Dear Mary, Go for It – (Port Arthur Prosecutions, in Four Parcels)

howard2Australia’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:

  1. the killing of 35 people by gunshot (or possibly by knife, in regard to David and Sally Martin)
  1. the injuring of a large number of people by gunshot
  1. the kidnapping of one man
  1. the carjacking of one car
  1. the burning and destruction of a car
  1. the burning and destruction of Seascape cottage.

Additional violent crimes that occurred “on the day” should now be added to the list:

  1. the attempted murder of Martin Bryant himself
  1. the grievous bodily harm done to him by fire
  1. the traumatizing of him via his false arrest
  1. 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:

  1. the judge in the case: Justice William Cox (now Sir William)
  1. the public prosecutor: Damian Bugg
  1. the defense lawyers of Bryant, of whom the main one was John Avery
  1. the various policepersons who provided the false “data” as to what crimes Bryant committed
  1. 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
  1. 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
  1. those who lied under oath to secure Bryant’s conviction (perjury is a felony)
  1. those who tampered with evidence in order to submit false evidence against the accused
  1. those who destroyed evidence that would reveal Bryant’s innocence
  1. 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 

  1. 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:

  1. deliberately terrifying the populace (To scare someone is considered in criminal law as assault.)
  1. 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
  1. harassing persons who tried to speak out
  1. 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)

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Brilliant Article, Thanks Mary..

  2. THE BULLY, THE APPLE ISLE, and THOSE WIGS

    Keith Noble is an Aussie ex-pat in Vienna. Like Ms Bonney, and like your humble servant, he tries to cook up new ways to tackle “Port Arthur.” In his recent ‘barrister initiative,’ he wrote to each member of the Tassie bar by email, and encouraged them (maybe bullied them is the word) to take an interest. They are all members of the Supreme Court of Tasmania so they share responsibility for its fate.
    Only one man replied to Keith, Paul Mason, who now lives in Queensland. He, Mason, obligingly emailed all his colleagues on November 22, 2015, saying:

    “Although I am no longer a member of the Tasmanian Bar, it would disturb me if all avenues judicial, administrative and political were not pursued to enable Mr. Bryant’s removal from lifelong solitary confinement and rehabilitation in custody or even application for eventual release…. Solitary confinement is inherently a torture….”

    Disappointed to have got no further buzz (but I think it will come), our friendly bully re-emailed the barristers, saying:

    “In the beautiful Apple Isle, you approved Martin’s imprisonment with NO TRIAL. You approve of his ongoing torture. You approve of him being put in a cage to be photographed [and] displayed on newspaper websites around the world. You approve of the living hell his dear mother and sister are being put through …
    “And you do not care if the families, relatives, and friends of all the Port Arthur Massacre victims have been lied to and NOT served justice. All of you are complicit right up to your ridiculous horsehair wigs.”

    Go, Bully!

  3. Note to Gumshoe Readers

    This was my 8th in a 10-part series on Port Arthur (Dee wrote the other 2). I consider it my final comment as to anything that happened on that day. I don’t have enough knowledge and don’t want folks to write to me to ask me any detail (or even to supply any detail to me!).

    I am still interested to see what can be done about the mucking up of the legalities. I am sure a lot can be done. I don’t think any work at all is required to let Martin out of prison now. There was never an honest case against him.

    If you want data about the 1996 incident, see the free download of Keith Noble’s book, Mass Murder.

    I am happy to call everyone’s attention to the fact that Cheri Bonney of Perth is the organizer of a “change.org” petition to Tassie premier Will Hodgman. The same gal, Cherri, is soon to release a song about Martin called “I Wish I Knew How To Be Free.” The petition has over 1,100 signatures.

    What we need is for Australians to wake up and to care. A lot is hanging in the balance. A lot of “foreign policy” issues are involved. Please sign the petition, preferably in your real name.

    Among the other things you can do are: lay an information with the police re anyone’s crime, and write a complaint to the relevant state licensing board regarding any doctor or lawyer whose behavior is “off.” Those boards must reply to you and must investigate.

    I am hoping someone will confess. Think how many people, other than Bryant, have had their lives shaken up for almost two decades. Wouldn’t some of them like to see this all straightened out? Maybe a truth and reconciliation board at citizen level will be needed.

    • Whoops. I don’t mean “comments are not welcome.” We do welcome comments. Just that I can’t operate a clearinghouse for All Matters Port Arthuristic. (Not for Bostoniensis either.) Say what you want to say! Go for it, Every Sincere Person!

  4. Here is a quote from a Gumshoe article by Christopher Brooks entitled “Justice Denied,” regarding the “media crucifixion” of Martin Bryant:

    “The mob were instantly seething and frothing at Martin Bryant as a result of the overwhelming judgmental media crucifixion. It was conducted both against him, and also against the social, legal, journalistic and political sensibilities of our Nation, following on from the very traumatic real tragedy.

    “In the frenzied outrage and shock that was exploited to the maximum degree by willful political opportunism, the legal standards and due process that are the foundations and protector of civilized society, were trampled and abandoned.
    Gun confiscation was the visible result but deeper possessions like our freedom to speak and think were under much greater attack.”

  5. Terry Shulze says:

    I think the prize would go to Jim Laycock (the former owner of the Broadarrow Café) on the day of the massacre. He gave a statement to the police that he didn’t recognize the ‘male shooter’ as Bryant. He knew Bryant quite well, how he liked his hot chocolate, where he sat in the café, the conversations he had with his daughter. He would have been an interesting witness if there had ever been a trial.

    The Penny dropped for me in early 1997. We didn’t have the information we’ve got today, but there was enough back then that I knew it was a psy-op and Bryant was innocent.

    I think the next bit of information that came out was Bob Munro’s interview of Terry McCarthy (the police negotiator). Stewart Beatty and Andrew McGregor spent a fair bit of time and had an acoustical analysis of the gunshot on the tape.

    About the same time Sgt Dutton produced an article in a police magazine on the firearm evidence from Port Arthur. Beatty tore it apart, big time. It was so badly done that I wonder if Dutton did it as some sort of ‘get out of goal card’ he could play if the whole psy-op blew up in their faces.

    It think it was in 2004 that we got access to the ‘Police Eyes Only’ video tape. ‘Someone’ informed an interested person that the tape was available in a second hand shop.

    Remember this massacre happened back before the internet was thriving and people weren’t walking around with their phones that could take videos. If they tried to pull of such a caper nowadays, it would come apart very quickly.

    I love that picture of John Howard with his ballistic vest on addressing the farmers as to why they had to turn in their .22 rifles. The media really demonised the gun owners of Australia, heck the Prime Minister himself has to wear a ballistic vest just to talk to a bunch of farmers – LOL.

  6. Excellent article Mary, say it like it is. It seems you are really nearing the point of actually revealing what happened, and all that’s left is for the guilty authorities and persons to all be identified and charged. It can happen, thanks to people like you!

  7. speculator247 says:

    A large number of people will have some serious explaining to do. Thank you for writing this, Mary! Even if the truth never fully comes out (I hope it does), it’s good to spend some time thinking about the possibility that it will. True justice must be done!

  8. CherriBonneyMusic says:

    Beautifully put Mary, Some -one & many ARE VERY guilty and know it!! it wont be long and heads will fall off their necks from rotting flesh…:-)

  9. “Since its now clear to all reasonable people… that Martin Bryant is innocent”

    Where is the information that makes that clear? Was it around 10 years ago? Five years ago? What makes it “now clear”?

    • Glad you asked me to ‘time’ it.
      Had not the media poured a lot of falsehoods onto us, I reckon it would have been clear to any reasonable person within about 72 hours of Bryant’s arrest, that he could not have managed such a caper, with his IQ of 66.

      But you have asked me if it was 5 or 10 years ago that peeps woke up. I think a lot of people got the picture, generally, about false flags when info about 9-11 was published.

      I myself woke up, regarding 9-11, in February 2005, but not yet re Port Arthur, as I did not notice that it was one of that type.
      (Maybe because no one mentioned “Muslim”?) In 2015,
      Keith Noble’s book “Mass Murder” gave me the data.

      It’s clear from Andrew S MacGregor’s DVD “Terrorism and Deceit in Port Arthur” that he was on the ball before everybody else. That’s because he is a cop and saw how many aspects of the normal routines of cop-business were being omitted or circumvented. (Note: he has ‘done a job’ on the Boston Marathon in the same way. Go, Copper!)

      Still, the prize must go to Kevin Woodman. Within a few days of April 28, 1996, he told a neighbor in Port Sorell, Tasmania, that Martin Bryant was just a patsy. He recounts it in our November 27, 2015 interview. It appears at 3.30 minutes into the tape:

      I explained Woodman’s theory in a December 7, 2015 article at Gumshoe, entitled: “What Is SAS’s Mission? Could They Have Been at Port Arthur in 1996?” The link is:

      https://gumshoenews.com/2015/12/07/what-is-sass-mission-could-they-have-been-at-port-arthur-in-1996/

      That said, no one needs to pursue that rather harrowing angle in order to overturn Bryant’s conviction. It is eminently overturnable.

      • Yeah, yeah, we already covered this in a recent Gumshoe post, but here it is again. Read by Justice Cox as if it were real:

        “In consequence of the tragic events at Port Arthur on 28 and 29 April of this year and of his plea of guilty, the prisoner stands for sentence in respect of: the murder of no less than 35 persons… the infliction of wounds upon [11] persons… four counts of aggravated assault; one count of unlawfully setting fire to property, namely a motor vehicle which he seized at gun point from its rightful occupants, all of whom he murdered; and for the arson of a building known as ‘Seascape’, the owners of which he had likewise murdered the previous day.

        “After having heard the unchallenged account of these terrible crimes narrated by the learned Director of Public Prosecution and his Junior, an account painstakingly prepared by them from the materials diligently assembled by the team of police and forensic investigators… it is unnecessary for me to repeat it in detail ….”

        As we say in Oz, you can’t make this stuff up.

      • ” It is eminently overturnable.”
        I believe it. Thanks for the info!

Trackbacks

  1. […] have suggested at Gumshoe that we turn the tables and charge others with crimes at this point. The list includes the media […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: