MARTIN BRYANT - THE OTHER STORY
2. MARTIN BRYANT - THE OTHER STORY PART 2
3. PORT ARTHUR - WHAT NEXT?
4. GOVERNMENT COVER-UP AT PORT ARTHUR
5. POLITICIANS SHIRK RESPONSIBILITY ON PORT ARTHUR
6. SPRINGFIELD "SIMULATOR" PROVES PORT ARTHUR A FAKE
7. PROOF OF INNOCENCE
8. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
9. BRYANT'S MOTHER SPEAKS OUT
10. OFFICIAL MARTIN BRYANT'S STORY PROVED AN OFFICIAL LIE
11. LACK OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AT PORT ARTHUR
12. BRYANT GETS A VISITOR
13. HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT PORT ARTHUR
14. REINFORCING MARTIN BRYANT'S "GUILT"
15. MARTIN BRYANT SORRY DAY
1. MARTIN BRYANT - THE OTHER STORY
It was not until 1995 that this author managed to prove by entirely scientific means that WPC Fletcher could not have been shot from the Libyan Embassy at all, but was shot from the top floor of a nearby building staffed by American multinational personnel.
Was the massacre in Port Arthur a completely spontaneous act carried out by a single nut-case with unbelievable efficiency, or was it a repeat of Yvonne Fletcher's callous murder, deliberately designed to distort public perception and direct maximum hatred against a particular group of people? All of the available hard scientific evidence suggests that it was.
When investigating cases like Yvonne Fletcher's murder or the massacre at Port Arthur it is critically important to adhere to scientific proof and avoid eyewitness accounts and media hype like the Black Plague. Eyewitnesses do not lie intentionally, but as any honest psychologist will tell you the accuracy of their testimony is limited by many factors including stress, suggestive police interrogators, and peer pressure.
The more controversial the case the higher the need for absolute scientific proof, because if the investigation reaches a conclusion which conflicts with the officially accepted story, the media will attempt to trash the credibility of the investigator himself, who in these two cases happens to be me. For four years while investigating the murder of Yvonne Fletcher I was gently harassed, visited by members of British Intelligence from London, cordially invited to sign the Official Secrets Act, then threatened when I refused to comply.
Some readers might wonder why I am including so much detail about a murder in London when this story is supposed to be about Port Arthur. Well, it is about Port Arthur, but there are a number of disturbing similarities between the two cases, especially in terms of media behavior at the time of each atrocity, and the use of faked video footage to reinforce the official story of the day. So please bear with me for a few paragraphs.
In 1992 when I first decided to investigate WPC Fletcher's murder, the most serious obstacle I encountered was the British media, who for nearly a decade had knowingly nurtured a lie so horrific that it almost defeats the imagination. Yvonne Fletcher, they claimed, was murdered by a low velocity bullet fired from the Libyan Embassy located behind her on her left-hand side, with the gunman firing downwards from a first floor window at an angle of fifteen degrees. As any amateur can confirm, that means the bullet entered the left side of WPC Fletcher's back at a shallow angle of fifteen degrees and then continued through her body tissue towards the right- hand side of her body. Right? Wrong... The bullet entered WPC Fletcher's upper right back at sixty degrees then sliced down through her rib cage, turning her vital organs into a bloody pulp before exiting her body below the left rib cage.
With Yvonne Fletcher's exact position recorded by a television camera when the shots were fired there was no room for doubt. It was an absolute scientific impossibility for that shot to have been fired from the Libyan Embassy, and the steep angle of entry of the bullet limited the firing point to one floor of only one building: the top floor of Enserch House, an American multinational building staffed by personnel with documented links to the American CIA. Without the critical video footage from the television camera I would never have been able to prove how she was killed or by who, but fortunately for me the footage still existed in 1992, and television cameras are inanimate objects incapable of lying. If proof appears to exist on video there are only two possibilities: the scientific truth, or deliberately faked video footage shown to the public for special effects or in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Interestingly and with profound implications for Port Arthur, fake video footage was put to air by the BBC "for the first time ever" many months after Yvonne Fletcher's murder, in what appeared to be an attempt to cement the lies and calculated deceptions about her death forever in the minds of the British public. The public failed to ask why this apparently critical footage had not been presented at the coronial inquest into Yvonne Fletcher's death: which it was not, but fell hook, line and sinker for the blurred images and sound track, which apparently recorded eleven sub-machine gun shots being fired from the Libyan Embassy. The amateur footage run by the BBC in 1985 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Metropolitan police force.
During 1995 I used the immutable laws of astronomy and physics to prove the amateur footage a total fake. Analysis of the angle and position of the sun's shadow falling across the front of the Libyan Embassy was checked using astro-navigation techniques and direct reference to the Greenwich Observatory, Britain's foremost authority on times and dates derived from the sun- line, a technique used for centuries to tell the time with great accuracy using garden sun-dials. Unfortunately for the BBC who broadcast the amateur footage "for the first time ever", absolute science proved the sun-line on the amateur footage incorrect for 10.19 am on the 17th April 1984, the time and date on which Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Indeed, the scientific evaluation proved the amateur footage was not even filmed on the same day Yvonne Fletcher was shot. Those who created that fake footage and then broadcast it were not engaged in a mere media re-interpretation of events, but were accessories after the fact to the murder of an unarmed English policewoman doing her duty on a London street.
After four long years of research and investigation designed to expose the real truth of what happened that day, and after as consultant to the responsible film-maker, Britain's Channel Four aired part of my scientific proof in a special edition of "Dispatches" , its flagship current affairs program, on the 10th April 1996. Unfortunately, three months earlier the film-maker became incredibly agitated about my absolute scientific proof from Greenwich that the amateur footage was faked, removed me from the production process of a film based on my own copyright story, barred me from the film credits and then incorporated the fake footage as a legitimate part of the film, minus the incriminating sun-line, which proved in absolute scientific terms that what British television was putting to air for a second time since 1985 was totally false and deliberately misleading!
It became swiftly apparent, that although the media was prepared to throw tiny scraps of truth to the public, gross deceptions, especially those generated by erstwhile colleagues in the form of fake video footage designed to manipulate public opinion, were strictly off limits. So it is on the subject of fake video footage and its potential for incredible impact on the viewing public that we finally turn to Port Arthur. Some readers may by now be shifting uneasily in their seats, racking their brains and wondering exactly when and where it was that they were also suddenly shown amateur footage "for the first time ever" on television in Australia. It was on a Wednesday in October 1996, the night before Martin Bryant was due to be sentenced for his alleged role in the Port Arthur massacre.
Many months after the massacre took place, but only hours before the Tasmanian judge was due to make a decision that would effect Martin Bryant for the rest of his life, an Australian TV network suddenly presented the public (and of course the judge) with dramatic amateur video footage shown "for the first time ever". The reporter told us the man on the video was Martin Bryant on the day of the massacre, going about his business of slaughtering the good people of Tasmania, caught on camera by interested amateur photographers who seemed unmoved by the dangers of high-velocity bullets. Unlike most of the other survivors, these folk did not run away, but hunkered down like battle-hardened war correspondents coverings the end of World War II from an unprotected thoroughfare in the middle of Berlin. They were also very discreet the day after the massacre, when the world's tabloid media descended on Port Arthur like a pack of ravenous dogs, snapping and growling for any picture they could get hold of in order to meet their respective deadlines in London and New York.
At that point in time the "amateur footage" was worth half a million bucks no questions asked, for this was a world media event and no-one had any pictures. Perhaps the amateur photographers had no need for huge amounts of cash, or perhaps at that early stage their footage had not yet been fully prepared, which was certainly the case after Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London. The amateur footage run by the Australian network in October 1996 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Tasmanian police force.
There are so many irregularities on this supposedly genuine video footage, which was accepted as evidence against Martin Bryant in the Tasmanian court, that only a few of the more obvious will be included in this story to help drive the message home. The rest have been carefully collated, and it will give me considerable pleasure to detail each and every one of them personally before a properly convened Royal Commission. If a Royal Commission is not called to fully investigate the methodology used in the massacre, and if Martin Bryant is not called to give evidence, then the people of Australia had best get used to the fact that what little remains of our representative democracy died with the thirty five innocent civilians who were ruthlessly and needlessly murdered at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.
Most readers will remember that at the time of the massacre there were a few clouds in the sky but the sun was shining and casting shadows on the buildings, as shown by the footage from some of the genuine video cameras recording at the correct time, indicated by the timing clocks displayed in the corner of the video footage itself. One or two of these genuine amateur video cameras recorded the sounds of several shots, complete with multiple echoes, proving that the shots in question were being fired outside rather than in an enclosed space such as the Broad Arrow Cafe. But the video footage allegedly showing Martin Bryant running down the road was filmed under an overcast sky, which was the first indicator that something was terribly wrong with this so-called evidence. Who the hell changed the weather at point-blank notice?
Because he is running directly away from the Broad Arrow Cafe with a bulky package under his arm the assumption is that the package contains a Colt AR15, the weapon known to have killed 20 victims in the cafe at a rate of one every five seconds. Problem! Scaled against the man's height and surrounding objects the package he is carrying is a maximum of 22inches long, a full ten inches too short for the Colt AR15 which measures 32 inches with its butt fully retracted, and more than ten inches too short for either of the other two weapons claimed to have been found in his car; a Belgian FN 7.62-mm Paratrooper and a combat shotgun. So who is this man running down the road, and why is he not carrying any of the weapons allegedly used in the massacre?
At this stage it would be nice to be able to determine whether or not the man really is Bryant, by comparing an accurate right hand profile of Bryant with the video itself. Unfortunately Bryant is the least photographed man in the world today and all attempts to get hold of a photograph of him have failed. For a while I toyed with the idea of asking Martin Bryant's lawyer to get one for me, but then he too had his camera and film confiscated by prison officials. One wonders why the Australian authorities are so anxious that no pictures of Bryant be allowed outside (or even in) the prison. They would do no obvious harm, whether the man is Bryant or not, a few frames on this sequence make a mockery of any suggestion the prized footage presented to the Tasmanian court was meaningful evidence against Martin Bryant. What they show is a blonde man still running down the road towards the coach park clutching his package, while in the upper left corner of the same frames three men can be clearly seen standing directly outside the entrance of the Broad Arrow Cafe, out of which the blonde man has just run after murdering 20 citizens. One man is standing to the left of the entrance casually leaning on the balustrade with one hand; the second is standing casually on the right smoking a cigarette, and the third is standing directly in front of the door filming the running blonde man with a video camera. To suggest this in any way incriminates Bryant is not only ridiculous, but also quite impossible with the blonde man allegedly in the middle of a massive killing spree.
Just these points alone prove in scientific terms one of two entirely critical scenarios. If the blonde man is Martin Bryant but unarmed, what is he doing role-playing with three men directly in front of the Broad Arrow Cafe?
It is scientifically impossible for the three men not to be involved, so this option proves beyond doubt that Martin Bryant did not act alone, but was manipulated or directed at the crime scene by others whose identities are not yet known. If the blonde man is not Martin Bryant then the only alternative is that a team of unknown men carried out the massacres and then set up a reconstruction on film using a blonde look-alike, to ensure that Martin Bryant would later be convicted. In absolute scientific terms there are no other explanations at all, no matter how much the media might wriggle and squirm in its attempts to ensure the pathetic "Lone Nut" legend remains intact.
If sufficiently panicked, the police might claim that Martin Bryant was merely helping them with a reconstruction to assist with their future inquiries, which was filmed and then accidentally released to the Australian television network. But he couldn't have, could he? Martin Bryant was badly burnt at Seascape and spent weeks afterwards heavily sedated in Hobart Hospital under armed guard. Of course he may have been induced to help with a reconstruction before the massacre started, but it seems unlikely the police would be prepared to discuss such a blood curdling possibility. Science can be frighteningly efficient at times because, believe it or believe it not, science has just proved in absolute terms right in front of your startled eyes using court evidence that Martin Bryant could not, under any circumstances have acted alone, and may possibly not have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated 'Patsy' role.
Which one is true depends on which of the two alternative scenarios detailed above are correct, but there are absolutely no other scientific life-rafts for the sinking media to grab hold of. Remember this is not unsubstantiated hearsay evidence from frightened eyewitnesses used by the media to hype up its mythical version of events. It is absolute scientific proof which cannot be questioned or refuted. Most readers like a story to have a beginning, a middle, and a coherent end. Science can and has provided an accurate outline of the first two but it cannot provide the third.
As an investigator I insist on dealing only with hard facts because it is the only way to avoid being swept along by the avalanche of compulsive lies put out by the media on a daily basis, and there are no hard facts available to answer the question "For God's sake why?" In any criminal investigation it is opportunity, motive and method. Just about anyone had the opportunity to attack those civilians in a remote spot like Port Arthur on a Sunday without fear of being caught or punished in any way. Where method is concerned any expert combat shooter could have killed 20 unarmed civilians at five second spacings and wrought havoc in the general area, although the words "expert combat shooter" should be noted with care.
Though Australia has tens of thousands of skilled sporting shooters it has very few combat veterans, and even fewer special forces personnel trained to kill large numbers of people quickly in an enclosed space like the Broad Arrow Cafe, which is roughly the same size as mock-up rooms used for practicing the rescue of hostages being held in confined spaces by armed terrorists. It is hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of unpleasant reasons, including the fact that shot people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets. Targets therefore have to be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximise kill rates. Whoever was on the trigger in Tasmania managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier, an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant's mid-sixties IQ and his total lack of military training, which is an interesting but largely unimportant observation because we have already proved in absolute scientific terms that Bryant could not have acted alone. That leaves us looking for the motive, which is impossible to determine with any certainty, though it is reasonable to cross link this to Yvonne Fletcher's pre-meditated murder in London purely in terms of cause and effect.
The effect of Yvonne Fletcher's savage and very public murder caused public hatred to be directed against the Libyans, who were subsequently deported en-masse from Britain despite the fact they were in no way responsible for her death. The only visible cause and effect that can be laid at the door of the Port Arthur massacre is that the effect of the obscene action caused public hatred to be directed against Australian sporting shooters, who like the Libyans were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a massive funded campaign to disarm the Australian people in spite of significant external threats to our national security. If this was indeed the motive, Australia and its people have been violated in the worst possible way by sworn enemies of our great nation, with likely long term consequences too awesome to contemplate.
It is just not right to simply accept the status quo as it exists today in Port Arthur, because to do so implies that Australians have thrown in the towel and admitted defeat on the strength of a single savage action in our smallest State.
The only way to avenge our dead in Port Arthur is to force a Royal Commission on the matter and drag witnesses kicking and screaming into the dock, including certain members of the Tasmanian police force. Failing that, funding should be sought for an independent investigation leading in turn to a book providing the real facts about the chain of events at Port Arthur, a copy of which should be provided for every home across the land.
All Australians must be made aware of the real and shocking circumstances in which their fellow citizens died, because knowledge is the only weapon we can use to guard against future lethal charades on Australian territory. Realistically it would probably take years to find the massive sum needed for such a wide-ranging initiative but there is a positive need for action now, if only to put the Prime Minister on the back foot and convince him there is no longer any need to wear 'boron carbide body armour' when attending public meetings. Perhaps the independent Honourable Member for Oxley could find the time to ask the Prime Minister a few meaningful questions in Parliament?
MARTIN BRYANT - THE OTHER
STORY - PART TWO
The initial reaction of most readers to the reality that Martin Bryant killed no- one at Port Arthur but was deliberately set up as a patsy is a combination of horror and complete disbelief. Are we to believe that a bunch of planners sat round a table and arranged the premeditated murders of 35 Australians? Unfortunately the answer is yes. All of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears the distinctive trademark of a planned "psyop", meaning an operation designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons.
Because of their illegal nature, psyops are never formally ordered by governments, but are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations and others. Some psyops ordered during the last forty years are known to have been carried out by independent contractors hired from a small specialist group, staffed mostly by retired members of American and Israeli special forces.
Patsies are normally used as decoys, deliberately inserted into the psyop to deflect attention away from the specialist group, allowing the latter time to extract safely from the operational area while the patsy takes the blame, But the planners leave tell-tale signs and occasionally make critical mistakes. It is a little-known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was proved a patsy when a New Zealand newspaper printed a story about his guilt several hours before he was accused of the crime in Dallas. The planners put the decoy story on the news wires too early, forgetting the crucial time difference would allow the New Zealand paper to print the story long before Oswald was even accused. It was a single planning error, but one that proved in absolute scientific terms that Lee Harvey Oswald was deliberately set up as a patsy.
As part one of this report proved, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London during 1984 was a psyop where the intended patsies were four million Libyans. The operation was successful and resulted in Tripoli being bombed by an 'outraged' President Reagan in 1986. The next blatant psyop was Lockerbie, when on 21 December 1988 Pan American flight 103 exploded in mid-air killing all 259 passengers and crew. Although very recent scientific evidence not yet in the public domain proves conclusively that the Libyans could not have been responsible, they were nonetheless blamed for the atrocity. The principal affect of those two psyops on the Libyans were sanctions designed to prevent them updating defensive weapon systems capable of protecting their resource-rich nation. Since 1984 Libyan defense capabilities have steadily declined, leaving its people and resources increasingly vulnerable to external attack and thus possible conquest.
By a strange coincidence Australia is also a resource-rich nation, with overall reserves more than twenty times as valuable as those in Libya, but with only half the defense capability. In some ways this was not an insurmountable problem until 1996 because unlike Libya this nation has always had huge numbers of sporting shooters traditionally used in time of war to both train and supplement our miniscule armed forces. Not any more. Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve forearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown.
To hell with multinational global ambitions. This is Australia and we need to restore our reserve capability in order to keep this country the way it is. The first thing we have to do is prove once and for all time that Martin Bryant was used as a patsy to cover the objective of the Port Arthur psyop, which effectively undermined our national security. In fact I am going to prove that now but doubt the Federal Government will be interested in the hard scientific facts, or in correcting the multiple gross errors made immediately after the massacre tool place. The harsh and unpalatable truth about Port Arthur will have to be forced on the Australian Government by the Australian People.
Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world, His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world.
Over the years television viewers have been subjected to such a barrage of Rambo-style television programs that most now believe every time Sylvester Stallone points a gun and pulls the trigger, twenty bad guys immediately fall down dead from lethal shots to the head or heart. Unfortunately this Hollywood media rubbish is hopelessly misleading and in no way reflects the difficulties involved in killing large numbers of people quickly, regardless of whether those people are armed or not, and regardless of the ranges involved. For a number of reasons explained later, killing efficiently at close range in crowded and confined spaces presents the shooter with far more complex targeting problems than those associated with conventional open-air combat scenarios.
Media claims that those killed in the Broad Arrow Cafe were shot at point- blank range where 'Bryant' could not possibly have missed are complete rubbish. Point- blank range is where the muzzle of the weapon is held against the body of the target, In the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter fired at an average range of twelve feet, where a tiny aim-off error of three degrees is enough to ensure that a bullet completely misses a target the size of a human head.
Readers are invited to prove to themselves just how small an error that is, by laying two twelve-foot long pieces of string flat on the floor alongside of each other, with the far ends four inches apart. That helps put things into perspective, doesn't it?
Scientific terms such as killed- to-injured ratio and kill-rate are enough to bore most readers to death, but in order to fully comprehend the enormity of the media lies about the massacre, and expose the planned nature of the operation it is essential information. The killed-to-injured ratio is used to calculate reliably how many injured survivors should be expected for every person killed for a given number of rounds fired. Even assault rounds as powerful as those fired by the Colt AR15 can only ensure a one-shot kill if the target is hit in the head, a six by six inch target: or in the heart, a ten by ten inch target. Together these areas form between one fifth and one seventh of the over-all body target areas, so for every person killed there will be between five and seven injured, expressed as "1 to 5" and "1 to 7".
The records show that a total of 32 people were shot in the Broad Arrow Cafe, so at best we would expect 4 dead and 28 injured, or at worst 6 dead and 26 injured. These are very reliable military figures based on hard science, but the actual figures in the Broad Arrow Cafe were 20 dead and 12 injured - an incredible inverted ratio of 1.66 to 1, or nearly two dead for every one injured.
Special forces train continuously for months on end to achieve a ratio as high as this, which lies far beyond the abilities of regular soldiers, and is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually impaired registered invalid.
Media apologists desperately trying to protect their obscene "lone nut" legend will scream foul at this point and claim that flukes happen. No they do not. About seven months ago a trained Israeli soldier went beserk in Hebron and fired a complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an identical Colt AR15 into a crowd of Palestinians at the same range. His thirty high velocity bullets injured nine and killed no-one at all. This Israeli example helps to drive home the absolute lunacy of crafted media insinuations that Martin Bryant was a registered invalid who suddenly metamorphasized into the lethal equivalent of a fully trained and highly disciplined US Navy 'SEAL'.
Next we come to the kill-rate which refers to the speed at which people are killed, thereby reflecting the skill, co-ordination, and accuracy of the shooter. It is accepted by all the authorities in Tasmania that immediately after the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe he killed his first 12 victims in 15 seconds, a claim apparently opposed by some sporting shooters in Tasmania because of the seemingly impossible speed and lethal efficiency. This is a very reasonable objection so long as those shooters remain media-fixated on Martin Bryant, but there is nothing impossible about such a high kill-rate at the hands of a top special forces shooter operating at peak efficiency.
The first thing special forces do when entering an enclosed area containing superior numbers is lay down very fast accurate fire designed to kill as many hostiles as possible, thus gaining absolute control of the area in record time and minimizing the risk of injury to themselves; and because hostiles frequently wear body armour protecting the heart area, special forces are trained to aim instinctively for the smaller head target. Following these unpublished protocols precisely, the shooter at Port Arthur gained absolute control of the Broad Arrow Cafe in fifteen seconds flat, killing most of his victims with a single shot to the head.
To even suggest that Martin Bryant, whose proven weapons handling experience was limited to a single-shot Webley Osprey air rifle could have caused this carnage is absurd. When the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe full of people sitting at tables and fired the first shot, everyone inside reacted instinctively to the huge muzzle blast (noise) of the AR15, but each reacted in a different way, some just turning their heads while others moved physically, temporarily obscuring yet more diners and shielding them from the line of fire. At the same time the barrel of the AR15 was recoiling upwards through about five degrees of arc as it cycled another round into the breech, throwing the muzzle off target.
In a millisecond the cage was full of targets moving in at least ten different directions while the muzzle of the AR15 was still recoiling upwards from the first shot. But despite the enormous difficulties and the complex target trigonometry involved, the shooter controlled the recoil and shot 12 moving and partially obscured targets at the rate of one every 1.25 seconds. Nor did he trip over any obstructions, indicating that this professional shooter's face was seen in the Broad Arrow Cafe by staff some time earlier, during his final reconnaissance when he studied the layout to ensure no hiccups occurred during the operation. There were no hiccups. Ninety seconds after entering the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter departed, leaving thirty two Australians and others lying on the floor, twenty of them dead.
All of these hard scientific facts were deliberately excluded by the frenzied media pack and not one attempt was made to establish the real identity of the shooter. Long blonde hair did not prove that the shooter was Martin Bryant, and the media somehow forgot to remind the Australian public that long wigs are the most common form of basic disguise ever used. In the Broad Arrow Cafe a long wig would also have been necessary to conceal the ear protection worn by the shooter. Firing more than thirty high velocity AR15 rounds in that hollow confined space produced as much concussive blast as a pair of stun grenades; sufficient concussion to severely impair the shooter's spatial orientation (and thus aim) unless wearing ear protectors or combat communications headphones. Readers are cautioned not to try proving this point themselves if they value their ear-drums and long-term hearing ability.
Official accounts are hazy about what happened next, but it is confirmed that most of those killed thereafter were shot with the Belgian FN, a heavier assault weapon which has a completely different weight and balance from the Colt AR15 and fires a round producing more than twice the recoil.
But despite switching between weapons with very different handling characteristics, and shifting from close to intermediate range, the shooter constantly maintained an awesome inverted killed-to-wounded ratio. Overall the massacre produced 35 dead and 22 injured for a final killed-to-wounded ratio of 1.60 to 1, almost identical to the 1.66 to 1 ratio in the Broad Arrow Cafe. To say the shooter was consistent would be the understatement of the year.
In layman terms, in an average shooting the 35 people who were killed at Port Arthur should have been accompanied by between 175 and 245 injured survivors; very similar ratios to the American McDonalds and other random massacres. Instead there were only 22, the trademark of a highly trained combat shooter. It is only when accurately analyzed in this cold scientific way that the monstrous nature of the media story can be exposed for what it really is: a creative lie every bit as loathsome as that fashioned by the British media when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot in the back from an American multinational building during 1984, but where the media grovelled obsequiously in front of powerful international patrons and lobbies and conspired to pervert the course of justice by blaming the Libyans instead of the Americans.
The professional shooter in Tasmania presented us with a final display of his unquestioned prowess when tourist Linda White and her boyfriend Mick approached Seascape Cottage on the Port Arthur road in a small four-wheel drive vehicle, shortly after the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Both saw the shooter aim and Linda White felt the wind of the first round as it passed her cheek and shattered the driver's window next to her head. The shooter corrected his aim and the second round hit Linda White in the arm, just to the right of the heart target area, The third round killed the engine and stopped the vehicle.
In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported free- standing firing position, the most difficult of all; instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same blinding speed as the computer gunsight of an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three. This man might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur.
In the view of this author these were the last shots fired by the professional before he (or they) smoothly extracted from the Tasman Peninsula and then from Australia, leaving the patsy Martin Bryant down the track at Seascape holding the baby.
The trail to Seascape Cottage had been meticulously laid. In Martin Bryant's car at the tollbooth was a combat shotgun, a bag of ammo for the Belgian FN and, very conveniently, Martin Bryant's passport. Then there was Linda White's disabled four wheel drive on the Arthur Highway and a stolen BMW burning in the grounds of Seascape to mark the way, and just in case all these clues were not enough for the Tasmanian Police, an anonymous caller to police headquarters in Hobart advised the authorities that the man holed up in Seascape was probably Martin Bryant. Short of erecting a pink neon sign reading "THIS WAY TO PATSY" the professional or professionals seem to have thought of everything.
There were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur because an Australian newspaper circulated his photograph nationwide, thereby totally corrupting any and all police lineups, photo boards, or controlled shopping mall parades.
All the eyewitnesses could legally claim was a "tall man with long blonde hair", which was no impediment to the media who tried and convicted Martin Bryant in less than two days, in one of the most blatant and disgusting displays of media abuse ever seen.
So Bryant the patsy was firmly in place and Seascape was swiftly surrounded by armed police from Tasmania and Victoria, most of whom must have been very puzzled as the siege continued through the night, If we are to believe media reports (difficult, I know) Martin Bryant fired 250 rounds during the siege period but hit nothing at all, which is exactly what one would expect of someone whose prior experience was limited to a Webley Osprey air rifle.
If the professional shooter had fired 250 rounds from Seascape Cottage during the siege, his awesome killed-to-wounded ratio would have resulted in a police funeral cortege stretching from the Tasman Peninsula to Hobart.
It is beyond doubt that many of the armed police noticed Bryant's wild undisciplined performance at Seascape bore absolutely no resemblance at all to that of the deadly shooter at port Arthur and some must have told their senior officers about it, though it seems they were ignored or simply told to shut up. The media had its man, the feeding frenzy was in full swing and the police were not going to be allowed to spoil a lucrative politically-correct story by telling the truth.
Unfortunately media versions of events had some flaws so basic that to mention them on national television was an insult to the intelligence of every Australian citizen. We were told in most reports that Bryant had three weapons, one of which, the Daewoo combat shotgun, was left in the boot of his Volvo near the tollbooth. The reports tell us that Martin Bryant then took the Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles down to Seascape with him and used them along with other weapons found in the house to fire those 250 shots at the police during the siege. Oh, really?
Bryant's last telephone conversation with the police was around 9 pm on 28 April and his next contact was when he stumbled out of a fiercely burning Seascape Cottage unarmed and with his back on fire at 8.37 am the following morning. Police confirmed that Bryant came out unarmed, and also confirmed that by then the fire, exacerbated by exploding ammunition, was burning so fiercely that they were completely incapable of approaching the building to see if anyone else was still alive. Seascape rapidly became an inferno as the entire structure collapsed on the ground in a pole of white-hot debris, which of course included the charred and twisted remains of the Cold AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles allegedly fired from inside the building by Martin Bryant, destroyed not only by the searing heat but also by the exploding ammunition.
So how can it be that on a Channel 9 programme shown in November 1996 a Tasmanian police officer was able to show all Australians two immaculate assault weapons allegedly used by Bryant at Port Arthur. Where did the police obtain those pristine weapons we were shown on national television? The real shooter probably left them lying neatly on the ground near Seascape and the patsy, before departing at speed for the Devonport ferry terminal.
In order to present even a shell of a case against Martin Bryant the prosecution needed valid identification by witnesses, but all eyewitness statements were corrupt. In addition they needed the weapons used in the massacre ballistically, cross-matched to bullets found in the victims at Port Arthur, either in Martin Bryant's possession or bearing his fingerprints. They had neither.
Nor were Bryant's fingerprints found at the Broad Arrow Cafe where he is alleged to have eaten lunch immediately before the massacre.
In an unprecedented move, fully-edited fake video footage obtained direct from America was entered as evidence in an Australian court against an Australian citizen Martin Bryant. In short there is no case for Bryant to answer with regard to Port Arthur, though he must still explain why he was at Seascape or, more to the point perhaps, tell us who talked him into going there when he did.
Bryant did admit to taking the BMW but from a different location, and without knowing why, and possibly setting fire to it later at Seascape, but vehemently denied any involvement at Port Arthur.
His limited confession fits the known hard scientific facts exactly, and for many months after his arrest despite the severe disadvantage of his intellectual impairment, Bryant kept to his story in the face of tremendous pressure from police interrogators and psychiatrists to admit the enormity of his alleged crimes. He continued to refuse to do so and at the formal hearing on 30th September 1996 pleaded not guilty to all seventy two charges.
At that precise point in time the prosecution knew it had a very serious problem. Martin Bryant was refusing to roll over and there was absolutely no hard evidence at all linking him to the murders at Port Arthur, a fact that would very quickly become obvious if the case was allowed to proceed to trial in front of twelve alert Tasmanian jurors. About the only thing that might save the day was a false confession of the kind beaten out of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four by the British police, but by then Bryant was in prison where his screams might attract attention. With the media pack outside its doors baying for blood, government had to do something but had few options. Perhaps heavy pressure could be exerted on a third party to extract a confession from Bryant?
Shortly afterwards, according to Tasmanian reporter Mike Bingham, Martin Bryant's mother Carleen, unable to face the stress of a public trial, paid a visit to Bryant at Risdon Prison and told him that if he did not plead guilty, she and his (Bryant's) younger sister Lindy would commit suicide and he would never see them again. Bingham later wrote that he doubted this was the reason for Martin Bryant then changing his plea to guilty on all charges, but who does Bingham think he is kidding apart from himself?
Bryant's mum and sister were probably the only people in the world who would still talk to him, and he had just been told that if he didn't plead guilty they wouldn't be talking to him ever again, and furthermore he would also be directly responsible for their deaths, Carleen Bryant's threat achieved in days what the police interrogators and psychiatrists had failed to achieve in months. Martin Bryant love his mum and sister and wanted to see both of them again, something that would only happen if he could stop them committing suicide. Clearly Martin Bryant pleaded guilty to save the lives of his mum and sister.
If Bingham's claim is correct applying such enormous psychological pressure was mental cruelty, every bit as coercive as the physical abuse handed out to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four by the British Police. But because Martin Bryant was a registered invalid with impaired intellectual functions, the way that psychological blackmail was used to force a false confession out of him was almost certainly as illegal as the physical methods used by the British police, leaving the way open for Bryant to withdraw his false confession and lodge an appeal.
Just like Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Martin Bryant was a perfect patsy. Both had lively imaginations but few friends, and to a large degree both lacked credibility because of their inability to defend themselves eloquently in front of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald very quickly became a dead patsy incapable of saying anything at all, and it is highly likely the same fate was planned for Martin Bryant. If Seascape had been located in California or Texas, Martin Bryant would unquestionably have been shot dead the split-second he left the building. It was only the iron discipline exercised by the Tasmanian and Victorian police special operations groups at the scene which allowed Martin Bryant to be taken into custody alive. All of those armed officers deserve the highest praise for their restraint in what must have been perceived as an extremely dangerous situation.
It is beyond doubt that those who planned the psyop are uneasy about Martin Bryant's continued existence and would sleep better at night if he should suddenly drop down dead. With this in mind, any good-natured crims enjoying an extended sabbatical in Risdon prison who read this report are asked to keep an eye on Martin Bryant and do what they can to ensure that he doesn't accidentally commit 'suicide' or slip on a bar of soap and break his neck. No need to go over the top by ordering huge buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken, but a cheerful wave or a friendly smile now and then might be enough to let him know that you know he didn't kill those women and children at Port Arthur, and that at some time soon all Australians are going to need whatever help he can provide in tracking down the ruthless professionals who cold-bloodedly murdered 35 unarmed Australian citizens, in what will eventually be recorded by historians as one of the most obscene psyops conducted anywhere in the world.
Reversing the psyop illusion will not be a walk in the park, but a battle for truth in broadcasting, where another creative media illusion like that put to air after the massacre at Port Arthur will immediately result in equally creative prison sentences for the magicians who reverse the truth on television for eighteen million Australians. It is a battle we must win for the sake of our children and for their children in turn, and if in the end we are forced to take legal action against government in order to obtain justice, then we must find the funds to do so.
Logic indicates that a limited number of Australian citizens or residents colluded in the massacre, if only in terms of forward reconnaissance and setting Martin Bryant up for the professionals.
We need to find out who they were and we need to find out who funded the psyop. The Federal Police must be asked to investigate the subversive groups who used huge lobby power immediately after the psyop to undermine our national security. The 400,000 reserve weapons pulped were fully-funded by the taxpayer and should at the very least have been placed in military reserve stock for use in time of national emergency. Once greased, such weapons need no maintenance and we had plenty of secure storage space for them. There are no excuses for lobbyists and politicians who wittingly undermine Australian national security.
This is far from the end of the story but it is all that I will be publishing until an intensive independent investigation into the massacre is carried out in Tasmania. There are at least eight other gross errors surrounding the mass murder, any one of which has the potential to savagely damage government, and another thirty lesser points, but each and every one must be verified in absolute privacy. If my investigation into Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London taught me anything at all, it was simply that the premature release of critical information serves only to allow time for media apologists to think up highly creative ways of minimizing its impact on the public.
If the Federal Government is to be forced into action, it must be presented with a case so complete and so utterly damning that immediate action will be its only recourse short of being thrown out of office by a large bunch of very angry Australians. Anyone wishing to pursue the matter beyond this point should read the item "Port Arthur - What Next?" printed alongside this report.
Many years ago Oscar Wilds said "Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose." In 1988 Australian newspapers reported New South Wales politician Barry Unsworth's claim that there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania.
3. PORT ARTHUR - WHAT NEXT
Since part one of the story was published I have received a number of letters from the public, mostly sporting shooters, correctly sensing they were set-up and asking what to do next. It is a very good question. Forget appeals to media and forget judicial reviews of events. The media will ignore you, and any judicial review controlled by government will be manipulated into an orchestrated whitewash closely akin to the Warren Commission in Dallas.
As a first step, pressure should be exerted on your federal and state representatives to ask formal questions in Parliament. This will result in your demands for action being recorded in Hansard, which is important because recalcitrant politicians hate unwanted matters recorded in official documents. Include copies of parts one and two of my report, and refer to them in writing, thereby removing your elected representative's ability to later argue that he or she had no idea what you were talking about. Ram the harsh reality of Port Arthur down the gullets of every fat-cat in Canberra until they start gagging on the facts.
If Australian sporting shooters wish to clear their collective names they will have to agree to a strategy which reverses the psyop illusion at Port Arthur. Ultimately civil legal action will almost certainly be needed to shake Canberra out of its terminal apathy and its blatant subservience to minority lobby groups.
Time is the biggest enemy. If the Libyans had known about the American PSYOP shortly after WPC Fletcher's murder in London and had swiftly mounted a civil action against the British Government, considerable embarrassment would have ensued, perhaps enough to stall the attack on Tripoli and the downing of Pan Am 103. But they took no aggressive legal action, and twelve years of subtle media reinforcement later, are nowadays viewed in the west as a nation populated entirely by terrorists. Always remember the media turns fiction into fact as readily as it turns fact into fiction.
Riding piggyback on the atrocity at Port Arthur, the lobbies and politicians are currently setting up Australian sporting shooters as internal redneck terrorists, and if no aggressive defensive legal action is taken I can confidently predict that within months or years another psyop will be executed in Australia; this time using semiautomatic handguns and revolvers aimed at introducing legislation that will outlaw all such weapons for ever. Do you really want that? No, you do not, and there are four million other sporting shooters like you with more than enough collective voting power and funding to stop it happening.
As par tow of the report suggested the first objective must be that of proving Martin Bryant was innocent of the murders at Port Arthur, This is critically important because until that is achieved his presence in prison will be used as "proof" that firearms are too dangerous to be held by those members of the public who in time of war train and supplement our defense forces.
How you feel about Martin Bryant personally is not an issue. Like him or not, Bryant is currently being held aloft by politicians and lobbies as a psyop 'flag' proving the legitimacy of their legislation, which undermined Australian national security.
Proving Bryant innocent will remove that flag completely, and with it the justification for introducing the illegal legislation in the first place. Critically, at the same time it will prove by default that Australia was attacked by an armed external interest group, opening the way to repeal the legislation on the legitimate grounds that Australia needs more rather than less defensive weapons in the community to withstand future attacks on our nation and people. The Swiss defense model is an excellent example of what all sporting shooters should strive to achieve.
Before that, an independent investigation must be carried out in Tasmania to prepare the legal bullets for the lawyers to fire at the Federal Government in Canberra. If you want to win, those bullets are going to have to be solid silver and obtaining them will be expensive. Investigating matters that government does not want investigated can be extremely difficult and expensive as I found out with Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London. In the end the cost of that investigation alone ran to many hundred thousand dollars, and similar costs can be anticipated if the mass murder at Port Arthur is to be investigated properly.
Somehow or other funds will have to be raised, and though I am a more than adequate investigator I wouldn't have a clue where to start raising finds of this magnitude. Logic suggests that a 200,000 strong demonstration in Sydney or Brisbane where everyone throws two dollars in the pot would be a good place to start but, again, I am no expert. Whoever organized the 120,000 strong demonstration in Melbourne last year is invited to contact me if he has the time; and if any philanthropic multi- millionaires reading this item wish to short-circuit the process by chucking in a few semi-trailer loads of banknotes, that's OK as well.
Finally, I must point out that so far as I have personally funded the investigation work into Port Arthur and have received no payments for the publication of copyright report or from any other source.
This was done willingly, because every Australian has the right to know that government and media alike have conspired to pervert the course of justice in the case of the mass murder of thirty five Australian citizens on Australian sovereign territory, but I cannot justify spending any more of our limited family finds on the matter. Therefore anyone writing to me in future who would like to receive a reply is asked to enclose a post office money order made out to "J. Vialls", sufficient to cover the cost of computer disposables, stationary, and postage.
4. GOVERNMENT COVER-UP AT PORT ARTHUR
Wendy Scurr is a forthright lady with a sound track record of helping others at the "sharp end" of ambulance operations. During her twenty years with the St Johns Ambulance, and ten years with the Tasman Ambulance Service, as a volunteer ambulance officer, Wendy has seen and done just about everything, attending accidents and incidents so gruesome most people would prefer not to be given full details. As one of the first Port Arthur staff members to enter the Broad Arrow Cafe after the massacre, the carnage came as a shock, but Wendy's extensive prior experience enabled her to cope admirably with the injured and the dead.
Wendy Scurr also thinks and reacts like lightning. Within minutes of hearing the shooting start in the Broad Arrow Cafe, she rushed into the nearby information office and placed a call to police headquarters in Hobart. Not amused by the initial police reluctance to believe she was telling the truth, Wendy simply shoved the handset outside the door- way and told them to listen to the shots over the phone. Police logged her call at 1.32 pm, a point of considerable importance later on in this report.
It is obvious that anyone with the ability to react so quickly and pass information so accurately would be a prime asset to the police who swarmed over Port Arthur later in the day. Knowing that Wendy made that first critical telephone call and then entered the Broad Arrow Cafe to help the injured should have drawn the police to her like a magnet, but curiously did not do so. She offered the police additional information about the sequence of events but says her interview was abruptly terminated. On 15th October 1996 Wendy received a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions stating she would not be required to give evidence at the trial of Martin Bryant, though it is hard to imagine anyone better placed to provide an accurate account of events that day.
It was the start of a long frustrating battle to get some of the more controversial aspects of the massacre out into the open, a battle Wendy, Greame, and several others initially lost because of government determination to adhere to the "official line" agreed with the media. That official line included the gunman being inside the Broad Arrow Cafe for 90 seconds rather than the four to five minutes Wendy and her colleagues counted, but excluded the fact that several people were shot dead behind a door that would not open. The official line also excluded the fact that the only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location just before the massacre started, And what about the startling news that out of the 20 fatalities in the Broad Arrow Cafe, 19 died from the effects of a shot to the head, fired from the gunman's hip without the benefit of a laser sight? Excluded of course, because the government would be unable to stop the avalanche of public comment on this impossible performance by an untrained left-handed novice like Martin Bryant.
The only personnel available to stop or interrupt the slaughter were two policemen, one stationed in Nubeena 11 kilometers from the Port Arthur site, and the other at Dunalley, a small town to the north with a swing bridge capable of isolating the Tasman Peninsula from the rest of Tasmania. Shortly before the massacre both policemen were sent to the coal mines near Saltwater River, an isolated location on the extreme western side of the Tasman Peninsula, in response to an anonymous caller reporting a large stash of heroin, On arrival they found only glass jars full of soap powder, and reported this via the police radio net.
A harmless time consuming prank perhaps? No. Reliable sources in Hobart state that this was the only drugs decoy ever attempted on the Tasman Peninsula since police records began, and meaningfully point out that leaving glass jars of fresh soap powder was a very professional touch that backfired. Why would anyone assume the soap powder was heroin and place an emergency call to the police without checking the contents first? And why did the caller insist on anonymity? Greame Scurr makes a valid point that it would be hard to select a more suitable remote location if specifically decoying the two policemen away from the Port Arthur historic site and Dunalley. A single glance at a map of the Tasman Peninsula proves his observation to be absolutely correct.
Within minutes of the two policemen reporting their position at the coal mines, the shooting began in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Wendy Scurr made her call to police headquarters at 1.32 pm, and there was then a short but understandable time lag before the police comprehended the sheer magnitude of the situation at Port Arthur and ordered their Tasman colleagues to proceed to the crime scene.
It is unlikely they left the coal mines before 1.36 pm and were then faced with a 30 minute drive to Port Arthur. By the time the officers arrived the operation was over, and both men were then pinned down by erratic gunfire from Seascape.
There was another sound operational reason for the decoy. Wendy Scurr is familiar with the emergency plan for the area and says that in the event of a major incident, the swing bridge at Dunalley would be closed to traffic, to prevent more vehicles straying onto the Peninsula and causing complications. It is a sensible plan, and the command to operate the swing bridge and isolate the Peninsula would normally first be directed through the police officer at Dunalley. But once the bridge was closed to traffic, it would also prevent anyone from leaving the Peninsula, including those involved in executing the massacre at Port Arthur. However, with the Dunalley policeman pinned down by erratic gunfire at Seascape, the bridge remained open to traffic after the massacre, and several people are known to have left Port Arthur and escaped across that swing bridge before the police could stop them. To this day their identities remain a mystery.
One of the most serious disputes centered on how long the gunman stayed in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Wendy Scurr and several colleagues were the best placed to make an accurate time estimate but they were repeatedly rebuffed. Why? Would it really matter if the gunman was there for four or five minutes rather than 90 seconds?
Well, yes it would if trying to reinforce the absurd "official line" that an intellectually-impaired invalid with a tested IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions was the man on the trigger. People with intellectual disabilities are not known for their tactical skills, tending instead to move from one task to the next in an unbroken sequence, Only a professional would wait until the coast was clear before leaving the Cafe.
About the last thing that any professional would do is risk being tripped over outside the Broad Arrow Cafe by a large crowd of nervous tourists blocking his escape route. We know that the gunman was traveling light with only two 30-round magazines for the Cold AR15. He had already fired 29 rounds in the Broad Arrow Cafe, leaving only 31, far too few rounds to reliably carve a path through a large undisciplined mob of unpredictable panic-stricken tourists. A professional gunman would also calculate that if he left the cage too soon, he might accidentally be filmed by one of the many amateur video cameras in use at Port Arthur that day.
The risks were too high and so the gunman waited for the right moment to leave the cafe, with the Tasmanian Government and media later helping to cover up this embarrassing time lag by repeatedly ignoring Wendy Scurr and her colleagues, and by deciding they were not required to appear in the Supreme Court as witnesses.
Was Wendy Scurr taking a wild stab in the dark with her time estimate? No she was not. Everything at Port Arthur ran like clockwork, especially the guided tours. The staff were punctual to the point of obsession and never left the assembly point outside the information office and cafe after the precise departure time.
When the shooting started there were about 70 tourists still waiting for their tour, which made the time 1.29 pm at the latest.
Wendy's call to the police was logged three minutes later at 1.32 pm. Then she went outside to look for cover in the bush behind the buildings, This took at least another minute, giving a minimum total elapsed time of four minutes and more likely five. As several other colleagues present on the day also attest, the elapsed time was much longer than the "official" 90 seconds.
It was not until most of the milling tourists had dispersed from the area that the gunman emerged from the cafe, firing snap shots to keep the few remaining tourist's heads (and video cameras) down while he ran towards his next targets in the coach part. The gunman's professional tactics worked exactly as intended, and the only amateur video claiming to show "Bryant" at Port Arthur that day, has been scientifically proven a deliberate forgery.
Similar vague photos and video convicted an innocent man
Unfortunately, Wendy and her colleagues' determined stance did not sit well with the official line being promoted by the Tasmanian Government and media, and steps were taken to include the matter in: "An Inquiry by the Director of Public Prosecutions into The Door at the Broad Arrow Cafe and Related Matters." Where the critical elapsed time is concerned the DPP addresses the time the gunman was in the cafe shooting (based on amateur video audio), but does not address the possibility that the gunman may have lingered for other reasons. Though part of Wendy's claims in particular are included verbatim in the body of the report, she is not mentioned by name, although other witnesses favouring the official line are. No doubt such a pointed omission is quite legal, but nonetheless seems most discourteous.
The locked door behind which many people died is the main topic of the report, which fails to reach any convincing conclusions due to an over whelming mass of conflicting data. On the balance of probability it seems likely the door failed to open because it was in poor condition, but unfortunately no-one can prove in absolute scientific terms that the door was not deliberately tampered with on the day of the massacre. The expert locksmith employed by the Inquiry to examine the door lock was unable to do so with the lock correctly in place, because someone unfortunately ordered the partial demolition of the Broad Arrow Cafe, including removal of the suspect door, before the Inquiry commenced.
There is one ambiguity in the report where the DPP states: "I was briefed by the police about the status of the doorway on the afternoon of the 28th April 1996 and informed that the door was locked for security purposes against petty theft." This sentence either means that the DPP was briefed by the police during the afternoon of the massacre itself, or that the DPP received a briefing at a later date referring to events on the 26th April. In an attempt to exclude the possibility of direct political contact with the police on the afternoon of the massacre, I called the office of the DPP at 11.05 am on 13th November 1997 and asked for clarification of this single point. His staff said the DPP was out to lunch, repeated my telephone number back to me, and promised to pass my request to him when he got back. For whatever reason, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not return my call.
A copy of his report was forwarded to Wendy and Greame Scurr with a covering letter including the request: "It would be appreciated if you would treat the report as confidential." Why? The Inquiry was conducted in order to clarify matters for anyone concerned about events at Port Arthur. Much the same thing happened to the court transcripts of Bryant's pre-sentencing hearing in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, which are extremely hard to obtain.
Despite Federal Members assuring their constituents that the information is freely available in Hobart, that is not the case. New South Wales farmer David Barton wrote to the Tasmanian Supreme Court asking for a copy of the transcripts, and was told in part:- "The information provided to you by Mr Truss [A Federal MP] is not correct....a transcript may only be provided to a person who, not being a party, has 'sufficient interest'. Should you wish to correspond further I ask you to explain to me why you contend you have 'sufficient interest'...."
This is not encouraging for those who wish to know what happened at Bryant's pre-sentencing hearing in November 1996. The events at Port Arthur had a run-on affect on the injured, on the relatives of the dead, and on hundreds of thousands of sporting shooters, most of whom would much prefer full disclosure.
As a direct result of this excessive secrecy there are very few Australians aware of the awesome performance demonstrated by the gunman in the Broad Arrow Cafe, with the normal excuse being the politically-correct line that disclosing full details would lead to more distress on the part of the relatives of the dead. Unfortunately, this is also an extremely effective way of silencing dissent on the part of those who might take a very different view of events in the Broad Arrow Cafe. All Australians have the right to know what happened that day, and a brief summery follows, It is a very unpleasant matter and those readers with a weak stomach or a nervous disposition are advised not to read beyond this point.
The gunman rose from his chair at one of the tables in the Broad Arrow Cafe, removed the AR15 and spare magazine from a sports bag, immediately killing Mr Yee Ng with a shot to the upper neck, and Miss Chung with a shot to the head. Swivelling on the spot and firing from the right hip, the gunman fired at Mr Sargent who was wounded in the head, then killed Miss Scott with a shot to the head. The gunman continues through the Broad Arrow, next killing Mr Nightingale with a shot to the upper neck and Mr Bennet with a shot to the upper neck, with the latter bullet passing straight through and hitting Mr Ray Sharpe in the head with fatal results. Next Mr Kevin Sharpe was killed by a shot to the head and was also hit in the arm, with shrapnel and bone fragments from the second intermediate strike on Mr Kevin Sharpe then apparently wounding Mr Broome, and possibly Mr and Mrs Fidler.
Still firing from the hip the gunman swivelled and killed Mr Mills and Mr Kistan with single shots to the head, with shrapnel and skull fragments from those shots apparently wounding Mrs Walker, Mrs Law, and Mrs Barker. Again the gunman turned, shooting and wounding Mr Colyer in the neck, before swiveling and killing Mr Howard with a shot to the head. Next he shot Mrs Howard in the neck and head with fatal effect. The gunman turned back, killing Miss Loughton in the back. Moving towards the rear of the building the gunman shot Mr Elliot in the head, causing serious injuries.
The above sequence is the best the forensic scientists could deduce from the crime scene and there may be small variations, but in the final analysis they matter little, What does matter is that at this precise juncture the gunman had killed twelve victims and wounded a further ten in 15 seconds flat, using only 17 rounds fired from the right hip. Such a staggering performance is on a par with the best combat shooters in the world, and two retired counter-terrorist marksmen ruefully admitted they would be hard pressed to equal such awesome speed and accuracy. Both agreed that attributing such a performance to an intellectually-impaired invalid with an IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions, amounts to nothing less than certifiable insanity on the part of Bryant's accusers. In military terms a fatal shot to the upper neck counts as a head shot, so for all practical purposes those who died during the first 15 seconds were killed by head shots fired with lethal accuracy from the gunman's hip.
Next the very professional gunman moved towards the area of the souvenir shop and killed Nicole Burgess with a shot to the head, then shot Mrs Elizabeth Howard through the chest and arm with fatal consequences. Swiveling around, the gunman killed Mr Lever with a shot to the head, and killed Mrs Neander with another shot to the head, Temporarily distracted, he fired back into the cafe area and wounded Mr Crosswell. Turning again he shot Mr Winter twice, killing him with a shot to the head. On his way back to the souvenir area the gunman wounded Mr Olson, then proceeded to the kill-zone near the locked door where he killed Mr Jary, Pauline masters, and Mr Nash, all of them with single shots to the head.
At this stage the gunman had killed twenty and wounded another twelve with a total of 29 rounds. He then stopped firing and changed magazines in a most professional way. The magazine fitted to the AR15 held 30 rounds total, so by changing magazines after firing only 29 shots the gunman ensured that he still had a live round in the breech in case anyone moved, enabling him to kill that person instantly if caught unawares. Such professionalism is well kown to counter-terrorist personnel. Critically, the gunman then waited motionless in the Broad Arrow Cafe with a fully loaded magazine, which brings us back to the differential between the verified time estimate of four to five minutes, and the inaccurate official claim of 90 seconds.
It is easy to see why government and media continued to rebut Wendy Scurr and her colleagues' insistent claims about the elapsed time and the door that refused to open. Either or both had the potential to open a Pandora's Box with catastrophic results, for there was no way the Tasmanian Government could openly and honestly investigate these matters without running the risk of "accidentally" proving that its villain of choice, Martin Bryant, was innocent of all charges. In addition, the drugs decoy and the stunning accuracy of the gunman in the Broad Arrow Cafe had to be swept under the carpet, before informed members of the public had the chance to realise the "lone nut" massacre was in reality a highly planned paramilitary operation with geopolitical motives, designed from the outset to undermine Australian national security.
Typical vague images that convicted an innocent man.
In the view of this author, and others, the 5,56-mm Colt AR15 was deliberately selected for three specific reasons, one of which was its known ability to inflict horrific and highly visual injuries at close range, caused by its low-mass bullets travelling at extreme velocity. The nature of those wounds caused revulsion among police, emergency service workers and medical staff, thereby assisting the immediate drive by anti-gun lobbyists to have all semi-automatic weapons outlawed. As the leader of the National Embalming Team wrote: "Approximately 90% of all deceased persons had severe head trauma. The bullet wound was normally inflicted to the head with the resultant smaller entry wound and larger exit wound. Some of the deceased persons had an entry wound with no exit wound, the result of this was an explosion of the skull....." Despite her thirty years of ambulance experience, Wendy Scurr still remembers being shocked when she accidentally trod on shattered skull fragments, before being confronted with a human brain lying in a bowl of chips.
In the medium to long term the lobbyists and international power brokers will be unable to sustain their claim that Martrin Bryant was the villain, because there is simply too much hard evidence proving the "official line" to be a criminal scam. Some American video evidence submitted to the Supreme Court has already been scientifically proven a forgery; deliberately submitted to the court in order to secure the conviction of Martin Bryant on all counts, in the event that he continued to plead "Not Guilty". Due to the seriousness of this offence, copies of the scientific proof have been sent by registered mail to departments which should take active steps to have the material reviewed and struck out of evidence, and then urgently implement strategies to ensure the future integrity of Australian national security.
If steps are not taken, more registered mail copies will be sent to more departments, allowing the author to compile a list of those government departments determined not to take steps to protect Australian national security and the lives of Australian citizens, even when provided with absolute scientific proof that they must do so. Details of the scientific proof itself, and a full list of those Government departments which refuse to take adequate steps to secure the future defence of Australia, will be published in full during late 1998.
Anyone willing to help with the expensive printing and registered mail costs, should send a post office money order to me at 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020, made out to "J.Vialls".
All of this is unlikely to worry those lobbyists, public servants, and members of the media who nowadays believe their own propaganda that the police have literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who will step forward in a flash to positively identify Bryant at Port Arthur. Unfortunately for all of the above, Wendy and Greame Scurr have contacted dozens of key witnesses present at Port Arthur on the day. At the time of going to press, neither had managed to find a single witness prepared to state that he or she could positively identify Martin Bryant either carrying or firing a weapon of any kind at Port Arthur on the 28th April 1996.
Oh dear.... The only video positive identification was forged, and all of those eyewitnesses we were told about failed to positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur after all. How can this be?
Basically by means of the Tasmanian Government sitting on the real evidence, while pumping vast quantities of misinformation to an eager but thoroughly inept media. There is now also convincing hard evidence that the gun control proposals accepted by Police Ministers in May 1996 were prepared before the massacre, by an ideological senior bureaucrat with United Nations connections. As the truth about the massacre and the pre- determined gun controls slowly but surely percolates through the Australian community, the backlash against both coalition and Labor MPs will be savage. The Australian people will not tolerate being deliberately misled by their own elected representatives, especially on a matter of such overwhelming importance to national security.
Detective writer Arthur Conan-Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes series, once wrote: "When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth." We know that it was impossible for intellectually-impaired Martin Bryant to suddenly metamorphosize into the lethal equivalent of a highly trained counter-terrorist marksman, so we also know that Martin Bryant was not responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur.
Though improbable, the truth is that a pre-meditated operation
was launched at Port Arthur with the express intent of murdering sufficient
innocent citizens to set a new world record. The motive should be obvious, at
least to anyone who has recently watched more than $300 million of tax-payers
funds being spent on removing defensive weapons from the hands of Australian
The author is an independent investigator with thirty years
direct experience of international military and oilfield operations.
Footnote: My thanks to Greame Scurr, who used his full power of attorney to relay Wendy's evidence and supporting documents to me. Greame is still striving, as he always has, to achieve justice for the staff at the Port Arthur historic site, now that the fickle media caravan has moved on and forgotten them.
5. POLITICIANS SHIRK RESPONSIBILITY ON PORT ARTHUR
Recently the Federal Member of Wide Bay, Warren Truss, used the letters column of the South Burnett Times to attack my independent investigation into the Port Arthur massacre, which used military science to prove that Martin Bryant was incapable of killing the victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe. In his letter, Mr Truss tried to explain his reasons for refusing to ask questions in the House of Representatives on behalf of his constituents.
So that Truss and other Federal Members can be better informed, and thus able to do their duty to their constituents by asking meaningful questions in the House about the sequence of events at Port Arthur, I am providing these additional critical points:-
On the day of the massacre, the only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location at Saltwater River by an anonymous caller reporting a big stash of heroin. There was no heroin, and four minutes after the two policemen reported their arrival at Saltwater River by radio, the shooting started in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Alas, the drive from Saltwater River to Port Arthur is a minimum of thirty minutes, rendering local armed police assistance impossible in a mass murder that lasted only seventeen minutes from start to finish. Research shows this to be the only drugs decoy ever used on the Tasman Peninsula.
Of the twenty murdered on the Broad Arrow Cafe, nineteen died from the effects of a fatal shot to the head by the Colt AR15, which the shooter fired from his right-hip at an average range of 12 feet without the benefit of a laser sight. Overall, only 29 rounds were used to kill or injure a total of 32 people. Such accuracy and speed is appropriate to the top 1% of expert counter-terrorist marksmen, but is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually-impaired registered invalid. Alas, Martin Bryant always fired his Webley Osprey air rifle from the left shoulder, because he is and has always been a left handed shooter.