Port Arthur Coverup by Ian McNiven - Information About The Deception & Coverup At Port Arthur

Port Arthur Coverup
By Ian McNiven
Information About The Deception & Coverup At Port Arthur
Email: editor @ shootersnews.addr.com
You can contact the Website Media Spokesman where this information came from
Ian McNiven. Phone International (0011 61) 428 186 103 or Local: 0428 186 103

Forward By Ian McNiven

The Editor of the Shooters News has given me the honor of writing the forward to this important freedom website. The so called Port Arthur massacre, which we were told was carried out by the "lone nut gun man", Martin Bryant, was used to implement National Gun Laws in Australia. Law abiding gun owners were vilified, demonised and treated like potential mass murderers by the controlled Australian Media, in an attempt to create a mind set of collective guilt for Port Arthur. The vast majority of Australian Gun Owners rejected this program of mass psychological control and kept their guns. This created about 3 million "armed criminals" in Australia. Unfortunately for the two conservative parties in Australia ( Liberal and National ) who brought in the Gun Laws, all these people and their families still vote. This has brought about the political destruction of those two parties and ushered in a period of political instability in Australia, unparalleled in its history.

Thanks to the efforts of a growing band of courageous investigators, a body of powerful, irrefutable evidence, gleaned from government documents and eye witness reports has been collected. This evidence indicates that the Port Arthur Massacre was conceived, planned , carried out and covered up by persons unknown, with the assistance of some elements of the Australian Government, Media, Police, Army and Intelligence Community. If we accept that the Port Arthur Massacre was a planned act to disarm the Australian people and we accept that Waco and Oklahoma City fall into the same category, it is evidence that powerful forces of evil are at work on this planet. If those forces are allowed to seize global control, it will bring a period of trauma for the Freedom Loving People of Earth that will make the holocaust look like a Sunday School picnic. I am talking about the elimination of all persons on this planet deemed to be surplus to requirements. If you think this a bit far fetched cast your mind back into recent history. Russia, under Stalin, 20 million dead, China under Mao, 80 million dead to name but two. Those of you who read this and are inclined to join us in the coming struggle should understand that it will not be easy and that your efforts may not be crowned with glory. I have included this poem which I have renamed "The Patriots Lament" to help you with that understanding.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be,
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced, nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloodied, but not unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me unaffraid.
It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

I close this forward with the simple advice that I gave the assembled patriots at the famous Gympie Gun Meeting.



Editors Note: Ian was the main voice of dissent allowed on National TV following the May 1996 Gun Grab annouced by John Howard. All will recall his memorable comments at that GYMPIE meeting which received so much media attention. Ian and other patriots like Ron Owen ( left ) were instrumental in ensuring that this fraudulent act of deception at Port Arthur was going to be exposed as their rally calls to the freedom movement have been decisive in ensuring the issue was not going to be forgotten or go away.


CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF A COVER UP - Facts That Prove A Fraud At Port Arthur

See this webpage for the photos stated in this section http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpaproof.html

The CONCLUSIVE PROOF Martin Bryant was NOT the Port Arthur gunman is demonstrated in the the 2 frames below. The distinct difference in the hair is clearly apparent. On the left is poor old Martin Bryant taken as he arrived at Hobart Hospital in a dazed state with burns to his back and side the day after the incident. On the right is the Port Arthur gunman as filmed by a tourist at Port Arthur Historic Site.

You will note straight, thin, long strand wig like yellow hair of the gunman as opposed to the thick, curley, shorter and almost white come grey hair of Martin Bryant. Bryant's hair is almost like a messy birds nest (like an old style mop you would use to mop the kitchen floor), while the gunman's is strand like - like your average supermodel would have - and yellow (more clearer in the picture below far right and at the bottom of this webpage) - almost as yellow as the Volvo itself. The short curley strands of hair seen on Bryant are nowhere to be seen on the gunman. Many witnessess in fact were struck by the gunman's gold coloured hair.

Even the newspapers who published Bryant's picture the day after the massacre (above left and centre) show his hair as bleached WHITE - sometimes with a dark tinge (above right) - probably because it needed a wash. It is certainly not yellow or gold and was not at the time of his capture.

These images support the conclusion we formed in 2001 when comparing a picture of Martin Bryant taken on 25th April 1996 - 3 days before the massacre - by his girlfriend Petra. Note the LENGTH of his hair - just an inch above shoulder length and somewhat CURLEY. The gunman's hair is long and straight and was swaying in the breeze and hanging down more describable as having a very slight WAVE. It is doubtful Bryant's hair could have "flowed in the breeze" like some witnesses described the gunman's and the image below shows. See Joyce Maloney's Statement http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpagoldhair.html

Martin Bryant on 25th April 1996 LEFT.
Port Arthur Gunman RIGHT on 28th April 1996 with gold yellow hair.

Refer the LOOKALIKE page for more information

Needless to say it would be an absurdity to suggest Martin Bryant put his hair in curlers the night of the Seascape seige so he'd look nice for his capture the following day or so people wouldn't think it was him who did the shooting at Port Arthur that afternoon.

So poor old Marty was clearly the idiot they thought they'd found to pin the massacre on and fortunately Marty was more resilient than they thought because he survived the fire at Seascape
(caused by exploding a incendury device of accelerant fuel while he was lying drugged on the floor) which was not only to destroy all the evidence of the others who had been there but to get rid of him as well so the case would be cleanly closed. It was for this reason why things belonging to Marty and linked to Seascape were carefully dropped at Port Arthur Historic Site via the notorious sports bags (see webpage latest news http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalatest.html) deception detailed on this website and in the yellow Volvo left behind at the tollgate (they included the video camera, its bag, his passport, the keys to Seascape and a knife containing the owner of Seascape's blood).

All of this is a disgrace to Tasmania. This website, like most ordinary Australians, takes a dim view of all this particularly what they tried to do to Marty particularly as it was solely to achieve some sort of ideological agenda against firearms and to vilify their owners. Not also forgetting those who were killed and wounded and their families and the trauma caused to others.

Marty, who was one of Tasmania's most disadvantaged sons ( being mentally handicapped ), was used and abused and attempted murder of him. It is for this reason this website exists to right the wrong a bring all those involved to justice. That and the 35 murdered, 22 wounded and many others traumatized - and shooters vilified and defrauded as a result and the whole nation and world hoodwinked.

Based on the above photographic proof we call for Marty's immediate release from custody at Risdon Prison, a full pardon, and given proper compensation for what has been done to him. And this website would also add we would have more than happy to let Marty have any firearm he wants as part of the compensation package.

Other interesting difference for the observant is the fact the gunman's head with the yellow wig ( left ) seems to be disproportionately long vertically to his body - not clearly matching Bryant's ( above left ) - and possibly indicating the gunman may have either had his own hair under the wig or something else ( like the communications equipment ).

NB - the above images of the gunman next to the yellow Volvo have lost their original resolution and we have not be able to get the picture colours in some images exactly right and they appear under their true colour level so we have shown below the true colour of the Volvo - bright canary yellow - so you can compare and appreciate the fact just how yellow the gunman's hair in fact was. It in fact corresponds more to ( and confirms ) the image on the far right below where the colours are reasonably accurate. Bryant's hair was a bleached white not the gold of the gunman. This also confirms the witnesses who said the hair was a striking gold colour were right. The level of sunlight on the day will explain why the hue differs and it appear this gold wig lost some of its gold shine and appears yellow when the sun went under a cloud or the light level thru the clouds changed.

Shootersnews would like to thank Ray Martin from A Current Affair for his assistance in exposing the fraud at Port Arthur.





WHAT HAPPENED AT PORT ARTHUR - Details a Coverup At Port Arthur

On Sunday 28th April 1996 it is alleged Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people and injured 20 others at Port Arthur in the State of Tasmania, Australia using military type semi-automatic rifles. It was the biggest massacre alleged to have been done by a "lone gunman".

Bryant, an intellectually impaired 29 year old, pleaded not guilty for months to the murders until pressure was brought to bear by his lawyer and he eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes. There was no confession by Bryant - in fact at the time of his first police interrogation he strongly and repeatedly denied the accusation.

Immediately following this in what appeared at the time was a knee-jerk reaction under threats from the Federal Government through Prime Minister John Howard all Australian States banned the private possession and use of semi-automatic rifles and implemented the wishlist that gun control groups had been pushing for 10 years.

Since then details have surfaced arising from people who were there on the day and grieved relatives of victims being unsatisfied about the investigation and prosecution of Bryant. There are too many inconsistencies, irregularities and unanswered questions about the incident that raises questions whether Bryant was the murderer and has been framed and whether Tasmanian Police and Governemt Officials were involved ( and whether the whole purpose of this incident was to create an excuse for national gun laws banning semi-automatic firearms and requiring gun registration on the pretext a "lone gunman" did it all himself ). This website attempts to detail what those things are in the public interest.


Introduction and Credits - Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur

Documents on this website have in the main come from work done by Andrew MacGregor and his associates described in information below. Those wanting more details are asked to buy the CD-ROM Andrew & Stewart Beattie have done on the incident at the address below. It contains a vast amount of other material and analysis of it - 500 megabytes worth ( too much to put on any website ) including numerous videos taken by witnesses there on the day. ( Note : The operator of this website does not receive any commissions etc... in relation to this CD-ROM ).

This website's purpose is to draw people's attention to the main inconsistencies of this incident in the public interest. Commentary text on this site is the editor's and may not necessarily cover what others have expressed and is based on what has been obtained and or reported to this site and content expressed herein are what is believed to be the case. All copies of articles, documents, photographs, audio recordings etc... on this site are made available for viewers for educational purposes.

CD-ROM Price A$20 ( GST & Postage Included ) Overseas US$20 from -

Port Arthur Unmasked
PO Box 516
NSW 2700 Australia

Make money orders payable to "Stewart Beattie".


Unanswered Questions About Port Arthur - Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur

What Was Alleged Martin Bryant Did That Day & Things That Happened Up To His Sentencing:

Before looking at the unanswered questions one needs to be aware of what it is alleged Bryant did that day. The exact details can be found on the DPP's Case Court Transcript page on this site - below is a summary:-

The case against Martin Bryant alleged he killed Mr. & Mrs. Martin at Seascape Cottage Guesthouse sometime before 12.40pm then travelled south 6km to see a Mr.Larner then proceeded into the Port Arthur Historic Site and after an argument with the parking attendant went to the Broad Arrow Cafe and bought lunch. He sat having lunch inside then went outside to finish it. At 1.30pm he then went back inside the Cafe and opened fire with a COLT M16 CAR .223 Cal. Rifle killing 25 people in 90 seconds then left the Cafe shooting at people in and around the car park killing and wounding more - during that time he switched guns to an FN SLR .308 Rifle . He then is alleged to have driven his yellow Volvo out of the site shooting people along the way and at the tollbooth. He then abandons his car and transfers some of his implements to a BMW which belonged to his victims at the tollgate ( he leaves behind the keys to Seascape, cans of petrol and a Daewoo Shotgun and ammo ) . He then stops at the service station up the road shooting more people and takes a hostage who is forced into the boot of the BMW. The BMW then proceeds at high speed 6 km north to Seascape where he stops and shoots at cars on the highway injuring more people. He then takes his hostage inside Seascape and sets fire to the BMW. The time is now around 2pm. Local police wait in a ditch for several hours while shots are fired from Seascape. After dark Special Operations Group Police arrive at Seascape. During the night police talk on the phone to someone identified as "Jamie" at Seascape. Many shots are fired from Seascape during the night but nobody outside is hit.. At 7.45am the following morning Seascape errupts in smoke on fire. At 8.40am Martin Bryant -clothes on fire emerges from the rear of Seascape staggering and unarmed and is apprehended by police with TV News cameras rolling. Bryant remains in hospital isolated for several weeks. He denies committing the shootings to police when interviewed. He pleads not guilty for months. His first lawyer is removed in unclear circumstances and his second lawyer gets him ( reportedly under pressure ) to later plead guilty ( thereby avoiding then requirement for a proper jury trial and scrutiny of evidence ). Bryant's isolation continues to this day with his relatives being refused access to see him.


Below is a summary of the main unanswered questions about the incident in sequence of their happening under topic headings. Some of these points are covered in more detail on other pages on this site. Many more questions are raised on the CD-ROM referred to on the Introduction and Credits page.


New South Wales Premier Barrie Unsworth said in 1987 "There will not be any change to gun laws until there is a massacre in Tasmania" following the a meeting of the States failing agree on uniforn national gun laws. ( Was this setting the stage ? )

Despite repeated refusal by the States to go down this path why were National Uniform Gun Laws all prepared and ready in Dec 1995 to go to an upcoming meeting of State and Federal Police Ministers due sometme around the time Port Arthur occurred ?

Why did Tasmanian Premier Ray Groom in an unprecedented move resign on 18th March 1996 as Premier ( just 2 weeks after Howard wins 1996 Federal Election ) and take over all Tasmanian portfolios that would have anything to do with a massacre at Port Arthur - Minister for Justice, Attorney General, Tourism ( including the Port Arthur Historic Site ), and Workplace Safety ? Tony Rundle an ex journalist takes his place as Premier.

Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service have a special Chevy Mortuary Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies made shortly before Port Arthur ?


Why would Bryant want to kill the Martin's - owners of the Seascape ?

How and when could he have shot them that day with the neighbours house only 20 metres away ?

Why is the evidence of the guests who stayed at Seascape overnight inconsistent with that of other witnesses regards the presence of a yellow Volvo before noon ? Were there 2 yellow Volvo's and Bryant being emulated in order to make him the patsy for this incident ?


Why would Bryant want to shoot so many people he did not know - MOTIVE ?

Why was a management work seminar scheduled that Sunday for staff of the Port Arthur Site - only one ever held and none held since - for that day and why was it held at a location 2 hours drive away ? .Was it to get key staff away ? And isn't it also a coincidence it was scheduled for almost the exact time the shooting began - 1pm.

Why was the only local policemen in the Port Arthur area sent to investigate a phoney drug tip-off ( heroin in a bottle which turned out to be soap-powder ) in the most distant part of his police district ( only one ever recorded ) shortly before the shootings started ? And was that diversion also to prevent him from closing the drawbridge to the mainland which would have bottled up the gunman ? And isn't it another incredible coincidence that only 4 minutes after they reported by radio arriving at their destination that the shooting started in the Cafe ?

Why did that caller ring the local police and not dial 000 ( 911 ) - was it was because 000 number is recorded ?

How could Bryant, an unskilled person of low intellect, kill 25 people in the café by head shots and wound numerous others fired from the hip in 90 seconds ?

Why did senior Tasmanian Police keep police away from Port Arthur for as long as possible - 6 hours - when police headquarters was only an hour's drive away ? Was it to allow the crime scene to get messed up ? And why did they let only the small handful Special Operation Group personnel into the Seascape site ?

Why was the Café's emergency exit door that jammed faulty ? Was it deliberately tampered with ? And why did it reportedly go missing after the incident - was it switched ?


Why was the yellow Volvo left behind with ammo etc… in it at the Tollgate ? Why change cars and at where it was done ? Was it to leave something of Bryant's there at the Port Arthur crime scene ?

Why take a hostage at the Service Station ? Put a man in boot ? Why not just kill him as he had been doing since it started ? Was it to keep police at bay at Seascape under seize standoff conditions until night fell ? Why would he do that or was it to allow other to escape in the cover of darkness ?


Why was a trail of destruction led to Seascape ?

Why would Bryant set fire to the BMW ? Was it done by the real gunman to destroy fingerprint and other evidence ? Or was it to create a beacon to attract police ?

Why were SOG snipers told not to shoot at a man seen on the roof of Seascape with a gun ?

Why did so many shots fired from Seascape that night hit nothing given Bryant was claimed to be a crack shot ?

Why did Seascape ignite that morning like an incendiary bomb had gone off ? And why did it happen that morning and not in the dark ? Was it to destroy all evidence inside including making an examination of the bodies those dead inside difficult - in terms of determining time of death ? Why would Bryant want to do that ?

Why would Bryant knowing he was surrounded lite such a fire - it would only serve to force him outside to be shot at or captured ? Why would police lite one knowing hostages were inside ?

Why were fire trucks prevented from putting out the fire after Bryant was grabbed police knowing hostages were inside ? Seascape was only smoking when he was grabbed.

Why did Bryant stagger from Seascape as if drugged and the burns only to the back of his body if lying down ? Was it the fire that woke him up after being drugged by the real gunman and his helpers ?


Why was there no positive ID of Bryant done by police by lineup or mug shots as required by law ? Why hasn't anyone identified him positively ?

Why were there no fingerprints found on - the sports bag - the guns - the surfboard ?

Why did the Tasmanian Mortuary Service, which had a special Chevy Morg Truck capable of carrying 22 bodies which was used at Port Arthur, sell it shortly afterwards - and why would they need such a truck of that capacity - for a State where on average there are 6 murders per year and not all occurring at the same day, place and time ? Why did the operator of the service recently publically criticise Cafe witness Wendy Scurr in a letter to a newspaper for querying this unusual vehicle and its history ?

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

Why were 2 sports bags found when witnesses said the gunman had only one ?

Were the guns found at Seascape really Bryant's and were they really the ones used on the day ?

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

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

Why was the Broad Arrow Café bulldozed so quickly - was it to destroy evidence of what really took place there - like a second gunman backing up the main gunman ?

How did the media know it was Bryant before he was arrested at 8.40 am that Monday morning ? How could the Hobart Mercury know it was him for their morning print run for that day done much earlier than 8.40 am ? The man on the phone's name was "Jamie".

Who doctored video footage of a running man adding the soundtrack of shots from another video and presented this as Bryant ( prior to his trial ) which was also used at his trial as evidence which was shown on Channel 9's Ray Martin Current Affair Program ? Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was a TV Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it the DDP or the Tasmanian Police ?

Why has there been no Coroner's Inquest ? This is something totally unprecedented.


Why did Bryant persistently state under questioning he did not go to Port Arthur that day and did not shoot anyone ?

Why did Bryant plead not guilty for months ? Why would someone do that if he knew he could be identified ? Why was he isolated for months and his mother refused access ?

Why was Bryant's first lawyer removed ? Who removed him ? Why did he only plead guilty after pressure from his new lawyer ?

Why was Hobart gun dealer, Terry Hill, who was alleged to have sold the weapons to Bryant was dragged into court over it and the minute he started wanting to get Bryant and other witnesses into court to testify the action was dropped - as if authorities didn't want any scrutiny of the evidence ?

Also - why did the Tasmanian Police and DPP try to get Terry Hill to admit he sold him the guns by offering immunity ( the guns Bryant said he never owned ).

Why did the DPP censor and edit out so many pages of Bryant's taped police interview ? And how could the recording equipment for that interview breakdown ?

Why have the Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC and other people associated with the case been promoted ?


Why did Prime Minister John Howard in the say "some firearm owners were going to have to make sacrifices" when annoucing the National Gun Laws he imposed.

Why did John Howard also decide and declare a coronor's inquest into Port Arthur be denied - when it is not his responsibility or jurisdiction to do so ? What was John trying to hide ? Was he trying to protect some of his mates in the Tasmanian and Federal Liberal Party who were involved - Ray Groom perhaps ?

Why did Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer after the imposition of the Howard imposed gun laws following Port Arthur say: "This is all about removing guns from urban areas".



This is the court transcript of Martin Bryant's sentencing. It occurred after Bryant suddenly changed his plea to guilty after pleading not guilty for months. A witness present ( former nurse ) when he changed the plea said he looked sick as if in a drugged state. When he was pleading not guilty on previous occassions he was not in that state. It raises the question whether authorities drugged Bryant to have him plead guilty so no trial and proper scrutiny of evidence would occurr. The same questions arise in relation to Bryant's answers to questions when being assessed by psychiatrists when in custody and isolation.

A careful examination of this court transcript when facts and statements of witnesses are cross referenced reveals all the lies and deception put before the court by the DPP. See attachment for this transcript called 19th Day Of November 1996.html.



What is below is not the complete list of inconsistencies in the Tasmanian DPP's case against Martin Bryant but some of the main ones. These alone are sufficient to call into question the whole case against Bryant. They are referenced from the DPP's case which is on this website - see the court transcript link.

The DPP's allegation against Bryant was that sometime " between 11.45am and 12.30pm on Sunday 28 April 1996 he shot and killed the Martin's " at the Seascape Cottage ( then proceeded to Port Arthur etc... ). NOTE THOSE TIMES.

The first inconsistency is that at 10.40am a witness ( neighbour ) heard 2 shots at Seascape. Another witness heard 6 to 12 shots coming from Seascape around the same time. ( Mr. Martin - owner of Seascape - later was found with 2 bullet wounds ). The problem with this is Martin Bryant was witnessed having stopped for coffee at the Shell Service Station at FORCETT 30km north of Seascape at the same time ( 10.40am to 11.00am ). The witness knew him. Bryant could not be in two places at the same time.

The second inconsistency is Bryant was later witnessed buying petrol at the Convict Bakery Service Station at TARANNA between 11.45am and 11.50am. ( Taranna is 15km north of Seascape and about 15 minutes away ). At the same time - 11.45am - a Yellow VOLVO was seen by another witness, Mr. Copping, backed up to the front door at Seascape with boot and front driver door open ( as if it was being loaded up ). Again Bryant cannot be 2 places at the same time.

Apart from this Mrs. Martin was never shot - an autopsy showed she had been bludgeoned by a blow to the skull. So the DDP's claim she had been shot is totally false. Mr. Martin had in fact been stabbed and shot but which caused the death is unclear - so he could have died of a stab wound. The forensics also reveal Mr.Martin had been bound and gagged - something Bryant would have to have done as well as keeping an eye on Mrs. Martin - could it be done ? Additionally why gag Mr. Martin at all if the plan was to kill him ?

Later, Bryant was next witnessed to visit Roger Larner at between 1.05pm and around 1.15pm and was witnessesed entering the tollbooth by staff at around 1.15pm. The problem with this is the gunman had been in Port Arthur Historic Site and witnessed messing about in the car park for 20 minutes prior to this time and was actually inside the Cafe buying his lunch at 1.15pm.

The point about all this is THESE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN THE DPP'S OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE which also CONFLICT. How could errors like this slip by ? THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE ERRORS and they raise serious questions about the whole case and investigation. As a result the Supreme Court was lied to by the DPP's counsel. NB : These sort of discrepancies go on and on and on in this case. There are so many of such significance a diligent DPP would seriously question whether they had the right man.

UPDATE - Proof of many of the points cited above appears on this webpage - DPP Tampers & Withholds Evidence From Court: http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadpplies.html

Ex Policeman Andrew MacGregor on the CD-ROM details far more irregularities than are mentioned above.



At the sentencing hearing for Martin Bryant Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg QC told the Court the following:- Refer Court Transcript at Page 62--63 (Transcript 19th November 1996.doc)

"There were two interesting observations made late in the morning and at about midday by two people who reside in the area, one Mr. Simmons, heard at about 11 a.m. two shots. He knew the Martins well and he knew on that day that it was Mr Martin’s birthday. Further down towards Port Arthur and near the boat ramp a Mr Doug McCutcheon heard a series of rapidly fired shots and his best estimate of the time of that was about twelve o’clock to twelve thirty. He estimated that the calibre of the rifle used was larger than .22. He has some experience with firearms and some sensitivity about it, being involved in the operation of a fish farm. He claimed that whenever gun shots went off in the district he was blamed for shooting seals. But he estimated that in that volley of shots there would have been six, at the most twelve shots. Later in the day he heard further shooting when Bryant was in Port Arthur. In that late morning how many shots were fired and precisely when is difficult to determine but these two residents heard shooting on that day in the pre-lunch period and the Crown case is that Bryant shot Mr. And Mrs. Martin at about that time."

What is wrong with this is that the claim that shots were heard by Mr. McCutcheon about 12.00 to 12.30pm is a lie. McCutcheon heard the shots between 10.00am and 11.00am. Refer to attached McCutcheon Statement.doc.

The question must be asked why did the DDP change this ? Was it to rule out any suggestion someone else killed the Martin's between 10am and 11am well before Martin Bryant arrived at Seascape ? It would appear so because right after this lie the DDP went on to say:

"Tourists to Tasmania at the time, Donald and Stephanie Gunn, had spent the night at “The Seascape”. They departed at about 11.15 to 11.20 a.m. and at that time David and Sally Martin were in residence, all the other guests had departed, the Gunns stayed chatting to Mr. & Mrs. Martin and then later when they departed they noted that both of the Martins were engaged in chores about “The Seascape”, so at about 11.20 a.m. the Crown case is that Mr. & Mrs. Martin were at the premises on their own. "

These 2 witnesses claim everything was fine at Seascape until around 11.15am when they left. But what needs explaining is the fact that the Gunn's do not mention the gunshots that the other 2 witnesses said occurred before 11.00am eminating from Seascape when they would have been there. This raises a question mark regards their presence at Seascape ( timing of their departure ).

The key point is NOBODY heard shots at Seascape between 11.45am and 12.40pm when the DPP alleged Martin Bryant was there and shot and killed the Martins. McCutcheon who was 500 metres away would have heard them but he says they occurred between 10am and 11am. It is unlikely McCutcheon could be 2 hours out in his timing. And witness Mr. A Simmons, who lived opposite Seascape and was watching the clock because he was waiting for a ride, also heard shots between 10.45am and 11.00am WELL BEFORE BRYANT ARRIVED. Refer to attached Simmons Statement.doc.
(The DDP alleged he arrived after 11.20am, yet other evidence indicates Bryant never got there until 12.20pm).

If the only shots* fired that morning were just before 11.00am then it is a substantial alibi for Martin Bryant in respect of the allegation he killed the Martins of Seascape. These 2 witnesses statements are reinforced by the fact Martin Bryant was witnessed being up to 58 kilometres to the north of Seascape when the shots were heard.

This is because Bryant was witnessed at the Midway Point Newsagency between 10.30am and 11.00am. Refer Kessarios Statement.doc. Another witness saw him around the same time frame
(11am) at the Shell Service Station at Forcett where Bryant spent 8 to 10 mintues having a cup of coffee. Refer King Statement.doc. That would put Bryant leaving Forcett at 11.08am at the earliest. Shots had been heard at Seascape, 58km away, some 20 to 30 minutes earlier. Martin Bryant cannot be at 2 places at one time. NONE OF THIS WAS DISCLOSED TO THE COURT BY THE DPP.

It is further necessary to state this website believes it is in fact more likely the timing by the Gunn's is inncorrect. If they in fact left earlier than they said - at 10.15am to 10.20am - it would fit. There is however another question mark in relation to the Gunn's - namely that that the DPP told the Court they were "Tourists to Tasmania" when it fact they lived somewhere in North Hobart. The fact remains nobody living near to Seascape heard shots between 11.45am and 12.40pm.

It is also important to note while DDP Bugg told this whopper to the Court Martin Bryant's second lawyer, John Avery, the man who allegedly pursuaded him to plead guilty, sat back and did nothing to correct this false statement - or point out the true facts which give Martin Bryant an ALIBI in respect of the Martins' murders - and thereby also cast extreme doubt about what else went on that day at the Port Arthur Historic Site - namely that he acted alone.

Here we have not one but two pieces of critical evidence that gives Martin Bryant an alibi - one the timing of shots being heard much earlier and the other a failure to disclose Bryant whereabouts at that time - not being put to the Court. WHY ? This site calls on the Tasmanian DDP's Office and Bugg to explain why Mr McCutcheon's evidence was altered before the Court in such a manner as to remove any notion Martin Bryant was in fact elsewhere at the time events were occurring at Seascape.

This is a clear case of not only TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE but also WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE that was clearly related to each other - the circumstances of which combined indicates a conspiracy by the DPP to pervert the course of justice because that evidence would have established Martin Bryant to be innocent.

Full credit should go to Andrew MacGregor for discovering the above irregularities in the evidence.
*NB: the shots heard appear to be 2 different sets. Simmons was standing on the highway waiting for a car to pick him up and Seascape was in viewing distance a short distance way. He heard 2 muffled shots which he described as being like from a .22 rifle which this site believes were high velocity shots being fired from inside Seascape which were the ones that killed David Martin. This occurred before 11am and more specifically around 10.40am. These shots were too faint for McCutcheon, who lived 500 metres away, to hear. Simmons then got his ride and left just before 11.00am.

After he left there was a second batch of shots fired outside where this site believes the real gunman was test firing the 2 rifles outside Seascape to check them. These were the rifles that were used at Port Arthur Historic Site later that day. Those are the 6 to 12 rapid fire shots McCutcheon heard, and Simmons didn't hear because he had left the area. Martin Bryant, the bunny for what was about to happen that day, was somewhere between Midway Point and Forcett when all these shots were being fired.



One of the strangest co-incidences about the Port Arthur incident is the fact the Tasmanian authorities had at their disposal a special refrigerated morgue truck capable of carrying 22 bodies. ( A picture of this truck is below ).

Why this is strange derives from 4 facts. The State of Tasmania had prior to the incident on average 6 murders per year - and they did not all occur on the same day, place or time - that works out to one murder every 2 months - so why would such a truck be needed ? No other State in Australia had one like it. These facts are compounded by the fact the truck was acquired and specially built shortly before ( June 1995 ) the Port Arthur massacre and sold 2 years later ( see fax copy of advertisement offering for sale below ) .

The Coroner in his initial report ( see copy below ) mentions this morgue truck and says how timely it was having one like this available calling it a "highly prized possession".

Was it built especially for the massacre to control access to the bodies from the Broad Arrow Cafe ? .

Why was this truck, acquired at great expense, sold ? Had its use been fulfilled and they knew it would never be needed again ?

Also isn't it a strange co-incidence the number of dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe closely matches the capacity of this morgue truck ?

And why did Tasmanian Police usher away media reporters from this truck on the day ?

Update 8th May 2001 - The latest info reported to this site on this morgue truck is the owner was unable to sell it and 6 weeks ago the mortuary box on the back was removed and put on a Mercedes Army truck - then both vehicles disappeared. That was just after the details of this morgue truck were publically disclosed by the investigator at a public meeting in Queensland. What was an Army truck doing with it ? And isn't the timing of its disappearance strange - trying to hide something ? Is there an Army connection to what happened at Port Arthur ?

Update 31 Dec 2001 - We have had it positively confirmed the morgue truck was constructed around June 1995 - just in time to be up and running and not attract immediate suspicion prior to the massacre.
See Also Coroner's Responsibility at Port Arthur http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpamorgtruck.html for photos and articles on the Morgue Truck.



One of the most convenient things about Sunday 28th April 1996 at the Port Arthur Historic Site is the fact senior staff of the site were sent on a Work Seminar 2 hours drive to the mainland. The staff circular flyer notifying staff is below.

What is strange about this is the fact it is the only one ever held and there have been none since. In addition it was to be held on a Sunday, not a weekday - and was not held in the area but on the mainland 2 hours drive away at Swansea.

What strikes you about this notice is the flowery almost nonsensical purpose of this seminar - woffle like. Additionally the notice says this is part of a series of workshops - but why were no more held ?

Also the time for this Workshop to start was around lunchtime - 1pm - the time when the shootings started in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Another co-incidence ? Observation - that would be the time of day when the site and Cafe was at its fullest.

Was the purpose of this seminar to get senior staff out of the area for that time of day so their skill and knowledge could not interfere with the gunman's rampage and also to ensure they did not come to harm ?

If so how could Martin Bryant have arranged this ?



Many people will wonder where were the local police at Port Arthur when the shooting started ? Answer - they had been lured away from the area.

One hour before the massacre commenced, the only two policemen on the Tasmanian Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location at Saltwater River by anonymous caller reporting a big stash of heroin. There was no heroin, and four minutes after the two policemen reported their arrival at Saltwater by radio, the shooting started in the Broad Arrow Cafe. The drive from Saltwater to Port Arthur is a minimum of 30 mins. The mass murder lasted only 17 minutes from start to finish. ( Above passage by Joe Vialls ).

The "heroin" turned out to be soap powder in glass bottles.

Was this anonymous caller linked to the gunman at Port Arthur and designed to send local police away to the furthest point on the pennisula at the time the shooting was planned to start ?

If so how could Martin Bryant have done this ? Did he have a police radio so he could know when the local police had arrived at their destination ? Was he that clever and cunning ? If so why was there no police radio or scanner found ?

Given Martin Bryant was later assessed by psychiatrists as being in the lowest 2 percent of the population in terms of intellect how and when did this flash of brillance occurr ?



It is not a surprising coincidence given what you have seen on this site so far is to find out there was another work seminar being held that weekend at ROYAL HOBART HOSPITAL for medical staff.

This seminar's topic was dealing with gunshot wounds and trauma following a terrorist attack.

Apart from the fact this seminar just happened to be being held the very day of the only and biggest mass shooting in Tasmania's history what is strange about this is the fact why would such a seminar be needed to be held in a State where such events were unheard of ?

Also the time for this seminar to end was just after 1pm - the time when the shootings started in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Another co-incidence ?

Was the purpose of this seminar to enable those wounded to be patched up as quickly as possible and enable grizzly scenes of wounded people arriving at hospital to be available for the world's media ?

How could could Martin Bryant have arranged for this seminar to have been held this day ? And if it wasn't him who did ? Does then AMA President Dr.Keith Woollard, or Dr. Brendon Nelson who suddenly switched from the ALP to the Liberal Party just prior to the 1996 Federal Election ( both medicos with anti-gun views ) know the answer to this question ?

The story does not stop here - the next coincidence is Emergency Services just happened to have a disaster exercise the previous weekend at Hobart Airport. And prior to that one on the same pennisula as Port Arthur. An amazing number of coincidences.



Just a week before the Port Arthur Massacre Royal Hobart Hospital had finalized an Emergency Disaster Plan and it had been given to staff on the the Friday before the massacre - just 2 days beforehand. Refer article about it below.

Another amazing coincidence. In fact there are so many coincidences about Port Arthur that its surprising it hasn't made it into the Guiness Book Of Records for setting a record for the number of coincidences ( this site has no objection to anyone nominating it to Guiness - and we are positive if they checked things out they would find all these coincidences add to to one thing - proof of a fraud ).

The article goes on to say shortly afterwards they used feedback from the massacre to evaluate their emergency procedures.

How could Martin Bryant have set all this in motion one must ask ?

All of this material indicates quite clearly the Port Arthur Massacre was not only pre-planned with the assistance of Tasmanian authorities, but it was also being used to test and evaluate disaster response by emergency services. The subsequent EMA report clearly sets all this out in detail.

Editors Comment - all of this cold calculated evidence is a national disgrace - to think not only Tasmanian authorities were in on the massacre but were also going to use it for evaluation of their emergency procedures shows a total disregard for common decency and proper standards of government.

See also Special Report One Year On http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpaemergplan.html



The shooting and massacre at Port Arthur Historic Site started moments after a man with long blond hair walked into the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying either 1 or 2 sports bags. One of those bags contained personal effects of Martin Bryant - including his bulky video camera. The question must be asked why would Bryant take those things into the cafe if he planned a massacre, or was it someone else trying to incriminate him ?

Photographic analysis of the gunman who was filmed in the carpark after he left the cafe proves it was not Martin Bryant but someone else wearing a wig made up to look like Martin Bryant.

The two photos below tell the truth of the Cafe gunman. On the left is a picture Martin Bryant taken on 25th April 1996 - 3 days before the massacre. Note the LENGTH of his hair - just an inch above shoulder length and somewhat CURLEY. On the right is a frame from one of the tourist videos taken on the 28th April of the gunman in the carpark - note that the hair length exceeds the shoulders and the gunman has the overcoat collar up to hide the hair length and that the hair is STRAIGHT, not curley. This particular frame on the video came at point when either a breeze blew the hair on left side out from under the overcoat's collar or was the result of the gunman's own movements - irrespective of which you can clearly see the hair length exceeds the shoulder. The ease of movement of the gunman's hair indicates it is a WIG. More frames from that video are below which demonstrate more how straight the gunman's hair is and how the overcoat's collar was used to try and hide its length.

Go to this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant and video shots of gunmen

In the frame on the right above you can see, if you look closely, how the hair just falls verticle as the gunman leans over - as strands of a wig would. The left frame shows even more strikingly how the collar was up to try and hide the deception of identity. All this indicates the gunman's head is likely to have been clean shaven which accounts for the ease of sway of this wig.

All of this creates a reasonable doubt as to whether Bryant was the gunman at the Port Arthur Historic Site.

On top of this there is no evidence proving Martin Bryant as being the gunman at the Port Arthur Historic Site that day - that he was physically there. Nor is there any evidence known to be left by the real gunman proving it wasn't Bryant but someone else - that raises the question why not ? The answer lies in the meticulous planning of the people involved in this operation who ensured the real gunman was not going to leave anything but a trail of circumstantial evidence pointing at, but not proving, Martin Bryant being there.



Graham Collyer was in the Broad Arrow Cafe at sometime around 12.30pm and eyewitnessed the gunman enter the cafe carrying a long sports bag. Later Graham was shot in the throat by the gunman and was one of the few people to see him and live to tell about it. His statement BELOW gives us an accurate description of the gunman (this is page 2 of a 4 page statement and the most relevant page). See attachment Collyer Statement.doc.

What is of particular note here is the description of the hair length - "He had long blonde bedraggled hair 3 -4 ( inches* ) below the shoulder". This corroborates the photographic evidence on this website about the long hair below shoulder length Martin Bryant did not have. (* The video evidence - right - indicates it was inches not centimetres).

Also of note is Collyer's assessment of the gunman's age and face - 20 years and a pitted acne scarred face. MARTIN BRYANT WAS 29 AT THE TIME and had an unblemished face - see picture left.
(Collyer, who was an experienced former military man, is unlikely to have misjudged the age of the gunman).

Of further note is the fact at the time he made his statement on 7th May 1996 ( a week after the massacre and still fresh in his mind ) he was in hospital and had not seen any media reports of Martin Bryant that had been deliberately allowed to be plastered everywhere and had interfered with many other witnesses recollections.

Another unexplained irregularity is Collyer was recovering in Hobart Hospital only metres away from where Martin Bryant was also recovering from the burns he suffered in the Seascape fire yet Collyer was never asked to go round and identify him. Why was that ? Did someone not want him to say "It wasn't him" ?

Go to this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant and video shots of gunmen



Port Arthur Storekeeper Colin TRIFFETT tried to shoot* the Port Arthur gunman when he was at the service station but ammunition storage laws requiring it to be keep locked up separate from the gun prevented him from doing so. If he had managed to do so more carnage would have been prevented. Refer his statement on page 2.

Colin, who saw the gunman shooting at the tollbooth and pull up at the service station, reached for his .22 rifle but the ammunition was locked in the safe and by the time he had got the rifle loaded the gunman had left.

This is a classic example of how gun storage laws prevent saving life and property.

After leaving the area the gunman shot up numerous people along the highway.

This is another fact that didn't come out at the time which was highly relevant to the ensuing gun debate.

This website believes Mr. Triffett should have been given a bravery award for his efforts - given he was facing a man armed with a much more powerful gun and had the odds against him.

(* The fact Triffett attempted to confront the gunman by going outside indicates he was prepared to use the rifle - ie shoot the gunman if need be - and there is nothing wrong with that - its what police do all the time).

Go to this webpage for a copy of Mr Triffett's Statement

Of course if Colin had been successful and killed the gunman, who wasn't Martin Bryant, there would have been an attempt to switch the identities to Martin Bryant who was at Seascape during the gunman's rampage. Bryant would have been killed there and Tasmanian authorities would have switched them.



Tasmanian Police Constable Garry Whittle was one of the two local police stationed on the pennisula who eventually arrived at the Port Arthur area crime scene following their having been decoyed to a phoney drug tipoff which took them out of harms way at the exact moment the shooting began at Port Arthur. He and his collegue Constable Hyland finally arrived at Seascape Cottage after following the well laid out trail of destruction along the highway sometime around 2pm. Whittle's statement to the DPP afterwards details what went on.

What is of note is his statement of seeing a NAKED WOMAN running around outside Seascape while shots were being fired at them. A copy of his statement is below.

What is significant about this as follows -

Firstly, WHO was this person - woman - running around naked while shooting was going on ? And where did she get to ? Why hasn't she come forward and made a statement to police and talked to the media about her experiences that day ?

Secondly, this fact was not disclosed in the media reports following the incident ( despite all the other high level detail that were given out to the media ) and the question must be asked WHY not ? Is there something to hide about this ?

Thirdly, this fact totally contradicts the DPP's case against Martin Bryant there there was only him at Seascape, and possibly a male hostage, at that time. The DPP alleged he killed the Martin's, who owned Seascape, several hours earlier before he drove to the Port Arthir Historic Site.

Forthly, why would someone run around naked while a seige and shooting was going on ? Did that person not run away because she feared getting shot by the gunman ? Why was she yelling and screaming ?

Fifthly, WHY didn't the DPP mention this fact when summing up the events of that day at Bryant's sentencing given that an enormous amount of detail was given in it - especially as this was a police witness who saw it ? ( Refer that summing up on this website - court transcript page ).

This website believes this naked woman was Mrs Martin who was not killed when the DPP claims but had somehow got loose from her captors and was trying to escape but realized she would get shot if she ran out into the gunmans field of view. It appears she was either recaptured or went inside again and ended up being bashed with a rifle butt in the head which explains the injury on her body found later. Only one female body was found in the ashes of Seascape which was hers. This is the only sensible conclusion one can arrive at. If this is the case - that it was her running around sometime that afternoon - the DPP's case against Bryant fails.

Go to this webpage for a copy of Constable Gary Whittle's Statement

This is just another example of relevant facts of this incident - facts that point to something else having happened that doesnt support the official line - being hidden and the question must be asked WHY ?



Taped phone calls with Martin Bryant at Seascape that night with Tasmanian Police Negotiator Sgt. Terry McCarthy reveal Bryant didn't know what had happened at Port Arthur that day.

During the course of those calls when told about the shootings at Port Arthur Bryant asked if anybody was hurt and when told yes he said in a genuinely concerned voice "they weren't killed ?".


Even Terry McCarthy remarked Bryant's demeanour was not that of what he should have been for someone who had shot 55 people. He described those conversations as bizzare.

The complete transcript of that conversation is below. You can download audio copy in mp3 format
(requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/werentkilled.zip ), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/werentkilled.mp3 - requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx... ).

This is because Bryant had never left Seascape and had not done anything that afternoon. This is why they came over to McCarthy as bizzare.

Later in hospital Bryant was told by staff more details of what had happened at Port Arthur which he recounted in a police interview by saying he had "been informed" and hadn't shot anyone.

Furthermore ALL OF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS PLEA OF NOT GULTY in later Court proceedings.

Bryant's involvement in this incident, based on the evidence available, indicates he was recruited by others into playing a role in the operation which involved him dropping off his car at Seascape, him staying there, him manning the phone while others fired shots from the windows, and saying silly things on the phone which would be consistent with his role. This is all he did and it is quite clear he was totally unaware he was going to be the bunny for it all. Bryant was most likely told it was pretend play acting out for a training exercise and he naively decided to help out. This is the best explanation that fits. ( And for everyone's benefit this website knows this was an exercise in part by SAC-PAV - wherein they created a real massacre and then had emergency services respond to it and later sat back an evaluated the response ).

But Bryant's words to McCarthy clearly indicates he had no idea what was planned for that afternoon. You can see also in the transcript Bryant's prior asking for a helicopter that McCarthy refers to and he's trying to establish if there is a connection between it and the shootings and Bryant's response is "no no they're not at all". Again Bryant in saying that indicates he didn't know what had happened at Port Arthur ( and was saying things on the phone he was told to say - like ask for a helicopter and call himself Jamie ).

All of this reinforces the other evidence he was not the gunman who shot people in the Broad Arrow Cafe, carpark, tollgate and outside Seascape that afternoon.


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.



During the course of the night at Seascape (where Martin Bryant was undeniably there) in his telephone communications with Tasmanian Police Negotiator Terry McCarthy, Bryant (who was calling himself "Jamie"), told McCarthy he wanted a police sniper with an infra-red scope who was apparently closing in to move on because "he’s going to shoot your main man!"

To who was Jamie referring ? Who was "your main man" ?

Jamie's terminology indicates there was another person there with him and he had something to do with Tasmanian Police and that that person was involved in the incident that day otherwise why would he be calling him the "main man" and be a snipers target ?

The remark indicates also Jamie was relaying the information so they would not shoot their own people.

Was this "main man" the real gunman who did the shooting that day ?

This indicates Bryant believed he was playing some role in the events of that day - probably either through manipulation or mind control - but it is unlikely he had agreed or realized he was the fall guy for this operation. That is evidenced by him pleading not guilty for months afterwards and being seen to be in a sick looking state when he finally did.

Note - it is the belief of this website that Bryant was involved in what happened that day - but was not the killer and was being manipulated by others not really understanding what was going on around him. This is the only logical conclusion based on all the evidence available at this time.

Following the main man comment Bryant says "I'll blow this...." which indicates also he was aware at the time he was acting out some part in the seige play they were running that night. (If a SOG sniper had shot the "main man" and Bryant was still on the phone afterwards it would have proven Bryant was not acting alone (how would thay explain another body at Seascape and how could a dead body do the remainder of the things they had planned for that night and following morning at Seascape such as the fire ?) and as a result the whole deception being laid out at Seascape of a lone gunman would be blown - which is what he was referring to.).

The question remains WHO was this "main man" and because he was their "man" is that how he was allowed to slip out the back of Seascape in the dark that night and disappear along with any others who may have been there ? (No other bodies were found at Seascape apart from the Martins and the hostage). Is this why Seascape had to be burnt down - to destroy any trace of others being there and what they had with them ? And is this the main reason why Tasmanian and Federal Authorities don't want a Coroner's Inquest held into this incident - that the existance of and the identity of their "main man" might be discovered and all the others involved ?

The complete transcript of that conversation is below. You can download audio copy in mp3 format
(requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/jamie.zip), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/jamie.mp3) - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14209/get-windows-media-player

McCarthy: Jamie?
Gunman: Okay. Hello. How are you?
McCarthy: I’m very well thanks Jamie. Yourself?
Gunman: 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 infra-red scope. Would you just ask him to move on?
McCarthy: Right, we’ll do that, we’ll do that now.
Gunman: Cause he’s going to shoot, he’s trying to shoot, he’s going to shoot your main man!
McCarthy: No, I can guarantee.
Gunman: I’ll blow this, umm these you know, you know what’s going to happen.
McCarthy: I don’t want to see anyone hurt, alright,
Gunman: 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.
Gunman: Really.



When the gunman arrived at Seascape somewhere around 2pm that afternoon Martin Bryant was alleged to have been shooting at police from Seascape and continued to do so throughout the night. Police did not shoot at him at any time that night. Inbetween this alleged shooting Bryant was on the phone to Tasmanian Police Negotiator Sgt. Terry McCarthy. Bryant ( who was calling himself "Jamie" ), talked to McCarthy about the hostages and various other things in a somewhat confused state on and off that night for several hours..

During the course of one of those conversations, sometime after 6.20pm, Bryant was recorded talking to McCarthy WHEN A SHOT IS HEARD ON TAPE in the background that was fired nearby - from one of the buildings at Seascape. It is impossible to have been Bryant firing it otherwise the blast would have deafened the phone. Also his voice cuts over it indicating the same. A copy of that recording can be downloaded below.

WHO FIRED THAT SHOT is the queston that needs answering.

This shot PROVES there was a SECOND GUNMAN at Seascape that night.

This also backs up Bryant's later statement warning McCarthy they were going to shoot their "main man" if a SOG Sniper did not back off.

Remember it is the whole DPP's case that Martin Bryant acted alone and nobody else was involved - the lone gunman claim. Well that notion has just been blown out of the water.

Was this shot the real gunman firing at police from the other building as was seen by those outside and agrees with other witness claims of at least another person being at Seascape ?

You can all hear it on the audio download below taken off Channel Nine's A CURRENT AFFAIR program with Mike Munro's voice talking to Terry McCarthy afterwards - and the segment with Bryant. The shot is heard in the background after Bryant says: ".....I'm making up some sandwiches....." - coming from nearby ( at the 35 seconds into the MP3 download ). The shot is most likely to have come from another room of the main Seascape building Bryant was located in - upstairs perhaps - but one thing is clear it did not originate from the room Bryant was in.

Download audio copy in mp3 format ( 400KB requires unzipping ). OR

You can download audio copy in mp3 format (requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/proof.zip), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/proof.mp3) - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14209/get-windows-media-player

The complete video of this audio segment is on the CD ROM.

Go to this webpage for a photo of Seascape

You can see from this picture of the main building at Seascape ( taken before the incident ) the type of building it is - wooden with tin roof. It is likely that the gunman shooting at police outside was firing from upstairs as downstairs, where the phone was located, is too low to get a field of visibilty of the surrounding area because the building was on downward sloping ground. The shot on the tape is consistent in tone with the muffling effect a wooden structure like this would produce if heard from downstairs.

NOTE: This site has not found any evidence Martin Bryant was even the first gunman - the one who shot the people in or outside the Broad Arrow Cafe in the Port Arthur Historic Site - in fact this site has evidence the gunman there was not him. There is however evidence there may have been two persons shooting from Seascape at one point but whether or not Bryant let off a few rounds into the bush that night is unclear. Accordingly the term "second gunman" used in this webpage relates to what happened solely at Seascape - that there was someone else there shooting.



Go To South Australian Police Journal March 1997 Article -
See attachment below SA Police Journal Feature Story March 1997.doc

This article from the SA Police Journal in 1997 contains several things that backup the other material on this site that there was a second highly trained gunman there with Bryant:

That it was noted there it appeared there were TWO SUSPECTS, TWO GUNMEN and SHOTS COMING FROM TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS according to Superintendent Barry Bennett.

That Superintendent Bob Fielding noted they thought the gunman had SOME SORT OF LINE VISION DEVICE. "Every time there was a slight movement in the area he was able to identify and indicate roughly the vicinity of where the SOG advancement and other people were".

All of this is consistent with someone with extremely sophisticated equipment ( not readily available to the public ) being at Seascape and explains how Bryant was able to relay to McCarthy that night that he knew SOG snipers were closing in and about to shoot their "main man". The question must be asked where would Bryant have got such radar like equipment with infra-red capabilities and what happened to it ? Did this "main man" supply this equipment and slip away with it out the back of Seascape in the early hours of the following morning ?

UPDATE 12 October 2001 - it is interesting to find the webpage to the SA Police article has been deleted by the SA Police Association off the internet - however a copy of it has been saved on our website as we suspected as part of the Port Arthur Coverup it wouldn't stay there for long - the above link takes you to that copy. Its original URL was http://www.pasa.asn.au/journalfeature9703.htm. The question must be asked is what have the South Australian Police Association got to hide on this topic ?



Tasmanian Police Constable Garry Whittle was one of the two local police stationed on the pennisula who eventually arrived at the Port Arthur area crime scene following their having been decoyed to a phoney drug tipoff which took them out of harms way at the exact moment the shooting began at Port Arthur. He and his collegue Constable Hyland finally arrived at Seascape Cottage after following the well laid out trail of destruction along the highway sometime around 2pm. Whittle's statement to the DPP afterwards details what went on.

What is another point of note in his more detailed statement ( apart from seeing a naked woman running around outside Seascape while shots were being fired at them ) is his account of how he and Allen managed to crawl out of the drainage culvert they had been pinned down in since that afternoon with the assistance of 2 SOG members who provided them "with protection and information about the MOVEMENTS OF OCCUPANTS of Seascape" at 10.30pm that night. A copy of his statement is below - refer second last paragraph.

This indicates there was more than one person at Seascape moving around that night.

It also indicates 2 SOG members knew there was more than one person inside Seascape and those persons were moving around.

All of this totally contradicts the fact the DDP's case nobody was involved in the seige but Martin Bryant.

According to the DPP the Martin's were dead - had been murdered that sometime around noon so these occupants couldn't be them. Additionally the hostage taken at the service station, Glen Pears, was later found handcuffed hand and foot and it is absurd to suggest he was moving around loose while Bryant was shooting. Similarly it would be silly to suggest the naked woman observed by Whittle was still running around Seascape and it would pose the threat to those outside. There is only one alternative left - was the "occupants" moving around the "main man" ( and his collegues ) Bryant referred to on the phone ?

What is significant about this statement is because -

Firstly, this confirms other evidence that there was more than one person at Seascape moving around - (1) the shot on the tape proving someone else was shooting from the house, (2) the reference to a "main man", and (3) shots coming from 2 buildings.

Secondly, this fact was not disclosed in the media reports following the incident ( despite all the other high level detail that were given out to the media ) and the question must be asked WHY not ? Is there something to hide about this ?

Thirdly, this fact totally contradicts the DPP's case against Martin Bryant there there was only him at Seascape involved in the seige at that time. It is clearly implied from this statement the occupants and their movements inside Seascape represented a threat to those outside.

Forthly, WHY didn't the DPP mention this fact when summing up the events of that day at Bryant's sentencing given that an enormous amount of detail was given in it - especially as this was a police witness who saw it ? ( Refer that summing up on this website - court transcript page ).

This website believes this statement about more than one occupant of Seascape moving around late that night not only confirms the fact Bryant was not there alone, but also proves Tasmanian SOG members were aware of this fact given Whittle says the information came from them. These other occupants must have had something to do with the seige that was going on and were not hostages. This is the only sensible conclusion one can arrive at. If this is the case - that more than one person had been at Seascape moving around - the DPP's case against Bryant - that he acted alone - fails.

Note also at the bottom of the first paragraph Whittle says the gunman firing from Seascape had a NIGHT VISION DEVICE. This confirms other statements about such equipment. This was because shots were being fired close to them in the pitch dark of that evening as they tried to retreat from the drainage culvert at some distance from Seascape - unless the gunman had such a device attached to a gun such shooting would have been impossible. Such devices are not available to the public - you don't pick them up at your local KMART or Gun Store and it is likely they are a restricted import - normally only those in the military and police services have access to them. So the question arises where would Martin Bryant have got such a device and what happened to it because there wasn't one found on the 2 rifles found in intact condition ?

Go to this webpage for Proof of Evidence from Constable Gary Thomas Whittle

Again this is just another example of relevant facts of this incident - facts that point to something else having happened that doesnt support the official line - being hidden and the question must be asked WHY ?



One of the most unusual things about the incident is the fact the FIRETRUCKS were prevented from putting out the fire at Seascape until Seascape was burnt to the ground.

Why this is questionable is because at the time Martin Byrant was captured outside ( unarmed in a dazed state clothes on fire ) Seascape Guesthouse was still intact and only smoke coming out of it ( see colour picture below ) yet police believed the gunman had possibly 3 hostages inside. Surely in such circumstances they would have sent the fire engines in as fast as they could to try and save any hostages inside that were alive. But no police kept the firetrucks back.

You can see below in the black and white picture the fire trucks and the state Seascape was in - burnt to the ground - smoldering ( Source: Australian Federal Police Journal Dec 1998 ).

Was this to ensure all evidence inside Seascape was destroyed - including making an autopsy on the hostages inside impossible ?

Who was it that kept the fire trucks back ?

Associated with this is who lit this fire ? Why would Bryant lite it knowing he was surrounded and the fire would force him outside to be captured or shot by police ? Surely police would not lite it to smoke him out as they thought hostages were inside ? It doesn't make sense.

Was the fire lit to burn all evidence at Seascape that would not point to Bryant and or make it extremely difficult to establish what exactly did go on and when if others were involved ?

Police witnesses present said the fire started at 8.00am that morning as if an incendiary bomb had gone off. But how could Martin Bryant have started this fire if he left the petrol in containers in his yellow Volvo when it was abandoned 6 kilometres aways at the Port Arthur Historic Site Tollbooth ? The DPP claimed at his trial he specifically bought the petrol and used it the set fire to the BMW and Seascape.

Another point is why would Bryant go outside unarmed after his shooting rampage the previous night indicating he wanted a shootout with police ? The fact his clothes were burning indicates he was unconcious when the fire started - because would you stay in a burning building conscious to the point of allowing your clothes to catch fire ? Again it doesn't make sense. The fact the burns were only on one side of his clothes indicates he was lying face down when inside when the fire was going.

See this webpage for photos

Seascape shortly before Bryant was grabbed outside.

Note the minimal smoke and no visible flames.



One of the most convenient things about the evidence recovered was the fact the 2 guns allegedly used on his rampage were found in inoperative condition that made getting a ballistics match difficult and found in questionable circumstances with parts missing.

Briefly the COLT was recovered having suffered a cartridge blow up in the chamber and the FN had its barrel bent. How and when did all this happen ?

Each weapon's circumstances are on a separate webpage links below.



This next irregularity is the finding and recovery of the gun - a COLT M16 CAR .223 rifle - at Seascape after the fire. This is the gun alleged to have been used by Byrant to kill the people in the Broad Arrow Cafe

What is unusual about this is the state with which the gun is recovered in and the fact parts are missing from it that were never recovered from Seascape.

You can see below in the black and white picture the gun as it was allegedly found in the ashes and afterwards when it was cleaned up ( Source: Australian Federal Police Journal Dec 1998 ).

What is unexplained is how could nearly everything else be burned to a crisp ( including other evidence of the gunman's activities ) yet this mainly plastic gun be recovered in such a good condition ? Was it the gun used by the gunman and was it really found there ?

Assuming it was found there why is the pistol grip missing and why was it also not found amongst the ashes ? How could it burn and not the remainder of the gun ? It's strange the grip was removed at all ? Why would Bryant have done so ? Was it because the real gunman knew it had fingerprints or blood stains on it ?

It was reported a cartridge had blown up in the breach and had damaged the rifle. Why then did Bryant not have any wounds to his hands and face when that happened ?.

The story of this gun does not stop there - Tasmanian Police and the DPP tried to get Hobart Gun Dealer Terry Hill to admitt he sold the gun to Bryant after Hill was sued for supplying Bryant with the alleged rifle by offering him immunity from prosecution ( see letter from Avery below ). Hill maintained he did not sell him that gun despite pressure placed on him. Was this an attempt to create a link between the gun and Bryant that police and the DPP knew did not exist and were trying to create one ? Were the Police and DPP trying to fabricate evidence in the case ?

Furthermore Martin Bryant at his police interrogation in July 1996 when showed this gun did not recognize the scope on it yet admitted another gun shown to him found in his Volvo was his. ( Note: - It is possible because the Colt was in reasonable condition he mistook it for one he may have had - the inability to identify the scope may infer this ). Another unexplained irregularity.

It is unknown whether police have matched bullets from this gun to any of the shooting victims.

See this webpage for photos and articles



More unanswered questions arise from the FN SLR .308 rifle found at Seascape after the fire. This is the gun alleged to have been used by Byrant to kill the people after his rampage the Broad Arrow Cafe - in the car park, on his way back to Seascape, and at Seascape.

This gun, unlike the COLT, was alleged to have been found in a gutter near an outbuilding in smashed condition. It too was recovered with parts missing from it that were never recovered from Seascape.

This gun had suffered loss of internal parts and the barrel had been bent. You can see below in the black and white picture the gun after it had been cleaned up ( Source: Australian Federal Police Journal Dec 1998 ).

What is unexplained is how could the barrel of this rifle have been bent ? How, when and why would Bryant have done this ( given the barrel steel of this rifle is extremely hard ) ?

Assuming it was found there why were parts missing and why were they also not found amongst the ashes ? How could it have been through the fire and not have suffered burns ?

Why would Bryant have left it in a gutter if he wanted a shootout with police as he had indicated the previous night ?.

Was the barrel bent by the real gunman to make it difficult to do a ballistics match later ?

Furthermore Martin Bryant at his police interrogation in July 1996 when showed this gun denied it was his yet admitted another gun ( a Daewoo Shotgun ) shown to him found in his Volvo was his. Another unexplained irregularity.

Again it is unknown whether police have matched bullets from this gun to any of the shooting victims.

See this webpage for photos and articles



The next gem in this saga is the finding of the keys to the Seascape Cottage left behind by the gunman in his Volvo when he abandoned it at the tollgate at Port Arthur Historic Site.

Obviously the reason he had them was because he had locked up Seascape before he left and would need to because according to the DPP's he had shot and killed the Martin's there an hour or so before hand. He could not leave it unlocked as visitors were prone to coming all the time. An example of that is the DPP's quoting the confrontation the Mason couple had with him there about 12.30pm - only moments before he was alleged to have left for Port Arthur.

What is strange about this is if he took the keys with him because he had locked Seascape up - then left them in the Volvo - how did he get back inside when he went back there later ?

Was there someone else there waiting to let the gunman in ?

Was the purpose of leaving the keys in the Volvo at the tollgate to implicate Martin Bryant and create a direct link with him having been at Seascape beforehand ?

Someone might say he took 2 sets of keys. Apart from the fact that is too incredible to believe because he would have no need for two sets - why would he take one set and leave the other ? To implicate himself ?

This absent mindedness does not gel with the cleverness the gunman is reputed to have had that day. Another unanswered question.


FIRST MEDIA REPORTS - "...HE'S ABOUT 18 or 19...."

During the early evening after the massacre ABC TV news reporter Andrew Fisher got to speak to witnesses leaving Port Arthur and reported the gunman was "about 18 or 19" years old.

You can download audio copy in mp3 format (requires unzipping - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/ABCTV.zip), or listen online to audio copy in mp3 format (requires Windows Media Player 7or similar - http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/ABCTV.mp3) - if you do not have it download it here WMP7 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx...

Why this is relevant is because this was one of the first news reports from information from witnesses BEFORE the media was given information about Martin Bryant the following day and his picture was plastered everywhere for people to see ( before the identification evidence was contaminated by that release ). This report about the age of the gunman is consistent with the accurate witness statements made to police. These early reports must therefore be regarded as the most accurate and credible evidence over and above subsequent reports.

Martin Bryant of course was 29 years old at the time and looked it.

This report is further evidence that it wasn't Martin Bryant who was seen doing the shooting at Port Arthur that day.



The late Jim Laycock was co-owner of the Port Arthur Motel situated near the entrance to the Port Arthur Historic Site in view of the Tollbooth and Service Station. On the afternnon of the massacre he saw the gunman hijack the BMW at the tollbooth and the shooting and taking of a hostage at the service station. Laycock had also been the former owner of the Broad Arrow Cafe and had known Martin Bryant. See statement below - page 4 of a 4 page statement.

Laycock told police in his statement he says he DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE GUNMAN AS MARTIN BRYANT.

Here we have someone who saw the gunman in action - someone who knew Martin Bryant - and said it wasn't him.

He goes on to say the gunman was aged low 20s - same as Cafe victim Grahame Collyer did - yet Bryant was 29 years old. His description that the shooter looked female is probably because the gunman's wig was a woman's one as seen in this picture of the gunman in the carpark - right. Wigs are normally designed for women and usually have long feminine strands of hair as seen right on the gunman.

What all this indicates is the gunman wasn't Martin Bryant. Other witnesses claim they saw Bryant at the Historic Site but these statements only relate to him doing lawful things like entering. It may well be Bryant popped in there ( to be seen ) but did nothing more - and slipped out undetected. All the evidence points to this that witnesses saw 2 different people. Either that or they were confused later after seeing media pictures of Bryant.

This statement is sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt Bryant was the gunman.

The question must be asked why wasn't this discrepancy followed up by police and the DPP ? Were they just incompetant or were they confused as to who witnesses saw ? Was it because both Bryant and the gunman were at the site that day and people saw Bryant around the place and also saw the gunman who looked like him shooting up the place later ?

NB: This website believes Martin Bryant in fact was never at PAHS anytime on that day.

See this webpage for Jim Laycock's Statement and photo of gunman



Numerous witnesses, those that took a careful look at the gunman doing the shooting at Port Arthur that day, describe someone other than Martin Bryant.

When one examines the DPP's witness statements a picture emerges that brings out 2 particular discrepancies between the gunman and Martin Bryant - the LENGTH of the blonde hair and his AGE. A great number of the witnesses said "the blonde hair extended below the shoulders" as did a great number say the gunman was in the 18 to 23 age range.

To backup this point there are 2 witness statements which graphically demonstrate this:-

A witness who saw the gunman at the tollbooth when he shot people in a BMW and who was watching in his car says the gunman's hair "flowed down onto his chest". Refer Buckley Statement at this webspage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatebuckley.html - Last Paragraph. This is reinforced by the frames from the tourist video showing the gunman at the water - see below. This witness is particularly important because he was in a relatively calm state and standing stationery at the time he was saw the gunman.

Another witness who saw the gunman shooting from the entrance of Seascape described him as "18-22 years old only a young lad". She also noted the hair flowing in the breeze. Refer Maloney Statement at this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatemaloney.html

Editor's observation re: witness terminology: curley hair like Bryant had doesn't "flow" but straight hair does. What is also noted there by Maloney is this hair was "almost gold in colour".

The problem with this is Martin Bryant's hair colour was not gold but more bleached white as was seen in the papers the next day - left. (Note this picture left was taken sometime beforehand but its colour matches that of the black and white one below which was taken 3 days before the massacre). See this webpage for photo http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitdescript.html

As you can see Martin Bryant's hair colour is rather dull white - not the striking gold colour Maloney said the gunman shooting from Seascape had.

Another thing borne out by the witness statements is many of them describe the gunman's build as SKINNY or THIN. And that many described the gunman's hair as being STRAIGHT rather than curley
(the true fact is was 90 percent straight with a slight curl at the bottom - this can be seen on the video frame).

The PROBLEM with all this is Martin Bryant's hair length at that time stopped about an inch ABOVE THE SHOULDERS. And he was was 29 years old and looked it. Martin was not of skinny build either - but slightly beefy. See pictures at bottom of this webpage.

Images of the gunman who was filmed in the carpark after he left the cafe - below right - proves his hair was straight and long and exceeds the shoulders.

Martin Bryant on 25th April 1996 LEFT.
Port Arthur Gunman ABOVE on 28th April 1996.

Some of the witnesses said the gunman's hair was shoulder length and and even smaller number say he was in his late twenties. This discrepancy seems to be caused by several things.- firstly seeing the photos of Bryant in the media shortly afterwards, secondly not really getting a good look at the gunman noting details, thirdly being traumatised, and forthly viewing the gunman from such a position or angle so as not to see the hair or face clearly. Another reason for this is because the hair was in fact tucked under the the jacket the gunman was wearing and only the visible section was seen and recalled by those witnesses.

Regardless of this at least 2 witnesses stated the gunman was NOT Martin Bryant. He was not the man they saw in the media.

So what we have is a large percentage of witness statements describing someone who looks distinctly different to Martin Bryant looked at that time. The two were similiar but there were discernable differences sufficient not only to call into question whether the gunman was Bryant but prove it wasn't.

And what is even more relevant is the video footage of the gunman at the water corroborates the witnesses who say the hair exceeded the shoulders, thus proving the witnesses who said shoulder length only were in error. See picture below. And it is significant most who said the hair was shoulder length - the ones who were in error - identified Martin Bryant as the man they saw.

Despite this the Tasmanian Police & DPP chose to not investigate these discrepancies and took the say so of people who had seen the media pictures of Bryant - most of whom were traumatized witnesses - rather that the witnesses who calmly observed the gunman. This is another thing that needs explaining - why a biased view was taken. If there have been any doubt whatsoever - and it would only required one person to say it wasn't him or say the hair was longer etc... - the DPP would have been required to conduct a thorough investigation of this - but it did not happen.

The true fact was the gunman had been made up to look like Bryant and was wearing a woman's wig. He was much younger and thinner than Bryant.
Refer to Lookalike Webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snparealgunman.html

Refer to this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitdescript.html



Based on the witness statements available to the Tasmanian Police & DPP on when and where people saw Martin Bryant it is impossible for him to have been in the Port Arthur Historic Site ( PAHS ) when the gunman was witnessed doing a host of things because the timing rules it out. This being the case several witness statements provide a complete ALIBI for Martin Bryant and these alone are sufficient to totally disassociate him as being the Cafe gunman, and the original charge at the time of his arrest that he killed the first victim Kate Scott is untennable. This also raises into doubt the goings on later at Seascape because it is quite clear someone was attempting to make it appear it was him at PAHS - ie frame Bryant. Below is the justification for this view. Remember these are the DDP's own witnesses giving their accounts.

Witness statements of seeing "Martin Bryant" before the massacre present serious problems because the timing of them, coupled with what he was observed to have done before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe, does not add up. There are fatal timing discrepancies.

Before going into this we need to be aware of movements of the gunman before the massacre and this is listed below:-

Summary of Observed Events By Witnesses: after arriving via the tollgate the gunman tried to park his car at the waters edge and was told by the parking officer he couldn't. He sat in his car for 10 minutes then it appears he moved it to the spot near the wharf and sat there for 5 minutes. He then went to the Cafe, went inside got some food 5 minutes after queing for it , went outside and sat on the decking 5 mintues, stared at people and talked to himself, then went inside shooting started a minute later. A bare minimum of 25 minutes.

Working backwards is the best way to demonstrate this. To get the FACTS CLEAR the shooting in the Cafe started at around 1.26 to 1.28pm because witnesses were waiting outside the information centre for the 1.30pm tour when the shots were heard and tours went on time. The police received the first alarm call at 1.32pm from staff at PAHS. Video footage at the tollbooth shows the gunman arriving there on his way out of the site at 1.37pm so these times are verified as being relatively accurate.

The problem we have starts with PAHS car parking officer Ian Kingston who had an altercation with the gunman over where he could park the Volvo says in his statement (see this webpage
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastateiankingston1.html) he took up to 25 minutes from the time he first saw him to the time the shooting started. 25 deducted from 1.28pm would mean he saw the gunman at 1.03pm and it would mean the gunman, if he had just driven into the site without stopping, would have been at the sites entry tollbooth 3 to 5 mintues before that - around 1.00pm. Kingston who made his statement to police on the day of the massacre 28th April says he first saw the gunman at 1.25pm but this time was an error because the shooting started at 1.28pm - 3 minutes later (Kingston in a subsequent statement changed it by implication by stating the shooting started at 1.30pm which would put his first encouter with him at 1.05pm) and other witnesses corroborate the fact the gunman sat outside the cafe for up to 10 mintues. But the point is according to Kingston's estimates of time spent sitting in cars etc... the person he saw - the gunman - could have entered the Historic Site no later than 1.00pm

The problem we have with this is twofold:-

Roger LARNER who also made a statement (see this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatelarner1.html) on the day of the massacre when it was fresh in his mind said Martin Bryant visited his farm near Port Arthur Historic Site at 1.05pm. He recognized Bryant in a yellow Volvo with surfboard on it. He had a conversation with Bryant for 5 to 10 minutes making his departure from Larner's at around 1.15pm. It would have taken Bryant another 3 mintues to get to the tollbooth and another few minutes to wait in a que of cars. Making it 1.18pm at the latest Bryant enters Port Arthur Historic Site.

If this is true Bryant was at Larner's house when the gunman entered the Historic Site at 1.00pm.

The point is Martin Bryant CANNOT BE AT 2 PLACES AT ONCE. He cannot be entering the Historic Site at 1.00pm or earlier ( and be seen doing all the gunman did ) and be at Larner's farm at 1.05pm and spend 10 minutes talking to him.

The next problem is tollgate officer Aileen Kingston's statement (see this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastateaileen1.html) reported that Martin Bryant entered the site after waiting behind a row of cars around 1.10 to 1.15pm. Identified as him. Apart from the fact there is nothing illegal about Bryant doing this this timing fits if Larner's estimate of time was out a few minutes. The real Martin Bryant would have arrived at the car park area around 1.18pm ( plus or minus a few minutes ) - no earlier.

It should be noted Aileen Kingston's statement CORROBORATES Roger Larner's statement about the timing and whereabouts of Martin Bryant - that he was not in PAHS until around 1.15pm. This gives credibility to the conclusion Bryant was elsewhere at the time the cafe gunman was in PAHS and had been for some 20 minutes. We have 2 witnesses saying Bryant was not at PAHS until 1.15pm.

But the tollgate operator's statement still leaves us with the problem - her statement that Martin Bryant - positively identified - entered around 1.15pm means this Martin Bryant could not have been the man already inside PAHS - the one others saw moving cars and sitting on the decking of the Cafe talking about WASPS and Japs. And if the person she saw did go to the carpark and cafe then witnesses would have seen TWO people looking like Martin Bryant. That was not observed happening so only one person of Bryant's description was at the Cafe and was the gunman and it could only have been the man who was already inside PAHS and entered well prior to 1.15pm - the gunman.

Now its time to look at the witnesess who saw the gunman in action.

Cafe Witness Rebecca McKenna sat outside talking and looking at the gunman. Refer her detailed statement at http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatemckenna.html. She says he was sitting outside on the cafe decking talking to her and staring at her - the description of him does not match Martin Bryant. Bryant does not have freckly skin nor could be regarded as ugly or have a skinny face ( refer pictures of Bryant and picture of Bryant ).

Jim Laycock, co-owner of the Port Arthur Motor Inn, witnessed the events at the tollbooth and service station shooting when the gunman left PAHS. He described the gunman as being low 20s in age and with a womans hair. Laycock in fact had known Martin Bryant in earlier years and said he did not recognize the man as Martin Bryant. See this webpage for Jim Laycock http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatelaycock1.html

Similarly Grahame Collyer who was shot in the Cafe says the same. 20 years old with pocked face. Refer Webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpacollyer.html

And Ian Kingston stated he wasn't 100% sure the man he saw in the car park was Martin Bryant
See http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastateiankingston2.html.

Most of the other witnesses who saw the gunman up close describe him as being in the 18 to 22 year old age range. Bryant was 29 and clearly looked it (refer the Lookalike Webpage on this site for pictures particularly the B&W pic taken 3 days before the massacre http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snparealgunman.html).

All these close eye witnessess to the gunman do not clearly describe Martin Bryant as the shooter in PAHS. The person described is younger than him, not as attractive, thin face and has different hair or features. And whats more these statements being taken directly after the incident must be regarded as the most accurate description of the gunman and what they saw happening.

So whats the answer ? Is it the case these witnesses saw 2 different people who looked like Martin Bryant that day - the real Martin Bryant who simply entered the site at 1.15pm then disappeared, and other person who entered sometime around between 12.45pm and 1pm and later ended up looking like Bryant ( by putting on a wig ) and was the gunman ? If this is so there would have needed to be 2 yellow Volvos of same model at he historic site that day. There was and the odds of that happening are a million to one.

This conclusion may explain why some witnesses describe Bryant and other witnesses - particularly the ones who were in the Broad Arrow Cafe and saw the gunman - describe someone else. This may explain why the media was given photos of Bryant for publication the next day so as to further confuse witnesses so that the real gunman would be able to get away with it.

NB The above is merely mentioning the possibility of this happening - it is what the witness statements indicate. This website's editor is not 100% satisfied it really did. But it was what was presented to and available for scrutiny by the Tasmanian Police and DPP.

Based on witnesses statements the correct time line for the Cafe Gunman is as follows:-

Gunman Arrives at Tollbooth undetected no later 12.45pm - note: he could have been there much eariler
Gunman Arrives at Car Park - argues with Ian Kingston 12.51pm
Gunman Sits in Car in first spot - 10 minutes - 1.01pm
Gunman Moves Car to Waters Edge - 2 minutes - 1.03pm
Gunman Sits in Car - 5 minutes -1.08pm
Gunman Walks to Cafe with video and sports bag - 2 minutes - 1.10pm
Gunman Waits in Que To Buy Lunch - 5 minutes - leaves cafe 1.15pm
Gunman Sits on decking outside Cafe and talks to people - around 10 minutes - 1.27pm
Gunman Goes into Cafe and opens fire - 1 minute - 1.28pm

Gunman Arrives at Tollbooth Leaving - actually recorded on video at 1.37pm


Doing a detailed calculation of the time line starting with Roger Larner's time of seeing the real Martin Bryant at 1.05pm we would find based on witnesses statements of what the gunman was observed doing that around 40 to 55 minutes depending how many minutes were really spent sitting in cars (* see tally below - maximum time shown ) would have elaspsed before the shooting commenced. This would put the shooting starting at around 2pm at the latest. This of course didn't happen - the shooting started at 1.28pm. So the Martin Bryant Larner saw and the tollgate officer saw could not have been the one Ian Kingston and the Cafe witnesses saw who was the Cafe gunman. This means Martin Bryant could not have been the Cafe gunman.


Arrives At Larner's 1.05pm
Talks for about 10 minutes - Leaves Larner's - 1.12pm
Arrives at Tollbooth - seen by A. Kingston 1.15pm
Waits at Tollbooth 4 minutes - departs 1.19pm
Arrives At Car Park - argues with Ian Kingston 1.25pm
Sits in Car in first spot - 10 minutes -1.35pm
Moves Car to Waters Edge - 2 minutes - 1.38pm
Sits in Car - 5 minutes -1.43pm
Walks to Cafe with video and sports bag - 2 minutes - 1.45pm
Waits in Que To Buy Lunch - 5 minutes - 1.50pm
Goes out an sits on decking outside Cafe and talks to people about WASPS and Japs - 10 minutes - 2.00pm
Goes into Cafe and opens fire - 1 minute - 2.01pm

But that 40 to 55 minute time estimate does fit another witness sighting of someone in a yellow Volvo. Michael Copping, a local who knew the Martin's of Seascape, stated (see Michael's statement http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpastatecopping1.html) he saw a yellow Volvo with a figure in it heading south to the Historic Site just north of the Port Arthur town at 12.35pm to 12.40pm. It was the same car he had seen at 11.45am parked at Seascape backed up to the door. This timing fits. If we take the start of shooting at 1.28pm then deduct 40 to 55 minutes we get around 12.40pm the time of entry of the gunman to the site.

This of course means a yellow Volvo may have arrived at PAHS at around 12.40pm. It doesn't mean the gunman arrived in that Volvo looking like Bryant in it because if that had happened tollgate staff would have observed and reported ( and thought it strange at the time ) 2 yellow Volvos with a blond haired man in them entering the site. So one must conclude, based on witness statements, the cafe gunman slipped in the Historic Site undetected and met up with a yellow Volvo later. This of course means Martin Bryant was being setup.

But did Copping merely see the real Martin Bryant heading to Roger Larner's place at 12.45pm ? Maybe - maybe not. Unfortunately we have no confirmation that the car he saw car actually went into the Historic Site moments after it passed him on the road. Perhaps someone else was driving the Volvo Copping saw and it did go into PAHS which the gunman joined up with once inside.

The confirmed presence of another yellow Volvo exact same model at the Site that day that later disappeared without trace and was filmed causally departing the car park / cafe area while the shooting was going on up a road it shouldn't have been on which was an exit out of the site ( the old entry road in fact ) raises questions about what was going on.

We have 3 sets of facts based on witness statements: [1] Only one blonde haired man was seen going into PAHS in a yellow Volvo that day at 1.15pm and he was identified as Bryant. [2] Another yellow Volvo exact same model and age had entered the site and was in the site at the time the massacre occurred. [3] The gunman was first seen in the carpark at around 1.05pm while Bryant was with Roger Larner. These 3 things can only lead to the conclusion some sort of switch and deception was going on making it appear Bryant was there - nobody but Bryant seen going in. The opposite deception occurred at Seascape where only Bryant was grabbed coming out.

It should be noted nobody paid any attention as to who was leaving PAHS after entering. So if the real Martin Bryant did in fact enter at 1.15pm then left a few minutes later nobody would have taken any notice.

It should be emphisized the above analysis is based solely on the witness statements available to the Tasmanian Police and DPP. It is there to demonstrate that sightings of Martin Bryant and his whereabouts do not add up

Given this website has deduced this from witness statements the question must be asked why didn't the DDP and Police figure this out and see there was a big problem ? Any idiot who bothered to look at these statements can clearly see that Martin Bryant was being seen at 2 places at the same time.

The fact remains THESE WITNESS STATEMENTS indicate Martin Bryant could not have been the blond haired man who was in PAHS moving and sitting in the Volvo in the car park nor the man who went to the cafe. Roger Larner and Aileen Kingston give Martin Bryant an ALIBI that he was not the Cafe Gunman and if he was not CLEARLY SOMEONE ELSE WAS and also that SOMEONE was attempting to frame Bryant. Given these goings on at PAHS - it is sufficient justification to assume Bryant was not alone at SEASCAPE either and a deception was being pulled there too. References later to two gunmen, movements of occupants, the "main man" and shots being fired from upstairs while Bryant is on the phone support this ( refer other pages on this website ).

It should also be pointed out the witnesses who report Martin Bryant's whereabouts - Larner and A. Kingston - merely report him doing nothing illegal. No alibi witness there says they saw Bryant shooting people. Same at Seascape. But those that describe the man who did the shooting in the cafe and car park - the gunman - describe someone who is not fitting the age or facial description of Martin Bryant.

While what is above may not have been exactly what went on on the day it is sufficient justification to have Martin Bryant's case reopened. Martin Bryant is simply a victim of circumstance - that he is proportedly seen going into PAHS, and postively grabbed coming out of Seascape - there are no witnesses with 100% reliability to him shooting anyone during the whole incident only disoriented talk on a phone which embarrassingly revealed someone else shooting from Seascape during the seige. The whole deception is based on the real gunman not being seen going in or going out leaving poor mentally handicapped Martin Bryant to take the wrap.

These statements actually give Bryant a SECOND ALIBI and rules out him being the Cafe gunman. The first alibi was that witnesses heard shots at Seascape when he was travelling between Midway Point and Forcett some 50km north of Port Arthur which is discussed on another webpage on this site Refer DPP Tampers & Withholds Evidence - See this webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadpplies.html.

NB: This webpage is the editors conjecture. Others investigating this incident may or may not sanction it but at the bare minimum these witness statements do say something is amiss ( this is what the editor is satisfied about ). And thats another something the DDP didn't point out to the Court at Bryant's sentencing hearing and the question must be asked why.



Another witness to the events at the Broad Arrow Cafe stated the gunman was not Martin Bryant.

John Godfrey, an ex VietNam Veteran saw the gunman at the Volvo after he left the Cafe. Later he was asked by police to ID him as Bryant and he refused saying in his opinion the man he saw was not the same man in the newspapers ( 2 days later ). See statement below - page 3 of 3 page statement - second last paragraph.

This statement coupled with Grahame Collyer's and Jim Laycock's is sufficient to question whether Martin Bryant was the gunman ( irrespective of what other witnesses may have said ). It also backs up our photographic evidence proving the gunman was discernably different to Martin Bryant. The problem the Tasmanian authorities have is the photo images from the video footage doesn't lie.

It should be stated Tasmanian DPP Damien Bugg didn't point out to the Court at Martin Bryant's sentencing these conflicting statements by Godfrey, Collyer and Laycock and several others. Nor did Bryant's lawyer John Avery either. This is deception by omission.

Again the question must be asked why wasn't this discrepancy followed up by police and the DPP ? Was it because they were told not to take any notice of evidence indicating it wasn't Martin Bryant.

See this webpage for John Godfrey Statement http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpagodfrey.html



Below are the links to each page of the Tasmanian Police Forensic Ballistics Report into Port Arthur as published in Australian Federal Police Journal December 1998. As each page is up to 300KB size links to each page along with a description of any photos on those pages are below to make them more accessable. There is a link on each page to the next and previous page at the bottom of each of these webpages.

The report is self explanatory and it itself raises questions - remember this is the official Tasmanian Police line and it is highlighting irregularities in evidence recovered. Apologizies for the quality of the copy - this is all we have available at this time.

Go to this webpage to look at 22 forensic links

Page 1 - Text Only
Page 2 - Pic - Port Arthur Buildings
Page 3 - Pics -Broad Arrow Cafe and Bus
Page 4 - Pics - Cafe Balcony & Tollbooth Area
Page 5 - Pics - Seascape After The Fire
Page 6 - Pic - The Burned BMW At Seascape
Page 7 - Text Only
Page 8 - Text Only
Page 9 - Pic - Seascape Debris
Page 10 - Text Only
Page 11 - Text Only
Page 12 - Pics - The COLT M16 CAR .223 Rifle Found At Seascape
Page 13 - Pics - The Damaged Cartridge Case Removed From The COLT
Page 14 - Pics - Projectiles Test Fired From Recovered COLT and FN Rifles
Page 15 - Pics - The FN SLR .308 Rifle Found At Seascape
Page 16 - Text Only
Page 17 - Text Only
Page 18 - Text Only
Page 19 - Pic - Martin Bryant
Page 20 - Text Only
Page 21 - Text Only
Page 22 - Pic - Of Author - Sgt. Gerard Dutton Tasmanian Police






This is the yellow Volvo driven by the Port Arthur gunman left behind at the tollgate - picture taken 29 April 1996. Allegedly it was the one that belonged to Martin Bryant.

There were no fingerprints obtained from this car of the gunman because it was left open overnight and dew destroyed whatever was there. Why that was allowed to happen needs an explanation. Was it done deliberately ? ( Police would have been aware of the fact dew destroys fingerprints ) Did someone not want the gunman's prints to be found ?

A similar thing happened at the Broad Arrow Cafe ( pictures left taken day after the massacre ) where police did not arrive to secure the crime scene until 7.30 pm - 5 hours after the gunman was known to be hold up at Seascape. During the period up to that time the Cafe was open to anyone and reportedly tourists souvineered spent cartridges from the floor and people went in for food and drinks. It was not until the following day did the cleanup and forensics begin. How could such things be allowed to happen if a proper police investigation was to occurr ? And was this in breach of standard police crime scene procedures ?

What were the reported 200 police at the town of TARANNA just north of Seascape doing all that afternoon and night ? Were they at the local pub waiting for orders ? Or were they told not to go to Port Arthur until the evidence had got so messed up it was ok to do so ? Who was it that held them back that day ? Why was forensics not sent to Port Arthur immediately ? All of this needs explaining.

All of this leads one to the conclusion someone didn't want the evidence preserved at the Port Arthur Historic Site just as it was also not preserved at Seascape the following morning as a result of the fire which was allowed to burn until the building was gone. Two major crime scenes - at both key evidence allowed to be destroyed.

If Martin Bryant acted alone there would had been no need to allow evidence to be destroyed like it was and this fact backs up the assertion on other pages of this site the Port Arthur gunman was NOT Martin Bryant.

See this webpage for photos http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadestruction.html



Given all that is mentioned on this site so far it is not surprising for this site to have been informed that the 000 ( 911 ) emergency phone number tape for the day of the Port Arthur massacre is missing and unobtainable - reportedly been erased.

That tape for southern Tasmania would have recorded all calls to police and emergency services that day including possibly the call that caused local police to be lured away to the phoney drug stash that never was and any other unusual things that happened in Port Arthur area that day.

Why is this tape missing and unavailable ? How could such a tape disappear ? What is on that tape authorities in Tasmania don't want anyone to hear and are hiding ?

And how could Martin Bryant have interfered with this tape when he has been in custody in isolation since being apprehended ?

If anyone reading this page made a call to 000 that day about anything please email us at the address above.



On the afternoon of the Port Arthur Massacre there just happened to be another interesting meeting of people taking place - this time a meeting of Tasmanian gun control activists. Another amazing co-incidence.

Below is what Coalition for Gun Control spokeman ROLAND BROWNE had to say in the Hobart MERCURY on 29th April 1996 the day after the massacre. Note that Roland mentions the fact this coalition for gun control meeting was in progress when the call about Port Arthur allegedly came. Roland also just happened to have been predicting a massacre in Tasmania the months beforehand - was Roland psychic or did he know something others didn't ? Refer the Gun & Ammo Article on this site.

What Roland needs to explain is how he managed to beat the lightening fast ABC reporters to a police breifing on Port Arthur that afternoon. Why was Roland briefed first ? How did it happen that Tasmanian police briefed Roland ahead of media reporters ? Was it part of their plan ? Can Tasmanian Police Superintendent Jack Johnson shed any light on this irregularity ?

You can download below what Roland and Rebecca Peters had to say last year in a paper entitled "AUSTRALIA'S NEW GUN CONTROL PHILOSOPHY: Public Health Is Paramount" which contained the following paragraph:-

"Among the litany of bizzare claims made by the gun lobby: that Martin Bryant, the Port Arthur killer, had not acted alone but was part of a team of assassins; that the massacre was arranged by government bureaucrats to justify disarming the population; that a conspiracy of silence was being perpetrated by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania, and by inference, the Supreme Court of Tasmania."

Published by University of Sydney, School of Economics and Political Science.. "The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Political Affairs" Vol 1 No. 2 November 2000 - at page 71.

Download Acrobat File Document of Roland and Rebecca's Paper (163KB - requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) Acrobat Reader 5.0 available free at - www.adobe.com - click left.

All this site can say is yes indeed is public health a gun control issue if persons in the medical profession were involved in mind programming Martin Bryant both before and after the massacre ( to play his role at Seascape and then pervert the course of justice in getting him to falsely pleading guilty to murders he did not commit ), and in organizing a trauma seminar at Hobart Hospital for the day it was to happen.

It is not also a coincidence to see on the right hand side of the article below AMA President Dr. Keith Woollard joining the well arranged chorus in the media on the day after the massacre - in his case interfering in an area outside the AMA's legitimate area of operation. This site would like to know if that same Dr. Woollard with his outspoken views on gun control had anything to do with arranging the trauma seminar at Royal Hobart Hospital for the day of the massacre.

One may wonder why Roland and Rebecca mention the Legal Aid Commission in their paper. It should be pointed out yet another coincidence exists - that Roland Browne just happens to be the practice manager of the Tasmanian Legal Aid Service for Hobart - the only public body who could come to the aid of Martin Bryant in order to clear his name and has done nothing to assist him in the interests of justice despite all these irregularities and you can only guess why.

See this webpage for photos and articles http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snparoland.html



This is PETER HAZELWOOD the Media Officer to then Premier Ray Groom in 1996 at the time of Port Arthur. He attended at the police forward command post at Taranna when the Seascape seige was running. Hazelwood was also reportedly the Media Liaison Officer at the Hilton Hotel Bombing back in 1978 which was later found by a Royal Commission to have been orchestrated by persons connected with ASIO. He just happened to be the duty media officer that day.

Peter, a shaddowy figure during and after Port Arthur, is believed to be an intelligence officer for a federal government agency

This site believes this man can shed a lot of light on what happened at Port Arthur that day ( but noting this site does not believe he was the instigator of it ).

Following the massacre Peter hung around survivors of the Broad Arrow Cafe shooting advising them what to do and what not to do - picking up information. He reportedly tried to vet what those people should say in response to media questions and advised them to say nothing of what they knew claiming it would interfere with Martin Bryant's trial ( which never occurred ). Strange behaviour for the Premier's media officer. All of this was to try and keep a tight lid on the facts of what went on that day so it would not derail their agenda. His associate GEOFF EASTON, believed to be another intelligence agency officer, was the Tasmanian Police Media Officer at the time, and this site believes he too could shed even more light on the massacre.

The 1978 Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing, for those who are not aware of its details, involved a bomb being planned in a garbage bin outside the Sydney Hilton resulting in several people being killed. Following the media frenzy the incident was used to justify more powers for ASIO and other Canberra based organizations, which this site believes were used in setting up the Port Arthur massacre and were also behind the other high profile gun massacres in Australia in recent years - Hoddle and Queen Street in 1987 and Straithfield in 1991 and the recent attempted massacre at the Melbourne abortion clinic. Like Port Arthur the authorities blamed a third party - the Ananda Marga Sect - for the Hilton bombing. Like the ASIO powers following the Hilton bombing Port Arthur similarly resulted in more power for those in law enforcement. Those in law enforcement in Tasmanian and Canberra were the same people who investigated this incident and have covered up what when on - a state of affairs akin to placing an arsonist in charge of the fire department.

A summary of the Hilton incident and those behind it was contained at the following web address and you will see the similarities - http://jinx.sistm.unsw.edu.au/~greenlft/1995/175/175p18.htm

The above picture of Hazelwood was taken by a Broad Arrrow Cafe survivor following suspicions about his activities. Hazelwood nearly always appeared in dark clothes and wearing face concealing sunglasses. ( It might also be appropriate to add this picture is how Hazelwood fronted up to the funeral service for Port Arthur victims in 1996 because thats when it was taken ).

If these men were in fact intelligence officers for federal agencies what were they doing mascquerading as media officers at the time of the Port Arthur massacre ? The answer needs no explanation.

See this webpage for photo of Peter Hazelwood http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpamediaofficers.html



Following the massacre shortly after 2.30pm when medivac helicopters were ferrying the wounded to Hobart Hospital a SUSPICIOUS BLACK VAN appeared outside the Broad Arrow Cafe where the bulk of the shooting had occurred. See picture left and below. The entrance to the cafe is just to the upper right of the front of the van. You can see also the windows are black because the white decking of the Cafe doesn't show through in these picture.

This vehicle was parked in a place where it shouldn't have been right outside the main crime scene blocking 3 cars as you can see. Also right in between where wounded victims were taken to choppers. It was there for a considerable period of time. Its black windows preventing anyone seeing inside.

Given its positioning it cannot be an SES van associated with the medical staff. And why would anyone want to park their van there anyway ?

What was this suspicious vehicle doing there ? Was it the cleanup team checking the Cafe for incriminating evidence and planting false evidence ? Can Peter Hazelwood answer the question whose van this was ? This website knows whose van it was and more will be said about this later .

It should be noted the Tasmanian Police didn't arrive until 7.00pm that night and the Cafe crime scene was not sealed off and anyone could walk into the Cafe with bodies everywhere without interference for most of that time. Many vistors went in there to get food and drinks as well as to help the wounded and check for survivors.

See this webpage for photos of the black van http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpablackvan.html



During the afternoon and evening of the 28th April, and on the 29th April when Martin Bryant was found stumbling from the burning ruins of Seascape Tasmanian media officers* Geoff Easton and Peter Hazelwood had achieved almost TOTAL CONTAINMENT of the media. This was in fact later told to a Federal Senate Inquiry.

This containment involved not telling the media what was going on that Sunday until the last moment; keeping them away from the Seascape seige; and controlling their access on a guided crime scene tour in a bus the following day claiming Martin Bryant acted alone. Later it also involved vetted control of the release of information about the incident and court proceedings..

The question must be asked why was this necessary ?

The simple answer is to ensure the deception that went on at Port Arthur Historic Site and more particularly at Seascape was not discovered. It was all about maximum media control and fraudulent manipulation of the truth of the incident all designed at railroading poor helpless Martin Bryant and making it appear a private citizen acted alone when all the time is was a govt. run operation..

On the CD ROM Andrew MacGregor details how Easton lied and misled the Senate Inquiry .

Had the media been allowed anywhere near Seascape that evening during the seige with cameras rolling they would have recorded the deceptive conduct going on such as 2 gunmen firing from different buildings (refer to SA Webapge at http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpasapolice.html and the SA Police Journal page attached below on this webpage) and possibly would have filmed the real gunmen slipping out the back of Seascape that night and the helicopter that took them away. And media witnesses would have seen and heard things going on they were not meant to. All that could not be allowed to happen. The excuse was given - they might get hurt but it should be noted during the whole seige at Seascape not one shot hit any of the police outside - which is very strange.

The only media allowed near the scene was a Tasmanian WIN TV crew filming from a great distance who managed to film the capture of Martin Bryant stumbling clothes on fire from Seascape on the morning of the 29th April. Why were they given exclusive treatment - was it because they were part of this deception which was later evidence by them providing fabricated video footage to the CURRENT AFFAIR TV program ? It should be noted Easton told the Senate Inquiry there was "total containment" of the media - this was not true - the WIN TV filming proves that. And that answer was in relation to Senator Quirke's question asking whether ANY media were allowed within viewing distance of Seascape.

This policy of total containment explains why such scant media reports were seen at the time which prevented people, particularly in firearm owners groups, from scrutinizing what went on. This was quite deliberate on the part of the criminals who set this massacre up so their objective would not be derailed. What was presented to the media was a horrific emotionally aimed story of carnage which now has been proven to be the biggest deception ever pulled in Australia's history.

What also needs explaining is why was Gun Control activist Roland Brown was called into Police HQ for a media briefing ahead of anyone else ? It is another strange coinicdence only Govt. employed ABC reporters got the word that afternoon something was happening and not others from the commercial media who were available. And even despite that point Roland still got briefed first ahead of them. If Tasmanian Police HQ had been even handed why wasn't the Tasmanian spokesman for shooters groups notified the same time as Roland ? - the fact he was not clearly indicates a biased agenda going on that afternoon.

* Easton was Tasmanian Police Media Officer and Hazelwood the Premier's Media Officer. Easton also scantly referred to the activities of the Federal Agency SAC-PAV to the Senate Inquiry.

Refer Media Officers Profile for more information.



This is Tasmanian Police Superintendant Jack Johnson who led the media around the Port Arthur area the day after the massacre peddling the official story that Martin Bryant acted alone. ( Picture - Supt Jack Johnson on 29th April 1996 ). Jack would have been sent down there to do that by his boss Commissioner John Johnson.

What is significant is 2 days before the May 10th Police Ministers Conference in Canberra which decided on the gun bans his boss Chief Commissioner John Johnson was making not only political statements about gun law policy ( which is inappropriate for a policeman and civil servant ) but also that the massacre was part of a "pattern" of getting gun law changes and that now it had happened that ultimate aim was to occurr. The question is did Jack and John know it was going to happen that day ?

In the Article left from the Hobart MERCURY on 9th May 1996 John said:-
"Now we've had this terrible incident we can get our law straightened out in regards to the possession and onwership of firearms".

See this webpage for article http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpajohnson.html

Just prior to that statement John said :
"It was part of a pattern in Australia that moves for gun law reform should be made after the Port Arthur tragedy".

Here we have it from the horse's mouth all of this is part of a pattern.

The article also expresses "Concern at long path to reform" and raises the question whether someone had decided to shorten that path and did so that Sunday.

It is clear from these statements and their timing Johnson had an agenda against guns and it raises questions about his involvement in this incident.

The question must be asked what is this "pattern" John was referring to ? Is it an indication all the other high profile gun massacres in Australia in recent years have been the same - manufactured incidents ? It is significant to note only Australia was having these gun massacres with regular perodicity ( every 3 - 4 years ) - all with the same common denominators. The fact Australia's almost identical counterpart - Canada - was not having them during the same period despite having double the number of guns raises the question what was really going on in Australia. Even in the US - despite having 10 times the number of guns - where there have been a several isolated incidents involving assault rifles - eg Stockton, California in 1989 - they have not been a regular occurance. Why is Australia way out on its statistical bell curve on this ? We now seem to have the answer.



After the trial of Martin Bryant RAY MARTIN ( left ) compere on the Channel 9 TV Network in his "A Current Affair" program screened nationally a video clip allegedly taken by a witness at Port Arthur that day. The tape reportedly came from the Tasmanian DPP and had been presented to the Court at the trial.

The video showed a man running from the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying something. The video was shot from a fair distance away ( hundred or more metres ) so the resolution was low. Gunshots were on the taped sound track.

It was proported by the program this was Martin Bryant - the gunman at Port Arthur - running from the Cafe to his car shooting ( immediately after the massacre in the Cafe ). A frame from the video below.

This has been proven to be FALSE. Apart from the fact the man's clothes do not match Bryant's on the day and people are standing in the cafe doorway area watching, staff witnesses who were at the site that day know this man to be another staff member carrying blankets to the coach where wounded people lay. Also as the shots are heard seagulls nearby are sitting there unaffected by the noise of an alleged high powered rifle.


Andrew MacGregor on the CD-ROM has this video included and an extensive commentary.

Who fabricated this video tape adding the gunshot soundtrack ? Was it someone at Channel 9 under Ray Martin's direction or was it the Tasmanian DPP or the Tasmanian Police ?

If so why would they want or need to do so if Martin Bryant really did the shootings ? Why the gross deception ?

Was it to try and reinforce to the Australian public on this high rating national TV program that the official line that Bryant was the gunman ? ( The fact Ray Martin had persistently ran an anti-gun line on his program for years prior to this time raises the question of the extent of his involvement in this and other videos played on his program relating to this incident ). Is this another piece of evidence in a series of things designed to frame Martin Bryant for the Port Arthur incident ? The evidence seems to indicate such. Videos do not alter themselves.

See this webpage for photos http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpadoctvideo.html



In the days and months following the massacre the media peddled the official line the gunman had shot and killed 20 people and wounded 12 others in the Broad Arrow Cafe within a time of 90 SECONDS..

This claim was a deliberate lie. It could only have originated from the Tasmanian authorities.

Its purpose was directly aimed at justifying the planned ban on semi-automatic guns - that because those rapidfire semi-auto rifles had done all that in that short time frame - 90 seconds - it justified their removal from society.

The fact is the gunman was NOT in the Cafe for 90 seconds but somewhere around 5 to 6 MINUTES..

Witnesses there who were keeping a note of the time, particularly the staff at the site who were hiding outside the Cafe, said in sworn statements the gunman was in the Cafe for 5 to 6 minutes.

The media kept peddling the 90 seconds story for months especially during the gun debate and in particular Ray Martin on Channel Nine's A Current Affair Program. It was repeated over and over again.

Why this is significant is all witness statements who deviated from the 90 seconds story were ignored and not in the DPP's case brief. This is key evidence deliberately omitted. The question is who deleted them - the Tasmanian Police or the DPP ? This needs explaning.

It's also significant because for most of those 5 mintues the gunman casually walked round the Cafe shooting people in the same manner a manually operated rifle could have easily done. If the factual 5 or 6 minutes had been allowed to be reported to the public the case for banning semi-auto guns would have been greatly weakened.

What also needs explaining is given this 90 seconds claim was being constantly repeated in the media and police had taken statements off witnesses contradicting it WHY then did they not correct this factual error at the time ?

These facts clearly indicate an attempt to tamper with evidence by omission. The fact it occurred, given all the other things, indicates Tasmanian authorities were deliberately trying to support a case for banning semi-automatic guns and prevent any means of derailing that agenda if someone had said an non-semi auto gun could have done the same. It is in fact PROOF of involvement and complicity by the Tasmanian authorities in the massacre.

All of this of course detracts from the fact the Cafe gunman was not Martin Bryant.



Many will recall how the MEDIA reported after the massacre the Cafe Gunman talked about WASPS and Japs while sitting on the decking of the Cafe before he went inside and commenced shooting.

The interference was this WASPS was an abreviation of White Anglo Saxon Protestants -a phrased mainly used in America being racial slang. It was portaryed as the lunacy of Martin Bryant and MOTIVE for the massacre - that he supposidly hated them - hence the reason for the massacre.

The fact is there were WASPS - ie INSECTS hanging around outside the Cafe that lunchtime annoying some of the people sitting with food and drink that attracted them.

Cafe witness Michael Beekman who talked to and saw the gunman confirms this in his statement - see below. Says the gunman was shooing them away. The reference was to European Wasps.

I doubt if you or I would be passively sitting outside a cafe with bees or wasps around that could sting you - you'd certainly say something or react to them. Most people would just leave the area.

The point of putting this up is here we have another instance of the MEDIA MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS - and its was not the only instance of it. This is one small proven example so everyone can see it did occurr.

It is also an instance of the MEDIA FABRICATING EVIDENCE by claiming this was part of the motive for the massacre.

This having now been proven false it removes a large part of the alleged motive for the massacre and therefore leaves a gaping hole as to why Martin Bryant would want to do it. Of course as we know from evidence on this website he never did and this was part of the excuse fabricated as they went to try to pin it on poor little Marty.

See this webpage for Michael Beekman's Statement http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawasps.html



Putting aside the fact there was never a proper trial for Martin Bryant - once his hearing date was set the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority put out the following MEDIA STRATEGY to its staff handle the media queries. See attachment below The Pre Trial Media Control Strategy or refer to this link: http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpamediastratpages.html

As you can see this Strategy was aimed at making sure there were no inconsistenies in media releases etc.. and the media was monitored and all of this was fed into the entire Tasmanian Govt. bureaucracy up to and including the Premier Ray Groom's Office ( where SAC-PAV operatives Peter Hazelwood and Geoff Easton were running the show ).

The question must be asked if Martin Bryant acted alone and did the massacre ( and accordingly all the evidence was conclusive there would naturally be no inconsistencies in information - be they evidence or stories of witnesses etc... ) why would you need to have a media strategy to handle inconsistencies and monitor the media for them ?

The answer is quite simple - because Bryant was not the gunman and he was being set-up there were so many holes and inconsistencies in information and stories about the incident floating around they needed to be plugged and covered up and this strategy was aimed at ensuring people kept to the official fraudulent story and knew what others in the system had said to the media.

This partly occurred because there is evidence things didn't go according to their original plan on the day of the massacre - for the perpetrators of the massacre - particularly as to the timing of events. This was a major cause of the inconsistencies which they knew they had to try to counteract afterwards.

There would have been no need for such a media strategy if Martin Bryant hadn't been setup. If there had not been this strategy the holes in the case against Bryant may have been followed up and the fraud could have been at risk of being exposed. This media strategy by PAHSMA assisted the perpretators of the massacre to achieve its massive deception and railroad Martin Bryant. It enabled media coverage to be controlled by controlling what was released.

Editor's Opinion - It is an absolute disgrace to think a criminal conspiracy of this magnitude could occurr in a country like Australia in the latter part of the 20th Century - whose effect was not only to perpetrate a fraud on firearms owners and deceive the public but would result in a helpless mentally handicaped young man in prison for something he did not do - by shooting up as many innocent people as possible, some of whom were foreign nationals.

All of this justifies the total removal of all police and governmental powers effecting the citizen's rights and liberties. It is an example of why government as an institution cannot be trusted.



Later in 1996 the book SUDDENLY ONE SUNDAY appeared in bookstores particularly in Tasmania. See the book's covers below.

While a book of this type is not altogether strange what is another coincidence is this book follows the official line that Bryant was the killer etc... despite all the conflicting evidence that was around. If the author had done a proper objective job he would have discovered the irregularities mentioned on this website. The fact the book not only written by a reporter of, but also was published with the assistance of, the Hobart MERCURY newspaper - a media outlet that strongly pushed the official story from day one and has tried to suppress any deviation from it - leads one to speculate about why this book was published.

Was this book part of the campaign to further sell the line to the public Martin Bryant was the gunman ?

One only has to look at not only the front cover but also the back cover to to see the claim the book contains "the true story" of that day. Why did they need to say that at all and put it on the cover ? Reinforcing the obvious ?

One problem with this book is some witnesses accounts are not included.

The the fact the MERCURY is part of News Ltd who operate main daily newpapers all over Australia and have usually ran an anti-firearm line for years further raises the question about the purpose of this book.

Despite these facts the book is somewhat valuable as many witness statements and information in it support the contention this website takes about Martin Bryant. Anyone interested we recommend you try and buy a copy.

See this webpage for photos of book http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpasuddenly.html



Since questions started to be asked about Port Arthur by witnesses, victims and their relatives and other interested parties there has been a form of media* ban imposed on publicizing any details of their views and statements ( * mainstream media - which in Australia is controlled by a few people ). If everything is clean cut and above board about this incident why is this so ? What are they hiding or attempting to hide ?

In April 2001 when a presentation was held in QUEENSLAND Australia by such persons media reporters were invited and booked themselves into local hotels for coverage. At the last minute they were all told by their organizations to leave. The presentation was not reported. Again why and who told them to ?

Since this material surfaced anyone who has tried to raise it, particularly in Tasmania, has been shouted down by the media and those in government circles who would have a motive to continue to prevent and obstruct a proper investigation of this incident for fear of what one would find. This is precisely why one needs to be held. This website has been set up primarily to try and overcome this situation and get the message and information out.

In the few instances where the media has reported on the issue it is usually an exercise in attacking the credibility of those involved either as witnesses or on a political basis (ie any suggestion of a setup is not politically correct and must be denegrated and dismissed without debate using terms like "conspiracy theorists", "outrage at" and so forth).



See attachment below US Guns & Amo Magazine Article May 2001.doc
or go to this webpage



Written by Joe Vialls (c) Copyright Joe Vialls, 5 June 1999, All Rights Reserved
45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020

"On 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur in Australia, some of the best combat shooters in the world used a total of only 64 bullets to kill 35 people, wound 22 more, and cripple two cars. The first 19 victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe each died from a single 5.56-mm bullet to the head, all fired in less than 20 seconds from the right hip of a fast-moving combat shooter. This awesome display of marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. In the months and years following Martin’s arrest, much of the public and private strain fell on his widowed mother Carleen. This is a very small part of Carleen Bryant’s profoundly disturbing story." --Joe Vialls

Tasmanians are a hardy breed and Carleen Bryant is probably one of the hardiest of them all. Her idea of "taking a break" this year was to navigate her camper van alone from Tasmania to Western Australia with only a CB radio for company, drive half way around WA looking at the sights, then drop in on us for the afternoon before starting back eastward across the Nullarbor Plain. Not being a radio buff she was disappointed that her CB "wasn’t working too well" but a quick twist of the squelch knob fixed that, and Carleen slowly accelerated out of Perth, happily listening to about twenty truckies chattering incoherently over her CB loudspeaker on channel nine.

Life has been hard for Carleen, probably hardest of all when she realised that her son Martin needed speech therapy as a child, and other remedial help later which led to an invalid pension. As a mother she handled difficult situations well enough but her husband Maurice found it much harder. He was a devoted husband and father and a highly organised man, but Carleen says "It was more difficult for him. Martin was his son and fathers expect their sons to be normal." Hard though Maurice tried over the years he slowly but surely became depressed and "mentioned" suicide on a number of occasions. Then without warning in 1993 Maurice took his own life at the family farm at Copping, but long before his death had already taken steps to minimise its impact on Carleen and their children. Carleen was dreading all of the paperwork after his death "because Maurice always looked after that", but was astonished to find all of the documents she needed placed in a single neat pile where she could easily find them. Even more astonishing, months earlier Maurice had transferred the Hydro account from their joint names to Carleen alone, ensuring things would run automatically after he died. "Maurice was a very thoughtful man" Carleen says, which indeed he was.

Life then continued as normally as possible until 8 p.m. on the evening of 28 April 1996 when two burly plain-clothes police officers knocked on her door in Hobart and asked "Do you have a son called Martin Bryant?" When Carleen said yes, the officers took her down to headquarters and bombarded her "with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas". But despite being at Police Headquarters during the exact period when a telephone conversation was allegedly in progress between her son at Seascape and police negotiators in the same headquarters building, Carleen was not asked to assist police by identifying her son’s voice. She says that at that point in time she did not know the conversation was taking place, but was later provided with the name of the person who "assisted" police by identifying her son’s voice at 7 p.m. the same evening, a name she provided for the author in confidence. But Carleen says it made no sense because this particular person "hadn’t spoken to Martin since he [Martin] was twelve years old and would not know what his voice sounded like anyway."

Bearing in mind that even the police marksmen in position around Seascape did not discover Martin Bryant’s identity until he stumbled out of the building with his back on fire the next morning, how was it possible for Carleen to be asked detailed questions about her son’s large house and his obscure overseas trips, at Tasmanian Police Headquarters more than twelve hours before he first stumbled out of Seascape into the arms of waiting police? Carleen’s version of events, if chronologically correct, proves that at least one stratospherically-placed police officer in Hobart was already well ahead of the game. Though this sequence appears to indicate direct police involvement in the mass murder itself, there is a more likely explanation which Carleen was not aware of before she visited Perth.

Shortly after the murder of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, a Christchurch, New Zealand morning newspaper printed a detailed story it received on the New York news wire about Kennedy’s "assassin" Lee Harvey Oswald. There was a major problem with this news story, because at the time the New Zealand newspaper went to press in Christchurch, Lee Harvey Oswald had only just been arrested in a Dallas cinema for the alleged murder of a Texas policeman called Tibbet. Several more hours passed before Dallas police even accused Oswald of the murder of President Kennedy. So the Christchurch newspaper inadvertently printed an impossible story, a concocted lie "seeded" onto the New York news wire too early by the real murderers, who forgot that international time zones and thus real-time would allow the New Zealand newspaper to print their pre-arranged cover story hours before the events happened. That single critical planning error proved conclusively Lee Harvey Oswald was only a fall-guy, a patsy arrested and charged on cue by the unwitting Dallas Police Force.

It was impossible timing and too many background details which proved conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, and the same impossible timing and background details prove conclusively that Martin Bryant was used for identical purposes. While Carleen was being interrogated at Hobart Police Headquarters at 8 p.m.on 28 April, all the terrified staff and survivors at Port Arthur knew for sure was that the shooter was a man with long blonde hair. There are thousands of men with long blonde hair in Australia, each equally likely to be the man on the trigger, so there was no innocent way police could possibly have already singled out Martin Bryant or obtained knowledge about his obscure overseas travels. So between the time of the mass murder at 1.30 p.m. and Carleen’s interrogation at 8 p.m., someone very carefully pointed the finger, and "seeded" Tasmanian Police Headquarters with an impossible amount of personal information about her son, many hours before he was first positively identified stumbling out of Seascape the next day. Ever since that frightening interrogation more than three years ago, Carleen Bryant, mother of the accused, has been denied a copy of, or even access to, the telephone tape alleged to contain a long rambling conversation between her son and police negotiators. Why?

Nothing could prepare any mother for what happened next. When Martin was transferred from the Royal Hobart Hospital to Risdon Prison as a remand prisoner, Carleen had visiting rights but no privacy with him at all. She was shocked to see her son, badly burned in the Seascape fire and still in great pain, bound to his wheelchair by leather straps. Martin told her that he had asked to have the painful restraints removed but was refused. When Carleen asked who refused, her son nodded towards the prison officers, one of whom then leaned towards Carleen and said "you cannot discuss the [Risdon Prison] staff". Carleen, suitably intimidated, fell silent. In fact under the Prisons Act a remand prisoner can be restrained on the orders of the Prison Superintendent, but only if under escort outside the prison, or if he poses "a significant danger to others". By no interpretation could an entirely passive intellectually impaired young man with third-degree burns to his back and left side, isolated behind bullet proof glass, be considered a significant danger to others. But at that time Carleen Bryant did not understand the prison rules and was unable to help her son ease his pain.

Nowadays the only coherent reason for Martin’s illegal restraint is obvious. Prison officers and psychiatrists, in the manner of the Spanish Inquisition, were determined to intimidate and physically punish intellectually impaired Martin Bryant until he finally "confessed" to a series of crimes in which he played no active part. That such obscene and barbaric treatment is illegal under Australian and International law, and justifiably condemned by Amnesty International as both physical and psychological torture, does not appear to have impeded the Tasmanian authorities at all.

It was only at this point while describing the treatment of her son in Risdon Prison that Carleen’s composure slipped for a second and she shed a tear or two. "He was so terribly lonely" she said, briskly wiping the tears from her cheeks before continuing. It was a cry from the heart of a mother who had been unable to help her son in distress, a cry that went home on this author as surely as a razor-sharp knife.

Next Carleen discussed Martin’s actual injuries, because those reported by the media were wholly inconsistent with the official story of the day, i.e. that Martin Bryant had set fire to Seascape, panicked, then fought his way out of the blazing building. Carleen didn’t know exactly why I was asking, but confirmed that the burns were restricted to "his back and left hand side", pointing to her own left side to illustrate exactly where. "Were there any burns at all to his face, chest, arms or hands?" I asked. "Oh no, none at all" Carleen replied confidently. As any fireman will confirm, the official story of the day is mission impossible. Any person fighting his way out of a burning building does so head-first so that he can see where he is going, arms and hands held high to protect his face from the flames and to deflect burning debris away from his body. It is an instinctive survival response that we all use in life-threatening fire situations.

Minor first-degree burns are enough to make anyone retreat from a fire immediately, the split-second that nerve endings send warning impulses to the brain. Despite this known fact, Martin Bryant remained inside Seascape until burning debris had caused horrific third-degree burns to his back and side, but not to his face, chest, arms or hands. How? The only possible scientific answer is that Martin was lying face-down, either comatose or drugged, and remained that way as burning debris from the first floor above (where the fire started) fell onto his back until the intense pain finally forced him back to consciousness. This is confirmed by video footage of Martin leaving the building, stumbling along like a dazed drunk. Those readers asking themselves "but who else could have started the fire if Martin Bryant was unconscious and the only man left alive inside Seascape, and how did they do it?" might like to consult standard Army manuals under the chapters headed "incendiary devices" and "radio detonators".

Carleen continued to visit Risdon Prison and made little lists of questions she wanted Martin to answer, but most of the time felt so intimidated by officials that some of the more important questions remained unanswered. She says constant bombardment by officials pushing the story that "Martin did it" started to make her believe her son may have been responsible for the crimes, but for a number of very substantial reasons could not work out how he could have physically committed them. Although "Martin was making money cutting lawns and selling his crayfish", Carleen added "Maurice did not approve of guns and took Martin’s air rifle away. He [Martin] did not know how to shoot properly and never owned any real guns."

Carleen was also mystified by the "cache" of weapons allegedly found inside a piano at Martin’s house by police several days after the mass murder. "When he was away on trips I used to go round there, clean the place up and poke around as mothers tend to do" she says, "Martin knew this and he also knew I didn’t approve of guns. He would never have dared keep any in the house." Carleen Bryant is not the only person mystified by this impossible evidence. Soon after the mass murder, two journalists from a prominent newspaper illegally entered Martin’s house searching for clues. Their search included the piano in question, which contained only piano parts.

Planting false forensic evidence after the crime to "prove" guilt is far from new and has occurred many times in the past, including the last high-profile case the author investigated, which was the murder of Policewoman Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London during April 1984. The Libyans were wrongly accused of shooting her, and after the Libyan diplomats left the Embassy to return to Tripoli, a specialist army clearance team was sent into the building to search for booby traps or other weapons. The team carried out one of the most intensive searches in British Army history, from the basement of the building to the roof, but found absolutely no trace of guns, ammunition, explosives or any other incriminating materials. So imagine the Army’s stunned amazement when one week later the Metropolitan Police Service announced that its members had just found two loaded handguns, machine gun spare parts, and more than three thousand rounds of ammunition inside the Libyan Embassy! It is beyond doubt that a person or persons unknown illegally entered and "seeded" the Libyan Embassy with damning false evidence, sometime during the week separating the army and police searches.

For Carleen things got worse at Risdon Prison, but she vehemently denies the claim of Tasmanian journalist Bingham that "she told Martin that unless he confessed to the crimes, she and his younger sister Lindy would commit suicide." In Carleen’s view by that late stage any intervention of this sort by her would have been unnecessary. "The continual pressure [from officials] brainwashed Martin to the level where he may have started to believe he was guilty." This is hardly surprising. Stalin’s communist thought-police in Russia crafted false beliefs like these into an art form, and could eventually convince even the most intelligent of men they were guilty as charged or they wouldn’t be in Lubianka Prison in the first place, would they?

Carleen’s last visit to her son was during November 1997, when she was told by prison officials and psychiatrists that "Martin no longer wants to see you, which is his right", but at no time has Carleen been able to establish this message actually came from her son. Martin could, for example, have told her face to face but did not. He could also have told her over the telephone but did not. Finally although not a fluent writer, Martin could have sent her a brief note, but did not do so. Outraged by this procedure Carleen says she called the prison and asked "what about my rights as a mother?" Her question went unanswered and the line was disconnected.

Neatly manoeuvred into a subservient position by the Tasmanian authorities, Carleen was then circumstantially forced to ask a prison psychiatrist, whose name she provided in confidence, what she should do next. "Write to him" was the answer and Carleen proceeded to do so, at least once and sometimes twice a month. Still she received no word from her son and during a later visit to the named psychiatrist, Carleen asked what had happened to her last letter. The psychiatrist flicked through his clip board and found her opened letter to Martin near the bottom of his papers. "I sent that three weeks ago" Carleen protested, to which the psychiatrist merely said "sorry".

It is highly relevant here to ask why any psychiatrist should still be communicating with her son and handling his mail. After all, the crux of the psychiatric evidence against Martin Bryant was that he was "fit to plead", i.e. of sound mind. A prisoner of sound mind has rights, one of which is the right not be to forced to act as a guinea pig for psychiatrists busily writing learned papers for local or international psychiatric journals about a crime he could not have committed.. Had Martin Bryant been found to be of unsound mind and incarcerated in a mental hospital instead, one might reasonably expect such close psychiatric attention, but not inside Risdon Prison as a convicted felon serving life imprisonment. The psychiatrists will probably defend their intrusive and manipulative position by claiming "Martin Bryant asked to speak to us." No doubt he did, after contact with all other prisoners and visitors was first effectively severed, i.e. de-facto solitary confinement. No man including Martin Bryant is an island, and all normally need periodic verbal interactions with others to remain sane in the long term. If the only other humans you are allowed to meaningfully interact with are psycho-scientists, the chances are you will eventually ask to speak to them.

The bizarre behaviour of the psychiatrists involved in the Port Arthur case has presented their profession with an impossible credibility problem. Setting aside meaningless psychiatric mumbo jumbo and double talk, the act of entering a historic site and killing or wounding fifty-seven citizens is perhaps the ultimate hallmark of absolute insanity, rendering the perpetrator permanently unfit to plead. Indeed, it is difficult for most normal people to imagine a more insane act. So when Tasmanian and Victorian psychiatrists declared Martin fit to plead, i.e. sane, at the same time they acknowledged he could not have committed the crimes.

Nowadays Carleen Bryant wonders why the police did not go to the trouble of properly verifying her son’s new guilty pleas in early November 1996 using standard police procedures. Many people plead guilty to crimes they could not have committed, a situation that routinely presents police forces around the world with a big problem, especially if the guilty pleas are entered by a person who is intellectually impaired or otherwise mentally deficient. 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. 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. Both suspects provided ample accurate details at the respective crime scenes on continuous video tape without prompting by police, and both were then properly and fairly dealt with. Nearly three years after Martin inexplicably changed his pleas to guilty in November 1996, 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..

When Carleen left Tasmania some weeks ago she was unaware that others had recently spoken out on behalf of her son, most prominent being Brigadier Ted Serong DSO OBE, the former head of Australian Forces in Vietnam and one of the world’s leading experts on counter-terrorist techniques and their application. In an interview with Frank Robson in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1999, Brigadier Serong makes it plain that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. "There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance" he says. "Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am". He continues "Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant ... if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off." Brigadier Serong believes more than one person was involved and directly infers that the mass murder at Port Arthur was a terrorist action designed to undermine Australian national security. "It was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don’t believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led down a track. He doesn’t know where it’s leading, and he doesn’t much care..."

Some readers might consider that as a soldier Brigadier Serong is not qualified to comment on police matters, but they would be wrong. In addition to his acknowledged military achievements he also raised, trained, organised and directed a police force larger than all the police forces in Australia combined. After returning to Australia, as he notes in his book Defence of Australia Analysis: "I did gently but firmly decline a suggestion that I be Victoria’s Chief Commissioner of Police." Brigadier Ted Serong is thus far better qualified to comment on the chain of events at Port Arthur than the current commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service, who commands a total force of less than one thousand men, none of whom has any knowledge of international terrorism or practical experience of counter-terrorist techniques.

Having broken the ice and had her say in this report, might Carleen now move on to bigger and better things, perhaps an article in the Melbourne Age or maybe even a television interview with the fabled Ray Martin? She says not. "After it happened I had all those [media] trucks parked at the end of my street for a week, they wouldn’t leave me alone and kept asking for pictures." Even now Carleen Bryant remembers one persistent female reporter who simply refused to take no for an answer. "She kept jumping over my front fence" Carleen says, "then she would walk around the outside of my house, tapping on the windows and calling out my name." Carleen feels only pity and contempt for all members of the local and international media who so brazenly vilified her son and nearly destroyed his and her lives.

As I stood by the side of the Great Eastern Highway in Perth waving goodbye as Carleen’s camper slowly accelerated towards Kalgoorlie at the start of her lonely 2,000 mile trip back to Tasmania, I must admit to feeling a little sorry for the Tasmanian Government and other officials when they are finally forced to release her son Martin, which they must. Bound by his oath as protector of the public interest, the Attorney General in particular is obliged to fully investigate all fresh evidence promptly and openly or face serious legal sanctions. There are no political escape clauses whatever. The longer the Attorney General tries to bury fresh evidence under the parliamentary carpet in Hobart, the more severe those legal repercussions will be.

The only offence Martin committed on 28 April 1996 was that of being gullible enough to be lured to Seascape by others under false pretences. Though certainly unwise behaviour, gullibility is not yet a felony punishable by strict life imprisonment. When Martin Bryant is released, the Tasmanian Government and other officials will have many people to answer to: First the millions of Australians deliberately misled into believing that thirty five of their own countrymen were slaughtered by an intellectually impaired young man when they demonstrably knew this was a blatant lie; then perhaps to Martin Bryant himself who they treated as sub-human and discreetly tortured behind the dark forbidding walls of Risdon Prison. If the Tasmanian Government and other officials find these unpleasant prospects daunting, I can assure them there is something far worse looming on the horizon: Eventually they will also have to answer to Martin Bryant’s angry mum. Rather them than me...

The author is an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and oilfield operations

See webpage http://members.iinet.net.au/~jenks/carleen.html



Printed in the Christian newspaper - "ITS TIME" - Issue No.87 - April 2001
See attachment Below Port Arthur Survivor Calls For Coronial Enquiry.doc
or go to webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawitness.html



Toowoomba Queensland 2001

See Webpage http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/Toowoomba.htm

“If we don’t get it right this time, then next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us.” Tim Fischer - Head of Australia's National Party at Alice Springs in May 1996.

Wendy Scurr and I have come here tonight to pass on what information we have in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre. I have used ‘their’ documents, articles and interviews to gather this information.

The Gun Control Movement in Australia was mobilised in 1984 in New South Wales and was contained within the ‘Far Left’ of the Australian Labour Party within that State and led by their Premier, “Nifty” Neville Wran. Never forget that. In 1988 they suffered their first major defeat when Wran’s successor, Barry Unsworth went to the polls on the 19th March in what he termed a “Gun Referendum Election”. Unsworth suffered the biggest swing against encumbered government in the history of New South Wales, since settlement in 1788. Barry Unsworth believed he was on a winner with total firearm control, but he had got it so wrong it wasn’t funny. The two ‘lone nut gunman’ massacres in Melbourne were too far removed geographically to be effective in New South Wales.

This defeat caused the Gun Control Movement to disassociate themselves from the Australian Labour Party using John Crook’s fledgling Gun Control Australia and the United Nation’s umbrella. In August 1991 there was the Strathfield Massacre and Liberal New South Wales Premier Nick Greiner introduced the initial elements for gun control.

In Victoria, the Labour Party government’s Premier John Cain Jnr had been closely following his New South Wales counterpart, Barry Unsworth’s lead, but backed off when Unsworth lost office in 1988. He couldn’t implement the changes to gun laws if he was stuck in the wilderness of opposition.

In a trade agreement with China, the Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, permitted hundreds of thousands of budget-priced SKS and SKK semi-automatic firearms to be imported into Australia. WHY? These weapons were the primary target of the Gun Control Movement. Without these firearms, what other firearms would they have been able to target?

By 1995 the Gun Control Movement had consolidated on a new front within the Federal Attorney General’s Department. From within this department were the forces that could be utilised for their campaign, including the Australian Attorney Generals’ Council, The Australasian Police Ministers’ Council, The Australian Institute of Criminology, and the Standing Advisory Council States/Commonwealth for the Protection against Violence (SAC-PAV), but to name a few, and all these forces were involved in the Port Arthur Massacre.

November 1995 is a pivotal month in the gun-law story. By November 1995, the Tasmanian Legislation had been amended, including a new Coroners Act and changes to the Workers Compensation Act to remove PTSD. The National Anti-terrorist Plan had been implemented by the PSCC via SAC-PAV, requiring the co-ordination of various State police forces and Federal Agencies, of which the only occasion that this plan has been implemented outside of an exercise was for the Port Arthur massacre.

With the Federal elections looming with an expected demise of the Federal Labor Government, the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council’s agenda on the 10th November included the new national uniform gun laws. In regard to the new national uniformity in firearms legislation, the matter was adjourned until a special meeting to be held early in 1996 to consider the results of ‘Public Consultation’. That adjournment could have only been for the 10th May 1996 meeting.

The only public consultation given to the Australian people was that by the Coalition for Gun Control spokesperson in Tasmania, Roland Browne, whose statements were printed in the Hobart Mercury newspaper in November 1995, and of course his appearance on the ‘A Current Affair’ in March 1996, where after firing either an SKK or SKS semi-automatic rifle Roland Browne stated, “these types of weapons will never be banned until there is a shooting massacre in Tasmania.” Could this have been the public consultation referred to in the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council meeting on the 10th November 1995?

Those ‘laws’ presented to the APMC in the form of a ‘working paper’ by their author, Mr Daryl Smeaton, the Secretary of the APMC were the very same ‘laws’ that little Johnnie Howard said were ‘his’ gun laws, the very same laws the Attorney General, Daryl Williams said he circulated amongst his colleagues at the APMC on the 7th May 1996. Little ‘Honest’ John stole his ‘gun laws’ from his predecessors in the Federal Labour Government. Those laws are now coming back to bite him.

We are not permitted to talk about Port Arthur. We must leave that in the past so that the hurt can fade and the healing continue. The Gun Control Movement is not so hobbled. On the fifth Anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre, the Coalition for Gun Control, with the now Nation spokesperson Roland Browne, has ignored the victims of Port Arthur by utilising that massacre in a campaign for the removal of handguns. Please remember their spokesperson Rebecca Peters stated in an article penned by her and Professor Charles Watson in 1996, that handguns were very well controlled and regulated by government, and contributed little to homicides in Australia. Why is it I feel like Chief Sitting Bull listening to lies from big brother on treaties implemented, only to be broken time and time again? Lies upon lies.

For the ‘New National Uniform Gun Laws’ to be introduced, every State and Territory had to accept these laws in their entirety, an impossible task, without the assistance of a catalyst. On the 28th April 1996 that catalyst erupted, the Port Arthur Massacre. Without this event the new gun laws would never have gotten up. They would have died a natural death. Port Arthur was the midwife for the birth of these draconian laws and was orchestrated from within the bowels of the Labour Party’s Federal Attorney General’s Department.

What will be the catalyst for our next new set of firearm laws and the confiscation of handguns in Australia? Will it be as supposed by the New South Wales Education Minister, a schoolyard massacre by a student with a handgun?

Actually on thinking about it, maybe not, as such an act would be too inflammatory, and as the Labour Party will hold the Federal and most State governments after the November 2001 election, and should be able to accomplish their ends without a massacre, but such a massacre could be used to punish us non-believers, which is part of Tavistock’s Reesian Theory of Warfare, based on Hegel’s Dialectics.

So, onto the Port Arthur Massacre. Neither Wendy nor I will accept any bunkum as the gunman being equal to the world’s top anti-terrorist combat shooters for two reasons:

(i) The shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café lasted approximately 5 minutes.

(ii) There was in excess of 41 shots fired inside the Broad Arrow Café.

This comes from some of the survivors such as Wendy Scurr, who is with us tonight. Major Sandra Vanderpeer, who was inside the gift shop area and states that the shooting lasted approximately five minutes, and she believed that the shooting continued after the gunman reloaded inside the gift shop area. Graeme Collyer an ex-RAF fitter watched the gunman walk round the café area shooting people for approximately 4 ½ minutes, as he lay on the floor nearly drowning in his own blood. Outside near the Information Centre two Vietnam Veterans, John Godfrey and Peter Stainthorpe also have contested the 90 seconds to two minutes time for the shooting inside the Broad Arrow Café. Jacqui Lane wrote an article in a police magazine again stating that the shooting went on for about five minutes.

All the witnesses tell us that the gunman went up to the victims and shot them from fairly close quarters. What the Americans tell me is that anyone with a little bit of proper training in firearms would be able to accomplish this deed, and I accept their advice. What this means is that Martin Bryant would have been able to perform the shooting skills required at the Broad Arrow Café, with minimal training, if he had wished to commit such an atrocity. However, there are many clues that state it was not Martin Bryant inside the café on that fatal afternoon.

If we are to consider the killed to injured ratio regarding the Port Arthur Massacre, then also consider the same, in regard to David Gray of Aramoana in New Zealand on the 13th November 1990 when he killed thirteen people including a policeman, Sergeant Stewart Guthrie, but only wounded three. It is noted that the New Zealand media reported that an ‘Anti-terrorist’ unit was in the area at the time, and that a siege ensued that lasted 33 hours at which time the house was set alight and David Gray exited the house and was shot dead. What connections could this incident where Sergeant Guthrie was shot have to Port Arthur? Please remember that New Zealand has always been connected with both SAC-PAV and the APMC, the AUSTRALASIAN Police Ministers’ Council.

More bunkum is the statement that the gunman killed twelve victims and wounded another four in the first fifteen seconds. This statement is supposedly supported by the Wilkinson Videotape and this tape-recorded the sound of the shots by themselves. Another video camera recorded the shots fired for 25 seconds as being 21 shots, which according to the government prosecutor, Mr Damian Bugg QC, leaves only eight shots to be fired in the next sixty-nine seconds, that is one shot every 8 ½ seconds. This is not what the witnesses tell us. They all state that the shots continued at about one shot every second or two. (1) Wilkinson Tape.

So how accurate is the evidence from the videotapes. They accurately report the sound of the shots alone, but do not report on the status of these shots, being whether or not these shots killed, injured or missed a target. Furthermore these videotapes do not record the entire shooting scene, and thus arguably the shooting inside the café could have continued for another five seconds, five minutes or five hours.

In the Wilkinson tape there are 5 shots fired, being shots 7 to 11, within a period of 1.80 seconds, and we are supposed to believe that any person could shoot five persons accurately in the head in that time frame. Thank you. Mind you, the last shot heard on the Wilkinson videotape is a ricochet.

The next piece of bunkum is that only 29 shots were fired inside the café. Mr. Bugg QC continually reinforces this statement stating it is supported by the ballistics and forensic evidence, but the Tasmania Police Ballistics expert, Sergeant Gerard Dutton states otherwise. In the American Wound Ballistics Review, Dutton states that 30 fired cartridge cases were located inside the Broad Arrow Café, not 29. Then again in another article written by Sergeant Gerard Dutton in the Australian Police Journal, Dutton argues that it is not accurate to count the number of shots fired simply by the means of the fired cartridge cases alone, especially as the crime scenes were not protected until after sunset, and many of the fired cartridge cases had been souvenired, especially at the car park where only four cases were located by the police, two .223 and two .308 cartridges, with another case being returned by a bus driver. The cartridge from the bus could have been from the shot that wounded Neville Quin.

How many shots were fired inside the Broad Arrow Café during the massacre? I have calculated a minimum of 41 shots, using the Court Document and witness statements.

So why were these deceptions put into place, and why have they been so strongly enforced within Australia. These lies have nothing to do with any Federal Government implementation plans, but rather a cover-up by the Tasmanian Government, the owners of the Port Arthur Historic Site, and it has everything to do with a supposedly ‘locked’ fire exit door. (2) Groom, ‘cause’

You see, there was a fire exit door within the Gift Shop area of the Broad Arrow Café that was supposedly locked, but just how do you lock a fire exit door? This was the door that prevented many people who were inside the gift shop area from escaping the gunman, and some were murdered, and others lost their partners and loved ones.

It was later conceded that this door was not locked as stated to the Hobart Supreme Court, but rather it was broken, and the condition of the door was known to police by the 1st May 1996 when one of the maintenance crew who was painting out the windows and nailing the doors and windows shut, discovered that fault with the assistance of one of the forensic Police within the building. Now why on earth was there a need to nail all the doors and windows shut? I mean, the building was already quite secure in its normal condition, so why nail the doors and windows shut?

The next little gem is the ‘Prince’ sports bag, or should I say the two ‘Prince’ sports bags. You see, the gunman had a very heavy ‘Prince’ sports bag and a large video camera, which were found left on a table inside the Broad Arrow Café after the massacre. Why would a person bent on committing a massacre bring with him his very heavy video camera? Apart from the camera, the problem is that several witnesses also saw the gunman carry the ‘Prince’ sports bag out of the café and put it in the boot of the Volvo. This was even captured on James Balasko’s video. (3) Balasko & (4) bag in café.

Why did he need two ‘Prince’ sports bags? Why were there live .308 rounds found on the floor inside the café? The only weapon used inside the café was the AR 15 which uses .223 ammunition, but in the boot of the Volvo were several hundred .308 rounds, so how did these .308 rounds end up inside the café?

At this stage I should also point out two discrepancies that have occurred within this story, the first is that the ‘A Current Affair’ program showed a person running down the road towards the buses, and inferred that this person was the gunman. Nothing could be further from the truth. This person is running, and the gunman never ran. This person is dressed completely differently to the gunman, and is carrying blankets from the Information Centre to the wounded at the buses, and is in all probability Mark Kirby, one of the many at the site who assisted so admirably after the massacre. This video is genuine. It is the portrayal of this video that is not. (5) Blankets.

The other discrepancy is the ‘missing boat’. The aerial shot of Port Arthur, that has been bandied about supposedly stating that there was no boat at the area immediately inside the jetty area of Port Arthur is again misleading. All a person has to do is look at the right side of the picture and he or she will see two boats, the larger boat being the supposedly missing boat. The video taken by James Balasko was taken at extreme zoom, which is why the boat appears closer than it actually was, and any person who watches cricket, football or any of the sports on television would be aware of this distortion of distances effect. (6) Boat & big boat.

I shall now move on to the next part of the massacre. The gunman left the carpark, in the Volvo, driving towards the tollbooth, where he saw Nanette Mikac with her two young daughters. The gunman stopped the car and opened the front passenger side door, and when Nanette Mikac approached the car with her two daughters, he shot them with the AR15.

Mrs Mikac, who was carrying her three year old daughter, with the six year old beside her, and had already fled 600 metres, would have believed that they were being offered assistance, instead they were being lured to their death. What this means is that they had been deliberately selected as murder victims. Why deliberately select a mother and two young daughters out of all the fleeing survivors, why? There can be no doubt that the Mikacs were deliberately targeted.

Consider this Statement made by CNN’s John Raedler based in Sydney. He attended at Port Arthur along with another CNN employee, Hugh Williams of Sydney, but based in Berlin and at home at the time on leave.

(1) Johnston’s (Superintendent Jack Johnston) explanation of the fate of the Mikacs was the classic ‘win-win’ sound bite.

This demonstrates that the murder of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters was evaluated as the most powerful tool to be used in the anti-gun propaganda by the media.

After the murder of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters, the gunman drove to the tollbooth and shot the four occupants in the BMW with the FN FAL. The gunman exchanged vehicles, and drove up to the Port Arthur store and killed Zoe Hall and kidnapped Glen Pears. Within three minutes of this murder of Zoe Hall, at 1.45pm, Constable Chris Iles arrived at the scene, which is stated by three witnesses. Constable Iles then drove off in pursuit of the stolen BMW and was never seen or heard of in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre. What information does Constable Iles have in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre that we are not permitted to know?

Constable Chris Iles had been the Nubeena policeman for about 12 years, but had transferred to Sorell about six months prior to the massacre, and his replacement at Nubeena was Constable Paul Hyland. Many people are aware that Constables Paul Hyland and Gary Whittle of Dunalley were at the coalmines at Saltwater River when they received a radio message at 1338 hours (1.38 p.m.) that there had been a shooting at Port Arthur.

So Constable Iles vanishes, and then Constables Hyland and Whittle attend at Port Arthur, and then on to Seascape. However there is another policeman to enter the scene. Sergeant Andrew Mark Fogarty, from Bellerive Police Station has arrived at the scene. Sergeant Fogarty is also a Team Leader with the SOG.

Both Hyland and Whittle state that when they arrived at Seascape, the BMW was already burning at the front, and when the fire reached the back section of the vehicle it exploded. Martin Bryant in his police interview states that he was knocking at the back door of Seascape when the BMW exploded, but also confuses himself by saying that he must have been burnt by the fire that destroyed the BMW. Martin Bryant also believes that the hostage died in the BMW fire.

Now consider this, one of the Task Force members investigating the Port Arthur Massacre has stated to witnesses that it was the SOG who set fire to the BMW so as to negate its use to the persons inside Seascape as a means of escape. This means that if the BMW was already burning on the arrival of Hyland and Whittle at Seascape, then the only reported SOG member at the scene at that time was Sgt. Fogarty, and therefore Fogarty would have been the SOG member who set the BMW alight.

The Police Task Force member also stated that it was the same SOG member who set fire to Seascape Cottage using the same means as with the BMW, that is by firing a phosphorus grenade into the building. This grenade apparently went through the attic window facing onto the Arthur Highway. In his statement, Andrew Fogarty states that he fired off two illuminating parachute flares over Seascape, but under the orders of Sergeant Morrison.

Constable Hyland states he saw a person run into the Seascape Cottage, stating it was a black-haired person, and Constable Whittle states he saw a female running round the back of Seascape, yelling and screaming, and that a dog was barking. It appears that these two events were viewed at different times, but what we do know though is that neither the black-haired person, nor the female was Martin Bryant, nor would it have been the gunman, so who were they?

Then we have Constable Allen stating that at one stage just before dark, the gunman was spotted on the roof of an adjoining building, and he needed to be identified before the SOG marksman could shoot the offender. Constable Allen stated that when he put his head up out of the culvert, to take a view of the gunman on the roof, he was shot at, the bullet striking the front bumper bar of the police car he was behind.

This gives us two items of information. One that the person shooting at Allen was listening to police communications, a point corroborated by Superintendent Barry Bennett, and two that the gunman on the roof was not the person shooting at Constable Allen. Sgt. Fogarty would never have permitted that gunman in his sights to actually shoot at another policeman. It has been noted that Sgt Fogarty’s brother, Michael Fogarty, who was also a member of the Tasmania Police SOG shot and killed Joe Gilewicz in 1991, when their father Superintendent Fogarty was In Charge of the Tasmania Police SOG.

Now this incident with the shot at Constable Allen sparked off two other incidents. The first was with the SES and fire brigade members who had been monitoring the Police Communications. A fire truck did the rounds at Port Arthur warning the personnel there that the gunman was on the loose, and heading this way. This created absolute panic at the Port Arthur Site because there was still no protection for them from any police. The second incident was that the Police Commander, Assistant Commissioner Luppo Prins, called in assistance from the Victoria Police SOG, and then notified the National Crisis Centre in Canberra of their TERRORIST SITUATION. (7) He’s out

All this action by the Tasmania Police was not police action, but rather military action, prepared by SAC-PAV, the Federal based body that controls the Police SOGs, in the SAC-PAV ‘Anti-Terrorist Plan’ that had been implemented in November 1995. What this demonstrates is that the State and Territory Police Services are controlled by Canberra via SAC-PAV and the PSCC, which is an Intelligence Agency operating out of both the Federal Attorney General’s Department and the Justice Department.

The three top Tasmania Policemen, McCreadie, Prins and Bennett are all SAC-PAV trained. So was their Media Liaison Officer, Geoff Easton who prior to his appointment with the Tasmania Police was a Communications Officer at Canberra. The Tasmanian Premier’s Media Officer was Peter Hazelwood, who attended at the Police forward Command Post at Taranna, and Hazelwood was reportedly the Media Liaison Officer at the Hilton Hotel Bombing back in 1978. This ASIO orchestrated event initiated the formation of SAC-PAV and the PSCC.

But back to Tasmania and the Siege at Seascape. One of the quotes of Constable Pat Allen that was printed in the Hobart Mercury on the 26th November 1996, was “There were helicopters going around; you couldn’t see the choppers, but they were going back and forth all night and it must have been like what it was in Vietnam.” This creates some problems as the Police Negotiator, Sergeant Terry McCarthy makes the statement that the helicopters in Tasmania are not licenced to fly at night. Also it must be noted that the area around the Seascape Cottage, in the shore of Long Bay, and then with the hills rising steeply on the other side would have made the area very difficult for helicopter pilots to fly in that vicinity at night. Then of course there were all the diversionary tactics used by ‘Jamie’ at Seascape and his discourse regarding his helicopter rides, etc.

So it is rather interesting to note that the ARMY AIR FLEET helicopter crews that crashed in Townsville a couple of years ago by sheer coincidence also happened to have been in Tasmania on the 28th April 1996, and they would have been the only licenced night-flying helicopters in Tasmania, and thus would have been the helicopters that Constable Pat Allen refers to.

By the Monday morning, with media from all over the world now focusing on Port Arthur, Seascape Cottage is set alight, by Martin Bryant we are told, except for a Task Force member who states that it was by Sgt Fogarty. This of course destroyed all the evidence that was to be found inside Seascape Cottage, except for the two murder weapons, which were found outside Seascape in a deliberately damaged state, as the Police had been informed by “Jamie” inside Seascape during the siege. But the only person to emerge from the fire was Martin Bryant who was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of an ambulance and conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital. (8) Seascape burning

The Tasmania Police set up a Task Force under Superintendent Johnston to investigate the Port Arthur Massacre. A member of that Task Force, Inspector Maxwell travelled to Victoria and spoke to a Bill Drysdale of Yass in relation to one of the murder weapons, the AR15. Bill Drysdale identified that firearm by a gunsmith’s mark on the barrel. This firearm had been handed to the Victoria Police at Lilydale in 1993 when that particular firearm had been made illegal. This AR15 went through the Victoria Police books as being destroyed at Sims Metal furnace, but ended up in Tasmania, at the Seascape Cottage after the siege.

The other weapon used during the massacre was a FN SLR of which Martin Bryant denied ever owning. Mind you the firearm that was suddenly found in the piano at Bryant’s Clare Street residence, an Australian Arms semi-automatic .223, was never mentioned in the only police interview that took place on the 4th of July 1996.

It has been stated that the only media in Hobart that actually have journalists and reporters on duty on a Sunday was the ABC, and that the other media outlets simply have staff on call. So when journalists from the ABC attended at Police Headquarters in Hobart to obtain information about the shootings at Port Arthur they were surprised to find that they were not the first to arrive at the Media Liaison Office. Mr Roland Browne, the spokesperson for Gun Control in Tasmania had arrived before them. The only person in a position to inform Roland Browne of the need to be at the Police Headquarters Media Office, prior to the media, would have been the Media Liaison Officer Geoff Easton, but how was he able to contact Mr Browne? I mean was Roland Browne on duty at his office, or was he relaxing at home as most solicitors would have been doing on a Sunday?

The only reason Roland Browne would have been at the Hobart Police Headquarters Media Room, would have been to influence the media into accepting the anti-gun message, something the police would not have been able to comment on. In other words the Police Media Office became a tool for propaganda services. This demonstrates a connection between the Gun Control movement and the Port Arthur Massacre.

Furthermore it totally negates comments made by Professor Simon Chapman, the following morning that anybody would have been able to predict the massacre because Roland Browne had twice predicted the massacre in Tasmania. The first was reported in the Hobart Mercury in November 1995, and the second was on Ray Martin’s ‘A Current Affair’ television show shortly after the Dunblane massacre. Not only had Roland Browne been able to twice predict the massacre, but he apparently was able to predict the day and the time of the Port Arthur Massacre. How else other than being informed prior to the media, would he have been able to attend at the Hobart Police Headquarter’s Media Room?

There were other coincidences that stand out. Helicopter pilots were normally a scarcity on a Sunday afternoon. Normally it was difficult enough to locate even one, but on this particular Sunday they were able to obtain the services of three helicopter pilots.

For the ambulance staff, the possible staff shortage was overcome by utilising staff and volunteers that were attending courses for that Sunday afternoon. Ray Charleton’s Southern District Mortuary Service even had a 22-body hearse, the only one of its type in Australia waiting to be used for such an emergency. However it was the Royal Hobart Hospital that demonstrated the height of preparedness. They were able to call on the services of twenty five trauma specialist doctors from all over Australia, who had just completed a seminar at midday on that Sunday, and whose last lecture had been in relation to a ‘terrorist attack’. Oh, dear.

It was the EMA (Emergency Management Australia) Port Arthur Seminar Papers that demonstrated the preparedness of all these bodies, especially with the Royal Hobart Hospital and it’s newly completed ‘Code Brown’ Emergency Plan. But we are then given another clue. The Coroner, Ian Matterson, the Staff at the Royal Hobart Hospital, including some doctors, and many Ambulance Service personnel initially believed that it was simply another “exercise” and some ignored the calls until they heard the news on the radio and television. In other words these people had been conditioned to attending exercises until they were sick of them.

In his book, ‘Suddenly One Sunday’, journalist Mike Bingham wrote, “Involvement in these national and local exercises was to prove invaluable as Tasmania Police set about managing the Port Arthur Massacre. The responses were to work so well that there were times when it all seemed like an exercise, despite the enormity of all that had happened.”

So who was responsible for these people to be so prepared for such a tragedy?

In Tasmania, the emergency exercises were the responsibility of the SES (State Emergency Service). This body is attached to the Tasmania Police and the Police Commissioner is the Deputy Chairman of the State Emergency Service. However these bodies are controlled by the Canberra based SAC-PAV (Standing Advisory Committee, States/Commonwealth for Protection Against Violence). The SAC-PAV subcommittee the Project Group Training (PGT) is responsible for the training and exercise programs run by SAC-PAV, but then again SAC-PAV is controlled by the PSCC, the Intelligence Agency.

There is however one last seminar to consider, and that is unique in that it was the first, and the only ever seminar to be held for the ten top personnel at the Port Arthur Historic Site, and it was to be held on the 28th and 29th April 1996. What was this seminar about? Nothing. There was NO meeting agenda. By the time these particular staff members arrived at Swansea, the massacre had occurred and everybody went straight back to the site to assist.

But, back to Martin Bryant, who has been arrested by the SOG and conveyed to the Royal Hobart Hospital. On Tuesday the 30th April 1996 police endeavour to interview Bryant in the presence of a hospital doctor, but Bryant wishes to have nothing to do with them, and so he is simply charged with one count of murder, that of Kate Scott.

On the following day Bryant was again interviewed, not by police but Doctor Ian Sale. In notes taken by Blair Saville, the prison officer guarding Martin Bryant, Sale states to Bryant, “Whatever you say to us may be used against you in court. Do you understand what I said?”

Consider the implications if this evidence is correct. Doctor Sale has just stated that he is collecting evidence to use against Martin Bryant in a Court of Law, yet his reports formed part of the basis of Mullen’s report, which was the only evidence used by the defence in the Sentencing of Martin Bryant.

Bryant was interviewed By Dr Sale on the 1st and 3rd of May, and then by Mullen on the 5th May. During each of these interviews, apparently Blair Saville the prison officer was present, and apparently took notes. This raises questions due to who had custody of Bryant at the time. Bryant should have been under police guard until he was lodged at Risdon Prison, and we have a policewoman stating that she was at one stage required to perform guard duty on Bryant. Again this same prison officer took note of the conversation between Martin Bryant and Petra Wilmott on the 15th May at Risdon Prison. In fact up until the police interview, the only contributor to the ‘confessional evidence’ and that is by the one officer. In late August, another prison officer gives evidence, but on the whole there are many errors within these ‘confessional evidence’ statements. (9) Cuffed to bed.

In his report on Martin Bryant that was read to the Supreme Court on the 20th November 1996, Mullen refers to the fact that Martin Bryant was put on a guardianship order by the Hobart Court in October 1993. That the case was actually heard by the Hobart Supreme Court, in Camera (private) on the 22nd of April 1994, was not mentioned by Mullen, nor the fact that the application was brought under the Mental Health Act, or the fact that Bryant was represented by solicitors from the firm Griffits and Jackson of Hobart due to the simple fact that Martin Bryant was not present at that court on that day because he was in London.

What the guardianship order states emphatically and this is something that the learned professor should have been well aware of, was that the court considered Martin Bryant, due to his mental inability, was not competent to make any plea in relation to the charges he was facing in November 1996.

Not only that, but the Chief Justice Mr, William Cox would also have been well aware of that little problem. Oh dear me.

However, back to Professor Mullen. In 2000, Mullen along with another psychiatrist, C. H. Cantor and Philip Alpers wrote an article titled ‘Mass Homicide: The Civil Massacre’, in which they use 7 ‘Lone Nut Gunman’ type massacres to prove their findings. These cases are (1) Julian Knight, Melbourne 1987, (2) Michael Ryan, Hungerford England 1987, (3) Frank Vitkovic, Melbourne 1987, (4) David Gray, Aramoana NZ, 1990, (5) Wade Frankum, Strathfield, 1991, (6) Thomas Hamilton, Dunblane Scotland, 1996 and (7) Martin Bryant, Port Arthur, 1996. These 7 massacres are all seemingly related by circumstances besides the fact that they were used specifically to introduce firearm control by the governments of the day.

Christopher H Cantor is a psychiatrist affiliated with the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention Program at Griffith University. Philip Alpers is a New Zealand radio announcer. Professor Mullen is stated in this article as having interviewed Knight and Bryant after the events, and resided in the area affected by Gray. In fact we are aware that Mullen’s report on Bryant was the only psychiatric report presented to the Supreme Court, which makes Mullen more than just an interviewer of Bryant.

There are some aspects worth considering in this article. Both Frankum and Bryant lost a parent prior to their massacres by suicide. In every case except Frankum and Bryant the only weapons used were firearms. However, both Frankum and Bryant not only used ‘semi-automatic assault rifles’ but a large knife and handcuffs as well. What weapons are banned in Australia today?

The use of handcuffs in any ‘Lone Nut Gunman’ style massacre is uniquely Australian. The perpetrators of such crimes do not intend to constrain victims but rather murder anybody within their sights. Yet we are informed that whilst at Seascape, Martin Bryant, aka ‘Jamie’ had information regarding his hostage Glen Pears that could only have come from an interrogation. For Martin Bryant though, this would have been a virtual impossibility considering his stated mental ability. Is this simply a coincidence? I would doubt it. There are other coincidences.

The last sentence in the report on Julian Knight states, “J.K.’s subsequent course in prison has made any psychotic condition highly unlikely, but obsessional personality traits and narcissism have become more obvious.” The obvious question here is that if Julian Knight is no longer a threat to our society, then why was he a threat on the 9th August 1987 when he murdered 7 persons and attempted to murder another 17?

In the report on Frank Vitkovic, it states that this person, who supposedly had a long-standing fascination with firearms, obtained a M1 carbine .30 calibre semi-automatic military styled firearm with a sawn off barrel and shortened stock. Mind you these alterations were made so that the weapon could fit into the bag which was used to carry the weapon to the scene of the massacre, and completely destroys the statement that Vitkovic had a fascination with firearms, as any student of weaponry would know that by cutting off the end of the barrel removed the gas pressure that caused the weapon to automatically reload. This meant that to create the massacre, Vitkovic had to manually cycle the bolt after each shot so as to reload. Moreover this created the possibility for the weapon to jam, should the reloading action become jerky, which is exactly what happened with this particular incident, and enabled two men to actually take hold of Vitkovic before he apparently broke loose and jumped through a plate glass window and fell to his death eleven floors below.

But what is extremely interesting is that two persons who, by sheer coincidence happened to view the massacre from the building directly opposite. The then State Attorney General, Jim Kennan and the Police Minister Race Matthews. These two Labour Party Politicians were part of the push in Victoria to introduce their tough new firearm laws, and it is by sheer coincidence that they just happened to be in the building where Jim Kennan’s extremely secure offices were located on the 20/23rd floors. However at the time of viewing this incident, I am reliably informed that they were at a typing pool located on the 12th floor, with the massacre taking place in the building directly opposite on the eleventh floor.

Another interesting bit of trivia given to us by this report is that during his killing spree, Frank Vitkovic was heard making some rather startling comments including, “How do they expect me to kill people with this gun?” Just exactly what did Vitkovic mean by that statement and who are ‘they’?

It was very shortly after this massacre that a Special Premier’s meeting was called in Hobart, where National Firearms Laws were the agenda, but the plan was defeated due to Tasmania and South Australia not accepting the federal incursion into the States constitutional powers. This was when Premier Barry Unsworth made his now famous quote of “there will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania.”

Please remember that in cases where the Federal Constitution is involved each and every State must accept the amendments by referendum. If any State declines, then the Federal Constitutional amendment fails.

In the case report on Martin Bryant, this document makes some astounding statements. It states that, “The killings began with the murder of an elderly couple against whom Bryant’s family held a long-standing grudge”. This is not correct. There was never any grudge between the Bryant and Martin family. Mrs Bryant totally denies any such allegations, as does Glen Martin.

The report continues with, “he believed had contributed to the suicide of his father.” No, no, never. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Martin Bryant believed that actions by the Martins had led to his father committing suicide thirteen years later.

The report states that, “This incident occurred only six weeks after Dunblane.” That is correct, but there is not one mention of Dunblane is Mullen’s report on Bryant presented to the Hobart Supreme Court.

The report states that, “A number of psychological assessments over the years failed to reach agreements as to diagnosis.” The highly eminent Doctor Cunningham Dax stated that Bryant might be developing an illness of a schizophrenic type in an assessment in 1984. In 1991 doctors Mather and MP McCartney diagnose a schizophrenic illness. In 1994, Bryant has action bought against him by two doctors, concerned about his apparent frittering away his inheritance, under the Mental Health Act, and succeeds in having the Hobart Supreme Court place Bryant under a guardianship. Mrs Bryant states that her son is suffering from schizophrenia, as does his girlfriend, Petra Wilmott. Mrs Bryant refers to her son’s psychiatrist Dr. Rushton, who for some unknown reason is never mentioned in Mullen’s report to the Supreme Court. However it is only doctor Sale and Professor Mullen who argue that Bryant is not schizophrenic.

The report goes on with numerous inconsistencies, especially in regards to Martin Bryant, but let me make one last comparison. In the closing paragraph of Mullen’s Report that was presented to Judge William Cox in the Sentencing of Martin Bryant, Mullen writes,

“Mr Bryant currently does not have the signs and the symptoms of a mental illness. He is however, by virtue of his personality and intellectual limitations both of reduced coping ability and of increased psychological vulnerability. It is possible that under the combined stress of lengthy incarceration and of having to live with the memories and consequences of his awful acts that he may, in the future, break down into frank mental illness. It will be necessary to continually monitor his state of mind during his future containment and initiate appropriate treatment if, and when, it is required.”

Now compare that little gem with the one previously mentioned regarding Julian Knight that stated,

“J.K. was examined by a number of psychiatrists and psychologists. Although a prepsychotic condition was suggested, the predominant opinion was of a narcissistic young man involved in his world of fantasy. J.K.’s subsequent course in prison has made any psychotic condition highly unlikely, but obsessional personality traits and narcissism have become more obvious.”

What this article by Cantor, Mullen and Alpers does is emphasis that the requirement for Australia’s New Firearm Laws was demonstrated by four unique ‘Lone Nut Gunman’ type massacres in Australia. The uniqueness of these criminal acts does not simply stop at the cause and effect within Australia, but also the time slot that these crimes fall into. It was only after the ideology created the need for firearms to be removed from our society that these unique crimes erupted. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Furthermore when two of the main persons involved with the implementation of the new ideology actually are able to witness one of only four such events in Australia, then we must consider that as extremely coincidental.

So now, let us consider the words of the Australian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, when he spoke to a group of profession shooters at Alice Springs in May 1996. “If we don’t get it right this time, then next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us.”

What Mr Fischer is stating is that unless Australia brings in the required legislation, then Australia was going to suffer another massacre. The legislation was initiated and Australia has had no more massacres. The fact that many have ignored the new ideology bound firearm laws, and that firearms are still easily obtainable on a black market is irrelevant to these laws. However, what must also be considered is the comparison between the statement made by Tim Fischer and the then Premier of New South Wales, Barry Unsworth back in December 1987 when he prophesised “There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania.” He was quite right. After the massacre at Port Arthur Australia did get a form of “uniform gun laws”, but not quite what Barry wanted.

We should also consider the actions of the Australian Prime Minister up to and on the 10th May 1996 when the new laws were implemented. The fact that the 10th May meeting had to make its decision in time for the evening news is straight out of a ‘James Bond’ types fictional scenario.

“Here is the 6 o’clock news. Big Ben chimed three times today at 2 o’clock, and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard was successful in forcing the various State and Territory Police Ministers into accepting his unconstitutional new guidelines for a total firearm control in Australia.”

But there are other political ramifications regarding the Uniform Firearm Laws in Australia, and Graeme Richardson appeared on the “Today Show’ shortly after the Port Arthur Massacre, and just prior to Mr Howard announcing his 10th May meeting and laid out the whole political scenario of why the Port Arthur Massacre had to happen.

Barry Unsworth had discovered in his effort to retain the New South Wales Government in 1988 that any government that moved into the area of gun control would lose power at the next election, be that State or Federal. Again, because of the moves against the gun owners of Australia, there was a new political party born, and that party had to be destroyed before it gained too much strength within the political sphere.

However, Graeme Richardson gave out one further clue to demonstrate just what the push was, regarding firearm control and that was the shift of power from the States to Canberra. Graeme Richardson stated that the easiest way for uniform firearm laws would be for the States to cede their constitutional powers in relation to firearm to the Federal Government. However, we are then informed that Premier Bob Carr had already initiated legislation in regard to ceding that power to the Federal Government. Now this was before John Howard had announced his ‘National Guidelines’ policy, and it must be viewed as a ploy to have the Prime Minister adopt the full Labor Party Policy in relation to gun control, a policy that emanates from the United Nations.

What this demonstrates is that the moves for total firearm control in Australia, is based on that power being controlled by Canberra, and that policy lines itself up with other initiatives that have emanated from Canberra in the past decade such as the push for a Republic and a New Constitution, which would give Canberra complete control over Australia, which was the complete opposite of all those Australians who realised the dangers of centralised power, and opted for the American system of Federation of States back prior to 1900.

What happened in regard to the Port Arthur Massacre was that the entire judicial system was stifled. We were never permitted to have any form of a proper trial for the accused Martin Bryant. We were never permitted to have a Coronial Inquiry, nor shall we ever get any such proper inquiry into that tragic event that has affected so many Australians. Our constitutions have been overruled, our judiciary has been compromised so much so that we appear to be that of Keating’s ‘Banana Republic’, and our elected parliamentary representatives no longer hear the voice of their constituents.

So what happens the next time Australians fail to heed the new ideology? Who will ‘they’ murder to bring us into line? Will it be your parents’ your brother or sister, or your children or grandchildren? Will it be innocent children in a schoolyard? Don’t say it will never happen, because it already has. Will such a massacre be utilised to bring in the next stage of Gun Control, the removal of handguns?

Had Australia had one politician with the guts, the integrity and the honesty to tell Australians just what had happened, then the bluff would have been called, and little Johnny Howard would never have had to wear his flack jacket at Sale or in Queensland. Australians though are not that lucky.

Not for release until after the Kingaroy meeting on the 30th May 2001.

Andrew S. MacGregor.



See this webpage for photos of Martin Bryant http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpamarty.html

This is the real Martin Bryant. Picture taken a few years before Port Arthur - a nice young lad who loved animals. ( Picture courtesy of Joe Vialls ).

This is how Martin looked until about 2 years before Port Arthur before someone got him to grow his hair long. Martin had SHORT HAIR.

Here is Martin and his long hair sometime in the months before the massacre.

Many people will recall how the media in Australia 24 hours afterwards had this picture ( below ) of Martin - particularly plastered all over the front page of newspapers. Apart from the fact this was totally in contempt of and prejudicial to any future court proceedings there was a suggestion at one point they had whitened the eyes to make him look more scary. It is possible this picture may have been deliberately altered to create this unfavourable image to ensure the public swallowed the story Martin was a lone "nut" gunman.

This is the image the authorities and media created for Martin.
A total denial of natural justice.

There is also the unanswered question as to how the media came to obtain this photograph and so quickly. WHO gave them the picture ?



See this webpage for all the photos http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpagangof3.htm

Videofootage after the massacre shows 3 men standing in the doorway of the Broad Arrow Cafe ( under the red numbers ) quite relaxed casually having a cup of coffee & talking with 20 dead bodies just metres away - something strange after such a traumatic event - while others rush blankets to the wounded.

These 3 men have now been identified and it makes a very interesting gathering.

They were: Hans OVERBEEKE, NSW Police Constable Justin NOBLE, and Joe VIALLS .

HANS OVERBEEKE was a man seen talking to a man fitting the description the Port Arthur gunman prior to the massacre and can identify him - but strangely was never asked to do so.

New South Wales Police Constable JUSTIN NOBLE was the man at the right place at the right time - just happened to be outside the Broad Arrow Cafe the moment the shooting started holding a communications device (in an area where mobile phones don't work because of the mountainous terrain).

And last but not least there is JOE VIALLS - then of Perth, Western Australia - the so called independent investigator of terrorist incidents who failed to mention in the little blue book he put out in 1999 that he just happened to be at the Port Arthur crime scene on that day, or his background see expose' here.

Evidence exists this fellow had 3 aliases - Joe Vialls, Otho Jewel Vialls and Ari Ben-Menashe - and one must ask why ? People with aliases usually have something to hide.

The latter alias Ari published a book called "The Profits of War"about Israeli arms trafficking out of Western Australia into the Middle East in connection with the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal - a scandal which almost brought down President Ronald Reagan.

Irrespective of these literary skills given his presence there that day this website believes Joe may be able to shed some light on who it was that was directing the massacre operation via radio that day ( ie who was telling the gunman to shoot who and do what ).

The perpetrators having had problems on the day of the Port Arthur massacre with things not going according to plan who could be the most approrpriate person to write a book trying to coverup all the loose ends ? Someone who was actually there.

Joe's book "Deadly Deception At Port Arthur" ( cover design left ) does just that - it tries to cast doubt on many pieces of hard evidence that prove that things were not what they appeared at Port Arthur. We must also ask why did this man not put his real Israeli name Ari Ben-Menashe on it and instead invented the name Joe Vialls and also claimed to be of English background ?

It is also a corroborative fact that Joe had Israeli agents in other cities in Australia disemminating his book "Deadly Deception At Port Arthur".

In other works Joe also wrote about the 1984 London Libyan Embassy shooting of English policewoman Yvonne Fletcher which now makes one speculate if he was there at that crime scene too - and whether things there were what they were publically reported and whether it really was the Libyans who shot Fletcher.

Whoever Joe Vialls was he is now longer with us it being reported he died in July 2005 see details here and the questions must be asked who was he working for and was he about to become an embarrassment and it was decided that he had to go ?

Joe Vialls had a host of questionable material on the internet some of which are shown below and the further question needs asking where did he get all this information ?



If one accepts the official Tasmanian Police and DDP line Martin Bryant can only be regarded as a GENIUS - displaying the skill and cunning of a criminal mastermind unparalelled in world history.

We list below the reasons why: ( And to think Marty was assessed as having a low IQ.)

He got the Tasmanian authorities to have a 22 body morgue truck available for his handiwork.
He had such intelligence information and timed things so well as to wait until a whole series of things were in place just before, on or slightly after the 28th April, and dead on around 1.30pm that day ( listed below ) :-

He organized for senior Port Arthur staff to go on a Work Seminar so they wouldn't get hurt.
He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in place 2 days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.
He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch all thw wounded up quickly.
He arranged for helicopter pilots - usually unavailable - to be available that Sunday.
He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was at a service station 57 kilometres away.
He decoyed local police in the area to the opposite end of the pennisula at the exact moment the shooting began.
He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there from 12.45pm.
He managed not to look like himself - as if wearing a woman's wig - when being filmed in the carpark by tourists.
He wore a face mask making his face look pock marked when shooting in the cafe.
He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards so people wouldn't think it was him who did it .
He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that afternoon and later make it appear she had been killed that morning.
He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was downstairs talking to police on the phone.
He had infra red night vision eyesight.
He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the seige.
He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling at police and only get servere burns on his back.
He arranged for the press to have a convention in Hobart on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get better than usual media coverage.
He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.
He managed to make it appear Tasmanian Police had fabricated and tampered with evidence..
He managed to get Tasmanian DPP lie to the Court about his activities..
He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to witnesses to influenece them and print false stories about him and get Channel Nine to fabricate a video - all while in custody.

A despite all this he managed to get himself convicted of murder and a life sentence and provide enough material for a team of investigators to believe he was innocent.

Or does all this look more like Marty was the dummy selected to take the wrap and hide the truth about who was behind all this ? This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that most of the above things were NOT mentioned by the DPP at Bryant's trial and have been found out by our investigators afterwards.

When you add up all these things and a lot more not listed above it is impossible for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion Bryant was behind this incident - that it was him doing the shooting and that others weren't involved and that a setup and coverup hasn't occurred..

See pictute of Martin Bryant at

The picture above and below demonstrates the fact Martin Bryant was used by the criminals behind Port Arthur. He was seen as expendable as those they shot up. They were quite prepared to leave this intellectual impaired fellow to burn to death in Seascape. The picture came from a video link up sometime in 1996 during court proceedings when at that time Bryant had been pleading not guilty. Because of that the scum involved pumped him so full of mind altering drugs that he ended up looking like a zombie as this picture shows. And just how much media tampering with this picture has gone on is unknown.



Given all the material presented in this website ( let alone that which is not on this site ) the sheer number of major irregularities just on the basis of normal probability must lead one to the conclusion there is something very wrong with the allegation Martin Bryant did all that on a day in April 1996.

With any crimes some irregularities in evidence will usually ocurr, however the number and type of them in this case is so fantastic that only a fool would believe the offical government line that an intellectually disabled person was capable of such cleverly thought out plan. The evidence also indicates, at the bare minimum, a coverup of the facts and an attempt to mislead not only the court but the people of Australia by Tasmanian authorities as to what happened that day.

The evidence clearly shows the DPP lied to the Supreme Court at Martin Bryant's sentencing given that his own allegations were contradicted by his own witness's statements, and others were involved.

What is required to rectify this state of affairs is a full proper coronial inquest into the incident.



See this webpage for the latest news http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpalatest.html


McCutcheon Statement.doc 237 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/McCutcheon%20Statement.doc

Simmons Statement.doc 220 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Simmons%20Statement.doc

Kessarios Statement.doc 279.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Kessarios%20Statement.doc

King Statement.doc 440.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/King%20Statement.doc

Transcript 19th November 1996.doc 840.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Transcript%2019th%20November%201996.doc

Collyer Statement.doc 847 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Collyer%20Statement.doc

SA Police Journal Feature Story March 1997.doc 141.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/SA%20Police%20Journal%20Feature%20Story%...

The Pre Trial Media Strategy.doc 737.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/The%20Pre%20Trial%20Media%20Strategy.doc

US Guns & Amo Magazine Article May 2001.doc 611.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/US%20Guns%20&%20Amo%20Magazine%20Article...

Port Arthur Survivor Calls For Coronial Enquiry.doc 416.5 KB: http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Port%20Arthur%20Survivor%20Calls%20For%2...

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