Jump to content

Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Comment moved from article

I have not heard it suggested before that he was mentally handicapped. Given that he had a valid driver's license and a valid gun license, it is fairly unlikely, or at least unlikely that the handicap was severe. There were rumours he was mentally ill, but this should not be stated as a fact here. State laws on medical confidentiality make it illegal to find out.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/ claims that his IQ was "twenty to thirty points below average", sufficient to qualify him for an invalid pension, and details his extremely odd behaviour as a child and teenager. You are correct in pointing out that there is no publically-available medical evidence as to his mental health, but to be more NPOV we can detail some of his behaviours as a youth and let people draw their own conclusions on his mental state. --Robert Merkel

Was there an appeal?

No. He pleaded guilty. There were many witnesses who saw him commit the murders. He owned the gun that was used. He confessed to police when caught. He killed 35 people, most of whom he had never met, in cold blood. Under Tasmanian law a life sentence without possibility of parole is possible (though used only for the most heinous murders, which this surely counts as). On what grounds could he possibly appeal either on the conviction or on the sentence? --Robert Merkel 04:50 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Actually that's wrong on a number of counts. 1) There are no eye witnesses who saw him commit the murders. 2) He did not own any of the guns that were used. 3) He did not at any stage tell police that he did it - always insisting that he was set up. 4) He knew the Martins, who died in Seascape, and may have known 1 or 2 others as well. 5) Under Tasmanian law, there is no such thing as a life sentence meaning "for the term of his natural life", but an exception was made in this case. 6) He can appeal on a number of grounds. Sentence in that it far exceeds the maximum allowable sentence, condition in that he is deprived of many basic rights, and of course on conviction, since he did not plead guilty - he pleaded not guilty and then was told that that was not acceptable. Please get your facts straight. 203.26.206.129 15:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong on all accounts actually. 1) There were many eye witnesses to many of the murders and obviously many survivors. None was ever asked to identify him in court since it never went to trial. 2) He said he didn't own any of the guns, where as he lied about a great many things, why believe him over this. He admitted to knowning guns of the same type, these were never found at his house and he never said where they were, so what happened to them if they were indeed seperate guns? 3) He never insisted he was set up. He always played dumb. He was cunning and planned most of what he did. He even joked with police "Try and find the person who did it, Me. I bet you wish you were still recording that." "Oh we are. And we have already found the man." 4) Whats that got to do with anything, he said he never met most of them. 5) No it wasn't. Life sentance is allowed, and the judge can recommend length to parol. No one had been given one yet, but that didnt mean it didn't exist. 6) This is all just your opionion. He changed his please to guilty out of his own free will after hearing the evidence and having it suggest to him that the sentence could possibly be lighter if he pleads guilty (which is all true).--155.144.251.120 05:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a conspiracy theory about Martin Bryant not being the killer? (or not alone?) I read the guy as an IQ under 70, you can probably make someone that dumb says he killed JFK... And he got long blond hair so becoming a look-alike is mostly a matter of getting a wig... And the shooting was of way better quality than your average nut going on a killing spree, both from hit/shot ratio or from the lethality of wounds points of view... Many upper thorax and head injuries there. --JidGom 22:33, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Such a conspiracy theory exists, but it's just as wacky as all the rest. OK, point by point rebuttals:
  • His actual IQ, so far as I can tell, has not been published. A lot of people seem to have estimated that it is about 70, on the basis of the psychiatric assessments presented in court. Some conspiracists have latched on to that and emphasised that Bryant must have been a feeble-minded patsy. But to put it in perspective, about 1 person in 43 has an IQ of 70 or less. In other words, an IQ of 70 is none too bright, but it is not intellectually disabled. Nearly all readers will know several people with IQs as low or lower.
    • His IQ has been published, and it is 66, in the lowest 2% of the population. Considerably lower than that which is required to execute complex thought, such as is required to shoot at people constantly for the period that was at the Broad Arrow Cafe, let alone the amount that is required to keep that train of thought throughout the day, and still while shooting at police at Seascape. You'd need to have at least an average IQ to manage to keep your mind focussed through that time. Oh and by the way, if your IQ is under 80, then you are considered to be "intellectually disabled". Remember Forrest Gump with the IQ of 75? Martin Bryant was dumber than him. And you don't just get one of those disability pensions for nothing, you know. Martin Bryant was not just good enough for special education. He was the worst student in special education. Can you remember the worst student in special education at your school? I can bet that they wouldn't be capable of this either. 203.26.206.129 15:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
"Considerably lower than that which is required to execute complex thought, such as is required to shoot at people constantly for the period that was at the Broad Arrow Cafe..." Shooting at people constantly for a few minutes requires complex thought? That's news to me.
"You'd need to have at least an average IQ to manage to keep your mind focussed through that time."
Where is your scientific source for this observation?
"Remember Forrest Gump with the IQ of 75?"
Forrest Gump is a fictional character. Therefore, he's completely irrelevant. But he was actually pretty smart and was capable of doing many things such as inventing the smiley face, playing college football, winning Ping Pong championships, so I don't see your point anyway.
"Can you remember the worst student in special education at your school?"
I do remember some of them, and a few are in prison for different crimes, including molesting young children. Just because you are in special ed does not mean you cannot commit crimes just as anyone else can. If anything, perhaps you can't figure out the consequences of your actions or do not have empathy for others-- which lead to committing crimes such as this.Gloriamarie 02:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are just making this up. His IQ was in the bottom 2% of the population. Thats 1 in 50 people are as dumb as him. Go to a football match with 100,000 people and you will find 4,000 people as dumb as him. He was getting a disability pension but you know what, he was more than capable and all this was brought up in court and proven. The also said the only problem he would have is remembering the sequence and time of past events but had not trouble sticking to a task.--155.144.251.120 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although he indeed pleaded guilty, he did so by changing his plea well after the trial had started. It is emphatically not true, as the conspiracists often claim, that no evidence was publicly shown in court. Indeed the judge, Mr. Justice Cox, did not allow any leniency in recognition of the guilty plea because "The prisoner has shown no remorse for his actions. Though he has ultimately pleaded guilty, it has clearly been done in recognition of the undoubted strength of the evidence against him...". Altogether, the police had so many physical exhibits that they catalogued them on a hyperlinked CD because the paper version became too cumbersome.
      • No your not correct. He changed his plea after presenting evidence and seeing the recommended sentence that the procecustion was looking for on conviction.
  • The "long blond hair" is a reference to the conspiracist's efforts to explain away the widely published amateur video tape which shows Bryant in the act. It is true that this tape is blurry and at long range, but it wasn't the only identification by any means. Some of the survivors of the Broad Arrow Cafe saw him firing at a distance of only a few metres.
    • It is the only photographic evidence, however. AFAIK the only people who saw him fire from close range had their face down to the ground at the time. Not exactly true eye witnesses. And a number of those said that he definitely did not do it. Whilst none of them said that he definitely did. 203.26.206.129 15:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • People think that this video is the only photograhics evidence. This is just plain wrong. There are 4 videos as shown in court, most of which are not released because they consitute evidence and its like going down and asking for the guns he used. They only released as the judge allowed them.--155.144.251.120 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • His marksmanship was not unusually good at all. Nearly all of the dead were shot at very close range: at least 77% of the dead (27 of 35) were killed either in the same room as him or even closer (six close enough to get powder burns), and none of those killed were shot from more than about 30 m away. He did fire at people at slightly longer distances, but either missed altogether or only wounded them. This is actually fairly poor accuracy.
    • Remember that he was shooting from the hip. I'd challenge anyone who is not an expert gunman to shoot someone from the hip even from 1 metre with any accuracy. If he had had the guns up to his eye, yes, fair enough, you can say such things. But from the hip? Come off it. And also remember that these were automatic weapons, which are not designed for accuracy. 203.26.206.129 15:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I've shot many times before, and shooting from the hip with a gun like this at such close range is not much different than at the eye. You're not going to miss either way. Shooting a handgun from the hip? That would be impressive, but this is not. Shooting from the hip also implies a possible lack of practice and experience with this type of gun or a lack of strength, because it's very difficult to hold these guns at the shoulder. They're heavy.Gloriamarie 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is all your opionon and obviously you know nothing of what happened. THe majority of shots were fired between 0 and 50cm or so. A few from 1 or 2m, of witch he missed the head plenty. Once outside his accuracy was terrible. The kills he did get outside were mainly people from point blank in the buses and dragged and killed point blank from there cars. If you read the court transcripts you would know that he shot at quite a large number of people from a distance and missed the majority of them, sometimes even from fairly close range. At seascape when he was shooting at cars he was hopeless also and only hit 1 or 2 people minor injuries.
  • The conspiracists also claim that he spent only 30 seconds in the Broad Arrow Cafe, managing "a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier". However they provide no evidence whatever that he only took 30 seconds. The prosecution estimate was 90 seconds, and one survivor estimated it was several minutes. At 29 rounds in 90 seconds, it actually is pretty close to what soldiers are expected to achieve in the "rapid fire" part of Corps introductory training - except they have to do it at 200 metres, not 4 metres.
      • What he said is true. In army reserve we hit targets 400m at that sort of speed. Hitting 20 targets in the head from point blank would be simple, just walk straight up to them and pull the trigger. THe majority of people who died still had blast residue and even chamber pressure markings on there skin, indiciating the gun was even touching or just a few centimeters from there neck/head. This also exlpains the high number of people hit with shrapnel, only an extremely close range shot with that weapon explodes like this. Of course you probably don't even know that many people were hit with shrapnel and survived.--155.144.251.120 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
--Roger, 18:32, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have reverted this to an earlier version which doesn't include the conspiracy theory position. Doubts of Martyn Bryant's guilt are an extreme minority position, worth maybe a sentence at the end of the article. If somebody wants to discuss them in more detail, put them in a seperate article to not unbalance this one. --Robert Merkel 06:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. But you missed one - the alleged super-human rate of fire in the cafe. The conspiracist claim was 50 rounds in under 30 seconds. The prosecution claim was 29 rounds in "about" 90 seconds; one survivor thinks it was more like 3 minutes. It is obviously impossible to know the exact time, so I have just put "rapidly", however it is very unlikely the prosecution was significantly wrong about the number of rounds fired. --Securiger 00:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The 29 rounds scenario is actually quite comforting to the conspiracy theorists (I think Joe Vialls does acknowledge that number) because it raise the hit/shot and death/shot ratio to level unheard in other case of mass murder (thus the theory that it was in fact performed by a highly trained pro), plus shooting exactly 29 time means that he kept one round in the barrel while doing a magazine change (common AR-15 magazine hold 30 rounds, an AR-15 having been used in the restaurant, a FAL later), again a professional looking behavior. This kind of facts plus the very strange handling of the affair by the government (I think many evidences are sealed, plus noone can see Bryant) give the conspiracy theorists some room to further their thesis. --JidGom 17:21, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not really. His hit/shot ratio inside the cafe was high because he was using a long arm at point blank range (no shots further than 5 metres, most under 4 metres) in a crowded room; the atrocities to which the conspiracists like to compare it were all either committed either with a pistol, or a rifle outside at longer range. The simple fact is that to miss a human-sized target with a rifle at a range of four metres would be well beyond incompetent and into the realm of seriously handicapped. Furthermore the Broad Arrow Cafe that fateful morning was so crowded that a shot which missed its intended taget stood a good chance of hitting someone else. Once Bryant got outdoors, his hit/shot ratio dropped to something very ordinary indeed; although he fired at people several times at 30+ metres, all such shots either missed completely, or were very peripheral wounds. Given that an ordinary grunt with a rifle is expected to be able hit a man more often than not at two HUNDRED metres range, this is actually lousy shooting. The shooting 29 times might mean he counted his rounds. It might also mean that he had missed one when loading, and unprofessionally shot the rifle dry. Or it might be a coincidence. Or maybe he fired 30 rounds inside, and one case got kicked out the door and counted as an outside shot - I can believe the prosecution might be off by one, but not by 21. The strange handling of the affair is largely an invention of the conspiracists. He was tried in a public court and a mass of evidence was presented before he changed his plea to guilty. Some conspiracists have been claiming he was duped into pleading guilty before the trial so no evidence would need to be shown to the public; that is a flat out lie. It is true that access to him is restricted - but hardly surprising, given the number of death threats. Securiger 01:32, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I don't believe in the conspiracy theory, I was just bringing in their argument to add some material to the page. There has been quite a few wacko shooting and very few conspiracy theories, so this one is interresting in this aspect... --JidGom 08:42, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sure. I guess a well-written analysis of the conspiracy theory, and its historic and social origins, would be usefully encyclopedic. In fact, now that I think of it, I suspect a significant proportion of people finding this page will have been motivated by the conspiracy theory. <rant>I get a little annoyed at conspircay theories in general (because irrationality annoys me, and nearly all Conspiracy Theories are irrational), but this one in particular gets under my skin because I know several people who do subscribe to it - and they keep sending me email about it, without bothering to respond to my rebuttals... I guess, like most such folklore, it flourishes because it struck an emotional chord with the large body of people offended by the government's response to the massacre. Unfortunately they don't realise that if anything, it undermines their cause by making them look ridiculous. </rant> -- Securiger 08:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Added a few links and the detail that the Port Arthur massacre was less publicised inside Tasmania than outside. - A person, April/2004

So where did he get his weapons - not "a gun", but Australian army issued L1A1, Colt AR-15 carbine and, to my knowledge, extremely rare and expensive (4000 - 5000 US$) Daewoo USAS-12 shotgun? Who would sell even illegal weapons to a mentally handicap weirdo?

Apparently someone did. Money rules all.Gloriamarie 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he get hearing trauma from shooting - I wouldn´t never shoot with my AR-15 without hearing protection, and shooting 29 shots indoors would definetly cause measurable loss of hearing and probably permanent ringing to ears.

And no, it isn´t easy to shot accurately and fast from close range with rifle, from hip or from shoulder - and if his rifle had telescope sight mounted during the shooting, that would have made sighting very hard and slow from close range, both thru telescope and guns own iron sights.

I've shot guns of this type before and it is pretty easy to hit a target at 30 feet, even on first try, so hitting an entire five-foot human from a foot or a few feet away seems pretty plausible.Gloriamarie 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he have any spare magazines, and if not, how could he shot 29 rounds from 20 round magazine without loading the magazine again during the shooting. It´s also interesting that professional soldiers leave one or two rounds off the magazine to make magazine chance easier, and here seems to be 30-rounder with only 29 rounds - or 20-rounder with 29 rounds...

I believe this page should be at Port Arthur massacre, but would 1996 Port Arthur massacre be preferred? (This is to match other event titles such as listed at Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do) -- Chuq 02:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some wacky conspiracist's points WP will want to refute:

  • just hours before the shooting "senior people" at Port Arthur went to a 2-day seminar that had no agenda and no speakers[1]
    • What's the point? Is it being suggested that if they hadn't been off on a junket, management would have been at work on a Sunday? Is it being suggested that the guy who organised the gab fest, a mere PAHS manager, was in on this grand conspiracy? Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • the nearest two policemen were even further away to deal with a false "drug" stash at the Salt Water River coal mine[2]
    • This one is the easiest to deal with, because if this was a decoy, it just doesn't make sense. At the time, there were two one-man police stations on the Tasman Peninsula, at Dunalley and Nubeena. Both officers attended the hoax drug call. Saltwater River is actually closer to Port Arthur than is Dunalley. Nubeena is closer to Port Arthur than is Saltwater River, but the difference is only 12 km. And to the Seascape Cottage where Bryant ended up, the difference is even less. So this "decoy" is really pretty pointless. Of course, if it was a decoy, it could quite easily have been done by Bryant himself. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • 700 journalists happened to be in Hobart for a conference that began next day; they'd been asked to arrive early
  • 25 trauma surgeons were in Hobart for another conference that just finished[3]
    • This course, the EMST course, is a regularly scheduled course, not a conference. The attendees were not all specialist trauma surgeons as your link indicates, but mostly trainees. The EMST has been compulsory for all surgical trainees since 1988 and is conducted 70 times per year throughout Australia.[4]. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • a 22-corpse mortuary van was acquired, under public scorn less than a year before; it was put up for sale two years after[5]
    • The large mortuary van was actually acquired in July 1994, nearly two years prior. When sold it was (apparently) advertised as having a capacity for 22 bodies, but originally only 16. While the conspiracists claim that it was subject to public ridicule at the time, I find no evidence of that. Indeed I can't imagine why anyone would ridicule it since Tasmania has certainly seen accidents and disasters which killed more than 16, or for that matter more than 22 people. For example, the 1967 fires where 62 people died in the space of a few hours. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • witnesses incl Graham Collyer described the gunman as pocked/freckled/with acne; Bryant was clear-complected[6]
    • It is not at all uncommon to find minor discrepancies in witness accounts - in fact it is unusual to find them error free. You have just two witnesses giving a description which differs in one minor detail from others. Prior to being shot at (which tends to focus the mind on the weapon), both of these witnesses only saw the shooter casually. And one of these witnesses (Collyer) was seriously wounded and not interviewed until a week later. And Collyer said "might". On the other hand, you have many witnesses who had no difficulty identifying Bryant. For example Ian Kingston, a trained security officer, who had a reason to especially note his face because he had an argument with Bryant in the carpark just before the massacre, and after the argument noticed that Bryant had parked his car exactly where he was told not to.
    • Not at all uncommon to find minor discrepancies. But acne? Who invents acne? And how many of the eye witnesses said acne? I saw 10 that had said so in their official statements. That's a fair number to all note the same thing, if its wrong, wouldn't you say? 203.26.206.129 15:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[7]; or Aileen Kingston [8], and many others. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • witness testimony was influenced by a photo illegally published in the Hobart Mercury
    • I think you mean may have been influenced by the photo. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, let's just be specific here. Almost all eye witnesses, rightly or wrongly, had seen photos of Martin Bryant in the newspaper prior to being interviewed by police. They therefore were asked whether the gunman looked like the guy in the paper or did not look like the guy in the paper. The amount who said he looked like him was about the same number that said that he did not look like him. May have been influenced? Oh definitely was influenced. Why, if Martin Bryant had had a competent defence lawyer, he would have been able to prove that Martin Bryant was never positively identified as the gunman. 203.26.206.129 15:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
        • That most definately would not be sufficient enough evidence to prove he was not positively identified, the testimonies of witnesses are always very relevent whether or not there is a possibility of them being contaminated. And at that, it would seem as if according to you the defense lawyer wouldn't have to be competent at all, as that was an argument that a person with no prior legal experience was able to come up with. Jimbobsween 04:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sgt Dutton has said there is no forensic evidence linking Bryant although there was ample opportunity to acquire gunman's DNA and/or fingerprints
    • Sergeant Dutton is a forensic firearms examiner - not a general forensicist - and in response to a heckler at a conference, allegedly made a remark which was probably intended to mean that ballistics evidence is not capable of identifying the person who fired a shot. There was, in fact, copious ballistics evidence linking the murders to the firearms, and Sergeant Dutton has written a paper on it. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • No, there was copious ballistics evidence, but it linked the murders to different firearms. You need to remember to pay close attention to the weapon names. 203.26.206.129 15:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • no coroner's inquest, in defiance of the law
    • Yet another Joe Vialls special. Back in the real world, Coroner Ian Matterson officially commenced a coronial inquest at 3:55 pm on the day of the masacre. Completely in accordance with the law, it was suspended indefinitely when Bryant pleaded guilty at trial. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

granted, some is not directly related - but sets, to me, a suspiciously convenient context. (Sorry coïncidence theorists but 9/11 in particular taught me to be suspicious of any official explanation, especially but not limited to those for events which result in dramatic expansion of the same government's power. We don't buy it from our designated enemies and we shouldn't from our own rulers.) Kwantus 20:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And there's this claim: "Bryant was in possession of an assault rifle that had been handed in to police in Victoria as part of a gun amnesty" (it's not clear there whether it's the massacre weapon) 142.177.126.151 19:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Uh-huh. All of Bryant's firearms were illegal. It has subsequently widely been claimed that one of them had previously been handed in at an "amnesty", suggesting that it was sold by a corrupt police officer. But I don't know of a primary source for the claim. Securiger 22:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That's right. They were all illegal, because Martin Bryant didn't own a gun licence. That's kind of more relevant than anything else about it. How would someone learn to shoot if they never had a gun licence? Can someone learn it all by themselves? A genius might be able to. But someone with an IQ of 66? I don't think so. At minimum, they must have had someone teach them. And someone teach him knowing that he wasn't allowed to shoot. That sounds like a conspiracy to me! Sounds like more than one person was involved regardless of which way you try to present the case. Can you get around that? 203.26.206.129 15:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I could just chalk this up to Australians not being exposed to too many guns, but it does not at all take a rocket scientist to shoot a gun. Espescially not to shoot it at the hip, which actually seems like very novice behavior learned from a Rambo-esque movie. Jimbobsween 04:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I've been in the Broad Arrow Cafe. It's about as big as my lounge room. A kid with a water pistol could hit anyone in it, especially if they are sitting down having a meal. The fact is that Bryant didn't hit anyone who was more than a few paces away, even though he tried. Many of the people he shot were close enough for powder burns. Pete 06:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Own page for Bryant

surely Martin Bryant (a redirect) should be a seperate (albeit smaller) article--ZayZayEM 14:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Just did it. --61.68.126.74 03:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Should be merged. The Martin Bryant page is full of lies and distortions of the truth. It should be merged with this one so as to maintain consistency. 203.26.206.129 15:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, firearm control...

Firstly, the reason why there is a mention of the conspiracy theory is that it circulates widely overseas. It is not disrespectful to the victims or their families to mention that some people disbelieve the official account, it is simply reporting fact. The article points out that the claims are not taken seriously by anyone other than a few nutters and that there are plenty of eyewitnesses who identified Bryant.

Secondly, with regards to firearm laws in Australia, there had already been considerable restrictions in Victoria and New South Wales, in Victoria after the Hoddle and Queen street massacres of the 1980's. Tasmania and Queensland had the most lax gun laws. --Robert Merkel 23:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I'm pretty confused here. There seems to be a conspiracy theory that the Australian government orchestrated the masacre in order to push through firearm control. But why would the government conspire to reduce their tax income on firearms? Unless their motivation was to try and avoid a situation where a nutter went loose with a gun and killed loads of citizens. So is the conspirancy theory saying "in order to avoid loads of citizens being masacred, the government orchestrated a masacre that killed loads of citizens"?? Help me with this one, because I just can't get the logic.
Should Joe Viallis be mentioned by name, and a page developed to give insight to his character?--ZayZayEM 01:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Reinserted his name. Feel free to write a page on the guy...--Robert Merkel 02:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Commonwealth could not and did not "push through" improved firearm control. The Commonwealth has no constitutional power over firearms except through control over external trade and import. State and Territories co-operated in uniform legislation in return for the Commonwealth's footing the bill for a "gun buy-back". Nor were all self-loading rifles and shotguns banned outright. Pete 08:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Details in doubt

The following details are in doubt. My source is http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/ (a bit sensationalistic but detailed!)

  • The wiki article says that 37 people were injured but the above source states 18.
    • No it doesn't. It is talking about one part of the shooting. It mentions a memorial later with 34 names. Some families did not want names on the memorial.--Dacium 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The wiki article originally said that Bryant was captured in the afternoon but the above source says it happened in the morning.
  • The wiki article said that Bryant was 29 at the time of the killings but the above source states he was 28. Now confirmed to be 29.
  • The wiki article said that four people were shot and killed when Bryant took the BMW, but the above source states three.

--61.68.126.74 04:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will try to check some of this later; Australian newspapers of the time carried a great deal of information on the case. --Robert Merkel 04:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Crime Library is one such web site for research, but don't overlook local media sources, books, old newspapers, etc. Sensationalistic is an understatement. :) -- Longhair | Talk 15:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recent edit to Martin Bryant) confirms his birthday to be 7 May 1966, making him 29 at the time. This places the credibility of the above source further in doubt. --61.68.103.113 01:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

paragraph removed

removed potentially biased paragraph added by an anonymous ip address, here, needs sourcing at the very least and rewriting in from a neutral point of view. clarkk 13:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

One point that many people fail to recognise when referring to these claims is the fact that a man named Rob Edwards, who was Martin's Bryant's closest lifetime friend, had in fact detailed plans of a murder spree, which was aimed to begin at Port Arthur, and secondly that Robert Edwards was in fact a very similar physical appearance to Martin Bryant, and was well and truly capable of impersonating him. Furthermore, that the details of Robert's planned assassinations were in fact relased to police in 1995, when they were warned of the impending tragedy. This therefore gives motive for police to have covered up the crime.
Rob Edwards and a number of other pages have been nominated for deletion as conspiracy theories/hoaxes. The same user created them all, and has been inserting similar POV content into Martin Bryant. --bainer 14:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with this thing is that it is actually proven fact. And you can research it yourself. Just go down to your local police station and ask them. They'll tell you. They are required by law to tell you. Then you will see that this is a factual statement. 203.26.206.129 15:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

problem with the content

Things such as "Martin Bryant has tortured animals and abused his sister" are not referenced anywhere and furthermore are not consistent with his psychological profile. If he suffered from Asperger's Syndrome, as is claimed, then he would be retalitory, not aggressive. But more likely he suffered from a form of Down's Syndrome (which is widely believed to be his correct diagnosis), possibly with a secondary diagnosis of Schizophrenia (but NOT multiple personalities!). The whole thing that suggests that he abuses animals is not derived from psychiatric analysis, but rather based on one of his ex-girlfriends (if you'd bothered to research it correctly). One of his ex-girlfriends states that he once watched "Child's Play" and that she therefore believed that he tortured animals. Even she never hinted that he had ever bullied his sister, and in fact its the other way around. There is no positive evidence that Martin Bryant has ever tortured an animal The fact that he owned a copy of Child's Play, and liked the movie does not mean that it is his favourite movie, nor does it mean that he likes to torture animals. This tiny snippet was used by the media to give the profile of a madman, which is entirely incorrect. If you insist on using such wildly inaccurate data, then at least say "media reports" rather than "psychiatric reports". And if you must use "psychiatric reports" then prove it. I have read ever psychiatric report on him that is available, and as far as I know, nothing exists that even suggests such a thing.203.26.206.129 12:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tightened up the timeline section and corrected minor details, such as the BMW being hijacked from the tollbooth (rather than the service station as incorrectly stated). I have also removed American terminology such as "SWAT operatives". On checking the timeline, I noticed it contained very little in the way of times, and some of these were wrong. I was struck by the fact that the first 000 call came in at 1332, and at 1357 there was a call that a vehicle was burning in the grounds of Seascape. That's just 25 minutes for the main tragedy, though of course most of the killings occured in a minute or so in the Broad Arrow Cafe.

The whole article should probably be written in a consistent sytle. It's pretty choppy. Pete 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of different places around the web that show the timeline of events, which are accepted by most people. The problem with listing them exactly is that if you do that, you can prove that Martin Bryant didn't do it. Kind of creates a conundrum there if sticking to the official story. 203.26.206.129 15:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Moral Panic"

The aftermath of the Port Arthur masscare spawned a massive wave of moral panic with the politicians, the media, and the anti-gun movement capitalising on the emotional outcry of a shocked and mourning Australian community as well as using licenced, law-abiding firearm owners as the scapegoats for the Port Arthur massacre.

While this is an interesting and arguable contention, it's hardly NPOV. In any case, it's getting offtopic, and might be better dealt with at Gun politics in Australia. --Robert Merkel 06:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

He was caught at the Broad Arrow Cafe

The article says he returned to the guest house but Bryant did not leave PA and was apprehended there. He did not get caught at the Fox and Hounds but was caught at the Cafe at the site which was the Broad Arrow.

And your evidence for this claim, which completely contradicts not only the accounts linked to but many other media reports on the topic, is what? --Robert Merkel 11:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I've added a small section at the bottom of the article about the conspiracy theories. As much as I think they're all totally unfounded, and most of them are just personal homepages which hardly deserve mention in an encyclopaedia, I also believe that external claims that WP does not cover the theories is more damaging to WP than covering them. So there's a limited treatment of some of the more prominent ones. --bainer (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Capital punishment

The article says that capital punishment does not exist in any Australian jurisdiction. I stand ready to be corrected, but I thought that it was still possible as a Commonwealth crime to be executed for treason and espionage, given the right circumstances. --Surgeonsmate 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


No. NSW was the last state in Australia to abolish the death penalty for treason. That was in 1985 if I recall correctly. If there's anyone out there who knows otherwise, I always like to be corrected. ;)
Matthew king 10:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the death penalty comment is irrelevant and have taken it out. Do we need to mention things that don't exist? The article makes no link between the massacre and Australia's death penalty laws. Ashmoo 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson quote

I have altered the material about Pauline Hanson to reflect her quotes as reported in the source article, rather than have our article put the words of her followers into her mouth, or speculate about her opinions. --Surgeonsmate 11:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Death toll

the timeline of events adds up that he killed 37 people during the massacre, 2 elderly people, 22 in restaurant, bus driver, 3 passangers, the family, the people in the car, and the man and the woman at the service station

correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't 2+22+1+3+3+4+2 equal thirty-seven

Larner

This "subtle vandalism" has been removed from the article:

After leaving the guesthouse, Bryant drove to another property and enquired after the owner, a Mrs Larner. She had also earlier declined to sell her farm to Bryant senior. Fortunately for Mrs Larner she was away when Bryant called.

Is this really vandalism? Bryant visited the Larner farm a few minutes before opening fire in the Broad Arrow. He was told that Mrs Larner was away, but in point of fact she wasn't. See this article from The Bulletin. I've restored the material. --Surgeonsmate 06:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the truth of it [9]. Someone that has lied for 10 years about something should not be regarded as fact. There are a myriad of reasons why Roger Larner might be lying now about it. Official sources do not recognise this as truth, so we should not state it as such. 203.122.203.145 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What is to clarify? The only thing wrong with what he states is that it a a couple of minutes out of the time line. It is pretty obvious bryant talked to him just before going to PA. If you move larner time by 30 minutes it all fits--Dacium 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in the bit about the eye witnesses who were conspiracy theoriests, like Wendy Scurr, and about how they said that Joe Vialls and other silly conspiracy theories were used to cover up the truth. Also how Joe Vialls was an anti-semite and why the Australian media picked up on his anti-semitic theories as if they were the only ones going around. Its all a part of the trial by media thing. I hope that is okay to do. Wendy Scurr is certainly notable, and should have her own article. She was the face of the Port Arthur massacre. There was a reason why the media changed from focussing on her to focussing on Walter Mikac. Early on, they focussed on Wendy Scurr. 203.122.203.145 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there blissyu! You can add whatever you like as long as it is verifiable, written in a neutral point of view fashion and is backed up by reliable sources. --bainer (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material and changes depending on "Shooters News"

I have reverted back to a reasonably consensical version. While I appreciate that a lot of material and references are no longer in the article, there were far too many POV sources for me to be completely happy, especially in this rather controversial article.

Please, instead of adding in bulk changes depending on pro-conspiracy websites, could we discuss any changes here before making them? I'm not saying that there is not room for improvement, merely that given the history of this and related articles, it will turn out to be simpler if we get consensus for changes first. We also need to look at implementing a better reference system; adding in loads of inline links is very poor practice. --Surgeonsmate 06:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've worked out what's happened here - the anon IP user (who is almost certainly Internodeuser, hello there blissyu!) made a whole bunch of edits. Rebecca, you came along and reverted at least one of them, but not all of them, so some of the nonsense remained. Then Surgeonsmate reverted back to the last good version, which I'm guessing you thought was a revert of you, Rebecca, and so you reverted back to your version. Some of the diffs were producing odd results for me too. Anyway, it's now back to the version before the anon edited. --bainer (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to correct this. I didn't add the tripe about the newspapers saying that at the 10th anniversary people had forgotten. I put in a ((fact)) tag since I couldn't find it anywhere. I spent 2 hours looking. However, that's not to say that it's untrue. I heard it on Triple J radio, and it sounds like it is very much true. It's just that without a source, such a statement shouldn't be added. It's a similar issue with the Mrs Larner thing. It was added in December 2005, and at the time there was no source to back it up. A source appeared that seemed to partially back it up, in April 2006. Yet we are stating something as if it was fact without quoting that source, and something which, if we believe the source, was lied about for 10 years. How can we trust it now? We can't, of course. Roger Larner had acted as part of Martin Bryant's alibi, and was a life long friend, so now 10 years later he betrays Martin Bryant? Or is he doing it for publicity? He certainly didn't put any of that in his original statement. And trust Shooter's News all you like, but those are official police documents, so they are worth including. And that site is the number 1 authority on the investigation. It's got verification for it. Its somewhat better than something like the Crime Library, which just says stuff without saying where it got the information from. Reliable sources, remember?
As to Mrs Wendy Scurr. She was the person who first reported it to police. She was "the face of the Port Arthur massacre" for the entire first week afterwards, until early May 1996. There were no reports of Walter Mikac then. Ample media reports about her, over 1,000 of them. But then Wendy Scurr said publicly that Martin Bryant definitely didn't do it. She wasn't the only one to say that, but she actually stood up when she found out he was arrested. She told people she knew what had happened, and provided details. Media followed it at first, then quickly ran away from it, and they followed Walter Mikac instead. So she went on public speaking tours. So why are we not mentioning her? Walter Mikac doesn't have much to do with it and doesn't need to be mentioned. Joe Vialls probably should be, but he is just one of many. So why no Wendy Scurr? Do you not trust an eye witness? You are happy enough to list Joe Vialls who wasn't there and said that Jews did it all. Why are you so unprepared to mention Wendy Scurr, who was actually there, actually saw the killer, and said that it was the work of terrorists? Come on, believability factor here. Can we believe it was a Jewish conspiracy? That it was to disarm guns? That the government got 1,000 different people to conspire with them and got them all to shut up for 10 years? Or that it was the work of a small group that did it for political or personal reasons? Come on now. Assassinations of tourists happen all over the world. Its not rare, unusual, or anything that we usually regard as a conspiracy. Why regard this one as such? There's imminently believable and then we are expected to believe some convoluted story about a retard who supposedly went on a killing spree for no good reason, who suddenly developed magnificent gun control, suddenly lost his retardation, and managed to do all of these fantastic things that nobody else in history has managed, for no particularly good reason, killing David and Sally Martin, the only two people who cared about him, and then, to make matters worse, that he wanted to kill his lifelong friend Mrs Marion Larner? Come off it now.
But this isn't really a matter of truth, is it? If this was a matter of truth, you'd have a "This is a controversial topic" label on there. You'd have NPOV, factual accuracy tags on there. And I didn't start the controversial bits of it, did I? Look back through the edit history. 2001 it started, when the article was created. Just how many people have been banned for trying to correct this article? Just how far does ownership of this article go? And why do people own it? For what purpose do you have? What are you trying to hide? 203.122.203.145 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
After 5 years worth of disputes over this article, involving hundreds of editors and hundreds of edits wiped from history, I think its about time we acknowledge that yes, this is a controversial topic. Time to clean it up. 203.122.203.145 13:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Reliable sources please blissyu. The top ten google hits for "Wendy Scurr" are all conspiracy theory sites or sites run by the shooters' lobby, and a couple of anonymous contributions to Sydney Indymedia. The first reliable source is this BBC article which reproduces a story they ran ten ywars ago. The next legitimate hit is a New York Times article also dating back ten years which includes the same quote. If Scurr really did come out and say that it wasn't Bryant, where are the independent sources? Don't add that nonsense again unless you can come up with some. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Your explanation above about me and Rebecca reverting one another is spot on. Thanks for your work on this, bainer.
To the midnight oil-burning anon: Larner told his story at the time of the massacre and the Bulletin article merely repeats what he said then. He wasn't part of any alibi for Bryant. His farm is only a few minutes from the site entrance and the fact that Bryant was there fifteen minutes before shooting commenced fits in perfectly with other witness accounts. Bryant saw Larner, drove to the entrance, bought a ticket, parked his car, walked to the cafe, bought a meal and then started shooting. That fills the time admirably.
NPOV says that we should give space to alternate views consistent with support. The conspiracy theories have minority support and when one follows their reasoning they invariably lead to one or two commentators who highlight a small amount of evidence that supports their view and ignore vast amounts in contradiction. The article deserves a section on the conspiracy theories where the official line is disputed. It doesn't then also need a whole bunch of tags and little pro-conspiracy snippets scattered through the rest of the article. Go write an article on the conspiracy theory if you want, but don't go unravelling the NPOV of the main article. Please.--Surgeonsmate 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not mention what the over 100 different "little" holes are? That's a lot more different things than in your typical conspiracy. A lot more than in say the Backpacker murders conspiracy theory, which talks about only 2 holes. For a recap, the backpacker murders had 7 people who died in 7 different ways, and who had nothing in common with each other - in spite of the name, they were not all backpackers. And there is really only one conspiracy theory on that one - that a group of people did it (at least 7), as a part of the gang. The question is which gang. Now, you've got that conspiracy theory, if you like. Similar kind of one to this one. In that police couldn't figure out who had really done it, so just arrested someone. And, just like this one, there is a very real chance that Ivan Milat had something to do with it. Very precious few people believe that Ivan Milat didn't kill at least 1 person. But most analysts of the case agree that others were involved. Its not even really regarded as a conspiracy theory. Similar situation with this one, similar kind of case. Then we talk about another controversial one like the Azaria Chamberlain disappearance - totally different kind of issue. In that one, there was the one and only hole - the hypothetical possibility that a dingo might have stolen the baby. It was a choice of either Lindy Chamberlain and/or Michael Chamberlain killing her, or of a dingo taking the baby. Problem is that dingoes don't usually kill babies, and the circumstances that would require for that to happen are quite outstanding. Yet Lindy Chamberlain was eventually released from prison. A lot of people joke about the sheer ridiculousness of that conspiracy theory. There's even recently been the case of Erin Horsburgh who claimed to be Azaria, and even offered to do a DNA test to prove it (but that was refused by police).
Those are the 3 most controversial murders in Australian history. Port Arthur massacre, Backpacker murders and Azaria Chamberlain. Backpacker murders has 2 holes, Azaria Chamberlain has 1, and Port Arthur massacre has over 100.
So why are we ignoring this one?
Quite dumbfounded about the Wendy Scurr bit not being listed though. She quite clearly was the person who first reported to police. Perhaps Thebainer doesn't know how to research things properly. Or perhaps, somewhat more likely, he is trying to hide something.
And where is this supposed evidence that Roger Larner mysteriously made a report about his wife being attacked, that wasn't released to the media until April 2006? And how do you know about it when nobody else did? 203.122.203.145 13:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(Moving indentation back to left margin). The article is consistent with NPOV. We don't present one inviolable truth, we present views consistent with community support, and adding conspiracy theory material to anywhere but the "Alternative theories" section is just rude.

A whole fresh new article titled "Port Arthur - Alternative Views" is probably justified as a place to put all the information and sources and we can work on presenting a full picture of the alternative views there.

I can't comment on Ivan Milat, but with the Lindy Chamberlain case, the biggest problem was that the evidence was all circumstantial. There were NO witnesses to Lindy killing Azaria. The forensic evidence was found to be full of holes, literally. For example, the Chamberlain's car was found to have a spray pattern of foetal haemoglobin in the passenger footwell. On investigation it was discovered that every car of that model had a similar pattern and it was sound deadener forced in through a hole in the body, not foetal blood. Dingo attacks on children have occurred subsequently, notably on Fraser Island, where a 12 year old boy was killed, and a 13-month old baby dragged from a tent at a camping ground.

Please don't turn the article into a battleground. Even if you think that the majority opinion is a load of dried dingo droppings, please discuss proposed changes here, or better yet start a whole new article. --Surgeonsmate 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the majority view is stupid. I think that the majority view is great. It's just a pity that Wikipedia is representing an extreme minority view. I was trying to present the majority view... What I wrote were not conspiracy theories. They were proven facts, accepted by the majority. This article has been censored to protect these facts for 5 years now, long before I first wrote here, and I have been far from the only person to have tried to present them. WP:OWN prohibits such behaviour, yet here it is en masse in this article. Perhaps you should do research before pronouncing falsehoods as truth. And of course Port Arthur theories was vandalised even worse than this one, so its not worth trying. While this article is written in violation of WP:CITE and WP:OWN there is no point. It shall remain as a blatant falsehood, and as the worst article on Wikipedia. The majority view of course is not silly. The majority view is quite sensible. The view of Wikipedia is the one that is silly. Don't confuse the two. Type in "Port Arthur massacre" in to Google and you'll see what the majority view is. And don't forget to exclude Wikipedia mirrors and places that use Wikipedia as a source. You'll end up with about 95% that agree with me. Big numbers for a "tiny minority"... 203.122.203.145 13:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The current situation is that any major changes to this article along the lines you advocate are going to get reverted because out of those editors with a knowledge of the subject, you are possibly the only one supporting the changes and everyone else regards the current article as fair and balanced.
Perhaps you would like to take it slowly and present a case for one aspect, citing your sources and pointing out where the article is incorrect. I have an open mind and will support you if I think you are correct. But I must note that if you are trying to present a view that somebody other than Martin Bryant did the shootings, then you are going to have to present a very good case indeed that yours is the majority view. --Surgeonsmate 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Firearms training?

The shooter in this incident seemed to have a high profficiency with firearms, as evidenced by the sheer number of fatalities vs. injuries as well as the high number of head shots. But there is no explaination for this. Did the shooter have previous military experience? Was he a competitive marksman? Was he a member of a gun club or other organization? Pimlottc 21:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical conspiracy theory nonsense: he was so accurate because he shot everyone from point blank range. Powder burns are evidence of that. --bainer (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Powder residue should also be found on the gunman. As far as I am aware this was not the case with the accused. I have also seen a photograph of what is supposedly the accused after his capture. The person in the photograph has (fairly) short curly hair. The photo of the perpetrator at the scene of the crime has long straight hair. I don't think the accused would have had time for a hair cut and perm. One witness was a Vietnam veteran who it could be reasonably argued had seen more traumatic scenes in war and another was the owner of the cafe where much of the crime took place, who was familiar with the accused, both said that the shooter was not the accused, I would suggest that they are comparatively more reliable sources than other witnesses who would, on the one hand, understandably have likely been traumatised by the event, and were unfamiliar with the accused (until the media put his altered picture on the front of every news paper in the country and claimed he had previously been stopped at customs with bestiality videos). There was a gunman (other than the accused) at the siege on a nearby roof top according to the South Australian Police's own magazine (for police officers) which had an article about it in which they claim they were unable to find out who the gunman was and saw him as a threat to their safety whilst involved in the siege. If it was a member of the law enforcement effort, why not tell the police and if not who was it and where they part of the crime (which if Bryant was actually involved as well would make the crime a conspiracy by definition)?

These are rhetorical questions of course, I don't expect answers here, but there are many people who have legitimate questions and if you think the police are 'crazy conspiracy theorists' then look in the mirror. The main problem with verifying information is that no-one is willing to discuss the anomalies in the 'official' theory in Australia (where I live) due to the traumatic nature of the events (for many years I was unwilling to say Martin Bryant's name because I was more interested in the victims and didn't want to make the alleged perpetrator into a 'Manson' type celebrity). Usually the response is dismissal (like "Typical conspiracy theory nonsense") or we don't want to further hurt the victims relatives, which is the last thing I personally would want and which would not be necessary as responses would be to concerned individuals and investigators, not victims and not through the media (which would effect victims and no doubt does every time the official story is wheeled out). As I'm sure everyone is aware consensus does not necessarily equate to accuracy ('the majority believed the earth was flat' argument, is over used but true nevertheless). There is also a suppression order on much of the official evidence so naturally some people think 'if there is nothing to hide, why hide everything?'

Finally the term 'conspiracy theory' is not unbiased and is generally interpreted as derogatory. Often official history is proven to be fraudulent when those involved in the crime or concealment of it can no longer be punished. Equating the 'majority view' and 'official history' with actual truth is extremely misguided and contrary to proven history. The reason many people, including me, investigate alternative theories is because if the official theory is not the truth and those responsible were not brought to justice then all those involved in the suppression, distortion and promulgation (innocently or not) of the 'official truth' are contributing to the crime and justice would have been perverted. I think the phrase 'conspiracy theory' should be substituted for 'alternative theory' if you truly believe in being unbiased. I am writing this in the "Talk" section because I am aware that the 'Article' section is not the place for conjecture (or arbitrary editing), but the topic of this article and many others are more important than petty debates and the articles are not unbiased. Unbiased articles use terms like 'alleged', 'reportedly' and 'according to' etc. This article (and others) say "Martin Bryant shot..." not "the gunman shot..." which is not unbiased. Saying Martin Bryant was convicted of the crime is unbiased and reasonable, vouching for the accuracy and fairness of the conviction is not and labelling alternative theories as 'conspiracy theories' when you know the phrase has been given a knew (and inaccurate / biased) 'Nineteen Eighty-Four - Newspeak' / 'Fox News - Fair and Balanced' definition is blatantly flawed. 203.122.220.248 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading this page for the first time I have to say that this contribution says it all for me.

May I use it on my site? http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/Pam06.html Ned Wood

Removed original reply - My bad - I thought you were talking to me, but you mean the nameless commenter above I think. Removed my flattered reply. ChrisPer 02:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Friend, as you can see I have my own 'alternative' theory (contagion effect) which I have taken from the scientific literature and press articles - that the massacres resulted from the media giving people the ideas and offering perverse incentives to carry out these crimes. I have been engaged in a few internet discussions of the 'alternative' theories, and I feel that we could benefit from thinking carefully about what leads you to believe them. Firstly, are the facts as you have been told by your sources? Many facts offered by conspiracy theorists are not correct. Second, when you approach the question are you allowing confirmatory bias to operate, or looking for disconfirmatory evidence as well? And thirdly, has new evidence come along? The Bulletin articles and press interest in the 10th anniversary has generated new information from those involved. (BTW, how about giving yourself a handle so we can operate openly?)ChrisPer 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the people believing the consirpacys only read the conspiracy sites and don't read the official documents. They claim that there was no hard evidence against bryant etc. They claim nothing was found scientifically to indicate bryant was even at port arthur. They only read witness statements that fit the theories. Apparently they haven't even read the court proceedings and seen the full statements. Bryant not only left his bag in the cafe but also a knife which was DNA tested have both his blood and blood of mrs martin. Unlike the sites say, bryant was personally identified by several staff members, so he at least lied when he said he wasn't there that day. The sites also only mention Bryants interaction with people that day when it suits the site. The truth is on that day, as the court transcripts show, Bryant talked to a great many people, stopped at many shops. At one point he even says to people he is going to port aurthor and that they should come to the cafe. He talks to many people claiming he has been surfing that day, he never did. He clearly already wanted a cover story. He stopped at many shops buying single items and mentioned surfing, he brought a lighter at one shop, a can of tomato paste at another. Stopped and talked to people who's car had brocken down etc. Several people not only saw him shoot but also took down his license plate number as he left port arthor. No one mentions seeing the person go in and out as if there were 2 possible people wearing the same clothes as the conspiracy theory sites say. All statements are consistant, he went inside brought food came out side ate it. Went inside shot, went outside shot bus, got into his car. There are many many statements about this.
Basically the whole conspiracy theory is based on 4 very weak points: 1. That the descriptions people gave sometimes had hair going to the shoulder, some just below the sholder, some wavy, some straight and wavy at the bottom. That some descipe him with acne and some do not. This is very common to occur, in many situations police often get statements giving different hair color and clothes colors, infact the statements match alot better than most other crimes, his clothing and behoviour and mumbling was also consistant. 2. That Bryant didn't have the skill. This is based soley on the fact that conspiracy theory believe bryant when he says he only used his guns a couple of times. The fact is he had brought large amounts of ammo and he was known to lie in the interview, so he could have be lieing about this. What is for sure is that he had fired and used the weapons before. He was also shooting from point blank range, most people shot had power burn marks on them. When he went to more open range around the busses he injured people not killed them. Infact all the people he killed were at close range (in the cafe, on the bus, at both cars from point blank, at the mum and kids point blank) 3. That the times do not match up in that the witness times given for people talking to him such as mr lerner etc. seem to be at the same time as the shooting. But when you have a look if witnesses are even 15 minutes out in the guessing of the time (which is highly possible) then there is no problem with the time line at all. Conspricay theoriests like to claim the 2 seperate bursts of rounds heard by neighbours mean that the official time line is wrong. If you actually read the statement you can see the first birst is the martin death and the 2nd 'busrt' isnt a burst but is multiple shots of a long period of time and is obviously the massacre. 4. That while many people saw him at the site and id'd him later, no one id'd him actually doing anythign illegal. This is largly because he changed his plea to guilty. After this time a number of DNA tests and people who were asked to come as witnesses to the actually shooting and to identify Bryant were no longer needed. Conspriacy theoriests of course look at this backwards and claim that they never had anthing on him, and tohat they forced him to plead guilty because they had no prof. This is reverse reasoning. The truth is he changed his plea after the court kept hearing more and more evidence. It was only then that a number of witnesses were not needed and some extra forensic tests were cancelled.
As with most conpsiracys they do have so solid ground from inconsistancies and minor cover ups. The entire situation at the seascape house is completely over looked by many people and had large irregulatiries that no one has bothered to solve. Such as as lady seen by police running around screaming, was this mrs martin? At least one of the martins was found to have been tied up and gagged so its possible she was later released ran around histerical came back into the house and was shot at night and not in the morning as the official case claims. They can't tell what happened exactally because of the fire. They knew Bryant has been there ealier so they assumed this was when he killed them.--155.144.251.120 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Contagion Effect and Port Arthur

I have been researching the Contagion Effect (aka Copycat Effect) and wrote an article on the evidence that part of the cause of this kind of mass shooting was the media 'glamourising' (at least to a sick mind) the behaviour.

This model fits the 'c*ck-up theory' better than 'conspiracy theory'. It provides a framework to actually understand what is happening, and prevent repetitions. My article at this linkgoes into it.

After discussion I suggest that I add to the article that media behaviour is suspected of contributing to clusters of massacres, reference the publications of Professor Mullen and add the Ideas Kill article as an internet link reference. Anyone wish to comment?ChrisPer 08:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Would be werth getting Bryants lawyers opionin. His opionion was Bryant was a copy cat because when Bryant was asked to how he pled, he asked to plead the same way as the hoddle st. murderer. He also made many comments about the recent school massacre overseas and repeatidly asked if he 'got the record'. I believe the lawyer is writing a book about it all. Should help put the conspiracy theories to rest for once.--Dacium 21:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Bryant's first lawyer, the one who could not get him to plead guilty or his second lawyer, the one who did coerce him to plead guilty? I suggest there will be differing views from each of the two.203.169.17.119 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)the8thdwf

WASPS comment

The original source of the WASPS comment added a second statement from police which says that he was referring to actual wasps which where annoying him. Police even question him later about this and he says he is allergic to them and how they were annoying him. The only thing he said was about Japanese is that they are usually bus loads of them, he wasn't derogitory. The racial stuff was all media slantering things. A copy of the statement is shown at http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpawasps.html (i know its a conspiracy theory site but the copy of the statement is genuine). Also the WASPS term as claimed in this article was practially non existant in australia and it was only american media that picked up on it later.--155.144.251.120 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Details and Number of deaths..

As you can see I have tried to add alot to the article to try and give details similiar to other massacres such as columbine massacre so people can try and get an idea of what happened, rather than just '20 people killed in a cafe'. I am not sure if the names should be removed competely and instead just mention where the people were from. I know that some families have requested not to be on anything to do with what happened and don't have relatives names even on the memorial, does wikipedia have a policy over this or just to state whatever facts can be, reguarless of how victums families my feel?. I would like to here suggestions about this.

I based all the article on publically released court transcripts and police and witness statements that were released. As you can see there are still major problems. Most noticable that there simply aren't 35 people killed in the sequence I have given. I cannot find what is missed. Some of the court transcipts do not mention if people died or where just shot, because the count numbers are references, but I cannot look up the count number to see if it was murder or attempted murder. Thus it is possible some people who I listed as not shot or surviving actually died. I will be inserting numbers into the text so we can more easily number each casulaty and make sure we have them all covered.--Dacium 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Murdered Victims list:

  • Winifred Aplin
  • Walter Bennett
  • Nicole Burgess
  • Chung Soo Leng
  • Elva Gaylard
  • Zoe Hall
  • Mervyn Howard
  • Elizabeth Howard
  • Ron Jary
  • Tony Kisten
  • Dennis Lever
  • Sarah Loughton
  • David Martin
  • Sally Martin
  • Pauline Masters
  • Nanette Mikac
  • Alannah Mikac
  • Madeline Mikac
  • Andrew Mills
  • Gwenda Neander
  • Peter Nash
  • Ng Moh Yee
  • Anthony Nightingale
  • Mary Nixon
  • Glen Pears
  • Jim Pollard
  • Janet Quinn
  • Kate Scott
  • Helene Salzman
  • Robert Salzman
  • Raymond Sharp
  • Kevin Sharp
  • Royce Thompson
  • Jason Winter

35th Murdered victims unknown. Possibily someone named 'William'. Have not been able to get an injury list. --Dacium 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should chronology have its own seperate page

the Chronology is very long.


Should it be summarised here (Bryant went here, shot X, went here, hijacked a car, police arrived at X:XX EST etc.) and then the current content shifted to, say, Chronology of Port Arthur Massacre.--ZayZayEM 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Another note on long pages - should this talk page have any items archived?--ZayZayEM 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the talk page should probably be archived now that it is to long. As for the main article. I think an over-view is needed and maybe remove some useless details from the chronology. However it is in line with other massacres and there cronologies (see the columbine one)--155.144.251.120 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When tagging the article...

Please express what parts you think most need fixing. It is in appropriate to just read and it and slap tags on it for formal tone and wikify.--155.144.251.120 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an experienced Shooter having hunted Buffaloe & Crocodiles in the N.T. of Aust in doing so gained a lot of knowledge on Firearms, and in relation to the Port Arthur Massacre find it hard to beleive that a lone gunman of Martin Bryants experience & using the firearms he is alleged to have used either with or without,as is alleged, a Laser sight he ,could not have acheived the accuracy used to acheive the results of this shooting. Then to leave the cafe ,Shoot dead more people,then have a stand off for 18 hours with the "Police Tactical Sqad" without any further deaths or injuries by gun fire,is to me ludicrous, I dont know how or who done the killing or shootings, but I am convinced by the evidence I have read, it was not Martin Bryant.

I am K. G. Mackintosh, of Bundaberg Qld. Aust

Your thoughts are irrelevant. See WP:A. Dan100 (Talk) 16:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Try reading the court transcripts in whole and not just what certain POV books and conspiracy web sites 'pick' because it fits their theories. Originally I had same opionion, even from some 'books' on the topic until I read official documents etc. The court transcripts descibe how most (if not all) of the people he shot, were shot from range of less than 1m, most of them with the barrel a few inches or literally touching them. When he fired at people from distance he routinely missed (he fired at ~12 people outdoors missing almost all of them, only caused very minor injures to 12 or so people he shot at in their cars. Failed to shoot any police from distances of 50m etc. The FURTHEST he was from someone he shot and killed was determined to be around 2m, possibly less if he extended his arms. He did his murders by walking directly upto people and firing.--Dacium 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move to Port Arthur massacre (1996)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Rename because the massacre in the Sino-Japanese war is just as likely, if not more likely, the desired topic from a search by people accessing Wikipedia. 132.205.44.134 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Agree with nominator.Zeus1234 00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 1996 event is one of the most notable mass shootings of recent times. Check "what links here". On the first 30 google hits, only 3 refer to the Sino-Japanese event, one of which is the Wikipedia page on the topic. -- Chuq (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • A Google search in English with +China +"Port Arthur massacre" -Wikipedia returns 9,150 pages. Changing China to Australia, one gets 30,600. Even ignoring the effects of the English-language internet bias in favour of recent events and events in English-speaking countries, the number of hits for the Chinese event is not completely out of proportion to the Australian one, and deserves Port Arthur massacre being made a disambiguation page. Joeldl 07:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Make Port Arthur massacre a disambiguation page. The number of deaths and the significance in history of these events are not comparable. If anything, things should be the other way round. Google is not always a good indication of what is significant from an academic point of view. Takeru Kobayashi gets twice as many Google web hits as Port Arthur massacre, but which would you expect in an encyclopedia? Is a bias towards recent events desirable in an encyclopedia? The perception of importance of the 1996 event is also likely exaggerated by a bias towards the English-speaking world. The German Wikipedia has equal coverage of each. The French Wikipedia only mentions the 1894 event. Joeldl 02:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) The references for the Australian event are almost entirely press accounts. The numerous references for the China article include books and scholarly articles. Joeldl 12:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes the Wikipedia:Naming conventions POLICY says: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". What the German Wikipedia or French Wikipedia does is not relevant. I would imagen that they have a similar policies and are following them. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The same thing could be said to apply to the case of Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country). Clearly, given the demographic makeup of Wikipedia's readers, the U.S. state is likely to be more commonly searched for, and undoubtedly many English-speakers haven't heard of the country. The state and the country are roughly the same size. Yet 500 times more people died in the 1894 massacre. It is also, and here I'm venturing a guess, more likely to appear in a world history textbook, no matter what language the book is written in and whether or not the book goes up to 1996. It is hard to see how the other can be said to be the primary topic. Joeldl 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hate seeing those brackets in article names. I don't mind the article being called 1996 Port Arthur massacre though. Nomadtales 07:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the essential question here is whether to have Port Arthur massacre become a disambiguation page, and the specific names of the two articles could be worked out afterwards. Perhaps you could cast your vote on this basis. Joeldl 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, ignore my facetious comment, but the oppose still stands. Personally (though my bias may be skewed because I am Australian) I think the balance now may be tipped towards the Tasmanian event in the connection most people have with the title Port Arthur massacre. Nomadtales 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to (1996) and (1894) options the articles should be renamed "Port Arthur massacre (Lüshunkou)" and "Port Arthur massacre (Tasmania)" as suggested by Thebrainer as the dates dont indicate there is a difference in location. Gnangarra 13:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to date titles - and by what Thebainer has said - I support the change as suggsted as a geographically distinction is what is needed more than date SatuSuro 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose either move. There appears to be a primary topic (the Australian one), even if that primacy is a result of the same pressures that result in WP:BIAS or WP:Recentism, and so the base name article should continue to cover that primary topic. -- JHunterJ 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I support for two reasons. The first reason is that when the events are compared, one had less than 40 people killed, and the other had 20,000. The second reason is that the Port Arthur in China I had known about before this debate whereas, the Port Arthur in Tasmania was unknown to me before reading this article. Captain panda 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to date titles; makes it seem like two different massacres happened in the same place many years apart. Support geographic disambiguation. --Geniac 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I will support disambiguation by date or geographically, whichever has more support. Joeldl 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to a geographical disambiguator. Down with recentism. —Moondyne 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to make Port Arthur massacre a disambig page for reasons mentioned at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Systemic_bias_issue.It seems the all the events have a relevant degree of notability with the the Sino-Japanese event clearly passing the 100 year test and showing itself to be the most historically significant event. A Disambig page should be the primary topic. AgneCheese/Wine 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to a disambiguator, no preference between naming by date and geography. The (former) Port Arthur in China is much more famous than the Port Arthur in Tasmania, and the massacre in the former is more significant by any measure - more people killed, more books about it, longer historical impact, etc. GRuban 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Request to administrator Please take note of the fact that a good number of the participants who summarized their vote as Oppose have actually explicitly expressed support for disambiguation but prefer a geographical, rather than chronological, disambiguator. Joeldl 05:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per Chuq. Lankiveil 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Strong oppose per Chuq. The Tasmanian massacre is much more well-known, and is comparable to the recent Virginia Tech shootings as the worst peacetime massacre in Australian history. JRG 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Chuq DXRAW 07:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chuq. Simple Template:otheruses disambig at top is all that is necessary.--ZayZayEM 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chuq. As long as the link remains at the top to the other massacre, I don't see a problem with maintaining the status quo. MichelleG 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Support this page as disambig per nominator but without preference to geographical or time based selection. 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a move to a geographic disambiguator per WP:RECENT and WP:BIAS. —  AjaxSmack  03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)/Archive_1&oldid=1142774902"