With the latest ‘Lone-nut gunman’ style massacre at Virginia Tech on the 16^th April 2007, allegedly committed by Cho Seung Hui, I posed the question; ‘When did the first such ‘lone-nut’ gun massacre occur in America.  The answer will amaze you.

The answer I found was printed in ‘The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law’ Volume 28, Number 1, 2000, in an article called, “Mass Homicide: The Civil Massacre”.  The authors?  Christopher H. Cantor, Paul E. Mullen and Philip A. Alpers.   The introduction of this article contained this information:

“One of the earliest examples of civil massacres in Western nations was the killings by Ernst Wagner in 1913 at Mulhausen, Germany.  However, it was the massacre by Whitman in 1963 at the University of Texas that created the model, or script, for such activities through the extensive publicity it received at the time, its recreation in the film “The High Tower,” and its continuing infamy in various internet sites. 

There are some errors within this paragraph. The University of Texas massacre occurred on the 1^st August 1966, not 1963 as these learned people have reported.  Also the film was called “The Deadly Tower” not The High Tower, and was released in October 1975. 

Subsequent examples included Huberty in 1984 at the San Ysidro MacDonald’s and Lepine in 1989 at the University of Montreal.  The great majority of the victims of these massacres were unknown to their killers, although in some instances the killings began with family members, as with Wagner and Whitman.  Lepine’s victims were unknown to him but selected as being “feminist.”

With Huberty and the San Ysidro MacDonald’s massacre there is another major aspect that these learned authors have failed to explain.  The gunman, James Oliver Huberty, in this instance specifically targeted Mexicans or American Mexicans in the 77 minute rampage where he killed 21 victims including five children the youngest 9 months.  Politicians used this massacre to lobby for stricter firearm laws.

Civil massacres have increased in frequency over this century.  In 1963, the year of the University of Texas massacre, such incidents were sufficiently rare that those attempting to understand this act returned to the massacre in 1913 by Wagner for a comparable event, although the killing of 13 neighbours by Unruh in 1949 would also have been relevant.  The frequency of these events has further increased in recent decades and further still during the drafting of this article, with an unprecedented series in the United States.  A number of these most recent incidents occurred in schools, some being carried out by students.  The increased frequency may relate to improved communications.  Two studies by this group involving the massacres detailed in this report have suggested substantial media influence.  Few would currently doubt the need for further investigation of these incidents.

Most perpetrators of civil massacres die among their victims, either by suicide or from police action.  Investigations, therefore usually entail detailed reconstruction of what led to their actions.  In at least five cases (Wagner, Unruh, Speck, and Cases 1 and 7 in our series), the killers have lived to tell their own stories.  Two others left behind testaments to their motivations, including Dion Terres, who left behind a video tape, and case 3 in our series, who offered his diaries to assist society in understanding sick minds such as his own

It was this sentence that explained the present situation.  The frequency of these events has further increased in recent decades and further still during the drafting of this article, with an unprecedented series in the United States.  A number of these most recent incidents occurred in schools, some being carried out by students. 

As this article by Australians, Cantor from the Griffith University in Brisbane, Queensland, Mullen from Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, and Alpers a New Zealand disc jockey with associations with Sydney University, was composed after the sentencing of Martin Bryant in November 1996, this statement must be about the Columbine, Colorado massacre on the 20^th April 1999.  In other words, this ‘epidemic’ of ‘Lone-nut gunman’ style massacres was instigated in Melbourne, Australia in 1987 and not in America.

From this article, what I have gleamed is that the 1966 University of Texas massacre appears to be the role model.  The MacDonald’s massacre in 1984 is about the same time that Gun Control reared its head in Australia, and the University of Montreal in 1989 is on the same time table as the two Melbourne massacres in 1987, Hungerford in England in 1987, Aramoana in New Zealand in 1990 and the Strathfield Plaza in Sydney Australia in 1991.

However, even in this small section of this report on Mass Homicide there are misleading statements.  Cases 1 and 7 refer to Julian Knight and Martin Bryant.  Julian Knight’s explanation was that he was killing Martian invaders, while Martin Bryant has never made any explanation of the Port Arthur massacre, and always totally denied any involvement when spoken to by police, being the police negotiator, Sgt Terry McCarthy and the 4^th July 1996 police interview by Det/Inspectors Warren and Paine.

Then we have the explanation of others who died leaving behind videos and diaries to assist society in understanding the minds of the perpetrators, and besides being totally unnatural, has become the norm in these types of massacres. Another aspect of these massacres is that they all have a similar modus operandi, as if they were all planned by the same mind.

What we have spoken about here have been killings that were designated as massacres.  What I would now like to do is to look at some killings that were stopped before they became massacres.

(1)     Luke Woodham, 1997 Pearl High School, Mississippi

(2)     Andrew Wurst, 1998 Edinboro, Pennsylvania

(3)     James Knight, 2001 Melbourne Abortion Clinic shootings. (Australia)

(4)     Huan Yun Xiang, 2002 Monash University (Melbourne) shootings.  (Australia)

(5)     Peter Odighizuwa, 2002 Appalachian School of Law Virginia     

(6)     February 2007, Trolley Square Shopping Mall, Salt Lake City

Of these attempted massacres, No’s 1, 2, 5 and 6 were stopped by armed personnel, while in Australia, No’s 3 and 4 were stopped by unarmed personnel.  It must also be mentioned here that the 1987 Queen Street massacre in Melbourne Australia was also stopped by two unarmed men.

Now what is interesting is that with the ‘lone-nut gunmen’ massacres that the Cantor, Mullen and Alpers articles in each of the 7 cases, the gunman was a Caucasian, that is of European ethnicity, culture and comprehension.  So it is amazing that within the ‘Discussion area of this paper that this paragraph appears.

“There appears to be a kinship between these massacres and the phenomenon known as amok.  Amok is a culture- bound syndrome originally described in people of the Malay archipelago, with similar phenomena later being described in other Southeast Asian communities.  Traditionally, amok involved a sudden outburst in which the perpetrator, or “pengamok,” armed with a sword or other cutting instrument, ran through the streets stabbing and hacking at random victims.  The episode was usually ended by the killing of the pengamok.  This has been characterised as a form of suicide, which was usually preceded by social withdrawal and brooding over loss of face or self-esteem and which was resorted to, at least in part,  because of a powerful interdiction in the culture against suicide.  Interestingly, “running amok” realizes both the distressed and shamed male’s death and a restoration of their prestige.  There are elements of contagion in amok, which has been described as spreading in epidemics.”

What is amazing is that these writers appear to accept that a Malayan culture-bound syndrome would suddenly appear within Caucasians, most of whom have never experienced anything of the Malayan culture.  It is also even more interesting to note that most of the subjects mentioned within this paper did not at any stage demonstrate any recognition of the required loss of face or esteem.

However, consider who were the next ‘lone-nut’ gunmen; Huan Yun Xiang in Melbourne’s Monash University and at Virginia Tech, Cho Seung Hui.  But Huan Yun Xiang was a Vietnamese immigrant and Cho Seung Hui was a South Korean, and there is nothing I believe within their cultures to support the amok theory as proposed by Mullen, as: “with similar phenomena later being described in other Southeast Asian communities.”    

Now with this in mind, let us look at the article; “The FBI is the Catcher in the Rye”, which is about the assassination of the former Beatle, John Lennon by Mark Chapman.

“Mark Chapman is the victim of an artificially induced MODEL PSYCHOSIS. (Look this term up in a medical dictionary). The characteristics of an artificial model psychosis are as follows: If an individual is continuously subjected for 5-7 days to intake (drugging) of amphetamine or the much stronger methamphetamine, a model psychosis will follow. This means that even if you stop the drugging, the artificially induced Psychosis will now continue to build up by itself. Sometimes even a one-time single dose of methamphetamine is enough. (sometimes)

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act state and testify that various Federal Agencies of the U.S. government (such as the CIA, the Pentagon, etcetera) had a several decade-long covert research project to develop a technique or method by which an involuntary, unwitting innocent individual could be covertly manipulated to hallucinate that he or she must carry out the assassination of a preselected target. The documents all state that this was to be accomplished via HYPNOSIS. Now, if I were to hypnotise you, would you assassinate someone?

 
Of course not! In fact, it should not take more than 5 seconds to figure out that while Hypnosis may be an interesting gimmick for inducing a state of relaxation and maybe even meditation, it absolutely doesn't work to make someone carry out an assassination against his will. A Psychosis, however, DOES DO THE JOB! Go ahead and check the police files of so-called amphetamine and methamphetamine induced homicides. This is basically the crime we are carefully trying to recreate here. Thus the word/term "Hypnosis" encountered by so many researchers in the numerous documents released from the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act may be nothing more than a cover -- a CODEWORD -- for an artificially induced Model "PSYCHOSIS" !”

This article continues with Jack Ruby as an example of how to manipulate a person for a ‘political’ assassination.

In order to understand how to induce someone suffering from the advanced stages of such an artificially induced model psychosis to commit an act of assassination against his will and better instincts, let us first examine a number of previous, politically motivated assassinations:

Let us start with Jack Ruby who shot Lee Harvey Oswald. After the assassination, when he was visited by members of the Warren Commission, Ruby was completely PSYCHOTIC. Ruby also admitted that before the assassination he had taken more than 30 (thirty) amphetamines and diet pills (Dexedrine). "They stimulate you!" He later testified. That's right, they induce an artificial model psychosis and it’s not clear who had advised Ruby to take these. Before the Warren Commission, Jack Ruby testified about a conversation he had on the night before he shot Oswald with Dallas Police Officer Ltn Olson who told him that "Oswald should be cut inch by inch into ribbons!" and praised Ruby as "The greatest guy in the world!"

Ruby's lawyer (Tonahill) believes that prior to the shooting, Ruby had numerous conversations like these about which he refused to testify as these might be construed as premeditation which could have made Jack Ruby a candidate for the death penalty. Can we read between the lines here and decipher the covert methodologies involved? First Ruby's model psychosis is induced under the disguise of dieting pills which are amphetamines. Once the psychosis has taken a noticeable effect he is literally being psyched up by various members of the Dallas Police, government, etcetera, who suggest to him that Oswald should be shot. At this stage, because of the Psychosis, Ruby was unable to see through the trick and the covert manipulation he was being subjected to. To sum up, in 1963 Ruby's model psychosis was induced via an over intoxication of amphetamines and "diet pills". The assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald was then induced by psyching him up via the innocuous "conversations" he later reported to the Warren Commission.

The next example given in this article is the Robert F. Kennedy assassination on the 5^th June 1968.

Prior to shooting at RFK Sirhan had been interested in mental improvement techniques and in this quest had joined the local chapter of the ROSECRUCIANS. He was advised to WRITE HIS THOUGHTS DOWN. An article Sirhan was given to read was even read into his trial record. It was aptly called "PUT IT IN WRITING!" Sirhan was then advised to sit in front of his mirror, where he had experimented with performing magic rituals, and write his thoughts down. And what "thoughts" did he write into his famous notebook: "RFK MUST BE ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ! (etcetera)

So what is going on here? It’s safe to conclude that Sirhan was already suffering from the advanced stages of a covertly induced Model Psychosis so that he no longer realized the significance of what he was writing down. It’s also safe to conclude that Sirhan's "thoughts" were of course not really his own. After the assassination, Sirhan told Robert B. Kaiser -- who spent over 200 hours interviewing Sirhan in his jail cell and wrote a book about it (out of print) that he believed his mind had been influenced by "Thought Waves". Kaiser at first laughed but Sirhan was serious.

Sirhan had survived his assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.  However it was the evidence that Sirhan had written into his notebook that removed any doubt that Sirhan was not psychotic and that the political assassination was coincidental.  This article makes the conclusion that:

To sum up, the technique used to induce Sirhan Sirhan to hallucinate that he must assassinate RFK was : a) Manipulate the gullible Sirhan to perform the cultish rituals of the Rosecrucians and other "occult" practices", which involved sitting in front of his mirror and repetitively writing down whatever comes to his mind. b) Covertly induce an artificial model psychosis c) Once suffering from the advanced stages of this model psychosis, trick Sirhan Sirhan into PSYCHING HIMSELF UP by subjecting him to highly sophisticated subliminal techniques suggesting that "RFK MUST BE ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED".

To back up this conclusion, this article uses:

The trick is to combine the growing psychosis with the act of writing these messages down repetitively, which is accomplished via the cultish rituals. Once the artificial model psychosis has progressed beyond a certain point, the individual will no longer understand the significance of what he is writing down. You don't believe the government uses subliminal techniques? Go IMMEDIATELY to: "http://www.mindspring.com/~silent"

This article then looks at the assassination of John Lennon.

LET US NOW ANALYZE THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN LENNON:

It has been fairly well documented that Chapman was psychotic when he shot Lennon. Before the assassination, in the advanced stages of his model psychosis, Chapman sat in his room in Hawaii and kept chanting over and over and over :

THE PHONY MUST DIE SAYS THE CATCHER IN THE RYE!

THE PHONY MUST DIE SAYS DIE SAYS THE CATCHER IN THE RYE!

JOHN LENNON MUST DIE SAYS THE CATCHER IN THE RYE!

This is remarkably similar to Sirhan Sirhan, writing into his notebook that "RFK MUST BE ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED ASSASSINATED" (isn't it!)

Again, this article draws a conclusion, being:

What we can now deduct here is that the government has secretly continued to develop this highly classified technique to eliminate all human contact between the assassin and his "inducer". Thus Chapman first became the victim of the artificial model psychosis, then received highly sophisticated subliminal instructions to CHANT "JOHN LENNON MUST DIE SAYS THE CATCHER IN THE RYE" so that he psyched himself up.

This is the important distinction here : I am not proposing that subliminal technologies exist which can make someone assassinate a preselected target even if the person it is suggested to is suffering from the advanced stages of an artificially induced model psychosis. Rather, what I am saying here is that the subliminal messages are used to trick the Manchurian-Candidate-in-the- Making" to psych himself up. And once in the grips of a model psychosis, he will not be able to grasp the significance of the messages he is chanting or writing.

Now this item goes further than what many people would anticipate.  This item should also be considered in the case of Wade Frankum in the Strathfield Plaza Massacre in Sydney in 1991.

Another item of interest that should be highlighted here is that moments before Chapman assassinated John Lennon, the Dakota's nightwatchman, Jose Perdomo, a Cuban exile, was discussing the assassination of John F. Kennedy with Mark Chapman. (See article(s) in the weekly People Magazine by James R. Gaines, sometime in the 1980's) Mark Chapman later said, "That assassination has always meant a great deal to me!" Can we begin to understand the covert methodologies involved here? Remember that Jack Ruby was being psyched up by Dallas police officer Olson, that "Lee Harvey Oswald should be cut inch by inch into ribbons", before he shot him.

Why "The Catcher In The Rye"-title???

The literary story and content of J.D. Salinger's book "The Catcher in the Rye" has absolutely no connection to the assassination of John Lennon. Mark Chapman did NOT read the book and decide to assassinate John Lennon simply because of J.D. Salinger's story. In order to brainwash an innocent, unwitting individual via an artificially induced model psychosis to hallucinate that he must carry out the assassination of a preselected target it is necessary to trick the "Manchurian-Candidate-In-the-Making" to psych himself up. For this purpose it is very helpful to subliminally induce the subject to repeatedly chant or write down a rhyme connected with the subliminal assassination message (i.e. RFK must be assassinated assassinated assassinated assassinated -- as in the Sirhan Sirhan case) THE CATCHER IN THE RYE SAYS JOHN LENNON (or the phoney) MUST DIE obviously serves this purpose perfectly.

This article concludes with this report:

Still not convinced? Go back and read the Newsweek and Time magazine articles on the assassination of Mexican Presidential Candidate Colosio in April 1994. At first glance a lone gunman shoots Colosio. But what did the Mexican tabloid TV stations discover when they continued to replay the tape of the assassination? Before Aburto (the assassin) shot Colosio, a security guard was clearing the way for him. Aburto stated that he was never planning to assassinate Colosio. He went to where Colosio was speaking, and suddenly a little voice from deep inside "came over him" which instructed him to shoot Colosio's feet. (See Washington Post, May 1, 1994) Shortly after the assassination, the chief of police, who had developed leads on other suspects was shot and killed by unidentified gunmen. The official conclusion of the Mexican government is that Colosio was assassinated as a result of a powerful conspiracy they've been unable to crack and bring to justice.

Now what this article, ‘The FBI is the Catcher in the Rye” is talking about are political assassinations.  I believe we should now look at another political assassination, or rather an attempted assassination, that of President Ronald Reagan on the 30^th March, 1981, just 70 days into his Presidency.  It is worth while noting what John Linder wrote in regards to a history of John W. Hinckley in 2001.

On October 20, his $3,600 exhausted, Hinckley flew home to Colorado, where his parents expressed strong disappointment in his failure to carry out his promises.  After Hinckley overdosed on antidepressant medication, the Hinckleys arranged for their son to meet with a local psychiatrist, Dr. John Hopper.  Hopper met with Hinckley several times over the course of the next four months, but learned nothing of Hinckley's thoughts of assassination and little of his obsession with Foster. 

Hinckley's mental health did not improve--rather, it deteriorated.  He continued flying across the country to Washington (where the new President-Elect, Ronald Reagan, was staying), New York (where John Lennon had just been assassinated), and New Haven.  While in New York, Hinckley seriously contemplated killing himself in front of the Dakota Hotel, at the exact spot where Lennon had been shot.  On New Year's Eve of 1980, Hinckley recorded a deeply disturbing monologue in which he spoke of not "really" wanting "to hurt" Jodie Foster, his fears about losing his sanity, and the likelihood of "suicide city" if he failed to win Foster's love.

After a one-day stay in Hollywood and a cross-country trip by Greyhound Bus, Hinckley checked into the Park Central Hotel in Washington, D. C. on the afternoon of March 29.  After a restless night, Hinckley rose the next morning for a breakfast at McDonald's.  On the way back to the hotel, he picked up the Washington Star.  Hinckley noticed the President's schedule, on page A-4, indicating that Reagan would be speaking to a labor convention at the Washington Hilton in just a couple of hours.  Hinckley showered, took Valium to calm himself, loaded his twenty-two with exploding Devastator bullets purchased nine months earlier at a pawn shop in Lubbock, then wrote a letter to Jodie Foster.  The Foster letter shed light on the bizarre motive for Hinckley's plan:

The President waved to a crowd as he walked toward the hotel entrance at 1:45.  Hinckley waved back.  At 2:25, accompanied by aides and bodyguards, Reagan left the hotel and began moving towards his waiting limousine.  A voice yelled, "President Reagan, President Reagan!"  As the President turned in his direction, Hinckley--crouching like a marksman--emptied the six bullets in his gun in rapid succession.  The first bullet tore through the brain of press secretary James Brady.  The second his policeman Thomas Delahanty in the back.  The third overshot the President and hit a building.  The fourth shot hit secret service agent Timothy McCarthy in the chest.  The fifth shot hit the bullet-proof glass of the President's limousine.  The sixth and final bullet nearly killed the President.  As aides rushed to push Reagan into his car, the bullet ricocheted off the car, then hit the President in the chest, grazed a rib and lodged in his lung, just inches from his heart.

I do believe we have here a prima-facie case to link this attempted assassination with the assassinations of Lee Harvey Oswald, Robert F. Kennedy and John Lennon. 

Now what would have been the result if this attempted assassination had been successful?  Reagan’s Vice President would have assumed command.  Who was Ronald Reagan’s Vice President?  The man who resigned from his office as ‘Head of the CIA’ to run with Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush.  The same man who was seen in Paris, in October 1979, to meet with the Iranians to ensure that the American hostages in Iran would not be released until after the Presidential elections which ensured that President Jimmy Carter lost office.  George H.W. Bush was a very ambitious man.

But there was another casualty in this 30^th March 1981 shooting, the press secretary, James Brady.  James Brady recovered from his wounds and remained as press secretary throughout the Reagan Administration.  However recovering from his injuries, James Brady and his wife Sarah Brady, in 1981, created ‘The Brady Centre to Prevent Handgun Violence.’

The Brady Centre to Prevent Handgun Violence was a ‘Political Lobby Group.’  With the exception of the University of Texas massacre on the 1^st August 1966, every ‘Lone-nut’ gun massacre has occurred after the creation of the ‘Brady Centre’ political lobby group.

The first of such massacres was the San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre on the 17^th July 1984, when the gunman James Oliver Huberty armed with a 9-mm Browning automatic pistol, an Uzi submachine gun, and a 12-gauge pump shotgun killed 21 people and wounded another 19 before being killed by a police sniper.

I would now like to return to the article; Mass Homicide: The Civil Massacre by Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, and as this article does not address either the Cleveland Elementary school at Stockton California massacre by Patrick Purdy on the 17^th January 1989, nor the Ecolepolytechnique De Montreal of December 1989 massacre by Marc Lepine, I cannot touch on these two massacres in this area, but I shall do so later.

The chapter named ‘Case Studies’ within this article starts with:

“The seven cases are presented in chronological order.  At the time of the incidents the notion of a systematic inquiry into this phenomenon had not been considered in the three countries.  Accordingly information has been drawn from a variety of sources including official inquiries, coroners’ reports, trial documents, and books by crime researchers. ~ In the cases of Knight (Case 1) and Bryant (Case 7), one author (P.E.M.) has had the advantage of interviewing them, but only material in the public domain was utilized.  In the case of Gray (Case4), P.E.M. both lived in the immediate vicinity of the massacre and was responsible for the local psychiatric services involved in the aftermath and with the subsequent inquiries reconstructing the tragedy.

In other words, Professor Paul E. Mullen was in Melbourne for the 1987 Hoddle Street massacre and was able to interview Julian Knight after Knight had been arrested by two uniform policemen from the Fitzroy Police Station.  Professor Mullen then moved residence to Aramoana in New Zealand and was present for the December 1990 massacre in New Zealand.  And then Professor Mullen returned to Melbourne and was available to interview Martin Bryant on the 3^rd May 1996 whilst in the Royal Hobart Hospital.  Professor Mullen was still in Melbourne as an Associated Professor at Monash University when there was the attempted massacre in October 2002.

In Case 1, that of Julian Knight and the Hoddle Street massacre of 9^th August 1987, this article in part states:

“He continued shooting until he ran out of ammunition.  He had secreted a bullet with which to kill himself, but while searching for this he was overwhelmed and captured by police.(1)  J.K. subsequently spoke of being partly aware of his actions and partly caught up in a fantasy of being a lone warrior repelling an invading army.(2)  He acknowledged frequent daydreams of military heroism and dying in battle.  He had been well aware of the Texas University massacre and the McDonalds massacre in San Ysidro and realized their similarities to his own actions. ~ Although a prepsychotic condition was suggested, the predominant opinion was of a narcissistic young man involved in his world of fantasy.  J.K.’s subsequent course in prison has made any psychotic condition highly unlikely, but obsessional personality traits and narcissism have become more obvious.” (3)

(1)     Julian Knight had placed a bullet in his top pocket, but had lost it during the shooting.  He was decamping from the park where he had been shooting from and came upon the two uniformed members of the Fitzroy Police and dropped his rifle on command from these two policemen.  Knight was most indignant when he was shot at by one of these policemen after he had placed his weapons on the ground.  In other words, at the time of these actions Julian Knight had no concept of what he had just committed.

(2)     Julian Knight believed at the time he was a lone warrior repelling an invading Martian army.  In other words, Julian Knight was in a totally psychotic condition at the time of the massacre.

(3)     Professor Paul Mullen is telling us here that Julian Knight was not psychotic prior to the massacre and was not psychotic afterwards.  In other words Julian Knight had a ‘Model Psychosis’ or an induced psychosis as per ‘The FBI is the Catcher in the Rye’ article.

In Case 2, that of Michael Ryan in Hungerford, on the 19^th August 1987, I have insufficient knowledge of the circumstances to challenge what is written.  I am aware though that this massacre caused the banning of military rifles in the United Kingdom.  This was a successful anti-gun campaign.

In Case 3, that of Frank Vitkovic and the Queen Street (Melbourne) massacre on the 8^th December 1987 this article in part states:

“F.V. then proceeded around the building shooting indiscriminately.  His comments included “Are you dead yet?  You will be soon….how do they expect me to kill people with this gun…you’re all scum.  You all give me the shits.  Well.  Who’s laughing now?  What’s the point of life when nobody loves you?  I’m going to take you all with me….The police are going to kill me, so none of you bastards are going to stay alive.”  He was finally tackled by two men, and in the ensuing struggle threw himself through an 11^th floor window to his death. ~ As a result of this essay, he was required to attend the student counselling service where a psychologist assessed him as severely disturbed and on the way to becoming psychotic. ~ F.V. was not known to have a special interest in guns prior to 1987, but his diaries reveal a fascination with action movies, particularly the Rambo series.  In 1987 he attended a rifle range and obtained a shooter’s license, subsequently acquiring his small arsenal and large quantities of ammunition.  On December 7, his last diary entry refers to “today it must all come out…it’s time to die.”

Just like Sirhan Sirhan, Frank Vitkovic wrote things down.  There is nothing to show that the 1986 psychologist’s assessment of Vitkovic as ‘on the way to becoming psychotic’ ever reaching that level, as there is no corroborating evidence to demonstrate that Vitkovic was psychotic until one reads what comments Vitkovic made during the massacre, but the evidence of control within this massacre is unreal.

Firstly the weapon Vitkovic used was a M1 carbine, but to carry the M1 to the massacre, Vitkovic had to carry the weapon in a bag, but the carbine wouldn’t fit, so somebody used a saw and removed part of the stock and part of the barrel so as the carbine would fit into the bag.  This then stopped the carbine from being a semi-automatic weapon and the M1 had to be re-cocked manually, and was prone to jamming.  Apparently there were over 100 unfired cartridges scattered about the building where Vitkovic had been trying to shoot his victims.

Secondly, this massacre took place in the Australia Post Philatelic Office, a secure Federal government building.  To get past this security, Vitkovic took the lift to the twelfth floor and then used the fire escape to gain entry to the 11^th floor where he was tackled by two men, one of whom was wounded, and they managed to disarm Vitkovic and handed the carbine to a female who hid the carbine in a refrigerator.  The problem here is just how was Vitkovic able to by-pass the security in this part of the building?  There was no evidence to demonstrate that Vitkovic had previously been inside this secured building.

Thirdly, both the State Attorney General, Jim Kennan, and the Police Minister Race Matthews were actually able to view Vitkovic fall from the window from the building diagonally opposite, and were witnessed by a security guard doing so.

Next, the first police to arrive at the scene were uniform members of City Traffic, and when they reported to HQ what was happening they were ordered not to enter the building, but to secure the perimeter, divert traffic away, and to await the arrival of the police ‘Special Operations Group’ which would have taken another thirty minutes or so considering the traffic congestion at that time.  In other words the gunman was being given a free hand to kill as many victims as he could until the SOG’s arrived.

Now when I was a member of the Victoria Police, it was expected that if a member came upon such a situation that as a policeman we would fulfil our duty to protect the community even at our own life’s peril.  However the protocols have changed and now policemen are not permitted to risk their lives to save members of the community, and I have seen these same protocols utilized in virtually every ‘lone-nut’ gun massacre since.

In Case 4, that of David Gray at Aramoana in New Zealand.  This massacre occurred at a time when Professor Paul E. Mullen was residing in the area.  This article in part states:

“David Gray (D.G.), age 33, on November 13, 1990, at Aramoana in New Zealand, shot and killed 13 people, including a police officer, and injured 3 others.  D.G. was shot dead after emerging shooting from his house, in which he had taken refuge, and yelling to police “Kill me, kill me.”  His weapons used were a .223 Norinco semiautomatic AK47 look-alike with telescopic sight and 30 shot magazine, and a .22 Remington semi-automatic with telescopic sight and seven-shot magazine.  Later, at his home several other firearms were found.  The one person with whom D.G. had anything approaching a normal relationship was a neighbour, who became his first victim. ~ Only hours before D.G. began his rampage, he wrote a letter to the editor of “New Zealand Guns” magazine, in which he referred to the 1987 Hoddle Street, Hungerford and Queen Street massacres (Cases 1 through t3 above).

Again we have a letter written.  We also have the murders initiated by the killing of the gunman’s close friend.  We have no psychosis prior to the event, but psychosis during the event.  What is not detailed here though is that the New Zealand police’s newly formed ‘anti-terrorist squad’ called the ‘Armed Offenders Squad’ was in the area at the time, and moved into the hamlet of Aramoana to capture the gunman Gray.  It only took these specialist police 34 hours to capture David Gray, who bled to death after being shot 7 times, from a wound close to the heart.

According to the Australian SOG member, Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania Police who was on secondment for training duties to the New Zealand Police, after Gray had been shot and arrested the police placed thumb cuffs on Gray to restrain him, but Gray broke two sets of these plastic ‘handcuffs’ and the police had to resort to the normal steel handcuffs, even though he was bleeding to death.

Consider though, 34 hours to capture a gunman in his own home!!!!!

In Case 5, that of Wade Frankum and the Strathfield Plaza massacre, this article in part states:

“Wade Frankum (W.F.), age 33, on August 17, 1991, at a coffee shop inside the Strathfield Plaza shopping complex in Sydney Australia, suddenly fatally stabbed a 15 year-old girl sitting nearby.  He then took a SKK semi-automatic assault rifle from within a cylinder and began shooting people indiscriminately, killing six and wounding eight.  He hi-jacked a car and then ordered the woman driver to stop, apologised to her, exited the car, and shot himself. ~ After the massacre, the book, American Psycho was found on W.F.’s bed.  This book aroused controversy worldwide with its sexual violence and sadism.  On the way to the site of his massacre, W.F. had unexpectedly met a friend to whom he had quoted a passage from the book: “I think I should go home….I think I might hurt you.”

The car supposedly hi-jacked by Frankum in this massacre was driven by P/W Det/Const Catherine Noyes.  Just how did Noyes permit an armed offender to enter the front passenger seat of her vehicle, especially one armed with a rifle?  All members of the constabulary are taught very simple and effective measures to protect themselves against armed offenders, but in this instance, such protective measures were not required.  In a later media discussion on firearm control Det/Const Catherine Noyes was filmed whilst seated with the head of the Australian Coalition for Gun Control, Rebecca Peters.

Then we have the book, American Psycho used very much in the same manner as “The Catcher in the Rye”,  but what is even more important here is, just who was able to identify a remark made by Frankum shortly before the massacre as a quote from this novel????

What we have with the Strathfield Plaza massacre is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this massacre was an orchestrated event.

In Case 6, that of Thomas Hamilton and the Dunblane massacre, this article in part states:

‘Just prior to the massacre, he wrote to the Queen appealing for her intercession. ~ T.H. had a life-long interest in guns, acquiring between 1987 and 1995 revolvers, semi-automatic pistols and rifles.  He was intermittently a member of gun clubs, but his behaviour and methods of shooting (rapid fire without concern for the usual niceties) alienated him from other shooters.  Hamilton carefully prepared for the massacre, entering the school in the preceding days and walking through his route of murder.  He cut the telephone lines to the school prior to the beginning of the killings.”

There is a marvellously revealing website on Dunblane by Sandra Uttley called ‘Dunblane Unburied’.  For a full explanation of this horrific massacre, I would suggest that people visit that website and see for themselves some of the lies that surround this massacre.

Again, the written letter to the Queen, this time, and the last letter to her Majesty was in regard to the Hungerford massacre of August 1987.

The gunman at Dunblane shot all of his victims with a Browning automatic pistol, and then Thomas Hamilton was shot twice through the mouth with a Smith & Wesson revolver, whilst lying on the gym floor, and the two .357 bullets embedded themselves just above the floor in the wall behind Hamilton’s head 6 inches apart.

Students hiding in a closet, thought the massacre was over when they heard somebody enter the gym, and they then heard talking.  They then heard a scream and two shots, and that was the end of the massacre.

The first policeman to enter the scene was an off-duty constable, Grant McCutcheon, dropping his child off at the kindergarten, and on being alerted headed for where the shooting was taking place and entered the gym to see Thomas Hamilton’s body still twitching, and the janitor John Currie over the body and moving one of the two pistols.  Constable McCutcheon states that he saw two pistols, and being a former RAF serviceman, he would know the difference.  McCutcheon did not see any revolver within the gym area where the massacre took place.

Where this article states that “He cut the telephone lines to the school” is again misleading.  The gunman did cut telephone lines, but he cut the wrong lines.  The school telephones continued to operate.

In Case 7, that of Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur massacre, this article in part states:

“This fantasy would have emerged at the time of the Dunblane massacre, and although M.B. denied being influenced by Hamilton, he had detailed information about prior massacres and was later aware that he held the record for the largest number of victims.

[*The court report on Martin Bryant was released from the court and placed by The Age newspaper on its Web site (no longer in existence) in 1996]

What is interesting in this snippet of information was that Mullen has refused to accept the fact that Bryant was not influenced by the Dunblane massacre.  Bryant in fact totally rejected every suggestion that he had been involved with the Port Arthur massacre.  The comment by Mullen that Bryant was later aware that he held the record is irrelevant and biased against Bryant.

The ‘Court report’ on Martin Bryant was written by Professor Paul E. Mullen and based on one 3 ½ hour interview by Mullen on the 3^rd May 1996.  There is sufficient evidence to show that the Port Arthur massacre was run by elements of the Australian government.  The Seascape Cottage which was set on fire on the early hours of Monday morning the 29^th April 1996 was under the instructions of Superintendent Bob Fielding and carried out by Sgt Andrew Mark Fogarty of the Tasmania Police SOG’s.  During the entire siege at Seascape Cottage, besides the supposed hostages, there were two other persons at least in the cottage, Martin Bryant, who called himself ‘Jamie’ and ‘Rick’ who was later identified as Sgt Michael Charles Dyson of the Tasmania Police SOG’s who also featured in the Aramoana massacre in New Zealand.

Having looked at the Australian, New Zealand and British ‘lone-nut’ gun massacres, it is time to look at the school massacres

August 1966, University of Texas, Texas.

January 1989, Cleveland Elementary school Stockton California.

December 1989, Ecolepolytechnique De Montreal, Canada

March 1996, Dunblane Primary School, Scotland

April 1999, Columbine High, Colorado,.

June 2001, Ikeda Elementary School, Osaka, Japan

April 2002, Johann Gutenberg School, Erfurt Germany.

October 2002, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

March 2005, Red Lake High School, Beltrami County, Minnesota.

September 2006, Dawson College, Montreal, Canada.

October 2006, West Nickel Mines School Pennsylvania.

April 2007, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.

It was stated in the article, “Mass Homicides: The Civil Massacre’ that “It was the massacre by Whitman in 1963 at the University of Texas that created the model or script for such activities.” And indeed it was.  Now this is amazing when you consider that for all these various massacres in schools, restaurants, shopping plazas. Government secure buildings and other places where these massacres took place throughout countries that have strong ties to America, and within America itself, that the 1966 University of Texas massacre set the ‘Modus Operandi’.  Let’s look at the occurrences taking place at the University of Texas back in 1966.

In 1966, the students were in rebellion.  Led by people described in one report as ‘a group of Russians from the East side of New York’ many students were rebelling against the colour discrimination that was the norm at the university.  Black leaders were visiting the university and inciting the students to rebel, and I would imagine that many conservatives would consider that the ‘commies’ were taking over the university.  Then along comes Charles Whitman, former US Marine, a good soldier, and we have the possibility of the same scenario that Jack Ruby featured in three years prior.

Whitman had been prescribed Valium and Dexedrine and was known to have abused these drugs, so again we have makings of a ‘model psychosis’ as described in ‘The FBI is the Catcher in the Rye’.

Now the difficulty with the University of Texas massacre being named by Cantor, Mullen and Alpers as the ‘model’ for all the various ‘lone-nut’ gun massacres, is that those committing the massacres, especially those in Australia would have no way of obtaining the intimate details of this massacre.

Thus we can only conclude that Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, who are all strongly on the side of gun control, must be aware that the University of Texas massacre was a government controlled operation, as well as every gun massacre that fits the same modus operandi.

The FBI is the Catcher in the Rye informs us of some of the political assassinations from Lee Harvey Oswald through to John Lennon, and from that we can deduce that the attempted assassination of President Reagan fits the same agenda.  It is from the Reagan attempted assassination that we then get the Brady Centre for the Prevention of handgun violence also in 1981, and from that we get the initial San Ysidro McDonalds massacre, again with references from Cantor, Mullen and Alpers, and then the gun massacres in Australia, England, Australia, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and then finally back to America, Scotland, Australia and so on, but it is the similarities that are enormous, and they shouldn’t be.

The FBI is the Catcher in the Rye tells us the methodology used by agencies within the American government to stage murders that could not be linked to the American government.  These murders occurred both within and outside America, but then after the 1991 attempted massacre of President Ronald Reagan, we have the formation of a Political Lobby Group called the Brady Centre to prevent handgun violence.

It is only after the formation of this Political Lobby group that the ‘Lone-nut’ gun massacres have occurred, with the one exception that of Charles Whitman and the University of Texas massacre, of which the modus operandi of this massacres continually reoccurs, and this alone tells us that the massacres are not individual eruptions within societies, but rather are a linked contrived criminal activity.

However there is another very important facet to consider.  With each of these massacres, when things have gone wrong, when the numbers killed have not reached expectations, or when impediments have occurred, the next event shows moves to overcome that impediment.  Let me explain with the Australian massacres.

The Hoddle street massacre had the gunman shooting from a park into a busy highway and near a train station where pedestrians would frequent.  The problem here was that the gunman was too far removed from his intended victims and so the kill ratio was insufficient. 

The next massacre, the Queen Street massacre took place in a government secured building, but to convey the weapon to this site, a bag was to be used, but the weapon didn’t fit into the bag, and so both ends of this firearm where cut off, making the weapon inadequate.  There was also the problem of offices, places where victims could not only hide, but could barricade themselves from the gunman.

So the third massacre took place in a building where there were no offices to hide in, and very little places to barricade the gunman from, that is the Strathfield Plaza.  To convey the rifle to this location the gunman used a cylinder.  Can you follow this natural progression that only comes from a single planning unit?  If these were spontaneous eruptions as we are supposed to believe, then these progressions would not exist.

But in 1996 there was a radical change.  The problem with most of the preceding massacres was the lack of sufficient deaths.  The Dunblane massacre was the first to use a professional gunman and leave the body of Thomas Hamilton to take the rap.  In stead of a proper Coronial Inquiry Scotland had its Lord Cullen Inquiry, and it wasn’t until Sandra Uttley uncovered most of the sordid details and published her book Dunblane Unburied that these details came to the fore.

The Port Arthur massacre was the second time that a professional gunman was used, and unfortunately for the planners Martin Bryant did not die in the fire of Seascape Cottage, but was able to stumble out of the building and was arrested 11 minutes later by the police Special Operations Group.

The Erfurt massacre was the third time that a professional gunman was used, and Stewart Beattie has written a full expose on that massacre.  The one witness, a student who saw the gunman running away from the school building was later found hanging from a barn rafter.  Death was put at suicide.

When considering the high kill rate of the Virginia Tech massacre there is a very high possibility that a professional gunman may have been used, or the progression may again have changed due to the publicity given to the three previous massacres mentioned here.  Whatever the outcome, it will still be a natural progression of the planned massacre.

The reality of all of this though is that we have seen the political assassinations from 1963 through to 1981 morph into civilian massacres after the creation of the Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence.  We can now identify the methods used in committing these massacres and in many instances identify the controllers.

Andrew S. MacGregor