Home News Episode 1, “Justice” In The Lucky Country – The Port Arthur Massacre

Episode 1, “Justice” In The Lucky Country – The Port Arthur Massacre

38

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.

38 COMMENTS

  1. Dee asked me to provide six points that could be used in a short address of the issues in the Port Arthur Massacre. As she said in the article, “what is presented is only the tip of the iceberg”. We discussed a number of things, including the firearm evidence. I thought I would include that correspondence in this thread. Dee’s comments are not included, just my responses to her requests.

    I talked to Terry Hill and here’s what he told me. 34 days before the massacre Bryant walked in with his AR-10 (you should probably get a picture of an AR-10 so you can show the difference between the two rifles).

    Bryant put the rifle down on the counter with a magazine still in it. Hill removed the magazine and found it was loaded. He then worked the action and found a live round in the chamber – the rifle was actually ready to be fired when Bryant walked in.

    Hill then confiscated the rifle as a public safety measure. He told Bryant if he wanted it back that the Police would have to order it.

    The ‘bad guys’ then had a problem, as the reason they sent Bryant into Hill’s shop with the AR-10 was to create a pretext for future lawsuits of gunshops (that’s why they tried to get Hill to get on board with ‘admitting’ he sold the firearms to Bryant). The indemnity for criminal charges did not apply to a civil lawsuit, get it?

    If you go back to my ‘Gun Runner’ article you will see that civil lawsuits was the gambit that Soros and gang is using in the States.

    The ‘bad guys’ still needed to have a self-loading center fire rifle for the massacre. With Bryant’s AR-10 gone, they found an untraceable SLR to substitute. As background, the SLR was previously issued to the Australian Army and was used in Vietnam. There were plenty of old Australian SLRs floating around in the community, but those could be traced.

    They must have sourced it from an overseas armory for Special Ops as it was a metric European SLR from Belgium (think back to the Congo uprising). Nobody in Oz had seen a Belgium SLR before. I think Stewart researched it and found there were only something like 5 metric SLRs in Oz, none of which came from Belgium.

    Anyway, if you have a picture of an AR-10 and then next to it the substituted SLR (perhaps the picture of it being held up by the prosecutor), it will be apparent that they are different.

    Bryant even states in the ‘Record of Interview’ that the SLR isn’t one of his rifles. “Never seen that one before” as I recall his statement.

    The AR-15 evidence is much more involved. It would take the entire 15 minute video to explain traceable aspects of firearm cartridges, head spacing, rifling, bolt face, firing pin indentation, extractor marks and most importantly in this case CHAMBER DIMENSIONS.

    That is why the ‘hot load’ was used to destroy the firearm. They could substitute the bolt from the killer’s weapon into Bryant’s gun to match the bolt face markings, firing pin indentation and the extractor marks, but they couldn’t duplicate the chamber dimensions. So the ‘hot load’ was used to give ‘plausible deniability’ to differences in the chamber dimensions of the expended brass from the Cafe’ and brass out of Bryant’s AR-15.

    As I said, just go with the SLR. You can say something like, “neither firearm used in the massacre was owned or ever used by Bryant. For example the SLR, etc.

    It’s even more involved than I mentioned. The Ballistics specialist fiddled the evidence about the ‘hot load’ in the AR-15 and said that no lab tests were done to determine if the powder in the ‘hot load’ was the same as the standard powder in the PMC rounds that were used. (it was probably a fast burning powder made for pistols)

    He stated that they didn’t have the funds for the test – what bullshit. He stated that the explosive round was from a “bad batch” of ammunition. However, the headstamp on the cartridge was PMC and I think the year was 1987. PMC only makes ammunition by the year, not by batches. Nobody in Oz had ever heard of such an explosion from PMC ammo and although the specialist wrote a long article, he never once mentioned the bad batch number. The article was total bullshit.

    Here’s the clincher. Bryant, while still in Seascape, told the Police negotiator that the firearms were going to be destroyed before he came out in the morning. So here was Bryant telling the Police that the firearm was going to be destroyed – which the Police had to cover up with the ridiculous ‘bad ammo’ story.

    The more you look into this Port Arthur Massacre evidence the worse it gets.

    Dee, one more bit of information. The Coalition for Gun Control was in on the whole thing from the beginning (well before Port Arthur).

    They knew about the Civil Lawsuit gambit that was going to be played, but apparently nobody informed them about the problem with Hill and the SLR. After the massacre Roland Browne from the Coalition filed a civil lawsuit against Terry Hill for providing the firearms to Bryant.

    OPPS! Hill started defending the lawsuit. He was probably going to subpoena all his records that had been confiscated from his shop and call Martin Bryant as a witness!

    Somebody got to Roland Browne and told him to withdraw the lawsuit. Hill objected to the lawsuit being withdrawn until his legal expenses had been paid. The Coalition for Gun Control had to pay Hill’s legal expenses in order to withdraw the lawsuit. Didn’t hear that on the evening News did you?

    • REPLY TO TERRY: I’m still not clear about how Bryant acquired the AR 10. Didn’t he claim to have bought it via a newspaper ad? I’m guessing that claim was never investigated, that the Po tried to nail Terry Hill instead?

      • You have to remember that the Police were not ‘investigating’ this crime, they were trying to ‘strap-up’ Bryant. Therefore, any exculpating evidence disappeared down the memory hole.

        I do remember something about a newspaper add, but I can’t remember the details. If the TOTAL of the videos of the bogus ‘Record of Interview’ was revealed it might shed light on the acquisition of the AR-10. The ‘Record of Interview’ went on for days if not weeks and all that was revealed in the written record was just a cut-and-paste job to try and strap up Bryant – it failed miserably.

        There was also some information about a bloke in Victoria that had surrendered his AR-15 to Police and then recognized it as the firearm that was allegedly used in the massacre. Again, down the memory hole.

        I didn’t mention the spent bullets in the Cafe’ from the AR-15. The Police stated that NONE of the 29 bullets was intact enough to get a good sample of the rifling. Yeah, sure 29 rounds – * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * – and not a single one allowed any forensic analysis. Again, down the memory hole.

        I expect the pro-shooter used his own rifle rather than a commercial, off-the-shelf rifle that had been maintained by a mental retard. He used his own custom rifle that he had been training with for thousands of rounds. Once he got to Seascape the bolts were swapped and the ‘hot load’ used for plausible deniability.

        Berry, I expect the answer to your question could be found in the ‘out takes’ from the Record of Interview.

        • What I find so revealing is that when I see Martin answering those police questions — he seems so “ignorant” of what is actually happening. One could say “naive” — oblivious of consequence or calculating in any way. Yet is is interpreted as calculating, manic, mercenary, crazed, evil, malevolent, calculating… Please!
          It is no wonder they never showed the interviews — allowing only Channel 7 and Mike Willisee to butcher the actual interviews into murderous propaganda. Shame on them all.
          The joke is — that in the Channel 7 series, Avery and especially Mullins come across as evil, calculating, malevolent and malicious – if you manage to not to be caught by the appalling narration.

          • For Dee: On first reading your generally excellent piece above I baulked at the assertion that a “.308 SLR” was rare, as I knew that Australia mass-produced “this” weapon for the military at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory over many years, although in Australian military service the weapon was always described as firing a “7.62mm NATO Standard round”. The reference to .308 is because that is the civilian (Winchester designed) equivalent round. This may well be a designation that people that have limited technical knowledge, like the police, might use.

            My confusion was clarified by Terry Shulze’s comment that the particular weapon concerned, from the crime scene, was of Belgian manufacture, an original FN FAL built to metric engineering specifications. Rifles manufactured at Lithgow however, were built to Imperial machining dimensions, i.e. inches. As Mr. Shulze explains SLR rifles such as this that were not manufactured at Lithgow are RARE IN AUSTRALIA only. “.308 SLR” is really an entirely incorrect description of this weapon, a weapon manufactured in Belgium. Not only is the design of this particular example chambered for 7.62 NATO specification (not “.308”) it was also never called the SLR (“Self Loading Rifle”) except in Anglophone countries such as Australia that made it to Imperial specs. If it was referred to by its correct name, an FN FAL, there would in fact be no confusion. The Fusil Automatique Léger (FAL) made by the FN company, the original designer.

            I only point out the distinction as pieces such as yours become a part of the historical record and the potential for mischievous misquoting is always there. Someone could quote you as having said that the “SLR is rare” and many individuals would see that as untrue. You may wish to edit the piece to reflect this technicality.

            It does make me wonder if those “authorities” describing the weapon as such originally DID know they were misrepresenting what was in fact an FN FAL, not a “.308 SLR”. This would be immediately obvious from stampings on the weapon. As with many questionable events in life, the only two motives for the observed actions are either some variant of foolishness (incompetence in this case) or knavery.

            This series has certainly opened my eyes to the legal travesty, and moral outrage, this crime (both the killings themselves and the injustice towards Martin Bryant) represents.

      • Barry Unsworth, when leaving a police minsters conference 10 years before Port Arthur happened ( its in Federal Parliament House Hansard, if you want to look it up ) said “we would need a massacre in Tasmania before we got uniform gun laws” He got what he wished for.

  2. Dee, thinking of what Cheryl Dean said about Matanov (Gumshoe comments of Oct 16, 2017 at 11.59am), and now what you show about Bryant, it strikes me that the phrase “miscarriage of justice” is not the right term. What about “Here are cases where unscrupulous persons use the law, and the courts, for a purpose that has nothing to do with the law, and in fact kicks ‘law’ in the teeth.”

    To call it a miscarriage of justice suggests a framework of justice, but Avery, Bugg, Ortiz, O’Toole, etc are involved in an altogether separate operation.

    I realize one could argue that it is a miscarriage of WHAT WE USED TO TAKE FOR GRANTED AS A CULTURAL IDEAL, but the actuality of their behaviour is just so far away from that.

    • Dee, the other day Fair Dinkum called our attention to a new type of ethics that asks media people to “pledge to listen carefully to both sides” (more or less).

      Your new video made me think of the following issue (in conjunction also with the Marathon). Can you please compose a scheme for asking the audience to say how they feel about INDIVIDUAL parts of the story.

      It’s common now for consumers to rate things with one-to-five stars. Let them fill out a questionnaire about Bryant using star-rating and then make up a total score at the end. For example, ask:

      Do you think it’s odd that a huge gathering of media people was taking place in quiet ol’ Tasmania, just in time for them to broadcast this story worldwide?

      1 star: No, that’ just how things often happen….2..3…4….. 5: Yes, it has a suspicious feel to it.

      Let’s watch this July 4 video of Martin answering questions. How sincere do you think he sounds when he says the event at Port Arthur was “dreadful”?

      1 star: He should get an Oscar for lying like that 2…3…4…. 5: Sounds like he meant it.

      How about David Gunson’s (Martin’s lawyer in July) failing to involve the guardian. Do you think we should ignore it?

      1 star: He may have thought the case was so tight the guardian wasn’t needed ….. 2…3…4.. 5: Such a thing strikes me as outrageous and grounds for a mistrial.

      Jim Laycock was the only man who witnessed some of the actual killing close-up who also had known Martin Bryant for years. He stated that the killer he saw was not Martin. How much should that man’s testimony should be credited?

      1 star: It’s worth the same as others who saw killing and compared the picture in the newspaper…2…3…4… 5: Laycock’s testimony is solid proof of innocence.

      People might be surprised at their own total scores.

  4. Terry, this is hotter than hot.
    but I dont get “the indemnity”. pls explain. Who indemnified whom?

    “The indemnity for criminal charges did not apply to a civil lawsuit, get it?”

  5. John Avery was illegally employed as Martin’s defence lawyer, as he had already been used by the prosecution team against Terry Hill. The Hill case was part of the Port Arthur Massacre crime event.

  7. Avery (yes, the same Avery that ended up being Bryant’s ‘lawyer’) was working for the Police. He communicated to Terry Hill that if he ‘admitted’ that he sold the firearms used in the massacre to Bryant, that Hill would get an indemnity from criminal prosecution. Hill was told if he did not cooperate that he would be put out of business.

    Hill resisted the intimidation and would not sign any such bogus ‘admission’. The Police kept their word and put Hill out of business.

        • According to Jo Vialls’ “The Fall Guy”(my editing):
          “On Friday 7 June The Po advised Hill that if he did not admit to selling weapons to Bryant, they would ‘press on and try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences.’
          “Notice of Cancellation of Gun Dealer’s Licence No.54546″ records some items which under normal circumstances might have attracted an infringement notice calling for action within a specified time period.”

          REF: http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/the_fallguy.html

          Any possibility of issuing a word for word copy of the actual letter & Notice ?

  8. Just after Port Arthur there was a TV interview between a relative of a Port Arthur victim and John Howard.
    The relative was pleading for Howard to do something about gun laws.

    Then after Sandy Hook there was a similar interview between a relative and Obama.
    At the time it sounded like both conversations were the same but immediately dismissed the thought.
    Now I wonder if it is all part of script like crisis actors?

  9. Both ploys go to the “UNRESTRICTED” myth

    At the time of the P. A. massacre Tasmania was in the grip of a travesty of law known as the GUN ACT1991:
    http://kirra.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/num_act/ga199134o1991124/

    In effect Her Highness’s henchmen, aka the Tassie Po, already had open slather re keeping guns out of the hands of the people, as evidenced by the fact that no one in the Broadarrow cafe was armed.

    So there’s no question as to who was 100% responsible for what took place, no need to prove that there was any sort of conspiracy: The myth that the population was“unrestricted”speaks fot itself.

  10. It seems that an enormous amount of preparation was done by the perpetrators before Bryant made his surfing trip on the day.

    A lot must have been hanging on other actions that he took, (such as presenting the AR10 to Terry Hill), and if Bryant was living by his own free will the whole hoax would be impossible.

    Can anyone shed some light on who controlled Martin’s day to day life?

    • Richard, got a postage stamp? You could write to “Rick” and ask if he knows. I am referring to the man who was in the background when the police negotiator was talking to Jamie. It did look as though Bryant was very comfortable with him.

      Or you could ask Rick’s wife, who Jamie said was “higher up in Intelligence” than Rick.

      Maybe she knows.

      Or you could write to Ian Sales, MD, maybe he knows. No wait, I don’t think he was Martin’s handler as Martin mentioned him in the July 4 interview in a way to suggest that he only met Ian as a sort of volunteer prison psychiatrist type thing, and didn’t like him.

      Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin’s visited Risdon (she interviewed 50 burglars to study why so many victims were repeat victims of burglaries!). I wonder if she included a visit to the ward where Martin was or still is.

      Vanessa, are you reading this? Please squeal. You are loved by all, and I read that your colleagues say you were the hardest working member of Tassie Parliament.

      Librarians at Hobart, you reading this? Please host a lecture. Dee McLachlan could give it. If Watertown Public Library can host Christopher Bollyn, you can host Dee. She won’t bite.

      Call it “Authors Meeting: Dee McLachlan, co-author with What’s Her Face, of Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough.”

      Subject matter: Latest developments in the Port Arthur Investigation.

      Why not? Seriously, why not?

  11. In all primitive societies attack is called ‘defence’.
    “We are defending you from terrorists .” really means , we do what we can and we’ll kill you anyway .
    Luckily 90% of humanity doesn’t think or act like this .

    • For the record: 20 comments in this thread so far, and no visits, yet, from trolls.

      Is that great or what. I am assuming they are tongue-tied by Dee’s simple production of an honest video.

      Go Dee. Go Terry Shulze. Go squealers. Go librarians.

  12. Good work Dee and thanks to Terry for the explanation’s! its important to get details straight for all to hear. I will be sending this personally to a few asap, and the ‘higher’ up category, no doubt will shed some more light to the matter.

  13. Well, well,
    This article from Gumshoe has turned up and linked in a recent comment at:

    https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2017/09/17/free-journalist-shane-dowling

    Presently; the 247th comment with a link to the ten minute on Mr Bryant.
    I suspect that some very interesting persons follow what Shane Dowling at KCA gets up to and how he is faring in custody for awhile.
    I think his Mum might be ‘idling’ his website ’till he is released.
    So Shane probably has a problem from prison monitoring and editing the comments and subject………..the subject being generally under the concept of miscarriage of justice!!!!!!!!!

  16. Dee thank you for the video, i have put it up on my Face Book Group page for people to listen to, really good job you did, my Group on Face Book is called Truth About Port Arthur Massacre i have 948 members, there is also another group with with 3,200 members so between our two groups nearly 5,000 believe he is innocent if the crime, look forward to seeing Part 2 Dee cheers lloyd

  17. Thanks Dee….It’s already in my File docs of my FB group: ‘Martin Bryant/Port Arthur Research Group’ which has the most extensive documents of all on Martin Bryant & Port Arthur on FaceBook & has been on FB for many, many years….

    I’ve also contacted you previously about not receiving your articles (no matter how many times I try to request them via email!)….Still no luck as your site rejects me every time….lol….

  20. False flag events, organised world wide at regular intervals to promote civilian disarmament has up until recently been ridiculed as tin foil hattery.

    Let’s keep digging. The truth will hopefully come out at some point.

  21. “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?”

    Absolutely true. He could have still been tried even though he pleaded not guilty. A simple fingerprint could have sent him away if he was guilty. Great observation!

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.