Port Arthur Massacre 1996

The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole. He is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near Risdon Prison Complex.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There's a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding the guilt of the shooter Martin Bryant such as: conflicting witness accounts identifying a shooter other than Bryant, police not interviewing critical witness' ie Wendy Scurr who made the first call and tended to victims, distorted "official" timelines and the idea it was a government cover up(sound familiar?). Some have also suggested Bryant could not have pulled off the massacre as an intellectually impaired individual.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'd be really interested to hear what others have to say on this topic or if anyone has any other information. I stumbled across the Port Arthur Massacre pretty randomly, I was  in Tasmania just over a year ago and visited Port Arthur for 2 days on a road trip, I came across the memorial purely by accident and was interested to learn more.

queenfarooq wrote:

The Port Arthur massacre of 28 April 1996 was a killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded, mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole. He is now imprisoned in the Wilfred Lopes Centre near Risdon Prison Complex.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There's a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding the guilt of the shooter Martin Bryant such as: conflicting witness accounts identifying a shooter other than Bryant, police not interviewing critical witness' ie Wendy Scurr who made the first call and tended to victims, distorted "official" timelines and the idea it was a government cover up(sound familiar?). Some have also suggested Bryant could not have pulled off the massacre as an intellectually impaired individual.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'd be really interested to hear what others have to say on this topic or if anyone has any other information. I stumbled across the Port Arthur Massacre pretty randomly, I was  in Tasmania just over a year ago and visited Port Arthur for 2 days on a road trip, I came across the memorial purely by accident and was interested to learn more.

(This shooting was discussed over on SBB and someone had offered to email their information to anyone interested but it went down before i could respond and I've forgotten who it was   also someone asked me if they could see my pictures from my visit there but i don't remember who that was either. So if those people are here PM me   )

Hi queenfarooq ,i have been interested in this case for a while. Checkout this police interview with Martin Bryant.[url=loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant]loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant[/url]

Yes I have seen something similar to that interview before. I do find the case very interesting, I have not researched it in a massive amount of detail but just bits here and there. But i know that it was and still is to some a very controversial case.
The following clip from '60 minuets' it includes an interview with his mum where she claims he is innocent, i find his mums account pretty fascinating:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

EDIT: On a slightly unrelated note there are some comments throughout this video from Paul Mullen a Forensic Psychiatrist. He says "almost all of these mass killings start off with a project for suicide," "these people intend to die among their victims, they want to be remembered as powerful, terrible, evil
monsters." "What these people want to do is die in a terrible blaze of publicity, they don't want to finish up in prison etc.. been exposed as the pathetic failures that they actually are." I find this quote could be an accurate description of many mass shooters.

I just discovered this case a few days ago, it's been somewhat in the spotlight since it was the 20th anniversary of the massacre in April. I just wish I could find more info, I'm not sure if it's because I'm in the US and it happened in Australia, or just because there isn't a great deal of information available in general. I'd like to see a full/longer version of the police interview, instead of just snippets from a news program that is heavily biased. I read the transcript of the interview, but it really isn't the same as seeing the video, and his body language/tone, etc. I still need to do more research, try to find witness testimonies and such, but so far I'm kind of leaning towards his innocence. I need better sources to make an educated decision though.

I met a guy in a hostel a couple of nights ago who loved a few doors down from Martin Bryant. The guy himself resembled him a lot as well (as Bryant looked at the time of the shooting, not his fat state now). He was pretty upset when another fella started talking about the conspiracies etc.

Here are some other videos from the police interviews. They aired this episode on Martin Bryant abut a week or few before the anniversary this year. I had never seen them before and found them pretty interesting. I was on the fence with all the cospiracy theories and then did some research and began to believe he was innocent until I watch these police interview videos. There is one part in the interview where Martin Bryant says something along the lines of

Martin- "Gee, I sure do hope you find the person who did this...." (points his thumbs toward himself with a smug look on his facell "me..."

Police- "That's not funny mate"

Martin- "I bet you wish you got that on record.."

Police- "the camera is still recording.. it hasn't been turned off..."

Martin- then looks at the camera with an expression that says... "I just fucked up" quickly shuts up..

That's just one of many parts that stood out for me and pretty much made up my mind that he is guilty. He was also laughing while flicking through the crime scene photos of the people (including two young children) he had murdered.

I don't know but the way he acts on those videos and his whole demeanor and the things he says just screams guilty to me. An innocent person would not act that way even if he was being coherced or threatened to plead guilty he definitely wouldn't be so smug about it.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it though. I live in Australia and find it really interesting. Over here it is definitely a time in history that isn't talked about pretty much at all. I was actually really surprised they had this on TV because people just don't talk about it over here.

So sorry after all that I never actually posted the link to those videos. Here they are!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I knew someone who actually lived the area when it happened, she planned to visit the site that day but said she flew to Sydney to visit family instead.

I remember being at school and our teacher told us about how the massacre changed gun laws in Australia and we watched a documentary on it

Army of One wrote:

I remember being at school and our teacher told us about how the massacre changed gun laws in Australia and we watched a documentary on it

Exactly! Thank you! After various significant gun crimes gun laws were changed immediately as you said in Australia, Canada, in the U.K. and here we are in the U.S basically having gun murders in a span of a week, the recent one being the deadliest in U.S soil.
Don't mind the statement that I'm gonna make as it almost literally fits, but being a citizen in America is basically living an everyday real life russian roulette. Someone who may have read a horrid gun-related massacre, may become a victim of one the next.

Have ou ever watched the police training video of the massacre? That's pretty disturbing.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] yes saw a glimpse of it. Eerie. My fav is the interview of Martin. That guy is a riot.

I'm curious, does anyone have a link to the Martin Bryant police interview that isn't from the Sunday Night program aired in Australia? It's the only one that I've ever been able to find, and it's all cut up in short clips in between interviews. I just really wanna see a FULL video of the police interview, unedited. Is that even a thing we have access to? Again, just curious

I'm not sure. I have searched and not found anything until Sunday night aired that episode with "never before seen footage." I could be wrong and I'm not exactly the best at sourcing things like this myself but I think these clips might be all that is available. If you do happen to come across the full video please post it here because I would really love to see it. I'm really on the fence with this one. Guilty or not?

Although my opinion isn't favorable, I think he's innocent. There are WAY too many things that don't add up. I could make a huge post about every reason why I feel the way I do about it, but I don't feel like delving that deep at the moment, as there are MANY facets to the story. I don't normally go along with "conspiracy theories" and try to form my own opinions based on my own research, but in this case, there are just way too many red flags and unanswered questions. I'd be really interested to hear other people's thoughts on this case/subject. It's fascinating and maddening and super sad!

I think Bryant is guilty.

Joeyy wrote:

So sorry after all that I never actually posted the link to those videos. Here they are!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Am I being a moron or is part 2 missing off there?

Anyone have a link to it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think it is indeed missing, I've never been able to find part 2.

cypressdustwitch wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think it is indeed missing, I've never been able to find part 2.

I've just watched them, I think part one is actually part one and two - it was approx double the length of part three and part 4 so I expect it is the full thing one the three videos available.

I must say, he does appear guilty having watched this.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think anyone would think he was guilty if they only watched the Sunday Night program. It's HEAVILY biased, and the way it was edited shows that as well. Have you ever read the transcript of the interview with the police? That is a MUCH more informative piece of information. It's a bit lengthy, but if you have a genuine interest in the case, it's definitely worth the read.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] what other reason or evidence is there to prove he wasn't guilty?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] There are many, many reasons why I believe he isn't guilty.

For starters, Martin was an amateur when it came to guns. He had them, but he had very little experience shooting them. That doesn't add up when we take a look at how many people were killed in such a short time frame and with such accuracy. Inexperienced shooters aren't accurate. MANY more people would have had to have been injured in the massacre for it to even be plausible that Martin was the perpetrator. It would take an expert marksman to achieve that kind of kill count with so little injured.

In the police interviews, the only thing Martin admits to is stealing a car and putting a man in the trunk, and he had zero knowledge of the massacre until the police informed him of it. He denies again and again that he had anything to do with it, and his alibi seemed solid enough for me. He even filed an original plea of not guilty, and only after months of being kept in solitary confinement did he change his plea to guilty. This raises red flags for me. As we know, Martin wasn't very bright, and therefore he'd be much more susceptible to intimidation/coercion/threats made to him. It seems to me that he was forced to file a guilty plea and forgo a real trial.

These are just a few of the reasons I believe he is an innocent man.

There is a severe lack of evidence when it comes to this case, so it's not like I'm over here saying that what I think is stone cold fact. I don't know anything for sure, but just from the research I have done, he seems to me like an innocent man who was framed for a much bigger purpose. I'm not trying to be controversial, I'm just expressing my opinion on the subject.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] what about the video captured on the scene as it was happening and we see him or, a guy with blonde hair like his? and the whole situation about stealing a guy's car and taking off with it which Martin admitted in the interview? and the eyewitnesses describing him? That one guy he didn't shoot and made contact with because he knew him before and was nice to him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Really?

The eyewitness accounts were compromised due to the media releasing Martin's photo before all the statements had been taken.

Videos can easily be manipulated and in my opinion, that video is barely proof of anything. The person doesn't look like Martin, and wasn't even wearing what Martin said he was wearing that day. It's not that hard to throw a wig on someone as a disguise. Plus, it's Australia, I'm sure there are plentyyyyy of men with long blonde hair.

Again, the only videos anyone has of him are from the Sunday Night program which is again, HEAVILY biased, so if you're basing your opinions simply on that, then maybe you should do your research.

I'm not down to get into some big debate about it. I have my opinions and I expressed them, but I don't feel that I need to explain myself anymore to you. You seem to want to try and change my mind, which isn't going to happen. I think he's an innocent man based on my research, and that's all.

cypressdustwitch wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Really?

The eyewitness accounts were compromised due to the media releasing Martin's photo before all the statements had been taken.

Videos can easily be manipulated and in my opinion, that video is barely proof of anything. The person doesn't look like Martin, and wasn't even wearing what Martin said he was wearing that day. It's not that hard to throw a wig on someone as a disguise. Plus, it's Australia, I'm sure there are plentyyyyy of men with long blonde hair.

Again, the only videos anyone has of him are from the Sunday Night program which is again, HEAVILY biased, so if you're basing your opinions simply on that, then maybe you should do your research.

I'm not down to get into some big debate about it. I have my opinions and I expressed them, but I don't feel that I need to explain myself anymore to you. You seem to want to try and change my mind, which isn't going to happen. I think he's an innocent man based on my research, and that's all.

Calm down. I'm not trying to change your mind. Obviously you know more than me. That's just even a gist of what I know about the case, I'm not as committed to it.

So you think Martin was their patsy and they used him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I'm totally calm, I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything. It seemed to me that you were questioning my reasoning, and I don't feel as if I should have to defend myself, as everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Anyway, yes, I believe Martin was the perfect patsy for them to use.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] What are your thoughts on Martin's lawyer growing weirdly attached to him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think that man simply used Martin as an excuse to try and justify his crimes. His lawyer, John Avery, stole more than half a million dollars from his clients and other law firms. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with Martin. It was just a really really poor excuse.

I believe that Avery had a hand in convincing Martin to plead guilty. I also believe that Martin should have been appointed a new lawyer from the start due to the fact that Avery knew him and his family since he was a child, and had an unfavorable opinion of Martin. How are you supposed to defend someone in court if you yourself believe your client is guilty? That man hated Martin and would do anything he could to see him go down. Completely unfair and unjust.

cypressdustwitch wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I think that man simply used Martin as an excuse to try and justify his crimes. His lawyer, John Avery, stole more than half a million dollars from his clients and other law firms. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with Martin. It was just a really really poor excuse.

I believe that Avery had a hand in convincing Martin to plead guilty. I also believe that Martin should have been appointed a new lawyer from the start due to the fact that Avery knew him and his family since he was a child, and had an unfavorable opinion of Martin. How are you supposed to defend someone in court if you yourself believe your client is guilty? That man hated Martin and would do anything he could to see him go down. Completely unfair and unjust.

Ah yes thank you for reminding me. His lawyer stole a bunch of money, and now he's all over the place on TV reminiscing about Martin really strangely. John Avery is a poor excuse for a man.

A couple of questions...

Why would the lawyer hate Bryant? Did he not only know him as the kid who sold skinned rabbits? Apparently, he had to ask his wife if they knew him as he didn't really recall him?

I know that's going off the info on the programme you said had twisted things.

Also, what is the deal then where Bryant was admitting to a kidnap? Was this a coincidence on the same day he decided to kidnap someone at gunpoint or do you think he was referring to another day?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Maybe saying he hated Martin was a bold statement, but I know he never had Martin's best interests at heart. He's described Martin as a "sad, insipid little boy" and openly talked about using Martin's lack of intelligence against him to file a guilty plea. He was Martin's lawyer, hired to defend him, and instead of taking things to trial and believing Martin when he said he was innocent, he manipulated his client into pleading guilty.

I'm not sure if Martin actually kidnapped the guy, hoping just to joyride around for a bit and then give him back his car, or if that never even happened and he was just fabricating a story to try and please the officers, because at that point I don't believe he had any idea of why he was even in police custody. Those are just a couple theories. The kidnapping/Seascape scenario is the most confusing part of the case for me, and I could probably theorize all day about how things went down and how Martin wound up there. Who really knows.  

A few things I picked up in my research that has me leaning towards not guilty. I'll list them quickly as I'm too lazy to type out all of it haha.

-The kill to wound ratio doesn't add up like cypressdustwitch previously brought up. Going by the amount of head shots and the time frame he would have had to have a lot of experience with guns. I remember ready an interview with one of the best target shooters in Australia who served as a sniper I think in the army. Anyway he basically said that he wouldn't even be able to pull of a shooting of that accuracy. I read this information years ago so my memory on the specifics is a little fuzzy but you get the point that it's pretty impossible that Martin could have pulled this off let alone by himself.I will try and find the link to the interview and post it if I find it.

-From what I can find there is no physical evidence whatsoever to place Martin at the scene on that day. Even though according to witness reports he went into the cafe and sat down and ate. The lady who's name escapes me right now who was sitting at the table right beside him and saw him before he stood up and began shooting specifically said he took a sip out of a can of sprite off his tray... however there is no record of this can in the police report and therefore no DNA lifted off it to prove who it was. Where did this can go? Where did his food tray with finger prints go?

-The lady who I mentioned (I will find you a name i promise) above who was sitting at the table next to the shooter has always said the shooter was not Martin Bryant. In fact she fought so hard to make sure everyone knew it wasn't him that when it came to witness testimonies in court she received a letter saying they would not be needing her testimony in court and that she was not allowed to speak to an media about what she saw. Why would they stop a key witness who sat next to the shooter and saw exactly who they were from speaking in court? Apparently she actually toured around Australia to speak publicly about how Martin is innocent.

-the witness statements that they took only brought in for questioning about the shooting months after it had occurred. Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to question them straight after the incident when their memories would he the best, not after months of watching media reports on what happened at the shooting and Martin's face plastered everywhere. One witness actually stated when they were showing her pictures of different people to identify the shooter that she thinks it was Martin Bryant but it could just be because she has seen his picture plastered everywhere and she can't be sure. Why would they wait that long to question witnesses?

- that video you talked about. The person only came out with that video again months after the shooting I'm pretty sure he was a veteran too and he coincidentally forgot about the video he took of Australias worst mass shooting and only remembered months after. .. what?

Anyway like I said Im going purely off my memory from when I researched the shooting so I can't remember some specifics or names but I will see if I can find them for you and post it here so you can read through it.

I have heard a theory that when Martin first pleaded not guilty there was panic because he only had one more court date to plead guilty and if he didn't it would go to trial. If it went to trial it's believed they would have had nothing on bryant if he pleaded guilty due to lack of physical evidence including DNA placing him at the scene. So they had to keep the case from goung to trial by any means necessary. That's why his first lawyer was fired and he was given a new lawyer (John Avery). All of a sudden with his new lawyer and solitary confinement he pleads guilty? That's way too much coincidence...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] all of your points are super valid, thank you for bringing them up!

Could the female witness you're speaking of be Wendy Scurr (Schurr)? I've seen it spelled both ways. Anyway, I could be thinking of a different witness but I figured I'd throw it out there. Even if it's not her you're talking about, her testimony is quiiiiiiiite interesting.

I fully believe Martin Bryant was responsible for the shootings.

It's a well known fact over here that this guy wasn't capable of pulling off the shooting, he's too spasticated. Thanks to whatever dickhead actually did it we no longer have guns.

Also for all the people who think the police would be capable of catching the actual shooter, absolutely not. Australian police don't really give a shit because stuff like this isn't really a daily occurrence, it took them like 10 years to track some gross pedo cunt down that killed some kid even though they had all the evidence that this guy killed the kid. Even worse this shooting happened in Hobart, lowest IQ state of all time TBH (that's why Martin lived there probably).

It dosent take much skill to kill lots of people with a semi-automatic rifle at close range.

His lawyer got so affected by him, wow.

I'd say Martin Bryant is underrated, as people seem to forget about him as compared to the  columbine shooters.


Is there anywhere at all where the full police interview videos can be found (unedited)?

Port Arthur police training video WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ziamber II wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Excellent find. I've always been fascinated by Bryant.

I can never find part 2 of the SN interview (2016).

Ziamber II wrote:

I can never find part 2 of the SN interview (2016).

If you attend a university you can get the full SN interview from the online library. That's what I did.

Ziamber II wrote:

Port Arthur police training video  WARNING, GRAPHIC IMAGES

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"for police eyes only"

yeah look how well that warning worked.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

also, here is a website for the complete transcript of an interview with him.

notice how martin sometimes changes something from before to after or changes numbers sometimes. also note that the interviewers state that they don't like guns. fishy

martin also says he doesn't own the FN rifle used in the shooting

also says he shouldnt be in prison,whole event is confusing

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] That quintuple posting 

QuestionMark wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] That quintuple posting 

i get obsessive when i find out new stuff