This blog is devoted to exposing the Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996. On April 28, 35 people were murdered by a professional shooter who remains at large. The carnage was blamed on patsy Martin Bryant in a police/government/media/legal frame up
People who are new to the case will probably find themselves wondering if there is a smoking gun, a single piece of evidence that proves that the massacre was the product of a conspiracy, or that Bryant was a patsy. There are, in fact, dozens of smoking guns in this case, and a list of the top ten smoking guns will be posted on this blog in the next few days. For the moment, though, a fact that should be better known is that, when Bryant staggered out of the burning Seascape guest house on the morning of April 29, his words were: 'Don't shoot. I am the hostage.' So we have known since April 29, 1996, that he (Bryant) was the hostage, not the gunman. (It is interesting that Bryant spoke in the singular. Since he was probably drugged for most of his time inside Seascape, he would almost certainly not have known that the gunman had taken a number of other hostages.) It is astonishing that the bias in favour of Bryant's guilt has been so deeply entrenched for so long that no one has yet grasped the significance of the fact that, when Bryant emerged from Seascape, he felt the need to clarify to the police who he was. At this stage, of course, Bryant could have had no idea that the police had already decided that he was the gunman.

A second smoking gun is a startling piece of information betrayed by Hobart Mercury reporter Michael Bingham in his book Suddenly One Sunday (1996), the lightweight narrative of the massacre and its sequel at the Seascape guest house that is probably the only book about the case that has been reasonably widely read. According to Bingham, the first Special Operations Group (SOG) personnel consisting of three people arrived in Taranna by helicopter from Hobart at about 3.15 p.m on April 28. The second set of SOG personnel arrived in Taranna by land at 4.12 p.m. 'The first of them [i.e., those who had arrived at about 3.15] moved forward to Seascape just before 4 p.m.' (p. 106) Unbelievably, Bingham goes on to mention that when the first police arrived at Seascape, which was shortly before 2 p.m., an SOG man (whose name is not given) was already present at the scene: 'As they approached Seascape, they saw a vehicle on fire. They stopped and spoke to an SOG member, who told them that there were wounded people at the Fox and Hounds Hotel up the road, and that police were needed there as soon as possible.' (p. 106)

In other words, an SOG man - or, at least, someone with SOG identification - was on the scene at more or less exactly the same time that the car was set on fire, which was first reported, according to Bingham, at 1.57 p.m. (p. 100). Numerous questions have to be asked about this SOG man, who must have been outside Seascape by 1.55 p.m. at the very latest. First of all, what was he doing at Seascape before 2 p.m., when the first SOG party did not even arrive at Taranna until 3.12 p.m. and at Seascape until 'just before 4 p.m.'? Second, his early presence strongly suggests that he was already at Seascape when the gunman arrived there from Port Arthur. If so, how did he know that the gunman was going to go there? And, if he was there before 1.55 p.m., why didn't he try to apprehend the gunman as he exited the stolen BMW and entered the guest house? And why was his priority to deflect the next set of police to arrive on the scene (Constables Pat Allen and Perry Caulfield) to the Fox and Hound Hotel 800 metres away?

An explanation that makes sense is that the SOG man WAS the Port Arthur shooter. After arriving at Seascape, he would have ditched his wig and his ear muffs inside the BMW before setting fire to it (thus eliminating the evidence of his impersonation of Martin Bryant inside the Broad Arrow Cafe). He would have been present at the location, with his SOG identification, when the first police, including Allen and Caulfield, arrived outside Seascape a few minutes later. At this stage, his overwhelming concern would be to send police to another location as a means of buying more time for his next step, his transformation into 'Jamie,' the gunman inside Seascape who was subsequently (and erroneously) identified by the authorities as Martin Bryant. Certainly, he was inside the house, and speaking with ABC reporter Alison Smith, when she rang the Seascape number between about 2.20 and 2.30 p.m.

Comments
on Oct 06, 2004
I consider myself open-minded about the Port Arthur tragedy. But I have one problem with your theory, and I don't see how you can avoid it. If Martin Bryant was the 'patsy', as you call it, and was just another hostage, why wasn't he shot along with David and Sally Martin and Glenn Pears, before the place was burned down? That way he would have never left Seascape alive and wouldn't have been in position to tell the police or anybody else anything. A good conspiracy would have ENSURED that he never left the building alive. Since he DID get out alive, and the Martins and Pears didn't, this suggests to me that he was free and they weren't. Which suggests that he was the gunman, doesn't it?
on Oct 06, 2004
This objection is not as hard to answer as you seem to think. If everyone had died in the fire, there would have to have been autopsies of all the bodies to identify them and work out how they all died. If that happened, and it turned out that Martin Bryant had been shot, then it would have been obvious that he hadn't been the gunman. Admittedly, they could have bound him so he couldn't have escaped the building, but there was surely a danger that an autopsy would pick that up - once again, proving that he had himself been a hostage. I think the only alternative was to drug him and hope that he would never wake up. But it seems that the drugs didn't work, as the song goes.
on Oct 06, 2004
I found something on this:

'one of the Task Force members investigating the Port Arthur Massacre has stated to witnesses that it was the SOG who set fire to the BMW so as to negate its use to the persons inside Seascape as a means of escape. This means that if the BMW was already burning on the arrival of Hyland and Whittle at Seascape, then the only reported SOG member at the scene at that time was Sgt. Fogarty, and therefore Fogarty would have been the SOG member who set the BMW alight.'

This was 'Sergeant Andrew Mark Fogarty, from Bellerive Police Station ... Sergeant Fogarty is also a Team Leader with the SOG.;

This info comes from http://www.davidicke.net/tellthetruth/conspiracy/parthur2.html

If you're right about this, a photo of Fogarty would be absolutely impossible to find. Have you ever seen or heard of an interview with Fogarty about the Port Arthur massacre?
on Oct 06, 2004
Thanks for the lead on Fogarty. I can't find a photo of Fogarty, but he was present when his brother Mark, who is/was also SOG, killed Joseph Gilewicz in 1991!

'On 16 July, 1991 Joseph Gilewicz then of Halls Track Road Pelverata was shot at his home during the course of an operation being conducted by members of the Special Operations Group of Tasmania Police. An inquest into the circumstances of Mr Gilewicz's death was conducted in 1992.'

Source: http://www.gci.tas.gov.au/

Gilewicz 'returned to the front landing of his residence carrying his shotgun after 7.50 am, that he appeared to in effect take aim at two SOG members who had taken up a position some 60-odd metres from the house on the side of an embankment, that one of these two SOGs, Senior Constable Paul, then called upon him to drop his weapon twice but he did not and that the other, Constable M.C. Fogarty, fired one shot at Mr Gilewicz which hit him in the chest. Senior Constable Paul and Constable Fogarty were the only two police who could give an eye witness account of the moments leading up to the shooting. It was said that Mr Gilewicz fell from the landing dropping his shotgun which was found in an open position by police who had immediately approached Mr Gilewicz as he lay either dying or deceased. Senior Constable Paul was later to be the only person to give evidence that Mr Gilewicz had fired his shotgun at about the time that Constable Fogarty shot him.'

Source: http://www.gci.tas.gov.au/transcript/13062000v2.html

I find something fishy about two brothers both serving together in the SOG - and working together in the same operation. This strikes me as unethical to say the least, and could well lead to conspiracies between the two brothers. Shouldn't brothers, like father and sons and husbands and wives, be prevented from serving together?
on Oct 06, 2004
Further on the Gilewicz shooting:

'Cover-up revealed in police shooting
By Alex Bainbridge

HOBART -- A new investigation into the police shooting of Joe Gilewicz in 1991 has been ordered by the state government, after new evidence and further allegations of a police cover-up were presented in the manuscript of a forthcoming book. The book, by former journalist Paul Tapp, is based on extensive examination of the evidence and on allegations by former police ballistics expert Stan Hanuszewicz.

--------------------------------------

Hanuszewicz told Green Left Weekly that a royal commission was needed and that the inquiry by the director of public prosecutions is not enough.

Gilewicz was the first person shot dead by police here in “modern times”, according to the Hobart Mercury. The shooting took place after a siege at Gilewicz's house on July 16, 1991.

Police claim that Gilewicz was threatening police by driving a tracked excavator towards them and that he fired a rifle and shotgun at police: police killed him in self-defence.

Hanuszewicz was called to the scene to investigate, but found no evidence that Gilewicz had fired a rifle or shotgun. Hanuszewicz also told Green Left Weekly that, based on the evidence he did find, it was unlikely Gilewicz had even been holding the rifle.'

Source: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1999/386/386p6.htm

This is scary stuff: it's not unthinkable that people who were involved in the shooting of an unarmed man would go on to bigger and better capers afterwards. And it took until 1999 for anyone to ask questions about what happened! How long before we ask questions about what Andrew Fogarty (and maybe Mark Fogarty) were up to in 1996!
on Oct 28, 2004
Bryant was a patsy, there is evidence of this available through private official sources from uk
on Oct 29, 2004
Wow - this is crazy stuff... I read the book of the transcripted interviews, and after reading it a few times over, I am convinced Bryant was framed - the way the 4WD was halted showed the wordk of a seasoned professional, not some crazy surfey with a gun.

I wish you guys luck, hopefully the truth will come out some day.
on Nov 14, 2004
the truth is about to hit the open press-- with evidence from uk company member
on Nov 18, 2004
Hate to point out something obvious, but if I was shut up in a building after having shot a number of people and the police had called for my surrender, I too would probably have yelled out 'I'm a hostage' just to put police off.

Just a thought...