A must read! The forces of Zionism in action in Australia!!! **************************

How Murdoch and Howard disarmed Australia!!!

From: Governor Just after noon on 28th April 1996, an unknown marksman opened fire on diners in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Australia. In less than 20 minutes at this and five other crime scenes, the marksman killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots. Nineteen of the first twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe died from single shots to the head, all fired by the unknown marksman from his right hip. This staggering display of marksmanship was attributed to left-handed and intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who had no shooting experience, or military training of any kind. From the time of his arrest, remand prisoner Martin Bryant was illegally held in strict solitary confinement and denied access to media of any kind until his police interrogation on July 4th, 1996. When he refused to admit to the Port Arthur Massacre at interrogation, he was once more placed back in illegal solitary confinement. Eventually in desperation during November 1996, Martin Bryant pled 'guilty' 72 times, thereby allowing the authorities to avoid a humiliating trial at which they could present no hard evidence of guilt. Intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was convicted by a hysterical media pack,  then forced to plead guilty by prison officials illegally enforcing solitaryconfinement.

These pages were written in response to my feelings that something was very wrong about the Port Arthur incident and the ultimate outcome as reported by the press.

It was more than the media frenzy that saturated the tabloids with sensationalism and emotional hype. The never-ending tirade of media concentration on the private lives of people who should have been left to grieve in peace was a leadup to the Prime Minister's staggering announcement to enforce new gun laws.


On the 23rd of June 1996 the Sunday Telegraph published a story  <story.html> about a gun collector in Victoria who identified the AR15 rifle used for the Port Arthur killings as one that he had handed in to police during an amnesty in February 1993.
Strange that the weapon used in the killings just happened to fall off a conveyor belt on the way to the smelters!!!

The media created the impression that Bryant's guilt was a foregone conclusion and it was expected that he would plead guilty and forego a jury trial. I wondered why he would do that. Lawyers for offenders who perpetrated far more horrific crimes such as torture and dismembering before murder had pled similarly and to the disgust of the public had received paltry sentencing or treatment.


When Martin Bryant stood up in court and did as I expected him to do and pled 'not guilty' the repercussions of that stirred up the biggest ants nest since Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. The Department of Prosecutions had practically promised the public a speedy trial to put this assassin away as quickly as possible with a minimum of fuss.

The reasons they gave? To save the witnesses having to suffer a trial by jury and dredging up all the trauma again.

Imagine what would happen to our judicial system if in every horrific trial the witnesses had to be spared reliving the incidents at the expense of seeing justice done. There would be no justice at all. In order for a man to be accused there must be an accuser and no one stepped forward to identify Martin Bryant at his trial. Despite the dozens of people who could have pointed out Bryant as the assassin the only witness to testify was a questionable video recording.

My reaction was that if he was not to get a trial by jury then, being an intellectually challenged and deranged person, he would have to be judged and sentenced according to his mental condition. Well, how about temporary insanity then? No, the Australian people had been worked into such a frenzy by the pressthat nothing less than the maximum penalty would be tolerated for Martin Bryant, regardless of his condition. God only knows where those snivel libertarians were in this instance. Isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial? And is not everyone innocent until found guilty? Apparently not in this case.

Now, I am one for throwing away the key to those guilty of any violent offense.This business of insanity, temporary insanity, temporarily drugged, drunk or being very angry at the time is not an excuse for harming another human being unless in self defense in my opinion. However we can't count the number of times this kind of plea has worked to get some other scum of the earth off on crimes equally as horrific. So why wouldn't Martin Bryant, accused by every man and his dog as being a mentally deranged maniac, not be allowed to plead insanity? A psychiatrist had determined that Bryant had an IQ of 66, yet rather than this information acting as proof that he at least had diminished responsibility, it was used as adequate proof that he was just over the border-line of being sane and therefore fit to be tried. Again, assurance that Bryant would receive the maximum penalty.

As I was to find out later, after reading what is left of Bryant's origional interview, at no time has he admitted to being at Port Arthur on that day even after extensive questioning. In fact he admitted to several other incriminating events and a full confession would not have much differance to the apparent trouble he was already in.

Even though Bryant had not been identified in any police lineup as the gunman,   outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I justcouldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing his photograph to making him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac, to the innuendoes that his house was an arsenal for military weapons. All of this made finding an impartial jury almost impossible - perhaps that was the idea.


Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pled 'not guilty' the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused.

Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him.

The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could 'Rot In Hell'. Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial, everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation.

Silently I agonised over my feelings about this whole thing. I was unable to talk to others about it for fear of their hatred of Bryant clouding any sensible debate but one day some pages copied from a paper that isn't owned by the multinationals fell into my lap. Someone who knew about my concerns gave me an article to read that confirmed my suspicions and eased that knot in my stomach that told me we had all been very much misinformed about Port Arthur. In my hands I finally held the pages that filled in the missing bits of the puzzle and answered most of my questions.

The author's name was Joe Vialls and I wrote to him and asked him if I could publish his work on my pages. He sent me written permission to do this free of charge and since February 1998 I have been the messenger for his unedited articles.

As time went by these articles eventually built into a book which he has published called DEADLY DECEPTION AT PORT ARTHUR and contains an in-depth investigation into a conspiracy almost beyond belief but backed up with scientific evidence which cannot be refuted.

Probably arising from the same 'gut feelings' that I had, various other people have begun their own investigations.. Many of these investigators are amateurs in some capacity. Either having no previous experience with investigative work or very little writing ability. Their styles and avenues of discovery have come from different directions and may even conflict with each other but there is one thing that they all seem to have in common.

They all come to the same conclusion and agree that the Port Arthur massacre was staged for a purpose, and a government cover-up has resulted in the incarceration of a man who was not the murderer of 35 innocent victims on that fateful day.

From the wealth of information gathered on these pages it is up to the readers to determine for themselves whether the traitors who disarmed our country should be allowed to get away with that.