Home Port Arthur Itineraries and Claptrap Itineraries in Martin Bryant’s Case

Itineraries and Claptrap Itineraries in Martin Bryant’s Case

12

hobart map3

by Mary W Maxwell

I dislike discussing the Port Arthur massacre as “Martin Bryant’s case.” The massacre in the Broad Arrow Café had nothing to do with Martin Bryant. He was not there at all, though he readily admits to being at Seascape cottage.

Claptrap versus the Real Thing

Don’t worry, I won’t present all the false details and debunk them. Others have done so, for which we all must be grateful, but now we need to say what Martin’s day really looked like on April 28, 1996 – the day that is rightly called “Australia’s 9-11.”

Let me show, below, how easy it is to discern Martin Bryant’s actual movements that Sunday, until sundown. As from 6pm it is undisputed that he was in Seascape cottage. So the mystery hours are only from the morning of April 28, 1996, to approximately 6pm.

The official story, which I will refer to below as “claptrap,” says that one man alone did 20 killings in the Broad Arrow Café of the Port Arthur Historic Site (the PAHS), then 3 more in the parking lot and 6 more at the tollbooth. Note: “tollbooth” means the entry to the PAHS, the box office as it were.

Following all that, per the official story, the lone gunman moved on to a petrol station where he ostentatiously killed a woman, kidnapped her boyfriend, and drove to Seascape cottage.

This gunman — allegedly — had already paid an earlier visit to the Seascape cottage, that morning, for the purpose of killing its owners, the elderly David and Sally Martin. (Why? Oh, over an old grudge of course.)

It seems to have been a busy day with a complicated itinerary. But here is the real itinerary:

The Real Itinerary of Martin – It’s Simple

Martin left his home in New Town, Tasmania, which is north of Hobart, around 9.47am. He intended to go to Seascape Cottage, a 90-minute drive.  Why go there? It’s my guess that he was given a subliminal instruction, or whatever you call it, to go to Seascape. After all, it was vitally necessary for the government’s account, that a gunman be caught (or be burned to death) at Seascape.

Yes, the real Martin Bryant did travel to Seascape, in his yellow Volvo, making two properly-witnessed stops on the way. One was at a petrol station, and one was for a cup of coffee. He may also have done a bit of surfing. (Well you would, wouldn’t you? He was 28 and it was a Sunday.)

He truly did arrive at Seascape, maybe at 1pm, and and probably never left. Starting at 6pm, we have voice contact with him, as the police recorded some conversations between him and a guy named Rick.

I assume that Martin, during his day at Seascape, did not encounter any of the alleged dead bodies. I assume he did not engage in any violence in the cottage. The next morning (April 29th) he emerged from the cottage which was on fire (how? A grenade thrown in, to kill him?), and he was arrested.

Just so you won’t be confused, let me ask: AT WHAT HOUR DID BRYANT ARRIVE AT THE BROAD ARROW CAFÉ?

The answer, I hope you realize, is “No hour; he warn’t there.” The real Martin Bryant, live and in the flesh, was a total no-show at the Broad Arrow on Australia’s 9-11.

Martin has insisted that he did not go to the Port Arthur Historic Site that day. As you may recall, yesterday’s article about Van Dieman’s Land, by Dee McLachlan, quotes the exchange between police and Bryant as to the admission fee to the PAHS:

He told police that he hadn’t been there for the last six or seven years. Makes sense: think about how infrequently, if ever, you go to the famous historic places or museums that are right in your city.

The Claptrap Itinerary of Martin Bryant

Now get set for what may sound like repetition. This time I shall give the claptrap itinerary. Remember, I’m only telling the facts as put forth by authorities — the claptrap facts.

I’ll indent it like a quote but it’s only a paraphrase. And where they say “Bryant,” I will say “the criminal.” Try to picture someone non-identifiable. Wipe Martin from your mind.

The criminal arrived at Seascape around 11am, in order to kill the elderly couple that owned that cottage — David and Sally Martin. [Note: doing a small killing before a big one is a feature of many cases, e.g., Adam Lanza, Charles Whitman.]

The criminal then proceeded happily to PAHS. [He had just committed the first murders of his life, but that didn’t even make him nervous!]  Along the way, he stopped to buy such things as a bottle of ketchup, and a cigarette lighter — although he doesn’t smoke.

At each place, one or more witnesses saw a man and described him. [In other words he left a trail. And the lighter was obviously to burn down the cottage.]

Once he arrived at PAHS, the criminal went inside the Broad Arrow café to purchase his lunch, but took it outside to eat at the tables on the balcony. The lunch having been consumed, the criminal went inside and killed many people.

The criminal then left and killed more persons near the tourist buses in the parking lot. (The Port Arthur Historic Site shows tourists the living conditions of the convicts who were transported here, from Britain, in the 19th century.)

The criminal then went up the road near the tollbooth, and killed a lady and her two young children, first telling the lady to kneel down.

Note: all of these killings really did take place. My skepticism is directed only at the identity of the perpetrator(s).

As so often happens (think Boston Marathon), the killer then felt the urge to do a carjacking, even though he had a car!

This required him to dispatch to God the three persons who were sitting in their BMW at the tollbooth.  He drove off in that BMW, abandoning his yellow Volvo.

For no particular reason [not that there was any particular reason for doing the café massacre], the criminal went into a petrol station, shot dead the female companion of a male customer, Glenn Pears.

Creatively, he put Glenn in the boot of his carjacked BMW. It may have been tricky to lift the still-alive man while also wielding a gun, but so what.

The criminal, with the booted Glenn Pears, drove to Seascape cottage. He then entered the cottage. Once inside, he handcuffed and fatally shot Glenn Pears.

He stepped outside and set that car alight. Perhaps he didn’t really like BMW’s. The criminal then spent the night in conversation with police, via walkie-talkie. In the morning he set fire to the cottage and ran out.

End of claptrap itinerary.

How Easy It Is To Confuse the Public When There Is No Inquest or Trial!

I personally believe what Martin Bryant insisted on, that he was not at PAHS. Therefore someone else was the gunman there. See my interview with Kevin Woodman who proposes the idea that the shooter may have been David Everett, but there are other possibilities.

I think the complex itinerary required participation by a team of several men, appearing at the various locations — the café,  the parking lot, the tollbooth, and the petrol station. Many people claim to have seen a male person do this or that at the named locations.

Naturally, it would take a court, and formal oaths by witnesses, to sort out who saw what. There are some known issues related to the witnesses that Sunday, but it’s not my job to go there.

Note: that matter is carefully analyzed by Keith Noble in the book he edited called Mass Murder, which is a free download. It is also given close attention at a website southeastasianews.org. (I took some of the points above from those sources.)

The point I would like the reader to take away is that we do have courts, and we do have the well-established mechanism of a coroner’s inquest. Thus, each of the many issues could be handled under oath. Witnesses could be cross-examined. Alibis could be analyzed.  Exhibits could be inspected. As normal.

The fact that this has not been done, in such an advanced country as Australia, is PROOF that members of government are involved. Perhaps their only involvement is their frightened silence.

Well, OK, but that means they are at least aware that there is something to be afraid of. Yet they won’t tell us.

QUO USQUE TANDEM, CATALINA, ABUTERE PATIENTIA NOSTRA?  (Look it up.)

— Mary W Maxwell is the author of “Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully.” Fancy that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 COMMENTS

  1. Many similarities to the Boston marathon case, but I’m convinced there were no real victims there. How can you be sure that actual killings took place in Port Arthur that day?

    I believe Martin was not there that day. Aunt Maret says Dzhokhar and Tamerlan told their father they were not at the marathon that day. I believe that too. It takes quite a few people, in government and in media at minimum, to convince people that a fictional scenario occurred, but was only made to look like it actually happened through various forms of coordinated lies, trickery, and manipulation. They do it all the time.

    I don’t know when and I don’t know how, but I also believe the truth will come out and the real facts will be known.

    • Hi Speculator,

      Yes, it is hard to tell which things are real. At Gumshoe we have concentrated on that issue. I ask you to look at this article on the very important Bella Vista incident.

      http://gumshoenews.com/2015/08/09/bella-vista-incident-wow-here-comes-doubting-thomas/

      Important in that it demonstrates the impunity of Australian media person and government persons. They were caught red-handed (by Dee, the editor of Gumshoe).

      But then, the people can punish those persons, no? At the end of your Comment you say “I don’t know when or how, but truth will come out.” Surely it will come out by persons such as you making an effort.

      Are you willing to jump into this? I hope you will. Yesterday we had quite a surprise when Cherri Bonney achieved her goal so quickly, getting 1,000 peeps to sign the petition for an Inquest.

      To answer your question “How do I know Port Arthur happened?” Wendy Scurr’s speech on Youtube looks pretty unassailable to me. (All the recent contortionism to make the 48-year old prisoner Martin Bryant look evil is also an indirect demo, to me, that Port Arthur is real.)

      If you really care, go do something about the Bella Vista incident. A very small event, right there in Sydney and very recent. It’s a doable.

      • Port Arthur was definitely real. The ‘Police Eyes Only’ video tape from inside the Broadarrow Café should be required viewing by every Australian. The carnage is shocking, even more so when you understand that it was a product of the Australian Government. – This is the truth of your own government, it can do this to you.

    • Speculator247 – I think suggesting that maybe no one died at Port Arthur could completely sabotage a truthful discussion and outcome. I think Wendy Scurr and enough witnesses, photos reveal the horror that occurred that day. So let us not get distracted.

      The problem is simple:
      1. The law was not applied to that event. No trial etc.
      2. Could a mentally challenged young man be equal to a professional shooter? – 12 (not bunched together) people in 15 seconds with 17 rounds. (Derren Brown might be able to train someone to do that)
      3. Bryant’s statement – that he had never been to Port Arthur for 6 years – was never allowed to be tested.

      And on Dzhokhar – he is there in the video at the marathon. it looks like him. For all we know he might have believed he was not there (mind manipulation). The problem there is the same. The trial did not test the evidence (e.g. his backpack)

      I worry when I read no one died stuff.

  2. Here’s a comment that has been expunged from below this y/tube video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siun7RHSyqA
    It’s from 10/7/2013. It’s from Walter Mikac’s brother-in-law Graeme Moulton:
    “This conspiracy theory has been raging for years.. It has no substance except people’s imagination. The women[sic] with the two children, Nanette Mikac was my sister. My nieces were also shot. As a family we were told other events that the general public did not know. In the clip the two men in the car looking distressed were my father and brother in law.
    There was no conspiracy, no government involvement, no deep secrets, no hidden agenda. Just a nut case with guns.

    • Max as you have not posted before, it required moderation.
      Thank you for you comment.
      Everyone here would be sad for their loss. A loss that was a result of a terrible tragedy.
      I can only speak for myself – and that is I HAD no particular interest in Port Arthur initially. I had no interest in 9/11 either. I felt very sorry for the victims families. BUT— When I realised than it was impossible for 19 Arabs to pull off 9/11 – this sparked my inner conscience. When you ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME and review the evidence – you realise the buildings/towers (all 3) were demolished. Atta and his mates were patsies. Jon Faine (ABC’s 774) tried to shame me in emails for bringing up 911 – and for digging open old wounds for the families. But Matt Campbell (his brother died in a tower) and I know many others were thanking us (look up Bobby McIlvaine) – as a great INJUSTICE had been done. The wool had been pulled over the public’s eyes and the families of many of the victims had been duped into blaming the wrong culprits. its a DISGRACE that the ABC AND OTHER MEDIA DO NOT REPORT THE FACTS ON 911.

      On Port Arthur. Having only recently looked at it – it is a DISGRACE that the government did NOT FOLLOW THE LAW and have a CORONIAL INQUEST AND TRIAL – and then let Bryant face justice as we know it. It is a little strange having read the transcripts that this “challenged” individual could be such a “professional” and then say what he said. It just does not add up.

      And Max we have published before 42 government conspiracies that were later confirmed. People that were called nutters were proved correct.
      Again thank you for adding your comments.

      In conclusion – I say let the law prevail. It is a concern when governments by pass the law and obfuscate justice that you have to worry

      • Thanks for posting this admission that the Moulton/Mikac family knows things they aren’t sharing with the rest of us.
        The New Daily won’t publish it, and as I have recounted, y/tube has suppressed the comment that originally appeared there, so it’s great it’s being put up somewhere.
        The reluctance of the mainstream to have this info known says to me that it really was Walter Mikac’s brother-in-law Graeme Moulton.
        In her talk on y/tube, Wendy Scurr mentions that there are details of what happened to the victims that she hasn’t shared. That’s fair enough, at least until there’s an unbiased investigation into the massacre. She has plenty else to talk about without going into details about exactly how they suffered, though I also regard everything as potentially relevant, and this will have to be discussed eventually.
        What Moulton was on about is different. If what he was referring to was simply a matter of taste as with Wendy Scurr, why mention it at all?
        I’d say he was trying to say Look, our family is in a special position to talk about the massacre, and the allusion to inside knowledge was part of this gambit.
        However, it’s like that episode of The Simpsons “Who Shot Mr Burns?” where Smithers admits something to Jasper he shouldn’t have and Jasper says “You did what now?”
        You said what now, Graeme?
        Walter gallivants around the place, getting an entirely favourable press, crapping on about gun control as if he knows anything about it, yet is not sharing potentially vital information about the Port Arthur Massacre.
        He has never shown the slightest inclination to question the official line, and I wonder who and what he really is. He must be a government/intelligence PR asset.
        I reckon there’s plenty of both carrot and stick involved in getting him to whore himself the way he does, at the expense of finding out who really killed his wife and daughters.

  3. That’s so far off the mark, do you do this for a living? Who exactly are you trying to convince,
    try actually doing a little research,
    Bryant not known to police? Riiiight. And you have no idea who Rick is ? Well that’s because your research is on from southeastasianews and Loveforlife. Potty you didn’t bother to do any actual research well done for making stuff up.

  4. There’s something I need to bring to the attention of Cherri, Mary and others involved in producing this site. There was an article here yesterday about guardianship issues surrounding Martin Bryant, It is not here today, It was dated 3 Jan and there is an article with that date here today, but not the one about guardianship. This is just a bit of friendly advice-you may be being hacked and it might be wise to check what articles are up and what aren’t.
    Fortunately, this article is another good place to put my questions about how Martin was able to drive to Port Arthur that day.
    -He inherited the Volvo from Helen Harvey and according to Andrew McGregor, had been driving without a license since September 1995.
    -Wouldn’t his guardians, the Tasmanian Government-owned Perpetual Trustees Inc., have known about him driving around for nearly a year without a license? The existence of the vehicle would certainly have been known to them yet apparently no employee of Perpetual Trustees had the gumption to ask what had become of it and what sort of access Martin had to it.
    -Wouldn’t his mother Carleen and his girlfriend/handler Petra Wilmott also have known about the unlicensed driving?
    -I’m assuming that unlicensed driving is something one could either get away for years or be caught the very first time, or anything in between. I have no real idea how long it takes for someone to be caught but it needs to be asked whether any police also knew about Martin’s unlicensed driving.

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