Map sketched by Dee McLachlan for the 2016 Melbourne Fringe
By Mary Maxwell
Martin Bryant claims that on April 28, 1996, he started out from his home northwest of Hobart, at 11am, drove northeast toward Sorell, and stopped at the Convict Bakery for a coffee. Continuing eastward he came to Dunalley, which is where one crosses onto the Forestier Peninsula. He then continued to Eaglehawk, which is where one enters the Tasman Peninsula. On the peninsula he went westward to Roaring Beach “for a bit of surfing,” and ate a toasted sandwich at Nubeena.
Martin Bryant claims that he then swung down, going counterclockwise. He drove past the entry to the Port Arthur Historic Site. A few more kilometers north he paid a visit to Roger Larner around 1.05pm (Larner confirmed this). Then Martin did his Fortescue kidnap caper, finally arriving at Seascape. He remained inside Seascape till next morning.
At the Adelaide Fringe, on the Ides of March 2017, I presented a play entitled “A Moot Court Trial for Martin Bryant” (in four acts). Act II is called “The Kidnapping of a Man.” Here we find a major flaw in the Crown case against Bryant. In the Interview of Record, dated July 4, 1996, Bryant was interrogated by four policepersons, including Inspector John Warren and Officer Ross Paine. Bryant came up with an implausible story about having politely asked a man to get out of his BMW – and to climb into the boot!
The point of the Fringe play was to give Martin a chance to present his own case, aided by a new lawyer named Anna Blue.
Since it was a rule of this play that all material had to come straight from the record, our actors read from the official transcript verbatim (except that it’s greatly abridged — the cops discussed many things that day that are not about the kidnapping).
In Part II of the Moot Court trial, we hear the DPP, Damian Bugg, QC, give the Crown side of the story. Then we hear Ms Blue question it. (Note: I declare the playscript public domain.)
Act II, Scene 1. Bugg gives the official story
Bugg: Your Honor, Here is what happened. After Martin Bryant left the area of the buses outside Broad Arrow Café, he put his sports bag in the Volvo and drove toward the tollbooth. He shot dead a woman with her two children.
He then killed four others and stole their BMW, abandoning his own yellow car at the tollbooth.
Just across the street from that tollbooth is the General Store, owned by Jim Laycock. As the accused entered the carpark of the General Store, a couple in a white Corolla was trying to exit. Martin Bryant blocked them and told the man to get out and climb into the boot of the BMW. That man is Glen Pears.
His girlfriend Zoe Hall, in the front seat of the Corolla, was then shot dead by Martin. This took place less than 15 minutes after the carnage at Broad Arrow Café. Martin then drove his newly acquired BMW to Seascape.
He used handcuffs to escort Glen Pears into the Seascape cottage, and kept him there as a hostage. We are not sure if Bryant shot him, or if it was the fire the next morning that killed Mr Pears. Either way, Bryant is responsible for the death of that hostage.
Anna: Your Honour, that is how my learned friend alleges it happened, but the handcuffs he refers to are figments of his imagination. No handcuffs were ever found. Surely they would have been on the body of the deceased Glen Pears.
Your Honour, a Prosecutor is not permitted to mention handcuffs to you if he has not entered them into evidence.
As for the kidnapping, why not pay attention to what Martin himself said, when interviewed in prison by the police. He told police that after he visited Roger Larner, he was up at the Fortescue Turnoff and did a kidnapping.
Doesn’t it go against the odds that two kidnappings would occur on the same day, in a parallel way? The court will have to sort this out. It won’t do to simply ignore my client’s side of the story.
So now we will listen to the exact way Martin described the kidnapping that he supposedly did, at Fortescue turnoff, not at the Port Arthur General Store.
Act II, Scene 2 – Police Interview Martin in Prison
BRYANT. 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?
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.
WARREN. So you drove away in the BMW?
BRYANT. Yes, and the man was in the boot. I put him in the boot.
WARREN. How did he get into the boot?
BRYANT. Bit like the Ben Morrison case isn’t it?
WARREN. You remember the Ben Morrison case?
BRYANT. Yeah. … A. ‘Cos Radloff’s in here, in Risdon.
PAINE. Who’s in here?
BRYANT. Radloff, the man that was involved in the Ben Morrison.
WARREN. Have you ever met him have you?
BRYANT. No, never. …
PAINE. Have you met him Martin?
BRYANT. No, I’ve only read things about him in the paper.
WARREN. What do you think about him?
BRYANT. I don’t know. Funny guy. I think things went wrong with him. … Like they did with me — and later on you’ll think twice, why did you do these things?
PAINE. Martin, just back to the BMW. How did this guy get in the boot?
BRYANT. 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?
BRYANT. Um, handcuffed him? No.
PAINE. Well do you own any handcuffs?
BRYANT. No, never, never owned handcuffs in my life.
PAINE. Which gun did you have?
BRYANT. I had the AR15.
PAINE. Can Mr Warren hold it up?
BRYANT. Yes. That was the one. It’s a sweet little gun. Because it’s so light. How light is it?
PAINE. Can you remember what you said to this fellow?
BRYANT. “Hey mate, can you get out of your car please, I’m gonna take your car.”
PAINE. And you had this pointed at him did you?
BRYANT. Yeah I had it pointed at him. And moving it backwards and forwards with his wife and child too.
PAINE. Was the gun loaded?
BRYANT. Yeah the gun was loaded, it had about nine rounds in it.
PAINE. And where did this take place, Martin, sorry?
BRYANT. At the For-tes-cue Bay turn-off.
PAINE. Right. And where did you drive then?
BRYANT. I drove full speed, I was going about 140 Ks up the road and went into Seascape. Just drove down there in the BMW.
WARREN. Where, can you remember where you drove when you went into Seascape?
BRYANT. I remember skidding on some grass, and I had a heap of petrol with me, I put some petrol in the BMW.
PAINE. And what happened then?
BRYANT. Well what happened then, I knocked on the door to see the Martins but there was no answer. And what happened is I remember the explosion. .
PAINE. Where was the man?
BRYANT. He must’ve been trapped in the boot, the hostage.
PAINE. Tipped petrol — where’d you tip the petrol?
BRYANT. I don’t recall because it was a vast explosion and I had my gun strapped around me.
PAINE. Which one?
BRYANT. The AR15 there.
PAINE. The one Mr Warren lifted up a short time ago?
BRYANT. Yeah. Mmm.
PAINE. Right. And what’d you do with that?
BRYANT. And, umm, I also had me shotgun.
WARREN. Where did you have the shotgun Martin?
BRYANT. I left that in the Volvo.
PAINE. Did you actually knock on the door at Seascape?
BRYANT. Mmm, a few times, went around the back, knocked on the door, no answer.
WARREN. You’ve already said that you remembered me going to see you at the hospital?
BRYANT. Oh yes.
WARREN. And that I told you that you were being charged with …
BRYANT. A murder count.
WARREN. What recollection have you got of that?
BRYANT. Must’ve been the hostage, the bloke in the BMW must’ve died.
WARREN. That’s what you think it is, is it?
BRYANT. Mmm.
WARREN. Do you remember me telling you who you were charged with murdering?
BRYANT. No I don’t … inaudible …
WARREN. Do you remember me mentioning a name?
BRYANT. 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.
BRYANT. Oh.
WARREN. Does that register with you?
BRYANT. 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.
Act II, Scene 3 A ‘Fantasy’ Theory of the Kidnapping
Anna: So! we have two opposing stories as to how “Martin Bryant” carjacked a BMW, and kidnapped the driver in the boot. My client says he may have blown up the car.
Bugg: Your Honour, we have a photo of the burnt car on the grass at Seascape. [SCREEN: car, leave it on till curtains].
Anna: As to the other report of a carjacking, please recall the reliable witness, Jim Laycock who owns the General Store. He saw it happen at close range. So yes, a man was coerced into the boot of a BMW and his girlfriend was shot dead in the Corolla. And Laycock, who had known Bryant since age 10, said Martin Bryant is not the person who forced a man into the boot.
My client’s confession in that police interview is far-fetched. Who would be aggressive enough to accost a man, knowing that he would instinctively protect his wife and child? And wouldn’t that wife have sought emergency police help? There is no record of a call to that area. Martin’s recollection smacks of fantasy.
Bugg. But he does feel guilty over it.
[Curtain].
Anniversary Again!
Last week, on April 28th, we had the 21st anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre. It was carried out by persons other than Martin Bryant. Isn’t it time we discover who did it?
I wanted to keep the Fringe show clean — you know, “general audiences, no nudity,” etc. Nothing too demanding on the public’s mind. Hence the play is only about Martin’s innocence, not anyone else’s guilt.
I took pains to keep “conspiracy theory” out of the play. But I didn’t keep it out of the book Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough (co-authored by Dee McLachlan). Towards the end of the book I say I think SAC-PAV did the massacre. (The Australian group SAC-PAV is like the US’s Homeland Security, but more sub rosa).
The point of having an “Act II Kidnapping” in the play is to show that Martin believed he had performed some sort of deed involving a man with a wife and child in a Volvo. I presume that man is a covert agent, and that he choreographed a scene in which Martin performed “kidnap light.”
The purpose was to ensure that Martin would appear in the right place at the right time (Seascape before 2pm) and also to create some guilt in his mind.
The Real Zoe Hall and Glen Pears
There is no reason to doubt Jim Laycock, who stated to police that he saw a blond man (a blond man other than Bryant) put a guy into the boot of a BMW and shoot dead that guy’s female companion while she sat in a white Corolla.
Although the official story names those two persons as Glen Pears and Zoe Hall, those identities are not necessarily genuine. There’s a mountain of dishonest narrative in the official case.
A couple had to appear exactly at the right moment at the General Store, for the official story. Thus the man and woman whom Jim Laycock saw must be part of SAC-PAV or similar — they would have been instructed to show up there (around 1.45pm). The man-in-the-boot, who is referred to as Glen Pears, probably did not end up in Seascape.
My guess is that he survived, and that he’s not the man that Bryant (aka Jamie) refers to as Rick – “the hostage” at Seascape, during the evening of April 28th. More likely, “Rick” is a player in this false-flag event. On the negotiator tape, Bryant sounds very comfortable with Rick, like old friends.
It’s very telling that the negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy, did not ask probing questions about Rick, or ask for clarification when Jamie said Rick’s wife is a high-up person in “intelligence.” Good heavens.
Likewise, on July 4th 1996, John Warren and Ross Paine did not interrogate Bryant in such a way as to pin down the Fortescue kidnap story. I think the negotiator and those interviewing cops must have been told not to delve deep.
Note: all three are still alive and could be asked to explain.
— Mary W Maxwell requests that you do whatever is in your power to get the “wrong man” out of jail. You will be doing yourself an enormous favor.
The actual police interview includes 4 cops talking to Bryant at different times. One, Jones, is a lady cop. But here in the Fringe clip, we have only 2 cops, John Warren (far left) and Ross Paine.
So who’s the lady here? She is Ross Paine. I mean we had to use a female actress to play that part. “We ran out of men.” I was in a crunch, OK?
Terry Shulze has pointed out, in a comment to a previous Gumshoe article, that the “official” video of Martin talking to police is probably a compilation of interviews taken on several days. The prisoner ends ithe Interview with “I’ll miss ya’s.”
I marked this one “July 4, 1996,” as I believe that is the claimed date of the Interview of Record. As for our ability to inspect and criticize the official tape (or tapes), no way, Jose. Only the elect get that privilege and as far as we in the public are concerned, “the elect” is Mike Willessee.
READ THIS AND WEEP
This is negotiator Sgt Terry McCarthy talking to Bryant who uses the codename Jamie:
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, I got him and managed to get him his wife she he wanted to participate um in the kidnapping …
McCarthy: Cough
Jamie: Get in, get into the car and I’ve got him as a hostage.
McCarthy: I want to assure myself that everybody in there is okay. Are they all okay at the moment?
*******
Nota bene: “SHE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE KIDNAPPING”
THEN THE NEGOTIATOR CHANGES THE SUBJECT. Why?
I will ask the question again. How is it that Channel 7 and Mike Willessee have not been charged by police for “contempt of court”?
Justice William Cox ordered, that the evidence of the Port Arthur incident be locked away for 30 years. Yet the above party aired some of this information on national TV only twenty years after the event.
Is it policy for police to turn a blind-eye to crime committed by corporate bodies and media personalities? If it is not policy, then I require, the NSW Commissioner of Police, to have these two parties charged with “contempt of court”.
Mal, maybe they could be charged with theft, and then we would find out how they got the stuff!
As far as I know only a judge can hold a person in contempt of court. It’s not a crime. You may recall that Fredrick Toben did time in jail in SA for contempt of court but he has no criminal record for this.
Of course if peeps in the Tas Court or Tas Police leaked the suff to Mike then they may have committed a crime. I don’t know. Any barristers out there wish to commnent?
Also there is the claim that we were told that the videos were unusable or something. If someone said that (the DPP?) so that justice could not be done just go back to Blackstone Vol 4 of the Commentaries. You’ll probably see that it calls for a penalty such as having one’s tongue cut out. They were really into justice in those days.
Hey, Mal, write to the Tas Court and ask for the disposition of the said videos, wouldja?
There is only one reason why a trial of the accused who is alleged (remember an allegation is not a conviction) to have murdered 35 people and wounded many others is denied the alleged murderer simply on the pleading of ‘guilty’ by the accused who is known to have the mental capacity for thinking things through of a 9 to11 year old child.
That in itself should have caused an uproar among the legal fraternity.
There are so many things wrong with the subsequent investigation of the Port Arthur Massacre, and from an ex-cops perspective, I have no doubt a whole book could be written on the ‘mistakes’ alone, some apparently genuine, but most of them obviously deliberate. But, the single stand out in my mind is the wilful abrogation of simple justice for an accused whose legal mental capacity was set aside in the pursuit of an obscenely quick judgement, and a judgement not based on actual evidence. There should be no doubt in any reasonable person’s mind today that given all the evidence and witness testimony, and in its entirety, Martin Bryant should not be in Risdon Prison.
Nemesis, the Court of Tasmania would listen to you if you are an ex-cop.
So why not take up some communication with them.
I worry that because I yak about helping the prisoner, readers may think I have a monopoly. No, what is needed is an upswell.
Note that Cherri Bonney has obtained more than 3200 signatures, but each of those persons is alone in his home. They do not feel the upswell. Much more is needed.
Clear language from a cop would be excellent. Even better if you appeal to the cops of Tas to throw down the gauntlet to thier overseers.
Twenty-one years of cruelty is enough.
‘……a 9 to a 11 child..’
How subtle? Trying to say something Nemisis?
Ned, there are at least three head shrinkers who had access to Bryant that I am aware of, and depending on the name of the assessor, Bryant’s cognitive ability was listed at between 9 and 11 years of age.
Odd or what?
Ian Sale and Paul Mullen. Who’s the third?
(You don’t mean Ivor or Eric, do you? And where did any of them use that phrase “9 or 11”? I have not seen it. I’ve seen only “an IQ of 66.”
(waiting for Ned’s comeback on that one…)
I’ve always considered the I Q claim to be part of the deceit/distraction package.
The application of such testing beyond specific classroom tasks is widely acknowledged as being abusive:
http://www.preservearticles.com/201104195551/limitations-of-iq-tests.html
But I can’t help but wonder how the offending journos would score on language comprehension.
Mary, three different opinions. As to the names, I would need to go back over what I have already taken in – if you had requested I name just one of those involved in assessing Bryant, I couldn’t because that detail to me at least, is not relevant in what I wish to know.
As I recall, Bryant was assessed as having the PSYCHOLOGICAL AGE of 11 and an IQ of 66. The IQ of 66 put him in the lower 2% of the IQ bell curve.
Essentially, an 11 year old moron trapped in a corrupt system – the bloke never stood a chance.
Yes Ned, my thoughts exactly.
This woman is a pig – literally and quite obviously a troll sent to defecate on this site.
Ignores questions of fact, changes context when it’s inconvenient and adds unimaginative, illusory sub-text to deceive.
As I’ve said before a real piece of work who adds zip to the site
M, commenting from the sidelines eh! Don’t feel you have the courage to go head to head? You seem to be a very shallow person as well as a nasty one who likes to criticize without providing any substance for your criticism while reverting to ad hominem attacks and assumptions concerning myself.
You must write for the Age or one of Fairfax’s rags. No wonder they are both going broke!
If only we could get Martin to appeal the case, there is just so many questions and confusion about what really happened. As you mention Jim Laycock among others said it was not Martin yet we don’t know if those statements were ever shown to the judge. Then you had Avery who from my reading of publicly available redacted court documents shows he was working for the prosecution and did not want the case to tarnish whatever reputation he had. You had Avery tricking Martin into pleading guilty, using Martyins low IQ against him, how unconscionable, what type of solicitor does that? Also I remember reading years ago what Tony Rundle said. He said that if it went to trial, he felt Martin would not have gone to jail. Martin had the whole justice system, including his own solicitor (who had a conflict of interest ion the case) against him. No one, not one person, not even whoever his guardian was there to help him. Any guardian, knowing Martin had money would have arranged proper representation for Martin. He was let down by everyone, including his own family. I would bet serious money that if he had proper representation he would be free. I hope one day this gets to court. Martin is a victim in all of this as much as the slain of the day.