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
�
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
Plus notes on photos