Home Boston A Pessimistic Look at Bryant and Tsarnaev, Based on Sirhan Sirhan’s Fate

A Pessimistic Look at Bryant and Tsarnaev, Based on Sirhan Sirhan’s Fate


sirhan and pepperSirhan Sirhan (L), and William F Pepper (R)

By Mary W Maxwell

Gumshoe News has been reporting a groundswell of support for Martin Bryant, who was wrongly convicted of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

But how does a groundswell work to change anything? As far as I am aware, the only way groundswells have ever worked is by changing the minds of officials. If they feel pressured, or laughed at, they may put their dear signature to a new decision.

Ah, that was the old days — when an official had some independence. Under what I take to be the present system (I hope I’m wrong) no bureaucrat or parliamentarian or police chief has the ability to act based on any pressure from the public. He or she takes instructions only from above.

So never mind the fact that many persons are aware that the Bryant and Tsarnaev “court cases” – if you could even dignify the goings-on with that phrase – were a farce. Never mind that people nowadays understand government corruption.  Never mind that petitions have been signed (more then 2,000 Aussies supporting Martin, 7,000 worldwide for Jahar). The fact is these men will remain in jail.

Sirhan Sirhan

In 1968 someone killed Robert F Kennedy just as he was becoming the Democratic candidate for president (against Nixon the Republican). A real gunman did it, but Sirhan was planted at the scene, under mind control. He has now been in prison for 47 years. (Actually it’s called a “correctional” facility – they may yet correct him!)


Every five years Sirhan asks the parole board in California for parole. He was turned down in 2006 because he does not show enough remorse. He says he does not remember the shooting (although at his trial he said he did it because he was against RFK’s support for Israel!). Anyway it is hard to be remorseful if you don’t feel guilty.

At this year’s parole hearing, there was quite a buzz. It seemed the 71-year-old Palestinian-born American might be given parole. This is because he now has an outstanding lawyer, William Pepper, and because one of the 5 men wounded when Robert Kennedy was shot was willing to attend the hearing.

That man, 91-year-old Paul Shrade, did attend and said that – as everyone agrees —  RFK was shot in the back and all nine witnesses say Sirhan was standing in front of, not in back of, Kennedy.

That did not move the parole board. Their officials say that parole-granting has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but with remorse. He can have his next chance in 5 years at age 76.

Saying “No and That’s Final”

Meanwhile Pepper is preparing another appeal based on the facts in the case.  But as far as I can tell, he will hit the same wall that Jahar Tsarnaev and Martin Bryant are hitting. The court will simply say No.

It is very easy to say No. If you are an official and can find some reason to say No you simply say it. Nothing bad will happen to you. If you are an elected representative of the people you may lose your parliamentary seat – and retire to a parliamentary pension – but even this can be controlled by the party that “owns” your district!

I think we should spend more time looking at the question of who controls the officials in the six states and in Canberra, rather than make efforts to “change their minds.” We are not going to change their minds on any topic – health, schools, agriculture, immigration, war-making, you name it. They can say No.

That said, I do not for a minute denigrate the effort to solve the whodunnit aspect of famous cases (Boston Marathon, Port Arthur, and many others). I thoroughly endorse Cherri Bonney’s petition to Change.org. We should look at groundswells as canaries in the coal mine – indicators that something is very wrong and needs fixing,

What Ordinary Folks Are Thinking

It is sooo pleasant to see many persons signing the Change.org petition that asks the premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman, to hold an inquest re Port Arthur “for Martin Bryant’s sake and all our sakes.” Yeah man.

And it is fun to listen to their remarks. Here are 28 of them:

It’s just so obvious that Martin is innocent, not just because of his disabilities but also because he’d have to be up there with the top 1% of shooters in the world that could pull this off and that would be impossible!! — Dawn Tomkinson

A story full of holes with so many unanswered questions. we deserve answers and hard evidence. — Cade Wester

There needs to be a trial. I want to see evidence. The ‘story’ is not believable. — Sam Carrison

When a government goes out of its way to deny the facts to the public, it’s because they have something to hide. I’d like to know precisely what that is. — Mark Novak

I seriously doubt Martin Bryant is guilty. — Tiffany Henderson        

I believe in justice. — Brian Pfeiffer

The truth shall always be revealed. — Leigh Evans

Martin Bryant is innocent. God help the real murderers when the sheeple wake up from their slumber. — Gavin Templar

I think the victims’ relatives need to know the right person was convicted and on what evidence.  — Russell Wheeler

The Government and Judicial system is corrupt in Tasmania and a full investigation should be done as soon as possible. — Robert Jackson

Martin’s Mother should be convinced of her son’s innocence, or guilt, through correct process within the legal system. — Gareth Thomas

Justice is not an option but rather it is mandatory. — Roland Gopel

The truth will out. — Mike Lee

I believe a patsy was gaoled. — Warwick Schneider

This is agenda 21 in action. … Howard should be jailed for complicity. It was a total set up. … The people who set him up must be jailed for life. They deserve nothing less. — David Bell

He was a ‘government stooge’ and has been led to the slaughter by a pm that had only one thing on his mind, and that was to disarm the people so they cannot defend themselves against a tyrannous ‘government.’ — Graham Girolami

No forensics linking him with the crime scene at all… This case has to be tested in a Court of Law in front of a jury of his peers. Everyone has that right. — Richard Hopkins

We need to know the truth. If he is innocent the guilty need to be exposed.  — Tina Lockett

Because there has been no trial. — Steven Grives

Justice needs to be done here !!! — Annie Chenery

Justice must be made available for ALL especially those who are disadvantaged. — Marilyn Swaby

Surely a crime of this nature should have been fully and completely examined. Even if the unlikely events, as previously reported, are true then surely it is in the interest of all to put an end to the conspiracy theories? If we have been told the truth, what is there to lose? — Robert Pretty      

I think he is not guilty and questions need to be answered by all people and the previous PM John Howard. — Simon Woore

There should have been an inquest at the time! — Ed Wennink  

 I don’t believe Bryant is guilty! — Bob Johnson

This injustice has played on my mind since I discovered it was a false flag event. — Maree Baker

You Can Stop Cringing Now!

On October 20, 2015 Christopher Brooks wrote an article about Port Arthur for Gumshoe, entitled “Justice Denied.” Brooks said  “The brand is so powerful I cringe when I type ‘Martin Bryant is innocent’.”

That is no longer necessary. As we can see from the petition signers, the ‘brand’ is hooey. People are not stupid and they know how to read the signs, to interpret an unfair court case. (In Bryant’s “case” remember, there was no trial. Some case, eh?)

I guess it’s time everyone should cringe if they say “Martin Bryant is guilty.”

— Mary W Maxwell lives in Adelaide. She can be contacted at maryWmaxwell.com.




  1. “Their officials say that parole-granting has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but with remorse.”

    A Catch 22 situation – he’s innocent, he can’t feel remorse, but he must feel remorse if he wants parole. It’s just another legal device to avoid the issue.

    Mary, you’re quite right about Bryant’s case, they would fiddle the legal devices to avoid doing what it right. Heck, even if you had a trial I would bet (based upon 21 years at the Bar) that the Judge would fiddle the law, if he couldn’t fiddle the law he’d fiddle the facts, if he had to he’d do both, just make up his own law and ‘interpretation/weighing’ of the facts – I have seen this done more times than I can count.

    So, where does that leave us? All I can suggest is that people continue to put the word out about the Port Arthur Massacre. What it was really about (gun control) and that Bryant is innocent – and that the real target was more control over the populace.

    Eventually the system is going to collapse, it’s coming – The limits of the tyrant are set by the limits of the oppressed.

  2. Its interesting Terry, more and more the law sounds corrupt every time I look into in to this case, serving them selves. At the moment saying Martin doesn’t wont to see any-one is beyond me, then if that’s ‘right’ he’s been like this for over 5 years or more, more like another game the law play’s out with our /Martin’s mind’….

    • “every time I look into in to this case”

      Cherri, I could go on and on telling anecdote after anecdote about the legal system, the media, the police, etc. of what I’ve seen over the last 30 years. However, rather than expect people to sit through story after story, I now take a short-cut. I tell them to research the Port Arthur Massacre and the case against Martin Bryant. – That one case will tell them everything they need to know about the system.

      Count yourself lucky that you stumbled upon the case (call it your ‘Red Pill’) and that you didn’t have to slog away in the system year after year trying to turn things around. Doing battle with that much evil for so long will leave a lot of scars.

  3. Quote-Unquote (copyright Cherri Bonney):


  4. They like to use lack of remorse as an excuse for keeping innocent people in prison.

    I don’t believe Martin will be exonerated until the global wannabe government is no longer in charge. I hope that will be soon.

    • Unfortunately you are correct (I ween) about no exoneration while the Bozos are in control. How could they let him out? The question would then be raised: if Martin was not the blond-haired gunman [or blond-wigged gunperson] who was?

      It would be tum-de-tum-tum city.

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