by Mary W Maxwell
As mentioned in Part 2 of this Lindt Café Inquest series, I had an urge to stickybeak the inquest. Getting from Adelaide to Sydney airport was easy. From there I hopped the $18 train ($14 for seniors but who’s counting?) to the city, and alighted at Museum Station.
Walked down the hill from Liverpool St to Goulburn St and found the “John Maddison” Tower (not James Madison as I wrongly stated before!) at number 88. Tried to enter but was told I had to register.
I think the registering requirement is probably illegal, but anyway I walked back to 147 Liverpool St, this time uphill, and with heavy books (wouldn’t you think I would discover memory sticks?). “Registering” at Downing Center meant only having to show photo ID, thank God.
In the Gallery
Armed then with my ticket (which was put onto me by the clerk in the form of a hospital bracelet – no, seriously), I rolled down the hill to Goulburn St and into the courtroom. Well, not exactly a courtroom. Maybe this is illegal, too — it was a room called the gallery, separated from the courtroom by a wall.
I say “illegal” because in all court cases it is society that is adjudicating the case; the judge is just the one who carries out society’s wishes. So there is no reason to keep “the public” out of any courtroom, is there? (Also, the court is never on holiday and its ‘trading hours’ do not end at 5pm: “The court is always open.” Trust me.)
Still, I was happy to be in the gallery, as the seats were comfortable and the wall had a huge screen, on which we could see the judge and the lawyers. When I arrived there were 6 people there (all wearing the hospital bracelet). One more came in after me, so 8 souls all up to watch this most important case.
A uniformed guard kept watch over the gallery.
So Far the Inquest Has Raised Many Doubts
Information coming out of the inquest seems very strange. GumshoeNews has reported as follows:
- Dee McLachlan’s May 11, 2016 article “Ten Hours To Set Up a TV Monitor,” notes that the police alleged at the Inquest that technical difficulties prevented them from seeing in to the Café. Pret-ty implausible, no? Per the Herald Sun’s report from the Inquest: “POLICE making the crucial decisions about the management of the Lindt Cafe siege had no vision from the scene.” Some hadn’t even seen the early escape of hostages in broad daylight!
- As I said on May 16th in “Defense Force at the Sydney Siege, and Hush Money,” Assistant Police Commissioner Mark Murdoch offered — as an excuse for his snipers not shooting Monis — that police who did that could face murder charges! He said that NSW Police are “not in the practice of arbitrarily assassinating people who are involved in criminal incidents.”
Mark Murdoch also said:
“From the vision I’ve seen of Monis walking around inside the cafe, we were a long way from being assured that a shot would be justified.”
- In my article “Lindt Café Inquest, Part 2,” I transcribed the lawyer’s cross-examination of the Negotiator (actually he was from a team of six negotiators). I said that he didn’t even realize until 12.30am that hostage Selina Win Pe had made urgent phone calls to Triple Zero at 9.30pm. Nor did the Negotiator seem to feel any need to learn where the various café entrances and exits were!
None of these shenanigans makes sense. I’m afraid we are going to have to raise major doubt as to the testimony of police at this inquest. (Poor things; they are told to lie.)
Message from Germany
On June 8, 2016 Gumshoe published my Part 1 article of this Inquest series, which asked “Who Controlled Monis?” The answer was supplied by N Wahid Azal who lives in Germany.
He pointed out how Monis bypassed normal restrictions of immigration and was surprisingly able to get bail. Azal also pointed to the ways in which the publicity stunts of Monis caused difficulties for the Muslim community.
I now add that Azal’s belief is that Tori Johnson was not shot by the poor old patsy – he figures that Monis shot no one. Azal claims that all gunfire was from the police. He noted the way SBS reported the ending of the siege:
“Both hostages died when heavily armed police stormed the Martin Place cafe early this morning. The 50-year-old gunman, self-described Muslim cleric Man Haron Monis, was also killed.” [accessed by Azal on December 28, 2016; no longer available]
Azal notes: “All subsequent reports, however tortured their attempts in articulating transparent vagaries, have in so many words asserted the same.” (That’s from Azal’s article“Cuibono? Why 12-15 Was an Inside Job,” at SyncreticStudies.com)
Floating That Idea to Australians
The fact that Azal can read the SBS wording in a bad light does not mean we all have to do so. Of course considering the quantity of material Gumshoe has published about the Port Arthur case, it’s reasonable to believe that media and the judicial system can be cruel and can lie without a blush.
For me, it’s too early to embrace the claim that the police, rather than Monis, shot Tori Johnson. We don’t have access – yet – to everyone’s testimony at the Inquest. But the concept makes sense. Monis could have been told:
“Go to Martin Place. Carry a duffel bag. Sit in the Lindt Café all day appearing to run a hostage siege-type thing. We’ll do the rest.”
I’d like Australians to start considering the Monis-shot-nobody idea. It may prove to be correct or incorrect, but it would be good to shake up the whole narrative. The “new view” might even help explain the crazy things we are hearing at the Inquest.
I mean crazy as in zippedy-doodah nutso: for example negotiators not knowing where the exits are, and super-high-tech specialist police saying they had only obsolete equipment.
For my money, those “inexplicable” things, all by themselves, make me think the Sydney siege was most likely an inside job.
The Metadata Motive?
Of course if the siege was an inside job, it had to have a motive. One motive was canvassed by Dee McLachlan as early as December 22, 2014, one week after the siege. She wrote:
“Let us hope that the government does not use Monis as their ‘Metadata’ Man. Even before the dust settled in Sydney, the new Police Commissioner was on mainstream television pushing for our data.”
And on March 28, 2015 she unfortunately had cause to write “Senate Passes Controversial Metadata Laws – In Memory of Martin Place.” Dee complained (as she does morning, noon, and night) that a false flag was used to justify legislation for further surveillance of citizen’s communications.
This routine has become Standard Office Procedure since 9-11. Let us not forget the ENTIRELY FAKE Bella Vista incident.
I suppose Dee could “rest her case” right there. And many feel that they can rest the Port Arthur case on the basis of how the anti-gun legislation proves that this must have been the motive for the massacre. Personally I think there’s more to it, but that discussion can wait.
For the rest of the present article, I’ll merely re-run two of the Comments that were made to Dee’s March 28 article, and which are newly relevant.
Ned’s comment pointed to the disconnect between the mind of the pollies and the reality of false flag events. My comment said Gimme the full story of everything that went on in the Lindt Café that day or I ain’t willin’ to believe a word of it.
Ned’s Comment of March 29, 2015
Ned, a frequent commenter at Gumshoe, wrote:
“It would be a reasonable bet that our servants who voted for the metadata waste of money:
One: Think that 19 Muslims did 911.
Two: That building 7 is a part of Jamie Packer’s bungleroo project in Sydney.
Three: Would never have heard of Rep Stephen Lynch in the US Congress seeking disclosure of the 28 pages of the redacted part of the 911 Commission report to be published, because it allegedly pings another country as being in the 911 mass murder plan. (After all, the CIA arranged many of the ‘Hijackers’ to come from that country and ensured that the US consul issued the visas.)
Four: Have no idea that Francesco Cooriega, ex-president of Italy, declared that 911 was a CIA-Mossad operation and all the world’s intelligence agencies knew that, the day after 911.
If anyone’s data should be monitored 24/7, it should be those in the ACT sheltered workshop — as it is well reported that the real serious, dangerous and deadly terrorists are governments.
Just look up all the false flags in history and the FBI’s terrorist activities promoting and facilitating simpletons and misfits to carry out such acts, so they may be caught and justify enhanced budgets and scare the populace into giving away more of its privacy and freedoms with the support of duped politicians.”
Maxwell’s Comment to the Same Article
“I want to know every detail of the Sydney siege. I want to know why each person was there. I want to know how Monis was able to lock all the doors at the same time.
Isn’t it common, after a crime, for the public to be given the particulars?
They said Facebook was in constant use, under the gunman’s supervision, whereby a café guest was asked to request an ISIS flag and an audience with the prime minister. Did that scribe also use her freedom of the keyboard to contact anyone else?
Did Monis tell all the others that they had to keep their hands in sight? (Surely I’m not the only citizen wondering about this, as practically everyone carries a cell phone these days.)
He did let some of them go upstairs to the toilets. Did he pee?
I need the details. If you don’t tell me how he managed his bladder, I’m going to think there is something ‘off’ about this story. If Monis had to go somewhere to pee, even if only the kitchen sink, that would have been a moment that hostages could flee. Or did he just wet the floor. (Come on, tell me.)
Was there communication among the 15 to the tune of ‘How can we overwhelm him?’ There was at least one lawyer in the group. Did she try to talk Monis into surrendering?
Was Monis praying? Did he try to proselytise the hostages? Did any of the patrons offer him a deal? (I would have.)
What with Channel Seven having its studio right across the street, is there a film of the whole 16 hours’ activity? As Dee indicates, by nightfall it would have been easy to see in.
I want to know if persons can take the chocolate treats from the display cases without a key. Who could get through a whole day without taking one? (Not me. No way.)
As one person got 6 bullet fragments ‘from police hail,’ what did the others get? Was there any ricocheting other than in the fatal case? Did the hostages dive under the tables? (I would have.)
With only one target there for a trained marksman to hit, why did police have to let fly ‘a volley of fire’? Are there rules of engagement for this sort of thing? It can’t be just chance, can it?”
— Mary Maxwell looks forward to the day when the sheltered workshop in the ACT turns out brilliant products, as would befit the intelligent population of the Lucky Country. It won’t be long now, will it?
Photo credit: Arta.com.au