• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Was Martin Bryant really a lone nut assassin? SPRINGFIELD SIMULATOR DIRECT COMPARISONS CATEGORY OR STATUS BROAD ARROW SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL CAFE Weapon class Semi-auto Semi-auto Weapon calibre 5.56mm 5.56mm Spare ammo Yes Yes Extra weapons Yes Yes Total rounds fired 29 51 Total fatalities 20 2 Total head shots 19 1 Total injured 12 21 Missed shots Nil 28 Killed-to-injured 1.66 to 1 1 to 10 Shooter disabled No Yes Author JOE VIALLS is an independent investigative journalist with thirty years direct experience of international military and oilfield operations. FOREWORD At 1.30 p.m. on Sunday 28 April 1996, an unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter. In less than thirty minutes at six crimes scenes, 35 people were shot dead, another 22 wounded, and two cars stopped with a total of only 64 bullets. A fast- moving Daihatsu Feroza 4WD driven by Linda White was crippled by a 'Beirut Triple'; normally reserved for dead-blocking Islamic terrorists driving primed car bombs around the Lebanon. One sighting shot, a second to disable the driver, and a third to stop the engine before the primed car bomb can hit its target and explode. Very few know of this obscure technique, and even fewer can master it with only three bullets. This awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant who had no shooting or military experience at all. After Martin Bryant's conviction based on coerced and fatally flawed 'guilty' pleas, the media continued a low-level campaign of continual reinforcement, designed to repeatedly convince the public that Bryant was guilty as charged, despite the complete absence of any evidence. By late 2000, newspapers started printing stories with photos of Bryant's mother Carleen and his sister Lindy. The stories were deliberately hurtful to both ladies, and the photos made them nervous, as they were intended to. Being identifiable relatives of the 'hated' Martin Bryant could easily place Carleen and Lindy Bryant at extreme risk, and possibly lead directly to 'revenge attacks' by fanatical followers of the 'Bryant Did It' official media story. Most hurtful was the complete lie in December, that Martin had 'not received a personal visit in more than two years'. Though it is true Carleen was deliberately tricked into not visiting her son for an extended period, she decided to take on the prison authorities late in 1999, winning the first contact visit with her son since his arrest in April 1996. Carleen has visited her son several times since, but all subsequent visits were of the 'non-contact' variety, with authorities deliberately placing a pane of bulletproof glass between mother and son. As this book proves scientifically, Bryant killed no one at Port Arthur. It is now up to the Australian Federal Government and people to track down those responsible for ordering and funding this loathsome terrorist attack against Australians on Commonwealth territory. Those still in doubt, are invited to look at the new startling photographic evidence on page sixty-one. iii CONTENTS Was Bryant Really a Lone-Nut Assassin? Part 1 1 Was Bryant Really a Lone-Nut Assassin? Part 2 6 Tasmania's Second Patsy, Gun Dealer Terry Hill 14 Politicians Shirk Responsibility 19 Government Cover-Up at Port Arthur 21 Case Against Gun Dealer Terry Hill Dropped 28 Springfield Simulator Proves Port Arthur a Fake 32 Martin Bryant's Mother Speaks Out 36 Official Story Proved an Impossible Lie 43 Illustrations 49, 50, 51, 52, 61 Port Arthur, What Next? 54 End Note 56 Forensic Fantasy 57 Letters, Carleen Bryant & Risdon Prison 62 Appendix: The Queen v Martin Bryant, Supreme Court, Hobart 64 WAS MARTIN BRYANT REALLY A LONE NUT ASSASSIN? Part One - 17 April 1997 In early 1984 policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was murdered while on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London. From the moment she was shot the media misled the British public into believing that Fletcher had been shot by the Libyans, who were subsequently expelled from the country in a fanfare of negative publicity. It was not until 1995 that this author managed to prove entirely scientifically that WPC Fletcher could not have been shot from the Libyan Embassy, but was shot from the top floor of a nearby building staffed by American multinational personnel. Was the massacre at Port Arthur a completely spontaneous act carried out by a single nutcase with unbelievable efficiency, or was it a repeat of Yvonne Fletcher's callous murder, deliberately designed to distort public perception and direct maximum hatred against a particular group of people? All the available hard scientific evidence proves the latter. When investigating events like Yvonne Fletcher's murder or the massacre at Port Arthur, it is critically important to adhere to scientific proof and avoid eyewitness accounts and media hype. Eyewitnesses do not normally lie intentionally, but as any honest psychologist will tell you the accuracy of their testimony is limited by many factors including stress, suggestive police interrogators, and peer pressure. The more controversial the case the higher the need for absolute scientific proof, because if the investigation reaches a conclusion which conflicts with the official story, the media will attempt to trash the credibility of the investigator, who in these two cases happens to be me. For four years while investigating the murder of Yvonne Fletcher I was gently harassed, visited by members of British Intelligence from London, cordially invited to sign the Official Secrets Act, then subtly threatened when I refused to comply. Some readers might wonder why I am including so much detail about a murder in London when this story is really about Port Arthur. Well it is about Port Arthur, but there are a number of disturbing similarities between the two cases, especially in terms of media behaviour at the time of each atrocity, and the use of faked video footage to reinforce the official story of the day. In 1992 when I started investigating WPC Fletcher's murder the most serious obstacle I encountered was the British media, who for nearly a decade had knowingly nurtured a lie so horrific that it almost defeats the imagination. Yvonne Fletcher, they claimed, was murdered by a low velocity bullet fired from the Libyan Embassy located to her left rear, with the gunman firing downwards from a first floor window at an angle of fifteen degrees. As any amateur can confirm, that means the bullet entered the left side of WPC Fletcher's back at a shallow angle of fifteen degrees and then continued through her body tissue towards the right-hand side of her body. Right? Wrong.. The bullet entered WPC Fletcher's upper right back at sixty degrees then sliced down through her rib cage, turning her vital organs into a bloody pulp before exiting her body below the bottom left rib. With Yvonne Fletcher's exact position recorded by a television camera when the shots were fired there was no room for doubt. It was an absolute scientific impossibility for that shot to have been fired from the Libyan Embassy, and the steep angle of entry of the bullet limited the firing point to one floor 1 of only one building: the top floor of Enserch House, an American multinational building staffed by personnel with documented links to the international intelligence community. Without the critical video footage from the television camera I would never have been able to prove how she was killed or by whom, but fortunately for me the footage still existed in 1992, and television cameras are inanimate objects incapable of lying. If proof appears to exist on video there are only two possibilities: the scientific truth, or faked video footage shown to the public for special effects or in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Interestingly and with profound implications for Port Arthur, fake video footage was put to air by the BBC "for the first time ever" many months after Yvonne Fletcher's murder, in what appeared to be an attempt to cement the calculated deceptions about her death forever in the minds of the British public. The public failed to ask why this apparently critical footage was not presented at the coronial inquest into her death, but fell hook, line and sinker for the blurred images and sound track, which apparently recorded eleven sub-machine gun shots being fired from the Libyan Embassy. The amateur footage run by the BBC in 1985 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Metropolitan Police Service. During 1995 I used the immutable laws of astronomy and physics to prove the amateur footage a total fake. Analysis of the angle and position of the sun's shadow falling across the front of the Libyan Embassy was checked using astro-navigation techniques and direct reference to the Greenwich Observatory, Britain's foremost authority on times and dates derived from the sun-line, a technique used for centuries to tell the time with great accuracy using garden sun-dials. Unfortunately for the BBC who broadcast the amateur footage "for the first time ever", absolute science proved the sun-line on the amateur footage totally incorrect for 10.19 am on the 17th April 1984, the time and date on which Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Indeed, the scientific evaluation proved the amateur footage was not even filmed on the same day Yvonne Fletcher was shot.

Load more

  112

Copy Link