Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant's motive revealed in unearthed psychiatrist report
Australian mass murderer Martin Bryant's motivation for the horrific Port Arthur attack has been revealed in unearthed psychiatrist reports.
Bryant was just 28 years old when he brutally murdered 35 people and injured 23 others during a two-day rampage around the Tasmanian tourist town in April 1996.
He started his killing spree at the Seascape Cottage, owned by his first two victims David and Noelene 'Sally' Martin.
The violent rampage ended there too when the psychopath set the house alight in a bid to escape waiting police who were camped outside.
Now 58, Bryant is serving 35 consecutive life sentences in Risdon Prison Complex. He will never be released.
News Corp Australia investigation has obtained four reports from interviews Bryant had with mental health experts after the shootings.
One of those reports includes the details of an almost four-hour interview with forensic psychiatrist Paul Mullen about six days after the massacre, in which Bryant said his murder plot started with his hatred for Seascape Cottage owners David Martin, 72, and Noelene Martin, 69.
The initial plan to kill the 'very mean' couple started about 12 months earlier and escalated to mass murder because he was furious people generally didn't like him, News Corp Australia revealed.
The feeling of hatred toward the Martins stemmed from Bryant's father Maurice Bryant's unsuccessful attempts to buy Seascape Cottage, also called Seascape Guesthouse. Maurice died by suicide in 1993. Bryant blamed the Martins for the downfall of his family.
After Bryant killed the Martins at Seascape Cottage, he ate at the Broad Arrow Cafe and then pulled a semiautomatic rifle out and began shooting. He killed 20 people in two minutes.
He shot more people on the way out and escaped in his car.
He then stole a BMW, killing its occupants. Bryant stopped at a petrol station, where he killed a woman and took a man hostage.
He returned to Seascape Cottage with the hostage. The following morning Bryant was caught after the guesthouse went up in flames.
Bryant used a range of semiautomatic weapons and the Port Arthur massacre led to significant changes in Australia's gun laws.
There was a near ban on all fully automatic or semiautomatic firearms, and a gun buyback scheme was initiated.
More than 640,000 firearms were handed in.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
40 minutes ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson disputes evidence at mushroom murder trial
On her sixth day in the witness box, the accused triple murderer Erin Patterson has disputed the evidence of her only surviving lunch guest, her son and medical professionals. Her husband's parents and aunt died after she served them a lunch containing death cap mushrooms in 2023. Ms Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder.
ABC News
40 minutes ago
- ABC News
Defence casts doubt over key witness, CCTV evidence in Adelaide murder trial
A man accused of the shooting murder of his tenant in Adelaide's north should be found not guilty because the evidence of a key witness and crucial CCTV of the incident are unreliable, his defence barrister says. Matthew Charles Draganoff, 48, is standing trial in South Australia's Supreme Court after pleading not guilty to the murder of Simon Middleton, 49, at Viriginia, on the northern outskirts of Adelaide, in March 2021. Defence barrister Michelle Barnes, for Mr Draganoff, told the jury CCTV footage of the shooting was of "quite poor quality" and could not clearly identify an offender because it was "too far away, too dark and too grainy". She said it was difficult to see key detail such as clothing and "not good enough" to identify the shooter or draw any inferences about the physical appearance of the shooter. "You should be careful not to jump to conclusions or to assume what the footage shows," she said. She said it was not enough to think that Mr Draganoff "maybe", "possibly" or "probably" shot Mr Middleton, because in those scenarios, "you could still have a doubt". "Mr Draganoff is charged with an extremely serious offence, he must not be convicted on evidence that is weak, questionable or has gaps." Ms Barnes also told the jury one of the prosecution's key witnesses was "simply not a truthful witness" and his account of what happened contained "too many inconsistencies". "There were that many inconsistencies, different versions and lies in the accounts he gave at different times that you just cannot accept that he is a truthful witness," she said. "They add up to a picture of a witness who is simply not telling you the truth and whose evidence you cannot accept." Ms Barnes told the jury a second key witness, however, gave evidence without inconsistencies which she said was "consistent with Mr Draganoff's innocence". She said despite that witness spending time with Mr Draganoff in the days prior to the alleged murder "he knew nothing about any plan held by Matthew Draganoff to shoot Mr Middleton". Previously, the court heard Mr Draganoff was accused of shooting Mr Middleton three times — in the head, chest and buttocks — with a high-powered Marlin 30-30 rifle at a property on Brady Street on March 8, 2021. Opening the trial in April, prosecutor Lucy Boord SC told the jury it was alleged there had been "growing animosity" between the pair over a "range of issues" prior to the shooting, including a dispute over the sale of a stolen caravan and Mr Middleton living rent-free at one of Mr Draganoff's properties. "In the lead up to the murder, there'd been an accumulation of grievances held by the accused towards the deceased," Ms Boord had told the jury. She had told the jury the alleged final "catalyst" for the crime came after a "home invasion" that was reported to police on March 6, and that Mr Draganoff had believed Mr Middleton and his friends had been stealing from him. Ms Boord had also told the jury Mr Middleton had been on the phone just prior to being shot, and a witness had reported hearing him say "oh no, don't shoot" before screaming and then three shots. Ms Barnes will continue the defence closing address on Wednesday.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
ACT Greens announce bill that would make institutions vicariously liable for sexual abuse by employees
The ACT Greens have unveiled a bill aimed at making institutions such as the Catholic Church, Scouts and sporting groups vicariously liable for the actions of those associated with them who have sexually abused children. This includes priests, Scouts leaders, and sports coaches who may have a relationship with the organisation akin to employment, even though it is not strictly an employment relationship. The move was prompted by a High Court ruling last year that found a priest, accused of child sex offences, was not an employee of the church, so the institution could not be held vicariously liable for his actions because that only applies in employment relationships. "I am deeply concerned that we are now seeing a situation where institutions that have had people abused in their care are now able to avoid responsibility because of this apparent lack of connection where people who were priests, coaches other roles, as part of these institutions, are now not seen to be covered by that organisation," Greens leader Shane Rattenbury said. The High Court case involved a man who was allegedly sexually abused by the family priest in 1971, during pastoral visits to his family home. The man was only five at the time. The priest was Father Bryan Coffey, who was convicted of offences against other children in the 1990s and has since died. The High Court ruling was a bitter blow for the alleged victim, who had won two Victorian court cases, which found the church was vicariously liable for the damage caused to him. In both rulings it was found Father Coffey was not an employee of the church but had a special place within the hierarchy of the church, which gave rise to vicarious liability. The High Court found that simply wasn't the case, and only an employment relationship matters. "My observation of having read the material from the High Court is that they were looking at the broader picture of vicarious liability, and its broad status in the law, as opposed to the specific matters of child sexual abuse," Mr Rattenbury said. "So the High Court was thinking much more about a range of corporate matters and the like rather than the specifics." Mr Rattenbury said his proposed law would target child sex abuse. Lawyer Alessandra Pettit, who was involved in the launch of today's draft law, says the real problem is for the victims. "We spent $370 million on a royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse and whilst a lot of the recommendations have been helpful, it seems to be a bit of a pendulum in this area that it keeps swinging each way," Ms Pettit said. "I am really really concerned about the effect of this on my clients. "You are dealing with a cohort of people who have already been abused as children by someone in a position of power. "To stand up in court is not an easy thing for anyone and then to have technical legal arguments take that away is really really difficult." Mr Rattenbury said the Council of Attorneys General was looking at the issue, but it was something that had to be addressed more locally. "This will not be a national response, it is one that will sit with states and territories," Mr Rattenbury said. "So my view is to move forward. "And the ACT can act as a template and a guide for other jurisdictions." Mr Rattenbury said he was hoping his private members bill would get some traction in the Assembly. "This bill is about ensuring victims have access to justice for the crimes committed against them as children and it's about ensuring institutions make amends for the harm caused by their institutions and the people participated and took significant roles in those institutions," Mr Rattenbury said. The bill will be presented later in the month.
