During early September 2000, every one of the forty politicians in the Tasmanian Parliament received a person-to-person registered letter from the author detailing fresh scientific evidence in the Martin Bryant case. A numbered copy of the book Deadly Deception at Port Arthur was enclosed with each letter as a formal appendix. Some politicians replied to their letters and some did not, but person-to-person registered delivery ensured that at no point in the future could any member of the Tasmanian Parliament claim "ignorance" of the hard scientific facts.

          This cumbersome but essential registered mail process actually started two years earlier, when in September 1998 The Tasmanian Police Commissioner, Police Minister, and Attorney General were sent hard copies of the photographic evidence proving the video evidence showing "Bryant" present at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 was forged. This should have been enough to cause an immediate review of the case, but failed to do so. The Tasmanian Police Commissioner sulked and refused to reply; the Police Minister artfully hid behind the Police Commissioner, and the Attorney General wrote, "I find the contents of the letter both insulting and filled with what I believe to be a ridiculous conspiracy theory."

          So what do you do when the Tasmanian Police Commissioner, Police Minister and Attorney General take it upon themselves to ignore their respective charters, and wittingly refuse to consider fresh scientific evidence in a mass murder case? Especially when hard evidence proves the mass murder was an act of terrorism, which falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government. Over the months and years that followed, letters were sent to key personnel around Australia requesting opinions and assistance, both technical and legal. Nothing too heavy initially, because while Tasmanian politicians continued to "hold the line", external action could not be taken.

          The harsh reality that most of the "facts" about Port Arthur were hysterical media lies mattered not. Unless and until a Tasmanian politician or official could be proved to be lying about the facts or about due process, the Commonwealth could and would not intervene in Tasmania. It was the Franklin Dam debacle all over again, but this time round the Feds were too nervous to send a Mirage reconnaissance jet to take a look! Well, too nervous at the official level that is.

          Not long before the multiple person-to-person mail deliveries  to all Tasmanian Parliamentarians in September 2000, the Federal Justice Minister contacted the Police Minister in Tasmania about the extensive fresh scientific evidence by then available  on Port Arthur.  The Police Minister's response was repeated by Senator Amanda Vanstone's Principal Adviser, Andrew Kirk, in a letter to a concerned citizen of Western Australia.   Kirk wrote, "For your information, however, the Tasmanian Minister for Police and Public Safety, the Hon David Llewellyn MHA has advised that Mr Vialls' allegations have been thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated."

          Andrew Kirk's letter was dated 14 September 2000, just six days before a letter sent by the Hon David Llewellyn MHA to the author, which tells an entirely different story.  On 20 September, Llewellyn wrote:

          "I am in receipt of your circular letter of 8 September and accompanying book purporting to show that a number of people were involved in the killings at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996".

          "I have no intention of tabling either your letter or book in Parliament as this may be seen to give some credibility to the nonsense you are peddling and perhaps improve the sales of your book which I suspect is the motive behind your request".

          "Furthermore as an elected representative of the Port Arthur area and as the current Tasmanian Minister for Police and Public Safety, I find your 'writings' offensive, insensitive and without any substance".

          Let us bring all of this into perspective. The Tasmanian Police Minister was first advised of the fresh evidence in September 1998 but took no action at all.  Then in mid 2000 he formally responded to the Federal Justice Minister that the evidence had "been thoroughly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated". This was completely misleading, because no thorough investigation was ever undertaken into the fresh scientific evidence. Finally on 20 September 2000 the Police Minister showed his utter contempt for Bryant's plight in a letter to the author. By any political standard this is completely unacceptable behaviour, and the Hon David Llewellyn MHA must now resign his post as Police Minister, and resign from the Tasmanian Parliament.

          A quick glimpse at the timeline would not go amiss here. Bryant was first illegally confined in late April 1996, and effectively forgotten thereafter. Throughout the years that followed he was held in his assigned location, the Risdon Prison Hospital, where the Tasmanian Government itself confirmed he was to spend the rest of his days. There were no major worries or incidents involving Bryant for more than three years, right up to the time when the Commonwealth started to take an interest in the case. Then within 12 weeks of the person-to-person letters received by all Tasmanian Parliamentarians in Hobart, Bryant was suddenly moved to the Risdon Remand Centre, where he then had his near-fatal "accident".

          Next-of-kin Mrs Carleen Bryant was understandably suspicious about the circumstances surrounding her intellectually impaired son's sudden move, and finally suggested to the Risdon prison authorities that Martin's unprecedented move to the Remand Centre must have been initiated or approved at the political level. The prison authorities openly admitted this was certainly the case, but refused to provide Mrs Bryant with the name of the responsible politician.

          When a Tasmanian politician wittingly deceives the Federal Justice Minister, there must be serious concern about all aspects of the Port Arthur massacre. Though it is likely that seriously misleading the Federal Justice Minister amounted to little more than truculence or arrogance on the part of the Tasmanian Police Minister, we cannot be 100% sure of this without a proper investigation of events. 

          The hard evidence proves that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the Port Arthur mass murder, though we do not yet know exactly who was. Bearing in mind the kill rate and killed-to-injured ratios in the Broad Arrow Café, and many other relevant factors, those involved were certainly professionals, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the massacre was a premeditated act of terrorism.

          With this in mind, the hard evidence will now be sent formally to the Commissioner of the Federal Police, and to the Director General of the Australian Security & Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Both officials will be encouraged to conduct proper investigations as per their respective charters regarding anti-terrorism and national security, and not allow themselves to be diverted or "gagged" by politicians in Hobart or Canberra