WAS MARTIN BRYANT REALLY A ``LONE NUT'' ASSASSIN?

Copyright Joe Vialls 17/04/97 45 Merlin Drive Carine, WA 6020 All Rights Reserved

Exclusive to The Strategy



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 Fletcher had been shot by the Libyans,
who were subsequently expelled from the country in a fanfare of negative
publicity.

It was not until 1995 that this author managed to prove entirely
scientifically 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 the
available hard scientific evidence suggests 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 avoid
eyewitness accounts and media hype like 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 Official Secrets Act, then 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 Libyan 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 Yvonne 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, and
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 to the public for special 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 time 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:
which it was not, 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 in 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-navigation techniques and direct reference to the Greenwich Observatory,
Britain's foremost authority on times and dates derived from the sun-line, a
technique used for centuries to tell the time with great accuracy using garden
sun-dials. Unfortunately for the BBC who broadcast the amateur footage ``for
the first time ever'', absolute science proved the sun-line 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 re-interpretation 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 copyright 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 opinion, were strictly off limits. So it is on the subject of fake
video footage and its potential for incredible impact on the viewing public
that we finally turn to Port Arthur. Some readers may by now be shifting
uneasily in their seats, racking their brains and wondering exactly when and
where it was that they were also suddenly shown amateur footage ``for the
first time ever'' on television in Australia. It was on a Wednesday in October
1996, the night before Martin Bryant was due to be sentenced for his alleged
role in the Port Arthur massacre.

Many months after the massacre took place, but only hours before the 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 slaughtering the good
people of Tasmania, caught on camera by interested amateur photographers who
seemed unmoved by the dangers of high-velocity bullets. Unlike most of the
other survivors these folk did not run away, but hunkered down like
battle-hardened war correspondents covering the end of World War II from an
unprotected thoroughfare in the middle of Berlin. They were also very discreet
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?
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 victims in the cafe at a rate of one every
five seconds. Problem! Scaled against the man's height and surrounding objects
the 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 Bryant with
the video itself. Unfortunately Bryant is the least photographed man in the
world today and all attempts to get hold of a photograph of him have failed.
For a while I 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 even in) the prison. They would do
no obvious harm. Whether the man is Bryant or not, a few frames in this
sequence make a mockery of any suggestion the prized footage presented to the
Tasmanian court was meaningful evidence against 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
incriminates 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. If the blonde man is Martin Bryant 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. 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. Science can be
frighteningly efficient at times because, believe it or believe it not,
science has just proved in absolute terms right in front of your startled eyes
using court evidence that Martin 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 alternative 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 investigator I insist on dealing only with hard facts because it is the
only way to avoid being swept along by the avalanche of compulsive lies 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, although the words ``expert
combat 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 people
quickly in an enclosed space like 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, an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant's mid-sixties
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,
though it is reasonable to cross link this 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
Libyans were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a
massive funded campaign to disarm the Australian 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 force. Failing that, funding
should be sought for an independent investigation leading in turn to a book
providing the real facts about the chain of events at Port Arthur, a copy of
which should be provided for every home across the land.

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.
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. Perhaps the independent Honourable Member for Oxley could find the
time to ask the Prime Minister a few meaningful questions in Parliament?

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




Return to First Page

This page available for sponsorship, please E-Mail the editor for details