Talk:Martin Bryant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion?[edit]

Does anyone know if he was religious??? I've seen a reference to him being a christian, but can't see any other evidence of it. His mother is (which of course doesn't mean he is). Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sig from delete conversation in 2005[edit]

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

HI many queries, questions and incorrect facts here could be fixed by using and citing the recently published book by Bryan't mother - titled My Story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.239.24 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


How does a retarded guy shoot 35 people with military precision? There needs to be more detail on this page about the controversy surrounding Martin Bryant, as, in my mind, this is the most important part of his life. But I'm not really that well informed. Alas.

58.169.25.66 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • He was mentally retarded, not physically..... D 8th June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.169.42 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur in Australia, some of the best combat shooters in the world used a total of only 64 bullets to kill 35 people, wound 22 more, and cripple two cars. The first 19 victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe each died from a single 5.56-mm bullet to the head, all fired in less than 20 seconds from the right hip of a fast-moving combat shooter. This awesome display of marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. In the months and years following Martin’s arrest, much of the public and private strain fell on his widowed mother Carleen. This is a very small part of Carleen Bryant’s profoundly disturbing story." --Joe Vialls

[Note: Joe Vialls died in Perth in July 2005 but his website remains online. This page was published on my site in 1999 with Joe's authorisation. --BJ]

What is it with this assumption that a disabled person can't handle a gun to that extent? That's a presumptious call. If they are trained or are interested in it (or both) there is no reason why they couldn't do it. It's not rocket science. It just needs physical strength, and Bryant had that. Frankly this remark reeks of a lack of understanding of disabilities in general. Curse of Fenric 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crude assumption there. And where exactly was this 'military precision' mentioned?ACK-OA Alkoholicks 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know where i know this from, but im pretty sure he was obsessed with weapons and practised alot. Im also quite certain he had commited previous killings... —ÅñôñÿMôús Dîššíd3nt 05:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a crude assumption? The shooting which was done on that infamous day was of a kind which requires highly practiced training. His shot to fatality ratio was exceedingly high AND almost all of the fatalities were the result of head shots which were shot from the hip. He allegedly executed a skilled shooting technique called a 'Beirut Triple', which uses three shots to stop a car and kill the driver. I'm sorry, but a person such as Martin Bryant would have enormous difficulty in any of these things. Even if he was into guns and militaria, he simply hadn't acquired even the slightest training or experience. Ask any expert in on the matter. It takes much more than physical strength to perform these kinds of combat shooting maneuvers. And these are only a few of the questionable matters in the case.
It really bugs me when apparently intelligent people won't use their head except to refute sensible people. Frankly, if you can't address the comment without resorting to some kind of apologia for the shotting skills of the handicapped, you're lost.
The issue is that there IS controversy, and I agree that it should be addressed.

And no, he hadn't done any previous killings.59.167.144.5 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were a very large number of eyewitnesses who can testify to the fact that Bryant acted alone. It is paranoid nonsense to even imply otherwise.59.167.59.181 08:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not paranoid. Bryant had no interest in guns before the rampage, in fact his obsession was with collecting teddy bears of which he had over 200. Of the 35 killed, 20 were head shots firing from the hip which is notable. As for the witnesses....survivors from the cafe gave different accounts on what he was wearing so are hardly reliable. On the other hand I can easily hit a fast moving 12 inch target at 50 feet from the hip and his targets were much much closer than that (10 feet?). For me it is a natural ability and not practiced so i can see that Bryant could be a natural without need of training or outside help. However the accuracy and subsequent theories that he may not have been alone are notable enough for mention. Wayne (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 seconds is exactly what Damien bugg stated. Witnesses stated the shooter was in the Cafe for 4 to 5 minutes. 

Chrismcmaster (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion[edit]

Forget it. You guys don't want truth. 203.26.206.129 08:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you reference the Childhood section, as I believe that the entire section is patent nonsense, and creates a misleading depiction of this man. The adulthood section should also include references to his diagnosis of Schizophrenia, and to the many psychiatric reports that were conducted during his adulthood, which were required in order for him to qualify for a disability pension (you don't just get one for having a low IQ). In the Port Arthur Massacre and Aftermath section, you incorrectly state his "believed reasons" for committing the murders, when these are unreferenced, and in fact he stated very explicitly in the psychiatric report conducted after the offences that those were not reasons for him doing it. At the very least, please be consistent with the sources that you are quoting. In the Media Coverage section, you should include more information in relation to the methods that the media used to paint a picture of the man as a killer, and also to the methods that were used in changing the legal system to accommodate his crimes (his entire fortune was given to the victims), and to the media outcry in this law being applied with retrospect, as well as to many other injustices that occurred with regards to the legal process. It may also be a good idea to reference the actual statements that were made by different eye witnesses (which I can provide links to if you like) that state specifically what they said, and furthermore that the outcry did not come from eye witnesses, but from relatives of the victims. The ones who wanted Martin Bryant to die were the ones that weren't there at all, but had friends and relatives die. This should be referenced, as it is highly relevant. It should also note the synopsis of the theory from Joe Vialls, which is that the person was a trained killer or killers gone mad, and that this theory existed well before the gun law ban. The NRA's theory was a different theory that was created with reference to Joe Vialls' theory, which used the same evidence, but with a very different conclusion - that the government deliberately aimed to kill these people so as to create outcry and ban automatic weapons. This theory is very different to that of Joe Vialls, and it is the NRA's theory that was ridiculed, not Joe Vialls' one. People could believe that a government agent had gone mad and killed so many people and further that the government had wanted to hide this, but they could not believe that it was a deliberate plot and that the government wanted these people to die. It is important to differentiate the 2 theories. Oh, and as a final thing, the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions, until November 1996, was Damian Bugg QC. From November 1996 to present, he has held the position of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. You can look this up on the DPP website. His promotion was primarily due to his work on prosecuting this case, and was stated as such when it was announced. 203.26.206.129 08:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I have concerns with some parts of the Adulthood section too - I'm surprised at the reference to "Child's Play" given that police searching Bryant's home did not find the expected porn or violent videos, but instead just a big collection of Walt Disney videos. I will try to find a citable online reference for this. There seems to be a desire to paint him as some sort of psychopath stereotype, which is irresponsible and dangerous in itself.59.167.59.181 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs. Bryant, is that you?DrBogdanovic (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recording that there was an attempt to list this page on Votes for Deletion by Internodeuser and various sockpuppets. As a bogus nomimsation not made in good faith, it is not recorded here in the usual way, but it might be worth putting this note on the talk page. Tannin 11:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was a *GENUINE* nomination, as this page is created in a terribly inaccurate fashion, Mr VANDALISM! You're vandalism was not made in good faith, but that nomination was. STILL this page remains incredibly inaccurate, with no attempts to try to make it proper. So why is it that my nominations are not as good as anyone else's? And why is it "Not in good faith" when this article is easily worth nominating for deletion? If you hadn't abused your powers and manipulated things, saying that I was a "bad user", I can bet that it would have been deleted, or at least merged. This is just ridiculous bullying behaviour by Tannin and others to try to get whatever perverse thing that they want. So can you stop now and start acting maturely for a change? 203.26.206.129 15:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To prove that Tannin is lying, see here:

Talk:Port_Arthur_Massacre#Own_page_for_Bryant

Martin Bryant was a redirect from Port Arthur Massacre until April 2005. And so it should go back to that, in my opinion, as this one here is very sloppy.

Ergo, genuine thing. Not an "attempt". It is you, Tannin, who are using this for political gains. I am trying to fix up major blunders in this encylopaedia. 203.26.206.129 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A porn in a much larger game?[edit]

"There has been a book published RE: martin bryant not being alone in this massacre, there are controversial stories that he was used as a porn in a much larger game to have semi automatic weapons destroyed and disarm australia."

Did we not mean a pawn? Fruedian slip anyone? Kamajii 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahahah porn

I think you mean "pawn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.205.16 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and 'Freudian'. Level of debate/spelling/intelligence shown not high, here.
For example,'aggravate' should be 'irritate'... and quite a few other blues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:8C1A:1F8F:7B92:4B0F (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text[edit]

"and reportedly hired prostitutes every month to compensate for the absence of a girlfriend."

Can we find a source for this assertion? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/psycho.html

"As you read this report you will come across the words "in my opinion" which seems to compensate for any bias assumption. So I will also cover myself by saying that in my opinion Paul E. Mullen had clearly decided that Martin Bryant was guilty of the Port Arthur massacre before this report was ever presented to the court. In my opinion, it distinctly shows his prejudice against Martin Bryant..."

"Mr Bryant's first sexual encounters were with prostitutes and escorts. He apparently paid for an escort every month or so in the years prior to obtaining his inheritance." 24.132.34.209 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Quality / Missed Opportunity[edit]

I'm very dissapointed with the quality of this article, considering this was an illustration of the media really going out of control to demonise and tamper with the character of this individual. Never has a person been painted so violent nor has so much opinion, speculation and blatent defamation been poured from the presses in Australia. It is odd that no one has championed this article and the political implications the Bryant case rose.

Not to mention the fact there is still grave misgivings, especially now ten years on (even by the psychiatrist who initially examined him and established him mentally fit to undergo trial), as to whether Bryant was capable of carrying out the killings or the man behind them. There were, at the time of the crime, if my memory services me correctly, many mysterious events and occurences not to mention conspiracy theories. Perhaps if someone has the free time this could be delved into in more detail?

Jachin 10:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that he was violent, having killed more people than in any other Australian crime committed by a single person. He pleaded guilty to this and it is hardly unfair for the media to depict him as violent when Bryant himself admitted it. The conspiracy theories have been debunked several times over and are given suitable room in the article(s). They remain the opinion of a very small minority and under NPOV need to be given no more than a mention. Perhaps there is an article on these conspiracy theories where the subject may be explored at more length. --Surgeonsmate 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where have any of the questions been debunked? What, in the official leg pull they call an investigation? The idea that the Nazi's were no good was the opinion of a small minority until they started invading their neighbors. Some of you people are just unbelievable morons. Go audit a few lectures on basic logic.
By the way. I, having spent plenty of time in Hobart, know that he wasn't the demon the media painted him out to be. I've spoken to several people who knew him or attended school with him, and based on their direct interaction with him, don't believe that he did it by himself, if at all. But they could be wrong. After all, the news media says he's a demon. Must be just what they say.59.167.144.5 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theories versus Facts[edit]

I think it's all very well to argue what is fact, what is theory and so on. It's an endless argument because the reality is there is only theory and opinion. Last I heard, Martin Bryant wasn't talking to anyone - at all. To the prison psychiatrist or even his own mother. There is one undeniable fact - NO ONE knows why he did it. I'm not even convinced if Bryant himself knew why. He knows he did it, and he showed no remorse (taking into account the possible media bias that has been mentioned) - but it has NEVER gone any further than that.

I heard a story about a year after the massacre that he may have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome but this can not be verified otherwise I would add it to the article.

This is the problem. The lack of real facts that can be verified. We all have theories, but theories don't amount to a proper Wikipedia article. However, Bryant is definitely a person of note. His notoriety will live forever and it should certainly be recorded.

That "forever" is sloppy usage. What, precisely, do you mean? Kipholbeck 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I join Wikipedia in October (I don't have time right now) I will be interested to see what we can find here. 61.68.133.220 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it hasn't been released why he did it, his lawyer does know alot more and I believe is writing a book. The Lawyer clearly gave the opinion that Bryant was a copy cat killer of the earlier spree which was his main motive.--Dacium 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is also supported by other information from his legal team. Like he asked what the hoddle street murder pled to pick between guilty and innocent. He often asked if he 'got a record' for the most kills etc.--155.144.251.120 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger's syndrome was suggested as a possiblity by Dr. Ian Sale in 1996, in this report.[1] But Dr. Sale's opinion was disputed by other report authors, on the basis that people with Asperger's are totally disinterested in social relationships (this is not correct) and that Bryant had a language delay in childhood. Also, Bryant has an IQ of 66, well below of Asperger's (IQ >85). Of the rare cases where people with Autism Spectrum Disorders have broken the law...obsessive, brooding and long standing grudges, that others have long forgotten, are typical (read J. Arturo Silva). Also, compare Bryant with Cho Seung Hui, who exhibited traits suggestive of autism. --Diamonddavej 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple version[edit]

The simple version needs a look at. Andjam 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article[edit]

58.170.197.110 says: "There has been a book published RE: martin bryant not being alone in this massacre, there are controversial stories that he was used as a porn in a much larger game to have semi automatic weapons destroyed and disarm australia." Barrylb 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unenforcable licences?[edit]

Curse of Fenric, when reverting my edit, you gave the following explanation for doing so:

rv - irrelevant information as the gun licences of Tasmania were apparently unenforceable

I would like you to not only elaborate on this "unenforcable licence" business, but also provide me with a source. Can you provide me with a source, as well as an elaboration on your claim? CeeWhy2 07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have proof that gun laws restricting the ownership of long arms (rifles, etc.) did exist (and licenses were a part of them) in Tasmania as early as 1991, 5 years before the massacre. Here:

[2]

Re the above: "evidence" is a better word than "proof", because proof implies that there can be absolutely no doubt, which I think almost never occurs in the realm of human experience. Kipholbeck 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the following statement. I bolded the parts you should look at:

Tasmania had few significant gun laws prior to 1991, when it introduced gun controls for rifles and shotguns. These controls were limited, basically introducing a system of lifetime licensing of gun owners.

The fact of the matter is, any way you look at it, there were enforcable licencing laws applicable to rifles in Tasmainia prior to the Port Arthur Massacre. CeeWhy2 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at those laws properly, CeeWhy, you'll see about 100 holes in them. As you said yourself - the controls were limited. That was why they were unenforceable. That very limitation. That's why the laws were strengthened nationwide in the upshot of Port Arthur, with the government in Canberra leading the charge.

Your comment stands as irrelevant - and I stand by my reversion. Curse of Fenric 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... You make a good argument. I have one last question for you before I stop reverting your edits on this page. We've both agreed on one thing: The controls were limited. However, what exactly was this limitation? Can you clearly define it? If you can't, I will continue to stand by my edit; though I acknowledge your right to stand by yours, too. I wish to avoid an edit war, however, so how about this: Have both of our viewpoints expressed in the article. One statement saying that the firearms used were technically illegal, while having another statement highlighting the possible irrelevance of licenses at the time because of lax enforcement. It would allow both of us to state important facts in the matter without having to go through this whole revert war business. CeeWhy2

The limitation is demonstrated in the fact that Bryant was able to get a gun and keep it and use it at Port Arthur. The argument you put in your edit is that he shouldn't have had the gun and should have had it taken off him - as far back as 1991 (if he had it that long). He wasn't. Now ask yourself why? Because the police didn't have the power to take it off him. That is the limitation. The law changes in 1996 as a result of Port Arthur made that possible - and it's why the farmers were up in arms over the whole thing because they were affected by this change. The clear difference between the laws prior to Port Arthur and after Port Arthur are defined well enough in the current edit. Anything else is - to quote a previous reversion by a sysop (I think) - unneccesary flourish. OK, maybe that's not the right word, but it is most certainly irrelevant. I hope that explains why not only should the page be left alone in this respect - but I would also remind you that Wikipedia expressly forbids personal opinions (or viewpoints as you put it). We'd both be in the wrong if we did what you suggested in that regard. Curse of Fenric 00:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I will no longer me making any furthur moves on this article. I just have one last thing to say in my defence before I go. You say that, had the gun laws now in effect in Australia existed back then, Martin Bryant would not have been able to obtain those firearms. Yet you ignore the fact that, even today, 85% of firearms-related crime in Australia is committed with ilegally obtained firearms. [3] If weapons can still be obtained and held illegally, then your argument is virtually null and void. Who is to say that Martin Bryant just wouldn't have gotten those rifles of his off of the black market instead of a store? CeeWhy2 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Bryant never had the smarts or the savvy to get ahold of the firearms he would have wanted that way without getting himself killed. So he wouldn't have got the weapons. Curse of Fenric 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say that he wasn't smart enough to do it, hm? Is that all? I believe that I have proven the relevance of the statement I placed in my edit earlier, when I first edited this article. Here is my statement again, just so you can check:
  • this move is controversial, however, as Martin Bryant had no firearms licence at the time of the massacre, and had therefore been holding the weapons illegally in the first place
What has that got to do with the black market, CeeWhy? You didn't prove any relevance at all. This pretty much proves that you are seeking to inject your own opinion into the article - which is against Wikipedia rules. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that Martin Bryant dis not have a firearms licence; ergo, it is also a fact that, as a direct result of this, that he had been holding the weapons illegally at the time.
But he was able to get them easily without going to the black market before 1996!
Furthermore, it is a fact that the Howard Government's legislation has brought about controversy; hell, most gun legislation does: one need only look as far as here to know that. As far as I could tell, everything in my statement was factual.
No, it is your opinion that the move was controversial and frankly you are overstating the controversy to the extent of irrelevance. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You questioned the relevance of these facts, though. Though I disagreed with you on this, I respect your boldness and commitment to Wikipedia. It is important that there are always people who monitor what happens around here, making sure that nothing too irrelevant gets thrown around. But I digress. You questioned the relevance of my statement. You said that it was because you believed that the weapons legislation in Tasmania was flawed in such a way in that possession of a firearm license was irrelevant; at the time of the shooting, at least. When I pressed you on this statement, more specifically, how you thought the firearms licencing was insufficient, you said that, if today's weapons legislation was in place, he would not have had the ability to commit the heinous crimes for which he is now convicted. I objected to this, providing a report showing how, even with today's laws, the vast majority of firearms crimes are committed through the use of illegal weapons.
You are completely missing the point. The average man in the street (and that includes Martin Bryant) can NOT commit these acts under the current laws. Pre Bryant it was possible without going to the black market. Now one HAS to go to the black market. Hardened criminals can do that and always have because they are more comfortable doing it that way. You clearly don't understand what the 1996 legislation was designed to do judging by this commentary. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is this piece of evidence which not only defeats your initial argument, but also proves the relevance of mine. Therefore, I have come to a conclusion. I am going to edit this page again. I feel that I have proven the relevance of my initial statement to a degree which warrants this action. However, I know that you may never truly agree with me on this; as such, I have devised a compromise which may allow for both of us to agree on the matter of what is or is not relevant to this page without breaching Wikipedian policy: Instead of making my statement outright as I did before, I will instead provide a link to the Gun politics in Australia page, in the interest of providing further information about the legislation, in the following context:
  • In response to the massacre, the Howard government banned semi-automatic centerfire rifles, high-capacity repeating shotguns and high-capacity rifle magazines. In addition to this, heavy limitations were also put into place on low-capacity repeating shotguns and rimfire semi-automatic rifles; this has resulted in much controversy among political observers, however (See Gun politics in Australia for more information on the 1996 legislation).
I hope that this is a satisfactory compromise, Curse of Fenric. You are a most enthusiastic Wikipedian, and I look forward to your Wikipedian work in the future. For now, however, I hope we can just agree on this article, stop arguing and get back to work on this website. Cheerio. CeeWhy2 11:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I decided not to revert (because of the link you provided which can be used in this context), but rather reword it to put the controversy level at an appropriate point. As stated earlier you are over stating it's existence (that's where your opinion interferes with fact) and I felt it was needed to calm that down with cold hard fact drawn from the very article you linked to. I didn't mention Queensland because it was irrelevant to Martin Bryant. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. CeeWhy2 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lopes Centre[edit]

Has it been confirmed that Bryant has been moved to the Lopes Centre? Andjam 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News reports[edit]

Radio news reports in Perth tonight are saying that he has been hospitalised after a suicide attempt. Gnangarra 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was a suicide attempt, but he was admitted to hospital with what is said to be slashed wrists. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1881089.htm. Pyreforge 23:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About removal of incorrect school info[edit]

The article as it is now (not fact, my opinion) has only sparse information about Bryant's childhood. I can't properly source this at the moment, but I'm fairly sure Bryant never went to school outside Tasmania. From memory (and again without proper sourcing) he spent his primary school years on the Tasman Peninsula, and in his secondary school years at some stage went to that very fine school, Newtown High. Marcellin College is now (and was at the time Bryant was secondary school age) in Bulleen, Victoria.
However, I am reasonably sure that the edits - there are more from IPs and editors with accounts than I list here - stating Bryant was at some time a student at Marcellin are spurious. See the contribs here, and here. --Shirt58 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ps: while I wrote this, 60.226.105.210 has edited the Port Arthur massacre article. 60...210's edits may possibly need attention. --Shirt58 12:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello,

When his father died, ambulance officers described Bryant as quite excited by the search and unconcerned about the death. - What is this supposed to mean? "quite excited by the search" - ist this some sort of australian-english slang? I ask an american friend, even he has no clue what is the message. Can anyone tell what does it mean?

Cheers, --Lofor 11:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant's father was missing for some time before being found dead. Persumably, Bryant was excited by the search for his father. No slang here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.131.76 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


(( Proceeds from the sale of his fathers house)))

Martin Bryant's parents[edit]

I heard that Martin Bryant inherited $500,000 after the death of his father. Does anyone know any information regarding what both Martin's parents did for a living?

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant inherited his wealth from a close friend who died in a car accident. The money didn't come from either of his parents. The article speaks of this already under the Adulthood section. -- Longhair\talk 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Number of injured[edit]

Are there any official documents that support the claim of 37 injured or is this just a guess based on the fact that 72 charges were filed against him? Most of the newspaper articles of that time you can find via Google News either talk about 18 or 19 people wounded. Here's an article of 2007 which also says 19 people were injured. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Well, if there's no complaint, I will change the number to 19, citing a reference, because so far I have seen no reliable news reports that are saying that 37 people were injured. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • No complaints? Well, then .... (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Ok, after reading this it's now clear that 21 people were injured. Case closed. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image Manipulation?[edit]

"Photographs of Martin Bryant had been digitally manipulated with the effect of making Bryant appear deranged." Is there proof of that anywhere, or a citation? A quick google search showed no comparisons of any 'real' vs 'manipulated' photos. 67.241.72.20 (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Watch, the ABC's media watchdog program ran a program about it on the 6 May 1996, I am trying to find the transcript CybergothiChé (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo?[edit]

Near the beginning, the article states that Bryant met Harvey "whilst looking for new customers for her lawn-mowing service." Wondering if that shouldn't be "his lawn-moving service"? Futnuh (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Martin Bryant's parents[edit]

After reading some of the article, I feel that it would be a good idea to discuss the ethical sides of naming Bryant's parents. In the article, we learn how his parent's had a very hard time raising him and that he quite early in life obviously showed signs of both mental retardation, autism and serious mental illness (Schizofrenia) and possibly sociopathy. It is not possible, as I see it, to determine what role, if any, his parents had in him developing into a severely disturbed human being. If the parents had been shown to have a clear role in his negative development, I might see that as an argument for including the name of the parents without having a feeling of doing so as possibly unethical. If that had been the case, I can also see that naming the parents may also seem as a reasonable thing to do, because of their obvious role in "creating" such a disturbed child/adult. But I cannot see that, at least in this article, there is proof of such a role by the parents, even if the quotation of something his mother said in a recent interview ("In a 2011 interview his mother recalls that she would often find his toys broken at a very young age, branding him an "annoying" and "different" child.") may cause some wondering regarding that question. To write an article about a named criminal of such a magnitude as Bryant himself, is both natural and ethical, as I see it. But I am not sure if it is either natural and/or ethical when it comes to his parents. In this case, there are numerous victims, the direct victims of his crimes as well as their friends and family and a lot of others. And, as I see it, in general the parents of such criminals are also direct victims, in the same way as the family of the people killed and wounded in such crimes. Being the parents and other immediate family of such criminals, is a very, very hard thing to have to live with. Many feel that they have no other choice but change their name and move to a new place, in order to have a chance at getting their life back, because so many people judge also the criminal's family, thinking that they must have a role in causing the criminal to turn out as s/he did - but that is not always the case. For that reason, unless we know that it is proven/documented/confirmed that the parents, e.g. by severely abusing and mistreating their child, did play a direct role in the child becoming severely disturbed and/or mentally ill which in it's turn caused him/her to commit serious crimes, I think that it is unethical to name the parents in such an article. Also, we should ask ourselves if naming the parents will have any positive impact on the quality of the article. As I see it, in this case naming them does not add any positive qualities to the article (and with no proven/documented/confirmed information about a negative parental role, quite the contrary, a psychiatrist assessing him while he was an adolescent give us signs that the parents tried hard to help him when he said in his assessment: "Only his parents' efforts prevent further deterioration." - a statement that I think must carry much more "weight" than what the mother said in her 2011 interview quoted above). It is also my opinion that the quality of this article, in no way would suffer if the parents' names simply are omitted.

I think this is such an important ethical question, it should be discussed properly before a potential edit is done. For that reason, I did not feel that it would be appropriate for me to just go ahead and edit this article because I personally lean towards omitting the parents' name being a good and ethical idea. I also realize that such ethical questions are something that is seen differently in different cultures. I think that policies and practice for such naming is much more "conservative" (if I may categorize it as such) and restrictive in the Norwegian culture where I am, than e.g. in the US American culture (in media etc.) - also a good argument for having a proper discussion on the issue before doing any editing (of this and/or other, comparable articles).

I am also wondering if this isn't also a general ethical question that should be raised in other fora on Wikipedia, as it might be something that there should be a policy on. Also, I do not know if this question has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past. I'm not as "Wiki-savvy" yet and must admit that I'm a bit insecure when it comes to editing some things because of English not being my first language (and I find reading some of the information on doing different things on here a bit heavy reading for me in a different language, making me afraid that I may misunderstand or miss important aspects of the information in question, which may cause me to do something inappropriate). For that reason, I would appreciate it a lot if somebody who have the needed knowledge, could help out in raising this question in the appropriate forum/fora (and please let me know by posting a message about it on my talk page or here, so I can follow that discussion too). Feel welcome to copy/post/link to this post of mine as an example for a general discussion, if you find that it may be of some kind of value.

Thanks a lot!

∼∼∼∼ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peapeam (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Bryant was a very strange evil man[edit]

I am from hobart i knew of bryant when young we all did he was a very strange man ..sinister and undeniably evil..this was obvious to us as kids at school..he was a well known freak here and despised by his peers

These people that try to defend him or create conspiracies makes me so angry they are full of it

I know the people involved with his processing after the tragic event..i have worked with the doctor that assessed him i have worked with the nurse that looked after him straight after it and spoken to them about the whole thing ..they are just decent honest people and not part of some ridiculpous conspiracy..also my father who was a barrister was one of the first people to talk to him after the event..he had no knowledge of this happening prior to the event as i was the one that rang him and told him..he didnt believ eme and had to listen to the radio to believe what i tried to tell ..yet people have written lies about dad being part of some ridiculous conspiracy..

These ridiculous conspiracy theories that are out there are obviously done by very sick people who really should get lives

the first discussion should realise that a full auto weapon at close range on unarmed shocked victims require no marksman ship ..just rerquire a sick sociopath to do it..how could u defend him?

I remember bryant well when i was young he was very strange sick evil individual that is why he was bullied so much as a young man..he was despised by people here and that is part of the reason he snapped.

this article is a fair and reasonable description of how events occurred these people disputing these facts are so full of it it makes my blood boil

this individual killed in cold blood never forget that it is unbelievable that some try to defend him it sickens me to see these disputes ..the wikipedia article on bryant is a fair and reasonable one..i am much better placed to see this but i know that human nature will prevail and there will be these douches that disputes these facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam01235 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article has a somewhat condemnatory tone, only a fool would not condemn his actions but the overall flavour of the article suggests that he was "trouble from the beginning" and pursues this line.

Bryant is not a complex indidvidual but the case is not simplistic either. More attention to this article is needed. B- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.149.244 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger's[edit]

I find it highly unlikely that he has Asperger's, as people with Asperger's do not typically have traits of mental retardation. Can someone add a source challenging this claim? (a trusted source, of course) Adam (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a problem. The article doesn't actually say he has Aspergers. It says that "Bryant's mother, Carleen Bryant, said her son had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome." When one checks the source for that, what we actually have is an article in The Age claiming that an article in New Idea claimed that his mum said that "her son had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome". Not really great evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include the Asperger's Syndrome reference in the Martin Bryant article as well as the article about people speculated to have been on the autistic spectrum in future. Martin Bryant's mother is clearly an unreliable and vulnerable woman who would claim any source in defending her intellectually challenged son. The criteria for Asperger's Syndrome states that the affected person has to have average or above average I.Q. Unless his prison psychiatrist has claimed otherwise, any reference to Martin Bryant having Asperger's Syndrome needs to be promptly removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.190.206 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The psychiatric report (reference 5) says:

Dr Sale, in his report of the 6 August 1996, indicates that in his opinion Mr Bryant manifested severe developmental problems during childhood and that he could be regarded as having shown a mixture of conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity and a rare condition known as Asperger's Syndrome. I am in agreement with Dr Sale that the records indicate that Mr Bryant was grossly disturbed from early childhood. He can certainly be fitted within the criteria for conduct disorder, but all this amounts to in the diagnostic manual is a list of a range of aggressive destructive and deceitful behaviors during childhood and as such does not advance understanding to any degree. Asperger's Syndrome is a condition which could explain some of the abnormalities in Mr Bryant and in noting this possibility Dr Sale raises a potentially important question. The section from the text on Forensic Psychiatry convering Asperger's Syndrome appended to his report by Dr Sale though providing a good account of the forensic implications does not adequately describe the critical clinical features (as one of the authors of the chapter I can perhaps be allowed this criticism). Mr Bryant craves the attention of others. He desires relationships but fails to effectively communicate with others unlike the patients with Asperger's who are blandly indifferent to others. Mr Bryant also lacks, in my opinion, the central features of this condition which are repetitive activities, unusual skills with all absorbing obsessive interests and problems with motor coordination. He also showed marked delay in the acquisition of language skills and required remedial therapy for this language deficit which is contrary to the picture found in those with Asperger's Syndrome.

Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically his doctor just mentioned Asperger's Syndrome for absolutely no reason as he even fails to meet even the necessary criteria to be diagnosed with it. I mean 'repetitive activities, unusual skills with all absorbing obsessive interests and problems with motor coordination' as you have stated along with the fact that he never brought up the important factor that Martin Bryant needed normal cognitive development which wasn't true for such a diagnosis to even be rendered plausible. Plus he could have just said he was mentally retarded like the general public consensus held long beforehand. Asperger's Syndrome is a hidden condition and I'm sure Martin Bryant through various sources couldn't even manage to grasp basic concepts due to his intellect on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.190.206 (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about something to the effect of, "Bryant's mother claimed that he was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, however these claims were contradicted by medical professionals."? I still think there should be some mention because a number of people wrongly thought Bryant was autistic, and parents of autistic kids in Australia reported being verbally abused for having 'future spree kiilers' or words to that effect. As with Adam Lanza, the autism spectrum was used as a convenient scapegoat, in this case by Bryant's mother. — Deepred6502 (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that people with Asperger's Syndrome generally do not display signs of mental retardation is bunk. There's not something about AS that makes someone not also have intellectual disabilities. It happens that people with AS do not have as many intellectual disabilites when compared to people with other ASDs, but autism often causes intellectual delays, so that says next to nothing about how much of the time someone with AS will have intellectual delays. If a clinician has diagnosed him with AS, then he has AS. Having AS does not preclude someone from having intellectual disabilities.MJH92talk 14:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How, where, when did he obtain the weapon and ammo ? How did he learn to use it ?[edit]

The whole point of the story is absent from the article. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the story is this bloke killed a bunch of people in horrific fashion. How he bought his weapons is beside the point. --Pete (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He stated in the police transcript that he bought the AR-15 out of the local paper. The one the police showed him at the station in the police transcript he claimed he had never seen before. Same with the SLR. Chrismcmaster (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric assessment[edit]

Bryant has seen more psychiatrits than any one else in Australia. In no assessments has a final diagnoses is it recorded he has Asperger syndrome. By definition his IQ is far to low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrupt link (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above titled Asperger's. This has already been discussed here. The diagnosis was made by the court-appointed psychologist Dr. Sale and reflected in the trial transcript, as reported and sourced in our article. Do not remove it. General Ization Talk 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um sorry, but an opinion is an opinion a final diagnoses is something else. Corrupt link (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say anything about a "final diagnosis". It says he was diagnosed with AS while incarcerated, and he was. The opinion of a court-appointed psychiatrist/psychologist concerning someone's mental capacity and/or disorders is called a diagnosis. If you continue to edit war over this content, you will be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


In removing the Asperger category my edit summary said that the source established only that he was "diagnosed." I meant to say that it shows only that he was examined. The source not only rejects Sale's suggestion of Asperger syndrome but observes also that Sale did not compare Bryant's traits with clinical traits of AS in raising the suggestion. i.e. Sale didn't diagnose him either, by any clinical understanding of diagnosis. 00:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.134.48 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Martin Bryant. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological and psychiatric assessments[edit]

The section titled “Psychological and psychiatric assessments” required additional work to be compliant with the WP:BLP policy and I've just made some edits to correct a couple of issues. The primary source for that section was a copy of the psychiatric report prepared by Paul E. Mullen. In that report, he quoted Ian Sale as having indicated that Bryant could be regarded as having shown a mixture of conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity and a rare condition known as Asperger's Syndrome. The assertion that Martin Bryant could be regarded as having shown a mixture of three conditions was dubiously rewritten in the article to read "While awaiting trial, Bryant was examined by court-appointed psychiatrist Ian Sale, who diagnosed Bryant with Asperger syndrome."

Ian Sale did not make a clinical diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome, or any condition for that matter. Rather he deliberately stated that Martin Bryant's behaviour could be regarded as being consistent with a mixture of three conditions. The word could is used to describe possibility, not a diagnosis. The statement in the source leaves open the equal possibility that Martin Bryant doesn't have any of these conditions and is just a prick. Furthermore, the source provided goes onto point out significant differences that separate the behaviour shown from the diagnostic criteria for AS, which further weakens the assertion that Martin Bryant was diagnosed with AS.

I've made some changes to correct this which principally involve A) Quoting the report directly rather then engaging dubious paraphrasing. B) Removed Martin Bryant from the category "People with Asperger's Syndrome" because that assertion is not supported by the source material.   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Bryant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Improvement of Article / Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

this article should be improved, see Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Mental_illness_and_copycat_effects and Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Demarcation_facts_vs._conspiracy_theory. Some proposals have already been made, some may come additionally. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Improvements[edit]

Literature[edit]

Literature supposed to be reliable[edit]
  • Altmann, Carol; After Port Arthur: Personal Stories of Courage and Resilience Ten Years on from the Tragedy That Shocked the Nation, Allen & Unwin, 2006, ISBN 978-1-74176-130-6 (read online)
  • Critcher, Chas; Issues in cultural and media studies, (chapter 9, "Panic at the port" P. 124) McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2006, ISBN 978-0-335-21807-3 (read online)
  • Deckert, Antje; Sarre, Rick; The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice, Springer, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-55747-2 (read online)
  • Geipel, Ines; Der Amok-Komplex: oder die Schule des Tötens, Klett-Cotta, 2012, ISBN 978-3-608-10276-5. (Port Arthur 28. April 1996)
  • Turner, Geoff; News media chronicle, July 1995 to June 1996 in Australian Studies in Journalism, Published annually by the Department of Journalism, University of Queensland. (P. 269 f. Legal "The coverage of a massacre at the historic Port Arthur site in Tasmania on April 28, in which 35 people were killed ..." )
  • Voumard, Sonya; The Media and the Massacre: Port Arthur 1996-2016, Transit Lounge , 2016, ISBN 978-0-9943957-2-6 (read online)
  • Wainwright,Robert; Totaro,Paola; Born Or Bred: Martin Bryant : the Making of a Mass Murderer, Fairfax Media, 2009, ISBN 978-1-921486-09-8. (by The Examiner, Read online: Part1 Part2 Part3, by The Sydney Morning Herald A dangerous mind: what turned Martin Bryant into a mass murderer?)

____unformatted booklinks______


Literature possibly containing conspiracy theories[edit]

other Sources[edit]

_____ before the massacre ____

  • Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier; "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", December, 1987 [4]
  • Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier; "It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia", Chapman P. 102

_____ after the massacre _____

_____ after the massacre / TV-Videos _____


* signing area for additions to calm the bot :-p) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with used sources of the article[edit]

During checking and referencing the article I remarked that there is a problem with one of the main sources for this article:


Discussion[edit]

The article contains & is based on sources which can not be accepted for wikipedia because of WP:SYTH WP:NOR etc. The article needs reliable sources. A collection of sources is to be seen above. First choice are books out of the section Literature supposed to be reliable. In the article texts without sources or not suitable sources have to be shortened. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding anything about conspiracy theories would not be an improvement. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"to be shortened" is quite the opposite of "Adding". isn't it ??? --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some misunderstandings were clarified. Just for the records [5] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever changed the weapons is a fool. Martin's AR-10 which he admits to owning, was at Terry Hills gun shop on the day. It wasn't used at Port Arthur. Chrismcmaster (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can so called conspiracy theories be disregarded in this case. You have witness statements one which is Rebecca mckenna, who clearly states she changed what the police had typed out as it was incorrect. The same with Graham collyer's statement. He gives clear indication of the events he saw that day. But I guess his statement goes against the official story. It's not a conspiracy what they have said in their statements. Just the truth. Unlike the incorrect weapon you have stated was used that day. There is no impirical evidence linking Martin Bryant to the broad arrow Cafe. Chrismcmaster (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1035 years[edit]

This does not have a source.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Bryant&oldid=1187761334"