How could Martin Bryant, whose IQ of 66 placed him amongst the bottom 1 or 2% of the Australian population, have performed the deadly feats of marksmanship at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 that few fully trained soldiers are capable of? (Includes embedded YouTube videos "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'", "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2", "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 2 of 2".) See also: "The Port Arther Massacre - Was Martin Bryant Framed? parts 1, 2 & 3 (pdf 100K, 111K & 126K) by Carl Wernerhoff in Nexus1 magazine of Jun-Jul 06, "Schapelle Corby is innocent, and the Australian Government knows she is" of 6 Sep 09.
Update, 29 July 2013 : Please download and freely distribute Mass Murder - Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (pdf - 13Mb) by Keith Noble completed on 27 July 2017. Keith was inspired by this article and embedded video broadcasts to write this book. On 9 May 2013, the Hobart Mercury, owned by Rupert Murdoch, in the article Port Arthur conspiracy anger by Zara Dawtrey, again labeled Martin Bryant a "mass murderer" in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. - Ed, 19 May and 29 July, 2013.
I was motivated to write this brief article when fellow candobetter blogger, TigerQuoll, mistakenly in my view, in his article "Animal abuse inculcates social deviance" repeated the accepted wisdom of the guilt of Martin Bryant, now imprisoned for the rest of his life for the murder of 35 people at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.
Over a year ago, I became aware that a number of credible people, some of whom had been directly affected by the terrible events of that day, disputed Martin Bryant's guilt and, instead, maintain that the real killer remains free.
Having viewed video presentations and speeches, it seems to me that the case in favour of Martin Bryant's innocence is compelling.
It is my hope that my having assembled the material here in this way will motivate people who hold Martin Bryant to be guilty to explain why they believe so.
Some factors which cause me to doubt Martin Bryant's Guilt
Many who are behind bars today for the crime of murder following hotly contested jury trials are most probably guilty. Examples which come to mind are Ivan Milat and Bradley John Murdoch, however others who have been convicted by jury trial for crimes have been found to be innocent. The most celebrated case, is of course, Lindy Chamberlain.
In August last year I came the firm view that Schapelle Corby, is innocent of the absurd crime of having attempted to smuggle marijuana worth $35,000 in Australia into a country where it would have been worth $5,000. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of Corby's innocence, almost the whole of the Australian political establishment and newsmedia is apparently resolved to uphold the fiction of her guilt and to let her rot away in the hell of Kerobokan prison for another 15 years at the grave risk of her losing her sanity, if not her life.
That they can be nearly unanimously wrong on this issue is cause to open our minds to the possibility that they might have also got it wrong in regard to Martin Bryant.
One indisputable fact is that the Australian newsmedia shamelessly inflamed public opinion against Martin Bryant, thereby destroying what little chance he stood of having a fair trial, should he have decided to maintain his initial 'not guilty' plea. Even the Wikipedia article acknowledges this:
Newspaper coverage immediately after the massacre raised serious questions about journalistic practices. Photographs of Martin Bryant had been digitally manipulated with the effect of making Bryant appear deranged. There were also questions as to how the photographs had been obtained. The Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions warned the media that the reporting compromised a fair trial and writs were issued against the Hobart Mercury (which used Bryant's picture under the headline "This is the man"), The Australian, The Age and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation over their coverage.
article, with his eyes fraudulently highlighted by
the Sunday Telegraph to make him appear crazy.
As alluded to in the title of Andrew MacGregor's 10 minute talk "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" the Port Arthur massacre in many ways fulfilled a similar role in Australian politics that the 9/11 false flag terrorist attack fulfilled in US politics. It caused much of the Australian population to view Prime Minister John Howard as some kind of benevolent caring father figure, rather than the leader of the malevolent, socially divisive government that he was. Strikingly, most of the supposed 'bleeding heart' small 'l' liberal chattering classes almost instantly forgave Howard for his vicious spending cutbacks because of his alleged 'courage' in introducing gun control to ostensibly prevent further Port Arthur massacres.
This largely helped to derail effective political resistance to the Howard Government for much of the ensuing decade.
It would be interesting to know if, when in 1998, the Howard Government unleashed mercenaries and Rottweilers on Australia's waterfront workforce in its ultimately unsuccessful attempt to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia, or when, in 2003, John Howard sent our armed forces to participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq on the pretext of the lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction, those members of the chattering classes ever contemplated their pronouncements of John Howard's sincerity in his professed abhorrence of violence back in 1996.
I will include below, some links to resources about the Port Arthur massacre, mostly against the official account, but some for.
The Port Arthur Massacre - Was Martin Bryant Framed? parts 1, 2 & 3 (pdf 100K, 111K & 126K) by #CarlWernerhoff" id="CarlWernerhoff">Carl Wernerhoff in Nexus#main-fn1">1 magazine issue 77 of June-July 2006.)
Suddenly One Sunday of (undated) on by Patrick Bellamy on trutv.com. This is an article which accepts the official account of the Port Arthur. The article also includes three other pages: 2, 3 & 4.
The Port Arthur massacre conspiracy of (undated) by Joe Viallis#main-fn2">2.
The Port Arthur massacre - 10 years on the secrecy continues of 2006(?) by Joe Viallis.#main-fn3">3 (Second copy, less images to be found here.)
Martin bryant's mother speaks out of 5 Jun 99 by Joe Viallis.#main-fn4">4
Port Arthur killer like a zombie: mum of 28 Mar 06 on Nine MSN News, Mother Carleen accuses Martin Bryant authors by Matthew Denholm and Matthew Clayfield in the Australian of 6 May 09.
Sour Dealings on ABC TV's Media Watch of 18 May 09 about complaints by Carleen Bryant against the authors of Martin Bryant, Born or Bred.
YouTube video broadcasts
Video broadacasts are, in my own experience, the fastest way to gain an initial understanding of a complex issue, although they are no replacement for a well-written and well sourced textual article. I recommend that readers begin by viewing the 10 minute video "Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" of former policeman Andrew McGregor putting the case for Martin Bryant's innocence. If that sparks your interest, then please proceed to watch the subsequent videos of longer and more in-depth presentations, "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (59') and "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (98'). There is a 10' "conspiracy theory debunking" style video with the misleading title "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 3". The last two are two 10' videos of straight Channel 7 news reporting of the time, "Port Arthur massacre part 1 of 2" and "Port Arthur massacre part 2 of 2".
"Aussie 9/11 'Port Arthur massacre'" (10') featuring former policeman Andrew McGregor. View original video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj7oveOuOvkhere.
"Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 1 of 2" (59'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYxtultxZU.
"Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 2 of 2" (98'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9qD87yUag.
The misleadingly titled "Port Arthur massacre - Martin Bryant set up, part 3". This is, in fact,a suposedly "debunking" video. In its 10 minutes it focuses mostly on personally attacking Andrew McGregor and Wendy Scurr, but addresses almost none of the arguments they have put. Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCmLCQdiOXs
Channel 7 news reporting, "Port Arthur massacre part 1 of 2" (10'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK9qD87yUag
Channel 7 news reporting, "Port Arthur massacre part 2 of 2" (10'). Original at www.youtube.com/watch?v=siun7RHSyqA
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ Although Nexus magazine has printed material that I consider unscientific, such about UFO's or the Hollow Earth Theory, so too does the mainstream media every day of the week when they uphold the fictions of free market economic theory, that population growth is beneficial or or the Official account of 9/11. Nexus does publish quality articles about issues that the mainstream media will not cover.
#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑, #main-fn3" id="main-fn3">3. #main-fn3-txt">↑, #main-fn4" id="main-fn4">4. #main-fn4-txt">↑ Joe Viallis died in 2005. A web-site containing other articles by Joe Viallis can be found here. Whilst I have to reserve judgement on some of the other articles he has written, his treatment of the Port Arthur Massacre, from my having skimmed over the article, seems sound.
Sun, 2010-04-11 04:20
In Response to: Was Martin Bryant Framed?
Sun, 2010-04-11 11:20
An example of what may convince some of Bryant's guilt
Thanks for this response, AP.
Part of the problem is that the monstrousness of this crime is precisely what prevents many people from rationally considering the evidence, for even to do so, one risks being judged as excusing the crime.
The evidence directly implicating Martin Bryant is non-existent, so, instead the case against Bryant (which was never formally put becaus there was no trial) largely centres on supposed facts that make him and people he was acquainted with appear capable of committing the crime or at least being very bizarre.
A case in point is this excerpt from "Born or Bred":
On the face of it, these facts present Helen Mary Elizabeth Harvey, and, possibly, indirectly, Martin Bryant, in a bad light, if we forget his IQ of 66.
Whether this is true or some facts have been omitted, or whether it was the result of a misunderstanding rather than conscious cruelty on Harvey's part, I can't say, but this is an example of the kind of information which causes many to conclude that Bryant must have been guilty in the absence of any direct evidence of his guilt.
Niki (not verified)
Sat, 2011-03-26 21:06
Anonymous (not verified)
Sun, 2011-07-31 17:33
Agree that Bryant could not have murdered 35 at Port Arthur
I totally agree and have stated this for the last 10 years or so. I also think and believe that the twin towers story and fabrication is also in the same political league, both these cases have huge holes in them and when you really look the holes get so much bigger that it becomes a fairytale story written for adults, the book you find them in is How to Brainwash the Public by a Government Cover-up.
Peter (not verified)
Sat, 2013-10-12 23:56
Anonymous (not verified)
Thu, 2011-12-08 14:44
Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer?
Carl Wernerhoff (not verified)
Fri, 2013-06-14 17:54
Agree re Schapelle Corby
Thanks, James, for compiling the resources here on Martin Bryant, including my own three-parter. Judging by the emails I receive, the articles continue to be widely read. I am not aware of any attempts to debunk them. I also agree totally re Schapelle Corby's innocence.
Sun, 2014-09-21 19:35
Australia has already suffered false flag terrorism
Dear Tony Cartalucci,
Firstly, thank you, as well as for all of your sharp, humorous and highly reasoned articles about global geopolitics and other issues of recent years. As you are probably aware, I have taken the liberty of republishing at least one of your articles, Terronoia Theater Presents: Staged ISIS Attacks (18/9/14) on our web-site candobetter.net.
That article warns that Australian authorities may be about to stage a version of Operation Northwoods in order to stifle public opposition to its plans to wage war against Iraq and Syria, and possibly even worse (an outcome similar to what happened in Germany in 1933 as a result of the Reichstag Fire?).
Just hopefully, as a result of your whistleblowing, the principled stands taken by some Federal politicians and the still free Internet, the would-be terrorists will judge that they won't be able to fool the Australian public this time and call off their plans.
This letter is to advise you that (besides the Bali massacre of 2002) Australia has already suffered a false flag attack: The Port Arthur Massacre of 28 April 1996 in which 35 Australians were murdered. Martin Bryant, who had the IQ of an 11 year boy old boy, was fraudulently accused of having committed the murders. He was sent to prison for the rest of his life without even having a trial. His life today is misery and he could well die soon.
The consequences were:
1. Prime Minister John Howard, who, in 2003, took this country into an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, professed to abhor violence and passed legislation which drastically reduced the right of ordinary people to own fire-arms.
2. The public approval of John Howard, which was then plummeting as a result of his broken election promise not to slash and burn public services, lifted enough to enable him to scrape back into office in the 1998 Federal elections.
In April 2008, I wrote the article about the Port Arthur Massacre. (In truth, it was largely based on what I had already read in Nexus magazine.)
As a result of the publication of my article, Keith Allan Noble, an expatriate Australian living in Austria, wrote a large book on the Port Arthur Massacre with the hope that it would make it possible for Martin Bryant's wrongful conviction to be overturned and for the person who committed the murders and for those who framed Martin Bryant to be brought to justice. The book can be downloaded for free and is here. It is 698 A4 pages long and the size of its pdf file is 13 Megabytes
Could I please ask you to:
1. Take the time to read my article and decide whether or not the evidence and logic presented backs up the claims made in the article (I think you will find my article fairly readable - evidently Keith Noble did); and, if you are as convinced as I am:
2. Please promote my article by linking to it and/or republishing it (I can give you the HTML file).
3. Promote Keith Noble's book. Download it and read it, when you can find the time.