Home Port Arthur Further to Martin Bryant’s Piano(s)

Further to Martin Bryant’s Piano(s)


This grand is currently on E-bay in the US for only $1200

If you google for “The Queen v Bryant” you will get this:



Appearances: MR. D. BUGG Q.C. and MR. N. PERKS for the Crown MR. J. AVERY for [really, for??] the Accused.

BUGG Q.C. (Stating facts): Your Honour, Martin Bryant has pleaded guilty to all counts in the indictment which was filed in this Court on the 5th of July.

Mr Bugg says:

On the 28th of April of this year he travelled to Port Arthur. He drove there in his Volvo sedan which at the time had a surfboard placed on the roof racks on top of the car [which is indeed where roof racks tend to be. Are we padding here?].

The Crown’s case is that at the outset of that journey he intended at least some form of violent confrontation with Mr. and Mrs. Martin of the Seascape tourist accommodation facility at Port Arthur and in all probability [probability according to what measure of probability?] his intentions also extended to actions which had the devastating impact on the community and the people of Port Arthur on that day.

[Note: Agreed. Someone’s intentions extended to actions that had a devastating impact on the community].

Page 51.

I say this because on the Crown case he had made preparations which were inconsistent with his normal behaviour. He behaved deceptively to those close to him, as to his possession and use of firearms. They were concealed in his house in the body of two pianos and elsewhere within the house out of view of visitors to that property. [Emphasis added]

I have news for Mr Bugg: It does not pay to make up implausible things like that. As readers may recall from the late 2015 Gumshoe interview with Cherri Bonney, the interviewer asked her how she got into all this (and believe me she has got into all this).

Cherri replied that, as a musician, she tuned up when the radio newsman said Martin had hidden his guns in the piano. Actually the way she heard it was “21 guns in a white piano,” but as we see from the DPP’s more sober phrase it was just a matter of “firearms…concealed…  in the body of two pianos.”

Continuing with Statement of Facts [sic] — and I am not usually one to write “sic” on anything — Mr Bugg says:

His acts of preparation included buying a sports bag to conceal one of his weapons, he took handcuffs with him, rope and a hunting knife and three semi-automatic weapons and a significant quantity of ammunition.

He told some people he met on the way that he was going surfing at Roaring Beach but on one occasion he let his guard slip and I will tell your Honour about that later. [Gimme a clue now! I can’t stand suspense.] [Emphasis added]

Note: in preparing for the Adelaide Fringe, when Bryant’s “new lawyer” Anna Blue learned that Bugg had mentioned handcuffs, she went to Stewart Beattie’s book and learned that Mr Bugg had never entered any handcuffs into evidence and thus he is not allowed to refer to them. (I make a guess here that Beattie learned that important legal point from Barrister Terry Shulze.)

[Bryant] followed through a series of actions which culminated in a hostage and siege situation which had an air of pre-planning [very likely for 9 years or more, and which had that special “Soros” touch]. He clearly intended to embark upon violence and murderous conduct of the type to which he has pleaded guilty.

Well, the whole point of the Moot Court trial was that Bryant did not plead guilty in any recognizable sense of that word. He was massively tricked out of getting a trial by the finagling of his defense lawyer, John Avery.

Maybe Martin was also given drugs or threats or whatever to make him say the word GUIL-TY but our Moot did not traffic in conspiracy stuff. It is enough that the law was not followed: An accused is entitled to adequate counsel. Period.

Page 52.

Bryant at the time, lived comfortably in the sense that he didn’t have any money worries but I will cover that in more detail later. His lifestyle was different and his behaviour, in the eyes of many, inappropriate [so is yours, Toots].

He owned and drove a motor vehicle but did not possess a driver’s licence. … A search of his house at Clare street after the shootings at Port Arthur revealed that he had hidden the firearms in the house and had other weapons and ammunition concealed there in such a way that his girlfriend and other visitors would not be able to locate them [meaning, no doubt that he kept a couple of shoulder-held surface-to-air missiles in a flute].

He was obviously stockpiling those weapons and ammunition which had a disturbing killing efficiency. That he was planning or considering a significant violent act or series of acts culminating in his conduct in late April 1996 is best illustrated by his conduct at gun shops in Hobart in the short period of time leading up to this incident.

At this point, in our show, Anna Blue read out the threatening letter sent to gun dealer Terry Hill. Of course she deemed this to be the crime of witness tampering. Also as it was signed by a solicitor who was at that point working for the DPP. To spell his name backwards it is Yreva. Anna had the feeling this was not kosher.

Damian continues:

In stating the facts to you I will cover those events leading up to the first fatal shootings on the 28th of April and through to the shooting of Mrs. Mikac and her two daughters on Jetty Road at Port Arthur.

My junior, Mr. Perks, will then deal with Bryant’s actions from the Toll Booth at Port Arthur through to the siege and his arrest at Seascape the next morning. He will also cover the police interview of Bryant in early July, 1996, the video film of which will be played to the Court.

See? They did have the video. So how can they say it was lost? Or maybe they  got it, as we did, from Mike Willessee.

Mr Bugg continues:

At the conclusion of the playing of that film I will then provide background information on Bryant detailing information in my possession and expert opinion obtained by my office which I will be submitting to assist your Honour in the sentencing process.

Before proceeding further and in fairness to Bryant and his counsel [not clear what being fair to his counsel would mean in this particular setting] I consider that it is proper that I inform your Honour as to the Crown’s position concerning sentence.

The Crown in this State [what really is a Crown? Is it the independent DPP?]  is authorised to make submission on sentencing pursuant to Section 386, sub-Sections 11 and 12 on the Criminal Code …

— I will … be submitting that in relation to the counts of murder to which he has pleaded guilty [see above] the sentence of life imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence on those convictions and that your Honour’s discretion under The Parole Act [not to mention your Honour’s discretion in regard to protecting the actual guilty parties] should be exercised by orders under Section 12B (a) that he is not eligible for parole in respect of that sentence.

And there he sits to this very day. April marks 21 years of Mr Bryant’s incarceration.

Enough is enough, eh?

Mary W Maxwelll and Dee McLachlan are co-authors of Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough, a free download at GumshoeNews.com.



  1. I laugh when I hear Damien Bugg say ,” In stating facts to you”. Damien Bugg did nothing but state lies to the court. He withheld evidence that was available, from the court. As did the criminal, supposed defence lawyer, John Avery.

    Both these persons (and I use that word loosely) along with Justice Cox, should be in jail instead of Martin Bryant.

  2. Of course there are may others that should be in jail. Those who planned the Port Arthur Massacre and those that prevented those criminals from being charged. In my opinion the court system in Australia has been compromised, so I will not name the people involved in these crimes, but the facts have been recorded, elsewhere.

    • “Those that prevented those criminals from being charged.” An interesting category, Mal. My idea of public (laypersons’) Truth Commission would be that an invitation would be put out asking anyone who fits that category, say at the small-fry level, to come forward and be “registered” as having owned up to it.

      What I mean by small fry is that hundreds of people would fit the category “those that prevented the massacrists from being charged.”
      Hey, there are various levels. Say you are a typist at the Hobart Mercury and you overhear X and Y talking about the frame-up of Bryant. You do nothing. Are you then someone “who prevented criminals from being charged”? C-O-M-P-L-I-C-A-T-E-D.

  3. The Government of the day (I believe) needed a patsy to ensure the disarming of the people…America has had many such event’s and of recent note Sandy Hook (no public enquiry) but still the American people refuse to give up their constitutional gun rights…we (I believe) unfortunately didn’t and no doubt may regret the day we allowed the one thing that keeps those in power from enforcing a draconian dictatorship over the people. To achieve the degree of accuracy and maximised casualties (at Port Arthur) I believe would have taken more than one (expert) shooter, it may well be that it was only Martin involved (in my opinion it’s highly unlikely) so unless we have an open enquiry we’ll never know! How convenient but that’s the way the government want it…unless of course “we” the people insist that this be done. Then and if it were (may I postulate) Pandora’s box would possibly be opened (because the Australian people might hopefully realise that this is quite possibly the tip of the “iceberg”). The Commonwealth of Australia is now a Corporation registered in Washington DC. I’m sorry but when was the referendum carried out for this? What exactly does A Corporation mean for our Constitution and our protection under our constitution? “Sorry gotta go the footie is startin.” Oh (one more thing) let us not forget little Johnny Howard “America’s man of steel” who was just pottering around his house when he got the phone call about the shooting in Tasmania…hmm… and 9/11 when George W Bush jnr was just at a school reading to the children (with I believe the book upside down)…And Barry Unsworth then Premiere of NSW declaring after storming out of a (unsuccessful) national gun summit meeting “it’ll take a massacre in “Tasmania” before we get gun reform in Australia!!! and lo it came to pass. And lest we forget the Lindt incident…rehearsals conducted “coincidentally” by the anti terrorists squad in the same local/venue days prior. Of course all this is in “my opinion.” “What’s the score Bluey?” What…someone’s knocking on the door…they’re wearing black suits…tell em we’re not interested.

    • The fact that someone registered a corproation in th US with the name Commonwealth of Australia, or The Green and Gold Forever, or Where’s My Jolly Jumbuck, does not chnage the constituion one iota. This nation is a nation. Don’t be fold by words.

      • It’s not the words I’m concerned with Mary…it’s the fact that as a result of registering as a corporation all revenue collected by our government is apportioned to the controlling entities of that corporation. eg Queensland police are revenue collectors for this corporation no longer are they peace keepers but policy enforcers…if they were bound by their oath as required by our constitution they would not be titled Police…in my opinion. But this corporation issue is but the tip of the iceberg, our country (as are so many others) is not governed for the people by our government under the constitution…if it was we would have an independent banking system not a centralized Rothschild’s banking system that is debt driven. Under our constitution no lending (for usury) by any organization is allowed subject to imprisonment if carried out. How many bankers are in prison? May I end this reply by stating “all wars are bankers wars” our world as we know it is in the mess it currently is because our private debt driven banking system requires we be held captive to it.

        • Where in the Aus constitution is there a mention of this sort of thing?
          “Under our constitution no lending (for usury) by any organization is allowed subject to imprisonment if carried out.”

          Lloyd, u r joking, right?

          • Yes …look at Sect 51-4-12-13 of the constitution variable interest loans are illegal…perhaps if you google Australian Constitution for Dummies (not my idea of the best title) listen to the talk…I think it was initially done to educate people of the then impending referendum on becoming a Republic. The government has the right to provide money…so saying the country is in debt in one sense is correct but constitutionally there is no reason to be in debt. As I understand it…the Reserve Bank is not controlled by the Government…that ended in 1960.

  4. Definitely! I don’t know about Australia, but in the U.S. we have lots and lots of people whose convictions are more than questionable. I’d start with everyone in the Super Max prison in Florence, CO, as well as Charlie Manson.

    One has to wonder if the extent of damage to these individuals is beyond the point of them being able to live in “society” without a whole lot of help, if at all. Whatever help they need should be given because it’s owed.

  5. So driving without a license & being a weapons collector is evidence of planning & executing a massacre ?

    How important is it to keep going over every detail of this Case!

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