Lindt Café Inquest, Part 18: Identifying Six Serious Shortcomings of the Inquest

monis attentionMonis given plenty of media attention. Why?

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

On the day the so-called siege happened, I was disgusted with the government here in Australia. I was also furious that the prime minister, Tony Abbott, went on ABC radio to say “I can think of nothing more terrifying and distressing than to be caught up in such a situation.”

Who ever heard of a leader creating additional fear in the population by saying something like that? I proceeded to post an article at an American alternative website, Rumor Mill News, giving it the title “Terrorists, My Arse.” 

As far as I recall, the main thing that told me Monis was not a spontaneous terrorist was that very message from Tony Abbott. In my opinion, the prime minister should have said something more along the lines of:

“We don’t want people around the country to panic. This is a lone man, an apparently disturbed man, and the NSW will deal with it. Meanwhile, just as a precaution, we have evacuated the area.”

I feel very awkward to be seen trying to give advice on a national matter. Nevertheless, as I don’t see anyone in the legal field questioning the official Sydney-siege story, I’ll attempt to do so.

Note: the National Security Committee at that time of the siege was comprised of six persons whom I have yet to see acting like caring leaders. Namely:

Tony Abbott, Prime Minister, Warren Truss, Deputy Prime Minister, Julie Bishop, Foreign Minister, George Brandis, Attorney-General, Joe Hockey, Treasurer, and David Johnston, Defence Minister.

The Inquest

There’s nothing like the formality of a court to persuade you that something earnest is happening. At first I had the impression that the Inquest was wonderfully diligent. The questions asked of witnesses seemed very intelligent and fair.

Too bad it wasn’t live-streamed (as is the current Royal Commission). Then Aussies could feel engaged in it and make an evaluation.

I shall now list six shortcomings of the Inquest (which is winding down soon).

Serious Shortcomings

  1. Entrapment was not investigated or even alluded to at all.

As published last week, a couple in Canada, convicted of plotting to blow up a government building, has been found innocent by Justice Catherine Bruce. But for her insight, all Canadians would assume the man and woman were “politically motivated.” In fact it was entrapment; they were drug addicts set up by authorities to do an Islamic terror thing.

The NSW Inquest can still raise such questions.  Maybe they had better do so if only to get it clearly onto the record that the Monis case was NOT one of entrapment. (Otherwise you will have the Mary Maxwells of this world causing unnecessary angst by hinting from the sidelines that it was entrapment.)

  1. Inexplicable” things about Monis were “explained away” by pop psychology.

When he called himself an ayatollah, that was explained away (by the Inquest) as indicative of his grandiosity.  When he wrote to the families of soldiers it was explained (by the Inquest) that he just did not see the pain he caused – due apparently to his lack of empathy.

Why not consider – at least consider – that the ayatollah gig was scripted for him in order to impress the broader Australian public that we were really dealing with a high-end Muslim, not a silly little creep.

Why not look into the letters – such as by asking how he got the addresses of the parents – and be skeptical that anyone would try to create justice in the Middle East (Monis’ stated intention) by going after dead soldiers instead of living soldiers. Wouldn’t you yourself have opted to write an open letter to the military?

Note: it is expressly the job of the coroner to analyze the three deaths that occurred at Lindt Café. Why explain away traits of Monis that seem very strange indeed? Where is the legal authority for an inquest to “dispose” of “inexplicable” issues in such a cavalier fashion?

  1. The death of Noleen Pal was unjustifiably skirted over.

I quote a statement made early in the Inquest’s proceedings:

On May 25, 2015, in the Opening Address for Biographical Segment, Counsel Assisting the Inquest, Ms Sophie Callan, said (at Paragraph 304):

“The relevance of Ms Pal’s murder to this inquest is discrete. And as Mr Gormly has already said, we are concerned to ensure that the pending prosecution is not prejudiced.”

I am not sure what ‘discrete’ means, but the public has been told many times by media that Monis was somehow involved in the killing of his ex-wife. Why the big concern now with not prejudicing Amirah Droudis’ murder trial?

We want to have Monis’ participation in a murder sorted out for this Inquest. It certainly bears on his apparent guilt for the murder of Tori Johnson. “Once a murderer always a murderer.”

When Monis was charged with being an accessory to the death of his ex-wife, were any particulars listed? If so, they are public and could be mentioned at this Inquest. (If they were, I have not located them.)

Personally when I heard that the murder of Noleen involved her being stabbed and set on fire in a public place (a stairwell) it all sounded like something ordinary citizens could not pull off. Wouldn’t the screams bring police and did Amirah hope to get away with it?

As mentioned in Part 10 of this series of articles, the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s report stated that on April 16, 2014:

 “[Monis] requests that the Parramatta Local Court investigate his allegation that NSW Police Force and ASIO are involved in the murder of his former partner. The request is denied.”

It is not possible to let that go uninvestigated.

  1. Defense Force connections were virtually suppressed.

I was startled to read this, on the Inquests’s website:

 “the ADF had built a mock-up of the Lindt Cafe at Holsworthy Army Base to trial and rehearse forced entry. It offered the facility to the NSW Police for training, although as we have heard in evidence that offer could not be taken up on the night.” [Emphasis added]

Good heavens!

That’s in Paragraph 9 of a Statement by Jeremy Gormly, SC, Counsel Assisting, regarding Commonwealth Australian Defence Force issues.

Paragraph 8 mentioned the sources of this information. These included “evidence from Air Chief Marshal Binskin to a Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Estimates hearing on 25 February 2015” (“and others”). Perhaps the legislators also failed to gasp? I am gasping.

We also know that in 2013 the ADF conducted an exercise less than 100 meters from the Lindt Café. Would it be asking too much for the Inquest to delve into this matter?  I realize that to do so smacks of the coroner being suspicious of government – but there comes a time when that is the essence of the law.

  1. The Inquest has not pursued the question: Exactly who ordered the stand-down?

Several times in the course of the witness testimony that I attended, the lawyers quizzing the cops seemed to pushing in the direction of getting them to say their hands were tied by higher ups.

Although they weren’t vehement in their reply, most cops did indicate that they thought Monis’ threats constituted a proper ‘trigger’ for action by them. They seemed at least vaguely disappointed and puzzled that an attack on the gunman was not proceeding in the way their training would cause them to expect.

At this point what the Inquest should have done, but did not do, was doggedly pursue the question: Who made the decisions?

Those of us who accept much of “conspiracy theory” (such as of 9-11) are all too familiar with stand-downs. Here is an example concerning Paris, reported by retired University of Ottawa Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky, at globalresearch.ca:

“[The police] were instructed according to their rules of engagement not to intervene, not to come to the rescue of the people inside the Bataclan nightclub or those in the street in front of the Bataclan. 89 people were killed, more than 100 wounded.
”

If some citizens are going to suspect a stand-down (a sinister stand-down), the coroner, if he thinks there was no stand-down, should get all the facts on record to persuade us that nothing sinister happened.

I ask: is Australia immune to chicanery such as appears to have occurred in France?

Possibly all the quizzing about “ignored triggers” is going to lead to a recommendation at the end of the inquest that the state police are incompetent and more power should be handed over to the military. That would be awful.

  1. There was no challenge to the police ballistics report

In Part 9 of this series I reported that a wound ballistics expert, Lucas Van der Walt, informed the Inquest that it was easy enough to sort out the fact that Monis died from police bullets, Katrina Dawson died from fragments of police bullets, and Tori Johnson died from pellets from Monis’ shotgun.

Skeptical comments were made to my Part 9 article and also to Part 13, and as quoted in Part 16.

I cannot offer any insight on guns myself, but it appears that the Inquest should have seen more cross-examination of the ballistics expert, particularly about the shooting of Tori Johnson. (If Monis didn’t do it, that would be shocking.)

It looked to me that Lucas Van der Walt “capitulated” to a challenge, admitting that his results could have other interpretation, but the lawyers dropped the ball at that stage.

And in regard to the death of Katrina Dawson, Coroner Michael Barnes said, his Statement of March 20, 2016, Paragraph 10:

(“A)n eminent experienced interstate emergency medicine specialist, Professor Tony Brown, reviewed the medical care given to Katrina Dawson by the paramedics and the clinicians at the RPAH. He described it as “copy book perfect”.

Similarly, that specialist has given reasons why the decision to take Katrina and the other wounded hostages to the RPAH rather than the closer Sydney Hospital was entirely correct.

Accordingly, at this stage it is not proposed that the specialist will be called to give oral evidence – it is anticipated his opinions will be accepted.”

I can see why the Dawson family would not want any pulling apart of the autopsy findings. However, if there were things happening that night that we are so far not aware of, it may prove regrettable, even to the families, that the official story was not more vigorously questioned.

In the earliest hours of media reporting after “the storming of the café,” it was said that Katrina died of a heart attack. Early reports are often later found to be the truest ones.

The Inquest is not over yet.

— Mary W Maxwell is co-author with Dee McLachlan of Port Arthur; Enough Is Enough

 

Photo credit: resources2.news.com.au

 
Advertisements

Comments

  1. “Early reports are often later found to be the truest ones.”

    This should be in bold and italics….Hell, It should be taught in school. All the best information comes out early, and then the “shaping” of the narrative begins. Repeatedly.

    • How disgusting that “narratives” get “shaped.”

      Someone on this website said that the 6 semesters of Bachelor of Media (or Journalism) is divided into 5 where they teach you stuff, and then a final one where they teach you to lie.

      Since there is no indication in the kid’s first 2 years that this is going to happen, he may have a cause of action against the university, no? Maybe breach of contract? Being led down the garden path by false advertising?

  2. I did make comment on Monis and his “Islamic exhibitionism” on another forum some time back. It all just seemed too obvious to me that he was out to attract attention and that description seemed to fit his behaviour. Maybe he was just that kind of man, but my index of suspicion about the real motivations of characters like him has been set to peak volume since 911. I do still believe that he really thought he would be leaving the cafe alive. Events since around the world have proven there is still no shortage of useful idiots willing to “mind a parcel” for a stranger.

  3. Mary, I know I am going over old ground, but Mr Lucas Van Der Walt, stated, and he is supposed to be an expert, “that the BULLET that killed Tori was fired at close range.” Now an expert should know the difference between a BULLET and a lead pellet.

    If the people doing the checking for expended bullets were a bit lax and didn’t do a diligent search after 22 bullets were accounted for, maybe there is another one or more not discovered. Or alternatively maybe, because it was known that Monis only had a shotgun, and there was an extra bullet was found but not declared, then the Inquiry needs to make sure while people are under oath.

    In regard to the number of bullets the officers are issued. Surely there must be register at their particular police station, each time ammunition is issued and or returned. This is basic accounting to protect the officers themselves from false accusations, of stealing ammo. or otherwise using it illegally.

    The question was put by the Inquiry, probably without notice, and the officer may have truthfully answered the question as he knew the situation at that time. But I think the point needs to be pounded by the Inquiry to get an accurate accounting. People’s lives and careers are on the line here.

    • Oh-oh. Yet again i have to remind everybody that what I reported is not absolutely verbatim. Shall we ask Josee in Canada to buy the $65K transcripts for us?

      Mal, if it is Mary who said the “bullet” was fired at short range, you have to know that I said it before i got corrected by Terry as to the diff betwen a shotgun and a whatcha’macallit.

      Terry also implied I was being sexist which is true. I thought no chick could do the needful — but an Aus girl has just won Olympic gold for her shooting. So there.

      By the way I have a friend who was in a CIA mind control program and she thought she knew no guns. Then a friend took her to a shoooting range and she got bulleye every time. She herself was amazed.

      Go ahead and pound away all you like, Mal. The beauty of this website is that you do not have to perfect your product before displaying it. Others will come in and cane you (and me) as needed. Yay!

      • AJ Kierath says:

        The bullet in the officer’s pocket concerns me! Just loading his gun when the van ‘hit a bump’? Too convenient……

  4. Mal, in Part 14, I quoted “Officer A ” (and by the way I judged from his voice that he ain’t lyin’):

    “When did you load your gun?” I did so in the police van on the way to the site.
    “I understand that your gun jammed while you loaded it.” Yes, the van hit a speed hump. At that point I had to take a round out of the magazine to un-jam it, and I put that one in my pocket.
    “Does that mean 29 bullets were left in the gun?” Probably, but it could be 28. I am not sure if I started with 30 or 29.

    Mal, so you see we can’t solve the problem that way, as Officer A will never be able to know how many bullets he started out with. Also, Lucas said they found 55 grains of fragment (similar to the value of one bullet) in the body of Ms Dawson, but when questioned he admitted she may have received fragments of two bullets. So the bullet count seems not definitive.

    Could another person in the room have shot anyone? You have hinted that Tori may have been killed by someone oother than Monis. Naturally the Inquest has to consider alll possibilities — why else have an inquest.

    Maybe Monis did it but maybe he didn’t. Was it captured on camera by an anti-shoplifting camera in the café?

    I don’t know if this inquest has produced an inventory of how many cameras were working at the time. God knows umpteen cameras at the Pentagon must have filmed the 9-11 crash there, but nary a one has ever been revealed.

    • The relevant law maxim re the hiding of the 9-11 camera evidence is
      OMNIA PRESEMUNTER CONTRA SPOLIATOREM.

      That is, in a court case, you can “presume against” the one who destroyed evidence. (Not the same as convicting him).

      But I don’t know how it would be used in an Inquest. All ye barristers out there, wadya think? (Not this inquest particularly — any Inquest.)

  5. Another question. Has the bullet from Tori’s head been compared to the bullets from the weapons of the two police officer’s weapons?

  6. There is a very important question to be asked, I don’t think it has as yet. “How many spent bullets have been located, in furniture, in the bodies and wall and machinery etc and did any exit the glass panels of the building?” This is most important, because we know that the police fired 22 shots.

    This can be proven, I would think, by number of bullets signed out to each officer, minus any returned by officers or still in possession of officers. That figure should equal 22.

    If however as I suspect there has been 23 spent bullets recovered the N.S.W. Police Service is exonerated from any blame of what happened at this scene. What I have suggested is that there may have been a murderer amongst the coffee drinkers, whose sole purpose was to kill Tori Johnson “from close range”. If as Terry suggests, Tori may have been assisting the real terrorists to build the “mock up” Lindt Café, he could not be allowed to speak privately of it, or be questioned by an inquest.

    I hope that someone to do with the inquest will catch onto this idea of inquiry and ask the necessary questions.

    • Terry Shulze says:

      First things first, clarify the wound to Tori Johnson. If it is a shotgun wound, then when the shotgun discharge occurred should show up at some stage during the audio tape. If it is the LAST discharge on the tape, then I think we have a problem.

      If it is a .223 round, then we may have a classic police cover-up of a mistake. In other words, collateral damage like with Dawson.

  7. The principle purpose of every court is to keep society moving in a particular direction. There is no scope for anything to be otherwise investigated.

  8. Seems that from some comments below that;
    counsel assisting , counsel for Tory and counsel for my colleague have matters to be explored.
    No doubt with information hereby explored, coims will carry out their duty.
    Perhaps someone ( as a duty) should pass on the matters discussed here to the relevant parties for consideration.
    We await the ‘overweight’ scenario.

    • Ned, I looked up “coims” and got: Conflict of Interest Management Subcommittee (University of California, San Diego).
      I am happy to send information to the Inquest. But as you know we send things of great interest to the Boston authorities and the Tasmanian authorities and (so far) it hasn’t been welcomed.

      Speaking of Boston, think how many individuals had to be in lying mode with regard to Jeff Bauman’s amputations. How about nurses at Spaulding Rehab? Can every damn one of them be on the CIA payroll? Or are they in a trance? Or they wishing they had someone to report it to?

      To what extent are the young generations not able to tell reality from fantasy, or know that there’s a way to distinguish the two?.

      Speaking of Boston, what of all the doctors around the world who saw the orange-red fake blood on the street.Why didn’t they say Excu-use me!

      Maybe could indict them for misprision of treason? That’s my fave. It be at 18 USC 2382:
      Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

      https://gumshoenews.com/2016/07/07/hoaxes-part-1-jeff-bauman-looks-like-a-crisis-actor/

      • Just a typo, should have been ‘counsel’.
        The clue is in the previous sentence.

      • “Speaking of Boston, what of all the doctors around the world who saw the orange-red fake blood on the street.Why didn’t they say Excu-use me!”

        “Conspiracy theorist” can be a career-destroyer in some fields of endeavour and they know this well. Medicine is a very conformist profession and those who define the boundaries of the reservation can make life very hard for those who go off it. Besides, if you did say Excuse-me! and nobody much gets to hear about it, then who need care what you said?

  9. Thank you Dee, I wonder how accurate the measurements of the building was in relation to Lindt Café and how is it that they had all the information regarding doors, windows etc and of what would be inside the real building to greet any forced entry.

    Aj Kierath, my comment was not a question for myself, but to awaken the public to some serious thinking. I know about the ineptitude of these personalities. I was not able to get any sort of answer from either Willesee after several letters or from an email to Derryn Hinch.

    • Interesting that it was reported that the army built a mock cafe (how many hours did that take?) .,, then they practiced for 6 hours. How long did the think this siege was to go on?

      • Terry Shulze says:

        Dee, the Army is probably just the cover story for the mock-up. After the Army got finished playing around, I would bet that some other people started using the mock-up. The Army also gave better plausible deniability as the Army wasn’t involved in the siege – and its location would give some confidentiality to any ‘exercises’.

        I wonder how far the inquest would entertain some probing questions. Who ordered, built and paid for that mock-up of the cafe’. – Then there is also the potential of witnesses who viewed the mock-up being used by various parties.

  10. Mary,
    Under number 4 you refer to the mock up at Holdsworthy of the Lindt Cafe.
    This is serious: do we know when the ‘mock up’ was:
    Designed. ( from comment there is an inference that Tory was alive at the time of ‘scouting’ (?) Suggesting that at least plans for the mock up preceded the event)
    Constructed,
    Used.
    For what specific purpose and
    Why was the Lindt Cafe details chosen?
    Certainly questions to put to some future witnesses?
    In addition:
    Who selected the Lindt cafe locale for the previous exercise,
    what team/s was/were involved in that exercise,
    who ran the exercise,
    With that recent exercise, training and experience in Martin Place, what representations, if any (or offers made) were contemplated to bring in a experienced team who had been trained at the location.
    If no representation/s were not made, why not.
    Did the NSW police know of the prior exercise, if not why not,
    If those who did the exercise had communication facilities that could have been applied, why was the NSW defcient in same as reported? (Setting up with one line in the Leagues Club, belatedly?)
    Dear oh dear, there is much more to consider by the Coroner, no time here.
    As a coment: What odds for the particular cafe to be selected by our protectors and the events occuring there and those trained not being called upon?
    Probably, similar odds for ThREE steel sky scrapers to all ‘ collapse’ for the first time in history, on the one site due to office fires on 911, done by two planes…. and not happened since!
    THREE!? For the unitiated; look up 47 storey building number 7 collapsing at about 5.20 pm on 9/11.

    • Seems that comments are presently crossing with interesting information.
      If anything of relevance is known there is a public duty to inform the Coroner.

      • Key-rist, Ned. Can u quote chapter and verse re that duty? In the US there be a terrific law called “misprision of felony.” (Misprision rhymes with vision.) Basically: You no tell of a felony that you saw? You’re felonious, too, then, Jack, and off to jail you go.

        Bet it’s never been implemented, though.

        • Ding! — Here it is, at 18USC 4:

          Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

          • Ned, for the record I want to correct any misunderstanding. When Mal said the government might have asked Tori for the measurements of the cafe. Mal did not mean during the siege. He meant a friendly, apparently innocent request way before the siege to which the manager of the cafe would naturally respond helpfully.

  11. People, don’t forget to provide your census details, tonight.
    Save on a fine. We don’t want the Government to have extra money to invest in you know what.

    • Be interesting if the census is sufficiently accurate so as to include those seeking anonimity, spending the night in a brothel under an asumed name.
      For the genuine down and out, there is a cardboard ground sheet under a bridge.
      (:~(
      bloody freezing!

  12. Mary, even if the ADF went in and took measurements themselves I think the manager of the business would want to know “what the hell are you doing?” If he hadn’t been informed , those measuring, particularly if not in uniform, could be any common criminal, not special ones.

    • Yahoo 7 wrote in Feb 2015:
      “The army set up a mock Lindt Cafe during the Martin Place siege and practiced storming the building, it has been revealed.
      The drills went on for six hours at the Holsworthy Army barracks, so commandos could work out how to penetrate the building from different entry points.”

      I will write to the Inquest for clarification on the “offered the facility to the NSW Police for training,”

      • Now that you mention it, Dee, it would be good to see the mock-up and the proposed methods of entry.

        If I had 18 friends, I would do a mock-up of the ability of one man (not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree) to hold 18 under his control for such a long time. SURELY they plotted how to hit him.
        Wouldn’t you?

  13. Now that it is public knowledge that the ADF had a mock up site of the Lindt Café erected and had an exercise involving the Lindt Café it is virtually guaranteed that Australian Government agencies are involved in the murder of these three victims. It is ironical that the owner of the Lindt Café business, who probably helped in supplying knowledge of the interior of the café to the ADF was one of the victims, unless his death was actually planned.

    • Terry Shulze says:

      “the ADF had built a mock-up of the Lindt Cafe at Holsworthy Army Base to trial and rehearse forced entry. It offered the facility to the NSW Police for training, although as we have heard in evidence that offer could not be taken up on the night.”

      Out of all the hundreds of thousands of buildings in NSW, just by coincidence of course, the military had recently built a mock-up of the Lindt Cafe that was still available for use.

      Allegedly it was “to trial and rehearse forced entry” – to trial and rehearse the very things that would be important during the actual siege. – So, who was it that had been using the mock-up for these rehearsals? Who attended at the site? Hey, did Monis ever have an appearance?

      Was there ever a single question directed as to who ordered such a mock-up and who used the facility?

      My bet is that this bit of information will be scrubbed by the MSM.

      • Terry Shulze says:

        Mal, your comment about Tori Johnson potentially being involved has the ring of truth about it. It was his cafe’, and he obviously would have assisted them in showing them around, the doors, locks, counters, etc. Perhaps he thought he was assisting a group for some innocent training. I wonder if he had told anyone about going to Holsworthy to render assistance/take part in an exercise.

        Did his family ever want this information pursued? They must have found out about the mock-up at some point.

    • Mal, I see you read the Gormly item the same way I did, which was that the Holsworthy thing occurred before December 14. But I am not sure, and Dee is looking into it.

      If you mean manager Tori, I suppose the ADF could have just gone in one day and measured the place themselves.

      Recall Peter Powers’ announcement on the very day of the London tube explosions, that he was conducing a security exercise in those same stations. Although it is simply impossible for that to have been a coincidence (as there are dozens of stations), and must have therefore have been planned, no authority that I know of ever looks even a bit cheshire-cat-ish when confronted.

      I mention that NOT to compare with Hoslworthy. Rather to compare in general with the fact that intelligent people are in denial. (Or believe the sytem is good, even if the London tube bombings were planned.)

      Pobably it’s all hopeless and we are doomed.

  14. Good on you Mary Maxwell. Why are not those so called investigative journalist of Australia, like Mike Willesee, Derryn Hinch and Alan Jones asking these very important questions. It appears that there is a lot being hidden of Government and Government employees, involvement in this “terrorist action”, as was the case at Port Arthur in 1996 and has been ever since.

    • Hi Mal. At the very least the good journalists should bawl me out for an error I made in the article. I said Noleen died in a stairwell “in a public place”. Now I see from Channel 7 that it was “a stairwell in her home.”
      Zorry.
      Hmm. I wonder if it was left to Monis’ sons (age 8 and 12, approx) to find their Mum like that. The photo of the police arriving at her home is nighttime. Were the kids home?
      Will they have a say in the criminal trial of Amirah?

      No matter how bad the Monis character may be, I don’t see a guy causing his own kids that kind of horror.
      Please don’t accuse me of feeling soft on Monis. I certainly do not. Maybe he was so exceptional in every way, that he would actually do such a thing to his boys.
      But it’s logical to inquire if he had normal parental feelings.

    • AJ Kierath says:

      Oh god ….Aussiemal ….is all I can respond with to your comment ‘Why are not those so called investigative journalist(s) of Australia, like Mike Willesee, Derryn Hinch and Alan Jones asking these very important questions’.

      Mike Willesee is an over the hill has-been TV host who obeys the PTB & proved that with his John Avery interview on the Sunday Night programme on March 6 this year…..

      Derryn Hinch was approached this year (by email) by Dr. Keith Noble on March 17 to ask if Hinch would be interested in investigating Martin Bryant’s false imprisonment….Hinch responded in part March 24 ‘…..Intrigued you (Noble) can call a mass murder an ‘official incident’. ‘
      And …….’Just run out of time for replying to rubbish. Actually I thought I did reply and tell you how compelling the Sunday Night sorry (sic) was with the Bryant tapes.’……
      Yet Derryn calls his Party ‘Justice Party’?

      And Alan Jones? I would not expect anything different!

  15. Sorry, I should have given the date of Mr Gormly’s statement about the mock-up at Holsworthy. It is May 16, 2016.
    See http://www.lindtinquest.justice.nsw.gov.au/

Trackbacks

  1. […] her article on “Serious Shortcomings of the Inquest,” dated August 9, 2016, Mary W Maxwell quoted an Inquest document written by Jeremy Gormly, SC, […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: