By Dee McLachlan
The 10 minute video above is the start of a series from Gumshoe News on false flags and other crimes. This one is on Port Arthur. [Much of the video is sourced from Channel 7’s Mike Willesee series that damned Bryant]
When I immigrated to Australia in the late 1990s I made the assumption, as had most Australians, that Martin Bryant was the shooter in Tasmania. But as soon as I looked beyond the official narrative, I realized that something was terribly wrong. The entire case is a diabolic miscarriage of justice. For starters, it seems the defence, John Avery, was working for the prosecution.
In the video, I only concentrate on the case — and not on the actual perpetrators. There are many articles on Port Arthur on Gumshoe, and in Mary Maxwell’s recent article, she outlines the players (also here and here). I decided to produce a 10 minute video after asking retired barrister Terry Shulze what he might say to a jury in a hypothetical summation of the case.
What is shocking, is that in the recent Channel 7 (Mike Willisee) program, John Avery (Bryant’s defence lawyer), admits that he did not provide, or want to provide, Martin Bryant a defence. And the way Willisee and co. twisted and manipulated the footage is monstrous.
In the Exposé video, episode one, I outline these few simply points:
- Martin Bryant said he was innocent of the killings for months.
- He stated that he had not visited the historic site for 6 years.
- The police interviews demonstrate the State’s attempt to manipulate and coerce a vulnerable and mentally challenged young man into a guilty plea.
- The media portrayed a revengeful and crazed gunman. The transcripts of the negotiation and interrogation conflict with this view.
- The defence failed their legal duty. Avery may have acted criminally in doing so.
- The skill required to shoot 12 people and injure 10 in 15 seconds is equal to the most proficient marksman. The shooter was right-handed and also shot from the hip. Bryant was a left-handed shooter, and had never practiced shooting from the hip.
- The AR 15, and the very rare SLR .308 were not owned or used by Bryant. His AR-10 (.308) had been taken away from a month earlier by Terry Hill — when he went into Hill’s Gun shop with it loaded and in poor condition.
- There was another shooter in cottage. These are heard whilst Bryant is talking to negotiator Terry.
- It is also ludicrous to believe that Bryant was managing a siege whilst making sandwiches and tea for the ‘hostages’, and talking to the negotiator.
- Some witnesses describe the shooter as 18 – 20 years old.
- Another witness, Jim Laycock, who saw the shooter near the General Store, had known Martin as a child, and said it was not him.
- The shooter handled a tray and soda drink in the cafe. This tray was identified. No DNA evidence, or fingerprints from Bryant was found.
- The DNA and fingerprint evidence would have, or rather, will exonerate Bryant, and identify the real shooter.
Why did they need to get a guilty confession out of Bryant — when they could have closed the case on him in a week or two in May 1996, with a single fingerprint on that Solo can? The answer is simple. Bryant was NOT the shooter.
What is presented here is only the tip of the iceberg. One can easily get bogged down with the detail, as there is so much evidence that destroys the official narrative. And there are enough coincidences to raise the Titanic from the depths — like the 500 plus journalists, from about 17 nations, that attended a seminar in Hobart. Coincidence? Please!
And the way this case continues to be covered up, is an indication that the politicians in Canberra do not represent the people of Australia. Our leaders are clearly being “managed.”
We look forward to some action being taken. This is an email list of a few of the prominent Australian politicians, so you can urge them to take 10 minutes out of their day, to update their perspective of PA.