Port Arthur, Robo-debt and the Post Office

 

 

This is a study in abuse of corporate power and why innocent people give in to incorrect charges. It's far more common than you might think.

I'm listening to a podcast called The Westminster Tradition, covering these two cases:

Robodebt was a program run by the Australian government to 'catch welfare cheats'. It used illegal and illogical computer programs to accuse thousands of people of welfare fraud, putting the onus on the recipient to prove their innocence, rather than the other way around. Unknown thousands of people received these claims and paid them, unable to challenge the government system. It took over 5 years for the unjustly accused to get the system stopped.

Mr Bates v The Post Office

is another, similar scandal from the UK where the Post Office knowingly implemented a faulty computer system, then lied to and charged their sub postmasters with fraud and theft. Many paid their fines or convictions, many spent years in jail, some committee suicide. 

One key issue is that the government often gave them a plea bargain. "We've charged you with both fraud and theft. But if you please guilty to theft, we will drop the fraud charge, and you might get off with a warning for the theft charge." Many of these innocent people accepted this devil's bargain, even though they were completely innocent and it was the Horizon computer system at fault.

What is a plea bargain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

A plea bargain (also plea agreement or plea deal) is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.^[1]

A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge. For example, in the legal system of the United States, a criminal defendant charged with a felony theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which may not carry a custodial sentence.

In cases such as an automobile collision when there is a potential for civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead "no contest" or "guilty with a civil reservation", which essentially is a guilty plea without admitting civil liability.

Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients.^[2] However, in the case of the US for example, defense attorneys are required by the ethics of the bar to defend the present client's interests over the interests of others. Violation of this rule may result in disciplinary sanctions being imposed against the defense attorney by the appropriate state's bar association.^[3]

In charge bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge that was filed against them. In count bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges. In sentence bargaining, they plead guilty agreeing in advance what sentence will be given; however, this sentence can still be denied by the judge. In fact bargaining, defendants plead guilty but the prosecutor agrees to stipulate (i.e., to affirm or concede) certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished under the sentencing guidelines.

Plea bargaining was considered a predominantly American phenomenon during the 1970s, but has since spread throughout the world.^[4]

But in the human realm: Why?
Why plead guilty? What's going on in the defendant's mind?

Often, it's a desire for the ordeal to be over. You may have heard 'the process is the punishment', and being subject to the legal process, having police interviews, your home searched, the neighbor's gossip - many people just want to put it behind them and move on, even if they lose a lot in the process. The lawyers and government know this, and so the process is designed to squeeze the victim into complying.

In both of these cases, pompous government employees just assumed that the system was correct, and was catching so many people because they were all criminals. They privately believed that most people of lower class were inherently corrupt, and thus secretly pleased that so many were being caught. "Yes, good. It serves them right."

Here's the transcript of a part of the discussion:

• It's about a lack of compassion or care, about the impact of your institution on others. These institutions had to look at other people suffering...and not care, actively paint them as deserving of the suffering they were undergoing...and not care.
• There's something interesting, in the Robodebt case, there's the idea of the "welfare bludger" narrative, in Horizon there's actually a real class thing...right? Post Office masters are shopkeepers...like in Jane Austen...cheapside...(lower class...working class...). The inquiry revealed that head office viewed their franchise sub postmasters with contempt.
• And so...that is like the foundation of the issue...that acceptance by both the UK and Australian governments that people of lower status are basically fraudulent....all criminals in waiting...
• I just can't believe that at no point did it strike them as true...that this high proportion of their own postmasters would be thieving...at quite a large scale...and nobody went, like "Is there an epidemic of theft or could there be some other problem?" 
• Equally, that this many people were misleading Centrelink about how much money they were owed...at some point you have to look at the scale, the proportions involved and go..."something doesn't seem right here".
• There's also just an institutional attitude component that makes me wonder...if you think that high a proportion of people are comfortable with that high a level of stealing...does that not...who do you hang around with?... It goes to how they are characterising those people... they don't hang around with those people...right? So it's easy to characterise those people as...yes... "Nobody I know would steal...but...the filthy underclass? You're so right.

The Port Arthur Massacre has a very similar set of emotions involved. 
Martin was Tasmanian, a place widely viewed by mainlanders as backward, inbred and unsophisticated. Further, he was mentally ill and a social outsider. So when the media ran salacious and illegal photos and stories painting him as a deranged gunman, our deeply buried prejudices quite naturally responded, "It's so understandable that someone like that would do something like that, I'm so glad I'm not like that."

Martin's initial plea was 'not guilty' and he then spent 5 months in solitary confinement, consistently asserting his innocence and that there was no evidence that put him at the scene. It was only when his first defense lawyer, David Gunson was replaced by John Avery, that he was convinced to change his plea. Avery told Martin that his burns were healed, and he was taking up a bed in the prison hospital which should rightly be used by other sick prisoners. Martin would be moved into General Population, along with other murderers, drug dealers and rapists, including Mark 'Chopper' Read. Chopper was an expert at slicing off the fingers and toes of his victims, and both Bryant and Avery knew this.

They also knew that once the prisoners began beating Martin to death, it would take a long time for him to die, and the guards wouldn't stop it. The guards had already tortured Martin by twisting his burned arms behind his back, so Martin knew he could expect no sympathy from them.

After letting Martin imagine his own death for a few moments, Avery then offered him a lifeline. He could stay in the prison hospital for the rest of his life, under the supervision of his doctors, but only if the plea was changed to guilty. This is called a 'Plea Bargain' and happens very frequently in the court system. Quite often, criminals arrested with drugs and guns will be convinced to plead guilty to the drug charges, the firearms charges are dropped, the case proceeds faster and the statistics look good because 'there's less gun crime now.' No, there's just less gun crime prosecuted - very different things.

Faced with his own death, Martin took the awful decision to accept the plea bargain. Thousands of Centrelink 'customers' and Sub-Postmasters accepted similar bargains while faced with far less hideous options, so it's easy to see why Martin changed his plea, once we know more of the facts.

The real problem lies with us, who are so easy to accept the bad news about someone, and judge them harshly, without knowing much about the issue.

Martin deserves a re-trial.
The victims and their families deserve the truth.
Martin and all the victims of Robodebt and the Post Office deserve justice.

Media

In a few short weeks, the media will again bring up Port Arthur as the anniversary of the massacre arrives. If you are a journalist, please read the facts below and compare them with what you are permitted to publish about Port Arthur.

The media will play on emotion, dance in the blood of the victims and re-traumatise the survivors as they praise John Howard and ignore the 5 mass shootings since 1996: Wedderburn, Lockart, Hectorville, Monash, Osmington. The past 22 years have seen the same number of mass shootings as the 22 years before Port Arthur. Then just this month, another mass shooting in Melbourne...

But Port Arthur is not about media hype. The essence of the Port Arthur case is evidence.

Specifically, the lack of it. Set aside your emotions and look at the impartial evidence before you.

Here are the facts that the media conveniently ignore; if you are a journalist, ask your editor or producer if you can do a story on them and let me know the response:

There was no examination of the evidence at Martin's "trial". After 5 months in solitary confinement, where he continued to plead not guilty, defence lawyer John Avery (since jailed for fraud and released) convinced his mother Carleen Bryant to tell Martin she wouldn't visit him, and he would rot alone in a concrete box unless he pled guilty. The "trial" was simply a summary of the prosecution case, followed by sentencing. Theatre. 

There is no DNA evidence that Martin Bryant was in the cafe. The utensils and Solo can the shooter used would have saliva and fingerprints on them, but has never been released. Likewise, the tape from the video camera left in the cafe has never seen daylight. Does it show a different story to the official narrative?

Solo can, utensils and video camera

There is no evidence that Bryant owned the FN FAL rifle serial number G3434 left broken at seascape. He denies ever seeing it or the scope before. A scoped FAL is very rare, since they are an infantry battle rifle, not a sniper rifle. Where did it come from?

FN FAL in .308 #G3434

The rifle on the roof leads me to another. Here are two photos from the book Shadow Warrior by David Everett. Everett was an Australian SASR soldier who went to help the Karen rebels fight the communist Burmese government. Using his contacts in the military, he was able to purchase weapons and supplies for his new friends. Dave was a short, skinny bloke, so old mate in the white T-shirt is taller, about the right height for the Port Arthur shooter. If he grew his hair out, or even put on a wig (several of the eyewitness accounts, like Jim Laycock, said the shooter's hair looked like a wig), he ticks a lot of boxes. Especially when you see him holding a rare FN FAL with a scope on it, just like the one left on the roof of Seascape.

The second photo is Dave himself, posing in Burma with a similar rifle, minus the scope. Dave was in prison at the time of the massacre, along with one of his accomplices James Reynolds. However, a third accomplice, called "Baz" in the book, was never officially arrested and remains at large. Is "Baz" this guy in the white t-shirt?

 

At the trial, prosecutor Damien Bugg said that Bryant shot David and Sally Martin at Seascape "between 11am and 12pm" but Simmons, waiting for a car at 10.45am, heard the shots "prior to 11am" as per his witness statement. Martin Bryant was, between 10.30 and 10.45am, witnessed putting $15 petrol in his Volvo at Taranna, 6km north (Chris Hammond witness statement), and then driving AWAY from Seascape, to surf at Roaring Beach. He was nowhere in the area between 11 and 12 that Sunday, look at the map:

10.45 at Taranna, Bryant then drove west to surf

A toasted sandwich and coffee at Nubeena, he passed PAHS between 12 and 12.30

Three shots were fired at 6.30pm inside PAHS while Bryant was under siege inside seascape. Who fired those shots? Lee Ann Godwin and John Featherstone both witnessed three shots from the verandah of Clougha, the visiting magistrates house.

The tape recording of Police officer McCarthy and "Jamie" contains clear gunshots in the background while Jamie was in the kitchen. Who fired those shots?

The recording also states that Jamie has another person inside the house called "Rick". Was it this Rick who was shooting from upstairs while Jamie was talking to McCarthy? Who is he and how did he escape the police cordon?

At the toll booth, Nicholas Cheok saw Robert and Helene Salzmann sit in the yellow Volvo with the gunman and his hot rifle instead of running away like everyone else. They were talking, then arguing, then Robert stood in the middle of the road while the blonde gunman retrieved his rifle from the opposite side of the Volvo and shot him, Helene, Jim Pollard and Rose Nixon (whose husband owned the BMW the gunman was about to steal). Why would these 4 people meet the gunman, speak to him, then wait around to be shot while everyone else was running away? How are they connected to each other and what relationship did they have with Martin Bryant?

Helen and Robert Salzmann, sat in the yellow Volvo.

Jim Pollard was driving the BMW that blocked entry traffic at the toll booth

Jim Laycock witnessed the toll booth shootings and the kidnapping of Glen Pears. He had known Martin for years, and said the shooter was not him. His witness statement is available on the menu of this blog.

Graham Collyer was shot in the neck inside the cafe. He describes the shooter as having "a lot of acne, a pitted face." In contrast, Martin has a smooth, creamy complexion. Graham's witness statement is also linked on the menu.

Brigid Cook survived being shot, and said in her witness statement that her memory had been influenced by the photos in the media. How many other witnesses had their memory affected by this phenomenon, ongoing research into crime and memory suggests a lot:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/false-memory-syndrome-false-confessions-memories

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

The newspaper photo in this post was stolen from Martin's house and illegally published before he was even charged with a crime. It tainted the memories of the witnesses and the public alike, yet the newspapers were never charged with anything from theft to attempting to influence a jury.

The emergency exit door to the cafe was locked, trapping people inside who were shot by the gunman. The same thing happened at the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch in 2019. Neither shooter had opportunity to lock the doors before they opened fire, so who locked those doors and turned the rooms into a slaughterhouse?

At the time of the cafe shooting, the only two police in the area were 30 minutes away at remote Saltwater River, where a soap powder stash had been phoned in as a hoax. Who placed the soap powder there? Not Martin - his girlfriend Petra Wilmot had been with him all week. And Nubeena police station had a new phone number that had not yet been published in white and yellow pages. How did the gunman obtain the new phone number?

What happened to Helen Harvey's Tatts shares? Martin's friend left him all her estate, but since both were managed by the Public Trustee, it is unlikely the two accounts were combined. So when Martin's estate was seized by the Government (denying him the means to afford a lawyer), Helen's lottery shares and the lucrative income they provide disappeared. These shares became much more valuable when Tatts floated in 2005. My application to the State Archives for details of the compensation payments have been refused, citing a 25-year moratorium.

Was the massacre a cover up for the largest theft in Australian history since the Murwillumbah bank heist in 1978? The largest ever? With a float price of $2.90, out of 593 shareholders, the Tasmania Public Trustee held exactly two parcels of Tatts shares worth $39 million and $1.5 million respectively. In the chaos following the shooting, did someone get away with $39 million by pretending to distribute it to the victims? Prove me wrong by releasing the sealed records and having them audited.


The information about Tatts shares has been archived off the live internet. You have to use the Wayback Machine to access it: https://web.archive.org/web/20060513172101/https://www.theage.com.au/ed_docs/tattersals.pdf
And before you dismiss this idea as fantasy, I'm not the only one thinking it. The Lee Child novel One Shot, made into a film called Jack Reacher starring Tom Cruise, is about a man framed for a mass shooting that conceals an ulterior motive. As a trained statistician, I consider this explanation to be plausible and possible.

There are more strange details about Port Arthur: The perfect morgue truck that was scrapped after the massacre was over; the media and surgery conferences that ensured medical care and hysterical media coverage at the right time; the unusual Sunday seminar for the top managers of the Historic Site, ensured they were not on the premises when the shooting started.

 

 

Then there's Martin's own alibi, that he couldn't afford the entry fee, even if he had desired to go into Port Arthur that day - he was down to the coins in his glove box, planning to get more money from the Public Trustee on 1 May. How ironic that he would never see any of that money again.

Then there's the black van that appeared outside the Broad Arrow Café at 3.10pm (just 40 minutes after the shooting began and as the second Squirrel helicopter arrived to evacuate  wounded. Carol Laughton was evacuated on the first Squirrel so she did not see it arrive) and stayed there until 4.30pm. Three photos below show the van:

There are no theories here, conspiracy or otherwise. These are facts, taken from the witness statements and court documents. Any trained journalist will seek answers to these questions.

The best way to blow conspiracy theory out of the water is to produce evidence and have it examined by independent experts. We are consistently calling for such an inquiry, yet instead of complying, the Tasmanian government recently digitised all the evidence, locking it away under the highest level of security, only visible to the police minister, for yet another 75 years. Given the conflicting eyewitness accounts and the questions listed above, we encourage you to ask, "what are they hiding?"

Port Arthur was a horrible crime against humanity. The victims deserve to have the guilty punished. But there is reasonable doubt that Martin Bryant was the killer, so a retrial is needed. All decent human beings will want the truth and justice to prevail, and the first step is to recognise the holes in the official story and re-open the inquest that Ian Matterson started.

All we want is the truth.

The victims deserve the truth.

Are you a journalist?
There's probably a Pulitzer in it for the one who breaks this story open.
Get on it.

***

 

 

 

 

 

The 2nd Empty Chair is a fiction novel, based on the witness statements and court documents. Using poetic licence, it links the facts that we know into a plausible, possible narrative that 'pokes more holes in the official story than a Pastafarian's colander.'

 

Read the witness statements, this book and compare what you learn to the official story.
 

 

Lulu - Paperback delivery to Australia

 

Amazon - Kindle or Paperback