Martin Bryant.
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
On Youtube, Naomi Wolf speaks to an audience of New Hampshire libertarians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LmxyZXMw0
She suggests that, if they hear a news story that sounds theatrical, they use some skepticism. Ms Wolf says she heard on CNN that a water skier was decapitated, on a lake between Mexico and the US. She wrote to Facebook-type friends in Mexico to ask if the same story was being told on that side of the border. No, it wasn’t. That gave her the impetus to demand evidence from the news source. CNN then backed down. [Read more]
Now here’s another story. A young man with no history of violence goes on massive kill spree. We have become accustomed to believing such things, as though somehow the man’s new action can tell us what he was really like all along – despite neighbors saying “He was never a problem.”
Wouldn’t skepticism be extremely appropriate here? Shouldn’t one at least consider, more or less automatically, that another person may have done the killings, and that the reputedly gentle soul was simply framed?
Today is Martin Bryant’s birthday. He will be 48. Has been in prison for 19 years. When the Port Arthur massacre occurred in April 1996, he was 28, going on 29. My main reason for assuming his conviction in court was unfair is that he had no trial and, even more importantly, because no coronial inquest was held. Unusual deaths require an inquest, and surely the death of more than 30 people in a tourist café is unusual.
The Coroners Act of 1995 in the state of Tasmania begins with the words: An Act to establish a coronial division of the Magistrates Court, to require the reporting of certain deaths, to set out the procedures for investigations and inquests by coroners into deaths…
Its section 3, “Interpretation,” then gives as the definition of “reportable deaths” a list of types including “a death –
(iv) that appears to have been unexpected, unnatural or violent…”
Section 7 then states that “The functions of the Chief Magistrate under this Act are as follows:
(a) to ensure that a State coronial system is administered and operated efficiently… (c) to ensure that all reportable deaths reported to a coroner are investigated… (d) to ensure that an inquest is held …whenever an inquest is required by this Act to be held….
Section 20 covers “Information to coroner” as follows:
(1) A person who reports a death must give to the coroner investigating the death any information which may help the investigation. Penalty: Fine …
(2) A police officer who has information relevant to an investigation must report it to the coroner investigating the death.
Most importantly, section 24 covers “the jurisdiction of coroner to hold inquest into a death”
(1) Subject to section 25, a coroner who has jurisdiction to investigate a death must hold an inquest if the body is in Tasmania …
(a) the coroner suspects homicide [!!!]
I used to take it for granted that such black-letter law would be carried out by all the relevant parties.
It now appears to me that governmental impunity is so advanced that Bryant’s days will end in prison. Aussies do not seem have what it takes to challenge the criminals in government.
Crime did I mention a crime here? One item above calls for a fine, so it may be a misdemeanor, but obstruction of justice, with which this case is replete, is felonious. COVER-UP, ALSO, IS A CRIME. Innumerable newsmen could go to jail for this. Granted, the statute of limitations has tolled for most of them, but not for any who are continuing to muddle the Port Arthur story.
Note: Over the last few days, my March 8, 2015 article on Martin Bryant got over two thousand hits at Gumshoe — very unusual for a non-current article. Who are the interested readers? Only one of them sent in a comment. He called me “a publicity whore.”
Makes ya wunda.
— Mary W Maxwell is co-author of a new book, Truth in Journalism, which she hopes will interest the students at the ten universities in Australia that offer a Bachelors degree in Journalism, or the twelve universities that give postgraduate degrees in that subj
Mary. the Naomi Wolf excerpt was a very good instruction on the correct intellectual and logical process of discussing the principle with questions and a very good evidenced example.
She did not claim she new anything she did not, and could not know, she clearly outlined why a questioning and skeptical attitude is the only sound behavior.
Her point is beyond any refutation. She has plainly stated our political and information reality.
Martin Bryant is certainly a victim of that murky corrupt reality.
Australians for the most part, under a complex trance that limits and controls their thoughts and emotions, curse and fume on cue whenever, and wherever, the “Port Arthur” or “Martin Bryant” spell is repeated.
It is a disgraceful Australian justice episode.
Mary, the spike in readers of your March 8 article is interesting. You should be able to drill down to determine where they are linking the story in the sites stat counter.
Dear Christopher,
I realize that when you say Naomi did not try to claim more than she has evidence for, you were not making a diagonal-drilling accusation against me. I mean you were not saying Maxwell claims more than she can prove.
But in fact I do flagrantly claim more than I can prove. I am proud to admit it. I use logic, not evidence. And let him who can destroy my logic cast the first stone.
I claim that when I see strange behavior by any judge, be it Cox in Tassie, or be it O’Toole in Beantown, or, let us not forget, the Supremes in Troy Davis’s case, I know something is up. Judges know how to follow procedure, indeed they are true masters of it. So when they deviate, I have to ask why.
Surely it’s done with an eye to affecting the outcome of the case. (How’s my logic so far?), and if they are trying to skew the outcome, that is, trying to let one side win, when the correct following of procedure would likely result in the other side winning, then those judges are up to no good.
From that premise I proceed to my logical conclusion: if a judge alters a case (procedurally) with an eye to the outcome, he is cheating. He must therefore be guilty of obstruction of justice.
Frankly I think that this conclusion could then be the premise for a further logical conclusion, namely, that the said judge is in cahoots with the criminals who did the crime that is being tried.
Anybody want to come in that?
Mary, the guidance on taking care to “not claim more than she has evidenced” is aimed at anyone who will listen because I think we all fall into loose argument if not careful and I could just about hear Naomi’s brain ticking over as she visibly drew a deliberate deep breath and collected her thoughts before she .responded to the question on the Boston Bombing episode.
Naomi knows how critical every word and phrase could become a permanent distraction against her intended message.
We now live in a dynamic where if you telephone someone or even give your name as you stand to address a question in a public meeting, smart opposition can be searching the internet and reading your expressed opinions to find a loose thread to wrap around your proverbial neck.
Back to O’Toole in Beantown….
Mary, what about when sorcery is in effect in the court?
Logic flies out the widow.
The culpability of the Judge and Jury are diminished by their conditioned “insanity”.
The audience you strive to reason with your logic have not the slightest interest in reason or logic.
What is to be done?
The only course is to work out how to break the spells and restore thinking back to logic, evidence and reason.
This is my starting point with all serious communication.
Establish the reality of sorcery, it’s influence on the problem at hand and the necessity to contemplate where and how deception, false fear and illusion might impact on our ability to interpret and understand everything.
In a sense a spell is at least damaged if it is recognized.
Dear Christopher, as said in my May 4 article, Dalia and I are chatting about ‘amnesty’ for even the worst crimes. Our view, or mine at least, is strategic. I want the 9-11 impasse overcome. Letting someone off the hook because of diminished responsibility is also OK with me, but, again, I see it as a strategy.
In general I don’t really see why the law works the way it does in trying to find ways to let people off the hook. In England the law, as of 1957, said that a person
“shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts.”
South Australia decided not to adopt that provision (but agreed that ‘diminished responsibility’ could help a parole board make decisions).
I say if somebody kills because he is crazy (not mentioning any names, say, Henry Kissinger), isn’t that precisely whom we want to ‘put away”?
What’s with the human desire to kill, anyway? I think it is normal. No doubt you are aghast that I would say that, Christopher, but I think it is built into our hierarchical nature.
One way to beat challengers is just to get rid of them.
(I’ve heard that the whole Lockerbie crash was done to get rid of one person on board. I can’t back that up, but it seems quite believable to me.)
So it’s best for us to teach kids that this is how we are. Then we can plan for the relevant “moral hazard” – a phrase from the insurance industry. (You make sure not to give a shop owner an incentive to burn his shop down to get the money.)
As soon as you see an emperor building an empire, you know there are going to be a lot of challengers knocked off. In our day, that could mean the guy at the top will institute martial law to keep challengers at bay collectively. That’s what Dalia is always yelling about. (Pardon me, Dalia.) “Step in before it’s too late.”
In sum, I will forgive anything if that will improve the situation. I feel sorry for most of the baddies. Bet they had a cruel childhood. Maybe George Brandis is doing what he is doing now because someone threatens him with horrible blackmail. That is something I really sympathize with. We should be protecting him against them. (Recall, Dalia is saying: Protect Andrew Robb re the TPP.)
Anything. We should canvass absolutely any solution.
Mary, in our conversations here at Gumshoe you have described in your personal experience, as is mine, that we come face to face with the basic dangerous condition of humanity when we converse with our neighbors or friends in our own community.
A tiny number have perfected a methodology to steer and control individuals in association towards a collective mindset and consciousness that enslaves human effort to their ends.
It is classic sorcery and Black Magic.
This analysis gives support to your proposition that if the veil of lies and deceptions is removed Andrew Robb could well be pleading entrapment and sinister hidden coercion.
Educating ourselves and our fellows through contemplative discussion and research is the essential foundation to formulating a solution.
At some point the word must be made flesh.
The idea must be incarnated into a reality.
Thinking must become action in the world as we find it,
taking deliberate steps that can make a difference.
In a simple sense we have to publicly expose the lies and provide the truth.
This opportunity can be taken wherever people gather to think, learn and make decisions.
The opportunities are all around us but the difficult aspect is to break through the spells so our alternative view achieves consideration. The other aspect is the psychological battle in our own mind, another spell, often a heavy burden on our mind and self image, to endure the conditioned public “atmosphere” that is designed to choke and humiliate truth speakers.
Results are always mixed, and that’s all we can expect.
This note to a local friend regarding a recent episode provides an example and approach that allows a wider curious and politically active audience to be fertilized with information and insights that they would not have had discussed at this book launch unless I arrived to have some input.
Lou,
thought you might enjoy hearing of a surprising incident at the Kerryn Higgs book promotion event I attended at the Harder Auditorium on April 29.
Kerryn was promoting her book “Are We On A Collision Course”.
The audience included the “Green” crowd who you would know many, and, was chaired by Robert McLean.
Kerryn used a visual presentation to highlight her interpretation of our world and the first 40% was the predictable and expected Global Crisis thesis based on human activity caused heating and her belief in a population crisis.
What then surprised me was an interpretation of reality as a corporate conspiracy against truth and quite an emphasis on Edward Bernay’s propaganda methods.
This is not deeply secretive knowledge but it is not mainstream.
Question time arrived and not unexpectedly, all the audience thinking reflected the narrow limits set by the corrupted “environmental crisis” cult.
It hardly needs stating I do believe we have real problems but this crowd has not accurately identified the real political landscape so they are condemned to never working out a clear understanding or solution.
This absence of solution, identified path or alternative economic proposal was stated from the audience and repeated by Kerryn.
Despite all of this I was almost feeling I was among friends after hearing Kerryn’s conspiratorial interpretation of our economic reality.
The atmosphere was very warm and casual, around 100 present, so I took my opportunity to challenge Kerryn discussing the problems that the historical pattern of crisis predictions present for her thesis, referencing the oil and population crisis history over my lifetime.
I was able to join her interest in Bernay and talked about that great little documentary called the “Light Bulb Conspiracy”.
The audience were interested and Merryn was engaging with me in my points of information.
Considering the eruption of chatter when I described the negotiated conspiracy to limit the life of light bulbs across the industry, I doubt many in the audience were aware of this history.
Merryn chimed in with my information, very aware of this and clearly much else that actually intersects with my understanding of reality.
The finale was what surprised me the most.
I discussed the total omission of money and banking from Merryn’s analysis, pointing out, that if we don’t know how the power, instructions, programming and operation of a computer all relate, or how any other process for that matter, really works, we cannot get it to function properly and produce results to our benefit, or successfully fix it when it completely breaks down.
In response to my challenge, Merryn proceeded to explain to this audience how the common understanding of banking is false and that banks create our money out of thin air.
Robert McLean, former Shepparton News Editor and present day columnist, was standing by her side during this brief exposition on banking.
I must admit I was chuffed and it made the effort to attend worthwhile.
I do not know the lightbulb thing to which you refer.
Off topic: I have just received the book Dalia recommended, Hidden History (re World War I), by Docherty and Macgregor.
The word “superb” comes straight to mind after one perusal.
Get your library to order a copy today!
Reblogged this on Real News Australia.
I know you don’t mind, but have been reposting on my FB page and receiving more hits lately. Keep up the good work. Cheers.
Thanks David – from D and M
Mary, “The Lightbulb Conspiracy” is a very informative and thought provoking documentary, included in my ……..
“Collected Money Documents and Information” that I recommend every political activist reference or design their own as a foundation of evidence when attempting to break the spells and explain our political reality and positive possibilities.
It’s not too deep in the comments section.
My laptop is freezing at any sniff of youtube so I cannot give a direct link.
http://gumshoenews.com/2015/02/12/australia-needs-money-creation-reform-and-honest-sovereign-money-policies/
No Inquest and apparently the Martin Bryant evidence has been locked away for forty years?
I wonder why this could be?
Left hander with low IQ becomes right-handed trick shooter and no-one need ever know.
Thanks to the Aust Govt once again…. well done John Howard…. got your little 33rd degree honorary award for that little coup didn’t you…??? A person with half a brain can see the Port Arthur thing was a set up… how much more bad karma can these govt types amass at our expense…??
MASS MURDER OFFICIAL KILLING
in Tasmania, Australia
interesting ebook about bryant here..
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nedwood/CONTENT.MASS.MURDER.pdf