by Mary W Maxwell
So far the inquest has called many expert witnesses. For example, Lucas Van der Walt is an expert in wound ballistics; Mr Ranieri is expert at measuring the location of the shooters. A whole team of experts in negotiation participated by video from the UK.
I presume the state of NSW has funded the Inquest to pay for such experts, although possibly they are brought in by interested parties. I would offer my services for free.
In Parts 1, 4, 11, and 12 of this series I hinted that I believe the siege was not a genuine hostage-taking by a terrorist. Yet it would be hard for a coroner in Sydney to express doubt that it was an Islam-inspired event. After all, Monis said “Australia is under attack” and he asked for an ISIS flag.
What Is an Expert Witness?
One way the coroner might penetrate this big barrier would be to call an expert witness on the subject of “scripted” terrorism.
I think I could do it. Naturally I don’t have all the information I would like to have, but I have a lot.
In the Criminal Trial Courts Benchbook for NSW we find this:
“An expert witness is a person who has specialised knowledge based on that person’s training, study or experience. Unlike other witnesses, a witness with such specialised knowledge may express an opinion on matters within his or her particular area of expertise.
“Of course, the value of any expert opinion is very much dependent on the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion. It is also dependent upon the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based ….”
Justice Malcolm Blue said this in the South Australian case, R v Drummond:
“The duties of an expert witness include providing independent assistance to the court, stating the facts on which his or her opinion is based, stating if his or her opinion is not properly researched and making disclosure of all material matters that affect his or her opinion….”
Who Are Experts on Scripted Terrorism?
In the title of this article I wanted to be provocative, so I asked “Could I Offer To Be an Expert Witness? But it does not have to be me. Probably the best brain on the subject of false flags is James Corbett, author of The Corbett Report. He is clear and reasonable, and you would trust his integrity.
My favorite writer on the fakery of 9-11 is Elias Davidsson, author of Hijacking America’s Mind. His honesty is out of this world, but he is averse to being called an expert. Still, if subpoena’d, he would no doubt do his best.
I consider myself fairly well versed. Readers of Gumshoe News know that the editor, Dee McLachlan, and I have poured out many an article on the Boston Marathon bombing, the Port Arthur massacre, and, of course, 9-11.
Like many citizens, we originally believed the official story of 9-11 and also of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Eventually, however, thanks mainly to the Internet, we saw that it was all part of a carefully directed scheme to control society especially by fear.
(For the record: I did not believe, from the first minute, that the Boston bombing had anything to do with Islam. Ditto for the Sydney siege.)
My “conversion” to conspiracy theory occurred in February 2005, since when I have spent almost every day trying both to get a handle on what’s going on and to persuade people to listen. Well, you would wouldn’t you.
The research I put into my 2011 book, Prosecution for Treason, ought to meet the criteria for expertise as a court witness. And I have a PhD in Politics.
As far as I know, this sort of thing has not been done before – the giving of testimony on scripted terrorism. Consider how some “patsies” get accused of killing and wounding many people.
Examples are Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing, and Jahar Tsarnaev for the Marathon bombing.
Both men had trials, and one could envision the defense attorney calling witnesses who could give an opinion that the OKC bombing or the Marathon bombing were “psy-ops.” That would be tantamount to proving their client innocent.
But this did not happen. McVeigh was executed and Tsarnaev is on Death Row.
Testifying Today for Martin Bryant
More than 2,400 Australians right now are calling for a trial or an inquest in regard to the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, by signing a petition at Chage.org.
Martin Bryant has been incarcerated all this time for allegedly killing 35 people. He never had a trial. If he were to have one today, I can easily envisage Andrew Macgregor, Stewart Beattie, or Terry Shulze being called as experts to testify that the killings were a false-flag event.
Each of those citizens is already prepared to make an excellent, detailed case that the police covered up the real massacrist. Any of them can show that there was an unexplained presence of ASIO and possibly Mossad at the Port Arthur scene on the day.
The amount of government corruption surrounding every aspect of the Martin Bryant case (including the fantastic demonization of the prisoner) is a very strong indicator that the official story would never hold up to scrutiny.
And what if, instead of a trial, the people win their right to have an Inquest? We have seen that the state of Tasmania ducked out of this legally, on a technicality. The coroner, Ian Matterson, wrote that he had to abort his Port Arthur inquest, as he was not allowed to counteract a verdict of the court.
OK, but what if popular demand made the legislators come up with an amendment that repealed that technicality?
I’m bringing up the picture of a Port Arthur inquest here to make an analogy with the Lindt Café inquest. Isn’t it reasonable – given the fact-finding nature of an inquest – for a coroner to look around at any part of the landscape to find explanations for the deaths in question?
“Defending” Monis at an Inquest
I suppose it is possible for Magistrate Michael Barnes, even at this late date, to adjust the inquest to make room for a discussion of scripted terrorism.
The least shocking way to do that may be to contact Monis’ relatives and ask them to participate as an interested party. He has four children, two daughters around age 30 in Iran and two sons in Australia, age about 8 and 12, who live with their maternal grandmother.
As I mentioned in Part 6 of this series of articles, Man Haron Monis is one of the three people who died in the Lindt Café shortly after 2am on December 16, 2014. Thus his family definitely has a right to question the circumstances of his death.
That means that their lawyer could cross-examine any of the witnesses, just as we have seen Mr Michael O’Connell, QC, doing so on behalf of Tori Johnson’s family and Ms Gabrielle Bashir, SC, doing so on behalf of Katrina Dawson’s family.
I believe new witnesses can still be called. They may call Dr X, an expert on psy-ops, who could develop the hypothetical that Monis was recruited by ASIO years ago and died as a patsy. (Hypotheticals are certainly allowed in court; they’ve been used at this Inquest.)
Monis’ family could offer the suggestion that Monis did not shoot Tori Johnson, and thus that someone in else in the café must have done it. This would not be handled as in a trial. No one has to deliver a verdict.
Recall that the Coroner has to make a determination of how the persons died. It is expected that in his findings he will say, without hesitation, that Tori was killed by Monis. But if a different set of questions had been asked – by the putative lawyer for Monis’ family – we may (conceivably) have learned some other facts.
In a subsequent article I will boldly draft the expert testimony of a make-believe “Dr X” who will consider the possibility of scripted terrorism as regards the Lindt Café siege.
Don’t worry, it won’t be Dr X’s mission to show that Monis was “a nice guy.” If Monis was a patsy it doesn’t matter that he may have had the ugliest personality in the nation. The emphasis would be on the carrying out of a psy-op.
Think Agatha Christie, think Sherlock Holmes, think Perry Mason. Weren’t we all brought up on the idea that to solve the mystery in a criminal case you may need to entertain some outside-the-box ideas?
It’s no sin to do so now.
Postscript: Monis’ Marriages and Children
The subject of Monis’ marital partners is a bit confusing. The Inquest files contain this information:
In 1985, Monis married a woman in Iran. He was age 21. They had two daughters. He left for Australia eleven years later, without her. She divorced him on July 26, 2006. He was in email contact with his daughters in 2014.
In 2002, in Australia, he met Noleen Hayson Pal in the course of operating a clairvoyant business. He was age 38; she was 19. They had a wedding ceremony on February 2, 2003. (They did not register their marriage, but Australia treats a de facto marriage as a marriage.) They had two sons. In 2011, he sought custody of the boys in Family Law Court, but later withdrew his case.
In 2008, when he was 44, Monis established a relationship with Amirah Droudis. They have no children. Monis’ former wife, Noleen, was found dead in a stairwell, at age 30, in April 2013. Amirah Droudis has been charged with murdering Noleen, and is in prison awaiting trial.
Thus, when Monis was killed at the siege in December, 2014, he had a divorced wife in Iran, a deceased Australian wife, and a partner in prison. He was father of four. (Perhaps there are also grandchildren?) His two sons have lost both their parents.
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully (2015), published by Trine Day Press.
Photo credit: i.telegraph.co.uk
Ya know Mary (No, I’m not going to mention Mossad at Port Arthur….yet) with all this Archbishop Pell business rising again (like a youth-leader in the boy’s change rooms), It occurred to me how the media use the present sad situation of assorted victims as somehow proof of said victims’ own unreliability/guilt/culpability etc. The media presents Bryant’s current desperate situation and accompanying aberrant behaviour in an abnormal environment as proof of his madness/despicability (new word there) etc. when the situation he was thrust into by them (media and the others) is what makes him what he is now. It similar to how victims of priestly abuse get demonized for their current lives, often of drug use, alcoholism, paedophilia themselves (in some cases), mental illness etc. as proof that they are tarnished witnesses not to be trusted, when again, like Bryant, the situation they were placed in is what molded them into who they’ve become. It seems another face of the game: make a monster of an innocent, then point to the monster of today as proof that they were right in the past (before said monster existed). I know from talking to colleagues/friends/family that this works because all they talk about is what is presented to them via media and they make the desired leaps of logic themselves, and few are open to thinking it through any further. The recent hatchet job on Martin Bryant was a prime example.
Thanks a mil for that, Paul.
In Bryant’s case, it carried over to the mother. That is, in the first ten years or so, Carleen would naturally have blamed herself for her son’s “awful deed.” She expected people to look at her as some sort of bad person — and they did!
But after I read her book,”My Story” (which you can get on Ebay for about $25), I was able to see her as a woman who did what you would expect of a mother: she cared for her two kids. (The Dad was devoted also.)
Listen to this. She said Martin would hang up on Lindy’s phone friends, or give Sis a hard time because Lindy was popular and he did not have friends. The girl became distraught, so the parents put her in a nearby boarding school.
Lindy didn’t want to tell people why she was boarding when the family lived close by. So that is when they bought a shack at Port Arthur and used it a few days a week — so Lindy could say she was boarding thanks to the long drive to PA.
Yes, yes I do see your point, Paul, about the druggies being written off as bad witnesses. I hope they read your comment.
Now tell us about Mossad at Port Arthur if you have anything more than fantasy about it. I AM READY.
Just referencing the mention from another recent post. Actually, first I’d heard of it. I think there were enough orgs and operators there overseeing things (badly) without help from Mossad.
Don’t just go whetting everybody’s appetite like that Paul. Have you got anything you can say.
But there is an actual photo of Ari Ben Menashe standing on the steps of the Broad Arrow. Maybe it was photoshopped?
Well it wouldn’t be the first time Photoshop (Paleo-Photoshop?) figured at Port Arthur, thank you Mr Murdoch.
EXPERT: an ex is a has-been and a spurt, is a drip under pressure.
You’re unqualified.
Notice to anyone who was going to attend the inquest tomorrow to hear Scipione or Burn:
Their testimony has been postponed till August 15, The court is adjourned till then.
Why?
I can only tell you on a need-to-know basis, Nosey Ned.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/senior-police-officers-evidence-delayed-in-setback-at-lindt-cafe-siege-inquest-20160802-gqj8ff.html
A conspiracy theory is only a theory until such time as there is evidence to back up that theory, then it becomes fact. That is, a realistic conspiracy. I would say that all the discussion on gumshoe are about realistic conspiracies.
In my reading on the Lindt Café event. it seems that Monis’ weapon projectiles hit nobody. Being lead pellets they cannot be confused with other bullets, fragments or projectiles. It is evident that Katrina was hit by fragments from a police fired bullet as was Officer ‘A”. Tori Johnson was hit at close range by a bullet (not pellets) to back of head. This was another police or sniper fired shot, as Monis only had a shotgun.
When critical questions aren’t asked one can only conclude that something is being covered-up :
REF: berry/berryson comment of 24 July
It’s logical that an intended hold-up would have been preceded by at least one visit. Given Monis’ distinctive appearance I can’t help but wonder why there’s been no call for staff or regular customers to come forward.
I see you’re using your 40-foot barge pole today, Berry. That’s great!
In regard to a call for people to come forward, I note that the woman who writes the blog “Writing the Wrongs for Jahar” has announced that anyone who wants to pass sensitive info to her can do so on the comment board. As long as it is the person’s first time writing, it will go to her for moderation and she will not publish it but will do the right thing with it.
Oh ya poor, poor cabal, surronded at every turn.
A conspiracy theory is only a theory until such time that there is evidence to back up that so called theory. Then it becomes fact and then a conspiracy is known to exist. Most of the topics covered on gumshoe ARE conspiracies.
According to information that I have read, Monis only had a shot gun. This fires lead pellets and as nobody is reported to have died from wounds caused by lead pellets, he is not responsible for any deaths. However Katrina was struck with fragments from a police bullet and wood fragments. Officer “A” was hit by copper fragments which came from a police or sniper bullet.
Tori Johnson was shot at close range to the back of the head by a bullet, not lead pellets, so her death was caused by police or sniper fire.
Aussiemal, I don’t know what you mean by “nobody is reported to have died by wounds caused by lead pellets.”
Do you mean Ol’ Mary did not report it? My reporting — if you could even call it reporting — is woefully incomplete. I think I’ve been accurate in passing on what I heard, but I was not there every day. It is very possible they did present evidence that Tori died from the pellets of Monis’s gun.
Or did you mean, from your own experience, that pellets are not able to kill a person via the skull?
By the way, I heard the following during the testimony of a cop; it might have been said to him by a member of the inquest. Something like “The snipers saw — ‘in silouette’ — Tori Johnson on his knees, holding his hands clasped over his head in the position that prevents someone running away.”
I do believe I heard that, but there was nothing put forward on that day to back it up. I truly do not know how to find out what was said on other days, short of spending the big money to buy transcripts. Eventually it may all be published, gratis.
So, Everybody, what you have in me is better than nothing, but I cannot do a bonzer job of it. As for the bullet stuff, I hope Terry will comment. And thank you Mal for raising any questions.
Mal, it is Officer B not Officer A that was struck. Dee is going to publish my “Officer A Testimony” tomorrow. Officer B is senior to A. He directed A on what to do.
Note: Mal just emailed me to say he would like to correct his statment that snipers may have shot “at close range.” Of course, he says, they were 45 meters away in a building upstairs.
“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, and any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an intensified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the United States.”
– Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
THANK YOU, JOHN.
Robin died when out on a walk, age 59.
Outdoor deaths are an ACKNOWLEDGED specialty of the CIA. They shoot a dart made of ice to your neck. The poison goes in, but the dart disappears because it melts. The poison is from a shellfish and causes a heart attack.
The House of Commons gave Robin a standing ovation when he resigned as Speaker over the iraq invasion. If they were able to support him in this way why did they not carry that to the next logical step and join ihim in condemning — and stopping — the destruction of Iraq.
Iraq — the cradle of civilization. Fathom it. Just fathom it.
More on Cook and much more.
SSSSHHHHHHH!! Don’t tell our mas media, and our shocking shock jock brigade, our politicians might have to wake up and the bogan shock jock patsies might turn off.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738
Promse? Do no don’t tell anyone, it is a intelligence secret………..or ELSE!
(just like 9/11 as reported in Corriere Delle Sera by Francdesco Cossiga in 2007…………!
“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe….know well that the disasterous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Araabic countries and in order to INDUCE THE WESTERN POWERS TO TAKE PART …. IN IRAQ [and] AFGHANISTAN”. (my capitals for dummies with bad eyesight and ilittle intellect!!)
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html)
Of course it could not be still happening; that the proxy armies are being well supplied to cause mayhem in Syria etc. …….. Surely not? if it was the msm and lovely Julie would be telling us?
[source: linked at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ on 2/8 at 16.26 timeline]
Now why did we go and invade and kill all those years ago. Mr John Winston Howard?
Ah yes, we think we know and you know that most of us know why you were in on the killing and every day more and more Australians know. As usual, most things become known.
Now that you have seen what the Syrians just found, did one notice the TOW missiles.
Now research what ambassor Stevens was doing in Benghazi and why Hilary allowed him to be totured and killed.
Ssssssh! Don’t tell our shock jocks, their bogan listeners and our pollies munching on their crackers.
Lucas Van der Walt is the wound ballistics expert representing the Police: Has any expert been called on behalf of the Johnston/ Dawson families ?
Berry, the answer from me is: I don’t know. I suspect not.
When I saw Lucas there, I did not take him to be “representing” police (even tho he is employed by the NSW Police). I assumed the Court had sought his services!
So once again I want to advertise my ignorance. I don’t even know who foots the bill for the families’ lawyers. It must be huge. Nor do I know if compo will be paid re the deaths. (Australia pays out for terror-related deaths of Aussies if they occur overseas.)
I can’t really work out what’s the loyalty of each person in the orchestra pit. My PhD is in Politics. You’d think I’d have a handle on such things. But I don’t. If you have knowledge of Inquests please hold forth all you like.
In Part 15, I try to conjure an additional Expert Witness — “Dr X” — in order to fill things out a bit. In Part 16, I identify shortcomings of this Inquest. I consider this inquest to be of EXTREME importance. We could slay the world. Hope we don’t blow it.
https://gumshoenews.com/2016/07/22/lindt-cafe-inquest-part-9-ballistics-expert-evidence/
Just to correct the weather forecast: I said Parts 15 and 16 would be about such-and-such, but then I wrote the article that has the cute baby picture on it and called that Part 15, so never mind the numbers. Dee is going to publish the Dr X “expert witness” thing mebbe manyana.
Mary, I reported the wrong copper shot. However in answer to your question, about nobody was shot dead with lead pellets, here is the answer from your report on the evidence given by Mr Walt. There is evidence of 22 shots fired by police. Chairs and tables were hit, as was a glass panel in the café. The wounds suffered by Officer B (on the face and thigh) may have been from fragments of bullets that he himself shot. Tori Johnson was killed by a close-range bullet in the back of the head. Katrina Dawson was killed by fragments from one bullet or possibly two; these hit the back of her neck and upper back. Remember lead pellets are not bullets.
Once again I have to say I regret my inability to do a complete job. If I said Mr Lucas Van der Walt told us that Tori was killed by a “close-range bullet in the back of the head” then maybe what he really said was “a close range SHOT”.
I certainly recall Lucas indicating that the death of Tori was provably from Monis’s gun.
I do understand, Mal, from your email to me that pellets explode in the air and so can’t hit someone far away but they can enter their target, still intact, if at close range.
I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY NEXT WEEK, INSHA’ALLAH, on this subject.
Please, Everybody, be bold about expressing any doubts about any aspect of the siege affair.
Let me offer an alternative view of the shooting of Tori Johnson. I suggest that the head wound he received was caused by a bullet rather than a lead pellet.
A shotgun cartridge holds up to 300 pellets. When the gun is fired the pellets all attempt to force their way out of the barrel at the same time. This causes a fanning or cone formation of pellets from the barrel’s mouth. The further from the barrel the wider area of potential damage, but there will be less penetration into target.
If Tori was killed with a lead pellet to the head, I believe he would have pellet wounds elsewhere, such as other wounds to the head or pellet wounds to his back or rear of arms. To my knowledge there has been no mention of other wounds.
In my opinion, it is unlikely for one pellet from the cone spreading effect mentioned above, to hit only in one spot on a body even if that body was on the peripheral area of the shot. Mary Maxwell thinks Mr Van der Walt said the shot was from close range. (not peripheral).
One explanation for a victim being hit by a peripheral pellet from a shotgun blast, is that the shooter did not intend to hit the victim. It seems to me that if it is a lead pellet that caused Tori’s death, Monis was not intending to kill him (or did not understand guns).
If what you say is indeed what occurred, then taking Monis up a notch from insane crazy to cold-blooded killer better fits the media-driven narrative being sold to us regarding Muslims and why we MUST fear them (and it makes killing him all good with the people). it wouldn’t matter his intentions, and he no longer exists to tell us anyway, thus the media and its Masters now have a blank canvas on which to paint lurid scenes of horror. It becomes easier to see how Jahar Tsarnaev and Martin Bryant were probably not meant to survive their respective ordeals. Bryant’s inconvenient survival means the narrative still needs to be oiled with a bit of gratuitous poking with a stick (recent TV events) occasionally to keep it alive and rolling. His survival also keeps the official narrative vulnerable to questioning and even exposure, hence the de-personalized focus on, and taunting of him in his current situation. His existence has now become a useful source of mis-direction from the weakness inherent in the official PA narrative, such is the hypnotic power of emotional appeal over asking real questions.
Bin Laden is an interesting inversion of all this. He was kept alive against all the odds (dialysis machines, even the little PD types don’t travel well in the mountains of Tora Bora), to sustain a narrative, but he was only required to be “alive” until such time as his continued existence held back the evolving War-On-Terror narrative.