Home Port Arthur DNA and The Hatred for Martin Bryant

DNA and The Hatred for Martin Bryant

31

Screen Shot 2016The gunman’s blue sportsbag and yellow drink can (Solo) in the Broad Arrow Cafe?

By Dee McLachlan

I cannot being to imagine what Carolyn Loughton has gone through. Her 15-year-old daughter Sarah was killed, and Carolyn was severely wounded. I watched her, and others, in the program on the ABC on Sunday night and noted how much they hated Martin Bryant. One cannot blame them for those feelings — for many of the victims, Bryant’s 35 life sentences is not harsh enough. One could say, that at least they are able to direct their anger onto one person.

But what if their anger is misdirected?

Wrongful Convictions

The first exoneration of a prisoner by using DNA evidence took place in the US in 1989. Since then, 337 people have been exonerated through DNA of whom 20 had served time on Death Row.  About 4,600 years have been wrongfully served — with the average of 14 years per prisoner. (see www.innocenceproject.org.)

With regard to DNA Evidence, I will cite just two cases:

  • In 1984, Jennifer Thompson was raped and she picked Ronald Cotton as the man who raped her from a police lineup. Sentenced to two life terms, he was exonerated 11 years later in 1995 — through DNA evidence. Jennifer was racked with guilt, and two years later agreed to meet Ronald. They became firm friends and co-wrote the memoir, Picking Cotton.
  • In North Carolina, two brothers — Henry McCollum and Leon Brown (19 and 15) — confessed to rape and murder. They were both intellectually disabled, yet maintained their innocence — saying they did not know they were signing a confession. In 2010, Brown contacted the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, which discovered DNA evidence that implicated another person. Both men were freed in 2014 based on the DNA evidence.

It is normal for humans to want a conclusion, and when we are provided with one — most of us accept the outcome. But evidence needs to be presented and checked.

In a case where 35 people were brutally murdered, the public should expect great caution, and extra-diligent legal process.

I presume that all of the 337 people exonerated were given a trial — and yet the system still failed them. In the case of Martin Bryant — he was not even provided a trial, and that was despite the fact that he was an intellectually challenged person!

This abandonment of due process was vividly presented in the Channel 7 Mike Willesee documentary of March 6, 2016.  No trial. No coronal inquest. No DNA evidence presented. How extraordinary!

Don’t Ask Questions

Ian McNiven was attending a presentation by one of the leading forensic investigators into the Port Arthur killings at a Queensland University on the 21st of November in 2002. He wrote an article called, Threatened with Arrest for Asking a Forensic Question.

During the presentation he asked a question:

“Was any solid empirical forensic evidence such as finger prints or DNA found that links Martin Bryant to the shootings in the café?”

The speaker then proceeded to waffle on about ballistic evidence, then McNiuven asked a second question:

“Did you find Bryant’s fingerprints on the bullet cases or any of Bryant’s DNA at the café?”

The speaker ended question time and said he would answer the question during the break. But that never happened. McNiven then describes how the evening turned sour when he was barred from going back in after the break:

“One of the burly gentlemen stood in my way and told me if I went in I would disrupt the meeting and University Security would be called, they would call the Police and ‘people may be arrested….‘ I was being threatened with arrest for doing nothing more than asking a simple forensic question.”

Allegedly when this speaker was asked the same question during a presentation in the US — the answer was “no”, there was no forensic evidence of Bryant in the cafe.

Screen Shot 2016-2The gun in the boot of the Volvo

Why is the DNA evidence forensic evidence ignored?

Surely fingerprints would have been recorded on this rifle found in the boot of Martin Bryant’s car. There is also the famous tray that the gunman left on a table containing the drink can that he had held in his (bare) hand. And much has been written about the tray — and in great detail. It would have had fingerprints and saliva and this could have been used to identify the shooter. What happened to this evidence? Was it lost?

Is this a case where the law is being deliberately subverted?

We need to know.  Our children need to know.

And if people are threatened for asking the questions — then we know the carcass is rotten. This should be a clear indication that there is foul play by the government. An honest judicial system should be demanding that these questions be asked — even 20 years on.

I don’t want to imagine the day when Carolyn Loughton and others comes to the realisation that the full story has been deliberately concealed from them.

Coming to terms with the thought that some “arm” of government may have had a hand in this terrible crime might be too much to bare. What a terrible tragedy this Port Arthur story is for those victims and family members. And so I can understand that they might prefer to never know the truth — but have the small comfort that a man rots in jail.

But the real tragedy for Australia is when the search for truth is denied.

SHARE

31 COMMENTS

  1. Dee, here’s a copy of my article ‘Blue Bag and the Tray’ – it refers to this question of fingerprints and DNA.

    Blue Bag and the Tray

    There were so many lies during and after the Port Arthur Massacre that every time a new piece of evidence surfaces it is inevitable that a few more lies are exposed. So it was with the recent acquisition of a “Police Eyes Only” tape discovered in a second hand shop. On that tape there was a short segment about the Port Arthur Massacre and actual police footage on the day after the massacre.

    For those who may remember, the shooter was carrying a “blue bag”. There was also a earlier picture of the alleged “blue bag” shown on television. In that picture from the television, the “blue bag” is sitting on a table with some garbage around it and in the background all the rest of the tables in the Café’ are in pristine condition. The picture was obviously a fake – but why?

    Now we know.

    On the day of the massacre at least two statements referred to the food tray that the shooter was eating from. The statements mentioned that the shooter was drinking from a Yellow Solo can and that he was not wearing gloves. That tray was important as it was like a personal calling card from the shooter. It contained fingerprints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair from the shooter. That tray contained real physical evidence as to the identity of the shooter.

    After the massacre the issue of the tray never came up again. It was assumed that the tray was lost in the chaos of the massacre. That was further supported by the police resorting to the very flawed photo ID more than a month after the massacre in order to point a finger at Bryant.

    Now, after 8 years, we know where the tray was – it was right next to the “blue bag”. It was left exactly where the shooter put it down. All the evidence was preserved for the police investigation. Here is a picture of the fake picture shown on television and the real “blue bag” and the tray in the Café’.

    http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snparealsportsbag.html

    So where is the lab report on the tray? Did Bryant’s fingerprints and DNA show up on the tray and contents?

    Here is a dirty little secret of many police investigations. If some exculpatory evidence is given to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor is duty bound to furnish that exculpatory evidence to the defence. Since that exculpatory evidence may completely compromise the prosecution case then in many cases, that evidence never gets to the prosecutor – it gets “lost”.

    Getting rid of the lab report in regards to the tray is one thing. However, anyone taking a look at that video would immediately ask about the tray and whether there was a lab report – so the tray also had to be “lost”! No tray, no report. Thus the fake picture we all saw on television.

    The story doesn’t stop there. One of the witnesses, Rebecca McKenna, gave a good account about the shooter and his tray. I have been informed that all the witness statements given on the day of the massacre were hand written. Further, that subsequent typed statements were produced which were altered from the original versions given to police. Rebecca McKenna’s statement is one such statement. Here is part of the typed statement given to her later (shortened for brevity) –

    – “This male was carrying a tray with his food on it”. “His facial skin appeared to be freckly and he was pale” ”He was not wearing gloves” –“When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table” – “I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious –“ -“The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: “tipping –didn’t actually see it fall”) of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria”.

    Do you see what has been done? The statement has been altered to say “The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria”. However, Rebecca caught the change and hand wrote into the margin “tipping – didn’t actually see it fall”.

    So here we have the police, just four weeks after the massacre already trying to get rid of the tray.

    As I said, every time a bit more evidence comes out more lies are uncovered. Just imagine what an inquiry could find.
    _________________________________________

    The Police have demonstrated so much ‘guilty mind’ in regards to the tray – from the treatment of Ian McNiven, the phony picture of the tray as disinformation and the ‘revised’ witness statement of Rebecca McKenna that it is a sure bet that the lab report from the tray showed someone else ate from it.

    Get that lab report and you clear Bryant of the murders.

    • If they could go to the huge city dump in Boston days later to locate a bag of [meaningless] fireworks from Jahar’s dorm room, I guess they could have gone to the small-population Port Arthur tip and make every Solo can stand up and account for itself.

      You are too right, Terry. The tray is the perfect exculpation. The hiding of exculpatory stuff is a C-R-I-M-E.

      • There’s a story about that ‘Police Eyes Only’ video. A certain person was informed that the video was available in the second hand shop. The person picked up the video and sent copies to lots of people. I was informed by MacGregor and Beatty that there are at least 13 things on that video that are inconsistent with the Police narrative or that bring up new issues.

        When the Police found out about the leak, they sent police around to heaps of people to confiscate the tapes (electronic media is so helpful to the State). After they thought they had all the videos, ‘someone’ sent Tony Pitt a video of a fake Police tape. I saw that fake video and it was pathetic.

        Pitt wrote an article in his ‘newspaper’ rubbishing the video as a fake. He had to retract his first article when someone sent him a copy of the genuine video.

        The genuine video occasionally surfaces on the ‘net, but is quickly taken down.

        • I’d like to see Dee make two side-by-side videos. On the left, the Port Arthur police’s allegations, on the right what we think happened, as covered in our book. Could be hilarious.

          And whar’s the book? Just click on the pretty green cover in the right column of GumshoeNews website, above.

    • The gunman’s video camera is sitting behind the blue sports bag on the table also, that should be absolutely emphasized in your article.

      Where did that camera go???? What was on it????

      Looking right at you Tasmania Police Farce.

  2. Thanks for the startling info that finger prints and DNA to implicate Martin -wasn’t taken!!
    Keep up the good work at Gumshoe News, between yourselves and other concerned contributors -we’ll get to the bottom of this!

    • Davo, DNA testing was done. The police admit to using it to match the blood on Bryant’s knife that was wrapped up in the planted evidence in the blue bag. They also found Bryant’s DNA on the knife, not surprising as it Bryant’s personal knife.

      • I should add that the blood was determined to be David Martin’s blood, the owner of Seascape. They were laying a trail to Seascape – they even left the keys to Seascape in the blue bag. Like how was ‘Martin Bryant’ suppose to get back into Seascape as the ‘lone gunman’.

        • It seems damning, but all they have to do is either smear a dab of Mr. Martin’s blood on the knife or just pay someone off to fake the report.

  3. The strangest thing for me, is that when i pass on articles such as these, challenging the MSM status quo and official narrative on anything to my ‘left wing’ mates, it is never good enough and they resort to ridicule and obfuscation. or will simply ignore it.

    • Wow, Gary, what do you think is going on? One of my weird experiences is that I will send a letter to a friend mentioning various (innocuous) things, and kick in some little remark about a Gumshoian topic. The person will reply, all friendly and polite, to the other topics and ignore the naughty one.

      What I can’t understand is why at least one friend doesn’t (ever) say, “Mary, old girl, you must be mistaken about such-and-such.” It is almost as if they don’t see the naughty paragraph on the page. I am tempted to think they have a way of actually refusing to perceive it.

      But I don’t get ridicule, and I’m sorry that you do.

      Gary, I wonder if it might pay, if you are talking to them rather than emailing, to pose a question in a friendly way, such as “Do you think that third building looks like a demolition?” Or “Did you know it’s a firm rule in law that in a murder case, a trial must be conducted even when the accused pleads guilty?”

    • That is absolutely right Gary. That is really what this article is about.
      1. There are thousands of people in jail potentially wrongly accused.
      2. It is much easier to believe that Bryant did it.
      It is a huge leap for people to have their world turned upside down — to have to consider that powers of government could harm society.

  4. I am not a Port Arthur sleuth, but having noted so many problems in the conduct of the investigation, if any, of such a significant crime, as referred to at gumshoe, then their is a definite problem in one being convinced of Mr Bryant’s guilt.
    The whole thing smells to high heaven.
    Is it possible that Australia, the land of the ‘fair go’, could cover for so many evil and cruel highly placed people who would so cruely frame an innocent victim and protect a mass killer/s?
    I suppose it could be so, after all, the US is doing thus with 911 and the Australian government and our controlled puppet mass media and shock jocks are supporting the US 911 government 911 conspiracy theory.
    Clearly there are uncivilised criminals designing and controling public perceptions for some anti-democratic agenda.
    There needs to be a Royal Commission into this mass murder.
    Dee conducted a very illuminating interview with Malcolm Fraser which is logged on this site. Why is it that the mass media have ignored that interview and the significant content?
    What! Does the mass media decide that the public should not be informed? Just as the public are not informed of the Amy Goodman interview with General Wesley Clarke in March 2007 referring to the pre 911 plan to invade, kill and destroy 7 countries in 5 years.
    Port Arthur is significant, but their are more serious considerations being brought to light via the internet, exemplified by the conflicts in the investigation of the Port Arthur murders. That is; that our democracy, freedoms and way of life are under designed threat by our own polticians and controlled mass media.
    The media ‘fifth column’ is pussy compared to the clear dangers we presently face from criminals in high places.
    The odour of ‘napalm fascism’ in the morning is becoming more pungent each day.

  5. Totally off topic but very close – Wade Francum and the Strathfield Massacre, Julian Knight and Hoddle St. Also Central Coast NSW rampage, before the inet, maybe testing ground? I post your articles often. Keep up the good work…

  6. I don’t know what really happened in Port Arthur, but I would bet money that no one was killed or murdered at the Boston marathon 2013 due to bombs or shrapnel. The so-called “survivors” screamed loudly with hatred and disdain toward the apparently innocent boy accused of harming them. It’s my impression and feeling that phony victims scream even louder and more arrogantly than real victims do. I guess I’m just wondering whether it’s possible that some of the deaths or injuries at Port Arthur were fake. Of course, it’s quite possible that Mrs. Loughton is the mother of someone who was killed during a false flag attack.

    • The 35 killed at Port Arthur were real people, no crisis actors in this psy-op. I’ve seen the photos and talked to people like Wendy Scurr – it was a blood bath.

      In fact, I would suggest that every Australian view the ‘Police Eyes Only’ video from Port Arthur. It will shock them to their bones when they realize that their own government could do that to them. We tend to think of countries like, say Indonesia or Burma that would engage in massacres of the people – but not civilized countries like Australia.

      • Terry and Speculator 247, This is a silly question, but which would be worse (re the Marathon): The government setting off a bomb such that 3 peeps died and 200 got injured, or the government setting off a fake bomb and hiring – or hypnotizing –several persons to claim they were injured? OK, OK I said it was a silly question.

        I wonder what’s the source of the 60 million dollars of “private compo” that Kenneth Feinberg was asked to disburse to Marathon victims?

        Here is another Marathon comment. In the photo of the Tsarnaev brothers walking single file, not very close to the crowd, I would have to say they were up to something purposeful. When I attend such an event on the outskirts, I may meander a bit but not stride like that. Who told them to attend the Marathon?

        Supposedly Tamerlan said to his Dad in Russia “Since when do we go to Marathons?” My guess is that they were there for the FBI, but it was a set-up so they could be caught on camera. Nothing in Jahar’s personality, or Martin Bryant’s personality, supports the notion that they would hurt a flea.

        As for Tamelan, he could have been, for years, under mind control at the Mosque. I assume that is how they got Richard Reid (shoe bomber) in UK. But I don’t mean they mind-controlled Tam to do any bombing, just to show up to be photographed.

        Terry, when you say “police video” you mean video of the empty Broad Arrow Cafe after the killings, not an action video, right?

        • In the video, the Broad Arrow Cafe’ is not empty. It is full of dead bodies that have bled out. There are pieces of flesh and bone plaster all over the place, a person’s brain laying in a bowl of chips, stuff like that.

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