Port Arthur Massacre - A Speech by Mr Andrew MacGregor
Thank you all for coming here tonight to listen to me. It has been 6
years since Wendy Scurr and I last spoke here on the Port Arthur massacre,
and since then a lot of evidence has turned up that totally disputes
everything the media and our governments have stated. It is though my
belief that we may have some people here who are not aware of what Wendy
and I stated last time, so I shall start from the beginning. That's
always a good place to start.
For Martin Bryant to have acted in the manner described by our media and
the government in murdering 35 people at Port Arthur on the 28th April
1996, there would have been a massive built up of anger and frustration.
The Tasmania Police Negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy referred to this
expectation, but noted that it was entirely absent from Martin Bryant,
when Sgt McCarthy was speaking to him during the Siege at Seascape
Cottage. Sgt McCarthy made another observation of Martin Bryant.
McCarthy stated it was as though he (Martin Bryant) was speaking from a
script.
Martin Bryant was speaking from a script. This is what the expert, Sgt
Terry McCarthy has stated emphatically, and for his comments and actions
in trying to bring out the truth, McCarthy lost his job.
Martin Bryant's girlfriend, Petra Willmott gave us another clue. Petra
made two vital statements, (1) that Martin wouldn't hurt a fly, and (2)
that Martin was always looking for action. Martin once drove past a motor
car accident, and drove around it a couple of times to check it out. Now
what Petra was not aware of was the fact that Martin Bryant was not
licensed to drive a motor car. If we compare this story with that of
Angelo Kessarios from the Midway Newsagency, who knew Martin Bryant when
he resided at Copping, and that Bryant used to drive in the early morning,
that is prior to 6.00 am to avoid police, but just prior to the Port
Arthur massacre, Bryant had lost his fear of being caught by the police.
I wonder if this change of behaviour had anything to do with Bryant's
friendship with the Tasmania Police's only full-time SOG member, Sgt
Michael Charles Dyson.
On Sunday the 28th April 1996, Martin Bryant's journey from New Town to
Seascape Cottage was remembered by various witnesses, as though to
document this particular trip.
Angelo Kessarios from the Midway Newsagency, Spiros Diamantis from the
Sorell Supermarket, a small store, not a giant Coles or Safeway. Then
there was Gary King from the Shell Service Station at Forcett, who served
Bryant with some coffee between 11 am and midday and Bryant sat in his car
and drank that coffee for about 8 to 10 minutes. Now please notice that
in each of these incidents where Martin Bryant has been identified, Bryant
has actually broken his journey to Seascape Cottage, entered a business
premises and has acted in a manner that caused the witness to remember
him. Then there was Christopher Hammond at Taranna, where Martin Bryant
bought some petrol for the Volvo. Please note here that the petrol did
not go into any container, and again the broken journey.
Then there was the witness not called for by the DPP, but who saw Martin
Bryant driving the Volvo at Eaglehawk Neck at 11.30 am. And finally we
have Jai Nichols who was hitch-hiking from Port Arthur to Hobart, and saw
the Volvo drive past him just after he passed the Fox and Hounds Hotel.
Then at about 12.30pm Jai saw the Volvo pass him heading back towards
Hobart, and he actually saw the Volvo brake, and he thought he had a ride,
but the Volvo turned right into Seascape Cottage.
Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape Cottage at approximately 12.30 pm on
that Sunday.
Witnesses Andrew Simmons and his wife Lynn were outside of their house
opposite Seascape Cottage waiting for a car that was to pick Andrew up for
a work Seminar at Swansea, when they both heard two shot emanating from
Seascape at 10.40 am. At this time Martin Bryant is drinking coffee at
Forcett as per the witness Gary King.
Doug McCutcheon heard a series of rapidly fired shots emanating from
Seascape, possibly 6 - 12 shots between 10.00am and possibly 11.00am.
And these shots heard by three or four witnesses, occurred at least 100
minutes before Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape.
Now the DPP, Mr Damian Bugg QC told the Hobart Supreme Court that the
shots heard by Andrew and Lynn Simmons killed David and Sally Martin. The
fact that Constable Gary Whittle saw Mrs Sally Martin naked, running
around the back yard of Seascape Cottage yelling and screaming, after 2.30
pm, and that the dog was barking, means that Mrs Sally Martin was not shot
at 10.40 am. In fact according to a report by Sgt Gerard Dutton, Mrs
Martin died from multiple fractures to the back of her skull, while David
Martin was shot twice.
David Martin was shot twice, the shots being heard by Andrew and Lynn
Simmons at 10.40 am, when Martin Bryant was 58 kilometres away drinking
coffee at the Shell Service Station at Forcett.
I would like to pass by the actual shooting at Port Arthur and go directly
to the Siege at Seascape Cottage.
After the shootings at Port Arthur and the kidnapping of Glen Pears, the
gunman, and this was not Martin Bryant, drove back to Seascape Cottage,
drove across the highway and parked the Volvo facing oncoming traffic
outside Seascape and then started to shoot-up the oncoming traffic. One
of the first cars that was shot up was driven by a Canadian diplomat Simon
Williams, and both Simon and his wife Susanne Williams received wounds
from the fractured glass, Mrs Williams losing her left little finger. It
has been noted that the Canadian High Commissioner to Australia had
visited the Port Arthur Historic Site in the month prior to the massacre.
Now I wish to emphasise here in no small terms that Canada and Australia
are major players within the UN treatise on Gun Control, and the move to
remove America's 2nd Amendment.
After this shooting spree, the gunman then jumps back into the Volvo, and
drives down to the front of Seascape Cottage, and reverses up to the front
door. Track marks were clearly visible from later overhead photographs
taken of Seascape Cottage, showing the tracks made by the Volvo from that
position at the front door of Seascape Cottage, to the rear of the
cottages on very wet ground, to where the Volvo was parked, and bogged
beside some curly willow trees.
At approximately 2.30pm the first two policemen arrive at Seascape;
Constable Paul Hyland from Nubeena, the local station and Constable Gary
Whittle from Taranna.
Constable Whittle parks the police car at the top of the driveway into
Seascape and thus blocks that venue for any escape attempt. Constable
Hyland drives his car up the road about 200 metres to the high ground and
thus has the best view possible of the area. It is at this stage that
Constable Whittle sees a naked female running about in the back yard of
Seascape Cottage, yelling and screaming, and this can only be Mrs Sally
Martin.
Constable Hyland states that he saw a black-haired person who appeared to
be naked at Seascape. Again, Mrs Sally Martin. Constable Hyland also
states that whilst he was holding this position on the highway above
Seascape; "Two ambulances had driven past me, heading south."
Think about this for a moment. Constable Hyland has been made aware that
he has a mass murderer armed with some very high-powered rifles in
Seascape Cottage, and yet he permits two ambulances to drive past him and
into range of the killer at Seascape Cottage.
We have only one ambulance where the driver stated that he drove past
Seascape Cottage and that was Jim Giffard from Taranna. Jim actually told
Wendy Scurr that he had to slow down to avoid colliding with the two
police cars that were blocking the highway at Seascape.
In other words, when the ambulance went past Seascape Cottage, Constable
Whittle's police car was in the driveway, and Constable Hyland's police
car and another police car were blocking the highway just north of
Seascape Cottage. The other police car belonged to the SOG member, Sgt
Andrew Mark Fogarty, the policeman who set fire to the BMW (so as to
negate it being used as a get-away vehicle, according to a Tasmania Police
CIB member) and to Seascape Cottage on the following morning.
Now what you must remember is that the gunman after shooting all the
people at Port Arthur, kidnapping Glean Pears and shooting his companion
Zoe Hall, and then driving to Seascape where he shot up several passing
cars including the Canadian Diplomat, there is no shooting at this stage.
I guess the gunman was having his smoko. I wonder if Const Hyland was
aware that the gunman was having his smoko?
Another police-car arrives driven by Constable Pat Allen, and Pat Allen
also drives past Seascape Cottage and drops his offsider Perry Caulfield
off at the Fox and Hounds Hotel, and then returns to back-up Constable
Whittle at the driveway of Seascape Cottage, and at this time, the gunman
has finished his smoko and the shooting is back on.
Why was there this break in the shooting????
The gunman at Seascape, or perhaps gunmen, as there were reports of the
gunman shooting from two different buildings, and of shots being fired at
police whilst those police had the gunman in view, but without seeing the
gunman shooting at them. The Tasmania Police alleged that the gunman
fired over 250 shots during the siege at Seascape Cottage.
The Tasmania Police however had strict instructions that they were not to
shoot the gunman.
Deputy Commissioner, later Commissioner Richard McCreadie gave us two
explanations as to why the Tasmania Police were not permitted to defend
themselves and shoot the gunman.
(1) There were very strict rules of engagement
(2) If the police had shot the gunman then that would have required a
Coronial inquiry.
Neither of these explanations stand up to scrutiny. However, in one of
the police negotiator tapes between Sgt Terry McCarthy and Martin Bryant,
we have Bryant talking whilst in another room, somebody fires an SKK
rifle. There were in excess of 20 such shots recorded on the Police
Negotiator tapes whilst Bryant was talking with Sgt McCarthy. In other
words, Martin Bryant is not the gunman.
Who was the gunman at Seascape Cottage?
It was recorded that Martin Bryant's companion inside Seascape Cottage was
called 'Rick'. Police and the media have put forward the idea that 'Rick'
was actually the hostage, Glen Pears, but that is not correct.
After reading the Police negotiator tape transcripts, we realise that
Martin Bryant knows Rick quite well, has met 'Rick's wife', is aware of
the family connections and that the family resides in Lauderdale, and that
Rick is a top member of the Tasmania Police SOG's. It also becomes
obvious that Rick was running the show. Then with other information we
were able to identify Rick as being Mick Dyson, or to use his full name
and title, Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania Police SOG.
The gunman at Seascape Cottage was Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the
Tasmania Police SOG's.
According to police statements Martin Bryant's photograph was circulated
amongst the police SOG's headquarters at about 10.30pm on the Sunday
night. In other words, the Tasmania Police had identified 'Jamie' at
Seascape as Martin Bryant and besides the photograph would have had a
fairly accurate description of him, including his inability with firearms.
With this in mind, when we look at Sup't Bob Fielding's synopsis that the
SOG's would have suffered a 30% casualty rate if they had tried to take
the gunman, as somewhat ludicrous. Of course, after years of training and
preparations for such an event, and the writing of several scenarios
similar to 'Die-Hard' films, perhaps for them it was a possibility, but
for the last seven years of my police experience, the quickest way to end
a siege was to send in a police dog. The SOG however prefer to use
firearms and arson.
At 0600 hours on the Monday morning, the local CFA unit is put on alert as
per instructions from Sup't Bob Fielding, and stationed itself at the Fox
and Hounds Hotel, that is within a kilometre of Seascape Cottage.
At 0747 hours Seascape Cottage is reported to be on fire. In a 'secured'
area, a Channel 9 film crew is on the other side of Long Bay filming the
action. At 0824 hours, Martin Bryant is observed leaving the burning
Seascape Cottage. At 0835 hours Martin Bryant is arrested by members of
the SOG.
It took the Tasmania Police SOG's, 11 minutes to arrest a suspected
terrorist, Martin Bryant who had emerged from a burning building with his
clothes on fire.
Now this is not the record. In the Aramoana Massacre, it took the New
Zealand Police anti-terrorist squad three days to locate and kill the
gunman. In all 34 hours to locate the gunman in his home, force him out
and then put 7 bullets into him, and the gunman David Gray bled to death.
And that episode also starred Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania
Police SOG
At Seascape, one story is that the 'Arrest Team' had to leave their
positions, journey back to the highway, collect their 'anti-ballistic
shields, clamber onto an SOG vehicle driven by Sgt Andrew Mark Fogarty, be
driven down the driveway of Seascape Skirting Const Whittles police car,
dismount from the vehicle, surround the now naked person of Martin Bryant
and then arrest him.
Procedures Sir, they must follow procedures.
I have seen films depicting emergency police actions such as these. The
films were of the Keystone Cops. Australia has spent Millions of dollars
to train our quasi-military police anti-terrorist squads to the highest
levels of competency in combating major violent crime, to the level of the
Keystone Cops.
Now this concludes the parts of the Port Arthur massacre that featured
Martin Bryant. We can prove with the various witness statements that
Martin Bryant was not present at the murder of David Martin. We can
demonstrate that somebody else and we believe that person was Sgt Michael
Charles Dyson who fired at police during the siege of Seascape Cottage,
and who we also believe murdered Mrs Sally Martin by smashing the back of
her skull in with a very angry blow from the butt of his rifle.
The gunman at Port Arthur.
The first sighting of the gunman at Port Arthur was by Gaye Lynd and her
companion Vicki, whose van had broken down just outside Seascape Cottage
due to overheating, and the girls had stopped and were letting the motor
cool down before putting some water into the radiator.
The Volvo sedan complete with surfboard on top pulled up behind their van
and the blonde haired driver got out and asked what was wrong. Now the
blonde-haired driver must have had a nose for it, and must have smelt the
marijuana that Vicki had smoked because he asked if they had any for sale
and the two girls sold him a packet for $50 and he paid for with a $50
note. He also told the girls that he was going to the 'Isle of the Dead'
to kill some wasps. Then when the girl's van wouldn't start, he reached
inside the van to the battery, juggled with the leads, and said here's
your problem, you have a loose lead. The van started and off went the
girls.
This was not Martin Bryant, for three obvious reasons.
(1) Martin Bryant did not partake in drugs, including marijuana.
(2) Martin Bryant knew nothing about the electrical system in motor cars.
(3) Martin Bryant knew nothing about the two busloads of American tourists
that had arrived just prior at the Port Arthur Historic Site.
How did this person know about the two busloads of American tourists?
Why did this person tell the girls he was going to the Isle of the dead to
kill some wasps?
It is interesting to note that neither of these two girls were given the
police Identification board to identify the gunman as Martin Bryant.
The gunman then drives to the tollbooth at the Port Arthur Historic Site,
where he again pays the entrance fee with a $50 note. Again, something
happens and there is a small commotion and Aileen Kingston has cause to
remember the driver, and later identifies the gunman by Martin Bryant's
passport photograph, the passport being found by police in the Volvo's
glovebox.
The gunman parks the Volvo in the bus carpark. There were some
complications here, but the gunman ended up parking the Volvo where he
wished to park. He then went into the information office to collect his
ferry ticket and discovered that the ferry schedule had been altered.
The gunman then went into the Broad Arrow Café, stood in the queue, with
his very heavy 'Prince' sports bag and bulky video camera, bought two
drinks and some sandwiches for lunch, went out on the balcony scoffed down
the lunch, mumbled a lot to himself, tried to chat up Rebecca McKenna,
then still carrying his sports bag and video camera, picked up the tray
with his scraps on, tried to re-enter the café, almost lost the tray, had
the door held open for him, went inside the café, placed the tray on an
empty table, opened up the bag withdrew the AR-15 and started the
massacre.
The shooting has now started in the Broad Arrow Café. I would now like to
go back to what the gunman said to Gaye Lynd and her friend Vicki at the
broken down van outside Seascape Cottage. "I'm going to the Isle of the
dead to kill some wasps." What did the gunman say to Rebecca McKenna?
"There's a lot of wasps around. There's not many Japs."
So now in the Broad Arrow Café, where the shooting has started and once
the patrons realised what was going on they all dived for the only cover
they could find. For most, it was on the floor under their tables, except
for one man, Anthony Nightingale, a loans officer from the Commonwealth
bank at Noble Park. He jumped up and called out to the gunman, "No, no,
not here!!!" Apparently Anthony Nightingale was also aware that the ferry
was to have been the target. For his actions, Anthony Nightingale was
shot in the neck and was killed, and the gunman simply walked around the
café shooting his victims in the head as they lay on the floor.
Another of the victims was a former South African Cape Coloured by the
name of Tony Kistan, who was a devout Christian, and after fleeing South
Africa in 1984 where he was 2IC of the NCA, Nelson Mandela's Communist
Party under the Lithuanian Jew Joe Slovo. After Joe's wife was killed by
a letter bomb, and Nelson had decreed that there would be no Cape
Coloureds in the NCA, Tony Kistan migrated to Sydney where he joined the
Salvation Army. By the way his sister is still a spokeswoman for the
South African Gun Control Lobby.
The third member of this team, which was killed, was Andrew Bruce Mills, a
local who was not a local, but had moved down from Sydney, and resided
with his boyfriend in Mornington, outside of Hobart, and his parent's
resided in Mornington Victoria.
The only American who was wounded inside the Broad Arrow Café was Dennis
Olson, who was with his wife, Mary on their 'honeymoon'. Dennis received
shotgun pellet wounds to the face chest and arm. Dennis told a media
interview held in the Royal Hobart Hospital that when he returned to
America he would be jumping on a soap box to talk about his passion, gun
control.
Thus we have two ASIO operatives killed inside the Broad Arrow Café, and a
South African Communist Party member. And an American anti-gunner wounded.
Now the gunman on completion of the shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café,
reloaded the weapon he was carrying, took his sports bag which contained
his other weapons, the AR10 and the Daewoo shotgun, and left Martin
Bryant's 'Prince' sportsbag and video camera on the table inside the café,
and then left the café, shooting in the air to dispel any nearby persons.
Wendy Scurr was told by Ashley Law that as she and her companions fled
from the Information Centre the gunman fired over their heads.
The gunman then went down to the bus parking area and continued to shoot
at persons within that area, killing another four victims. The gunman
then left the carpark, in the Volvo, driving towards the tollbooth, where
he saw Nanette Mikac with her two young daughters. The gunman stopped the
car and when Nanette Mikac approached the car with her two daughters, he
shot them with the AR15.
Mrs Mikac, who was carrying her three year old daughter, with the six year
old beside her, and had already fled 600 metres, would have believed that
they were being offered assistance, instead they were being lured to their
death. What this means is that they had been deliberately selected as
murder victims. Why deliberately select a mother and two young daughters
out of all the fleeing survivors, why?
Consider this Statement 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.
Johnston's (Superintendent Jack Johnston) explanation of the fate of the
Mikacs was the classic 'win-win' sound bite
This demonstrates that the murder of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters
was evaluated as the most powerful tool to be used in the anti-gun
propaganda by the media.
The gunman then drove the Volvo to the tollbooth where he parked the Volvo
on the grass to the left of the carriageway. Witnesses who had driven up
to the tollbooth totally unaware of what had occurred inside Port Arthur
saw the BMW and the Volvo parked on either side of the tollbooth. They
also saw Mrs Helene Salzmann seated in the front passenger seat of the
Volvo, and Mr Robert Salzmann seated in the rear right passenger seat of
the Volvo. This is not an error. The witnesses saw the Salzmanns seated
not in the BMW but the Volvo. They then saw Robert Salzmann get out of
the rear passenger seat of the Volvo and start arguing with the driver of
the Volvo, an unarmed person with long blonde hair. They then saw the
driver of the Volvo walk around the front of the Volvo, and emerge from
the rear of the Volvo carrying a rifle. This rifle could only have been
collected from the rear left passenger side of the Volvo, right next to
where David Salzmann was seated. They then watched the gunman shoot
Robert Salzmann.
The driver of the BMW, Russell Pollard then left the driver's seat of the
BMW and walked over to the gunman as if to challenge him, and the gunman
then shot Russell Pollard. Mrs Salzmann had by this time got out of the
front passenger seat, and simply stood at the rear left passenger door,
and the gunman walked up to her and shot her, the bullet passing through
her body and then smashing the rear left passenger door window. The
gunman then walked over to the BMW dragged Mrs Rose Nixon out of the BMW
and then shot her.
Now why did the BMW after the people inside this car witness the murder of
Mrs Mikac and her two daughters drive to the tollbooth, and stop at the
entrance to the Port Arthur Historic Site? Why didn't they flee for their
lives as other people had done? Why did the Salzmanns leave the BMW and
get into the Volvo sedan with a known killer? They had seen the gunman
kill the Mikacs, so why did they get into the Volvo?
Could it have been that since they were 'Intelligence' agents, and were
part of the plan that they thought they were invulnerable? Apparently so.
The Port Arthur Massacre as a planned anti-terrorist exercise was a major
cock-up. The original plan called for the killing of American tourists on
the ferry, and then beaching the ferry at Seascape Cottage. They didn't
take into account that the ferry schedule had a fortnight prior changed
from the summer schedule to the winter schedule. This would have left the
Volvo at Port Arthur with all of it's clues intact, such as Martin
Bryant's passport.
But there was also a required 'hostage' to explain the presence of 'Rick'
at Seascape Cottage with Martin Bryant. So how could the gunman steal the
BMW and thus leave the Volvo behind at the tollbooth without murdering the
occupants? He couldn't, and thus they had to die. Did it matter to the
gunman and his controller that these people were part of the
'anti-terrorist' exercise? Not on your Nellie. They were expendable.
Thus whoever it was that ran the Port Arthur Massacre, and to make it easy
for everybody to understand, I shall call them ASIO, though it could have
been any Federal Government Intelligence Body, had a major catastrophe on
their hands. Not only had things not gone according to plan, but they had
now lost 7 of their operatives.
One of the video-tapes released to the media after Martin Bryant's
sentencing hearing showed a person running down to the bus car-park
outside the Broad Arrow Cafe whilst three men were having a chat on the
verandah. Joe Vialls pointed out that this was a fake video because it
supposedly showed Martin Bryant running towards the buses and that
Bryant's head had been super imposed on the running figure.
On a careful examination of this video-tape we were able to identify the
three men on the verandah, once we realised that they were part of the
exercise. The first to be identified was Hans Overbeeke because of his
white Wellington boots he was wearing. The second to be identified was
Constable Justin Noble of the BCI (Bureau of Criminal Intelligence) that
most corrupt Federal Police Body, and the third man puffing away on his
cigarette was identified by 'shooter's news' as Joe Vialls.
This also explains just how Joe Vialls knew that the gunman's pitted face
was caused by smallpox scars. Joe Vialls knew and trained Ben Overbeeke,
for the part of the gunman for the Port Arthur Massacre.
What I have given you all here tonight is just a scant run-down on the
Port Arthur massacre. There are so many facets of this event that I have
not touched upon, the planning and preparation of the massacre, the many
people involved with the massacre from police, bureaucrats, intelligence
operatives, including the professional witnesses, the lies and the media
manipulation.
I hope I have raised the level of awareness, and to demonstrate that
awareness, I hope that you will now ask some questions of me, so that I
can address some of your concerns about the Port Arthur massacre.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Inverell Forum 2002 - March 8-10
by Lindsay Johnson
Port Arthur Update
Andrew MacGregor & Wendy Scurr
Andrew MacGregor
We would like to thank the Inverell Forum for making all this possible by having us here last year, when Wendy and I launched our campaign into the Port Arthur massacre. Wendy has always been fighting for proper and legal treatment for the survivors of the Port Arthur massacre and the constitutional rights of all Australians with regard to that terrible event which occurred almost six years ago. The role of the constabulary has always been to protect and preserve the people within our community. It not about going out and collecting taxes, speed cameras, or using our military might to overpower the legal rights of people. It is obvious that the Tasmanian police were not permitted to fulfil that obligation to the people of the Tasman peninsular and all investigations into the Massacre have been more that just stifled. After making this report I shall be stepping aside. Wendy will still be going and she has another supporter by the name of Gillian McGuire who is extremely competent in her field and has done a magnificent report on Damien Bugg.
What have Wendy and I accomplished since last Inverell Forum? Not heaps, but some extremely important facts have been clarified. Mrs Julie Butler, who approached us at the Forum last year and pointed out that relatives of Mr Russell Pollard had been informed of his death at Port Arthur by a local policeman at approximately 4.30 pm on the Sunday afternoon. How was it possible for a NSW local policeman to travel for over 30 minutes to be able to inform the relatives of the death, before a Tasmanian policeman was recorded as entering the Port Arthur historic site? From this information we were able to determine that constable Gary Whittle did in fact enter the toll booth area of the Port Arthur site at about 2pm and he was the only policeman in the position to inform police headquarters at Hobart of the names of the deceased and their addresses and normal police procedures than took place. We have been continually informed that there were no police communications between Port Arthur and Seascape and police headquarters and the police command post at Taranna. However Whittles ability to pass on details of the death of Pollard and the fact that Whittle even makes the statement that he communicated with police headquarters after talking with Jim Laycock and Yannis Kateros suggests there were adequate radio communications for the local police. Local SES volunteers had been listening to police communications and had heard orders to members of the constabulary at Seascape that they were not to shoot the gunman and suggested that police communications were in fact operating normally. Final evidence that police communications were operating normally was the fact that at a debrief of the event where police communications between police at Seascape and elsewhere was part of that debrief.
We must not forget Sergeant Fogarty who was driving from Belrief police station to Seascape at an average speed of about 125 Kph and was also issuing instructions to police to man roadblocks and other actions. It was an established fact that mobile phones did not operate in the area. The ambulance communications also had numerous black spots in the area but communications were connectable within certain areas such as the boat jetty at Port Arthur or on the town’s local sports oval. It is logical to suggest that the local police would also have experienced similar difficulties, but again the evidence says they did not. We are aware that the police and other emergency bodies had held exercises within this very area in the past few years and would have been alerted to the communications problems and aware of the solution of putting in a mobile relay station. Superintendent Barry Bennett admits to having been in charge of the Police Special Operations Group prior to his promotion to district commander and was well aware of the communication problems.
Through the Inverell Forum we received a copy of a letter from QLD Police Commissioner’s office in relation to new national firearm laws 6 months prior to the Port Arthur massacre. That gave us positive proof that there was a federal government agenda in relation to the new gun laws and some of the bureaucrats and politicians who were involved such as Darryl Smeaton and Duncan Kerr. Then we found positive proof that Martin Bryant was not alone inside Seascape cottage. There were 20 “coughs” placed in the court transcript and credited to police negotiator Terry McCarthy in his conversation with “Jamie” aka Martin Bryant. The coughs on the tape sounds remarkably similar to an SKK. Trained police negotiators do not cough once when they are talking to people. That could mean another person inside the Seascape cottage fired up to 20 shots while Bryant was talking to police. We were able to ascertain that Mrs Sally Martin was alive in the afternoon during the siege at seascape as she was seen by constable Gary Whittle and it is recorded in his debriefing notes. Constable Paul Hyland also saw a naked person and we safely assume that that person was Mrs Sally Martin. If Mrs Martin was still alive during the Port Arthur massacre then who was minding her?
Wendy and I have also been interviewed by mainstream media, the Channel Nine Sunday programme, in relation to our presentation on Port Arthur. We were not the only people interviewed, but it was the list of people who refused to be interviewed that makes the programme interesting. Senior members of the Tasmanian police initially wanted to voice their side of the story but when the time came were not permitted to do so. Ray Groom was not interested, nor I believe, was Damien Bugg. In fact all the Tasmanian politicians requested, declined to put their side to the media.
Another important aspect of the Massacre was the role that ASIO played. I continually refer to the Protective Security Co-ordination Centre (PSCC). We are aware that ASIO is part of the committee that is called (SACPAV), the Standing Advisory Committee for Prevention Against Violence, and it is controlled by PSCC and so there may be some confusion as to exactly who played what roles within the Port Arthur incident. We do know however that the federal Attorney General’s department has stated categorically that there was ASIO involvement within the Port Arthur massacre. The Attorney General’s Upfront magazine made certain statements, which included that the PSCC was involved in the incident very early dealing with requests and advice for assistance. The Defence Force, ASIO and the NSW Police all provided assistance.
What did we have at Port Arthur? We had the Tasmania police, the Tasmania police Special Operations Group, the Victoria police Special Operations Group (six members), the NSW police Special Operations Group, the Australian federal police Anti-terror Squad, ASIO, PSCC, the Australian defence forces helicopter pilots and the SAS. It was a bloody big exercise and much of that had to have been organised prior to the event. Three army helicopter pilots to fly the rescue helicopters on the Sunday. They were there prior to the event. The SAS van arrived at the oval to guide in the helicopters. This van indicates the preparedness, as they could not just have been in the area at the time.
Mr McLeod of Warwick offered to host a meeting for us but was approached by a retired ASIO operative who stated categorically that the Port Arthur gunman was a former SAS soldier. Corroborating information came to me at Bernie in Tasmania. I was questioned about the name of the person responsible for the shooting and I stated that the name David Everett had been given to us from Queensland. The man then informed me of certain aspects of David Everett that fitted the Port Arthur gunman. The man stated he had just moved back from WA where David Everett was notorious for many crimes and was currently in a secure H M prison. This Everett was 34 years of age at the time of the massacre and yet all the witnesses informed us prior to the arrest of Bryant that the gunman was aged between 18 and 25 years of age, so we know that this Everett is not the man. There are many precedents of security forces setting up sting operations and infiltrating legitimate organizations. We must question all aspiring new members and question all new information given, to ensure it is not false information deliberately given to deflect us.
I have mentioned that SES workers and other people had listened to police communications and then certain police were debriefed after the massacre and part of the debriefing was listening to a taped conversation by uniform police with hand held radio outside Seascape cottage to their controller. Pat Allen had the hand radio. The conversation goes like this, “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight. We have the gunman in sight. Permission to shoot.” “Permission denied.” “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight! Permission to shoot!” “Permission denied. This must happen.”
Wendy Scurr
I would like to thank Andrew McGregor, without whose help the story would never have gotten out. I don’t know if we will ever do any good or not but I am not going to stop trying because there have been too many people hurt through all this.
I was very surprised at the number of people who gave me support and that has led to me touring. I have been right up to Cairns, into South Australia, but not a lot in NSW. I haven’t been to Darwin or Western Australia. The Inverell Forum was what gave us a chance to get the word out. The people here seemed to believe me and I became very calm after that happened. I felt then that someone else cares about it. Andrew and I have now spoken to over 3000 Australians. Since I last spoke I have received a writ for defamation. It is the mortuary contractor and it looks that I am going to have to go to trial.
We have had two of our venues cancelled. The first was at the Victoria hotel in Melbourne but the meeting went ahead because a very kind doctor offered us his medical centre to use. The other venue closed to us was in Tasmania. All this did was to give us more advertising because it was in the Mercury every day talking about conspiracy theorists and right-wingers who support us. We eventually used the town hall, which was an excellent backdrop for the filming by the nine network.
Mr Bugg of the Department of Public Prosecutions referred throughout the sentencing hearing to a certain door as being locked. During his summing up of the case Justice Cox also stated the door was locked. But on page 17 of the DPP’s own report states that on 30th April a carpenter employed by the Authority was required to paint out the windows of the cafe. He along with a police officer, who was inside the building, examined the lock. The police officer operated the handle inside while the carpenter examined the tongue of the door locking mechanism. The tongue moved slightly but would not retract sufficiently to enable the door to open. I also tried to get out of that door when I attempted to get help. The door handle moved but it would not open. It is a well-known fact that this door was malfunctioning prior to the day of the massacre. Mr Bugg’s 52-page report made two key findings. They are (1) the door was not marked as an exit. It should have been because it was the only one. (2) He was not able to determine that any person was not able to escape through the door. (Why wasn’t this door photographed and examined insitu by a locksmith and kept as evidence? If this lock was functioning these poor unfortunate people and many others would have had time to escape. They wouldn’t have just thrown the guns used at Port Arthur into a shed because they were “important” evidence and were treated as such. The same procedure should have applied to that door. To make matters worse the inside handle of the door was accidentally broken off during demolition. Then Mr Bugg whilst writing his report travelled to Port Arthur to retrieve the door and the lock. He was unable to fit the door in his vehicle so the lock was removed. Mr Bugg then returned to the locksmith with the lock, which he had removed, from the door, minus the handle. Because that handle was missing, the locksmith was only able to identify it as a fire exit lock, but without the handle he was unable to determine the model. Where is this handle? Isn’t removing this lock form the door tampering with evidence? To the transcripts that tell us that people did try that door, but Bugg has denied this in his own report.
This is a transcript of a lady who was on a phone hook-up. I have to keep her name private at this stage but she will give evidence to a coronial enquiry. She said, “If the door would have opened it would have been a different scenario. I would have been out of there. I know I would have got out of there. An amount of people would have got through.” When speaking on the telephone to MR Bugg during his investigation into the matter of the door she made comment saying, “We didn’t have a chance. I meant that one man who was shot across the counter didn’t have a chance then, but we actually had to wait towards the end before those at the door were shot. He cut me off straight away and just took down what he wanted to and didn’t give me a chance to say ‘Look had that have opened those people who were right there at that door, who were shot, would have been out.’ So I am angry over that because I was so traumatised in the back of my mind I let it go. The people at the door were still standing there while he went back into the cafe shooting and then when he came back and shoot down towards the door. It was a different scenario then and I am saying if the door had opened then we would have got out, and I would have been out of that door.” This lady was behind a Hessian screen within touching distance of the people who were shot there. Those five people.
I am now going to read you an extract from a witness police statement. This lady lost her husband behind the door. This is exactly as it is in the police statement. “About one thirty pm Peter and I went to the Souvenir shop which is in the same building as the kiosk. We heard some shots. I heard three really quick bangs and we looked around and I say a man with a gun. He was wearing a khaki green jacket or parker type jacket. The gun he was holding was long. He was holding it out in front of him. The bangs kept going off. It didn’t seem like a machine gun because it wasn’t that quick. I only glanced at him quickly just enough to realise it was someone with a gun. Peter then pushed me and said we have got to get out of here. So we ran around to try to find a was out. We went to a small, enclosed area where there was a glass door. We desperately tried the door, but it was locked. Peter said get down. I crouched down on the ground against the glass door. I put my face into my hands and Peter crouched over me. All this time I could still hear the shots. There didn’t seem to be a break. It just kept on going. I stayed crouched until the shots didn’t sound so close. They were still continuing regularly as they were becoming more distant. But from the time when I first saw the man with the gun to when the shots weren’t so close was no more than a few minutes. I waited until the shots were distant and I knew that I wasn’t hit. I heard Peter making funny noises. I checked him and he was hit on the right side of his face. My hair at the back was matted which may have been his blood. I felt the back of his head and it seemed alright. I saw two other people weren’t moving or making any noise so I presumed they were dead. When I looked at Peter who was unconscious and making gurgling noises there was blood coming out of his nose and mouth. I started screaming and someone said something like “Be quite. He might come back”. I sat up and took my jacket off and I put it on my lap then rested Peter’s head on the jacket to try and stop the blood. I felt he was still alive because he was warm and had a pulse. I tried to give him mouth to mouth but that didn’t seem to do any good because of the injury to his cheek and more blood seemed to come out. I stayed there crying with Peter for about twenty minutes. Somebody came and asked me to go outside. I then said that I didn’t want to leave him if there was a chance he might still be alive. Some first aid people went inside and checked him. They came back out and told me he was dead. I was then taken care of and at one stage I was checked by first aid officers and ambulance officers because of the blood on my shirt which I think was Peter’s.”
As Mr Bugg was commissioned by the Joint Parliamentary Group to write a report, the Bugg Report, to investigate the issues relating to the door, has he not misled Parliament by making the comment that he was not able to determine that anyone tried the door?
Why no coronial enquiry? A coronial enquiry is the only way the many anomalies can be answered. A coronial enquiry into the massacre at Port Arthur was initiated at about 3.55 pm on Sunday 28th April 1996, when the coroner Matterson was informed of the matter and that he was required at police headquarters Hobart for a briefing. It was 7.30 pm before it was considered safe for him to enter. The coroner arrived at the site at 8.05 pm. As no person had been apprehended and charged with any offence he advised the police he would take over the area as a coronial site. At about 8.40 am the following morning on the 29th April, Martin Bryant had come out of Seascape. The police expected charges would be laid. He then advised police that his role as coroner on site would become secondary and he ceased to have control of the scene. In a letter dated the 31st January 1997, from the coroner, to a person who had lost his wife, “As a result of the outcome of the charges preferred against Martin Bryant in the Supreme Court of Tasmania I write to advise I do not intend to resume the inquest that I opened on the 29th April 1996. I believe it is not in the interests of family, friends or witnesses to again traverse the factual situation in a public hearing, particularly when any finding I make must not be inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court. I have today written to the Attorney General advising of my decision. May I take this opportunity on behalf of the staff of my office to extend our condolences for your sad loss?
Several talk to me of a Royal Commission. We must not have a Royal Commission in the first instance as the government get to set the terms of reference. The door situation should have been enough on its own to have instigated a coronial enquiry.
It would appear that Mr Groom had complete control of everything related to the Port Arthur massacre with the complete support of Parliament.
Some young girls were asked to go back into the Broad arrow cafe to work 2 hour a day after the massacre!
Top
A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur
Stewart Beattie
All despotism is bad, but the lowest form is that which works with the machinery of freedom.
There is a great urgency to have every high level bureaucrat, politician and person in authority who had even the slightest brush with that which drove the events encapsulating Port Arthur be made defend their own actions and statements regarding this dreadful event before an open public enquiry. I met with my newly elected member for Riverina. Initially I was encouraged by her interest in concerns I raised about the Port Arthur massacre. Her change in demeanour was dramatic. Within a very short time I received a letter from her electoral office and I was told emphatically and in embolden capitals, the member will not enter into any dialogue with you either written or verbal in the future. I was informed that any communication on any matter would be futile. The situation has not changed. That galvanised me into doing all in my power to uncover and publish whatever it was that petrifies politicians, sparks vitriol and scoffing from more than a few media editors, even from areas we may once have regarded as our friends, when the words Port Arthur massacre are uttered.
My area of interest in the Port Arthur massacre is in firearms and ammunition allegedly used there. My fulltime research over the last two years has led me to conclude the two principle firearms claimed by the DPP as weapons used to murder the 32 people and wound 21 others were never used to that end at the Broad Arrow cafe or indeed any of the other crime scenes. Let us look at the DPP’s two primary firearms. The first is a Colt AR15 it is an SP1 carbine in 223 Remington calibre. The word carbine only appears twice in the court documents and the correct model of this firearm only appears once in the wound ballistic review document released in America and not intended for Australian eyes. The other weapon, FN FAL G series, is probably better known to you as the Australian SLR or L1A1, but it is very different. Somehow they rebuilt the one that was supposedly used and I find that quite impossible. It is made in the metric pattern whereas the Australian one is made in the inch pattern. Even the magazine will not interchange. Both primary weapons were self-loading. I found a whole raft of anomalies in relation to Port Arthur from a prolific author from Western Australia.
Martin Bryant exhibited no confusion whatsoever in identifying the firearms he had purchased, owned, used and taken with him to the Tasman Peninsular that day. Only police interrogators exhibited and admitted confusion.
There is not one shred of evidence that I have found that can positively link either of the DPP primary firearms entered into the court documents with any of those shooting murders. Inconclusive physical examination only was employed and that quote, “No chemical tests were carried out and were not planned because of cost considerations and time considerations.” One person is murdered and they do these chemical tests. Thirty-five people are murdered and they ignored them.
In my book ("A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur") I explain and destroy each of the scenarios put forward by Gerard Dutton, ballistics officer for the Tasmanian police and I go much further as to the reasons for the severely damaged state of both primary weapons.
| THE FAKE VIDEO |
| |
| |
| |
|
 | After the trial of Martin Bryant RAY MARTIN ( left ) compere on the Channel 9 TV Network in his "A Current Affair" program screened nationally a video clip allegedly taken by a witness at Port Arthur that day. The tape reportedly came from the Tasmanian DPP and had been presented to the Court at the trial.
The video showed a man running from the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying something. The video was shot from a fair distance away ( hundred or more metres ) so the resolution was low. Gunshots were on the taped sound track.
It was proported by the program this was Martin Bryant - the gunman at Port Arthur - running from the Cafe to his car shooting ( immediately after the massacre in the Cafe ). A frame from the video below.
 This has been proven to be FALSE. Apart from the fact the man's clothes do not match Bryant's on the day and people are standing in the cafe doorway area watching, staff witnesses who were at the site that day know this man to be another staff member carrying blankets to the coach where wounded people lay. Also as the shots are heard seagulls nearby are sitting there unaffected by the noise of an alleged high powered rifle.
THE MOST SERIOUS THING ABOUT THIS TAPE IS THAT SOMEONE HAS ADDED THE GUNSHOT SOUNDTRACK TAKEN FROM ANOTHER VIDEO THAT WAS FILMED ON THE DAY. Such an addition makes this a fabrication of evidence.
Andrew MacGregor on the CD-ROM has this video included and an extensive commentary.
Who fabricated this video tape adding the gunshot soundtrack ? Was it someone at Channel 9 under Ray Martin's direction or was it the Tasmanian DPP or the Tasmanian Police ?
If so why would they want or need to do so if Martin Bryant really did the shootings ? Why the gross deception ?
Was it to try and reinforce to the Australian public on this high rating national TV program that the official line that Bryant was the gunman ? ( The fact Ray Martin had persistently ran an anti-gun line on his program for years prior to this time raises the question of the extent of his involvement in this and other videos played on his program relating to this incident ). Is this another piece of evidence in a series of things designed to frame Martin Bryant for the Port Arthur incident ? The evidence seems to indicate such. Videos do not alter themselves. | | | | | |
|
 | | | | | | |
| . | | . | | | | |
 |
