Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

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)

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

--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

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
the nearest two policemen were even further away to deal with a drug stash at the Salt Water River coal mine
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
a 22-corpse mortuary van was acquired, under public scorn, shortly before; it was sold on the internet afterward
witnesses incl Graham Collyer described the gunman as pocked/freckled/with acne; Bryant was clear-complected
witness testimony was influenced by a photo illegally published in the Hobart Mercury
Sgt Dutton has said there is no forensic evidence linking Bryant although there was ample opportunity to acquire gunman's DNA and/or fingerprints
no coroner's inquest, in defiance of the law

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)