Andrew Rule’s headline, and my coffee (R)
By Dee McLachlan
I’ve been called a few names in my day but not a “mouth-breathing moron.” Makes you wonder who the Herald Sun thinks its audience consists of, that readers would take Andrew Rule’s advice to avoid (moronic) Gumshoe-type information about Port Arthur.
In his article this morning, entitled, “Conspiracy whackos insult the memories,” Rule predictably tries to use the notion that to interrogate the evidence, or question the official story is hurtful, or is an insult to the memories of the victims.
I point to two family members of the WTC destruction on 9-11—who have told of their thwarted efforts to be heard. When I tried to bring up 9-11 with ABC radio host Jon Faine, he replied in an email: “It is an insult to the dead to play with this”.
Wrong. It is an insult to those victims if the truth of their demise is not disclosed.
Bobby McIlvaine’s son was killed by an explosion in the foyer of the North Tower, and he has been fighting for justice for more than a decade. You can watch one of the most moving speeches I have ever seen – HERE, but mainstream media will not interview him. He has spent over a decade researching the death (murder) of his son and concluded that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible.
Another bereaved – and angry – person is Matt Campbell. His brother was killed when the tower fell. He has contacted Gumshoe to thank us for trying to expose the facts, and contributed articles on Gumshoe. He continues to fight to be heard by the mainstream media.
Open Letter to Andrew Rule
Mr Rule, it is classic tactics to avoid discussing the evidence, and just denigrate the opposing view, by name-calling. You lumped those questioning JFK and 9-11 in with Port Arthur,
Why diffuse your Port Arthur article with the “grassy knoll” and 9-11?
It has now been proven that there were multiple shooters in preparation, and in action, on that day Kennedy was assassinated.
And do you honestly believe 19 Muslims (of which 7 were still allegedly alive, as of 2002) brought down THREE skyscrapers with TWO planes – and then circled and penetrated the most guarded building on the planet, ten minutes from Andrews Air-force base? Obviously you do.
I quote your article where you conclude:
“…if the good guys want mainstream Australians to back them, they should stand well away from mouth-breathing morons gibbering that Martin Bryant didn’t do it.” [my emphasis]
“Mouth-breathing morons“? We all breathe through our mouths (and noses) — and on Gumshoe we have article contributors and commentors who are very educated, including barristers who know what “evidence” consists of.
Andrew, maybe you should divorce yourself from the emotive spin and propaganda created by your employer – The Murdoch Press – and reflect on the evidence. Whether Martin Bryant was the actual killer, or whether he was set up as a patsy could have been determined in a coronal inquest and a trial. There was neither. We found out recently that there was an inquest in process, but it was halted when John Avery got Bryant to say he was guilty.
In Mike Willesee’s latest Channel 7 documentary, we are shown for the first time, Martin Bryant during his interrogation — and how Avery, openly admitted how he managed to manipulate Martin Bryant to change his plea of innocence to guilty. (That documentary actually provides a legal basis for Bryant’s innocence!)
WHY was Martin Bryant, who had a guardian since 1994, subjected to solitary confinement and interrogation without any guardianship protections? It is well established how easy it is to bully a vulnerable, innocent person into a guilty plea. That can be achieved within 8 hours. And you should read Mary Maxwell’s “Fodder note” and on Bryant being a “patient” of Tavistock.
You write about some inexperienced kids successfully shooting down clay targets – supporting the proposition that Bryant could have easily shot 12 people in the head in 15 seconds. This was obviously to rebut those that claim this could only have been done by a trained marksman. Be serious. A retired chief of SAS said he himself was not that skillful.
A trial could have determined this. But there was NO trial.
The very fact there was no trial should have raised a red flag. It is obligatory to have a Coronal Inquest into a death – let alone 35 deaths. And it is normal practice to have a trial to convict the alleged offender in a murder case, even if he pleads guilty. The public needs to know what really happened, and to be sure the accused was not coerced to plead guilty.
Maybe, in your article, you should have mentioned just a few items, such as:
- Jim Laycock saw one of the shootings that day. He had known Martin as a boy and as an adult, and said Martin was not the shooter.
- Terrance Hill said he had confiscated Bryant’s gun before the massacre. Why did Damian Bugg hold up another gun as belonging to Martin?
- Why did the DPP not allow Wendy Scurr to provide a statement? She was assisting at Port Arthur all day on April 28, 1996.
- Anthony Nightingale (possibly ASIO) shouted “Not here” when the gunman started shooting in the Broad Arrow Café.
- Bryant – with an alleged IQ of 66 – was not provided assistance by his guardian.
- The coroner Ian Matterson had the foresight to order a large mortuary truck before the event.
- The gunman’s identity via fingerprints on the drink can was ignored by police “forensics”, and
- Many of the Port Arthur management was taken away that day to an outside “event.”
In your article you refer to a conversation you had once had with a friend from Hobart that predicted:
“old Van Diemen’s Land being a likely place for a crime of Gothic savagery.“
How extraordinary. “Gothic savagery.” Your friend must be psychic to have had such visions. Interestingly, Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, at a December 1987 conference in Hobart, said:
“There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania“.
Here at Gumshoe, we are not paid to write – as you are. At this point in time, all our articles and investigations are done pro-bono. We investigate the truth — even if it points us to answers we don’t want to hear.
I note your sub-headline is: “Andrew Rule – IN THE REAL WORLD.” I would suggest you are in the Murdoch world, which is designed to indoctrinate us AWAY from the real world. The mainstream media is presently trying to train us into obedience and conformity, and to discourage us from thinking differently or from asking any creative questions. In many respects, the Murdoch press is there to cover up the crimes and corruptions of “governments” (or shadow governments) in an effort to keep people in the dark.
(Mr Rule’s email is email@example.com)