Pollard

Jim Pollard

Why did the prosecutor lie to the judge?
There are many strange incidents and events relating to the Port Arthur Massacre. One of the most enigmatic is one of the victims - Jim Pollard.

Jim was shot and killed at the Port Arthur tollbooth, about 1.50pm on Sunday 28 April 1996. He had been driving Ken Nixon's gold BMW. In the passenger seat, Ken's wife Rose Nixon was also shot and killed by the Port Arthur gunman.
His other passengers on that fateful day were Robert and Helene Salzmann. Reading Ken Nixon's witness statement, we learn that Jim was travelling with Robert and Helene, and Ken loaned them his BMW, to save them the cost of a hire car.

The story begins with Jim, Rose, Robert and Helene driving to Port Arthur for the Sunday. The next information that we have is from Nicholas Cheok's witness statement, saying Jim had parked the BMW in the wrong lane, blocking the entry of anyone else to the site while the shootings were happening. He also saw Robert and Helene were NOT in the BMW, they were sitting in the yellow Volvo, talking to the blonde man.

Robert and Helene Salzmann

This event is completely ignored by the crown prosecutor in statements to the court. Here's the verbatim transcript from pages 156-158 of the transcript:

"Your Honour, after slaughtering the Mikac's, Bryant re-entered his vehicle and drove up the entrance road, pulling up just past the tollbooth on the left-hand verge, approximately level with or slightly behind the Nixon BMW.  Photograph number 5 shows the position of the Volvo.  A few seconds later Miss Debra Rabe turned left from the Arthur Highway into the site entrance and drove towards the tollbooth to be confronted by the gold BMW blocking her path.  Miss Rabe and her passengers, Mrs Frida Cheok and son, Nicholas, observed a woman in the front passenger seat of the BMW we believe to have been Mrs Nixon, motioning to them with her hands as if to say, ‘go back’." 

Up to here, this matches Nicholas Cheok's witness statement. Can you see where the lies begin?

"At the same time they observed two men, Bryant and Mr Salzmann apparently arguing at the driver’s side door of the Volvo.  It is the Crown case that Bryant then quickly moved a step or two to the rear of the Volvo and removed the .308 calibre SLR rifle.  A few more words were exchanged and Bryant raised the rifle and shot Mr Salzmann at point blank range through the neck, a lethal injury, causing Mr Salzmann to fall straight backwards to the roadway

Mr Salzmann was wearing a blue jumper, and I refer your Honour to photograph number 15.  Immediately after the murder of Mr. Salzmann Mr. Pollard was observed by Nicholas Cheok to get out of the driver’s seat of the BMW and walk around the front of the vehicles towards Bryant.  Bryant thereupon raised the rifle to his shoulder and shot Mr. Pollard at close range through the right chest causing a lethal injury.  And I refer your Honour to photograph number 12.

By this time another car had pulled up behind Miss Rhodes’ vehicle, the occupants of this car having been alerted to the horror of the scene before them by the urgent signalling of Mrs. Cheok, quickly reversed back towards the entrance allowing Miss Rabe to do likewise.  While Miss Rabe was in the process of reversing her vehicle Bryant turned his attention to the two remaining occupants of the BMW.  The exact sequence of events in the next few seconds is not entirely clear but it seems probable that Bryant went to the rear driver’s side door of the BMW and pulled Mrs. Salzmann from the vehicle shooting her as he did so.   Mrs. Salzmann sustained a fatal gunshot injury, the bullet entering her neck and exiting through her left upper back.  And I refer your Honour to photograph number 6.

The Crown case is that Bryant then walked to the front passenger side of the BMW where Mrs. Nixon was seated and shot her twice before dragging her body clear of the vehicle onto the roadway.  Mrs. Nixon sustained two gunshot wounds, one entering her right shoulder and perforating her neck and cervical spine, the other entering her left shoulder and perforated the left chest cavity.  Both of these wounds were lethal injuries.  I refer your Honour to photograph number 9."

 

End of transcript. I've put the disputed text in italics.

 

Nicholas Cheok saw far more than an argument, but the prosecutor did not tell the judge that both Helene and Robert were sitting inside the yellow Volvo. He also chooses a strange turn of phrase - The exact sequence of events in the next few seconds is not entirely clear but it seems probable - why say that? Nicholas Cheok saw the whole thing. The facts are not in dispute. Why cloud the issue with uncertainty?

 

Helene Salzmann was not in the BMW. She was in the Volvo. Nicholas Cheok and the location of her body supports Nicholas Cheok's report. Let me ask you this - if a person is shot in the chest, does the bullet travel down, from their neck to their upper back? Or does that happen if they are kneeling, and the shooter looming above? Nicholas Cheok saw Helene dragged from the Volvo, thrown to the ground and then shot from above - consistent with the prosecutor's statement of fact.

 

Who were James Russell Pollard and Robert Salzmann?

Why did the Police steal Jim's notebook and not return it to his family?

Why did a Police report travel from Port Arthur to rural NSW virtually instantaneously?

Why did the prosecution cloud their statements about Jim and Robert in vague language and uncertainty?

 

A formal inquiry is needed to identify these individuals, and their reasons for being at Port Arthur and blocking traffic into the site while the massacre was happening.

 

 

 

 

***

 

 

 

 

 

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.'

 

 

 

Lulu - Paperback delivery to Australia

 

Amazon - Kindle or Paperback

 

 

 

 

 

 



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.

Cheok

The official story of the Port Arthur Massacre really comes apart at the Toll Booth.

Nicholas Cheok saw most of what transpired, and gave a witness statement two and a half months later. I've linked his Witness Statement here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jej77qLbgWK3CykULvHCiMOuiUk6h-VP/view?usp=sharing

and I'll put a link on the sidebar as well.

Read it carefully. You owe it to the victims to understand what happened.

He clearly saw three people in the yellow Volvo, and two people in the gold BMW.
None of them were running away, even when the gunman stepped away from his hot, smoking rifle.
He left it in the back seat of the Volvo, while Robert and Helene Salzmann got in and sat with him, talking, then arguing.
Jim Pollard and Rose Nixon sat in her husband's BMW, warning away anyone trying to drive in to the Port Arthur Historic Site.
As Nicholas and Debra Rae watched in horror, Robert got out of the Volvo, followed by a blonde, six-foot, well-built man. They were both on the driver's side, in the roadway. The blonde man walked around the front of the Volvo, opened the back passenger door, came around the back of the Volvo with a gun and shot Robert at point-blank range.
Jim Pollard got out of the driver's side of the BMW, walked around the front into the middle of the road and was shot by the gunman. The blonde man then walked back around the front of the Volvo, opened the front passenger door and dragged out Helene Salzmann, shooting her twice.
He then goes back to the middle of the road, opening the BMW passenger door and shooting Rose Nixon.
He then takes the BMW, drives out to the Port Arthur petrol station and kills Zoe Hall, kidnapping Glen Pears and driving to Seascape.

So here are some questions for the coroner to answer:
What was the relationship between Jim Pollard, Rose Nixon and the Salzmanns?
Why didn't the four run away from the shooting?
Why would you argue with an armed man, let alone sit inside a car with him?
Why didn't Robert Salzmann unload the hot, smoking rifle in the passenger seat next to him?
Seeing Robert shot, it's understandable if Jim Pollard thought he could "talk down" the gunman. But why didn't the women run away? Why didn't Jim Pollard drive the BMW (with his friend in the passenger seat), away from the danger zone before returning to try and talk the shooter down?
Did any of the 4 know Martin Bryant prior to the shooting?

At the end of the witness statement, Nicholas identifies Martin Bryant as the gunman. I respect Nicholas' statement, but keep in mind how susceptible our memories are to suggestion, and Nicholas had just been subject to 10 weeks of constant, saturation media saying Martin Bryant was the shooter and splashing his photo everywhere.

Even if Nicholas was correct, and it was Martin Bryant shooting Jim Pollard, Rose Nixon and the Salzmanns, their actions are enough to throw reasonable doubt on the official story and are grounds for an inquiry.

Sketch made by the police and updated by Nicholas Cheok