquarters’ facilities and personnel. Three years after the event, the official story is now proven a fairy tale, an impossible myth, so how did most Australians and the rest of the world fail to spot the gross errors? The answer lies in the same sort of clumsy sleight-of-hand that inexperienced magicians use when cutting their professional teeth at children’s birthday parties.

mediapic

(Remember me telling you about my first suspicians when the Sunday Telegraph printed this photo of Bryant only days after the incident?
They highlighted his eyes to make him look crazy and were never reprimanded for this flagrant disreguard for the due process of law which elliminated any line up identification process. To my knowledge it has never been done before. People in this country are usually concidered innocent until proven guilty….not so with Martin Bryant…..Ned)

 

Though a photograph of Martin Bryant was printed in the Tasmanian newspaper on the morning of 29 April, with no explanation of how the newspaper miraculously obtained such a recent photograph of him in time for the newspaper’s deadline, the photo was not shown in mainland Australian or international newspapers until the morning of 30 April, a full 24 hours later. So by the time 99% of us saw the famous picture of Martin Bryant with his artificially-enhanced staring blue eyes, he had already stumbled out of Seascape, been arrested and formally identified, and was receiving treatment for third-degree burns in the Royal Hobart Hospital. Nothing suspicious about that is there?

In light of this, why the frantic haste to put Martin Bryant in the frame when the facts prove he would certainly have been positively identified at Seascape early the next day at the latest, dead or alive? At first glance it seems a dangerous and unnecessary risk, but in operational terms it was essential. Any small group “operating behind the lines” is terribly vulnerable to accidental discovery and capture, an unacceptable risk that can be greatly reduced by prearranging a decoy incident designed to distract the attention of the enemy, thereby enabling the small group to escape detection. An example of this was a four-man special forces group in the Middle East tasked with the assassination of an especially brutal terrorist leader, who was unfortunately surrounded by about two hundred of his own armed men. So the SF group waited until nightfall and placed explosive charges at a nearby fuel tanker and more distant ammunition dump. First they blew the fuel tanker by radio detonator, then 30 seconds later the ammunition dump. Terrorists started running frantically towards these “obvious” attackers, while the four-man SF group quietly moved in behind them and killed the boss. By the time the terrorists returned and discovered their boss had two small holes in his head, the group was already more than ten miles away.

Martin Bryant was an obvious decoy, allowing the professional group time to extract safely before anyone got suspicious. Of critical importance here is the fact that decoys must be used at the time of the operation, not 24 hours later, hence the need for Bryant’s “instant” identification at Seascape. We already know that intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was in no way responsible for the shooting at Port Arthur and elsewhere that day, during which some of the best combat shooters in the world used 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.

As experts including former Vietnam military commander Brigadier Ted Serong, and SAS counter-terrorist shooters agree, this awesome display of combat marksmanship was an impossible feat for Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. The fact that we missed the critical errors at the time does not absolve us from shared responsibility for Martin Bryant’s plight today. We simply cannot sweep it all under the carpet and try to forget that an innocent man is in prison for a crime he could not have committed, nor the fact that taxpayers might still be employing an accessory to mass murder at Tasmanian Police Headquarters. It was we the Australian people who unwittingly allowed corrupt officials and the media to pull the wool over our eyes, and it is only we the Australian people who have enough collective power to right those wrongs. Our objectives must be to secure Martin Bryant’s release, and ensure the conviction of the unknown senior police officer. To achieve these objectives we must first force an appeal on behalf of intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, and a Royal Commission into the Tasmanian Police Service. This will not happen all by itself, so get off your backside, grab the nearest pen and start writing to your Member of Parliament.

Not tomorrow or the next day or the day after that. Do it now. Martin Bryant has already been in prison far too long, and needs to go back to his mum for a home-cooked meal.

“Journalists say a thing that they know isn’t true, in the hope that if they keep saying it long enough it will be true.” Arnold Bennett (1867-1931)


11. LACK OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AT PORT ARTHUR

Very few members of the public realise that absolutely no hard forensic evidence exists linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur, or to any weapon used in the mass murder. Indeed, in the opinions of two prominent Queen’s Counsels, Bryant would have been released from prison if strictly illegal sensory deprivation had not been used to extract his false guilty pleas in November 1996.

Do not mistake guilty pleas for a confession, because in the latter Bryant would be required to provide detailed information on the mass murder that he did not have. Pleas are far simpler. All Martin Bryant was required to do was stand in the dock and say “guilty” seventy-two times, not a difficult task for an intellectually impaired young man with an IQ of 66.

But these simple guilty pleas then technically enabled the Tasmanian Justice Ministry to confiscate Bryant’s sizeable fortune and other property, before locking him in a dungeon and throwing away the keys.

If these obscene procedures had been used in faraway China, Cuba, Colombia or a dozen other countries, the democratic (sic) Australian media would have been first off the blocks, screaming with self-righteous outrage about the “human rights abuse” of the accused, and denial of a fair trial before his peers.

Unfortunately, human rights are used solely as a lobby tool to manipulate foreign nations, proved beyond doubt by hysterical Australian media behaviour in Tasmania during April 1996. Reporters vied with each other to tell you how “terrible” Bryant was, and never once mentioned that in a so-called democracy, remand prisoners are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

This disgusting behaviour by the media proved that unlike prisoners in China and Cuba, luckless prisoners in democratic Australia have no human rights at all.

Though the media must accept the lion’s share of the blame for Martin Bryant’s contrived and very public “trial by television” there were other more shadowy figures who goaded the media on, long after the mass murder. A handful of public servants, politicians and police officers, hyped-up false evidence in order to keep Bryant in the frame, most in an attempt to save their own miserable “reputations” and jobs.

A large part of this false evidence was aimed at convincing the public that police had literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who identified Bryant at Port Arthur. In fact, to this day the Tasmanian Police Service does not have a single legally valid eyewitness identification.


At a more subtle and dangerous level, there were veiled hints of hard forensic evidence linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur, including convincing displays by police officers holding up semi-automatic weapons on television.

The inference was obvious: Bryant was holding a smoking gun when apprehended by police, with his fingerprints all over the weapon and its ammunition.

Leading on from this first gross untruth, it was hoped the public would assume a second gross untruth: that the bullets and fragments found at Port Arthur would match “Bryant’s Guns” as displayed on national television.

It was all a pathetic rort. Martin Bryant was not apprehended with a smoking gun, there were no fingerprints on the guns and ammo displayed by police, and the bullets, fragments and cartridge cases found at Port Arthur did not provide a perfect match with the weapons displayed on national television.


Some of these points were accurately reported by the author in 1997 and early 1998, then in December of that year the Australian Police Journal decided to print an article by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, titled “The Port Arthur Shooting Incident”.

Dutton took over as Officer in Charge of the Tasmania Ballistics Section in 1995, and had eleven years ballistics experience at the time the Port Arthur mass murder took place. Though his article is flagged “ballistics evidence” on every page of the APJ, there is no discussion of guided projectiles in flight. Most of the eighteen-page article is a chronology of events at Port Arthur from a police perspective, with repeated references to the two weapons allegedly used in the mass murder by “Bryant”.

Because of the latter weapons content it might have been more accurate to flag each page of Sergeant Dutton’s article “Forensic Firearms Identification”, the correct term used by forensic sciences for this work.

This report is not intended as a thesis on forensic science, but there is a need to explain briefly in general terms how firearms examiners go about proving that an individual bullet was fired by an individual weapon. The word “individual” is extremely important here, because in the Port Arthur case, it means proving scientifically that the bullets and bullet fragments found at Port Arthur were fired by the exact weapons found by the police at Seascape Cottages, and subsequently shown to the public on television as “the murder weapons”. Not fired by a similar weapon or class of weapons please note, but only by the weapons displayed by police.

There are two stages in this process. First the firearms examiner checks to confirm that the bullets, cartridge cases and weapons all match in the general sense, known in the trade as “Class Characteristics”. For example, in the case of the 5.56-mm bullets and cartridges found at Port Arthur, would they fit the Colt AR-15 weapon found at Seascape? The answer is yes, but those bullets and cartridge cases would also fit thousands of other Colt AR-15s not found at Seascape, and many other different brands of firearm chambered for the same 5.56-mm round. No one including the author is disputing the simple class identification made by Dutton, but it is utterly meaningless in terms of individually matching the bullets and cartridge cases at Port Arthur with the weapons found at Seascape. To do this requires the second part of the process, predictably called “Individual Characteristics”.

No two weapons manufactured are the same. Every single one has marks in the barrel and breech, and on the action, that are unique. And because weapons are made from exceedingly hard “tool grade” steel, these unique marks leave unique impressions on every bullet and cartridge case cycled through them, all of which are made from softer metal than the weapon itself. Using special microscopes, firearms examiners try to match the unique impressions on the fired bullets and cases found at the crime scene, with unique impressions on test rounds fired from the suspect weapon or weapons in the laboratory.

This is more easily explained with pictures shown here, which are from America, not Port Arthur.

 

exhibit1

Exhibit 1 shows typical rifling marks left on the soft metal of bullets, and exhibit 2 shows matched striations on two bullets, one from the crime scene and another fired in the lab. Now the cartridge cases:

 

exhibit2

Exhibit 3 shows matching breech marks,

exhibit3

Ex 4

while exhibit 4 shows matching ejector marks.

With the exception of exhibit 1, which is included to show the variations in rifling marks on otherwise identical bullets, all other exhibits show “Individual Characteristics”, sufficient to satisfy any firearms examiner that the bullets and cartridge cases under examination were fired by the suspect weapon.

Sergeant Dutton’s eighteen-page article on “ballistics” includes many photographs, but not one of them shows individual characteristics matching the bullets and cases at Port Arthur with the weapons at Seascape. Without individual characteristic matches, the weapons are no more valuable than scrap iron, and absolutely useless as evidence against Martin Bryant.

The pristine weapons from Seascape you were shown on national television, only got that way because the Tasmanian Police Service borrowed many spare parts from the New South Wales Police firearms library. Before their startling resurrection to nearly new condition, both weapons were very badly damaged, a critical fact the Australian television networks rather artfully forgot to tell you.

How the weapons got that that way is of considerable importance in tracking down those really responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.


AR_15sm

If we are to believe the media and Tasmanian Government, the Colt AR-15 serial number SP128807,  cycled and fired a minimum of 35 rounds faultlessly at Port Arthur and other crime scenes. Then, inexplicably, the AR-15 allegedly had an “accident” at Seascape Cottage, which destroyed part of the rifling in the barrel, most of the breech, and part of the receiver – the moving part of the weapon which includes the firing pin and extractor claws for the cartridge cases.

This was attributed to a “faulty cartridge” which exploded in the breech.

Oh, really, and how did it do all that damage in a weapon proofed to withstand 55,000 p.s.i?


In Sergeant Dutton’s own words, the damage caused by the burst cartridge showed “Amazingly high chamber pressure”, and “I had never seen a cartridge case that had been subjected to so much pressure that it caused brass to extrude substantially into apertures in the bolt face.”

What would normally be needed to cause this kind of damage is too much of the correct powder in the cartridge case, or a different much faster-burning powder or explosive in the cartridge case. Because the correct power in this particular cartridge case fills it right up to the neck, it could not have been the first example, i.e. too much of the correct powder.

This leaves us with a different much faster-burning powder or explosive. With such powders the grains are typically much smaller, allowing a greatly increased flame front, and thus the ability to increase pressures at a far higher rate. Special Forces put this knowledge to good use if they wish to destroy enemy artillery pieces behind the lines. A sizeable chunk of C3 plastic explosive is strategically placed inside the breech of the artillery piece, then later detonated, destroying the breech and rendering the weapon useless.

What this process achieved with the AR-15 at Seascape was so much damage to the barrel, breech and receiver, that forensic “Individual Characteristic” matches could not be made with the fired bullets and cases found at Port Arthur.

Now why on earth would you do that, if the AR-15 in question really was the same one used at Port Arthur, then afterwards positioned neatly next to alleged gunman Martin Bryant in Seascape, ready to be collected and identified by the local constabulary the following morning?

Martin Bryant (or his body), and a weapon that could be individually matched to the bullets and cases at Port Arthur. Perfect! But only if the gunman at Port Arthur really was Martin Bryant, which we now know he was not.

Best to look at the effect of the damage in reverse then. What the explosion and resulting damage really achieved, was preventing police and others from proving that this particular AR-15 was not the weapon used at Port Arthur, but merely a decoy designed to draw attention towards Bryant.

As Arthur Conan-Doyle once wrote: “When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.”

There is one other critical point of evidence about the “exploding” AR-15. When the charge in the cartridge detonated, the resulting blast was sufficient to blow the bottom of the magazine right off, and cause severe damage in the immediate vicinity of the trigger, where Martin Bryant’s finger would have been if he was handling the weapon at the time. Most explosions of this kind neatly amputate a finger or two, and shred the skin on the rest of the hand. In addition there is very significant marking of the flesh by firearms discharge residue (FDR for short), caused by microscopic particles of burned or unburned propellant impregnating the flesh at high velocity.

When Bryant was taken into custody he had severe burns to his back and left-hand side caused by the Seascape fire, but no injuries or serious burns to his hands, and no trace of FDR. So Bryant did not fire the Colt AR-15 found at Seascape Cottage, end of story.

 

FN_FALsm

The other weapon displayed so enthusiastically by police was a Belgian FN-FAL  serial number G3434 in 7.62-mm calibre, but alas, this weapon was also severely damaged before the NSW police firearms library helped out with copious spare parts.

Unlike the AR-15, found in Seascape itself, the FN-FAL was recovered from the roof of an outhouse some distance from the main building.

This in itself is decidedly odd, with Martin Bryant allegedly in the cross-hairs of an entire highly trained Special Operations Group all evening and all night. How is Bryant supposed to have put it up on the roof?


There was no exploding cartridge in the breech of the FN-FAL, but by a rare coincidence beyond the calculations of most actuaries, the effect of the damage was exactly the same as that inflicted on the AR-15. The barrel, breech, and receiver were damaged beyond hope of making “Individual Characteristic” matches with bullets and cartridge cases found at the various crime scenes. So, once again, police and others were unable to prove the FN-FAL was not one of the weapons used at Port Arthur.

It is the FN-FAL rather than the AR-15 which provides absolute scientific proof the two weapons were merely dummies designed to deflect attention away from the guilty parties, probably dumped at Seascape as stage props long before any of the shooting started.

Despite being terminally damaged, nearly all of the AR-15 components were located close to the weapon in Seascape, though the pistol grip was missing and was never found. However, the FN-FAL lacked a major component called the “return spring tube assembly”, plus its butt plate and magazine. These are all large items impossible to miss in thorough forensic searches of crime scenes. The forensic teams went over every crime scene with a fine-tooth comb several times, leaving no stone or even a blade of grass unturned.

I have resisted the temptation to provide the exact size of the return spring tube assembly because I do not have precise, technical details to hand, but believe me when I say it is big.

Many years ago I field-stripped and reassembled FN-FALs dozens of times, and can assure readers the assembly is a minimum of six inches long, with the large springs inside made of tempered steel.

Without its return spring assembly (and magazine), the FN-FAL cannot fire at all, proving the damaged weapon found at Seascape played no part in the Port Arthur mass murder. Evidently it had been carefully “damaged” at a location a considerable distance away from either Port Arthur or Seascape, before the mass murder took place.

This of course proves that the mass murder was a pre-meditated crime, one that Australian counter-terrorist personnel must solve if we are to prevent further attacks on this nation. Exactly how they go about this is their concern, but counter-terrorist personnel are reminded that their pay packets are generously filled each month by Australian taxpayers, not by international lobby groups in Canberra and Hobart.

A good starting point for counter-terrorism would be to hunt for the real 5.56-mm and 7.62-mm weapons actually used at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 to kill or wound fifty-seven civilians, and dead-block the Daihatsu Feroza driven by Linda White.

We now know the weapons used were not the crippled AR-15 and FN-FAL found at Seascape, and we also know the shooter was not Martin Bryant, because he was completely contained by SOG personnel throughout the entire period in the same Seascape compound as both crippled weapons.

Find the real weapons used and they will hopefully in turn lead you to the real shooters, though the trail is now cold. Either way, it is now time for the authorities to stop pussyfooting around, and get on with a serious counter-terrorist investigation.

There are those in power determined that a serious investigation should not take place, and recently went out of their way to discourage me in particular.

Some months ago my 21 and 18 year-old, children inexplicably failed their police “integrity checks”, essential here in Western Australia for anyone wishing to get a decent job.

Stunned by this I lodged an official complaint, and then made several discreet inquiries. Eventually I was told that a powerful federal politician had persuaded a police unit in Canberra, to flag me in the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence computer as a “security risk”, which is a bit rich bearing in mind my former (very high) security clearances with NATO.

Because my work on Port Arthur focuses solely and openly on protecting Australian national security, logic and security protocols dictate it is not I, but the powerful federal politician who poses a significant security risk to this nation.

Once the illegal false data about me was entered into the BCI computer, there was a trickle-down effect on my children, who were then found guilty of associating with a known security risk – their own father!

Fortunately there are officials in Western Australia with very high ethics, and the entire sordid mess was sorted out in less than two weeks. My children now once again have positive integrity status, and I have the name of the powerful federal politician who tried to destroy the credibility of this family. The politician in question is advised not to try this again, or members of the public might start wondering exactly why he chose to take this illegal action in the first place.

The author wishes to acknowledge the expert assistance of a leading American firearms examiner, who for the present prefers to remain anonymous

 


12. MARTIN BRYANT GETS A VISITOR

Mrs Carleen Bryant has been allowed her first contact visit with her son Martin, more than three years after he was first arrested and charged with the mass murder at Port Arthur.

Martin was very pleased to see his mum and was quite forthcoming during the visit, but for the present at least Carleen prefers that full details not be published. This is understandable because premature release of the information could lead to a renewed shock wave of media vilification against her son, designed to suppress what he has always maintained is the truth about Port Arthur.

A comprehensive report will be published later.

In the meantime, you might like to ponder on a society which allows an intellectually impaired young man like Martin to be locked away and tortured by means of sensory deprivation, without raising the slightest murmur of protest. Have we all lost our way, or has the media finally achieved the mind-bending abilities attributed to it by George Orwell in his book?

Those who prefer to sit on the sidelines and let this obscene travesty of justice run its course, should always remember that the same thing could happen to their fathers, brothers or sons.


13. HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT PORT ARTHUR

Since the blatant but failed attempt on Martin Bryant’s life in December 2000, the mainstream media and other interest groups have gone into overdrive, attempting to deflect public attention away from the core scientific evidence that proves his innocence. The methods vary but the objective appears to remain the same: use unacceptable hearsay testimony and inaccurate guesswork to overwhelm the existing hard scientific evidence, thereby denying Martin Bryant the trial he has not yet been allowed.

As any competent police detective will confirm, hearsay evidence and guesswork are instant death to any serious inquiry, leading investigators and readers into numerous blind alleys from which there is little chance of escape. For example, suggesting the mass murder was “probably” planned to take place on the Isle of the Dead near Port Arthur, or on board a ferry on its way to the Isle of the Dead, deflects away from the reality that the principal crime scene was the Broad Arrow Café. At the same time this approach indirectly implies a specific form of advance planning that can never be proved in scientific terms. Great material for a “whodunit” crime novel perhaps, but useless and confusing within the confines of a serious mass murder investigation.

Attempts have also been made to “stretch” the time the shooter actually fired inside the Broad Arrow Café, and the total number of rounds expended. This is a far more damaging claim, leading as it does to the inevitable image of a slower clumsy shooter, one that might more easily be compared with random killers like Kip Kinkel in Springfield, or Michael McDermott in Wakefield.

Though known to be a proficient shooter, Michael McDermott used a total of seventy-seven rounds to kill just seven of his work mates trapped in their office at Edgewater Technology. As with Kip Kinkel in the school canteen in Springfield, most of McDermott’s rounds missed their targets completely, resulting in bullet and fragment holes all over the room. Not one of McDermott’s seven victims was hit in the head or upper neck, unlike the first nineteen victims in the Broad Arrow Café during April 1996. Each of the latter was coldly dispatched with an expert single shot to the head,

After the bodies at Springfield and Wakefield were removed, both crime scenes bore all the hallmarks of a major military engagement: ejected cartridge cases by the score, and dozens of expended whole bullets and fragments that missed their targets buried in the walls, ceiling and furniture. Springfield and Wakefield were forensic gold mines, littered with enough exhibits to keep the crime labs busy for months.

This was certainly not the case in the Broad Arrow Café at Port Arthur. As the official forensic diagram compiled by the New South Wales Police scientific team shows in great detail (see picture), there were only 29 ejected cartridge cases, and a total of seven bullet fragments. We know that all 29 bullets hit their intended targets because we have the post mortem results for the victims, and we also know that fragments from three of those same bullets injured a further three victims, resulting in 32 dead or injured for only 29 shots fired.

broadarrow2

 

The forensic diagram also shows limited damage to the floor and furniture, but it must be remembered this damage does not include any residual bullets, bullet fragments or bone chippings. So far as the investigation is concerned, the damage serves only to illustrate the likely course or direction of travel of a bullet, or bullet fragment, or bone chipping, and cannot be meaningfully “added” to the seven existing bullet fragments in order to provide a more dramatic expanded total.

The fragments require further explanation. Due to the unusual mass and velocity combination of the 5.56-mm NATO (.223 Remington) round at close range, bullets do not stay intact when striking hard targets, as they would normally do in the case of the old .303 Lee Enfield round of World War 2 fame. On contact with the hard bone of a human skull for example, the old 150 grain .303 bullet would create an entry wound, then use its mass [weight] and resulting inertia to continue through the skull and punch a larger exit wound through the rear.

Though the .223 Remington round used at Port Arthur has the same overall kinetic energy as a .303 Lee Enfield at the point of impact, it lacks the mass and inertia needed to continue through hard bone because it only weighs 55 grains. The massive kinetic energy expended at the point of impact with hard bone, causes the little.223 Remington bullet to fragment, in turn frequently causing the skull to explode due to a sudden increase in internal hydrostatic pressure. The result? Bullet fragments and bone chips continuing on from the primary target to injure further victims.

This ugly characteristic of the .223 Remington round at close range, has been proved on hundreds of occasions during the last three months in Palestine. Children hit in the shin or knee by identical rounds fired by Israeli soldiers and settlers, invariably have their legs amputated, because the shattered mess of bullet fragments muddled up with hundreds of bone chips, makes effective remedial surgery impossible.

Where Port Arthur is concerned, remember that unlike the Hoddle Street and other open-air murders, the mass murder in the Broad Arrow Café took place within a completely confined space, thereby restricting residual evidence to the same confined area. To prove this mass murder was the same as (or even vaguely similar to) the random events at Springfield and Wakefield, would require at least two dozen bullet holes and associated 100 – 150 bullet fragments to validate the comparison.

There were none of these items, and because the mere seven fragments found in the Broad Arrow most probably originated from the same three frag through-shots that injured victims 30-32, the crime scene was almost spookily clean. This, shrieked the lack of evidence, was the work of a man who never missed his targets. It may have been this very lack of visible evidence that led to the Tasmanian Government order for the premature destruction of the internal structure of the Broad Arrow Café. Not to “hide evidence” as some have speculated, but rather to hide the more damning total lack of evidence or artifacts: evidence and artifacts that would later be required in court to validate the “lone nut” and thus “random” shooting.

Anyone trying to subtly deflect away from the harsh reality of the expert shooter in the Broad Arrow, might imply that the thorough official forensic diagram was later “altered” or “forged” to fit the evidence submitted in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This is not only an insult to the entire New South Wales Police scientific team, it is also hopelessly irrational. Any attempt at forgery down the line would be aimed at significantly increasing the “evidence” in order to enhance the illusion of a “lone nut” random event. The New South Wales Police scientific team did not forge, alter, or delete anything. By generously placing its official forensic diagram in the public domain, the scientific team has provided you the reader with the official means to prove the Tasmanian Government’s story of the day was, and remains, an impossible lie.

The alleged extended “total shooting time” in the Broad Arrow Café is easy to rebut. The audio tracks of two amateur video cameras filming at the time of the shooting accurately recorded the incredible speed of the shots, and were later submitted to the Supreme Court of Tasmania as evidence. The author has copies of these videos, both of which were subjected to extensive testing by audio experts using sophisticated computer audio analytical programs. There is not the slightest trace of forgery or editing breaks on either tape, both of which prove the astonishing rate of fire of the expert combat shooter. at Port Arthur. There is not an amateur shooter in the land who could get even close.

Alternative views on Port Arthur are encouraged, because it is the democratic right of every individual to speak his or her mind on any subject. In this context it matters not whether the speaker is a New South Wales farmer, a Victorian security guard, or a Port Arthur survivor obliged to ride the harsh and emotional roller coaster of extended psychiatric hypnosis in Melbourne, Victoria, at Tasmanian Government expense. No matter who might decide to take the stand, he or she is entitled and encouraged to speak independently on the matter.

The down side is that those who care about Australia and Australian national security should be very careful with their selection of words, especially at this late stage with the Federal and Tasmanian Governments known to be severely shaken by the reality that their best efforts have failed to quash the Port Arthur “conspiracy”. In some cases the public might be tempted to question the underlying motives of those who seek to mislead their audiences, and subtly deflect away from the known hard scientific facts.

Remember. Collectively as Australians we allowed government to imprison an intellectually impaired young man for a series of crimes he could not possibly have committed. At the time we all stood by meekly and allowed this to happen while raising not the slightest objection to Bryant’s severe abuse while on remand in Risdon Prison, nor to the fact that he should have been provided with a qualified guardian to protect him from his own lawyers. It is time to forget personal ego trips and “control” of the Port Arthur story. Martin Bryant needs a trial and he needs it now, before someone somewhere has time to arrange another “accident” in his lonely cell.

 


14. REINFORCING MARTIN BRYANT’S “GUILT”

Academic calls for “mass murderer” DNA analysis

On Sunday 9th December, Martin Bryant’s mother Carleen phoned to say she was disturbed to hear that authorities were demanding that Martin undergo full DNA analysis, in a bid to find out what makes a mass murderer tick. Obviously concerned about her only son’s welfare, Carleen Bryant continued nervously “I suppose this means they will want to interrogate him [Martin] all over again.

At the time of her telephone call, Mrs Bryant was staying with friends on the mainland, and the information on Martin and his DNA was relayed by a contact in Hobart who had just read The Sunday Tasmanian. Perhaps luckily for Martin and his mother, the information provided by her contact in Hobart was incomplete. For the present at least, Martin is not about to be tied down so that his blood can be forcibly extracted, or once again be subjected to the modern Australian equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

The call for Martin’s DNA apparently originated from Professor Paul Wilson of Bond University in Queensland, touted by The Sunday Tasmanian newspaper as a leading criminologist. Wilson claims”There’s a lot of interest in the whole area of genetic pre-disposition to crime”…”especially with DNA technology advances, there is a big argument for looking at Bryant, it’s a unique case.”
 

Martin Bryant is certainly a unique case, but examining his DNA will not help at all in identifying mass murderers. As most readers are already aware, hard scientific evidence exists today proving that Bryant never visited Port Arthur on 28th April 1996, and therefore cannot possibly be a mass murderer.
 

Presumably Professor Paul Wilson has not yet been advised that nineteen of the twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Café were killed with single shots to the head fired from the gunman’s right hip. In total only 29 rounds were fired in the Café, killing twenty and wounding another twelve. This was a staggering technical achievement, a feat so far beyond the known capabilities of an intellectually impaired invalid like Bryant, that it beggars the imagination.
 

Compare this deadly accuracy with the performance of experienced Irish Loyalist gunman Torrens Knight, who in company with one other, used a total of 120 rounds to kill eight and injure another eleven in the Catholic Rising Sun pub at Greysteel, Northern Ireland, during 1993.  Only two of the victims were hit in the head, and most of the rounds missed completely, burying themselves in the furniture and walls.
 

Anyone deluded enough to suggest that intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was three times as accurate as two of the top Loyalist shooters in Northern Ireland, should probably make an appointment with his or her psychiatrist as a matter of urgency.
 

Predictably perhaps, the Tasmanian Police Service does not appear keen to participate in any new DNA adventures where Bryant is concerned. According to the newspaper, a police representative said that the “CrimTrac” database uses only junk DNA for identification purposes which does not contain any detailed genetic information. Any detailed examination of Bryant’s DNA might bring to light the embarrassing fact that no DNA matches were made between Bryant and the Broad Arrow,  nor between Bryant and the expended shell cases found on the floor.
 

Put bluntly, the Tasmanian Police Service has no scientific evidence at all linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur. Today, nearly five years after the event, TasPol has still not conducted the routine procedure of walking Bryant around the crime scenes to “validate” his seventy-two guilty pleas extracted under duress during November 1996.
 

In the view of this author, some senior Tasmanian Police Officers would probably be prepared to walk over broken glass in their bare feet, rather than conduct another interview with Martin Bryant, this time properly recorded on dual videos not subject to the various “breakdowns” claimed during his initial police interview in July 1996.
 

More interesting than Professor Wilson’s comments, are remarks the newspaper attributes to forensic psychologist Ian Joblin, who submitted a 30-page clinical psychological evaluation of Bryant to the Supreme Court of Tasmania, based on four days of interviews. Mr Joblin may be better known nationwide to the public for his work as clinical psychological counselor to the “notorious” and high-profile John Freidrich, Chief Executive of the doomed Victorian NSCA during the early nineties.
 

Readers may recall that after trying desperately to dig himself out of the mess he eventually found himself in, John Freidrich a.k.a. “Iago”, allegedly by shot himself through the back of the head with a handgun – twice. Police recorded a verdict of suicide, although no suicide note was ever found.
 

“The Sunday Tasmanian quoted Mr Joblin as saying that anxiety and stress after Port Arthur may have affected Bryant’s demeanour during those four days of interviews and it was time for more research. “I’d like to see him again to compare notes” Joblin said, “To try and understand …. five years later.”
 

If these quotes are accurate, then we have a truly extraordinary situation. Out of his own mouth, the only forensic psychologist to interview Bryant appears to be suggesting that his reports may have been different if Bryant was not under stress after Port Arthur, though straightforward stress can have nothing to do with it.
 

At the time of these interviews Bryant was in agony from third-degree burns to the back and side, suffered when Seascape caught fire. There can be few stresses more powerful than those induced by third degree burns. If the quotes in The Sunday Tasmanian are not accurate, Mr Joblin should ask the newspaper to print a retraction.
 

Quite obviously neither Mr Joblin or anyone else has the right to talk to convicted felon Martin Bryant without his consent, and because Bryant is an intellectually impaired invalid, any applicant would also need to seek consent from his guardian. Because the Tasmanian Government and Supreme Court blatantly failed to provide Bryant with a guardian, the only person at this late stage who can lay claim to this position is his own next-of-kin and mother, Mrs Carleen Bryant. Mrs Bryant has confirmed for me that Mr Joblin has not approached her on this matter.
 

One can reasonably ask why all of the sudden renewed interest in Bryant after five years of almost total neglect, but the answer is obscure. Perhaps the best clue is that Risdon Prison suddenly received a large number of written apologies for Martin Bryant in the week leading up to “Martin Bryant Sorry Day” on 22nd November, two weeks before the newspaper was published.
 

The apologies were signed by ordinary Australians, all seriously concerned that Bryant had not received a trial, and wishing him well. By all accounts, this sudden rush of mail to Risdon led to a limited number of panic attacks around the Australian establishment, especially withinTasmania.
 

Within days of the same event, the author suddenly received multiple inquiries from the mainstream media asking for interviews, with at least one caller showing considerable ingenuity. Because we have a silent telephone line, Radio 2UE managed to find the telephone number of the house across the road here in Perth, and asked its owner to walk over and ask me to call the John Laws Programme in Sydney. Apparently Mr Laws wished to speak to me on air about “Martin Bryant Sorry Day”.
 

My response to a producer of the John Laws Programme, was that I could see no point in going live to air on the matter, unless a format could be devised which provided ordinary people with the background, i.e. why we had to arrange “Martin Bryant Sorry Day” in the first place.
 

After thinking about the options, I suggested that John Laws find a commissioned Tasmanian Police Officer to go head-to-head with me on live radio, thereby providing an opportunity to convince the Australian public once and for all time that there is absolutely no evidence linking Martin Bryant to Port Arthur. On the flip side of the coin, it might provide an opportunity for a major Australian media star to put me down completely, and thus rid the poor harassed Australian politicians of an arch “Conspiracy Theorist”.
 

But I would only be put down if I failed to convince Australian listeners that my independent investigation was accurate, and the Tasmanian Police Service investigation of 1996 inaccurate. A calculated risk by any media standard. To be fair, the producer seemed quite enthusiastic and said she would pass on my offer to John Laws. Then she told me John Laws was going on holiday, and then of course there was Christmas. Oh well, maybe we can talk about it again in the New Year.
 

Regardless of who wants to interview whom about what, the sudden resurgence of interest in Martin Bryant is the single most important factor. No matter whether it is academics and doctors who wish to use him as a human guinea pig, or the media and others who might prefer to vilify him all over again, his name has once again been put in front of ordinary Australians. And so it should be.
 

Our initial collective lack of concern for an intellectually impaired young man tortured into admitting guilt for a mass murder he did not commit, shames Australia and Australians as no other single act could. We owe it to ourselves to ensure that Martin Bryant receives the trial he is entitled to in law.
 

 

Australian Officials Recklessly Endanger Martin Bryant’s Life

Vialls Investigations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11 JULY 2003

 

During 1996, Martin Bryant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania. According to Attorney General Ray Groom, Bryant was the “most dangerous man in Australia”, who would be detained inside a custom-built Risdon Prison hospital cell “for the rest of his natural life”.

 

During the same time frame, television networks and newspapers alike ensured that Martin Bryant also became the most hated man in Australia. Much emphasis was placed on Bryant allegedly shooting a child hiding behind her mother’s skirt’s, then shooting another helpless child cowering behind a tree. According to the hysterical media, here we had the very worst kind of prisoner: Not only a mass murderer, but a ruthless child killer as well.

Australians nationwide were and are still taught to hate Bryant with a passion, to the point where dozens spray foul graffiti over the Tasmanian hospital walls, and tens of thousands mutter how they will kill Martin with their bare hands if they ever get the chance. Impossible of course, but is it? Quite suddenly since 21 June 2003, and apparently due to an inexplicable policy reversal, the public have already been given two chances to kill Martin Bryant, and will be generously provided with more chances in the future.

On Saturday 21 June 2003, another prisoner hit Martin in the face. In the words of Prison director Graeme Barber, it was “Just an incident between himself and another inmate who have lived in that environment together for the past few years.” Prison inmates concur with this statement, but then suddenly, Martin Bryant, most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia, was bundled into a prison bus and driven to the Royal Hobart Hospital for a “check up”. Typically this journey takes between 15 and 20 minutes each way. One day later, the Australian media openly reported the details.

Exactly two weeks later, on Saturday 5 July 2003, another prisoner threw cleaning fluid in Martin’s face. Normal eye irrigation was initiated, as it would be in any other industrial situation. But then instead of following the normal procedures [any antidote for the known chemical followed much later by a vision test], Martin Bryant, most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia, was bundled into a prison bus and driven to the Royal Hobart Hospital for a “check up”. As with the first incident, the Australian media openly reported the details one-day later.

Compare these two startling breaches of security with far more serious injuries that “happened” in December 2000. On that occasion Martin Bryant was suddenly frog-marched to the distant remand wing of Risdon Prison, where he was found some time later with serious stab wounds. One particular wound in his thigh had cut down almost as far as the femoral artery, and required ten stitches. Martin Bryant, most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia, was NOT bundled down to the Royal Hobart Hospital for a “check up”. A doctor was called to the hospital and repaired Martin on the spot. This is proper procedure for a high-risk prisoner.

To summarize, Martin Bryant has been incarcerated inside Risdon Prison without a break since early 1996, a period of more than seven years. In all that time he has been subject to incredibly high security, and never been allowed outside the walls. Then all of a sudden, starting on 21 June 2003, security is removed to the point where he is driven in a bus to the Royal Hobart Hospital along an insecure route, not once but twice in two weeks, for trivial injures inflicted by two different men. The media widely report both incidents. Why?

The most likely answer to anyone with ant-terrorist experience, is a genuinely chilling scenario that should be of concern not only Martin Bryant, but also to the prison officers who escort him, and to their wives and families. Bryant is the only man alive who can tell the Australian people in open court exactly what happened to him in the days and hours leading up to his arrival at Seascape Cottages, and who was involved in luring him there. Hard forensic evidence has already cleared him of any presence at Port Arthur. As pressure grows for Martin Bryant to be given his day in court, he becomes a greater and greater risk to the professional killers who were really behind the horrific mass murder at Port Arthur. They would sleep a lot easier if he were dead.

Killing Martin Bryant inside the prison has so far proved impossible, though it must be said that at least one attempt has already been made. Such a killing would also result in an undesirable inquiry which might or might not implicate one or more members of the staff. Best to do the job outside then, thereby severing all possible links to officialdom, and to any “fellow travellers” in the Tasmanian political establishment. So how can it be arranged?

This is bog-standard stuff for professionals, and considerably easier than robbing an armored car loaded with cash or bullion. First establish a pattern, which in this case means inflicting minor injuries on Bryant, thus enabling him to be sent to the Royal Hobart Hospital several times for “check ups”. This procedure also sets precedents, making it seem perfectly normal for Martin Bryant to be shuttled backwards and forwards in a prison bus, despite the fact this only started a few weeks ago in June 2003. Make sure the newspapers relay this revised Orwellian “normality” to the Australian public.

Study the behavior of Bryant’s escorts when they make the first trip to the Royal Hobart Hospital. They will be jumpy of course, because this is the first time the most dangerous and hated prisoner in Australia has been allowed outside the prison walls in seven years. Discreetly study the speed of the bus, traffic lights, and road intersections. Check intercept points, monitor police and any other relevant radio frequencies.

During the second [and possibly third] dummy runs to the Royal Hobart Hospital, run another check on the escorts. Getting used to it, more normal now. Escorts relaxed and cracking jokes, no longer paying attention to their surroundings or possible risks. Fine-tune operation for next, final, trip from Risdon Prison.

Exactly which methods and means will be used on the day is a matter of speculation, though it seems certain that under the circumstances “saturation” will be ordered, i.e. a terminal job for all on the bus, leaving no witnesses and ensuring swift efficient exfiltration. Remember that the people who organized and carried out the ruthless murder of 35 people at Port Arthur in April 1996, will not be worried about killing a mere handful of completely insignificant prison officers in order to silence Martin Bryant. Nor will they lose any sleep over grieving wives and children.

The Orwellian media will tell you that “vengeful” members of the public launched a “completely unexpected” attack on ‘hated’ Martin Bryant as he left the Royal Hobart Hospital to return to Risdon Prison. There will then be a massive police search, but no offenders will ever be caught. The widows and children will try to get on with their lives, though severely hampered by hopelessly inadequate compensation. You will go back to sleep, reassured that “the killer” is dead.

If Prison Director Graeme Barber wishes to prove me wrong, or wants to make me look stupid, there is one certain way of doing it, and I will have no objections. It is simply this: Keep Martin Bryant safe inside Risdon Prison until a trial can be forced for him, and order your subordinates to provide the required care which has been visibly absent these past few weeks. If all else fails and the next “incident” is a broken arm or leg, pick up the telephone and call for professional counter-terrorist assistance, plus armored vehicles to take your charge to the Royal Hobart Hospital.

So Mr Barber, you have been warned of the risks – in advance. If Bryant is allowed outside Risdon prison again, and just happens to die one way or the other, guess who will be the responsible person?

Joe Vialls

So there you have it folk’s.

One part of this tragic event was the comment that Joe made in regard to the wild  look that one could see in the eyes of the alleged offender…….maybe one could relate to this same false imagery used in many other false flag events……..remember the shoe bomber and many others……let me remind you in the pictures below and again focus on their wild sort of  simpleton appearance:

 

th

Richard Reid British She Bomber – He looked a little bit like Bin Laden with a makeover!!

img_2883185_620

Colorado Batman

th 1

Bryant Port Arthur

Ariz shooting

Arizona Shooting

co_shooting_suspect

Another Colorado shot

There have been numerous attempts to bring about fresh investigations into the Port Arthur Massacre and in more recent time the Norwegian Shooting all to no avail……in actual fact the Norwegian Government has announced that the police have drop internal investigation into shooter Anders Behring Breivik……..I wonder why!

Part 9 will cover the Sandy Nook False Flag and will question the authenticity of this massacre whilst at the same time show that the US Government is after the same result as the Australian Government………to establish gun control and disarm the public.

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

Written by Peter Eyre

January 14, 2013 at 00:14

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: