Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact?

A CONSPIRACY THEORY IS ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY WHILST THEIR IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY. THE MOMENT THERE IS 1 PIECE OF EVIDENCE NO MATTER HOW THIN, IT NO LONGER IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY IT BECOMES A CONSPIRACY POSSIBILITY.

AD MORE EVIDENCE AND IT BECOMES A PROBABILITY, AD MORE EVIDENCE STILL AND IT BECOMES A CONSPIRACY FACT!

 DPP Tampers With & Withholds Evidence

Facts That Point To Martin Bryant Was Framed -------------------------------- Email: editor@shootersnews.addr.com

At the sentencing hearing for Martin Bryant Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC told the Court the following:- Refer Court Transcript at Page 62--63

"There were two interesting observations made late in the morning and at about midday by two people who reside in the area, one Mr. Simmons, heard at about 11 a.m. two shots. He knew the Martins well and he knew on that day that it was Mr Martin’s birthday. Further down towards Port Arthur and near the boat ramp a Mr Doug McCutcheon heard a series of rapidly fired shots and his best estimate of the time of that was about twelve o’clock to twelve thirty. He estimated that the calibre of the rifle used was larger than .22. He has some experience with firearms and some sensitivity about it, being involved in the operation of a fish farm. He claimed that whenever gun shots went off in the district he was blamed for shooting seals. But he estimated that in that volley of shots there would have been six, at the most twelve shots. Later in the day he heard further shooting when Bryant was in Port Arthur. In that late morning how many shots were fired and precisely when is difficult to determine but these two residents heard shooting on that day in the pre-lunch period and the Crown case is that Bryant shot Mr. And Mrs. Martin at about that time."

What is wrong with this is that the claim that shots were heard by Mr. McCutcheon about 12.00 to 12.30pm is a lie. McCutcheon heard the shots between 10.00am and 11.00am. Refer McCutcheon Statement .

The question must be asked why did the DDP change this ? Was it to rule out any suggestion someone else killed the Martin's between 10am and 11am well before Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape ? It would appear so because right after this lie the DDP went on to say:

"Tourists to Tasmania at the time, Donald and Stephanie Gunn, had spent the night at “The Seascape”. They departed at about 11.15 to 11.20 a.m. and at that time David and Sally Martin were in residence, all the other guests had departed, the Gunns stayed chatting to Mr. & Mrs. Martin and then later when they departed they noted that both of the Martins were engaged in chores about “The Seascape”, so at about 11.20 a.m. the Crown case is that Mr. & Mrs. Martin were at the premises on their own. "

These 2 witnesses claim everything was fine at Seascape until around 11.15am when they left. But what needs explaining is the fact that the Gunn's do not mention the gunshots that the other 2 witnesses said occurred before 11.00am eminating from Seascape when they would have been there. This raises a question mark regards their presence at Seascape ( timing of their departure ).

The key point is NOBODY heard shots at Seascape between 11.45am and 12.40pm when the DPP alleged Martin Bryant was there and shot and killed the Martins. McCutcheon who was 500 metres away would have heard them but he says they occurred between 10am and 11am. It is unlikely McCutcheon could be 2 hours out in his timing. And witness Mr. A Simmons, who lived opposite Seascape and was watching the clock because he was waiting for a ride, also heard shots between 10.45am and 11.00am WELL BEFORE BRYANT ARRIVED. Refer Simmons Statement. ( The DDP alleged he arrived after 11.20am, yet other evidence indicates Bryant never got there until 12.20pm ).

If the only shots* fired that morning were just before 11.00am then it is a substantial alibi for Martin Bryant in respect of the allegation he killed the Martins of Seascape. These 2 witnesses statements are reinforced by the fact Martin Bryant was witnessed being up to 58 kilometres to the north of Seascape when the shots were heard.

This is because Bryant was witnessed at the Midway Point Newsagency between 10.30am and 11.00am. Refer Kessarios Statement . Another witness saw him around the same time frame ( 11am ) at the Shell Service Station at Forcett where Bryant spent 8 to 10 mintues having a cup of coffee. Refer King Statement. That would put Bryant leaving Forcett at 11.08am at the earliest. Shots had been heard at Seascape, 58km away, some 20 to 30 minutes earlier. Martin Bryant cannot be at 2 places at one time. NONE OF THIS WAS DISCLOSED TO THE COURT BY THE DPP.

It is further necessary to state this website believes it is in fact more likely the timing by the Gunn's is inncorrect. If they in fact left earlier than they said - at 10.15am to 10.20am - it would fit. There is however another question mark in relation to the Gunn's - namely that that the DPP told the Court they were "Tourists to Tasmania" when it fact they lived somewhere in North Hobart. The fact remains nobody living near to Seascape heard shots between 11.45am and 12.40pm.

It is also important to note while DDP Bugg told this whopper to the Court Martin Bryant's second lawyer, John Avery, the man who allegedly pursuaded him to plead guilty, sat back and did nothing to correct this false statement - or point out the true facts which give Martin Bryant an ALIBI in respect of the Martins' murders - and thereby also cast extreme doubt about what else went on that day at the Port Arthur Historic Site - namely that he acted alone.

Here we have not one but two pieces of critical evidence that gives Martin Bryant an alibi - one the timing of shots being heard much earlier and the other a failure to disclose Bryant whereabouts at that time - not being put to the Court. WHY ? This site calls on the Tasmanian DDP's Office and Bugg to explain why Mr McCutcheon's evidence was altered before the Court in such a manner as to remove any notion Martin Bryant was in fact elsewhere at the time events were occurring at Seascape.

This is a clear case of not only TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE but also WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE that was clearly related to each other - the circumstances of which combined indicates a conspiracy by the DPP to pervert the course of justice because that evidence would have established Martin Bryant to be innocent.

Full credit should go to Andrew MacGregor for discovering the above irregularities in the evidence.

*NB: the shots heard appear to be 2 different sets. Simmons was standing on the highway waiting for a car to pick him up and Seascape was in viewing distance a short distance way. He heard 2 muffled shots which he described as being like from a .22 rifle which this site believes were high velocity shots being fired from inside Seascape which were the ones that killed David Martin. This occurred before 11am and more specifically around 10.40am. These shots were too faint for McCutcheon, who lived 500 metres away, to hear. Simmons then got his ride and left just before 11.00am.

After he left there was a second batch of shots fired outside where this site believes the real gunman was test firing the 2 rifles outside Seascape to check them. These were the rifles that were used at Port Arthur Historic Site later that day. Those are the 6 to 12 rapid fire shots McCutcheon heard, and Simmons didn't hear because he had left the area. Martin Bryant, the bunny for what was about to happen that day, was somewhere between Midway Point and Forcett when all these shots were being fired.

Return to Port Arthur Links Page

 

Just after noon on 28th April 1996, an unknown marksman opened fire on diners in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Australia. In less than 20 minutes at this and five other crime scenes, the marksman killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots. Nineteen of the first twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe died from single shots to the head, all fired by the unknown marksman from his right hip. This staggering display of marksman- ship was blamed on left-handed and intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, whose shooting experience extended to popping off cans in the bush, and had no military training of any kind. From the time of his arrest, remand prisoner Martin Bryant was illegally held in strict solitary confinement and denied access to media of any kind until his police interrogation on 4th July 1996. When he refused to admit to the Port Arthur Massacre at interrogation, he was once more placed back in illegal solitary confinement. Eventually in desperation during November 1996, Martin Bryant pleaded "guilty" 72 times, thereby allowing the authorities to avoid a humiliating trial at which they could present no hard evidence of guilt. Intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was convicted by a hysterical media pack, then forced to plead guilty by prison officials illegally enforcing solitary confinement.

These pages were written in response to my feelings that something was very wrong about the Port Arthur incident and the ultimate outcome as reported by the press.

It was more than the media frenzy that saturated the tabloids with sensationalism and emotional hype. The never-ending tirade of media concentration on the private lives of people who should have been left to grieve in peace was a lead up to the Prime Minister's staggering announcement to enforce new gun laws.

MURDER WEAPON HANDED IN DURING PREVIOUS AMNESTY


On the 23rd of June 1996 the Sunday Telegraph published a story about a gun collector in Victoria who identified the AR15 rifle used for the Port Arthur killings as one that he had handed in to police during an amnesty in February 1993. Strange that the weapon used in the killings just happened to fall off a conveyor belt on the way to the smelters.

The media created the impression that Bryant's guilt was a foregone conclusion and it was expected that he would plead guilty and fore-go a jury trial. I wondered why he would do that. Lawyers for offenders who perpetrated far more horrific crimes such as torture and dismembering before murder had pleaded similarly and to the disgust of the public had received paltry sentencing or treatment.

BRYANT HAD EVERY EXCUSE TO PLEAD "NOT "GUILTY

When Martin Bryant stood up in court and did as I expected him to do and pleaded "not guilty" the repercussions of that stirred up the biggest ants nest since Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. The Department of Prosecutions had practically promised the public a speedy trial to put this assassin away as quickly as possible with a minimum of fuss. The reasons they gave? To save the witnesses having to suffer a trial by jury and dredging up all the trauma again.

Imagine what would happen to our judicial system if in every horrific trial the witnesses had to be spared reliving the incidents at the expense of seeing justice done. There would be no justice at all. In order for a man to be accused there must be an accuser and no one stepped forward to identify Martin Bryant at his trial. Despite the dozens of people who could have pointed out Bryant as the assassin the only witness to testify was a questionable video recording.

My reaction was that if he was not to get a trial by jury then, being an intellectually challenged and deranged person, he would have to be judged and sentenced according to his mental condition. Well, how about temporary insanity then? No, the Australian people had been worked into such a frenzy by the press that nothing less than the maximum penalty would be tolerated for Martin Bryant regardless of his condition. God only knows where those snivel libertarians were in this instance. Isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial? And is not everyone innocent until found guilty? Apparently not in this case.

Now, I am one for throwing away the key to those guilty of any violent offense. This business of insanity, temporary insanity, temporarily drugged, drunk or being very angry at the time is not an excuse for harming another human being unless in self defense in my opinion. However we can't count the number of times this kind of plea has worked to get some other scum of the earth off on crimes equally as horrific. So why wouldn't Martin Bryant, accused by every man and his dog as being a mentally deranged maniac, not be allowed to plead insanity? A psychiatrist had determined that Bryant had an IQ of 66 yet rather than this information acting as proof that he at least had diminished responsibility it was used as adequate proof that he was just over the border-line of being sane and therefore fit to be tried. Again, assurance that Bryant would receive the maximum penalty.

As I was to find out later, after reading what is left of Bryant's origional interview, at no time has he admitted to being at Port Arthur on that day even after extensive questioning. In fact he admitted to several other incriminating events and a full confession would not have much differance to the apparant trouble he was already in.

Even though Bryant had not been identified in any police lineup as the gunman, outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I just couldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing of his photograph to make him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac to the innuendoes that his house was an arsenal for military weapons. All of this made finding an impartial jury almost impossible - perhaps that was the idea.

mediapic.jpg - 31.96 K

TRIAL BY MEDIA ENSURED NO TRIAL BY JURY


Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pleaded 'not guilty' the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused.

Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him.

The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could "Rot In Hell". Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation.

CONFISCATION OF BRYANT'S ENTIRE ESTATE


In an unprecedented move Martin Bryant's million dollar estate that was left to him by an older woman friend who apparently thought a great deal of him and wanted him to live comfortably when she died, was confiscated by the court soon after he was charged. The intention was, so we were told, to provide compensation for the victims of the massacre. Provide compensation for the victims from the estate of a man who had not yet been tried and proven guilty? To this day I have not had one survivor tell me that they saw any of this money.

This decision was made before his trial and while he should still have been considered innocent. He was relatively left penniless and unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this impoverishment he was appointed a lawyer who was very reluctant to take the case. The lawyer later resigned himself from the case after being threatened by the public for defending a madman. Another state lawyer was appointed who obviously had very little experience since none of the very convincing evidence in these pages was collected or consequently presented during the trial. In fact his counselling to Martin was that he was going to jail anyway and if he pleaded guilty he could have a comfortable cell with a colour TV but if he didn't do as he was told he'd get no TV.

Now to an intellectually handicapped man like Martin Bryant to live the rest of your life without television would be a very powerful motive for pleading guilty and I believe that that is the only way they got him to do it.

It is without a doubt that Bryant's estate was confiscated in order to deter some clever lawyer from earning his money and digging up the truth on the Port Arthur Massacre and declaring Bryant the patsy that he obviously was. The media had whipped up such frenzy around Martin that very few lawyers were willing to be the hated defender of a mass murderer but with a million dollar estate behind him I'm sure he would have found someone who would have been persuaded to earn a healthy fee.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT


It is an inconceivable notion that in this day and age a man could be found guilty by the media with headlines saying that he was the Port Arthur murderer and showing a picture of him even before he was charged.

Within days newspapers and television crews all over the country were telling the people that Martin Bryant was guilty while he lay in a hospital bed in Hobart recovering from bad burns suffered in the Seascape fire where he was arrested. One of the survivors of the massacre, a former military man and unlikely to mistake an ID, was in the hospital only a few meters away from Bryant in an adjacent ward and told police that he had got a good look at the shooter and could definitely identify him but was never asked to do so. This ID would have been the only time that a formal identification could have been made since the media had corrupted all others by illegally publishing Bryant's photos and accusing him of being the killer. The survivor had not yet seen that paper while recovering from being shot in the neck.

I have had these pages up and running since 1997 and have never had anyone tell me that they saw the Port Arthur shooter and it was Martin Bryant. Yet I have seen several sworn statements from eyewitnesses who could identify the shooter and give descriptions of a man other than Martin Bryant where the killings took place. While there were witnesses who said that they saw Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur Site near the gate not one could identify him as being anywhere near the Broad Arrow Café, where most of the murders took place, or any other crime scene on the way to the Seascape Inn. Those who eyeballed him said that he had a pocked ugly face and long hair. Martin Bryant has clear skin and on that occasion his hair was less than shoulder length. Photographic evidence shows a man wearing what looks like a woman's wig. Witnesses said the shooter shot from the right hip, yet Martin was left handed and the list goes on and on. All of which will be revealed in these pages.

HOW IT ALL CAME TOGETHER


Silently I agonised over my feelings about this whole thing. I was unable to talk to others about it for fear of their hatred of Bryant clouding any sensible debate but one day some pages copied from a paper that isn't owned by the multinationals fell into my lap. Someone who knew about my concerns gave me an article to read that confirmed my suspicions and eased that knot in my stomach that told me we had all been very much misinformed about Port Arthur. In my hands I finally held the pages that filled in the missing bits of the puzzle and answered most of my questions.

The author's name was Joe Vialls and I wrote to him and asked him if I could publish his work on my pages. He sent me written permission to do this free of charge and since February 1998 I have been the messenger for his unedited articles.

As time went by these articles eventually built into a book which he has published called DEADLY DECEPTION AT PORT ARTHUR and contains an in-depth investigation into a conspiracy almost beyond belief but backed up with scientific evidence which cannot be refuted.

Learning about Martin Bryant's intellectual capabilities and limited skill with rifles as opposed to the incredible skill and expertise displayed by the shooter at Port Arthur convinced me that I was right.

Probably arising from the same "gut feelings" that I had, various other people have begun their own investigations. Many of these investigators are amateurs in some capacity. Either having no previous experience with investigative work or very little writing ability. Their styles and avenues of discovery have come from different directions and may even conflict with each other but there is one thing that they all seem to have in common.

They all come to the same conclusion and agree that the Port Arthur massacre was staged for a purpose and a government cover-up has resulted in the incarceration of a man who was not the murderer of 35 innocent victims on that fateful day.

From the wealth of information gathered in these pages it is up to the reader to determine for themselves whether the traitors who disarmed our country should be allowed to get away with it.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO JOE VIALLS INVESTIGATION


The most comprehensive and scientific investigation into the Port Arthur massacre with maps and photographic evidence to wet the appitite for his informative book

These pages were written in response to my feelings that something was very wrong about the Port Arthur incident and the ultimate outcome as reported by the press.

It was more than the media frenzy that saturated the tabloids with sensationalism and emotional hype. The never-ending tirade of media concentration on the private lives of people who should have been left to grieve in peace was a lead up to the Prime Minister's staggering announcement to enforce new gun laws.

MURDER WEAPON HANDED IN DURING PREVIOUS AMNESTY


On the 23rd of June 1996 the Sunday Telegraph published a story about a gun collector in Victoria who identified the AR15 rifle used for the Port Arthur killings as one that he had handed in to police during an amnesty in February 1993. Strange that the weapon used in the killings just happened to fall off a conveyor belt on the way to the smelters.

The media created the impression that Bryant's guilt was a foregone conclusion and it was expected that he would plead guilty and fore-go a jury trial. I wondered why he would do that. Lawyers for offenders who perpetrated far more horrific crimes such as torture and dismembering before murder had pleaded similarly and to the disgust of the public had received paltry sentencing or treatment.

BRYANT HAD EVERY EXCUSE TO PLEAD "NOT "GUILTY

When Martin Bryant stood up in court and did as I expected him to do and pleaded "not guilty" the repercussions of that stirred up the biggest ants nest since Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. The Department of Prosecutions had practically promised the public a speedy trial to put this assassin away as quickly as possible with a minimum of fuss. The reasons they gave? To save the witnesses having to suffer a trial by jury and dredging up all the trauma again.

Imagine what would happen to our judicial system if in every horrific trial the witnesses had to be spared reliving the incidents at the expense of seeing justice done. There would be no justice at all. In order for a man to be accused there must be an accuser and no one stepped forward to identify Martin Bryant at his trial. Despite the dozens of people who could have pointed out Bryant as the assassin the only witness to testify was a questionable video recording.

My reaction was that if he was not to get a trial by jury then, being an intellectually challenged and deranged person, he would have to be judged and sentenced according to his mental condition. Well, how about temporary insanity then? No, the Australian people had been worked into such a frenzy by the press that nothing less than the maximum penalty would be tolerated for Martin Bryant regardless of his condition. God only knows where those snivel libertarians were in this instance. Isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial? And is not everyone innocent until found guilty? Apparently not in this case.

Now, I am one for throwing away the key to those guilty of any violent offense. This business of insanity, temporary insanity, temporarily drugged, drunk or being very angry at the time is not an excuse for harming another human being unless in self defense in my opinion. However we can't count the number of times this kind of plea has worked to get some other scum of the earth off on crimes equally as horrific. So why wouldn't Martin Bryant, accused by every man and his dog as being a mentally deranged maniac, not be allowed to plead insanity? A psychiatrist had determined that Bryant had an IQ of 66 yet rather than this information acting as proof that he at least had diminished responsibility it was used as adequate proof that he was just over the border-line of being sane and therefore fit to be tried. Again, assurance that Bryant would receive the maximum penalty.

As I was to find out later, after reading what is left of Bryant's origional interview, at no time has he admitted to being at Port Arthur on that day even after extensive questioning. In fact he admitted to several other incriminating events and a full confession would not have much differance to the apparant trouble he was already in.

Even though Bryant had not been identified in any police lineup as the gunman, outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I just couldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing of his photograph to make him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac to the innuendoes that his house was an arsenal for military weapons. All of this made finding an impartial jury almost impossible - perhaps that was the idea.

mediapic.jpg - 31.96 K

TRIAL BY MEDIA ENSURED NO TRIAL BY JURY


Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pleaded 'not guilty' the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused.

Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him.

The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could "Rot In Hell". Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation.

CONFISCATION OF BRYANT'S ENTIRE ESTATE


In an unprecedented move Martin Bryant's million dollar estate that was left to him by an older woman friend who apparently thought a great deal of him and wanted him to live comfortably when she died, was confiscated by the court soon after he was charged. The intention was, so we were told, to provide compensation for the victims of the massacre. Provide compensation for the victims from the estate of a man who had not yet been tried and proven guilty? To this day I have not had one survivor tell me that they saw any of this money.

This decision was made before his trial and while he should still have been considered innocent. He was relatively left penniless and unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this impoverishment he was appointed a lawyer who was very reluctant to take the case. The lawyer later resigned himself from the case after being threatened by the public for defending a madman. Another state lawyer was appointed who obviously had very little experience since none of the very convincing evidence in these pages was collected or consequently presented during the trial. In fact his counselling to Martin was that he was going to jail anyway and if he pleaded guilty he could have a comfortable cell with a colour TV but if he didn't do as he was told he'd get no TV.

Now to an intellectually handicapped man like Martin Bryant to live the rest of your life without television would be a very powerful motive for pleading guilty and I believe that that is the only way they got him to do it.

It is without a doubt that Bryant's estate was confiscated in order to deter some clever lawyer from earning his money and digging up the truth on the Port Arthur Massacre and declaring Bryant the patsy that he obviously was. The media had whipped up such frenzy around Martin that very few lawyers were willing to be the hated defender of a mass murderer but with a million dollar estate behind him I'm sure he would have found someone who would have been persuaded to earn a healthy fee.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT


It is an inconceivable notion that in this day and age a man could be found guilty by the media with headlines saying that he was the Port Arthur murderer and showing a picture of him even before he was charged.

Within days newspapers and television crews all over the country were telling the people that Martin Bryant was guilty while he lay in a hospital bed in Hobart recovering from bad burns suffered in the Seascape fire where he was arrested. One of the survivors of the massacre, a former military man and unlikely to mistake an ID, was in the hospital only a few meters away from Bryant in an adjacent ward and told police that he had got a good look at the shooter and could definitely identify him but was never asked to do so. This ID would have been the only time that a formal identification could have been made since the media had corrupted all others by illegally publishing Bryant's photos and accusing him of being the killer. The survivor had not yet seen that paper while recovering from being shot in the neck.

I have had these pages up and running since 1997 and have never had anyone tell me that they saw the Port Arthur shooter and it was Martin Bryant. Yet I have seen several sworn statements from eyewitnesses who could identify the shooter and give descriptions of a man other than Martin Bryant where the killings took place. While there were witnesses who said that they saw Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur Site near the gate not one could identify him as being anywhere near the Broad Arrow Café, where most of the murders took place, or any other crime scene on the way to the Seascape Inn. Those who eyeballed him said that he had a pocked ugly face and long hair. Martin Bryant has clear skin and on that occasion his hair was less than shoulder length. Photographic evidence shows a man wearing what looks like a woman's wig. Witnesses said the shooter shot from the right hip, yet Martin was left handed and the list goes on and on. All of which will be revealed in these pages.

HOW IT ALL CAME TOGETHER


Silently I agonised over my feelings about this whole thing. I was unable to talk to others about it for fear of their hatred of Bryant clouding any sensible debate but one day some pages copied from a paper that isn't owned by the multinationals fell into my lap. Someone who knew about my concerns gave me an article to read that confirmed my suspicions and eased that knot in my stomach that told me we had all been very much misinformed about Port Arthur. In my hands I finally held the pages that filled in the missing bits of the puzzle and answered most of my questions.

The author's name was Joe Vialls and I wrote to him and asked him if I could publish his work on my pages. He sent me written permission to do this free of charge and since February 1998 I have been the messenger for his unedited articles.

As time went by these articles eventually built into a book which he has published called DEADLY DECEPTION AT PORT ARTHUR and contains an in-depth investigation into a conspiracy almost beyond belief but backed up with scientific evidence which cannot be refuted.

Learning about Martin Bryant's intellectual capabilities and limited skill with rifles as opposed to the incredible skill and expertise displayed by the shooter at Port Arthur convinced me that I was right.

Probably arising from the same "gut feelings" that I had, various other people have begun their own investigations. Many of these investigators are amateurs in some capacity. Either having no previous experience with investigative work or very little writing ability. Their styles and avenues of discovery have come from different directions and may even conflict with each other but there is one thing that they all seem to have in common.

They all come to the same conclusion and agree that the Port Arthur massacre was staged for a purpose and a government cover-up has resulted in the incarceration of a man who was not the murderer of 35 innocent victims on that fateful day.

From the wealth of information gathered in these pages it is up to the reader to determine for themselves whether the traitors who disarmed our country should be allowed to get away with it.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO JOE VIALLS INVESTIGATION


The most comprehensive and scientific investigation into the Port Arthur massacre with maps and photographic evidence to wet the appitite for his informative book

 

These pages were written in response to my feelings that something was very wrong about the Port Arthur incident and the ultimate outcome as reported by the press.

It was more than the media frenzy that saturated the tabloids with sensationalism and emotional hype. The never-ending tirade of media concentration on the private lives of people who should have been left to grieve in peace was a lead up to the Prime Minister's staggering announcement to enforce new gun laws.

MURDER WEAPON HANDED IN DURING PREVIOUS AMNESTY


On the 23rd of June 1996 the Sunday Telegraph published a story about a gun collector in Victoria who identified the AR15 rifle used for the Port Arthur killings as one that he had handed in to police during an amnesty in February 1993. Strange that the weapon used in the killings just happened to fall off a conveyor belt on the way to the smelters.

The media created the impression that Bryant's guilt was a foregone conclusion and it was expected that he would plead guilty and fore-go a jury trial. I wondered why he would do that. Lawyers for offenders who perpetrated far more horrific crimes such as torture and dismembering before murder had pleaded similarly and to the disgust of the public had received paltry sentencing or treatment.

BRYANT HAD EVERY EXCUSE TO PLEAD "NOT "GUILTY

When Martin Bryant stood up in court and did as I expected him to do and pleaded "not guilty" the repercussions of that stirred up the biggest ants nest since Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. The Department of Prosecutions had practically promised the public a speedy trial to put this assassin away as quickly as possible with a minimum of fuss. The reasons they gave? To save the witnesses having to suffer a trial by jury and dredging up all the trauma again.

Imagine what would happen to our judicial system if in every horrific trial the witnesses had to be spared reliving the incidents at the expense of seeing justice done. There would be no justice at all. In order for a man to be accused there must be an accuser and no one stepped forward to identify Martin Bryant at his trial. Despite the dozens of people who could have pointed out Bryant as the assassin the only witness to testify was a questionable video recording.

My reaction was that if he was not to get a trial by jury then, being an intellectually challenged and deranged person, he would have to be judged and sentenced according to his mental condition. Well, how about temporary insanity then? No, the Australian people had been worked into such a frenzy by the press that nothing less than the maximum penalty would be tolerated for Martin Bryant regardless of his condition. God only knows where those snivel libertarians were in this instance. Isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial? And is not everyone innocent until found guilty? Apparently not in this case.

Now, I am one for throwing away the key to those guilty of any violent offense. This business of insanity, temporary insanity, temporarily drugged, drunk or being very angry at the time is not an excuse for harming another human being unless in self defense in my opinion. However we can't count the number of times this kind of plea has worked to get some other scum of the earth off on crimes equally as horrific. So why wouldn't Martin Bryant, accused by every man and his dog as being a mentally deranged maniac, not be allowed to plead insanity? A psychiatrist had determined that Bryant had an IQ of 66 yet rather than this information acting as proof that he at least had diminished responsibility it was used as adequate proof that he was just over the border-line of being sane and therefore fit to be tried. Again, assurance that Bryant would receive the maximum penalty.

As I was to find out later, after reading what is left of Bryant's origional interview, at no time has he admitted to being at Port Arthur on that day even after extensive questioning. In fact he admitted to several other incriminating events and a full confession would not have much differance to the apparant trouble he was already in.

Even though Bryant had not been identified in any police lineup as the gunman, outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I just couldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing of his photograph to make him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac to the innuendoes that his house was an arsenal for military weapons. All of this made finding an impartial jury almost impossible - perhaps that was the idea.

mediapic.jpg - 31.96 K

TRIAL BY MEDIA ENSURED NO TRIAL BY JURY


Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pleaded 'not guilty' the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused.

Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him.

The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could "Rot In Hell". Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation.

CONFISCATION OF BRYANT'S ENTIRE ESTATE


In an unprecedented move Martin Bryant's million dollar estate that was left to him by an older woman friend who apparently thought a great deal of him and wanted him to live comfortably when she died, was confiscated by the court soon after he was charged. The intention was, so we were told, to provide compensation for the victims of the massacre. Provide compensation for the victims from the estate of a man who had not yet been tried and proven guilty? To this day I have not had one survivor tell me that they saw any of this money.

This decision was made before his trial and while he should still have been considered innocent. He was relatively left penniless and unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this impoverishment he was appointed a lawyer who was very reluctant to take the case. The lawyer later resigned himself from the case after being threatened by the public for defending a madman. Another state lawyer was appointed who obviously had very little experience since none of the very convincing evidence in these pages was collected or consequently presented during the trial. In fact his counselling to Martin was that he was going to jail anyway and if he pleaded guilty he could have a comfortable cell with a colour TV but if he didn't do as he was told he'd get no TV.

Now to an intellectually handicapped man like Martin Bryant to live the rest of your life without television would be a very powerful motive for pleading guilty and I believe that that is the only way they got him to do it.

It is without a doubt that Bryant's estate was confiscated in order to deter some clever lawyer from earning his money and digging up the truth on the Port Arthur Massacre and declaring Bryant the patsy that he obviously was. The media had whipped up such frenzy around Martin that very few lawyers were willing to be the hated defender of a mass murderer but with a million dollar estate behind him I'm sure he would have found someone who would have been persuaded to earn a healthy fee.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT


It is an inconceivable notion that in this day and age a man could be found guilty by the media with headlines saying that he was the Port Arthur murderer and showing a picture of him even before he was charged.

Within days newspapers and television crews all over the country were telling the people that Martin Bryant was guilty while he lay in a hospital bed in Hobart recovering from bad burns suffered in the Seascape fire where he was arrested. One of the survivors of the massacre, a former military man and unlikely to mistake an ID, was in the hospital only a few meters away from Bryant in an adjacent ward and told police that he had got a good look at the shooter and could definitely identify him but was never asked to do so. This ID would have been the only time that a formal identification could have been made since the media had corrupted all others by illegally publishing Bryant's photos and accusing him of being the killer. The survivor had not yet seen that paper while recovering from being shot in the neck.

I have had these pages up and running since 1997 and have never had anyone tell me that they saw the Port Arthur shooter and it was Martin Bryant. Yet I have seen several sworn statements from eyewitnesses who could identify the shooter and give descriptions of a man other than Martin Bryant where the killings took place. While there were witnesses who said that they saw Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur Site near the gate not one could identify him as being anywhere near the Broad Arrow Café, where most of the murders took place, or any other crime scene on the way to the Seascape Inn. Those who eyeballed him said that he had a pocked ugly face and long hair. Martin Bryant has clear skin and on that occasion his hair was less than shoulder length. Photographic evidence shows a man wearing what looks like a woman's wig. Witnesses said the shooter shot from the right hip, yet Martin was left handed and the list goes on and on. All of which will be revealed in these pages.

HOW IT ALL CAME TOGETHER


Silently I agonised over my feelings about this whole thing. I was unable to talk to others about it for fear of their hatred of Bryant clouding any sensible debate but one day some pages copied from a paper that isn't owned by the multinationals fell into my lap. Someone who knew about my concerns gave me an article to read that confirmed my suspicions and eased that knot in my stomach that told me we had all been very much misinformed about Port Arthur. In my hands I finally held the pages that filled in the missing bits of the puzzle and answered most of my questions.

The author's name was Joe Vialls and I wrote to him and asked him if I could publish his work on my pages. He sent me written permission to do this free of charge and since February 1998 I have been the messenger for his unedited articles.

As time went by these articles eventually built into a book which he has published called DEADLY DECEPTION AT PORT ARTHUR and contains an in-depth investigation into a conspiracy almost beyond belief but backed up with scientific evidence which cannot be refuted.

Learning about Martin Bryant's intellectual capabilities and limited skill with rifles as opposed to the incredible skill and expertise displayed by the shooter at Port Arthur convinced me that I was right.

Probably arising from the same "gut feelings" that I had, various other people have begun their own investigations. Many of these investigators are amateurs in some capacity. Either having no previous experience with investigative work or very little writing ability. Their styles and avenues of discovery have come from different directions and may even conflict with each other but there is one thing that they all seem to have in common.

They all come to the same conclusion and agree that the Port Arthur massacre was staged for a purpose and a government cover-up has resulted in the incarceration of a man who was not the murderer of 35 innocent victims on that fateful day.

From the wealth of information gathered in these pages it is up to the reader to determine for themselves whether the traitors who disarmed our country should be allowed to get away with it.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO JOE VIALLS INVESTIGATION


The most comprehensive and scientific investigation into the Port Arthur massacre with maps and photographic evidence to wet the appitite for his informative book

 

These pages were written in response to my feelings that something was very wrong about the Port Arthur incident and the ultimate outcome as reported by the press.

It was more than the media frenzy that saturated the tabloids with sensationalism and emotional hype. The never-ending tirade of media concentration on the private lives of people who should have been left to grieve in peace was a lead up to the Prime Minister's staggering announcement to enforce new gun laws.

MURDER WEAPON HANDED IN DURING PREVIOUS AMNESTY


On the 23rd of June 1996 the Sunday Telegraph published a story about a gun collector in Victoria who identified the AR15 rifle used for the Port Arthur killings as one that he had handed in to police during an amnesty in February 1993. Strange that the weapon used in the killings just happened to fall off a conveyor belt on the way to the smelters.

The media created the impression that Bryant's guilt was a foregone conclusion and it was expected that he would plead guilty and fore-go a jury trial. I wondered why he would do that. Lawyers for offenders who perpetrated far more horrific crimes such as torture and dismembering before murder had pleaded similarly and to the disgust of the public had received paltry sentencing or treatment.

BRYANT HAD EVERY EXCUSE TO PLEAD "NOT "GUILTY

When Martin Bryant stood up in court and did as I expected him to do and pleaded "not guilty" the repercussions of that stirred up the biggest ants nest since Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. The Department of Prosecutions had practically promised the public a speedy trial to put this assassin away as quickly as possible with a minimum of fuss. The reasons they gave? To save the witnesses having to suffer a trial by jury and dredging up all the trauma again.

Imagine what would happen to our judicial system if in every horrific trial the witnesses had to be spared reliving the incidents at the expense of seeing justice done. There would be no justice at all. In order for a man to be accused there must be an accuser and no one stepped forward to identify Martin Bryant at his trial. Despite the dozens of people who could have pointed out Bryant as the assassin the only witness to testify was a questionable video recording.

My reaction was that if he was not to get a trial by jury then, being an intellectually challenged and deranged person, he would have to be judged and sentenced according to his mental condition. Well, how about temporary insanity then? No, the Australian people had been worked into such a frenzy by the press that nothing less than the maximum penalty would be tolerated for Martin Bryant regardless of his condition. God only knows where those snivel libertarians were in this instance. Isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial? And is not everyone innocent until found guilty? Apparently not in this case.

Now, I am one for throwing away the key to those guilty of any violent offense. This business of insanity, temporary insanity, temporarily drugged, drunk or being very angry at the time is not an excuse for harming another human being unless in self defense in my opinion. However we can't count the number of times this kind of plea has worked to get some other scum of the earth off on crimes equally as horrific. So why wouldn't Martin Bryant, accused by every man and his dog as being a mentally deranged maniac, not be allowed to plead insanity? A psychiatrist had determined that Bryant had an IQ of 66 yet rather than this information acting as proof that he at least had diminished responsibility it was used as adequate proof that he was just over the border-line of being sane and therefore fit to be tried. Again, assurance that Bryant would receive the maximum penalty.

As I was to find out later, after reading what is left of Bryant's origional interview, at no time has he admitted to being at Port Arthur on that day even after extensive questioning. In fact he admitted to several other incriminating events and a full confession would not have much differance to the apparant trouble he was already in.

Even though Bryant had not been identified in any police lineup as the gunman, outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I just couldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing of his photograph to make him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac to the innuendoes that his house was an arsenal for military weapons. All of this made finding an impartial jury almost impossible - perhaps that was the idea.

mediapic.jpg - 31.96 K

TRIAL BY MEDIA ENSURED NO TRIAL BY JURY


Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pleaded 'not guilty' the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused.

Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him.

The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could "Rot In Hell". Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation.

CONFISCATION OF BRYANT'S ENTIRE ESTATE


In an unprecedented move Martin Bryant's million dollar estate that was left to him by an older woman friend who apparently thought a great deal of him and wanted him to live comfortably when she died, was confiscated by the court soon after he was charged. The intention was, so we were told, to provide compensation for the victims of the massacre. Provide compensation for the victims from the estate of a man who had not yet been tried and proven guilty? To this day I have not had one survivor tell me that they saw any of this money.

This decision was made before his trial and while he should still have been considered innocent. He was relatively left penniless and unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this impoverishment he was appointed a lawyer who was very reluctant to take the case. The lawyer later resigned himself from the case after being threatened by the public for defending a madman. Another state lawyer was appointed who obviously had very little experience since none of the very convincing evidence in these pages was collected or consequently presented during the trial. In fact his counselling to Martin was that he was going to jail anyway and if he pleaded guilty he could have a comfortable cell with a colour TV but if he didn't do as he was told he'd get no TV.

Now to an intellectually handicapped man like Martin Bryant to live the rest of your life without television would be a very powerful motive for pleading guilty and I believe that that is the only way they got him to do it.

It is without a doubt that Bryant's estate was confiscated in order to deter some clever lawyer from earning his money and digging up the truth on the Port Arthur Massacre and declaring Bryant the patsy that he obviously was. The media had whipped up such frenzy around Martin that very few lawyers were willing to be the hated defender of a mass murderer but with a million dollar estate behind him I'm sure he would have found someone who would have been persuaded to earn a healthy fee.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT


It is an inconceivable notion that in this day and age a man could be found guilty by the media with headlines saying that he was the Port Arthur murderer and showing a picture of him even before he was charged.

Within days newspapers and television crews all over the country were telling the people that Martin Bryant was guilty while he lay in a hospital bed in Hobart recovering from bad burns suffered in the Seascape fire where he was arrested. One of the survivors of the massacre, a former military man and unlikely to mistake an ID, was in the hospital only a few meters away from Bryant in an adjacent ward and told police that he had got a good look at the shooter and could definitely identify him but was never asked to do so. This ID would have been the only time that a formal identification could have been made since the media had corrupted all others by illegally publishing Bryant's photos and accusing him of being the killer. The survivor had not yet seen that paper while recovering from being shot in the neck.

I have had these pages up and running since 1997 and have never had anyone tell me that they saw the Port Arthur shooter and it was Martin Bryant. Yet I have seen several sworn statements from eyewitnesses who could identify the shooter and give descriptions of a man other than Martin Bryant where the killings took place. While there were witnesses who said that they saw Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur Site near the gate not one could identify him as being anywhere near the Broad Arrow Café, where most of the murders took place, or any other crime scene on the way to the Seascape Inn. Those who eyeballed him said that he had a pocked ugly face and long hair. Martin Bryant has clear skin and on that occasion his hair was less than shoulder length. Photographic evidence shows a man wearing what looks like a woman's wig. Witnesses said the shooter shot from the right hip, yet Martin was left handed and the list goes on and on. All of which will be revealed in these pages.

HOW IT ALL CAME TOGETHER


Silently I agonised over my feelings about this whole thing. I was unable to talk to others about it for fear of their hatred of Bryant clouding any sensible debate but one day some pages copied from a paper that isn't owned by the multinationals fell into my lap. Someone who knew about my concerns gave me an article to read that confirmed my suspicions and eased that knot in my stomach that told me we had all been very much misinformed about Port Arthur. In my hands I finally held the pages that filled in the missing bits of the puzzle and answered most of my questions.

The author's name was Joe Vialls and I wrote to him and asked him if I could publish his work on my pages. He sent me written permission to do this free of charge and since February 1998 I have been the messenger for his unedited articles.

As time went by these articles eventually built into a book which he has published called DEADLY DECEPTION AT PORT ARTHUR and contains an in-depth investigation into a conspiracy almost beyond belief but backed up with scientific evidence which cannot be refuted.

Learning about Martin Bryant's intellectual capabilities and limited skill with rifles as opposed to the incredible skill and expertise displayed by the shooter at Port Arthur convinced me that I was right.

Probably arising from the same "gut feelings" that I had, various other people have begun their own investigations. Many of these investigators are amateurs in some capacity. Either having no previous experience with investigative work or very little writing ability. Their styles and avenues of discovery have come from different directions and may even conflict with each other but there is one thing that they all seem to have in common.

They all come to the same conclusion and agree that the Port Arthur massacre was staged for a purpose and a government cover-up has resulted in the incarceration of a man who was not the murderer of 35 innocent victims on that fateful day.

From the wealth of information gathered in these pages it is up to the reader to determine for themselves whether the traitors who disarmed our country should be allowed to get away with it.


CLICK HERE TO GO TO JOE VIALLS INVESTIGATION


The most comprehensive and scientific investigation into the Port Arthur massacre with maps and photographic evidence to wet the appitite for his informative book

  

MORE INFORMATION

Port Arthur Coverup ---------------------------------------------
Information About The Deception & Coverup At Port Arthur -------------- Email: editor@shootersnews.addr.com
 Other Useful & Related Links Below:

Port Arthur - The Aftermarth
Australian Shooters Supplies - OwenGuns QLD
www.lockstockandbarrel.org
www.outpost-of-freedom.com
www.cfcv.org.au
www.ruby-ridge.com
Ruby Ridge Detailed Summary
www.militiaofmontana.com
www.michiganmilitia.com
www.haroldholt.net

http://judicial-inc.biz


The Real Martin Bryant

this newspaper is a bit early don't you think considdering the time difference more info later.