The Port Arthur Massacre

Was a 1996 mass murder in Tasmania secretly a plot by the government to get firearms banned?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Conspiracies

Skeptoid #253
April 12, 2011
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Today we're going to point the skeptical eye at a modern conspiracy theory, one that still stings sharply in the recent memories of Australians. In 1996, a young man from Hobart, 28-year-old Martin Bryant, loaded his car with guns and ammunition and went to the Port Arthur Historic Site, an old prison colony at the south end of the island of Tasmania. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others, and was taken into custody after an overnight standoff and is currently serving a 1,035 year prison sentence without the possibility of parole.

For some, the Port Arthur massacre has become something like Australia's version of the Kennedy assassination. Some believe that no one man could have accomplished so much bloodshed. Some point to what they believe are discrepancies in the timelines of when Bryant is alleged to have been at various locations. Some believe the killings were too expert to have been done by anyone other than a trained killer. And finally, some believe that it was an elaborate conspiracy staged by the anti-gun lobby to provoke public sentiment. Many of the believers consider this to be evidence that the government wanted to terrorize the citizenry into banning all firearms, so that they might be able to exercise unchallenged tyranny. Such conspiracy theorists describe the event as a "psyop", a psychological operation by the government.

It should be fairly noted that few Australians believe any of the conspiracy theories, and a much larger number are angered by them, none more so than those who were there that day and escaped with their lives or watched their loved ones killed. But to evaluate the validity of a conspiracy theory, we take emotion out of the equation, and instead look to where the evidence leads.

Here is a quick summary of "the official version" of what happened. Martin Bryant, 28 years old with a clean shaven babyface and long blond hair, had an estimated IQ of 66. He received a large inheritance from a friend, with which his family tried to purchase a bed & breakfast cottage called Seascape in Port Arthur, Tasmania. But another couple, the Martins, bought it first, which Bryant took personally. On April 28, 1996, he loaded his yellow Volvo with guns and ammunition, went to Seascape, and murdered the Martins. He then drove to the nearby Port Arthur Historic Site and went to the tiny Broad Arrow Cafe, where he ate lunch, then pulled out an assault rifle and in 15 seconds, killed 12 people and injured 10. In the next 90 seconds, he went into the nearby gift shop and killed 8 more people, most of whom were crouching to hide or trapped in the small room. He then moved to the parking lot, where he killed more people trapped between or on board parked buses.

This whole time, Bryant repeatedly fired at people who were running or hiding, but having no marksmanship skills, he missed everyone except those to whom he was able to get very close.

He got into his car and drove away, passing fleeing people, and stopped when he saw a young mother running with her two children. He killed all three at point-blank range. Finding the park exit blocked with cars driven by confused people unsure what was happening, Bryant went to a BMW, killed all four people inside it, transferred some of his guns and ammunition to it and drove away. He stopped at a service station where he killed a girl and forced her boyfriend, Glenn Pears, into the trunk of the BMW, and drove off again.

He returned to the Seascape cottage where he had begun his day, and fired at passing cars, injuring several more people. He took Pears inside the house, set the BMW on fire, and barricaded himself in. Police began to arrive and Bryant held them all off with gunfire. An 18 hour standoff lasted until the next morning, when Bryant killed Pears and lit the house on fire. He eventually ran outside, on fire, and was apprehended as he pulled off his burning clothes. In all, he'd killed 35 and wounded 21.

In the aftermath, new gun control laws were enacted throughout a shocked Australia. More than anything else, this is what sparked the speculation that a hidden government agenda must have motivated the entire episode, part of a giant master plan to trick the unsuspecting public into willingly disarming.

Much is made by the conspiracy theorists of the claim that Bryant was sent to prison for life without a trial, which would indeed be shocking and seemingly unprecedented. It's also misleading. Bryant plead guilty to all charges, so it didn't go to trial, like every case in which the defendant pleads guilty to all charges. Despite being of acknowledged low intelligence, he was found competent to stand trial, a finding that has not been challenged. His lawyer persuaded him to plead guilty simply because the evidence against him was overwhelming; he had no realistic chance of getting off, and a guilty plea was the route to the best possible outcome for him. It was not a conspiracy against a patsy; it was his best legal option.

That Bryant was placed in solitary confinement for the first eight months of his sentence is said to be evidence that the government didn't want him to be able to reveal any truths about the conspiracy. It's possible this is the reason, but there are at least two other reasons that Bryant, and many other criminals like him, are kept in isolation. The first is that among his victims were children, murdered at close range for no reason. Prison inmates have a reputation for not taking kindly to child killers, especially to those who need to use a gun to do it, and it's more than likely that Bryant would have been attacked or even killed in prison if not kept separated. Indeed, there were specific threats against him. Even his meals were prepared separately by special staff to prevent anyone from trying to poison him. The second reason is that he was on suicide watch and was in a special hospital ward suicide-proof cell, and for good reason; he's attempted suicide at least twice so far.

Some conspiracy theorists claim that Bryant displayed extraordinary combat skills that could only belong to a highly trained expert, and not to an intellectually challenged kid with no firearms experience. One noted that the true perpetrator must be one of the top 10 or 20 shooters in the entire world. In fact Bryant displayed no special skills, killing nearly all of his victims within just a few meters, and some with the muzzle of his gun actually touching them. He missed all of his shots that were at any appreciable distance. Nor should it be surprising that the Port Arthur killer would be untrained; it's quite common for mass killings to be carried out by loners with no military connections or special training.

And then there are myriad small details on which some sources are unclear; for example, whether the knife with which Bryant killed Mr. Martin at Seascape was found in Bryant's bag in the Broad Arrow Cafe, or nearby. Some characterize discrepancies such as this as evidence that the knife must have been planted by police. There is also minimal publicly known evidence that physically places Bryant at the Port Arthur Historic Site at all on that day. There is speculation surrounding the appearance of an armed man on the roof of a building at Seascape cottage during the night. One need only scan through any of the many web sites promoting the idea that the Port Arthur massacre was a government conspiracy to find many such questions raised.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

But there is an alternate explanation for all of these questions that satisfies the available evidence without the need to introduce a conspiracy. Whatever evidence might exist is evidence in a murder case. It is not necessarily available to the public. Whatever it was, it was described by Bryant's attorney as overwhelming, and was sufficient for the prosecutors to charge him. Bryant was caught red-handed during the siege; there is no plausible doubt that Martin Bryant is the person who held off the police overnight. Whatever physical evidence may have been gathered by investigators that supports the chain of eyewitness accounts, all the way back to Martin Bryant's yellow Volvo laden with weapons and recovered at the Port Arthur parking lot, is sealed. This evidence's apparent nonexistence may indeed be consistent with a coverup, but it's also exactly what we'd expect to find in the context of a murder investigation.

Once, Bryant's attorney took some photos of him in jail during a visit, which were then confiscated and destroyed by prison authorities. This incident is often pointed to as proof that some kind of coverup is taking place, along with assertions that nobody has ever been allowed to photograph Bryant; perhaps because it might be discovered that his physical description does not match that given by eyewitnesses. This is a goofy claim. Photos and video of Martin Bryant were widely published throughout the media following the incident, and are still all over the Internet to this day. Does it really make sense that a conspiring Australian government would think it was accomplishing anything by banning photographs of Bryant? The lawyer's photographs were destroyed because cameras are not permitted inside prisons without prior permission, for obvious reasons, and he had failed to request any such permission. Again, there is no conspiracy needed to explain these events.

So why do the conspiracy theories persist? Why are some people so quick to jump on board any bandwagon that presumes the existence of a hidden malevolent power? It's yet another manifestation of the way our brains are hardwired. We want to find patterns. We want to make connections between cause and effect. When something goes bump in the night and nothing is seen, our brains want to assign the blame to a ghost. When shapes in a photograph from Mars mimic a face, our brains conjure up a Martian civilization that must have carved it. When a natural disaster happens, we look to secret government research as the culprit. And when a lone gunman murders 35 people, it's natural for our brains to imagine an evil intelligence behind what happened. Psychologists call this agency detection. The caveman who errs on the side of caution and assumes that every rustle in the grass is a saber-toothed cat is more likely to survive than the one who casually dismisses it as a harmless breath of wind.

As aggravating (or even offensive) as they might be, conspiracy theories like the Port Arthur massacre are the naturally evolved result of our brains failing on the side of caution. In this case it's wrong, and in many other cases too. But if we always assume that the Martin Bryants of this world are troubled loners acting completely on their own, evolutionary theory says that one day the saber-tooth will get us. We have to always look at the facts.

Brian Dunning

© 2011 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Altmann, C. After Port Arthur. Crows Nest NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2006. 9-23.

Angle, M. "Port Arthur conspiracy theory still upsets Tasmanians." The World Today. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 22 Feb. 2001. Web. 25 Mar. 2011. <>

Bingham, M. Suddenly One Sunday. Sydney: Harper Collins, 1996.

Editors. "Shedding Light on Port Arthur Killer." The Age. The Age Company Ltd., 29 Mar. 2006. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <>

Mullen, P. Psychological Report, Martin Bryant. Melbourne: Victorian Forensic Psychiatry Services, 1996.

Stein, G. "Managing Martin: The Jailing of Martin Bryant." Background Briefing. ABC Radio National, 16 Mar. 1997. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The Port Arthur Massacre." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 12 Apr 2011. Web. 1 Sep 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 112 comments

The conspiracy theories of the Port Arthur Massacre are ridiculous and offensive. The eyewitness accounts are overwhelmingly clear, and the simple fact that the man who was clearly seen throughout the tragedy (and even recognized by name), and seen murdering people first-hand, was then caught in a police stand-off should be way, way, way more than enough to demonstrate to anyone capable of rational thought that Bryant is guilty. You can make up all the absurd "what if people planted him in the cabin as a patsy" (you have to be kidding me, just listen to what drivel you're spouting with this patsy rubbish) tripe you want, and ignore all the ridiculously clear historical events of Bryant's life that led to this massacre, but that will never make it true. But I guess basic logic and reality escape this small, pathetic percentage of the human population. These conspiracy theories are the arguments (they honestly don't deserve to be called theories) of people who have IQ's not much higher than the despicable murderer himself.

Someone who isn't retarded, Changsha
May 16, 2014 11:32am

Hi, I recently visited Port Arthur and heard about this tragedy. I decided to research all the evidence I could find. To all the people who believe Mr Bryant did it, do you know any people with a low IQ? I do. My cousin who has an intellectual impairment does and he cannot even hold much of a conversation - let alone fire a gun and kill 35 people. Have you seen what Wendy Scurrs says - go and watch her eyewitness account? Why did the police take 6 hours to attend the scene. Swansea is not 6 hours away as that is where the majority of the police were (at a conference). Do you know what firing a gun that many times does to a person's hearing for several days afterwards? Martin did not have any hearing injury after Port Arthur.

Martin Bryant should be freed.

Thinking person, Chicago
June 14, 2014 4:01am

The official story of the Port Arthur massacre was tightly controlled by senior politicians and police with the co-operation of the mainstream media which pursued a strong anti gun agenda. However, more recently thanks to the Internet and Google searches, eg of "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup", anyone can study material that comes up and draw their own conclusions. Many small details regarding different aspects of the story, even though some gaps need filling in total show a different picture from the deliberate disinformation mixed with facts in the "official" account.

Obviously, prior planning of this massacre, and also some others supposedly done on the sole initiative of a "lone gun nut' of low intelligence and with few friends or relatives likely to help defend them was by anti gun psychopaths to drum up support for their agenda. This included selecting and setting up Martin Bryant to take the blame, while it seems the real main gunman was a young bloke from South Australia who committed suicide six months later

Presented a considerable problem when they did not manage to have Martin supposedly commit suicide or be killed in a shootout with police. Then he apparently was not drugged enough when Seascape Cottage was set on fire. Ran out, unarmed, and with severe burns yelling "Don't shoot, I am the hostage". (In a police exercise!?) Was quickly vilified in "trial by media" and eventually pleaded guilty without one after six months of considerable duress.

Mick, Northern Victoria
June 30, 2014 5:37am

@ thinking person, if someone is smart enough to drive a car do you think that they might be able to fire a gun?
@ mike if you read the facts rather than the made up stuff you might think differently.

Bubba, Gorokan the place to be ,OZ
June 30, 2014 9:28am

To all those who believe that creature is innocent - you weren't here. We who live here, and who know those who died, as well as those who survived and WATCHED HIM COMMIT THE CRIME know he is guilty - he alone, no-one else, just one person. Brian Dunning sums it up well, that's how it was.
Anyone who claims anything else not only besmirches the memory of those who died but ridicules those who survived, and have to live with the memory of the things they saw - scenes normally witnessed on a battlefield.
Just think about that before you jump in with your stupid conspiracies. You weren't there. Your pleas for him to be freed, that he is innocent, are an affront to basic decency.
He was lucky he was persuaded to plead guilty. A trial would have been the cruellest end to this tragedy. His lawyer spared us that.
The fact that he will live out his life is something he denied to 35 people - inclouding 2 beautiful little girls. Those 2 deaths alone deserve nothing less than life in prison.

magicmum, Tasmania
November 10, 2014 6:14pm

This tragic incident is not going to fade away. To the contrary, an increasing number of people now realize the official narrative was created to cover up an event staged to implement gun control. The evidence for this is hard, undeniable, and time resistant. There was no public enquiry into the incident - think about this. All those people killed (allegedly 35), all those people wounded (allegedly 23), but there was no open public enquiry. There was no inquest as there should have been by law - think about this. There was NO TRIAL, just appearances in a court room. The patsy Martin Bryant did not willingly admit to anything. He said he was innocent. But eventually the State found a lawyer (criminal John Avery) who pressured Martin to say guilty. Martin had (now?) an IQ of 66 making him RETARDED. He was functioning at a school grade 6 level and could never have arranged and coordinated an incident with 7 crime scenes. Avery also tried to intimidate a gun dealer to say he sold weapons to Martin. All this is detailed in MASS MURDER (2nd edition; 2014; free pdf copy This 700-page book reveals details about the 22-body mortuary truck and the embalming equipment prepared for the incident. This book names those involved, lists evidence which has suggestively disappeared, shows there is no evidence linking Martin to any of the alleged weapons, and raises the screaming fleeing naked lady seen by cops at Seascape. No - the truth is not fading. KEITH ALLAN NOBLE

November 18, 2014 12:13am

A lot of the comments here prove the point of the article beautifully.

Capt. Yossarian, Murfreesboro, Tenn.
February 10, 2015 8:22am

The Port Arthur Massacre was an appalling tragedy, but there was nothing the shooter accomplished that bespoke intense training and skill: the drunkest, most drug-jacked up street addict in Chicago could match it any day after two six-packs and a pint of cheap gin.

It is even more an appalling tragedy that people use it to vent their own inadequacies in public forums focusing on trashing some imaginary untouchable entity and ignoring those who suffered so much for the sake of self-aggrandizement.

If you are a conspiracy theorist, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Maid in Missouri, Gainesville Fl
February 12, 2015 11:27am

I think there are many people commenting on this one that know little or nothing about Tasmania. It's pretty hard to pull off a conspiracy that involves a small town where eye witnesses are identifying a person they know as the shooter.

Peter Lindsay, Newcastle
February 12, 2015 5:23pm

lots of I know he did it ..he was seen. I point you to the recent case in the usa were a man was released after 20 years for murder. He was positively 100 PERCENT identified by one of the victims. The real criminal who committed the murder was identified 20 years later. I was privilaged to unreleased evidence . I am ex military and know the Bryant family. If you knew this man you would see It was impossible for this man to do this . A man that couldnt tie his own shoe laces without assistance. The man they claimed walked up to people and shot them at close range...No one ran away.? The video footage of the 2 armed men moving between the buildings never allowed into the public arena, due to ultra quick trial. no fingerprints on the firearms at all ? A disabled man cleaning down the firearms after use? High mortallity rate for extremely low ammo use. I have been in combat , people run and injuries are the 90 percent ,not deaths. If anything it raises questions to a forced plea of guilty from a disabled man. I see no facts in the above article ,just the government/media explaination.

del, wa
June 22, 2015 4:02am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

Sir Franklin's Cannibals
Skeptoid #482, Sep 1 2015
Read | Listen (12:13)
Captain Kidd's Treasure
Skeptoid #481, Aug 25 2015
Read | Listen (12:07)
The Nazi of Nanking
Skeptoid #480, Aug 18 2015
Read | Listen (13:49)
Skeptoid #479, Aug 11 2015
Read | Listen (14:28)
Listener Feedback: Natural History
Skeptoid #478, Aug 4 2015
Read | Listen (11:36)
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Read | Listen
#3 -
The Death of Rasputin
Read | Listen
#4 -
The Water Woo of Masaru Emoto
Read | Listen
#5 -
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Read | Listen
#6 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Braxton County Monster
Read | Listen
#8 -
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.