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.

FAKED EVIDENCE TO OUST LIBYA

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.

MANUFACTURING MEDIA ILLUSIONS

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.

TWO POSSIBLE SCENARIOS

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.

WHY A MASSACRE?

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.

THE PORT ARTHUR RAMBO

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.

HAIL OF BULLETS

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.

THE TRAIL TO SEASCAPE

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.

MEDIA MAYHEM

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?

THE EVIDENCE

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.

FINAL WORDS

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"

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.

ANOTHER INNOCENT CONDEMNED

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?

DANGEROUS LEGAL PRECEDENT

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.