This letter to the editor was sent to The Courier Mail, News Corp, but not known if it was published:
In response to the article by Ellen Whinnett, Courier Mail, on Port Arthur 17 April 2021 “Port Arthur Facts Released By Deeply Concerned Members Of The Tasmanian Bureaucracy”
I always enjoy your articles written by Ellen Whinnett but must comment on Pt Arthur, there is so much more to this story.
I had a chance meeting with a lady in a café years ago. Her name was (the late) Wendy Scurr, she was a tour guide at Pt Arthur on the day of the shooting, she was having refreshment in the kitchen of the Broad Arrow café when the shooting started.
She looked over the counter to see what was happening, she did not recognise the shooter who was shooting from the hip pointing the gun and shooting and not with the gun at his shoulder where you look along the barrel to sight it. She knows Martin Bryant and said it was not him, she was not allowed to give evidence, the police told her she was not needed that they had more than enough evidence already?
She and the others working in the kitchen hid behind the counters. At that time there was a local resident and retired police detective with his wife and another couple who were their guests seated at a table in the corner, they put two tables up as a barricade and hid behind them — the detective knew Martin very well and said unequivocally that it was not him as the shooter had a deeply pock marked face, he also noted the gun being fired from the hip and killing people without sighting it. The Police refused to let him give evidence?
We all commented at the time that PM Howard and the press were in breach of law stating Bryant was definitely guilty, guilt can only be determined by a court — those words led to the condemnation of him in everyone’s eyes. There should have been charges laid over that issue, but it was ignored as many issues are to protect others. Bryant was guilty and may he rot in Hell was universally accepted, long before any Court or Inquest procedure.
At all times understand he is intellectually disabled with a mind of about a 11-year-old. The law requires that he must have a guardian with him at all times, that never occurred and other serious breaches occurred, but as he was already declared guilty, application of law, procedures and requirements did not matter.
Whether Martin Bryant is guilty or not he should have been afforded due legal process as mandated by the Constitution and a full coronial inquiry should have been held, which on the finding of the limited inquiry held in Tasmania may well have uncovered a great deal more evidence of frightening consequence to the people — so was blocked.
Two Victorian politicians who were family friends of long standing told me their inquiry identified the serial number of AR15 used in the shooting was traced back to the 1987 Melbourne gun amnesty , the firearm originally owned by (Bill Drysdale from Yae, Victoria–Ed ) was acquired by the Victoria S.O.G’s which is not unusual, they get to keep certain firearms and use them for police work, the part that is not okay is the firearm ending up in Port Arthur nine years later. They said it was common knowledge governments were involved — they (politicians) were told they would face police and ATO investigation into every aspect of their lives and lose their seat in Parliament if they spoke out?
The question we all must ask is how did an 11-year-old organise and carry out the incidents — what incidents you ask. So, I identify just a few hereunder that I found of extreme concern with all pointing to a very, very, well planned, and organised incident. After reading them, check them out for authenticity, satisfy your own analytical thinking to make sure that I am not misleading you.
Maybe I should tell you what aroused my interest: In the press reports at the time were too many giving widely conflicting information and facts — logic is they should have all been very similar as they all reported the same incident, but there were many factual variances — in such cases as still occurs in reporting I take the view of ‘watch this space and be very observant’ for more information will eventually arise — as it always does and the press try to hide the original stuff-ups and false writings.
The commonwealth bank employee that was in the cafe recognized the gunman and stood up and yelled “not in here” before the gunman shot and killed him (he was also an ex ASIO agent)
Investigations that do not answer all base questions on how an issue originated cannot get a correct answer. Highly suspicious individual sections must be examined in minute detail and those involved tested under oath. Indelible evidentiary material fully identifies prior planning for the delivery of an Embalming Box and equipment to be on sight: and for the purchase and special construction of a Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with 22-body refrigerated Mortuary – the only one in Australia. The orders for these items the ‘Embalming Box and equipment’ and the ‘22-body refrigerated Mortuary Truck’ would have had to be placed months before the event for them to have been on-site waiting for the Port Arthur massacre to occur. Read more on this truck [HERE]
FACT 1. Those who placed the orders knew of the planned event.
- 1. Why have AFP, Government and Press NOT demanded a Royal Commission and STEPHEN SHANE PARRY put under oath to explain his apparent prior knowledge to order and have on site an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident?
- Stephen Parry former President of the Senate wrote within: –
AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report appears on pages 104 to 119 of said book. On the top of page 104, the name Stephen Parry as Team Leader wrote on Page 112. “I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment. The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well. I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.”
He says that the funeral services company Nelson Brothers had: “organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident.” There is no uncertainty in his words. Said equipment was large, possessed significant design specifications, and was made prior to and for the incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania. He knew this in 1997. He possibly knew these facts in 1996 at the time he worked as the leader of a team responsible for embalming bodies (c.25) of the victims of the Port Arthur shooting incident.
Q.2. Why did the Tasmanian Government order in June 1995 and have specially built a 22-body refrigerated Mortuary Truck the only one in Australia, ten months before the Port Arthur massacre; and was placed on sale in September 1999? Why has no one been put under oath to explain why this was ordered and delivered prior to the event, who ordered and paid for it?
Mortuary truck for sale
The actual advertisement and photograph:
22-BODY VEHICLE FOR SALE
Genuine Enquiries Only
Vehicle for Sale. Genuine Enquiries only. Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with refrigerated body, holds 22, this vehicle was primarily used as the disaster vehicle in the Port Arthur Massacre. This vehicle is currently for sale and all reasonable offers will be considered. The vehicle has value as not only a refrigerated unit for body removal, it is the only one of its kind in the entire country. The memorabilia value of it for anyone making a movie/series or writing a book on Port Arthur is limitless. Not only would the purchaser be getting the disaster vehicle, but the whole Port Arthur Story would be given as well.
This vehicle is currently for sale and all REASONABLE OFFERS will be considered.
The Mortuary Truck was ordered ten months beforehand — who placed the order and who paid for it, and who got the money from the sale of it?
Ellen, now some heavy thinking for you — How did an intellectually handicapped boy with a low IQ organise the following.
1. Nelson Brothers in Victoria had special big-job embalming equipment “manufactured ready for the incident.” Why did the government specially order such beforehand?
2. Martin Bryant organised for senior Port Arthur staff to go away on a Work Seminar so they wouldn’t get hurt.
3. He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in place two days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.
4. He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch up all the wounded quickly.
5. He arranged for helicopter pilots – usually unavailable – to be available that Sunday.
6. He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was at a service station 57 kilometres away.
7. He decoyed the local police to be at the opposite end of the peninsula at the exact moment the shooting began.
8. He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there at 12.45pm.
9. He managed not to look like himself – as if wearing a woman’s wig – when being filmed in the car park by tourists.
10. He wore a face mask making his face look pockmarked when shooting in the cafe.
11. He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards so people wouldn’t think it was him who did it.
12. He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that afternoon and make it appear she had been killed that morning.
13. He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was downstairs talking to police on the phone.
14. He had infrared night vision eyes.
15. He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the siege.
16. He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling at police and get severe burns only on his back.
17. He managed to have the world press to have a convention in Hobart on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get better than usual media coverage.
18. He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.
19. He managed to make it appear Tasmania Police had fabricated and tampered with evidence.
20. He managed to get the Tasmanian DPP to lie to the Court about his activities.
21. He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him and get Channel Nine To fabricate a video – all while in custody.
22. He fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege by police at Seascape.
23. If you believe the official version, his marksmanship was fantastic – twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds! A movement of 3 degrees would have missed at 3 -4 meters.
24. There are only about 100 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the world.
25. US news TV published a film of Bryant running between the buildings — in the background was a large blue boat: That blue boat had left two days beforehand.
26. All done by an intellectually handicapped young man with an IQ of 66 and the mental age of an eleven-year-old boy.
27. Martin Bryant uses a rifle left-handed; victims said and photographic evidence showed the shooter to be right-handed
Everyone knows Bryant was guilty including you, but all you know is what the media printed, as they did not have access to the full files that were kept hidden they could NOT have printed all the facts.
The overwhelming disgust of people within the Tasmanian bureaucracy to the deliberate cover-up withholding crucial evidence from the Court to pervert the course of justice, was so great they progressively released files to Dr Keith Noble who compiled the facts for us to read. As YOU DO NOT KNOW the facts as they were hidden, and the Tasmanian government went in to panic mode of what would happen if the public ever knew hurriedly placed a 30-year secrecy ban.
Researcher Dr Keith Noble On Why Martin Bryant Could Not Have Carried Out 1996 Port Arthur Massacre! Verrrrrry Interesting indeed.
A Royal Commission is obviously required to get these answers – only when these questions are answered and included can the investigation reach a correct verdict of honesty to the victims’ families and the Australian people.
Royal Commissions are government controlled kangaroo courts where the outcome is defined first, then the appointment of a controlled government commissioner. The terms of reference exclude any embarrassing exposure or harmful evidenced being submitted and finally prepare guidelines for the commissioner’s findings and report. This formula has been applied to all Royal Commissions but in any case governments are not obligated to act on the findings which make the whole exercise futile.
A Coronial Inquiry should be started immediately.
by Alex Bruce US correspondent