Home Australia The Strange Story Of Two “Losers”

The Strange Story Of Two “Losers”


everett bryant 2

This article by Mary Maxwell can be read here on rumormillnews.



  1. I’d like to add a point.
    Thanks to Gumshoe, there was a comment a while ago that quoted the young Martin Bryant talking to police, in hospital.
    He said he did not know how or why he put the man in the boot of the car, but that he felt guilty.
    I make the following guess: the persons who set him up hypnotized him to do the man-in-boot thing, in order that he’d be able to see that he had done a bad thing and feel guilty.

    Then, when arrested for the Broad Arrow shooting, he would not act totally incredulous over being in custody for a crime.

    Dee, how’re ya fixed for Spankleys? Maybe you could institute one (after the 7-7 prize is awarded) for Port Arthur comments.

    A friend who read my Rumormill piece, linked above, said “It is all so sad.” Yes, that’s the word for it. AND WE ARE ALL COMPLICIT IN THE CONTINUING TRAGEDY.

  2. My article suggests that Martin Bryant may have had a body double, an SAS man — the late David Everett.
    I have just located a Youtube od Everett in tears over his having hurt people. This Video was nmade in 2008.

  3. Assuming that the port Arthur massacre was a false flag event (which I agree seems to have been the case) then my question is, why was it carried out?

    On the surface it looks like the purpose of such a false flag event was to disarm Australians, or most of them, but I’m not sure if that motive is correct. After all, Australians never were as armed as the Americans and to my knowledge there never has been anything like the militia movement in Australia that exists in the U.S. At the time of the Port Arthur massacre, was there an imminent danger that some Australians would try to stage a revolution against the government? I don’t think so but I wasn’t living in Australia at that time.

    Can anyone enlighten me – what would have been the purpose of that false flag event?

    • That’s a good question. The Tavistock people seem to think it’s worth putting every person in the world into a state of fear as it makes them more malleable. So the rulers can stay in power.

      Perhaps the main lesson “learned” by the public from various spree killings (eg Sandy Hook, Dunblane, Port Arthur) is that “very ordinary men” can suddenly go against their community.

      I imagine it’s not true. Ordinary men would not have the energy to do something as wild as that. And in every case it entails suicide, as clearly the guy could never hope to get away with it.

      Surely it is a well-trained shooter, protected by the police. The result is that the community loses strength.

      Persecuted2, if you care to say, can you think of past acts of public violence that left people fearing their close neighbors, when in fact the perpetrator was a government death squad?

      When I was 17 in Boston, we had “the Boston strangler.” (It was supposedly Albert DeSalvo, but I can prove it was government.) The main effect it had on me and my friends was that we no longer went out after dark. Really, it was quite a change. We lost community. For example, no more choir practice at the church in the evening. “Stay home. Watch TV.”

      One of our reactions was to joke about it. A typical one: Someone knocks on the door. The husband answers. The visitor says “I’m the Boston strangler.” The husband says to his wife “It’s for you, dear.”

      • Mary, you asked me if I remember any other “past acts of public violence that left people fearing their close neighbors, when in fact the perpetrator was a government death squad”. No, off the top of my head, I can’t think of any government-instigated false flag events that fit that description although I think such things certainly happened in places like Central America, when, for example, someone wanted a government to be overthrown or support for leftist revolutionaries to be damaged.

        But I do distinctly remember the impression of “promoted fear” concerning crime that I saw in the news media when I went to the U.S. in the 1970s. This was much more than was the case in Australia although, admittedly, we didn’t have a crack epidemic or the like in Australia at the time, and crime in general was less here in Australia. This type of news broadcasting was the most blatant in the big cities in the U.S. For example, the nightly news on TV usually began with a sensationalist presentation of a story of a murder, robbery, rape etc., most of the news was taken up by such stories with very little other news content and, of course, there was virtually no international news at all. They should have called it the “Daily City Crime Report” rather than the “Evening News”. I first started to smell something fishy after one news report frenetically reported a knife-point mugging on a street in the city (San Francisco, in this case) when such muggings were virtually everyday events in every big city. There was a definite agenda being played out here. Maybe there was an agenda to increase the law enforcement budgets in these cities. Or maybe the TV stations thought that more people would want to watch sensationalist TV when, in my case at least, the opposite is true. Or maybe the main agenda was simply to instill fear in the populace in order to make them more passive and obedient to authority. This was (is) certainly the end result, whether or not it was the main agenda.

        • I forgot one other possible agenda – an attempt to deflect public attention away from events that “the powers that be” preferred the public not to know about by filling the nightly news with crime stories.

          • Persecuted2, I agree with your four reasons and would put them in the following order (but this is only a guess):

            1. to create fear and hence passivity and obedience
            2. to fill up the half-hour of news without having to cover real events
            3.to justify increases in law enforcement budgets
            4. to satisfy popular demand for entertainment.

            (I think 1 and 2 are tied for top place, while 3 and 4 are way down the list in importance.)

            Plus, as 5, the one I mentioned – to make the people lose their connections to the community, whether in the sense of dissuading them from going to gatherings (such as choir practice), or by way of degrading everyone’s humanity. Who’s to know if my building janitor has a secret stash of nylons. (The Boston strangler left nylon stockings around the victim’s neck as his signature.)

            You mention Central American death squads, but if famous murders were not carried out by the alleged perp — e.g., David Berkowitz “Son of Sam”, Albert DeSalvo “Boston strangler” — as I am sure they weren’t, then another party did it and we may as well call that a death squad.

            They would have been sent out to do it, with names and addresses of victims (carefully chosen ones who did not have a family that would fight the results tooth and nail). The media story about the “Son of Sam” character would have been all organized, to step in when the script called for it. (Berkowitz is still alive in jail after 40 years. He was definitely programmed.)

            In the recent case of Ibgrahim Todashev, a group of FBI men went to his home and ADMITTEDLY killed him. There is no excuse for this in law. They can’t say self-defense. Might as well call it a death squad. It certainly says a lot for the new level of chutzpah that they admitted to the killing.

            What about people who get bumped off by a surreptitious item in their food? Somebody has to arrange for it to happen. What to call that person — a “doctor on the dark side”? Or just the equivalent of a morally-out-of-tune mafia hit man?

            Hey Persecuted2, thanks for your Comment, but for “easy money” you could instead create these theories on the Silver Spankley 7-7 London bombing article. Win a free trip on the Tube!

  4. I just read through the ‘Gun Runner’ article and realised it was an early version from 1999. At that time I still thought Bryant was guilty of the massacre. At least the facts and figures regarding the push for gun control are still correct.

    It was shortly after the article was published in 1999 that Andrew McGreggor read the article and called me. He sent me some information and then I got involved in researching the massacre.

    As a barrister for more than 20 years, I can tell you with just the evidence that is available, there would be a ‘directed verdict’ of not guilty. Every other lawyer I showed the evidence to came to the same conclusion.

    • The Joe Vialls stuff isn’t very good, he gets a LOT of stuff wrong. It’s so bad that I’ve wondered if it was disinformation from a spook. – So, take it with a grain of salt.

      There was also more information that came available as the years went by, probably the most important was the ‘Police Eyes Only’ video tape of the inside of the Cafe’ after the massacre.

      The tray that the killer ate from was left on the table next to the planted bag of evidence. That tray had the fingerprints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair of the killer. We know they did DNA testing on the contents of the bag, but strangely there is NO report of the testing of the tray.

      They tried to get rid of any pictures of the tray, but the video picked it up in a few frames. They even tried to twist the statement of Rebecca McKenna (who was eating at the same table as the killer) to say that she saw the tray falling out of his hands. She caught the change in her statement and pencilled in “I saw it tipping, not falling”.

      The Police admit there was no evidence in the Cafe’ to point to Bryant. That is why they did the bodgy photo ID some 4 weeks after the massacre.

      • I agree that Joe Vialls is quite the mystery man and a very large grain of salt is in order, thank you for the correction, Barrister.

        In my Rumormillnews article I say that I have no hesitation about trusting Wendy Scurr (though it is generally hard to know who is the real deal and who are the disinformation artists). For the record I now state that I have no hesitation trusting Keith Noble, who has produced a compendium — it weighs a ton — about the case, and made it all available for free download. (Title: “Mass Murder.” Yuck, what an awful name.)
        I also am relieved to see that a trustworthy barrister is involved, Terry Shulze. Any other law-folk who want to talk about Bryant or Everett (you know who you are), please contact Gumshoe, or me, mary.maxwell at alumni.adelaide.edu.au.

        As Bennie Franklin said, “We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately.” Either way it’s hangsville!

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion