Blog of Daniel Baxter, now secure! :)

Free SSL from Let's Encrypt!

Archive for October, 2010

Was Martin Bryant framed?

NOTICE: There is a petition on, please sign it if you can.

PLEASE NOTE: The information on this page is not all accurate. I am aware of many of the errors found on it, and there could be some I’m not aware of, so please do not repeat my errors, and double check anything I’ve claimed is a “fact”!! This post is over 5 years old.

A new paper has been released by the Hon. Vanessa Goodwin (Tassie’s AG) by Ian Matterson in 1997. See this article by Dalia Mae.

Below is the documentary “A Question of Guilt”. It’s quite good and contains a few good clips from news and current affairs programmes in 1996.

A new blog post on this topic is coming…


Today I’ve chosen to talk about one of the most controversial conspiracy theories that I can think of; one supported by survivors and witnesses to the events and aftermath; and one that has been largely ignored by Australians. I’m talking, of course, about the Port Arthur Massacre. Although I’m going to explore the events in detail, I’m largely going to ignore the conspiracy ideas; since I think the facts on their own are what have merit. Bryant pleaded guilty to 35 murders, and since that day – and not even on that day or before that day – he has never told anyone a single detail about it. Having thoroughly researched this case, I’ve triple-checked my facts, the vast majority are from mainstream media or direct eyewitness statements, rather than from the “alternative media”. Many of the facts presented by MacGregor can be easily corroborated which gives him credibility for those that cannot be fully corroborated – however I am still reluctant to quote all of his “conclusions” and his assumptions and opinions.

The following article is propaganda from start to finish:

But it’s very important that we start here nonetheless. The above article is written by the late Joe Vialls; a lying self-proclaimed conspiracist and a freelance internet journalist. In the South Park episode “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce” the “9/11 conspiracy theory” is a government conspiracy; in real life this may be the closest we ever get to anything like that; Vialls claimed to be a conspiracy theorist he claimed to want to have Martin Bryant released and a coronial inquest held and contends that the massacre was carried out by an anti-arms group; BUT Vialls does something detrimental to any effort to effectively investigate this matter, and that is that he quotes as facts fabrications and opinions that are not fully supported by evidence; he doesn’t just ask questions he invents them by saying that certain pieces of evidence are wrong; he fabricated evidence, threw out or ignored evidence he didn’t like and pretended that his investigation was of value. The shocking twist is that Vialls was deliberately spreading misinformation because he himself was involved with the Port Arthur Massacre. We will get back to Vialls later.

The reason why it’s important to understand this is because a lot of muck has penetrated the facts muddling up what’s fact and what’s fiction. For instance there are claims that: Bryant was left-handed, Bryant didn’t own either of the weapons used in the massacre, Bryant had no experience with assault rifles of the kind used in the massacre, no eye-witnesses identified Bryant, the two videos showing the shooter were fake, Wendy Scurr saw the shooter, the evidence has been locked away where we cannot access it, and that Bryant didn’t have the intelligence to perpetrate such a crime; all of which are either false or conjecture. Mind you there are also two amazing things that people use to claim Bryant’s guilt, namely that 1. Bryant pleaded guilty, and 2. Bryant made a confession to police. As we will see, however, those two points taken in context do not sufficiently condemn him. The incident at Seascape is, I believe, the strongest evidence against Bryant and I do have trouble reconciling it with an innocent Bryant.

Today our story begins in the real world, far away from the influence of twisted conspiracist minds. The true facts tell a far more interesting story then would ever be possible by following the above-mentioned garbage. For instance, Bryant has no memory of the crimes he confessed to, Bryant was never tried even though he was under a court order that legally prohibited him from pleading guilty, the only eye-witness to see the shooter and who knew Bryant before the shootings did not identify the shooter as Bryant, the FN FAL murder weapon cannot be linked to Bryant at all, despite applications by family members, not one of the 35 victims has had a coronial inquest held into their death, everyone who knew Bryant described him as gentle, kind and courteous, Bryant lived independently from an inheritance he received in addition to his disability pension and everyone who knew him described him as happy, and always nice to everyone he encountered. Why would someone who’s described as being nice to everyone, who essentially has no enemies and who is happy commit mass-murder? Mental impairment is not an excuse. Bryant’s girlfriend – Petra Willmott said that he wouldn’t hurt a fly.

ABC’s Kerry O’Brien himself reported that Wendy Scurr and Stephen Howard (both tour guides at the time for the Port Arthur Historic Site) were calling for a coronial inquest. Howard was a survivor of the massacre who lost his wife in the shootings, and made this written statement (as verbally read by someone else):

“My wife Elizabeth and I were both employees at the Port Arthur historic site management authority and were both working there the day of the massacre. My wife Elizabeth was murdered inside the gift shop section of the Broad Arrow Cafe. One of 20 victims murdered thereabouts. I know that Martin Bryant was not the gunman at the (?) of Port Arthur – How do I know? The coroner Mr Ian Matterson wrote a letter to a number of the survivors of the massacre informing us that Martin Bryant was not the gunman at Port Arthur. In the letter dated the 31-1-1997 [Stephen then quotes the letter that I’ve copied in its entirety below], well I thought long and hard about this statement and discussed the point with friends, you must understand that there were many other facts of the shootings inside the Broad Arrow Cafe that begged a proper open investigation including workplace safety issues and especially the issue of the emergency exit that were totally outside the issues of the gunman. It was the simple fact that a coroner Mr Ian Matterson believed that he could not make any finding that was inconsistent with the findings of the Hobart Supreme Court that really stirred me. The Supreme Court can only make the finding of Guilty or Not Guilty in the matter brought before it. It follows that for Mr Ian Matterson inquest into the massacre of Port Arthur to make a finding inconsistent with the Hobart Supreme Court then the finding could have only been that Martin Bryant was Not Guilty of the charges brought before him. For the coroner Mr Ian Matterson to arrive at this decision not to resume the inquest into the death of the 35 people that were murdered at Port Arthur the massacre due to this reason which he himself provided then the coroner Must have been aware that Martin Bryant was Not Guilty of the serious offences which produced 72 charges (against) police brought against him that day.”

31 January 1997


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 to 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.

Yours sincerely,

Ian R. Matterson
Chief Coroners Delegate
Southern Tasmania

Please note that this is a survivor and eyewitness who states categorically that “I know that Martin Bryant was not the gunman at Port Arthur”. Howard was interviewed by A Current Affair, and said that he believed important issues surrounding what happened on that day, and what could have been prevented needed to be addressed. The statement he made above was written after the fact that Bryant had pleaded Guilty – clearly showing he had a very firm belief that justice had not been served if he was still to contend that Bryant couldn’t have been guilty after a plea of Guilty made by Bryant. And Wendy Scurr is as genuine as they come. She is an eyewitness who is not only vocally against the “official story” but who has been actively demanding a coronial inquest for a long time. She was a nurse and tour guide at the time and the first person to enter the café after the massacre, she was the first person to phone police, and she is a very well trained emergency personnel (first aid instructor, etc). She saw the crime scene hours before police did, she went in and searched for survivors with her colleagues and she helped save many lives that day. On top of all of that she has spoken in front of public audiences about her experiences, and if you have any misconceptions whatsoever about her watch this.

This was a conference that was held and open to the public in 2001 and was the first time Wendy spoke publically about the massacre. Wendy insists that if the fire door was not inoperable that it would have saved seven lives. This is just one of many facts that demonstrate that a coronial inquest would have been very valuable even if it had not made any findings exonerating Bryant or contradicting his role as the gunman. Stephen Howard referred to it as “workplace safety issues”, and faced with the allegation made by Wendy that the inoperability of the fire door cost seven lives I cannot reason why a coronial inquest would not take place. After all it is breaking standard practise in Australia not to hold one.

Wendy Scurr was the first on the scene to start treating the wounded, and she was also the first person to lodge a 000 call about the incident. What is totally amazing is that one would think Wendy’s statement and version of events would be treated as very important by police, but she feels it was not and she is vocally against the official version of events. Wendy’s eyewitness report says that the shootings inside the Broad Arrow Café lasted between 4-5 minutes – more than double the “official” 90-second timeline. She is not the only eyewitness to report this. Andrew MacGregor contends that the timeline is a fabrication intended to cover up the mishap about the broken fire door. Wendy’s story is detailed and complete, it is not erratic or missing details. She states that the official version is a massive cover up. She has been so traumatized by the event and has felt so unheard by the government and authorities that it drove her to depression and she attempted suicide.

MacGregor is a retired Victorian policeman who has investigated this case with the assistance of Wendy Scurr and others. MacGregor has some very highly developed theories (most of which he presents as fact) which I’m not including here because it is not independently verifiable; however his corroboration for some very important facts are duly noted. Unlike half the conspiracy websites, MacGregor doesn’t make factual errors, it is only his unsubstantiated theories (for instance identifying the naked person at Seascape as one of the proprietors) that I’m not including. We know as an incontrovertible fact that the fire door was broken, and that it would have saved lives and that withholding a coronial inquest prevented anyone from ever being held accountable for it, or for an investigation into how such a thing could happen so appropriate changes can be made to insure that there is never again a risk of lives being lost to other broken fire doors. Not to mention it would have formally confirmed the number of lives that were lost due to the door being inoperable; so in short the best estimate for the number of lives potentially saved if the door was in operation is Wendy Scurr’s estimate at eight lives.

There is strong, recorded evidence that Bryant was not alone at Seascape. Shots are heard on a number of separate occasions while he is calmly speaking to the negotiator Terry McCarthy, some of those shots were believed to be an SKK (remember that point). The negotiator himself has reservations. He even said that Bryant sounded like he was “reading from a script” and for those and other comments that were not in-line with the official story (or so it is contended) McCarthy lost his job. Furthermore Bryant references several times to an accomplice (puppet-master?) Rick.

Media Watch slammed the coverage, attesting that showing Bryant’s face would prejudice potential jurors, and that the photos of Bryant were obtained illegally. They publicised the Police statement that the policeman guarding the house was distracted while another person entered.

Bryant did not hold a driver’s license, but this wasn’t a serious problem for him as the town only had one full time police officer.

It was the same lawyer John Avory who represented Terry Hills a gun dealer alleged to have sold Bryant his guns and who attempted to convince Hills to testify against Bryant who ultimately represented Bryant and had Bryant plead Guilty to the charges. Hills was ultimately put out of business it is contended as a direct result of refusing to testify against Bryant. IT should be noted that according to Terry Hills, Bryant showed Terry a license that he “got from his lawyer”, if it really was a fake license then it doesn’t sound like Bryant knew it was. Isn’t it interesting – or should we say unprofessional – that Bryant’s lawyer John Avory himself stated that he felt he had a responsibility to Australians to get his client to plead guilty? Isn’t it interesting that John Avory, Martin Bryant’s defence lawyer himself publically stated that Bryant didn’t want to plead guilty and it wasn’t easy to get him to and he even states how many visits it took him to convince Bryant to do so (about 13). Isn’t it interesting that Bryant was denied his sovereign right to be tried by a jury? Prior to that Bryant had pleaded Not Guilty and had maintained that he was Innocent for months. Was he made to plead guilty because of the lack of evidence against him? Isn’t it interesting that from interviews released by Avory himself it is now known that John Avory firmly believed his client to have no memory of the events and yet he still made him plead guilty (remember this point)?

The way that Andrew MacGregor puts it is this: Bryant was under a court mandated guardianship – meaning that in the eyes of the law he was a child, and needed a guardian present at all times whenever legal affairs were brought before him. So not only was his request for his lawyer ignored, he was interviewed without a guardian present to begin with. Let me state this in plain English: his civil rights were violated. He had the right to have a lawyer present, and legally he had to have a guardian present – yet neither were present in the interview with police that took his so-called confession. Here’s another question – why risk the integrity of an investigation by violating his rights when interviewing him? Why risk loosing the case against him? I could quote the entire interview (which as far as I can tell doesn’t contain a confession to killing a single person anywhere in it), but this is my favourite part:

Q. How many guns do you own?

A. I own umm, a shotgun and a semi-automatic and another semi-automatic. Three altogether.

Q. Where’d you get those guns?

A. Oh, umm, I can’t really say, I haven’t got my lawyer here so.

Q. Well we have spoken to your lawyer and he knows that we’re talking to you.

A, He knows, he knows.

Q. And aah, has no problem with that so aah.

A. Yeah I got umm, one ooh, off a gun dealer and also I got two of ’em umm, got two off … (inaudible)

Full “confession” interview found here.

When Bryant says he can’t answer that question without his lawyer, they inform him that they already asked his lawyer and everything’s ok??? You have to be kidding me! A clear violation of his rights (on top of the fact that he didn’t have his guardian present). Remember that Bryant actually had no memory of any of the crimes, this is revealed in the recorded interviews between Bryant and his lawyer and this was reported by in the mainstream media by Kerry O’Brien in this 7:30 report segment and is therefore an incontrovertible fact. What’s also interesting is that since Bryant’s incarceration he’s not said a word about any of his crimes, the best psychiatrists Australia has to offer have seen him and gotten nothing.

Following the Port Arthur massacre unconstitutional uniform gun laws were passed. The theory of uniform gun laws in Australia is rather simple, unless a referendum was held the only way for the federal government to gain the power to enforce uniform firearm laws was if every state and territory in Australia would agree to surrender their powers, but that had never happened. Following the massacre at the Broad Arrow Café it did happen. Think about that for a moment, dwell on it. Unconstitutional firearm restrictions were legislated. However, I’m not going to talk about the conspiracy theories but rather the facts of this case that stand out. There are enough Vialls fanboys out there as it is, and besides conspiracies are very confusing without fully understanding the facts first (for instance what if I told you that the theory holds that the Broad Arrow Café was not the intended target for the massacre, but rather improvised?) The facts themselves tell a very serious story that was never fully investigated, this is on public record.

If the confession were to be true, somehow Bryant has managed to tell the story of how he saw the deceased people when they were alive without alluding to any details as to how they died, let alone the fact that they had died at all:

Q. I mean do you think that people should accept the consequences of what they do?

A. Yeah I do. I spose I should for a little while for what I’ve done. Just a little while and let me out, let me live my own life. I’m missing my Mum. I really miss her actually, what she cooks up for me, her rabbit stews and everything. She’s not even allowed to bring a little bit of food for me, that, that’s a bit upsetting. Mmm.


Q. Martin, unless there’s anything else that you want to tell us, we’re going to ahh, stop the interview now. As Mr Warren explained to you, this is the last opportunity you’ll have to speak to us. You’ll be at your next court appearance, charged with twenty murders, I’m sorry, thirty five murders and …

A. Just that.

Q. … And approximately twenty attempted murders and several wounding charges as well.

A. Attempted murders.

Q. And also.

A. You mean attempted, they weren’t hurt?

Joe Vialls never concerned himself much with Seascape, which is typical for any conspiracist mixing a cocktail of truth and fiction, but it’s important to understand Seascape nonetheless. Firstly it was the location at which earlier in the day the Martins had been murdered (according to the official police timeline), and it was the Martin’s property. Someone inside Seascape was firing at police (Bryant, or so it is claimed), but from a point inside where he could not be seen – and he moved room-to-room. It is uncharacteristic for someone of low intelligence to be moving in such stealth. The police also claimed that Bryant had put a gun in every room of the cottage. Police did not fully reveal how many weapons were actually loaded. This theory that Bryant went room-to-room and gun-to-gun returning fire is absurd. There was a Norinco semiautomatic rifle (SKK) found without its magazine inside the cottage the Bryant could have fired, and shots of an SKK are heard being fired while Bryant talks to the police negotiator Terry McCarthy (as I mentioned earlier). Where did the magazine go? Did Bryant make it evaporate? Did it grow legs and walk out of the building? What other possible way was there for it to leave? There isn’t any evidence that most of the other guns were fired at Seascape, most appeared to be inoperable, most were found without ammo and three of the 14 guns found at seascape belonged to the owners (two of which were inoperable antiques), not to mention that one of the working guns was a non-deadly air-rifle and so we can safely assume that there isn’t sufficient evidence for official police version of events that Bryant was going gun-to-gun and room-to-room. Besides, Bryant only owned three guns – so where did all the other ones come from?

Now we have the interesting part of Seascape – Bryant used, or so is the official version, two main weapons during his killing spree: a Colt AR-15 and an FN FAL. Most of the “guns” found in Seascape were burnt in the fire, some were inoperable before the fire, and most were not found with their ammunition. Yet the FN FAL “murder weapon” was found on the grass outside Seascape cottage, as a gift to police. Despite surviving the fire, it had been damaged so that it no longer worked (preventing forensic testing) and it was incomplete – and those parts (with the exception of the scope) have never been recovered. Did they also grow legs and walk away from the crime scene?

Witnesses testified that the gunman fired the FN FAL murder weapon in the Broad Arrow Café with its telescopic site attached. When found on the grass outside Seascape cottage the weapon had no sight attached to it. A telescopic site (unattached from any gun) is listed on the list of weapon-related items recovered at seascape, but the problem remains: why did Bryant remove the telescopic site? Furthermore, the telescopic site was not damaged (before the fire), which means that it could not have been attached to the FN FAL when the damage to it occurred. Very strange indeed.

Was evidence planted? Here is a summary of how empty ammunition cartridges were “found” as described by MacGregor:

Constable browning states “A search was conducted by Sergeant FOGARTY, Sergeant HARWOOD and myself from the bridge over the creek on the western side, around the cottage to the waterfront on the eastern side, including the boat shed. No weapons, ammunition or other relevant items were located by us” and yet in this very area we get: (11) Sixteen 7.62 x 39mm calibre cartridges. (In good condition, from paving immediately to the west side of the burnt building in an area approximately 6m x 5m.)

In other words, either Tasmania’s finest were blind, or this ammunition was placed in that position after the SOG’s searched the area.

The AR-15 “murder weapon” was also recovered in far better condition than any of the other burnt weapons inside the house, despite being found in burnt condition. It suffered only minimal damage in the fire, the gun was still recognizable and had it been in working condition before the fire it would have remained in working condition after the fire. This presents another coincidence; both of the main murder weapons were found in damaged condition; the damage preventing them from being forensically tested however this damage did not occur in the fire. Was the AR-15 planted? If it wasn’t, why was it in “singed” condition instead of “burnt to a crisp” condition?

The weapons recovered at Seascape were never forensically linked to any of the shootings. Coincidence?

Inside Seascape during the siege before the fire there were four known people. Martin Bryant. Mr and Mrs Martin and Glen Pears. Police believed Bryant to be holding hostages inside the house, yet all three people besides Bryant were already dead. How could low-intelligence Bryant have kept up a 12-hour standoff with police keeping them convinced he had hostages if he had not been aided?

There was no motive. To commit such a crime would have required planning, there isn’t any evidence for this. To commit such a crime someone would be expected to be very very angry, and otherwise very emotionally unstable; Bryant’s girlfriend, Petra Wilmott, did not describe any of the characteristics, not to mention that the police negotiator that spoke to Bryant at Seascape, Terry McCarthy, also did not find these characteristics and he made a point to note it.

I question how could Bryant commit not just one murder that day (say, the Martins) – but then continuously move on killing in several locations? Surely not for someone who has never killed someone before!

Even more questionable is why weren’t the people in the crowded café able to overpower the low-intelligence gunman Bryant? This is a point that needs to be addressed. In the official version of events the vast majority of Bryant’s bullets either killed or wounded (as opposed to just “shooting up the place”. However the crime scene was highly contaminated, and eyewitness testimony disagrees with the official timeline. What we’re left with – according to Kerry O’Brien – is the worst killing spree ever committed by a single gunman anywhere in the world, and even more amazingly is that one of the guns used in the massacre – the FN FAL rifle – was a gun that Bryant has no proven experience with!

What was the motive to steal the BMW? Take a moment to dwell on this. Bryant was a wealthy man, he did not have a driver’s license (remember) but that wasn’t a big deal for him in a secluded town with only one police officer. Is the scenario presented by MacGregor more plausible: the occupants of the BMW were a part of the operation, they all willingly got in the car with the gunman intending to leave with him. But the gunman had determined that it had to look like a carjacking and killed them instead? Well maybe, but let me ask this… the official version is that Bryant pulled up to the BMW that was stopped there (instead of fleeing for their lives from the region?) and that he got the woman and child to get into his car and killed them and then put the man into the boot of the BMW and drove off. What’s the motive? It doesn’t make any sense! If he’s going to carjack them then why did he get them to get into his car? Why would he want to kill them inside his car? Why did he tell police this: “No. I mean I let the lady go into the Volvo, I didn’t hurt her or anything. No I don’t register, it doesn’t register.“? Bryant’s Volvo was found pulled up at the service station with his Daewoo Shotgun in the boot, Bryant had already refuelled earlier in the day putting $15 of petrol into his Volvo (that was in 1996, so that amount could well have filled his tank), it does not make sense that Bryant would stop at the service station, it doesn’t make sense that he would procure a different vehicle, it doesn’t make sense that he would get the lady and her child to get into his Volvo and then shoot them. What does make sense is that if the shooter had accomplices then they would enter the vehicle with him at a rendezvous point. Is this unexplainable behaviour also coincidence? Why did Bryant leave his shotgun behind?

MacGregor contends that witness statements say the version of events that actually unfolded were that first the occupants of the BMW entered willingly into the Volvo with the shooter, and that they then got into an argument and the shooter got out of the car, went to the boot, got the gun, shot and killed the lady and the child and then put the man “hostage” into the boot of the BMW and drove off.

Bryant could not have acted alone in this massacre, this isn’t just an opinion it is a certainty. Why is it certain? Because at the time that “he killed” David Martin he was 58 kilometres away having a coffee at a petrol station and Gary King attests to this in the statement he made to police. That means Bryant has a reliable alibi for when the Martins were (believed to be) murdered.

Isn’t it funny that the idea that Bryant was not the shooter at the Broad Arrow Café is scorned at; while the mainstream media has often referred to Bryant’s Father’s suicide as “supposed” inferring that Bryant may have had a hand in killing his father; and then present the fact that his father’s head was weighted down while ignoring the facts that 1. his father left a suicide note, and 2. his father had taken care of some business for his wife which involved transferring accounts into only her name. Isn’t it interesting that people think they can question something without any evidence at all, while frowning on following something with a stack of evidence behind it?

Why was Bryant’s guilty plea accepted when it’s on record that he didn’t understand the charges brought against him, nor have any memory of them?

Why did Bryant’s lawyer convince his client to plead guilty when Bryant had maintained his innocence and never said a word to anyone confessing to a single murder; what right did John Avory have to determine that his client Martin Bryant was guilty? Shouldn’t he have listened to his client, rather than decide himself the issue of guilt or innocence?

According to recorded interviews between John Avory and Martin Bryant, Bryant had no memory of the massacre or any of the killings that day. These interviews have been released by John Avory. Again, how did John Avory determine that his client was guilty, given the fact that Bryant not only professed his innocence, but that his lawyer firmly believed he had no memory of the events?

Since the Port Arthur Massacre was pre-planned, even without remembering the events that took place if Bryant was guilty he should have memory of planning it, but he does not.

Bryant pleaded guilty to the crimes without any memory of the crimes.

It is standard procedure for police to get a full statement from a defendant following a guilty plea to assist in any further investigation, the location of other potential victims, and to have a valid confession to the crimes on record that shows the defendant understands the crimes he is confessing to. Why is there no such statement in existence?

If Bryant is guilty, why is it that he pleaded guilty and yet the best shrinks in the world can’t get a word out of him? Why plead guilty and then refuse to give a single tangible detail about a single one of the 35 murders that day?

Why was the killer shooting from the right hand when Bryant was a left handed shooter?

The guns used in the massacre in the café included a Colt AR-15 and an FN FAL. Martin Bryant’s guns that he owned before the massacre were: a Colt AR-10 (in the possession of Terry Hill at the time of the massacre), Colt AR-15 and a Daewoo Shotgun (which Bryant said he was afraid to fire). The Daewoo Shotgun was found in the boot of his Volvo. Why did he leave only that gun behind, why didn’t he take it with him inside Seascape cottage? The FN FAL rifle was responsible, according to police, for the deaths of 8 victims. Where did this gun come from? Who owned the gun? How could Bryant have been in possession of it (remember, Bryant was wealthy and would have no trouble buying whatever gun he wanted)?

Why was there no coronial inquest, when there is usually always a coronial inquest for every death that is not accompanied by a certificate of death from a doctor? Not to mention that a coronial inquest would have been important in finding out whether Bryant had acted alone (as it is contended) since Bryant never answered that question.

It’s easy to dismiss a conspiracy theory, but it’s important to remember that no private investigation done on a shoe-string budget relying on the good-will of others can ever hope to be as thorough as a proper police investigation. But a proper police investigation is not evidence of guilt; that has to be proven in court and that is the separation of powers. However Bryant was never tried because his lawyer convinced him to plead guilty. A plea that it is contested should not have been allowed due to his mental state. If he had not pleaded guilty there would have been very little evidence on which to convict him, and that’s a fact.

Joe Vialls claimed that the marksman displayed highly professional skills – but this is only true if the Gospel according to Joe is true – that 29 shots were fired in under 90 seconds resulting in all the casualties inside the Broad Arrow Café; and that version of events throws out 1. witness statements, and 2. forensic evidence. It is true that if the “official version” according to police is true – that within 90 seconds Bryant (or whoever the shooter really was) managed to kill 20 people in the café, then the shooting was of a very high standard. It’s also true that if the shooting lasted 4-5 minutes (which is more realistic) then Bryant or just about anyone with a gun could have perpetrated the crime.

Why were some parts of the guns found at seascape and that are claimed to be the murder weapons never found? How could Bryant have made parts of the guns used in the massacre vanish?

Was it a coincidence that Bryant returned to the scene of the Martin’s murder for the siege? Had he have chosen a different location he would only have had one potential hostage.

As far as I’ve been able to research only two eye witnesses identify Bryant as the killer. Why did the only eye witness to know Bryant before the massacre fail to identify him as the murderer? Why do all other witness statements (excluding the two identifying Bryant) estimate the age of the killer between 18-25 when Bryant was almost 29 and could not be confused as being any younger than 26-27?

When Bryant was “captured” at Seascape he was unarmed, and fled the building with his back on fire.

Before Bryant was captured, while on the phone to the negotiator, Terry McCarthy, someone else was shooting at police; and shots were heard that were not fired from Bryant. Terry McCarthy believed that Martin Bryant had an accomplice. McCarthy also states that Bryant’s state of mind in his conversation was not what he expected from someone who just committed mass-murder.

According to Kerry O’Brien earlier this year here the Port Arthur Massacre remains the worst killing spree ever committed by a single gunman anywhere in the world.

Why were Bryant’s rights violated? His court mandated guardianship meant that he was not competent to handle his own legal proceedings; and it is on full public record that Bryant would use his lawyer to handle these things for him. The court had to accept that Martin Bryant was incompetent to plea. Why then was a plea of guilty accepted by the court? Martin Bryant’s lawyer John Avory previously represented Terry Hill. Terry Hill maintained that he never sold any guns to Martin Bryant; even when faced with the threat of police prosecution and the offer of indemnity if he agreed to testify against Bryant. Terry Hill’s business was later shut down as the threats levelled by police were carried out (although he was never charged with illegally selling firearms to Bryant). This is evidence of an attempted police cohesion against Terry Hill. It would also appear to me that this would have been the link between Bryant and the FN FAL murder weapon that the police were looking for; as there is no evidence whatsoever that Bryant ever owned the FN FAL.

When interviewed by Kerry O’Brien, Tas A.G. Ray Groom stated that he didn’t believe it was in the public interest to hold a coronial inquest because the facts are clear. How could he come to that conclusion when no trial had ever taken place? What facts is he therefore referring to? When Kerry mentioned that Stephen Howard passionately pleads for an inquest, Ray Groom stated that he’s never heard that from Howard and that he knows Howard and has met him face-to-face; how could he have never heard it when he previously states in the interview that he came to the decision after having discussions with survivors and families of the dead? There were not that many survivors, surely he would have been aware of exactly how many wanted an inquest and how many didn’t, and played politics to try and assert that his view was in-line with the wishes of survivors. Yet Ray Groom sent a letter to Mr Howard in reply to Howards request to have a coronial inquest held for the death of his wife Mrs Howard – one of the victims inside the Broad Arrow Café in the Massacre. His justification was that the investigation into Bryant’s guilt and criminal conduct on that day meant that there was nothing further to investigate; when (as is clear from Mr Howard’s statement earlier) Stephen Howard felt that questions surrounding the state of the exit door and other issues outside of Bryant’s criminal conduct had not been answered, and felt very strongly that they should be investigated.

Joe Vialls Was Right.

Now let us go back to Joe’s statements that the Port Arthur Massacre was a Mossad Covert Operation. How would Joe have known about this as most of the operatives involved in the massacre were Australians. The answer is easy. The Port Arthur massacre was run by a Mossad agent by the name of Ari ben Menashe, or for Australians, Joe Vialls. That is why Joe would have been on the verandah of the Broad Arrow Cafe after the event, because things had gone so badly wrong and Australia had lost 7 Intelligence operatives. There was an emergency meeting of the top surviving operatives to discuss the problems and how they were to be overcome. That Shooters News has now named Hans Overbeeke, Constable Justin Noble of the BCI (Bureau of Criminal Intelligence) and Joe Vialls as the persons holding that emergency meeting. If this is factual, then just what position did Joe Vialls hold during the massacre? Please remember that Joe Vialls has always stated that the massacre was a ‘Mossad covert operation’, and since Joe was the only known Mossad member of these three men, then the only position Joe could have held was that he was in overall command at Port Arthur.

MacGregor has certainly got a valid point to make here. Joe Vialls has had his identity blown wide-open, we know that he wasn’t who he claims he was on the web, we know from video evidence that he was at the scene of the massacre at the time that it happened, and we know that he wasn’t there “reporting”. His identity is broken, but if he was a member of any secret intelligence agency then that is never going to be provable, the very idea itself is self-contradicting. You can read everything that Stewart Beattie writes about Vialls in that long detailed and comprehensive article (linked in the appendix) and it really doesn’t tell you much beyond the fact that Vialls has a false identity and routinely lies about his past. So it is quite reasonable to finger him as “secret intelligence” for SOMEONE SOMEWHERE. But let me ask you this, if he was really in charge of the operation and he was in fact working for Mossad why would he claim that Mossad was behind it in his public writings? MacGregor has it wrong, Vialls could have worked for the MI6 or AISIO and that would make more sense because then he’s trying to finger a foreign secret intelligence agency. In any case it is very strong evidence of a conspiracy, and that’s not a conclusion I make lightly. I laugh at people who think 9/11 wasn’t a genuine terrorist attack in their faces, and when they try to say something like “7 WTC was demolished professionally” I say “If it was, it’d be the tallest building ever to be demolished. But why bother demolishing it anyway, wasn’t the point made when the Twin Towers collapsed? Surely there was no point for anyone – terrorist or inside-operation – to contemplate demolishing a building that wasn’t the main target?”

Some of the points above could be coincidence, some may even be factual errors, however put together it raises a lot of doubt over the official story. The massacre in the café lasted 4-5 minutes not 90 seconds, Bryant was a left-handed shooter (this is what he told police), Bryant didn’t own the FN FAL murder weapon, out of the 14 firearms in the Seascape cottage only three were not incinerated in the fire, including both of the murder weapons, Bryant has no recollection of the events and the only two possible explanations for this are 1. amnesia and 2. innocence, Stephen Howard who lost both his parents and his wife in the fire states that he knows Bryant to be innocent, Wendy Scurr attests that someone should have been held accountable for the inoperability of the fire door exit, gun dealer Terry Hills was threatened by police in what appears to be an attempt to extort a false-statement out of him to connect the FN FAL murder weapon to Bryant, despite there usually being a coronial inquest held for every death in Australia not accompanied by a doctor’s certificate, and despite requests by some family members for coronial inquests to be held for their relatives, not a single coronial inquest was held for any of the victims, the best shrinks in Australia have interviewed Bryant since his incarceration and none have got a word out of him, only 2 eye-witnesses positively identified Bryant, one of those being the couple who sold him weed before the massacre, all other witnesses who gave descriptions did not match Bryant as the shooter, the police negotiator that Bryant spoke to is on record as stating that 1. Bryant wasn’t acting (talking) the way he expected someone who has just committed murder to be acting, and 2. it seemed Bryant was reading from a script, shots were heard to be fired from the house while Bryant was speaking calmly on the phone to the negotiator, some of those shots were from an SKK but no SKK magazine was found inside the hose, and finally Bryant was never subjected to a public trial despite pleading not guilty for months, although he changed his plea he did not remember committing any of the crimes he confessed it and to this day he remains silent. And because we can be 100% certain that he has no memory of the events we can also be 100% certain that his police “confession” is nothing of the sort. Not to mention that when Bryant arrived at Seascape he left the two murder weapons (the FN FAL and the AR-15) outside for police to find, and accounting for the three guns that he actually owned: the shotgun was found in his Volvo, Terry Hill had his AR-10 rifle and the AR-15 rifle was on the roof of the adjacent building, so the question remains why didn’t Bryant take the two murder weapons with him inside? Surely for all of those points to be coincidence would be highly unlikely.

I’m well aware that I’ve barely concerned myself with the question of Bryant’s guilt, as I mentioned earlier I think it’s the facts that are important here, and I don’t think it matters whether Bryant was actually guilty or not to have established a vast multitude of facts that point to the very real probability that the gunman did not act alone. It was Vialls who decided it was more beneficial to focus on Bryant and make everything about him – Vialls spewed propaganda, such as trying to tell everyone that the shooter had to have been one of the most highly trained anti-terrorist professional marksman – what was he actually covering up?


Further references:

The three Australians who remain active in pursuing this case are Wendy Scurr (at the scene at the time of the massacre), Andrew MacGregor (retired police officer) and Stuart Beattie (gunsmith).

A letter of Beattie’s can be found on this page.

Unanswered questions”, from which I will quote a few…

3. Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies made before Port Arthur? Why would they want to sell it after the incident?

(It was used for the massacre, and then never used again. Coincidence?)

4. Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin’s – owners of the Seascape? How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house only 20 metres away?


9. Why were the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to investigate a phoney drug tip-off (heroin in a jar which turned out to be soap-powder) in the most distant part of his police district (only one ever recorded) shortly before the shootings started? And was that diversion also to prevent him from closing the drawbridge to the mainland which would have bottled up the gunman?

(Port Arthur is only connected to Tasmania by one little strip of land, which would have been patrolled if the cops weren’t sent to look for drugs that didn’t exist. Coincidence?)?

20. Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on a roof adjacent to Seascape with a gun?

23. Was it to destroy all evidence inside including making an examination of the bodies inside difficult – in terms of determining time of death? Why would Bryant want to do that? Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded light such a fire – it would only serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured? Why would police light one knowing hostages were inside?Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant was grabbed with police knowing hostages were inside? Seascape was only smoking when he was grabbed.

28. Why was Bryant’s hands and face uninjured when his Colt M16 CAR rifle was found which blew a cartridge in the breech and exploded making it inoperative?


31. Why was the COLT CAR rifle missing the pistol grip and why was the FN’s barrel bent and had parts missing from it when recovered from Seascape, and those parts never found? And how could the COLT – a plastic gun – survive a fire intact?


32. Why were police, the media, Justice Minister Ray Groom etc. saying the people in the café were all shot within 90 seconds when witnesses there claim it was between 5 to 6 minutes – why the reduction of the time? Was it to justify the rapidfire aspect of the guns for a ban?

39. Why has there been no Coroner’s Inquest?

(There are many valid reasons why one had to be held, not the least of which being the fact that survivors and eyewitnesses were calling for one. Coincidence?)

43. Why was Bryant’s first lawyer removed? Who removed him?

(This is a lingering question; Bryant had a regular lawyer who handled his affairs, who had been representing him – but stepped aside and let John Avory come in and extort Bryant into pleading guilty. Coincidence?)

Video of Stephen Howard talking and of Media Watch contesting the media coverage at the time (among other things) can be found in this video.

Lawyers in the Police Force Dear John, At the back of my ‘Oath’ in joining the police force in 1968 was part of the Victoria Police Regulations which dated back to Sir Robert Peel, and listed about 5 regulations to remember. To me, the most important regulation stated that the constabulary was simply that part of the community paid to give full time duties to the powers invested to all members of the community. Do you understand this, a constable was simply a member of the community who was paid to give full time service to the powers invested to every member of the community. The constable had no extra powers. The only arrest power that a constable had that was not bestowed upon every member of the community, was to arrest for drunkenness under section 13, I think of the Summary Offences Act 7405, and what must be remembered here was that drunkenness was at the beginning not a recognisable offence, but the power of arrest was for the the protection of the drunk, which is why he could be incarcerated for 4 hours allowing that condition to wear off. Today the police only have powers to protect the community, etc etc etc, and what this means is that the constabulary are no longer part of the community but part of the bureaucracy that opposes the community. Andrew S. MacGregor

The reported idea that with his hands raised and his back on fire, Bryant fled the Seascape cottage saying “don’t shoot I am the hostage” I have not been able to verify, therefore I don’t count it as real evidence. That isn’t to say that it isn’t true, but it’s one of the things I’ve filtered out from wild conspiracist allegations.

Further inaccurate conjecture is to be found here:

Notice that the author claims that Bryant brought Hills an AR-10 and that he is in no way connected to the AR-15, which is wrong since Bryant owned an AR-10, AR-15 and a Shotgun. Also notice that the author makes it sound as if nothing was wrong with the AR-10, when in fact it was still in the possession of Terry Hill at the time of the massacre, therefore there must have been something wrong with it! Also notice the heavy weighting put on Bryant’s IQ of “66” – something that is not a “fact” considering his last IQ test was many years before Port Arthur; though it is still true he is of low intelligence. In fact it sounds as if Vialls has been quoted all throughout that section of the webpage. The next part on that webpage is even worse. Although it follows the official version (Bryant as the killer), there are many factual errors in it – for instance the majority of the 35 dead were Tasmanians, not “tourists” and the claims that Bryant was involved in other murders – especially that of his father who committed suicide, and Helen who died in a care accident – are totally wrong.

Appendix: Joe Vialls; the spreader of misinformation.

“Joe Vialls” was one of the very first people to start reporting on this case on the internet from a “conspiracy” POV. I’m about to blow his story wide open, and if this was a movie this would be the part that is the shocking twist that nobody saw coming. It is rather simple actually, and very chilling. He knew more than he ever revealed because he himself was involved.

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.

Vialls claimed the James Balasko video was faked, because he himself is in the video as discovered by Stewart Beattie (a gunsmith). Now tell me this, why does Vialls claim here that the alternate video “proves” that the other video proves the first one is a fake because of a “timestamp”?

Vialls started his online media conspiracies after the massacre, and then fabricated the facts of his past to make it sound like he’s a very serious private-investigator.

Vialls tried to establish credibility on his website by posting his own address in WA and email address so that people could contact him directly; and he even met with many people interested in this case all the while lying about his name, and refraining from ever posting his photo online (go ahead, do a Google search for him and try to find his mug-shot) – and we now know why, because if his face was on his website everyone would have seen that he was at the Broad Arrow Café the day of the Massacre smoking a cigarette at a table outside with two other people; in a video that is believed to be genuine that Joe alone claims is fake!

Vialls lied about the evidence in the Port Arthur massacre, he claimed the video was faked, he claimed that the public didn’t have access to the “real” information out there which has been refuted by Andrew MacGregor (retired Victorian policeman) who has himself investigated this case using the actual facts that he said have all been readily obtainable under the freedom of information act – directly refuting Vialls claims that the evidence is hidden and “locked away”.

Vialls claimed that Bryant couldn’t have been the shooter as the shooter was right-handed and Bryant was left-handed; yet it is on public record that Bryant is indeed right-handed but has trained himself to shoot left-handed. For a long time this key detail penetrated a lot of other investigators – yes he was a left-hand shooter, but he was right-handed and thus we must conclude that Bryant would be capable of shooting from his right hand and so that fact doesn’t disprove his involvement in Port Arthur. I believe both Beattie and MacGregor have incorrectly quoted Bryant’s handedness.

Unlike Andrew MacGregor, Vialls never spoke publically. And in fact he refused sponsored invitations to do so.

Vialls says that eyewitness accounts for the events are the most important evidence while conveniently disagreeing with any of it that doesn’t agree with the “Gospel according to Joe”.

Why invent evidence? There is only one possible conclusion to be made: Vialls himself was involved in the Port Arthur massacre. He can’t be trusted, and his intentions must have been to try and confuse the genuine evidence with his own garbage, and try and discourage other people from doing their own research. MacGregor states that the video is genuine but that it doesn’t show the gunman because the gunman never ran. How anyone was able to identify Vialls off that video I don’t know, but it must be that they have a better quality copy then you’ll find off the A Current Affair VHS taping à Youtube clip of it!

Was Vialls really Ben Menashe and the mastermind of the operation?

Was the real shooter Ben Overbeeke – now deceased – and if so, who was Ben Overbeeke?

It attempts to document as much as his life as is humanly possible; and it discredits him as being a genuine conspiracist. Even though he was often able to post details about important world events mere hours after they had occurred, and it without a doubt that he has powerful in-the-know friends.

As a result both MacGregor and Beattie contend that Vialls was involved in the operation of the Port Arthur massacre rather than a pensioner who was independently investigating this event. In the article above, Beattie asks the question how much money has Vialls collected so far in his “fund” for to launch a court action and free Bryant from gaol? Well Vialls is dead now, and has been for 4 years; with no such fund ever surfacing. Get the picture? Vialls lied and fabricated evidence, and why would anyone do that? Beattie then notes that Vialls at that point (2003) hadn’t posted any credible new evidence in the past 7 years, something that attests to the fact that Vialls was drawing genuine interest in understanding the facts of the case away from proper investigations. I can understand Beattie’s anger at this – as someone actively involved in investigating and collecting facts surrounding the events attributed to Bryant he would have to be very angry and upset at anybody pretending to do what he was doing and offering pseudo-evidence. Of course, if he was just scamming people for money then that wouldn’t mean he was involved in the incident, but what if he wasn’t scamming people for their money, but rather taking the money people would otherwise donate to more credible investigators?

You know the old saying “where there’s smoke there’s fire”?

Joe states here very clearly:

In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, government went to great lengths to ignore or suppress all evidence suggesting that the official story of the day was unsubstantiated rubbish. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Wendy Scurr and husband Graeme, residents of the Tasman Peninsula, who with others fought to bring very serious distortions of the massacre to the attention of government and media, but were ignored. This report includes information Wendy, Graeme, and several of their colleagues are determined that all Australians should know about: Critical information the Tasmanian Government, and several bureaucrats, are equally determined will never see the light of day.

“Suppress the evidence”? That simply isn’t true! MacGregor has stated that he was able to obtain most of the evidence he wanted from the police files under the freedom of information act, refuting all claims that police have hidden or locked away all the evidence. Vialls then speaks of the importance of Wendy Scurr’s first-hand eyewitness account as being of the upmost importance. If this is so then Joe should be spreading her version of events in full, right? Joe highlights the fact that Wendy called police at 1:32PM exactly, a considerably important fact very well substantiated by Wendy’s full account of the events. Joe states this:

It was the start of a long frustrating battle to get some of the more controversial aspects of the massacre out into the open, a battle Wendy, Graeme, and several others initially lost because of government determination to adhere to the “official line” agreed with the media. That official line included the gunman being inside the Broad Arrow Cafe for 90 seconds rather than the four to five minutes Wendy and her colleagues counted, but excluded the fact that several people were shot dead behind a door that would not open.

Remember that point – not 90 seconds but 4-5 minutes, it’s very important. It’s worth noting for the sake of forensics that the crime scene must have been heavily contaminated by the time police arrived because of Wendy and the other nurses and emergency workers and everyone else on the scene who disturbed it before police arrived hours later. Why does Joe later claim here that just 29 shots were fired, something directly contested by eyewitness testimony including that of Wendy Scurr? For shots to continue for 4-5 minutes means you’d have 1 shot every 8-10 seconds? Yet witnesses say shots were continually fired every 2-3 seconds. If that was the case then the shooter must have fired more than 100 shots and reloaded inside the Café, why does Joe first claim that Eyewitness testimony is the most important thing in the world and then ignore it when it suits him? Why? Because he picks and chooses the “facts” he wants to present.

By the way, Otho Jewell Vialls (or “Joe Vialls”) did meet privately with followers of the conspiracy, notably he met with Brant’s mother, Wendy Scurr and gunsmith Stewart Beattie who himself was the person to blow Vialls’ identity.