by Mary W Maxwell
So far the inquest has called many expert witnesses. For example, Lucas Van der Walt is an expert in wound ballistics; Mr Ranieri is expert at measuring the location of the shooters. A whole team of experts in negotiation participated by video from the UK.
I presume the state of NSW has funded the Inquest to pay for such experts, although possibly they are brought in by interested parties. I would offer my services for free.
In Parts 1, 4, 11, and 12 of this series I hinted that I believe the siege was not a genuine hostage-taking by a terrorist. Yet it would be hard for a coroner in Sydney to express doubt that it was an Islam-inspired event. After all, Monis said “Australia is under attack” and he asked for an ISIS flag.
What Is an Expert Witness?
One way the coroner might penetrate this big barrier would be to call an expert witness on the subject of “scripted” terrorism.
I think I could do it. Naturally I don’t have all the information I would like to have, but I have a lot.
In the Criminal Trial Courts Benchbook for NSW we find this:
“An expert witness is a person who has specialised knowledge based on that person’s training, study or experience. Unlike other witnesses, a witness with such specialised knowledge may express an opinion on matters within his or her particular area of expertise.
“Of course, the value of any expert opinion is very much dependent on the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion. It is also dependent upon the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based ….”
Justice Malcolm Blue said this in the South Australian case, R v Drummond:
“The duties of an expert witness include providing independent assistance to the court, stating the facts on which his or her opinion is based, stating if his or her opinion is not properly researched and making disclosure of all material matters that affect his or her opinion….”
Who Are Experts on Scripted Terrorism?
In the title of this article I wanted to be provocative, so I asked “Could I Offer To Be an Expert Witness? But it does not have to be me. Probably the best brain on the subject of false flags is James Corbett, author of The Corbett Report. He is clear and reasonable, and you would trust his integrity.
My favorite writer on the fakery of 9-11 is Elias Davidsson, author of Hijacking America’s Mind. His honesty is out of this world, but he is averse to being called an expert. Still, if subpoena’d, he would no doubt do his best.
I consider myself fairly well versed. Readers of Gumshoe News know that the editor, Dee McLachlan, and I have poured out many an article on the Boston Marathon bombing, the Port Arthur massacre, and, of course, 9-11.
Like many citizens, we originally believed the official story of 9-11 and also of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Eventually, however, thanks mainly to the Internet, we saw that it was all part of a carefully directed scheme to control society especially by fear.
(For the record: I did not believe, from the first minute, that the Boston bombing had anything to do with Islam. Ditto for the Sydney siege.)
My “conversion” to conspiracy theory occurred in February 2005, since when I have spent almost every day trying both to get a handle on what’s going on and to persuade people to listen. Well, you would wouldn’t you.
The research I put into my 2011 book, Prosecution for Treason, ought to meet the criteria for expertise as a court witness. And I have a PhD in Politics.
As far as I know, this sort of thing has not been done before – the giving of testimony on scripted terrorism. Consider how some “patsies” get accused of killing and wounding many people.
Examples are Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing, and Jahar Tsarnaev for the Marathon bombing.
Both men had trials, and one could envision the defense attorney calling witnesses who could give an opinion that the OKC bombing or the Marathon bombing were “psy-ops.” That would be tantamount to proving their client innocent.
But this did not happen. McVeigh was executed and Tsarnaev is on Death Row.
Testifying Today for Martin Bryant
More than 2,400 Australians right now are calling for a trial or an inquest in regard to the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, by signing a petition at Chage.org.
Martin Bryant has been incarcerated all this time for allegedly killing 35 people. He never had a trial. If he were to have one today, I can easily envisage Andrew Macgregor, Stewart Beattie, or Terry Shulze being called as experts to testify that the killings were a false-flag event.
Each of those citizens is already prepared to make an excellent, detailed case that the police covered up the real massacrist. Any of them can show that there was an unexplained presence of ASIO and possibly Mossad at the Port Arthur scene on the day.
The amount of government corruption surrounding every aspect of the Martin Bryant case (including the fantastic demonization of the prisoner) is a very strong indicator that the official story would never hold up to scrutiny.
And what if, instead of a trial, the people win their right to have an Inquest? We have seen that the state of Tasmania ducked out of this legally, on a technicality. The coroner, Ian Matterson, wrote that he had to abort his Port Arthur inquest, as he was not allowed to counteract a verdict of the court.
OK, but what if popular demand made the legislators come up with an amendment that repealed that technicality?
I’m bringing up the picture of a Port Arthur inquest here to make an analogy with the Lindt Café inquest. Isn’t it reasonable – given the fact-finding nature of an inquest – for a coroner to look around at any part of the landscape to find explanations for the deaths in question?
“Defending” Monis at an Inquest
I suppose it is possible for Magistrate Michael Barnes, even at this late date, to adjust the inquest to make room for a discussion of scripted terrorism.
The least shocking way to do that may be to contact Monis’ relatives and ask them to participate as an interested party. He has four children, two daughters around age 30 in Iran and two sons in Australia, age about 8 and 12, who live with their maternal grandmother.
As I mentioned in Part 6 of this series of articles, Man Haron Monis is one of the three people who died in the Lindt Café shortly after 2am on December 16, 2014. Thus his family definitely has a right to question the circumstances of his death.
That means that their lawyer could cross-examine any of the witnesses, just as we have seen Mr Michael O’Connell, QC, doing so on behalf of Tori Johnson’s family and Ms Gabrielle Bashir, SC, doing so on behalf of Katrina Dawson’s family.
I believe new witnesses can still be called. They may call Dr X, an expert on psy-ops, who could develop the hypothetical that Monis was recruited by ASIO years ago and died as a patsy. (Hypotheticals are certainly allowed in court; they’ve been used at this Inquest.)
Monis’ family could offer the suggestion that Monis did not shoot Tori Johnson, and thus that someone in else in the café must have done it. This would not be handled as in a trial. No one has to deliver a verdict.
Recall that the Coroner has to make a determination of how the persons died. It is expected that in his findings he will say, without hesitation, that Tori was killed by Monis. But if a different set of questions had been asked – by the putative lawyer for Monis’ family – we may (conceivably) have learned some other facts.
In a subsequent article I will boldly draft the expert testimony of a make-believe “Dr X” who will consider the possibility of scripted terrorism as regards the Lindt Café siege.
Don’t worry, it won’t be Dr X’s mission to show that Monis was “a nice guy.” If Monis was a patsy it doesn’t matter that he may have had the ugliest personality in the nation. The emphasis would be on the carrying out of a psy-op.
Think Agatha Christie, think Sherlock Holmes, think Perry Mason. Weren’t we all brought up on the idea that to solve the mystery in a criminal case you may need to entertain some outside-the-box ideas?
It’s no sin to do so now.
Postscript: Monis’ Marriages and Children
The subject of Monis’ marital partners is a bit confusing. The Inquest files contain this information:
In 1985, Monis married a woman in Iran. He was age 21. They had two daughters. He left for Australia eleven years later, without her. She divorced him on July 26, 2006. He was in email contact with his daughters in 2014.
In 2002, in Australia, he met Noleen Hayson Pal in the course of operating a clairvoyant business. He was age 38; she was 19. They had a wedding ceremony on February 2, 2003. (They did not register their marriage, but Australia treats a de facto marriage as a marriage.) They had two sons. In 2011, he sought custody of the boys in Family Law Court, but later withdrew his case.
In 2008, when he was 44, Monis established a relationship with Amirah Droudis. They have no children. Monis’ former wife, Noleen, was found dead in a stairwell, at age 30, in April 2013. Amirah Droudis has been charged with murdering Noleen, and is in prison awaiting trial.
Thus, when Monis was killed at the siege in December, 2014, he had a divorced wife in Iran, a deceased Australian wife, and a partner in prison. He was father of four. (Perhaps there are also grandchildren?) His two sons have lost both their parents.
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully (2015), published by Trine Day Press.
Photo credit: i.telegraph.co.uk