As a first step, pressure should be exerted on your federal and state representatives to ask formal questions in Parliament. This will result in your demands for action being recorded in Hansard, which is important because recalcitrant politicians hate unwanted matters recorded on official documents. Include copies of parts one and two of my report, and refer to them in writing, thereby removing your elected representative’s ability to later argue that he or she had no idea what you were talking about. Ram the harsh reality of Port Arthur down the gullets of every fat-cat in Canberra until they start gagging on the facts.

If Australian sporting shooters wish to clear their collective names they will have to agree to a strategy which reverses the psyop illusion at Port Arthur. Ultimately civil legal action will almost certainly be needed to shake Canberra out of its terminal apathy, and its blatant subservience to minority lobby groups.

Time is the biggest enemy. If the Libyans had known about the American psyop shortly after WPC Fletcher’s murder in London and had swiftly mounted a civil action against the British Government, considerable embarrassment would have ensued, perhaps enough to stall the attack on Tripoli and the downing of Pan Am 103. But they took no aggressive legal action, and twelve years of subtle media reinforcement later, are nowadays viewed in the west as a nation populated entirely by terrorists. Always remember the media turns fiction into fact as readily as it turns fact into fiction.

Riding piggyback on the atrocity at Port Arthur, the lobbies and politicians are currently setting up Australian sporting shooters as internal redneck terrorists, and if no aggressive defensive legal action is taken I can confidently predict that within months or years another psyop will be executed in Australia; this time using semi-automatic handguns and revolvers, aimed at introducing legislation that will outlaw all such weapons for ever. Do you really want that? No you do not, and there are four million other sporting shooters like you with more than enough collective voting power and funding to stop it happening.

As part two of the report suggested the first objective must be that of proving Martin Bryant was innocent of the murders at Port Arthur. This is critically important because until that is achieved his presence in prison will be used as “proof” that firearms are too dangerous to be held by those members of the public who in time of war train and supplement our defence forces. How you feel about Martin Bryant personally is not an issue. Like him or not, Bryant is currently being held aloft by politicians and lobbies as a psyop ‘flag’ proving the legitimacy of their legislation, which undermined Australian national security.

Proving Bryant innocent will remove that flag completely, and with it the justification for introducing the illegal legislation in the first place. Critically, at the same time it will prove by default that Australia was attacked by an armed external interest group, opening the way to repeal the legislation on the legitimate grounds that Australia needs more rather than less defensive weapons in the community to withstand future attacks on our nation and people. The Swiss defence model is an excellent example of what all sporting shooters should strive to achieve.

Before that, an independent investigation must be carried out in Tasmania to prepare the legal bullets for the lawyers to fire at the Federal Government in Canberra. If you want to win, those bullets must be solid silver and obtaining them will be expensive. Investigating matters that government does not want investigated can be extremely difficult and expensive as I found out with Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London. In the end the cost of that investigation alone ran to several hundred thousand dollars, and similar costs can be anticipated if the mass murder at Port Arthur is to be investigated properly.

Somehow or other funds will have to be raised, and though I am a more than adequate investigator I wouldn’t have a clue where to start raising funds of this magnitude. Logic suggests that a 200,000 strong demonstration in Sydney or Brisbane where everyone throws two dollars in the pot would be a good place to start but, again, I am not an expert. Whoever organized the 120,000 strong demonstration in Melbourne last year is invited to contact me if he has the time; and if any philanthropic multimillionaires reading this item wish to short-circuit the process by chucking in a few semi-trailer loads of bank notes, that’s OK as well.

Finally I must point out that so far I have personally funded the investigation work into Port Arthur and have received no payments for the publication of copyright reports or from any other source. This was done willingly, because every Australian has the right to know that government and media alike have conspired to pervert the course of justice in the case of the mass murder of thirty five Australian citizens on Australian sovereign territory, but I cannot justify spending any more of our limited family funds on the matter. Therefore anyone writing to me in future who would like to receive a reply is asked to enclose a post office money order made out to “J. Vialls”, sufficient to cover the cost of computer disposables, stationery, and postage.

Official documents supporting this report in full are held by the author, but certain names have been suppressed on legal advice.

TASMANIA'S SECOND PATSY:
GUN DEALER TERRY HILL

Two days after the massacre at Port Arthur in April 1996, gun dealer Terry Hill of New Town, Tasmania, saw a photo of a man on the front page of his local newspaper, reportedly connected with the mass murder. Hill recognized the man as “Martin RYAN” who had earlier visited his dealership, and swiftly contacted police. Unfortunately for him, Terry Hill was unaware that the Tasmanian Government had thirty five corpses, one possible suspect, but no supplier of the weapons allegedly used in the massacre. It was one of the biggest holes in the Government’s impossible case against Martin Bryant, but a hole that could be filled in very neatly by sacrificing Terry Hill on the altar of political expediency.

On 27 March 1996 Terry Hill and assistant Greg Peck were working at “Guns and Ammo” in New Town, Tasmania, when the door opened and a tall man with long blonde hair walked in carrying a package wrapped in a towel. Known to Terry Hill only as Martin, the man muttered that “something was wrong with it” and promptly handed the package muzzle-first across the counter. When Terry Hill unwrapped the towel he found that “it” was an AR10 assault rifle fitted with a clip containing 15 live rounds of high velocity .308 (7.62-mm NATO) ammunition. Horrified, Hill removed the clip and worked the action, at which point another live round ejected from the breech. “Martin” had calmly walked into the store with a fully-loaded and unsafe assault weapon, blissfully unaware he had done anything wrong. His actions that morning demonstrated with chilling clarity that “Martin” had absolutely no idea how to load, cock, aim, fire, or unload, assault weapons of any kind.

Despite this staggering lack of knowledge, thirty two days later the Tasmanian Government tried to convince the world that “Martin” had entered the Broad Arrow cafe at Port Arthur, and with the panache usually reserved for top special forces combat shooters, shot 32 victims, 20 of them dead, in less than 90 seconds with a Colt AR15 Commando. After that, the clumsy inept Martin is alleged to have left the cafe, deftly changed weapons to a heavier Belgian FN FAL with completely different loading and cocking mechanisms, and used it to kill or wound another 25 people. Both weapons were so well maintained and tuned that neither one faltered or jammed during the entire 14.5 minute operation at Port Arthur. As proved scientifically in “Was Martin Bryant Really a Lone Nut Assassin?” Parts one and two, written by this author, whoever prepared and fired those weapons was not Martin Bryant at all, but an expert combat shooter with special forces counter-terrorist experience.

Back at “Guns and Ammo” in New Town during late March this was still in the future, as a shaken Terry Hill stared aghast at the neat pile of high velocity rounds on his counter. Did Martin have a licence? Yes he did, one of the newer photographic licences, endorsed for prohibited and automatic firearms. In a statement to police Hill confirmed the first name was Martin, and so far as he could remember, the surname was RYAN. Under the gun laws existing before the massacre Hill was not required to write down licence details unless selling a weapon, and thus did not do so, but he has sworn statements from other witnesses that Martin produced this licence in their presence. The Dutch AR10, serial number 001590, was in very poor condition and Hill wanted to retain it at the shop for safety. Receiving no instructions for repairs, Terry Hill asked Martin to return after Easter.

Over the next month Martin made several visits to Guns and Ammo, purchasing items that did not require details of his licence to be recorded. These purchases included several gun cases and finally, on 24 April 1996, four days before the massacre, three boxes of Winchester double-x magnum shotgun shells, code number X12XC. But at no time before or since did Terry Hill sell Martin any weapons, or ammunition of .223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibres, as used in the mass murder on 28 April 1996. Martin had lived in the New Town area for many years but was not a regular customer at Guns and Ammo, so why did he suddenly start purchasing multiple innocuous goods from Terry Hill in the month immediately preceding the massacre at Port Arthur?

The most likely answer in intelligence parlance is that someone asked Martin to go and buy the various items mentioned in order to build a “legend”, designed to ensure that after the massacre a direct association would be made between Martin Bryant and a recognized gun-dealer as the “supplier” of the weapons used at Port Arthur. There is other evidence indicating this was the case. Long before the massacre took place, Martin Bryant’s unaccompanied baggage was searched on entry to Australia and two pornographic videos seized. As the baggage was literally unaccompanied, anyone could have placed the pornographic tapes in the suitcase and then tipped-off Customs about its “obscene” contents.

On another occasion Bryant was arrested on entry to Australia on “information received”, and taken to Melbourne Hospital for an internal examination on the suspicion of drug trafficking. He was found innocent of any offence and released. On a third occasion there was an alleged “incident” in Hereford, England, which was reported to the police because Hereford is the home of the British Special Air Service (SAS). Once again Bryant was completely innocent of any wrong doing, but by then the international computers were building a very convincing legend indeed.

By the date of the massacre at Port Arthur through no fault of his own, a computer search would have shown a string of warning flags indicating that Martin Bryant was a possible drug trafficker and purveyor of pornographic materials, and perhaps someone who had shown an unhealthy interest in the activities of Britain’s premier counter-terrorist unit. Add all of that to his frequent visits to Guns and Ammo during March and April 1996, and the Tasmanian Police Service would have needed to be superhuman to resist the implied legendary “proof” that Martin Bryant was its man.

Unfortunately Terry Hill was completely unaware of these computer manipulations when he did his duty as a responsible citizen on 30 April 1996, and reported his knowledge of Martin to police. It was at that point that his life and the lives of his family started to slowly come apart at the seams. Members of the police insisted that he must have sold the weapons and ammunition to Bryant, and made similar “off the record” accusations to the Tasmanian media, but Hill refused to budge. Why on earth admit selling weapons and ammunition to Bryant when he had not done so?

That later sordid attacks on Hill were political initiatives is beyond question. Terry Hill had a valid gun dealer’s licence, and witnesses to the fact that Martin had shown a valid gun licence to him. He was thus fully entitled to sell any weapon to Martin without committing any offence at all under Tasmanian law, and would have admitted doing so in his statement if it were true. But it was not true, and Terry Hill was not prepared to “help the police” by signing a statement that amounted to an outright lie.

Things went quiet for a while and then Hill was interviewed by police in the presence of a lawyer on 6 June 1996. As he had always done, Hill maintained that he had not at any time sold weapons or rifle ammunition to Martin Bryant (or Ryan) and would not be changing his truthful stand. Unfortunately pressure seemed to be mounting, perhaps at senior Tasmanian Government levels, to incriminate Hill at any cost, and he immediately received a letter from the attending lawyer, containing the following comments:

“... In a private conversation that was had between the writer and Inspector xxxxx, Inspector xxxxx made it abundantly clear that police have very strong evidence to suggest that you did in fact sell guns to Bryant and unless you are prepared to in effect change your story, they will press on and try and find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences.

“ However, it was also made abundantly clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions is prepared to offer you an indemnity against prosecution if you are prepared to accept that you did sell guns to Bryant ...”

The letter was crude and revealing. By saying the police would “press on and try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences”, the writer admitted that police had no evidence whatever against Terry Hill. If they had, in a matter as serious as this they would have already charged him with one of several criminal offences. But Terry Hill was never charged at all, making a mockery of the police threats. That the offer of an indemnity was guaranteed by the DPP is especially telling in terms of who was applying the blow torch to police in an attempt to coerce a false confession out of Hill. The office of DPP is a political appointment, and agreement for the indemnity against prosecution was thus a political decision made by government.

The legal letter delivered to Terry Hill on Friday 7 June advised that the Tasmanian Police would be expecting an answer no later than the following Wednesday, 12 June. There seemed no point in delaying the matter, so Hill called his lawyer on Monday 10 June and said there would be no statement of the sort requested by the police. Terry Hill also had other things to worry about. His mother, Alma, was terminally ill and not expected to live for many more days. On Thursday 13 June, Hill received a call from the hospital requesting his immediate attendance at her bedside, and was forced to depart Guns and Ammo immediately, leaving his wife Dorothy alone to cope with police who simultaneously arrived at the store to carry out a “snap inspection”. And so it was that the police found a number of technical reasons to revoke Terry Hill’s gun dealer’s licence, while he sat powerless beside his dying mother’s bedside at the local hospital. Alma finally passed away at 6.03 am the following morning.

It is of course possible for any government regulatory body to find sufficient technical reasons to close down any business at any time, provided there is sufficient political will to do so. There is a copy of the “Notice of Cancellation of Gun Dealer’s Licence No.54546" on the desk beside me as I write this report, and it must be said that it records some items which under normal circumstances might have attracted an infringement notice calling for action within a specified time period. But not for Hill. Instead, his licence was revoked and his livelihood destroyed. Terry Hill would have been less than human if he had not glanced again at the legal letter sent to him just one week earlier, which warned quite coldly that if he did not admit to selling weapons to Martin Bryant, the police would “press on and try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences.”

More than a year later in July 1997 the situation was to worsen, but why all the fuss, and why the continual persecution of Terry Hill, a man who had every reason to tell the truth and none at all to lie? The answer lies in the critical importance of proving that Martin Bryant had access to, and used, two high velocity assault rifles which could not be backtracked to anyone on the island of Tasmania or on the Australian mainland.

The police had no credible proof at all that Bryant fired either weapon at Port Arthur; they had no ballistic cross-matches between the weapons in question and the bullets found in the victims; they had no fingerprints proving an association between Martin Bryant and the weapons, or between Martin Bryant and the Broad Arrow Cafe where the massacre was initiated.

By any standard then, the government should have long ago announced these harsh but accurate facts, and further announced its intention to hunt down those who did have access to (and ownership of) the weapons most likely to have been used in the mass murder.

At the political level such an honest move would be seen as quite unacceptable, leaving as it would several politicians with egg all over their faces. Admitting that you had locked up the wrong man while the guilty parties were probably sunning themselves in the Bahamas was simply too hard and, anyway, who gave a damn about Martin Bryant? But no matter the blast of continuous media myth assuring us of his guilt, there was still the impossible matter of proving once and for all that the two known assault weapons were Martin Bryant’s as provided by “somebody”. Which somebody? Terry Hill of course, as Tasmanian Legal Aid finally decided to try and prove in an unprecedented “back door” civil legal action launched on 31 July 1997, when taxpayer funds were suddenly allocated to a plaintiff to take action against Terry Hill, a man who has never been charged with any criminal offence. Cracks were appearing in the official government version of events, and someone somewhere was determined to paper them over with taxpayer bank notes.

For any government to allow such a desperate and absurd case to proceed is a deliberate misuse of public funds, and has the potential to create an incredibly dangerous legal precedent. The rationale for the civil suit is that the plaintiff was injured by a bullet fired at Port Arthur, and is suing Terry Hill for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty; for allegedly selling Martin Bryant an AR15 military-style rifle, a scope, and around 250 rounds of ammunition. For doing WHAT? The Tasmanian police have already proved via the legal letter to Terry Hill that there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim for, if there was, they would unquestionably have pressed criminal charges.

Even if Terry Hill had sold Martin Bryant the weapons, which he did not, it would have been an entirely legal transaction on the valid licence that Bryant produced, where it is the duty of the licensing authority to judge the suitability of the applicant for the licence, and thus the right to use those weapons.

Under such circumstances, allowing this case to proceed would be exactly the same as allowing a case to be brought against a licensed car dealer, for selling a car to a licensed driver, who then drove off and killed somebody in the street. Once the transaction was complete the licensed car dealer would no longer be involved. And what about the farmer who sells wheat to a cereal manufacturer, who makes a mistake with his production process and kills someone with a bowl of Wheaty Bran? Do we sue the farmer for damages and statutory negligence? Of course not, because we are clearly not as unhinged as some members of the Tasmanian bureaucracy.

That legal aid should even be considered in this matter is beyond the pale because Terry Hill never sold Martin Bryant any weapons, and probably lost his livelihood because of his determination to maintain the truth and not provide the DPP with that vital missing link in the trail of evidence.

So are all of you out there going to sit back and let this happen, funded by hard-earned dollars screwed out of you by a government elected by the people for the people? No. The Port Arthur cover-up has gone too far already and it is time for government to concentrate on hard facts rather than use taxpayer funds in an attempt to create more pulp fiction.

Now is the time for every responsible Australian to call for the dismissal of the official in The Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania responsible for authorizing this latest Orwellian outrage.

Tony asks:  If you find that you agree with a message presented on this site, please print it out: photocopy it until you run out of paper, then give a copy to each of your friends and neighbours not yet lucky enough to have the Internet !
Visit Tony Pitt's Freedom for Australia home page

This article has been published in the national interest. If even one tenth of the evidence presented by Joe Vialls is correct then there IS a conspiracy and it is important that this information be sent Australia wide.

You can also help by sending a donation to Joe Vialls, 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6020. One can be reasonably sure the government is not going to fund his investigation or pay his expenses. palies3.htm