ParaFAL

British Paras with SLR type rifles, one scoped

Here's a photo of a rare scope-equipped FAL type rifle for long range marksmanship. Most of the FAL and SLR type infantry rifles were used with iron sights, since squad tactics at the time made the more-expensive optics unnecessary. Although this photo is of two British Paras in Belfast, this is the type of rifle located on the roof of an outbuilding at Seascape.

Serial number G3434, the origins of this rifle are unknown. Rifles with close serial numbers have been traced to Canada and North Africa, possibly coming to Australia via Brunei.

You should take some time to read the interview transcript, linked here. Martin Bryant cheerfully tells the truth about his life and difficulties, his relationships, his AR15, USAS-12 and AR10 firearms. Admitting that he owned the AR15, discovered damaged and burnt in the smoking ruins of Seascape was enough to seal his fate, so why deny ever seeing the FAL before? There's no benefit to him, and since he has a history of telling the truth in the interview, why switch to a lie at this point?

FN FAL #G3434 on the roof

Here's how the conversation went:

Q. Yeah. Alright, the next one we'll look at is a ahh, a 308 ahh, calibre, FN weapon.

A. Mmm.

Q. Do you remember where?

A. I've never seen that one before. Never. That's not one of mine.

Q. You sure?
A. No definitely not, never seen that in my life. It's nice though.

WARREN
Q. Have you ever had a 308?
A. Three 0 eight, yes. Had a 308.

Q. Mmm.

A. That was one Terry Hill was repairing.

PAINE

Q. I’ll just ask Mr Warren to pick up a scope we have there on the floor because that might be causing the confusion. I believe that that scope was probably fitted to that gun before we got it. Now does that.
A. No I've never seen that scope before in my life. Never. No. No I've never. Never seen that scope in my life.

Q. Now you say you've never seen that 308 before but you did in fact own a 308?

A. Yeah, definitely.

Q. Right.

A. ... (inaudible) ..., AR10.

Q. Just a sec, before I go onto that. Where did you get the 308 that?

A. I bought the 308 about, this is going back six, seven years now.

Q. Yes.

A. Out of a paper, out of the Mercury.

Q. Out of the Mercury?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. And where did you buy 308 ammunition?

A. Umm, I managed to get that, a load of it, about six, seven boxes with twenty in each box, ohh about four or five years ago but I had it stored away, been stored away, I never got to use that and, and it's only recently that I got to use it but, but they were the wrong bullets. So I went over to Terry Hill for the first time for years and he said you're using the wrong bullets Martin, you should be using the military hard, hard top bullets. He said the only ones I've got in stock, I've got a case of three thousand rounds and he said it'll cost you nine, think it was nine hundred and thirty dollars. And I said I'll think about it, I'll get back to you on Monday. So it was on the Friday, I phoned him up a few hours later, I said I've got the money, I'll come over and buy the rounds.

Q. So you bought three thousand?

A. Rounds. I couldn't buy anything smaller off him because that's all he had at the time and.

Q. And when was that?

A. That's going back five months.

Q. Ohh right.

A. Four or five months ago.

Q. And is that ammunition.

A. That.

Q. Difficult to buy. You can't can you buy it sort off any gun dealer?

A. Umm, yeah you can buy it, I think you can buy hard top from other gun dealers but it's fairly hard to get hold of.

Q. Alright, we'll have a look at the last gun which is on the floor. And this is a .223 calibre self-loading rifle.

A. Yep. I've never seen that one before. Mmm.

Q. Well we recovered that one.
A. It's nice isn't it.

Q. Ahh, from ahh, I believe, ahh, from a repairer, being repaired.

A. Mmm.

Q. Does that ring any bells?
A. Repairer. I've.

Q. Have you got any guns at the moment or did you have any guns.

A. That one was repaired for me, that other one, the AR10. That, I took over to Terry Hill.

Q. Ohh, so I've got them confused.

A. Yeah.

 

Here, they wander off track and talk about Martin's cars and SCUBA diving experience. Then Paine comes back to the rifles for a moment:

Q. Martin, just be, while, before I forget it, can we have a look at the 308 again please Mr Warren. The one with the scope. I'd like you to have a closer look at, look at it.

WARREN

Q. If I hold it up with the scope, you might.

PAINE

Q. If Mr Warren holds it like that.
A. Yeah. No, no, I've never seen that one before. Never.

So you can see from this that Martin's memory is pretty good and he is articulate. He doesn't know enough about firearms to check the bullets, and is sold a dud lot by the person advertising the AR10 in the Mercury. That person probably bought the wrong bullets, then managed to pass them off to Martin - lucky for them there's a sucker born every minute.

But then Martin's luck with guns turns even worse. Terry Hill does a brilliant sales job on Martin, offloading probably his entire stock of rare and slow-selling 308 bullets for almost a thousand dollars. To be fair to Terry, $0.31 per bullet is a reasonable deal, he wasn't ripping Martin off, but honestly, who is going to fire 3,000 rounds in rural Tasmania? It's not like they have deer, moose and buffalo season, do they? Imagine buying a car and the dealer says "you have to buy 3,000 spark plugs, $0.30 each" - sure it's a deal, but who is going to use 3,000 spark plugs in their car?

It also appears that the cops don't know much about firearms either. They get the AR10 and AR15 confused, simply because they look similar, and they don't know how to attach the scope to the FN FAL.

AR15 in .223 with Colt 4x20 scope - recovered from Seascape

AR10 looks similar to the AR15 but they are different

But it's the FAL that raises all the questions. It's a rare rifle for Australia, since the majority of ours were domestically manufactured SLR versions. And making it even more rare,this one has a scope attached. Martin has never seen it before - he is quite clear about that and even adds that he has never seen the scope before either.

Scoped FN FAL in Qld, mid 1980s

This introduces what is called "reasonable doubt" into the case. In Australia, we theoretically have a principle called "innocent until proven guilty" where the police have to prove the charges against you are true and valid. In civil cases, the burden of proof is called the "balance of probabilities" - are the odds you did it higher than the odds you didn't. Criminal cases are held to a higher standard. The charges must be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" and this is where the prosecution case comes unstuck.

Without Reasonable Doubt, there is nothing stopping the Police from just arresting you at home one evening, and saying to the judge 'Yeah, look, we found this rocket launcher, and we think he bought it, so just lock him up, will you?'

Over 200 years of legal activity has refined the rules and standards for evidence, in order to try to give people a fair trial. The onus is on the prosecution to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt where and when and how you did the things you are accused of.

Can you imagine the conversations that happened inside the DPP offices? With intense political and media pressure to get a conviction, but the lawyers refusing to take this steaming pile of fertiliser into court?

The Police Commissioner is there in his uniform, covered in gold leaf. 'We need to wrap this up as quickly as possible, get him locked away so we can put it behind us and get the tourists back. How long until we can go to trial?'
The prosecution lawyer shrugs, pointing at the brief on his desk. 'No way can we take this into court. We'll get slaughtered.'
His boss sees the expression on the Commissioner's face and winces. He tries to lower the temperature in the room. 'How much longer do you need?'
The lawyer's face goes red. 'It's not about time. It's about evidence. It's just not there.'
The Commissioner tries to calm down by taking a deep breath. 'What do you mean?'
'Okay, in no particular order,' sighs the lawyer:
'Who made the phone call to tip off the police about the drug stash?
How did Bryant get the unpublished new phone number for Nubeena Police Station?
Where did the FN FAL come from? Martin says it wasn't his and we can't prove it.
Who fired three shots at 6.30pm, as stated in Leanne Godwin's witness statement?
Who fired the shots we can hear in the background on the negotiation tape with Terry McCarthy?
Why did Martin sit in the Volvo with the Salzmann's and speak with them, before shooting them and Jim Pollard and Rose Nixon? Nicholas Cheok saw the whole thing.
Why do Jim Laycock and Graham Collyer both say it wasn't Martin Bryant who shot them?
Where is Martin's DNA evidence from the Solo can and eating utensils?
Why is Wendy Scurr going around saying she picked shotgun pellets out of Dennis Olson, when we are saying the shotgun wasn't used in the massacre?'
Both other men are silent. The Commissioner squirms a little as the lawyer finishes his spray.
'There's a principle in law - you may have heard of it. It's called REASONABLE DOUBT and if it exists in that court, we won't get a conviction. And believe me, this brief is FULL of reasonable doubt. Gunston could be drunk on the floor and get him off. My ten year old kid could be Martin's defence lawyer and get him off, because this brief, this brief is FULL of reasonable doubt that he did it alone. If they put just ONE of those witnesses on the stand, there is no way a judge or jury will convict, no matter how much the media primes their minds that he did it.'
The Commissioner turns to the lawyer's boss. 'Any suggestions?'
'No way can we take this into a trial, mate. It's not like we are going to find new damning evidence, or have a Perry Mason epiphany on the day.'
'So, we can't have a trial then.'
'Not unless you want to be the next Standish.'
'Huh? What?'
'Standish. Victorian Police Commissioner in 1854. He basically caused the Kelly Gang to go on the run, turned public opinion in favour of the gang, and was sacked after the Glenrowan siege debacle. Funny, it's also the only siege where the Police set fire to the building, so there's precedent for YOU to be sacked as well...'
The Commissioner turns purple and has difficulty breathing for a moment. At last, he calms down.
'Best we not have a trial then. Just get him to plead guilty.'
The DPP lawyers nod. 'I'll have a word with David Gunston, get him to step aside.'
The Commissioner breathes a sigh of relief. 'Good. Any idea who to replace him?'
The DPP head looks around the room. 'Someone expendable, they'll be persona non grata in Tasmania for a long time.' He raises his voice and calls out, 'Avery? Would you step in here a minute, please?'

***

In case you think Martin Bryant's wrongful conviction is something rare, please check out the Innocence Project. They have an ever-increasing file of falsely imprisoned people who they have freed, some after more than 25 years in prison for crimes they did not do - sometimes even crimes that did not happen. If you can donate a few dollars to them, it will help get innocent people out of jail and that's a very good use of your money.

In order to present a plausible, possible alternative to the official story, I have written a novel, based on the witness statements and court documents. The 2nd Empty Chair: The Port Arthur Paradox is an action thriller that reads like a Hollywood movie script.
It's very easy to read and "pokes more holes in the official story than a Pastafarian's colander." You can buy it from Amazon or Lulu if Amazon won't ship to your location.

If you've already read the story, thanks for your support and please leave a review - that's very important for the algorithm that tracks interest in the book.

Scott

Malcolm Scott was one of the SOG officers that arrested Martin Bryant outside Seascape. After 24 hours of horrific and surreal events, his ambulance ride proved to be one of the most surreal. His witness statement is linked here:

Malcolm Scott Witness Statement

Let's hear it from him:

"During the course of escorting BRYANT to the Royal Hobart Hospital conversation occurred with him in the rear of the ambulance. I recorded this conversation in my note book as it occurred.

The ambulance officer said, ‘What’s your name?’

BRYANT said, ‘Martin BRYANT’ and asked ‘what’s the point of all this?’
The ambulance officer said, ‘I preserve life, Martin. Have you been drinking alcohol?’ BRYANT said, ‘A bit, it hurts. I want to get out of here.’
BRYANT said, ‘Where is she?’
I said, ‘Who?’
BRYANT said, ‘Petra, Petra did she get out of the fire? Petra’s my girlfriend. We always stick together.’
I said, ‘Was Petra in the fire? ‘
BRYANT said, ‘Yes, she was in the house.’
BRYANT made further comments but his speech was incoherent."

Petra was in the house with Martin?
He wanted to know if she survived the fire?
This raises many questions that need to be answered by an inquest.

Let's suppose for a moment that Bryant was the mastermind and sole villain of the massacre. He has been awake for over 24 hours, had massive amounts of adrenaline pumping through his system, fired hundreds of gunshots (guaranteed to cause hearing damage), and is now burned and in pain. 

How clearly is he thinking by now? This 66-iq simpleton, bullied all his life for being slow?

What does he gain by lying about Petra's whereabouts?

Why would he try to incriminate her?

And why didn't the Police follow up this information?

There is a simpler explanation: He is exhausted, in agony, and telling the truth.

If Petra was involved, it would explain how the soap powder came to be planted at Saltwater River, when she said she had been with Martin all week, leading up to the massacre.

Someone planted that soap powder decoy, someone obtained the unpublished phone number for Nubeena Police station.

If Petra lied about their whereabouts, then it stands to reason she lied about a lot of things - including her involvement. Petra needs to be cross examined as part of the inquest.

Now, let's look at recent evidence produced by Paul Moder, who is making WASP - The Port Arthur Massacre film:

Read the witness statements and transcript for yourself. The evidence itself pokes many holes in the official story.

You can also read my fiction novel - The 2nd Empty Chair. Based on the evidence, it links the facts together into a plausible, possible narrative that blows the official story out of the water.


Amazon - Kindle or Paperback

Lulu - Australian paperback  



There is more to this story than we are being told.

These are not conspiracy theories. They are witness statements. An inquest is required, to answer these reasonable questions.

FAL

The FN FAL rifle has always been one of the main artifacts of the Port Arthur Paradox. A non-military .308 semi automatic, serial number G3434, it was manufactured in Belgium and somehow made it's way to the roof of a guest house at Seascape.

The police interview transcript makes very interesting reading. After readily discussing his stupid near-death boating accident, his porn habits and family, Martin is asked about the guns.

He readily says that he owns an AR10 in .308, and AR15 in .223 and a USAS12 shotgun. The .308 AR10 wasn't used at Port Arthur, it was safe in Terry Hill's gun shop for repairs. It needed repairs because Martin knew so little about firearms that he used the wrong type of bullets, and jammed it.

But let's get back to the interview:

PAINE

Q. Yeah. Alright, the next one we'll look at is a ahh, a three 0 eight ahh, calibre, FN weapon.

A. Mmm.
Q. Do you remember where?
A. I've never seen that one before. Never. That's not one of mine.
Q. You sure?
A. No definitely not, never seen that in my life. It's nice though.
WARREN
A. Three 0 eight, yes. Had a three 0 eight.
Q. Mmm.
A. That was one Terry Hill was repairing.
PAINE
Q. I’ll just ask Mr Warren to pick up a scope we have there on the floor because that might be causing the confusion. I believe that that scope was probably fitted to that gun before we got it. Now does that...
A. No I've never seen that scope before in my life. Never. No. No I've never. Never seen that scope in my life.
Q. Now you say you've never seen that three 0 eight before but you did in fact own a three 0 eight?
A. Yeah, definitely.

Q. Right. 

So the conversation is pretty clear - Martin has never seen the .308 FN, but then the cops add a scope to it - a scope that had been lying on the floor of the interview room, not attached to the rifle.

What does Martin have to gain from lying about the FAL? Nothing. He admits the AR15 and the shotgun, that's enough to get him locked away for life. He gains nothing from lying about the FAL and I don't believe that he is lying. I believe he hadn't seen it before.

This is an added complication. Scoped rifles like this were rare in Australia, since most armies using the FN FAL or SLR used open sights. The scopes were reserved for special sniper rifles. Check out the Gunsmith's Guide to Port Arthur for more information about the FN FAL and SLR family of rifles.

Which brings me to my latest discovery.

I finally got a copy of David Everett's book Shadow Warrior. I've often said that Dave ticks most of the boxes when it comes to the Port Arthur shooter, although I don't think it was actually him who did it. Rather, I think it was someone like him, trained by the army but then cut loose, paid to do the job and disappear afterwards. A soldier of fortune. In the book, there are men like Baz and The Belgian who fit this description perfectly.

So look what I came across in the pictures:

Dave and an unknown accomplice, squatting in front of piles of ammunition, proudly displaying an AR15 and a SCOPED FN FAL - just like the one recovered from Seascape.

So who is this other chap? He looks a bit taller than Dave, but Everett was a small, skinny bloke so the mystery man is average height - Bryant's height.

Is it really so hard to imagine? This bloke gets arrested in 1995 by Qld cops and is sitting in an interview room when the door opens. In comes Rebecca Peters, flashing an INTERPOL badge she got from the Open Society. She asks the detectives to leave for a moment, then speaks to the ex-SAS mercenary and gun runner.

'Look, mate. You're fucked. You're looking at twenty years in prison, just like your accomplices James Reynolds and Dave Everett. Everett is still in prison, and Reynolds killed himself. I'm the only hope you've got.'

He looks skeptical, so she puts on her best Mad Max 2 impersonation.

Max: Two days ago, I saw a vehicle that could haul that tanker...

'You wanna get outta here, you talk to me.'

'Okay,' he says warily. 'Talk to me.'

'Simple,' she says. 'I get these cops to release you into my custody, you do a job for me and then disappear afterwards.'

'What kind of job?'

'Something right up your alley,' she smirks. 'Shooting a bunch of American Tourists on a jetty in Tasmania...'

He thinks for a moment. Gun control means big profits for the arms dealers who work in the shadows. People like me. Not a bad idea...

He smiles, and holds out his wrists for her handcuffs.

'Please promise me you won't...abuse me...while I'm in your custody...?'

She gives him a look that would melt steel.

'Don't worry, shithead. You're not my type.'

***

Nobody who has read the interview transcript and Nicholas Cheok's witness statement believes that Martin Bryant planned and carried out the Port Arthur Massacre on his own.

Think about possible v probable - what's more likely - did a disabled bloke with a 66 IQ plan a complex military style operation, execute it with precise timing and then hold to a convoluted lie when interrogated by the cops? He says that he drove past Port Arthur because he didn't have the money to go in. He couldn't pay the entry fee because he was due to get more money from the Public Trustee on Monday 30 April 1996.

Or was he set up, drugged and left in Seascape while professionals stole his Volvo, impersonated him and then set fire to the building to cover their tracks? Martin waking up and getting out of the fire wasn't in their plan, he was supposed to die in the fire. Nice and neat.

If ex SASR members were involved, then it makes sense that there is a shame and a coverup at the highest levels. The Australian public trust these men to do our dirty work, to do extreme violence on our behalf, so we may sleep safely in our beds at night. If it was revealed that some of them went rogue, and helped commit this atrocity, the public's faith in the institution would be shattered and all the billions spent, wasted.

So the truth and an innocent man are sacrificed for political expediency.

Sadly, it has ever been thus.

My novel, the 2nd Empty Chair is a possible, plausible alternative to the official story, based on the witness statements and court documents. You can get it from Amazon or if you want 15% off the paperback, go to www.lulu.com/spotlight/OskarZim and order it from there.
The discount only lasts until Christmas.

Sketch

Graham Collyer was shot in the neck at the Broad Arrow Café. He had a reasonably good look at the shooter, as described in his witness statement linked here.

Graham also sketched the rifle that shot him. Look at the vents and magazine (erroneously called a "clip" in the sketch:

 

 

 

 

Did he mistake the grip pattern on the AR15 as "vents" or was he in fact looking at a FN FAL, the type carried by ex-SASR, mercenary and armed robber David Everett?

 

 

 

AR15 SP1 Carbine owned by Martin Bryant and found in seascape ruins.

 

Curved magazine for the AR15, not the straight one sketched by Graham Collyer.

 

 

 

 

FN FAL #3434 found damaged in the gutter of an outbuilding at Seascape.

 

 

FAL type SLR carried by Everett in Myanmar where he taught marksmanship to the Karen rebels. Cooling vents in the barrel shroud and a straight magazine.

Now, there are many people who know more about guns than me, and I would love some advice about what that sketch could be of. The vents in the barrel shroud don't look like an AR15 but the front sight is the triangle shape (which the FAL doesn't have). The sketch looks like the bastard love child of an AR15 and an SLR, so any pointers or suggestions would be appreciated.

The police appear to be very afraid of the Collyer statement. Here's Ian McNiven's experience:

THREATENED WITH ARREST FOR ASKING A FORENSIC QUESTION
 
By Ian McNiven

A friend tipped me off about a meeting advertised in the Courier Mail of Thursday, 21st November 2002. The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society Inc. were hosting a presentation by one of the leading forensic investigators into the Port Arthur killings  
The meeting was to be held at the Nathan Campus of Griffith University Qld. After contacting the Forensic Society Secretary and being assured that there was a half hour set aside for questions from the floor and that it was "very informal" and knowing that universities were leading forums for debate and the free exchange of ideas and information, I decided to attend to avail myself of the opportunity of asking questions about some of the forensic investigation that was done at the Port Arthur Café. I expected to get a fair go at Griffith because I attended an Orientation Day with an associate some years ago where the Dean told the assembled parents, "We will teach your children to question everything", but I was soon to find out that the investigation into Port Arthur was not included in that statement.

The guest speaker was introduced by the Queensland President of the Forensic Society, who I believe was a serving Policeman. The presentation was quite professional and almost identical to the article in the Australian Police Journal September 98 Vol 52 No 4. It contained very little information about actual forensic technique and in my opinion was mainly propaganda.  
There were two statements made that were of interest to me - The killer never used the FNFAL .308 rifle until he returned to the boot of the Volvo and that Bryant obtained the weapons used in the killings "on the black market" - more about that later.  
When the lecture was finished the presenter told us that we would have 5 minutes of questions before going outside for a tea break and then coming back in for the main question time. He then proceeded to warn the audience about conspiracy theories and that some people didn't believe that Bryant was the killer and that he wouldn't be answering questions of a conspiracy nature or words to that effect. This did not concern me as the questions I wanted to ask related to the collection of forensic evidence in the café. When the first question was called for, I had my hand up and got the nod. This is the question I asked

- "Was any solid empirical forensic evidence such as finger prints or DNA found that links Martin Bryant to the shootings in the café?” Having read many of the witness statements, I had a specific reason for asking that. More about that later.
 

The presenter looked like he had been handed a dirty nappy and proceeded to waffle on about ballistic evidence as a way of avoiding the answer. I thought the answer was quite simple. Just a yes or no. As I was very keen to get an answer, I interrupted the speaker and pointed out that my question was not about ballistics but about fingerprints and DNA. Then I asked again (loudly), "Did you find Bryant's fingerprints on the bullet cases or any of Bryant's DNA at the café?" The speaker then started to bluster about ballistic evidence again and then said that they had witness statements. It then became obvious to me that there must be no empirical forensic evidence liking Bryant to the café or the speaker would have said yes, and given an outline of how and where it was collected. When he mentioned witness statements I asked him if he was familiar with the statement of Graham Collyer? The presenter then told me and all the audience that he would talk to me about it outside and shut down the question time.

It also dawned on me why the presenter had warned about conspiracy theorists, because anyone who asked awkward questions could be labelled as such and dismissed. We then went outside for the tea break and I waited for my chance to talk to the presenter. When he was free I walked up to him with the Collyer statement and asked to discuss it with him. He looked me in the eye, turned his back on me and walked away. I was gobsmacked, standing in the middle of the crowd, Collyer statement in my hand and a stupid look on my face. Here was a Senior Forensic Policeman who had given his word to speak to me in front of about 200 people, going back on his promise. I resolved to use question time to ask him in front of all those people why he had lied to me. I was very interested to hear what his answer would be. 
I never got to ask the question because as I moved to the door, I was surrounded by some burly gentlemen who said they were policemen and I was asked to step aside, which I did. I

asked what the problem was and they told me that I could not go back inside. I pointed out that I had done nothing wrong, that the meeting was a public meeting and I had paid to go in. I waved my receipt. I told them I wanted to go in to ask why their colleague had lied to me and moved toward the door. One of the burly gentlemen stood in my way and told me if I went in I would disrupt the
meeting and University Security would be called, they would call the Police and "people may be arrested" looking hard at me. Can you imagine my astonishment, here I was being threatened with arrest for doing nothing more than asking a simple forensic question. What
are these people afraid of, what are they hiding, I thought. I asked the person blocking the

door to reflect on the amount of publicity and propaganda that I could milk of I were to be

arrested for asking a question. I also pointed out to the group of people who wouldn't let me

go back in that I thought that it was the job of the Police to protect freedom of speech, not

destroy it.

While I was debating the importance of our fundamental rights with these people, the

Queensland President and Secretary of the Forensic Society were standing beside me andnever raised a finger or a word in my defence or the individuals right to question representatives of the state. They never offered a word of apology to me for the way I was treated or offered me my money back. As I was a bit like a possum surrounded by a pack of dingos, in the end discretion triumphed and I went home.

Truck

Among all the strange coincidences of the Port Arthur Massacre, none are as vivid as the refrigerated morgue truck. There's no question it was perfect for the job - 22 refrigerated berths kept the dead bodies cool while they were autopsied. The questions arise when you start thinking about why it existed in the first place, and what happened to it after the massacre.

Let's look at a few of the issues and facts in order: First, let's see what Carl Wernerhoff has to say (quoted from Mass Murder by Keith Noble:

“The fact that a morgue truck with over 20 bays was built before the massacre....17 Two specially designed embalming machines were sent to Hobart: ‘One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers [ 7 Droop Street, Footscray, VIC 3011], had organised 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,’ was recorded....”18 All these facts were never reported, in fact they were suppressed and dug up by investigators afterwards because had we known about these preparations I think we might have become even more suspicious of just how ready the city of Hobart was for a traumatic incident of major proportions.... [T]here are people who planned a massacre and blamed an unfortunate intellectually handicapped man for the terrible crimes that took place in one of the most beautiful and peaceful places on earth.

 

I have gathered innumerable pieces of information and facts which substantiate a cover-up of immense proportions over the past ten years. And even now, I am still uncovering more and more information. There is so much of it that it never ends. For instance, we know that a Mortuary truck with 22 body racks in a refrigerated unit was built before the massacre.... Why would Tasmania need a Mortuary Unit designed for a disaster of at least 22 bodies?

Thirty-five people were killed at one of the most beautiful historic sites in our country and only a few weeks later the Howard government [Liberal by name, but conservative by ideology] pushed through Draconian gun laws that had no hope in hell of getting passed without the emotional turmoil that followed the Port Arthur massacre.

(amended; added emphasis; added italics)  

Carl Wernerhoff

The Port Arthur massacre 10 years on the secrecy continues

members.iinet.net.au/~nedwood/Pam06.html

Footnotes:

17 The Australian (29 April 1996) states that the refrigerated mortuary truck was driven to Port Arthur late Sunday (28th). And on p. 106 of the Port Arthur Seminar Papers it reads:

“Day Four Wednesday 1 May 1996 ...First of the deceased persons leave the scene at Port Arthur and are removed to the Royal Hobart Hospital mortuary.” Euphemistic words of the Australian Funeral Directors Association tell us the first load of bodies was trucked from Port Arthur to the Hobart morgue on Wednesday, three days after the incident. Charleton’s purpose-built refrigerated truck had two functions related to the bodies of the 35 people officially killed: i. Storage; and, ii. Transportation.

18 Stephen Parry. Port Arthur massacre 1996 – AFDA national embalming team – detailed report; Port Arthur Seminar Papers; 1997: p. 112.

It cannot get any more diabolical and shocking. Nelson Brothers had special big-job embalming equipment “manufactured ready for the incident.”

Officials want you to believe they had no fore-knowledge about the incident at Port Arthur. But true facts tell the world another story – 35 people were killed with official approval and funeral directors in Victoria had the special embalming equipment that they would need in Tasmania manufactured ready for use after the killing was done.

End quote.

 

Next, let's look at what happened after the truck was proven useful. Was it retained by the Tasmanian government, in case a tragedy happened again? Was it purchased by Victoria or New South Wales - both of whom had gun massacres prior to Port Arthur, and with higher populations were statistically more likely to have a mass casualty event like a plane or boat disaster?

 No, it was offered for sale with an enigmatic note: Again, Mass Murder has a copy of the advertisement:

 

“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.” Email cwright@trump.net.au

It seems that Chris Wright was then a copper with Tasmania Police. Now how did he get to own, or have responsibility for selling, this 22-body refrigerated morgue vehicle? If you know how, please email your info to:

MARTINBRYANTISINNOCENT@gmail.com 

 

End quote.

 

You can also contact me via o_zim@protonmail.com

 

Sadly, emails to that address simply bounce back. Now let’s turn to Andrew MacGregor’s book Deceit and Terrorism. He starts with the media circus:

If the Port Arthur massacre was one thing, it was a media show, and a very successful one at that. The media were given top priority, and followed the government leads in their entirety. A typical example of the death of investigative journalism by the television media is that with Andrew Fisher at the Police forward Command Post at Taranna.

Andrew Fisher at the PFCP at Taranna on the evening of the massacre, “Well, a State Crisis Centre is being set up at Police headquarters, and the deputy State Coroner Mr Matterson has turned up as has a Mortuary truck to pick up the dead at the present time. Police are also saying that there will be trauma counselling both on the peninsula and a major centre is being set up at the Rokeby Police Academy just outside Hobart.” “Thank you Andrew, we’ll leave it there; Andrew Fisher.”

None of the audience listening to that little description would pick up anything unusual, but if Andrew Fisher actually saw the Southern Tasmanian Mortuary truck, he should have asked some very pertinent questions. For a full description of this vehicle consider this advertisement placed on the Internet in September 1999:

Vehicle for Sale – the same ad as above.

 A hearse built to carry 22 bodies! It is the only one of its kind in Australia. Why would a State like Tasmania need such a vehicle? Why would a State government decide to purchase such a vehicle? What precedent would it be relying on to consider the application of such a vehicle? There had never been any requirement for such a vehicle in Tasmania’s history prior to the Port Arthur Massacre, and there has never been any further requirement for this vehicle. Andrew Fisher never had any curiosity about such an oddity appearing within hours of the Port Arthur Massacre. This vehicle is described slightly differently though in the EMA Port Arthur Seminar Papers on pages 90 & 97.

 

On page 90 in the report tabled by Mr Ian Matterson it states, “Also present was a Chevrolet truck to the chassis of which Mr Charlton had attached a refrigerated covered compartment capable of storing sixteen (16) bodies. This vehicle had, in the past, been regarded by many as an expensive aberration that would never have a use. At Port Arthur it was a highly prized possession.”

On page 97 in the report by Mr T. J. Lyons, State Forensic Pathologist, it states, “Removal of the bodies was greatly assisted because the Southern Region Mortuary Ambulance Service provided a large vehicle capable of handling multiple bodies – the only such vehicle currently available in Australia.”

Andrew Fisher is the first reporter to tell us that things are not quite as they seem. There were many more instances where the media reported items that should have aroused suspicion, but did not.” 

 

End quote 

So, the truck remains an enigma. Here are some questions for an inquiry to ask:

Who authorised the truck to be built?

What reasons did they have?

Who authorised its disposal?

How did Chris Wright obtain the truck after the massacre?

Did he pay a commercial price or value for it?

 

Anyone with information or eyewitness testimony is encouraged to contact me in absolute confidentiality.

 

Anyone who wants to read a plausible alternative that matches the facts more closely than the official story, get a copy of The 2^nd Empty Chair: The Port Arthur Paradox.

 

Some more photos of this strange artefact: