A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre By Carl Wernerhoff - © 2006 by Carl Wernerhoff

What’s Going On?:

A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre
By Carl Wernerhoff

Text © 2006 by Carl Wernerhoff
Email: cwernerhoff @ yahoo.com

What’s Going On? is to be regarded as a draft version of a book project which is being made available
privately by the author for the purpose of encouraging a wider knowledge of the case. In no sense is the text to be regarded as ‘published’ simply because a draft has been made available by means of a link placed on the Internet. There is no way that I would formally publish a work that contains as much speculation as this one and which remains incompletely documented. It may be downloaded and shared freely, so long as any original ideas contained in it are not attributed to any other author.

This work-in-progress is dedicated to
Joe Vialls
Ian McNiven
Andrew MacGregor
Noel McDonald
Wendy Scurr
and the handful of other Australians interested in knowing the truth about what happened at Port Arthur


Preface …… viii

Introduction …… 1



1. Reasons to question the official story …… 12
2. The police interrogation transcript …… 30
3. The ‘Jamie’ conversations …… 44
4. Guns and ammo …… 59
5. Zilch: the evidence against Martin Bryant …… 70
APPENDIX I: Bryant’s affair with a pig …… 86
APPENDIX II: What does Martin Bryant actually look
like? …… 88
APPENDIX III: See no evil, hear no evil: Petra
Wilmott …… 93
APPENDIX IV: Aileen and Ian Kingston …… 98
APPENDIX V: Wasps and Japs …… 106



6. Smoking guns …… 111
7. The wonderful world of psyops …… 118
8. Towards an alternative account of the Port Arthur
massacre …… 125
9. A provisional, alternative account of the Port Arthur
massacre ……
10. Aftermath ……
11. Conclusion ……


Like most Australians, this author was deeply affected– and to some extent, emotionally scarred – by the tragedy at Port Arthur in 1996. Like most Australians, moreover, I accepted the word of the government, the police and the mass media that Martin Bryant of New Town, Hobart, Tasmania, had
perpetrated the massacre. My willingness to accept what I now know to have been a bundle of lies was bound up with my ability to effortlessly incorporate the incident into my mental framework.

It seemed to me then that what had happened was really very simple: a generation of young people which had grown up in the shadow of that machine-gun toting icon of the 1980s, Rambo, had produced a couple of young men who craved nothing less than using high-powered weapons to inflict as much carnage as possible. Since there was no Vietnam war and therefore no Vietnamese peasants for them to destroy, the best alternative for these suburban Rambos was to go beserk in their own
backyards. This they did at locations like Hoddle Street, Melbourne, where Julian Knight killed seven people in 1987, Queen Street, Melbourne, where Frank Vitkovic killed eight people four months later, Aramoana, New Zealand, where David Gray killed thirteen in 1990, and Strathfield Shopping Centre, Sydney, where Wade Frankum killed seven in 1991.

Now, to prolong this series of young Antipodean Rambos, was the Broad Arrow Café, Port Arthur, Tasmania, with Martin Bryant playing the lead role.

My understanding of the massacre was naïve, to be sure, but it was consistent with a popular view according to which episodes of mass violence are triggered by images diffused throughout the mainstream culture. Whenever a figure like Rambo emerges as a culture hero, I reasoned, there would inexorably follow Julian Knights, Wade Frankums and Martin Bryants. The meaning for the massacre for me was simply that society is biting off far more than it can chew when it sets up lethal
characters like Rambo as its heroes and role models.

In another fit of naïvete that I now regret, I was also favourably impressed when John Howard of the Liberal party, Australia’s newly-elected prime minister, acted decisively after the massacre to ram through stringent new gun laws of the sort I had long supported. To me, strict gun laws was a Labor party policy – and it was almost unthinkable to me that a Liberal leader would move on the issue. I was pleasantly surprised to see a Liberal party stalwart like Howard champion one of my pet causes. I really didn’t think a conservative had it in him to do something that, in my opinion, was manifestly in the country’s best interests.1

Yet, for all my naïvete, I cannot say that I was entirely satisfied by what I read in the newspapers and saw on television about the massacre. At the subconscious level, I felt uneasy about the fact that it had taken place only seven short weeks after Howard had become prime minister. I sensed that there had to be a connection somewhere. I was also disturbed by the fact that no satisfactory explanation was ever offered for the fact that the locking mechanism for a rear exit from the Broad Arrow Café
had been damaged so as to render it unusable, thus preventing escape by that route. It seemed to me then, as it still seems to me now, that anyone who thinks that this defect was not connected to the massacre – as if it was a minor problem that had occurred but simply not been noticed before April 28 – has to be a complete fool.

[1 Non-Australian readers should understand that the Liberal party is, despite its name, an
arch-conservative party. Apart from its stand on the issue of guns in 1996, its policies are virtually identical to and as inimical to the public good as those of the American Republican party.]

It is perhaps because a vein of suspicion lingered inside me that, as the years went by and the massacre wholly vanished from public discourse, I only found myself asking more questions about what had happened, not less.

What made me suspicious about the case was principally the fact that no sooner had Bryant been installed in Risdon prison than it vanished – and vanished completely - from public discourse. I could not understand why there never were interviews with key witnesses and participants. With the
exception of Nubeena pharmacist Walter Mikacs, who was not himself a victim but rather the husband and father of three victims (his wife and two young daughters), no one associated with the events of April 28-29, 1996, maintained any sort of a public profile in the years that followed. Carleen Bryant –
Martin’s mother – was the only other individual in any way connected to the massacre who impinged on my consciousness.

(I read in The Sydney Morning Herald that the grief-stricken woman spent her days travelling around Australia in campervan.) Where were people like Bryant’s girlfriend, Petra Wilmott, who should have been able to shed light on Bryant’s mental processes in the lead up to the massacre? Why did no one ever interview actual eyewitnesses of the shooting? It was almost as though all these people had fallen down a rabbit hole.

Their absence from my newspapers, magazines and televisions violated my sense of decorum. As one of the most traumatic events in Australian history, the sudden shutdown of discourse about Port Arthur presented an obscene challenge to my concept of closure, a fashionable term which, however glibly it is often used, implies a full and objective reckoning with the past. The Port Arthur massacre disappeared from the Australian media at precisely the time when the public should have found itself plumbing the darkest depths of Martin Bryant’s mind, the world which had created him, and the precise circumstances that had enabled him to acquire his lethal weapons. Port Arthur, it seemed to me, had slipped into a memory hole well before its time, and Bryant himself had become a non-person in the Orwellian sense. In a society devoted to smug self-adulation, I seemed to be the only person to preserve a live curiosity about the distressing events of 1996 – events which, presumably, had no place in Howard’s new, ‘relaxed and comfortable’ Australia.

Those unsatisfied feelings began to find an outlet in about 2001 when, thanks to the Internet, I came across writings about Port Arthur by independent researcher Joe Vialls. Vialls presented, at least in nuce, a more persuasive account of what had happened at Port Arthur than that which I had picked up from the Australian mass media.2 But at this stage, the abundance of materials on bizarre events in recent American history like the political assassinations of the 1960s and the Oklahoma City bombing to which the Internet gave me access gripped my attention more. Then there was 9-11, an event which for several years preoccupied me nearly as much as the assassinations of my heroes the Kennedy brothers.

But finally, in 2004, I discovered on my computer a version of one of Vialls’ writings about Port Arthur.
This time, the subject stuck with me. I was in it for the long haul – anxious to discover whether, unsuspected by the mass public, a dark and disturbing event of the American kind had intruded into the history of a remote and hitherto peaceful continent. My ability to research this topic objectively was enhanced by the fact that, by 2004, I no longer held any illusions about John Howard. I had fully
come to recognize that he was probably the dirtiest player in Australian political history. Like all thinking Australians, I

[2 Many of the writings to which I am referring are now hosted at the following location:

realized by 2004 that he and lied about the Tampa affair for short-term political advantage, while his decision to commit Australian troops to the neoconservatives’ war in Iraq demonstrated beyond all doubt that his ultimate loyalties were to the American military-industrial complex, not the citizens of
the country that had elected him its leader. I realized that there was probably nothing that Howard would not do to stay in power long enough to fasten a conservative straitjacket on the country the way the Republicans had done in the United States.

If Howard supported gun control in 1996, I decided, there very probably had to be a sinister reason.
What I learned, as I studied the details of the Port Arthur massacre, was that there was no evidence that Martin Bryant – alone and to the exclusion of all other young men with long blonde hair – had perpetrated the massacre. And, as my knowledge of the case deepened, I realized that Bryant could
not have done it. The book you are about to read captures the key moments of my independent investigation, the stages by which I groped my way to a fuller understanding of that disturbing event.

A word about the Seascape siege is in order. Bryant was apprehended by police the day after the massacre while fleeing a burning building, Seascape Cottage, which was located about four kilometres north of Port Arthur. The public was led to believe that Bryant had been the man calling himself ‘Jamie’
who had kept police at bay during an overnight siege that lasted over 18 hours. By various means, the public was led to accept that the Seascape affair was connected with the massacre, and that the protagonist of the siege was the same individual as the Port Arthur shooter.

That Bryant was somehow implicated in the siege is incontrovertible. He admits arriving at Seascape, we know that his girlfriend (Petra Wilmott) was present there with him, while, as is well known to most Australians, he was captured while fleeing from the burning building on the morning of April 29. Recognition of the fact that Bryant was involved does not mean that he was responsible for killing anyone, let alone that he was the main known only as ‘Jamie,’ who seems to have been in charge of the Seascape operation. In fact, Bryant was probably one of Jamie’s hostages.

While I believe that Bryant was the person Jamie referred to as Sgt. Terry McCarthy’s ‘main man’ – the reason why McCarthy could not allow the Seascape siege to get ‘blown’ – we have no means of establishing exactly what happened or why. While Bryant languishes in jail, effectively forbidden from discussing the case, the other inviduals involved are either dead or unlikely to ever to re-emerge to discuss the affair (‘Jamie,’ Petra Wilmott). There are no independent witnesses to events, leaving us wholly dependent upon the mostly uninformative statements of police and Special Operations Group (SOG) personnel attending the siege.

I do not try to ascertain the truth about the bizarre Seascape siege, therefore. Whatever Bryant’s (and Wilmott’s) true role in the Seascape affair or the extent of our sympathy for its other victims (Noelene Martin, David Martin and Glenn Pears), what happened there is a relatively tame matter compared to the nightmarish scenes that transpired in the PAHS on April 28. 3

While it is always possible that Bryant deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for his role in what happened at Seascape, we have no means of reconstructing a likely narrative of events, incriminating or otherwise. We are much better informed about what happened at Port Arthur – sufficiently

[3 According to the charges against him, Bryant was accused of the murder of Noelene Joyce Martin. However, she is normally referred to as Sally, and this will be the practice throughout this book.]

well-informed that it is possible to state with absolute certainty that Bryant was not involved.

Although I deal with several aspects of the Seascape siege in this book, therefore, I do so only when doing so sheds light on what happened at Port Arthur and the question of whether Bryant was the Port Arthur gunman. This book is about what happened at Port Arthur in one of the darkest episodes in Australian history. For all its sophistication and its numerous unexplained dimensions, the Seascape siege was at bottom a charade whose purpose was to make it look as though Martin Bryant had been the Port Arthur gunman. It was the Australian analogue of the murder of Officer Tippit in Dallas in 1963, which by a convoluted kind of logic led to the conclusion that a man captured in a cinema with a gun had to be the man who killed Tippit and the man who killed Tippit had to have been the man who had assassinated President Kennedy.

This book therefore labours to exonerate Bryant from the allegation that he was involved in the Port Arthur massacre. It mounts no particular case about the nature of his involvement in the Seascape affair, although I lean towards the view that he was a captive rather than a co-conspirator.

A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre


Australians reacted with horror and outrage when, on a Sunday evening in 1996, they learned from their televisions that over 30 people had been murdered and many others injured in an orgy of violence in the Port Arthur Historical Site (PAHS), Tasmania, one the nation’s most venerable historical sites, and adjacent locations. They were told that the atrocities had been perpetrated by a young Caucasian man with pale skin and long white hair brandishing a military rifle – a kind of quasi-albino
Rambo – who apparently had a dislike of Japanese tourists.

In summary, the story delivered to the breathless world was that shortly before 1.30 p.m. that cloudless Sunday afternoon, the gunman had entered the Broad Arrow Café at the PAHS and picked off, with unfathomable callousness, one tourist after another. He killed a number of other individuals as he exited the PAHS and holed himself up in a nearby tourist guest house, the Seascape, in a siege that only ended when he burned the building down the following morning (an event that was seen
shortly afterwards on television).

What made the crime so repugnant was first, the coldly methodical way in which the shooter set to the task of killing as many people as possible, and second, the fact that his pitlilessness extended to even small children. To those deeply traumatized (like this writer) by the story of how the gunman had callously shot Walter and Nanette Mikac's two little daughters, three year-old Madeline and six year-old Alannah, whom he had hunted down from her hiding place behind a tree, no more sinister crime could be imagined.

The wave of revulsion unleashed across the country by the massacre - the second-largest body count in a single killing spree by one shooter anywhere in the world - can only be compared to that which swept the globe immediately after the 9-11 terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. It led just as
inevitably to the implementation of national legislation against semi-automatic weapons as the 9-11 attacks led in the United States to the passage of the Patriot Act. It was also so traumatizing an event that it left Australians entirely oblivious to the massive miscarriage of justice that followed when Martin Bryant, a 29 year-old man with an IQ of only 66 from Hobart, Tasmania, was declared guilty of the crime.4 All it took to convince Australians that Bryant had been the killer, effectively, was the say-so of Tasmania Police and the mass media.

The ‘evidence’ against Bryant that the police and media presented to the Australian public consisted of four things:

1) a shocking narrative of the events of April 28-29 in which Bryant was asserted over and over again to have been the central protagonist;

2) a photograph of Bryant showing strange, ‘psycho’ eyes that was published in the Hobart Mercury on the morning of April 30, then published across the country by the afternoon of the same day;

3) a biography of Bryant disclosing a history of mental problems, as well as several disturbing episodes, such as his friendship (and rumoured sexual relationship) with an eccentric old woman, Helen Hervey, who died in a car crash in 1992, bequeathing him $650,000; and

4) revelations that he owned numerous violent and pornographic videos, the most sensational item of which was Child's Play 2, a film in which an evil doll called Chucky has to kill a boy to become real.

[4 To be entirely accurate, Bryant was nine days short of his 29th birthday.]

Considered together, these four things left Australians in no doubt whatsoever that Bryant was guilty. (As I show in Appendix I below, Bryant was no psycho, the most incriminating episodes in his biography are either lies or unsubstantiated allegations, and his video collection contained entirely standard fare.)

The outrage against Bryant lasted so long that when, on September 30, 1996, he pleaded not guilty to any of the 72 charges against him, no one was prepared to entertain the possibility that he might have done so because he was actually not guilty. Australians ‘knew’ that he was guilty, whatever he
said to the contrary. The fact that he pleaded not guilty presented nothing for them to worry about, because his decision to plead not guilty for crimes the public thought he had ‘obviously’ committed was no more inexplicable than the crime itself, for which no real motive had ever been offered. The line
of reasoning most people followed was that someone who was perverse enough to commit a massacre for no apparent reason could be expected to prove just as perverse in the courtroom.

By November 7, 1996, when suddenly and inexplicably Bryant pleaded guilty to all 72 charges against him, the massacre was no longer of interest to most Australians. All that mattered to them was that the monster who had committed the murders was going to be locked away for the rest of his life. No one cared about such matters as how, within a period of a few weeks, Bryant had been induced to shift from a ‘not guilty’ to a ‘guilty’ plea – thereby sparing the government a trial that would prove his guilt - and most people just felt sad for his mother, Carleen Bryant, when they learned that she remained unconvinced that her son had been responsible for the killing spree.

Once the fit of base passions unleased by the massacre began to subside in about 1999, a few conscientious Australians began to express concerns that, during the process that led to Bryant’s sentencing on November 22, 1996, major violations of the Australian criminal justice system had occurred, as well as shocking legal improprieties without precedent in the country’s history. This is a shortlist of twelve of the violations and improprieties that were required to ensure that Martin Bryant was locked away for the rest of his life without ever being proven guilty:

1. The identity of the alleged offender was made public by the Hobart Mercury on the morning of April 29, 1996, when it was stated that he had been ‘a 29 yearl old schizophrenic from the Hobart suburb of New Town’ whose father had ‘committed suicide 3 years ago.’ The actual name of the alleged offender was made public by the same newspaper the following morning and by all major afternoon papers shortly afterwards - before his guilt had been proven in a court of law. Under Australian law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

2. A photograph of the alleged offender was illegally published by the Hobart Mercury on the morning of April 30, 1996, and by all major afternoon papers shortly afterwards, including Sydney tabloid The Daily Telegraph (which is where I first saw it myself).

NB: The reason why it is illegal to publish photographs of suspects is that it influences witness statements, often making it impossible for them to remember what they actually saw. The wide circulation of photos of Bryant was clearly a major obstacle to identification when one of the most widely published photos was used as photo #5 in the May 14, 1996 police photoboard. At least two
witnesses were honest enough to admit that their memories had been contaminated by their exposure to Bryant’s image in the media.

[‘I have today viewed a folder containing thirty photographs of male persons, and I immediately recognised photo #5 as the person I believe to be the gunman, but I must be honest here with this identification, and say that I have definitely been influenced by media coverage of his photo in relation to an identification.’ – Eyewitness Lindsay Richards (May 29, 1996) ‘I have read an article in Time Magazine, and have viewed a photograph of Martin Bryant within this article … so if I chose Bryant in a [police] photoboard, I would be very influenced by this article.’ – Eyewitness Brigid Cook (May 29, 1996)]

BELOW: Media frenzy: the first picture the nation saw of the alleged perpetrator of the massacre, Martin Bryant (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

3. A Coronial Inquiry, although required by Tasmanian law when a person has died ‘a violent, unnatural or unexpected death, or as a result of injury or accident,’ was waived on purely sentimental grounds by the Prime Minister, John Howard. Not only did Howard have no power to overrule a Tasmanian law, it cannot be overruled by a Tasmanian government official or legal representative. Yet every move made by relatives of the deceased in calling for a Coronial Inquest has been subsequently denied by the Tasmanian Coroner, Ian Matterson, as well as by Tasmania's Attorney General, Ray Groom. The explanation was that an inquiry would only inflict more pain upon the already sufficiently traumatized survivors.

4. Bryant was illegally held in solitary confinement until he finally pleaded guilty in November 1996, a period of nearly seven months. During this period, he was allowed no access to the media, be it radio, television or print, and was therefore kept in the dark as to what Australia was saying about the massacre and his presumed role in it. Although he received a handful of visits from his mother Carleen Bryant and one from his girlfriend Petra Wilmott, these visits seem to have taken place in closely supervised (i.e., severely constrained) circumstances in which the case itself was not allowed to be
discussed. As a result, Bryant was left in total ignorance for over two months of the fact that he was being held responsible for the Port Arthur massace. This is contrary to the fundamental principle that accused persons have the right to know the nature of the charges against them.

5. Bryant’s police interrogation of July 4, 1996, was illegally conducted without any legal counsel or guardian present. What’s more, what has been released of the interrogation transcript shows that until July 4, 1996, Bryant was under the misapprehension the only charge against him was a single
death. Again, this is contrary to the principle that accused persons have the right to know the nature of the charges against them.

6. Neither of Bryant’s defence lawyers - David Gunson QC and Hobart-based barrister and solicitor John Avery – made any effort to defend him. They seem to have understood their role to involve persuading Bryant to plead guilty in order to avoid a trial. The problem with taking such a position is that Bryant denied carrying out the massacre at the PAHS on April 28, 1996. Gunson and Avery therefore failed to fulfill their obligations to their client to mount a defence on his behalf.

7. Since the intellectually disadvantaged Bryant had been declared incompetent to manage his own affairs in a closed session of the Hobart Supreme Court on April 22, 1994, he was not legally able to enter a guilty plea.

8. The police have never properly verified Bryant’s guilty pleas using standard police procedures.
‘Standard procedure in these circumstances is to take the suspect out to the crime scene and ask for details of exactly how he committed the crime(s), i.e. where each victim was standing, what sex, how many bullets, where the weapon was reloaded, etc etc., all recorded on continuous (time-stamped) video,’ explains conspiracy researcher Joe Vialls. ‘The Victorian Police Service observed this standard procedure meticulously in the case of Julian Knight at Hoddle Street during 1987, as did the New South
Wales Police Service after a street shooting in Wollongong in 1998.’ Vialls adds the following, entirely appropriate conclusion: the ‘Tasmanian Police Service has still not verified his guilt using this standard procedure, and its continued refusal to do so can realistically be taken as proof of Martin Bryant's innocence.’5

9. Prime Minister Howard called for the demolition of the Broad Arrow Café, again on sentimental grounds. However, the Café was part of the evidence that would be required for any

[5 http://members.iinet.net/~jenks/carleen.html That this is what the police do in such cases can easily be verified by watching the episodes of the TV programme Forensic Investigators concerned with the 1998 Wollongong murders. They show abundant footage of the perpetrator, Mark Valera,
taking police through every stage of the killings.]

future court case or inquest and should therefore have been preserved indefinitely.

NB: The hasty demolition of a crime scene – as that of the Murrah Federal Building at Oklahome City and the World Trade Center in New York – is a classic feature of high-level cover ups.

10. Even today, no one outside Risdon prison - with the possible exception of his mother, although this remains unclear - is apparently allowed to speak with, or photograph, Martin Bryant. This is what the American constitution would define as ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ but is apparently legal in
Australia. However, it would certainly be illegal under various United Nations charters on human rights.

11. Bryant’s estate was sequestrated and his assets (which were estimated at $900,000) turned over to the state. Since Bryant has never been proven guilty, this amounts to larceny on the part of the Tasmanian government.

12. Since there existed no legislation which would have entitled the Tasmanian government to help itself to Bryant’s estate, special legislation had to be introduced into Parliament which applied retrospectively to the date at which it was introduced (which was on about November 15, 1996, a week before Bryant pled guilty). Retrospective legislation is always objectionable on moral grounds – in effect, it means entitling the state to penalize individuals for acts which were not illegal at the time
they were performed - but this example must rank among the most dangerous precedents in Australian legal history.

That it has proven so easy for the authorities to leave Bryant languishing in prison without ever being proven guilty is largely due to the apathy of millions. Despite their civilized veneer, the Australians of 1996 reverted to a lynch mob mentality when A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre confronted by crimes that exceeded their understanding. Who can doubt that Bryant would have been lynched at any time in 1996, if the opportunity had presented itself? Royal Hobart Hospital staff even received death threats for the crime of tending to the third-degree burns Bryant sustained in the Seascape fire and one of the walls of the Hospital soon carried a message implying that an attempt would be made to kill him (see photo on page 10).

Even after ten years, I doubt whether many Australians would raise an eyebrow if, tomorrow, they
read in their newspapers that Bryant had been murdered in Risdon prison by a fellow prisoner or by a prison officer.

The fact that there has been total silence on the part of the Australian legal establishment about Bryant’s treatment amply demonstrates that it does not take such matters as the right to a fair trial at all seriously. The only high profile individual who has dared to express doubts as to Bryant’s guilt is independent conservative politician Pauline Hanson, who is not highly regarded in many circles. Sadly, it is likely that Bryant’s case will remain unexposed unless it is taken up by a more credible critic of the establishment like journalist David Marr or social commentator Richard Neville.

BELOW: Graffiti on the wall of the Hobart hospital in which Bryant was recovering from burn wounds
A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)



1 Reasons to question the official story

The unhappy fate of Martin Bryant is more than a matter of the flouting of the fundamental principles of the Australian criminal justice system. Since so many laws and legal norms were conspicuously ignored in the rush to lock Bryant away for good, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that they were ignored precisely because they constituted an impediment to finding him guilty. Our first step, therefore, is to reexamine the case on the basis of a presumption of innocence. Our modus operandi consists of subjecting every incriminating aspect of the case to serious scrutiny: something that has scarcely ever been done before.

Bryant’s physical appearance

Most Australians remain unaware that there are good reasons to doubt that Bryant perpetrated the massacre. Of the twentyodd persons who survived the shootings inside the Broad Arrow Café, only a few provided physical descriptions of the gunman. In these, his estimated age is twenty or less. Karen Atkins of Sydney told The Australian (April 29, 1996) that, very soon after the shootings, she had spoken to a woman who had met the gunman in the Café. According to this woman, the gunman had been 'a young fellow, about 18 or 19, he looked like a surfie, he arrived in a Volkswagon and he walked into the cafeteria carrying a tennis bag.'

This description could be dismissed on the grounds that it is secondhand. However, it tallies with the description given by Carol Pearce. According to Pearce, the gunman, who she passed on her way into the Broad Arrow Café, was ‘between 18-20 years of age, he had really blonde hair which was collar length, it was fairly straight with a bit of a wave in it. He was clean shaven, he was average in height and build.’ Pearce’s description is invaluable, as it was given on April 28, 1996, the very day of the massacre. Like the woman to whom Atkins spoke, therefore, Pearce could not have been influenced by the media campaign of vilification against Martin Bryant. No picture of him had as yet been published.6

The same age range is mentioned by former RAF officer Graham Collyer, who was shot in the throat inside the Café. In his witness statement taken on May 7, 1996, Collyer described the gunman thus: 'He seemed somewhere about 20, he had long blonde bedraggled hair, about 3" - 4" below the shoulder. He looked like he might have had a lot of acne, a pitted face. He had scraggly trousers, I don't remember what colour.'7 On May 10, Jim Laycock told police that the man was in his ‘low
twenties.’ Betty Daviess described him as a ‘young male person.’8

Of the individuals who gave their statements to the police before the barrage of images of Martin Bryant appeared in the media, the oldest age estimates are given by Carmel Edwards, who held the door open for the gunman as he left the Café to eat his lunch on the balcony, and Justin Noble, a member of the New South Wales police force who says he saw the gunman

[6 Of course, Pearce could have been the woman Atkins spoke to. If so, this proves that Atkins related her description accurately enough. However, Pearce does not say that she spoke with the gunman, suggesting that we are talking about two different witnesses.]

[7 Noel McDonald, A Presentation on the Port Arthur Incident, 2001, p. 222. Collyer states that he had been ‘sedated or sleeping since the shooting,’ so had not yet had the opportunity to ‘see anything in the media about the person who shot me.’ Collyer’s statement can be read online at:

[8 http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadaviesstate.html]

exiting the Café after the shooting. Edwards described him as ’22-23 years old.’ Noble described him
'as 20-25 years of age.'

Another witness, Joyce Maloney, told the police he was 18-22.9 Thus no actual witness to the shootings at Port Arthur cites an age above 25. Most describe him as in his late teens or early twenties. (It also appears to be the case that the better look a witness got at the gunman, the younger the age he or she gave to the police.) Yet at the time of the massacre, Bryant was 29 and could not reasonably have been mistaken for anyone under 26 or 27.

This much is obvious from the photograph on the next page, which shows Bryant together with the woman we have been told was his girlfriend, Petra Wilmott. Since the pair reportedly only became romantically involved in February 1996, this photograph has to have been taken within three months of the massacre. Despite its poor quality, it shows Bryant’s face unframed by hair, and so gives a very good idea of what he looked like at the time of the massacre.

The only witnesses who estimated the gunman’s age in the upper 20s are witnesses like Yannis Kateros who only saw him from a considerable distance, most of whom gave statements to the police a week or more after the shooting when the matter of Bryant’s age was already established in the media.10

It is obvious that those who saw the gunman at close distance and who gave their descriptions before anything about Bryant’s appearance had been made public are to be considered by far the most reliable.

[9 http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatemaloney.html]

[10 Kateros, who estimated the shooter’s age as 28, gave his statement on May 10. See Noel McDonald, op. cit., p. 223.]

But there were more than years separating Bryant and the Port Arthur gunman. Only one witness, Rebecca McKenna, got a good look at the man’s face. (Most witnesses saw nothing on account of the long blonde hair.) Although there are problems with her statement (as well as those of her partner Michael Beekman), her description of his appearance – the only detailed description on record – makes disturbing reading for anyone who thinks that he could have been Bryant: I would describe the male as follows: - Approximately 173 cm tall. Slim build. Blonde hair, past his ears, wavy with a part in the middle. Unshaven dirty looking. His eyes appeared to be blue. …. He appeared to be German looking. His eyebrows appeared to be blonde and bushy.

He appeared “dopey” looking, his eyes appeared to be bloodshot. His facial skin appeared to be freckley and he was pale. His face seemed skinny and withdrawn. His ears were fairly large.11

It is interesting that while McKenna’s account of the man’s conversation was widely quoted – he talked about European wasps and Japanese tourists - her description of his face was

[11 http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatemckenna.html]

not. Perhaps this is because in no photo does Bryant seem to have bushy eyebrows or prominent ears (indeed, his ears seem on the small side). Bryant’s most memorable facial characteristic is, in fact, a wide and slightly bulbous nose – a feature never mentioned by witnesses. Although McKenna’s description is uniquely detailed, it is to some extent corroborated by that of Graham Collyer who, as we saw, states that his complexion was acne-scarred. However, Bryant's complexion is perfectly smooth, at least so far as the available photographs show, while the colour versions of the photos allegedly taken by Petra Wilmott on April 25, 1996, show a healthy, ruddy face.

The biggest problem with McKenna’s description is her statement that the man was unshaven. This conflicts with the statement of Carol Pearce, who described him as clean shaven. Some doubt remains as to the length of the gunman’s hair. Graham Collyer is one of a number of witnesses who reported
that his hair extended a few inches below the shoulder, while Bryant's hair barely touched the shoulder, as can be seen from the photograph on the following page, which was one of a number (at least allegedly) taken by Wilmott only three days before the shootings.

Another striking difference concerns the waviness of Bryant’s hair. This photo shows that it was wavy throughout, not ‘fairly straight with a bit of a wave in it,’ as Pearce states. Yet most witnesses state that the gunman’s hair was straight, with a wave only at the bottom.

BELOW: Martin Bryant photographed by Petra Wilmott at Richmond on April 25, 1996.12 (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

The most serious problem is raised by the statement of Jim Laycock. Laycock, who was the co-owner of the Port Arthur Motor Inn at the entrance to the PAHS, is of outstanding importance in this case as he was the one and only witness who observed the gunman in the act who actually knew Bryant. In
his police statement, Laycock said that ‘he did not recognise the

[12 According to the photo section of Bingham, op. cit.]

male as Martin Bryant.’ He states only that he saw ‘a person with blond hair’ shoot Zoe Hall and take Glenn Pears captive.13

BELOW: Jim Laycock Another witness, Yannis Kateros, says he had never seen the gunman before. (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Yet Kateros had lived at Port Arthur since 1991, and Bryant had reportedly been an extremely regular visitor to the PAHS in 1991-92.

At least two other witnesses have also stated that Bryant was not the gunman. These are PAHS Information Centre employee Wendy Scurr, who, according to one report, saw him inside the Centre immediately prior to the attack, and Vietnam war veteran John Godfrey, who was waiting outside the Centre when the shooting commenced. Godfrey viewed the gunman twice. He saw him drive by and saw him put a bag into the boot

[13 We will see in Appendix II below that there are reasons to question whether Bryant even had blond hair.]

of his car. ‘In my opinion, the picture I saw in the newspapers, was not the same person,’ he stated in his police witness statement taken on June 7, 1996.14 Wendy Scurr has reportedly admitted changing her mind during the course of several public presentations she has given on the subject of the massacre. She no longer believes that Bryant was the man she saw.

Bryant has never been positively ID’d as the gunman

Most Australians, when confronted by the heretical idea that Bryant had not been the gunman, respond in brain-dead, kneejerk fashion: ‘Of course he did it!’ they say. ‘People saw him do it!’ In fact, it has never been proven that he was the man they saw do it. It was the police and the media, not the eyewitnesses, who identified Bryant as the gunman. Unfortunately, numerous witnesses, to whom one young man with long blonde hair is pretty much the same as another, have inadvertently helped prop up the official determination.

The only witnesses who positively identified Bryant as the gunman were Linda White and Michael Wanders, both persons whose statements were taken a full month after the shooting, after they had been exposed to plenty of media coverage about the case. On May 27, 1996, White viewed the police photoboard and decided that ‘Photograph no 5 in this folder [i.e., Bryant] is the male who shot us near Port Arthur.’ However, her reason for selecting photo #5 seems to have because of the fact that, in this photo, Bryant appeared to be wearing a top that was ‘very similar’ to that worn by the gunman. ‘It could even be the same top,’ she said. Unfortunately, White’s statement is of no value whatsoever. An identification can scarcely be based upon an item of clothing, which can obviously be worn by another person (indeed,

[14 McDonald, op. cit., p. 222.]

someone seeking to impersonate Bryant would have taken care to acquire an item of his clothing, or at least a very similar item). What’s more, no other witness recalled the gunman wearing the same top as that worn by Bryant in photo #5.

White was clearly basing her identification entirely upon a photo she had seen in the media.

As for Michael Wanders, in his statement taken the same day (May 27, 1996), Wanders picked Bryant out from the police photoboard as ‘the person who shot at Linda and I on 28/4/96.’ Unfortunately, Wanders’ identification is also of no value. On April 28, 1996, he had told the police ‘I would not be able to identify the person who shot at us.’ In his statement a month later, he admits that he hadn’t been able to ‘get a good enough look at the male to see how old he was or what he was wearing.’

His statement suggests that really all he had seen was a male with long blonde hair. Yet, somehow, this was enough for him to still pick Bryant out as the man who had shot at him. It is hard to credit the identification of a witness who on the day of the attack itself explicitly stated that he would not have been able to identify the gunman to someone who, a month later, felt able to oblige the police with a positive ID. White’s and Wanders’ statements prove one thing – that the laws prohibiting media organizations from publishing photos of accused persons are sensible ones which ought always to be
rigorously enforced.

In view of the fact that no serious efforts were ever made to prevent the media from publishing photos of Bryant, the question has to be asked whether the police ever wanted the gunman properly identified. Certainly, they seem to have done their best to avoid placing Bryant together with eyewitnesses in the same room. Graham Collyer, who was on the same floor as Bryant in the Royal Hobart Hospital on the day his witness statement was taken, was never given the opportunity to look at him. On this occasion, a positive ID could have been made in a matter of minutes.

If you look at the dates on which most witness statements were taken – a week or more after the events themselves – it looks as though the police were deliberately refraining from interviewing eyewitnesses until they had had time to absorb the disinformation about Bryant that predominated in the Australian media during the week after the massacre. In this regard, it is striking that none of the witnesses who showed a tendency not to identify Bryant as the gunman were given the opportunity to pick him out from the police identity board - not even N.S.W. police officer Justin Noble, who said
that he thought he could identify the man, if shown a photo of him taken from the appropriate angle.15

The fact that Noble was never asked to view the police photoboard implies that Tasmania Police anticipated a negative response.

It is only when one realizes that Bryant has never been positively identified as the PAHS shooter that one begins to understand why a court trial was never held. One of the problems that a trial presented to those seeking to incriminate him was that it would have placed actual witnesses in the same room with him. Under oath, they would have been required to identify Martin Bryant as the man they had seen shooting at the PAHS on April 28, 1996. That a trial was avoided means that no one was ever asked to identify him specifically as the killer.

Lack of Bryant’s fingerprints or DNA at Port Arthur

Martin Bryant is adamant that he never visited the PAHS on the day of the massacre. Most Australians – if they know of this denial at all - simply dismiss it as a lie. A fact that should deeply

[15 McDonald, op. cit., p. 223.]

unsettle them is that neither Bryant’s fingerprints nor his DNA have ever been found at the PAHS. This much has been admitted by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, officer in charge of the Ballistic Section of Tasmania Police, in an article he published about the case in the Australian Police Journal in December

There is no good reason why no evidence of this kind exists. An obvious source of fingerprints and DNA would have been the food tray (with a can of Solo soft drink, a plastic Schweppes cup and other food items, including eating utensils) that Rebecca McKenna saw the gunman eating from immediately prior to the shooting. We know that the tray was recovered by the police, because it is shown in a police training video that turned up in a secondhand shop in September 2004.16 Although the tray
would have contained fingerprints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair from the shooter, there is no evidence that it yielded anything that came from Martin Bryant. The only reason we have heard nothing about forensic evidence of this kind, surely, is that none of it incriminated him.17

The Balasko video hoax

A further reason to doubt that Bryant was the Port Arthur shooter concerns the (presumably not coincidental) fact that all the images of the shooter which have been made public entirely lack facial detail. The best quality image, that reproduced below, which comes from a video allegedly made by ‘American

[16 http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Australia/portarthur6.htm

[17 The absence of evidence against Bryant is dealt with more systematically in Chapter 5 below.]

tourist’ James Balasko, looks strangely washed out in the facial area, as though it has been tampered with. If this image is authentic, the question have to be asked how the Prince sports bag the man is carrying towards his vehicle got back into the Café, where it is shown next to the food tray in the
footage from the police training video, and why the man is carrying it on his left shoulder when two witnesses, the Wilkinsons from Corio, Victoria, explicitly state that the gunman they watched leave the Café carried it on his right shoulder as he walked towards his vehicle. There is also no time
indicated on the frame, which raises the possibility that the video was not taken at around 1.30 p.m. on April 28, 1996.

The actual circumstances in which the video came to light are highly suspicious and militate against its authenticity. Balasko does not mention having made the video in his interview with Tasmanian police on the evening of April 29, 1996, and the footage itself, which would have been of immense value to both the police and the media immediately after the shootings, was not seen by the Australian public until it was shown on national television shortly before Bryant’s sentence hearing. It is, of course, highly implausible that Balasko would have videotaped the gunman when his priority would have been getting as far away from him as possible or that, if he had been so foolhardy, he would not have offered his historic recording to the police or the media at once.

Although other conclusions may be possible, my own is that the video was a fake. A possibility to be considered is that shortly the massacre the police performed and filmed (from Balasko’s position) a reconstruction of the crime. A short sequence from the film would have been released to the media on the eve of Bryant’s sentencing hearing as a means of reinforcing public belief in his guilt. The possibility that it depicts a recreation emerges clearly from a comparison of the Balasko frames with the Wilkinsons’ video, whose authenticity I see no reason to doubt. The two videos seem to show different vehicles in the parking area.

BELOW: An alleged image of the gunman returning to his vehicle immediately after the massacre (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

The mysterious Prince sports bag

Since several witnesses (including John Godfrey and Betty Daviess) saw the gunman put the sports bag in the boot of his car before driving off, its presence inside the Café after the shootings is a mystery that has yet to be solved. A distinct possibility is that there were two sports bags, one of which the shooter left inside the Café and the other which he took with him back to his car. (Daviess says it was green) Since the bag left behind in the Café allegedly contained a knife with the blood of Seascape owner David Martin on it, it is not hard to see in the mystery of the sports bag a complex intrigue for the purpose of framing Bryant by abandoning at the crime scene a
bag that Bryant had handled in the recent past, perhaps during the course of the bizarre events that had unfolded that morning at Seascape Cottage (see Chapter 3 below).

According to Mark Bingham's Suddenly One Sunday (1996), Petra Wilmott, who was Bryant's girlfriend for two months immediately prior to the massacre, was present when Bryant bought the bag ‘in a store.’ He told her it was for Tai Chi.18 However, when police showed Bryant the bag on July 4, 1996,
he denied having seen it before. Inspector Ross Paine told Bryant that he believed that Bryant had bought it ‘in Myers or Fitzgeralds or somewhere in town with a, a young woman earlier this year.’ Bryant denied it, Paine responded that he believed that he had. End of subject.

BELOW: Petra Wilmott, Bryant’s girlfriend in the two months prior to the massacre (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

This conversation shows that more than two months after the massacre the police still had not established where the bag came from - something that should have been easily done in a small town like Hobart (population 218,000) which has only a

[18 Bingham, op. cit., p. 54.]

handful of stores that would stock an item of this kind. Somehow the problem was solved between July 4 and November 19, 1996, when Damien Bugg QC told the Supreme Court that Bryant had bought the bag in Myer's on April 15, 1996.

But, to my knowledge, no proof of the transaction has ever been provided. What’s more, the name of the individual working in the store at the time – who claims to have had a whispered conversation with Bryant about the bag – has never been made public. Nor, so far as I am aware, has this unidentified individual ever furnished the police with a statement.

I suspect this individual does not even exist. If I am correct in drawing this conclusion, the case for Bryant's purchase of the bag rests entirely on the word of Petra Wilmott. However, there are reasons to deeply distrust Wilmott, a mysterious individual who

1) entered Bryant’s life shortly before the massacre;

2) was involved with Bryant during the period in which he procured a new rifle;

3) was present with Bryant during the siege at Seascape Cottage; and

4) seems to have vanished into history since (to my knowledge, she has never been interviewed about Bryant or the case since the year in which it happened).19

She could easily have had Bryant handle the bag in a store and then bought it herself afterwards. On the other hand, her story may be a complete fiction.

Bryant’s gunmanship

For many people, the most important reason to doubt that Bryant was the killer is on account on the latter’s impressive gunmanship. The Broad Arrow Cafe shooter managed to kill the

[19 I look forward to seeing whether she is trotted out by the media on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the massacre, which falls on April 28. 2006.]

first 19 out of 20 dead in the with single accurate shots to the head fired from his right hip. Some researchers maintain that Bryant, who was an amateur shooter with virtually no shooting experience whatsoever, would have entirely lacked the skills to carry out such a feat.

A powerful case has been made to this effect by Perth researcher Joe Vialls, who points out that amateur shooters generally achieve a much lower KIR (kill to injured ratio) than did the Broad Arrow Café shooter. In an enclosed space like the Broad Arrow Café, targets have to be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximise kill rates. Yet the Broad Arrow Café gunman managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier, an impossible task for a man with Bryant's mid-sixties IQ and his total lack of military training. Vialls has concluded that the shooter was a military-trained marksman who would probably rank among the top ten or twenty shooters in the world. 20

Brigadier Ted Serong, former head of Australian forces in Vietnam, was just as impressed. In 1999, Serong – who explained that his eyes had first been opened by the ‘astonishing proportion of killed to wounded’ - told Melbourne newspaper The Age that ‘There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am.’ 21

Most members of the general public have a greatly exaggerated idea of what amateur gunmen are able to do. Not only do they tend to injure many more persons than they kill, they are usually overpowered before they have completed their sinister

[20 http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur.html]

[21 McDonald, op. cit., p. 35.]

work. By contrast, the Port Arthur gunman was a thorough professional who was at all times in perfect control: The shooter in the Broad Arrow Café at Port Arthur demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counterterrorist marksman but made no amateur mistakes.

Always in motion and point shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards.22

However, we don’t have to take the word of people like Vialls and Serong who never saw the Port Arthur gunman shoot with their own eyes. According to eyewitness Neville Quin, ‘He [the gunman] appeared to be the best trained army guy I’ve ever seen, his stance was unbelievable.’

[22 http://members.fortunecity.com/able_j/springfield.html]

BELOW: Neville Quin (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Also important to consider is that, according to most witness, the Café shooter shot from his right hip. Not only is Bryant lefthanded, he told police he had never fired a gun from his hip. It is doubtful that anyone except a highly-trained professional shooter could.

2 The police interrogation transcript

On July 4, 1996, two police detectives who had been appointed by Superintendent Jack Johnston to handle the Port Arthur investigation, Inspectors Ross Paine and John Warren, interviewed Bryant about the case at some length. The interview was most unprofessionally conducted, with the
equipment frequently malfunctioning. As a result, the conversation was constantly interrupted and the resulting quality of the videotape is said to be atrocious. Such adverse conditions had to have been deliberate. There was no necessity to conduct the interview on July 4 and it could have been - indeed, should have been - postponed to such a time as the equipment was working properly. After all, Port Arthur was the biggest murder case in Australian history.

On account of what seems to have been deliberately sloppy police work, it is not possible to be certain that anything attributed to Bryant in the printed record of the interrogation matches what he actually said. The transcript also omits a great deal of what he did say - at least a third of the conversation has been withheld. Even the transcription we do possess cannot be trusted in its entirety. Over and over again, Bryant's responses are rendered as ‘mmmm’ or ‘inaudible.’ Since there is a suspicious tendency for such responses to appear in the most crucial parts of the conversation, particularly those where Bryant's version of events contradicts that of his interrogators, we cannot be sure that he did not say something which has only been excised as a means of withholding important clues as to what really happened from the public.

Despite its great limitations, the police transcript is invaluable as a record of Martin Bryant’s side of the story. To my knowledge, this is the only public record of anything he has said about Port Arthur (or any subject) since his arrest on April 29, 1996. It is a great pity that Australians have condemned him
without ever having listened to what he had to say on the one occasion on which his words have been allowed to enter the public record.23

Most Australians will be amazed to discover that in this interview Bryant not only denied carrying out the massacre but also related an entirely different narrative of the events of April 28, 1996, than that presented to him by his police interrogators.

According to police, Bryant set his alarm clock for 6 a.m., left his house in Clare St., New Town, Hobart, at 9.47 a.m. precisely (they said that that was when he activated his house alarm), and drove to Seascape guest house, making stops at Midway Point (to buy a cigarette lighter), Sorell (to have a coffee), Forcett (to buy a bottle of tomato sauce), and Taranna (to buy petrol). When he arrived at Seascape, he murdered the owners, David Martin and his wife Sally, and loaded the building with
firearms and ammunition that he had presumably brought with him in his car from Hobart. After chatting for five or ten minutes with a neighbour of the Martins, Roger Larner, Bryant then proceeded to the PAHS - stopping to buy a small amount of marijuana on the way - and, as they say, the rest is history.

Bryant, on the other hand, says he did not set his clock alarm in the morning, and that he rose at 7 or 8 a.m., left his house around 11 a.m. (without turning on his house alarm), and drove to Roaring Beach on the western side of the Tasman Peninsula, making only one stop along the way - at Sorell, where he had a cappuccino. (Even this minor episode does not conform to the police version of events. Bryant said he got his coffee from the Sorell Bakery, not the service station, although he admitted that

[23 The transcript can be read at http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/transcript.html or

he had bought coffee from the service station on earlier occasions.)

At Roaring Beach, he surfed for about twenty minutes, and noticed two other people bodysurfing in short wetsuits at the other end of the beach. After drying off in the sun, he went to Nubeena, where he stopped for coffee and a toasted sandwich. After this, he drove past the PAHS to visit the Martins at Seascape. He does not recall having spoken to Larner at all that day, while the likelihood that he bought marijuana is drastically reduced by the fact that he smoked neither cigarettes nor marijuana.

BELOW: Map of the area between Hobart and the Tasman Peninsula (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

What the rest of Bryant's story proves beyond the shadow of a doubt is that as late as July 4, 1996, he still had not the faintest clue as to the extent of the atrocities he is supposed to have committed nine weeks earlier. He had obviously been told so little about the case that he had no alternative but to put the pieces together all by himself. The result is a sorry tale about stealing a car to take a joyride (and taking a hostage to prevent the incident from being reported to the police) that seems to
have been the best that this man of extremely limited intellectual capacity could come up with to explain how it was that he found himself in prison on a murder charge.

Before we examine his responses to the charges against him, we need to explain how the police were able to place Bryant in a position from which only a much more intelligent individual would have been able to extricate himself. As we learned in the previous chapter, the case against Bryant suffers from a marked dearth of evidence. The key to the case against him is essentially the distinctiveness of his personal appearance and of his yellow Volvo. The police framing of Bryant therefore began by
obtaining from him concessions as to the distinctiveness of his appearance and that of his Volvo. The matter of his appearance was raised spontaneously by Bryant himself, but was at once capitalized upon by Inspector Warren, who deviously connected it to ‘Port Arthur’:

Warren: Martin, getting back to that point about the hostage, you taking the hostage because you didn't want him telling the police. What didn't you want him telling the police?

Bryant: That I took his umm, car.

Warren: But I mean, if you'd have left him on the side of the road, he wouldn't have known where you could've driven.

Bryant: Yeah but he could've let them know that there was a chap with blonde hair, took me car, stole me car. So I sort of put him in the boot to be safe.

Warren: So you thought your looks that day were distinctive and if someone said they saw a chap with blonde hair.

Bryant: Mmm.

Warren: At Port Arthur on that particular day?

Second, the Volvo:

Warren: We have lots of people who are telling us that they saw you at Port Arthur and your car.

Bryant: Well it must've been another, there's other Volvos ...

Warren: With surfboards on the top? With someone with long blonde hair driving them or getting out of them?

Bryant: There's not many with surfboards on top.

As we will see below, these concessions left Bryant little wiggle room when police confronted him with a photograph of his vehicle at Port Arthur. Where Bryant's account and that of the police converge is in the matter of a hijacked BMW. At the Fortescue Bay turnoff on the way to Seascape, his narrative takes a bizarre twist:

'unfortunately I held up a car, I took ahh, I saw this car I liked and got umm, held up the person in the car and kidnapped him.' The car was a BMW occupied by three people, a male, a female and a child. Bryant ordered the man inside the boot of the car and made the female and the child get inside his Volvo.

Why did he take the man hostage?

'I was a bit worried that if he didn't go, he'd go off in my car.' After commandeering the BMW solely because he 'liked' it (he states that his intention was only to take it for a drive), Bryant sped off towards Seascape at 140 km.

What is striking about this story is that it combines elements from two different events, the PAHS gunman's hijacking of a gold-coloured BMW sedan belonging to Sidney and Mary Nixon and the subsequent taking of a hostage, Glenn Pears, who had been the driver of a different vehicle (a white Corolla). It is not hard to see that Bryant's version of the story, which is effectively the only point at which his account of his doings on April 28 intersects with that of the police, is a classic case of the
mentally deficient person confessing to a crime that he believes he must have committed, even if he doesn’t actually remember doing so or know why he would have done such a thing. (For two examples of this syndrome, that of Timothy Evans, who confessed to killing his wife, and that of Margaret Livesey, who confessed to the murder of her son, see Bob Woffinden’s 1987 book Miscarriages of Justice.)

It is possible to reconstruct the laborious mental process that led the hapless Bryant to effectively connect his harmless activities with the police narrative of the PAHS gunman. When the interview began, Bryant knew no more than that he was being detained on a single charge of murder. But he had no idea what had happened, who had died or why he was being held responsible. Building an explanation on the basis of certain facts that must have been leaked to him about the case, presumably by one of the prison guards, he admitted to commandeering a BMW at gunpoint and forcing the male driver into the boot.

Although Bryant knew that the man had died, he did not admit having killed him intentionally. He stated that, as he was knocking at the door of Seascape, he heard the vehicle explode. His conclusion was that his hostage had died in the explosion.

‘How do you feel about that Martin?’ asks Inspector Warren.

‘Pretty awful,’ Bryant replied (a statement which in itself proves that Bryant is capable of remorse when it came to someone whose death he genuinely believed he had caused, however inadvertently).

Although Bryant did not recall having set the vehicle on fire and had certainly not intended to do so, he realized that the explosion had to have started somehow. After concluding that only he could have started the fire, he tried to imagine what he would have done to have caused it. He decided that he must have transferred ‘two or three’ plastic drums of petrol from the Volvo to the BMW, tipped the petrol all over the car, and then lit it using a match (or a lighter) that he must have found inside his jacket pocket. Having decided that this is how he had set fire to the car, Bryant seized upon the fire as an explanation for his burns:

‘I must've been in the car when it went up ‘cos I got burnt.’ He reasoned that the whole mess that had landed him in gaol had been the result of ‘a bad thing,’ by which he meant ‘playing with fire,’ as he had done when he was ten years old.24

Having worked out a rough scenario that would explain why he was being detained on a murder charge and why he had suffered serious burns to his body, Inspector Warren turned the tables on Bryant by suddenly revealing that the person he had been charged with murdering was not the male hostage but a female, Kate Scott. This information obviously came as a great shock to him. Not knowing that Scott had died inside the Broad Arrow Café (he still knew nothing about the massacre), Bryant drew the erroneous conclusion that she had been the woman in the BMW. Unable to understand how he could have been responsible for her death, he protested, ‘I let the lady go into
the Volvo, I didn’t hurt her or anything. No, I don’t register, it doesn’t register.’ Presumably because he did not yet want to discuss with Bryant what had happened in the Café, at this point Inspector Paine abruptly and pointlessly changed the subject to whether he had any favourite restaurants in Port Arthur.

[24 When Bryant was a child, he badly burned himself while playing with matches. Afterwards, he was seen by a Tavistock Institute psychiatrist, Dr Eric Cunningham-Dax, who some researchers suspect programmed Bryant as a patsy for future use. On the Tavistock Institute, see

‘Ohh Kelly’s is pretty good, that’s at, out, just it’s not quite into Port Arthur. You turn off, that’s actually in Stewart’s Bay,’ Bryant replied. Clearly, Inspector Paine did not want Bryant to say anything further about the matter.

As the above discussion shows, when his police interrogation began on July 4, 1996, Martin Bryant was still wholly in the dark as to his alleged involvement in the Port Arthur massacre. All that he knew by that stage of the game was that he was being detained on a single count of murder. Between his arrest on April 29 and his interrogation July 4, he seems to have performed mental gyrations to devise a scenario that would explain how this had come about. What is clear is that the scenario Bryant thought up is wholly imaginary, although the key elements (the BMW, the hostage, the explosion) had to have been suggested him by someone. But the idea that Bryant was responsible for setting the BMW alight can be dismissed entirely. For what Bryant did not know, but which we know now, is that the BMW was actually set on fire by Andrew Fogarty of the Special Operations Group (SOG), who was
apparently the first police officer to arrive at Seascape.

If Bryant was capable of inventing for himself a scenario in which he had set the BMW alight, he was therefore also capable of imagining the situation in which he commandeered the BMW in the first place. What confirms this conclusion is that the scenario he describes only bears superficial similarities to the gunman’s actual capture of Sidney and Mary Nixon’s BMW, an event that was viewed by several witnesses, including Jim Laycock (who, as we have already seen, did not recognize the man as Bryant). Although the real gunman seized the vehicle near the PAHS toll booth, Bryant vacillated when asked to state where he had hijacked the BMW. His confession to having captured the vehicle and taken a hostage has to be dismissed as sheer fantasy.

Apart from a few garbled facts about the hijacking of the Nixons’ BMW, the only other significant thing that Bryant knew about the events of April 28 by the time his police interrogation began is that Seascape guest house had been burned down and that a number of people had perished in the fire.

He had obtained the information not from Inspectors Paine and Warren (who seem to have been surprised to learn that he knew this), but from the prison guards. What few Australians know is that Bryant was saddened to hear about Seascape's destruction and that he felt sorry for the Martins’ loss. ‘Worked hard all their lives, renovating, took them years to build it, renovate it and to start it all up and it’s just so sad to see, apparently it's burnt down, it’s so sad to see it burnt down.’

Before confronting Bryant with accusations as to his responsibility for the murders at the PAHS, Inspectors Paine and Warren had to convince Bryant that he had been there that day. To do so, they drew upon the unreliable testimony of Aileen Kingston and her husband, Ian Kingston, the two persons who claim to have seen Bryant entering the PAHS between 1.10 and 1.25 p.m. Without supplying the names of any of the individuals who made the claims, Warren confronted Bryant with generalized references to eyewitness sightings of himself which he was ill-placed to contest, having already conceded the distinctiveness of his appearance and of his Volvo:

Warren: Well what would you say if I told you that you were seen going into Port Arthur and in fact you were at the toll gate?

Bryant: I couldn’t’ve been.

Warren: And more than that, that you did complain about the price of admission.

Bryant: Umm, I don’t remember going in, into Port Arthur or going through the toll gate at all.

Warren: Well as you said a minute ago, you, your description of the long blonde hair does make you umm, stand out from the crowd.

Bryant: Mmm, exactly.

Warren: What about your yellow Volvo?

Bryant: That would, wouldn’t it? That would stand out.

Later in the interview, Warren showed him a photograph of a vehicle that Bryant conceded looked like his own Volvo:

Warren: Martin, I want you to have a look at this photo. It’s photo number zero one one two. In it is a car I believe to be yours and it’s depicted adjacent to the toll booth.

Bryant: Couldn’t be mine, where’d you get that. I don’t remember being stationary [inaudible].

Warren: Do you agree that that could be a surfboard on the top?

Bryant: Yes I think it probably is.

Warren: And it’s certainly similar to your ahh, your car.

Bryant: Mmm.

Warren: The registration number of this vehicle I think is CG two eight three five.

Bryant: I don’t remember the registration.

Warren: Well that’s your car. So that certainly suggests it because that’s the exit road at the toll booth, that your car had been.

Bryant: How could the car be there when I didn’t go, go there in the first place [inaudible].

Warren: As I said, sorry, as I’ve said, we have, there are lots of people saying that they saw you in the Port Arthur site and your car in the Port Arthur site.

Bryant: Mmm, I can’t recall that.

BELOW: The yellow Volvo abandoned by the gunman at the tollbooth as he exited the PAHS (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Finally, towards the end of the interrogation, Inspectors Warren and Paine broached the subject of the Port Arthur massacre itself. After again denying that he had been at Port Arthur on April 28, Bryant reacted as any reasonable person would when charged with the Broad Arrow Café shootings:

Warren: We believe you went into Port Arthur. Had a slight argument with the toll gate person about the price on entry. We believe you then went to park you car and an attendant or someone ...

Bryant: Park the car.

Warren: said you couldn’t park in a certain spot, so you didn’t and sometime later you did move your car to that spot. We believe you went to the Broad Arrow Café with that bag over there, containing some guns and your video camera. You purchased a meal, you went outside, sat down, and then went
back into the Café. Took one.

Bryant: But you might’ve. That’s like me saying to you, that you were down there.

Warren: But the difference is Martin, my car wasn’t down there and I haven’t been identified as being down there and I wasn't down there. And then you took one of the guns out of your bag and opened fire in the cafe.

Bryant: Why would I do that? I mean.

Warren: I don’t know, you tell me.

Bryant: Why, why would anyone do a thing like that, what?

Warren: Well, you tell us.

Bryant: [inaudible]

Warren: That's what we want to know Martin, why.

Bryant: What, what, would, I wouldn’t hurt a person in my life.

Inspector Warren then reminded Bryant that he had already admitted having done someone some harm that day:

Warren: Well you’ve already said you'd put the man in your boot of the car.

Bryant: Only, yes, yes.

Warren: Then you’ve set fire to the car and you thought that he was in the boot.

Bryant: [inaudible]

Warren: So how do you explain that?

Bryant: It was a bad thing. ... Well, I shouldn’t’ve gone and kidnapped him and the BMW. It’s the wrong thing. That and, that and in the, being caught with not having a driver’s licence. So they’re the two things I’ve done wrong. I don’t know why I stole the BMW in the first place. I wish I’d [inaudible].

Bryant has been checkmated. By having him admit that he had done one bad deed that day, Inspector Warren effectively deprived him of a case for asserting that he would not be the kind of person who would murder 35 people! Although the taking of a hostage is clearly not a crime of the same magnitude as mass murder, most readers will feel that Bryant has been caught up in his own lies, and that the truth will unravel, inch by inch.

The problem with the case Inspectors Paine and Warren presented to Bryant, however, is that it relied entirely upon assertions, not evidence. Bryant was shown no evidence of a forensic kind, nor any photographs, not even stills from the Balasko video, with the exception only of a single image of his Volvo at Port Arthur. In other words, when it came to convincing Bryant that he had to have been responsible for the atrocity, the police had nothing to fall back on except his distinctive appearance and the presence of his car at the scene.

However, these are both things that could easily have been imitated by someone involved in a plot to set him up. Unfortunately, Bryant’s intellectual limitations were such that he was unable to graduate to the complex idea that someone actually had set him up. His low IQ, in a nutshell, is the real reason why Bryant may very well spend the rest of his life in prison.

3 The ‘Jamie’ conversations

The shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café ceased between 1.32 and 1.34 p.m. It had lasted at least five, and possibly as many as seven minutes, and had taken the lives of 20 people. By 1.43 p.m. the gunman had ditched the yellow Volvo in which he had arrived at the PAHS and departed the location in a goldcoloured BMW sedan which he had commandeered after shooting all the occupants dead. Then, between 1.43 and 1.45 p.m., he took a hostage, Glenn Pears, the driver of a white Corolla that was parked outside the Port Arthur General Store.

After handcuffing Pears and ordering him into the boot of the stolen BMW, the gunman shot dead Pears's passenger, Zoe Hall, and drove off in the direction of Seascape guest house. A few minutes later, at approximately 1.48 p.m., Constable Chris Iles of Sorrel Police Station arrived at the Port Arthur
General Store in a marked police vehicle. He spoke briefly to two eyewitnesses of the Zoe Hall slaying - Jim Laycock and Kyle Spruce - and then sped off in hot pursuit of the gunman’s BMW.

At approximately 1.52 p.m. eyewitness John Rooke saw the BMW park about a hundred metres short of the entrance to Seascape. The gunman then paused to shoot at passing traffic. He fired at six different vehicles. Two persons were wounded, Linda White and Carol Williams, while others received lesser injuries, mainly from broken glass.

The shootings outside Seascape inaugurated by far the most sensitive phase of the Port Arthur conspiracy. The events of the next hour or so are, in fact, impossible to reconstruct in clear chronological order. In particular, the period between 1.50 and 4 p.m. is cloaked in mystery.

Interestingly, the Hobart Mercury (April 29, 1996) told a different story than that which is now generally accepted, according to which the gunman went straight to Seascape. According to a map of the dramatic events of the previous day published on p. 5, at 1.50 p.m. the gunman fired on vehicles 250 metres north of the Fox and Hounds Hotel and then disappeared ‘into thick bush.’ The gunman (and the assumption is, of course, that he is the same man as that who disppeared into the bush) resurfaced around 4 p.m. ‘holed up with hostage’ at Seascape.

Of course, the mystery is entirely intentional. As will gradually become clear to most readers, this period is difficult to make sense of precisely because it is here, where the narratives of the Port Arthur massacre and the Seascape siege are awkwardly stitched together, that we find first, the possibility that the gunman vanished forever at around 1.50 p.m., and, second, the clearest intimations of police complicity in the unfolding drama.

BELOW: Seascape Cottage (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

By the time the gunman arrived at Seascape, Constable Andrew Mark Fogarty of the Bellerive Police Station on Hobart's eastern shore – an SOG team leader - was already on the scene.

Fogarty’s early presence at Seascape should definitely raise eyebrows and is probably sufficient in itself to justify an official investigation. Only by means of a helicopter could Fogarty have reached the entrance to Seascape just 20 minutes after the first report of the PAHS massacre had been phoned in to Hobart police headquarters. Even if he had left Bellerive Police Station the instant the call was received, there is simply no way that he could have driven from Hobart to Seascape in just 20 minutes.
(In his own account, Fogarty states that his journey took 43 minutes. But as he was already at Seascape by 1.55 p.m. at the very latest, he would have to have left Hobart by about 1.10 p.m. or 17 minutes before the massacre in the Broad Arrow Café began, to really have gotten there by road.)

Very shortly after the gunman vacated the BMW, Fogarty fired a phosphorous grenade that caused it to erupt into flames. The first report that the vehicle was on fire came at 1.57 p.m., which means that Fogarty must have fired the grenade at around 1.55 p.m or so.

BELOW: The burned out BMW (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

According to the official narrative of the Seascape drama, after the gunman exited the BMW, he dragged the hostage out of the boot and the pair entered the guest house together. However, there is no evidence that the gunman actually entered Seascape. It is entirely possible that, after alighting from the BMW, he made his escape into the bush. This would probably have been done with the assistance of one of the four policemen who had reached Seascape by this time. For in addition to Fogarty, three other policemen had arrived at Seascape by 2 p.m. These were Constable Chris Iles of Sorrel Police Station, Constable Paul Hyland of Nubeena Police Station and Constable Gary Whittle
of Dunally Police Station. Any one of these individuals could have facilitated the gunman's escape and driven the BMW down to Seascape.

Although Constable Whittle's movements are the best accounted for - he was apparently holed up in a roadside ditch until rescued after dark - it cannot be taken for granted that he entered the ditch as soon as he arrived. As for Constable Iles, nothing is known about his activities after he set off from the
Port Arthur General Store in pursuit of the fleeing gunman.

Presumably, he tailed the BMW as far as the entrance to Seascape, but what he did after that (and for the rest of the day) remains a complete mystery.

Finally, Constable Hyland is not mentioned in Mark Bingham's narrative of the drama in Suddenly One Sunday, even though he is supposed to have arrived at Seascape not much later than Whittle.25 If Hyland was holed up in the ditch together with Whittle, as most accounts maintain, it is suspicious that
Bingham replaced Hyland's name with that of Constable Paul Allen, even though this is immediately contradicted. (In his next few lines, we learn from Bingham that Constable Allen,

[25 Mike Bingham, Suddenly One Sunday, 2001, pp. 106-7.]

who arrived from Hobart with Constable Perry Caulfield in the same vehicle, spoke to an SOG member [i.e., Fogarty] as soon as he arrived. Fogarty promptly diverted Allen and Caulfield to the Fox and Hounds Hotel.) There has to be a reason why Bingham does not want to place Hyland at the Seascape guest house at the same time as Whittle.

BELOW: The Fox and Hounds Hotel, 800 metres from Seascape (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Unfortunately, we aren’t told what time Constables Allen and Caulfield arrived at Seascape, so it is impossible to establish whether they left Hobart after news of the massacre arrived or whether, like Fogarty, they arrived so shortly afterwards that they must certainly have left Hobart before. The possibility that Allen and Caulfield were on the scene as early as 2 p.m. therefore increases the number of police who may have been involved in shenanigans at Seascape to no fewer than six.
(Readers should bear in mind that not one police officer arrived at the PAHS until 4.26 p.m., when Detective Peter Hesman stayed just four minutes at the tollbooth.)

According to the official narrative of the Seascape drama, the siege at Seascape was the logical sequel to the horrendous tragedy at Port Arthur. But there is, in fact, no necessary continuity between the massacre and the drama that unfolded at Seascape. The case being laid out in this book, in fact, is that there was no continuity and that, after abandoning the BMW outside Seascape, the gunman was escorted to safety by one of our six policemen. A possibility is that he was helicoptered out by the same helicopter that brought Fogarty in.

The protagonist of the Seascape drama was a completely different individual, a man who only ever identified himself as ‘Jamie.’ It is not possible to say exactly how or when Jamie arrived at Seascape, for his existence was not signalled until he initiated a series of phone calls shortly after 3 p.m Since we
have no way of knowing for sure what went on at Seascape between 1.50 and 3 p.m., it is possible that Jamie was one of the policemen who vanishes from the official narrative around this time (i.e., Constable Iles or Constable Hyland). However, the fact that Jamie apparently knew nothing about the shootings at Port Arthur - this matter is discussed below – suggests the possibility that Jamie had arrived inside Seascape several hours before. He was presumably part of the terrorist team that had
taken over the house between 10.30 and 11 a.m., when David Martin was murdered. He could have been in the dark about everything that had happened a few kilometres down the road.

Between 3 and approximately 9.30 p.m. Jamie made a number of phone calls whose content makes no sense at all, if one assumes that he is the Port Arthur gunman. He initiated most of the calls, the known exception being the one that was initiated by ABC reporter Alison Smith. What emerges clearly enough from a serious analysis of the calls - that is to say, an analysis that does not prejudge their content by assuming that Jamie is the Port Arthur gunman - is that Jamie was the central protagonist in a police counter-terrorist exercise. Jamie's role was to pose as a terrorist. But Jamie was not necessarily the only 'terrorist' at Seascape that day. Since a shot can be heard on the phone call tapes at a time when Jamie was in midsentence, we know that he had at least one accomplice. The
shooter was apparently the person Jamie referred to as Rick.

But since there were moments when two men were shooting, we can be sure that both fired at least some shots. The tapes of the Jamie conversations make abundantly clear one thing and that is that Jamie was NOT the Port Arthur gunman. If Jamie WAS the Port Arthur gunman, it made no sense for him to initiate and maintain contact with the police.

Are we to believe that he seriously thought that he could negotiate his safe release? That the police would allow the greatest mass murderer in Australian history to get away to save the life of a single hostage? If Jamie was the Port Arthur gunman, the best he could hope for would be to die in a shootout. And if Jamie really had been the gunman, and the police had not been involved in a conspiracy together with the gunman, then that is certainly what would have happened, and the loss of Glenn Pears's life would have been discounted afterwards as unavoidable 'collateral damage.'

As the following exchange shows, Jamie actually knew nothing about the PAHS shootings until they were mentioned to him by his interlocutor, police negotiator Sergeant Terry McCarthy of the SOG. Momentarily abandoning his conduct of the Seascape counter-terrorist exercise, he was concerned enough to ask whether anyone had been killed:

Jamie: Yeah what what went on at Port Arthur?
McCarthy: Well I was hoping that you might be able to tell me a little bit about what happened at Port Arthur you being down there.

Jamie: Was there anyone hurt?

McCarthy: Well, I understand there’s been er er a number of people hurt at Port Arthur.

Jamie: Oh they weren’t killed?

McCarthy: Well, I don’t know what, I don’t know the full details I know that er er somebody’s been shooting at people down at Port Arthur and er in the mean time ah we’ve also encountered the problem that we have with you, you sort of er want a helicopter and all these things and we’re trying to establish whether ...

Jamie: Em

McCarthy: that’s er you know the same incidents are related in any way.

Jamie: No, no, they’re not at all.

McCarthy: They’re not.

If Jamie was the Port Arthur gunman, his questions would have been entirely superfluous. Furthermore, when asked by McCarthy whether the two incidents - i.e., the shootings at Port Arthur and the siege at Seascape - were ‘related in any way,’ Jamie averred that they were not. There is no reason for Jamie to have lied about such a matter. After all, if Jamie was not the fleeing gunman, who did he expect the police to think he was?

Yet he does nothing to clarify to Sgt. McCarthy what he is doing at Seascape and why he has taken hostages - which surely suggests that McCarthy knew perfectly well who Jamie was and why he was there. The explanation that makes most sense, therefore, is that the Seascape siege was a police counter-terrorist exercise organized around a hostage taking scenario. That Jamie knew nothing
about the PAHS massacre suggests that the exercise was kept largely compartmentalized from the Port Arthur massacre. We are therefore looking at two different plots which intersected at only two points.

First of all, Seascape served, between about 11.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., as the location at which the Port Arthur gunman made his preparations for the subsequent massacre. During this period, he would have used a knife that at some stage had been touched by Martin Bryant – it could, for example, have been provided by Petra Wilmott – to stab David Martin. The knife was then wrapped in a towel and taken inside a duplicate Prince sports bag with the gunman to the PAHS.

Second, a counter-terrorism exercise began at Seascape sometime between 1.50 and 3 p.m. whose purpose was to provide a pretext for the capture of Martin Bryant, or even his death. Bryant was almost certainly already inside Seascape by no later than 2pm; if he had been abducted at Nubeena shortly before (as I suspect), he would have been delivered to Seascape around this time, quite probably in an unconscious or heavily drugged condition.

One of the coups of the Jamie/McCarthy conversations is McCarthy’s impressive ability to avoid asking pertinent questions. Why did he not ask Jamie the obvious question, which is, why has he holed himself up in Seascape, if he had had nothing to do with the PAHS shootings? Why on earth did he occupy the guest house, take three hostages, and start firing at police? It is by refraining from asking such obvious questions that a gaping hole was left that subsequently allowed police to make the Seascape siege appear to be the logical conclusion of the massacre.

McCarthy’s failure to press the gunman for his motives after he denied having had anything to do with the PAHS shootings is evidence that McCarthy knew exactly what the game plan was and was extremely clued in as to the questions he could afford to ask. And, in fact, there was no point pressing Jamie for his motives: both Jamie and McCarthy knew full well, I conjecture, that the Seascape siege was an SOG counter-terrorism exercise which would subsequently be presented to the public as a genuine terrorist operation executed by bored, mentally unstable rich kid Martin Bryant. But only McCarthy would have known that the siege was going to be connected to the 'incident' at the PAHS.

BELOW: Sgt. Terry McCarthy (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

The first known conversation with Jamie allegedly began at around 3.08 p.m., when he rang the Nubeena Police Station residence. Constable Hyland’s girlfriend, Merrin Craig, answered the phone. Since the call was not recorded we don’t know what was said. Craig’s notes of the conversation suggest that the call contained thinly-veiled threats against Constable Hyland; indeed, Craig is supposed to have drawn the conclusion that Jamie may have been holding her boyfriend hostage.

However, the conversation could have been faked or it may never have taken place at all. Its sole purpose seems to have been to create suspicion that Jamie was conducting a vendetta against Hyland. This suggests that the original rationale for the Seascape siege was conflict between Jamie and Hyland, perhaps a love triangle scenario involving Hyland’s girfriend. This otherwise baffling phone call may therefore provide important insight to the original pretext for the Seascape counter-terrorist exercise, before it suddenly ceased being a mere exercise and became related to what had happened at Port Arthur.

Shortly after this conversation, ABC reporter Alison Smith, who was at Copping, en route to Port Arthur, called the Seascape number in the hope of obtaining information about the shootings. Based on Smith’s account, the conversation went something like this:

Smith: Hullo, hullo.

Jamie: [laughs hysterically]

Smith: Hullo. Is this the right number for Seascape?

Jamie: [laughs] Yes.

Smith: Who am I talking to?

Jamie: [laughs] Well, you can call me Jamie.

Smith: It's the ABC calling. What's happening?

Jamie: What’s happening? What’s happening is I’m having lots of fun. ... But I really need a shower. ... If you try to call me again I’ll shoot the hostage.

Then, at around 3.30 p.m., Jamie initiated contact with Terry McCarthy (one wonders how he knew which number to call). Over the next six hours, Jamie and McCarthy engaged in conversations totalling about two hours. Only fragments of the conversations have been allowed to enter the public record,
suggesting that the rest would place a completely different complexion upon the nature of what had happened at Seascape.

One of the first myths about the Seascape siege that needs to be laid to rest is that Jamie was Martin Bryant. In these conversations, Jamie was strikingly different in demeanor, and even in voice, from Martin Bryant. According to one report, Bryant has ‘a squeaky high pitched monotone voice,’ which is
certainly not an appropriate description of Jamie’s voice. From the point of view of identifying Jamie, the biggest problem is that although Bryant's mother Carleen was taken to Hobart police headquarters between 8 and 8.30 p.m., she was never asked to listen to Jamie’s voice or, if she recognized it as the voice of her son, to use her maternal influence to reason with him. The curious decision not to involve Carleen in the negotations with the man police claim they believed was her
son can only be interpreted one way: the police knew very well that Jamie was not Bryant.

Curiously, Jamie’s voice has only ever positively identified as that of Martin Bryant by an individual whose name has not been made public but who, according to Carleen Bryant, ‘hadn't spoken to Martin since he was twelve years old and would not know what his voice sounded like anyway.’ It certainly seems suspicious that someone other than Carleen Bryant was chosen to identify Jamie’s voice, and doubly suspicious that this person was someone who hadn’t even spoken to Martin Bryant for 17 years!

The Jamie conversations offer a very strong clue that Jamie had been instructed to identify himself as a particular individual, although probably without knowing the actual reason. In one of the most bizarre exchanges, McCarthy tries to get Jamie to tell him his name:

McCarthy: Now if you don’t want to tell me your name that's fine but how about giving me your passport number and we can do a check on that?

Jamie: I think it’s H02 4967 if I can remember it cause I travelled quite a lot overseas an most an um travel agencies know me around town ma around Hobart I should say so.

This is absolutely extraordinary! Not only does McCarthy seem to think that Jamie carries his passport number around with him inside his head - since most people use their passports only infrequently, this is not normally a number people are able to recall on the spur of the moment - he also thinks Jamie will be stupid enough to tell him exactly what it is! And lo and behold Jamie does remember his passport number and is perfectly willing to volunteer it. It is hard to see why Jamie didn’t spare McCarthy the effort of running a check by just telling him straight out that he was Martin Bryant.

What is crystal clear from the above exchange is that Jamie had been instructed to give McCarthy Bryant’s passport number - and to throw in allusions to Bryant’s frequent overseas travels to cement the identification. Anyone who smells a rat will not be surprised to learn that a single form of ID was found inside a certain yellow Volvo when police searched it at the PAHS. Since Bryant did not have a driving license, there will be no prizes for readers who have guessed correctly what this document was.

But anyone who correctly divines that it was his passport - as indeed it was - should ask themselves the question how often people drive around with their passports in their cars. 26 Tasmanians do not require a passport to go to Roaring Beach. Nor, for that matter, is an identity document required for entry to the PAHS. Yet Jamie obligingly connected himself with a passport that would subsequently be found in a car that either belonged to Bryant or was a near-perfect replica thereof.

[26 We know this because ‘on the afternoon of Sunday the 28th April 1996’ Aileen Kingston was shown Martin Bryant’s passport by Detective Peter Hesman. Hesman was the detective who searched the Volvo at 4.26 p.m. See McDonald, op. cit., pp. 225-26.]

To conclude our review of the Jamie conversations, we need to look at perhaps the most revealing of them all, one which took place at night:

McCarthy: Jamie?

Jamie: Yes. Hello. How are you?

McCarthy: I’m very well thanks Jamie. Yourself?

Jamie: Well, I’m well up to now. The past few 20 seconds. What I’ve actually found out man, is that one of your boys is right outside, northeast I’d say, with an infrared scope.27 Would you just ask him to move on?

McCarthy: Right, we’ll do that, we’ll do that now.

Jamie: Cause he’s going to shoot, he’s trying to shoot, he’s going to shoot your main man.

McCarthy: No, I can guarantee.

Jamie: I’ll blow this, umm this, you know, you know what’s going to happen.

McCarthy: I don’t want to see anyone hurt, alright?

Jamie: You just move him on.

McCarthy: Okay, I’m organising that now. I can also assure you that it’s not our intention to hurt you or see anybody else hurt, okay.

Jamie: Really.

Anyone who still thinks Bryant was Jamie and that Bryant was a lone psycho killer needs to ask him- or herself the following questions. Why does Jamie used the term ‘northeast’ to state the location of the SOG man? (This is police jargon.) Who was the ‘main man’? Why was the man McCarthy’s ‘main man’ rather than Jamie’s ‘main man’? Why did Jamie threaten to ‘blow’ the operation unless the one of McCarthy’s ‘boys’ moves on? Why does Jamie imply that he and McCarthy are working together in an operation that McCarthy wouldn’t want blown?

[27 This was presumably an SOG officer.]

What did McCarthy ‘know’ was going to happen if the man with the infrared scope did not move on? And why, if Jamie was the gunman who had already killed over 30 people that day, was he so solicitous about the life of the SOG man with the infrared device? Why did he not just shoot him? Are we seriously expected to believe that this monster who had already killed upwards of 30 people that day, including the little Mikac sisters, drew the line at shooting police officers?

4 Guns and ammo

A major problem with the case against Martin Bryant is that his ownership of the weapons used to perpetrate the Port Arthur massacre has never been proven. In a way this is not all that surprising, for a fact of which relatively few Australians are aware is that we do not know which weapons were used in the massacre. Graham Collyer, who was a veteran of the RAF with some firearms experience, was one of the few eyewitnesses to the massacre inside the Broad Arrow Café who noted which
weapon the gunman was using. To Collyer, it ‘looked like a standard SLR service semi automatic.’ The day after the massacre, the Examiner reported that police had found a .223mm Armalite M16 at Port Arthur. Then, on May 1, 1996, the West Australian told the public that the two weapons used had
been a 5.56 mm Armalite AR-15 and a Chinese-made SKS .762mm assault rifle.

BELOW: The Colt AR-15 as found in the ruins of Seascape guest house (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

In contradiction to early reports and to eyewitness testimony, therefore, the prosecution case finally settled on the only two weapons which survived the Seascape fire relatively intact, a .223 mm Colt AR-15 and a Belgian .308 mm FN-FAL assault rifle. The possibility has to be considered that these two guns were settled on only because they were found largely intact in the ruins of Seascape guest house, thereby providing the needed link to patsy Martin Bryant. Indeed, Stewart Beattie, former
gunsmith and author of A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur, concluded after two years' research that ‘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 Café or indeed any of the other
crime scenes.’

In this chapter, I reach the same conclusion via a different route. To do so, I start from the assumption that the two weapons involved were the Colt AR-15 and the Belgian FN-FLR.

As we progress, it will become increasingly obvious that these weapons were not involved in the massacre, that Martin Bryant may have owned one of them but not the other, and that, since they weren't used at Port Arthur, it doesn’t really matter whether he owned them anyway!

Bryant freely concedes that he owned three guns, two of which he bought in the months before the massacre, but only one of the three may have been used in the attack itself. Bryant owned three rifles, a .308 mm Colt AR-10 (serial number 001590), a .223 mm Colt AR-15, and a Daewoo 12 gauge combat shotgun. Bryant apparently bought these weapons because he liked the look of them. An aspiring gun collector rather than a shooter, he told police in his July 4, 1996, interrogation that he had fired his guns on only a few occasions, and only at targets. He had never even used them for hunting.

Bryant’s police interrogation began with the question of his firearms. At this stage he still had no idea that he was being held responsible for the Port Arthur shootings, and may not have known that the shootings had even taken place. Because he did not realize why the information about his guns was
required - he was also naïve enough to allow the police to discuss his weapons with him without having his lawyer present - his answers were open and honest. However, as we will see, there are reasons to suspect that the transcript does not render the conversation accurately.

Inspectors Paine and Warren apparently showed Bryant five guns, two retrieved from the Seascape ruins (a Colt AR-15 and a Belgian FN-FAL), one from the boot of the Volvo abandoned at the PAHS (a Daewoo shotgun), one retrieved from Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill (a Colt AR-10), and a .223 mm self-loading rifle whose origin is unclear. (The police told Bryant they had recovered it from a gun dealer, but it was the AR-10 that they had actually recovered from the dealer in question.)

Presumably, police showed these weapons to Bryant because they thought they all belonged to him, although no words to this effect are found in the transcript. If the police did think that they all belonged to Bryant, they were apparently misinformed, for Bryant owned only three guns. He emphatically denied having ever seen two out of the five guns that the police showed him.

Since Bryant conceded ownership of three of the five guns, it would certainly make things nice’n’easy if the three happened to be the two used in the massacre plus the one that was found afterwards in the boot of the abandoned Volvo. Unfortunately, matters are not so simple, and while Bryant readily
acknowledged ownership of the gun found in the boot of the Volvo, he admitted owning only one of the two guns that were (allegedly) used in the massacre. He emphatically denied ever having seen the other one, creating a problem of the gun’s origins that remains unsolved. A complicating factor is that police sleight of hand may have been used to have him identify the Colt AR-15 as his own.

BELOW: Bryant's Daewoo shotgun (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Let us deal now with the guns one by one. Bryant told police that he had bought the Daewoo shotgun from Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill for $3000 about four months earlier (i.e., early March). He had never used it. ‘It scared me the thought of it not working, and probably ricocheting out,’ he told police.

Bryant also said that he had bought his Colt AR-15 from Terry Hill for $5000 about five months earlier (i.e., early February). The cost included $500 for a special scope, a strap and 80-100 rounds of ammunition. One of the unresolved mysteries of Bryant’s case is that Hill is adamant that he never sold him any weapons, and no documentation has ever turned up to prove that he did. The police told Hill that they had evidence that he had sold guns to Bryant, but they never produced it. It seems that they were bluffing, for when Hill refused to admit having sold guns to Bryant, the case against him was suddenly dropped. The police apparently punished him for refusing to admit having sold guns to Bryant by withdrawing his dealer's license, which forced him to close his business. It is possible, therefore, that the transcript has been deliberately tampered with, and that Terry Hill's name was inserted to replace the name of the real individual who had sold Bryant the Daewoo shotgun and the Colt AR-15.

Although the origins of the shotgun may not seem important because it was not used at Port Arthur, it was found in the boot of the Volvo when it was searched by police after the massacre. Because it was not transferred by the Port Arthur gunman from the Volvo to the BMW, it escaped either being torched in the BMW fire or being taken inside Seascape, where it would have only perished in another fire. This suggests that care was taken to ensure that the shotgun survived the events of April 28-29 intact. We can assume that, like Bryant’s passport, it was left inside the Volvo for the purpose of framing its owner.

The biggest mysteries in this case attend the gun alleged to have been the main weapon used at Port Arthur, a Colt AR-15. This gun is supposedly one of the two guns that were retrieved from the ruins of Seascape guest house. The gun retrieved from Seascape was a 5.56-mm Colt AR-15 (serial number SP128807).

Because of a lack of clarity in the transcript, it is not possible to say whether Bryant admitted ownership of the specific AR-15 retrieved from Seascape or whether he only admitted ownership of a weapon he mistook for his own. The fact is that, not knowing anything about the Port Arthur massacre yet, he did not what was at stake. He probably took it for his own on the basis of little more than a casual glance.

Since there is some doubt as to whether the AR-15 recovered from Seascape was acknowledged by Bryant as his own - a subject that will be explored in more detail below - we turn now to the other weapon used in the massacre, a Belgian .308 mm (.762 mm) FN-FAL assault rifle (serial number G3434).

Bryant admitted owning a .308 mm semi-automatic, which he said he had bought six or seven years earlier from an ad in the Hobart Mercury. However, Bryant stated emphatically that he had never seen this particular gun before:

Bryant: I’ve never seen that one before. Never. That’s not one of mine.

Paine: You sure?

Bryant: No, definitely not, never seen that in my life. It’s nice though.

Bryant muttered that his .308 was an AR-10, referring to the gun that he left with Terry Hill on March 27. Police then showed Bryant another weapon, a .223 mm self-loading rifle. Again, the same answer: ‘I’ve never seen that one before.’ Clearly, a great mystery surrounds the guns used at Port
Arthur. Two months after the massacre, the police had failed to establish precisely which guns Bryant owned and where they came from. Bryant’s answers did little to clarify the situation. Of the five weapons police showed him, he acknowledged ownership of only three. Of the three, only two had anything to do with Port Arthur. Of the two, only one identification is unproblematic: that of the Daewoo shotgun which was not actually fired at Port Arthur, and whose sole function seems to have been to frame him.

To make things simple, it is best to avoid the subject of the three guns which were not used at Port Arthur and concentrate entirely on the two that were. As we saw, the AR-15 could have been Bryant's, but this remains unclear. Bryant says that he bought the AR-15 from Terry Hill, but Hill says that he had sold no guns to Bryant at all. What Hill does say is that on March 27 Bryant brought him an AR-10, which he retained and still had at his shop on the day of the massacre. Hill could be lying, and he may have sold Bryant the AR-15. But if that is the case, one has to wonder why the police have never been able to prove it.

BELOW: The Colt AR-15 after refurbishing (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

There is a possible explanation. As we saw, the AR-15, which originally belonged to Yea farmer Bill Drysdale, was handed in during a gun amnesty in 1993 and was supposed to have been destroyed in 1994. Instead, it - along with others, perhaps - could well have found its way from the police to Terry Hill’s dealership. The police would therefore have an interest in not opening up a can of worms by doing anything that would expose the existence of a corrupt relationship between the police and Hill, while Hill may have preferred to reveal the relationship rather than endure the stigma of having illegally sold guns to the perpetrator of the Port Arthur massacre.

But if Hill is lying, and he did sell Bryant the AR-15, then what is striking is that it is not Bryant who is lying, since he freely concedes owning an AR-15. If Bryant was the Port Arthur gunman and he was determined to deny any connection to that atrocity, then he should have denied ownership of the AR-15 as well as of the Belgian FN-FAL. That Bryant conceded ownership of one gun but not the other is inexplicable as a means of denying involvement in the massacre. There are good grounds, therefore, to accept that Bryant was telling the truth. A second possibility is that the police dropped the case against Hill because, while they knew he had sold Bryant an AR-15, there was a danger of evidence coming to light that it was not the AR-15 used at Port Arthur. We will see below that this is almost certainly the case.

This leaves us with the unresolved problem of the FN-FAL. What seems to have happened here is that police were hoping that Bryant would identify it as his own .308 mm semiautomatic, the one he had bought six or seven years’ previously. The fact that he did not acknowledge it as his own meant that
the subject was dropped like a hot potato, and the police did not ask Bryant what type of .308 he owned exactly. It is apparent from the transcript that the .308 he owned was the AR-10. But if police believed that Bryant really was the Port Arthur gunman then they were obliged to prove that the FN-FAL was his. Yet, to my knowledge, no effort was ever made in this direction, which leads inescapably to the conclusion that this avenue of enquiry was not pursued precisely because the police knew that it had never belonged to Bryant. Although legitimate doubts therefore can be raised as to whether the AR-15 allegedly used in the massacre was Bryant’s, there are no grounds whatsoever for stating that the FN-FAL belonged to him. If it had, the police would have found a way to prove it.

BELOW: The restored Belgian FN-FAL (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

The question that remains is whether Bryant owned the AR-15 that was used at Port Arthur. That question should probably be answered in the negative. This is because the AR-15 found in the Seascape ruins could not have been the weapon used at Port Arthur. Joe Vialls points out that the AR-15 recovered from Seascape was badly damaged, not as a result of the fire, but because pressure was deliberately applied to destroy it in precisely such a manner that it would be rendered useless for
forensic purposes. (According to Vialls, a ‘sizeable chunk of C3 plastic explosive’ was ‘strategically placed inside the breech of the artillery piece, then later detonated, destroying the breech and rendering the weapon useless.’

According to Beattie, it was blown with what is called a ‘hot load.’) As a result of the damage, it was not possible to match the AR-15 with the bullets and cartridge cases found at Port Arthur. If the AR-15 found in the ruins of Seascape had been used at Port Arthur, there was no reason to damage it so as to prevent it from being matched with bullets and shells recovered from the PAHS. The only logical reason why anyone would have done such a thing would be to prevent tests being made that would show that the Seascape AR-15 was not the weapon which had fired the bullets and shells found at the PAHS. In short, it doesn’t matter whether or not the Seascape AR-15 was Bryant’s, or whether it had been sold to him by Terry Hill, because it was in any case not the weapon used at Port Arthur.

The best explanation for the Seascape AR-15, therefore, is that, while it was not a weapon used at Port Arthur, it did belong to Bryant, and it was planted there to frame him - duly damaged so that no one would be able to prove that it hadn’t fired the shots at Port Arthur.

But while it has proven possible to unpick the AR-15 mystery, the Belgian FN-FAL presents intractable difficulties. Once again, the weapon recovered from Seascape was not a weapon fired at Port Arthur. The Seascape FN-FAL lacked a major component called the return spring tube assembly, which would have been at least six inches in length. Without this part, the weapon cannot be fired at all. The enduring mystery is why a weapon was used in the attacks that, unlike the AR-15, that could not be connected to Martin Bryant in any way. In this respect, it is worth noting that the police have failed to establish the provenance of the FN-FAL found at Seascape. While it would be interesting to know more about this particular weapon, it is not material to the Port Arthur case.

One of the most disturbing facts about the case is the mysterious disappearance of the Armalite M16 which police found at Port Arthur on the very day of the massacre. According to the Examiner’s April 29 report, this was a very expensive, military-style weapon that was completely forbidden from import into Australia. This weapon, which undoubtedly had a great deal to do with the Port Arthur massacre, has obviously been ‘disappeared’ in favour of two weapons which can be connected, however tnuously, to Martin Bryant. There can be no greater proof that there was a conspiracy to frame Martin
Bryant – and that the massacre was an inside job - than the fact that the gun actually used to perpetrate the massacre was one which an ordinar citizen like Bryant could not possibly have brought into the country.

5 Zilch: the evidence against Martin Bryant

In chapters 2-4 above, I dealt with the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence for the official hypothesis that Martin Bryant was the perpetrator of the massacre in the Port Arthur Historical Site and adjacent locations. In this chapter, I deal with the socalled evidence in a more systematic fashion than before, while adding in extra details to reinforce certain points. The aim is to show clearly and unambiguously that there is no evidence directly connecting Bryant to the massacre. If Bryant had been guilty we should see at least some conclusive evidence. If, for example, he had been a mind-controlled patsy, as some have claimed, he should at the very least have left his fingerprints and/or DNA behind at the crime scene. But, as in the case of Seascape, what we see is actually a pattern of evidence consistent with a plot to set Bryant up as a patsy.

Part A: Forensic evidence

In Part A, I divide the forensic evidence into three types. In the first section, I review what I call
‘primary’ evidence, that is to say, evidence stemming directly from Martin Bryant’s person (e.g., fingerprints, DNA, hairs, saliva, urine etc.). In the second section, I discuss ‘secondary’ evidence, by which I mean portable items allegedly belonging to Bryant that were subsequently found inside the PAHS. (Even if these items really had belonged to Bryant, it is remains to be proven that they were introduced into the PAHS by Bryant himself.) Finally, in the third part, I review the ballistic evidence (firearms, ammunition).

1. Primary evidence


Bryant’s fingerprints were never found in the Broad Arrow Café or any other location inside the PAHS or adjacent areas. Items that ought to have had his fingerprints on them – if he had been the Café killer – but apparently did not include a food tray left on the table inside the Café and the items on the tray (a can of Diet Solo, a plastic drinking cup, a knife and fork, and the remains of hot meal, whether fish or lasagna). If Bryant’s fingerprints were found on any of these items, the fact has never been made public.


Bryant’s DNA was never found in the Broad Arrow Café or any other location inside the PAHS or adjacent areas. Items that ought to have had his DNA on them – if he had been the Café killer – are exactly the same as the items that ought to have yielded his fingerprints.

[At a meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society held at Griffith University in Queenland in 2002, Ian McNiven raised the subject of the lack of forensic evidence incriminating Martin
Bryant. The presenter, apparently Sergeant Gerard Dutton, the officer in charge of the Ballistic Section of Tasmania Police, grew angry, and had University security threaten McNiven and effectively evict him from the meeting. - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadutton.htm]

2. Secondary evidence


Bryant’s fingerprints were never found on any of the items
allegedly belonging to him which were subsequently found in
the Broad Arrow Café, other locations inside the PAHS and
adjacent areas. Items that ought to have had his fingerprints on
them but which apparently did not include: a Prince sports bag
left on the table inside the Cafe, clothing found inside the bag, a
towel found inside the bag, a hunting knife that was supposedly
found inside the towel, a two-foot length of white cord found
inside the bag, a large video camera left on the table next to the
bag, live ammunition that had been spilled on the Café floor,
the yellow Volvo abandoned at the PAHS tollgate, and items
found inside the vehicle (including a Daewoo shotgun and a
passport). If Bryant’s fingerprints were found on any of these
items, the information has not been made public.


‘A very refined test undertaken … has disclosed that
there was also a DNA sample which was unable to be
identified initially but it has now been identified as being
consistent with that of Martin Bryant.’28

With these words, Damien Bugg QC– who is discussing the
contents of the Prince sports bag left by the shooter inside the
Broad Arrow Café - gave the impression that a sample of
Bryant’s DNA was found on the knife that was found inside the
Prince sports bag which allegedly yielded a blood stain from
David Martin, the proprietor of Seascape Cottage, who Bryant
allegedly killed at Seascape an hour or two before the Port
Arthur massacre.

[28 Court Document 76-77 (= McDonald, op. cit., p. 82)]

However, the terminology used by Bugg is devious in the
extreme. The DNA, he tells us, is ‘consistent’ with that of Martin
Bryant. However, DNA either is or is not a match. If the DNA
matched Bryant’s, Bugg should have said so. The phrase
‘consistent with’ is therefore a semantic sleight-of-hand
designed to encourage the misperception among those who
know nothing about DNA testing that the DNA had been
Bryant’s. In fact, the term ‘consistent with’ means nothing at all
in this instance.

It is also striking that the public has never been told what the
source of the DNA was, whether it was blood, for example, or
some other substance. If it was Bryant’s blood, then the
possibility is that the same knife had been used to stab both
Bryant and David Martin.

What’s more, on the evening of April 28 ‘Jamie,’ the chief
protagonist of the Seascape siege told police interrogator Sgt.
Terry McCarthy over the phone that he had with him a 15-inch
long ‘stainless steel combat knife’ with a darkened blade.29 This
statement – whose detail only makes sense if the knife was
intended to be used to incriminate Bryant - implies that the
weapon was not inside the sports bag when it was left inside the
Café. (This is also another clue suggesting that ‘Jamie’ really did
not know what had happened at Port Arthur.)

Neither witness (Marlene Sharp, Michael Sargent) who looked
inside the Prince sports bag after the shooter left the Café saw a
hunting knife. Of course, this could be because the knife was
wrapped inside the towel, as the police maintain, and therefore
hidden from view. But in view of ‘Jamie’’s comments to
McCarthy, it would seem that the knife was still at Seascape on
the evening of the massacre and therefore not inside the sports
bag. The claim that the knife was inside the towel inside the

[29 McDonald, op. cit., p. 220.]

sports bag could well have been made up afterwards as a means
of connecting the Port Arthur shooter to the crimes at Seascape.
In any case, it is obvious that the presence of Bryant’s DNA on
the knife does nothing to prove that he was the Port Arthur
shooter. Even if his DNA had been found on the knife, and we
were so rash as to draw the conclusion that the presence of his
DNA proved that he had killed David Martin (which of course it
doesn’t), this does not constitute evidence that Bryant was the
Port Arthur shooter. The shooter could have been party to a
conspiracy to frame Bryant. The same person could have
stabbed both David Martin and Martin Bryant with the same
knife, for instance. If so, the relevant question is whether
anyone else’s DNA was on the knife, in addition to that of David
Martin and Martin Bryant.

The whole chain of events associated with the knife seems
extremely suspicious. Since David Martin was killed by being
shot twice rather than by being stabbed, the only point of
stabbing him would have been to plant a sample of his blood on
the knife. The only point of wrapping the knife in a towel and
concealing it inside a sports bag which would subsequently be
left behind at the Café would have been to provide a link
between Martin Bryant and the murder of David Martin. It is
very hard to see why Martin Bryant would have wanted to
incriminate himself, however. Even if he were perverse enough
to want to incriminate himself by taking the knife he had used
to stab David Martin with him to the PAHS and leaving it there,
it is hard to see why he would have subsequently denied
murdering him.

Now to summarise the above points:

1. Just because Damien Bugg QC says a DNA sample
‘was consistent with that of Martin Bryant,’ it does not
mean that the DNA was a match. Bugg’s failure to say
clearly and unambiguously that it was a match means
that the matter should be regarded as inconclusive.

2. There is no evidence that there was a hunting knife
inside the Prince sports bag abandoned by the shooter
inside the Café. No witness saw a knife when they looked
inside the bag, while later that same evening ‘Jamie’ told
police he still had his hunting knife with him. The knife
must therefore have found its way to the police by other

3. Even if there was a hunting knife with a sample of
Bryant’s DNA on a knife wrapped inside the towel found
inside the sports bag, it does not mean that Martin
Bryant stabbed David Martin. Both men could have been
stabbed with the same knife by a third person.

4. Even if Martin Bryant stabbed David Martin with the
knife, it does not mean that Martin Bryant was the
person who wrapped the knife in a towel, placed the
towel inside the Prince sports bag and left the bag inside
the Café. This behaviour is consistent with someone
trying to frame Bryant. How else can we explain the fact
that the shooter entered the Café with two Prince sports
bags, leaving one behind (the one containing the items
that allegedly incriminated Bryant) and taking the other
one with him back to the car when he exited the Café?

5. The facts concerning the Prince sports bags, the
hunting knife and the DNA it allegedly yielded are more
consistent with an attempt to frame Bryant than with
Bryant’s guilt. Why would Bryant have gone to such
lengths to incriminate himself? Why, if he had wanted to
incriminate himself, did he not leave fingerprints or
DNA behind on items such as the can of Diet Solo

purchased from the Café that he had not brought with
him to the Café that day?


Surprisingly, there exists no evidence whatsoever that any of
the portable items allegedly belonging to Martin Bryant which
were found inside the PAHS (including the yellow Volvo
abandoned at the tollgate) actually did belong to him.

The strongest case can be made for his ownership of one of the
two Prince sports bags. According to Bryant’s girlfriend, Petra
Wilmott, Bryant bought the bag in a Hobart department store
on April 15.30 She says he took it home with him, but she never
saw it again.

Yet Wilmott’s story cannot be corroborated. According to
Damien Bugg QC, Bryant bought the bag in Myers. However, no
sales receipt has been produced to confirm that the sale had
taken place, while the individual who allegedly sold the bag to
Bryant remains unidentified. Despite the fact that Inspector
Paine told Bryant that he believed that he had purchased the
bag, he could not tell him exactly where he had bought it: ‘I
believe you bought that in Myers or Fitzgeralds or somewhere
in town.’31 If, as late as July 4, 1996, Paine still did not know
where Bryant had bought the bag, then he could not have
spoken as yet with the person who claims to have sold Bryant
the bag or have seen a sales receipt for the purchase.

Paine’s only grounds for telling Bryant that he believed that he
had bought the bag, therefore, was the word of Petra Wilmott.
It is hard to see why he should have believed her, if, after more

[30 Sworn statements of April 28, April 30, and May 8, cited in McDonald, op. cit., p. 191.]

[31 Cited in McDonald, op. cit., p. 198.]

than two months, evidence to support Bryant’s purchase of the bag had still not emerged. (If you had been the salesperson who had sold Bryant the bag, would you not have come forward to declare the fact?) The fact that, even after the location of the purchase was narrowed down to Myers, Bugg declined to name the individual who claims to have sold Bryant the bag means that Wilmott’s story effectively remains uncorroborated. The fact that information has never been made available to the
public that would corroborate her story suggests that that the purchase Wilmott describes never took place.

What’s more, as Noel McDonald points out, at the time Bryant
allegedly bought the bag, his rifle was no longer in his
possession (it was in the keeping of Hobart gun dealer Terry
Hill). How would he have known what size bag to buy, if the
gun was no longer in his possession? Also, when shown the bag,
Bryant denied buying it. His spontaneous reaction (‘Ugh ugh’)
also suggests that he found it ugly. This makes it all the less
likely that he would have bought it. Finally, the above
considerations concern one Prince sports bag. What about the
other? We don’t have sufficient evidence to connect Bryant with
one Prince sports bag, let alone two.

Narratives of the Port Arthur massacre also contain mention of
other items which allegedly belonged to Martin Bryant. These
items consist of a video camera and a yellow Volvo left at the
tollgate, together with items found inside it: a full 25 litre drum
of petrol, a 10 litre drum of petrol containing 7 litres, a gray
video camera bag, lengths of sash cord rope, and three packets
of Little Lucifer fire starters. (Guns and ammunition are dealt
with below.)

Of these many items, not one iota of proof has ever been
provided proving that Bryant owned any of them. What’s more,
no one is on record as having admitted to selling Bryant any
of these items. Although Bryant could easily have purchased

Little Lucifer fire starters entirely inconspicuously, it is unlikely
that he could have bought large drums of petrol without
attracting attention.

The video camera is a particular mystery, as there is no doubt
that the gunman brought one with him into the Broad Arrow
Café. Rebecca McKenna said that he left it on the floor, next to
the Prince sports bag. But what happened to it thereafter no
one seems to know. Whatever its purpose, there is no evidence
that it actually belong to Bryant. If it had belonged to Bryant, it
is hard to see why it was never entered into evidence.

With regard to the yellow Volvo, there is no evidence that the
yellow Volvo left at the PAHS tollgate was Bryant’s own vehicle.
The vehicle certainly resembled Bryant’s Volvo, but this does
not mean that it was the very same vehicle. For one thing,
Bryant did not recognize the license plate number when it was
read to him. This would seem unlikely in the case of a vehicle he
had owned for some years.

What’s more, Bryant reportedly did not possess a driving
license. If this is true, it is hard to see how he would ever have
been able to register the vehicle in his own name. Yet the police
claim that they were able to identify the vehicle as Bryant’s
when his registration details came through at about 8.30 p.m.
on April 28. How could Bryant have been able to register the
vehicle without producing a driver’s license, which he did not
even possess? What’s more, neither Bryant’s fingerprints nor
his DNA were recovered from the Volvo, a circumstance that
seems impossible to explain.

Nonetheless, there is an explanation – and, understood in its
true light, it amounts to evidence that the yellow Volvo used by
the Port Arthur shooter was not Bryant’s. A little known fact
about the case is that the Volvo was left in the open air, at the
tollgate, for the night of April 28-29. It was still there, at the
tollgate, at 9 a.m., when Michael Copping saw it while on his

way to collect Steven Howard from Port Arthur. With its rear
passenger side window missing (the gunman - presumably –
had removed it probably as a means of minimizing the
noise/blast effect of shooting from the driver’s seat),
fingerprints and DNA inside the vehicle were vulnerable to the
effects of night moisture.32 In fact, according to police, the
overnight moisture eliminated all traces of fingerprints and

The question inevitably has to be asked why the police did not
take due care to ensure the preservation of whatever
fingerprints and DNA inside the car. At this stage – and recall
here that Bryant was not taken into custody until the morning
of April 29 – fingerprints and DNA inside the car represented
essential proof of the identity of the perpetrator of the
massacre. As darkness descended on the Tasman Peninsula on
April 28, the only reason to connect the massacre to Bryant was
a passport found inside the Volvo at around 4.30 p.m. At this
time, the fingerprints and DNA from the Volvo therefore
represented the most reliable means of determining whether
the greatest homicidal maniac in Australian history had really
been Bryant (as the presence of the passport suggested) or
someone else.

The fact that a major portion of the evidence required for this
purpose vanished overnight invites only one sound conclusion:
the police wanted the evidence to vanish. Unless the police had

[32 Colleen Parker: ‘He then ran back to his car, and he either punched or smashed the driver’s window to his car, because I heard glass break.’ (Cited in McDonald, op. cit., p. 227) However, Parker mistook which window was smashed. In his police statement, Colin Triffett states that the rear window, passenger side, had been smashed. McDonald adds the observation that ‘Photographs of the Volvo clearly show the back passenger window to be missing.’]

a reason to not want the massacre connected to Bryant (and I
know of no evidence that would invite such a possibility), this
result is only consistent with one conclusion: Tasmania Police
did not want evidence to survive that would have proven that
Bryant had not been the person using the car that afternoon. In
short, the Port Arthur shooter has to have been someone other
than Bryant whose identity the police were anxious to protect.

3. Ballistic evidence

The prosecution claims that Bryant perpetrated the massacre
using two fireams, a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic .223 rifle and a
Belgian FN-FAL semi-automatic .308 SLR (self-loading rifle),
both of which were recovered in a heavily damaged condition
from Seascape Cottage outbuildings (not the main building)
after it burned down on the morning of April 29, 1996.

However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the earliest
newspaper reports do not mention a Colt AR-15. No eyewitness
mentions it either. Graham Collyer, please recall, said that the
weapon used by the gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café
‘looked like a standard SLR service semi automatic.’ This
description is more consistent with the FN-FAL than the Colt
AR-15 which we are now told was the weapon the gunman had
used inside the Café.

The day after the massacre, the Examiner reported that police
had found a .223 mm Armalite M16 at Port Arthur. Nothing has
been heard since about the weapon that was found that day
inside the PAHS. Then, on May 1, 1996, the West Australian
told the public that the two weapons used had been a 5.56 mm
Armalite AR-15 and a Chinese-made SKS .762 mm assault rifle.
It is interesting that it took only two days for the Armalite M16
– the prohibited import – to disappear from the public record
to be replaced by a weapon which could be legally bought and
sold in Australia. From this point onwards, the SKS became the
weapon most frequently referred to in the media as the weapon
‘Bryant’ had used. Then, finally, the SKS was dropped
altogether and its place in narratives of the massacre was taken
by the Belgian FN-FAL. To me, these intriguing shifts look like
shifts from the real murder weapons to weapons that could be
connected to Bryant, if only because they also emerged from the
Seascape inferno. It would be interesting to hear Graham
Collyer’s opinion as to whether the weapon used to injure him
had been a Colt AR-15.

Colt AR-15

Bryant freely admits to owning a Colt AR-10 rifle, which he
apparently bought through a newspaper advertisement in
October or November 1995. At the time of the massacre,
however, the Colt AR-10 – which was in a dreadful condition -
was in the care of Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill, from whom the
police reclaimed it afterwards.

There is a real mystery, though, as to whether Bryant owned an
AR-15. According to Bryant, he bought an AR-15 from Hill
shortly before the massacre, and Damien Bugg QC told the
Supreme Court in November 1996 that Bryant had used this
weapon to execute the carnage in the Broad Arrow Café. The
problem here, as we saw in the previous chapter, is that Hill
adamantly denies having sold Bryant an AR-15. Although the
police claimed to possess evidence proving that Hill sold Bryant
the weapon, they never produced it (which may mean that they
were taking Bryant’s word for it).

What’s more, even if Bryant did buy an AR-15 from Hill, there is no evidence that this is the Colt AR-15 found at Seascape. The latter weapon as an extremely curious history. To reiterate: it was given to the Victoria police by a Yea farmer, Bill Drysdale, during a gun amnesty in February 1993. He was told that the gun would be sent overseas. Instead, it was retained for use by the SOG, the very organization which carried out the siege of Seascape! How this gun ended up on the periphery of Seascape Cottage – thereby ensuring that it would survive the subsequent fire in reasonable condition - is unknown, but there is no evidence that Bryant put it there.

However convoluted the path was by which it reached Seascape,
the Colt AR-15 found there is of no forensic relevance to our
investigation because it was not the weapon used inside the
Broad Arrow Café. We have already seen that Graham Collyer
says it was a standard SLR. That it was not an AR-15 is
rendered all the more likely by the fact that. according to Joe
Vialls, an AR-15 is three inches too long to have been concealed
inside the Prince sports bag taken by the killer inside the Café.

Only a sawn-off AR-15 would have been small enough to have
been successfully concealed inside the bag.33 (Vialls says that
such weapons are only used by the Israeli Mistaravim.34)
Furthermore, as I mentioned in the previous chapter, the Colt
AR-15 had been disabled in such a fashion as to render it
useless for forensic purposes. This can only have been done to
prevent someone finding out that it had not been the weapon
used at Port Arthur. If it had been the weapon used during the
massacre, the desired link to Martin Bryant could only have
been made by leaving it in a condition that would permit it to be
matched to the live and spent ammunition at Port Arthur.


Around midday on April 29. Glenn Martin – the son of the deceased proprietors of Seascape – observed a gun lying in the

[33 A possibility Vialls does not consider is that the Prince sports bag was not an ‘off the shelf’ item but one that had specially been created to conceal a full-length weapon.]

[34 http://www.vialls.com/cowards/byebye2.html]

gutter of an adjoining building. The weapon was subsequently
identified as an FN-FAL, the weapon which the public were told
had been the second of the two weapons used by the Port
Arthur gunman. Whether or not Bryant was lying when he told
Inspectors Warren and Paine that he had never seen the FNFAL
before is besides the point because, once again, it was not a
weapon used at Port Arthur. The same point is valid in relation
to the FN-FAL as with the AR-15: if it had been the weapon
used during the massacre, the desired link to Martin Bryant
could only have been made by leaving it in a condition that
would have permitted ballistic matching to ammunition left
behind at Port Arthur and in the bodies of the victims.


In the act of taking one Prince sports bag out of the other, the
Port Arthur shooter accidentally spilled ‘heaps of live
ammunition on the floor’ of the Café.35 As she left the Café,
Coralee Lever saw ‘a large bullet on the ground … it was brass
coloured, about two inches long.’36 Further live ammunition
was found inside the Volvo: a magazine for the Colt AR-15
contained 12 rounds, a magazine for the FN-FAL contained 17
rounds, a Daewoo shotgun contained 9 cartridges, and a
cardboard box contained 439 cartridges for the FN-FAL.

Despite finding a vast amount of ammunition in pristine
condition, none of it has never been traced to Martin Bryant. In
fact, it has never been traced to anyone at all. The same goes for
the bullets that ended up in people’s bodies. Not a single such
item emerged in a condition suitable for ballistic testing. None
of it, therefore, can be linked to Bryant.

Although Hobart gun dealer Terry Hill admits to having sold
Bryant three boxes of Winchester XX 1 1/2 oz shotgun shells

[35 Dennis Gabbedy, cited in McDonald, op. cit., p. 197.]

[36 Cited in McDonald, op. cit., p. 197.]

(code number X12XC) on April 24, 1996 - four days before the
massacre – this is not ammunition which was used at Port
Arthur. What’s more, Hill never sold Bryant any of the
ammunition that was used at Port Arthur. If Hill- or anyone
else – sold Bryant the ammunition that was recovered from the
crime scene, then the Tasmanian police should have been able
to prove it. The fact that they have never traced the origin of the
ammunition (or, at least, have never revealed its origin to the
public) surely means that it cannot be connected to Bryant. It
is, after all, extremely hard to believe that Bryant, with his IQ of
just 66, could have managed his purchases of guns,
ammunition and everything else involved in the case so
successfully that the police have utterly failed to establish the
origin of so much as a single item. It is far easier to believe that
the police do not want us to learn who procured these deadly
items and how.

By way of concluding Part I of this book, it is worth pointing out
that the case against Martin Bryant utterly lacks specificity.
There is not a single element of the official narrative of the Port
Arthur massacre which is backed up by solid evidence. Not one
sales receipt has ever been offered for any of the items allegedly
procured for the purpose of staging the massacre or for items
that he allegedly bought while en route to the PAHS. Just as
there is no sales docket for the Prince sports bag he allegedly
bought in Myer’s on April 15, 1996, there are no sales dockets
for other items associated with the case such as the lighter
‘Bryant’ bought at Forcett, the bottle of tomato sauce he bought
at Sorrel or his entry ticket for the PAHS. We should know
exactly what time he ordered a meal at the Broad Arrow Café –
as well as whether he ate lasagna (as one report states) or fish
with cauliflower and carrots (Rebecca McKenna).

The lack of proof of any of Bryant’s alleged purchases is only
equalled by the inability of the Tasmanian Department of
Public Prosecutions to provide precise dates and times for any
of Bryant’s alleged doings. These are always vague, even when
the existence of contradictions should have led to serious efforts
to determine the time more precisely. For example, a date has
never been provided for the advertisement for a gardener which
Bryant allegedly placed in the Hobart Mercury in January 1996
– and which is important because it allegedly led Bryant to
meet Petra Wilmott. Would it have been all that hard for the
DPP to state which day the advertisement appeared? (The same
criticism concerns several other items pertinent to the case
which Bryant allegedly purchased through ads in the Mercury.)
In fact, the only timestamped evidence in the entire case is the
video taken by McLeod, which shows the yellow Volvo at 1.37
p.m. on April 28, 1996 – but not the driver.

Even as late as July 4, 1996, the detectives interrogating Bryant
about the case were unable to furnish him with proof to
substantiate any of their outrageous allegations against him.
They could not even tell him precisely when and where he had
purchased the Prince sports bag, let alone when and where he
had obtained the FN-FAL they said he used to kill some of his
victims. There is, in fact, no major criminal case in history
which is so conspicuously lacking in precise references to dates,
times, purchases and other relevant details. Can there be any
doubt that the case against Martin Bryant lacks all substance?


Bryant’s affair with a pig

It is not my purpose in this book to provide a systematic
analysis and critique of the campaign of character assassination
waged against Martin Bryant by the police and the media after
the Port Arthur massacre. What I would like to do, first of all, is
remind readers that by far the most incriminating component
of the anti-Bryant rhetoric - his alleged partiality for violent
videos – turned out to be wholly unfounded. Bryant’s video
collection not only contained entirely standard fare, his tastes
in movies was far from violent. According to Petra Wilmott, he
even walked out of a movie that was too violent for his tastes.
His tastes in videos seem to have been as anodyne as his taste
in music, which included The Lion King and Cliff Richard.

But, second, it is important to realize that the nature of his
collection was only one of a great many lines of defamation that
were pursued by those who were determined to depict him as a
monster. Most Australian readers will recall that Bryant is
supposed to have threatened to kill a number of people, and to
have given women the creeps. Mike Bingham’s trashy book
Suddenly One Sunday (1996; second edition 2001) is replete
with (mostly unattributed) stories of Bryant’s untoward
behaviour to women, presumably in order to encourage
disturbed female readers to draw the conclusion that the police
must definitely have found the right mass murderer.

However, most Australians will probably have forgotten one of
the most sensational ‘revelations’ the media diffused about
Bryant – which was that he slept with a pig in his bed!
According to Macer Hall (The Star, April 30, 1996) – who is
now the political editor for the London tabloid The Daily Star -
‘The psycho behind the Tasmanian massacre was a twisted
loner who slept with a pig. … Bryant was known to wander
around toting guns under cover of darkness - and snuggle up to
his pet porker during the day.’37

Without wishing to impugn the journalistic integrity of a Macer
Hall (who is a member of the British parliamentary press
gallery, and therefore should possess at least a modicum of the
stuff), I would suggest that this particular claim can be pretty
much dismissed as an unsubstantiated allegation. If there was a
pig in Bryant’s bed, Petra Wilmott seems not to have noticed it
there, while Carleen Bryant, who regularly cleaned her son’s
house for him, never mentions the pig droppings she must have
been finding all over the place.

What’s more, the identity of the pig itself – and other pertinent
facts, such as its sex, age and breed - have never been released
by the Tasmania Police. Whether or not the police have
obfuscated the truth about Martin Bryant by deliberately
suppressing information about the pig is a matter that
concerned readers should probably take up with the DPP rather
than with this author, who is entirely unfamiliar with the
appropriate forensic procedures for investigating intimate
relationships between psycho killers and porcine bedmates.


A question I would like to leave the reader with is whether such
an extensive campaign of personal vilification as that which was
waged after the massacre against Martin Bryant, however
deviant or creepy he may have been, would have been necessary
if there had been actual evidence?

[37 http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/gunmad.htm]


What does Martin Bryant actually look like?

Since Bryant was taken to Hobart Royal Hospital on the
morning of April 29, 1996, no photographic image of the man
held responsible for the Port Arthur massacre has ever been
published. Although there is nothing necessarily sinister about
the fact – as far as I am aware no photographs of current prison
inmates are ever published – it presents a major obstacle to the
correlation of witness statements with Bryant’s physical

That there seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the facts about
Bryant’s appearance is follows from the fact that nowhere on
record can one find Bryant’s height specified. In the photo of
Bryant with Wilmott reproduced below, for instance, Bryant is a
good deal taller than his girlfriend. That may be because
Wilmott is very short. But if Bryant is very tall, say over 6 feet,
then it would be yet another argument against him having been
the Broad Arrow Café shooter.

The biggest problems relate to Bryant’s age and appearance.
The photo of Bryant embracing Wilmott (below) has to be have
been taken within three months of the massacre. Despite its
poor quality, it is obvious that Bryant is aged in his late 20s.

Yet all other photos show him look considerably younger, as for
example in the photo allegedly taken by Wilmott at Richmond
on April 25 (‘PHOTO A’), and two others that were obviously
taken on the same day (‘PHOTO B’ and ‘PHOTO C’ opposite).
What is striking about the Anzac Day photos, as I will refer to
the group, is that in them Bryant obviously has a fuller face – by
contrast, the man pictured embracing Wilmott looks gaunt,
perhaps even ill. I remain unconvinced that the two men are
one and the same individual or that they were taken within a
few weeks of one another.

The possibility has to be considered that these photos are either
of a much younger Bryant (which have been released to give the
impression that he was a very young looking 29) or they are not
photos of Bryant at all.

PHOTO A (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

PHOTO B (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

PHOTO C (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

The photo of Bryant embracing Wilmott also raises questions
about his hair colour, which is generally referred to as ‘white.’38
In this photo, the only one showing his hair short or tied back
(it is hard to tell), his hair seems to be dark on one side and
light on the other! Certainly, he does not seem to possess the
shock of white hair that is so prominent in most of the

[38 “In Cold Blood,” The Age (May 3, 1996): ‘What Woods did
remember was that Martin Bryant stood out with his white
surfie hair and clothes. … Woods noticed Bryant’s white hair
and his pale complexion and thought he was an albino.’ WWW:

published photos. Here we can definitely see that there has
been a major deception. In Photo B above, Bryant’s hair is
apparently brown with blond highlights and streaks. However,
this fact is not apparent in black and white photos, but only in
the original colour versions. (Anyone who doubts this should
take a good look at the colour version of Photo B on the cover of
Who Weekly magazine, November 2, 1996.)

Further doubts about the whiteness of Bryant’s hair are raised
by the footage showing Bryant arriving at the Hobart Royal
Hospital. In frames from this video footage – the last
photographc images of Bryant ever taken – it is apparent that
he did not have white or blonde hair. His hair is actually quite
dark. It is also not particularly long.

BELOW: Photo of Bryant arriving at Hobart Royal Hospital. (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

On account of the distinctive profile, I have no doubt that the
‘Bryant’ who arrived at Hobart Royal Hospital is the same
person who is shown embracing Wilmott in the picture above. I
have serious doubts, however, as to whether this could be the
same individual in the photos that were allegedly taken by
Wilmott three days before the massacre.

In this regard, it would be interesting to know why Bryant’s
passport photo has never been made public. (His passport,
please recall, was reportedly found by a police detective in the
Volvo on the afternoon of the massacre.) This photo would
show Bryant at the time he applied for his passport – and
therefore could be used as a basis for more accurate
generalizations about his appearance.

There is therefore a mystery about Bryant’s appearance that
only underlines the numerous arguments advanced in this book
to the effect that the public is not being told as much as an
ounce of truth about the Port Arthur massacre. We may be
looking at a subterfuge involving two Bryants – or, more
probably, the use of photos taken of Bryant when he was
younger. In either case, we can now see why no one is allowed
to interview or photograph Bryant today.


See no evil, hear no evil: Petra Wilmott

I described Petra Wilmott above as a mystery woman – and,
among mystery women, Wilmott, who so far as I am aware
hasn’t said a word about Bryant or the case since 1997, is about
as mysterious as they come. The first piece of information that
piqued my curiosity about her is that, at least according to the
official account, she entered Bryant’s life in January 1996 – a
little over three months, apparently, before the massacre.
According to her police statement of April 28, 1996, she met
him through at an advertisment for a gardener he placed in the
Hobart Mercury. But, as I pointed out above, no precise date
has ever been given for the appearance of this ad, which rather
leaves me wondering whether it ever existed.

According to her statment, Wilmott commenced a sexual
relationship with Bryant about a week after she began working
for him. This means that from about February 1996 until the
day Bryant was captured, she was a constant presence in his
life. During this period, Bryant allegedly evolved from a dapper
young gentleman into a nuisance about town:

In the months leading up to the murders … The young
man who had always been so careful about his
appearance and conscious of good clothes had begun to
look scruffy. He had let his hair grow longer and he no
longer dressed smartly. …. [also] Bryant, for some reason
known only to himself, had begun to catch buses, and
there were stories that he was annoying female
passengers and had been put off by the drivers a couple
of times. 39

[39 Bingham, op. cit., p. 147. However, this story seems to
contradict another told by Bingham, to the effect that Bryant
attracted some attention when he was staying in an expensive
hotel in Hereford, England because, ‘his general appearance
suggested he was in no way affluent.’ (p. 51) So was Bryant into
‘smart’ clothes before 1996 or not?]

The following events allegedly also occurred in this period of
Bryant’s life:

1. He was refused permission by Perpetual Trustees, who
managed his finances, to undertake an overseas trip.

2. He developed (or renewed) an interest in guns. Not only
did he suddenly show an interest in his old AR-10 rifle
(he took it to Terry Hill, and talked about getting it fixed
to Hobart gun repairer Stewart Woods), he bought
ammunition from Hill and began collecting gun
magazines. He may have also bought an AR-15.

3. He allegedly bought a Prince sports bag at Myer’s on
April 15, 1996, which he carefully measured to make sure
it would be large enough to conceal a firearm.

It is hard to know whether there is any substance to Bryant’s
alleged transformation. Petra Wilmott never noticed this
transformation in personality and appearance and never saw
any guns in his Clare Street house.40 It would be most unusual,
I think, for a man who has just acquired a new girlfriend to be
running around town annoying women.

What’s more, the one photograph which certainly dates from
this period (since it shows the pair together) shows Bryant still
dressed quite elegantly and with short hair! What this photo
implies to me is either that no change took place at all (i.e., he
dressed as usual and his hair remained short) or that Wilmott’s
influence brought about a change in his presentation and

[40 Of course she may simply have been unobservant. After all,
the pig referred to in Appendix I apparently also escaped her

What I am suggesting is the possibility that she played a role
setting him up by instigating the otherwise inexplicable changes
associated with this period. But even if she was not responsible
for them herself, at the very least, she should have had
something to say about them. She can hardly have failed to
notice it if he was really bothering other women, for example.

However, there is greater reason to believe that the story about
Bryant’s sudden transformation is wholly false. For a start,
Bryant struck Stewart Wood as a ‘yuppie’ - a statement which is
easier to reconcile with the old, dapper Bryant than the new. (A
similar interpretation might be placed on the words of Don
Hazell of Tigerline coaches, who wondered if Bryant was

BELOW: Perhaps the only authentic image of Bryant in the months prior to the massacre. (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

However, the strongest reasons to conclude that Bryant’s
appearance and demeanour really had not changed at all are
the photos allegedly taken by Wilmott on April 25, 1996. In the
photos printed in Appendix II, Bryant looks a good younger
(and healthier!) than in the indisputably authentic image
printed immediately above. The Anzac Day photos, as I refer to
them, can hardly have been taken within weeks of the one
shown above.

What I find curious about these photos is first, that they are of a
much higher quality than you would expect from tourist
pictures. According to Bingham, Bryant had them taken
because he ‘wanted to try out his camera.’41 Yet these are by no
means amateur shots. Photo B, in particular, is actually a high
resolution portrait that seems to have been taken by a
professional photographer, somewhere indoors, with perfect
lighting that shows the considerable beauty of his flowing locks.
Second, none of the photos allegedly taken on that day show
Bryant together with Wilmott. Since Bryant was apparently not
reluctant to be photographed with her, it is odd that on this day
trip together he did not ask anyone to take a picture of them
together. In view of the major discrepancies between the Bryant
shown in the Anzac Day photos and the Bryant in the photo
indubitably taken in early 1996, the question has to be asked
whether Wilmott was not in the Anzac Day photos because they
were taken well before she entered his life. My own impression
is that Bryant looks at least five years younger than he does in
the photo with Wilmott, which would give them a date of about
1990 or 1991! The Bryant in the 1995 photo is clearly not ‘baby
faced.’ In fact, he looks like he could well be dying, perhaps of
cancer or of AIDS.

Wilmott says in her statement that she slept at Bryant’s house
on the four nights immediately prior to the massacre, i.e., April
23-27. It is hard to believe that, if Bryant had been planning a
killing spree for the upcoming weekend, she didn’t see a
suspicious thing the entire time.

[41 Bingham, op. cit., p. 55.]

In short, Wilmott’s statements in relation to Martin Bryant are
almost as puzzling as those made over the years by Marina
Oswald in relation to her husband, Lee Harvey. Wilmott does
connect Bryant to the Prince sports bag and does state that he
talked about wasps and Japanese tourists - which pearls of
information must have been highly gratifying to the DPP - but
in every other respect she has gone on record as declaring that
Bryant was a gentle soul who would have been incapable of
harming anyone.

BELOW: Petra Wilmott last public appearance. (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Perhaps the answer to the mystery lies in the fact that she was
apparently involved herself in the obscure goings on at
Seascape. According to the policewoman who accompanied
Bryant to the hospital after he was apprehended, he asked if
Petra was OK. He told her that Petra had been, with him, in
Seascape, that she was his girlfriend, and that the two of them
always stuck together. This aspect of the story has, of course,
been suppressed. Whatever the nature of her activities at
Seascape, she has clearly been left in a position of being unable
to tell the truth about what happened there.


Aileen and Ian Kingston

Among the most important witnesses of the events of April 28,
1996, is a husband-and-wife couple who both worked at the
PAHS that day, Aileen and Ian Kingston. They are, in fact, the
most authoritative witnesses for the arrival of the gunman at
the PAHS, and his subsequent identification as Martin Bryant.
The problem, though, is that both seem to be lying in their
sworn statements.

Aileen Kingston

According to Aileen Kingston’s sworn statement of May 2, 1996,
the yellow Volvo arrived at the entrance tollgate at between 1.10
and 1.15 p.m. on April 28. As the man driving the vehicle didn’t
look to her as if he had very much money, she anticipated an
argument with him over the expensive entrance fee ($13).
Instead, he produced a $50 note and paid without complaint,
before driving off towards the site.42 After this, she checked
‘some monies that had been taken by a work mate during my
lunch break. At about 1.25 p.m., I rang through to Steven
Howard to tell him that the money appeared correct.’43

[42 McDonald, op. cit., p. 226.]

[43 McDonald, op. cit., p. 74.]

BELOW: The tollgate (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

There are three major problems with her statement, however.
First, several witnesses place the gunman inside the Broad
Arrow Café by this time. In fact, the earliest sighting of him in
the car park in front of the Café occurred just before 1 p.m. So
the gunman arrived at the PAHS at least 10-15 minutes before
the time Kingston indicates in her statement.

Second, all visitors to the PAHS receive a receipt indicating
their time of arrival.44 The driver of the Volvo would also have
been given one, meaning that it should have been possible for
the police to determine his arrival time to the exact minute.
Indeed, in his own sworn statement taken on April 28, 1996,
Ian Kingston actually states that while speaking to the man in

[44 Jason Cole: ‘We arrived at the Port Arthur Toll Gate at 12.40
p.m., and paid an entry fee to the historic area. … we have
retained the receipt which shows the time we entered the area.’
(Cited in McDonald, op. cit., p. 165)]

the Volvo he noticed his entrance ticket lying on the front seat
next to him. Presumably, it was recovered when the vehicle was
subsequently searched.

But the third problem, one that proves that Aileen Kingston is
lying, concerns two major discrepancies between her police
statement and that of her co-worker Steven Howard. According
to Howard’s sworn statement, taken on April 30, it was he, not
Kingston, who served the driver of the Volvo. He says that this
was because he was relieving her while she took her lunchbreak.
So we have two outright contradictions: Howard says he took
the entrance fee from the driver of the yellow Volvo and that
Kingston was on lunch at the time. Kingston, in a statement
taken two days later, says that she took the entrance fee and
implies that she had already had lunch before that, when she
was relieved by an unnamed workmate. Although the workmate
could have been someone other than Howard, the question has
to be asked why, if he had not been Howard, she did not give his
name. In any case, it is obvious that Howard has to have been
the workmate: if he had not been the workmate relieving her
while she was on her break, why would she have rung him at
1.25 p.m. to ‘confirm that the balance had been correct’?

The only reliable fact that can be gleaned from the two
statements, therefore, is that about about 1.25 p.m. Kingston
rang Howard, who was working at the Information Centre.
(Tour group leader Ashley Law vouches for Howard’s presence
in the Information Centre at the time of the call.)

These conflicts raise the question of whether one or both people
are lying, and if so why. The most generous interpretation I can
put on the evidence is that Kingston and Howard were either
pressed to provide an account of the gunman’s entry to the
PAHS, at a time when the man was already inside the Broad
Arrow Café, or their statements were tampered with to the
same end.

If we accept the first scenario, both persons are implicated in
the massacre to the degree that they were willing to provide
false statements obscuring the facts about the gunman’s real
time of entry to the PAHS. However, it is unclear whether
Kingston and Howard colluded with each other to do so. On the
one hand, both their statements recall surprise that the man did
not complain about the high entrance fee, which young people
were apparently inclined to do. On the other hand, it the two
had colluded to falsify their statements they would surely have
worked out a story that did not entangle themselves in major

Ian Kingston

Aileen Kingston’s husband, Ian Kingston, is another individual
whose statements invite a certain scepticism. As is well known
from books such as Suddenly One Sunday, Kingston avers that
the yellow Volvo arrived in the parking area at about 1.25 p.m.45
This is itself improbable, for if the Volvo arrived at the tollgate
at between 1.10 and 1.15 p.m. it could not have taken ten (or
more) minutes to travel a distance of 600 metres that normally
takes two minutes. What’s more, as we have already seen,
witnesses saw the gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café as early
as 1 p.m. Indeed, Karen Jones saw the yellow Volvo arrive in the
parking area shortly before 1 p.m. By 1.25 p.m., in fact, he had
already been observed inside the Café by numerous witnesses.

[45 McDonald, op. cit., p. 75.]

BELOW: Ian Kingston (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Further proof that Kingston’s statement is false comes from his
claim that the driver of the Volvo waited between ten and
twenty minutes before entering the Café:

He seemed to sit in the car for probably about five to ten
minutes, but next time I noticed, he had moved over to
the water front and parked where the tourist buses park,
right near the water. … About five to ten minutes after he
walked off from the vehicle, I heard a banging sound
coming from the restaurant.46

If Kingston’s statement were true, the shooting could not have
begun before 1.35 p.m. at the very earliest – and virtually every
fact about the case that can be determined from the sworn
statements of other eyewitnesses would be wrong.
Clearly, Ian Kingston and Aileen Kingston (and perhaps also
Steven Howard) were parties to an attempt to make it appear as
if the gunman arrived considerably later (up to half an hour

[46 McDonald, op. cit., p. 75.]

later) than he really had. The easiest way to resolve the
contradictions would be to suggest that there were two yellow
Volvos driven by two extremely similar-looking young men. It
would certainly be possible to claim that the Kingstons were
accurately reporting the arrival of the second Volvo, but
preserving silence about the arrival of the first. While such a
scenario will seem far-fetched to many, it is one that I believe
cannot be discounted. After all, if only one yellow Volvo arrived
at the PAHS it is hard to see why the Kingtons’ statements and
that of Steven Howard did not agree perfectly. None of these
three individuals would be at all compromised by the fact that
the Volvo had arrived before 1 p.m. instead of ten or fifteen
minutes later.

Since there are apparently bona fide members of the general
public testifying to the presence of a yellow Volvo in the PAHS
car park before 1 p.m. and the presence of the man believed to
the gunman inside the Broad Arrow Café well before 1.15 p.m.,
the arrival time of 1.10-15 p.m. simply has to be wrong. But
what reinforces this conclusion are the blatant contradictions
between Aileen Kingston’s sworn statement and that of Steven
Howard. If it was the witnesses reporting the earlier sightings
who were wrong, then Aileen Kingston and Steven Howard
should still have managed statements that were at least
consistent with each other.

The only way I can find to resolve the testimony of the
Kingstons and Steven Howard with those of other witnesses is
to assume 1) a double arrival (i.e., two-Volvo) scenario and 2)
that alterations have been made to the times given in the
Kingstons’ statements. I feel entitled to fiddle with the times
given in the Kingstons’ statements because they are
inconsistent with all other witness statements, that is to say,
those of Steven Howard as well as those of all other casual
visitors to the PAHS, which harmonize fairly well together.
Accordingly, it makes sense to alter the Kingstons’ statements –
which are the ones that don’t fit - rather than those of all other
witnesses. (That is precisely what I plan to do in Part II of this
book where I offer a tentative reconstruction of the Port Arthur

If the Kingstons’ statements were in fact altered in respect of
their times (to make two separate arrivals at the tollgate look
like one event), and we made appropriate adjustments to them
in order to harmonize them with evidence given by visitors, the
sequence of events in the half hour prior to the massacre would
have been along these lines:

12.55: At the tollgate, Aileen Kingston takes the $13
entrance fee from the driver of Volvo #1, who pays with a
$50 note.

12.57: Karen Jones sees Volvo #1 arrive in the parking
area. The driver asks the parking attendant, Ian
Kingston, if he can park ‘down near the buses.’ Kingston
tells him he cannot, but he does so anyway.

12.59: The driver enters the Broad Arrow Café.

1.00: The man joins the food queue. He is observed
standing in the line by Ron Neander, who notices that he
is lugging a heavy sports bag and a video camera. Steven
Howard relieves Aileen Kingston at the tollgate while she
takes a 15-minute lunchbreak.

1.09: Carmel Edwards holds the door open for the man
as he leaves the crowded Café to eat lunch on the outside

1.10: On the balcony, the man sits at the table behind
Michael Beekman and Rebecca McKenna. He puts the
sports bag and video camera on the floor and his tray on
the table. He chats first with an elderly couple then with
McKenna, who notices that he is unshaven and that his
eyes are bloodshot. He tells Beekman and McKenna
about his altercation with Ian Kingston. Beekman
notices that the man mumbles to himself a lot. McKenna
notices that he seems anxious and distracted. He was
‘constantly looking around in the direction of the car
park and into the cafeteria area.’ At about the same time,
tourist James Dutton sees Volvo #2 approach the
entrance to the PAHS.

1.12: Howard takes the $13 entrance fee from the driver
of Volvo #2.

1.13: The driver of Volvo #1, who has been waiting
anxiously for the arrival of Volvo #2, notices the car pull
into the car park. In response, he rises suddenly from the
balcony table and goes back inside the Café.

1.15: Aileen Kingston returns to work at the tollgate.
Howard returns to the Information Centre.

1.17: The driver of Volvo #2 parks his vehicle in the car
park and briefly enters the Information Centre.

1.19: The driver of Volvo #2 leaves the Information
Centre and enters the Café. He is observed entering by
Faye Richards and Carol Pearce, who notices that he is
clean shaven.

1.25: Aileen Kingston rings Howard to discuss the
monies taken by Howard while she was on her break.

Conclusion: Aileen Kingston’s and Steven Howard’s lunch
breaks seem to have been managed to that neither would notice
the arrival of two almost identical Volvos with surfboards on
top driven by similar young men with long blonde hair. Anyone
who had been working the gate and seen two such vehicles
arrive within half an hour of each other, would have considered
the matter extremely suspicious indeed. Volvo #1 would
therefore have been scheduled to arrive before Kingston took
her 15-minute break, and Volvo #2 after. The man who arrived
in Volvo #1, accordingly, would have been waiting anxiously for
the arrival of Volvo #2. The latter’s arrival seems to have been
the signal for him to enter the Café.


Wasps and Japs

As was shown in Chapter 5 above, there is no forensic evidence
linking Bryant to the Port Arthur massacre. Instead of evidence
there is instead a network of indirect linkages that seems to
implicate Bryant. The position taken in this book is quite
straightforward: if Bryant had been the gunman, the police
would have recovered his fingerprints and DNA from the Broad
Arrow Café and the yellow Volvo he allegedly used in the course
of committing that day’s crimes.

Among the most suspicious of the linkages incriminating
Bryant is that concerning the Port Arthur gunman’s mutterings
about ‘European wasps’ and ‘Japanese tourists.’ First, we have a
curious statement from Petra Wilmott at 11.45 p.m. on the
evening of the massacre in which she said that she had begun to
suspect that Bryant was the gunman after she heard on the
news that ‘the person involved [in the massacre] had mentioned
something about wasps and Japs. That is what Martin often
says.’ These are words that rather remind me how, after she had
heard that President Kennedy was assassinated in Dealey Plaza,
Ruth Paine said that she realized that the president’s assassin
might have been Lee Oswald (indeed, she famously greeted the
Dallas police when they arrived at her house with the words
‘Come in, I’ve been expecting you’).

According to Gaye Lynde, Bryant

The first clue comes from the girls in the broken down car
outside 'Seascape', when after purchasing $50 of marijuana the
gunman told the girls, "I'm going to the Isle of the dead to get
rid of some wasps."

The Port Arthur gunman allegedly had a

Finally, the man encountered by Rebecca McKenna on the Café
balcony was muttering things about wasps

Michael Beekman later confirmed her statement: ‘he was really
mumbling to himself like when he asked us about the wasps he
was definitely referring to European Wasps because there were
heaps of them there. When he asked us about the Japanese
tourists, he then mumbled to himself, but I was able to hear
him say, oh there’s usually bus loads of em.’

So we have Bryant’s girlfriend affirming that these were things
Bryant would say and three people who believe they saw the
gunman who heard him mention wasps and Japs. By this
means, the link was created between Martin Bryant (courtesy of
Petra Wilmott), the Volvo driver headed towards the PAHS (---)
and the Broad Arrow Café gunman (McKenna and Beekman).
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the real Martin Bryant
was the least bit concerned about wasps. The following snippet
of Bryant’s conversation with Inspector Warren shows that bees
were a subject of greater significance to him:

Warren: Are you aware of a you know, seasonal problem with
wasps at Port Arthur?

Bryant: Seasonal problems. Umm, not at all, not at all. Wasps?

Warren: Wasps, yeah.

Bryant: No.

Warren: Well have you got any other ...

Bryant: I'm allergic.

Warren: ... Understanding of the term wasps?

Bryant: No, but I know that I'm allergic to bees, I nearly died
when I was eleven years old.47

[47 http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/trans4.html]

It is hard not to suspect an operation to set Bryant up by asking
the real gunman to mention wasps. But all the mention of
wasps does to Bryant is remind him that he is allergic to bees!



A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre

6 Smoking guns

Anyone who remains undecided as to whether there could have
been a government conspiracy behind the Port Arthur massacre
should now consider the following ten ‘smoking guns.’ Some of
these are more incriminating than others, but considered
together, they leave not the least doubt that an event causing
large fatalities was scheduled to take place in Tasmania at the
end of April 1996. This is because in the year preceding the
massacre every imaginable step seems to have been taken to
ensure its ‘success.’ There are also clear intimations that in the
same period Bryant was being manipulated by at least one
person in precisely the same way as the patsies of the American
political assassinations of the 1960s, like Lee Harvey Oswald,
James Earl Ray and Sirhan Sirhan were manipulated by their
handlers (who were, respectively, ‘William Bishop’ – aka David
Atlee Phillips of the CIA - ‘Raul,’ and ‘the girl in the polka dot

1. In February 1993, a Victorian gun collector, Bill Drysdale of
Yea, handed in a Colt AR-15 rifle to police during an amnesty.
He subsequently identified the rifle as the one recovered from
the Seascape Cottage that had allegedly been used in the Broad
Arrow Café massacre. In an interview with the Melbourne
Herald-Sun on June 23, 1996, Drysdale said that he was
virtually certain that the AR-15 was his, on account of its
extreme rarity in Australia at the time, and because of the
unique mark a gunsmith had made on the barrel of his rifle,
which matched that on the massacre rifle. The serial numbers
were almost identical, while ‘my rifle also had a collapsible
stock and a Colt sight, just as the massacre weapon has,’ said
Drysdale. The Herald-Sun noted, ‘One of Australia's largest
firearms importers told the [Herald Sun] that firearms
matching the Port Arthur weapon were as scarce as hen's teeth,’
and that the chances of two weapons of the same type, with
almost-matching serial numbers, being imported into Australia,
were ‘next to nothing.’ Police subsequently told Drysdale that
the rifle had been destroyed at Sims Metal furnace on March 9,
1994. However, they later admitted that no records are kept of
when individual guns are destroyed and that some guns had
been sold to a Bendigo dealer for sale overseas. The history of
this rifle, which was obviously retained by someone in
Tasmania Police when it should have been destroyed, is the first
clue to the existence of what Martin Bryant told his mother had
been a ‘police conspiracy.’

2. In June 1995, the state of Tasmania ordered a special
refrigerated mortuary truck with a capacity of 22 bodies, almost
exactly the number of persons killed at Port Arthur ten months
later. It was used for the first and only time on the evening of
the massacre and was placed on sale in September 1999. Who
decided in 1995 that a state with an average murder rate of one
every two months required a vehicle capable of transporting 22
bodies at once? No other state had any such vehicle.

BELOW: A notice advertising the sale of the Port Arthur mortuary truck in 1999 (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

3. In November 1995, less than six months before the massacre,
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was removed from the Workers
Compensation Act in Tasmania, effectively removing any claim
by any worker or volunteer for compensation to overcome this
problem – a problem of the sort that would have affected a
good many people in the wake of a massacre. Wasn’t this
development convenient for the Tasmanian government? Too

4. Also in November 1995, Roland Browne, spokesman for the
Tasmanian branch of the Coalition for Gun Control, warned not
only Tasmanians but all Australians, that if Tasmania did not
enact tougher firearm laws then there would be a massacre in
Tasmania of massive proportions. In March 1996, after the
Dunblane massacre, he reiterated the same dire forecast on the
national television show A Current Affair with Ray Martin.
Since all the gun massacres in Australian had taken place in the
two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, the chances of one
taking place in quiet, sparsely-populated Tasmania would have
been virtually nil. So what did Browne know and when did he
know it?

5. On November 14, 1995, a new Coroner’s Act received royal
assent, superseding the 1957 Coroner’s Act. Oddly, despite
receiving royal assent, the legislation was planned to come into
effect only towards the end of 1996, that is to say, after the
massacre. Why was the legislation expressly designed not to be
in force for almost another year after it was effectively made

6. Beginning in 1995, the quiet backwater of the Tasman
Peninsula was used as the location for ‘several’ SAC-PAV
(Standing Advisory Committee for Commonwealth/State Cooperation
for the Protection Against Violence) emergency
training exercises. According to Joe Paul, Executive Officer of
the Tasmania State Disaster Committee, the exercises that
began in 1995 were ‘designed to assess the emergency services
response capability to an event on the Tasman Peninsula, which
includes Port Arthur.’ Why was the Peninsula singled out for
such special treatment? Was there really a higher chance of an
emergency in the Peninsula than in any other part of
Tasmania? What did these exercises consist of exactly? Was
their purpose to mask the planning of the PAHS massacre,
which would superficially look like planning for just another
counter-terrorist exercise?

7. Beginning in 1995, there were several significant personnel
shifts in areas that would prove relevant to the massacre. First,
Constable Chris Iles, the sole policeman at Nubeena Police
Station (the nearest police station to the PAHS) was suddenly
transferred, after 15 years, to Sorell Police Station, and was
replaced by Constable Paul Hyland. Second, Ian Kingston,
manager of the Tasman Peninsula’s State Emergency Service
(SES) unit since 1984, took a part-time job as the PAHS
security manager and parking attendant. Third, in March 1996,
in an unprecedented development, the Premier of Tasmania,
Ray Groom, stepped down, not to retire, but rather to take over
a bunch of portfolios, including Attorney-General and Minister
of Port Arthur, that would prove important in regard to the
April massacre. Finally, the SOG got a new leader, Hank
Timmermann, only ten days before the massacre. Were
personnel ‘in the know’ being manoeuvred into position? Why
did Ian Kingston suddenly need a part-time job? Does the SES
pay that badly? Isn't the role of parking attendant a little lowly
for an experienced manager? And how many days did Kingston
actually work at the PAHS altogether?

8. In February 1996, Martin Bryant acquired a new girlfriend,
Petra Wilmott. Not only is Wilmott the sole source of the police
claim that Bryant bought a Prince sports bag in a Hobart store,
she was his girlfriend at the time (March 1996) he bought a new
rifle, the first he had bought for many years, suggesting a newly
awakened interest in guns. Was Wilmott part of a conspiracy to
set him up? Was she responsible for Bryant’s sudden interest in
guns? Did she provide him with the firearms license gun dealer
Terry Hill says Bryant showed him (see Smoking Gun #9
below)? Did she encourage him to pose for photographs that
would make him look ‘psycho’?

9. In the month immediately prior to the massacre, the quiet,
sparsely-inhabited island of Tasmania was the location for a
sudden wave of emergency training exercises and workshops
predicated on terrorism/mass fatality scenarios. On the
weekend of April 20-21, Emergency Services held a disaster
exercise at Hobart Airport. The same weekend, the Police
Academy held an aviation seminar. ‘The seminar considered
Tasmania's resource capability to cope with a domestic aircraft
accident and identified the support available from other states.’
Joe Paul explains, ‘Other exercises were held to test anti
terrorist arrangements. These exercises practised emergency
service personnel and other organisations in responding and
managing an event with multiple deaths and casualties.’ In the
week before the massacre, Royal Hobart Hospital finalized its
new Emergency Disaster Plan (‘Code Brown’), the final draft of
which landed on the desk of Dr Rod Franks, staff specialist in
emergency medicine, on April 26, 1996. Other key hospital
personnel had already received copies by this time. Then, on
the weekend of April 27-28, the Hospital held an Early
Management of Severe Trauma (EMST) workshop that was
attended by 25 of the country’s top specialists from the Royal
Australasian College of Surgeons. The workshop happened to
conclude at about 1 p.m. on Sunday, conveniently making the
specialist personnel available to assist in the aftermath of the
massacre. Also on the same weekend, ambulance headquarters
in Hobart held a training seminar for 18 volunteers. How often
are staff work development seminars held on weekends, let
alone Sundays? Why in April 1996, and specifically by the
weekend of April 27-28, was Tasmania so extraordinarily wellA
prepared for emergencies of the sort leading to mass fatalities
which had never occurred in the state’s history, and which had
only ever occurred in Sydney and Melbourne?

10. On March 27, about a month before the massacre, Martin
Bryant took his Colt AR-10 .308 semi-automatc rifle to Hobart
gun dealer Terry Hill for repairs. Hill claims that Bryant
showed him a valid gunowner’s license in the name of Martin
RYAN, which was correctly endorsed for prohibited and fully
automatic weapons. Over the following month, Bryant made
several visits to Hill’s store, purchasing items that Hill says did
not require details of Bryant’s license to be recorded. These
purchases included several gun cases and finally, on April 24,
1996, four days before the massacre, three boxes of Winchester
XX 1 1/2 oz shotgun shells, code number X12XC. However, at
no time did Hill sell Bryant any weapons, or ammunition of
.223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibres, that were used at
Port Arthur. Since Bryant did not buy anything from Hill that
was actually used in the massacre, someone appears to have
given Bryant a license and encouraged him to buy goods from
Hill as a means of setting him up after the massacre as the
source of the Port Arthur gunman's weapons and ammunition.
Whoever this person was, he was not only able to provide
Bryant with a gun license, he also knew what purchases Bryant
would be allowed to make that would not require a dealer to
record his license details.

11. On the very day of the massacre, the top ten people at the
PAHS were summoned to a seminar in Swansea that had only
the airiest rationale (‘managing change at Port Arthur’), no
agenda, and which was timed to start at 1 p.m. Why was the
PAHS staff seminar held at Swansea rather than at the PAHS?
Why was the seminar held on a Sunday afternoon, of all
conceivable times? Was this a pretext to deprive the PAHS of its
security chiefs, with the exception of Ian Kingston?

7 The wonderful world of psyops

As the previous chapters have shown, a great many questions
need be asked as to the true nature of the cruel hoax
perpetrated on the Australian people in 1996. It is clear not only
that Bryant was denied his right to a fair trial but also that 1) a
trial was avoided because he was not guilty and 2) his decision
finally to plead guilty to 72 charges was but the last stage in a
twisted saga of police criminality and legal deviousness that has
no precedent in Australian history. It is the trials and
tribulations of Tim Anderson, who was falsely accused of the
1978 Hilton Hotel bombing, magnified a thousandfold.

Framing a mentally deficient person - a 'retard' in common
parlance - is one of the oldest tricks in the book. It worked for
the Nazis, when they blamed the Reichstag fire on Dutch
halfwit Marinus Van der Lubbe, and it worked for the infamous
individuals who decided, for reasons only known to themselves,
that what Australia needed in 1996 was a jolly good bloodbath.
It simply amazes me that only an insignificant number of
Australians have stopped to ask questions about Martin
Bryant's sudden and inexplicable transformation from ‘village
idiot’ (IQ 66) to one of the most lethal gunmen in history.

BELOW: Marinus Van der Lubbe, blamed by the Nazis for the Reichstag fire (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

It is true that a handful of Australians have dared to question
the orthodox account of Port Arthur, most notably Joe Vialls,
Andrew MacGregor, and Noel McDonald. But because the
massacre precipitated the passage of new gun control
legislation, something that many Australian politicians had
been working towards for at least ten years, those most
sceptical of the police explanation of the massacre have
emerged mostly from among the shooting lobby. They argue
that the Australian government perpetrated the attacks as a
means of pushing through gun control legislation.

But while it is a welcome thing when anyone takes up the cause
of justice, the prominence of gun control opponents among the
sceptics has inevitably allowed the case for Bryant’s innocence
to be dismissed as a ‘rightwing conspiracy theory.’ This is
extremely unfortunate, for one does not have to belong to the
gun lobby or the cantankerous right to recognize that the
handling of Bryant’s case represents the most serious breach of
legal norms in Australian history. One does not even have to
embrace this or any theory of the motives behind the massacre
to recognize that Bryant is innocent. One simply has to
scrutinize the preposterous official account of the massacre

The key to understanding the massacre - how it was executed
and how Bryant was set up as its perpetrator - is the ability to
recognize the patterns of what those who study intelligence
operations refer to as psychological operations (‘psyops’).
Psyops are the sinister twin of modern public relations
techniques. Their purpose was originally to undermine the
morale of the enemy, as occurred, for instance, in the CIAbacked
invasion of Guatemala in 1954. On this occasion, radio
broadcasts seriously inflated the figures for the number of
solidiers making up the invasion force. With no intelligence of
its own, the Arbenz regime decided to give up the struggle
rather than fight a war it concluded it had no chance of

Insofar as psyops are targeted at enemy populations, there is
little that is secret about them. On the Internet, for example,
you can read about the U.S. Army’s 4th Psychological
Operations (PSYOPS) Group at Fort Bragg. However, in the last
forty years – and particularly during the 1990s - psyops have
been extended to domestic populations, and their aim is now to
deeply traumatize them, usually through the arousal and
manipulation of their baser instincts. From the point of view of
those who carry them out, they have the beneficial effect of
creating public support for the extension of the powers of
intelligence agencies like the CIA and ASIO and for the steady
expansion of their budgets. By means of psyops, liberal
democracies like the United States and Australia now devote
extensive resources to agencies ostensibly protecting the
country from foreign threats whose real purpose seems to be
the subjugation of internal dissent. They also foster a siege
mentality of the sort which provides fertile soil for the spread of
hard right conservative ideology.

Those involved in domestic psyops are usually private
contractors, many of whom are believed to be retired
intelligence operatives. However, such operatives almost
invariably work in tandem with sympathetic figures in
government, the media, and law enforcement. Only a very few
people will ever be privileged to know who actually ordered a
particular psyop. As Joe Vialls writes, ‘Because of their illegal
nature, psyops are never formally ordered by governments, but
are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations and
others. Some psyops ordered during the last forty years are
known to have been carried out by independent contractors
hired from a small specialist group, staffed mostly by retired
members of American and Israeli special forces.’

For forty years, until it was far exceeded in shock value by the
9-11 terror attacks in New York, the last word in domestic
psyops was the public assassination of President Kennedy in
Dallas, Texas, in 1963. This operation did more than change the
occupant of the White House. If getting rid of JFK was the
conspirators’ only purpose, they could have done that discreetly
enough, the way they poisoned Roosevelt in 1945. But executing
him in public had additional psychological value - it taught
Americans that their wishes actually had nothing to do with
how their country was governed. In the aftermath of the
operation, trust in American public institutions eroded rapidly,
creating the context for refurbished corporate power and,
ultimately, the takeover of the U.S. government by the

It is a virtual certainty that the Port Arthur massacre was
intended to create a favourable climate for the passage of new
gun control legislation, as the shooting lobby contends.
However, it may have been a psyop with a larger goal, a
fundamental dislocation of the Australian psyche. It is no
accident that the massacre occurred very shortly after John
Howard became prime minister. Howard, who is a conservative
of the American type suffering the misfortune of governing a
country with a mentality closer to that of Canada, is a
proponent of authoritarian policies and an opponent of
everything that is genuinely liberal. (There can be no doubt that
he would, for example, back the restoration of the death
penalty, if there was a groundswell of public opinion in favour
of such a step.)

BELOW: Australian prime minister John Howard with ideological buddy, President George W. Bush (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

In this writer’s opinion, the Port Arthur massacre was carried
out less as a means of introducing new gun laws, although that
certainly was the result, than to enhance the appeal of newlyelected
prime minister, John Howard, to urban Australia,
where fears of gun massacres were fanned by the series of
suburban shootings that began in Hoddle St., Melbourne, in

Since he was first elected to office in February 1996, Howard
has detached a significant percentage of urban voters from the
Labour party by shamelessly stoking the politics of fear. The
Port Arthur massacre was crucial in this respect. Prior to the
massacre, very few people in Australia expected Howard and
the Liberals to be in a position to tackle the gun issue. On
account of the Liberals’ political alliance with the National
Party, the party of pro-gun rural voters, guns seemed a matter
that was going to have to wait until the next Labour

However, the massacre conveniently enabled Howard to
appropriate the issue from the Labour party. Many city dwellers
were pleased, even delighted, that a conservative prime
minister had the gumption to force the states to adopt fresh gun
legislation. The massacre could therefore be seen as the product
of a conservative political strategy for depriving Labour of a
source of its popularity over the preceding decade.

I would also suggest that Port Arthur forms an integral part of a
series of deeply traumatic events which occurred during
President Clinton’s period in office (1993 to 2001): the first
World Trade Center attack, the massacre at Waco, the
Oklahoma City bombing, the assassination of Princess Diana,
the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jr., the Columbine school
shootings, and the massacre at Dunblane. It is as if frequent
spells of national trauma were a kind of bridge to the current
‘war on terror.’

In the final analysis, though, the motive behind the Port Arthur
massacre must remain a matter for speculation. Whatever
agenda one suspects lay behind it, it should not influence a
decision as to whether Martin Bryant was the actual
perpetrator. In the previous chapters I have shown that Bryant
was set up to take the fall for a crime that would have required
the talents of a great many people to plan and execute. Bryant
was a patsy. That is a conclusion that rests independently of
whether one believes that Howard and the Liberals had a
motive for carrying out the massacre in Tasmania.

In short, you don’t have to be a guntotin’ rightwing fruitcake to
believe that Bryant was framed. You just have to know how to
tell when a narrative conceals a lie.

BELOW: Some post-massacre headlines from 1996 (Note: See link at bottom of page to see photos & original pdf file.)

Link to the pdf file including many photos: http://ia301137.us.archive.org/1/items/Whats_Going_On_A_Critical_Study_o...

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

Additional Options

Account name:
Account number:
Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ)
Fiona Caroline Cristian
012 547
5576 81376


Go To Your Pay Pal Account To Send Gifts To action @ loveforlife.com.au
Additional Options


The Cristian Family November 2006

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES photo Kindom_zpsa6d24e8a.jpg

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two A
5th November 2014

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two B
Coming Shortly

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

The Cristian Family November 2006

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

We ask you to NOT believe anything we say/share and instead use scrutiny like an intense blow torch and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you. This is very, very important. Put everything you believe up to the test of scrutiny to see how it stacks up. If you are true to your heart/senses and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you will find that NO belief, etc, will stand up to the test of scrutiny. They just do not stack up because they are lies/fraud.

After you have watched and read all the material and any questions are left unanswered, send us your landline number and we will use the internet phone as a free unlimited call. We are on Sydney NSW Australia time. Best times for us to chat are between 11.00am and 6.00pm.

It is critical that you fully comprehend Image Power, "Spelling", Trauma, Reaction To Trauma, Curses, Processing Curses, Full-Responsibility/Liability, Limited Liability/Responsibility (passing-the-back), Slavery, Senses/Sense vs Non-Sense/Senses, Re-Presenting Intellectual Property such as but not limited to "Name", Storytelling/Storytellers, Duality, Black-Magic, Belief, Lies, "i", All Seeing "i" (eye), etc..... These themes and others are covered over and over and over again.

If you do not comprehend these insights and are unable to use your senses to sense your way through all the non-sense/non-sensory-images that enslave MAN under their image power (darkness = "The System" = Hell), men and women will remain deeply trapped under a terrible state of trauma. Our intention is to inspire you to remedy by showing you how to move away from reacting to trauma in all its nefarious and devious forms.

Superb Diamond Range Interviewing
Arthur & Fiona Cristian 4th February 2014

His-Story/Her-Story (History)
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
2005-2007 - Re-posted July 2014

The Dream Of Life Part 6
Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property

Arthur Cristian - 51 Minutes 52 Seconds

Trauma Induced Fantasy
July 2013 Interview With
Jeanice Barcelo And Arthur & Fiona Cristian

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Interviewed By
Jahnick Leaunier, The Tru-Mon Show
24th August 2016
Love For Life - 142 Minutes

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016
154 Minutes

Eclipse Of The Sun - Video (Arthur swears in this video)
The Background To The System Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 25th October 2016

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Seconds

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016

The Spinning Top
Full Bloom Inculcation

Arthur And Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Facebook Discussions Between The
8th December 2016
26th January 2017
Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/16/03/04/satanic-craft-inculcation-pra...

The Shit Of Death
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
28th January 2017
Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/16/03/04/satanic-craft-inculcation-pra...

The Selfie Of Freakenstein
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th March 2017

Three Sets Of Fiona Cristian Documents Filed With ACAT
Merged Into One Document For Downloading

Fiona Cristian Affidavit
ACT Supreme Court / Court Of Appeal


Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying

Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016

The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.

The Pull Of E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
8th February 2014

Processing Curses
A Lie Is A Curse
Liars Process Curses

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th February 2014

How The System Is Really Constructed
Bouncing Back Curses Upon Curse Makers
To Stop Harm Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th February 2014

Slave To A Name
Parts One, Two, Three, Four,
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd to 6th March 2014

Educated Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
20th March 2014

The Only Path To Freedom
Beware The False Steps

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 2nd April 2014

Free-Dumb For All
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 5th April 2014

Revoking The Ego
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 8th April 2014

How MAN Commits Spiritual Suicide
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life - 3rd April 2014

How To Detect Intel Operatives Working
For The New World Order Agenda
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 10th April 2014

How The Psyop Program & Intel Networks
Are Messing With Your Head +

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - April 2014

Godzilla Through The Looking Glass
Destroyed By Name"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 20th April 2014

What It's Going To Take
To Co-Create Freedom Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd April 2014

Falling For Fairy Stories
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 24th April 2014

A Disassociation From The Work
Of Kate of Gaia

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 17th May 2014

Separating The Wheat From The Chaff
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd May 2014

Revolution Or Revolution
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 25th May 2014

Routing Out Psyop Programs
Routs Out Intel Operatives
Exposing Max Igan's Psyop Program

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 31st May 2014

The Psyop Program Scam
Behind Religion Belief Faith
& Associated Opinion

Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014

Another Delusion
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014

A World Of Words Is A World Of Lies
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
13th June 2014

The Name Of The Beast Is MAN

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 9th May 2014
Includes Mountain MAN Arrested
Facebook Discussion About "Name"
Uploaded 25th June 2014

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 13th August 2014

Discussion With Brother Gregory
Clearly Demonstrating Christianity
Is Part Of The Problem
And Not The Solution

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Between the 12th May 2014 and 30th August 2014

The Psyop Program Behind Free Food
And Permaculture

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
29th October 2014
Facebook Discussion With Unconditional Love Moon

Head So Strong
Music and Vocals Arthur Cristian
Backing Vocals and Vocal Effects Arthur Cristian & Hannah Wood
Lyrics Fiona and Arthur Cristian
Written during our spare time between Aug & Oct 2014

The Time Of Trauma That Destroys Us
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
9th November 2014

The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality
And Happiness FOR SLAVES
How To Accept Slavery And Be Happy About It

Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
6th August 2014
Facebook Discussion About The Work Of Eckhart Tolle

What Can We Do What Can We See
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
A series of Arthur Cristian Facebook
posts and discussions
between 17th and 21st November 2014

The Misuse Of Love By Intel Networks
To Create Doubt And Uncertainty
With The Intention To Destroy Love
And Therefore Destroy MAN
(True Freedom, Peace, Joy, Abundance And Truth
For Everyone)

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
26th November 2014

The Void Of E-GO That Is Spiritual Suicide
The Justification Of Laziness
That Perpetuates System Creature Comforts
Ensuring Our Fall

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
13th December 2014
Massive Update Occurred 14th Dec 2014 3.10pm Sydney Aust time

Darkness Visible Part One A, B, C, D
The Freemasonic World In Plain Sight
Decoding George Washington Lithographs

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
Part One A http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8557
Part One B http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8567
Part One C http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8568
Part One D http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8569

Darkness Visible Part Two
Yin And Yang, Duality, Spiritual Suicide
And Frank O'Collins UCADIA / One Heaven

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014

Darkness Visible Part Three
How The Word Sausage
Re-Presents The New World Order
Boiling Point & Out To Get Us

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th December 2014

Darkness Visible Part Four
Aleister Crowley - Thelema - OTO
And The Black Magic Psychedelia Of The Intellect

Facebook Discussion
4th to 10th January 2015

Darkness Visible Part Five
Living MAN Fiona Cristian's Standing
+ Decoding Judeo/Judaism

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2015

Darkness Visible Part Six
The Many Fingers Of The Hidden Hand Appearing
YouTube Community Flagged A Video
Posted To The ArthurLoveForLife YouTube Channel
As Being "Hate Speech"

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
4th February 2015

Darkness Visible Part Seven
The Full Responsibility For Setting
True Freedom For All Into Motion
In Present-Sense Forevermore

Fiona Cristian & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
10th February 2015

Who We Really Are Does Not End
At The Surface Of Our Skin

Arthur Cristian & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd February 2015

Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
6th March 2015

The Rot Parts One, Two, Three
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
5th June 2015

"The Good Guys" And The "Bad Guys"
Working Together To Bring In
The New World Order

Arthur Cristian - 18th July 2015

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part One

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian

Can You Spot The Ego?
Where's Wally? Part Two

Compilation of Facebook & Youtube
Insight Posts During Aug/Sept 2015
By Arthur Cristian

Dancing With Magic (Lies)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Videos, Articles, Comments
And Pending E-Book
Love Fort Life
September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part One
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
5th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Two
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
12th September 2015

Dancing With Magic Part Three
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
13th September 2015

Dancing With Magic (Lies) Part Four:
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
16th September 2015

Illumination IS Definition
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th to 29th January 2016

The Satanic Craft Of Inculcation In Practice
Fiona's ACT Supreme Court Affidavit Explaining Inculcation & Illumination
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
4th March 2016

The Dark Side Of The Moon
The Background To "The System" Part One

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 24th August 2016

Eric Dubay's Flat Earth Is A Cult
The Background To The System Part Two

Arthur & Fiona Cristian Chatting With
Jahnick Leaunier On The Tru-Mon Show
Love For Life - 31st August 2016

To Be Educated Is To Have No Soul
The System Is Soul Destroying
Frederick Malouf & Michael Tellinger's
Contrived Gifting

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
1st September 2016

New Love For Life Kindom Facebook Group
Started March 2015
Includes 63 Minute
Introduction To Kindom Video
By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Facebook Kindom Group Guidelines
The Love For Life website home-page provides
the bigger-picture background to the themes
touched on in this video: http://loveforlife.com.au

Crop Circles Are A Massive Hoax
Facebook Discussion On Simon Kawai's Wall
Involving Arthur & Fiona Cristian
31st August 2013

OPPT & Slavery Through Intellectual Conscription By Deceit
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
27th February 2013 onwards...
Part One: http://youtu.be/Qjp_9nlrBao
Part Two: http://youtu.be/tbybeOWZ-Bc
Part Three: http://youtu.be/yOWoxH-HbVw

Water Is The Life Of MANS Consciousness (Breath)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 8th February 2013
Part One: http://youtu.be/4ze66_33wxM - 70 Minutes 5 Seconds
Part Two: http://youtu.be/43gIi-sjxJc - 81 Minutes 13 Seconds
Part Three: http://youtu.be/oooY6W63K-M - 70 Minutes 18 Seconds

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.

Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013

So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"
But Not The Bad Bits?

By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 12th August 2013

Turning Away From The Reflection
Of MANS Looking Glass

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
30th April 2013


From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two
5th November 2014

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Three
7th March 2016
60 Minutes

Love For Life Food Forest & Native Garden March 2016
Extension Of The Love For Life Food Forest And Establishment
Of A New Native Garden At The Front Of The Rental Property
In East Bowral - 24th October 2015 to Mid February 2016.
15 Minutes

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)

The Divine Spark
Facebook Discussion With Raymond Karczewski
Arthur & Fiona Cristian & Others
2nd October 2013

Capturing Another MANS Uniqueness
A Facebook Debate With
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
And Raymond Karczewski
Starting 13th May 2013

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013

The Steps Of Kindom
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life 2006/2007

To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find links to all our Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385

All the best
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email : action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile : 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Snail Mail: PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia
Facebook Arthur Cristian : http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian : http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife

Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

Facebook Group Why Aren't We Free Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Group Kindom/Do No Harm Community Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925

Links below will kick in when the professionally recorded Love For Life music is released.

SoundCloud : http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music : http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter : https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music : http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
YouTube Love For Life Music : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian : https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013

"The Steps Of Kindom"


Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family November 2006

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

The Cristian Family November 2006


Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

• We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders

Arthur Cristian
Fiona Cristian
Jasmin Lily Cristian
Emma Rose Cristian
Frances Hannah Cristian
Xanthe Jane Cristian

15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)

The Cristian Family November 2006

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

Love For Life Music

We have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

Saturday 26th November 2011

Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email: action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife
SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
Facebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925
YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090
Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Series

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173

3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.

4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)

Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:
action @ loveforlife.com.au)

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office
Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008
Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008
Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009
Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009
Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009
Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009
Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009
Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009
Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009
Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents

9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks

10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker

11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcasts

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd

12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimers

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer

13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Website

go here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673

Conscious Love Always
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
action @ loveforlife.com.au
0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)
PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia

Arthur Cristian

Create Your Badge

Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?

Promote your Page too

The Cristian Family November 2006

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.



The Cristian Family November 2006

Posted Wednesday 17th June 2009
Updated September 2011

NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies
Has Threatened To Shut Down
The Love For Life Website

No Freedom Of Speech - No Freedom Of Thought

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech and post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where over 6000 documents, articles and videos are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and the earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

Since December 2006, there have been many attempts to take down the Love For Life website. Any attempts have been thwarted by Love For Life supporters inundating the harm-doers with emails, etc, objecting to them taking down the website for a variety of reasons. The trouble makers usually back off when they realise that they can post all their views, arguments, beliefs, etc, in the Love For Life website without censorship or restriction imposed. They get to see that even the Queen, Pope, Prime Minister, President of America, etc, can post all their views without hindrance or sabotage and that we support freedom of speech/thought which means we support the right of all sides to express their views.

Of note, there is a vast amount of information posted in the Love For Life website which we do not agree with but we leave it all up because we refuse to be biased, opinionated or self-centered/self-serving. Of the many thousands of comments posted over the years we have only removed posts containing secret links to commercial advertisements, terrible foul language, threats of violence and death, etc, and attacks on other people's characters that avoid the subject/debate at hand. Besides links to advertisements, we have taken down less than six comments due to the above. We usually leave everything up, all warts and all, even those posts threatening to do terrible things to Fiona, our children, our dogs, our friends, family & supporters, etc.

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 articles, documentaries etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: "NSW Supreme Court Case - Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited vs Fiona Cristian - Victims Of Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges" http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 (orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies accused us of being anti - Jewish, see: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 and http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and the EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate ourselves into groups, dividing ourselves from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures and conditions, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and the earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for themselves, others and the earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and the earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and the Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and the earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction because ALL civilisations that have ever existed are apocalyptic by design.

If we truly want peace on earth and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life Website Homepage also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life Mailing List here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list. We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009

The Cristian Family November 2006

Clarification Regarding Our Intentions
Behind The Use Of Donations

The Love For Life website is offered for free without a fee and without any conditions attached. If people are inspired to donate money, then we accept their gift and have provided an avenue for them to support the work we do through Fiona's Paypal or ANZ bank account http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8515. There is no obligation whatsoever to donate and all are equally welcome to our work and to our "time", whether they donate or not. Over the last 9 years, all the Love For Life work has been put out for free and it has often been donations from supporters that have enabled us to renew the domain name, etc, to keep the website going. While some complain that we have an avenue for donations, others complained when we didn't! Either use it or don't - the choice is yours.

Since Love For Life started March 2005 and website December 2006, Arthur has worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week unpaid for much of this period, putting together the website and sharing insights to wake people up to what has been done to them, whether through the 11,500+ individual articles, videos, podcasts, debates, discussions, pdf's, research documents, etc, found amongst the 8,500+ posts, as well as helping many, many men and women over the phone, and through email, website correspondence, Facebook and YouTube, and creating the Love For Life food forest vege garden and Love For Life music recording studio. This is our life is a gift commitment to serve MAN/Nature/Earth but we are still severely compromised by "The System" and still have to give to Caesar what is claimed to belong to Caesar, which is where the donations help us.

Fiona & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
21st July 2014