Request for a Royal Commission into Defence Force Service Personnel who became victims of decades of Defence Force Abusers, Rapists, Pack Rapists and Military Paedophiles.

Bastardisation at Duntroon has spanned a period of over 60 years and in recent news articles the abuse has led to a Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) inquiry http://www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

Had the media accurately reported on DUNTROON BASTARDISATION in 1986-87 it is a view that later decades of abusers at Duntroon and ADFA would not have been able to offend, attack, harass, silence and rape other Cadets, including pack rape, that became exposed by the #SKYPEScandal in 2011 and alot earlier as the #ADFA24Rapes investigated by the AFP in 1998.

Two Duntroon abuse cases (Robyn Fahy in 1986 and Julian Knight in 1987) would have, or should have alerted the AUSTRALIAN MEDIA to the sickening and revolting abuses and pack rapes at Duntroon, ADFA and elsewhere that have now become exposed by a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. Refer to http://www.smh.com.au/national/royal-commission-into-child-sexual-abuse-defence-force-recruits-forced-to-rape-each-other-20160621-gpo36m.html and http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-abuse-will-continue-royal-commission-20160628-gptn3k.html

___________________________________________
In a Letter written to THE AGE Editor titled “Media reports ... have been selective” by the Director of The Criminal Law Division, Legal Aid Commission Victoria and published on 5 December 1988.

___________________________________________
That Letter to the Editor in 1988 reads:
___________________________________________
“ from M. O’Brien, associate director (criminal law division) the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria.

As the legal representative for Julian Knight, the person who pleaded guilty to the Hoddle Street shootings, I am concerned about some media coverage of this even which has been selective in what it has chosen to show to the public and misleading in attributing certain comments to Julian Knight and alleging some matters as factual.

By and large the media coverage of these events has been responsible. However, since the police, quite inappropriately in my view have released copies of audio tapes and video tapes to the media, some coverage has been, as said previously, both selective and misleading.

Julian Knight has been presented as a person who has shown no remorse for his actions. Portions of the tapes have been shown in support of that contention. Those parts of the tapes which indicate some remorse for these tragic and sad events have not been publicised nor, in certain quarters, ever been mentioned.

That Julian Knight, subsequent to these events, suffered a breakdown and was suicidal is a matter of public record. Expert medical evidence states this to have been generated by remorse.

Certain statements have been attributed to Julian Knight subsequent to his sentence. The source of these alleged statements was not disclosed. The fact is that these statements were not made by Julian Knight.

It has been claimed that Julian Knight is in possession of the re-enactment tape and may try to sell it. The fact is not only that Julian Knight does not possess a copy of that tape or any other video tape connected with the Hoddle Street shootings but also that to date he has not viewed that tape apart from what has appeared on the media.

Julian Knight by pleading guilty has acknowledged his responsibility for terrible crimes. He has now to serve a period of time nearly 50 per cent greater than the period he has been alive for prior to being considered for release.

There is no guarantee that he will be released after 27 years. At that time he simply becomes eligible to be considered for release.

The heinousness of his offences cannot be denied. Nevertheless, the media coverage of those events and the perpetrator of them ought to be balanced. M.O’Brien, Melbourne.”