Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard faces gun owners in 1996
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Let’s say I got a letter from someone holding proper authority, asking me to draw up a charge sheet concerning the Port Arthur massacre of April 28, 1996. My readers know I have no experience in prosecuting (other than maybe as a fantasy), but I can at least draft a rough list.
Parcel One – Crimes on the Day
It can be assumed that the following violent crimes were committed that day, since they are ones for which the court in Tasmania convicted Martin Bryant:
- the killing of 35 people by gunshot (or possibly by knife, in regard to David and Sally Martin)
- the injuring of a large number of people by gunshot
- the kidnapping of one man
- the carjacking of one car
- the burning and destruction of a car
- the burning and destruction of Seascape cottage.
Additional violent crimes that occurred “on the day” should now be added to the list:
- the attempted murder of Martin Bryant himself
- the grievous bodily harm done to him by fire
- the traumatizing of him via his false arrest
- the traumatizing of his mother by announcing to her that her son was a mass murderer
Parcel Two – Re-looking at the Scene, Minus the Patsy
Since it is now clear to all reasonable people (19 years down the road) that Martin Bryant is innocent, someone else must have committed the crimes. I personally do not know who.
I think it looks like the work of several gunmen, one arsonist, and others. There had to be people who conspired beforehand to carry out such a massacre, and many who played active roles such as getaway drivers or persons running the communications.
Such persons must be charged and tried. While we wait to identify them we can call them John Doe 1, John Doe 2, etc. If they are now dead we cannot try them, but should still identify them to make the story complete.
Parcel Three – Crimes of Injustice against the Patsy
Strictly in relation to the trying, convicting, and imprisoning of the patsy, Martin Bryant, more crimes occurred. This won’t entail any difficulty of identifying the wrongdoers since their role was public, and is formally documented. It makes me sad to name these names, but it makes me sadder not to. So here goes:
- the judge in the case: Justice William Cox (now Sir William)
- the public prosecutor: Damian Bugg
- the defense lawyers of Bryant, of whom the main one was John Avery
- the various policepersons who provided the false “data” as to what crimes Bryant committed
- doctors who falsely set up the psychiatric report of the accused, to suit the ‘need’ of the court and failed to say that a man who was receiving disability payments for his intellectual handicap was legally incompetent to plead guilty
- the coroner who used chicanery to avoid the law that required an inquest into the deaths at Port Arthur per Tasmania’s Coroner Act of 1995
- those who lied under oath to secure Bryant’s conviction (perjury is a felony)
- those who tampered with evidence in order to submit false evidence against the accused
- those who destroyed evidence that would reveal Bryant’s innocence
- any person at the prison who may have mistreated Bryant (I am guessing here) such as by refusing to let him have visitors.
Parcel Four — Coverup and Aftermath
- cover-up. It is amazing to think of how many people had to engage in the cover-up of the crime all these years. Cover-up is itself a crime. To name just one person: Rupert Murdoch.
Any of the police or media people who took a visible role in the affair could be questioned. So could the members of government who are responsible for their underlings. They, too, would be under oath. What a scene that would be!
In addition I nominate these crimes:
- deliberately terrifying the populace (To scare someone is considered in criminal law as assault.)
- treason on the part of any governmental people, especially secret service personnel, who conspired with people outside Australia to set up the events of April 28-29, 1996
- harassing persons who tried to speak out
- causing changes to laws, making them harmful to the welfare of the nation, by priming the legislature with false information about the Port Arthur massacre.
Note that there is no need to use the 25 items in any particular order. Nor does the bigger person have to precede the smaller. The government has the ability to offer partial or full immunity for testimony.
— Mary W Maxwell is author “Fraud Upon The Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully” (2015)