Nexus - 1306 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

Arthur carpark a minute or two later. After a few minutes of owner Jim Laycock sold the Broad Arrow Café to the Tasmanian inane chatter, the gunman suddenly rose from his table on the government. This, in an age of privatisation, seems to have been front deck and entered the café proper. Chronologically, the two an extremely unusual case of acquisition by government of the events are so closely tied that they must represent cause and kind of business normally considered the preserve of private effect. The Volvo's arrival in the carpark appears to have been a enterprise. The government, which took over the building on 1 signal to the gunman that the massacre was to go ahead as July 1995, then proceeded to refurbish it—presumably to create planned. (The use of such a signalling device seems obvious the perfect environment for the kind of massacre being planned. enough when you consider that the decision as to whether the The work included the insertion of a new door to the rear of the massacre was to go ahead would have depended on whether building—the very door which infamously failed to operate on the Bryant, the designated patsy, had successfully been apprehended. day of the massacre. It wouldn't have been acceptable to have allowed Bryant to be A particularly damning piece of evidence is the fact that in seen elsewhere at the time of the massacre, and his car also 1995 the Tasmanian government ordered a mortuary vehicle that needed to be on hand for the gunman to use as an escape vehicle.) was capable of carrying 16 bodies at once.’ It is impossible to (3) At around 1.50 pm, in circumstances that remain extremely account for the government's decision to purchase such a vehicle obscure, two things seem to have happened at Seascape. A when the state—which had been the most peaceful in Australia hostage was taken out of the boot of a vehicle and taken inside for over a hundred years—had an average murder rate of one Seascape Cottage. At more or less the same time, an explosion every two months. No other state, not even New South Wales and occurred which destroyed the BMW that had Victoria—the states in which all previous gun been hijacked by the gunman. It is entirely rampages had occurred—possessed a vehicle possible that the hostage who was taken by with such substantial capacity. So why did the gunman—Glenn Pears—was still inside the Tasmanian government decide it needed the boot of the vehicle when it ignited, and such a vehicle in 1995? And why did it that the hostage who was taken inside subsequently decide that the vehicle, having Seascape Cottage was none other than Martin The key to proved its worth at Port Arthur in 1996, would Bryant. In short, the gunman may have taken . not be needed in future and, in September Glenn Pears hostage for no other reason than understanding the 1998, offer it for sale? Someone with to provide a cover story for witness sightings massacre is thus that remarkable abilities of pre iction seems to of a hostage being bundled into Seascape. . . . have been steering the course of Tasmanian Although the official story is that Pears's it contained at its heart government policy in the 1990s. body was found inside Seascape, only the a "double-cross" The mortuary ambulance remains just one officers who first opened the BMW's boot . . small piece of the puzzle. It takes looking at after the siege was over the following mechanism enabling only a few such pieces before it becomes morning—and the media were not it to eliminate a impossible to avoid the conclusion that allowed to visit the location until 11.00 . the massacre had to have been organised am, giving the police a period of substantial part of the by elements within the Tasmanian personnel who had approximately two hours in which to government (albeit presumably at the tamper with the crime scene—would be . instigation of the federal government). actually been involved in planning it. in a position to know the truth. It is only as a government conspiracy that the carnage makes any sense. The most important clue perhaps is that, when the shooting began at 1.27 pm that day, the Broad Arrow Café was crowded with in excess of 60 people. The café was "chockers" (crammed full), to quote witness Michael Beekman. Where are the witnesses? All Port Arthur Massacre (PAM) researchers face essentially the same obstacle when they seek to show that the ficial narrative cannot be true. If the official story is not true, people ask, then why haven't eyewitnesses come forward This is because, in addition to the regular to denounce it as a hoax and tell us what numbers of tourists, there was a sizeable they saw? In my opinion, it is impossible to answer this question contingent of members of the Australian security (police/military) satisfactorily without presenting an overarching theory of the and intelligence establishments—including many individuals who case. appear to have been agents of covert government organisations In this three-part article I have concerned myself with only a such as ASIO and the even more secretive ASIS. part of the whole: the issue of Bryant's framing. A great many Among the dead, there is considerable certainty regarding the aspects of the case have not been dealt with for reasons of space, intelligence affiliations of Tony Kistan, Andrew Mills and and these aspects include evidence that would convince anyone Anthony Nightingale.’ Of the survivors, those who have been that the massacre involved elements of the Australian federal tentatively identified as spooks include Rob Atkins, Karen Atkins, government. In the wake of John Howard's emergence as Lyn Beavis, Justin Noble and Hans Overbeeke. Several army opposition leader in January 1995 and police forensic expert personnel were present, including RAF veteran Graham Collyer, Sergeant Gerard Dutton's move from Sydney to Hobart soon Vietnam veteran John Godfrey and Major Sandra Vanderpeer. afterwards, the year preceding the events of 28 April 1996 also Intelligence agents from abroad may also have been involved. In saw a Staggering number of personnel changes within the addition to two suspicious Americans—James Balasko, whose Tasmanian state government, including Premier Ray Groom's role in the production of a fake video was mentioned above, and baffling exchange of the state's top job for a swag of ministerial gun-control advocate Dennis Olson—there is the intriguing case portfolios six weeks before the massacre. Also, in June 1995, of a Taiwanese man injured in the shooting who would not tell The key to understanding the _ Massacre is thus that substantial part of the personnel who had actually been involved in planning it. case. In this three-part article I have concerned myself with only a part of the whole: the issue of Bryant's framing. A great many aspects of the case have not been dealt with for reasons of space, and these aspects include evidence that would convince anyone that the massacre involved elements of the Australian federal government. In the wake of John Howard's emergence as opposition leader in January 1995 and police forensic expert Sergeant Gerard Dutton's move from Sydney to Hobart soon afterwards, the year preceding the events of 28 April 1996 also saw a staggering number of personnel changes within the Tasmanian state government, including Premier Ray Groom's baffling exchange of the state's top job for a swag of ministerial portfolios six weeks before the massacre. Also, in June 1995, 16 = NEXUS a "double-cross" mechanism enabling it to eliminate a www.nexusmagazine.com OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2006