Home Media Are Media Lies Criminal? – Part 2, Perverting the Course of Justice

Are Media Lies Criminal? – Part 2, Perverting the Course of Justice



crop of slogan shirt 'keep calm and hide the evidence'

by Mary W Maxwell

Part 1 looked at a few of the crimes that may be committed by media. For example, deceit, incitement to violence, and assault (in the sense of arousing fear). Here in Part 2 we look at the crime of perverting the course of justice. In the United States it has a different name: “obstruction of justice,” and is a felony in federal law.  The specifics can be found at 18 USC 1501.

Gumshoe News feels a duty not only to criticize media when it is harming society, but to do something about it! Everyone knows the media is full of lies these days. If we accept that as the new norm we are enabling a horrific future for ourselves.

Some Crimes Included under “Perversion of the Course of Justice”

The following are criminal acts in all states of Australia:

— Bribing or threatening a juror, or a member of the court, or a witness (includes suborning perjury)
— Hiding evidence, destroying it, or tampering with it, including altering a crime scene
— Giving someone a false alibi
— Proffering false evidence or planting it.

Say you are in a car crash, but you don’t want to be listed as the driver. You jump out of the car and ask your passenger to say he was driving. If you give false testimony about this in court you can be charged with perjury — but you can also be charged with perversion of justice for tampering with a witness (your passenger).

You may also be charged with “suborning” (inducing) his perjury. And had you also photo-shopped a picture of the person at the wheel, you may be guilty of proffering false evidence.

Note: being an accessory after the fact of a crime can also fit under the heading of perverting the course of justice. An example is harboring the criminal or the stolen goods.

Strictly Media

This is not a treatise on the law of justice-perversion. It is a call for the media to be charged with crimes if appropriate. By “media” I mostly mean the press and television, although book writers could be included. Note that media reportage of government’s crimes of perversion of justice will not be the focus here — just media doing that sort of thing themselves.

Thus, if the FBI tampers with evidence in a criminal case, say by saying that Cindy’s fingerprint was found on the gun, I will not consider it to be crime by the media if media merely retails that report. Heck, I won’t even worry if media, such as Sixty Minutes, broadcasts an interview with the FBI man “showing” how Cindy’s prints match the print on the gun.

One more thing I won’t be doing in this article is calling the media on the carpet for breach of journalistic ethics. Famous breaches are: failing to get both sides of the story, protecting the newspaper’s advertisers, or using family photos without permission. “Ethics” is way too lightweight. We are talking about punishable crime.

Examples: Law of NSW and ACT

In NSW, which is not a “code” state (WA, Qld and TAS are the code state), the crime of perverting the course of justice is found in Section 319 of the Crimes Act. Maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.

In The Australian Capital Territory, which adopted the code (recommended by a standing committee of attorneys-general), the crime appears in Criminal Code 2002. Its Section 713 says:

“A person commits an offence if the person, by his or her conduct, intentionally perverts the course of justice.”

[Definition:] Perverts includes obstruct, prevents, and defeats.

Maximum penalty: 700 penalty units, imprisonment for 7 years or both.”

In Section 714 there are specific offenses related to publishing

“A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person publishes something that could cause a miscarriage of justice in a legal proceeding; and

(b) the person does so with the intention of causing a miscarriage of justice in the proceeding.

Maximum penalty: 1,000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.

A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person publishes something that could cause a miscarriage of justice in a legal proceeding; and

(b) the person is reckless about whether publishing the thing could cause a miscarriage of justice in the proceeding.

Maximum penalty: 700 penalty units, imprisonment for 7 years or both.”

Hmm. Recklessness get 3 fewer punishment years than intention, but it’s still pretty severe.

Media Crimes in the Port Arthur Case

Justice was perverted to such an extent in the Port Arthur case that it almost seems silly to use ‘justice’ as the reference point. Better to say that the Powers That Be decided to run a massacre and prepared all the necessary bits and pieces.

As described in the book, Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough, (by myself and Dee McLachlan), it is well established that Tasmanian police, lawyers, and a judge committed the crime of perverting justice — but here we are talking about the media.

During the time when Martin Bryant had not yet been convicted, that is from his capture on April 29, 1996 until the Prosecutor handed the Crown case to the judge on November 19, 1996, the media’s perverting of justice consisted at least of influencing witnesses — by their headlines as to “who did it.” I take this to be criminal.

I also take it to be intentional rather than reckless. You have only to know that there are employees of the Port Arthur Historic Site who tried hard to give contrary evidence but were thwarted at every turn.

The Hobart Mercury, the Launceston Examiner, and The Australian clearly made concentrated, deliberate efforts to limit the discussion of blame to Bryant, Bryant, Bryant.

Since the statute of limitations has passed, there can be no indictments for this crime of perversion, as far as I know. So now let’s look to possible crimes by the media that are recent enough to fit into Tasmania’s 2-year SOL — statute of limitations.

The Mike Willessee Show of March 6, 2016

In a recent Gumshoe article, I looked into the two interviews that Mike Willessee conducted (separately) with John Avery, Bryant’s defense lawyer, and Paul Mullen, MD, the psychiatrist who had never had Bryant in his care but who interviewed him for three and a half hours on May 5, 1996.

That article discussed libel. I claimed that Bryant could sue the three men for defaming him. Defamation is divided into two types – slander if spoken and libel if written. These TV chats, although “spoken” are really libel because the broadcasting of them is a kind of publication.

Note: we are only talking about civil action to remedy the injury of defamation; in Australia defamation is not a crime.

Now I ask: Do those chats amount to perversion of the course of justice and hence could be criminal? I think so. Let’s read the Avery chat again. He makes Martin out to be a coldhearted murderer. I will add bolding:

MIKE WILLESEE: You’ve written that when he … finally told you the truth about what he’d done, he was thrilled.

JOHN AVERY: Yeah. Um…I… asked him whether there was any… excitement. He evidenced to me that it was as thrilling as driving a car at high speed or a speedboat. So, there was … that aspect of thrill seeking that he appears to have achieved….

MIKE WILLESEE: So, there’s a constant theme here of Bryant wanting notoriety.

JOHN AVERY: Notoriety and, uh…..ringmaster in the circus… [Imagine it.]

MIKE WILLESEE: So the overall idea of prison didn’t deter him or frighten him at all? He just wanted to be with the big boys?

JOHN AVERY: I think he thought he’d be lauded by them.

MIKE WILLESEE: Did he express any views about wanting to kill more people?

JOHN AVERY: Yeah, regrettably, he did…on a few occasions….

Civil Action Yes, But Any Criminal Case?

Thanks to Martin Bryant’s 1996 conviction for 35 murders, I cannot claim that these chats will influence witnesses or jurors. His case isn’t sub judice (before the court) at the moment.

But I think it is well known that people are speaking out – indeed some have never stopped speaking out during the whole 20 years. (That is probably why Willessee was tasked with dredging up some ammunition, in the light of the 20th anniversary.)

Note: there’s the Change.org petition in which Cherri Bonney and 2,335 others have asked Tasmania premier Will Hodgman to order an Inquest. And there is a constant rumble here at Gumshoe.

There’s also the 2015 legislation enabling a convict to come forward – no time limit – with fresh and compelling evidence, and this will happen soon, no doubt.

So how dare these persons go on television – which incidentally is in breach of professional standards for doctors and lawyers – and blatantly accuse Martin of things he did not do?

They said he boasted of his prowess in the murder department and planned a few more murders, even if only in fantasy. What a joke!

I could make a case for the crime of perversion of the course of justice out of the Mike Willessee conversations. God is not mocked, you know. The charge can be laid, a trial can be held, and a jury of twelve Aussies can come to a verdict. Law is as simple as that.

What about the 1997 Background Briefing?

In 1997, after Bryant’s conviction, an ABC reporter, Ginny Stein, stood in the halls of Risdon Prison, speaking to several officials, including a doctor, about Bryant’s habits and attitudes. She wondered aloud if the prisoner should be rehabilitated or “left to rot.”

I consider that nasty but not criminal.  However she talked — over and over — about the possibility of his being killed in the yards. The entire transcript of that ABC Background Briefing radio show is still available on the Internet. I do not see how it can be read as anything other than an invitation – a guide almost – for someone to “do the needful.”

Thus we should consider the crime of incitement to murder. There is no statute of limitations regarding the crime of murder and I believe that applies to its its lead-up. And it does not matter that the killing of Bryant has not happened (yet).

What about the Marathon Case?

Press the Boston button at the top of GumshoeNews website for a treasure trove of articles about the 2015 trial of Jahar Tsarnaev. I won’t recap the media’s crimes here other than to say the media was a major player in influencing the jury to send Jahar to Death Row, where he now waits.

Let’s look at the book Long Mile Home, and a forthcoming movie called  Patriot’s Day, both of which engage in fiction. Ask: is it a crime to perpetuate the myth that Tamerlan was killed when he shot at cops? Yes. The Tamerlan story is not over. His case has never been sub judice, but it will be when his killer gets indicted.

I am referring to the member(s) of the FBI who took a healthy, unwounded Tamerlan into custody — in full view of a camera — and killed him. Their day in court will come for these killers. Is there a video of them killing him? Not that we know of, but one may yet come to light.

Hasn’t the 3-year Massachusetts SOL passed, as it must have begun on April 20,, 2013, the day Tamerlan was killed? No, the tolling of the SOL has not even begun.

In the meantime, authors and filmmakers are perverting , or to use the American phrase: obstructing justice.

If they are doing so intentionally, as I believe they are, they may find themselves in a worrying position some time soon.

— Mary Maxwell has a few “series” on foot here at Gumshoe. This one on Media’s Crimes will continue, with the next installment emphasizing treason. She can be contacted at ProsecutionForTreason.com. BTW, please download some of these articles as they could get ‘disappeared.’






    • Don’t waste time on this, but a few mins ago an idiot US Senator ended his 14 hr thru-the-night filibuster in favor of gun control, by saying (at 7.26 mins) the one thing I can agree with: “Ask what can YOU do to make sure an Orlando or Sandy Hook never happens again.” Yes siree Bob sir, I think I know what I can do.

  1. Oh dear Mary you really are a terrier.
    Ok, just time to raise one point.
    What authority did Avery receive from MB to expose privileged legal information to Willisee concerning lawyer/client alleged communications ?
    Did Willisee see any authority from
    MB to discuss matters subject to lawyer client privilege.
    We await Mr. Willisee’s clarification sometime beform Christmas 20….. Whenever.
    Derryn, you want to be a Senator, what is your stance on client legal privilege?
    After all Derryn, you have been there. Tell us what a journalist’s ethics are re information received in confidence.

    • I’ve been out of the law for 8 years. There were some things said during lawyer/client privilege that would make juicy discussion over cocktails.

      I still adhere to the concept of the privilege even though I am no longer a lawyer. If you had been one of my clients, I expect you would appreciate my stance.

    • Ned, this is not Nazi Germany, thank you.
      I am trying to inventory our legal resources. We do have some, you know!
      I was so sad today because Optus was digging a hole in front of my house. (They used a noisy Ditch Witch for 5 hours.) I do not know if it is legal — probably they have Council’s permission. But I felt that it was illegal no one would suport me in getting them to cease and desist.
      People don’t believe in “law” anymore.
      Is that pitiful or is that pitiful.

      By the way, Ned, I was very taken by what you said about a computer glitch on food stamps in US. How clever. How simple.

  2. Yes… about time that the media face the “music”.
    I just want to thank Mary for holding the “Gumshoe Fort” while I am making a film in rural NSW – and working 24/7. Dee

    • Your Bossness!
      Nice to hear from you.
      Goin’ OK at Fort Gumshoe. We’ve had a few casualties and
      supplies are gettin’ low for the winter
      but maybe can hold out till you git back.

  3. I’m not sure about Australia, but in the U.S. it seems the Justice Department and the whole system has been hijacked by criminals. So there is no one in government (unless there are some good folks hiding out in there) to prosecute the media, etc., especially since the media is really a wholly owned subsidiary (so to speak) of the national security state or vice versa (corporate owners of media also owning the national security state). Besides that, laws have been enacted to protect media/propaganda and it’s actually not illegal for the media to lie to the people of the U.S. Things like this are quietly put into the annual NDAA packages, etc. And of course since the media are complicit in the deception, no one tells the people what’s going on except for the occasional alternative media organization that discovers it, usually after the fact. Does that show you the depth of corruption here?

  4. I just found out today that the NDAA for 2017 is trying to get women involved in selective service, meaning if a draft is initiated, women could be drafted into the military, plus it wants to authorize or reauthorize indefinite detention of American citizens.

  5. Two problems:
    Criminal charges can only be preferred by the Police.
    Most newspapers aren’t doing anything more than parroting what some police officer has chosen to “release”.

    • A grand jury can issue indictments.

      Judges can issue a bench warrant.

      Citizens can “lay an information” at any police station.

      (Americans can file a RICO suit pro se for $400.)

      Policepersons can be appealed to individually as humans.

      Persons over 18 can campaign for office. (Costs nada.)

      You can upload an informative Youtube video for free.

      Gumshoe thinks throwing in the towel is not the way to go.

    • Fair, in a Gumshoe article last year entitled “We Are All Disabled,” q.v., I wrote:
      The US Congress signs, every year, the budgetary allocation known as the National Defense Authorization Act and it plainly gives money to agencies for psy-ops.
      How would those legislators not feel shame in doing that? Well, passing over the fact that Congresspersons all seem to have had the ‘shame’ portion of their brain extirpated, there’s the excuse that we need to develop psy-ops as a weapon against enemies. That’s all supposed to be part of the RMA – revolution in military affairs.
      People weren’t stupid after World War II. They saw that the American attempts to confuse the enemy by friendly radio shows could be turned around to domestic society. So they passed a law forbidding that, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. It was repealed in 2013.

    • It is worse.
      Read David Ray Griffin’S book; ‘Conitive Infiltration ……’
      Griffin disects Prof. Cass Sunstein (of law of all pursuits!) who jointly wrote a paper in 2008 proposing that government should infiltrate organisations with falsehoods if they promote conspiracy theories, particularly of the 911 kind.
      Sunstein was appointed by Obama to run what may be termed; ‘The Government Ministry of Truth’.
      To think that students of law were infuenced by such disgraceful attitudes is frightening.
      One would have thought that he would have learnt from Germany what may result to his tribe with such a totalitarian lying deceitful policy that he propagated.

  6. I add to my comment in reply to FD below.
    I just did a search of Griifin’s book with ‘Dumstein’ added. The search lit up, yet we have not noticed an opinion article or report from our MSM or comment by our esteemed legal profession!
    Well, who needs any more material to demonstrate that our ABC, SBS, shonky shock jocks and msm lame ducks promote anti-democratic totallitarian control and a policy founded on lies, whilst the msm charges readers and the public broadcasters screw us fo a billion a year to lie to us.
    Is the msm criminal? Case closed.
    Now for our alleged parliamentary representatives!
    Oh, did I not mention our fraudulent ‘left wing’ patsys.

    • From Ditto-head Adelaide:

      “ABC, SBS, shonky shock jocks promote anti-democratic totallitarian control and a policy founded on lies, whilst the public broadcasters screw us for a billion a year to lie to us.”

      Go, Ned. Go, Fair Dinkum. Go, Gumshoe. Go, go, go.

      • But keep in mind that we’re talkin’ about CRIME here.

        Speaking of that, I saw a most peculiar scene of an arrest (for shop-stealing) yesterday arvo in the ever-benign capital of SA. At least 4 but maybe 5 cops were leaning on the guy who was face-down on the ground. Nevertheless his lungs weren’t suffering — he was making huge noise. Must have trained with Pavarotti.

        I told my taxi driver tonite, and asked if he has seen similar. He said “You see that every night after midnite in Hindley Street. And if the arrestee complains they put this thing around his neck.”

        I didn’t want the cabbie to take his hands off the wheel to describe the procedure — so I don’t know what he was referring to. Can anybody explain?

        By the way, my friend in Canada says that about once a week she sees cops “take down” the homeless. This consists of throwing the person on the ground. In the US, for decades, cops making an alleged drug arrest are “allowed” to take you down in your own home.

        Ned, what is the protocol for arresting shock jocks?

        • Cannot arrest shock jocks, they are a protected endangered species supported by globalist lackey corporare advertsers.
          Best let them be ‘demised’ as their used by credibility date approaches.
          Easily hastened by ignoring their advertsers……no need for vet’s fees to put them peacefuly down.

      • Not to worry, Senator Hinch has been informed and will expose all the whoremongering lies and protected paedophiles, won’t you Derryn?
        One typo correction: ‘cognitive infiltration …..’

  7. A test for fhe msm, abc, sbs and shonkey shock jocks.
    In regard to the Orlando killings tell us about James Wesley Howell and his surrender to the police and admission that he was a proposed patsy shooter for the event but woke up to the reality that it was planned that he be a victim and that his life was endangered.
    Then the fbi took him away.
    I will not spoil it, for your ‘Independent Always’ report.
    Cheers, Fraudfax 2UE, 2GB, 2CH et al.

    • How can the FBI take someone away when they are in Police custody?
      Ned, that was a brilliant move for the lad to turn himself in. I think we should see a lot more of that.

      For example, I imply in the above article that Mr X, Y, or Z, committed the crime of perverting the course of justice. The siad Mr X could front up to a police station and make a confessional statement, right?

      It would save somebody else (such as you or me) the trouble of “laying an information.”

      Plus, officials would be stuck wth a PR fiasco.

  8. Hypocracy deceit and double speak.
    From our so called leaders and complicit media.
    re: Orlando murders organised by CiIA and FBI
    “Attack on democracy and fighting for freedom now in Syria”.
    Now we all know that 911 is the key to understanding the lies.

  9. ‘James Howel: Armed ‘CIA patsy’ gay killer turns himself in to police fearing he would be killed’.
    Hey lying mass media and shonkey jocks there is a headline for you.
    Search the reports before you miss out.
    We are bored with Roger the Dodger.
    Then tell your paying readers and the listeners, who arranges/enables most of the alleged ‘Terrorist’ mass murders.

    • For clarification, he is reported by the police as stating he was a planned killer of gays the day after Orlando and was part of a team of killers targeting gays.
      When Marteen was killed he woke up to what his planned fate would be.
      Ok mass media, better self censor, might be embarrasing and raise questions about past false flag murders that the controlled media has ignored, let the internet news do your job for you and go back to the election and bore us silly with political spin and other distractions like footballers behaving badly.

      • Ned, pro tem I won’t attempt to run a Howell article at Gumshoe for these reasons:

        1. Although we have heard, at Ed Griffin’s marvelous website, that James may have said “I saw myself becoming a patsy,” that could be an untrue report, as who on the outside would have let it leak?

        (Though in Jan 2014, way before the siege, ABC did report that Monis said “I’m being set up by ASIO.” Yup, they did.)

        2. Howell is either in jail or FBI custody — what hope do we have of dealing with them when they and the millions of Bostonians who prefer to let sleeping dogs lie in the Jahar case?

        3. I am not comfortable with the opening report by CNN that the 20-yr-old James was knocking on the door and window of a stranger who thus called the police. This led to James being discovered — with all the usual paraphernalia in his car, minus the high school diploma and the bottle of tomato sauce.

        4. We must concentrate on Martin Bryant.

        5. I shouldn’t bring pessimism in here but I believe there have been out-and-out confessions in the past that make us dissidents say “Gotcha,” but then it has no effect.

        There is an excellent book by Steve Ross called And Then Nothing Happened — meaning great cures were discovered from about 1880-1940 but the baddies have nonetheless succeeded in re-burying them.

        Ned, please keep us posted if anyone gets access to James Howell. And thanks for your zillion contributions to Gumsville. If you had a dollar for every contribution you would be Australia’s first zillionaire.

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