In October 2007, I released a video called “The Columbine Cause”, which discusses many reported features of the 1999 Columbine High School attack which were never fully discussed in major media. Some of these features include reports of additional dead, additional shots fired, and above all, additional attackers other than the two found in the library, the alleged suicides and Columbine High School seniors, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
While doing research for the presentation, I came across an internet site called Judicial-Inc.biz. The site features discussions of many acts of terrorism including the attack on Columbine. The site is popular and well-known; a web search on the word, “Columbine”, for example, will usually bring up Judicial’s main page on the attack within the top ten to twenty results.
Judicial has published information concerning the many well-grounded reports which conflict with the official story of the attack, many of which are substantiated by information found in the police and FBI’s own records. However, their presentation is riddled with either incredibly sloppy fact-checking or a conscious attempt to distort the facts in favor of pointing a finger toward the Jewish in a false way.
In light of this realization, I contacted an individual called “The_Skunk”, who runs the site, and shared with him some of my concerns, and him asked for some sources on what I knew to be fraudulent portrayals of Columbine information. “The_Skunk” responded that my questions might be, quote, “right on” and suggested that I publish a web site to counter his. Below are some of Judicial’s main claims about the Columbine attack, followed by my commentary.
Assertion One: Eric Harris was Jewish.
Judicial’s source for this statement is a Salon article by Jill Wolfson called “Hurting Young Men Put Pen to Rage” which contains the quote, “My mother is Jewish! [...] Dreydl power!” However, a careful read of the article, or even a not-so-careful read of the article, reveals that, although she was writing about him, Wolfson was not quoting Eric Harris but rather, an unnamed boy in one of her writing classes. If Harris was Jewish, Judicial’s source doesn’t show it.
Assertion Two: Harris’ diaries contained a plan to escape to Israel after the attack, which would be helpful to him because Israel considers all Jews automatic citizens and will not extradite them to foreign nations to stand trial for crimes committed in those nations.
For the reason stated in the response to assertion one above, this policy of Israel’s would probably not have been helpful to Eric Harris. Nevertheless, in 2006, a nearly one thousand page file of diaries and other writings attributed to Harris, Dylan Klebold and others was released by law enforcement authorities (part one | part two). However, the only escape fantasy it seems to contain is a piece attributed to Harris which described escaping after a violent attack to, “some island somewhere or maybe mexico (sic), new zelend (sic) or some exotic place where americans (sic) can’t get us”. This is found on pages JC-001-026343 to JC-001-026344. If anyone can find a page number for the Israel entry, please share it.
Assertion Three: CHS class of 1998 Joe Stair claimed that the Trench Coat Mafia group was founded to protect a “gay Jewish kid”.
Judicial provides a link to another Salon article by Dave Cullen called “Inside the Columbine High Investigation” which contains the sentence, “The rumors seem to have originated two years ago, with a single member of the Trench Coat Mafia who may have been gay or bisexual.” As you will notice, the member is not named.
Assertion Four: The three boys arrested in a field during the attack, the so-called “Splatterpunks”, were named “Siegel, Cohen and Smith”.
All of the police files and media coverage, including an appearance on Sally Jesse Raphael’s talk show, indicates that these individuals’ names were Matt Akard, Jim Brunetti and Matt Nalty, except some media reports which had “Christianson” as Nalty’s last name. Judicial gives no reason as to why it falsely gave these individuals Jewish names.
Assertion Five: An older-looking male named Nathan Klein was publicly arrested for having some connection or alleged connection to the attack.
The name, “Nathan Klein”, appears nowhere in the police documents related to the attack, nor in any media articles about it. While several witnesses who took cover in the science rooms during the attack reportedly told police that they saw an older individual who appeared to be balding and in his thirties holding a sawed-off shotgun in the halls of Columbine, the individual in Judicial’s picture does not match his description, nor a witness’s sketch of the gunman. Judicial does not give any further explanation but Columbine shooting researcher Rolf Zaeschmar informs me that the image is of Larry Scott Petty, an armed individual who was arrested on-scene that day.
Assertion Six: Some police connected with the “investigation” of the attack believed that the Jewish Defense League, or JDL, was involved in constructing some of the bombs used against the school.
While some reports surfaced that some law enforcement agents at the scene remarked that some of the bombs used in the attack appeared to have been too sophisticated for two teenagers to have built themselves, I was unable to find any articles mentioning the JDL specifically. Judicial provides no source for the statement.
Judicial-Inc’s authors are mixing important information about major cover-ups with a high percentage of misinformation. I strongly suggest that anyone using Judicial-Inc as a reference seek outside verification of its statements. As you can see, the research quality on their well-read Columbine pages is laughably poor to outright farcical. It is high time that the silence surrounding the Columbine cover-up is broken in a widespread manner but Judicial-Inc is not helping in this regard. [END] Permalink: Judicial-Inc’s Columbine Shooting Pages
In 1996, an Australian historical attraction called Port Arthur, located on the southeastern coast of Tasmania, was rocked by killings. More than just a mass shooting which claimed the lives of thirty-five and shattered many more, the Port Arthur massacre was a political event which was leveraged by the anti-gun lobby into a complete and total Australia-wide ban on private firearm ownership. Since violent crime in Australia has increased in the years since the ban went into effect, just as it has in the UK following similar legislation which was put into effect around the same time, this matter is of concern to all Australians. Likewise, as arguments continue to rage concerning the possibility of a prohibition on private gun ownership in the United States and other nations where men and women are currently legally able to defend themselves with guns, this matter is of concern to non-Australians as well.
What’s perhaps more disturbing than the rise in crime, however, are allegations made by a team of investigators and attack survivors headed by retired Tasmanian police officer Andrew MacGregor in a 2008 video called “A Question of Guilt: The Massacre at Port Arthur.” Over the presentation’s 61 minute run time, the group makes a case that the true guilt for the massacre lies with parties not yet identified and that the feeble-minded Martin Bryant — one psychiatrist’s estimate put Bryant’s IQ at 66 — who pled guilty under questionable circumstances of having planning and executed the plot single-handedly, was probably a mere patsy in the grander scheme of events surrounding this crime.
The video opens with a quote from former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who lamented the loss of life in the massacre but praised the governments of the Australian states for uniting in their support for, quote, “tougher and more effective gun laws.” It was never explained, however, how the massacre had resulted from a lack of gun control, since Bryant had no history of violence, and even a greater mystery remains as to why a complete and utter national ban on privately owned guns was an appropriate response to the death of thirty-five people at the hands of one lone madman, as the people of the world were told.
As the video explains, Bryant was born in 1967, making him 29 years old at the time of the shooting. From his first years of school, Bryant was recognized as being unusually slow and clumsy and later in life, he received government benefits on the basis of his mental handicap. Later inheritances and accident damage awards left Bryant a fairly wealthy young man, however, with over $500,000 and a house coming to him in his twenties. In all, “Simple Marty,” as he was known, lived a quiet, childlike life, was frequently visited by his mother who helped care for him, had a girlfriend named Petra Wilmott, and enjoyed playing games with the children next door.
Despite this unlikely portrait of a mass murderer, however, it has been alleged that on the 26th of April 1996, the childlike Bryant drove up to the historic site at Port Arthur, shot and killed over thirty strangers and stole a vehicle before holing up in a nearby cottage with hostages for several hours. It is then suggested that after a shootout with police, Bryant set fire to the house and emerged. And ever since, Bryant has sat in jail.
The Australian government stands firm in its allegations but some survivors and witnesses were not satisfied with this description of events. One such witness is Graham Collyer, who described the gunman, whom he saw at close range in Port Arthur’s Broad Arrow Cafe, where a majority of the shooting took place, as having had a “pitted face”, as if he had had a lot of acne. As photographs of the accused show, Bryant did not fit this description.
When requests by skeptical survivors for a post-trial coronial inquiry into the shooting were met with alleged concerns over the emotional wear and tear this might cause them, some grew quite suspicious that the Australian government was mainly interested in putting the issue to bed and reaping certain political gains which had arisen as a result of the massacre and not with uncovering the full truth of the circumstances of it. A television interview with government attorney Ray Groom which catches Groom in a lie is put to excellent use here and calls attention to the duplicity which has made the Port Arthur aftermath what it is.
An Oklahoma City bombing-style “trial by media” was also in full effect in the Port Arthur case and is well-exposed in the video as several Australian newspapers all but declared Bryant guilty in full-page cover stories run just a few days after the shooting which featured altered photographs in which Bryant’s eyes appeared wild and distorted. Some even went as far as to argue that there should be no trial or due process for Bryant.
In the second half of the presentation, the pace changes considerably with presentations by Andrew MacGregor, the author of a Port Arthur e-book titled Deceit and Terrorism, which probe more deeply into the specifics of the evidence and pose questions about the official timeline. Prominent questions here concern the Port Arthur gunman’s expert-level accuracy in the Broad Arrow Cafe and the sudden and unexplained change in council on the part of Martin Bryant which led to a guilty plea and the closing of the case.
“A Question of Guilt” is a worthwhile view for anyone concerned about the details of the Port Arthur shooting and the resulting political fallout. While some might find the revelations within it shocking, those of us who have studied the particulars of other high-profile “lone nut” mass shootings such as the Columbine High School attack may recognize a pattern. A DVD copy can be purchased from Sunrise Audio Visual Productions. [END] Permalink: A Question of Guilt: The Massacre at Port Arthur