by Ned Wood

Martin Bryant









"No action can really be understood apart from motive which prompted it." Arthur Schopenhauer. 1851.

Just after noon on 28th April 1996, an unknown marksman opened fire on diners in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Australia. In less than 20 minutes at this and five other crime scenes, the marksman killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots. Nineteen of the first twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe died from single shots to the head, all fired by the unknown marksman from his right hip. This staggering display of marksman- ship was blamed on left-handed and intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, whose shooting experience extended to popping off cans in the bush, and had no military training of any kind. From the time of his arrest, remand prisoner Martin Bryant was illegally held in strict solitary confinement and denied access to media of any kind until his police interrogation on 4th July 1996. When he refused to admit to the Port Arthur Massacre at interrogation, he was once more placed back in illegal solitary confinement. Eventually in desperation during November 1996, Martin Bryant pleaded "guilty" 72 times, thereby allowing the authorities to avoid a humiliating trial at which they could present no hard evidence of guilt. Intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was convicted by a hysterical media pack, then forced to plead guilty by prison officials illegally enforcing solitary confinement.

These pages were written in response to my feelings that something was very wrong about the Port Arthur incident and the ultimate outcome as reported by the press.

It was more than the media frenzy that saturated the tabloids with sensationalism and emotional hype. The never-ending tirade of media concentration on the private lives of people who should have been left to grieve in peace was a lead up to the Prime Minister's staggering announcement to enforce new gun laws.


On the 23rd of June 1996 the Sunday Telegraph published a story about a gun collector in Victoria who identified the AR15 rifle used for the Port Arthur killings as one that he had handed in to police during an amnesty in February 1993. Strange that the weapon used in the killings just happened to fall off a conveyor belt on the way to the smelters.

The media created the impression that Bryant's guilt was a foregone conclusion and it was expected that he would plead guilty and fore-go a jury trial. I wondered why he would do that. Lawyers for offenders who perpetrated far more horrific crimes such as torture and dismembering before murder had pleaded similarly and to the disgust of the public had received paltry sentencing or treatment.


When Martin Bryant stood up in court and did as I expected him to do and pleaded "not guilty" the repercussions of that stirred up the biggest ants nest since Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. The Department of Prosecutions had practically promised the public a speedy trial to put this assassin away as quickly as possible with a minimum of fuss. The reasons they gave? To save the witnesses having to suffer a trial by jury and dredging up all the trauma again.

Imagine what would happen to our judicial system if in every horrific trial the witnesses had to be spared reliving the incidents at the expense of seeing justice done. There would be no justice at all. In order for a man to be accused there must be an accuser and no one stepped forward to identify Martin Bryant at his trial. Despite the dozens of people who could have pointed out Bryant as the assassin the only witness to testify was a questionable video recording which has since been debunked as a fake.

My reaction was that if he was not to get a trial by jury then, being an intellectually challenged and deranged person, he would have to be judged and sentenced according to his mental condition. Well, how about temporary insanity then? No, the Australian people had been worked into such a frenzy by the press that nothing less than the maximum penalty would be tolerated for Martin Bryant regardless of his condition. God only knows where those snivel libertarians were in this instance. Isn't everyone entitled to a fair trial? And is not everyone innocent until found guilty? Apparently not in this case.

Now, I am one for throwing away the key to those guilty of any violent offense. This business of insanity, temporary insanity, temporarily drugged, drunk or being very angry at the time is not an excuse for harming another human being unless in self defense in my opinion. However we can't count the number of times this kind of plea has worked to get some other scum of the earth off on crimes equally as horrific. So why wouldn't Martin Bryant, accused by every man and his dog as being a mentally deranged maniac, not be allowed to plead insanity? A psychiatrist had determined that Bryant had an IQ of 66 yet rather than this information acting as proof that he at least had diminished responsibility it was used as adequate proof that he was just over the border-line of being sane and therefore fit to be tried. Again, assurance that Bryant would receive the maximum penalty.

As I was to find out later, after reading what is left of Bryant's origional interview, at no time has he admitted to being at Port Arthur on that day even after extensive questioning. In fact he admitted to several other incriminating events and a full confession would not have much differance to the apparant trouble he was already in.

Even though Bryant had not been identified in any police lineup as the gunman, outrage against this man was akin to the old wild west lynch mobs. I just couldn't forget the trouble that the media went to profile Bryant, from enhancing of his photograph to make him look like a wild-eyed Manson maniac to the innuendoes that his house was an arsenal for military weapons. All of this made finding an impartial jury almost impossible - perhaps that was the idea.

mediapic.jpg - 31.96 K


Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pleaded 'not guilty' at his hearing the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused. He was, in actual fact, refused a trial.

After a lengthy stay in solitary confinement Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him.

The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could "Rot In Hell". Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation.


In an unprecedented move Martin Bryant's million dollar estate that was left to him by an older woman friend who apparently thought a great deal of him and wanted him to live comfortably when she died, was confiscated by the court soon after he was charged. Never had this happened before, in fact they changed the law so that they could do this. The intention was, so we were told, to provide compensation for the victims of the massacre. Provide compensation for the victims from the estate of a man who had not yet been tried and proven guilty? To this day I have not had one survivor tell me that they saw any of this money. All this preposterous action did was to deprive a man of funds for a decent defence. Never heard of before.

This decision was made before his trial and while he should still have been considered innocent. He was relatively left penniless and unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this impoverishment he was appointed a lawyer who was very reluctant to take the case. The lawyer later resigned himself from the case after being threatened by the public for defending a madman. Another state lawyer was appointed who obviously had very little experience since none of the very convincing evidence in these pages was collected or consequently presented during the hearing. In fact his counselling to Martin was that he was going to jail anyway and if he pleaded guilty he could have a comfortable cell with a colour TV but if he didn't do as he was told he'd get no TV.

Now to an intellectually handicapped man like Martin Bryant to live the rest of your life without television would be a very powerful motive for pleading guilty and I believe that that is the only way they got him to do it.

It is without a doubt that Bryant's estate was confiscated in order to deter some clever lawyer from earning his money and digging up the truth on the Port Arthur Massacre and declaring Bryant the patsy that he obviously was. The media had whipped up such frenzy around Martin that very few lawyers were willing to be the hated defender of a mass murderer but with a million dollar estate behind him I'm sure he would have found someone who would have been persuaded to earn a healthy fee.


It is an inconceivable notion that in this day and age a man could be found guilty by the media with headlines saying that he was the Port Arthur murderer and showing a picture of him even before he was charged.

Within days newspapers and television crews all over the country were telling the people that Martin Bryant was guilty while he lay in a hospital bed in Hobart recovering from bad burns suffered in the Seascape fire where he was arrested. One of the survivors of the massacre, a former military man and unlikely to mistake an ID, was in the hospital only a few meters away from Bryant in an adjacent ward and told police that he had got a good look at the shooter and could definitely identify him but was never asked to do so. This ID would have been the only time that a formal identification could have been made since the media had corrupted all others by illegally publishing Bryant's photos and accusing him of being the killer. The survivor had not yet seen that paper while recovering from being shot in the neck.

I have had these pages up and running since 1997 and have never had anyone tell me that they saw the Port Arthur shooter and it was Martin Bryant. Yet I have seen several sworn statements from eyewitnesses who could identify the shooter and give descriptions of a man other than Martin Bryant where the killings took place. While there were witnesses who said that they saw Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur area not one could identify him as being anywhere near the Broad Arrow Café, where most of the murders took place, or any other crime scene on the way to the Seascape Inn. Those who eyeballed him said that he had a pocked ugly face and long hair. Martin Bryant has clear skin and on that occasion his hair was less than shoulder length. Photographic evidence shows a man wearing what looks like a woman's wig. Witnesses said the shooter shot from the right hip, yet Martin was left handed and the list goes on and on. All of which will be revealed in these pages.


Silently I agonised over my feelings about this whole thing. I was unable to talk to others about it for fear of their hatred of Bryant clouding any sensible debate but one day some pages copied from a paper that isn't owned by the multinationals fell into my lap. Someone who knew about my concerns gave me an article to read that confirmed my suspicions and eased that knot in my stomach that told me we had all been very much misinformed about Port Arthur. In my hands I finally held the pages that filled in the missing bits of the puzzle and answered most of my questions.

The author's name was Joe Vialls and I wrote to him and asked him if I could publish his work on my pages. He sent me written permission to do this free of charge and since February 1998 I have been the messenger for his unedited articles.

As time went by these articles eventually built into a book which he has published called DEADLY DECEPTION AT PORT ARTHUR and contains an in-depth investigation into a conspiracy almost beyond belief but backed up with scientific evidence which cannot be refuted.

Learning about Martin Bryant's intellectual capabilities and limited skill with rifles as opposed to the incredible skill and expertise displayed by the shooter at Port Arthur convinced me that I was right.

Probably arising from the same "gut feelings" that I had, various other people have begun their own investigations. Many of these investigators are amateurs in some capacity. Either having no previous experience with investigative work or very little writing ability. Their styles and avenues of discovery have come from different directions and may even conflict with each other but there is one thing that they all seem to have in common.

They all come to the same conclusion and agree that the Port Arthur massacre was staged for a purpose and a government cover-up has resulted in the incarceration of a man who was not the murderer of 35 innocent victims on that fateful day. Fifty million dollars was spent on the government buy-back scheme which was a dismal failure not just for the money but for the lives that paid for it.

From the wealth of information gathered in these pages it is up to the reader to determine for themselves whether the traitors who disarmed our country should be allowed to get away with it. If you believe that a coronial enquiry should have been held into the Port Arthur massacre, as is mandatory for all violent deaths, then sent your opinions to the Australian Federal Police 16/18 London Circuit, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia.

Wendy Scurr November 29, 1999

Wendy Scurr (nurse and survivor) writes:-
"I have read Joe Vialls book, I was heavily involved in the Massacre itself, I was working at Port Arthur. I know that what Mr Vialls is stating is true and that the official version is one hell of a cover up. The video footage is one issue, the time factor is another, why did it take police 6hrs. to arrive except for one policeman at 4.30pm and two female officers at 5.30pm to control over 500 people and 5 major crime scenes. There many other issues to be considered. But it is one huge coverup.



The most comprehensive and scientific investigation into the Port Arthur massacre with maps and photographic evidence to wet the appetite for his informative book






is a compiled book on CD of enormous interest to those seeking the truth about the Port Arthur Massacre. It contains transcripts, photos, videos, audio and letters from witnesses.
Send a $20 money order, which covers the CD and postage, to.......

Port Arthur Unmasked,
P.O. Box 516,

and you will be posted

"Deceit and Terrorism – The Massacre at Port Arthur"

which includes the work of both Andrew MacGregor and Stewart Beattie. It is one of the most comprehensive investigations that I have ever read. The authors reveal a staggering cover-up and prove how vulnerable we are to the media who dictate to us what they want us to know and what they don't report for their own benefit.

"After reading Mullen's psychiatric evaluation, one of Australia's senior counter-terror experts, who had himself investigated the case, observed to this news service on the subject of Bryant ostensibly having learned all he knew about weaponry and tactics from "survival magazines":

"If this guy had weapons and survival skills from magazines, then that conflicts with his learning difficulties--how could he understand the books in the first place? Any decent lawyer would have a field day with this report. They could pick it to pieces. For a start, Bryant worked out the military aspects of the shooting. Most soldiers couldn't do that on their own, but Bryant did. What's more, he outsmarted the police by doubling back to the Seascape--that's not a low IQ."

"Then, look at the planning of the assault, the equipment required, the weapons stash, the most effective weapons to use, how much ammunition to take with him, how to use the weaponry, planning an escape route, creating havoc in multiple areas to keep the authorities guessing, and so on. Now, how could he have learned all that from books, with such a low IQ and poor reading skills? This guy had military training."

Tasmanian Deputy Commissioner Lupo Prins, who directed the overall police operation at Port Arthur on April 28, 1996, observed dryly to {The New Citizen} in mid-April 1997, that Bryant had "set up six different areas of activity--he had police running in circles. That's pretty good for a guy who's a slow learner."

What's Going On by Carl Wernerhoff


This site started off with a very unconvinced percentage of debaters. Despite the continuous barrage from a conspicuous opposition the amount of people who are now convinced that there is more to the Port Arthur massacre than a maniac gone beserk with a gun has risen to over 30% and made the debate one of the most popular on this site. However as the debate progressed and the percentage of people convinced that Bryant was innocent increased the site, unfortunately, mysteriously closed down despite the immense interest in the topic.