Commissioner Andrew Scipione and Catherine Burn who are two of Australia’s highest ranking police officers have given blatant perjured evidence under oath at the Sydney Siege Inquest hearing in Sydney. Outside the Inquest today (Wednesday 17/8/16) I asked Deputy Commissioner Burn if she was aware perjury is a criminal offence. She refused to answer for obvious reasons which I captured in the below video.
The police have a lot to answer for in failings during the Sydney Siege. But it is not the front line police on the ground who risked their lives trying to save the hostages that have much to answer for as by and large they did the best they could and can hold their heads up high. It is the most senior police officers who failed to give the police under their command the resources and support they needed that have a lot to answer for and should be sacked.
The two key people I am referring to who are Commissioner Andrew Scipione and Deputy Commissioner (Specialist Operations) Catherine Burn who both tried to avoid giving evidence. Scipione’s lawyers argued he shouldn’t have to appear because he gave no orders during the Sydney Siege operation. In Scipione’s defence you wouldn’t expect the Commissioner to take control of a Siege. Even so there were enough failings during the Siege with resources which is his responsibility and a lot of his evidence was not believable at all so Scipione has to take responsibility and should go.
That leaves Catherine Burn who overseas “Specialist Operations” which includes counter-terrorism and sieges like the Sydney Siege and it is well-known she is seeking the top job as Commissioner. One example of her failure is that the frontline police did not have the specialist communications/command truck that they are meant to use in major sieges. Why?
“the purpose-built truck had been damaged by weather in 2011 and hadn’t been fixed as of December 2014“
Instead the “negotiation team of up to five people was crammed into the gaming manager’s officer at the NSW Leagues Club, where police were stationed as the siege unfolded.“
“The phone number of the office was provided to the hostages but it would divert to somewhere else in the club if a negotiator was on the phone.“
“On one occasion, a call believed to be from a hostage was answered by an officer in another part of the building.“
“The negotiation team also had only one mobile phone between them.“ (Click here to read more)
Something like not having the truck for use should lead to sacking people at the highest level and that ultimately means Deputy Commissioner Burn. Anyone can go into a shop and buy ten mobile phones yet the negotiation team only had one mobile phone which is a bad joke.
There are many other failings that Burn also needs to take responsibility for but the worst thing is the fact that Burn deliberately destroyed evidence. Anyone with knowledge of these sorts of situations where people die know that it is almost guaranteed that there will be some sort of inquiry or coroner’s inquest and that all communication will be relevant evidence.
So what did Deputy Commissioner Burn do? She deleted text messages for the day of the Sydney Siege and the following day as she claims she was told she would not have to give evidence. (Click here to read more) To me that is not believable as she has responsibility for sieges in the police force.
This leads to the question that I asked Deputy Commissioner Burn after she gave evidence at the Sydney Siege Inquest which is in the video below. (Wednesday 17th August 2016)
As soon as I asked the question “Commissioner Burn, are you aware that perjury is a criminal offence” the police surrounded me. They didn’t like it. In the video you can see the uniformed officer on the right head straight towards me as soon as I asked the question and there were two plainclothes officers closer to me. Initially they overreacted but then they realised it and backed off.
Cover-up by NSW Director of Public Prosecutions
The police failings are something that needs to be investigated and the problems fixed. But it is why Man Haron Monis was out on bail that is the biggest issue and it looks like we will never get to the truth. I wrote last year:
“The instigator of the Sydney Siege Man Haron Monis was facing charges of accessory to murder and over 40 charges of sexual assault and indecent assault against 7 women when he instigated the Sydney Siege. He clearly should not have been out on bail. Vital documents and emails that would shed light on why he was allowed to be on bail have never been revealed and names of the prosecutors and police involved have also been withheld.“
The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Lloyd Babb SC is the person who refuses to release emails between his office and police which reveal why they failed to keep Man Haron Monis in jail awaiting trial. The NSW Government should sack him and release the emails.
“The most obvious reason for the Sydney Siege cover-up is to conceal corruption in the legal fraternity. As we now know from a recent leaked police report the Mafia have been bribing NSW judges $millions to get reduced sentences. (Click here to read more) If the mafia are doing that then basic logic says that it is quite likely prosecutors can also be bribed to keep people out of jail on bail which looks like what happened in the Sydney Siege / Man Haron Monis tragedy.“ (Click here to read more)
I did not get an opportunity to question Commissioner Andrew Scipione as I had left the hearing when he gave evidence and he has finished giving evidence now. The Sydney Siege Inquest report should hopefully be published this year.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)
If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
Thank you for your support.
Categories: State Police, Sydney Siege, Uncategorized
It is odd how so often in Australia in emergencies the authorities reveal themselves to be unprepared and unwilling to act when you would think it is their time to shine. Examples include the Canberra firestorm of 2003 and the Sydney Seige. I can’t help thinking it is a she’ll-be-right/don’t-get-your-knickers-in-a-knot attitude which discourages people from considering “alarmist” worst-case scenarios.
This matter highlights an infinitely more basic problem, that of the over the top protection afforded to bottom-feeding scum who should by virtue of their positions be required to observe a much higher standard than the hoi-polloi. Time and again we see the supposedly upper echelons of the bureaucrazy (mis-spelling intended) going AWOL when it hits the cooling apparatus. Rather than protect these pieces of garbage, they should be very heavily fined, drop at least five places on their payscale and be named and shamed in the mainstream media. We need to remember that we are talking about public servants who are paid excessively well to provide a service to the public. Since they have clearly failed miserably, it is fitting that appropriate penalties be applied.
While all this drama is playing out I have yet to hear anyone ask the question “how come this man was still in the country ?” Someone or department or minister is responsible for this. I am sure there are many more of them waiting for their day of “glory”.
‘Use-by’ date and ‘Unsuitable for Human Use’ is ignored when it comes to appointing leaders of important public services in Australia.
At the risk of alienating myself on this site, I question whether the siege was a false flag or perhaps a hoax. It would explain the cover up, why Monis was allowed out, why the operation was so poor (sniper didn’t take the shot, police didn’t come straight in the back door at the start, lack of phones, the truck, etc).
The whole thing doesn’t pass the sniff test for mind.
So if it was a false flag, and I am not saying it was or wasn’t, im on the fence, then who would have psychologicaly conditioned Monis to carry out that action, supplied him the shot gun and ammunition so he would go as far as killing a hostage and from then on be shot dead by the police. Was his intention really to die in that Cafe or did the alleged false flag operation go off the rails because he lost his marbles and shot a hostage when that wasn’t the orchestrated game plan by i.e. The false flag facilitators? Just throwing that out there for you Ross Currie.
I don’t pretend to know what happened. I question the whole narrative, perhaps it was real but as the article points out there is a cover up in action. A cover up of what?
Who knows if Monis actually was shot, he could be holidaying in Tel Aviv now.
We are unlikely to get to the truth of this regardless.
Yes, I agree that it was a staged event, intended to keep us firmly in the anti-terrorism tent. Monis was ex ASIO (hence the preceding leniency shown by the courts), turned loose as our very own mind controlled lone gunman. The SAS train for this kind of thing everyday and were on standby out at Holdsworthy, but the NSW police were told to go in and ( inevitably) stuff it up. Why else would Burn and Scipione give themselves early nights?
Exactly from where, and from whom, did Man Horan Monis get the sawn off shotgun and shotgun shells ?
What is the chain of ownership of that shotgun, from factory to last known owner, going by serial number ?
Why was it on the Federal firearms register, but not on the NSW State register ?
There was a military assault unit in Holdsworthy which had been practicing specifically for the Lindt Cafe on that day, and were awaiting a call which never came.
Why was the police sniper not given the nod to take out Monis when he said that he had him in his sights ?
Why did the police sniper even need to ask ?!
Mention above is made of why Monis was allowed out on bail for having been an accessory to murder. However, in the presence of his girlfriend his former wife was murdered, and her body was dowsed in petrol and set alight. Could anyone believe that the girlfriend would do that ?
If Monis was a CentreLink client, very likely he would have had very little money, so bail could not have been in the thousands of dollars, could it ?
So, why was he allowed to go home on next to no bail money ?
Michael. You present some very pertinent questions the answers to which have not been revealed by our judiciary. Perhaps this failure to reveal in itself is a key to understanding as to who the pre-event participants were. The Aussie media displayed to the world and the Aussie public a cameo performance of our anti terror units protecting us from the threat of “terrorism” while the public are induced to accept and the legislature are induced to pass laws that intrude into the freedoms of the majority and give rise to anti terror agencies, with increasing powers to arrest and detain. The pubic become the victim of an anti-terrorist apparatus that we don’t want or need to pay for. Just to put things into perspective about 1,300 people died on Aussie roads last year. Yet the Sydney siege is milked for all that it is worth with its few deaths. So because of the response to one nutter I am in fear of the growing powers of the anti terror agencies.
In Sydney the police are the crime.These two spent so much time with infighting between each other and Nick Kaldos they neglected their basic responsibilities.The outcome for Burn will probably that she will be allowed to retire early on a full pension.
The role of ASIO in this affair will probably never be revealed but I suspect it may significant.
So, does anyone know the name of the Judge who decided to accept Man Monis’ application for bail for the serious charge of “accessory to murder”, knowing Monis’ relevant background from the NSW Prosecutor’s Legal Officer?
Why did Haris demonstrate no evidence of any kind of plan beyond initiating the situation? His actions suggest to me that he was simply playing a bit part in a bigger plan. I’ll bet he did not believe at any stage that he was to be killed. The whole inquiry seems to revolve around the preservation of a pre-determined narrative, and if Burns isn’t sanctioned for her message deletions, then we’ll know she’s protected.
Why do people believe the police are best suited to handle a Lindt type situation.
Have any of the police sharpshooters ever shot and killed a human target, my bet is not one of them.