Port Arthur Andrew MacGregor's latest reflections

Andrew MacGregor's Launceston Conservative Speaker's Club Talk

Update from Andrew MacGregor

THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE - 28 April 1996

A dissemination of Sergeant Dyson’s statement

[- see below: *THE POWER OF FREE-FLOWING EMAIL INFORMATION*]

A police statement is a vital piece of evidence and as such is required by the various protocols to be made as soon as possible after the event so as to ensure that information is not lost through loss of memory. Police also use as much corroborative evidence as they can find to back-up their statement, and endorse their required ‘impartial’ observations.

Police are also trained to be observant and precise, for example when in pursuit of an offending vehicle, they wouldn’t state that they were chasing a motor car. They would be precise, they would state that they were in pursuit of, for example only, a black Holden Monaro, with large Mag wheels, and with three people on board. They would state the location, direction and speed of the vehicle, and any other information such as the registration number that would assist in the apprehension of the offender(s).

However, policemen have also been known to tell lies, to fabricate evidence, and to exploit the ignorance of the normal civilian. With all of this in mind, it is extremely interesting to disseminate exactly what Sergeant Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania Police says in his police statement in regard to his duties during the Port Arthur massacre.

Sergeant Dyson begins his statement in the normal manner with:

“My full name is Michael Charles Dyson. I am a Sergeant in the Tasmania Police attached to the Protective Security Section at Hobart.”

Now this is the required protocol. We have his name, rank and unit within the Tasmania Police Force. However, let us now compare this with signing off and the adoption of this police statement:

“M C DYSON, Acting Inspector, 12/9/96”

Now a policeman has only one rank. He can be promoted and he can occasionally be demoted, but he can never hold two ranks at the same time.

This is rather sloppy police work. One may suppose that Dyson was at

the time of the Port Arthur massacre, a Sergeant, and then at the time of making this statement, he had been promoted to the rank of ‘Acting Inspector’, but this statement is neither clear nor precise.

Now look at the time that Michael Charles Dyson, be he a Sergeant or an ‘Acting Inspector’ adopted this statement. This statement was adopted by Dyson of the 12th September 1996, 4 ½ months after the event. Now this is not only extremely sloppy, but it is the first sign that this statement is a fabrication. In any normal court procedure this statement by Sergeant Dyson would be thrown out as completely unreliable.

However there is another piece of information that tells us even more.

After the Port Arthur massacre, the Tasmania Police set up the “Port Arthur Taskforce” under the direction of Superintendent Jack Johnston to collect all available evidence and statements and to forward this information to the Tasmanian DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), Mr Damian Bugg QC.

In a memo put out by Superintendent Jack Johnston on the 14th August 1996, Johnston stated that all the evidence had been collated and forwarded to the DPP’s office, and that the Task Force would be stood down on the 18th August, 1996.

In other words, Sergeant Dyson’s statement was made almost a month after all the available evidence had been forwarded to the DPP’s Office, which simply means that Dyson’s statement would have been made at the request of the DPP to cover some anomaly within the police evidence.

With this in mind, let us look at the next portion of Sergeant Dyson’s statement:

“On Sunday the 28th April 1996 I was recalled to duty at about 6pm. I attended the Hobart Police Headquarters and was assigned duties as the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Liaison Officer at the Major Incident Room.”

Now for those who did not know, Sergeant Dyson was the Tasmania Police’s highest trained SOG (Special Operations Group) Officer. When an event such as the Port Arthur massacre occurred, one would have expected that Sergeant Dyson would have been very high on the list of those to be called in for duty, and that would have occurred prior to 2.00 pm. For Dyson to claim that he wasn’t recalled to duty until 4 ½ hours after the massacre, is not believable. Dyson, a man of action then states that he was given the nondescript duties as a ‘Liaison Officer’ in the MIR. This statement though does not correlate with his next statement. A Liaison Officer liaises, he does not enter the fray.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“About 11.00pm, in the company of Detective Constable Simon CLAYTON and Detective Constable RUSSELL, I went to 7 Maritana Place, Claremont where I spoke to Mrs Carlene BRYANT and Miss Petra WILLMOTT. Mrs Bryant said that she was the mother of Martin Bryant and Miss WILLMOTT said that she was the girlfriend of Martin BRYANT. As a result of the conversation I went to 30 Clare Street in Newtown.”

As I have already stated, ‘Liaison Officers do not enter the fray, they liaise and thus we must wonder as to why Sergeant Dyson would accompany the two detectives to Mrs Bryant’s home. However, let’s look at the corroborative evidence as per Mrs Carleen Bryant as per Joe Vialls:

“Life then continued as normally as possible until 8 p.m. on the evening of 28 April 1996 when two burly plain-clothes police officers knocked on her door in Hobart and asked "Do you have a son called Martin Bryant?"

When Carleen said yes, the officers took her down to headquarters and bombarded her "with questions about Martin’s big house in Newtown and his trips overseas".”

Carleen Bryant states emphatically that she was visited by detectives at 8 pm, three hours before Sergeant Dyson states he visited Carlene Bryant’s home.

Now to detour slightly. You may wonder as to how the Tasmania Police came to be aware of Mrs Carleen Bryant, when her son Martin had no police record. The answer is that Detective Peter Hesman who was dropped off at the Port Arthur Historic Site found Martin Bryant’s passport in the glovebox of the Volvo sedan. Not only did the passport contain a photograph of Martin Bryant, and a full history of his overseas travels, but it also contained the name and address of Martin Bryant’s next of kin; his mother.

Now the next piece of ‘corroborative evidence comes from a police statement for Petra Willmott, which was taken by Detective Constable Fiona Russell at Police Headquarters at 11.45pm on the 28th April, 1996 and finished on the 29th Aril 1996:

“Martin’s mother (Carlene) rang me straight after the news and said that she was worried about Martin as she couldn’t reach him on the phone. I told Carlene that I was worried too. Carlene asked me if I wanted to stay the night. My father drove me to Carlene’s house in Berridale.

When I arrived at Carlene’s house, she said there was no need to worry, she thinks Martin has gone to Melbourne. He has apparently done this before and rang Carlene when he got over there. I hoped Carlene was right but asked her if she wanted to go over to his house to make sure. Carlene said she didn’t want to as Martin doesn’t like people snooping through his things. We just sat down for a while and then the police arrived”.

The first thing we note is that the incorrect spelling of Mrs Carleen Bryant’s first name occurs in both the statement prepared by Det/Const Russell and the statement of Sergeant Dyson.

Again it is the police protocols that tell us what would have happened, and Mrs Carleen Bryant is quite correct in what she has stated. When the Tasmania Police obtained the evidence from the passport of Martin Bryant that was found by Detective Peter Hesman in Bryant’s Volvo at the tollbooth, the information would have been passed to Police Headquarters in Hobart.

Two detectives would then have been despatched to Mrs Carleen Bryant’s address, and once they established the relationship between the supposed gunman, Martin Bryant, his mother and his girlfriend, Petra Willmott, then the detectives would have ‘invited’ both ladies to accompany them to police headquarters where they would have been separated and interviewed in an endeavour to find out just who and what Martin Bryant was.

Now this interviewing would have taken quite a long time because the detectives would have been working with extremely limited knowledge of Martin Bryant, which is why Mrs Carleen Bryant mentions the questions asked were mainly about the Clare Street residence and Martin Bryant’s overseas trips the information contained in his passport.

Now once the interviewing detective, and in the case of Petra Willmott, it was Detective Constable Fiona M. Russell No.1902, had obtained sufficient information and completely understood just how much the interviewee knew, then and only then would they begin to prepare a written statement, which is why Petra Willmott’s statement didn’t start until 11.45pm, even though she had been in police custody since about 8.00 pm.

Now another thing that the Tasmania Police would not want would be that Mrs Carleen Bryant to remove herself from their control and jeopardise their investigation. Mrs Bryant would not have been permitted to leave police headquarters, and when the police had finished with Mrs Bryant, she would have been returned to her residence along with Petra Willmott. This is the normal procedure when interviewing witnesses.

There is one other vital piece of police procedures. When Mrs Carleen Bryant and Petra Willmott were taken to Hobart and into Police headquarters, the MIR would have been informed.

In other words, had Sergeant Dyson been the ‘Liaison Officer’, then he would have been informed immediately that Mrs Bryant and Miss Willmott had been taken to Police Headquarters. We now have a major reason to believe that Sergeant Dyson’s statement is not factual in regards to this point.

We are also aware that Petra Willmott was still at Police headquarters and that her interview didn’t start until 11.45pm. We must then also conclude that at this stage, Mrs Carleen Bryant is also still at Police Headquarters, and thus is not at her home as stated by Sergeant Dyson. In regards to this point, Sergeant Dyson’s statement is not factual.

Sergeant Dyson then states: “As a result of the conversation I went to 30 Clare Street in Newtown.”

Even though this statement is not factual, it is still an extremely sloppy piece of police work. The conversation referred to by Sergeant Dyson could not have taken place as Mrs Bryant is at Police Headquarters.

Sergeant Dyson’s statement here should have been; “As a result of this conversation, in the company of other police officers, Mrs Bryant, Miss Willmott and I then went to 30 Clare Street in New town.” Again this statement is not factual.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“Mrs BRYANT had a key to that address in her possession and using that key she opened the rear door of the house. An alarm was activated in the process of entering the house but was deactivated by Mrs. BRYANT”.

Since Mrs Carleen Bryant was still at Police Headquarters, this statement must also be viewed as not factual. However it does raise a point of interest. If Sergeant Dyson was at some stage able to enter the residence at 30 Clare Street Newtown, what is the possibility that he had possession of a key to the back door, and knowledge of how to deactivate the burglar alarm?

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“As a result of a telephone conversation from the Major Incident Room I had a conversation with Mrs BRYANT and Miss WILLMOTT concerning Martin BRYANT. This conversation took place in the kitchen area and it was at this time I noticed a large quantity of photographs on the kitchen table.

I asked Miss WILLMOTT who the photographs belonged to and she said they belonged to her and Martin.”

So now Sergeant Dyson tells us that he has both Mrs Carleen Bryant and Petra Willmott with him at 30 Clare Street Newtown at the very time that Detective Constable Fiona M. Russell has begun to take a statement from Petra Willmott at Police Headquarters. This statement is not factual.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“I obtained permission to look at the photographs to which Miss WILLMOTT agreed. Having looked at the photographs I selected one and asked Miss WILLMOTT if it would be all right if I borrowed that photograph to take to Police Headquarters to help the Police at Port Arthur to identify Martin if and when he was found. Both Mrs BRYANT and Miss WILLMOTT agreed.”

As with the previous statement by Sergeant Dyson, this statement also cannot be factual, but it does raise another interesting point when compared with a statement made by the Tasmania Police Media Liaison Officer Geoff Easton in his report to the EMA:

“On the Tuesday morning the public were greeted by the front page of The Mercury newspaper that showed a picture of Martin Bryant claiming, “This is the man!” The effect of this was to receive a barrage of calls from the media all claiming foul! and how I had favoured the local newspaper by providing them with a picture of Bryant. With my heart in my mouth I raced to the MIR and with relief found that none of the photographs we had, corresponded with the one in the Mercury. It certainly hadn’t come from us.”

So what Geoff Easton was telling the EMA (Emergency Management Australia) was that the Tasmania Police had possession of the majority of those photographs from the kitchen table, but they didn’t have possession of the photograph that was printed by the Hobart Mercury Newspaper, and the question must be asked, “was the photograph mentioned by Sgt Dyson, which he claimed to have taken possession of, the same photograph that later appeared on the front page of the Hobart Mercury newspaper, and a majority of Rupert Murdock owned newspapers throughout Australia?”

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“I then informed Mrs BRYANT and Miss WILLMOTT if they would be prepared to go to the Police Station with Constable RUSSELL to assist the Police in their inquiries regarding the situation at Port Arthur and both agreed to do so. I handed Constable RUSSELL the photograph and asked her to deliver it to the Major Incident Room and she then left with the two ladies.”

Again this statement cannot be factual as at the same time this incident is supposed to be taking place, Detective Constable Fiona M. Russell is taking a statement from Petra Willmott at Police Headquarters. Here I would like to raise two points:

(1) Sergeant Dyson’s statement started with simply himself travelling from

Mrs Bryant’s residence at 7 Maritana Place Claremont to 30 Clare Street Newtown. Dyson then introduced Mrs Bryant to open the back door and to turn off the burglar alarm. Dyson then introduced Petra Willmott to receive permission to ‘borrow’ just one of the photographs left on the kitchen table. And then finally, Dyson introduced ‘Constable Russell’ to return Mrs Bryant, Petra Willmott and the ‘photograph’ back to Police Headquarters and the MIR (Major Incident Room). As I stated previously, this is very sloppy police work, and demonstrates that this part of the statement is a total fabrication.

(2) It is also becoming quite obvious that Sergeant Dyson is working from

a copy of Petra Willmott’s statement taken by Det/Const Russell No. 1902, with that statement being initiated at 11.45pm. However, there is no mention of the detectives involved with Mrs Bryant, due to one very simple fact; Mrs Carleen Bryant refused to make a police statement on the night in question. Now had this been a ‘police matter’ then Sergeant Dyson would have had access to all police activities on that night, but he hasn’t, he is only using documents forwarded to the DPP’s Office, and that means that Dyson has produced this statement at the request of the DPP, Mr Damian Bugg QC.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“I then contacted the Major Incident Room and advised them of the action I had taken to that point in time and I asked that a warrant to search for firearms under the Guns Act 1991 be obtained and brought to 30 Clare Street.”

All of this action was being taken by the ‘Liaison Officer’ from the MIR.

In other words this statement is again not factual. Had Sergeant Dyson had Petra Willmott in his company, then he could have asked her for permission to search, and Petra Willmott would have felt intimidated by the events to grant that permission.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“At 12.30am, Detective Constable Andrew McKenzie arrived at the residence and handed me a search warrant which I read and found to relate to that address and that I was named in the warrant as authorised to search the premises for firearms.”

This sentence simply describes the procedures that police are required to go through when they receive a warrant. However, look at the time.

Sergeant Dyson’s statement in regard to this episode starts at 11.00 pm with his attendance at Mrs Bryant’s residence at Claremont, where there is a brief interview. Then there is the move to 30 Clare Street Newtown, the entry into that residence, the finding of the photographs, the various telephone calls to the MIR, the final call requesting the required ‘Search Warrant’ which would then require a policeman to prepare that warrant, and then approach the required signatory for the signature that creates the actual warrant, a procedure that normally takes at least one hour. Thus it is the time factor that tells us that this statement is not factual.

There is however another source of information in regard to the police search of the Clare Street residence that is in the public domain, and that is the interview by the ABC’s Judy Tierney of Hobart with the Tasmanian Government’s Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr Ian Sale.

The relevant part of that interview is:

Tierney: You went to Martin Bryant’s house late on that day. What did you see there that could give you some idea of what you were doing there? Dr Ian Sale: Right, going to a person’s house is often very revealing of a person’s personality. There was also some hope, maybe of finding some thing that would indicate his intentions, his motivation, so I went out to his house, I think it was about 10 o’clock when I went to the house with police. ~

Dr Ian Sale: For example, there was a room where some magazines on firearms and ammunition were found, but there were only about two chairs in the entire room and it was quite a contrast say to some of the bedrooms where you could hardly move about, there was so much in them.

Tierney: Was there any evidence of ammunition or guns there?

Dr Ian Sale: There were wrappers to firearms and ammunition found in a sort of scullery room.

Now the police search that Dr Ian Sale took part in was led by Inspector Ross Paine, and again was at the time when both Mrs Carleen Bryant and Petra Willmott were safely out of the way at Police Headquarters. This search would also have taken some time, and thus had Sergeant Dyson’s statement been correct, then Dyson would have entered the Clare Street residence whilst Inspector Paine’s search was still in process. This did not happen. Also, a ‘Search Warrant’ is normally made out in the name of the person in charge of the search, and so had a ‘Search Warrant’ been properly made out it would have been in the name of Inspector Ross Paine, not Sergeant Michael Charles Dyson.

There is now another problem. Sergeant Dyson tells us that the photographs of Martin Bryant were on the kitchen table. Now no matter how sloppy any police search is, they wouldn’t have missed those photographs, and Inspector Paine would have seized the entire collection of Martin Bryant photographs, which is confirmed by the statement of the Police Media Liaison Officer, Geoff Easton.

We now know that the source of the photograph of Martin Bryant that appeared in the Hobart Mercury newspaper and other Murdock publications had to have emanated from the Police MIR. When Easton stated, “I raced to the MIR and with relief found that none of the photographs we had, corresponded with the one in the Mercury. It certainly hadn’t come from us”, we know that this statement is incorrect. Had somebody passed the photograph to the Mercury newspaper journalists, then the photograph would definitely be missing. For sloppy liars, Sergeant Dyson is in good company.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“During the search of the premises, I located a locked safe in an upstairs cupboard and a locked cupboard under the stairs on the ground level. I sought assistance from Jacksons Locksmiths to gain entry to the safe and cupboard.”

Now this is the first piece of information that suggests a locked safe and a locked cupboard within Bryant’s Clare Street residence. However that does not mean that this information is incorrect. What is the problem with this statement is that the locksmith from Jacksons Locksmiths totally repudiates any suggestion that his company was involved in a search of the Clare Street premises on the 29th April 1996.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“In the safe I found:

.308 calibre rifle ammunition

.223 calibre rifle ammunition

A document purporting to be a last will and testament of Martin Bryant And other personal papers”

This is extremely sloppy policework. What was the quantity of ammunition

found within the safe? How was the ammunition packed; was it loose or was it in boxes? Where is the corroborating evidence to support this claim?

There is none, and thus this statement is open to attack that the ammunition was placed within the safe by Sgt Dyson.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“In the cupboard I found:

A plastic grocery bag containing several hundred rounds of .308 rifle ammunition Two rifle cases One .223 calibre leader semi automatic rifle A quantity of .223 ammunition”

A plastic bag containing several hundred rounds of .308 ammunition? Too many to count I suppose, and thus also too many for a plastic bag to contain as such a load would definitely cause the plastic bag to rip.

This sentence is not factual. Again an unknown quantity of .223 ammunition. Was it two or two thousand items of .223 ammunition? Again there is no description of how the ammunition was found, be it loose or be it in boxes. This is extremely sloppy for a policeman with Dyson’s experience.

Then we have the two rifle cases and the .223 calibre leader semi-automatic rifle, but in what condition was the rifle found? Did it have a magazine fitted to it? Was it by itself or in its own rifle case?

Let us compare this statement with what Sergeant Gerard Dutton, the Tasmania Police Ballistics Expert states in his police statement:

32. Also on 3 May 1996, I received the following exhibits from Detective Keygan of Hobart CIB:

(98) A grey gun case.

(99) A black gun case containing a 12 gauge cleaning kit, a .30 calibre cleaning kit, & 2 plastic bags.

(101) A box containing 658 .308 calibre cartridges [twenty two of these cartridges were used for test purposes]; a Daewoo shotgun booklet, a white roll of fabric, a plastic container, 2 keys, a canvas gun case, one box of 12 gauge cartridges. (Box labelled in part, “30 Claire St, New Town.”)

(104) A patterned gun case containing a .223 cal. Australian Automatic Arms (AAA) self loading rifle, serial number SAR020236, minus the magazine.

What we have here are four gun cases one in each of the itemised lists, including (104) which was a patterned gun case containing the .223 rifle.

For Dyson to have claimed he found this rifle in the locked cupboard, then he would have had to have opened the patterned gun case to find the rifle inside. Thus the only explanation that can be drawn from these statements is that Dyson has lied.

Now let us look at the plastic shopping bag containing ‘several hundred’ .308 ammunition. Sergeant Gerard Dutton’s statement lists:

“42. On the 21 June 1996, I received from Sergeant Eastwood of the Port Arthur Task Force, the following exhibits:

(154) A plastic bag containing forty one .223 Rem. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected from u/stairs b/room No.4 (piano).”)

This was the only exhibit from Sgt Dutton that involved ammunition in a plastic bag. The several hundred is now 41 rounds and the .308 is now .223 ammunition.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“In the pantry I found on the top shelves:

Two empty hand cuff packets

One packing wrapper with manufacturers drawing of a Smith & Wesson revolver on it Two expended .308 calibre bullet cases Two expended .223 calibre bullet cases”

Why would anybody place two empty hand cuff packets on the top shelf of their pantry? The most natural place to put such items would be in the rubbish bin, which is why police nearly always search the contents of the rubbish bins when conducting searches for illegal items.

Again any proper description of these two hand cuff packets is missing.

The brand name is normally emblazoned on the packet, and as the DPP’s assistant, Mr Nick Perks tells us that the hand cuffs were Smith & Wesson, and thus we now know that the packets would have that name clearly marked, and that any experienced policeman would never miss such a simple description.

The packing wrapper tells us much more again, and reinforces the question as to why the hand cuff brand was not stated. Now although the wrapper is corroborated by Dr Ian Sales statement that ‘wrappers were found in ‘a sort of scullery room’, the actual wrapper was for a Smith & Wesson handgun, and Martin Bryant never owned nor used any type of handgun, let alone a Smith & Wesson handgun. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn here is that this evidence had to have been planted.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“I contacted the Intelligence Officer at Police Headquarters and passed on the information I had found. The items were left near where they were found to be seized by the Criminal Investigation Branch.”

I beg your pardon? A ‘Search Warrant’ is a search and seize warrant. Once the policeman acting within the conditions of his ‘Search Warrant’ finds items within that warrant, he is required to take possession of those items and produce them to a Court of Law, where the Magistrate of Judge then has the final say on their legality.

What Sergeant Dyson is stating here, most explicitly is that he has ‘planted’ this evidence for the CIB to find. For Dyson to claim that he only found these items within Bryant’s Clare Street residence is irrelevant as Dyson has no corroborative evidence to back his claims.

Sergeant Dyson’s next statement is:

“Some time later, Constable HARTHILL arrived at the residence. He was shown where the items had been located and he was required to remain at the residence to maintain security on the evidence.

I returned to the Major Incident Room and continued duty there.”

There is no doubt that Constable Harthill did arrive at Martin Bryant’s residence at 30 Clare Street Newtown to provide security for those premises. However Sgt Dyson cannot shirk his responsibilities in relation to his search warrant by simply passing those responsibilities onto somebody un-named within the Search Warrant.

But even if that was the case than Const. Harthill would then be required to remain with the property seized under the Search Warrant until such time as the CIB arrived at 30 Clare Street Newtown on the 3rd May 1996.

It appears that Sgt Dyson is suggesting that Const. Harthill remained on duty at Clare Street from the early morning of the 29th. April 1996 until the 3rd May 1996, when he was finally relieved by the Hobart CIB. I don’t think so. This statement is not factual.

From the information given by Dr Ian Sale, we are made aware of the first Police Search of Bryant’s Clare Street property led by Inspector Ross Paine at about 10.00pm on the 28th April 1996. We are also aware that there was no evidence found of firearms or ammunition. Sergeant Michael Charles Dyson then makes his statement that he searched the premises at 12.30am on the 29th April 1996, and found several items of incriminating evidence which he then left in a different position to be found by the Hobart CIB when they made their search of the same premises on the 3rd May 1996.

The differences in each of these three ‘searches is remarkable and defies logic in every way except for the conclusion that most of the ‘evidence’ found at Clare Street had to have been planted there by police, and we have Sgt Dyson’s admission that it was he who planted much of that evidence.

It is thus worthwhile for the reader to compare the statements of Sergeant Michael Charles Dyson with the relevant portion of Sergeant Gerard Dutton.

The anomalies will astound you.

Andrew S. MacGregor

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

Appendix

Michael Charles DYSON to prove:-

My full name is Michael Charles Dyson. I am a Sergeant in the Tasmania Police attached to the Protective Security Section at Hobart.

On Sunday the 28th April 1996 I was recalled to duty at about 6pm. I attended the Hobart Police Headquarters and was assigned duties as the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Liaison Officer at the Major Incident Room.

About 11.00pm, in the company of Detective Constable Simon CLAYTON and Detective Constable RUSSELL, I went to 7 Maritana Place, Claremont where I spoke to Mrs Carlene BRYANT and Miss Petra WILLMOTT. Mrs Bryant said that she was the mother of Martin Bryant and Miss WILLMOTT said that she was the girlfriend of Martin BRYANT. As a result of the conversation I went to 30 Clare Street in Newtown.

Mrs BRYANT had a key to that address in her possession and using that key she opened the rear door of the house. An alarm was activated in the process of entering the house but was deactivated by Mrs. BRYANT

As a result of a telephone conversation from the Major Incident Room I had a conversation with Mrs BRYANT and Miss WILLMOTT concerning Martin BRYANT.

This conversation took place in the kitchen area and it was at this time I notice a large quantity of photographs on the kitchen table. I asked Miss WILLMOTT who the photographs belonged to and she said they belonged to her and Martin.

I obtained permission to look at the photographs to which Miss WILLMOTT agreed. Having looked at the photographs I selected one and asked Miss WILLMOTT if it would be all right if I borrowed that photograph to take to Police Headquarters to help the Police at Port Arthur to identify Martin if and when he was found. Both Mrs BRYANT and Miss WILLMOTT agreed.

I then informed Mrs BRYANT and Miss WILLMOTT if they would be prepared to go to the Police Station with Constable RUSSELL to assist the Police in their inquiries regarding the situation at Port Arthur and both agreed to do so. I handed Constable RUSSELL the photograph and asked her to deliver it to the Major Incident Room and she then left with the two ladies.

I then contacted the Major Incident Room and advised them of the action I had taken to that point in time and I asked that a warrant to search for firearms under the Guns Act 1991 be obtained and brought to 30 Clare Street.

At 12.30am, Detective Constable Andrew McKenzie arrived at the residence and handed me a search warrant which I read and found to relate to that address and that I was named in the warrant as authorised to search the premises for firearms.

During the search of the premises, I located a locked safe in an upstairs cupboard and a locked cupboard under the stairs on the ground level. I sought assistance from Jacksons Locksmiths to gain entry to the safe and cupboard.

In the safe I found:

.308 calibre rifle ammunition

.223 calibre rifle ammunition

A document purporting to be a last will and testament of Martin Bryant And other personal papers

In the cupboard I found:

A plastic grocery bag containing several hundred rounds of .308 rifle ammunition Two rifle cases One .223 calibre leader semi automatic rifle A quantity of .223 ammunition

In the pantry I found on the top shelves:

Two empty hand cuff packets

One packing wrapper with manufacturers drawing of a Smith & Wesson revolver on it Two expended .308 calibre bullet cases Two expended .223 calibre bullet cases

I contacted the Intelligence Officer at Police Headquarters and passed on the information I had found. The items were left near where they were found to be seized by the Criminal Investigation Branch.

Some time later, Constable HARTHILL arrived at the residence. He was shown where the items had been located and he was required to remain at the residence to maintain security on the evidence.

I returned to the Major Incident Room and continued duty there.

M C DYSON

Acting Inspector

12/9/96

Statutory Declaration re: Martin BRYANT

I, Gerard Dutton, a Sergeant in the Tasmania Police Force stationed at the Ballistics Section, Scientific Bureau, Police Headquarters, Hobart, do solemnly and sincerely declare that:-

32. Also on 3 May 1996, I received the following exhibits from Detective

Keygan of Hobart CIB:

(95) Three .308 calibre fired cartridge cases.

(96) One .223 calibre fired cartridge case.

(97) One .308 calibre fired cartridge case. (In yellow envelope labelled in part, “Ammunition casing from Port Arthur Site 28.4.96” and “Taken from Mr K.F. Howlett 2.55pm 29.4.96, Det Const L. Hollis.”)

(98) A grey gun case.

(99) A black gun case containing a 12 gauge cleaning kit, a .30 calibre cleaning kit, & 2 plastic bags.

(100) A box containing 649 .308 calibre cartridges. (Box labelled in part, “30 Clare St, New Town.”)

(102) An ammunition box containing sixteen .223 Rem. Calibre cartridges.

(103) An ammunition box containing twenty .308 Win. Calibre cartridges.

(104) A patterned gun case containing a .223 cal. Australian Automatic Arms (AAA) self loading rifle, serial number SAR020236, minus the magazine.

(105) Two paper bags containing a coloured woollen jumper, and a fawn parka.

[The items (98); (99); part of (101) – the roll of fabric, the plastic container, the keys and the canvas gun case; part of (104) – the patterned gun case; were not examined and were returned to Constable J Elmer of the Port Arthur Task Force on 13 May 1996.]

42. On the 21 June 1996, I received from Sergeant Eastwood of the Port Arthur Task Force, the following exhibits:

(142) A pink beanie. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Worn by Thelma Walker”.)

(143) One pair of underpants. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Peter Crosswell”.)

(144) One pair of cream trousers. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Peter Crosswell”.)

(145) One bullet fragment. (In a plastic bag labelled in part, “1 x metal fragment found in hem of blue rugby top. Peter Crosswell.”)

(146) One .308 Win. calibre fired cartridge case. (In a plastic bag labelled in part, “30 Clare St, new Town – from container on shelf above stove in kitchen.”)

(147) An ammunition box containing twenty .308 Win. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at u/stairs b/room 4 (piano).”)

(148) An ammunition box containing nine .223 Rem. calibre cartridges and four empty ammunition boxes. (In a paper bag labelled in part, Collected at lower front right room.”)

(149) A telescopic sight mount in box marked, ‘Suitable for AR-15/M16’. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at u/stairs b/room 4 (piano).”)

(150) A leather ammunition belt containing thirty .223 Rem. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected from u/stairs b/room.”)

(151) Forty four .223 Rem. And eleven .308 Win. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at lower front right room (piano).”)

(152) An empty detachable box magazine. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected from lower front right room (piano).”)

(153) A wooden tea box containing forty eight .308 Win. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected from front lower right room (piano).”)

(154) A plastic bag containing forty one .223 Rem. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected from u/stairs b/room No.4 (piano).”)

(155) Three .223 Rem. and one .308 Win. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at lower right front room (piano).”)

(156) Three ammunition boxes containing fifty five .223 Rem. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at u/stairs b/room 4 (piano).”) [Twenty two of these cartridges were used for test purposes.]

(157) An ammunition box containing twenty .308 Win. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at u/stairs b/room 4 (piano).”)

(158) An ammunition belt and twenty .308 Win. calibre cartridges. (In a paper bag labelled in part, “Collected at u/stairs b/room No 4 (piano).”)

44. On the 8 July 1996, I received from sergeant Kirkham of the Crime Scene Section, Hobart, the following exhibit:

(160) Three ammunition boxes containing forty eight .223 Rem. calibre cartridges; and three ammunition boxes containing forty four .308 calibre cartridges. (In two paper bags, both labelled, “Collected at lower right front room.”)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*THE POWER OF FREE-FLOWING EMAIL INFORMATION*

From: Andrew ama18870@bigpond.net.au]

Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2007 10:06 AM

To: 'Adelaide Institute'

Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: Port Arthur 1]

Dear Fredrick,

This really is a marvellous piece of information.

Firstly, it tells us that Dyson has been hurt, due to the fact that his daughter has become aware of the article. However, if it was the article from the presentation I did back in 2004, then I only asked the question, and never stated definitively that Dyson was Rick.

A friend of mine said that my work was like lobbing a hand grenade into a bush and to then wait and see what the enemy did. He said it was amazing to see where the enemy popped up and reacted.

This is what Dyson has done. He has demonstrated a weakness in that his daughter has now been made aware of his involvement at the Port Arthur Massacre.

Dyson has told you that a 'barrister' has informed him that I have no money. So there is no point in pursuing me, but that is not correct. He could still stop me from defaming him, unless of course, he was frightened of some truths coming out.

The other statement that I found interesting was; "I have given full account and been cross examined over 17 times in respect to them", but here Dyson is not talking about the Port Arthur Massacre. He may be talking about Aramoana, or the shooting of Joe Gilowitz, and the subsequent Coronial Inquiry and then the Royal Commission, but he cannot be talking about Port Arthur.

You may like to ask Dyson if he could elaborate to you on this statement of his, and his reply may be interesting.

And Dyson is not prepared to debate either Olga or myself. Oh dear, that is so telling. I think Olga will use that piece to the hilt.

Thank you very much for this piece of information Fredrick, it certainly has created another grenade for us.

Andrew S. MacGregor

________________________________

*1. From: Michael C Dyson mdyson@dysoncorp.com.au

Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:29 AM

To: info@adelaideinstitute.org

Subject: Port Arthur 1

The article you have published on the web is some of the most absurd rubbish I have ever read. The conclusions drawn by the author, and those he encourage the reader to draw are bizarre and bear no resemblance to the truth at all.

I conclude that your so called institute is a front for some individual conspiracy theorist

Michael Dyson

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

2. From: Adelaide Institute info@adelaideinstitute.org

Date: 11/10/2007 1:28:10 PM

To: 'Michael C Dyson' mailto:mdyson@dysoncorp.com.au

Cc: Adelaide Institute mailto:info@adelaideinstitute.org

Subject: RE: Port Arthur 1

Dear Mr Dyson

Publication does not mean sharing the author’s views, and your comment remains unhelpful in clarifying matters of public concern.

Why don’t you contact the author and thrash out your disagreement with him, or with Mrs Olga Scully who is well informed about this controversy.

I am sending her a copy of this email.

Sincerely

Fredrick Töben

________________________________

3. From: Michael C Dyson mdyson@dysoncorp.com.au

Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:06 PM

To: Adelaide Institute

Subject: RE: Port Arthur 1

Thanks for having the courtesy to reply. You are no doubt aware that I was involved in many of the things you have published on your website. I have given full account and been cross examined over 17 times in respect to them and will not under any circumstances take any time to discuss the matters with Olga Scully or any other conspiracy theorist. I have only bothered to write to you because my 18 year old daughter has today read the rubbish you have published and recognised it for what it is.

Apparently the author has no money (so I have been informed by a barrister) so it is pointless pursuing him. I suspect the other people he has defamed have felt the same.

As for being matters of public concern - what rubbish.

Michael Dyson

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

Subject: RE: Port Arthur 1

From: "Adelaide Institute" info@adelaideinstitute.org

Date: Thu, October 11, 2007 13:46

To: "'Michael C Dyson'" mdyson@dysoncorp.com.au

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

We are well aware of how the quest for truth is stifled through legal mechanism.

So, if you are poor, then at least you can be honest and fearless about not losing anything.

So mote it be!

Top | Home