Port Arthur Massacre

 Port Arthur Massacre (mass murder)

Date	1996/04/28
Location	Port Arthur,  Tasmania
Blamed on	Martin Bryant
Interest of	Paul Moder
Description	A mass shooting incident in and around Port Arthur Tasmania on 28 April 1996

Official narrative

The Port Arthur massacre of 28-29 April 1996 was a killing spree which claimed the lives of 35 people and wounded 37 others mainly at the historic Port Arthur prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. The attack was perpetrated by "lone nut" Martin Bryant, a 28-year-old from New Town, a suburb of Hobart, who after initially denying responsibility, eventually pleaded guilty to the crimes and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.

Undisputed facts

The majority of the official story is agreed to by all alternatives to the official story. These include:

35 people died and 37 were injured

No version of an alternative to the official story has ever suggested a different death toll.

At least 29 of the 35 deaths were killed by the same person

With the exception of the 3 deaths at Seascape (Noelene Martin, David Martin and Glen Roy Pears) and the 3 deaths on the road between Port Arthur and Seascape (Nanette Mikac and her 2 young daughters Allannah Mikac and Madelline Mikac), the other 29 were all photographed and videotaped being shot, with eye witnesses for all of the murders, all proving that they were all shot and killed by the same gunman.

While there were no witnesses to the other 6 murders (in spite of Nanette Mikac's husband Walter Mikac writing a book saying that Martin Bryant did it, he actually didn't see anything at all as he was too busy hiding), few have disputed that they were done by the same person, or at least someone connected with the same person. They were certainly not unrelated deaths.

"Jaimie", who spoke to police at the Seascape Siege, was Martin Bryant

While he wasn't photographed at Port Arthur, voice match analysis has proven that it was Martin Bryant who was making demands to police during the siege. While it may have been theoretically possible for someone else to have copied his voice, or using audio tapes etc, no opposition to the official story has ever suggested that this was the case.

Martin Bryant was captured at Seascape

Martin Bryant was photographed and videotaped by major mass media walking out of the Seascape Lodge with his hands in the air saying "Don't shoot - I'm the hostage". There is no doubt that that was Martin Bryant, the same man who was arrested. No version of any alternative to the official narrative has ever suggested that that was anyone else.

At the time of the attacks, it was described as a terrorist attack with 4-5 suspects

Proponents of both major conspiracy theories (the "Jews did it" theory and the "gun control" theory) agree that at the time it was described as a terrorist attack, which is also agreed to both by the official story at the time of the event, and all versions of the official story that have transpired since. Indeed, all versions of the conspiracy theory and official story agree that, in some definition, it was a terrorist attack.

Major differences between official narrative and alternative versions

While the majority of the factual content of what happens is agreed to by both official and alternative sides, the parts that are disagreed to are significant.

Martin Bryant was the killer at Port Arthur

While nobody disputes that Martin Bryant was at Seascape, there are many reasons to suggest that he wasn't at Port Arthur: 1. He had an alibi, including witnesses, photos and even videotape placing him 70-90km away. 2. Of the thousands of eye witnesses to the massacre, not a single one ever identified him as the killer. 3. Of the 30+ eye witnesses who knew Martin Bryant previously, they all unanimously stated that he was not the killer. 4. Martin Bryant was banned from Port Arthur, and would not have been able to sneak in past the guards at the gate. 5. Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66, and would not have been capable of performing such a complicated task. 6. Martin Bryant did not own a gun, did not have a gun license, and had never fired a gun before. 7. The description of the gunman was not remotely like Martin Bryant.

Martin Bryant did it to get back at Noelene and David Martin for not selling Seascape to him

The official narrative suggests that Martin Bryant killed his two best friends in a blind rage, then went to sleep, waking up the next morning to see their dead bodies, having breakfast, going out for a while, then making his way to Port Arthur where he killed a bunch of people he didn't know because of the psychosis that he had as a result of killing his two best friends, he then left Port Arthur, took a hostage and killed a mother and two small children, before killing that hostage at Seascape and then laying siege to it for 18 hours before setting fire to it, only to walk out with his hands in the air claiming to be the hostage.

That part of the official narrative is not accepted by anyone at all, not even people that 100% support the official narrative. Even on Wikipedia it is sketched over, with a pretense that his reason for doing it is unknown or alternatively that he did it for publicity.

Most killers will say why they did it, if they confess. He pleaded guilty, yet he didn't say why he did it. Indeed, even if he wanted to, he isn't allowed to say it now, due to the extreme suppression order that forbids him from talking to anyone other than his mother. Media can't interview him. Nobody can.

During his police interview, Martin Bryant seemed detached and uncaring when asked about the people that died at Port Arthur, but when he was asked about Noelene and David Martin dying, he was in shock and broke down in tears. The difference in his reaction is significant.

Martin Bryant had Asperger's syndrome and was smart enough to commit this crime

At the time of the attacks, Martin Bryant had a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia, but, following the attacks, a court-appointed psychiatrist changed the diagnosis to Asperger's syndrome (high functioning autism). This is a major bone of contention amongst critics of the official story. Firstly, while you can change a diagnosis after a short 30 minute session, it can't be accepted as fact until it is considered against years of study. People are regularly misdiagnosed, and Asperger's syndrome is one of the most poorly diagnosed psychiatric illnesses of them all. It was noted by many that his diagnosis of schizophrenia would have seen him set free, while with Asperger's syndrome he could be found guilty, and many opponents to the official story have focused on this fact as evidence that the change in diagnosis was falsified.

Regardless of his diagnosis, though, he had an IQ of 66, which is low enough that he would have trouble firing a gun, let alone weapons of the complexity used in the massacre, let alone when he had no gun licence and had never previously fired a weapon before. Let alone the degree of accuracy of the firing.

The degree of accuracy was because of how close the targets were

While it is easy to be accurate at firing at close range when targets are not moving, when they are running away from you, or trying to tackle you to take the weapon off you, the closeness of the targets makes them that much harder to kill, not easier. At least two of the victims were black belt karate experts, who were trained explicitly in disarming someone from close range. While weapons experts are taught techniques to prevent guns being taken off them in this manner, someone who has never fired a gun before could not do it.

The degree of accuracy, with 27 deaths from 24 bullets in 30 seconds, is incredible, no matter how close the targets were. If you can fire that accurately, you should be competing in the Olympic Games, not on a disability support pension.

What is the connection between Seascape and Port Arthur?

Port Arthur and Seascape Lodge are over 50km from each other, or a 40 minute drive away. There are several towns between Port Arthur and Seascape Lodge, and no witnesses saw the gunman go from Port Arthur to Seascape. So how did they know that the Port Arthur gunman was at Seascape?

The answer to this one isn't often revealed in the official story, but it was well known at the time: police were tipped off by people who knew about this plot before it happened. Over 100 different people reported to police, in the wake of the massacre, that this plan was made in advance and that they were heading to Seascape afterwards. The same people that tipped off police also revealed the name of Martin Bryant, which had not been revealed prior to the events moving to Seascape.

The question that is asked by opponents to the official story is how did they know? And why didn't police know about this event before it happened?

Nobody disputes that the two events were related. Indeed, while there is very much a possibility that the Port Arthur gunman did not go to Seascape, no version opposing the official story suggests that they are unrelated. Whoever was at Port Arthur was also at Seascape. Martin Bryant was not at Port Arthur but was at Seascape. So whoever was at Port Arthur was there with Martin Bryant telling him what to say to police.

Why didn't anyone stop the Port Arthur gunman?

There is a crowded cafe when gunfire erupts. What is the first thing that happens? People duck, hide, and get out of the way. What is the second thing that happens? Someone acts like a hero to try to tackle the gunman. Yet, according to the official story, that didn't happen. He was at such close range that there were powder burns on people's faces when he shot them, yet none of them thought to just grab the gun off him.

Eye witness reports, though, tell a very different story, explaining about several occasions when groups of people did tackle the gunman, trying to take the gun off him. But they report that other people were actively involved in stopping them from doing this. In other words, there were other people in the Broad Arrow cafe who were helping the gunman to commit his crime.

This is in multiple witness statements and in much of the testimony, but it is glossed over by proponents of the official story. It was not easy for the gunman to achieve his task unscathed. He had help doing it.

Why didn't the gunman kill himself afterwards?

In most random killings, someone "goes postal" then kills themselves afterwards. You don't normally have a case of someone randomly killing someone then running off to lay siege to a property. There has never been a case in human history of someone committing a murder, sleeping, then waking up the next day to commit a series of random killings, then lay siege to somewhere, then give himself up. Nothing remotely like this has ever happened in human history. No version of a psychosis can lead to this kind of occurrence. If you go postal, then you kill yourself afterwards. That's what you do.

Had Martin Bryant done this as a "going postal" episode, as is claimed, starting off by killing his two best friends, David and Noelene Martin, then going to somewhere close by (of note, Port Arthur was nowhere near Seascape, and was a 40 minute drive away) and killing people, then he would have killed himself at the end of it. Because that's what you do.

This is essentially the difference between a random killing and a planned killing. In a planned killing, done for terrorist reasons, you don't kill yourself. Terrorists keep going for as long as they can, killing as many people as they can and causing as much disruption as they can. If they can get away, then they get away.

In other words, there can be no serious doubt that the way that this happens fits with every possible version of a terrorist attack, not a random killing.

What caused the Seascape fire?

According to the official story, the Seascape fire was started with matches, then ammunition stored at the house caused various banging sounds, as 17 guns owned by David and Noelene Martin were destroyed beyond recognition in the fire.

The big problem with this is that David and Noelene Martin didn't own any guns, and, of all of the 17 guns destroyed in the fire, none of them match the guns that were used in Port Arthur. The shell casings do not match any of them. So what happened to the guns actually used in the massacre? The most likely explanation is that they were disposed of before the gunman went to Seascape. That's what you'd usually do, if you wanted to get away with the crime. The 17 guns that were destroyed in the fire were probably used in the Seascape Siege, but were not used at Port Arthur.

Further, evidence has been produced that the fire was started not with matches but with self-exploding cartridges. This seems hard to believe, because of the sheer danger of doing it, but the evidence is there that all 17 guns were set to self explode, so as to guarantee that they could not be linked with the massacre.

A random killer who gave himself up would have no reason to take such risks to destroy the guns, and this is shown to be further proof that Martin Bryant was not the killer.

Problems

Many concerns exist about the official narrative

Date

This event is known as the "largest single day mass murder in Australian history" and yet it did not happen in a single day. While most people did not become aware of this until 1pm on 28 April 1996, it had actually begun the night before, 27 April 1996, with the deaths of David Martin and Noelene Martin, the owners and operators of the Seascape Lodge, which was also the location of the final death, of the hostage, Glen Roy Pears, who died sometime either before or during the siege of the property, which ended at 7am on 29 April 1996 with Seascape being set fire to and Martin Bryant walking out of the property with his hands in the air stating "don't shoot, I'm the hostage". While 32 people died on 28 April 1996, and all 37 of the injured were injured on that date, it is inaccurate to refer to this as a single day mass murder. It has widely been speculated that this changing of the dates is linked in with the aim to push this as a random act, which only occurred because of the legality of automatic weapons. But with significant evidence of thought and planning, and a 3 day long event, that does not make sense.

Significance of the date

25 April is a significant date in the Australian calendar, as it is the date, in World War I, that Australian and New Zealand forces landed in Gallipolli, in the most horrific of all battles involving Australians in any war. This date has been used by terrorists in Australia almost every year, with assassination attempts, bombings, terrorism, and protests both violent and peaceful happening every single year. The date of 28 April 1996 is just 3 days after ANZAC Day, and at the time it was thought to be yet another ANZAC Day terrorist plot. The entire time that the event was taking place, the media regarded it as a terrorist attack, with the presumption that there were several gunmen, not one, and that it was aimed at tourists, given that Port Arthur is Tasmania's most popular tourist destination. While the exact reason for the terrorism was unknown, guesses suggested along the lines of the foreign tour guides who were then working in Port Arthur stealing jobs from Tasmanians, with perhaps a nod to Port Arthur's historical past, as a penal colony, insane asylum, and, originally, as the first settlement in Tasmania. As has since been demonstrated, for the entire attack, police regarded this as a terrorist attack with multiple suspects. ASIO were involved and set up a perimeter in treating it as a terrorist attack.

Joe Vialls conspiracy theory

The first conspiracy theory that received mainstream media attention came from Joe Vialls, a conspiracy theorist who is well known for blaming Jews for everything. The facts that he uncovered about the inconsistencies in the Port Arthur massacre were compelling but his conclusion, as always, was absurd. He suggested that Mossad, Israel's secret service, were for some reason involved - apparently because of the type of weapons and tactics used. His conspiracy theory was officially supported by then Australian Prime Minister John Howard, and it was widely supported too, at least until people noticed that he was blaming Jews for the whole thing. That was when people started to support the official story for the first time.

Gun law reform conspiracy theory

In the months after the massacre, Prime Minister John Howard introduced gun law reform, which, amongst Australia's legal gun owners, it came as something that they felt was taking away their civil liberties, a thought that they continue to have to this day. They therefore took the conspiracy theory produced by Joe Vialls but gave it a different conclusion = that, rather than Jews doing it, in fact the Australian Government had done it, with their aim being to take guns away from Australians. While this conclusion was significantly more acceptable than the one produced by Joe Vialls, it still had a fatal flaw = why would the Australian Government kill 35 of its own people just to take guns from people? To people from USA, this conspiracy theory makes sense, as in USA it would have made a big difference, but it made virtually no difference at all to Australia, which never had a gun culture to begin with. "Gun-related deaths" went down in the wake of the gun law reform, to be 1/3 of what it was previously, but neither "murder" nor "armed robbery" went down, and indeed no kind of crime decreased. A closer analysis of the figures reveals what the main type of "gun-related deaths" was prior to 1996 = suicides. Most people who were killed by a gun in Australia prior to 1996 killed themselves. This doesn't happen much anymore. Nowadays, people throw themselves in front of trains a lot more often, jumping off bridges, or in front of buses. That is the only difference that gun law reform made to safety. The difference that gun law reform made to other areas is significant though: farmers have found it much more difficult to kill rabbits and other animals that invade their property, while sporting shooters have found it very difficult to enjoy hunting. Gun law reform made no difference to crime, and no difference to most people in society, only acting as a mild annoyance to a few people in specific situations. But the main difference that gun law reform made was that it made Prime Minister John Howard, then in his first term as Prime Minister, very popular. He won the election based on that, and became Australia's 2nd longest serving Prime Minister because of it. But was his serving for so long enough reason to kill so many people? Few people think that it was. There simply wasn't enough reason to warrant killing that many people.

Could it actually have been terrorism?

At the time of the event, it was described as terrorism. In the leadup to the event, there were fears in the local community that a tourist spot was about to be hit by terrorists, with Port Arthur the most likely target, simply because it was at the time the single largest tourist destination in Tasmania, where the anti-tourist thoughts were. It was treated like a terrorist attack, everyone thought it was a terrorist attack, and terrorism, unlike gun law reform and "Jews did it", actually works as a conclusion, as it lacks that fatal flaw. It also works to explain why the fake Joe Vialls (and later gun law reform) conspiracy theories were produced: because they were close enough to the real story to make it believable.

Point of contention: one shooter or more?

There are numerous reports of 3-4 shooters at Seascape, during the final siege, but in Port Arthur all eye witnesses, photographs and video prove that there was only 1 shooter. But various reports have suggested that, while there was only 1 shooter in the Broad Arrow cafe, that there may have been 1 or more snipers outside helping to make sure that the shooter wasn't captured. This is something that has never been determined for certain either way: while having snipers makes sense for a more successful operation (terrorists or not), the major problem with this idea is that of the thousands of people there nobody at all saw any. However, it does explain why there were shell casings from guns that appeared to come from outside. Another alternative, though, is that those shells came either before or after the massacre, possibly from members of the public, as at the time you could legally bring guns into Port Arthur, and nobody checked whether you had them or not.

Port of contention: could Martin Bryant have been at Port Arthur?

Official narrative aside, there is a version of a conspiracy theory that says that Martin Bryant was at Port Arthur and was shooting people, but that he did it following administration of a mind control drug. The main problem with this idea is that Martin Bryant was not mentally capable of it, no matter what drug he was given, and no drug exists that could improve his powers of concentration, his abilities to handle a firearm, and so forth. Furthermore, no eye witness ever positively identified him, and of the 30+ people there that knew him previously, none of them said that he was there. Martin Bryant also had an alibi that placed him over 70km away from Port Arthur at the time of the shootings. This alibi is complete with eye witness testimony, photographs and even video footage from stores he went to. Not only that but Martin Bryant was banned from Port Arthur - for singing. He would not have gotten past the guards at the gate, because his photograph was there as someone who was forbidden entry. There is simply no possibility that Martin Bryant could have been at Port Arthur.

Point of contention: why was Martin Bryant at Seascape?

The simple answer to this is: Martin Bryant worked there as someone who carried bags for hotel guests. He had a legitimate explanation for being at Seascape at the time, which he explained in his police interview: he was out shopping and doing his usual things before heading to work. Bryant claimed not to have heard about what had happened at Port Arthur, and he protested that even if he had known, it was so far away that he didn't think it had anything to do with him. While this makes sense, few believe that Martin Bryant really went to Seascape just to go to work. There is no version of a conspiracy theory that states that he was innocently minding his own business and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Point of contention: why was Martin Bryant talking to police as "Jaimie"?

There is no doubt that the person who spoke to police, using the pseudonym "Jaimie" was in fact Martin Bryant. The question is why he was the one talking. Given that police and media at the time stated repeatedly that there were 3-4 shooters, why didn't one of them talk to police? The most common explanation given is that Martin Bryant was the only one there who wasn't busy firing at police. The others did not have the time to talk, as they were too distracted. But a deeper theory has emerged that suggests that Martin Bryant was asked by the others to speak to police because they didn't want others to know who they were.

Point of contention: why was Martin Bryant complicit with the demands of the others?

Whether it was a terrorist group or a government agent, why did Martin Bryant agree to be the one to talk to police? The answer to this is universally agreed to: he thought that he was doing it for the greater good. All it would have taken is someone to speak to him in a soft voice asking him to be a hero, to take the fall, to be arrested, to go to jail, all for the greater good, and he would have done it. Martin Bryant wasn't a very smart person. The general consensus is that he was a patsy. There was no need to brainwash him at all, as he was pretty slow to begin with. However, some versions of the conspiracy theory have suggested that he was drugged so as to go along with it, or otherwise forced. The 5 pages that were removed from his official police interview, in which he presumably states who did it, suggest to some that the police who interviewed him were involved in forcing him to take the blame for a crime he didn't commit. Legally, though, it may have simply been Martin Bryant deciding to change his mind, "for the greater good". There can be no doubt that those 5 missing pages state who did it, and that ASIO agents would have those pages in their possession, and would know, from Martin Bryant's own mouth, who actually did it.

How did the others get away?

The woman (at the time believed to be Noelene Martin) was seen escaping late on the night of 28 April 1996, while 2 men (at the time believed to be David Martin and Glen Roy Pears) were seen escaping just 30 minutes before Martin Bryant was captured, escaping under the cover of the smoke and fire as the building caught fire. Police were ordered not to pursue them because it was being treated as a terrorist action. The argument given at the time, by ASIO agents who were controlling the operation, is that they knew who they were (Noelene Martin, David Martin and Glen Roy Pears) and they would capture them later: the main aim right now was to end this siege. As it turned out, whoever those 3 people who escaped were, we can be certain that they were not Noelene Martin, David Martin or Glen Roy Pears, since we know that they had all died beforehand, with David and Noelene both dying on the night of 27 April 1996, while Glen Roy Pears died on the afternoon of 28 April 1996.

Why was Martin Bryant prosecuted when police knew he hadn't done it?

Australia, and indeed the world, wanted someone caught. Martin Bryant was caught. He was at Seascape. There were some very valid reasons to want to frame him and pretend that he had done the whole massacre all by himself.

If this was a terrorist attack, did it work?

The immediate result of this attack is that the Port Arthur historic site was shut down. It eventually reopened, but no foreign tour guides were employed. Entry prices went way down, and the amount of people that go there is significantly lower than it was in 1996. Or, to put it another way, if we assume that the terrorist attack was aimed at hurting tourism, it worked exactly as intended. While the gun law reform didn't make any difference, and thus can be ruled out as a motive, the terrorism angle actually worked.

Is there a name of an alleged perpetrator?

Joe Vialls had several names and identities put forward that match the photographic evidence. Indeed, several theories have been put forward. The most compelling has been the identity of Robert Edwards, a man of Hobart origin who was a diagnosed schizophrenic and good friend of Martin Bryant's. This name has been repeatedly mentioned ever since the massacre, and there are reports that he was killed in a shootout in 2000 in Ulverstone, Tasmania, by police, after he had decapitated a woman with an axe when she was at a women's shelter after he confessed to her that he had done the Port Arthur massacre, after he was being questioned in relation to a serial killing known as the bodies in the wheelie bin. While there are some who question whether Robert Edwards is his true identity, in the decades that have followed, no law suits have come forward from Robert Edwards or anyone else disputing this allegation, and we do know that someone of that name and identity, who looked very much like the killer, and who confessed to the massacre in 2000, was killed by police.

Do we know the identities of the other co-conspirators?

The guns used in the massacre were not bought by Martin Bryant but rather by two women, who were identified and arrested for the crime of aiding and abetting a murder. It was not made public whether they were found guilty or not, or whether the charges were dropped, as the media was unable to find out who they were. The car used in the massacre also had an owner, and he too was arrested in connection with the massacre, though whether he was charged or found guilty was never made public. The person who made the false call to police that distracted them from attending Port Arthur was also arrested, as was the owner of the property that they attended on that false call. Dozens of people were arrested, and hundreds more were questioned in connection with the massacre. There can be little doubt that police know the names and identities of all of the people involved. They have chosen not to release those names or identities to the public, presumably for fear of inciting panic. As there were differing degrees of involvement in the massacre, not all of them would be in prison for life either, and some would today be released. There can be little doubt that ASIO agents and people associated with ASIO do know the names of all of the people involved in this massacre.

 

Related Documents

Title	Type	Publication date	Author(s)	Description
Document:Port Arthur Massacre - A sceptical re-appraisal	webpage	17 December 2010	Syd Walker
File:Port Arthur Massacre-A Critical Study.pdf	book	2006	Carl Wernerhoff
File:Port Arthur Massacre.pdf	article	2006	Carl Wernerhoff
Document:Tasmanian Minister Misleads Canberra about Fresh Evidence on Port Arthur	webpage	February 2001	Joe Vialls

 

The Official Culprit

Name	Description
Martin Bryant	The official "lone nut" perpetrator of the Port Arthur Massacre, with an IQ of just 66.

Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.

References

This is a page stub. Please add to it.