A new documentary on the Port Arthur massacre is set to be released in 2021. It does not stray from the official narrative. Whatever happened to investigative journalism?
The courts should never have accepted the guilty plea, as MB does not have the intellect to fully grasp the consequences of the guilty plea.
How anyone can believe the official story is beyond me! The following questions/points need to be addressed and answered. There is so much more that could be added to this post. The world is not what you think it is!
- On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast, for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?
- Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Café in time to be of any use. Had the policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?
- After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?
- Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck. Jim Laycock who had known Martin from a child did not recognise the shooter as Martin.
- Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.
- Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana where they had a barbecue? Even the police who arrived by boats and were a stone’s throw away from the main crime scene in the cafe, also failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this lack of protection meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?
- Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30 while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?
- Same Question – Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say “I have here Graham Collyer’s police statement…”, Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building. When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully – “There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe”.
- Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?
- According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?
- Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the ‘siege’ and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as ‘coughs’ but an electronic analysis of one of the ‘coughs’ shows that it was an SKK shot.
- Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.
- Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers on the spot, churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!
- “There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania”, said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?
- “If we don’t get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us”, said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the “THEY” who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?
- No Respect for the Law. Our law demands that a Coronial Inquiry must take place (a) when foreign nationals are killed (b) when anyone dies in a fire. At Port Arthur several foreigners were killed and three people died in the fire at Seascape.
- It is evident that the massacre was planned to happen on the ferry which sailed to the Isle of the Dead every day. The victims were to be eighty elderly American tourists who had come in two coaches. But the plan went awry because the sailing time of the ferry had changed from 1.30 to 2.00 pm.
Comments:
During the siege at Seascape the constables used their radio at 4.30pm, twice appealing to their superior for permission to shoot in an effort to rescue the hostages. The below radio transmission incident was confirmed by several volunteer firemen from the Peninsula. “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight. Permission to shoot.”’
‘Permission denied. This has to happen.”
Nina
Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre Government and Media Lies Exposed and the “Deadly Deception at Port Arthur”.
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:8836147e-63f3-4462-ba08-46d4624fe6f0
Michelle
I have been saying for a long time that this was planned to entice everyone to give up their guns. This was planned (I believe) for today’s plandemic. People have been are being ‘trained’ to live a life that doesn’t include freedoms.
Michelle
The real target was Australian citizens who owned guns. The guns were to be removed for ‘everyone’s’ safety, of course. The reason politicians do this is to have a totally defenseless popultion who can be casually murdered at will, individually, or en masse, with bodies dumped into landfills. A quarter century on, the population is now defenseless against military/police teams going door to door, doing break and enter if need be, so that ‘health’ units can do their clot jab routines. The additional tragedy is that there are military/police who are without conscience, who follow kill orders.
Maureen
The motive was to take Australian’s guns away.
Josef
To please the UN and make it easier for them to take over the Country.
Roy
If the government had nothing to cover up, why is it that all paper work and evidence is locked away for 75 years?
Dean Connolly
So very sad that he was used as a patsy, and ask those innocent lives were sacrifice, to change the gun laws in this country. The same was done in New Zealand. When will we learn?
Jennifer Lee Predo
Martin DID NOTHING!!! A young life stolen for bull shit and lies!!
Neil Mellon
So Martin Bryant shot 35 people in 4 minutes – a super human effort. What a fucking load of bullshit! Howard the coward, the germ that stitched up the Timorese has a lot to answer for.
Jezza Hawkes
His lawyer was biased against him, said he had a girly giggle – like that is important. Also answered some questions like he was coached. The interrogation was a setup as well.
there was no need to show him the weapons and let him touch them. Also some good cop bad cop bullshit intimidation tactics. One part, the officer on the left says you had practice hip firing. Martin answers no immediately and truthfully. It is weird they won’t let him be tested for Autism which he clearly has. I would guess at ADHD in addition. So sketchy.
