Exclusive to "The Strategy"
|Martin Bryant is not
guilty of the multiple murders at the Port Arthur
Historic Site; a fact proved in irrefutable scientific
terms by the photographs above.
Those on the left show amateur video footage tendered to the Supreme Court by the prosecution alleging the blonde man by the yellow volvo with a roof rack and surfboard, was Bryant in the bus park at Port Arthur, changing weapons after killing twenty civilians in the Broad Arrow Cafe and two more near the Trans Otway bus to his right. If this man is the Port Arthur murderer, the photogrphs on the right provide irrefutable proof that he cannot be Martin Bryant.
|The police photo taken from the air during the late afternoon of 28 April 1996 and the inset photo taken at the time of the massacre, both prove the large white boat anchored in front of the blonde man by the bus was not there on the 28th, in turn proving the "amateur" video was filmed on another day, probably the 27th or 29th April. We know the man cannot be Bryant because he was in Richmond on the 27th, and in hospital on the 29th. It is now the duty of the Tasmanian Police Service to track down the unknown man on the "amateur" video, and charge him with 35 counts of murder, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or both.|
|The new photographic
evidence to hand proves Martin Bryant is innocent and
increases the demand for a properly constituted Royal
The fresh evidence coming to light in these photographs prove beyond doubt that the evidence submitted by the Tasmanian Police to support the conviction of Martin Bryant on the charges of murder at the Broad Arrow Cafe was false, and in fact prove Martin Bryant could not have been the blonde man in their photographic evidence.
The police evidence is so blatantly incorrect that, as a result of my investigations and with copies of these photos, I have sent the letter below to the Commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service.
Dear Mr McCreadie,
During the last year I have examined the evidence in the case of The Queen v. Martin Bryant, and am writing to advise you that irrefutable hard scientific evidence exists proving that Bryant was not the famous 'blonde man' on the video footage tendered to the Supreme Court by the Tasmanian Police Service. Obviously the true identity of the blonde man must now be swiftly established, following which he must either be charged with 36 counts of murder, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or perhaps both.
You may find this scientific evidence difficult to believe after the hysterical media conviction of Martin Bryant in 1996, but the Port Arthur case is no more extraordinary than that of British policewoman Fletcher, which I investigated for four years starting in 1992. WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy in London on the 17th April 1984, and for twelve years 80 million Britons sincerely believed the media myth that Fletcher was killed by a single shot fired by a "Libyan Assassin" located within the Embassy itself.
The hard scientific evidence proved otherwise. WPC Fletcher was killed by a shot fired from an American multinational building located further to the west, and her case is now the subject of an official review by the Metropolitan Police Service. That review is based on fresh scientific evidence uncovered by my independent investigation.
The attached photographic evidence shows a blonde man standing by a yellow car in the bus park at Port Arthur, allegedly Bryant changing weapons after killing twenty civilians in the Broad Arrow Cafe, and two more in the vicinity of the Trans Otway bus. Immediately beyond the blonde man is a large white boat, but as the two photographs on the right prove scientifically, the white boat was not anchored or moored in or near that position at any time on the afternoon of 28th April. In turn this proves in irrefutable scientific terms that the amateur video of the blonde man could not possibly have been filmed on the same afternoon as the crime, but on another date entirely, most probably the 27th or 29th April. It matters not if a dozen boat owners now come forward and swear their boats were present on that particular mooring at Port Arthur on the afternoon of 28th April 1996, hard science will prove every one of them a liar.
Because it is a matter of documented record that Martin Bryant was in Richmond with girlfriend Petra Wilmott on the 27th, and in Hobart Hospital with third-degree burns on the 29th, it is proven in irrefutable terms that he (Bryant) cannot be the blonde man standing by the yellow car with a surfboard on its roof rack. Also, as the car the unidentified blonde man is standing next to was verified by your officers as having been driven by the murderer, Martin Bryant clearly cannot be the guilty party. Having monitored the recent media performance of some of your commissioned officers, it seems possible that you might also be tempted to deflect attention away from this seminal scientific evidence by use of misleading references to "hundreds of eyewitnesses", "forensic evidence linking Bryant to Port Arthur", and last but not least Martin Bryant's "confession". In my view any such move would be a significant error.
It is already public knowledge that the Tasmanian Police Service does not have a single valid positive identification of Bryant at the Port Arthur historic site provided by a witness in a manner required by low i.e. from a line-up or from a Rogues Gallery of photographs. It is also known there is no fingerprint or DNA evidence available which links Bryant directly to the Port Arthur site, or to either of the two weapons alleged to have been used in the mass murder. The motor vehicle and sports bag owned by Bryant and allegedly found at or near the crime scenes are not valid evidence because both are highly portable items which were not in Bryant's possession when arrested. Both items may well have been stolen for the express purpose of incriminating him. This is not a new technique, but one that has been used around the world on hundreds of occasions.
Where Bryant himself is concerned, there seems little doubt we are looking at the most gross abuse of human rights in recent Australian history. After this intellectually-impaired young man pleaded 'not guilty' in the Royal Hobart Hospital to the initial holding charge of one murder, he was denied remand prisoner rights and effectively held in solitary confinement without access to media reportage until his police interrogation on 4th July 1996. Despite his intellectual impairment, Bryant was not provided with independent advice by the Office of Public Guardians, but was left alone to defend himself against a team of highly trained experts including your own interrogators. Worse, Bryant's designated "defence" lawyer was denied access to his client during the interrogation. Although Martin Bryant managed to plead not guilty for months on end, it is not hard to comprehend the confusion and fear he must have felt because of these cruel and inhumane practices.
At no time has Bryant confessed to the crimes at Port Arthur, which is not surprising bearing in mind the irrefutable fresh scientific evidence which proves he was not the blonde man on the video tendered to the Supreme Court. No man can provide a detailed confession about a series of crimes in which he played no active part. The fact that Bryant eventually said "guilty" seventy two times at the pre-sentencing hearing on 6th November 1996 has no real meaning, because we have no way of knowing his state of mind after being so cruelly treated for a period of 192 days. What we do know with certainty is that after being similarly harassed and abused in England, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were eventually freed on appeal.
As Commissioner, I believe it is now your duty to open an investigation with the express objectives of identifying, arresting and charging the unknown blonde man on the amateur video footage. Indeed, the future credibility of the Tasmanian Police Service may depend on your prompt action in this matter.
"Deadly Deception at Port Arthur"
A limited number of A4 copies of this composite photographic evidence are available at cost, each custom-printed at high resolution in full photo colour on high gloss paper. Price includes stiff packaging and express mail costs anywhere on the Australian continent.
Send $15.00 to:
Any extra funds derived from the sale of these composites will be ploughed straight back into the ongoing expense of the Port Arthur investigation i.e. stationary, postage, computer disposables and so on. palies8.htm