Author Topic: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.  (Read 7220 times)

Offline kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,336
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« on: September 05, 2010, 07:13:19 am »
I would love to hear AJ's thoughts on this & how he believes it went off.Unlike other false flag's there is an innocent intellectual disable man,sitting in jail rotting away,in solitary confinement with a Sith lord as his over-watcher.He is not alout to see anyone,they have told his mother that he doesn't want to see anyone,which everyone knows is untrue.The satanists within the Government thought he would be killed in the psyh op but he didn't.I am disgusted in Australians for not giving a turd about this man.Please,please AJ if you ever have the chance,look into this,there are some very credible people you could have on your show,who know alot about this false flag & witness's.

This false flag like others is surrounded in dis-info so read all information critically.



1     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 20 such specialists in the western world.
2    There was lack of forensic evidence at Port Arthur. There were no tests to matched Martin Bryant's guns and no fingerprint comparisons from the Broad Arrow Cafe.
3    Both the guns Martin Bryant supposedly used were damaged to the point where forensic tests to match cartridges to guns weren't possible. The damage to the guns could have occurred in either of two ways.

(1) A cartridge blowing up in the breach which would mean the user would have a damaged hand which Martin Bryant didn't have.

 (2) Deliberate use of explosives remotely detonated, which is a trick learned by special forces to avoid make positive identification impossible. This must have been done somewhere other than where the guns were found at Seascape because, despite a thorough search of the area, some gun parts were never found.  The guns shown to media were a reconstructed version with missing pieces supplied from police weapons archives, a fact which was never mentioned in the mass media.
4    No legally valid eye witnesses to the massacre. Out of the few survivors of the massacre who were able to identify the shooter, non were called on to identify Martin Bryant as the shooter. It was explained that these people had been put through enough trauma and their evidence would not be required.
5    Martin Bryant was left handed, the shooter was right handed.
6    Police decoyed away from scene just before shooting began on a "first time in history since records began" hoaxed call to pick up some heroin which turned out to be soap power.
7    Descriptions of the shooter didn't match. Eye witnesses to the shooting describe the shooter as being around 20 with golden blonde hair a few inches below his shoulders which was straight, with rat tails and a heavily pock-marked face.
Martin Bryant was 29, had whitish blonde, slightly curly hair which was just above shoulder length and a clear complexion.
8    Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66 (average IQ 90-110), making it hard to believe that he could have planned and executed the massacre with any degree of efficiency.
9    A refrigerated hearse large enough to hold 22 people was bought before the operation which was considered strange. After the massacre it was disposed of.
10    Martin Bryant underwent trial by media, assumed guilty, human rights abused.
11    Is it significant that no Jews nor Freemacs nor Politicians and their relatives 'were amongst the deads'?
12    Faked "first time ever" video showed overcast sky when the actual massacre happened when the sky was clear.

To this day efforts are still being made to prevent anybody getting a photo of Martin Bryant to compare with the video.
13    The very fact that his back was on fire when he exited Seascape Cottage, and the fact that he came out unarmed, and that he said "Don't shoot, I am the hostage", should have received immense scrutiny.
14    ASIO were on the scene too quickly making it look like they had fore knowledge. How soon was ASIO on the scene after the incident? What is meant by 'ASIO screened out some people'?
15    What Hobart logs of departure were falsified? enroute Melbourne CTR logs, Bankstown secondary arrival log falsified?

Various airport departure and arrival logs were falsified which points to a well co-ordinated escape strategy for the actual shooter and his accomplice.  
16    30 year embargo on evidence
   Anyone wishing to pursue the matter beyond this point should read the item "Port Arthur - What Next?" printed alongside Joe Vialls' report.Read with caution i believe there is some disinfo in it.
THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE 10 YEARS ON THE SECRECY CONTINUES
Mon, 11/02/2009 - 21:59 — Arthur Cristian

THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
10 YEARS ON
THE SECRECY CONTINUES

Note: Please use the above link to view all the photos posted with this article:

Just after the Port Arthur massacre in April of 1996 I became disturbed by the way the media was reporting the event and especially confused about the issue of Martin Bryant's photograph being printed before his trial. I always thought that no matter how guilty you thought a person was the law is supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty and I believed it illegal to print a person’s photo before he had been formally identified. The reason is to allow the police complete confidence in relying on witness identification of suspects who could otherwise be influenced by media publicity. That's exactly what happened. They printed Martin Bryant's photo Australia wide causing hatred and bias amongst the Australian public, or at least those who believed the newspaper stories who already had found him guilty.

The incessant ‘in your face’ harassment of victims and their private lives, to me, was sickening and I felt nothing but anger every time I saw another camera being shoved into the face of another distressed victim of the massacre.

It was just too obvious that people’s emotions were being exploited and sacrificed for the absence of reporting issues about what caused the incident and the killer’s motives. It was obvious that the media was not interested in why these people died, they only wanted to cash in on their grief and to sensationalise the events. When the gun laws debate fired up again it was not hard to see why everyone was being stirred up.

I was browsing in a furniture store in Moss Street Springwood, a family business where they built beautiful unique pieces of the best quality furniture. As I admired a magnificent gun cabinet on the floor I remarked to the salesman that he might have trouble selling it if John Howard got his way. We engaged in conversation and he asked me if I was on the net and when I told him I wasn’t he offered to print out some pages for me that he said I might be interested in. That’s where my journey into the mystery surrounding the Port Arthur massacre began. I was so annoyed about what I read that I wrote to Joe Vialls who gave me permission to publish his pages on the net and for almost ten years I have uncovered other investigators and like minded people who have contributed to these pages.

Early this year of 2006, almost ten years on from the Port Arthur massacre, I decided to take a little trip down to Tassy and get some idea of the present atmosphere regarding the events of that fateful day of July 28th 1996 at Port Arthur Tasmania.

For ten years hardly a word in the papers, nothing on the radio and unusual silence on television where doco hounds and current affair programs will dig up stories from just about anywhere to get ratings. For months after the massacre television presenters, like predators, descended on the grieving survivors and the victim's families like vultures with a tirade of emotional and in your face dramatic interviews to wring every last drop of sensationalism from them. Then, when finally they had milked the last "how do you feel?" out of these devastated people and shown every last tear they could squeeze into their news and current affairs programs, they curiously went quiet on the subject for almost ten years.

Most of the public were respectful of the victims privacy and it was many months before people began to ask questions only to be shunned and ridiculed as being insensitive. If you dared STRIPPED OF ALL EVIDENCE to mention anything on the radio talk-back programs you were ridiculed or cut off, implying that you were being inconsiderate and thoughtless. Suggest anything but the official line about the murders and you were dubbed with the badge of crackpot or conspiracy theorist. Usually nothing is sacred on TV current affair programs. They love to dramatise with their often graphic and over-acted portrayals in detail of horrible events, but nothing about the after-effects of the Port Arthur massacre.

Many investigators and people, who have trouble believing the official report on the killings, have aired their concerns on the internet because they just can't get a fair hearing in the usual channels. While ever our media is monopolized by so few owners we are limited to the news that they want us to see read and hear. There is no such thing as free speech in the media. They decide what they will print and air. Even if they ask you a question your answer can be edited in so many different ways that they can make you look like a saint or a fool. They can interview you and concoct any slant on the story they like, editing your responses to make black white and white black. With hardly any opposition they can ignore anything they want and create sensation out of the most mundane events to hide the important issues. Go to my Gun Laws in Australia page: http://iinet/guns.html to see heaps of evidence of this. If it does not suit the few owners of these monopolies to report a story including these investigations, which have uncovered some very serious anomalies in the official Port Arthur story, then it just doesn't get reported or the coverage given does not reflect the importance of the event.

Of course there are supposed to be safeguards in place to ensure our freedom of speech is protected but if they can get away with attempting to pervert the course of justice by identifying Bryant and corrupting any police identification process, such as a line-up, then they can get away with a lot more. Were it not for our underground investigators, writers, editors and, so far, free medium the internet, few people would be aware of the deceit and blatant untruths told by the media and the government to avoid a Coronial Inquiry into these murders.

Roland Browne.jpg - 34620 Bytes

Roland Browne, then co-chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC), who, with astonishing accuracy, predicted the Port Arthur Massacre when he stated, "We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania...unless we get national gun control laws." - (ACA ,with Ray Martin, March 1996)

The Sun Herald reported May 5 1996 that ex-Premier of NSW, Barry Unsworth made this prediction in 1987 - Before Uniform Gun Laws become possible in all States there will have to be a massacre in Tasmania.

Can politicians and people for gun control really see into the future?

Yes, it's true that this dreadful crime has not, to this day, been subjected to a Coronial Inquiry, an inquest, that is by law, essentially held for all suspicious deaths including suicide and some accidental deaths. All deaths by homicide are subjected to the highest scrutiny by a coroner for evidence at any trial. None was done for the Port Arthur victims. Certainly the crime would have warranted an investigation so why didn't these innocent people, murdered at Port Arthur, deserve an inquiry into their deaths as citizens and visitors to Australia?

The official answer was that the government had no wish to inflict further pain on the victim's friends and family by subjecting them to a trial. Furthermore, the authorities decided, before the hearing to convict the alleged killer, that they had their man, who was, supposedly, caught red handed, despite the fact that there is no forensic evidence to place Martin Bryant at the Broad Arrow crime scene. They could save the taxpayers a costly drawn-out trial by just sentencing Martin Bryant so they decided before the hearing that he was guilty on all accounts and a coronial inquiry would be withheld in this case. Never been done before! The most horrific crime in Australian history and no Coronial Inquiry!

a tiny plaque a stripped Broad Arrow.jpg - 49209 Bytes

The pity being that, regardless of the pain of having to relive the events of that day, many victims would have gladly endured a trial to get a conviction of the real killer and not some patsy used to appease the anger of the public. Furthermore a trial could have revealed reasons for the deaths of loved ones which would have given these grieving people some kind of closure. To this day the secrecy continues and no one is any the wiser.

By avoiding a trial the prosecution effectively also avoided the summoning of witnesses who might be required to give evidence and possibly identify the shooter. If a witness who happened to have talked to, been shot by or clearly saw the shooter could not identify Martin Bryant on the stand there was nowhere for the prosecution to go and all hell would break loose all over again. This was a problem since there were witnesses who were eager to testify that Bryant was not the shooter but were never put on the witness list.

The media accepted the official explanation for not having a jury trial and again got everyone feeling very emotional about the victims by poking cameras into their faces to film their private pain, anger and shattered lives - inciting hatred against a man who was not yet found guilty of anything at that time. Their vendetta was incessant to railroad the alleged killer, illegally disregarding the lawful path of justice in order to get quick results.

It is almost beyond belief that, in this day and age, a trial and sentence by media, breaking all the rules of fair play and justice, could brainwash the Australian public into blindly believing the official report and the media's propaganda but it happened.

CLICK HERE FOR MAPS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THE BROAD ARROW CAFE: http://http//members.iinet.net.au/~nedwood/cover-up.html

In the beginning it was not hard to believe that the reporting was accurate. To make sure that Martin Bryant became the most hated man in the country the newspapers went to the trouble of enhancing his photographs to make his eyes look Manson-like crazy. The same original photos show a quite, shy looking, ordinary sort of a man of insignificance.

mediapic.jpg - 31960 Bytes

When I first saw the enhanced photo of Bryant on the cover of The Australian he certainly looked like a crazy man to me. But at the time I wondered how they could be allowed to print his photo before him being formally identified. He was not at large or on the run and when I saw the original untouched photo on the net I began to feel very uncomfortable about the way the media was telling this story, especially the way they hounded the victims to add sensationalism to their sickening over dramatic stories. It was obvious that they were setting us all up for something.

GO HERE TO READ A CONDENSED VERSION OF THE OFFICIAL STORY FROM THE BOOK SUDDENLY ONE SUNDAY: http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/bryant/index_1.html

Guilty or not guilty people just wanted Martin Bryant to "rot in hell" because they read it in the paper and saw it in the news that he was the killer and that was that. I would not be surprised that, if asked, most people at that time couldn't have cared less if he had a trial or not, they just wanted him dead or behind bars for the rest of his life.

The expression "innocent until proven guilty" never applied to Martin Bryant at any time. He was never "the alleged killer" but instead, as every Murdock and Packer medium in the country described him before his hearing, "the killer", "the murderer", "the sadistic slayer of 35 people". Only one day after Bryant was

THIS IS THE MAN.jpg - 35271 Bytes

captured his face was on all the major newspaper front pages in the country in every state under the headings "FACE OF A KILLER" and "THIS IS THE MAN". These accusations were virtually defamation of his character, no matter how guilty he might be, because he was in custody at the time but not found guilty by any court of law.

The television news and current affairs programs blatantly displayed props which were supposedly at the murder scene and items carried by the killer when in actual fact the film was shot in the café either before the massacre or after everything had been cleaned up because the dining room looked as if it was open for business. The weapons they showed us on TV that were supposed to be the murder weapons were in pristine condition. Then we were told that they were destroyed in the Seascape fire but then they later turned up again deliberately damaged and with missing parts, outside the Seascape Inn. One on the roof of a nearby shed and the other in nearby bush, after the Seascape burned down. How the killer managed to dispose of these weapons while exiting the burning building unarmed and on fire himself is hard to explain and never has been. Probably because the real killer had already left the building leaving the patsy to take the rap.

A mediocre lawyer could have done an investigation and come up with a very good case for this man already condemned of perhaps the worst crime in Australian history? It was obvious that he could have afforded the best defence since he was left a small fortune by a benefactor who thought highly of him in the past. But the authorities fixed his wagon there again by another unprecedented move of taking away his earthly possessions. Reason being, to compensate his victims, even before his trial and being found guilty. To this day there is only very vague information as to what happened to the $3.5 million dollars donated by the Australian public coupled with at least another $1.5 million from Bryant's estate. Many people were compensated for the victims funerals (and rightly so), some medical expenses and grief counseling but it was argued that the bulk of the money went to business people in the area who suffered revenue loss due to the bad publicity of the massacre. Many of the families of the dead received little more than $1000.

Being rendered destitute by the authorities who confiscated everything he owned Bryant was appointed a lawyer by the court whose sole mission was to get him to plead guilty. Not an easy task since Martin was adamant that he had never been to Port Arthur on that day. Both the prosecutor and the defendant's lawyer just wanted the whole damn thing over with. There was never any question of a defence, only preparation for a guilty plea.

FAKE VIDEO.jpg - 48331 Bytes

fake video 2.jpg - 66790 Bytes

Now, as described on other pages on this site, Martin Bryant is not very bright. He has an IQ of 66 and the mind of an 11 year old. A major factor in his defence should have been that the Port Arthur shooter far surpassed any ability Martin could ever possess even if he had been trained in combat shooting, which he certainly was not. Another factor would have been the incessant defamation of his character by the media, including the malicious altering of his photographs to incite hatred of him. No DNA was taken from the Broad Arrow Cafe where the killer ate a meal and handled several items left on the table. One would think that with so many people shot he would have sustained some blood splatter on his clothing that could be matched with any one of the victims and would have proved his guilt beyond doubt.

With all of the evidence that could have been collected to incriminate Martin Bryant only this vague video emerged from America at the eleventh hour before the hearing and was claimed to be the killer running from the Broad Arrow Cafe. I don't even know what this is supposed to prove because it's impossible to identify the man anyway. The same man was filmed at the same time from another angle which showed amused onlookers in the background lounging on the veranda of the Broad Arrow where the murders happened just inside the door. It is clear that the DNA evidence would have cleared Martin. So would blood splatter tests on his clothing and not wanting to call witnesses who could not identify Bryant the DPP had to rely on this ridiculous video that proves nothing. The only thing that convicted Martin Bryant was his coerced "guilty" plea.
Bystanders on the cafe veranda watch a man running down the road. This video convicted Martin Bryant

Yet none of this was entered as evidence that Bryant was at the Broad Arrow Cafe. Instead the only evidence submitted to convict Bryant was a very grainy video film, supposedly taken on the day, of a man (impossible to identify), running down the road away from the cafe. However another video taken at the same time and from a different angle filmed the same man (also impossible to identify) running towards the camera operator and showing the Broad Arrow Cafe in the background where at least three people were standing on the veranda, looking very relaxed, leaning on the veranda posts, apparently undaunted by the gunman running down the road or the 20 bodies lying shot to death just inside the door behind them.

from the verandah.jpg - 132175 Bytes

It was from this veranda that people watched the "running man" running down this road away from the Broad Arrow Cafe. This, so called, "running man" has since been identified as one of the staff members carrying blankets for the wounded long after the shooter had left. There was no explanation or motive for the murders. Bryant had no criminal record and he didn't consort with criminals. He didn't smoke or take drugs of any kind or if he had there were no tests done while he was in hospital to prove that he had taken any drugs. He was very polite and didn't swear. He called men sir. In fact, without the media slander he could not be described as anything else but a fairly uninteresting, clean living man with a bit of a mental problem.

One reporter wrote of his cruelty to animals but others told of his love for them. During a police interrogation where detectives questioned him about his expertise with a rifle, he told of how he used home made cardboard targets and cans for practice on the few occasions that he went shooting but he never hunted animals. He wouldn't even shoot bottles for fear animals might injure themselves on the broken glass. Some of the mis-information about what he kept in his house is pure sensationalism and typical of media exaggeration to embellish a story.

Where could Bryant have gained the expertise of a talented combat shooter? The Port Arthur shooter brought attention to himself by displaying an amazing ability for handling a long rifle with incredible accuracy that far surpasses the average shooter. A performance, so far, unmatched by anyone else in the world apparently since I have had my site up for almost ten years now and no one has come forward to say that they know of anyone who can match this killer's unbelievable expertise. His performance displayed a talent that could only have been performed by someone who was top of the class in his field and obviously had more training than popping off cans in the bush on a couple of weekends.

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

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/11/02/port-arthur-massacre-10-years-secrecy-continues

The Tavistock Institute's lone nuts -

As {EIR} has documented (see issue of April 4, 1997), Great Britain is the command center for world terrorism today. This article will demonstrate, through examining the case of Martin Bryant, that the dozens of mass murderers who have exploded into the world's headlines over the last decade or so, constitute a special capability within the Crown's arsenal.

Already in May 1996, after a quick investigation of the Port Arthur massacre, including discussions with Australian police and counter-terror specialists, LaRouche's Australian associates in the Citizens Electoral Council charged in their newspaper, {The New Citizen}, that the incident -

    "... bore all the hallmarks of the blind terror campaigns pioneered by the Tavistock Institute in London, an arm of British intelligence which ... has conducted precisely the kind of experiments necessary to create and manipulate damaged personalities such as Martin Bryant."

The article recounted the evidence already in hand to support that conclusion; it was hysterically denounced by some of Australia's major media, and by the British Broadcasting Corporation, which broadcast the thesis all over Europe, in order to deny it.

Further investigations over the past year, supplemented by files on Tavistock which this news service has compiled since 1973, have established the following:

1.  Co-ordinated by Tavistock

The Port Arthur events were indeed co-ordinated by Tavistock, the premier psychological warfare unit of the British Crown, which was founded in 1920 based upon studies of "shell shock" and related neuroses caused by the trauma of World WarII. Tavistock's strategic mission is to replace a civilization of self-ruling, industrial nation-states with a "post-industrial," globalized world ruled by a tiny oligarchy.

Toward this end, Tavistock specializes in what its own psychiatrists call "brainwashing"--the use of stress-induced fear to artificially create neurotic states of mind, which may be programmed as desired.

For instance, Tavistock offered the anxiety-ridden American youth of the 1960s--hit by the Cuban missile crisis, the assassinations of political leaders, and the TV's incessant bloody images of Vietnam--a retreat from this horrifying reality, into the consolations of rock music, drugs, and sex. Taking the bait, the future leaders of America and other nations regressed into an infantile preoccupation with self; patriotism, and an agapic concern for the "common good," were replaced by a hedonistic obsession with "my body," "my feelings"--a {counter} culture.

More generally, Tavistock's "theory of turbulence" specifies that entire populations may be driven into a similar infantile regression by repeated terrorist shocks, such as the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, the sarin gas subway bombing in Japan, or the dozens of Martin Bryant-style mass murders around the world over the past decade.

It is precisely the "blind" nature of such events that makes them psychologically so devastating, since there seems to be no answer to the question, "Why?," and therefore, apparently there is little or nothing that can be done to prevent them.

2.  Established networks

British intelligence will trigger such terrorist events where it has control over the local media, and psychiatric, police, and intelligence networks.

It has this control in Scotland, where a pedophile well known to police murdered 16 five- and six-year-olds and their teacher, in the town of Dunblane on March 13, 1996;

It has this control in the Commonwealth nation of New Zealand, where five such massacres have taken place since 1990; and

It has this control in Australia, to which numerous of Tavistock's top operatives were deployed right after World War II.

Australia, which has seen a dozen mass murders since the infamous "Hoddle Street massacre" of 1987, has been subjected to particularly intense Tavistockian profiling and manipulation--in part, no doubt, because Australia broke with the British Empire in World War II, and allied with Gen. Douglas MacArthur and America, against Churchill's plans to cede Australia to the Japanese.

As an island-nation, Australia also offered a "controlled environment" for Tavistock's experiments; in turn, the most isolated part of Australia, the island-state of Tasmania, off the continent's southeastern tip, has served as the perfect Tavistock laboratory.

And, Tavistock specifies that, because of the power of the modern mass media, no matter where a terrorist attack takes place, the shock is felt worldwide--it is a "global event."

3.  Programmed in Tasmania

Martin Bryant was monitored, directed, and, in all likelihood, programmed by Tavistock networks in Tasmania, from at least the time that one of Tavistock's senior representatives in Australia, the now 88-year-old Dr. Eric Cunningham Dax, first examined Bryant in 1983-84, and set the parameters for all his future "treatment."

Dax was for decades an associate of Tavistock's longtime leader and World Federation of Mental Health chairman, Dr. John Rawlings Rees. Beginning with his collaboration with Rees in the late 1930s, Dax, by his own account, had specialized in "brainwashing."

To cover its tracks, Tavistock invariably circulates what might be called the "Lee Harvey Oswald theory of mass murder"--that each such incident is the result of a "lone nut," who one day just "went crazy."

Such was the "finding" of Melbourne-based British forensic psychiatrist Dr. Paul Mullen, in his evaluation of Bryant for Bryant's defense attorney, in which Mullen concluded,

    "It would be more satisfactory if one could point to some simple and direct cause of the tragedy at Port Arthur"; unfortunately, Mullen said, one could not.

But, notwithstanding that Bryant was a "lone nut," Mullen confidently predicted to the {Herald Sun} of Feb. 4, 1997, that there would be "more such massacres because of strong evidence of a copycat element," a warning echoed by other Tavistock assets in Australia and abroad.
Curiously, Mullen himself reportedly participated in the investigation of two mass slaughters in New Zealand, before coming to Australia.

The Bryant case provides some guidelines on how to rip up this Tavistock capability, before the next atrocity is unleashed. -


Shock troops of psychiatrists -

In 1944, Bank of England chief Montagu Norman suddenly quit his banking post in order to start a Tavistock spin-off called the National Association for Mental Health. Norman had been at the apex of the international financial oligarchy.

One of his proteges, longtime Australian Reserve Bank head H.C. "Nugget" Coombs, called him the "head of a secret international freemasonry of central bankers." As such, he had supervised the banking arrangements which put Adolf Hitler in power, as {EIR} History Editor Anton Chaitkin has documented.
Norman tapped his Bank of England assistant, Sir Otto Niemeyer, to be the NAMH's treasurer, and Niemeyer's niece Mary Appleby, to be general secretary of the association.

Niemeyer is well known to Australians: He headed the infamous "Niemeyer mission" to Depression-wracked Australia in 1930, to tell Australia to savagely cut its health and welfare spending, in order to pay her British creditors.

The British NAMH soon gave birth to the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH), one of the first of the innumerable, anti-nation-state "non-governmental organizations" spawned by Tavistock. Affiliated with the United Nations, the WFMH was one-worldist from the outset.
To head up the new organization, Norman tapped Brig. Gen. John Rawlings Rees, the head of Tavistock in the 1930s, and then the chief of Britain's World War II Psychological Warfare Directorate.

Rees had commanded 300, mostly Tavistock-trained Army psychiatrists; since then, Tavistock has been almost indistinguishable from the various wings of British Military Intelligence (MI-6, MI-5, SAS, etc.)--a connection perhaps of relevance to the military precision with which Bryant planned and executed his mass slaughter.

At the war's end, in a speech to U.S. Army psychiatrists in 1945, Rees called for the creation of "psychiatric shock troops," who would move out of the military and psychiatric institutions, in order to shape society as a whole:

"If we propose to come out into the open and to attack the social and national problems of our day, then we must have shock troops and these cannot be provided by psychiatry based wholly in institutions. We must have mobile teams of psychiatrists who are free to move around and make contact with the local situation in their particular area.... In every country, groups of psychiatrists linked to each other ... [must begin] to move into the political and governmental field."

The "mission" Rees outlined, was to create a situation "where it is possible for people of every social group to have treatment when they need it, {even when they do not wish it}, without the necessity to invoke the law" (emphasis added).

Tavistock's methods were outlined by Dr. William Sargant in his 1950s book, {The Battle for the Mind: A physiology of conversion and brain-washing.}

A pioneer in the study of "shell shock," Sargant also emphasized the work of Soviet psychologist Pavlov in the 1920s and 1930s, in particular an incident in which a rising flood trapped some of Pavlov's dogs in their cages, while the water rose up to their heads, before receding. Pavlov found that the intense fear the dogs experienced "wiped clean" the tricks they had been taught, following which they could be "reprogrammed."

Further experiments by the SAS/SIS during the 1950s, including in Malaya and Kenya, showed Tavistock that such stress, with resultant "reprogramming" capabilities, could be applied to entire societies.

In a 1961 series of lectures at the University of California Medical School, one of Sargant's closest collaborators, British novelist Aldous Huxley, assessed the notorious MK-Ultra mass drugging and brainwashing experiment which had been under way since the early 1950s. Huxley was the author of the 1952 book, {The Doors of Perception,} which first popularized LSD usage; he had long before fictionalized the results of such experimentation in his novel {Brave New World}. Huxley himself played a key role in MK-Ultra.

With such methods, Huxley now said, in 1961 lectures entitled "Control of the Mind," there will be a "method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorships without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any real desire to rebel--by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.

And this seems to be the final revolution." Another pet project of Huxley's from the 1930s on, was the creation of what he called the "somatotonic personality": one who would not hesitate to murder. The Tavistockians operate with a construct of the human mind as a {tabula rasa} that can be imprinted, or a mechanical system that can be manipulated by such techniques. Since the essence of the human mind is, on the contrary, its inherent creative capability, Tavistockian brainwashing works only if the brainwashers can create a "controlled environment," in which the victim sees only the alternatives presented by his tormentors. -

Tavistock deploys to Australia

In the early 1950s, Rees sent two of his "psychiatric shock troops" to Australia, Dr. Eric Cunningham Dax and Dr. Fred E. Emery.

    Dr. Eric Cunningham Dax

    Dax had written a chapter for Rees's 1949 book, {Modern Practise in Psychological Medicine}, and had trained at the same hospital where Rees had practiced.

    Dax was also a protege of Sargant. Sargant had initiated a brainwashing technique called "deep sleep," in which patients were given massive doses of drugs, to keep them asleep 20 hours or more a day, which increased their susceptibility to "programming."
    Under Sargant's tutelage, Dax performed 1,300 experiments in deep sleep, and rapidly became one of Britain's top practitioners of so-called "physical methods" of psychiatry, which included pre-frontal lobotomies, on which Dax wrote a monograph, and electric shock, which was often administered during "deep sleep."
    The acknowledged problem with "deep sleep," was that up to 2% of the patients subjected to it, died; those who lived were often psychologically destroyed.

    Arriving in Australia In 1952, Dax set up the Mental Hygiene Department of Victoria, which in turn set up Australia's entire mental health care system.

    As Rees said in his introduction to the book he told Dax to write, {Asylum to Community: The Development of The Mental Hygiene Service in Victoria, Australia}: "The Mental Hygiene Service of Victoria, may, indeed, have provided a major training ground in psychiatry and mental health work for all the English-speaking populations of the South-western Pacific region, and this is a matter of very great importance."

    Dr. Fred Emery

    The second Tavistock brainwasher whom Rees dispatched to Melbourne around the same time, and whose work would help shape Dax's own, Dr. Fred Emery, set up shop as Senior Research Officer in the Department of Audio Visual Aids at Melbourne University.

    There, Emery began conducting experiments on schoolchildren, as described in his article "Psychological Effects of the Western' Film," to see how "oedipal patterns" could be induced in schoolchildren--a subject of some relevance to 28-year-old Martin Bryant, and the mysterious deaths of both his father and Martin's own elderly girl friend. By the early 1960s, Emery, together with the chairman of Tavistock's governing council, Dr. Eric Trist, was giving lectures to select audiences at Tavistock on methods to brainwash entire societies.

    In this new age of mass communication, they said, a series of short, universal shocks would destabilize a targeted population, plunging it into a form of "shell shock," a mass neurosis.  If the shocks were repeated over a period of years, a more and more infantile pattern of thinking would develop. Emery elaborated these concepts in his 1967 article in Tavistock's magazine {Human Relations,} entitled, "The Next Thirty Years: Concepts, Methods and Anticipations," and in his 1975 "Futures We Are In." In the latter, he outlined the three stages of this process:

       1.

          People would "lose their moral judgment";
       2.

          Next, "segmentation"--societal disintegration--would begin, in which the individual's focus moves from the nation-state to preoccupation with local community or family; and finally,
       3.

          "Disassociation" would set in, "a world in which fantasy and reality are indistinguishable," in which the individual becomes the societal unit.

    Emery calls this final result "Clockwork Orange," after the Anthony Burgess novel, in which habitual, random violence by gangs of youth is the order of the day, while adults retreat to their television sets and other forms of "virtual reality."

    In 1980, Trist looked back at the last two decades of the assassination of the Kennedys, of Martin Luther King, the Vietnam War, the oil shocks, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc., and announced that the process Tavistock had predicted, had indeed begun, and would now accelerate.

    Meanwhile, in Australia, Dax brought Sargant to Melbourne on Aug. 14, 1962, to lecture on "The Mechanism of Brainwashing and Conversion."

    Another of Sargant's proteges, the Sydney-based psychiatrist Dr. Harry Bailey, was a fanatical practitioner of "deep sleep," and killed a number of patients during experiments at the Chelmsford Private Hospital in the 1960s and 1970s.

    The resulting scandal led to the convening of an investigatory Royal Commission into Deep Sleep, and to Bailey's own suicide in 1985. As reported in the book {Deep Sleep,} by Brian Bromberger and Janet Fyfe-Yeomans, which chronicled Bailey's experiments, Bailey and Sargant "remained in constant contact for almost 30 years, and ... Bailey often spoke of the competition between them to see who could keep their patients in the deepest coma without killing them."

    Dax himself pushed ahead with research on "turbulence," "aggression," and "brainwashing"--all from the Reesian perspective of using psychiatry to shape society as a whole, as exemplified by a speech he gave at the University of Melbourne on July 20, 1964, titled "Some Observations on Psychiatric Research." "It is no more than a few years past," he said, "when psychiatry was solely represented by the mental hospitals, before the child guidance clinics were first begun or the psychiatrists started to move into the outpatient diagnostic centres.... The mental hospitals may be likened to the grandmothers of community psychiatry....

    Within the span of a single generation, psychiatrists have been thrown from the protective, circumscribed and alienating walls of these hospitals into a restless, changing and aggressive community, seething with turbulence, which struggles to adjust to the gathering speed of mechanization and the disrupting forces of a disordered society.

    "Most of us are more experienced in the treatment of individuals than in correcting the pathological behavior of groups, though there may be an increasing tendency to seek our advice in these and related matters. For instance, the frightening implications of forcible indoctrination of individuals on the one level and communities on the other are closely related to our specialty. Yet almost paradoxically we are driven to consider as to whether modifications of such methods of indoctrination can be used in the treatment of some of the psychoses."

    Foreshadowing his work on Martin Bryant, Dax continued: "In many of these fields, the {consideration of aggression is of the greatest importance. There is no more useful subject for research studies at the present time, whether it be in the individual or the group}.

    Here, from the individual, the psychiatrist has much to learn. It may be that the aggression is turned inwards, ultimately resulting in suicide, outwards in homicide, or more specifically in hostility towards the community, in causing death on the road...

    "Moreover many a murderer has the inability to postpone his strong emotional reactivity to thwarting, and this often has an association with a past history of repeated frustration of a variety with which he has been unable to deal.

    Or again, the person who uses a motor car as an extension of his own aggressive body image may be using it in escaping from his anxieties and supposed rejection by the community. Yet it seems that none of these aggressive manifestations would be of the same magnitude were it not for the effect of alcohol. It releases these strains by depressing the inadequate control which spreads its thin veneer over the underlying aggression" (emphasis added).

    Precisely these elements were to arise in the Martin Bryant case. In 1969, Dax left his prestigious, highly influential position in Melbourne to go to the backwater state of Tasmania, an island of some 300,000 people off Australia's southeast coast.

A prominent U.S. psychiatrist who specializes in ritual abuse, and who is intimately familiar with Australian psychiatry over the past three decades, when queried by this news service as to why in the world Dax would move to Tasmania, replied:

    "Tasmania is the Appalachia of Australia. There is a lot of alcoholism, a lot of incest. It is the poorest of all the states, very primitive, with a lot of descendants from very violent criminals from the British days. You will find many people there with no value system, no super-ego.

    "It is the perfect place for Manchurian candidates, and for all sorts of experiments. He could do whatever he wanted there."

Something of great interest must have been taking place in Tasmania, because two of Tavistock's leading international operatives, the Melbourne-based Dr. Alan Stoller, a past president of the World Federation of Mental Health and a close associate of John Rawlings Rees and of Dax, and Dr. John Bowlby, went to Tasmania for extended visits in 1971 and 1972, respectively.

Dax and Bryant -

From early childhood, Martin Bryant was a very disturbed individual, as British psychiatrist Paul Mullen could not help but record in his evaluation for the defense:

    "Mr. Bryant was assessed on a number of occasions by psychologists and psychiatrists.... He was noted to be aggressive, destructive and very difficult with other children.... There are references to him stealing, to him having violent outbursts and to tormenting vulnerable children.... There are records of Mr. Bryant torturing and harassing animals and of tormenting his sister."

Bryant was notorious among his schoolmates for carrying a green can of gasoline, which he constantly threatened to pour on things and set them alight, as he once did so on himself. His schoolmates would frequently remark, "Here comes silly Martin with his can."

Before long, this behavior brought him to the attention of Dax, as Mullen noted: "In February 1984 Mr. Bryant was assessed by a very experienced clinical psychiatrist, Dr. Cunningham-Dax," an evaluation which set the parameters for all further treatment of Bryant.

Contacted by an American academic on April 16, 1997 about his evaluation of Bryant, Dax said, "I left Tasmania in 1983, I think it was, and I had seen him a few times before that, but I had no notes on him, except that I thought that he was below normal intellectually and that his father was very permissive about him. And I wondered about the boy, whether later he might have some schizophrenic features. But that is as far as I went."

Judging by the impact Bryant made on another psychiatrist who examined Bryant soon after, Dax was singularly unobservant. Dr. Ian Sale, psychiatrist for the prosecution, recalled in a discussion on April 16: "When he was about 16 or 17, he was examined by a government doctor for the purpose of a pension assessment. It was to that doctor that he made some reference to having a wish to {shoot people}. She still remembers that to this day" (emphasis added).

Dr. Sale noted that, not only did Dax have "no recall of the assessment," but that, "unfortunately, the clinical notes that were made, were destroyed," ostensibly because Dax "was practicing in the rooms of another psychiatrist. When that psychiatrist died, it was a provision of his will, that his notes be destroyed, apparently, which is remarkable.

And not only were his notes destroyed, but also Dr. Cunningham-Dax's notes were destroyed." The psychiatrist, Dr. T.H.G. Dick, was also British, and had served as Tasmania's medical commissioner beginning in 1969, the year Dax moved to Tasmania. Shortly after, Dax joined Dick on the Medical Advisory Committee to Tasmania's Mental Health Commission. Despite Dax's fascination with aggression, suicide, and murder, Dax claimed he knew very little about Bryant. And, when asked to comment on the relevance of his associate Emery's "theory of turbulence" for the Port Arthur events, Dax replied, guardedly, "I don't think I can answer your question usefully."

Emery himself died in early April 1997, and thus could not answer the question either. But, Dax said, "The person who knows a good deal more about Bryant is in the University of Tasmania, at the hospital there, the Royal Hobart. They did a good deal of study of Bryant at the time. Professor Jones is his name, but the person who knew more about him was the research person, who was particularly interested in Bryant."

Dr. Jones, who is British, and who, until his retirement, headed the two floors of Royal Hobart Hospital which are devoted to psychiatric studies, was unavailable for comment. -

What the police knew -

As well known as Bryant was to Tasmania's Tavistock networks, he was equally well known to the police--despite post-Port Arthur protestations to the contrary--as evidenced in the following:

1.    He had repeatedly threatened to kill some of his neighbors in Tasmania, several of which incidents, at least, had been reported to the police.

2.    On one of his frequent international flights, he had been arrested at Melbourne Airport on suspicion of being a drug courier, in part because he travelled without luggage; he was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital and examined before being released. On another occasion, pornographic videos depicting bestiality were found in his luggage. According to one police source interviewed by this news service, Bryant's police records indicated a profile of a "psychotic multiple killer."

3.    That profile accorded well with what his neighbors thought of him, and not merely because of his frequent threats. There was intense suspicion among them that Bryant had murdered, first, his spinster friend and protector, wealthy heiress Helen Harvey, and then, then months later, his father, Maurice Bryant.

       Eyewitnesses had seen Bryant wrench the steering wheel from Harvey while the two were out driving, and Harvey had told the mayor of Tasman Council, not long before the fatal car crash that killed her and seriously wounded Bryant, "Oh, he's a worry to me sometimes. He grabbed hold of the steering wheel coming down today, and nearly pulled me off the road, going silly. What would you do with him?"

       On Aug. 16, 1993, Maurice Bryant was found, wearing weight belts, dead at the bottom of a dam on the property formerly owned by Harvey, which she had willed to Martin Bryant. Bryant had had numerous arguments with his father, who moved onto the property the same night that Harvey was killed; his son was particularly bitter that his father was getting rid of the menagerie that the younger Bryant and Harvey had collected. After his father had disappeared, {but before his body had been found}, Martin ran into neighbor Marian Larner outside the local hospital.

       As Larner reported to the police shortly thereafter--who never questioned her further--Bryant had accosted her excitedly, grabbing her by the shoulders: "Oh, Marian, it's so exciting. So exciting!" She asked, "What are you talking about, Martin?" "Dad's at the bottom of the dam," he replied. "You'll hear all about it soon. You'll read all about it." And, when the elder Bryant's body was soon after pulled from the dam, "The searchers were amazed to see Martin walking back from the dam, laughing," according to a book about Bryant, {Suddenly One Sunday,} by local journalist Mike Bingham.

       Several days before, another neighbor, John Featherstone, had run into strangers inquiring about a boat which a man named "Martin" had advertised for sale. When asked why he was selling the boat, Martin Bryant had told them that his father had just recently passed away. After recounting the incident to his wife, Featherstone told her, incredulously, "I saw Maurice just this morning!"

4.    But, it was not only local police who noticed Bryant. In early 1994, on one of his trips to the United Kingdom, he checked into a hotel in Hereford, the super-sensitive home of Britain's elite Special Air Services (SAS). Bryant started acting so strangely, that the hotel management notified the police, who notified Interpol, which in turn put in inquiries to the police in Tasmania, who replied that his slate was clean.

The guy had military training -

Beyond all these and other run-ins with the police, which curiously never resulted in anything, still another anomaly is the obvious planning and skill which went into the commission of the mass murder itself--well beyond the capabilities of someone diagnosed as "borderline intellectually disabled," in the lowest 1-2% of Australia's population, and unable to manage his own affairs.

After reading Mullen's psychiatric evaluation, one of Australia's senior counter-terror experts, who had himself investigated the case, observed to this news service on the subject of Bryant ostensibly having learned all he knew about weaponry and tactics from "survival magazines":  

    "If this guy had weapons and survival skills from magazines, then that conflicts with his learning difficulties--how could he understand the books in the first place? Any decent lawyer would have a field day with this report. They could pick it to pieces. For a start, Bryant worked out the military aspects of the shooting. Most soldiers couldn't do that on their own, but Bryant did. What's more, he outsmarted the police by doubling back to the Seascape--that's not a low IQ.

    "Then, look at the planning of the assault, the equipment required, the weapons stash, the most effective weapons to use, how much ammunition to take with him, how to use the weaponry, planning an escape route, creating havoc in multiple areas to keep the authorities guessing, and so on. Now, how could he have learned all that from books, with such a low IQ and poor reading skills? This guy had military training."

Tasmanian Deputy Commissioner Lupo Prins, who directed the overall police operation at Port Arthur on April 28, 1996, observed drily to {The New Citizen} in mid-April 1997, that Bryant had "set up six different areas of activity--he had police running in circles. That's pretty good for a guy who's a slow learner."

Prins also told the {Courier Mail} on April 28, 1997, that he believes Bryant "was playing out some pre-arranged script. What that script was, we don't know," because even though Bryant, unlike most mass murderers, did not commit suicide and was not killed, and thus "is able to tell the story ..., he hasn't. It's really frustrating."

That Bryant's actions, and even his very words, had been choreographed, was also the assessment of the man who dealt most closely with him, Sgt. Terry McCarthy, the police negotiator during the siege at Seascape. McCarthy recalled with some amazement how very calm Bryant, who was then calling himself "Jamie," was throughout the siege.

Author Mike Bingham interviewed McCarthy and summarized his observations in his book: McCarthy had "found that parts of his [Bryant's] conversation seemed prepared in advance, and it had become clear that some of what Bryant had done was extremely well planned."

And, as Bingham further recorded, in the observations of Broad Arrow kitchen supervisor Brigid Cook about Bryant: "The care that he took of himself struck her. He appeared to be having a fine time, a very exciting time, but he made sure there was no way he could be snuck up on." And, where did the well-trained Bryant get his military-style weapons?

In an interview with the {Herald Sun} on June 23, 1996, Victorian farmer and gun collector Bill Drysdale said that he had turned his Colt AR 15 in to the Victorian police in February 1993, but he was virtually certain that the AR 15 Bryant used was his, both because of the rarity of that weapon in Australia at the time, and because of the unique mark a gunsmith had made on the barrel of his rifle, which matched that on Bryant's rifle.

The serial numbers were almost identical, and "my rifle also had a collapsible stock and a Colt sight, just as the massacre weapon has," said Drysdale.

The {Herald Sun} noted, "One of Australia's largest firearms importers told the {Sunday Herald Sun} that firearms matching the Port Arthur weapon were as scarce as hen's teeth,' and that the chances of two weapons of the same type, with almost-matching serial numbers, being imported into Australia, were next to nothing.'|"

After an interview with police, Drysdale was ordered by them not to talk to reporters any further.

Why did the Tasmanian police repeatedly overlook Bryant's activities?

The chief police official for Tasmania until his recent retirement was Commissioner of Police John Johnson, who was also the head of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Johnson commanded the police team which carried out a 15-week investigation of the Port Arthur events, and somehow managed to miss all of the anomalies recorded above.

Who is Johnson?

Among other things, he was the first prominent Australian police official to call for the legalization of drugs, which he did in 1995. As a series of articles in the {The New Citizen} in 1996 demonstrated, those pushing the decriminalization of drugs in Australia--whose major funder is George Soros--are precisely those London-linked financial circles who are already benefitting from drug-money laundering.

Right after the Port Arthur investigation, Johnson retired, and has seemingly disappeared. Said a police source to {The New Citizen}, "You can't find him, because he doesn't intend to be found."

There are still other anomalies in the case, beyond Bryant's contacts with psychiatric networks and with the police.

    Despite official pledges to "get to the bottom of the case, so such a tragedy would never happen again," all evidence about the case, including the psychiatric evaluations of Bryant, was ordered sealed by the judge.

    In addition, an expose which had been produced by the TV show "Four Corners," on the Tasmanian Mental Health Department--which had had extensive contact with Bryant from the time he was a child--was suddenly cancelled, just before it was to air.

Then, several weeks after the Port Arthur massacre, 23-year-old Dion Garry Yost went on a shooting rampage in the Northern Territory town of Palmerston, in which he wounded one civilian and four police officers. Yost had attended, several years after Bryant had, the same Tasmanian high school! According to psychiatrists, Bryant modeled his murders, at least in part, on that of Thomas Hamilton's March 13, 1996 slaughter in Dunblane, Scotland, an act that horrified the world. Bryant's neighbors even said that he was in the U.K., on one of his many trips there, when Dunblane took place.

There, too, the "lone nut" Hamilton, a pedophile well known to police, had nonetheless been allowed to organize "Scouting clubs" all over Scotland. -

The Monarch Project -

The Tavistock-sponsored form of "blind terror" of which Bryant is an example, has the great advantage to its authors, that its programmed zombies almost invariably kill themselves, or are killed during the course of the events, leaving little or no evidence.

    "One of the essential elements ... is they are looking to kill and be killed," as Mullen put it. Bryant stated that he was sure he would be killed; though he has not yet killed himself in prison--despite two attempts--prison authorities have publicly stated that they expect a fellow inmate to kill him.

Was Bryant programmed?

Perhaps hard-core programming was not necessary; given his psychological make-up, it may have been sufficient just to "steer" him. But, he did show signs of one known form of Tavistock brainwashing in which individuals can be programmed to kill, and then to kill themselves, as a "sub-routine" of Tavistock's MK-Ultra known as the Monarch Project. The best documentation on Monarch, although still sketchy, is provided in the second edition of former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp's book, {The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism and Murder in Nebraska}.

One of DeCamp's clients, child-abuse victim Paul Bonacci, was a Monarch trainee, and has described in detail (not all of which DeCamp records in his book) some of the processes involved. These are much more sophisticated than the average psychiatrist is equipped either to recognize, or to treat.

Monarch, or related conditioning, leaves certain tell-tale signs in its victims:

    1) Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD);
    2) bizarre sexual behavior; and, frequently,
    3) involvement in Satanic cult activity.
<
ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!


Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,477
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2010, 08:48:50 am »

In December 1988 New South Wales Premier, Barry Unsworth stated the following at a Special Premier's meeting called in Hobart, where National Firearms Laws were the agenda.

"there will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania."

This was in 1988!

The incident that sparked the Special Premier's meeting was the

Australia Post building in Queen Street on the 8th December 1987

The shooter was Frank Vitkovic

...In the report on Frank Vitkovic, it states that this person, who supposedly had a long-standing fascination with firearms, obtained a M1 carbine .30 calibre semi-automatic military styled firearm with a sawn off barrel and shortened stock. Mind you these alterations were made so that the weapon could fit into the bag which was used to carry the weapon to the scene of the massacre, and completely destroys the statement that Vitkovic had a fascination with firearms, as any student of weaponry would know that by cutting off the end of the barrel removed the gas pressure that caused the weapon to automatically reload. This meant that to create the massacre, Vitkovic had to manually reload the rifle after each shot. Moreover this created the possibility for the weapon to jam, should the reloading action become jerky, which is exactly what happened with this particular incident, and enabled two men to actually take hold of Vitkovic before he apparently broke loose and jumped through a plate glass window and fell to his death eleven floors below.

But what is extremely interesting is that two persons who, by sheer coincidence happened to view the massacre from the building directly opposite. The then State Attorney General, Jim Kennan and the Police Minister Race Matthews. These two Labour Party Politicians were part of the push in Victoria to introduce their tough new firearm laws, and it is by sheer coincidence that they just happened to be in the building where Jim Kennan's extremely secure offices were located on the 20/23rd floors. However at the time of viewing this incident, I am reliably informed that they were at a typing pool located on the 12th floor, with the massacre taking place in the building directly opposite on the eleventh floor.

Another interesting bit of trivia given to us by this report is that during his killing spree, Frank Vitkovic was heard making some rather startling comments including, "How do they expect me to kill people with this gun?" Just exactly what did Vitkovic mean by that statement and who are 'they'?...

...It was very shortly after this massacre that a Special Premier's meeting was called in Hobart, where National Firearms Laws were the agenda, but the plan was defeated due to Tasmania and South Australia not accepting the federal incursion into the States constitutional powers. This was when Premier Barry Unsworth made his now famous quote of "there will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania."

Please remember that in cases where the Constitutions are involved each and every State must accept the amendments. If any State declines, then the Federal Constitutional amendment cannot continue...

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/conspiracy/parthur2.html

...However as Australia was a ‘Commonwealth’ of States, the Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke didn’t have the power to bring in the required legislation, and a special meeting of the various State premiers failed to adopt Bob Hawke’s proposal for the State premiers to cede their power in regard to firearm laws to the Federal government. That was when the New South Wales Premier, Barry Unsworth spat the dummy and stated, “There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania.”...
http://vyzygoth.com/Chicken%20Little.pdf


Dr. Behind Port Arthur (Aust.) Gun Control Now In Maryland
...But a point to remember, while Rebecca Peters was "down-under", 6 shooting massacres occurred in Australia and New Zealand resulting in 76 deaths and 53 wounded people. In "gun control" here, Peters was no doubt - numero uno. Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres have ceased! None in the last six years. And private firearms still abound...
http://100777.com/node/185


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,477
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2010, 05:59:51 am »

Port Arthur Massacre - A Speech by Mr Andrew MacGregor

Thank you all for coming here tonight to listen to me. It has been 6
years since Wendy Scurr and I last spoke here on the Port Arthur massacre,
and since then a lot of evidence has turned up that totally disputes
everything the media and our governments have stated. It is though my
belief that we may have some people here who are not aware of what Wendy
and I stated last time, so I shall start from the beginning. That's
always a good place to start.

For Martin Bryant to have acted in the manner described by our media and
the government in murdering 35 people at Port Arthur on the 28th April
1996, there would have been a massive built up of anger and frustration.
The Tasmania Police Negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy referred to this
expectation, but noted that it was entirely absent from Martin Bryant,
when Sgt McCarthy was speaking to him during the Siege at Seascape
Cottage. Sgt McCarthy made another observation of Martin Bryant.
McCarthy stated it was as though he (Martin Bryant) was speaking from a
script.

Martin Bryant was speaking from a script. This is what the expert, Sgt
Terry McCarthy has stated emphatically, and for his comments and actions
in trying to bring out the truth, McCarthy lost his job
.


Martin Bryant's girlfriend, Petra Willmott gave us another clue. Petra
made two vital statements, (1) that Martin wouldn't hurt a fly, and (2)
that Martin was always looking for action. Martin once drove past a motor
car accident, and drove around it a couple of times to check it out. Now
what Petra was not aware of was the fact that Martin Bryant was not
licensed to drive a motor car. If we compare this story with that of
Angelo Kessarios from the Midway Newsagency, who knew Martin Bryant when
he resided at Copping, and that Bryant used to drive in the early morning,
that is prior to 6.00 am to avoid police, but just prior to the Port
Arthur massacre, Bryant had lost his fear of being caught by the police.
I wonder if this change of behaviour had anything to do with Bryant's
friendship with the Tasmania Police's only full-time SOG member, Sgt
Michael Charles Dyson.

On Sunday the 28th April 1996, Martin Bryant's journey from New Town to
Seascape Cottage was remembered by various witnesses, as though to
document this particular trip.

Angelo Kessarios from the Midway Newsagency, Spiros Diamantis from the
Sorell Supermarket, a small store, not a giant Coles or Safeway. Then
there was Gary King from the Shell Service Station at Forcett, who served
Bryant with some coffee between 11 am and midday and Bryant sat in his car
and drank that coffee for about 8 to 10 minutes. Now please notice that
in each of these incidents where Martin Bryant has been identified, Bryant
has actually broken his journey to Seascape Cottage, entered a business
premises and has acted in a manner that caused the witness to remember
him. Then there was Christopher Hammond at Taranna, where Martin Bryant
bought some petrol for the Volvo. Please note here that the petrol did
not go into any container, and again the broken journey.

Then there was the witness not called for by the DPP, but who saw Martin
Bryant driving the Volvo at Eaglehawk Neck at 11.30 am. And finally we
have Jai Nichols who was hitch-hiking from Port Arthur to Hobart, and saw
the Volvo drive past him just after he passed the Fox and Hounds Hotel.
Then at about 12.30pm Jai saw the Volvo pass him heading back towards
Hobart, and he actually saw the Volvo brake, and he thought he had a ride,
but the Volvo turned right into Seascape Cottage.

Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape Cottage at approximately 12.30 pm on
that Sunday.

Witnesses Andrew Simmons and his wife Lynn were outside of their house
opposite Seascape Cottage waiting for a car that was to pick Andrew up for
a work Seminar at Swansea, when they both heard two shot emanating from
Seascape at 10.40 am. At this time Martin Bryant is drinking coffee at
Forcett as per the witness Gary King.


Doug McCutcheon heard a series of rapidly fired shots emanating from
Seascape, possibly 6 - 12 shots between 10.00am and possibly 11.00am.

And these shots heard by three or four witnesses, occurred at least 100
minutes before Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape...


Read more
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/01/06/port-arthur-massacre-speech-mr-andrew-macgregor


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

Offline JT Coyoté

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,628
  • "REMEMBER THE ALAMO!"
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2010, 06:57:48 am »
Brocke, I found this post with my answer, from back when the PrisonPlanetForum was just 9 days old (8/17/07).

Since then Alex has broached the subject of Rod Ansel a few times, but hasn't delved deeply into Port Arthur much at all.

Because of it's age, I have retained the entire article here, as in the original post, with a copyright disclaimer added in red above the article's title.

Hi Alex, New member in Australia here.  
Do you agree that it certainly was a "coincidence" that just when legislature was being pushed for gun control in Australia that this event occur ed allowing the govt to achieve their goal.  there has been a lot of talk of evidence that the shootings were very suspect and that the man considered to be the shooter (Martin Bryant) was set up as a patsy in all this.  I understand that the accuracy he allegedly achieved (having little or no shooting experience) would rival that of those of highly skilled snipers in the military.  Have you studied this event?
Best regards mate.
Michael

Michael ... I don't know if Alex has studied this, but I have.  The Port Arthur shootings did  indeed create the emotional upheaval necessary to produce through the legislature there in Australia the general gun ban of  1996 ... It got the real life Crocodile Dundee... Rodney William Ansell  murdered at the hands of federal police who had come to confiscate his guns, as a result of this law.  It also got several of my good friends firearms businesses raided and closed there.

Within four years of the enactment of this law crime statistics went through the roof.  Here is an article from WorldNetDaily on the subject ... By the way in my opinion Bryant wasn't even the shooter ... He might have the taken shots ... but he did not do all of that shooting, there is no way.

(The reprinting of the WND article that follows is for educational purposes. A link is provided so the reader can visit the original article, which I urge folks to do. This should comply fully with the fair use terms of the WND copyright.)

"Crime up Down Under Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%
Posted: March 3, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

    * Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

    * Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

    * Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

    * In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

    * In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

    * There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.

Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."

And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.

Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."

Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.

Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."

Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"

Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."

Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.

Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.

"By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.

Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.

"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."

Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.

"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.

Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.

"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."

In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.

Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.

The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.

"Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."

Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."

In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.

Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

Jon E. Dougherty is a Missouri-based writer and the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border."

Oldyoti

"If ever time should come, when vain and
aspiring men shall possess the highest seats
in Government, our country will stand in need
of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

~Samuel Adams

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,477
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2010, 08:04:17 am »

Thanks J.T.!

Port Arthur was Australia's 911. It was the "false flag" that started the tyranny ball rolling.

That's a great article about the increased violence. We are now facing a complete knife ban and random body searches on the street. so  as you can see the agenda has accelerated.

As a Gunsmith you might find this interesting.

  • 5.2% of Australian adults (765,000 people) own and use firearms.
  • Australia has only one officially credited Gunsmith that was trained in Australia. His name is John Fox and to become a qualified Australian gunsmith he had to find an already qualified gunsmith to teach him. He found a man trained in Austria and with a lot of bothering the Australian educational system he was able to arrange a one off course that would give him a certificate in Gunsmithing. This was the one and only Gunsmith qualification ever issued in Australia.
  • Semi-automatic rifles are "Category D" firearms and are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters
  • Semi-automatic pistols are "Category H" and can be no larger than .38 or 9mm and cannot hold more than a maximum of 10 rounds. The barrel must be at least 4.72" long


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

Offline kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,336
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2010, 06:49:07 am »

Its actually quite odd,that facebook stuff,because that's what i thought.They seem to be real,i belive.That Satanist who died in Australia also mentions knowing who the people were.Like i have said before its very sad,that this was a massive false flag,and the person who was tricked into playing a very little part if any, is actually still alive and innocent,and noone even in the truth movement here in Australia bothers to notice it,or even mention it.I guess The Elite defiantly  won this one by the looks of it  :(
ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

Offline kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,336
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2010, 07:02:05 am »

Port Arthur Massacre - A Speech by Mr Andrew MacGregor
Sun, 01/06/2008 - 21:45 — Arthur Cristian

Port Arthur Massacre - A Speech by Mr Andrew MacGregor

Thank you all for coming here tonight to listen to me. It has been 6
years since Wendy Scurr and I last spoke here on the Port Arthur massacre,
and since then a lot of evidence has turned up that totally disputes
everything the media and our governments have stated. It is though my
belief that we may have some people here who are not aware of what Wendy
and I stated last time, so I shall start from the beginning. That's
always a good place to start.

For Martin Bryant to have acted in the manner described by our media and
the government in murdering 35 people at Port Arthur on the 28th April
1996, there would have been a massive built up of anger and frustration.
The Tasmania Police Negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy referred to this
expectation, but noted that it was entirely absent from Martin Bryant,
when Sgt McCarthy was speaking to him during the Siege at Seascape
Cottage. Sgt McCarthy made another observation of Martin Bryant.
McCarthy stated it was as though he (Martin Bryant) was speaking from a
script.

Martin Bryant was speaking from a script. This is what the expert, Sgt
Terry McCarthy has stated emphatically, and for his comments and actions
in trying to bring out the truth, McCarthy lost his job.

Martin Bryant's girlfriend, Petra Willmott gave us another clue. Petra
made two vital statements, (1) that Martin wouldn't hurt a fly, and (2)
that Martin was always looking for action. Martin once drove past a motor
car accident, and drove around it a couple of times to check it out. Now
what Petra was not aware of was the fact that Martin Bryant was not
licensed to drive a motor car. If we compare this story with that of
Angelo Kessarios from the Midway Newsagency, who knew Martin Bryant when
he resided at Copping, and that Bryant used to drive in the early morning,
that is prior to 6.00 am to avoid police, but just prior to the Port
Arthur massacre, Bryant had lost his fear of being caught by the police.
I wonder if this change of behaviour had anything to do with Bryant's
friendship with the Tasmania Police's only full-time SOG member, Sgt
Michael Charles Dyson.

On Sunday the 28th April 1996, Martin Bryant's journey from New Town to
Seascape Cottage was remembered by various witnesses, as though to
document this particular trip.

Angelo Kessarios from the Midway Newsagency, Spiros Diamantis from the
Sorell Supermarket, a small store, not a giant Coles or Safeway. Then
there was Gary King from the Shell Service Station at Forcett, who served
Bryant with some coffee between 11 am and midday and Bryant sat in his car
and drank that coffee for about 8 to 10 minutes. Now please notice that
in each of these incidents where Martin Bryant has been identified, Bryant
has actually broken his journey to Seascape Cottage, entered a business
premises and has acted in a manner that caused the witness to remember
him. Then there was Christopher Hammond at Taranna, where Martin Bryant
bought some petrol for the Volvo. Please note here that the petrol did
not go into any container, and again the broken journey.

Then there was the witness not called for by the DPP, but who saw Martin
Bryant driving the Volvo at Eaglehawk Neck at 11.30 am. And finally we
have Jai Nichols who was hitch-hiking from Port Arthur to Hobart, and saw
the Volvo drive past him just after he passed the Fox and Hounds Hotel.
Then at about 12.30pm Jai saw the Volvo pass him heading back towards
Hobart, and he actually saw the Volvo brake, and he thought he had a ride,
but the Volvo turned right into Seascape Cottage.

Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape Cottage at approximately 12.30 pm on
that Sunday.

Witnesses Andrew Simmons and his wife Lynn were outside of their house
opposite Seascape Cottage waiting for a car that was to pick Andrew up for
a work Seminar at Swansea, when they both heard two shot emanating from
Seascape at 10.40 am. At this time Martin Bryant is drinking coffee at
Forcett as per the witness Gary King.

Doug McCutcheon heard a series of rapidly fired shots emanating from
Seascape, possibly 6 - 12 shots between 10.00am and possibly 11.00am.

And these shots heard by three or four witnesses, occurred at least 100
minutes before Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape.

Now the DPP, Mr Damian Bugg QC told the Hobart Supreme Court that the
shots heard by Andrew and Lynn Simmons killed David and Sally Martin. The
fact that Constable Gary Whittle saw Mrs Sally Martin naked, running
around the back yard of Seascape Cottage yelling and screaming, after 2.30
pm, and that the dog was barking, means that Mrs Sally Martin was not shot
at 10.40 am. In fact according to a report by Sgt Gerard Dutton, Mrs
Martin died from multiple fractures to the back of her skull, while David
Martin was shot twice.

David Martin was shot twice, the shots being heard by Andrew and Lynn
Simmons at 10.40 am, when Martin Bryant was 58 kilometres away drinking
coffee at the Shell Service Station at Forcett.

I would like to pass by the actual shooting at Port Arthur and go directly
to the Siege at Seascape Cottage.

After the shootings at Port Arthur and the kidnapping of Glen Pears, the
gunman, and this was not Martin Bryant, drove back to Seascape Cottage,
drove across the highway and parked the Volvo facing oncoming traffic
outside Seascape and then started to shoot-up the oncoming traffic. One
of the first cars that was shot up was driven by a Canadian diplomat Simon
Williams, and both Simon and his wife Susanne Williams received wounds
from the fractured glass, Mrs Williams losing her left little finger. It
has been noted that the Canadian High Commissioner to Australia had
visited the Port Arthur Historic Site in the month prior to the massacre.

Now I wish to emphasise here in no small terms that Canada and Australia
are major players within the UN treatise on Gun Control, and the move to
remove America's 2nd Amendment.

After this shooting spree, the gunman then jumps back into the Volvo, and
drives down to the front of Seascape Cottage, and reverses up to the front
door. Track marks were clearly visible from later overhead photographs
taken of Seascape Cottage, showing the tracks made by the Volvo from that
position at the front door of Seascape Cottage, to the rear of the
cottages on very wet ground, to where the Volvo was parked, and bogged
beside some curly willow trees.

At approximately 2.30pm the first two policemen arrive at Seascape;
Constable Paul Hyland from Nubeena, the local station and Constable Gary
Whittle from Taranna.

Constable Whittle parks the police car at the top of the driveway into
Seascape and thus blocks that venue for any escape attempt. Constable
Hyland drives his car up the road about 200 metres to the high ground and
thus has the best view possible of the area. It is at this stage that
Constable Whittle sees a naked female running about in the back yard of
Seascape Cottage, yelling and screaming, and this can only be Mrs Sally
Martin.

Constable Hyland states that he saw a black-haired person who appeared to
be naked at Seascape. Again, Mrs Sally Martin. Constable Hyland also
states that whilst he was holding this position on the highway above
Seascape; "Two ambulances had driven past me, heading south."

Think about this for a moment. Constable Hyland has been made aware that
he has a mass murderer armed with some very high-powered rifles in
Seascape Cottage, and yet he permits two ambulances to drive past him and
into range of the killer at Seascape Cottage.

We have only one ambulance where the driver stated that he drove past
Seascape Cottage and that was Jim Giffard from Taranna. Jim actually told
Wendy Scurr that he had to slow down to avoid colliding with the two
police cars that were blocking the highway at Seascape.

In other words, when the ambulance went past Seascape Cottage, Constable
Whittle's police car was in the driveway, and Constable Hyland's police
car and another police car were blocking the highway just north of
Seascape Cottage. The other police car belonged to the SOG member, Sgt
Andrew Mark Fogarty, the policeman who set fire to the BMW (so as to
negate it being used as a get-away vehicle, according to a Tasmania Police
CIB member) and to Seascape Cottage on the following morning.

Now what you must remember is that the gunman after shooting all the
people at Port Arthur, kidnapping Glean Pears and shooting his companion
Zoe Hall, and then driving to Seascape where he shot up several passing
cars including the Canadian Diplomat, there is no shooting at this stage.
I guess the gunman was having his smoko. I wonder if Const Hyland was
aware that the gunman was having his smoko?

Another police-car arrives driven by Constable Pat Allen, and Pat Allen
also drives past Seascape Cottage and drops his offsider Perry Caulfield
off at the Fox and Hounds Hotel, and then returns to back-up Constable
Whittle at the driveway of Seascape Cottage, and at this time, the gunman
has finished his smoko and the shooting is back on.

Why was there this break in the shooting????

The gunman at Seascape, or perhaps gunmen, as there were reports of the
gunman shooting from two different buildings, and of shots being fired at
police whilst those police had the gunman in view, but without seeing the
gunman shooting at them. The Tasmania Police alleged that the gunman
fired over 250 shots during the siege at Seascape Cottage.

The Tasmania Police however had strict instructions that they were not to
shoot the gunman.

Deputy Commissioner, later Commissioner Richard McCreadie gave us two
explanations as to why the Tasmania Police were not permitted to defend
themselves and shoot the gunman.

(1) There were very strict rules of engagement

(2) If the police had shot the gunman then that would have required a
Coronial inquiry.

Neither of these explanations stand up to scrutiny. However, in one of
the police negotiator tapes between Sgt Terry McCarthy and Martin Bryant,
we have Bryant talking whilst in another room, somebody fires an SKK
rifle. There were in excess of 20 such shots recorded on the Police
Negotiator tapes whilst Bryant was talking with Sgt McCarthy. In other
words, Martin Bryant is not the gunman.

Who was the gunman at Seascape Cottage?

It was recorded that Martin Bryant's companion inside Seascape Cottage was
called 'Rick'. Police and the media have put forward the idea that 'Rick'
was actually the hostage, Glen Pears, but that is not correct.

After reading the Police negotiator tape transcripts, we realise that
Martin Bryant knows Rick quite well, has met 'Rick's wife', is aware of
the family connections and that the family resides in Lauderdale, and that
Rick is a top member of the Tasmania Police SOG's. It also becomes
obvious that Rick was running the show. Then with other information we
were able to identify Rick as being Mick Dyson, or to use his full name
and title, Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania Police SOG.

The gunman at Seascape Cottage was Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the
Tasmania Police SOG's.

According to police statements Martin Bryant's photograph was circulated
amongst the police SOG's headquarters at about 10.30pm on the Sunday
night. In other words, the Tasmania Police had identified 'Jamie' at
Seascape as Martin Bryant and besides the photograph would have had a
fairly accurate description of him, including his inability with firearms.

With this in mind, when we look at Sup't Bob Fielding's synopsis that the
SOG's would have suffered a 30% casualty rate if they had tried to take
the gunman, as somewhat ludicrous. Of course, after years of training and
preparations for such an event, and the writing of several scenarios
similar to 'Die-Hard' films, perhaps for them it was a possibility, but
for the last seven years of my police experience, the quickest way to end
a siege was to send in a police dog. The SOG however prefer to use
firearms and arson.

At 0600 hours on the Monday morning, the local CFA unit is put on alert as
per instructions from Sup't Bob Fielding, and stationed itself at the Fox
and Hounds Hotel, that is within a kilometre of Seascape Cottage.

At 0747 hours Seascape Cottage is reported to be on fire. In a 'secured'
area, a Channel 9 film crew is on the other side of Long Bay filming the
action. At 0824 hours, Martin Bryant is observed leaving the burning
Seascape Cottage. At 0835 hours Martin Bryant is arrested by members of
the SOG.

It took the Tasmania Police SOG's, 11 minutes to arrest a suspected
terrorist, Martin Bryant who had emerged from a burning building with his
clothes on fire.

Now this is not the record. In the Aramoana Massacre, it took the New
Zealand Police anti-terrorist squad three days to locate and kill the
gunman. In all 34 hours to locate the gunman in his home, force him out
and then put 7 bullets into him, and the gunman David Gray bled to death.
And that episode also starred Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania
Police SOG

At Seascape, one story is that the 'Arrest Team' had to leave their
positions, journey back to the highway, collect their 'anti-ballistic
shields, clamber onto an SOG vehicle driven by Sgt Andrew Mark Fogarty, be
driven down the driveway of Seascape Skirting Const Whittles police car,
dismount from the vehicle, surround the now naked person of Martin Bryant
and then arrest him.

Procedures Sir, they must follow procedures.

I have seen films depicting emergency police actions such as these. The
films were of the Keystone Cops. Australia has spent Millions of dollars
to train our quasi-military police anti-terrorist squads to the highest
levels of competency in combating major violent crime, to the level of the
Keystone Cops.

Now this concludes the parts of the Port Arthur massacre that featured
Martin Bryant. We can prove with the various witness statements that
Martin Bryant was not present at the murder of David Martin. We can
demonstrate that somebody else and we believe that person was Sgt Michael
Charles Dyson who fired at police during the siege of Seascape Cottage,
and who we also believe murdered Mrs Sally Martin by smashing the back of
her skull in with a very angry blow from the butt of his rifle.

The gunman at Port Arthur.

The first sighting of the gunman at Port Arthur was by Gaye Lynd and her
companion Vicki, whose van had broken down just outside Seascape Cottage
due to overheating, and the girls had stopped and were letting the motor
cool down before putting some water into the radiator.

The Volvo sedan complete with surfboard on top pulled up behind their van
and the blonde haired driver got out and asked what was wrong. Now the
blonde-haired driver must have had a nose for it, and must have smelt the
marijuana that Vicki had smoked because he asked if they had any for sale
and the two girls sold him a packet for $50 and he paid for with a $50
note. He also told the girls that he was going to the 'Isle of the Dead'
to kill some wasps. Then when the girl's van wouldn't start, he reached
inside the van to the battery, juggled with the leads, and said here's
your problem, you have a loose lead. The van started and off went the
girls.

This was not Martin Bryant, for three obvious reasons.

(1) Martin Bryant did not partake in drugs, including marijuana.
(2) Martin Bryant knew nothing about the electrical system in motor cars.
(3) Martin Bryant knew nothing about the two busloads of American tourists
that had arrived just prior at the Port Arthur Historic Site.

How did this person know about the two busloads of American tourists?

Why did this person tell the girls he was going to the Isle of the dead to
kill some wasps?

It is interesting to note that neither of these two girls were given the
police Identification board to identify the gunman as Martin Bryant.

The gunman then drives to the tollbooth at the Port Arthur Historic Site,
where he again pays the entrance fee with a $50 note. Again, something
happens and there is a small commotion and Aileen Kingston has cause to
remember the driver, and later identifies the gunman by Martin Bryant's
passport photograph, the passport being found by police in the Volvo's
glovebox.

The gunman parks the Volvo in the bus carpark. There were some
complications here, but the gunman ended up parking the Volvo where he
wished to park. He then went into the information office to collect his
ferry ticket and discovered that the ferry schedule had been altered.

The gunman then went into the Broad Arrow Café, stood in the queue, with
his very heavy 'Prince' sports bag and bulky video camera, bought two
drinks and some sandwiches for lunch, went out on the balcony scoffed down
the lunch, mumbled a lot to himself, tried to chat up Rebecca McKenna,
then still carrying his sports bag and video camera, picked up the tray
with his scraps on, tried to re-enter the café, almost lost the tray, had
the door held open for him, went inside the café, placed the tray on an
empty table, opened up the bag withdrew the AR-15 and started the
massacre.

The shooting has now started in the Broad Arrow Café. I would now like to
go back to what the gunman said to Gaye Lynd and her friend Vicki at the
broken down van outside Seascape Cottage. "I'm going to the Isle of the
dead to kill some wasps." What did the gunman say to Rebecca McKenna?
"There's a lot of wasps around. There's not many Japs."

So now in the Broad Arrow Café, where the shooting has started and once
the patrons realised what was going on they all dived for the only cover
they could find. For most, it was on the floor under their tables, except
for one man, Anthony Nightingale, a loans officer from the Commonwealth
bank at Noble Park. He jumped up and called out to the gunman, "No, no,
not here!!!" Apparently Anthony Nightingale was also aware that the ferry
was to have been the target. For his actions, Anthony Nightingale was
shot in the neck and was killed, and the gunman simply walked around the
café shooting his victims in the head as they lay on the floor.

Another of the victims was a former South African Cape Coloured by the
name of Tony Kistan, who was a devout Christian, and after fleeing South
Africa in 1984 where he was 2IC of the NCA, Nelson Mandela's Communist
Party under the Lithuanian Jew Joe Slovo. After Joe's wife was killed by
a letter bomb, and Nelson had decreed that there would be no Cape
Coloureds in the NCA, Tony Kistan migrated to Sydney where he joined the
Salvation Army. By the way his sister is still a spokeswoman for the
South African Gun Control Lobby.

The third member of this team, which was killed, was Andrew Bruce Mills, a
local who was not a local, but had moved down from Sydney, and resided
with his boyfriend in Mornington, outside of Hobart, and his parent's
resided in Mornington Victoria.

The only American who was wounded inside the Broad Arrow Café was Dennis
Olson, who was with his wife, Mary on their 'honeymoon'. Dennis received
shotgun pellet wounds to the face chest and arm. Dennis told a media
interview held in the Royal Hobart Hospital that when he returned to
America he would be jumping on a soap box to talk about his passion, gun
control.

Thus we have two ASIO operatives killed inside the Broad Arrow Café, and a
South African Communist Party member. And an American anti-gunner wounded.

Now the gunman on completion of the shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café,
reloaded the weapon he was carrying, took his sports bag which contained
his other weapons, the AR10 and the Daewoo shotgun, and left Martin
Bryant's 'Prince' sportsbag and video camera on the table inside the café,
and then left the café, shooting in the air to dispel any nearby persons.
Wendy Scurr was told by Ashley Law that as she and her companions fled
from the Information Centre the gunman fired over their heads.

The gunman then went down to the bus parking area and continued to shoot
at persons within that area, killing another four victims. The gunman
then left the carpark, in the Volvo, driving towards the tollbooth, where
he saw Nanette Mikac with her two young daughters. The gunman stopped the
car and when Nanette Mikac approached the car with her two daughters, he
shot them with the AR15.

Mrs Mikac, who was carrying her three year old daughter, with the six year
old beside her, and had already fled 600 metres, would have believed that
they were being offered assistance, instead they were being lured to their
death. What this means is that they had been deliberately selected as
murder victims. Why deliberately select a mother and two young daughters
out of all the fleeing survivors, why?

Consider this Statement made by CNN's John Raedler based in Sydney. He
attended at Port Arthur along with another CNN employee, Hugh Williams of
Sydney, but based in Berlin and at home at the time on leave.

Johnston's (Superintendent Jack Johnston) explanation of the fate of the
Mikacs was the classic 'win-win' sound bite

This demonstrates that the murder of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters
was evaluated as the most powerful tool to be used in the anti-gun
propaganda by the media.

The gunman then drove the Volvo to the tollbooth where he parked the Volvo
on the grass to the left of the carriageway. Witnesses who had driven up
to the tollbooth totally unaware of what had occurred inside Port Arthur
saw the BMW and the Volvo parked on either side of the tollbooth. They
also saw Mrs Helene Salzmann seated in the front passenger seat of the
Volvo, and Mr Robert Salzmann seated in the rear right passenger seat of
the Volvo. This is not an error. The witnesses saw the Salzmanns seated
not in the BMW but the Volvo. They then saw Robert Salzmann get out of
the rear passenger seat of the Volvo and start arguing with the driver of
the Volvo, an unarmed person with long blonde hair. They then saw the
driver of the Volvo walk around the front of the Volvo, and emerge from
the rear of the Volvo carrying a rifle. This rifle could only have been
collected from the rear left passenger side of the Volvo, right next to
where David Salzmann was seated. They then watched the gunman shoot
Robert Salzmann.

The driver of the BMW, Russell Pollard then left the driver's seat of the
BMW and walked over to the gunman as if to challenge him, and the gunman
then shot Russell Pollard. Mrs Salzmann had by this time got out of the
front passenger seat, and simply stood at the rear left passenger door,
and the gunman walked up to her and shot her, the bullet passing through
her body and then smashing the rear left passenger door window. The
gunman then walked over to the BMW dragged Mrs Rose Nixon out of the BMW
and then shot her.

Now why did the BMW after the people inside this car witness the murder of
Mrs Mikac and her two daughters drive to the tollbooth, and stop at the
entrance to the Port Arthur Historic Site? Why didn't they flee for their
lives as other people had done? Why did the Salzmanns leave the BMW and
get into the Volvo sedan with a known killer? They had seen the gunman
kill the Mikacs, so why did they get into the Volvo?

Could it have been that since they were 'Intelligence' agents, and were
part of the plan that they thought they were invulnerable? Apparently so.

The Port Arthur Massacre as a planned anti-terrorist exercise was a major
cock-up. The original plan called for the killing of American tourists on
the ferry, and then beaching the ferry at Seascape Cottage. They didn't
take into account that the ferry schedule had a fortnight prior changed
from the summer schedule to the winter schedule. This would have left the
Volvo at Port Arthur with all of it's clues intact, such as Martin
Bryant's passport.

But there was also a required 'hostage' to explain the presence of 'Rick'
at Seascape Cottage with Martin Bryant. So how could the gunman steal the
BMW and thus leave the Volvo behind at the tollbooth without murdering the
occupants? He couldn't, and thus they had to die. Did it matter to the
gunman and his controller that these people were part of the
'anti-terrorist' exercise? Not on your Nellie. They were expendable.

Thus whoever it was that ran the Port Arthur Massacre, and to make it easy
for everybody to understand, I shall call them ASIO, though it could have
been any Federal Government Intelligence Body, had a major catastrophe on
their hands. Not only had things not gone according to plan, but they had
now lost 7 of their operatives.

One of the video-tapes released to the media after Martin Bryant's
sentencing hearing showed a person running down to the bus car-park
outside the Broad Arrow Cafe whilst three men were having a chat on the
verandah. Joe Vialls pointed out that this was a fake video because it
supposedly showed Martin Bryant running towards the buses and that
Bryant's head had been super imposed on the running figure.

On a careful examination of this video-tape we were able to identify the
three men on the verandah, once we realised that they were part of the
exercise. The first to be identified was Hans Overbeeke because of his
white Wellington boots he was wearing. The second to be identified was
Constable Justin Noble of the BCI (Bureau of Criminal Intelligence) that
most corrupt Federal Police Body, and the third man puffing away on his
cigarette was identified by 'shooter's news' as Joe Vialls.

This also explains just how Joe Vialls knew that the gunman's pitted face
was caused by smallpox scars. Joe Vialls knew and trained Ben Overbeeke,
for the part of the gunman for the Port Arthur Massacre.

What I have given you all here tonight is just a scant run-down on the
Port Arthur massacre. There are so many facets of this event that I have
not touched upon, the planning and preparation of the massacre, the many
people involved with the massacre from police, bureaucrats, intelligence
operatives, including the professional witnesses, the lies and the media
manipulation.

I hope I have raised the level of awareness, and to demonstrate that
awareness, I hope that you will now ask some questions of me, so that I
can address some of your concerns about the Port Arthur massacre.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary Inverell Forum 2002 - March 8-10
by Lindsay Johnson

Port Arthur Update
Andrew MacGregor & Wendy Scurr

Andrew MacGregor

We would like to thank the Inverell Forum for making all this possible by having us here last year, when Wendy and I launched our campaign into the Port Arthur massacre. Wendy has always been fighting for proper and legal treatment for the survivors of the Port Arthur massacre and the constitutional rights of all Australians with regard to that terrible event which occurred almost six years ago. The role of the constabulary has always been to protect and preserve the people within our community. It not about going out and collecting taxes, speed cameras, or using our military might to overpower the legal rights of people. It is obvious that the Tasmanian police were not permitted to fulfil that obligation to the people of the Tasman peninsular and all investigations into the Massacre have been more that just stifled. After making this report I shall be stepping aside. Wendy will still be going and she has another supporter by the name of Gillian McGuire who is extremely competent in her field and has done a magnificent report on Damien Bugg.

What have Wendy and I accomplished since last Inverell Forum? Not heaps, but some extremely important facts have been clarified. Mrs Julie Butler, who approached us at the Forum last year and pointed out that relatives of Mr Russell Pollard had been informed of his death at Port Arthur by a local policeman at approximately 4.30 pm on the Sunday afternoon. How was it possible for a NSW local policeman to travel for over 30 minutes to be able to inform the relatives of the death, before a Tasmanian policeman was recorded as entering the Port Arthur historic site? From this information we were able to determine that constable Gary Whittle did in fact enter the toll booth area of the Port Arthur site at about 2pm and he was the only policeman in the position to inform police headquarters at Hobart of the names of the deceased and their addresses and normal police procedures than took place. We have been continually informed that there were no police communications between Port Arthur and Seascape and police headquarters and the police command post at Taranna. However Whittles ability to pass on details of the death of Pollard and the fact that Whittle even makes the statement that he communicated with police headquarters after talking with Jim Laycock and Yannis Kateros suggests there were adequate radio communications for the local police. Local SES volunteers had been listening to police communications and had heard orders to members of the constabulary at Seascape that they were not to shoot the gunman and suggested that police communications were in fact operating normally. Final evidence that police communications were operating normally was the fact that at a debrief of the event where police communications between police at Seascape and elsewhere was part of that debrief.

We must not forget Sergeant Fogarty who was driving from Belrief police station to Seascape at an average speed of about 125 Kph and was also issuing instructions to police to man roadblocks and other actions. It was an established fact that mobile phones did not operate in the area. The ambulance communications also had numerous black spots in the area but communications were connectable within certain areas such as the boat jetty at Port Arthur or on the town’s local sports oval. It is logical to suggest that the local police would also have experienced similar difficulties, but again the evidence says they did not. We are aware that the police and other emergency bodies had held exercises within this very area in the past few years and would have been alerted to the communications problems and aware of the solution of putting in a mobile relay station. Superintendent Barry Bennett admits to having been in charge of the Police Special Operations Group prior to his promotion to district commander and was well aware of the communication problems.

Through the Inverell Forum we received a copy of a letter from QLD Police Commissioner’s office in relation to new national firearm laws 6 months prior to the Port Arthur massacre. That gave us positive proof that there was a federal government agenda in relation to the new gun laws and some of the bureaucrats and politicians who were involved such as Darryl Smeaton and Duncan Kerr. Then we found positive proof that Martin Bryant was not alone inside Seascape cottage. There were 20 “coughs” placed in the court transcript and credited to police negotiator Terry McCarthy in his conversation with “Jamie” aka Martin Bryant. The coughs on the tape sounds remarkably similar to an SKK. Trained police negotiators do not cough once when they are talking to people. That could mean another person inside the Seascape cottage fired up to 20 shots while Bryant was talking to police. We were able to ascertain that Mrs Sally Martin was alive in the afternoon during the siege at seascape as she was seen by constable Gary Whittle and it is recorded in his debriefing notes. Constable Paul Hyland also saw a naked person and we safely assume that that person was Mrs Sally Martin. If Mrs Martin was still alive during the Port Arthur massacre then who was minding her?

Wendy and I have also been interviewed by mainstream media, the Channel Nine Sunday programme, in relation to our presentation on Port Arthur. We were not the only people interviewed, but it was the list of people who refused to be interviewed that makes the programme interesting. Senior members of the Tasmanian police initially wanted to voice their side of the story but when the time came were not permitted to do so. Ray Groom was not interested, nor I believe, was Damien Bugg. In fact all the Tasmanian politicians requested, declined to put their side to the media.

Another important aspect of the Massacre was the role that ASIO played. I continually refer to the Protective Security Co-ordination Centre (PSCC). We are aware that ASIO is part of the committee that is called (SACPAV), the Standing Advisory Committee for Prevention Against Violence, and it is controlled by PSCC and so there may be some confusion as to exactly who played what roles within the Port Arthur incident. We do know however that the federal Attorney General’s department has stated categorically that there was ASIO involvement within the Port Arthur massacre. The Attorney General’s Upfront magazine made certain statements, which included that the PSCC was involved in the incident very early dealing with requests and advice for assistance. The Defence Force, ASIO and the NSW Police all provided assistance.

What did we have at Port Arthur? We had the Tasmania police, the Tasmania police Special Operations Group, the Victoria police Special Operations Group (six members), the NSW police Special Operations Group, the Australian federal police Anti-terror Squad, ASIO, PSCC, the Australian defence forces helicopter pilots and the SAS. It was a bloody big exercise and much of that had to have been organised prior to the event. Three army helicopter pilots to fly the rescue helicopters on the Sunday. They were there prior to the event. The SAS van arrived at the oval to guide in the helicopters. This van indicates the preparedness, as they could not just have been in the area at the time.

Mr McLeod of Warwick offered to host a meeting for us but was approached by a retired ASIO operative who stated categorically that the Port Arthur gunman was a former SAS soldier. Corroborating information came to me at Bernie in Tasmania. I was questioned about the name of the person responsible for the shooting and I stated that the name David Everett had been given to us from Queensland. The man then informed me of certain aspects of David Everett that fitted the Port Arthur gunman. The man stated he had just moved back from WA where David Everett was notorious for many crimes and was currently in a secure H M prison. This Everett was 34 years of age at the time of the massacre and yet all the witnesses informed us prior to the arrest of Bryant that the gunman was aged between 18 and 25 years of age, so we know that this Everett is not the man. There are many precedents of security forces setting up sting operations and infiltrating legitimate organizations. We must question all aspiring new members and question all new information given, to ensure it is not false information deliberately given to deflect us.

I have mentioned that SES workers and other people had listened to police communications and then certain police were debriefed after the massacre and part of the debriefing was listening to a taped conversation by uniform police with hand held radio outside Seascape cottage to their controller. Pat Allen had the hand radio. The conversation goes like this, “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight. We have the gunman in sight. Permission to shoot.” “Permission denied.” “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight! Permission to shoot!” “Permission denied. This must happen.”

Wendy Scurr

I would like to thank Andrew McGregor, without whose help the story would never have gotten out. I don’t know if we will ever do any good or not but I am not going to stop trying because there have been too many people hurt through all this.

I was very surprised at the number of people who gave me support and that has led to me touring. I have been right up to Cairns, into South Australia, but not a lot in NSW. I haven’t been to Darwin or Western Australia. The Inverell Forum was what gave us a chance to get the word out. The people here seemed to believe me and I became very calm after that happened. I felt then that someone else cares about it. Andrew and I have now spoken to over 3000 Australians. Since I last spoke I have received a writ for defamation. It is the mortuary contractor and it looks that I am going to have to go to trial.

We have had two of our venues cancelled. The first was at the Victoria hotel in Melbourne but the meeting went ahead because a very kind doctor offered us his medical centre to use. The other venue closed to us was in Tasmania. All this did was to give us more advertising because it was in the Mercury every day talking about conspiracy theorists and right-wingers who support us. We eventually used the town hall, which was an excellent backdrop for the filming by the nine network.

Mr Bugg of the Department of Public Prosecutions referred throughout the sentencing hearing to a certain door as being locked. During his summing up of the case Justice Cox also stated the door was locked. But on page 17 of the DPP’s own report states that on 30th April a carpenter employed by the Authority was required to paint out the windows of the cafe. He along with a police officer, who was inside the building, examined the lock. The police officer operated the handle inside while the carpenter examined the tongue of the door locking mechanism. The tongue moved slightly but would not retract sufficiently to enable the door to open. I also tried to get out of that door when I attempted to get help. The door handle moved but it would not open. It is a well-known fact that this door was malfunctioning prior to the day of the massacre. Mr Bugg’s 52-page report made two key findings. They are (1) the door was not marked as an exit. It should have been because it was the only one. (2) He was not able to determine that any person was not able to escape through the door. (Why wasn’t this door photographed and examined insitu by a locksmith and kept as evidence? If this lock was functioning these poor unfortunate people and many others would have had time to escape. They wouldn’t have just thrown the guns used at Port Arthur into a shed because they were “important” evidence and were treated as such. The same procedure should have applied to that door. To make matters worse the inside handle of the door was accidentally broken off during demolition. Then Mr Bugg whilst writing his report travelled to Port Arthur to retrieve the door and the lock. He was unable to fit the door in his vehicle so the lock was removed. Mr Bugg then returned to the locksmith with the lock, which he had removed, from the door, minus the handle. Because that handle was missing, the locksmith was only able to identify it as a fire exit lock, but without the handle he was unable to determine the model. Where is this handle? Isn’t removing this lock form the door tampering with evidence? To the transcripts that tell us that people did try that door, but Bugg has denied this in his own report.

This is a transcript of a lady who was on a phone hook-up. I have to keep her name private at this stage but she will give evidence to a coronial enquiry. She said, “If the door would have opened it would have been a different scenario. I would have been out of there. I know I would have got out of there. An amount of people would have got through.” When speaking on the telephone to MR Bugg during his investigation into the matter of the door she made comment saying, “We didn’t have a chance. I meant that one man who was shot across the counter didn’t have a chance then, but we actually had to wait towards the end before those at the door were shot. He cut me off straight away and just took down what he wanted to and didn’t give me a chance to say ‘Look had that have opened those people who were right there at that door, who were shot, would have been out.’ So I am angry over that because I was so traumatised in the back of my mind I let it go. The people at the door were still standing there while he went back into the cafe shooting and then when he came back and shoot down towards the door. It was a different scenario then and I am saying if the door had opened then we would have got out, and I would have been out of that door.” This lady was behind a Hessian screen within touching distance of the people who were shot there. Those five people.

I am now going to read you an extract from a witness police statement. This lady lost her husband behind the door. This is exactly as it is in the police statement. “About one thirty pm Peter and I went to the Souvenir shop which is in the same building as the kiosk. We heard some shots. I heard three really quick bangs and we looked around and I say a man with a gun. He was wearing a khaki green jacket or parker type jacket. The gun he was holding was long. He was holding it out in front of him. The bangs kept going off. It didn’t seem like a machine gun because it wasn’t that quick. I only glanced at him quickly just enough to realise it was someone with a gun. Peter then pushed me and said we have got to get out of here. So we ran around to try to find a was out. We went to a small, enclosed area where there was a glass door. We desperately tried the door, but it was locked. Peter said get down. I crouched down on the ground against the glass door. I put my face into my hands and Peter crouched over me. All this time I could still hear the shots. There didn’t seem to be a break. It just kept on going. I stayed crouched until the shots didn’t sound so close. They were still continuing regularly as they were becoming more distant. But from the time when I first saw the man with the gun to when the shots weren’t so close was no more than a few minutes. I waited until the shots were distant and I knew that I wasn’t hit. I heard Peter making funny noises. I checked him and he was hit on the right side of his face. My hair at the back was matted which may have been his blood. I felt the back of his head and it seemed alright. I saw two other people weren’t moving or making any noise so I presumed they were dead. When I looked at Peter who was unconscious and making gurgling noises there was blood coming out of his nose and mouth. I started screaming and someone said something like “Be quite. He might come back”. I sat up and took my jacket off and I put it on my lap then rested Peter’s head on the jacket to try and stop the blood. I felt he was still alive because he was warm and had a pulse. I tried to give him mouth to mouth but that didn’t seem to do any good because of the injury to his cheek and more blood seemed to come out. I stayed there crying with Peter for about twenty minutes. Somebody came and asked me to go outside. I then said that I didn’t want to leave him if there was a chance he might still be alive. Some first aid people went inside and checked him. They came back out and told me he was dead. I was then taken care of and at one stage I was checked by first aid officers and ambulance officers because of the blood on my shirt which I think was Peter’s.”

As Mr Bugg was commissioned by the Joint Parliamentary Group to write a report, the Bugg Report, to investigate the issues relating to the door, has he not misled Parliament by making the comment that he was not able to determine that anyone tried the door?

Why no coronial enquiry? A coronial enquiry is the only way the many anomalies can be answered. A coronial enquiry into the massacre at Port Arthur was initiated at about 3.55 pm on Sunday 28th April 1996, when the coroner Matterson was informed of the matter and that he was required at police headquarters Hobart for a briefing. It was 7.30 pm before it was considered safe for him to enter. The coroner arrived at the site at 8.05 pm. As no person had been apprehended and charged with any offence he advised the police he would take over the area as a coronial site. At about 8.40 am the following morning on the 29th April, Martin Bryant had come out of Seascape. The police expected charges would be laid. He then advised police that his role as coroner on site would become secondary and he ceased to have control of the scene. In a letter dated the 31st January 1997, from the coroner, to a person who had lost his wife, “As a result of the outcome of the charges preferred against Martin Bryant in the Supreme Court of Tasmania I write to advise I do not intend to resume the inquest that I opened on the 29th April 1996. I believe it is not in the interests of family, friends or witnesses to again traverse the factual situation in a public hearing, particularly when any finding I make must not be inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court. I have today written to the Attorney General advising of my decision. May I take this opportunity on behalf of the staff of my office to extend our condolences for your sad loss?

Several talk to me of a Royal Commission. We must not have a Royal Commission in the first instance as the government get to set the terms of reference. The door situation should have been enough on its own to have instigated a coronial enquiry.

It would appear that Mr Groom had complete control of everything related to the Port Arthur massacre with the complete support of Parliament.

Some young girls were asked to go back into the Broad arrow cafe to work 2 hour a day after the massacre!

Top

A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur
Stewart Beattie

All despotism is bad, but the lowest form is that which works with the machinery of freedom.

There is a great urgency to have every high level bureaucrat, politician and person in authority who had even the slightest brush with that which drove the events encapsulating Port Arthur be made defend their own actions and statements regarding this dreadful event before an open public enquiry. I met with my newly elected member for Riverina. Initially I was encouraged by her interest in concerns I raised about the Port Arthur massacre. Her change in demeanour was dramatic. Within a very short time I received a letter from her electoral office and I was told emphatically and in embolden capitals, the member will not enter into any dialogue with you either written or verbal in the future. I was informed that any communication on any matter would be futile. The situation has not changed. That galvanised me into doing all in my power to uncover and publish whatever it was that petrifies politicians, sparks vitriol and scoffing from more than a few media editors, even from areas we may once have regarded as our friends, when the words Port Arthur massacre are uttered.

My area of interest in the Port Arthur massacre is in firearms and ammunition allegedly used there. My fulltime research over the last two years has led me to conclude the two principle firearms claimed by the DPP as weapons used to murder the 32 people and wound 21 others were never used to that end at the Broad Arrow cafe or indeed any of the other crime scenes. Let us look at the DPP’s two primary firearms. The first is a Colt AR15 it is an SP1 carbine in 223 Remington calibre. The word carbine only appears twice in the court documents and the correct model of this firearm only appears once in the wound ballistic review document released in America and not intended for Australian eyes. The other weapon, FN FAL G series, is probably better known to you as the Australian SLR or L1A1, but it is very different. Somehow they rebuilt the one that was supposedly used and I find that quite impossible. It is made in the metric pattern whereas the Australian one is made in the inch pattern. Even the magazine will not interchange. Both primary weapons were self-loading. I found a whole raft of anomalies in relation to Port Arthur from a prolific author from Western Australia.

Martin Bryant exhibited no confusion whatsoever in identifying the firearms he had purchased, owned, used and taken with him to the Tasman Peninsular that day. Only police interrogators exhibited and admitted confusion.

There is not one shred of evidence that I have found that can positively link either of the DPP primary firearms entered into the court documents with any of those shooting murders. Inconclusive physical examination only was employed and that quote, “No chemical tests were carried out and were not planned because of cost considerations and time considerations.” One person is murdered and they do these chemical tests. Thirty-five people are murdered and they ignored them.

In my book ("A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur") I explain and destroy each of the scenarios put forward by Gerard Dutton, ballistics officer for the Tasmanian police and I go much further as to the reasons for the severely damaged state of both primary weapons.
ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

Offline kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,336
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2010, 10:51:50 pm »
Port Arthur Massacre Martin Bryant setup pt1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYxtultxZU&feature=player_embedded

  Port Arthur Massacre Martin Bryant setup pt 2   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJeQ3PgBe4U
ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,477
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2010, 07:54:46 am »
Port Arthur Massacre Martin Bryant setup pt1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYxtultxZU&feature=player_embedded

  Port Arthur Massacre Martin Bryant setup pt 2   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJeQ3PgBe4U


Great info man, keep it coming!


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,477
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Port Arthur Masscre the Disarmament of Australia.
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2010, 06:33:44 pm »

Interesting that the MSM is writing hit pieces because without this story I would never have known that the book existed.



Massacre victims' families outraged over mum's book on killer son Martin Bryant

    * By Mary Papadakis
    * From: Sunday Herald Sun
    * December 05, 2010 12:00AM

Ms Bryant said her son was always a misfit but no-one knew what was wrong with him / AFP Source: AFP

PORT Arthur massacre victims have slammed gunman Martin Bryant's mother's plans to release a book about the tragedy.

Fourteen years after Australia's worst massacre, in which 35 people were killed, Carleen Bryant's book My Story is set to hit bookstores on Tuesday.

Ms Bryant writes about her regrets over encouraging her son to plead guilty and questions his mental ability to plan such a crime.

Melbourne man Wally Nash, whose son Peter, 32, was killed by Bryant, questioned her motives.

"Why do it? Why stir it up now? I wouldn't buy it and if I never read it, I'd never care," he said.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/anger-over-mums-book-on-killer-son-martin-bryant/story-e6frfkvr-1225965739999#ixzz17BlaPgXz


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley