PORT ARTHUR VIDEO TAPE... AN OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NEW SOUTH WALES September 7, 2004 Mr Ken Moroney The Commissioner New South Wales Police Service, 1424 College Street, Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010 RE: PORT ARTHUR VIDEO TAPE Dear Mr Commissioner, In late March of 2004, I received anonymously through the post, two (2) individual, unlabeled video tapes in total, delivered consecutively, which upon my viewing, I found contained several sections, all of which indicated to me the tape had been produced by the Tasmania Police. The second of these two video tapes was of such poor quality it would not run properly, and hence at the time, I disabled the cassette and disposed of it in the regular garbage pick-up. The subject matter contained on my video tape I currently possess, has been the subject of much media attention in recent days. The Daily Advertiser newspaper of Thursday last, 2 September, 2004, and at pp.1-2, there is published an article - “Massacre On Tape” by Paul Enever. In that article I was the person referred to as having received two (2) such tapes. When your crime manager for this jurisdiction, acting Inspector Rod Smith, was approached by The Daily Advertiser, he was quoted as suggesting that if I have evidence that hasn’t been disclosed to the Tasmania coroner, I should “present it to the relevant authorities.” After considering that advice, I now am complying. However, I have studied very carefully the content, especially of the last track, which demonstrates clearly what I seriously consider to be disturbing evidence of probable serious crimes having been committed which directly effect certain people of the State of New South Wales, who died there in the area known as Port Arthur on or about the 28th April, 1996. I have therefore today, Wednesday the eighth day of September 2004, handed to a Police Officer of the New South Wales Police, at my home, the sole video tape copy in my possession. As I have already stated publicly, I have not made copies of this video tape. Also I now formally request your agent, the aforementioned Police Officer, on your behalf to receive this video, and forward it with all due care and hast to you, so that you can hold this tape as evidence in safe keeping, in a manner that shall protect the quality of the sound and vision of the tape, until such time as a formerly constituted open coronial inquisition can be held in New South Wales to inquire into all relevant matters surrounding the deaths of the six, persons then residing in the State of New South Wales, listed as follows:- 1. Zoe Anne Hall, 28 yrs, then of Kangaroo Point, 2. Glenn Roy Pears, 35 yrs, then of Sydney, 3. Russell James “Jim” Pollard, 72 yrs, then of Brunswick Heads, 4. Mr Tony Kistan, 51 yrs, then of Summerhill 5. Mr Robert Salzmann, 58 yrs, then of Ocean Shores 6. Helene Salzmann, 50 yrs, then of Ocean Shores. There has not been a coronial inquest conducted in the State of Tasmania into the deaths of any of the 35 people who died in the area of Port Arthur in the massacre that occurred there on the 28-29th April 1996. Hence I am formally asking that this unacceptable situation now be addressed for those 6 deceased persons I mention above. Also, for the past six years, I have been engaged in investigating, researching, speaking publicly of my findings, and writing about the Port Arthur massacre and associated events. As a result of these activates, I now formally raise the following questions that I require answers to: — Since there has never been a coronial inquiry, into the deaths of the six (6) persons all then resident in the State of New South Wales, is there any reason why an open, coronial inquiry into their deaths cannot be held in New South Wales? Documented evidence show the New South Wales Forensic Police were given the duty of covering the Broad Arrow Café. The Forensic Sketch Plan that was presented to the Hobart Supreme Court was lacking in certain detail one of which was the presence of at least one ·308W spent cartridge case as is shown on the Tasmania Police Training Video. Were the New South Wales Police remiss in detailing such vital evidence, or was the Forensic Sketch compiled by the New South Wales Police altered after it was handed over to the Tasmania Police. This altering of evidence is a felony, and the question now is, which Police Force was responsible for misleading the Supreme Court of Tasmanian, and was there a conspiracy between the two State Police Forces to mislead the Supreme Court? In his report regarding the fire exit door to the Broad Arrow Café, the then DPP, Mr Damian Bugg QC, states that the Port Arthur Historic Site employee who was nailing all the doors and windows shut, with the assistance of a forensic policeman, tested the door lock, and found it to be inoperative. The questions are; why did the New South Wales Police permit the interference with a murder scene of the acts of nailing the particular door which was involved with the death of about six persons? Why did the New South Wales Police not make any report into the matter of the fire exit door that couldn’t be opened? And was this particular door nailed shut prior to the arrival of the New South Wales forensic Team? There is a large amount of carpet damage evident within the area of the Broad Arrow Café, near the Fire Exit Door, that appears to have been caused by bullets having been fired from a high powered rifle. None of this damage was listed within the New South Wales Police Forensic Sketch. Again which Police Force was responsible for this information being withheld from the Tasmania Supreme Court? In the Court transcript the Tasmanian DPP, Mr Damian Bugg QC refers to live cartridge cases that were found within the Broad Arrow Café. The size of these live rounds has been stated by witnesses to have been of ·308W calibre. Why was this important evidence not listed or shown in the New South Wales Forensic Police Sketch Plan? In the Tasmania Police Training Video there is shown a large blue sports bag, which appears rather empty, save for a white jumper, but according to several witnesses who saw the gunman carrying this bag, the bag appeared to be very heavy. What happened to the very heavy contents of this bag, bearing in mind that an AR15 is not that heavy. Beside the same blue sports bag and resting on the table, there was a tray with a soft drink can on it and other food items. This tray and its contents match those witnesses state they saw the gunman carry, and drink from. What happened to this empirical evidence that was under the control of the New South Wales Police Forensic Team? Who permitted this experiential evidence to be lost? Also the Tasmania Police training video shows clearly beside the bag and the food tray on the same table, there is resting a large, all black video camera, with an integral, external microphone visible. In the Court Document and at p.160 for instance the DPP’s assistant Mr Perks talks about a “grey video camera bag”. At p.71 the DPP Mr Damien Bugg QC, mentions the gunman carrying a video camera. However in a newspaper report by Chip Le Grand, in The Australian newspaper of 4 May 1996, it reports that Mr David Gunson had just been briefed to defend Martin Bryant. In that report, the first concern raised by Mr Gunson was the eyewitness reports of the gunman carrying a large video camera, which he is reported to have stated had not been recovered. Was this important empirical evidence lost, and if so was it loss due to any remiss on the part of New South Wales police, or Tasmania police? In relation yet again to the sports bag left inside the Broad Arrow Café: We have evidence that a bag was left inside the café but we also have five witness statements saying that the gunman left the Broad Arrow Café carrying a bag, and then placing the bag into the boot of the Volvo. The James Balasko video, shows the gunman picking up the bag he departed the Café with, and placing the carry strap on his shoulder. Can the New South Wales Police Forensic team give us a proper explanation of why two bags were used by the gunman at the Port Arthur Massacre? In relation to the crime scene on Jetty Road: The Tasmania Police Training Video shows somebody pick up the arm of the eldest Mikac child, and display a ·223Rem fired cartridge case. When considering the manner in which this child was murdered, and the firearm alleged to have been employed, there is no way that a fired cartridge case could end up under the body of this victim. The question is who picked up the fired cartridge case, thus interfering with the evidence at a major crime scene and then placed it under the body of the child? How did the person picking up the arm of the murdered child know that the fired cartridge case was there at that instance? In the boot of the yellow Volvo sedan allegedly abandoned by the gunman at the tollbooth of the Port Arthur Historic Site, we are shown a fired cartridge case of ·223Rem calibre, and the Daewoo shotgun, and what was later described as hand drawn cardboard targets. However the Daewoo is shown sitting on top of a striped blouse or material, in a very neat arrangement, and the targets are placed neatly at the back of the boot. Now considering that the Volvo has completed various driving manoeuvres, just how were the targets able to remain in a neat position at the rear of the boot? Who placed the blouse under the shotgun to better illustrate that firearm? Again with the Volvo sedan as shown in the Tasmania Police Training Video, you can see where a person’s hand suddenly comes from within the back seat area of the Volvo and clasps the rear right window of the Volvo demonstrating that there was a person in that compartment of the Volvo. We are told by the Coroner that when he viewed the Volvo there were several petrol containers therein. The Coroner apparently didn’t see the box of ammunition in the Volvo at Port Arthur, the policeman inside the rear passenger compartment wasn’t impeded in any manner by a box of bullets, or at least one container of petrol, and the photographer certainly didn’t take any photographs of that major piece of evidence until the Volvo was placed under police guard at Police Headquarters in Hobart. Would the New South Wales Police consider the act of embellishing evidence an ethical practice? Would the New South Wales Police consider such acts of interfering with evidence as perverting the course of justice? Lastly we have the Tasmania Police Superintendent, Bob Fielding state that he made the right decision in forcing the gunman to come to us. Considering that the only way in which the gunman vacated Seascape Cottage, was that that building was set on fire, then we can only conclude that Seascape Cottage was set on fire by the Tasmania Police under the command of Superintendent Fielding. In other words, Fielding has confessed to crimes including Arson and the destruction of evidence. Of course there is also the numerous charges of perverting the course of justice that must be levelled against numerous members of the Tasmania Police, and one must also consider the involvement of the New South Wales police within these matters. Sir, the matters I have raised with you here, are I believe of the gravest nature possible. I do not take such steps lightly. In raising these grave questions, I also realize that once raised, I could well be the target of retribution by those persons who may subsequently be found responsible for these unlawful acts. I therefore request that the New South Wales Police Service afford my family and I, due care and consideration for our continued well-being. I do expect, that you will give all of the matters I raise your immediate consideration and attention. I also ask you to note, that as this correspondence is an open letter, I will today, simultaneously with it being served on your Police Officer, be furnishing all major news media, and Daryl Maguire MP, Member for Wagga, with a copy of my letter. I await your reply at your earliest convenience, and until then, I Remain, Yours Faithfully, -------------------------------- Stewart K. Beattie E-mail… phineas7@bigpond Mr. Stewart K. Beattie 32 Brunskill Road, Lake Albert WAGGA WAGGA, NSW. 2650 Australia. Phone 02 – 6922 3397
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:25:04 +0000