The evidence against Thomas Sewell is extremely poor

Thomas Sewell.

We have established that Thomas Sewell has been effectively jailed without trial for his political beliefs. He has been denied bail on the pretext that he is apparently “violent”, this this characterisation is based solely on his political beliefs and ignores the context of actions he has taken in self defence.

Examination of the evidence put against him, gleaned from publicly available documents, strengthens the case that he has been jailed for his political beliefs given that the evidence is so contradictory. Furthermore it appears the point of the whole exercise is to keep him in prison on charges that they won’t be able to convict him for.

The police are basing their evidence on witness statements from alleged victims. These alleged victims cannot be described due to the suppression order.

Jacob Hersant has stated publicly that the alleged victims are “anti-fascists” before the suppression order. He also gave a no comment interview when he was arrested in relation to an alleged armed robbery, he has not been charged, and has been advised by legal counsel to not speak about Thomas Sewell’s alleged offending until he gives testimony in court.

The police have not sought, nor do they have any statements from the “about 25 White supremacist men” that are said to have been present during the alleged offending.

Here are claims about the alleged offending that have reported by the media. Keep in mind, that these are solely based on statements from the (likely) anti-fascists and speculation from the police.

The Magistrate found there are “frailties” with the prosecution case:

“Magistrate Timothy Bourke found there were “frailties” with the prosecution case but was not convinced Mr Sewell made a compelling case for bail. There was also an unacceptable risk to the public, he found and refused bail.” – The Age

As stated this “unacceptable risk to the public” is based solely on his political beliefs and the mischaracterisation of them as violent.

The Prosecution admits inconsistencies in witness statements from alleged victims:

“But under cross-examination, the detective acknowledged there were inconsistencies in the hikers’ statements and that investigators couldn’t definitively say which of the neo-Nazis produced weapons or demanded the phones.” – The Age

One example of inconsistent evidence is the reporting by that the alleged victims offered their phones to the alleged attackers:

“The hikers “pleaded” with the attackers, saying “What do you want?” and offering them their phones before managing to drive away and call police, he said.”

Were the phones offered by the alleged victims or were they stolen by the alleged attackers?

Police have seized a number of knives from Sewell’s bedroom, but have not linked any of them to the alleged offending:

Det Sen Const Taylor said police found hunting knives and an axe in Sewell’s bedroom and knuckledusters in his car, and have concerns that he is becoming increasingly erratic, volatile and violent. – SBS News

“Concerns” based on the the charactersiation of his political beliefs as violent. Furthermore, no stolen goods have been found in possession of alleged offenders:

“Mr Sewell is the only person charged over the attack but the investigation continues. The hikers’ phones weren’t recovered.” – The Age

Intriguingly, the alleged victims admit they identified the organisation the alleged offenders belong to and what their political beliefs are:

“Detective Senior Constable Michael Taylor told the court that the hikers had crossed paths with the neo-Nazis in the park and that a bushwalker remarked to friends that the Caucasian men in black T-shirts must have been “the Nazis in the Grampians”.” – The Age

“The hikers saw between 15 and 20 white men all wearing the same black T-shirt with a white supremacist symbol on it and suspected they were neo-Nazis, the court heard.”

Going off these two snippets, these “bushwalkers” do not sound like normies. Ordinary people would not make an assumption that a group of guys in black T-shirts were Nazis. What about this so-called “white supremacist symbol” on the the T-shirts? The blokes do seem to have a black T-shirt bearing a White cross.

It’s a White cross. The cross is about as universal a symbol as you can get in the West. Football teams have crosses on their guernseys:

Christians wear T-shirts with crosses on them.

It is true that the cross is synonymous with Europeans and Christianity:

The cross on their T-shirt could thus very well be meant to represent White Supremacy, not that there is anything wrong with that. But that isn’t the point. The point is that normal people wouldn’t see a bunch of White guys wearing black T-shirts with a cross on them and immediately assume they were “neo-Nazis”. Normal people would assume that they are a youth group or a football club doing team building.

To reach a conclusion such as this suggests a political mindset, it suggests a left-wing political mindset and a very radical one at that. So radical in fact that when you see a bunch of White guys in black T-shirts with a White cross on them climbing a mountain, you become so suspicious that you start filming them:

“As they left in two separate cars, one of the alleged victims used his phone to record a video of the group, which he recognised from news stories.” – ABC

This casts doubt on the reason given by some of the alleged victims who are refusing to give sworn statements:

“Some hikers were “petrified” of reprisal attacks and had not given statements, the detective said.” – The Age

In contrast, it makes it sound like the alleged victims have something to hide. Furthermore it makes it sound like the police have something to hide – if the alleged victims are indeed politically affiliated, it could indicate collusion between the police and possible left wing political activists.

This is important because both the Prosecution and police explicitly state that none of the alleged victims have ties to the left-wing or anti-fascists:

About 3.40pm one of the hikers took a video of the men as they were getting back to their car to leave and then heard a shout of ‘Antifa!’, police allege.

“There is no intelligence that (the hikers) are part of any left-wing or Antifa organisation,” Detective Senior Constable Taylor said. –

“None of the six hikers have any ties to any left-wing organisations including Antifa.” – SBS News

There is evidence which could directly contradict this, and it comes directly from Antifa-affiliated activists. Anti-fascist influencer Tom Stephens, who posts under the alias Tom Tanuki, made a Twitter post which included the exact location of the alleged offending, named the organisation involved in the alleged offending, and stated an approximate number of the organisation’s members that were at the location. This post was made at 3:58 pm, only twenty minutes after the alleged offending. Tom Stephens was not present during the alleged offending. Melbourne Antifascist Info shared this post, and these posts are still up:

Tom Tanuki appears worried how this looks, so he has confirmed that he posted the information 20 minutes after the incident occurred and that he got the information from a “local news report”.

This would require both himself and “a local newspaper” to really have their finger on the pulse. Note that he does not specify which local newspaper and which report. Put simply, it is difficult to believe and definitely warrants further investigation.

Given that the statements of the alleged “witnesses” indicate a potential far left political mindset, and given that Antifa openly admit that they posted critical details about the alleged event a mere 20 minutes after it occurred, this casts doubt on the reason the alleged witnesses were at the Cathedral Ranges in the first place.

Further investigation is warranted to confirm their claim that they were just there for a bushwalk, whether or not they had gone to the Cathedral Ranges based on intelligence that members of an organisation they oppose would be there, and whether or not they had gone there with the intention of stalking, harassing and doxxing the members.

However, investigations along this line could be difficult to follow through, particularly if this reveals collusion between authorities and far left organisations.

Several suspicious events in recent years strengthen the suspicion of collusion between elements of Victoria Police and Antifa. In April 2016 Ryan Fletcher attended an anti-Halal protest at the Flemington Showgrounds. Antifa activists swarmed the group he was with from all sides. He was bashed over the head by Antifa terrorists.

The police were right there.

The police only intervened when it looked as though the patriots were getting the upper hand. No-one was ever charged for this act of terrorism, and as far as we know there is no ongoing investigation to find the perpetrators.

This is intriguing, given that Ryan Fletcher’s image was appropriated and merged with Blair Cottrell’s to sell the flop TV series adaptation of Romper Stomper:

Furthermore, this Romper Stomper series not only recreated the bashing of Ryan Fletcher, it presented the people who assaulted him as heroes, and the composite character of Ryan Fletcher and Blair Cottrell died in the course of the series. The makers of the series have never been charged with incitement to murder.

When alt-light speakers Milo Yiannopoulos, Stephan Molyneux and Lauren Southern toured Australia in 2017 and 2018, Victoria Police had the audacity to try to charge them for the expense of protecting them from Antifa terrorism.

At the December 2017 Milo event in Melbourne, Antifa terrorists were allowed to make a beeline for Neil Erikson the moment they saw him and attack him. This led to this epic photo:

Once again police intervened when the patriots got the upper hand. Naturally, Erikson was charged for defending himself. In one incident in Melbourne for the Molyneux/Southern tour, Antifa terrorists tried to tip a bus.

One has to ask how Antifa ever got in a position to do any of this.

This is important as Antifa terrorists have a history of violently assaulting nationalists, patriots, and ordinary conservatives who attempt to publicly protest, or even to merely gather in public.

Conversely, Victoria Police have seemed quite inept in preventing this violence, and the Victorian judicial system has been extremely lenient towards Marxist agitators and extremely unforgiving of ordinary Australians who just want our country back. Meanwhile the media relentlessly characterises the victims of political violence in Victoria – ordinary Aussies – as the perpetrators and the violent thugs – Antifa – as the heroes.

This is important in relation to the official story of events at the Cathedral Ranges. We know that Antifa routinely initiate unprovoked violence against anybody opposed to their cause, and we know that the media and police regularly blame the victims of Antifa violence for defending themselves. Any actions taken by Thomas Sewell must be viewed in the context of this history of unprovoked Antifa violence against nationalist, patriotic and conservative activists.

This history of unprovoked Antifa violence would strengthen the case that any actions undertaken by Thomas Sewell were done so in self defence, or that he at least believed himself to be acting in self defence.

In conclusion, in addition to the politicised nature of Victoria’s media, Victoria Police and the Victorian judicial system, when we consider:

  • Contradictory witness statements from alleged victims
  • Evidence that the alleged witnesses could in fact be political activists
  • The public social media statements of known Antifa leaders
  • A possible history of collusion between elements of Victoria Police and Antifa

We have cause to doubt the material facts surrounding this incident as they have been presented by police, by the prosecution and by the media.