| The new photographic
evidence to hand proves Martin Bryant is innocent and
increases the demand for a properly constituted Royal
Commission. 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.
22nd
September 1998
Richard McCreadie
Commissioner Tasmanian Police Service
GPO Box 308C
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
Dear
Mr McCreadie,
PORT ARTHUR MASS MURDER 28
APRIL 1998 -- FRESH EVIDENCE
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.
Yours
faithfully,
JOE VIALLS
There's more . . .
"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:
Joe Vialls
45 Merlin Drive
Carine, Perth
Western Australia 6020
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
|
