Ron Owen, your press release of 22/02/01 stated amongst other points
"Secondly let me refute what has been stated in the newspapers." I am NOT an
advocate of the Port Arthur Conspiracy Theories". For many years I have
been sent volumes of material from Western Australia concerning the Port
Arthur Disaster, I have refused to print it or disseminate it, as it is long
on claims of scientific facts and in short produces no useable or credible
evidence."
What are you advocating now?
And you further stated "I am not saying that Martin Bryant is innocent or he
had accomplices or promoting any theory what so ever."
So what are you saying now?
Let us have a look at your points raised by Andrew MacGregor and most of
which have been debated on Public Debate Australia at
http://www.publicdebate.com.au after being introduced by Noel McDonald, who
has retired from the debate 6 times and is now advocating Bryant indeed was
the killer but is innocent through diminished responsibility as a result of
mind control. Diminished responsibility is not a defence in Tasmania.
1."There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre
in Tasmania"
(Barry Unsworth, Premier NSW in Dec 1987)
Do you really believe and ailing and lame State premier looking at a poll
defeat in March 1988 was party to a conspiracy 9 years hence? Did the
statement come out of the blue? No, his lobbying for national gun laws had
just been rejected at a special Premiers conference in Hobart and this was
his response to the media. If the conference was in Brisbane, with that
State's lax laws, he would have referred no doubtedly to Queensland.
2. "We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania unless we get national
gun control laws"
(Roland Brown, Chairman- Coalition for Gun Control, March 1996)
Again, how is a remote person privy to a conspiracy that should be ultra
secret. If all these persons knew a conspiracy was in the making where are
all the post conspiracy whistle blowers? You will find that Mr. Browne was
making these rumblings when any world shooting massacre grabbed the
headlines. After all he is a lobbyist for gun control.
3.National Gun Laws were prepared and discussed at Police Ministers Council
meeting on the 10th November 1995 presented by Daryl Smeaton, a few months
prior to the disaster.
And have been on the agenda for every Police Ministers Council Meeting. They
were not "prepared". Arising out of the National Committee on Violence (set
up in 1988) was a 10 point plan for uniform firearm legislation. This 10
point plan was re-tabled and accepted at the PMC meeting specially convened
after PAM. It formed the basis of legislation passed by the States and
Territories. It had been discussed at every PMC meeting since the
recommendations were handed down in 1990 and the Ministers had failed to
unanimously agree on all points until 1996. This is disinformation to say it
was in legislation form and first raised in 1995.
4.Prior to the massacre, special provision was made to obtain a 22 body
Morgue/Ambulance, the only one of its size in Australia.
When you say "prior" you give the impression of weeks or months. It was
years and it was as a result of a tender which was awarded to a private non
government contractor. Unless you see the terms of the tender and whether
that private contractor met or exceeded those terms you are speculating. I
would suggest you read Public Debate Australia as to why Tasmania needed
this unique vehicle compared to other States and the subsequent allowing of
private ambulance services removed the strain off the existing public
service to resume body removals in the event of a real disaster resulting in
the truck becoming superfluous.
5.Who made the hoax phone call that lured away the local police as Bryant
was at Port Arthur having lunch at the time? Where were Constable Iles and
Sergeant Fogarty?
The EMA papers stated the two police officers initially responded to the
call were at Saltwater Creek. Out of this information Joe Vialls has spun
this story and I make comment -
ˇ His source is unnamed but from Hobart and reputed (does not look good to
start)
ˇ He concedes there is no official recognition that the officers were lured
away by this alleged hoax heroin stash
ˇ He claims they were the only police on the Peninsula and the object of the
hoax was to ensure the police were not in a position to open the swing
bridge which is the only access to the Peninsula and this action would allow
his "psyop" team to escape. Vialls claims, supported by Wendy Scurr, this
was part of local emergency plan to open the swing bridge. It was not part
of any emergency plan and it is ridiculous to consider in the event of a
disaster emergency response vehicles would be blocked from access to the
Peninsula. As confirmation this was not in the emergency plan the swing
bridge at Eagle Hawk Neck was never opened during the currency of this
emergency.
ˇ Three police officers arrived at Seascape within 25 minutes of the call
thereby refuting Vialls' assertion the two decoyed police were the only
police on the Peninsula. And now the matter is raised about the whereabouts
of two other police.
ˇ If police were decoyed to Saltwater Creek how did the conspiracy planners
have confidence the hoax call would take priority and remove "all" police?
ˇ Vialls claims the "gunman" commenced his psyop operation in the café at
precisely the time the police called in to report the call was a hoax. How
was the "gunman" alerted as to this day mobile and radio transmission to PA
are impossible due to it being in a radio black spot? Did a conspiracy "look
out" at Saltwater Creek phone the Broad Arrow Café and have Martin Bryant
paged? O was it done with a relay of flashing mirrors or smoke signals?
The hoax call/police decoy is one of the products of Joe Vialls' fertile and
paranoid imagination and one wonders why MacGregor, who falsely claims he is
an ex police investigator, still gives it currency.
6. Wounded survivor, Graham Colyer said 'Gunman had pockmarked face'.
Noel McDonald has introduced on to Public Debate Australia 7 descriptions
from witness statements (there were about 830 witness statements in total)
of the "gunman" that do not identify to Martin Bryant. He has also has made
reference to differences on clothing. Problem with Noel that all these
variances do not describe a separate person as all the descriptions are
dissimilar and would identify 7 different persons. One had red hair, one had
pock marked face, one stated he was very young, one had a different height,
etc.. What he failed to put forward were the scores of witness statements
that identified Bryant precisely and, more importantly, his unusual high
pitched monotone voice which was an instant distinguishing feature.
Conspiracy theorists dismiss overwhelming evidence when they can concentrate
on isolated minority statements that are the product of poor recall from a
witness.
7.Police Superintendents Bennett & Fielding report mentioned, "two gunmen or
some people or hostages as there appeared to be shots coming from two
separate buildings" at Seascape.
(March 1997 issue of Association of South Australian Police Journal) Autopsy
reports owners had been killed early on Sunday morning and hostage body was
found with handcuffs still on.
The Court Transcript and the EMA Papers make mention of the appearance
initially there may have been more than one person at Seascape Cottage.
However, SOG officers could only identify the movements of one person in the
building throughout the siege. The EMA papers refer to the existence of more
than one person under the heading of "Rumour Mongering". Noel McDonald
always had great difficulty in articulating where the additional persons at
Seascape vanished considering their bodies were never found in the burnt out
ruins and Seascape was surrounded by 200 SOG officers and kept under
surveillance throughout the night.
He tried to put forward a false scenario to "prove" the existence of more
than one person by claiming a shot was fired at police from the roof at
precisely the same time another "terrorist" was on the phone with the
negotiator. He also claimed another "terrorist" was there monitoring a radio
scanner on the police network identifying the location of police.
His false scenario collapsed when it was proved through the references the
two events were hours apart (one was in fading daylight, one in the dark of
night) and the police did not have radio contact in the area and were
relying on a "pony express" service from Taranna Devil Park to convey to the
Seascape police commander details of the phone conversation between Bryant
and the police negotiator.
What is the issue with the final paragraph about autopsy reports?
8. Why did Police request Fire Brigade to standby near Seascape? Then after
Bryant was captured, prevented them from attending to fire, didn't they care
about the hostages?
Never heard this one. Who invented this?
9.Why was no investigation made into the conflicting reports of different
clothing that Bryant was alleged to have worn.
See my answer to 6.
10. No investigation was made into the bullet damage to Bryant's Volvo, left
at the Toll Booth, as no police were involved at that time. Who shot at
Bryant's Volvo?
If bullet damage existed I would say Bryant. I suggest you read the Court
Transcript. The position of the Volvo with respect to the BMW is stated
"Your Honour, after slaughtering the Mikacs Bryant re-entered his vehicle
and drove up the entrance road, pulling up just past the tollbooth on the
left-hand verge, approximately level with or slightly behind the Nixon BMW.
Photograph number 5 shows the position of the Volvo"
Bryant shot the four occupants of the BMW from both sides of the BMW and two
occupants were shot as they were just out of the Volvo and the bullets
exited their bodies. I suggest to you the Volvo being that close would have
incurred the secondary hits from the high velocity bullets exiting their
primary targets, as occurred in the café and was subject to much legal
discussion as to interpretation of charges (one bullet killing more than one
person).
11. Police were notified by Wendy Scurr at 1.32pm while shooting was in
progress. Why did it take until 7.45 pm for armed Police to arrive. "All
crime scenes had been contaminated to varying degrees". (Sergeant G, Dutton,
Australian Police Journal 1998)
I would suggest the police were pre occupied containing the gunman and
attempting to rescue police colleagues, Constables Whittle and Allan, who
were under fire in a ditch outside Seascape and were to remain there for 8
hours. Police tend to be very protecting when one of their own is in danger.
Joe Vialls in explaining his "faked video" on his web site slipped up and
had a picture of a police helicopter on the scene at PA outside the Broad
Arrow café with very relaxed onlookers with the time stamp 75 minutes after
the commencement of the massacre. Why would "armed" police be required at PA
when the only suspect was identified as maintaining a siege 5 kms away?
12.Powder residue tests were not carried out on victims clothing or
Bryant's. (Needed to establish muzzle to victim distance, otherwise victims
could have been shot by someone else from a greater range.) As many
cartridge cases and bullets were missing or not intact, Police could not
forensically prove that Bryant fired the specific rifles at specific
victims. (Sergeant G, Dutton, Australian Police Journal 1998)
Bryant had no clothing on when he was arrested. His clothing was aflame when
he first appeared outside Seascape and when he re-appeared to surrender he
was stark naked and his clothes were burned in the fire! You can refer to
your SA Police Journal- March 1997 for confirmation.
I suggest you read the Court transcript where in relation to determining the
distance of the shot -
"Examination of his body disclosed that the muzzle of the firearm was close
to him when fired because there was gun powder stippling around the entrance
wound. And, your Honour, just by way of explanation, that observation is a
process used by ballistic experts to try and determine the distance between
the muzzle of the firearm and the object or body which the firearm has been
fired at. The range used by Bryant to cause the injuries and murder people
in the café was in most cases at very close Quarters and the terms used by
the ballistics experts who examined the injuries of the persons who
sustained injury and the bodies of the deceased gave three ranges of shots -
close or contact, being either contact or within a few centimetres of the
body - intermediate, being within a few centimetres out to about one to one
point five metres - and then distant, being one to one point five metres and
beyond. Certainly within the intermediate range and in the close or contact
range there is, with a firearm such as the one used by Bryant on this day, a
residue of unburnt propellant which is discharged from the muzzle of the gun
which causes a stippling or tattooing effect around the entry wound."
I would believe these statements rather than Joe Vialls who enhanced the
shooting ability of the "gunman" by claiming all shots in the café were
fired from the hip from an average of 15 feet! But outside the café this
"professional gunman" kills only occurred when he also shot at close
quarters. All distance shots missed and his accuracy was appalling. Sounds
more like Martin Bryant to me.
13.On that dreadful day, ten managers attended a seminar, two hours away at
Swansea. This was the first time since the historical site had been opened,
that senior staff had all attended a Sunday Seminar.
So are you suggesting that from this co-incidence, if it is the truth, the
management of this autonomously administrated Historical Site were made
privy to the conspiracy to selectively save lives of those they preferred?
If not, how did the UN or Federal Government have influence over the Site to
save certain employees or even considered those employees were not
expendible when the object of this "conspiracy" was to create an impact by
the numbers slaughtered to gain attention? Conspiracy logic is incredible
when probed.
_______________________________________________________
Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite Australia
Visit http://inbox.excite.com.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
