Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur Massacre.
Gun law reform in Australia has made a significant impact on society. On April 28, 1996, there was a horrible event in a historical convict site in Tasmania, later named the Port Arthur massacre.
The Port Arthur Massacre was a horrible mass shooting in Tasmania, killing 35 innocent people and injuring 23 more, destroying the lives of many people’s families and friends. It came to be one of the deadliest mass shootings in Australia’s history.
The sole perpetrator is thought to be a man named Martin Bryant.
Mass murderer Martin Bryant was born into his loving family on May 17, 1967, in Hobart Tasmania. That’s something you don’t hear every day- the fact that such a terrible disaster could be caused by someone born into a good family who loved them. Bryant killed 35 people and left 23 others wounded in Tasmania, 1996 in what has since been called “The Port Arthur Massacre.” Even as a child, Bryant seemed often detached from the people around him. While in school, Bryant was discovered to have an I.Q. which was substantially below average. So low in fact that he qualified for a disability pension after graduating.
Bryant did find work, however, as a handyman for Helen Harvey, a rich heiress to a lottery fortune. The two became close and there has been some speculation regarding the nature of their peculiar relationship. Whatever the case, she left Bryant her entire estate after she died in a car accident in 1993. He was a passenger in the vehicle and some reports indicate that he was investigated as to whether he played a role in the crash. Known to have “the face of an angel”, Martin Bryant showed odd personality traits even as an infant. Later, as a teenager, his behavior became increasingly erratic, showing an obsession with violent videos on youtube, and other videos that are only able to be seen on the black web.
Also around this time, Bryant’s father committed suicide under mysterious circumstances at the family’s home. He drowned himself wearing one of Bryant’s diving weight belts around his neck. Bryant reportedly showed little emotion over the loss of his father.
With the money from Harvey’s estate, Bryant lived well, residing in a mansion in Hobart. Neighbors later reported that Bryant threatened to shoot them if they ever trespassed on his property. He also kept a strange schedule of sleeping all day and wandering around outside at night. Bryant didn’t live very far from the popular destination of Port Arthur, which houses the ruins of an old prison.
On the day of the Port Arthur Massacre, Martin Bryant was about 29 years of age. On the afternoon of April 28, 1996, Bryant was said to have entered a café on the historical site’s grounds, carrying a large duffle bag. He sat down and ate a meal. Once he finished, Bryant was said to have taken out a semi-automatic rifle and began shooting at other people in the cafe. by then, he had already killed 20 people and wounded 15 more. He continued with his murderous frenzy and shot at people as he drove away. He stole another car and killed the driver. He locked the passenger in the boot of the car. Bryant then changed vehicles, shooting more people while doing so. After that, he returned to Martin’s b;b, where police eventually captured and arrested him.
In Bryant’s official police interview in 1996, he was questioned about the Massacre as he smirked and laughed like a child, showing not one speck of sorrow, pain or regret for what he had done to the people he killed and all their families and friends. He showed a complete lack of respect for these people, and instead commented on how nice the gun was that he used to murder them. He showed signs of true psychopathic behavior as he joyfully smiled, as though the lives of the 35 people he effortlessly ended didn’t matter at all. Children smile when they are in trouble because they feel that the action they’re in trouble for was only small and will only have small and easy consequences.
Here is some information found on news.com.au from March 8, 2016.
When he was 27, Bryant had a 16-year-old girlfriend Mary, who he dated for 8 months, until she broke up with him for not being smart enough as he is intellectually disabled.
Mary told Sunday Night she was initially interested in what Bryant had to offer as a person and wasn’t attracted to his $500 thousand dollar inheritance from Helen Harvey. She recalled a considerate man who made an effort to impress her on their first date.
In an earlier interview, Mary said Bryant was obsessed with teddy bears, dolls and violent and disturbing videos, and described him as “strange but very, very nice”.
More than 200 teddy bears and dolls were also scattered through his house.
“I thought it was really cute, Mary said. Sometimes he could be so childish,”
Mary said Bryant’s favorite movie was child’s play 2. The movie featured an evil doll.
Mary said that he would quote different texts from his favorite violent movies. He got excited and would think he was “really cool” when he did things like this.
“He had long blonde hair, blue eyes. He had huge muscles and he was rich. I did like him a lot,” she said. According to Mary, Bryant shaved his chest to “look more like a woman” and brought back videos from Scandinavia featuring bizarre animal sex acts and bestiality.
Was Martin Bryant responsible for the killing of all these people, or was he simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I personally don’t think Bryant was to blame. Although he was a psychopath with quite a questionable personality, I don’t believe he had anything to do with the worst mass shooting in Australia.
Many others believe that Martin Bryant wasn’t to blame. There are a few things that don’t quite add up when it comes to the Port Arthur Massacre. There is reason to believe the Massacre was planned as early as 1987 when, after a specially called premier’s meeting, the New South Wales Labour premier, Mr. Barry Unsworth stated, that there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a Massacre in Tasmania. 9 years later, there was a Massacre in Tasmania Adding to that, there were 2 warnings from Roland Browne head of NCGC gun control lobby in the 12 months leading up about a Massacre in Tasmania. In November 1995, Browne warned there would be a Massacre in Tasmania of massive proportions. In March 1996, after the Dunblane Massacre, he said the same on A Current Affair with Ray Martin. Not one witness positively identified Bryant on the day, only two witnesses identified him one month later on a photo board after his face had been all over the media.
Martin Bryant’s IQ was so low (66-70) that it was said he always needed a legal guardian. There wasn’t a legal guardian with him when he agreed to plead guilty.
Bryant stated that he has no memory of being at Port Arthur on the day of the massacre, yet was coerced to plead guilty
Brigadier Ted Saron said that there was “satanically accurate” shooting performance equal to the best military trained killers.
Bryant was said to play shooting games, but how could he possibly be as good as the best military killers and have perfectly accurate shots?
professional shooters are astounded by the ratio of kill to wound shots.
There was no blood spatters or DNA taken from Bryants’ clothes, or his vehicle there is no DNA at all from Bryant found at the Café the Massacre began in, police and investigators have searched high low and everywhere else, but have found not a single trace of Martin Bryant. There is also no security camera evidence to show that Bryant was even at Port Arthur at all.
There are two photos taken on the day of the Massacre below, of “accidentally leaked” images hidden from the public for 16 years after the event, in which police have said both photos are the same person.
The first photo is from the day after the massacre. It is also the official photo the so-called witness identified Martin Bryant from.
Note the way they superimpose an old photo of Martin into the photo of the alleged Martin Bryant at Port Arthur the day of the shootings.
The photo they superimposed was taken 8 years earlier to make him look younger because the witness had said that the gunman was between 18 and 20 years of age. The persons face looks completely different to any image found of the real Bryant. Bryant’s hair was the ONLY characteristic actually used to identify him.
Now, somehow, “Bryant” has short, dark hair that looks heavily permed. On the photos of Bryant at the police interview on June 4, 1996, Bryant clearly has his typical long, blonde hair. nobody-not even family who he was with after the Massacre has ever known Bryant to have hair that dark or cut his hair as short as the photo. any person with two working eyes can clearly see that these two photos are both of two different people. I think someone is trying to hide something. But the question is why? Maybe someone didn’t like how strange Bryant seemed so they decided to frame him because the pieces would fit together perfectly. A strange man who watches violent videos. This had to have been someone who knows Bryant quite well.
Martin’s “treatment” by Tavistock Institute trained psychiatrists since at least 1984 – that’s 12 years to prepare him, specializing in deep sleep, drug and coma therapy, including electroshock therapy, whilst unconscious, mind control Manchurian candidate techniques could have been employed here by these ‘special effects
25- Both the murder weapons were damaged before they were recovered at the seascape, and thus were never argumentatively linked to the murders. There is an amazing amount of evidence to support that Bryant is innocent.