Inverell Forum 2001

"If we don't get it right this time, then next time there is a massacre,
and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us."
Tim Fischer at Alice Springs in May 1996.

Wendy Scurr and I have come here tonight to pass on what information we have in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre. I have used 'their' documents, articles and interviews to gather this information.

Neither Wendy nor I will accept any bunkum as the gunman being equal to the world's top anti-terrorist combat shooters for two reasons:

(i) The shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café lasted approximately 5 minutes.

(ii) There was in excess of 41 shots fired inside the Broad Arrow Café.

This is from some of the survivors from both inside and outside the café. Let's name some of these survivors. Firstly there is Wendy Scurr, who is with us tonight. Then there is Major Sandra Vanderpeer, who was inside the gift shop area and in her statement states that the shooting lasted approximately five minutes, and she believed that the shooting continued after the gunman reloaded inside the gift shop area. Graeme Collyer an ex-RAF fitter states that he watched the gunman walk round the café area shooting people for approximately 4 ˝ minutes, as he lay on the floor nearly drowning in his own blood. Outside near the Information Centre two Vietnam Veterans, John Godfrey and Peter Stainthorpe also have contested the 90 seconds to two minutes time for the shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café. Jacqui Lane wrote an article in a police magazine again stating that the shooting went on for about five minutes.

The time frame of the gunman shooting inside the café for 90 seconds to two minutes maximum is fabricated. It is an outright lie, and any person peddling that story is pushing a concoction, an outright lie.

All the witnesses tell us that the gunman went up to the victims and shot them from fairly close quarters. What the Americans tell me is that anyone with a little bit of proper training in firearms would be able to accomplish this deed, and I accept their advice. What this means is that Martin Bryant would have been able to perform the shooting skills required at the Broad Arrow Café, with minimal training, if he had wished to commit such an atrocity. However, there are many clues that state it was not Martin Bryant inside the café on that fatal afternoon.

More bunkum is the statement that the gunman killed twelve victims and wounded another four in the first fifteen seconds. This statement is supposedly supported by the Wilkinson Videotape and this tape-recorded the sound of the shots by themselves. Another video camera recorded the shots fired for 25 seconds as being 21 shots, which according to the government prosecutor, Mr Damian Bugg QC, leaves only eight shots to be fired in the next sixty-nine seconds, that is one shot every 8 ˝ seconds. This is not what the witnesses tell us. They all state that the shots continued at about one shot every second or two. (1) Wilkinson Tape.

So how accurate is the evidence from the videotapes. They accurately report the sound of the shots alone, but do not report on the status of these shots, being whether or not these shots killed, injured or missed a target. Furthermore these videotapes do not record the entire shooting scene, and thus arguably the shooting inside the café could have continued on for another five seconds, five minutes or five hours.

In the Wilkinson tape there are 5 shots fired, being shots 7 to 11, within a period of 1.80 seconds, and we are supposed to believe that any person could shoot five persons accurately in the head in that time frame. Thank you. Mind you, the last shot heard on the Wilkinson videotape is a ricochet.

The next piece of bunkum is that only 29 shots were fired inside the café. Mr. Bugg QC continually reinforces this statement stating it is supported by the ballistics and forensic evidence, but the Tasmania Police Ballistics expert, Sergeant Gerard Dutton states otherwise. In the American Wound Ballistics Review, Dutton states that 30 fired cartridge cases were located inside the Broad Arrow Café, not 29. Then again in another article written by Sergeant Gerard Dutton in the Australian Police Journal, Dutton argues that it is not accurate to count the number of shots fired simply by the means of the fired cartridge cases alone, especially as the crime scenes were not protected until after sunset, and many of the fired cartridge cases had been souvenired, especially at the car park where only four cases were located by the police, two .223 and two .308 cartridges, with another case being returned by a bus driver.

How many shots were fired inside the Broad Arrow Café during the massacre? I have calculated a minimum of 41 shots, using the Court Document and witness statements.

So why were these deceptions put into place, and why have they been so strongly enforced within Australia. These lies have nothing to do with any Federal Government implementation plans, but rather a cover-up by the Tasmanian Government, which are the owners of the Port Arthur Historic Site, and it has everything to do with a supposedly 'locked' fire escape door. (2) Groom, 'cause'

You see, there was a fire exit door within the Gift Shop area of the Broad Arrow Café that was supposedly locked, but just how do you lock a fire exit door? This was the door that prevented many people who were inside the gift shop area from escaping the gunman, and some were murdered, and others lost their partners and loved ones.

It was later conceded that this door was not locked as stated to the Hobart Supreme Court, but rather it was broken, and the condition of the door was known to police by the 1st May 1996 when one of the maintenance crew who was painting out the windows and nailing the doors and windows shut, discovered that fault with the assistance of one of the forensic Police within the building.

The next little gem is the 'Prince' sports bag, or should I say the two 'Prince' sports bags. You see, the gunman was lugging about a very heavy 'Prince' sports bag and a large video camera, which were found left on a table inside the Broad Arrow Café after the massacre. The problem is that several witnesses also saw the gunman carry the 'Prince' sports bag out of the café and put it in the boot of the Volvo. This was even captured on James Balasko's video. (3) Balasko & (4) bag in café.

Why did the gunman need his video camera? Why did he need two 'Prince' sports bags? Also consider that there were live .308 rounds found on the floor inside the café. The only weapon used inside the café was the AR 15 which uses .223 ammunition, but in the boot of the Volvo was several hundred .308 rounds, so how did these .308 rounds end up inside the café?

At this stage I should also point out two other little discrepancies that have occurred within the story of this massacre, and the first is that the 'A Current Affair' program showed a person running down the road towards the buses, and inferred that this person was the gunman. Nothing could be further from the truth. This person is running, and the gunman never ran. This person is dressed completely differently to the gunman, and is carrying blankets from the Information Centre to the wounded at the buses, and is in all probability Mark Kirby, one of the many at the site who assisted so admirably after the massacre. This video is genuine. It is the portrayal of this video that is not. (5) blankets.

The other discrepancy is the 'missing boat'. The aerial shot of Port Arthur, that has been bandied about supposedly stating that there was no boat at the area immediately inside the jetty area of Port Arthur is again misleading. All a person has to do is look at the right side of the picture and he or she will see two boats, the larger boat being the supposedly missing boat. The video taken by James Balasko was taken at extreme zoom, which is why the boat appears closer than it actually was, and any person who watches cricket, football or any of the sports on television would be aware of this. (6) Boat & big boat.

End of Part 1. Break and time for questions.

I shall now move on to the next part of the massacre, and touch very briefly on Constable Chris Iles of Sorell. Chris Iles had been the Nubeena policeman for about 15 years, but had transferred to Sorell about six months prior to the massacre, and his replacement at Nubeena was Constable Paul Hyland. Many people are aware that Constables Paul Hyland and Gary Whittle of Dunalley were at Saltwater River when they received a radio message at 1338 hours that there had been a shooting at Port Arthur.

However, Jim Laycock states that within three minutes of Zoe Hall being murdered, and Glen Pears being kidnapped outside the Port Arthur Store, which was at approximately 1.45 pm, Constable Chris Iles had arrived at the scene in a marked police vehicle. Laycock's statement is corroborated by another witness, Kyle Spruce. Then Constable Chris Iles took off in pursuit of the gunman, and was never heard of again within the events that constitute the Port Arthur Massacre.

Questions must arise regarding what Constable Iles was doing out of his area on this 'quiet' Sunday afternoon, and the fact that he never appears to be utilised, especially when the survivors at the Port Arthur Site were required to wait for six hours before they received proper police presence. Again having been the local Port Arthur policeman for fifteen years, Constable Iles knew all the locals, the staff at Port Arthur and the Emergency Crews that were utilised to perform the various police duties for the police that were held back from attending at the site due to the dangers presented to the police.

So Constable Iles vanishes, and then Constables Hyland and Whittle attend at Port Arthur, and then on to Seascape. However there is another policeman to enter the scene. Sergeant Andrew Mark Fogarty, from Bellerive Police Station has arrived at the scene. Sergeant Fogarty is also a Team Leader with the SOG.

Both Hyland and Whittle state that when they arrived at Seascape, the BMW was already burning at the front, and when the fire reached the back section of the vehicle it exploded. Martin Bryant in his police interview states that he was knocking at the back door of Seascape when the BMW exploded, but also confuses himself by saying that he must have been burnt by the fire that destroyed the BMW. Martin Bryant also believes that the hostage died in the BMW fire.

Now consider this, one of the Task Force members investigating the Port Arthur Massacre has stated to witnesses that it was the SOG who set fire to the BMW so as to negate its use to the persons inside Seascape as a means of escape. This means that if the BMW was already burning on the arrival of Hyland and Whittle at Seascape, then the only reported SOG member at the scene at that time was Sgt. Fogarty, and therefore Fogarty would have been the SOG member who set the BMW alight.

The Police Task Force member also stated that it was the same SOG member who set fire to Seascape Cottage using the same means as with the BMW, that is by firing a phosphorus grenade into the building. This grenade apparently went through the attic window facing onto the Arthur Highway. In his statement, Andrew Fogarty states that he fired off two illuminating parachute flares over Seascape, but under the orders of Sergeant Morrison.

Both Hyland and Whittle state they saw a naked person run into the Seascape Cottage, Hyland stating it was a black-haired person, and Whittle stating it was a female. There is no proof that the person these constables saw was the one and the same, but it is fair enough to consider that it was. What we do know though is that this black-haired naked person was not Martin Bryant, nor would it have been the gunman. So who was she?

Then we have Constable Allen stating that at one stage just before dark, the gunman was spotted on the roof of an adjoining building, and he needed to be identified before the SOG marksman could shoot the offender. Constable Allen stated that when he put his head up out of the culvert, to take a view of the gunman on the roof, he was shot at, the bullet striking the front bumper bar of the police car he was behind.

This gives us two items of information. One that the person shooting at Allen was listening to police communications, and two that the gunman on the roof was not the person shooting at Constable Allen. Sgt. Fogarty would never have permitted that gunman in his sights to actually shoot at another policeman. It has been noted that Sgt Fogarty's brother, Michael Fogarty, who was also a member of the Tasmania Police SOG shot and killed Joe Gilewicz in 1991, when their father Superintendent Fogarty was In Charge of the Tasmania Police SOG.

Now this incident with the shot at Constable Allen sparked off two other incidents. The first was with the SES and fire brigade members who had been monitoring the Police Communications. A fire truck did the rounds at Port Arthur warning the personnel there that the gunman was on the loose, and heading this way. This created absolute panic at the Port Arthur Site because there was still no protection for them from any police. The second incident was that the Police Commander, Assistant Commissioner Luppo Prins, called in assistance from the Victoria Police SOG, and then notified the National Crisis Centre in Canberra of their TERRORIST SITUATION. (7) He's out

All this action by the Tasmania Police was as per the SOG manual, prepared by SAC-PAV, the Federal based body that controls the Police SOGs, in the SAC-PAV 'Anti-Terrorist Plan' that had been implemented in November 1995. Now the SAC-PAV has control of the various State Police SOG bodies, but not only that, they also have trained other members of the police, such as the Police Media Liaison Officers. However, what is of real interest is the fact that the SAC-PAV is run by the 'Protective Security Co-ordination Centre', the PSCC, which is an intelligence body operating out of both the Federal Attorney General's Department and the Justice Department. It has also been recorded that the Police Special Branches were also being run by the PSCC.

We have been informed by 'A Current Affair' that the three top Tasmania Policemen, McCreadie, Prins and Bennett are all SAC-PAV trained. So was their Media Liaison Officer, Geoff Easton who prior to his appointment with the Tasmania Police was a Communications Officer at Canberra. Another Media Officer was Peter Hazelwood, who has connections with the Hilton Hotel Bombing back in 1978. It was this event that initiated the formation of SAC-PAV and the PSCC.

What other bodies are connected with SAC-PAV? ASIO is for a start, and of course the military. Then there is the Australian Federal Police, many of whose officers end up in the PSCC, the Australian Protective Service, which is an off-shoot of the Australian Federal Police, and is also seen as another 'Intelligence Service' which, by the way is responsible for security at the Woomera base where rioting illegal immigrants were treated with force outside that considered by proper police forces. The Department of Foreign affairs, and the list goes on, even to include bodies from New Zealand!

But back to Tasmania and the Siege at Seascape. By the Monday morning, with media from all over the world now focusing on Port Arthur, the 'Pink Palace' as the locals called Seascape Cottage is set alight, by Martin Bryant we are told, except for a Task Force member who states that it was by Sgt Fogarty. This of course destroyed all the evidence that was to be found inside Seascape Cottage, except for the two murder weapons, which were found outside Seascape in a badly damaged state, as the Police had been informed by "Jamie" inside Seascape during the siege. But the only person to emerge from the fire was Martin Bryant who was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of an ambulance and conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital. (8) Seascape burning

Now consider these two Statements made by CNN's John Raedler based in Sydney. He attended at Port Arthur along with another CNN employee, Hugh Williams of Sydney, but based in Berlin and at home at the time on leave.

(1) Johnston's (Superintendent Jack Johnston) explanation of the fate of the Mikacs was the classic 'win-win' sound bite.

(2)This was certainly the case in CNN's coverage of the Port Arthur Massacre, vis a vis the Tasmania Police. They came across as in control, competent, professional, effective and thorough - they got the culprit, got him reasonably quickly, got him alive, and kept him alive. They built an ultimately overwhelming case against him. And they did all of this in the midst of what were, for all of them, uniquely challenging circumstances.

End of part 2. Break and time for questions.

The Tasmania Police set up a Task Force under Superintendent Johnston to investigate the Port Arthur Massacre. A member of that Task Force, Inspector Maxwell travelled to Victoria and spoke to a Bill Drysdale of Yass in relation to one of the murder weapons, the AR15. Bill Drysdale identified that firearm by a gunsmith's mark on the barrel. Furthermore this particular firearm had been handed to the Victoria Police at Lilydale in 1993 when that particular firearm had been made illegal.

However the AR 15 firearms that had been handed in to the Victoria Police during this amnesty, were then issued to the Victoria Police SOG as weapons until they were issued with new weapons in 1994, and these AR 15s were sold to a Bendigo gun dealer for sale overseas, except for one, the compact AR 15 that had once been the property of Bill Drysdale. It went through the police books as being destroyed at Sims Metal furnace, but somehow ended up in Tasmania, at the Seascape Cottage after the siege.

However this damaged AR15 could not have been the weapon used at Port Arthur. It was damaged by blowing up a round inside the breech. The creation of this damage also creates a loud explosion, enough to deafen a person for up to a couple of days. Please note that Martin Bryant's hearing was not affected when he was arrested at Seascape. Also note that all the police statements during the siege tell of the various weapons being fired, which they could differentiate by the sounds alone, and when the fire took place, they could also tell the difference between exploding ammunition and shots being fired. But not one mention is made of an extremely loud explosion that must have occurred when the AR15 was damaged. Thus the only conclusion was that this weapon was damaged prior to the siege, and thus prior to the massacre.

The other weapon used during the massacre was a FN SLR of which Martin Bryant denied ever owning. Mind you the firearm that was suddenly found in the piano at Bryant's Clare Street residence, an Australian Arms semi-automatic .223, was never mentioned in the only police interview that took place on the 4th of July 1996 (so much for Independence Day).

End of Part 3. Break for questions.

It has been stated that the only media in Hobart that actually have journalists and reporters on duty on a Sunday was the ABC, and that the other media outlets simply have staff on call. So when journalists from the ABC attended at Police Headquarters in Hobart to obtain information about the shootings at Port Arthur they were surprised to find that they were not the first to arrive at the Media Liaison Office. Mr Roland Browne, the spokesperson for Gun Control in Tasmania had beaten them to the office.

Now this surely must be a coincidence, but there were other coincidences that do stand out. Helicopter pilots were normally a scarcity on a Sunday afternoon. Normally it was difficult enough to locate even one, but on this particular Sunday they were able to obtain the services of three helicopter pilots.

For the ambulance staff, the possible staff shortage was overcome by utilising staff and volunteers that were attending courses for that Sunday afternoon. The Southern District Mortuary Service even had a 22-body hearse waiting to be used for such an emergency. However it was the Royal Hobart Hospital that demonstrated the height of preparedness. They were able to call on the services of twenty five trauma specialist doctors from all over Australia, who had just completed a seminar at midday on that Sunday, and whose last lecture had been in relation to a 'terrorist attack'. Oh, dear.

It was the EMA (Emergency Management Australia) Port Arthur Seminar Papers that demonstrated the preparedness of all these bodies, especially with the Royal Hobart Hospital and it's newly completed 'Code Brown' Emergency Plan. But we are then given another clue. The Coroner, Ian Matterson, the Staff at the Royal Hobart Hospital, including some doctors, and many Ambulance Service personnel initially believed that it was simply another "exercise" and some ignored the calls until they heard the news on the radio and television. In other words these people had been conditioned to attending exercises until they were sick of them.

In his book, 'Suddenly One Sunday', journalist Mike Bingham wrote, "Involvement in these national and local exercises was to prove invaluable as Tasmania Police set about managing the Port Arthur Massacre. The responses were to work so well that there were times when it all seemed like an exercise, despite the enormity of all that had happened."

So who was responsible for these people to be so prepared for such a tragedy?

In Tasmania, the emergency exercises were the responsibility of the SES (State Emergency Service). This body is attached to the Tasmania Police and the Police Commissioner is the Deputy Chairman of the State Emergency Service. However these bodies are controlled by the Canberra based SAC-PAV (Standing Advisory Committee, States/Commonwealth for Protection Against Violence). The SAC-PAV subcommittee the Project Group Training (PGT) is responsible for the training and exercise programs run by SAC-PAV, but then again SAC-PAV is controlled by the PSCC, the Intelligence Agency.

There is however one last seminar to consider, and that is unique in that it was the first, and the only ever seminar to be held for the ten top personnel at the Port Arthur Historic Site, and it was to be held on the 28th and 29th April 1996. What was this seminar about? Nothing. By the time these particular staff members arrived at Swansea, the massacre had occurred and everybody went straight back to the site to assist.

End of Part 4. Break and time for questions.

But, back to Martin Bryant, who has been arrested by the SOG and conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital. On Tuesday the 30th April 1996 police endeavour to interview Bryant in the presence of a hospital doctor, but Bryant wishes to have nothing to do with them, and so he is simply charged with one count of murder, that of Kate Scott.

On the following day Bryant was again interviewed, not by police but Doctor Ian Sale. In notes taken by the prison officer guarding Martin Bryant, Blair Saville, Sale states to Bryant, "Whatever you say to us may be used against you in court. Do you understand what I said?"

Consider the implications if this evidence is correct. Doctor Sale has just stated that he is collecting evidence to use against Martin Bryant in a Court of Law, yet his reports formed part of the basis of Mullen's report, which was the only evidence used by the defence in the Sentencing of Martin Bryant.

Bryant was interviewed By Dr Sale on the 1st and 3rd of May, and then by Mullen on the 5th May. During each of these interviews, apparently the same prison officer was present, and apparently took notes. This raises questions due to who had custody of Bryant at the time. Bryant should have been under police guard until he was lodged at Risdon Prison, and we have a policewoman stating that she was at one stage required to perform guard duty on Bryant. Again this same prison officer took note of the conversation between Martin Bryant and Petra Wilmott on the 15th May at Risdon Prison. In fact up until the police interview, the only contributor to the 'confessional evidence' and that is by the one officer. In late August, another prison officer gives evidence, but on the whole there are many errors within these 'confessional evidence' statements. (9) Cuffed to bed.

In his report on Martin Bryant that was read to the Supreme Court on the 20th November 1996, Mullen refers to the fact that Martin Bryant was put on a guardianship order by the Hobart Court in October 1993. That the case was actually heard in Camera (private) by the judge on the 22nd of April 1994, was not mentioned by Mullen, nor the fact that the application was brought under the Mental Health Act, or the fact that Bryant was represented by solicitors from the firm Griffits and Jackson of Hobart due to the simple fact that Martin Bryant was not present at that court on that day because he was in London.

What the guardianship order states emphatically and this is something that the learned professor should have been well aware of, was that the court considered Martin Bryant, due to his mental inability, was not competent to make any plea in relation to the charges he was facing in November 1996.

Not only that, but the Chief Justice Mr, William Cox would also have been well aware of that little problem. Oh dear me.

However, back to Professor Mullen. In 2000, Mullen along with another psychiatrist, C. H. Cantor and another gentleman, Philip Alpers wrote an article titled 'Mass Homicide: The Civil Massacre', in which they use 7 'Lone Nut Gunman' type massacres to prove their findings. These cases are (1) Julian Knight, Melbourne 1987, (2) Michael Ryan, Hungerford England 1987, (3) Frank Vitkovic, Melbourne 1987, (4) David Gray, Aramoana NZ, 1990, (5) Wade Frankum, Strathfield, 1991, (6) Thomas Hamilton, Dunblane Scotland, 1996 and (7) Martin Bryant, Port Arthur, 1996. These 7 massacres are all seemingly related by circumstances besides the fact that they were used specifically to introduce firearm control by the governments of the day.

Christopher H Cantor is a psychiatrist affiliated with the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention Program at Griffith University, and is the author of several anti-firearm articles going back to at least 1991. Philip Alpers has penned similar articles. One would have to wonder if these persons have any links with either the Australian Institute of Criminology or the National Committee against Violence.

Professor Mullen is stated in this article as having interviewed Knight and Bryant after the events, and resided in the area affected by Gray. In fact we are aware that Mullen's report on Bryant was the only psychiatric report presented to the Supreme Court, which makes Mullen more than just an interviewer of Bryant.

There are two aspects worth considering in this article before I delve any further into it. In every case except Frankum and Bryant the only weapons used were firearms. However both Frankum and Bryant lost a parent prior to their massacres by suicide. Both Frankum and Bryant not only used high-powered firearms but a large knife and handcuffs as well. The use of handcuffs in any 'Lone Nut Gunman' style massacre is uniquely Australian. The perpetrators of such crimes do not intend to constrain victims but rather murder anybody within their sights. Yet we are informed that whilst at Seascape, Martin Bryant, aka 'Jamie' had information regarding his hostage Glen Pears that could only have come from an interrogation. For Martin Bryant though, this would have been a virtual impossibility considering his stated mental ability. Is this simply a coincidence? I would doubt it. There are other coincidences.

The last sentence in the report on Julian Knight states, "J.K.'s subsequent course in prison has made any psychotic condition highly unlikely, but obsessional personality traits and narcissism have become more obvious." The obvious question here is that if Julian Knight is no longer a threat to our society, then why was he a threat on the 9th August 1987 when he murdered 7 persons and attempted to murder another 17?

In the report on Frank Vitkovic, it states that this person, who supposedly had a long-standing fascination with firearms, obtained a M1 carbine .30 calibre semi-automatic military styled firearm with a sawn off barrel and shortened stock. Mind you these alterations were made so that the weapon could fit into the bag which was used to carry the weapon to the scene of the massacre, and completely destroys the statement that Vitkovic had a fascination with firearms, as any student of weaponry would know that by cutting off the end of the barrel removed the gas pressure that caused the weapon to automatically reload. This meant that to create the massacre, Vitkovic had to manually reload the rifle after each shot. Moreover this created the possibility for the weapon to jam, should the reloading action become jerky, which is exactly what happened with this particular incident, and enabled two men to actually take hold of Vitkovic before he apparently broke loose and jumped through a plate glass window and fell to his death eleven floors below.

But what is extremely interesting is that two persons who, by sheer coincidence happened to view the massacre from the building directly opposite. The then State Attorney General, Jim Kennan and the Police Minister Race Matthews. These two Labour Party Politicians were part of the push in Victoria to introduce their tough new firearm laws, and it is by sheer coincidence that they just happened to be in the building where Jim Kennan's extremely secure offices were located on the 20/23rd floors. However at the time of viewing this incident, I am reliably informed that they were at a typing pool located on the 12th floor, with the massacre taking place in the building directly opposite on the eleventh floor.

Another interesting bit of trivia given to us by this report is that during his killing spree, Frank Vitkovic was heard making some rather startling comments including, "How do they expect me to kill people with this gun?" Just exactly what did Vitkovic mean by that statement and who are 'they'?

It was very shortly after this massacre that a Special Premier's meeting was called in Hobart, where National Firearms Laws were the agenda, but the plan was defeated due to Tasmania and South Australia not accepting the federal incursion into the States constitutional powers. This was when Premier Barry Unsworth made his now famous quote of "there will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania."

Please remember that in cases where the Constitutions are involved each and every State must accept the amendments. If any State declines, then the Federal Constitutional amendment cannot continue.

In the case report on Martin Bryant, this article makes some astounding statements. It states that, "The killings began with the murder of an elderly couple against whom Bryant's family held a long-standing grudge". This is not correct. There was never any grudge between the Bryant and Martin family. Mrs Bryant totally denies any such allegations, as does Glen Martin.

The report continues with, "he believed had contributed to the suicide of his father." No, no, never. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Martin Bryant believed that actions by the Martins had led to his father committing suicide thirteen years later.

The report states that, "This incident occurred only six weeks after Dunblane." That is correct, but there is not one mention of Dunblane is Mullen's report on Bryant presented to the Hobart Supreme Court. This is highly irregular. Furthermore when the report states that, "There have also been suggestions that M.B. may have been influenced by the two Melbourne incident (Cases 1 and 3)." There is no written report presented to the Supreme Court that followed this line of thinking. There is however evidence from a Prison Officer stating that Bryant considered himself worse than Ivan Milat, but the context of that statement remains unclear.

The report states that, "A number of psychological assessments over the years failed to reach agreements as to diagnosis." The highly eminent Doctor Cunningham Dax stated that Bryant might be developing an illness of a schizophrenic type in an assessment in 1984. In 1991 doctors Mather and MP McCartney diagnose a schizophrenic illness. In 1994, Bryant has action bought against him by two doctors, concerned about his apparent frittering away his inheritance, under the Mental Health Act, and succeeds in having the Hobart Supreme Court place Bryant under a guardianship. Mrs Bryant states that her son is suffering from schizophrenia, as does his girlfriend, Petra Wilmott. Mrs Bryant refers to her son's psychiatrist Dr. Rushton, who for some unknown reason is never mentioned in Mullen's report to the Supreme Court. However it is only doctor Sale and Professor Mullen who argue that Bryant is not schizophrenic.

The report goes on with numerous inconsistencies, especially in regards to Martin Bryant, but let me make one last comparison. In the closing paragraph of Mullen's Report that was presented to Judge William Cox in the Sentencing of Martin Bryant, Mullen writes,

"Mr Bryant currently does not have the signs and the symptoms of a mental illness. He is however, by virtue of his personality and intellectual limitations both of reduced coping ability and of increased psychological vulnerability. It is possible that under the combined stress of lengthy incarceration and of having to live with the memories and consequences of his awful acts that he may, in the future, break down into frank mental illness. It will be necessary to continually monitor his state of mind during his future containment and initiate appropriate treatment if, and when, it is required."

Now compare that little gem with the one previously mentioned regarding Julian Knight that stated,

"J.K. was examined by a number of psychiatrists and psychologists. Although a prepsychotic condition was suggested, the predominant opinion was of a narcissistic young man involved in his world of fantasy. J.K.'s subsequent course in prison has made any psychotic condition highly unlikely, but obsessional personality traits and narcissism have become more obvious."

What this article by Cantor, Mullen and Alpers does is emphasis that the requirement for Australia's New Firearm Laws was demonstrated by four unique 'Lone Nut Gunman' type massacres in Australia. The uniqueness of these criminal acts does not simply stop at the cause and effect within Australia, but also the time slot that these crimes fall into. It was only after the ideology created the need for firearms to be removed from our society that these unique crimes erupted. Furthermore when two of the main persons involved with the implementation of the new ideology actually are able to witness one of only four such events in Australia, then we must consider that as extremely coincidental.

End of Part 5. Break and time for questions.

So now, let us consider the words of the Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, when he spoke to a group of profession shooters at Alice Springs in May 1996. "If we don't get it right this time, then next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us." What Mr Fischer is stating is that unless Australia brings in the required legislation, then Australia was going to suffer another massacre. The legislation was initiated and Australia has had no more massacres. The fact that many have ignored the new ideology bound firearm laws, and that firearms are still easily obtainable on a black market is irrelevant to these laws. However, what must also be considered is the comparison between the statement made by Tim Fischer and the then Premier of New South Wales, Barry Unsworth back in December 1987 when he prophesised "There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania." He was quite right. After the massacre at Port Arthur Australia did get a form of "uniform gun laws", but not quite what Barry wanted.

We should also consider the actions of the Australian Prime Minister up to and on the 10th May 1996 when the new laws were implemented. The fact that the 10th May meeting had to make its decision in time for the evening news is straight out of a 'James Bond' types fictional scenario.

"Here is the 6 o'clock news. Big Ben chimed three times today at 2 o'clock, and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard was successful in forcing the various State and Territory Police Ministers into accepting his unconstitutional new guidelines for a total firearm control in Australia."

But there are other political ramifications regarding the Uniform Firearm Laws in Australia, and Graeme Richardson appeared on the "Today Show' shortly after the Port Arthur Massacre, and just prior to Mr Howard announcing his 10th May meeting and laid out the whole political scenario of why the Port Arthur Massacre had to happen. (10) Richo interview

Barry Unsworth had discovered in his effort to retain the New South Wales Government in 1988 that any government that moved into the area of gun control would lose power at the next election, be that State or Federal. Again, because of the moves against the gun owners of Australia, there was a new political party born, and that party had to be destroyed before it gained too much strength within the political sphere.

However, Graeme Richardson gave out one further clue to demonstrate just what the push was, regarding firearm control and that was the shift of power from the States to Canberra. Graeme Richardson stated that the easiest way for uniform firearm laws would be for the States to cede their constitutional powers in relation to firearm to the Federal Government. However, we are then informed that Premier Bob Carr had already initiated legislation in regard to ceding that power to the Federal Government. Now this was before John Howard had announced his 'National Guidelines' policy, and it must be viewed as a ploy to have the Prime Minister adopt the full Labor Party Policy in relation to gun control, a policy that emanates from the United Nations.

What this demonstrates is that the moves for total firearm control in Australia, is based on that power being controlled by Canberra, and that policy lines itself up with other initiatives that have emanated from Canberra in the past decade such as the push for a Republic and a New Constitution, which would give Canberra complete control over Australia, which was the complete opposite of all those Australians who realised the dangers of centralised power, and opted for the American system of Federation of States back prior to 1900.

What happened in regard to the Port Arthur Massacre was that the entire judicial system was stifled. We were never permitted to have any form of a proper trial for the accused Martin Bryant. We were never permitted to have a Coronial Inquiry, nor shall we ever get any such proper inquiry into that tragic event that has affected so many Australians. Our constitutions have been overruled, our judiciary has been compromised so much so that we appear to be that of Keating's 'Banana Republic', and our government representatives no longer hear the voices of their constituents.

So what happens the next time Australians fail to heed the new ideology? Who will 'they' murder to bring us into line? Will it be your parents' your brother or sister, or your children or grandchildren? Don't say it will never happen, because it already has.

Had Australia had one politician with the guts, the integrity and the honesty to tell Australians just what had happened, then the bluff would have been called, and little Johnny Howard would never have had to wear his flack jacket at Sale or in Queensland. Australians though are not that lucky.

Andrew S. MacGregor.

Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.