Mr. Stewart K. Beattie
32 Brunskill Road, Lake Albert
WAGGA WAGGA, NSW. 2650
Australia.
Phone 02 – 6922 3397
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
|
