Home Australia Will Martin Bryant’s Case Get a Turn-around at the Adelaide Fringe?

Will Martin Bryant’s Case Get a Turn-around at the Adelaide Fringe?


by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB, March 8, 2015

You may have heard that the Port Arthur massacre of 1996 is called “Australia’s 911.” It vividly resembles incidents that we have since come to refer to as “terrorist attacks.” A man walked into a café in Tasmania and, with no apparent motive, shot many of the customers dead. He later killed more folks outside the café; the total was 35 people.

The editor of Gumshoe News, Dalia, and I are putting on a show for two nights at the Adelaide Fringe this week.  It’s supposed to be a comedy, but if you have been reading our columns you will know that some of the subject matters are not very funny.

We advertised the show as having a skit entitled “Florists for 9-11 Truth” and we’ll also have something to say about “unusual clouds in the sky.” We might even mention the death of Miriam Makeba. It occurred straight after she gave a concert in support of the guy who fights “the other mafia” in Italy, Robert Saviano. But you can’t have a Fringe show like this without mentioning Australia’s hugely significant case: “Port Arthur.”

815556-927d5750-3178-11e3-9133-1b38283ddfd2Martin Bryant

We might avail ourselves of some poetic licence at the Fringe, to change the story line a bit. We could ask: what if? What if the convicted killer, Martin Bryant, actually had a trial, and a jury overturned his conviction, finding that on April 28, 1996, the then-28 year-old Martin was not even on the premises of the Broad Arrow café?

As part of the Fringe story, we might show a High School teacher asking her inquisitive students (after the dramatic exoneration of Bryant) to analyze the original case. She’ll ask them to identify some factors about Martin Bryant’s arrest that should have raised red flags. For example:

  1. Martin did not have a trial, despite his being on a disability pension for mental illness.
  2. The shooter shot with right hand, Martin is a leftie!!!!!!!
  3. Local police were called away to a phony drug bust at the critical moment, a long distance from Port Arthur.
  4. The single-bullets to the heads of 19 of the victims could only have done by a marksman.
  5. Wendy Scurr, who was at Port Arthur all day, and had attended the victims, is always ignored by authorities.
  6. Media published a front-page photo of Martin before witnesses could identify him from their recollections.
  7. The only café person who knew Martin, said ‘It’s not him.’
  8. Broad Arrow café was torn down, hiding the evidence.
  9. Martin can be heard on a police walkie-talkie at Seascape Cottage, using a calm voice, perhaps with scripted lines.
  10. Contrary to state law (Tassie’s Coroners Act 1995), no coronial inquest was held. Hence the case is thoroughly suspicious.

In the Opinion of Officer Phil Pyke

Oddly, as recently as 17 months ago, Murdoch’s news.com.au published an article, “My Time with Mass Killer Martin Bryant.” It’s by the police officer, Phil Pyke, who had sat in the hospital room guarding the prisoner.

Recall that Martin Bryant had escaped from the Seascape Cottage with his back on fire. Here he is in the Royal Hobart Hospital, in extreme pain, and yet is handcuffed, in the bed. (“Gotta hate those spree killers,” right?). In his short article, Pyke mentions four times that Martin gave a look of “pure evil.”

I have learned from psychological-warfare literature that if the human ear hears something three times in a short space, the brain cannot resist believing it. The normally critical function of the cerebrum gets overridden.

By the way, should it turn out that Bryant never killed a flea, the alleged “look of pure evil” will have to be accounted for in some other way. Such as that Pyke imagined it?

This policeman also said – but he got this by hearsay – that Bryant made shooting gestures at the nurses, which frightened them. Bit hard to make any gesture in handcuffs, isn’t it?

phil-pyke-diary (1)Hobart policeman Phil Pyke

Pyke went on, in his post-1996 career, to be Media officer for the police and subsequently public relations officer for the Australian Defence Forces. (That would require a special talent nowadays, I imagine, and great dedication.)

It is worth noting that Pyke built his report about Martin’s awfulness, partly on the basis that he, Pyke, was, coincidentally, the officer who found Martin’s Dad, Maurice Bryant, in a dam on the property in 1995.

The bereaved son “laughed,” he said.

By the way, the Dad was reportedly found wearing a weighted belt, to assure his death by drowning. We all have a weighted belt in our wardrobe, don’t we? And a sign was hung on the house: “Get the police.” How very peculiar, if Maurice hung it.

The Mom, Carleen Bryant

It has come out in the medical reports of Martin Bryant that he was connected to the Tavistock Clinic in the UK from an early age, and traveled there several times on his own as an adult. This does not seem to match his diagnosis as mentally retarded. It’s often mentioned that Bryant’s IQ is 66, but do we really know that? Lately I see they are using the word “Asperger’s” in his diagnosis.

The Tavistock connection makes me think that his Mother, Carleen, is also controlled in some way. In the years after 1996, she was said to have been traveling around Australia in a campervan (something one cannot easily verify). It has also often been published that Martin refused prison visits from his Mom. Personally I take that with a grain of salt.

Carleen recently gave Sixty Minutes a chat, vaguely suggesting Martin’s innocence. Would she ever have been allowed to appear on TV like that, if media didn’t feel sure that her message would be pretty tame? Am I suggesting that the media desires that we “keep our shirts on” regarding the Port Arthur massacre? Yes.

All Sorts of Things May Happen If Martin Bryant, Now Age 48, Gets a Trial

There are various supporters of Bryant around Oz and around the world, but the only one I absolutely trust, so far, is Wendy Scurr.  Indeed, Wendy is a principal witness, and cast aspersions on the official (i.e., Murdoch-press) story.

In our show she may be appointed a vice-regal, yes, Governor of Queensland, to thank her for her integrity and to signal that persons with a mind for truth will now be listened to. Gotta look at the positive side here. History did not end did it?

wendy2See Wendy Scurr on Youtube

Legal eagles may find themselves becoming national heroes if they pursue this matter.  When I was in law school, a High Court Justice came over to Adelaide to participate in the un-doing of an unfair criminal case that happened a century ago. Just ope your eyes, students. There is “material” you can use today….[D4]

Incidentally, does anyone know the current whereabouts of a girl named Shizaa? Back in 2008 she was producing frequent spots for Youtube under the title “The Opinion Hour.” She made a forthright statement of her belief that Martin Bryant should not be in jail (and a hint that certain other miscreants should be).

Then she stopped uploading videos and has not “checked in” to her Youtube channel for the last eight years. I am not tinfoil-hattish enough to say she has been disappeared. (I am generally tinfoil-hattish, of course, but possibly Google simply shut down Ms Shizzaa’s Yutube channel). In any case I’d like to know her current whereabouts.

Mary Maxwell is an aspiring thespian, at an advanced age. She will try anything. The Fringe show dates are 13th and 14 March, 2015, and the admission price is fairly low, in fact it is nothing at all. With free parking at the Burnside Library, to boot. And maybe the attendees will get a tax rebate just for showing up – but now I’m exaggerating.







    • I imagine that “they” (whoever “they” are) are happy for us to be distressed about it. You may have read that there was a “22-person mortuary truck” purchased by the local authorities, “which was then sold on ebay.” Quel joke. Surely that caper is all part of the psy-war. No one would buy such a truck — as is proven by the fact that they then got rid of it.
      Well, Lawrence, if you’ve “followed this for ages,” what is your suggestion as to how to deal? The episode symbolizes our powerlessness. But we could overcome that with determination?

  1. If Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB is a lawyer then why doesn’t she take up the case for Martin Bryant PRO BONO?
    The following applies as much to Federal laws of the Commonwealth of Australia as it does to federal laws in the USA; http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
    Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
    37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: “Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”

    QUOTE Byrne v Byrne (1965) 7 FLR 342 at 343
    Fraud: Usually takes the form of a statement of what is false or the suppression of what is true.

    Foster (1950) S.R. (N.S.W.) 149, at p151 (Lord Denning, speaking on the role of an advocate)
    As an advocate he is a minister of Justice equally with a judge, A Barrister cannot pick or choose his clients…He must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client. I say ‘All he honourably can’ because his duty is not only to his client. He has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is a mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of those things. He owes his allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and Justice. He must not consciously misstate the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth. He must not unjustly make a charge of fraud, that is, without evidence to support it. He must produce all relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, all relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court.

    In my view Mary could lodge a complaint with the relevant Legal Service Commissioner that it appears to her that Martin Bryant may not have instructed his second lawyer to “plea guilty”. She may also argue that if Martin Bryant was not deemed a fit and proper person, due to having an alleged mental illness, which the Commonwealth may be perceived to have certified by providing an invalid pension, then his competence to instruct a solicitor to allegedly “plea guilty” may have been beyond his mental capacity. As such there ought to be an independent proper assessment if Martin Bryant was and currently is mentally competent to instruct a lawyer. If he was not men tally competent to instruct a lawyer then an order for administration ought to have provided for the appointment of a Guardian who then could act in the best interest of Martin Bryant and if needed instruct a lawyer.
    In my view a ROYAL COMMISSION should be established to investigate the Port Arthur murders. This as I view it serves neither the victims, their families, the general community nor justice if Martin Bryant is wrongly convicted.

  2. I knew 3 people who were killed that day, I know one of the TRG, I have met both Martin Bryant and Wendy Scurr, I saw the photos taken by Bryant that were sold to the media. The man is a perpetrator of an horrendous crime. Full stop. You Mary are a publicity whore. I support 100% your right to free speech, allow Walter Micack some stage time at your show.

      • There was a trial, at which Bryant pled guilty to each charge as it was read out. There is nothing about this shocking and tragic case which is interesting or should be revisited. Go and spend some time on the Tasman Peninsula, talk to some locals, discover the schism this event created.

    • You are absolutely correct .It wouldn’t matter how much evidence or facts one presented to these people, for the only truth they are willing to believe is the blind contorted & utter nonsence that MB is entirely innocent & was anywhere but at the scene of the crime on the day.Their conpiracy theories involving a federal cover up is nothing more or less than a mindless & sick preample or fantasy eminating from the very same twisted, warped,deluded & paranoid mind or mentality that the actual perpetrator possessed. .Also in their nieve”quest” for their ”own” deluded version of a supposed better society they show an extraordinary lack of empathy, compassion or human feeling towards those survivors,their loved ones & anyone else who had the misfortune to be involved in that incident, it may be noted the very same lack of compassion the perpetrator possessed for his victims, including those young & innocent infants who had barely began their lifes journey.If there was a degree of innocence in Martin then that innocence was the fact that such a very ill person such as, him was allowed to gain possesion of the kind of weapons that he had, well the community understood & had accepted that aspectt – hence the “arms buy back scheme”.Also one does not need to be a professional marksman or soldier to knock off over a couple of dozen people in a short space of time with with a military machine gun, at close range.A novice could do it, but MB was no novice anyhow, he had been practicing long & hard since his early teens, this was well established.So please for the sake of all those involved, (including the Bryant family if you so wish, for even Martin was once upon a time just an innocent young lad ) do so try & show some human compassion & attempt to withstand turning the whole tragety into a giant “circus”.

      Best wishes to all Joey

      • You say: “Also one does not need to be a professional marksman or soldier to knock off over a couple of dozen people in a short space of time with with a military machine gun, at close range.”

        Keith Noble’s excellently-researched Mass Murder, which is free online, says “The gunman scored 20 headshots in 90 minutes.”

        You are incorrect to say that it does not take a marksman. You are incorrect to say that I am deluded. Tasmanain law calls for a coronial inquest; there was none. That makes a citizen smell a rat.

        Surely you are being paid to knock journalists who want the matter to be looked at. Noble’ book details how much effort has gone into supppressing the story and disseminating disinfo.

        But I do agree with you that “the actual perpetrator was sick and twisted.” Very much so.

    • Then you should be disgusted with your mate who along with his team of gumbies were held at bay for half a night by a moron on a disability pension. Questions will always be asked because of the incompetence of the Tasmanian Police and Tasmanian Government in their response to such a mess.

  3. He was clearly a scapegoat for a false flag attack. Outcome = ban guns in Australia! Mission accomplished!. For those who still believe the mainstream media and that Martin is guilty, then please explain why there was no public enquiry, or even a ‘proper’ investigation. For those who doubt, please do some serious research and use your own judgement about what is fact vs fiction, rather than accepting everything as fact from our media outlets. Again, ‘serious research’, look at all the evidence.

    • I couldn’t agree more, Bala. It was clearly a government plot to deprive us of our right to bear arms and any rational view of the evidence supports this, I really don’t see how anyone can deny it. Just think, if people were allowed to carry arms freely in Australia, the Port Arthur events would not have happened because the victims would have been able to defend themselves. Moral: never trust a government that wont let you arm yourself

  4. This is pure garbage. I will state I am not against conspiracies, they have happened and will happen again but what I am against is BS arguments.

    1. He was deemed mentally fit to stand trial
    2. Reference that he is left handed required. Also note that many lefties write left but still prefer right as the strong arm for other activities.
    3. Cops getting a hoax call is no shock.
    4. A true marksman wouldn’t shoot from the hip. Also the victims in the cafe were at point blank range. Not a difficult task for that confined space. It is to be noted when he left the cafe his ‘markmanship’ skills dwindled terribly at targets only 20-30m away. Had to go back to point blank again to get more headshots. i.e. on the bus or on the road executing the mother and her two children.
    5. Not much she can add that didn’t secure a conviction. She never witnessed the shooter and everything else is response to the wounded.
    6. Yes they did and Tasmanian prosecutor sent out a warning to all media heads of the ramifications to the case and consequences for their own actions.
    7. Reference needed. As witnesses in the Port Arthur doco confirm it is Bryant.
    8. Is this the door scenario? If so even Wendy Scurr stated that the door was damaged and could not be opened. She said that is why so many tourist victims near there dead try to escape that couldn’t exit and that is why the two staff girls were killed behind the counter and didn’t try to flee there as they would have known only the front entrance could be used.
    9. More references needed. Who cares if he is calm.
    10. An inquest should happen, I agree. However, I doubt this will stop the nutters here that bring up irrational and illogical arguments from sprouting their BS. As per your BS in this piece,

    “This policeman also said – but he got this by hearsay – that Bryant made shooting gestures at the nurses, which frightened them. Bit hard to make any gesture in handcuffs, isn’t it?”

    To make a shooting gesture you only require a thumb and an index finger. Handcuffs cannot stop that action. I do not believe they had a Chinese finger trap on him.

    • John,
      “pure garbage?
      marksman shooting…

      1. from an interview it sounded like he though he was going to be out soon… a couple of months. Surely that should be questioned. Surely someone who had killed people would not talk like that.
      3. why is it no shock…? yes it is not. It is out of the distraction for false flag text book
      4. surely once the first shot was fired…. people would have been diving, moving, running….. not standing there like targets
      7. witnesses and doco’s are are easily edited and tainted

      Interesting comment – much of it BS

    • Mate all your points speak for themselves.all factless.maybe u should speak to a few corrupt cops like i have.you obviously have no idea about weapons either.go back to reading your newspaper and believing everything.f*** how dumb are u
      (moderator bleeped)

  5. Here’s a comment that has been expunged from below this y/tube video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siun7RHSyqA
    It’s from 10/7/2013. It’s from Walter Mikac’s brother-in-law Graeme Moulton:
    “This conspiracy theory has been raging for years.. It has no substance except people’s imagination. The women[sic] with the two children, Nanette Mikac was my sister. My nieces were also shot. As a family we were told other events that the general public did not know. In the clip the two men in the car looking distressed were my father and brother in law.
    There was no conspiracy, no government involvement, no deep secrets, no hidden agenda. Just a nut case with guns.

    • Max as you have not posted before, it required moderation.
      Thank you for you comment.
      Everyone here would be sad for their loss. A loss that was a result of a terrible tragedy.
      I can only speak for myself – and that is I HAD no particular interest in Port Arthur initially. I had no interest in 9/11 either. I felt very sorry for the victims families. BUT— When I realised than it was impossible for 19 Arabs to pull off 9/11 – this sparked my inner conscience. When you ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME and review the evidence – you realise the buildings/towers (all 3) were demolished. Atta and his mates were patsies. Jon Faine (ABC’s 774) tried to shame me in emails for bringing up 911 – and for digging open old wounds for the families. But Matt Campbell (his brother died in a tower) and I know many others were thanking us (look up Bobby McIlvaine) – as a great INJUSTICE had been done. The wool had been pulled over the public’s eyes and the families of many of the victims had been duped into blaming the wrong culprits. its a DISGRACE that the ABC AND OTHER MEDIA DO NOT REPORT THE FACTS ON 911.

      On Port Arthur. Having only recently looked at it – it is a DISGRACE that the government did NOT FOLLOW THE LAW and have a CORONIAL INQUEST AND TRIAL – and then let Bryant face justice as we know it. It is a little strange having read the transcripts that this “challenged” individual could be such a “professional” and then say what he said. It just does not add up.

      And Max we have published before 42 government conspiracies that were later confirmed. People that were called nutters were proved correct.
      Again thank you for adding your comments.

      In conclusion – I say let the law prevail. It is a concern when governments by pass the law and obfuscate justice that you have to worry

  6. Wow! Some nasty comments showed up since the time I first read this article.

    I’m always amazed at how people avoid the question about why someone would carry out such horrible violence — motive. There are reasons. Martin had no reason to kill any of these people. A low IQ does not necessarily mean no moral values.

    Unfortunately, when “authorities” decide to use someone as a patsy for their operations, it’s hard to get around the dense wall of “cover” they always place around the truth.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion