World Truths

Port Arthur the True Story


and Port Arthur

The Not So Lone Assassin?

By Joe Vialls

Author Joe Vialls is an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and oilfield operations.

(as published in Exposure Magazine)



After a political attack on Joe Vaills' independent investigation of the Port Arthur massacre, Joe has submitted some "never before released" details to further substantiate his research.

* 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.

* The shooter in the Broad Arrow cafe fired from his right hip at an average range of 12 feet without the benefit of a laser sight. Only 29 rounds were used to kill or injure a total of 32 people, accuracy and speed equivalent to the top 1% of counter-terrorist marksmen. Martin Bryant always fired his Webley Osprey air rifle from the left shoulder, because he is and always has been a left handed shooter.

* In sworn statements to the police, eyewitness Roganovic and Horrocks confirmed that the shooter exited through the front door of the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying a weapon, while a third witness confirmed that the weapon was held in the shooter's right hand. This testimony is in direct conflict with the fake video footage obtained direct from America by the Tasmanian Police Service, who entered it as evidence in the Supreme Court against Matrin Bryant.

In 1988 Australian newspapers reported New South Wales politician Barry Unsworth's claim that, "there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania"

Throughout history - it has been true that the lone assassin has been behind many mass killings. But in recent times he has also been not so alone...governments and intelligence agencies have been known to prey on and use simple and sometimes ill people to massacre innocent victims in order to gain greater control of the masses.

Part 1

In early 1984, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was murdered while on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London. From the moment she was shot, the media misled the British public into believing that Pletcher had been shot by the Libyans, who were subsequently expelled from {he country in a fanfare of negative publicity. It was not until 1995 that this author managed to prove by entirely scientific means that WPC Fletcher could not have been shot from the Libyan Embassy at all, but was shot from the top floor of a nearby building staffed by American multinational personnel.

Was the massacre in Port Arthur a completely spontaneous act carried out by a single nut-case with unbelievable efficiency, or was it a repeat of Yvonne Fletcher's callous murder, deliberately designed to distort public perception and direct maximum hatred against a particular group of people? All of I the available hard scientific evidence Isuggests that it was.

When investigating cases like Yvonne Fletcher's murder or the massacre at Port Arthur, it is critically important to adhere to scientific proof and to avoid eyewitness accounts and media hype as if it were the Black Plague. Eyewitnesses do not lie intentionally, but as any honest psychologist, will tell you the accuracy of their testimony is limited by many factors including stress, suggestive police interrogators, and peer pressure. The more controversial the case, the higher the need for absolute scientific proof; because if the investigation reaches a conclusion which conflicts with the officially accepted story, the media will attempt to trash the credibility of the investigator himself, who in these two cases happens to be me. For four years while investigating the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, I was gently harassed, visited by members of British Intelligence from London, cordially invited to sign the Offlcial Secrets Act, then subtly threatened when I refused to comply.

Some readers might wonder why I am including so much detail about a murder in London when this story is supposed to be about Port Arthur. Well it is about Port Arthur, but there are a number of disturbing similarities between the two cases, especially in terms of media behaviour at the time of each atrocity, and the use of faked video footage to reinforce the official story of the day. So please bear with me for a few paragraphs.


In 1992 when I first decided to investigate WPC Fletcher's murder, the most serious obstacle I encountered was the British media, who for nearly a decade had knowingly nurtured a lie so horrific that it almost defeats the imagination. Yvonne Fletcher, they claimed was murdered by a low velocity bullet fired from the Libya Embassy located behind her on her left-hand side, with the gunman firing downwards from a first floor window at an angle of fifteen degrees. As any amateur can confirm, that means the bullet entered the left side of WPC Fletcher's back at a shallow angle of fifteen degrees and then continued through her body tissue towards the right-hand side of her body. Right? Wrong...the bullet entered WPC Fletcher's upper right back at sixty degrees then sliced down through her rib cage, turning her vital organs into a bloody pulp before exiting her body below the left rib cage.

With Evonne Fletcher's exact position recorded by a television camera when the shots were fired, there was no room for doubt. It was an absolute scientific impossibility for that shot to have been fired from the Libyan Embassy. The steep angle of entry of the bullet limited the firing point to one floor of only one building; the top floor of Enserch House, an American multinational building staffed by personnel with documented links to the American CIA. Without the critical video footage from the television camera I would never have been able to prove how she was killed or by who, but fortunately for me the footage still existed in 1992, and television cameras are inanimate objects incapable of lying.

If proof appears to exist on video there are only two possibilities: the scientific truth, or deliberately faked video footage shown for the public for specia1 effects or in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Interestingly and with profound implications for Port Arthur, fake video footage was put to air by the BBC "for the first iime ever" many months after Yvonne Fletcher's murder, in what appeared to be an attempt to cement the lies and calculated deceptions about her death forever in the minds of the British public. The public failed to ask why this apparently critical footage had not been presented at the coronial inquest into Yvonne Fletcher's death, but fell hook, line and sinker for the blurred images and sound track, which apparently recorded eleven sub-machine gun shots being fired from the Libyan Embassy.

The amateur footage run by the BBC ln 1985 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Metropolitan Police Force. During 1995 I used the immutable laws of astronomy and physics to prove the amateur footage a total fake. Analysis of the angle and position of the sun's shadow falling across the front of the Libyan Embassy was checked using astro-navlgation techniques and direct reference to the Greenwich Observatory (Britain's foremost authority on times and 'dates derived from the sun-line). Unfortunately for the BBC who broadcast the amateur footage "for the first time ever", absolute science proved the sunline on the amateur footage totally incorrect for 10.19 am on the 17th April 1984, the time and date on which Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Indeed, the scientific evaluation proved the amateur footage was not even filmed on the same day Yvonne Fletcher was shot. Those who created that fake footage and then broadcast it were not engaged in a mere media reinterpretation of events, but were accessories after the fact to the murder of an unarmed English policewoman doing her duty on a London street.

After four long years of research and investigation designed to expose the real truth of what happened that day, and after one year as consultant to the responsible film-maker, Britain's Channel Four aired part of my scientific proof in a special edition of "Dispatches", its flagship current affairs programme, on the 10th April 1996. Unfortunately, three months earlier the film-maker became incredibly agitated about my absolute scientific proof from Greenwich that the amateur footage was faked, removed me from the production process of a film based on my own conyright story, barred me from the film credits and then incorporated the fake footage as a legitimate part of the film, minus the incriminating sun-line, which proved in absolute scientific terms that what British television was putting to air for a second time since 1985 was totally false and deliberately misleading!

It became swiftly apparent, that although the media was prepared to throw tiny scraps of truth to the public, gross deceptions, especially those generated by erstwhile colleagues in the form of fake video footage designed to manipulate public opimon, were strictIy off limits. So it is on the subject of fake video footage and its potential for incredible impact on the viewing public, thaf we finally turn to Port Arthur. Some readers may by now be shifting uneasily in their seats, rackin their brains and wonderin exactly when and where it was that they were also suddenly shown amateur footage "for th first time ever" on television in Australia. It was on Wednesday in October 1996, th night before Martin Bryant was due to be sentenced for his alleged role in the Port Arthur massacre.


Many months after th massacre took place, but only hours before fhe Tasmanian judge was due to make a decision that would effect Martin Bryant for the rest of his life, an Australian TV network suddenly presented the public (and of course the judge) with dramatic amateur video footage shown "for the first time ever". The reporter -told us the man on the video was Martin Bryant on the day of the massacre, going about his business of slaugtering the good people of Tasmania, caugh on camera by interested amateur photographers who seemed unmoved bv the dangers of high velocity bullets. Unlike most of the other survivors these folk did not run away but hunkered down like battie-hardened war correspondents covering the end of World War II from an unprotected thoroughfare in the middle of Berlin.

They were also very discree the day after the massacre, when the world's tabloid media descended on Port Arthur like a pack of ravenous dogs, snapping and growling for any picture they could get hold of in order to meet their respective deadlines in London and New York. At that point in time the "amateur footage" was worth half a million bucks no questions asked, for this was a world media event and no-one had any pictures. Perhaps the amateur photographers had no need for huge amounts of cash, or perhaps at that early stage their 'footage had not yet been fully prepared, which was certainly the case after Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London. The amateur footage run by the Australian network in October 1996 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Tasmanian Police Force.

There are so many irregularities on this supposedly genuine video footage, which was accepted as evidence against Martin Bryant in the Tasmanian court, that only a few of the more obvious will be included in this story to help drive the message home. The rest have been carefully collated, and it will give me considerable pleasure to detail each and every one of them personally before a properly convened Royal Commission. If a Royal Commission is not called to fully investigate the methodology used in the massacre, and if Martin Bryant is not called to give evidence, then the People of Australia had best get used to the fact that what little remains of our representative democracy died with the thirty five innocent civilians who were ruthlessly and needlessly murdered at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.

Most readers will remember that at the time of the massacre there were a few clouds in the sky but the sun was shining and casting shadows on the buildings, as shown by footage from some of the genuine video cameras recording at the correct time, indicated by timing clocks displayed in the corner of the video footage itself. One or two of these genuine amateur video cameras recorded the sounds of several shots, complete with multiple echoes, proving that the shots in question were being fired outside rather than in an enclosed space such as the Broad Arrow Cafe. But the video footage allegedly showing Martin Bryant running down the road was filmed under an overcast sky, which was the first indicator that something was terribly wrong with this so-called evidence. Who the hell changed the weather at point-blank notice?

One of the most damning sequences shows what appears to be Martin Bryant (well, a tall man with long blonde hair anyway) running down the road away from the Broad Arrow Cafe towards a coach park by the waterside. Because he is running directly away from the Broad Arrow Cafe with a bulky package under his arm, the assumption is that the package contains a Colt AR15, the weapon known to have killed 20 vichms in the cafe at a rate of one every five seconds. Problem! Scaled against the man's height and surrounding objects fhe package he is carrying is a maximum of 22 inches long, a full ten inches too short for the Colt AR15 which measures 32 inches with its butt fully retracted, and more than ten inches too short for either of the other two weapons claimed to have been found in his car: a Belgian FN 7.62-mm Paratrooper and a combat shotgun. So who is this man running down the road, and why is he not carrying any of the weapons allegedly used in the massacre?

At this stage it would be nice to be able to determine whether or not the man really is Bryant, by comparing an accurate right-hand profile of I Bryant with the video itself. Unfortunately Bryant is the least photographed man in the world to today and all attempts to get hold of a photograph of him have failed. For a while toyed with the idea of asking Martin Bryant's lawyer to get one for me, but then he too had his camera and film confiscated by prison officials. One wonders why the Australian authorities are so anxious that no pictures of Bryant be allowed outside (or I even in) the Prison. They would do no obvious harm.

Whether the man is Bryant ur not, a few frames in this sequence make a mockery of any suggestion the prized footage presented to the Tasmanian court was meaningful evidence asgainst Martin Bryant. What they show is a blonde man still running down the road towards the coach park clutching his package, while in the upper left corner of the same frames three men can be clearly seen standing directly outside the entrance of the Broad Arrow Cafe, out of which the blonde man has just run after murdering 20 citizens. One man is standing to the left of the entrance casually leaning on the balustrade with one hand; the second is standing casually on the right smoking a cigarette, and the third is standing directly in front of the door filming the running blonde man with a video camera. To suggest this in any way incrimates Bryant is not only ridiculous, but also quite impossible with the blonde man allegedly in the middle of a massive killing spree.


Just these points alone prove in scientific terms one of two entirely critical scenarios:

(1.) If the blonde, man is Martin Bryan but unarmed, what is he doing role-playing with three men directly in front of the Broad Arrow Cafe? It is scientifically impossible for the three men not to be involved so this option proves beyond doubt that Martin Bryant did not act alone, but was manipulated or directed at the crime scene by others whose identities are not yet known.

(2.) If the blonde man is not Martin Bryant then the only alternative is that a team of unknown men carried out the massacre and then set up a reconstruction on film using a blonde look-alike, to ensure that Martin Bryant would later be convicted. In absolute scientific terms there are no other explanations at all, no matter how much the media might wriggle and squirm in its attempts to ensure the pathetic "Lone Nut" legend remains intact.

If sufficiently panicked, the police might claim that Martin Bryant was merely helping them with a reconstruction to assist with their future inquiries, which was filmed and then accidentally released to the Australian television network. But he couldn't have, could he? Martin Bryant was badly burned at Seascape and spent weeks afterwards heavily sedated in Hobart Hospital under armed guard. Of course he may have been induced to help with a reconstruction before the massacre started, but it seems unlikely the police would be prepared to discuss such a blood curdling possibility.

Sclence can be frighteningly efficient at times because, believe it or believe it not, science has just proved in absolute terms, using court evidence, that Martln Bryant could not under any circumstances have acted alone, and may possibly not have acted at all other than in an orchestrated 'Patsy' role. Which one is true depends on which of the two alfernative scenarios detailed above are correct, but there are absolutely no other scientific life-rafts for the sinking media to grab hold of.

Remember, this is not unsubstantiated hearsay evidence from frightened eyewitnesses used by the media to hype up its mythical version of events. It is absolute scientific proof which cannot be questioned or refuted. Most readers like a story to have a beginning, a middle, and a coherent end. Science can and has provided an accurate outline of the first two but it cannot provide the third. As an nvestigator I insist on dealing only with hard facts because it is the only way to avoid being swept afong by the avalanche of misinformation put out by the media on a daily basis, and there are no hard facts available to answer the question "For God's sake why?"

In any criminal investigation it is acknowledged that three main criteria have to be satisfied i.e. opportunity, motive and method. Just about anyone had the opportunity to attack those civilians in a remote spot like Port Arthur, on a Sunday, without fear of being caught or punished in any way. Where method is concerned, any expert combat shooter could have killed 20 unarmed civilians at five second spacings and wrought havoc in the general area athough the words "expert comat shooter" should be noted with care. Though Australia has tens of thousands of skilled sporting shooters it has very few combat veterans, and even fewer special forces personnel trained to kill large numbers of peopIe quickly in an enclosed space llke the Broad Arrow Cafe, (which is roughly the same size as mock-up rooms used for practicing the rescue of hostages being held in confined spaces by armed terrorists). It is hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of unpleasant practical reasons, including the fact that shot people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets. Targets therefore have to be shot in a careful sequence with split second timing to maximise kill rates. Whoever was on the trigger in Tasmania managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier. This was an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant's midsixties IQ and his total lack of military training, which is an interesting but largely unimportant observation because we have already proved in absolute scientific terms that Bryant could not have acted alone.


That leaves us looking for the motive, which is impossible to determine with any certainty, thouch it is reasonable to cross link his to Yvonne Fletcher's pre-meditated murder in London purely in terms of cause and effect. The effect of Yvonne Fletcher's savage and very public murder caused public hatred to be directed against the Libyans, who were subsequently deported en-masse from Britain despite the fact they were in no way responsible for her death.

The only visible cause and effect that can be laid at the door of the Port Arthur massacre is that the effect of the obscene action caused public hatred to be directed against Australian sporting shooters, who like the Llbyans were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a massive funded campaign to disarm the Australlan people in spite of significant external threats to our national security. If this was indeed the motive, Australia and its people have been violated in the worst possible way by sworn enemies of our great nation, with likely long term consequences too awesome to contemplate.

It is just not right to simply accept the status quo as it exists today in Port Arthur, because to do so implies that Australians have thrown in the towel and admitted defeat on the strength of a single savage action in our smallest State. The only way to avenge our dead in Port Arthur, is to force a Royal Commission on the matter and drag witnesses kicking and screaming into the dock, including certain members of the Tasmanian Police Service. Failing that, funding should be sought for an indedendent investigation, which would provide the real facts about the chain of events at Port Arthur.

Realistically, it would probably take years to find the massive sum needed for such a wide-ranging initiative but there is a positive need for action now, if only to put the Prime Minister on the back foot and convince him there is no longer any need to wear 'boron carbide body armour' when attending public meetings.

All Australians must be made aware of the real and shocking circumstances in which their fellow citizens died, because knowledge is the only weapon we can use to guard against future lethal charades on Australian territory.

Part 2

Part two uses military science to prove that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the murders at Port Arthur or on the Arthur Highway, though he may have fired 250 wild shots from Seascape during the siege (every one of which failed to hit a target).

The initial reaction of most readers to the idea that Martin Bryant killed no-one at Port Arthur but was deliberately set up, is a combination of horror and complete disbelief. Yet all of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears the distinctive trademark of a planned "psyop" (an operation designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons). Because of their illegal nature psyops are never formally ordered by governments, but are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations and others.

Patsies are normally used as decoys to deflect attention away from the specialist group, allowing the latter time to extract safely from the operational area while the patsy takes the blame.

As an example, police woman Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London during 1984 was a psyop where the intended patsie were four million Libyans. The next blatant psyop was Lockerbie when on 21 December 1988 Pan American flight 103 exploded in mid-air killing all 259 passenger and crew. AIthough very recent scientific evidence not yet in the public domain proves conclusively that the Libyans could not have been responsible, they were nonetheless blamed for the atrocity. The principal affect of these two psyops on the Libyans, were sanctions designed to prevent them updating defensive weapon systems capable of protecting their resource-rich nation.

By a strange coincidence Australia is also a resource-rich nation, with overall reserves more than twenty times as valuable as those in Libya, but with only half the defence capability. In some ways this was not an insurmountable problem until 1996 because our nation has always had huge numbers of sporting shooters traditionally, used in time of war to supplement our minuscule forces. Not any more. Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve firearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources "jewel" of the Southern Hemisphere.


Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the Port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world. His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while in injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself as a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty of such specialists in the Western world.

Over the years television viewers have been subjected to such a barrage of Rambo-style television programs that most now believe that every time someone points a gun and pulls the trigger, twenty bad guys immediately fall down dead from lethal shots to the head or heart. Unfortunately this Hollywood media rubbish is hopelessly misleading and in no way reflects the difficulties involved in killing large numbers of people quickly. For a number of reasons, killing efficiently at close range in crowded and confined spaces presents far more complex targeting problems than those associated with conventional open-air combat scenarios. In the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter fired at an average range of twelve feet, where a tiny aim-off error of three degrees is enough to ensure that a bullet completely misses a target the size of a human head.

Scientific terms such as killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate are enough to bore most readers to death, but in order to fully comprehend the massacre, it is essential information. The killed-to-injured ratio is used to calculate how many injured survivors should be expected for every person killed for a given number of rounds fired. Even assault rounds as powerful as those fired by the Coll AR15 can only ensure a one-shot kill if the target is hit in the head, a six by six inch target; or in the heart, a ten by ten inch target. Together these areas form between one fifth and one seventh of the overall body target area, so for every person killed there will be between five and seven injured, expressed as "1 to 5" and "1 to 7'.

The records show that a total of 32 people were shot in the Broad Arrow Cafe, so at best we would expect 4 dead and 28 injured, or at worst 6 dead and 26 injured. These are very reliable military figures based on hard science, but the actual figures in the Broad Arrow Cafe were 20 dead and 12 injured an incredible inverted ratio of 1.66 to 1. Special forces train continuously for months on end to achieve a ratio as high as this, which lies far beyond the abilities of regular soldiers, and is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually impaired registered invalid.

Those desperately trying to protect the "lone nut" Iegend will scream foul at this point and claim that flukes happen. No they do not. About seven months ago trained Israeli soldier went berserk in Hebron and fired a complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an identical Col AR15 into a crowd of Palestinians at the same range His thirty high velocity bullet injured nine and killed no-one at all This Israeli example helps to drive home the absolute lunacy of insinuations that Bryant, registered invalid, suddenly metamorphasized into the lethal equivalent of a fully trained an highly disciplined US Navy SEAL.

Next we come to the kill-rate which refers to the speed at which people are killed, thereby reflecting the skill, co-ordination, and accuracy of the shooter. It is accepted by all the authorities in Tasmania that immediately after the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe he killed his first 12 victims in 15 seconds.

The first thing special forces do when entering an enclosed area containing superior numbers is lay down very fast accurate fire designed to kill as many hostiles l as possible, thus gaining absolute control of the area in record time and minimising the risk of injury to themselves. Because hostiles frequently wear body armour protecting the heart area, special forces are trained to aim instinctively for the smaller heart target. Following these unpublished protocols precisely, the shooter at Port Arthur gained absolute control of the Broad Arrow Cafe in fifteen seconds flat killing most of his victims with single a shot to the head. To even suggest that Martin Bryant (whose proven weapons handling experience was limited to a single shot Webley Osprey air rifle) could have caused this carnage is absurd.


When the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe and fired the first shot, everyone inside reacted instinctively to the huge muzzle blast, but each reacted in a different way. Some just turned their heads while others moved physically, temporarily obscuring yet more diners and shielding them from the line of fire. In a millisecond the cafe was full of targets moving in at least ten different directions while the muzzle of the AR15 was still recoiling upwards from the first shot.

Despite the enormous difficulties and the complex target trigonometry involved, the shooter controlled the recoil, shooting 12 moving and partially obscured targets at the rate of one every 1.25 seconds. He did not trip over any obstructions, indicating that he must have been in the cafe some time earlier, during his final reconnaissance when he studied the layout to ensure no hiccups occurred during the operation. Ninety seconds after entering the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter departed, leaving thirty two people lying on the floor, twenty of them dead.

All of these hard scientific facts were deliberately excluded by the frenzied media pack. Long blonde hair did not prove that the shooter was Martin Bryant, and the media somehow forgot to remind the Australian pubic that long wigs are the most common form of basic disguise ever used. In the Broad Arrow a long wig would also have been necessary to conceal the ear protection worn by the shooter. Firing more than thirty high velocity AR15 rounds in that hollow confined space produced as much concussive blast as a pair of stun grenades; sufficient concussion to severely impair the shooter's spatial orientation (and thus aim) unless wearing ear protectors or combat communications headphones.

Official accounts are hazy about what happened next, but it is confirmed that most of those killed thereafter were shot with the Belgian FN, a heavier assault weapon which has a completely different weight and balance from the Colt ARI5 and fires a round producing more than twice the recoil. But despite switching between weapons with very different handling characteristics, and shifting from close to intermediate range, the shooter constantly maintained an awesome inverted killed-to-injured ratio.

Overall the massacre produced 35 dead and 22 injured for a final killed-to-injured ratio of 1.60 to 1, almost identical to the 1.66 to 1 ratio in the Broad Arrow Cafe. To say the shooter was consistent would be the understatement of the year. In layman terms, the shooting of 35 people who were killed at Port Arthur should have been accompanied by between 175 and 245 injured survivors; very similar ratios to the American McDonalds and other random massacres. Instead there were only 22, the trademark of a highly trained combat shooter.

The professional shooter in Tasmania presented us with a final display of his unquestioned prowess when tourist Linda White and her boyfriend Mick approached Seascape Cottage on the Port Arthur road (in a small four-wheel drive vehicle) shortly after the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Both saw the shooter aim and Linda White felt the wind of the first round as it passed her cheek and shattered the driver's window next to her head. The shooter corrected his aim and the second round hit Linda White in the arm, just to the right of the heart target area. The third round killed the engine and stopped the vehicle.

In this, his ultimate demonstration of combat skill, the shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported freestanding firing positron (the most difficult posltlon of all). He instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same blinding speed as the computer gunsight on an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three. This man might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur.


In the view of this author, these were the last shots fired by the professional before he (or they) smoothly exited, leaving patsy Martin Bryant down the track at Seascape holding the baby.

The trail to Seascape Cottage had been meticulously laid. In Martin Bryant's car was a combat shotgun, a bag of ammo for the Belgian FN and, very conveniently, Martin Bryant's passport. Then there was Linda White's disabled four wheel drive on the Arthur Highway, a stolen BMW burning in the grounds of Seascape to mark the way, and just in case all these clues were not enough for the Tasmanian Police, an anonymous caller to police headquarters in Hobart advised the authorities that the man holed up in Seascape was probably Martin Bryant.

Short of erecting a pink neon sign reading "this way to the patsy", the professional or professionals seem to have thought of everything. There were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur because an Australian newspaper circulated his photograph nationwide, thereby totally corrupting any and aIl police lineups, photo boards, or controlled shopping mall parades. All the eyewitnesses could legally claim was a "tall man with long blonde hair".

So Bryant the patsy, was firmly in place and Seascape was swiftly surrounded by armed police from Tasmania and Victoria, most of whom must have been very puzzled as the siege continued through the night. If we are to believe media reports, Martin Bryant fired 250 rounds during the siege period but hit nothing at all, which is exactly what one would expect of someone whose prior experience was limited to a Webley Osprey air rifle. If the professional shooter had fired 250 rounds from Seascape Cottage during the siege, his awesome killed-to-injured ratio would have resulted in a police funeral cortege stretching from the Tasman Peninsula to Hobart.


It is beyond doubt that many of the armed police at Seascape noticed Bryant's wild undisciplined performance bore I absolutely no resemblance at all to that of the deadly shooter at Port Arthur, and some must have told their senior officers about it. But the media had its man, the feeding frenzy was in full swing and the police were not going to be allowed to spoil a lucrative politically-correct story.

Unfortunately media versions of events had some flaws so basic, that to mention them on national television was an insult to the intelligence. We were told in most reports that Bryant had three weapons, one of which (the Daewoo combat shotgun) was left in the boot of his Volvo near the tollbooth, and that he then took the Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles down to Seascape with him, using them along with other weapons found in the house to fire the 250 shots at police during the siege.

Bryant's last telephone conversation with the police was around 9 pm on 28 April and his next contact was when he stumbled out of a fiercely burning Seascape Cottage unarmed and with his back on fire at 8.37 am the following morning. Police confirmed that Bryant came out unarmed, and also confirmed that by then the fire was burning so fiercely that they were completely incapable of approaching the building to see if anyone else was still alive.

Seascape rapidly became an inferno as the entire structure collapsed on the ground in a pile of white-hot debris, which of course included the charred and twisted remains of the Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles allegedly fired from inside the building by Martin Bryant.

So how can it be that on a Channel 9 program shown in November 1996 a Tasmanian police officer was able to show all Australians two immaculate assault weapons allegedly used by Bryant at Port Arthur. Where did the police obtain those pristine weapons we were shown on national television?


In order to present even a shell of a case against Martin Bryant the prosecution needed valid identification by witnesses, but all eyewitness statements were corrupt. In addition they needed the weapons used in the massacre either in Martin Bryant's possession or bearing his fingerprints, so that they could be ballistically cross-matched to bullets found in the victims at Port Arthur. They had neither. Nor were Bryant's fingerprints found at the Broad Arrow Cafe where he is alleged to have eaten lunch immediately before the massacre and in an unprecedented move, fully-edited fake video footage obtained directly from America was entered as evidence in court.

In short there is no case for Bryant to answer with regard to Port Arthur, though he must still explain why he was at Seascape or, more to the point perhaps, tell us who talked him into going there when he did. Bryant did admit to taking the BMW (but from a different location) and without knowing why, setting fire to it later at Seascape, but vehemently denied any involvement at Port Arthur.

His limited confession fits the known hard scientific facts exactly and for many months after his arrest, despite the severe disadvantage of his intellectual impairment, Bryant kept to history in the face of tremendous pressure from police interrogators and psychiatrists to admit the enormity of his alleged crimes. He continued to refuse to do so and at the formal hearing on 3 September 1996 pleaded not guilt, to all seventy two charges. At that precise point in time the prosecution knew it had a very serious problem. Martin Bryan was refusing to roll over and there was absolutely no hard evidence at all linking him to the murders at Port Arthur, a fact that would very quickly become obvious if the case was allowed to proceed to trial in front of twelve alert Tasmania jurors. About the only thing the might save the day was a false confession. With the media pack outside its doors baying for blood government had to do something but had few options

Shortly afterwards, according to Tasmanian reporter Mike Bingham, Martin Bryant's mother Carleen, unable to face the stress of a public trial, paid a visit to Bryan at Risdon Prison and told him that if he did not plead guilty, she and his younger sister Lindy would commit suicide and he would never see them again. Bryant's mother and sister were probably the only people in the world that would still talk to him, and as a result Carleen Bryant's threat achieved in days what the police interrogators and psychiatrists had l failed to achieve in months. Martin Bryant loved his mum and sister and wanted to see both of them again, something that would only happen if he could stop them committing suicide.


If Seascape had been located in California or Texas, Martin Bryant would unquestionably have been shot dead the split second he left the building. It was only the iron discipline exercised by the Tasmanian and Victorian police special operations groups at the scene, which allowed Martin Bryant to be taken into custody alive. All of those armed officers deserve the highest praise for their restraint in what must have been perceived as an extremely dangerous situation.

It is beyond doubt that those who planned the psyop are uneasy about Martin Bryant's continued existence and would sleep better at night if he should suddenly drop down dead. With this in mind, any good-natured crims enjoying an extended sabbatical in Risdon prison who read this report, are asked to keep an eye on Martin Bryant and do what they can to ensure that he doesn't accidentally commit 'suicide' or slip on a bar of soap and break his neck.

This is far from the end of the story but it is all that I will be publishing until an intensive independent investigation into the massacre is carried out in Tasmania. There are at least eight other gross errors surrounding the mass murder, any one of which has the potential to savagely damage government, and another thirty lesser points, but each and every one must be verified in absolute privacy. If my investigation into Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London taught me anything at all, it I was simply that the premature release of critical information serves only to allow time for media apologists to think up highly creative ways of minimising its impact on the public.

If the Federal Government is to be forced into action, it must be presented with a case so complete and so utterly damning that immediate action will be its only recourse short of being thrown out of office by a large bunch of very angry Australians.

Many years ago Oscar Wilde l said "Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose" In 1988 Australian newspapers reported New South Wales politician Barry Unsworth's claim that, "there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania"

Part 3

Tasmania's second patsy: Terry Hill

Official documents supporting this report in full are held by the author, but certain names have been suppressed on legal advice!

Two days after the massacre at Port Arthur in April 1996, gun dealer Terry Hill of New Town, Tasmania, saw a photo of a men on the front page of his local newspaper, reportedly connected with the mass murder.

Hill recognized the man as "Martin RYAN" who had earlier visited his dealership. Hills contacted police. Unfortunately for him, he was unaware that the Tasmanian Government had thirty five corpses, one possible suspect, but no supplier of the weapons allegedly used in the massacre.

It was one of the biggest holes in the Government's impossible case against Martin Bryant, but a hole that could be filled in very neatly by sacrificing Terry Hill on the alter of political expediency.

On 27 March 1996 Terry Hill and assistant Greg Peck were working at "Guns and Ammo" in New Town, Tasmania, when the door opened and a tall man with long blonde hair walked in carrying a package wrapped in a towel. Known to Terry Hill only as Martin, the man muttered that "something was wrong with it" and promptly handed the package muzzle first across the counter. When Terry Hill unwrapped the towel he found that "it" was an AR10 assault rifle fitted with a clip containing 15 live rounds of high velocity .308 (7.62-mm NATO) ammunition.

Horrified, Hill removed the clip and worked the action, at which point another live round ejected from the breech. "Martin" had calmly walked into the store with a fully-loaded and unsafe assault weapon, blissfully unaware he had done anything wrong. His actions that morning demonstrated with chilling clarity that "Martin" had absolutely no idea how to load, cock, aim, fire, or unload, assault weapons of any kind.

Despite this staggering lack of knowledge, thirty two days later the Tasmanian Government tried to convince the world that "Martin" had entered the Broad Arrow cafe at Port Arthur, and with the panache usually reserved for top special forces combat shooters, shot 32 victims (20 of them dead), in less than 90 seconds with a Colt AR15 Commando. After that, the clumsy inept Martin is alleged to have left the cafe, deftly changed weapons to a heavier Belgian FN FAL with completely different loading and cocking mechanisms, and used it to kill or wound another 25 people. Both weapons were so well maintalined and tuned that neither one faltered or jamed during the entire 14.5 minute operation at Port Arthur.

As proved scientifically in parts one and two, written by this author, whoever prepared and fired those weapons was no Martin Bryant at all, but an expert combat shooter with special forces counter-terrorist experience.

Back at "Guns and Ammo" in New Town during late March this was still in the future, as a shaken Terry Hill stared aghast at the neat pile of high velocity rounds on his counter. Did Martin have a license? Yes he did, one of the newer photographic licenses, endorsed for prohibited and automatic firearms.

In a statement to police Hill confirmed the first name was Martin, and so far as he could remember, the surname was RYAN. Under the gun laws existing before the massacre Hill was not required to write down license details unless selling a weapon, and thus did not do so, but he has sworn statements from other witnesses that Martin produced this license in their presence. The Dutch AR10, serial number 001590, was in very poor condition and Hill wanted to retain it at the shop for safety. Receiving no instructions for repairs, Terry Hill asked Martin to return after Easter.

Over the next month Martin made several visits to 'Guns and Ammo', purchasing items that did not require details of his license to be recorded. These purchases included several gun cases and finally, on 24 April 1996, four days before the massacre, three boxes of Winchester XX 1 1/2 oz shotgun shells, code number X12XC. But at no time before or since did Terry Hill sell Martin any weapons, or ammunition of .223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibres, as use in the mass murder on 28 April 1996.


Martin had lived in the New Town area for many years but was not a regular customer at 'Guns and Ammo', so why did he suddenly start purchasing multiple innocuous goods from Terry Hill in the month immediately preceding the massacre at Port Arthur?

The most likely answer in intelligence parlance, is that someone asked Martin to go and buy the various items mentioned in order to build a "legend", designed to ensure that after the massacre a direct association would be made between Martin Bryant and a recognized gun dealer as the "supplier" of the weapons used at Port Arthur.

There is other evidence indicating this was the case. Long before the massacre took place, Martin Bryant's unaccompanied baggage was searched on entry to Australia and two pornographic videos seized. As the baggage was literally unaccompanied, anyone could have placed the pornographic tapes in the suitcase and then tipped-off Customs about its "obscene" contents.

On another occasion Bryant was arrested on entry to Australia on "information received", and taken to a Melbourne Hospital for an internal examination on the suspicion of drug trafficking. He was found innocent of any offense and released. On a third occasion there was an alleged "incident" in Hereford, England, which was reported to the police because Hereford is the home of British Special Air Service (SAS). Once again Bryant was completely innocent of any wrong doing, but by then the international computers were building a very convincing legend indeed.

By the date of the massacre at Port Arthur through no fault of his own, a computer search would have shown a string of warning flags indicating that Martin Bryant was a possible drug trafficker and purveyor of pornographic materials, and perhaps someone who had shown an unhealthy interest in the activities of Britain's premier counter-terrorist unit. Add all of that to his frequent visits to 'Guns and Ammo' during March and April 1996, and the Tasmanian Police Service would have needed to be superhuman to resist the implied legendary "proof" that Martin Bryant was its man.


Unfortunately Terry Hill was completely unaware of these computer manipulations when he did his duty as a responsible citizen on 30 April 1996, and reported his knowledge of Martin to police. It was at that point that his life and the lives of his family started to slowly come apart at the seams. Members of the police insisted that he must have sold the weapons and ammunition to Bryant, and made similar "off the record" accusations to the Tasmanian media, but Hill refused to budge. Why on earth admit selling weapons and ammunition to Bryant when he had not done so?

That later sordid attacks on Hill were political initiatives is beyond question. Terry Hill had a valid gun dealer's license, and there were witnesses to the fact that Martin had shown a valid dealer's license to him. He was thus fully entitled to sell any weapon to Martin without committing any offense at all under Tasmanian law, and would have admitted doing so in his statement if it were true. But it was not true, and Terry Hill was not prepared to "help the police" by signing a statement that amounted to an outright lie.

Things went quiet for a while and then Hill was interviewed by police in the presence of a lawyer on 6 June 1996. As he had always done, Hill maintained that he had not at any time sold weapons or rifle ammunition to Martin Bryant (or Ryan) and would not be changing his truthful stand. Unfortunately pressure seemed to be mounting, perhaps at senior Tasmanian Government levels, to incriminate Hill at any cost, and he immediately received a letter from the attending lawyer, containing the following comments:

"... In a private conversation that was had between the writer and Inspector xxxxx, Inspector xxxxx made it abundantly clear that police have very strong evidence to suggest that you did in fact sell guns to Bryant and unless you are prepared to in effect to change your story, they will press on and try and find sufflcient evidence to charge you with some offenses.

However, it is also abundantly clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions is prepared to offer you an indemnity against prosecution if you are prepared to accept that you did sell guns to Bryant .."

The letter was crude and revealing. By saying the police would "press on and try to find sufflcient evidence to charge you with some offences", the writer admitted that police had no evidence whatsoever against Terry Hill. If they had, in a matter of such seriousness as the Port Arthur massacre, he would have already been charged with criminal offences. But Terry Hill was never charged at all, making a mockery of the police threats. That the offer of an indemnity was guaranteed by the DPP is especially telling in terms of who was applying the blowtorch to police in an attempt to coerce a false confession out of Hill. The office of DPP is a political appointment, and agreement for indemnity against prosecution was thus a political decision made by government.

The legal letter delivered to Terry Hill on Friday 7 June, advised that the Tasmanian Police would be expecting an answer no later than the following Wednesday, 12 June. There seemed no point in delaying the matter, so Hill called his lawyer on Monday 10 June and said there would be no statement of the sort requested by the police. Terry Hill also had other things to worry about. His mother, Alma, was terminally ill and not expected to live for many more days.

On Thursday 13 June, Hill received a call from the hospital requesting his immediate attendance at her bedside, and was forced to depart 'Guns and Ammo' immediately, leaving his wife Dorothy alone to cope with police who simultaneously arrived at the store to carry out a "snap inspection". And so it was that the police found a number of technical reasons to revoke Terry Hill's gun dealer's license, while he sat powerless beside his dying mother's bedside at the local hospital. Alma finally passed away at 6.03 am the following morning.


It is of course possible for any government regulatory body to find sufficient technical reasons to close down any business at any time, provided there is sufficient political will to do so. There is a copy of the "Notice of Cancellation of Gun Dealer's License No. 54546" on the desk beside me as I write this report, and it must be said it records some items which under normal circumstances might have attracted an infringement notice calling for action within a specified time period. But not for Hill. Instead, his license was revoked and his livelihood destroyed.

Terry Hill would have been less than human if he had not glanced again at the legal letter sent to him just one week earlier, which warned quite coldly that if he did not admit to selling weapons to Martin Bryant, the police would "press on an try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offenses."

More than a year later in July 1997 the situation was to worsen. Why all the fuss, and why the continual persecution of Terry Hill, a man who had every reason to tell the truth and none at all to lie? The answer lies in the critical importance of proving that Martin Bryant had access to, and used, two high velocity assault rifles which could not be backtracked to anyone on the island of Tasmania or on the Australian mainland.

The police had no credible proof at all that Bryant fired either weapon at Port Arthur; they had no ballistic cross-matches between the weapons in question and the bullets found in the victims; they had no fingerprints proving an association between Martin Bryant and the weapons, or between Martin Bryant and the Broad Arrow Cafe where the massacre was initiated. By any standard then, the government should have long ago announced these harsh but accurate facts, and further announced its intention to hunt down those who did have access to (and ownership of the weapons most likely to have been used in the mass murder.

At the political level however, such an honest move would be seen as quite unacceptable, leaving as it would several politicians with egg all over their faces. Admitting that you had locked up the wrong man while the guilty parties were probably sunning themselves in the Bahamas was simply too hard and, anyway, who gave a damn about Martin Bryant?


But no matter the blast of continuous media myth assuring us of his guilt, there was still the impossible matter of proving once and for all that the two known assault weapons were Martin Bryant's as provided by "somebody".

Which somebody? Terry Hill of course, as Tasmanian Legal Aid finally decided to try and prove in an unprecedented "back door" civil legal action launched on 31 July 1997. Taxpayer funds were suddenly allocated to a plaintiff to take action against Terry Hill, a man who has never been charged with any criminal offence. Cracks were appearing in the official government version of events, and someone somewhere was determined to paper them over with taxpayer funds.

For any government to allow such a desperate and absurd case to proceed, is a deliberate misuse of public funds, and has the potential to create an incredibly dangerous legal precedent. The rationale for the civil suit is that the plaintiff was injured by a bullet fired at Port Arthur, and is suing Terry Hill for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty; for allegedly selling Martin Bryant an AR15 military-style rifle, a scope, and around 250 round of ammunition.

For doing WHAT? The Tasmanian police have already proved via the legal letter to Terry Hill that there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim for this. If there was, they would unquestionably have pressed criminal charges.

Even if Terry Hill had sold Martin Bryant the weapons, which he did not, it would have been an entirely legal transaction on the valid license that Bryant produced, where it is the duty of the licensing authority to judge the suitability of the applicant for the license, and thus the right to use those weapons.

Under such circumstances, allowing this case to proceed would be exactly the same as allowing a case to be brought against a licensed car dealer, for selling a car to a licensed driver, who then drove off and killed somebody in the street. Once the transaction was complete the licensed car dealer would no longer be involved. And what about the farmer who sells wheat to a cereal manufacturer, who makes a mistake with his production process and kills someone with a bowl of Wheat Bran? Do we sue the farmer for damages and statutory negligence? Of course not, because we are clearly not as unhinged as some members of the Tasmanian bureaucracy.

That legal aid should even be considered in this matter is beyond the pale because Terry Hill never sold Martin Bryant any weapons, and probably lost his livelihood because of his determination to maintain the truth and not provide the DPP with that vital missing link in the trail of evidence.

So are all of you out there going to sit back and let this happen, funded by hard-earned dollars screwed out of you by the government elected by the people for the people? The Port Arthur cover-up has gone too far already and it is time for every responsible Australian to call for the dismissal of the official in The Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania responsible for authorizing this Orwellian outrage.

By Joe Vialls

45 Merlin Drive, Carine, West Aust. 6020

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

Wendy Scurr is a forthright lady with a sound track record of helping othersat the ``sharp end'' of ambulance operations. During her twenty years with the St Johns Ambulance, and ten years with the Tasman Ambulance Service, as a volunteer ambulance officer, Wendy has seen and done just about everything, attending accidents and incidents so gruesome most people would prefer not to be given full details. As one of the first Port Arthur staff members to enter the Broad Arrow Cafe after the massacre,
the carnage came as a shock, but Wendy's extensive prior experience enabled her to cope admirably with the injured and the dead.

Wendy Scurr also thinks and reacts like lightning. Within minutes of hearingthe shooting start in the Broad Arrow Cafe, she rushed into the nearby information office and placed a call to police headquarters
in Hobart. Not amused by initial police reluctance to believe she was telling the truth, Wendy simply shoved the handset outside the doorway and told them to listen to the shots over the phone. Police
logged her call at 1.32 pm, a point of considerable importance later in this report.

It is obvious that anyone with the ability to react so quickly and pass information so accurately would be
a prime asset to the police who swarmed over Port Arthur later in the day. Knowing that Wendy made that first critical telephone call and then entered the Broad Arrow Cafe to help the injured should have
drawn the police to her like a magnet, but curiously didnot do so. She offered the police additional information about the sequence of events but says her interview was abruptly terminated. On 15th October 1996 Wendy received a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions stating she would not be
required to give evidence at the trial of Martin Bryant, though it is hard to imagine anyone better placed to provide an accurate account of events that day.

It was the start of a long frustrating battle to get some of the more controversial aspects of the massacre out into the open, a battle Wendy, Graeme, and several others initially lost because of government
determination to adhere to the ``official line'' agreed with the media. That official lineincluded the gunman being inside the Broad Arrow Cafe for 90 seconds rather than the four to five minutes Wendy
and her colleagues counted, but excludedthe fact that several people were shot dead behind a door that would not open. The official line also excluded the fact that the only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location just before the massacre started. And what about the
startling news that out of the 20 fatalities in the Broad Arrow Cafe, 19 died from the effects of a shot to the head, fired from the gunman's right hip without benefit of a laser sight? Excluded of course, because
the government would be unable to stop the avalanche of public comment on this impossible performance by an untrained left-handed novice like Martin Bryant.

The only personnel available to stop or interrupt the slaughter were two policemen, one stationed in Nubeena 11 kilometres from the Port Arthur site, (map) and the other at Dunalley, a small town to the

  north with a swing bridge capable of isolating the Tasman Peninsula from the rest of Tasmania. Shortly before the massacre both policemen were sent to the coal mines near Saltwater River, an isolated location on the extreme western side of the Tasman Peninsula, in response to an anonymous caller reporting a large stash of heroin. On arrival they found only glass jars full of soap powder, and reported
this via the police radio net.

Aharmless time consuming prank perhaps? No. Reliable sources in Hobart state that this was the only drugs decoy ever attempted on the Tasman Peninsula since police records began, and meaningfully point out that leaving glass jars of fresh soap powder was a very professional touch that backfired. Why would
anyone assume the soap powder was heroin and place an emergency call to the police without checking the contents first? And why did the caller insist on anonymity? Graeme Scurr makes the valid point that it would be hard to select a more suitable remote location if specifically decoying the two policemen away from the Port Arthur historic site and Dunalley. Asingle glance at a map of the Tasman Peninsula proves his observation to be absolutely correct.

Within minutes of the two policemen reporting their position at the coal mines, the shooting began in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Wendy Scurr made her call to police headquarters at 1.32 pm, and there was then a
short but understandable time lag before the police comprehended the sheer magnitude of the situation at Port Arthur and ordered their Tasman colleagues to proceed to the crime scene.

It is unlikely they left the coal mines before 1.36 pm and were then faced with a 30 minute drive to Port Arthur. By the time the officers arrived the operation was over, and both men were then pinned down by
erratic gunfire from Seascape.

There was another sound operational reason for the decoy. Wendy Scurr is familiar with the emergency plan for the area and says that in the event of a major incident, the swing bridge at Dunalley would be closed to traffic, to prevent more vehicles straying onto the Peninsula and causing complications.

It is a sensible plan, and the command to operate the swing bridge and isolate the Peninsula would
normally first be directed through the police officer at Dunalley. But once the bridge was closed to traffic, it would also prevent anyone leaving the Peninsula, including those involved in executing the massacre at Port Arthur. However, with the Dunalley policeman pinned down by erratic gunfire at Seascape, the
bridge remained open to traffic after the massacre, and several people are known to have left Port Arthur and escaped across that swing bridge before the police could stop them. To this day their identities remain a mystery.

One of the most serious disputes centred on how long the gunman stayed in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Wendy Scurr and several colleagues were the best placed tomake an accurate time estimate but they were repeatedly rebuffed. Why? Wouldit really matter if the gunman was there for four or five minutes
rather than 90 seconds? Well, yes it would if trying to reinforce the absurd ``official line'' that an intellectually-impaired invalid with a tested IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions was the man on the trigger. People with intellectual disabilities are not known for their tactical skills, tending instead to
move from one task to the next in an unbroken sequence. Only a professional would wait until the coast was clear before leaving the Cafe.

About the last thing that any professional would do is risk being tripped over outside the Broad Arrow Cafe by a large crowd of nervous tourists blocking his escape route. We know that the gunman was
travelling light with only two 30-round magazines for the Colt AR15. He had already fired 29 rounds in the Broad Arrow Cafe, leaving only 31, far too few rounds to reliably carve a path through a large undisciplined mob of unpredictable panic-stricken tourists. Aprofessional gunman would also calculate that if he left the cafe too soon, he might accidentally be filmed by one of the many amateur video cameras in use at Port Arthur that day.

The risks were too high and so the gunman waited for the right moment to leave the cafe, with the Tasmanian Government and media later helping to cover up this embarrassing time lag by repeatedly ignoring Wendy Scurr and her colleagues, and by deciding they were not required to appear in the

  Supreme Court as witnesses.

Was Wendy Scurr taking a wild stab in the dark with her time estimate? No she was not. Everything at Port Arthur ran like clockwork, especially the guidedtours. The staff were punctual to the point of
obsession and never left the assembly point outside the information office and cafe after the precise departure time.

When the shooting started there were about 70 tourists still waiting for their tour, which made the time 1.29 pm at the latest.

Wendy's call to the police was logged three minutes later at 1.32 pm. Then she went outside to look for cover in the bush behind the buildings. This took at least another minute, giving a minimum total elapsed
time of four minutes, and more likely five. As several other colleagues present on the day also attest, the elapsed time was much longer than the ``official'' 90 seconds.

It was not until most of the milling tourists had dispersed from the area that the gunman emerged from the cafe, firing snap shots to keep the few remaining tourist's heads (and video cameras) down while he
ran towards his next targets in the coach park. The gunman's professional tactics worked exactly as intended, and the only amateur video claiming to show ``Bryant'' at Port Arthur that day, has been scientifically proven a deliberate forgery.

Unfortunately, Wendy and her colleagues' determined stance did not sit well with the official line being promoted by the Tasmanian Government and media,and steps were taken to include the matter in: ``An Inquiry by the Director of Public Prosecutions into The Door at the Broad Arrow Cafe and Related
Matters.'' Where the critical elapsed time is concerned the DPP addresses the time the gunman was in the cafe shooting [based on amateur video audio], butdoes not address the possibility that the gunman may have lingered for otherreasons. Though part of Wendy's claims in particular are included verbatim
in the body of the report, she is not mentioned by name, although other witnesses favouring the official line are. No doubt such a pointed omission is quite legal, but it nonetheless seems most discourteous.

The locked door behind which many people died is the main topic of the report, which fails to reach any convincing conclusions due to an overwhelming mass of conflicting data. On the balance of probability it
seems likely the door failed to open because it was in poor condition, but unfortunately no-one can prove in absolute scientific terms that the door was not deliberately tampered with on the day of the massacre.
The expert locksmith employed by the Inquiry to examine the door lock was unable to do so with the lock correctly in place, because someone unfortunately ordered the partial demolition of the Broad Arrow Cafe, including removal of the suspect door, before the Inquiry commenced.

There is one ambiguity in the report where the DPP states: ``I was briefed by the police about the status
of the doorway on the afternoon of the 28th April 1996 and informed that the door was locked for security purposes against petty theft.'' This sentence either means that the DPP was briefed by the police during the afternoon of the massacre itself, or that the DPP receiveda briefing at a later date referring to events
on the 28th April. In an attempt to exclude the possibility of direct political contact with the police on the afternoon of the massacre, I called the office of the DPP at 11.05 am on 13 November 1997 and asked
for clarification of this single point. His staff said the DPP was out to lunch, repeated my telephone numberback to me, and promised to pass my request to him when he got back. For whatever reason, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not return my call.

Acopy of his report was forwarded to Wendy and Graeme Scurr with a coveringletter including the
request: ``It would be appreciated if you would treat the report as confidential.'' Why? The Inquiry was conducted in order to clarify matters for anyone concerned about events at Port Arthur. Much the same thing happened to the court transcripts of Bryant's pre-sentencing hearing in the Tasmanian Supreme
Court, which are extremely hard to obtain.

Despite Federal Members assuring their constituents that the information is freely available in Hobart, that is not the case.

  New South Wales farmer David Barton wrote to the Tasmanian Supreme Court asking for a copy of the transcripts, and was told in part:- ``The information provided to you by Mr Truss [A Federal MP] is not correct ... a transcript may only be provided to a person who, not being a party, has `sufficient interest'.
Should you wish to correspond further I ask you to explain to me why you contend you have `sufficient interest'... ''This is not encouraging for those who wish to know what happened at Bryant'spre- sentencing hearing in November 1996. The events at Port Arthur had a run-on effect on the injured, on
relatives of the dead, and on hundreds of thousands of sporting shooters, most of whom would much prefer full disclosure.

As a direct result of this excessive secrecy there are very few Australians aware of the awesome performance demonstrated by the gunman in the Broad Arrow Cafe, with the normal excuse being the
politically-correct line that disclosing full details would lead to more distress on the part of the relatives of the dead. Unfortunately, this is also an extremely effective way of silencing dissent on the part of those
who might take a very different view of events in the Broad Arrow Cafe. All Australians have the right to know what happened that day, and a brief summary follows. It is a very unpleasant matter, and those readers with a weak stomach or a nervous disposition are advised not to read beyond this point.

The gunman rose from his chair at one of the tables in the Broad Arrow Cafe,removed the AR15 and spare magazine from a sports bag, immediately killing Mr Yee Ng with a shot to the upper neck, and Miss Chung with a shot to the head.

Swivelling on the spot and firing from the right hip, the gunman fired at MrSargent who was wounded in the head, then killed Miss Scott with a shot to the head. The gunman continued through the Broad Arrow,
next killing Mr Nightingale with a shot to the upper neck and Mr Bennet with a shot to the upper neck, with the latter bullet passing straight through and hitting Mr Ray Sharpe in the head with fatal results. Next Mr Kevin Sharpe was killed by a shot to the head and was also hit in the arm, with shrapnel and
bone fragments from the second intermediate strike on Mr Kevin Sharpe then apparently wounding Mr Broome, and possibly Mr and Mrs Fidler.

Still firing from the hip the gunman swivelled and killed Mr Mills and Mr Kistan with single shots to the head, with shrapnel and skull fragments fromthose shots apparently wounding Mrs Walker, Mrs Law, and Mrs Barker.Again the gunman turned, shooting and wounding Mr Colyer in the neck, before swivelling and killing Mr Howard with a shot to the head. Next he shot Mrs Howard in the neck and head
with fatal effect. The gunman turned back, killing Miss Loughton with a shot to the head, and wounding Mrs Loughton in the back. Moving towards the rear of the building the gunman shot Mr Elliot in the head, causing serious injuries.

The above sequence is the best the forensic scientists could deduce from thecrime scene and there may be small variations, but in the final analysis they matter little. What does matter is that at this precise
juncture the gunman had killed twelve victims and wounded a further ten in 15 seconds flat, using only 17 rounds fired from the right hip. Such a staggering performance is ona par with the best combat shooters in the world, and two retired counter-terrorist marksmen ruefully admitted they would be hard pressed to
equal such awesome speed and accuracy. Both agreed that attributing such a performance to an intellectually-impaired invalid with an IQ of 66 and severely limited cognitive functions, amounts to nothing
less than certifiable insanity on the part of Bryant's accusers. In military terms a fatal shot to the upper neck counts as a head shot, so for all practical purposes those who died during the first 15 seconds were killed by head shots fired with lethal accuracy from the gunman's hip.

Next the very professional gunman moved towards the area of the souvenir shop and killed Nicole
Burgess with a shot to the head, then shot Mrs Elizabeth Howard through the chest and arm with fatal consequences. Swivelling around,the gunman killed Mr Lever with a shot to the head, and killed Mrs Neander with another shot to the head. Temporarily distracted, he fired back into the cafe area and wounded Mr Crosswell. Turning again he shot Mr Winter twice, killing him with a shot to the head. On his way back to the souvenir area the gunman wounded Mr Olson, then proceeded to the kill-zone near the

  locked door where he killed Mr Jary, Pauline Masters, and Mr Nash, all of them with single shots to the head.

At this stage the gunman had killed twenty and wounded another twelve with atotal of 29 rounds. He then stopped firing and changed magazines in a most professional way.The magazine fitted to the AR15 held 30 rounds total, so by changing magazines after firing only 29 shots the gunman ensured that he still had a live round in the breech in case anyone moved, enabling him to kill that person instantly if caught
unawares. Such professionalism is well known to counter-terrorist personnel. Critically, the gunman then waited motionless in the Broad Arrow Cafe with a fully loaded magazine, which brings us back to the
differential between the verified time estimate of four to five minutes, and the inaccurate official claim of 90 seconds.

It is easy to see why government and media continued to rebut Wendy Scurr and her colleagues' insistent claims about the elapsed time and the door that refused to open. Either or both had the potential to open a Pandora's Box with catastrophic results, for there was no way the Tasmanian Government could openly and honestly investigate these matters without running the riskof ``accidentally'' proving that its villain of choice, Martin Bryant, was innocent of all charges. In addition, the drugs decoy and the
stunning accuracy of the gunman in the Broad Arrow had to be swept under the carpet, before informed members of the public had the chance to realise the ``lone nut'' massacre was in reality a highly planned
paramilitary operation with geopolitical motives, designed from the outset to undermine Australian national security.

In the view of this author, and others, the 5.56-mm Colt AR15 was deliberately selected for three specific reasons, one of which was its known ability to inflict horrific and highly visual injuries at close range, caused by its low-mass bullets travelling at extreme velocity.The nature of those wounds caused revulsion among police, emergency service workers and medical staff, thereby assisting the immediate drive by anti-gun lobbyists to have all semi-automatic weapons outlawed. As the leader of the National Embalming Team wrote: ``Approximately 90% of all deceased persons had severe head trauma. The bullet wound was normally inflicted to the head with the resultant smaller entry wound and larger exit
wound. Some of the deceased persons had an entry wound with no exit wound, the result of this was an explosion of the skull...''Despite her thirty years of ambulance experience, Wendy Scurr still remembers being shocked when she accidentally trod on shattered skull fragments, before being confronted with a
human brain lying in a bowl of chips.

In the medium to long term the lobbyists and international power brokers will be unable to sustain their claim that Martin Bryant was the villain, becausethere is simply too much hard evidence proving the ``official line'' to be acriminal scam. Some American video evidence submitted to the Supreme Court has
already been scientifically proven a forgery; deliberately submitted to the court in order to secure the conviction of Martin Bryant on all counts, in the event that he continued to plead ``Not Guilty''. Due to the
seriousness of this offence, copies of the scientific proof have been sent by registered mail to departments which should take active steps to have the material reviewed and struck out of evidence, and then urgently implement strategies to ensure the future integrity of Australian national security.

If steps are not taken, more registered mail copies will be sent to more departments, allowing the author
to compile a list of those government departments determined not to take steps to protect Australian national security and the lives of Australian citizens, even when provided with absolute scientific proof that they must do so. Details of the scientific proof itself, and a full list of those Government departments
which refuse to take adequate steps to secure the future defence of Australia, will be published in full during late 1998. Anyone willing to help with the expensive printing and registered mail costs, should
send a post office money order tome at 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020, made out to ``J. Vialls''.

All of this is unlikely to worry those lobbyists, public servants, and members of the media who nowadays believe their own propaganda that the police have literally hundreds of eyewitnesses who will step
forward in a flash to positively identify Bryant at Port Arthur. Unfortunately for all ofthe above, Wendy and Graeme Scurr have contacted dozens of key witnesses present at Port Arthur on the day.At the time

  of going to press, neither had managed to find a single witness prepared to state that he or she could positively identify Martin Bryant either carrying or firing a weapon of any kind at Port Arthur on the 28th
April 1996.

Oh dear... The only video positive identification was forged, and all of those eyewitnesses we were told about failed to positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur after all. How can this be? Basically by means of the Tasmanian Government sitting on the real evidence,while pumping vast quantities of
misinformation to an eager but thoroughly inept media. There is now also convincing hard evidence that the gun controlproposals accepted by Police Ministers in May 1996 were prepared before the massacre,
by an ideological senior bureaucrat with United Nations connections. As the truth about the massacre and the pre-determined gun controls slowly but surely percolates through the Australian community, the backlash against both Coalition and Labor MPs will be savage. The Australianpeople will not tolerate
being deliberately misled by their own elected representatives, especially
on a matter of such overwhelming importance to national security.

Detective writer Arthur Conan-Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes series, once wrote: ``When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains,no matter how improbable, is the truth.'' We know
that it was impossible forintellectually-impaired Martin Bryant to suddenly metamorphosize into the lethal equivalent of a highly trained counter-terrorist marksman, so we alsoknow that Martin Bryant was not responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur.

Though improbable, the truth is that a pre-meditated operation was launched at Port Arthur with the
express intent of murdering sufficient innocent citizens to set a new world record. The motive should be obvious, at least to anyone who has recently watched more than $300 million of taxpayers funds being
spent on removing defensive weapons from the hands of Australian citizens.

The author is an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and
oilfield operationsFootnote: My thanks to Graeme Scurr, who used his full power of attorney to relay Wendy's evidence and supporting documents to me.

Graeme is still striving, as he always has, to achieve justice for the staff at the Port Arthur historic site, now that the fickle media caravan has moved on and forgotten them.

Readers will remember that in the immediate aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, politicians developed collective verbal diarrhoea in the House of Representatives as they joined the feeding frenzy designed to
undermine Australian national security by removing defensive weapons from the hands ofthe public. Nowadays all that has changed, and despite serious questions about the mass murder and the murderers remaining unanswered, the collectiveverbal sphincter has locked tight, presumably on
government orders.

Recently the Federal Member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss, used the letters column of the South Burnett Times to attack my independent investigation into the Port Arthur massacre, which used military science to prove that Martin Bryant was incapable of killing the victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe. In his letter, Mr Truss tried to explain his reasons for refusing to ask questions in the House of Representatives on behalf of his constituents.

So that Truss and other Federal Members can be better informed, and thus able to do their duty to their constituents by asking meaningful questions in theHouse about the sequence of events at Port Arthur, I
am providing these additional critical points:-On the day of the massacre, the only two policemen on the Tasman Peninsula were decoyed to a remote location at Saltwater River by an anonymous caller
reporting a big stash of heroin. There was no heroin, and four minutes afterthe two policemen reported their arrival at Saltwater River by radio, the shooting started in the Broad Arrow cafe. Alas, the drive from Saltwater River to Port Arthur is a minimum of thirty minutes, rendering local armed police assistance
impossible in a mass murder that lasted only seventeen minutes from start to finish. Research shows this to be the only drugs decoyever used on the Tasman Peninsula.

  Of the twenty murdered in the Broad Arrow Cafe, nineteen died from the effects of a fatal shot to the
head by the Colt AR15, which the shooter fired from his right-hip at an average range of 12 feet without the benefit of a laser sight. Overall, only 29 rounds were used to kill or injure a total of 32 people. Such
accuracy and speed is appropriate to the top 1% of expert counter-terrorist marksmen, but is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually-impaired registered invalid. Alas, Martin Bryant always fired his Webley Osprey air rifle from the left shoulder, because he is and has always been a left-handed shooter.

Bryant was evaluated using a range of clinical psychology tests, the resultsof which were tendered to
the Court. Those results are enough to convince any first-year psychology student that Bryant was so intellectually and cognitively impaired that he completely lacked the neuro-physiological ability to carry out the complex high-speed Port Arthur operation. Alas, thepsychiatrists ignored their own definitive
scientific test results, choosinginstead to ramble off into a misleading surrealistic twilight world of entirely unproven psychoanalytical mumbo-jumb

Examining whether Bryant might or might not have disliked his classmates at school, or whether he might or might not have had a desire to shoot people during his formative years, become red herrings
when faced with the harsh reality that the definitive scientific tests prove Bryant neuro- physiologically incapable of meaningfully participating in the massacre. The real shooter is still very much at large and
must be brought to justice as swiftly as possible. Clearly this will not happen until the public finally discard the absurd psychiatric fairy tale that an intellectually-impaired young man with a tested IQ of 66 and severe cognitive limitations, suddenly and entirely magically metamorphosized into the lethal equivalent
of one of the world's most highly trained counter-terrorist marksman.

In sworn statements to police, eyewitnesses Roganovic and Horrocks confirmedthat the shooter exited through the front door of the Broad Arrow Cafe carrying a weapon, while a third witness confirmed the weapon was held in the shooter's right hand. Alas, this testimony is in direct conflict with forgedvideo footage obtained direct from America by the Tasmanian Police Service, who entered it as evidence in the Supreme Court against Martin Bryant.

The American footage was clearly designed to give the false impression that Martin Bryant was responsible for the massacre, but that footage has been proven a forgery scientifically, using a standard
TV editing suite, available to anyone in the television industry or to any forensic scientist.

Just how much hard scientific proof is required to move a Federal Member into asking questions in the House of Representatives on behalf of his constituents I do not know, but Mr Truss might do well to focus on the last point which deals with tendering false evidence to the courts for the express purpose of
securing a conviction. This is an extremely grave offence which (in Western Australia) carries the penalty of strict life imprisonment.

Truss and his colleagues have it in their power as MPs to raise the matter in the House of Representatives, and to demand that it be formally investigated by the Australian Federal Police and
ASIO. The inevitable result would be a mistrial because of the false evidence tendered, allowing Martin Bryant to finally have his day in court before his peers, as the law provides.

PORT ARTHUR - CASE AGAINST GUN DEALER TERRY HILL DROPPED In the wake of Port Arthur, the Tasmanian Government and Police Service went to great lengths to ``fit up'' gun dealer Terry Hill as the man who provided Martin Bryant with the weapons alleged to have been used in the massacre. This draconian activity culminated in a civil court case against Hill, seemingly launched by survivor Quin for damages and breach of statutory duty.Active in the case was Roland Brown, solicitor for the Legal Aid Commission and Chairman of the Coalition for Gun Control. On 5th March 1998 the case against Terry Hill was suddenly discontinued.

The treatment Terry Hill has received since 1996 at the hands of the Tasmanian Government and Police
Service is horrific. Without a single shred of credible evidence, someone somewhere decided that Hill would be the ``fall guy'' who provided `murderer' Martin Bryant with the weapons he allegedly used at

  Port Arthur.

Terry Hill was first (officially) noticed by the authorities two days after the massacre,when he recognized a picture of Martin Bryant, known to him earlier as Martin RYAN. Doing his duty as a
responsible citizen, Hill immediately contacted the police and told them what little he knew about the man.

On 27th March Terry Hill and assistant Greg Peck were working at `Guns and Ammo' in New Town when Martin Ryan entered with a package wrapped in a towel, presenting the package muzzle-first with the
comment ``Something is wrong with it''. When Hill unwrapped the towel he found that `it' was a Dutch AR10 assault rifle fitted with a clip containing 15 rounds of high velocity .308 Winchester (7.62-mm NATO) ammunition. Terry Hill worked the action, and watched horrified as another live round ejected from
the breech of the weapon.

Martin Bryant a.k.a. Martin Ryan had calmly walked into the store with a fully-loaded and unsafe assault weapon, blissfully unaware he had done anything wrong. His actions that morning demonstrated with chilling clarity that `Martin' had absolutely no idea how to load, cock, aim, fire, or unload, assault weapons
of any kind. But despite his ignorance Martin Bryant presented a licence that day in the name of Martin Ryan, correctly endorsed for prohibited and fully automatic weapons. Where Martin Bryant obtained this
highly unusual licence has never been properly investigated.

Having done his civic duty things went from bad to worse for Terry Hill, and he was later interrogated by Inspector Paine on the suspicion he had supplied the weapons used at Port Arthur.

Inspector Paine was one of only two police officers responsible for interrogating Martin Bryant in Risdon Prison. During his extended interrogation by Inspector Paine, Hill was escorted by lawyer John Avery, the same man who later represented Martin Bryant during the phase of his incarceration when he inexplicably decided to change his plea to guilty.

That the police were determined to pressure Terry Hill into making a false confession was revealed in a letter sent to him by Avery shortly after the interrogation.

In part that letter reads:- ``... In a private conversation that was had between the writer and Inspector Paine, Inspector Paine made it abundantly clear that the police have very strong evidence to suggest that
you did in fact sell guns to Bryant and unless you are prepared to in effect change your story, they will press on and try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences.

``However, it was also made abundantly clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions is prepared to offer you an indemnity against prosecution if you are prepared to accept that you did sell guns to Bryant
...''Wisely, Terry Hill was not prepared to plead guilty to a crime he had not committed and subsequently refused to do so. Just days after his refusal Guns and Ammo was raided by the Tasmanian police in a general trawl operation, apparently aimed at trying to find sufficient evidence to charge Terry Hill with
some offences. The police scored on some technicalities, Hill and his wife's gun dealer licences were revoked, and their livelihoods destroyed.

For Terry Hill the battle was not yet over. He had refused to tug his forelock or bend his knee to authority and it must have been clear the matter would not end there, which it did not. More than a year later in
July 1997 Hill was suddenly served with notice of a court action for damages and breach of statutory duty (for allegedly selling weapons to Bryant), by a Mr Quin, with the plaintiff's case handled by Mr Roland
Brown, solicitor and Chairman of the Coalition for Gun Control.

Solicitor Roland Brown became famous long before the massacre for his strange but remarkably prophetic comment on Channel Seven Television, quoted verbatim in 1997 by The Strategy newspaper: ``We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania of the likes you have seen in Strathfield and Hoddle
Street, unless we get national gun control laws.''In the months that followed Quin's case against Hill there was a limited amount of adverse publicity, and in November 1997 Quin's lawyers indicated that he

  would like to back out of the case due to stress. Unfortunately, as shown in documentation supplied to this author by Terry Hill, the Legal Aid Commission and Quin's lawyers were at that time attempting to coerce Hill into paying part or all of Quin's expenses. Had he agreed, Terry Hill would have appeared to be tacitly agreeing that he had a case to answer, which he did not, so the pressure was strenuously

More months passed, and then on 5th March 1998 an official notice of discontinuation was filed in the courts, with agreement reached that Terry Hill would pay none of Quin's expenses at all. After months of intense stress for both his family and himself, gun dealer Terry Hill was once again his own man, though
his personal legal fees ensured he was considerably poorer than he had been at the start of the contrived legal action.

So what can Terry Hill do now? Despite the fact that he has never been charged with any offence relating to Port Arthur, the police refuse to restore his gun dealer licence on the grounds that he, and his
wife Dorothy, are not suitable people to handle firearms.

This is rubbish, easily proved by the fact that shortly after the gun dealer licences were revoked, the Tasmanian police renewed both of their personal firearms licences without question. This is of course impossible if the Tasmanian police really believe Hill and his wife are not suitable people to handle

Evidently Terry Hill is still being punished for his refusal to provide the police with fabricated evidence.

Policemen and politicians are not (yet) above the law, and it is clear that Terry Hill must now be given his gun dealers licence back quickly and unconditionally.The legal letter from Avery to Hill, and the sudden raid on Guns and Ammo which followed it, provide convincing proof that he was indirectly threatened by police in an attempt to acquire a false confession. Now that threat has failed, it is long past time for the Tasmanian Police Service to reverse its appalling behaviour. If it refuses to do so, Terry Hill should force the issue via the Ombudsman.

In the run-up to this sordid affair, it is fair to ask why Martin Bryant was sent into Guns and Ammo with a defective Dutch AR10. Is there any possible connection between this incident and his use as a patsy at
Port Arthur by a person or persons as yet unknown? If we examine the obscure Dutch AR10 carefully, it becomes readily apparent that there might be a very tangible connection.

Whoever planned the massacre must have known there was a slight chance that patsy Martin Bryant might survive the slaughter, in which case a contingency plan was needed to link Martin Bryant to at least
one of the weapons used at Port Arthur, and in turn link that same weapon to a known gun dealer as the `supplier'.

The planners already knew that Bryant was severely intellectually impaired, thus a generally similar weapon would suffice for the contingency, provided that this `similar' weapon could be linked to Terry Hill
as the alleged supplier. Enter the Dutch AR10, which is a full-bore (7.62-mm) version of the Colt AR15, with the latter claimed by police to be the weapon used in the Broad Arrow Cafe to kill twenty and wound
another twelve. The sleight-of-hand would lie in convincing Martin Bryant that he and the Colt AR15 were in Terry Hill's shop `Guns and Ammo' at the same time.

Apart from minor technical differences and overall bulk, the AR10 looks identical to the AR15 at a distance, which was exactly the view Bryant had of the weapon when interrogated by Inspectors Paine
and Warren on the 4th July 1996. So what was Bryant identifying, or what did he think he was identifying? Large tracts of the interrogation were censored at Bryant's pre-sentencing hearing so it is impossible to be certain about most points, but there is no ambiguity about who named the AR15 for the
first time on the interrogation tape. It was not Martin Bryant.

The police interrogator says ``Now this is a ahh, point two two three Remington'', to which Bryant replies: ``it's a mess isn't it.'' Still holding the weapon at a distance the police interrogator continues ``Or a Colt

  AR15'', to which Bryant replies: ``Yeah, Colt.'' So courtesy of the police interrogator, Bryant identifies the weapon as a Colt AR15, at a distance where it would have looked exactly the same as the Dutch AR10 he knew he handled in Terry Hill's store on 27th March, one month before the massacre.

It seems most unlikely the interrogators arranged this in advance, because at that stage they probably did not know about the Dutch AR10 Bryant surrendered to Terry Hill. But intentional or not the result was the same: Martin Bryant damned himself for ever by identifying the Colt AR15 used in the Cafe, when in
reality he probably thought he was identifying the Dutch AR10 he had handled in Hill's store on 27 March. But he only did so after highly suggestive prompting by the interrogators, both of whom knew very well
that Bryant was an intellectually impaired invalid.

That the interrogation transcripts should be censored at the pre-sentencing hearing is inexcusable. Just
a single (censored) word, sentence or paragraph could have changed the entire context of the interrogation, and probably would have done if played to the court in its entirety. Why else should it be
censored if suppression was not the intent? The sheer extent of the censoring is horrifying and leaves out huge quantities of information. Pages 1-9 are deleted, pages 18 and 23 are deleted, then pages 32, 35, 40, 43, 78, 79, 80 and 81 are deleted. After this pages 91 to 98 and then pages 116 to 141. From page
145 onwards the rest of the trans-script is deleted in toto.

It is not possible to determine how many pages followed 145 but if we assume the interrogation ended at page 150, we get a better feel for the level of deception in the courtroom. Together, the deleted (censored) pages amount to 55 out of 150, or something like one third of the entire interrogation
transcript was with-held from the court. Worse still, the prosecution then explained ``... the quality of sound and vision are not particularly good, there was some breakdown with the recording facility and the
tape has been reconstructed using the audio from an audio tape which was recorded at the same time as the original video, so there is some lack of synchronization at times and the video is not particularly good but I would now seek your Honour's leave to have this interview played to the court.''Which interview
was the prosecution referring to exactly?Fully one-third of the continuous interrogation transcript had been censored i.e. excluded from evidence, and there were breakdowns in audio and sync throughout
the remainder. Without fully verified continuity, Bryant's voice could have been edited-in to say almost anything anywhere on the tape, a possibility that would have ensured the video was thrown out as corrupt evidence by any other court in the western world. But not in Tasmania... Defence lawyer Mr Avery
seemed unconcerned. When asked by the judge if he had any submissions regarding the editing and substitution of some of the audio tape involved, Mr Avery responded: ``I was not aware of it but I am not
troubled by what's proposed, your Honour.''With all of the fuss and confusion over the proposed court action it is easy to miss the most important aspect of this case. If the threats directed against Terry Hill had succeeded in intimidating him into making a false confession, the Tasmanian Government would now
have patsy number one (Bryant) in jail, and patsy number two (Hill) labelled as the supplier of the weapons used at Port Arthur: All very neat and tidy. But Hill did not supply the weapons used at Port Arthur, leaving the slack Tasmanian police with a major headache. The real supplier of the weapons, and indeed the real shooter(s) at Port Arthur must now be accurately identified. If this is all too much for the police in Hobart, a Royal Commissioner must be appointed to do the job for them.

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