by Mary Maxwell, LLB
I am 100% persuaded that Martin Bryant had nothing to do with the Port Arthur massacre on April 28, 1996. He says he was not there and he says it credibly. Someone else did the shooting in the Broad Arrow Café. Several of the authorities must be aware of who did it, as it was a massive, complicated operation.
No doubt they chose Bryant in advance to be the patsy, maybe even years in advance. And most likely they lined up a few other Joe Schmoe’s to be the patsy in case Martin died.
Who Is the Main Witness for Martin Bryant’s Itinerary?
The person who is best placed to know where Martin went on April 28, 1996, is of course Martin himself. His memory could be compromised if he is of “low brains” but I doubt that he is. It could also be compromised – as any of us can be compromised – by someone maliciously altering his mind.
To say that there were persons maliciously altering Martin’s mind is an understatement. As I have written before at Gumshoe, Martin was — this is on record – a patient of Dr Eric Cunningham Dax, and believe me, you don’t want to have been a patient of any such Tavistock doctor. Tavistockians are devoted to altering minds. It is their goal in life. And they are often very successful at it.
To keep Martin hushed up is important to the authorities, and they have done so by preventing people from contacting him. Naturally MSM reporters want to talk to him. Oh wait a minute, no they don’t. That would be dangerous! Something about his innocence would emerge and the media are steadfast in not wanting that to happen.
How do I know? Pure logic. Interesting “truther” data came out, such as in lectures given by Wendy Scurr and Andrew McGregor to large meetings of Tassies, but the mainstream media never even mentioned that those meetings had occurred, much less quote the contents thereof.
Surely the MSM was involved from Day One in cleverly giving Australians the false impression that the Port Arthur shooter was Martin Bryant.
Who Witnessed Martin’s Journey on April 28, 1998?
Note: This article is NOT a study of witnesses at the Port Arthur Historic Site, PAHS. (One witness in Broad Arrow Café, Graham Collyer, who received a bullet in his neck, was confronted in hospital with a photo of the real Martin said “Nope, t’weren’t him. ” And one man, Jim Laycock, who witnessed the gunman shooting Zoe Hall in the carpark of the General Store, said “It wasn’t Martin, whom I have known for many years.”)
Rather than focus on Martin Bryant’s non-presence PAHS scene (which is hard for the public to grasp), I am musing today about where the real Martin DID travel on April 28, 1996. I think it is undisputed that he started the day at his home in Newtown, which is northwest of Hobart, and ended up in Seascape cottage, which is a few kilometers north of the PAHS.
His girlfriend Petra Wilmot told police that she spent the night with him at Newtown and that she left him at 8am, to visit her parents. Martin claims he left his house by 11:00am.
Did anyone see him on the road? Various people said they saw him. I think most of those “witnesses” are plants. For example, he is supposed to have helped two girls on the road whose car had broken down. I think the point of that plant was to give Australians the impression that Martin’s “trip to Port Arthur” can be satisfactorily documented. (It can’t.)
As for his arrival at a place fairly near Seascape, we can use the elderly witness Roger Larner as an important clue. Larner had known Martin for 15 years, as he used to agist a horse for Lindy Bryant, the one and only sibling of Martin. In his statement to police, Larner said that Martin greeted him in the driveway of his home, near Seascape, around 1.05pm Sunday. He reported that they conversed, and that Martin had said “I’m down here surfing.”
No witness actually describes the arrival of Martin Bryant into Seascape cottage. Again, let’s not worry about the standard story – it has the PAHS gunman racing up to Seascape after killing Zoe Hall at the General Store, which is a lie.
Thanks to Roger Larner, we at least know that Martin was near Seascape around 1pm. But for the next five hours the record is blank. Then around 6:30pm, Martin is heard in a telephone conversation with Sgt Terry McCarthy. He’s the Police negotiator, who was phoning from his office in Hobart. Martin’s voice is quite audible, although he is calling himself Jamie.
To be quite formal, I have to say that it is not forensically established that the person speaking as “Jamie” is Martin Bryant, but I am ASSUMING it is. And maybe it was never established that the conversations with McCarthy were definitely conducted with a person inside Seascape rather than somewhere else, but I ASSUME it was a person inside Seascape.
The last chat with McCarthy ended at approximately 9.30 Sunday night. Presumably Martin remained in Seascape until 8.30 the next morning. (Frankly I think he was drugged through the night with a plan for him to die in Monday’s fire.)
Is There Any Record of Martin Saying What He Did That Arvo?
There are three sources for digging up what Martin said. One is the April 28 “Jamie” conversation, somewhat spoiled by its scripted nature. Next is his July 4, 1996 interrogation by Officer Paine and Inspector Warren in Risdon Prison. The third is John Avery’s consultation with his client in prison in October, 1996.
A transcript of the Warren/Paine interrogation – which is known as “the Interview of Record” — has been in the DPP’s files since early days. But there are two things dishonest about that file:
First, it had been claimed, for 20 years, that only the audio survived; the video recorder malfunctioned (or something.) In 2016, Mike Willessee played part of it on a TV show on channel Seven. What a surprise! The video had worked. But we’ve only seen a bit of it (chopped up portions).
Secondly, I question the honesty of the DPP transcript of that July 4 interview as it would take only an hour to read it out loud, but John Avery said, in his October 1996 conversation with Bryant, that it would take 3 hour to watch the whole tape. I quote Avery:
“Right, well I think I should at some stage show you that interview. I’m not going to spend three hours, it would just be like watching TV for 3 hours, but some parts of it I think you should see.”
As to the third source of Martin’s remarks, it is this very same interview with John Avery. Quite unethically Avery published it in The Bulletin in 2006, but it helps us a lot.
In the Avery-Bryant talk, does Bryant offer much as to what he did on April 28? Well, no, but he had no chance to. Avery shut him up from the very beginning by saying that he, the new lawyer on the case, would have to quit if Bryant offered a “bullshit” story contrary to the prosecution case. (!!!!!)
I quote Avery: “David Gunson I gather has found himself in an ethical problem because of what you have told him and what you want to do now, right. Now I am telling you that because I am not going to ask you today what your instructions are …” (Wow.)
How I Think Martin Behaved in Seascape
Martin must have got into Seascape one way or another. I admit having a pre-formed idea that, in a patsy situation, the patsy’s movements have to be closely controlled. They cannot be left to chance.
So here’s my guess. Martin was instructed to leave his house in the late morning, so that it would jive with the tale about his doing the PAHS shooting at 1:30pm. When he was on the road, someone would have to be following him (no cell phones in those days enabling one to call in with progress reports).
I reckon he really did surf, although conceivably he only imagined that he surfed.
I’m guessing he got into Seascape not too long after the visit to Roger Larner. Dollars to doughnuts the baddies waiting for him inside Seascape did not need to bully him – he may have been delighted to be told he was part of an important police exercise.
During the chat with Negotiator McCarthy, Martin sounds relaxed, and also sounds as if he is an equal to police. He would have been told that the negotiator was in on the ruse and wasn’t seeking “real” information. (The using of a false name, Jamie, might have assured Bryant that it was all a game.) Furthermore, shots were being fired all over the place at Seascape which did not cause Martin to stress out.
He told McCarthy that Rick was there with him. I am of the opinion (much bandied about in conspiracy circles) that Rick is a real cop who had been setting Martin up for this adventure for a long time.
Let’s leave that now. That was my aside as to how I think Martin’s day went.
Why Does the False Official Story Require a Kidnapping?
I believe the Port Arthur false-terrorist event was well planned by government, perhaps by the SAC-PAV people in Canberra. The location of Seascape may have been chosen for the fact that it had a mini-harbor for boat escape. But it was a few miles from the big killing scene at PAHS, so the narrative had to provide a nexus.
The nexus could include a kidnapping and a carjacking. (Note: when a hostage is taken, additional parts of the criminal law open up, covering federal police involvement. That was important in the Boston Marthon case, where charges against the patsy, Jahar Tsarnaev got federalized.)
In Bryant’s official court case, as presented by DPP Damien Bugg to Justice William Cox in November 1996, the gunman, after killing many people at the Broad Arrow café, carjacked a BMW at the tollbooth and then crossed the street where he encountered Zoe Hall and Glenn Pears in a white Corolla.
He killed Zoe and ordered Glenn Pears to get into the boot of the BMW. This driver, who had just been spotted by Laycock as NOT Martin Bryant, then sped up the road towards Seascape, around 1:50pm, in the BMW, with a still-living man in the boot.
Martin’s Tale of a Kidnap
Martin’s tale of the kidnapping has no correlation with what happened, and what Jim Laycock witnessed. How does Martin himself account for a kidnap? The only time he mentioned it was during his Jamie chat and during the police interview of July 4. This is from the Jamie chat:
McCarthy: “Now you were talking just a little bit about the um Rick having come from Fortescue Bay. Can you just enlighten me as to what happened there?
Jamie: “Yeah yeah, I got him and managed to get him his wife she wanted to participate um in the kidnapping in instead of his wife, I thought allright quick get in, get into the car, and I’ve got him as a hostage.”
Ten weeks later, in his official Police interview of July 4, Martin tells a variant story that does mention a wife but omits the name Rick. Had they been coaxing him, and then only made record of this account?:
MB. It was on the corner of Palmers Lookout. I was in the Volvo, I stopped the car on the corner, there was a nice looking BMW and I asked them to get out of the car but the
WARREN. How many people were in it?
MB. There was a child in there, in the back and a lady and the man. I got him out the car, I had my gun with me and I said “I want to take your car.” His wife or girlfriend got into the Volvo with the child and I drove off.
WARREN. So you drove away in the BMW?
MB. Yes, and the man was in the boot. I put him in the boot.
WARREN. How did he get into the boot? …
PAINE. Martin, just back to the BMW. How did this guy get in the boot?
MB. I put him in the boot because I had a gun.
PAINE. Did he just get in or did you handcuff him or anything like that?
MB. Um, handcuffed him? No.
PAINE. Well do you own any handcuffs?
MB. No, never, never owned handcuffs in my life.
PAINE. Which gun did you have?
MB. I had the AR15.
Did Martin Do a Different Kidnapping?
Your guess is as good as mine as to whether the real Martin did any kidnapping that day.
He may have had 5 hours, inside Seascape, to be rehearsed on his lines. That could include a (completely fictitious) kidnap. But would they teach him to mention a wife? That conflicts with the official tale of a murdered Zoe Hall — Zoe had no child.
It’s my impression that Jamie made a slip of the tongue there. A fabulous slip of the tongue. The wife thing causes me to believe Bryant really did engage in some kind of a staged kidnapping. A pretty mild one, given that he didn’t whack anybody or issue any threats.
Note: when questioned by McCarthy about it, Martin felt safe describing it – not exactly what you expect of a fugitive talking to police. He also mentioned that the wife of Rick was higher up in intelligence than Rick. (Isn’t that amazing?)
Please note that Negotiator McCarthy did not follow that with a thread of questioning, after Jamie said the wife had wanted to participate in the kidnapping.
And in regard to the July 4 interview, it’s a bit puzzling that Inspector Warren would actually pose this leading question:
WARREN. How many people were in it?
BRYANT: There was a child in there, in the back and a lady and the man. I got him out the car, I had my gun with me and I said “I want to take your car.” His wife or girlfriend got into the Volvo with the child and I drove off.
Pretty fascinating stuff. Why would the real Martin Bryant make up a doozie about the involvement of Rick’s wife? Personally I suspect she may indeed have been present if they did a role play — a mock-kidnap.
It also seems significant to me that the DPP picked out some things from the Interview of Record, to tell the judge, but passed right over Martin’s “confession” of a carjack/kidnap crime.
Deduction
In my opinion, the kidnap story is Slip-of-the-Tongue city. It is exculpatory. I deem it an important piece of information EITHER if Martin actually carried out a fake kidnapping OR if he only was instructed to say he did a kidnapping. There really was a kidnapping, of Glenn Pears at the General Store, and Martin was never near the General Store. So what is the point of this “mimicry”?
Why would they bother with a “kidnapping” story? They surely didn’t want him to live. I believe it was so they had Martin blabbing (the “Jamie script”) about the kidnap to the negotiator, and thus make it a real part of the story (like Barbara Olson’s call made box cutters a real part of the 9-11 story). But Martin, having been told it was OK to go loose lips went a bit too far.
Let’s sort things out by interviewing Bryant. As of today, April 14, 2018, he is still alive.
We could ask: “Did you fatally shoot a lady in a white Corolla?” (Presumably he will say No). “And did you leave a woman and child near the Fortescue Turnoff?” (Probably he will say Yes). Then we toss him the question “Is she the wife of Rick?”
Tum de tum tum.
— Mary W Maxwell and nearly all Port Arthur researchers are over age 70. Would some young Tasmanians or Mainlanders please get into the act? It’s lots of fun and you can only die once anyway.
Let me print a bit more of the July 4th, 1996 interview:
WARREN. You’ve already said that you remembered me going to see you at the hospital?
MB. Oh yes.
WARREN. And that I told you that you were being charged with …
MB. A murder count.
WARREN. What recollection have you got of that?
MB. Must’ve been the hostage, the bloke in the BMW must’ve died.
WARREN. That’s what you think it is, is it?
MB. Mmm.
WARREN. Do you remember me telling you who you were charged with murdering?
MB. No I don’t … inaudible …
WARREN. Do you remember me mentioning a name?
MB. Yes, I remember you mentioning a name but …
WARREN. I told you that you were being charged with the murder of a woman called Kate Scott.
MB. Oh.
WARREN. Does that register with you?
MB. No. I mean I let the lady get into the Volvo, I didn’t hurt her or anything. No I don’t register. It doesn’t register.
Dear Gumshoers, please take a stab at guessing whether MB ever went through the motions of a kidnap. At the moment I lean toward it having been completely a brainwash job with him never having attended a BMW.
Several years ago a conspiracy theorist posited the idea that Martin went surfing and was picked up by his Handlers at the beach. I guess his yellow Volvo could have been spirited away at that point, and the baddies could have delivered Martin to Seascape.
Note, however, in the above Warren qq, that Martin SEEMS to be remembering the kidnap scene well enough to shrug off any accusation that he hurt the lady.
I am truly baffled.
I don’t think it’s too baffling. Watch Derren Brown for a few minutes and we realise how easy it is to place a false memory. He does it it in seconds to highly intelligent people. Could have been done another day.
I think it was some form of role play so that Jamie could relate it. Could have been using toy cars for all we know. And the rest was coaxed. How did Avery come up with those “pictures” drawn by Martin of the Cafe massacre? They would had to have “coaxed” and manipulated the situation – and his mind. His DNA (and martin) were never there.
It is truly appalling how they mastered the massacre — deliberately using a expendable patsy.
Dammit. I just noticed that that Conspiracy theorist’s idea of Martin being picked up on the beach goes against Roger Larner’s story (which I personally think is super-solid) about the lad showing up in his Volvo.
Larner said: “As I pulled into the stockyard area I saw a yellow Volvo sedan…It had one surfboard on the roof.”
Readers, Please find some group of amateurs who will put on my 2017 Fringe play, “Moot Court Trial for Martin Bryant.” I’ll send them the script. Hey, I’ll even supply the props.
There are no props.
I quote Avery:
“Right, well I think I should at some stage show you that interview. I’m not going to spend three hours, it would just be like watching TV for 3 hours, BUT SOME PARTS OF IT I THINK YOU SHOULD SEE.”
Clearly Avery is in on the hoax, he is part of the conspiracy. The record of interview was done over several days, if not weeks. The Record of Interview is a cut-and-paste job, not a continuous interview. Avery would know that, he never watched a three hour interview. He is just going to show Bryant “some parts of it I think you should see.” He is trying to influence Bryant with select portions of the theatrical production.
I quote Avery: “David Gunson I GATHER HAS FOUND HIMSELF IN AN ETHICAL PROBLEM BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD HIM AND WHAT YOU WANT TO DO NOW, right. Now I am telling you that because I am not going to ask you today what your instructions are …”
This is Avery ‘strapping up’ Bryant by implying that Bryant told Gunson that he did the massacre and now wanted to change his instructions.
Avery is covering up the conspiracy to substitute Avery as the new lawyer by pretending that Gunson had an ethical problem with his previous instructions. Gunson has to withdraw in that situation. – Significantly, at Avery’s later trial Gunson gave evidence, in CLOSED COURT. Why closed court? Well, if Gunson was asked if Bryant ever gave instructions that he did the massacre, Gunson would have said no. The cat would be out of the bag about the substitution of Avery as Bryant’s lawyer.
Jamie: “Yeah yeah, I got him and managed to get him HIS WIFE SHE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE um in the kidnapping in instead of his wife, I thought allright quick get in, get into the car, and I’ve got him as a hostage.”
The section I emphasised in Bryant’s story, “HIS WIFE SHE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE”, supports a previous mock kidnapping where a woman participates in the kidnapping. It appears that the script for this psy-op called for taking a female hostage. – First with Mrs. Mikac where the killer tried to take her hostage. He told her three times to get on her knees, “on your knees, on your knees, on your knees”. The little girls likely complicated things so he killed them all. Then there was the conflict at the toll gate where he likely tried to take a woman hostage and things fell apart, and he killed them all. Then finally he approached the Toyota in front of the General Store and order Zoe Hall to get out. She went hysterical and refused, so Pears got out and volunteered. The killer likely gave up at that point of taking a woman hostage and put Pears in the boot, then went back and killed Zoe Hall.
It’s not ‘exculpatory evidence’ as it is speculative – and not really that important as there is heaps of REAL exculpatory evidence in this case. However, it does help to explain some of the unusual conversations that took place.
I remember John Avery being interviewed and was asked “Did he tell you why he did it?” Avery answered “Yes, he did tell me why, though I’m unable to disclose that under Privilege”. Martin wouldn’t have hurt a fly, and I never trusted Avery for a second, even way back then.
Avery really gives the game away. Complicit in covering up a crime. Could one do a citizen’s arrest?
Avery has done time for lying and stealing from his clients. He has never done any time for what he did to Martin Bryant. It would be great to see him go back to his old cell at Risdon prison – welcome back!
He Wasn’t Really Afraid Of Anything’: Boston Bombing Victim Remembered
New England Public Radio
A homemade bomb thrown by one of the Tsarnaev brothers detonated near D.J., knocking him off his feet. “We knew he had a concussion, but he said he was fine,” Roxanne says. “But, we knew something was a little different.” “Yeah, he was quiet,” Dennis says. “He’d said when he closed his eyes he …
NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC RADIO.
I have some questions please…
1) Mary why is Larner’s story ‘super-solid’?
2) During the police interview why did Warren state that Martin was charged with murdering Kate Scott? Kate Elizabeth Scott & her boyfriend Mick Sargent were visiting PA from WA….Kate was the THIRD person shot in the BA Cafe (in the back of the head) & Mick Sargent, who was shot SECOND & was facing the shooter suffered only a bullet graze to his head.
How did this crack shooter only manage to graze Sargent’s head?
Why was Kate Scott chosen as the person Martin was charged with for murder?
4) Terry….Who was the witness who saw/heard the shooter tell Nanette Mikac 3 times to ‘get on your knees’? Kindly jog my memory…
I agree with Dee that the ‘kidnapping’ story Martin came up with was strictly mind control & never actually happened….Petra confirmed that Martin was receiving calls at home from an unknown person whom Martin called ‘Tiger’.
Finally (please note Mary that I’m a ‘truth seeker’, a long time researcher & not a ‘conspiracy theorist’) I believe there were TWO Volvos & TWO shooters at the cafe & TWO ‘Jamies’ at Seascape. Note that the tapes from Seascape have 2 conflicting stories from the ‘Jamies’ referring to helicopter rides.
Apologies for missing number (3) question….lol….
Hi, AJ. I am a truth seeker but also happy to identify as a conspiracy theorist. If ever there was a conspiracy it is PA. To answer your first qq, I did not say Larner’s report is super-solid, i said “Personally I think it is super-solid.”
As to why I think that, hmm, it’s partly because Larner spoke very early, perhaps April 29th. Sorry, AJ, I can only talk about the way it strikes me. Larner is dead and I can’t pull out of it anything other than the raw words. I quote Larner:
The driver started to walk towards me. I then said “who’s that” He replied “Martin.” I said, “I didn’t recognise you.” At that stage I recognised him to be a person that I have known for about 15 years, and that is Martin BRYANT. He asked me how my health was, to which I replied “good.” I then asked him how he was and he replied, “I don’t drink much anymore and I don’t smoke, I’m down here surfing”. end quote.
Re the death of Kate Scott, I am no expert on police procedure – boy is that an understatement – but I think the idea was to charge him with something, as you can’t keep a person under arrest with no formal charge. Did they choose Kate for a reason? My guess is No. Any of the known dead would suffice.
I think there is some evidence for 2 shooters, and defo for 2 Volvos, but I never heard of 2 Jamies. But I see that Martin did make this remark to Avery in October:
“Avery: Have you heard the negotiating tapes when you were on the phone?
Yes, I couldn’t recall that that was my voice.” end qote
If you care to say why you think 2 Jamies, pray tell.
Hi Mary….
1) Larner….I believe this is a very dubious witness statement firstly because Larner was ‘interviewed’ the same day, Monday 29 whereas most witnesses were interviewed much later, some even months later. It was necessary to place Martin near the scene by someone who ‘knew’ him despite Larner saying to Martin ‘I didn’t recognise you’….Why did Larner not recognise Martin? Martin had a very distinctive look….And Martin is also quoted as saying ‘I don’t drink much anymore & I don’t smoke’…..Martin did seem to enjoy his drinks when he visited bars with Petra & had never smoked….A strange comment to make.
2) Why I picked up on the name Kate Scott is that a ‘friend’ of Kate’s recently mentioned her (but not by name) in a PAM group & I commenced some research into Kate & her boyfriend Mick. I’m presently awaiting some more information on Mick. I’m still rather baffled why Warren chose her name out of the more well known names such as the Mikacs.
3) Since hearing the Seascape tapes several years ago I’ve always believed there were two ‘Jamies’ due to the following…..
a) Martin’s comment ‘I couldn’t recall that was my voice’….
b) Petra & Carleen were in Hobart Police Station at the same time that the negotiations were taking place & yet neither was asked to identify Martin’s voice….Someone who hadn’t spoken with Martin for at least 12 years was asked to identify the voice on the tape.
c) Without listening again right now to the Seascape tapes I heard two conflicting statements made about helicopters & when ‘Jamie’ last rode in one.
Why I do not identify as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ is because that was a term coined by the government about anyone who did not/does not believe the official fake stories. I also have two PAM groups & some new members have been rather upset when, after sharing information with their friends & family, they’ve been accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by those friends & family….I’ve found they’ve thus been reassured when I tell them to respond to those people that they are in fact ‘truth seekers’!
Cheers….
NOTE to Mary & Dee….Every comment of mine still needs to be approved….We don’t seem to be able to solve this problem with Gumshoe & WordPress!
If the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ upsets, then think of oneself as a conspiracy realist!
AJ here….Back to my original profile on Gumshoe so hoping my comments don’t have to be approved under this profile Dee & Mary! And maybe I might be advised of new comments this time….
Johno the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ does not personally upset me but it brings to mind in people’s heads pics of tin foil hat wearers (which was why the term was originally coined by the government)….I just happen to use the word ‘truther’ or ‘truth seeker’ during my research.
In giving the Graduation Address to the Law Class of 1996 at University of Technology, Sydney,
High Court Justice Michael Kirby paid respects to the two young lawyers who had died at Port Arthur: Zoe Hall, 28, and Glenn Pears 35. Glenn had been a mature-age student as UTAS and then got a job with Minter Ellison in Sydney which is where he met Zoe.
Justice Kirby also honored Jim Pollard, a retired Univerisity administrator who who died at age 72 (he was in the BMW at the tollbooth where 4 people were killed). The previous year he had been “the oldest law graduate of the Southern Cross University, Lismore.”
since there was no formal Coronial Inquest, how do we know that they’re ‘dead’, eh?
is there any other evidence like, for instance, Life Insurance pay-out(s);
in the light of highly dubious ‘mass shootings’ in the US such as Sandy Hook and Las Vegas, the whole Port Arthur massacre ‘narrative’ appears increasingly dubious…
Because I’ve seen the ‘Police Eyes Only’ video that was taken inside the Broadarrow Cafe. The people are DEAD, very dead, bled out, brains and parts of flesh everywhere.
Forget the ‘crisis actors’ BS, this massacre was real.
Port Arthur was real, Sandy Hook was utterly fake hyperactive drill set up in the early morning. I traveled down that road everyday and I can tell you that my buddy would park in the Sandy Hook parking lot and from around mid Oct 2012 to early Dec before the alleged shooting, nobody was at that school. They were at the Monroe school where they were said to have gone after the shooting but they were already there.
The police video and countless witnesses confirmed those killed in the massacre.
AJ, re Larner as a reliable witness. He has made a written Police Statement of record of which I have a copy. This along with many other written Police Statements were never presented to the court by either the Prosecution or the supposed Defence team. I see no reason to doubt his story.
I have a copy of a photograph of the yellow Volvo left at the Toll Booth at PAHS. In that photo the boot (trunk) lid is tied down with rope. Nobody has ever made mention of this fact. If somebody that knew Martin, knows for sure whether his car had a faulty latch on the boot, it would help solve the question of, whether the one left at the Toll Booth was actually Martin’s. Remember witnesses said the Volvo that the gunman returned to at the bus terminal, to exchange weapons appeared to need no key. Mrs Bryant and Petra, should have known that answer, but it appears that nobody asked them, or if so, it does not appear to be recorded. The Prosecution never mentioned that fact, which should have been so important to their case. And of course it would not have suited the criminal Avery to enquire.
Mal, could it be that the cops tied it down with rope, given that anyone could open it if it were key-free?
I suppose that is possible, but why would it be necessary. They left the windows open so that the overnight dew, ruined any fingerprints inside the car. The car was going nowhere, as this photo was taken next day, Monday.
All equipment had been transferred to the BMW by the gunman, so it would not have created a problem for the police if some sticky beak opened the unlocked boot. If I remember rightly the Prosecutor told the court that the petrol containers that Martin had filled were in the BMW when it was at Seascape and that is why it exploded.
We who have been educated and seen much evidence of what happened at Port Arthur are not conspiracy theorists, because most of what we discuss has been proven to have happened, therefore there is no theory any longer. If we were wrong with our story, why did the Prosecution have to lie in court and create false evidence. Why when I was conducting communications with the Governor General, did the A.F.P. attack my computer several times and when I contacted them demanding an investigation by them and also demanded the Australian Crime Commission do the same I was ignored by both. I presented proof to both of those bodies, and neither refuted my claims.
One of the reasons that Martin’s story of the kidnapping is false, is that he was unable to drive a manual shift vehicle.
Another point is, if the kidnapping really took place, why is there no police record of the lady reporting the abduction of herself and the child.
In relation as to why Kate Scott was the one whose name was used as murdered on the charge sheet, if she was the third killed: they dare not use the first killed as that was Anthony Nightingale, an intelligence agent and the authorities would not be wanting that to come out in court if Bryant stood his ground and was given a trial.
Unless barristers correct me, I would say the Kate Scott priority has no meaning. All the names of deceased eventually made it onto the charge sheet. “any one” would do for the initial charging at the hospital.
interesting about the intelligence agents though. I seem to recall from Stewart Beattie’s book that he identified 6 of the deceased as ASIO.
I don’t have my Port Arthur books anymore as I gave away everything except my agriculture books when I hopped over to Bama. Also the dog sicked up on my homework.
Hooray for all Aussies, and foreigners too, who work toward PA justice.
Mary, Andrew supplied me with names of 7 Intelligent agents killed at Port Arthur. That would be the 6 you know of, and Anthony Nightingale, the first casualty.
This place is run by the hidden hands of freemasonry kabala that are the directors of the globalist
communist manifesto . We have been deceived for a long time and every year the bullshit spreads
exponentially . The reason we are all in this mess is because “they” own everything and mostly everyone . Instead of real leaders we have “poo bahs “ feeding us lie after lie from the scripted horror movie that is imposed down upon us constantly .
Martyn is innocent and bring the girls and boys back home .
What on earth are we DEFENDING in the Middle East ? The bankers agenda for world domination .
Here justice is just ice . Shame great country even better people mostly .
I predict that the US troops will be back home for the November 11 celebrations….
I think its fair to say that there’s never been a psyop on earth that went according to plan
Because entering that realm amounts to selling one’s soul
Which automatically renders one “wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked”
Which means that the very notion of a “cabal” must be purged in order to unlock the truth
Orrite! The “system” and the secretive minions that manipulate it are known to some and suspected by others…… but what can be done about it? Just moaning hasn’t worked for several hundred years. Should we expect it to work now?
OD,
What can be done about it??? Just commenting on GS is a start.
Tell your friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues everything you know or suspect about “the system”. And be prepared to be roundly laughed at for a while, but maybe not for too much longer.
Write an article about some issue that needs ventilating.. Wear a t-shirt to your local shops with “9/11 was an Inside Job” or “End the Fed” printed on it (I do-it’s fun to watch reactions) And rewarding when some stranger gives you a knowing wink and a thumbs-up. While visiting Port Arthur recently, I signed the visitor book with the comment “FREE MARTIN BRYANT”. Someone may read it and wonder.
Have 100 signs saying “Chemtrails Suck”made and pin them onto telegraph poles on a highway. Tell people about Gujmshoenews or send them an article if relevant. Make outrageous comments at family gathering or dinner parties, such as Barack Obamas REAL name is Barry Soetoro. Or better yet Michelle is a Tranny (and then blame Joan Rivers) Of course, you won’t get too many invites in the future.
Be creative. Have jun while you’re at it.
And I had jun, jun, jun til Daddy took my T-bird away.
Look, Darling Mary, I’m an old codger from the bush. I do not understand “street smart” sub English.
What Phil seems to be proposing is something that might appeal to adolescents where disturbance is equated with effectiveness.
Now that I am old noise is just ineffectively irksome. A good plan, quietly implemented, is the preferred option. Flamboyant demonstrations are a feast for an hostile media to interpret and portray according to their ideological proclivities.
OK, then, how about streaking?
if you are censoring …ermm!…..sorry!…. “moderating” comments here…then….why bother soliciting such, eh?
Sorry was out. But once one is approved, the rest should pop up.
Yair! Streaking would be the go if you want to ridicule and deride the honest men and women of the Nation.
It could happen ’cause queers will use any means to despise and repudiate the Natural Order.
Hello Mary – Les Katt here
I enjoyed this, your latest article , and realistic debate ensuing from contributors
I imagine there will be many like me come along , in greater numbers than ever before, seeking answers, more information …. you know , like they can be ‘ the one who gets the vital break ‘ and the case is re examined , as it must be.
The contributors are so more conversant with the evidence ‘detail’ than most – it’s an eye opener for others to see what extent the theoretical boundaries of what may have happened then – like, will we ever get to test this in a court .?
Mary, it’s a shame I couldn’t catch up with you at Fringe time , and I hope you know now that I have nothing to do with the ‘ Man ‘
Just also letting you know that I exhausted every possible legal course that I could come up with in having some one investigate the case for a new & compelling evidence reopening of Martins case.
There is only one person who has yet to respond about it and that is Bob Moles ( Adelaide based investigator / of body in the bath ( Anna J Cheney) fame. ) As you are no doubt aware , his successful appeal process ( Keogh) , in light of the evidence from a govt pathologist being proved ‘wrong’ , combined with his intimate knowledge of the Tassy legal appeal process, would make him a highly desirable ally in the case of MB. The correspondence asking if he is interested was carried out by one of the PAM Websites , and no reply as yet has been received.
All the best in your endevours , maybe the 22 nd anniversary will lead to that much needed break that we seek in having a real trial for MB –
I had the good fortune to meet Andrew McGregor in Hobart and lived close to Wendy Scurr for a while in Kempton, we were friends, I supported her truth.
Apparently Andrew McGregor has disappeared.
2 or 3 years ago I was reading about PA on the web and I found Andrews email and contacted him and left my number. He rang me in less than 30 minutes.
I will put a search through my email and try and reconnect.
Andrew and Wendy are brave people, as is anybody that speaks out. They have Civil Courage.
does anyone have a link to the full transcript of bryant and the police negotiator at seascape?
Transcript is available in this book by Joe Vialls. Unsure whether it’s complete:
https://archive.org/details/DeadlyDeceptionAtPortArthur/page/n0
Another interesting read:
https://archive.org/details/WhatsGoingOnACriticalAnalysisOfThePortArthurMassacre/page/n1
This may have been posted before but after reading up on Port Arthur including the books by ‘Joe Vialls’ and ‘Carl Wernerhoff’ I think about it in three scenarios.
Some of the issues presented by both sides (conspiracy vs media) are subjective but they are presented with certainty. For instance, Joe Vialls is adamant that MB could not possess the gunman skills whereas other sites mention gunman skills at close range are not as difficult as presented by Joe. What is also not mentioned much is the emotional capability to carry out such a crime. I don’t mean someone’s disposition, I mean their ability to function thought the crime, throughout the shooting, and throughout all follow on activities.
Anyway my scenarios:
1. MB did it as per media case.
2. MB was framed and our civil authorities / government corroborated (particular persons thereof).
3. MB was framed by persons carrying out a mission in complete secrecy from all known civil authorities.
Scenario 1:
Case 1 has the problems we’re all aware of. Nuff said. Not saying untrue, but has problems.
Scenario 2:
I find this problematic and difficult to believe. To suspect that a regular police constable or sergeant was somehow involved in planning, or execution eg helping the shooter escape using resources such as vehicles, choppers etc (maybe Arnie was there saying “get to the chopper”) is preposterous.
Anyone who knows anything knows that police, military, or ambos are twenty or thirty something regular aussie suburban kids. To have them be involved with such an outlandish mission and trust them to secrecy is very improbable. As anti conspiracists say, why haven’t these persons come forward out of conscience? Just like snowden? The emotional conscience drive would be huge, probably to the point of overriding any risk of being killed, i.e. they would come out for the ‘greater good’ or even the fame. Basic human nature here.
Not only that, critically thinking, the problem I have with such civil authority corroboration is:
– Only particular persons are involved, the rest are kept in the dark. So they all go to work and some carry the burdensome secret whilst others do not. Unlikely. What type of risk does this introduce to the mission. Massive risk.
These people are not highly trained. Forget the movies. Unless our SAS was involved, which means our SAS or equivalent has embedded operatives, along with the police. Possible, but I think unlikely, because think about chance of mission success. Way too much risk; some SAS dude or some operative is trusting some pimply nosed constable to do his job properly, UNDER HIGH PRESSURE. Unlikely. And then after that, it’s trusted that all involved will all keep their secret until death!!
Scenario 3:
I find this, assuming scenario 1 is false, the most believable and is not mentioned by Joe Vialls or others who cite civil authority involvement so easily, without thinking about the practical implications or likelihood of carrying out such missions successfully.
Secret operatives (more than one) carried out the mission. Motive unknown. Thoughts:
The operatives are well resourced and trained. They have fake passports, all necessary equipment; guns, encrypted radios etc. They can easily come and go from the country. Sounds crazy, but think about it, it’s entirely possible.
Operative 1 is Petra Willmott. Consider that she became involved with MB three months prior according to what we read. Wouldn’t they need someone very close to MB to set him up and plan? She has complete access to MB’s life and resources. it’s obvious they would need someone like that. She can supply or plant guns (terry hill not needed), knives, buy ‘the bag’, influence and control MB’s movements prior to and during the mission. Someone like that is absolutely necessary. She has since been mostly unheard of.
Operative 2 could have called police with the heroin diversion, prior to the shooting Obviously it’s necessary to clear police from the area. Heroin was fake of course.
Operative(s) 3 then carried out the shooting. After that, other operatives or prior planning activities have ensured crime scene escape. i.e. easy pass back through the toll gate, eventually to airport / charter transport or whatever. It was interesting to read about the inconsistent testimonies from toll gate workers. I would like to know how long they worked there. They also may have been operatives considering that clean escape is needed. They might have only worked there a short while prior and a short while after…
Petra or others meanwhile have positioned MB at seascape. I do think it made more sense that MB died. It may have been a mission blunder; which is an important point, a blunder or two can be expected.
Anyway, that’s my 2c. Scenario 3 sounds crazy, but why couldn’t it happen? It is far more probable than civil authority corroboration. Fake passports, police diversions are all practically easy, despite the Hollywood connotations. What scenario 3 does not explain is the police sloppiness concerning MB’s indictment.
Has anyone ever considered whether Glen Pears was an accomplice?
No I have not read anything more than media reports and looked at you tube film in the early days.
I saw the shooter with the blonde wig, and up to only fairly recently, the you tube of MB talking with police from Seascape and he warned them they might shoot the main man, Rick. Whilst MB was talking shots were being fired from the house at the same time. So MB was definitely not alone.
All I know is, the Truth has been covered up. Why, only one reason, and they had reason to do it.
Fear.
Mary I really think your Great & like your intuition in regards to Martin Bryant being a Patsy
But unfortuantly if you want to draw closer to the truth & work this tragedy out Then you need to stick with the Mind Control Theory as I know you have looked into in the past.
I know for 100% fact Martin Bryant was Mind Controlled. I know Martin was mentally & physically abused over the years to train him for the massacre & would love to see his handlers held accountable for the 35 people they murdered even though God has a worse place prepared for them.
I feel strongly they wanted MB alive at the end for 2 reasons. 1) to sell the silliness of MB to the public which I admit I bought for a long time. 2) to make sure there would be no trial by eventually making him plead guilty. It was just a game being played to the public. They were controlling him the whole time.
Remember one of the signs of mind control is forgetfullness of the event you just commited especially after changing from say the personality of a commited soldier to a jamie on the phone. Martin would not only say he did not remember ,But in the interviews he seems to have to be constantly convinced he did the crime.
You know the part where he is asked how he feels about doing time, & he says “it not fair on me is it” Because he knows whats going on But can not put it all together, He even thinks at times they are joking to him.
If you want to understand more about Mind Control & a bit about its history Then try reading a book called “Operation Mind Control” by Walter Bowart from the 70s if you have not already.
Unfortunatly once you start going down the rabbit hole it can get very dark
A lot of people do not want to admit MB was the shooter. But He was the GunMan, but is innocent & a patsy & I really feel sorry for him.
P.S the Fodder letter you read is real. Try not to listen to the negative comments on YouTube. I think your great.