Lindt Café Inquest, Part 32: The Passing of Katrina Dawson Is Unresolved

  

by Mary Maxwell, LLB

I do not go along with the mainstream media’s story of the death of Katrina Dawson. I do not think it was an accidental matter of police bullets ricocheting on hard surfaces of the café. Nor do I think it was, as described by the ballistics expert, a bullet that went through the back of her chair.

In this article, I am speaking from my own evaluation of the event in question.  My evaluation is admittedly of low value as I’ve never been able to question persons whom I would like to question.

My Sources

The following are the main sources that guided me in drawing conclusions about the three deaths at the Lindt Cafe:

1. The testimony I heard in the courtroom by three police officers who stormed the Café:

— “Dennis Albrecht” (team Tango Charlie stormed the firewell),

— the shield bearer (a man of colorful language), whose testi-mony was not about the storming but about the all-day wait,

— Officer A who was in close contact with Shieldie as they stormed the min entrance (“white door”)

2. The expert witness testimony of Lucas Van der Walt on the subject of wound ballistics

3. The testimony by NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Cath Burn as to the scandalous limits of her (and Commissioner Scipione’s) involvement with operations at the Café

4. The testimony by a police negotiator as to his team’s virtual do-nothing approach (which must surely have been policy)

5. An article by N Wahid Azal discussing Monis’ unhappy relationship with the Muslim community in Australia

6. Counsel Assisting’s May 25, 2015 statement summarizing Monis’s background (by Jeremy Gormly and Sophie Callan)

7. My eleven years of research into false flags, psy-ops, World Government, and the resolute march toward Orwell’s world

8. My recent research into the Tasmanian government’s handling of Port Arthur (“government” meaning police, DPP, lawyers, judge, prison, Parliament, Prime Minister, ASIO, and SAC-PAV)

9. The Bella Vista incident

10. My experience with survivors of mind-control.

Legal Restrictions on the Coroner

Note that we are talking about the possibility that the death of Katrina was criminal, but an inquest is not part of law enforcement or criminal law. The website of the coroners court of NSW says:

“The Coroner cannot find someone guilty of a crime.  If, at any time during the course of an inquest or inquiry, the Coroner forms an opinion that a known person has committed an indictable offence in connection with the death the Coroner is required to suspend the inquest or inquiry and refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

 It is entirely a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether charges should be laid against the person, and a matter for the criminal courts to determine whether the person is guilty.

[Recall the “independent DPP”]

Similarly, the Coroner cannot determine civil liability, although the Coroner’s finding may be relied upon in subsequent civil proceedings and/or insurance claims. [Emphasis added]

Also in Section 101L of the Coroners Act 2009 we find:

(1) It is the duty of each of the following persons to provide the [coronial] Team with full and unrestricted access to records [many government offices listed]  …. [However]:

(2) A person subject to that duty is not required to provide access to records if the person reasonably considers that doing so may prejudice an existing investigation or inquiry of a matter under an Act being undertaken by or for the person.

Powers of the Coroner

On the other hand, the coroner has many powers For example, in Section 56 of the Coroners Act we find:

(1) A coroner has a right to take possession of and retain the remains of a deceased person whenever the coroner has jurisdiction to hold or is holding an inquest concerning the death or suspected death of the person.

And in Section 89 we find that a coroner may give:

1) (a) a direction that the investigator conduct (or arrange for another person to conduct) a post mortem examination on the remains of the deceased person ….

 (c) a direction that the investigator conduct (or arrange for another person to conduct) a review of the medical records of the deceased person, which may include consultations with medical practitioners involved in the treatment of the deceased person.

Sensitivity

Before proceeding, I must say that I do not consider that I am dishonoring the late Ms Dawson by disagreeing with the apparently official line about her death.  Quite the opposite.

My adored husband George died sixteen years ago and I have always been open to anyone’s comments about his manner of death (by surgical complications regarding cancer). Let them bring me controversial information! I will consider it an honor to George to hear whatever any (non-malicious) person offers.

To quote again the history of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, there was a complete taboo on discussing it (even today!) “lest we hurt the bereaved.” I am sure the bereaved are already so hurt they could hardly suffer more.

And in the town of Dunblane, Scotland people were told outright not to mention the school massacre for one full year! Translate: cover-up.

I also note that the Coroner said, on March 21, 2016, when opening the segment of the hearings related to the hostages and the storming of the Café:

“Counsel assisting will forewarn of particularly distressing imagery so that those who do not wish to see or hear can withdraw. I regret any distress caused but do not shy away from using the material that may cause it: first and foremost this is a search for the truth that should as far as is practical proceed in public.”

Choosing the Victims

I suspect Ms Dawson’s death was planned and carried out by the usual suspects. There had to be some deaths. The whole point of a false-flag operation is to stir people up about the Islamic extremist or the serial killer or what have you.

None of the “Boston Strangler” serial killings was carried out by the convicted fellow, poor Albert de Salvo. Each was done by – how can I say – the authorities. Maybe just a hired mafia hit man got in there and did it, but it was organized politically from the top.

(You can always tell by the way the court case is handled, and in many cases by the ultimate killing, in jail, of the innocent convict. James Earl Ray and Albert de Salvo come to mind.)

In the Boston Strangler case, 19 women were strangled. How were they chosen? The planners must have had fun thinking of what “types” would make the most juicy news stories.

Or maybe they chose by availability and accessibility. Anyway they surely had no pang of conscience about snatching lives.

The Expert on Wound Ballistics

I said above that part of my preparation for this wrap-up was the Inquest testimony of Lucas Van der Walt, expert witness on wound ballistics.

He spent ages telling us how a bullet could go into a chair at a certain angle and how if Katrina was seated at a chair in a particular area of the café, the hole in that chair (which he scientifically examined) could cause her to receive the fatal wound near the shoulder and/or neck.

This did not make sense at all. I am sitting in a chair right now and the highest wooden part of it is nowhere near my neck, and not really close to my shoulder either.

Here are a few quotes from my Part 9 reporting of this expert (in a July 22, 2016 article at GumshoeNews.com):

(Underlined means I am paraphrasing Lucas Van der Walt): I can tell it came from the rear to the front as an entrance looks different than an exit in the wood. I experimented with the M4 that Officer B used.

(He also explained how he makes comparisons with bullets fired into human tissue.) “[Katrina] was struck by fragments of a police bullet. Wood fragments from the chair were found in her.” Paraphrasing: We drew conclusion from the blood in the corner to position the most likely chair. “Test 18 of 42 in 678.”

When asked “What conclusion did you reach regarding distance?” Lucas said: “That the victim was in close proximity to the chair when she sustained the wound. A distance of .5 of a meter to 1.5 meters.”

And then, in the media, another hostage, Marcia Mikhael, said that she and Katrina were hiding under a table at the time that the police stormed in. All I can say is that the expert’s opinion does not strike me as shedding light on Katrina’s death.

(Recall that another expert, Mr Ranieri, gave lengthy testimony as to how the 22 shots by police rifles came after the sound of Monis’s shotgun. But when a questioner said “Couldn’t they be in a different order?” he said “Yes.”)

To list all possibilities: Katrina could have been killed in the ambulance. She could have been killed in the café by a fellow hostage. She could have been killed by a police person other than the ones we heard from. There was much confusion at the end, and apparently no CCTV in the Lindt Café.

I think it is incorrect and indeed unreasonable to conclude from Van der Walt’s data that a stray police bullet, related to a chair, found its way to Ms Dawson if she was under a table. I mean his own evidence does not support that.

Furthermore, Katrina’s death was not necessarily accidental. In 1996 at the Seascape cottage, people heard the cop call in for permission to shoot and the reply was “Permission denied. This has to happen.”

If Sydney’s siege was a scripted terrorist event, “This had to happen.” People will only get excited for war – and for submission to leaders – if violence has befallen us.

Are elements in our government wicked? Sure are. They killed 35 Aussies in cold blood at Port Arthur. And does the New South Wales Police make up tall tales about Middle Eastern terrorists? Sure does. Do I have to repeat the Bella Vista story once again?

I’ll be asked what evidence I have to back up my suspicions. In addition to the inadequacy of the wound-ballistics expert’s testimony, my “proof” lies in such things as the absurd — may I repeat, absurd — claim by the negotiators that they were actually negotiating.  They were blatantly doing a stand-down.

Also, though I realize the Police Commissioner was not supposed to “interfere with operational decisions,” his aloofness was an utter scandal in the circumstances, and would best be explained by his being told “Hands off.”

The following is a provision in the 2009 Coroners Act:

Section 85: “The Supreme Court may, on the application of the Minister or any other person, make an order that an inquest or inquiry that has been held … be quashed and that a new inquest or inquiry be held if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so in the interests of justice because of: a) fraud, or (b) the rejection of evidence, or (c) an irregularity of proceedings, or (d) an insufficiency of inquiry, or (e) the discovery of new evidence or facts, or (f) any other reason.

I will consider it an “insufficiency of inquiry” if the coroner does not follow through on unanswered questions. The coroner, Michael Barnes, a NSW magistrate, has said he is eager to do the remaining work and hand down his findings, as an urgent matter lest there be another hostage-taking incident.

I say, let’s get to the bottom of the December 15, 2014 siege. In recent weeks Dee McLachlan has written  to the “media liaison: person at the Australian Defense Force to get an answer to the very simple question about the mock-up of the Lindt Café at Holsworthy Army base, (Recall the article by Malcolm Hughes?)

Here is part of the correspondence from Gumshoe’s editor:

(a reply from ADF):

The Australian Government, including the Department of Defence, is cooperating fully with the NSW Coroner during his inquest into the events which occurred during the Lindt Cafe siege.

It is not appropriate for Defence to comment on a matter that is currently before the NSW Coroner.

(from Dee McLachlan):

Many thanks for the response.

I do understand that my questions 2 and 3 are related to the tactical decisions taken by the police (and army) that day and may be inappropriate to answer before the Coroner has presented his conclusions.

However, my question 1, is purely factual. Is it possible for you to answer my first question What date was this mock-up of the Lindt Café built?

(reply from ADF):

Good afternoon Dee,

Questions regarding the proceedings of the inquest into the deaths arising from the Lindt Cafe siege should be directed to the inquest itself.

Well, OK, if the army won’t tell the public what date it was built (surely not a national security matter), the coroner can call Air Marshal Binskin in to give sworn testimony. That’s what an Inquest is all about, right?

I also hope the coroner will send each surviving hostage a form to be signed under penalty of perjury stating “I was not approached prior to December 15, 2014, to play the role of hostage, and I have never seen any behavior in my fellow hostages to suggest forewarning of the siege.”

Each hostage should be delighted to oblige in this. It will help clear their name as many people are yelling “hoax.”

(Recall my June 12, 2016 article “A Plethora of Videos Calling the Siege a Hoax.”

Such an “in the sunshine” approach would give this Inquest unique impartiality in the eyes of the world.

— Mary W Maxwell has just completed a book entitled Inquest: Siege in Sydney.