With the exception of exhibit 1, which is included to show
the variations in rifling marks on otherwise identical bullets, all
other exhibits show "Individual Characteristics", sufficient to satisfy
any firearms examiner that the bullets and cartridge cases under
examination were fired by the suspect weapon.
Sergeant Dutton's eighteen-page article on "ballistics" includes many
photographs, but not one of them shows individual characteristics
matching the bullets and cases at Port Arthur with the weapons at
Seascape. Without individual characteristic matches, the weapons are no
more valuable than scrap iron, and absolutely useless as evidence
against Martin Bryant.
The pristine weapons from Seascape you were shown on national
television, only got that way because the Tasmanian Police Service
borrowed many spare parts from the New South Wales Police firearms
library. Before their startling resurrection to nearly new condition,
both weapons were very badly damaged, a critical fact the Australian
television networks rather artfully forgot to tell you.
How the weapons got that that way is
of considerable importance in tracking down those really responsible
for the mass murder at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.
If we are to believe the media and Tasmanian Government, the Colt AR-15
serial number SP128807,
cycled and fired a minimum of 35 rounds faultlessly at Port Arthur and
other crime scenes. Then, inexplicably, the AR-15 allegedly had an
"accident" at Seascape Cottage, which destroyed part of the rifling in
the barrel, most of the breech, and part of the receiver - the moving
part of the weapon which includes the firing pin and extractor claws
for the cartridge cases.
This was attributed to a "faulty cartridge" which exploded in the
Oh, really, and how did it do all that damage in a weapon
proofed to withstand 55,000 p.s.i?
In Sergeant Dutton's own words, the damage caused by the burst
cartridge showed "Amazingly high chamber pressure", and "I had never
seen a cartridge case that had been subjected to so much pressure that
it caused brass to extrude substantially into apertures in the bolt
What would normally be needed to cause this kind of damage is too much
of the correct powder in the cartridge case, or a different much
faster-burning powder or explosive in the cartridge case. Because the
correct power in this particular cartridge case fills it right up to
the neck, it could not have been the first example, i.e. too much of
the correct powder.
This leaves us with a different much faster-burning powder or
explosive. With such powders the grains are typically much smaller,
allowing a greatly increased flame front, and thus the ability to
increase pressures at a far higher rate. Special Forces put this
knowledge to good use if they wish to destroy enemy artillery pieces
behind the lines. A sizeable chunk of C3 plastic explosive is
strategically placed inside the breech of the artillery piece, then
later detonated, destroying the breech and rendering the weapon useless.
What this process achieved with the AR-15 at Seascape was so much
damage to the barrel, breech and receiver, that forensic "Individual
Characteristic" matches could not be made with the fired bullets and
cases found at Port Arthur.
Now why on earth would you do that, if the AR-15 in question really was
the same one used at Port Arthur, then afterwards positioned neatly
next to alleged gunman Martin Bryant in Seascape, ready to be collected
and identified by the local constabulary the following morning?
Martin Bryant (or his body), and a weapon that could be individually
matched to the bullets and cases at Port Arthur. Perfect! But only if
the gunman at Port Arthur really was Martin Bryant, which we now know
he was not.
Best to look at the effect of the damage in reverse then. What the
explosion and resulting damage really achieved, was preventing police
and others from proving that this particular AR-15 was not the
weapon used at Port Arthur, but merely a decoy designed to draw
attention towards Bryant.
As Arthur Conan-Doyle once wrote: "When you have ruled out the
impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the
There is one other critical point of evidence about the "exploding"
AR-15. When the charge in the cartridge detonated, the resulting blast
was sufficient to blow the bottom of the magazine right off, and cause
severe damage in the immediate vicinity of the trigger, where Martin
Bryant's finger would have been if he was handling the weapon at the
time. Most explosions of this kind neatly amputate a finger or two, and
shred the skin on the rest of the hand. In addition there is very
significant marking of the flesh by firearms discharge residue (FDR for
short), caused by microscopic particles of burned or unburned
propellant impregnating the flesh at high velocity.
When Bryant was taken into custody he had severe burns to his back and
left-hand side caused by the Seascape fire, but no injuries or serious
burns to his hands, and no trace of FDR. So Bryant did not fire the
Colt AR-15 found at Seascape Cottage, end of story.
The other weapon displayed so enthusiastically by police was a Belgian
FN-FAL serial number G3434 in 7.62-mm calibre,
but alas, this weapon was also severely damaged before the NSW police
firearms library helped out with copious spare parts.
Unlike the AR-15, found in Seascape
itself, the FN-FAL was recovered from the roof of an outhouse some
distance from the main building.
This in itself is decidedly odd, with Martin Bryant allegedly in the
cross-hairs of an entire highly trained Special Operations Group all
evening and all night. How is Bryant supposed to have put it up on the
There was no exploding cartridge in the breech of the FN-FAL, but by a
rare coincidence beyond the calculations of most actuaries, the effect
of the damage was exactly the same as that inflicted on the AR-15. The
barrel, breech, and receiver were damaged beyond hope of making
"Individual Characteristic" matches with bullets and cartridge cases
found at the various crime scenes. So, once again, police and others
were unable to prove the FN-FAL was not one of the weapons used
at Port Arthur.
It is the FN-FAL rather than the AR-15 which provides absolute
scientific proof the two weapons were merely dummies designed to
deflect attention away from the guilty parties, probably dumped at
Seascape as stage props long before any of the shooting started.
Despite being terminally damaged, nearly all of the AR-15 components
were located close to the weapon in Seascape, though the pistol grip
was missing and was never found. However, the FN-FAL lacked a major
component called the "return spring tube assembly", plus its butt plate
and magazine. These are all large items impossible to miss in thorough
forensic searches of crime scenes. The forensic teams went over every
crime scene with a fine-tooth comb several times, leaving no stone or
even a blade of grass unturned.
I have resisted the temptation to
provide the exact size of the return spring tube assembly because I do
not have precise, technical details to hand, but believe me when I say
it is big.
Many years ago I field-stripped and reassembled FN-FALs dozens of
times, and can assure readers the assembly is a minimum of six inches
long, with the large springs inside made of tempered steel.
Without its return spring assembly (and magazine), the FN-FAL cannot
fire at all, proving the damaged weapon found at Seascape played no
part in the Port Arthur mass murder. Evidently it had been carefully
"damaged" at a location a considerable distance away from either Port
Arthur or Seascape, before the mass murder took place.
This of course proves that the mass murder was a
pre-meditated crime, one that Australian counter-terrorist personnel
must solve if we are to prevent further attacks on this nation. Exactly
how they go about this is their concern, but counter-terrorist
personnel are reminded that their pay packets are generously filled
each month by Australian taxpayers, not by international lobby groups
in Canberra and Hobart.
A good starting point for counter-terrorism would be to hunt for the
real 5.56-mm and 7.62-mm weapons actually used at Port Arthur on 28
April 1996 to kill or wound fifty-seven civilians, and dead-block the
Daihatsu Feroza driven by Linda White.
We now know the weapons used were not the crippled AR-15 and
FN-FAL found at Seascape, and we also know the shooter was not
Martin Bryant, because he was completely contained by SOG personnel
throughout the entire period in the same Seascape compound as both
Find the real weapons used and they will hopefully in turn lead you to
the real shooters, though the trail is now cold. Either way, it is now
time for the authorities to stop pussyfooting around, and get on with a
serious counter-terrorist investigation.
There are those in power determined that a serious investigation should
not take place, and recently went out of their way to discourage me in
Some months ago my 21 and 18 year-old, children inexplicably failed
their police "integrity checks", essential here in Western Australia
for anyone wishing to get a decent job.
Stunned by this I lodged an official complaint, and then made several
discreet inquiries. Eventually I was told that a powerful federal
politician had persuaded a police unit in Canberra, to flag me in the
Bureau of Criminal Intelligence computer as a "security risk", which is
a bit rich bearing in mind my former (very high) security clearances
Because my work on Port Arthur focuses solely and openly on protecting
Australian national security, logic and security protocols dictate it
is not I, but the powerful federal politician who poses a significant
security risk to this nation.
Once the illegal false data about me was entered into the BCI computer,
there was a trickle-down effect on my children, who were then found
guilty of associating with a known security risk - their own father!
Fortunately there are officials in Western Australia with very high
ethics, and the entire sordid mess was sorted out in less than two
weeks. My children now once again have positive integrity status, and I
have the name of the powerful federal politician who tried to destroy
the credibility of this family. The politician in question is advised
not to try this again, or members of the public might start wondering
exactly why he chose to take this illegal action in the first place.
The author wishes to acknowledge
the expert assistance of a leading American firearms examiner, who for
the present prefers to remain anonymous