Home Port Arthur Re-opening Martin Bryant’s Case with Fresh Evidence

Re-opening Martin Bryant’s Case with Fresh Evidence

111

law booksCommonwealth coat of arms at the High Court

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Martin Bryant was convicted of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, and given a life sentence. At age 48 he is still in prison. It is time to ask: was the conviction correct? Was Bryant the man who actually murdered 35 people at Port Arthur? Fortunately there are grounds to re-open the case.

How Did We Proceed in Normal Times?

Every person admitted to the Bar in Australia was educated in a way that took a certain working of the justice system for granted. It was simply expected that a court is a place where adversaries can bring their pleadings and have the matter resolved properly and fairly by a judge or jury.

In a civil action, the two parties may have very different levels of power, but in a criminal matter “the law” helps level the playing field. Since an accused person automatically has less power than his adversary, “the Leviathan”, it is well established that he should be given extra help.

The development of court-justice is based on reasoning, on established principle, on what society has agreed to, and on impartiality. The rules are publically known. This has been a major source of personal security, and it is also an inspiring part of our heritage.

The Structure Remains Intact

The world has changed. There now seems to be a world government. Its agents are able to control legislators and judges, whether by bribery, intimidation, or some other means.

Still, all activities of the legal profession look the same as they did before. Court procedure is the same. The book of precedents is the same. Principles do get whittled down a bit — most practitioners will no longer stick up noisily for the old understandings.  But they don’t enunciate new principles — they don’t say “I hate justice.”

In regard to the matter at hand – how to get Martin Bryant’s case re-opened or dealt with in some way — we can look eagerly to the normal way of doing things. A person who is wrongly convicted gets a chance to appeal, including up to the level of the High Court.

Does Bryant Qualify for a Reopening of His Case?

Martin Bryant did not appeal his conviction. It is said that he has a very low IQ and that he had, and maybe still has, a guardian. The guardian did not appeal.

However in 2015 the Parliament of Tasmania enacted legislation (by amending the Criminal Code Act of 1924) to permit a person with “fresh and compelling evidence” to ask for a re-opening of his/her case – even 20 or more years later.

Section 402(a)(3) of Tasmania’s Criminal Code Act says:

“A convicted person may apply to a single judge for leave to lodge a second or subsequent appeal against the conviction on the ground that there is fresh and compelling evidence.”  (Emphasis added)

Silence Is Operating Here

In the old days, it was considered very sporting, in the legal profession, to try to help a wrongly convicted person. No matter how obnoxious the person, defending him or her was seen as an admirable, ethical thing to do. Today, there is silence, possibly because people are afraid to challenge the powerful.

We do not see anyone, at the moment, making noise, legally, on behalf of this convict. No barrister or law professor has – so far — advocated that someone help Martin Bryant take advantage of the new legislation. (There are dozens of Youtube videos proclaiming his innocence but these are generally categorized as “conspiracy theories.”)

Let Us Picture a Re-opening of the Case

It will be wise to avoid making “conspiracy” a part of the case. Even if one thinks there are ‘suspects,’ it would be better to pretend that there are no clues as to who the murderers were.

Anyway, persons wanting to help Bryant get his conviction overturned do not have to make any showing at all as to who did commit the 35 murders. That is never required of a defendant in a prosecution.

And recall: no person has to “prove” he is innocent. Rather, the state has to come up with evidence sufficient to cause a jury to find the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bryant can now show that the evidence assembled and presented to the judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Chief Justice William Cox, by Damian Bugg, Director of Public Prosecutions of Tasmania, was incomplete and, in some parts, wrong.

(Note: we don’t actually know which materials Cox saw. There does not appear to be a file on the case, just the lengthy description of Bryant’s crimes in the sentencing document dated November 22, 1996.)

From May to October 1996, Bryant had insisted on his innocence, including at a hearing on September 30, 1996. Then when his new lawyer, John Avery, came aboard, Bryant changed his plea to guilty. Note: in murder cases, even when the accused pleads guilty, it is customary to hold a trial. But Bryant had no trial, just a sentencing!

Exculpatory Evidence – from Witness Jim Laycock

It is a requirement throughout Australia that if a prosecutor has in his possession any exculpatory evidence – for example testimony by a witness that provides an alibi – he or she must make it known to the defendant. Did the prosecutor possess such evidence and not reveal it, he or she would commit a malfeasant act, and this makes for a mistrial.

There appear to be many pieces of exculpatory evidence for Bryant; only five will be attended to here.  One is the statement given officially to police by Jim Laycock. Jim had known Martin Bryant for many years and would be able to recognize him. He was near enough to see two of the killings (at the General Store and the tollgate) and said that the person doing the shooting was not Martin Bryant.

laycock2The late Jim Laycock

Although DPP Bugg had Laycock’s police statement, he did not present it to the Court. This alone should suffice to exonerate Bryant. There is nothing ambiguous in the statement (which was taken by Sergeant IF Jones from Laycock on May 10, 1996):

“On this Sunday the 28th April 1996, I did not recognize the male as Martin BRYANT. The person I saw shooting appeared to be in then low twenties, about 5’10” tall, it was impossible to determine his build, (the coat was shapeless). His hair stood out it was blonde, I thought it was bleached blonde and possibly a female. His hair was shoulder length. His walking appeared to be mannish. The youths in the red car returned from the bush and they left the scene. The blonde headed person I saw at the tollgate is definitely the same … person I saw shoot the woman in the white car at the General Store.”

Exculpatory Evidence – The Tray, Drink Can, Etc.

There was no inability on the part of law enforcement to obtain physical evidence from the crime scenes. The major two crime scenes were the Broad Arrow Café within the Port Arthur Historic Site, and later, the Seascape cottage.

The gunman had bought lunch at the counter of Broad Arrow Café and taken it outside, on a tray. He ate this lunch on the balcony. It is undisputed that the tray had on it cutlery and a yellow drink can, the drink being a “Solo.” A photo of the tray, near a blue sports bag, later came to light in a leaked “police Eyes Only” training video.

Screen Shot 2016

As he was not wearing gloves the suspect must have left his fingerprints on the cutlery and the drink can, and on the tray itself. Naturally this would provide the state with a way to determine who the person was that, minutes later, shot many people in the café.

The Police have announced that they did procure DNA evidence from the blue sports bag. Even more would we logically expect them to take fingerprints and DNA from the actual tray that the killer ate from. The tray would be more probative to the actual identity of the killer than anything in the bag.

Questions Not Allowed To Be Asked

It appears that there was a concerted effort to hide exculpatory evidence. Ian McNiven attended a presentation by one of the leading forensic investigators into the Port Arthur killings at Queensland University on November 21, 2002. It was a meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society, open to the public. McNiven bought a ticket.

During the 5-minute question time, he asked: “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 skirted the subject by talking about ballistic evidence.

McNiven then 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 said he would answer during the break. He did not do so, however.

After the break McNiven was not allowed back in. “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.”

Mc Niven wrote in a 30 October 2007 article,

“As I was a bit like a possum surrounded by a pack of dingos, in the end discretion triumphed and I went home.”

For all we know the police may have tested for fingerprints and failed to find Bryant’s prints on the aforementioned objects. If that happened, there was, of course, malfeasance and a mistrial results. To repeat: exculpatory evidence must be handed over to the defendant by the prosecutor.

Exculpatory Evidence – The Leaked Seascape Tapes

There is a ‘leaked’ tape of telephone conversations going on at the Seascape cottage in which Martin Bryant’s voice is heard, speaking in a calm tone, hours after the massacre occurred at the Broad Arrow Café.

While Bryant tells the Police negotiator about making sandwiches for everyone, a gunshot is heard on the tape. The gunshot is from another room, upstairs where someone was shooting out the window. There was only one phone in the house and it was downstairs.

It can’t be Bryant who is responsible for that gunshot, as he does not skip a beat in his conversation with the negotiator. In fact there are over 20 shots heard on the tape with the negotiator, while Bryant continues to talk in an undisturbed tone of voice. Officials refer to the sound of the 20 shots as 20 “coughs.”

Clearly this tape is exculpatory evidence regarding the charge against Bryant that he was holding hostages at Seascape, since at least one additional armed person was in the cottage.

There is a second tape. The source of it is the TV show “A Current Affair.” In 1998, Tasmania’s Police Commissioner Richard McCreadie allowed negotiator Terry McCarthy to be interviewed by Mike Munro for “A Current Affair” in connection with a different hostage case. That is how we have been able to hear the tape from Seascape, on the night of April 28, 1996.

In this tape Bryant actually says “You’re about to shoot your main man.” Who is the “your”? From that conversation, some investigators have deduced that Bryant was working under instructions. Indeed, the police negotiator  — Terry McCarthy — has said that it sounded as though Bryant were reading from a script. If so, it could hardly be more exculpatory!

There Is More, Such as the Gun Issue

There are dozens of peculiarities in the case, many of which indicate that someone is hiding the truth. For instance, there is controversy as to who owned the guns used in the massacre.  Terry Shulze, a retired barrister, has published exculpatory evidence on this issue. A retired cop from Victoria, Andrew MacGregor, has studied the guns in detail, as did Stewart Beattie, author of “A Gunsmith’s Notebook.”

Also, in numerous articles and Youtube videos, MacGregor specifies the ways in which the authorities’ handling of the Bryant case deviated from police protocol. (That is quite the understatement.)

Terry Shulze has pointed out that police apparently attempted to get rid of the “problem of the tray.” A witness who sat right next to the gunman in the café, Rebecca McKenna, mentioned the tray in her written statement. She said the gunman carried it back into the café. It appears she was told to revise that statement to say that he dropped the tray, but she corrected this, in the margin, to say that the tray tipped but he caught it.

Suddenly, via Mike Willesee, More Exculpation?

There is a video of Martin Bryant being interviewed by four policepersons (one or two at a time) on July 4, 1996, while he was still in hospital. For 20 years Australians were told that there was an audio recording but that the video had ‘failed.’ Suddenly bits of the video were broadcast on Sydney’s Channel 7 show, “Sunday Night,” on March 6, 2016.

On the same show, solicitor John Avery, being interviewed by TV host Mike Willessee, admitted — in a way that must have shocked every lawyer in the country — that he had teased Bryant into pleading guilty:

MIKE WILLESEE: Bryant was very sensitive to suggestions he had a low IQ, and Avery realised he might be able to use this sensitivity to encourage him to plead guilty. It was the killer’s Achilles heel.

JOHN AVERY: I said, “Mate, you’re gonna be made to look stupid. They’ll say ‘simple Martin’, ‘simple fellow’. “This is a nonsense running this type of trial, where you just want people to point to you and say, ‘Yes, this is the man who shot at us.’” You know, the next time I saw him, he’d changed his mind. He said “I’ll plead guilty to everything.”

On the same show, Avery sprung a pack of drawings that he claims were made by Bryant, of the murder scenes. Avery:

“He’s the figure in black [in the drawings], shooting, and the victims are those in red. It paints a pretty chilling version of events from which it’s impossible to escape the conclusion that he’s certainly admitting full responsibility for what happened.”

Not on your Nelly!

The most exculpatory evidence from “the Sunday Night” show may well be the aforementioned July 4, 1996 video of the police interview. Note, however, that the video looks to be a compilation of many “takes” – at times Bryant is sitting in front of a different color curtain.

This video constitutes the RECORD OF INTERVIEW, and thus is a VERY, VERY IMPORTANT part of the prosecution case. It is the words of the accused. If we could hear the whole thing we may well have proof of Bryant’s innocence.

Is the Evidence Sufficiently “Fresh”?

As mentioned, the new legislation, which consists of a 2015 amendment to Tasmania’s criminal code of 1924, provides that a convict may seek from a judge leave to appeal, if he or she has “fresh and compelling evidence.” It must be evidence that could not have been adduced at the time of the trial. Consider this:

  1. The Tray: It was not until 2004 that anyone other than police saw a “Police Eyes Only training tape” with gory scenes of the dead bodies in the café. It reveals a blue sports bag and next to it a tray with the Solo drink can on it. So, back in 1996, Bryant’s lawyers could not have demanded that the prosecution furnish fingerprint evidence from the tray.
  1. The Seascape Tapes: It was not until the 1998 broadcast of “A Current Affair” that anyone could have known that Bryant used the words “about to shoot your main man.”
  1. The Admission of Coercion by John Avery: It was not until 2016 that we learned, from the Mike Willesee show, that Bryant had been threatened with mockery if he pleaded not guilty. Note: even this story by Avery may be bogus, but the fact remains that someone, somehow, got the prisoner to change his mind. (Incidentally, Avery has been struck off the rolls for fraud with other clients.)
  1. The Video’d Record of Interview: This, too, is fresh evidence since we did not know of it until 2016. If it was cut-and-pasted, selectively, then it is fabricated evidence.

In sum, there is plenty of “fresh evidence” to qualify for an application for leave to a single judge.

  1. Jim Laycock’s Witness Statement That It Was Not Bryant

Can we count this item as fresh evidence? No, sensu stricto — officials had it since May 10, 1996. But the accused didn’t really have access to it, being of below-standard intelligence, and not having counsel that would help him make use of this exculpatory evidence. And his guardian seemed to be uninvolved in the case.

In this photo of Jim Laycock’s statement, we can see that it was held by the DPP:

laycock statement

Conclusion

The matter is simple. The goal today is to undo the injustice of the conviction and imprisonment of an Australian citizen. Such a thing should be easy enough for a court to handle. It will also be easy enough for Bryant’s fellow citizens to countenance and support, as it is absolutely NORMAL legal procedure.

According to the 2015 Tasmanian legislation mentioned above, if the fresh and compelling evidence is deemed worthy, it is open to the Court to make an order of acquittal. So says Section 402(8)(a).

When the Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman presented this amendment to the Criminal Code Act in state parliament, he said, in his second reading:

“The Bill provides a sensible and balanced approach to providing an avenue for genuine applications to be brought by convicted persons and the strong public interest in finality in criminal litigation.”

— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court and co-author of Truth in Journalism. She is a graduate of Adelaide Law School.

 

 

Adapted photo of David Wrigley's woodcarving at 
High Court (L) and and getebookz.club (R)
Laycock adapted photo Sydney Morning Herald

 

111 COMMENTS

  1. Wow, what an excellent article. Share, share and then share some more.
    Each person must ask themselves these questions:

    What if the people killed were either their friends or family? Wouldn’t you want to know the truth and have any/all entities involved in this terrible tragedy held accountable?

    What if Martin Bryant was your friend and/or family member, wouldn’t you want him to have a fair, open and honest hearing in the public arena with all the evidence being presented to the public with nothing being kept secret?

    • You have hit the nail on the head right there, Xrbarra.
      I hope legal eagles will act protectively of their trade.
      Here is my message to them, and to the poor dear cops who are told to protect criminals:
      (Mathew 6:24) No man can serve two masters.

      If you are on the job, you have to do what the job description says. Don’t let the Bozos tell you otherwise. The public will support you. We are a society, after all.

      You see why our new book is called: Port Arthur: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The whole thing has gone too far and needs to be brought back on track. Stop enabling the various mafias!

  2. Tomorrow is practically the 20th anniversary of hard work on this case by Andrew MacGregor and Terry Shulze. (I myself contirbuted nothing other than a serendipitous discovery of the 2015 amendment.) Go, Andrew! Go, Terry!

    So I thank those two sloggers and many others. I also give heartfelt thanks to Ray Martin of “A Current Affair”, and Mike Willesee, of Channel 7, for “leaking” vital information. Keep up the good work, boys.

  3. As far as the Current Affair tapes and Bryant referring to YOUR main man, that is, that there are others at Seascape, there are at least three Police statements that refer to other people at Seascape. One of those Police statements is by an officer under a police vehicle who is watching a person over at the boat shed. While he is watching in one direction, he is shot at and the Police vehicle hit from a shooter over at Seascape. Meanwhile, Bryant is on the phone with the negotiator. Definitely exculpatory evidence – that is, if the Court ever got a chance to see the Police statements and hear what is on the tapes.

    You glossed over the firearm issue, but again it is exculpatory as neither of the firearms used in the massacre were owned or ever used by Bryant. Bryant specifically says in the ‘cut and paste’ record of interview that the SLR isn’t his (he owned an AR-10, which was confiscated by Terry Hill 34 days before the massacre).

    There’s heaps more issues that a proper court hearing could reveal, but this should be enough to get an appeal – if we had an honest independent legal system.

    • Please explain the Terrance Hill confiscation to me again, Teacher. I have seen a threatening letter to Terrance but I don’t quite know how it fits. MagGregor said Hill stood up to the bullies. Isn’t that beautiful?
      Terry, the cop who was under a vehicle is Whittle, I believe. I wonder how many of the old cops will attend the ceremony.

      Note: to anyone wanting to go: At 12 noon on Apr 28 there is a ceremony at Port Arthur, and Hobart folks can watch it on a screen inside St David’s Church at noon.

      • Bryant came into Hill’s shop 34 days before the massacre with the AR-10. He put it down on Hill’s counter and Hill cleared the firearm. Not only was there a full magazine, but there was a live round in the chamber. Hill confiscated the firearm from Bryant as he considered it to be a threat to public safety.

        The conspirators then had a problem as center-fire self-loading firearms were the main target of the firearm legislation. They substituted a SLR for Bryant’s AR-10. The Australian military had previously been issued with SLRs so there were heaps in Oz, however the SLR they used to substitute for Bryant’s gun was a metric thread European SLR from Belgium, nobody had ever seen a Belgium SLR in Oz before.

        I can’t remember the name of the officer under the Police vehicle. I remember that Whittle was one of the Police that did see other people at Seascape. You can check back through the Police statements and find that statement – it would make a good addition to this series of comments. You wouldn’t need to repeat the entire statement, just name and date and the relevant portion of the statement.

        • Andrew and I were discussing this yesterday and he just got back to me, it was Pat Allen under the vehicle, see if you can find his statement.

          • MacGregor does not think it is available but that it was said in the Hobart Mercury on November 26, 1996 (Bryant was sentenced on Nov 22). Here is a link to MacGregor’s talk in 2007:
            http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/mcgregor_speech.html

            Personally I don’t want to get into Whodunnit, in this particular Gumshoe article, as emphasizing Bryant’s entitlement to proper treatment under the law should suffice as a first step.

            If folks knew only the legal goings-on re Port Arthur they would be greatly empowered. By contrast if we only discuss how the powerful control us we feel overwhelmed. I say our heritage of law is fantastic and can see us through — if we bother to wield it.

          • The system eventually worked for Lindy Chamberlain and none of the Police were charged with perverting the course of justice, not even Joy Kuhl the forensic specialist – she even got a promotion. However, the blowback from this operation would be multiples of magnitude different.

            Now is when you see how good this legal system really is.

    • Dee found Allen’s statement:

      “At about 5.30pm, I received information that there was movement on the roof of one of the outer buildings at Seascape. I climbed partially out of the culvert, and looked under Constable WHITTLE’s vehicle, I was able to see the rook of the main building, and one of the outer buildings at Seascape. I believe I saw movement on the roof of the building south of the main building, and as I was attempting to move into a better position, I heard a large calibre weapon discharge, from the direction I was looking. I then heard the sound of the bullet striking the front of Constable WHITTLE’s police vehicle. I immediately fell back into the culvert and remained there.”

      “Further shots were discharged from the direction of Seascape, in various directions including towards our position. At about 6pm I heard the sound of a high pitched yelling and screaming coming from the direction of Seascape. There were further shots discharged, and at about 7.20pm I heard the sound of shots being discharged from the house, and then one which sounded as if it was discharged inside the residence at Seascape.”

      So, we have multiple persons moving about at Seascape and shots fired from different locations. The “high pitch yelling and screaming” is explained by the statements of other Police who witnessed a naked woman trying to escape. It was likely Sally Martin and she was ‘subdued’ by a blow to her head which fractured her skull and that the pathologist confirmed was the cause of her death. Later, she was shot through the chest, perhaps the discharge that was heard inside the residence.

  4. “… The Police have announced that they did procure DNA evidence from the blue sports bag…. ”

    Even if the police do end up saying that “They have DNA evidence that Martin Bryant held that Solo can and food tray”, It could simply be a flat-out LIE.

    It wouldn’t be the first time Aussie Police have falsified/created evidence in order to get a conviction.

    • If they had evidence that Bryant had eaten from the tray – they would have USED IT! They didn’t, that’s why they had to start strapping up the case with the worthless photo IDs weeks later.

      I have little doubt that they got good prints off of the can, the drink cup, the eating utensils and the carry tray. They would have run those prints – they know the identity of who ate from that tray.

      • Going on what Willesee and Avery said in that documentary:
        I’m sure Avery would have said. We have your prints Martin. But INSTEAD he said “Martin your story is bull etc…. and you’ll look a fool if you don’t plead guilty.”
        And then – just to make sure – the brilliantly drawn sketches are produced.

        • Avery wasn’t working for Bryant…he didn’t have his client’s best interests at heart and did a SLOPPY job that he should hang his head in shame. Nothing can link Bryant as the actual killer…..

    • I agree with you completely, Bill, especially having read the book by Weare on how the FBI labs in America come up with whatever finding they are supposed to come up with.

      But the point of “the tray” is that the mere LACK of cops-doing-the-standard-forensics is what amounts to evidence in favor of Bryant.

      It’s inconceivable (to me, anyway) that if the state wanted to track down the real killer they’d neglect such an obvious test.

    • Send a link to this article to Aly, Model and the writer of the article, Busson and see if you get any replies.

      More and more people are waking up, they’re having a hard time trying to keep a lid on this psy-op.

      • I wrote to Waleed this morning – a polite letter directing him to the article. He did train as a lawyer. Let us wait and see.

    • I hope for the benefit of our criminal justice system that Wally is never called up on jury service in one of Her Majesty’s criminal conspiracy trials that run every week, run by one of Her Majesty’s Crown prosecutors.
      One of current interest is the charges of conspiracy against 4 accused in the Curtis Chang murder.
      In due course jurors in that case will be compelled to examine any circumstantial evidence produced by the Crown and come to a verdict.
      Perhaps Wally ( and Faine) should revisit his law lectures.
      Of course that also applies to all the msm journos. Try service on a jury and use the intellect and common sense to do your jobs.
      No way, lunch for jurors doing their duty is pretty miserable and the daily rate more so.
      Be interesting to hear of our msm harlots doing their jobs on a juror’s pay.

  5. Terry, Dee said she will attempt an article based on the police statements, not just of P Allen, but several others. Of course that will be time consuming.

    I say Martin Bryant has got enough to go on right now with the 5 “fresh evidence” things. Would you like to hear my pick of the 5? It is the one about his lawyer pushing him to plead guilty. And the mom, Carleen, has said (in her 2010 book) that she was instructed to tell her son that he would not be allowed to see her or his sister Lindy again if he did not plead guilty.

    She obeyed that instruction. Amazing as that may be.

  6. This is an excellent article!! I can’t get over the many similarities between Martin’s case and the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Although Dzhokhar did have a trial, unlike Martin, the trial was only for show, with no legitimate evidence shown, and with no one defending Dzhokhar. There was plenty of exculpatory evidence, but none of it was presented. Any lawyer should easily be able to get Martin exonerated, just like Dzhokhar’s lawyers could easily have done, but chose not to. What wicked government officials we all have. I love this: (Mathew 6:24) No man can serve two masters.

    • Rightee-ho, Cheryl. No man can serve two masters. Any cop in southern Italy who is working for the mafia (or Camorra) is not also working for the people. Even if he spends hours a day directing traffic, he must be working for the boss to whom he kowtows on other matters.

      Likewise a judge in, say, Italy, who arranges convictions or acquittals to suit the crime bosses, cannot be said to be a judge at all since the job of judge is to be impartial.

      It seems to be in our nature, however, to revere as a judge any person who holds the title ‘judge.’ Defo it’s in our nature to continue to believe that our elected pollies are “representing the people” simply because we have been taught that that is their job.

      This is a failure of our brain and is costing us a lot. As I argue in “Prosecution for Treason” (2011), it’s time we used the word “impostor” to identify the fact that some office holders are plants.

      (And though I did not say it in that book, I’d now add: likewise for bigtime radio hosts, TV anchorpersons, and newspaper editors. Any resemblance between what is written in the Boston Globe’s published code of journalist ethics, and how Globe editor Kevin Cullen has handled the Tsarnaev case, is purely coincidental. Cullen can’t possibly be working as a “truthseeker” – as no man can serve two masters.)

  7. “Note: in murder cases, even when the accused pleads guilty, it is customary to hold a trial. But Bryant had no trial, just a sentencing!”

    There is NEVER, EVER a trial in murder cases when someone pleads guilty. Never. There is elocution of the crime, and a sentencing hearing It is impossible to hold a trial when the accused pleads guilty.

    Please stop spreading this myth.

    • Max – thanks for the comment.
      However, I think it very relevant to ask: Was the person coerced into a plea after pleading innocent for 5 or more months? I watched a documentary which included the interrogation tapes — of a young girl being badgered into a guilty murder plea – only after 8 hours. She said she was innocent 76 times, then — they said “tell us and then we can all go home” – So this girl fabricated a story of battering this baby so she could go home. A witness said no that did not happen. That was in 8 hours.
      The other question – was he of the mental capacity to plead guilty?
      The law provides protections.
      John Avery admits his part in “persuading” Bryant to change his plea.
      I have now read the transcripts of the seascape cottage – extraordinary stuff.
      This whole case – is so bizarre. He sounds like he, as he said, was on a Hawaiian holiday.
      When they say something went down at Port Arthur — He asks if anyone was hurt?

      This whole case is like trying to find your way out of a forest in fog.

      • Dee, what Max said is correct. Perhaps Mary meant the recitation of the facts the case is based upon, however, even though it is done in a court room it is definitely not a ‘trial’ where the evidence is tested.

        • No, Terry, I did mean a trial. If i am wrong I will admit I am wrong. (Not ready to admit it until I check further.)

          As for Dee’s comment, that is a separate matter. When you have an accused person — even of reasonable intelligence — whose lawyer is mis-representing him, the whole plan is screwed up. You are aware in the Boston case how the boy, Jahar, age 19, said Not Guilty, and then Madame Defender, Judy Clarke gets up and says “He did it.”

          It is mentioned in my book “Fraud Upon the Court” that Albert DeSalvo (the Boston Strangler – Not) was tried for a minor crime, during which his crooked lawyer, the famous F Lee Bailey, announced in court that his client was guilty of the strangling murders.

          Will the Judy Clarke’s of this world ever be punished?

          Anyway, thank you, Max, for correcting me if you are right. Please, Anybody, send me corrections. I want to get it right.

          • Max, are you still there? Do you have any comment on the actual statement by Avery that he persuaded the man, MB, who apparently had a guardian, to plead guilty?

            (I recently wrote to Perpetual Trustees to ask if they are Bryant’s guardian and they said the law forbids them to tell me. I then asked them to cite the law and they referred me to the Privacy Act. I shall now ask the Attorney General to assist me with that.)

          • From where did you get your LLB Mary? I’d be asking for a refund. There is not a trial when the accused pleads guilty. Never has been, never will be. If you don’t have that basic understanding then it is highly unlikely you actually have a Bachelor of Laws.

          • Thomas, the locus of my education is listed in the bio at the end of my article. Hint: it is in South Australia, on the very banks of the Torrens River. What a school! The lectures were given strictly in Latin. My Grade-Point-Average? REDACTED.

            I see that you and Max use the same “never-ever” phraseology. But don’t worry I won’t get all creepy and conspiratorial and read anything into that.

            OK Maybe I was wrong on the trial thing. But since you did say there has NEVER been a case, if I am able to find one will you buy me a jar of vegemite?

          • Most interesting Max and Thomas.
            Is the judge obliged to take into account a previous plea of innocence?
            Does the judge review all the evidence – or is the evidence disregarded completely and is no longer relevant?
            What – in law – protects a person from coercion say in the case of a mafiosi murder? (e.g. a gun to the head – or else your family gets it)
            How does the law decide whether the person is of the right mind to plea either way?
            And also how does the law make sure a person has been provided with defense – in the first instance?

          • LAWSUIT FOR NEGLIGENCE

            Max and Thomas, kindly tell me what law school(s) you hold your degree(s) from. I shall write to the dean and inform her that you missed (i.e., overlooked, disregarded, neglected) a significant error in my article “Re-opening the Martin Bryant Case” – that is, in addition to the one that you did point out.

          • You may, I use the word may, have an LLB, but you do not appear to have been admitted in SA or Victora.

            You can write to every Dean in the country (you may have already) but it will come to naught. You lack basic credibility.

            The “evidence” you cite is circumstantial at best, and would likely not even pass muster in a BoP tribunal. It is telling that it is on the Internet, where the standard is non existent.

            Your continued push for “justice” is, it would appear, a personal crusade. I don’t know what pushed you to this, but I hope, for your sake, that you find your peace soon. There is a better life to live than the one you are living.

          • THOMAS IS A YOUTUBE TROLL!
            I have read his same never ending comments with the same terminology and writing style over there.
            Give him the flick because he’s not a ‘genuine’ person, this bloke writes under a few different alias and attacks everyone who questions the official story.

          • If you were educated as you claim, you’d know the answers to the questions you ask. Any law student in first year knows. Yet strangely you don’t.

            You think Max and I are the same person? What an absurd suggestion. Perhaps it is your willingness to jump to conclusions which has seen you wander down the conspiracy theory path.

          • @ Thomas – I notice all you offer is bile and vitriol, perhaps your credibility would be enhanced if you could simply offer even one piece of evidence that can withstand the slightest scrutiny that proves Martin Bryants guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Not even the police have done that, so good luck.

          • His sworn confession not good enough for you? Of course not – despite having no evidence to the contrary you ignore his admissions to suit your personal crusade.

            He confessed. He was of sound mind at law. There was no defence open to him. Therefore he plead guilty.

          • with an IQ of what? 66? after months of being locked up, all the while pleading his innocence, You examined him and determined he was of sound mind in your qualified opinion as a ??? ummm… never mind…

          • The court determined. Qualified individuals – not tin foil hat wearing folk like yourself. Please, for the sake of your family, seek professional help.

            I know your mind won’t be changed. No matter the evidence you will always believe he is innocent. I’m just thankful we have laws that prevent you from accessing firearms.

          • Innocent people do confess to crimes they did not commit. To date, the Innocence Project (US) has worked to exonerate 337 people in the US. In 88, or 27%, of the first 325 exonerations, the innocent suspect confessed, even providing details about the crime.

          • no matter what evidence? you have NO evidence.. lol. put up or shut up. If you show something reasonable, all here are open to consider it. we are after truth foremost. if all you have is insults, feel free, but it speaks volumes about what youre trying to argue for.

          • I have a sworn confession. You have a website, and suggestions.

            I have an education in law and legal procedure. You have a website, and suggestions.

            Thank you linesman, thank you ball boy.

          • like i said, you have nothing, i do note however your spectacular agility in avoiding dees questions .. here

            whats wrong mr know it all? questions too hard?

          • Ok Keyboard Warrior.

            If you’re so confident then go public. Bring your info to Martin Place. Show the world.

            See how “confident” you are without the protection of your computer screen.

          • Wow you’re actually not very smart are you? I’m challenging you to air your theory and “evidence” beyond the protection of your mate’s website.

            You’re an anonymous keyboard warrior and you know, deep down, that if you confronted people publicly with your theories, they would laugh at you.

            So you do it online, in your safe, anonymous space.

            Set up a stand in Martin Place. Show your case for Bryant’s freedom. See how people react.

            That is what I am challenging you to do. But you won’t. Because you’re a coward.

          • dee and mary not anonymous, and im as anonymous as you. why martin place? im a long way from sydney, how about you meet me, and we just punch each other in the face until one falls down, and we call that one the loser.. since you have nothing of substance to offer.

          • by the way, when i share my opinions in person, no one has ever laughed at me, but youre probably speaking from personal experience – with your education in law and legal procedure. ha!

          • Thomas your “case” has been made easy by Avery persuading Bryant to change his plea.
            What about you take a step back to the hearing when Bryant was saying he was innocent (30 Sept).
            THEN – If you want Thomas – you can email me the brief of your evidence to prove his guilt – And FairD can email his defense of Bryant – and I’ll publish it a separate article.

          • “That is what I am challenging you to do. But you won’t. Because you’re a coward.”

            id actually be very happy to set up a stand in martin place, or anywhere, and tell anyone who will listen why i believe it is not unreasonable to question the official account of events. im not afraid of that at all.

            id be even happier to do it if youll sit alongside me and tell those people why you consider me to be wrong.. ill do it for a month if you want. I will admit to needing some gumshoe help with printed material to handout etc.. by it would be my pleasure!

          • Thomas, I have written many times before about how intelligent people attack people questioning the status quo. They start calling the other person names.

          • if thomas wants last word ill let him, sorry to make a mess of the comments by encouraging his verbal defecations.

  8. I didn’t know any of this…thank you so much for enlightening us with what’s been hidden over all these years! Social media is a wonderful tool….I’m definitely sharing wide and far! I’m laughing at the gunshots being made out to be coughs by McCarthy…who the hell would believe that ridiculous statement? and WHO else was shooting while calm Martin was downstairs on the phone to the police negotiator? where is the FULL tape? does anybody have a copy?

    I am absolutely mortified and shocked to know Avery betrayed his own client for his own personal fame with becoming THE only person who was able to get a confession out of Australia’s mass murderer! He tricked his own client and no doubt poorly represented him…why? because it appears he had a hidden agenda!…He was smarter than Bryant & KNEW how to manipulate him into a confession knowing he had a very low IQ!

    I also watched the ‘pieces’ of 60 Minutes police interview with Bryant and noticed they also tricked Bryant to believe his solicitor said it was ok for him to them without being there. There was something very odd about the clarity of the timecodes…they looked pretty fresh to me!

          • Dear Danz, I am an American import myself, but have taken up some of the lingo here. If a thing feels fair, it’s called “fair dinkum.” Not quite the same as being “dinkum di,” which means genuine, aka “rolled gold.”

            So there’s this guy at Gumshoe who uses the screen name Fair Dinkum. (He carries an umbrella but that’s another story.)
            Further down in this column he came to my aid (bigtime) so I was just having a moment of thanksgiving for “the fairest of them all.” We ran out of space below so I stuck it up here.

            (Or maybe you meant what is the English of Latin “Ubi Max sit?”
            Where is Max? I think he may have become indisposed.)

          • Not that I presumed for one second you needed any sort of assistance Mary, far more capable are you than me when it comes to the written word, however – youre too polite, and like Ned says..

            “If there are reasonable doubts and questions concerning the murders, why would anyone care if they are examined and waste their time with insults and vilification of those who are asking the questions?”

            and Paul

            ““Thomas” carries with him the stench of the drive-by shill,”

            and people like that deserve no politeness in my opinion.
            anyway..

            Danz mentions the power of social media..

            as yesterday was the anniversary.. funny word for such an event.. I spent the day on twitter, posting this article under the hashtags #auspol #portarthur , ad nauseam, upsetting quite a few people, ( who didnt care to look into it ) being blocked by many, including virginia trioli from ABC for merely saying she was wrong.. and telling them evidence shows there are reasonable questions that should be reasonably answered.

            I did also get into a long to and fro with a philosophy lecturer.. who though not even reading this article or doing any research, was able to continue to tell me how wrong i was and that i was just the regular conspiracy theorist type..

            on a brighter note, I just got an email alert, I am now being followed on twitter by Jacqui Lambie – my first follower! to her credit, I have sent her tweets – perhaps a little abrupt, but she actually engages.. I have been instantly blocked by other politicians.. then again, like I said.. Im not always polite.

            P.S. I grew up with the understanding the correct vernacular was “Dinky Di” 🙂

          • Geez, FD, as I have spent the whole night apologizing for my “no trial” sins, do I have to apologize now for getting the idiom wrong? OK, thanks for the correction: ‘Dinki di’ sounds fair dinkum to me.

            As for Jacqui Lambie, commonwealth senator from Tassie (from Burnie yet), she is one of the 16 lucky ducks who got my letter with the fodder note. She can’t have been unmoved. ( A lady at the Fringe nearly fainted when we read it out.)

            As for the pen being mightier than the sword, I admit I sometimes feel powerful (until I notice it has no effect). But surely the pen is not more powerful than the umbrella — by which I mean your anger.

            Go, umbrella man. And but for not wanting to clog up this thread, I would run that under-appreciated song fom Camelot: “Who will take me to the fair?”

  9. i am quoting from Joe Paul, Executive Officer, State Disaster Committee, in his preface to the 1997 Seminar Papers:

    “The Director of the State Emergency Service in Tasmania invited the Director General of Emergency Management Australia, Mr Alan Hodges to attend [a memorial event in 1996] and speak. [They] discussed the possibility of conducting a seminar on the mainland of Australia to pass on all of the lessons learnt….. As a general principle it was agreed that only those persons who had a direct involvement in the event… should attend and speak.

    “A date for the seminar was then set for 10 – 11 December 1996. This date was set as it was felt that the legal aspects of the case would be wound up by that time. As the date for the seminar drew near, the gunman appeared before court and unexpectedly pleaded not guilty….

    “The new dates of 11 – 12 March 1997 were then set…. In due course the offender appeared again before court and changed his plea to guilty thus allowing the seminar to proceed ….”

  10. “Thomas” carries with him the stench of the drive-by shill, with all the usual tricks such shills bring. Gumshoe has clearly come to their attention.

  11. Well, things have hotted up a bit!!
    In passing it is a court’s duty to determine if the ‘admmited facts’ submitted to the Court by the Crown constitute the crime/s contained in the indictment/information. If those ‘admitted’ facts do not contain all the necesary elements of the relevant offence the court should reject a plea of guilty.
    No doubt the ‘admitted facts’ consented to by ‘the defence’ did satisfy the court, the plea of guilty was accepted and the court would then proceed to a conviction. Thereafter the sentencing process is dealt with.
    As for the mention by a ‘not happy’ intruder of Bryant’s sworn testimony, I am not aware of any ‘sworn’ testimony by Mr. Bryant. Perhaps a reference could be provided.
    In further passing I heard an interview by Alan Jones on Radio 2 GB (Sydney) with Senator Leyonhjelm (Australian Senate) this morning concernig the reality of the statistics in Australia regarding hoimicides by firearms.
    The statistics were published by the ABC “facts Check” a few (?) days ago. Bit much to remember or cite here but they are not as some would wish to interpret them.
    However it was interesting that the Senator spoke about Port Arthur …………….Whilst there was no expression of doubt in reagrd to Mr. Bryant’s culpability, the Senator referred to the fact that there was no inquiry/inquest, coronial investigation etc. In contrast, 3 people died at the Lindt Cafe and we have had weeks of examination.
    Perhaps the Senator has a point?
    Who knows if there is a hint of an awakening?
    If there are reasonable doubts and questions concerning the murders, why would anyone care if they are examined and waste their time with insults and vilification of those who are asking the questions?
    Alan Jones made the point with the Senator…… what is wrong about debate, we do not have to agree, but debate should not be closed down just because one disagrees with a current concensus. History is full of examples, when in due course the ‘concensus’ has been demonstared to be uncivilisd unscientific bullshit often based on lies.

    As an aside: Dee good on you in reporting on the hacking of Rivero’s news site. It is important that restrictions on freedom of expression and reporting are immediately exposed and publicised.
    It is time that our msms journos started standing up to such tactics in their own workplaces…………….It is called FREEDOM.

    • Thanks, Ned. I hereby modify what I said about it being customary to hold a trial when the murderer confesses. I now say: “A guilty plea from an accused murderer may be accepted or not accepted by the judge. If the judge thinks the confession is not kosher, he says ‘I don’t accept it’ and therefore there will be a trial.”

      In his Nov 22, 1996 sentencing of Bryant, Justice Cox made bold to say:
      “After having heard the unchallenged account of these terrible crimes narrated by the learned Director of Public Prosecution [Damian Bugg] and his Junior, an account painstakingly prepared by them from the materials diligently assembled by the team of police and forensic investigators [Solo can. Hello?], it is unnecessary for me to repeat it in detail or to attempt more than a brief summary.” He then gave the hapless candidate 35 life sentences, right then and there.

      Note: As Cheryl Dean points out below, though, even the holding of a trial won’t lead to a corrrect verdict if all the court players are breaking the rules. [Carmen Ortiz. Hello?]

  12. Dee, Mary, Gumshoe,
    wow.. a quick repy too! I need assistance in composing an email now
    http://i.imgur.com/BPRBZnJ.jpg

    when I started posting here, I used a disposable email address, if you ever need to send abuse directly to me, please use the one I will use from now on. 🙂

  13. Thomas, you have a sworn confession? You actually have the original signed confession? Not a copy printed or downloaded but the original? Please produce it for us to see…..

    You can tell the person(s) who have no real evidence/truth to show because they are always the ones who abuse everybody else with personal attacks…. It’s their only defence!!

    I mean natural person(s) and not the legal fiction you claim to represent!

    • The abuse of people is in no way a defence.
      If Thomas tried that in court instead of presenting an articulate submission on alleged relevant facts, he would be chucked out and if he is a lawyer he would soon be walking the park with a bubble machine seeking coins from little enthralled kiddies.
      On the other hand, if were to be a journalist, (or ‘shock Jock’) he would soon find himself as an editor of the publication ……………… and might line up for a Walkley Award. Then he might even be pre-selected for an election and enter our parliament as a representative of the people.
      As a shock jock, I am sure the advertisng revenue would flow in.

  14. All of which brings to mind the recent (and nowadays mandatory) ANZAC day terror “scare” in Melbourne. It appears we have all the ingredients here for a quick falsie just in time for the news cycles that sells us a numbers of things without having to invest too much in leaky information. He’s young so public release of information about him can be kept to a minimum and controlled, the “plot” doesn’t appear to be much of an anything, but it can be made to sound scary (these days a plot can be two text messages to a friend and an undeliverable email), the heroic Police clearly need all that surveillance power and would probably like a little more, and the heroes of ANZAC can strut down Swanston Street chests out, knowing the torch of freedom they believe they fought for burns on telegenically.

    Interesting that he apparently turned up in “de-radicalization” school. Its probably the go-to place now for recruiting patsies once the less compromised Mosques worked out the drill.

  15. Dear Fair Dinkum, you got a bullseye! Thank God.
    I suggest you reply like this:

    Dear Senator Lambie,
    It is time to take action to free the prisoner. He did not do the Port Arthur shootings. He did kidnap a man that day at another location, and he has always admitted that. He has consistently denied being at the PA Historic Site. Indeed he denied it from April 28 for about six months despite solitary confinement and his Mom telling him to “confess.” Fact is he had no adequate counsel.

    Your state’s parliament passed a law in 2015 amending the Criminal Code Act of 1924. Its section 402 allows for a re-opening of a case for which there is fresh evidence. We – “we” being a bunch of Aussies at GumshoeNews.com, including retired barrister Terry Shulze — have assembled some fresh evidence and there is loads more.

    But here’s the rub. We can’t act for Bryant as we are not his lawyer and we can’t reach him to ask if he would like our help. Recently one of us – Cherri Bonney – made two visits to Risdon prison to attempt a visit. She was told she needs his permission to visit – but again this seems to be a trick. If the prison says “Bryant does not want visitors” how can we know that he really said that? It is highly unlikely.

    Meanwhile the said Ms Cherri Bonney managed to get 2,200 signatures at a Change.org petition asking that an inquest be held, re the Port Arthur massacre. That greatly shows the necessary popular support, but an inquest may take forever.

    The freeing of the prisoner can be done my a single judge per Section 402 mentioned above. Another way out is the RPM, royal prerogative of mercy. A pardon can be given by the queen via Tasmania’s Governor Professor Kate Warner. Easy-peasy.

    Thank you so much [etc]…. Note: retired barrister Terry Shulze of NSW will pitch in immeditately to assist with background on the legal case.

    • MARY! BRYANT DID NOT KIDNAP ANYBODY!

      What are you going on about? Don’t you remember Laycock’s statement? He watched the abduction of Pears and the killing of Hall out in front of the General Store – BRYANT DIDN’T DO IT!

      Bryant was in Seacape, not out running around kidnapping people.

      • Terry, I agree that the kidnapping witnessed by Laycock was done by A PERSON OTHER THAN Bryant. I think “the powers that be” provided the real Bryant with an “opportunity” to do a benign kidnapping (of God knows whom) somewhere that day in order to confuse him. The real Martin Bryant has confessed, in the police interview, to having kidnapped a man in the boot of his car that day.

        Of course I also think that his arrival at Seascape on the famous day was done “under instructions.” He HAD to be there so the final scene could play out. The ability of The Planners to think of every detail is quite remarkable, but we know from DOZENS of false flag events that somebody in their ranks has a real knack for it.

        This stuff is so hateful I can hardly stand to talk about it anymore. It’s a good thing the public is starting to wake up.

        • Mary, I explained all this in private emails to you. So once again, Bryant was there when the BMW arrived at Seascape with Pears in the boot.

          Bryant as part of his script to the negotiator told a stuffed up version of how he kidnapped Pears. Take a look at the siege tape transcript and you can see how bad he got that story.

          When he was subjected to the theatrical production for the ‘Record of Interview’ there is a clip of him re-telling that story. It was probably as a result of a prompt from one of the investigators asking something like “Martin, tell us again about the story of the kidnapping”. We don’t know how he was prompted as the transcript begins at the point he starts telling the story.

          In the version he gave in the Record of Interview he got the firearm wrong, the location wrong, the people wrong, the vehicle wrong and the event wrong. HOWEVER, although Bryant was not a credible witness of the event, there was a very credible witness to the event. That was Jim Laycock who knew Bryant since he was 10 years old. He knew him from when he came in the Broadarrow Cafe that Laycock owned. He knew where Bryant sat, how he liked his hot chocolate and Devonshire tea, the conversations he had with his daughter. Laycock said it wasn’t Bryant.

          Fair dinkum, Bryant did not kidnap anyone.

  16. I have been in the pratice of law since about 1970 under many roles, privately as a solicitor, prosecuting for the Crown and appearing for the defence, plus appearing in the Family Court and in commercial matters and succession matters.
    All up, about 46 years.
    I have examined 911 for about 12-13 years and am listed at lawyers for911truth.com.
    I have not examined Port Arthur in detail and reserve an opinion. (As I have in the Lindy Chamberlain case …. I have not examined ALL the evidence!l)
    I have met Terry, Dee and Mary.
    In regard to 911, I have met Richard Gage, Lt’ Col’ Bob Bowman, (rip) professor Jones and Frank Legge, they have communicated many anomalies and questions in regard to 911. Too much to consider here.
    I have observed recent reports and comments at gumshoe and noted the work of Keith Noble.
    I do not have the resources to check source information as presented by many, especially by Terry, a retired colleage, who have/has raised numerous alleged factual discrepancies in the official government accout and investigation of the tradegy at Port Arthur, including Mr. Bryant’s alleged legal ‘representation’ as disclosed in a recent Mike Willisee program.
    Nonetheless, matters raised clearly require a competent impartial review, be it with a Royal Commission.
    If the ‘torturing’ of a possible innocent intellectually disabled man is to continue for his life resting upon Australia’s conscience, then it must at least, be based upon justice having been seen to be done.
    All questions must be answered, otherwise the incarceration chain fails possibly by one failed link. That would mean, a reasonable doubt has to be entertained.

    • Brae, my good man,
      The “one failed link” idea sounds good, but how does one get the matter into a court? In the Tsarnaev case, not one attorney in the whole state of Massachusetts was willing to be the “escort” (or whatever you call that thing when an in-state lawyer vouches for an out-of-stater) when Jack Remington Graham wanted to file the very vital affidavit of Aunt Maret? Q.V.

      Let a brave lawyer in Tassie step forward and save the nation. Let a brave aunty-type person file to be Martin’s guardian.
      Let somebody say “Caput gerat lupinum” all over the place.

      Come on, everybody, what the Sam Hill are we watiing for?

      • It is beyond ; the lawyers, mass media, politicians and shock jocks.
        It is up to an informed public, the aforementioned are Austtalia’s servants.
        Time the servants realised that!

  17. Surely the only hope with any sort of appeal would be with his mother acting as his guardian? Clearly no one in the media, government or legal fraternity has intention of re opening this case and giving Martin the fair trial he deserves….

      • It will be terrific if she stands up — as she should. The MPs have “parliamentary privilege” — they can float any ideas and not face a lawsuit or be charged with a crime (unless they repeat it outside the legislative room).

        She needn’t even come up with solutions — just make it legit to talk about Port Arthur. Ask openly “Why can’t anbody talk to the prisoner? we have a few questions he could answer.”

        I think the better person to deal with it is a member of the Tassie legislature — Lambie is federal. But “she’ll do” — like mad!

        • Certainly a test; of courage, commitment, justice, transparency and democracy.
          That is what made our soldiers heroic Australians in many conflicts.
          The test/question is; have we lost it ?

        • So basically if no one is able to appeal for him, he will just rot in prison until he dies. It’s pretty sad because clearly he doesn’t have the mental capacity to stand up for himself.
          I remember being told by a coworker who had a uncle in the Navy that said there is no way Martin Bryant could have accomplished what happened at Port Arthur, the accuracy and organisation involved made it impossible, I was told this in 2002…… 14 years later a lot more people have come to realise this, yet the situation remains the same…
          With the five points raised in this article and all the people who would be able to help her cause, surely Martin’s mother can get inspired and determined to act for her son and get an appeal process happening, before it’s too late.. I believe this is his only hope, any noise that anyone else makes is futile as no one will listen and Martin will never hear it…

      • Casey, a number of years ago Carleen Bryant, Martin’s mother was involved in a Court case in Sydney. I sent her solicitor a letter explaining what I knew along with the 5 articles I had written.

        The solicitor wrote back a terse letter explaining that Bryant had pleaded guilty and that was the end of the matter. Some legal representation! He was either scared of the ramifications of the information, or he was too stupid to understand it. Either way, Mrs Bryant obviously needs to find alternative legal assistance.

        • Can you imagine being CALLED the mother of the WORST human being in the southern hemisphere by 20+ million people. She would thus be so vulnerable to manipulation. And easily ‘got’ to.

        • Terry, have you attempted to contact Carleen directly to offer your assistance or perhaps recommend someone who would be willing to stand up for her and her son to put an end to this injustice??
          Regardless of what 20+ million people think of her, if she has evidence and people backing her, I would think she would be willing to prove them all wrong….

        • As I recall, I mentioned in the letter to forward the information to Mrs. Bryant. I have no idea if it was done, but from the tone of the letter, I doubt it.

          I haven’t practiced law since 2007. I have no idea what’s going on these days in the legal system or the people that are in practice.

          I agree with Brae when he states that an informed public appears the most viable approach. The people have to get involved. As far as the Courts, I’d love to see someone convicted under the firearm laws challenge the law and present evidence that the legislation is based upon fraud (actually it’s based on murder). Then request a ‘stay’ until the issue of the legislation is resolved. Such a case would go all the way to the High Court – imagine if they agreed and granted the stay.

          If the majority of the public were on side, the judge’s would be more likely to grant such ‘stays’. The Government would freak out – what would happen if the Government gave a law and nobody came?

          Under such a scenario, there would be a lot more leverage for a Royal Commission.

          • Hi terry. I totally agree with you. A friend of mine got done for an unlicensed slug gun a few years back. He ended up with three felony charges for something he used to put cotton buds in and shoot spiders with when he was a kid. The bloody thing didn’t even work. But that didn’t stop the police from taking him to court. This was on one of their yearly inspections. I have been telling he has been screwed over sideways. He can’t even visit certain countries. It was the first time he had ever been in trouble so he was not eligible for legal aid. Just a country boy. How disgraceful I told him to fight it. Perhaps you have some advice.

  18. As for Lambie, the test might be if she is prepared to push for a Senate inquiry.
    Be interesting to Listen to Senator ’embalmer’ explain a few things.

    • Do not hold your breath, the Senator has been ‘missing in action’ as her peers have been sent to die on serial
      lies, to the Middle East lie based on the official 911 Conspiracy ‘hogwash’ ( as described by Lt’ Col’ Bob Bowman at:
      http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
      Jackie has failed to be fair dinkum about the plight for her fellow soldiers in arms ( and their families) before she may be regarded as credible.
      Sorry Jackie, you are all pussies and fluff.
      Perhaps you will awaken and support your ‘mates’, be them ex, before you deserve to be re-elected, if ever?

  19. There should have been an unimpeded coronial inquiry from the start. You cannot have 35 members of the public murdered and 22 or so injured, many of which were international tourists and hold back a coronial inquest as the Government did. There were so many unanswered questions that required answers and still require answers. It’s been 20 years and it’s long overdue. Bryant was unlicensed for a start, where did the firearms he obtained actually originate from. People like Wendy Scurr have always wanted answers and that’s good enough for me!

  20. I noted that gumshoe is on about 103 comments on this case. So I reread the article and have noted many comments.
    The point that stands out, on material now at hand after the Wilisee report , is that apparently, Mr. Bryant’s plea seems to have been coearced and/or his will was overborn to enter a guilty plea.
    That alone invites a investigation by the Tasmanian Law Society or to the Tasmanian Bar Association.
    The problem is; who has an appropriate interest to make the complaint? Is it; Mr. Bryant, or the appropiate legal associations alone, if provided by a member of the public with supporting information and an official complaint? Indeed, should they be Mr Wilisee and Mr, Bryant’ s Mum, as from reports herein, they have the information of an apparent overbearing of Mr Bryant’s will.
    Indeed, an application to a Tasmanian Court would be interesting to run!
    Perhaps gumshoe might reboot their article to the top for further discussion?

    • Ned, we can reboot. I think the Mum is unreachble. She did however say in a 2010 book “my Story” (which is in the state libe of VIC) that she participated in the coercion.
      Please wait for tomorrow’s article re this — and MUCHOS GRACIAS.

      • I trust that relevant publications and TV presentations have been filed.
        Hate to see relevant material thrown in to solitay confinement without recourse to reference.

        • Ned, I haven’t had a TV or radio in many years, but I remember liking these ABC persons: Geraldine Doogue (who said singing in a choir was the 8th wonder of the world — I agree), and Jane Figgis, on whose Science Book Review I spake a couple of times. I worked for Jennifer Byrne when I was nearly 40 and she was 25 and I thought it was a scream to have a young boss but she was great.
          Is there something wrong with all these nice people? Are they out of their cotton pickin? Can’t they ope their respective yaps?

          In February I sent my books to Byrne and her husband Andrew Denton so they could have his-and-hers readings. Never even got an acknowledgement. Never got a his-her Ta. And it wasn’t about Martin Bryant so no risk to their veritable necks.

          Crikey, it’s so sad.

      • Mary,
        A few years back, Denton’s dog pinched ny dog’s tennis ball down at the 18 footers.
        Amusing event, I remained diplomatic and declined to be involved.

  21. PORT ARTHUR: DISENTANGLING THE ISSUES
    It was good to see the line being drawn between a wrongful conviction and unsubstantiated allegations in Mary Maxwell’s article of 27 April.

    As every 1996 report on the event was presented in the usual entertainment format I didn’t pay much attention. I first got wind of the idea that it had been orchestrated as a means of cementing the NFA later that year. I didn’t know anything about guns and I had never heard of the NFA, but as the previous 5 years of my life had been dominated by a range of government and judicial abuses re a bid to gain absolute control of education, it didn’t strike me as being that far fetched.

    I was one of a number of individuals who had been landed with truancy convictions as a consequence of a school exemption certificate being unlawfully canceled . Those at the helm were, needless to say, in the process of replacing the Act that proved the point. *

    As time wore on I became uncomfortably aware that the situation had been created by exemption cert holders who weren’t focused on anything more than their own short term security and that a system of “home-ed” deals based on extra-legal demands had been established accordingly.

    During the following decade I witnessed the same scenario re firearms licensing*
    It soon became very obvious that, bar said “cooperation”, an article such as the NFA would never have come into being.

    In my view that’s the only way that the screws ever get tightened re any matter. There’s simply no need to follow any other course in a country such as Australia.

    The rolling out of any prohibition is invariably a shambles; the antithesis of a conspiracy. What took place in the Broad-Arrow cafe is more likely to have been based on a gangland assassination that required as many witnesses as possible to be taken out than some government plot. A faction of the local Police force may well have been involved(it does appear as though Martin Bryant was set up via an invitation to participate in a quasi “lets pretend” operation) but, whatever the case, anyone whose ever dialed 000 re a shooting could tell you that there was nothing unusual about the response to Wendy Scurr’s call*

    Either way, all that anyone needs to know is that, in an armed society, such an event would, at very least, have been stopped short, that the fatality count was well beyond anyone whose routine didn’t include rigorous target training, and that the respective stitch-up was far from unique.

    Having been personally involved in six other court cases since the education episode* I’m ever mindful that one unchecked foul will inevitably beget another, another, and so on. The orbit might have the same impact as a consciously instigated political directive; treating it as such just imputes undue credit.

    So far as pursuing justice in any matter it needs to be acknowledged is that:
    1) The Country was founded as a stopgap prison in a crumbling empire; it’s constitution was formed accordingly.
    2) Every law firm, judicial office and government agency was instituted on the basis of keeping a degenerate aristocracy on the throne.
    3) The package was never intended to be of any benefit to anyone beyond the magic circle.
    4) “Binding” legislation and procedural rules can therefore be violated with impunity
    5) Representation in certain matters, both civil and criminal, is therefore virtually unobtainable.
    6) Fudged up and/or vendetta based prosecutions are an integral part of the system.
    7) No corresponding conviction has ever been overturned save on a PR basis.

    * Backed by court records and/or correspondence with Western Australia’s State Ministry

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