Love for Life

http://www.nickmaine.info : News from around the globe that the newspapers seldom print

Disclaimer and fair comment

While I agree with most of the material passed on I may not be in agreement with all. However there is much we can learn from some that we disagree with. Remember it was once thought that the earth was flat.

It is left to your judgment to determine what you agree with and what to act upon.

Survivor's doubt

1.

A PORT Arthur survivor has called for an inquiry into Australia's worst massacre, saying she believed there had 'been "A hell of a cover-up Wendy Scurr, a tour -guide on the Sunday in I 1996 when 35 people were 'killed, said there many unanswered issues.

Mrs. Scurr said she was not saying that there was a, conspiracy but something was "very badly wrong" with the official version.

The killings have given rise to right wing conspiracy theories that were orchestrated as a plot to disarm Australia. She said that Bryant killed and wounded 32 people using 29 bullets in 90 seconds In the café was unbelievable.

I was there and it was four or five minutes and more like 40 to 50 shots," she said. She said a coronial inquiry should have been held.

2.

Also Joe Vialls an investigative journalist with 30 years experience has written a book 'Deadly Deception at Port Arthur'detailing numerous flaws in the official version.

A contrived massacre could not happen here? Why not? Shadowy forces in other countries have committed even worse.

The following is a draft of a document being prepared for circulation as soon as a few more queries are cleard up - Read on! Joe Viall's book is available @ $14.95. If interested please Email back to this address for details. Don't send any payment.

Draft copy

Conspiracy, Fact or Fantasy

By A.R. (Tony) Pitt - Editor

NATIONAL INTEREST NEWSPAPER

79 Ferry Street, Maryborough Qld 4650

Phone 07 4122 1412

BEFORE THE EVENT

In 1988 NSW Premier, Barry Unsworth said, It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we will be able to introduce gun laws. In March 1996 , less than a month before the massacre at Port Arthur, "the Gun Coalition's Tasmanian coordinator Mr. Rowland Brown, wrote to the Hobart Mercury newspaper warning of a Dunblane-style massacre in Tasmania unless the gun laws were changed" (SOURCE: The Australian Newspaper, 29 th April 1996).

Howard's Gun Legislation was drafted and printed before the massacre.

There was a 22-body morgue truck available. (IN TASMANIA?) How many of those are just lying around.

All of the senior Port Arthur staff members were away at a Work Seminar.

The Royal Hobart Hospital had put their Emergency Plan in place two days before the massacre.

The Hobart Hospital had a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment the shooting started.

The helicopter pilots were readily available that Sunday. (MOST UNUSUAL)

The local police were decoyed to be at the opposite end of the peninsula at the exact moment the shooting began.

There was a World Press Convention IN HOBART on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand.

Martin Bryant was an intellectually impaired, registered invalid with an IQ of 66.

IMMEDIATELY PRIOR

The killer sat next to the witness, Rebecca McKenna. The vital parts of her statement to the police interviewer were:

"This male was carrying a tray with his food on it". "His facial skin appeared to be................"

"When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table" - "I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious -" -"The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: "tipping - didn't actually see it fall") of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria".

Bryant doesn't have a freckly face.

That tray was important. It was a personal ID card from the shooter. It contained finger prints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair from the shooter. That tray contained real physical evidence as to the identity of the shooter.

WHERE IS THE REPORT?

THE SHOOTING

The killer was right handed. Martin Bryant is left handed. The killer shot from the hip (right handed).

The killer shot 32 people killing 20 and injuring 12

The killer scored twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds! There are only about 20 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the Western World. They are the SPOOKS who work for various governments. The killer stopped shooting after firing 29 shots (of the 30 in a magazine). This leaves a live round in the breech while changing magazines. To count while firing at a rate of 48 rounds per minute is a technique that requires tens of thousands of shots to perfect. It is a military skill-at-arms far beyond a mentally retarded youth who fired at a few tins and bits of cardboard in the bush.

The "official" police version says the massacre was first reported at 13.35 pm by Port Arthur Security Manager, Ian Kingston. According to police, he went into the café while the shooting was going on, and backed out. Then reported the massacre.

Wendy Scurr was the lady who held the phone out of the window to convince the police there was shooting in progress. The police don't want to acknowledge Wendy. She doesn't believe the "official" police version. In fact, Wendy tours Australia on speaking tours telling all that the "official" version is fiction. Wendy is pleading for a trial for Bryant.

FLAWED EVIDENCE

According to police the Martins were shot at Seascape, while police evidence also proves Bryant was at a service station 57 kilometres away. Police say he arrived at the Historic Site at 1.15pm. The police have proof that he was there at 12.45pm.

Sally Martin was seen to run around Seascape naked that afternoon. Police say Bryant killed her that morning. Audio tape of the "negotiations" recorded shots from a rifle from upstairs at Seascape while Bryant was downstairs talking to police on the phone. There was no phone upstairs.

Police were pinned down by fire from the shed and the Seascape Cottage. That is a good trick for a lone gunman.

Bryant fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege by police at Seascape.

There was a suspect black van allowed outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards. It wasn't the federal, state or interstate police. All civilian vehicle traffic was excluded.

Several suspicious non-locals exited the area via the Mersey Bridge. This bridge was a security shut down point operated by police in case of an emergency.

All evidence of the shooting was removed from the building to make it a sacred site. This is no coincidence. CONFLICTING EVIDENCE

Bryant must have had infra red night vision to tell police their sniper was unwelcome and had to move on.

Police records indicate they were shot at from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the siege.

DELIBERATELY CHANGED EVIDENCE

The killer sat next to the witness, Rebecca McKenna. She said -

"This male was carrying a tray with his food on it". "His facial skin appeared to be............

"When he sat down, he placed his video camera and bag on the floor and began to eat his lunch, I noticed that he had a can of Solo and a plastic Schweppes cup on the table" - "I saw him drink his cordial and I noticed that he appeared anxious -" -"The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out (explanation hand written: "tipping -didn't actually see it fall") of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria".

The statement has been altered to say "The last thing I saw with regard to him was his tray falling out of his hand as he was going back inside the cafeteria". However, Rebecca caught the change and hand wrote into the margin "tipping - didn't actually see it fall".

So the police, just four weeks after the massacre, were trying to get rid of the tray as evidence. Why hasn't it been mentioned? The disappearance of this vital evidence is not accidental. THEY HAVE GOT RID OF THE TRAY EVIDENCE and there will have been a successful CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE if there is no trial with all evidence put to a jury by a lawyer that is loyal to his client, honest, competent, or at least impartial.

TOO MUCH COINCIDENCE The rifles were destroyed by BREECH BLASTS so ballistic tests could be carried out to identify the murder weapons. Breech blasts that could destroy a gun are so rare as to be unheard of this century. The one blast pushed fluid brass into the steel breech block. It must have been a nuclear charge. That is just nonsense or planned DEMOLITION to allow false evidence.

THE ILLEGALITY OF THE TRIAL There was no Coronial Inquiry. There should have been one. A Coronial Inquiry is required -

(a) When foreign nationals are killed

(b) When there are deaths by fire

Both requirements were met. Why was the law broken to prohibit the inquiry?

The Evidence Act requires that ALL evidence be considered. At the Kangaroo Court more evidence was concealed than was presented. There is a difference between presenting a transcript and dealing with specific sections and editing a transcript until there is nothing left by way of evidence the Bryant case the prosecution so gutted the transcript that there was nothing left. Only a few comments favourable to the prosecution case got to the court

The court transcript shows that more was edited than was presented. REFER: Mr Perks, For the Prosecution, Pages 190-194 "Your Honour, if I could take you to Volume 3 of the Crown papers, a transcript of that interview commences at page 19 and, if I could refer your Honour to the actual page numbers of the interview I will give an indication as to which parts of the interview have been deleted for the present purposes. SEE .

Pages 1-9 DELETED.

Page 10 DELETED (except for the last few questions and answers on that page)

Page 11 - 16 presented

Page 17 PARTIALLY DELETED

Page 18 DELETED

Page 19-22 PRESENTED

Page 22-23 DELETED

Page 24-31 PRESENTED

Page 32-35 DELETED

Page 36 Ques. No. 1 DELETED

Page 37-38 PRESENTED

Page 39 "from Warren down DELETED"

Page 40 DELETED

Page 41 "all above 'pain' DELETED"

Page 42 PRESENTED

Page 43 "all below 'Warren' DELETED

Page 44-46 DELETED

Page 47 half DELETED

Page 48-74 PRESENTED

Page 75-77 PRESENTED

Page 78 PARTIALLY DELETED

Page 79-81 DELETED

Page 82-90 PRESENTED

Page 91 PARTIALLY DELETED

Page 92-98 DELETED

Page 99-114 PRESENTED

Page 115 PARTIALLY DELETED

Page 116-141 DELETED

Page 142 PARTIALLY DELETED

Page 143-144 PRESENTED

Page 145 PARTIALLY DELETED

Page 146 REST OF INTERVIEW DELETED

We know that 52 of the first 146 pages of transcript were not presented. The excuse was that the video recorder failed so the transcript had to be reconstructed from the audio tape that was made independently at the same time. The back-up didn't fail. How the hell could the written transcript be in any way affected? This is baloney.

Many hundreds of pages that followed were not presented. Of those I have read I do not believe any sane police officer would suggest Bryant was the killer. That is why the police didn't get to testify. Bryant was not just one sandwich-short-of-a-picnic; he was obviously not capable of what we would consider normal thought processes.

Nor did he have a clue about the events at Port Arthur. The killer was heard to use the acronym WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). This term may be familiar to world travellers but Martin wasn't even in the same ball park. AND he wasn't pretending. The transcript revealed so much as to Bryant's mental capacity that it could not be allowed into a court room if the intent was to frame Bryant, and convince the jury that this handicapped individual was the Rambo Class killer who killed 35 in a random shooting spree. THERE WAS NO PROPER TRIAL

There was torture. That is illegal.

Bryant was held in solitary confinement for at least ten times the maximum allowable as punishment in war under the Geneva Convention.

He confessed to get a TV set in his room

After that much solitary men go mad or confess to anything. Bryant was mentally retarded.

What happened to the lab report on the tray/cutlery/can/cup/plate?

Did Bryant's fingerprints and DNA show up on the tray and contents?

The evidence was tampered with and not presented (withheld). WHY?

The carry bag also carried samples of the killer's DNA.

If some vital evidence is given to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor is duty bound, by law, to give that vital evidence to the defence. We know there were heaps of the killer's DNA. Does anyone believe the NSW CIB didn't fingerprint and DNA. The tray/cutlery/can/cup/plate, recorded in witness statements, is clearly visible on the police video and forensic photos.

Bryant managed to get himself convicted of murder and get life without one witness being called.

He managed to stay in a heavily burning building, shooting and yelling at police and get severe burns only on his back.

MEDIA MISCHIEF OR FRAMING

The media nationwide display his photo to witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him.

Channel Nine fabricated a video showing Bryant running away from the Broad Arrow Café. According to Joe Vialls' analysis - the Bryant head superimposed on the running figure is a still photo, with a fixed angle and facial expression. This is not possible while running. The body running is that of XXXX.

AFTER

The Federal Liberals and Nationals (with the approval of the ALP) offered bribes to the States in the form of diesel subsidies and they threatened to cut State funding. It is a crime to offer threats or inducements to influence the votes of elected members in parliament.

I have a letter signed by Tasmanian Senator Xxx stating ART

After 8 years, we know where the tray was - it was right next to the "blue bag". It was left exactly where the shooter put it down. All the evidence was preserved for the police investigation. Here is a picture of the fake picture shown on television and the real "blue bag" and the tray in the Café.

There is enough material for investigators to believe he is innocent and put up a good case. If it was your son in jail you would want him to have a trial.

Scores of other witnesses can't understand why the media reports differ greatly from what they saw and heard.

A thirty year embargo was placed on evidence in relation to the Port Arthur massacre. WHY? That smacks of skulduggery. There can be no legitimate excuse.

It is impossible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion Bryant was the lone killer.

It is impossible that others weren't involved.

It is obvious that a set-up and cover-up has occurred.

Those who were prepared to leave him to burn to death in Seascape saw Martin Bryant as expendable.

The eye witnesses can't understand why their testimony recorded by police was not used.

A thirty year embargo was placed on the evidence - WHY?

Many honest police can see that the bulk of evidence points to others.

Bryant is so retarded he might know what guilty means but he would not have a clue as to the implications of a guilty plea.

There are grounds for a trial. This is not a retrial. This would be a first trial with evidence presented to a jury.

A faked picture of the bag was shown of TV and put up on the internet. When alert viewers saw the ploy the picture was replaced with a fake tracing. In the digital camera era one must ask - WHY TRACE? What is going on?

Getting rid of the lab report in regards to the tray is one thing. However, anyone taking a look at that video would immediately ask about the tray and whether there was a lab report - so the tray also had to be "lost"! No tray, no report. Thus the fake picture we all saw on television. BUT WHY?

THE ETERNAL QUESTION

Why would anyone fabricate a massacre, kill 35 innocent people, and frame a mentally retarded youth? The real question is can you, the reader; cope with truth too terrible to contemplate? Nobody asks you to blindly believe what I put to you. I do ask that you ask for the results of the DNA tests on clues left by the real killer to be crosschecked with the DNA of Martin Bryant.

You know, in your heart, that the police and the government will never answer your request or comply with the requirement so you already know their guilt. What are you going to do? You also might think that you are powerless but that feeling of entrapment is only in the mind. You can send this to hundreds of people asking them to keep sending it to hundreds of people until the truth comes out one way or the other.

WHO GAINS?

Whenever we are confronted with so called "conspiracy theories", it often helps to ask the question, "Who gains?" In the Port Arthur massacre, it was the desire to bring in onerous gun legislation. They knew we have inherited the right to keep and bear arms from the Bill of Rights 1688 and they can't change it.

However, they also knew that if they had a good excuse a large number in the population would forego one of our basic rights to try to protect themselves from a similar incident in the future. Without the Port Arthur massacre the people of Australia would never have allowed the governments to take away one of most precious rights.

Link to this posting: http://www.nickmaine.info/Documents/pasb.html