What do you think?
Rate this book
Born or Bred? Martin Bryant: the making of a mass murderer
Martin John Bryant slipped into the world in the autumn of 1967, blond, blue eyed, angelic. On a sunny Sunday 29 years later, Carleen and Maurice Bryant's beloved first-born loaded the boot of his yellow Volvo with guns and ammunition and returned to Tasmania's historic Port Arthur settlement, scene of many idyllic childhood summers. There, the young man with the striking surfie hair and mesmeric eyes, calmly shot 35 people dead and injured another 21. His crime, the world's worst killing spree by a lone gunman, horrified the nation and changed Australia forever.
Thirteen years on, Robert Wainwright and Paola Totaro, both senior news writers, delve backwards over five generations and across two hemispheres to unravel the complete story of Bryant's life and reveal why he committed this heinous crime. They have uncovered Bryant's family history, spoken to his mother, his psychiatrists, lawyer and others who knew him, to piece together the story of eccentric and disparate characters whose lives intersected – with catastrophic results. From Bryant's shocking behind-the-scenes confessions to his own 11th-hour attempt to turn back, this book asks if the Port Arthur massacre could have been prevented. And explains why it could happen again.
Thirteen years on, Robert Wainwright and Paola Totaro, both senior news writers, delve backwards over five generations and across two hemispheres to unravel the complete story of Bryant's life and reveal why he committed this heinous crime. They have uncovered Bryant's family history, spoken to his mother, his psychiatrists, lawyer and others who knew him, to piece together the story of eccentric and disparate characters whose lives intersected – with catastrophic results. From Bryant's shocking behind-the-scenes confessions to his own 11th-hour attempt to turn back, this book asks if the Port Arthur massacre could have been prevented. And explains why it could happen again.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
12 people are currently reading
318 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
Read
June 11, 2009Writing a book about true events must be a complex undertaking. If those events are within recent history, then it must make the task even harder. If the events are as horrific as what occurred at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, then the reader may find themselves in very difficult territory. The history of the writing of this book appears to have been somewhat complicated into the bargain, with Martin Bryant's mother Carleen starting to write her own account, a possible collaboration with the authors of this book, and her subsequent withdrawal from the project. I understand since then she has objected strongly to the publication. Australian readers of this review will be acutely aware of the facts and figures of the number of dead and injured at the end of the Port Arthur / Seascape events - and this review isn't going to get into discussing the events of the day, but it's worth noting that the book provides a fairly detailed summation of the day - quarantined and clearly labeled at the back of the book for those that find the details too confrontational.
BORN OR BRED? being the title of the book, the reader will instantly assume that the book will attempt explain the reasons why a behaviorally challenged young man became a mass murderer. The book takes the reader back through Bryant's own life; a difficult childhood where he experienced considerable problems fitting in, along with associated learning difficulties. It takes you through his father's efforts to try to in some ways control Bryant, and in others compensate for what was an increasingly lonely and ostracised life. It outlines a difficult relationship with his mother, who struggled with her son in her own right. It then goes through the time when he meets and befriends an older woman, heir to a component of the vast Tattersalls estate, and their increasing bond. The book also steps back in time to analyse Bryant's ancestry discussing the family tree as they arrived in Tasmania and how, eventually, Bryant's parents came together. It then outlines a series of personal losses - the death of his mentor and friend in a car accident (possibly caused by Bryant himself), the suicide of his father, a childhood grudge. Right at the end of the book there is some space devoted to the responses of investigating detectives, Bryant's lawyer, and to the forensic psychologist who diagnosed Bryant as capable of standing trial.
At the start of the book there is a brief mention of the Tasmanian Government's legislative efforts to shut down discussion and/or revelation of the Port Arthur killings. Bryant eventually, under the guidance of his lawyer, opted to plead guilty to all charges as a result of the shooting spree and the case was never bought to trial. Obviously that lack of a trial and the subsequent dearth of discussion and/or information has resulted in a silence that has left some people feeling that the events of the day have never been explained. Because Bryant has never been seen to speak publically it's impossible for people to know if he understood what he was doing on that day, or why he did what he did. Assuming, of course, that Bryant knows himself.
BORN OR BRED? is therefore dancing on a tightrope. Whilst the authors are ostensibly trying to analyse the perpetrator and his background, it's a difficult task. Without access to Bryant, without access to Bryant's father (who it could be said understood him best), there is never likely to be a clear cut answer to the question - why. Maybe with access to them both there could still not be an answer. There are best guesses as to why Bryant did what he did, and it has to be said that the book discusses what, in some ways, could be gleaned from the outside by anyone considering the case. The problem with a book like this is that without answering the question of why the crime occurred, does the book itself deserve a chance to stir up emotions all over again for Bryant's mother, for his sister, for the families of the victims, for the survivors of the day? Books about true crimes - recent and past are common in Australia, yet there's been little written about Port Arthur. There are some suppositions outlined in Born or Bred? and some of them are going to be more palatable than others. There were also aspects of the book that I found less than satisfactory, but it certainly never felt like the reader was being pulled into voyeuristic territory. But, if we're to understand why it is that somebody can turn to the incomprehensible, then, as hard and as uncomfortable and as confronting as books like this are, as lacking in a definitive concrete answer, the book was informative, if only for the reason that it spelt out how inexplicable human actions can be.
BORN OR BRED? being the title of the book, the reader will instantly assume that the book will attempt explain the reasons why a behaviorally challenged young man became a mass murderer. The book takes the reader back through Bryant's own life; a difficult childhood where he experienced considerable problems fitting in, along with associated learning difficulties. It takes you through his father's efforts to try to in some ways control Bryant, and in others compensate for what was an increasingly lonely and ostracised life. It outlines a difficult relationship with his mother, who struggled with her son in her own right. It then goes through the time when he meets and befriends an older woman, heir to a component of the vast Tattersalls estate, and their increasing bond. The book also steps back in time to analyse Bryant's ancestry discussing the family tree as they arrived in Tasmania and how, eventually, Bryant's parents came together. It then outlines a series of personal losses - the death of his mentor and friend in a car accident (possibly caused by Bryant himself), the suicide of his father, a childhood grudge. Right at the end of the book there is some space devoted to the responses of investigating detectives, Bryant's lawyer, and to the forensic psychologist who diagnosed Bryant as capable of standing trial.
At the start of the book there is a brief mention of the Tasmanian Government's legislative efforts to shut down discussion and/or revelation of the Port Arthur killings. Bryant eventually, under the guidance of his lawyer, opted to plead guilty to all charges as a result of the shooting spree and the case was never bought to trial. Obviously that lack of a trial and the subsequent dearth of discussion and/or information has resulted in a silence that has left some people feeling that the events of the day have never been explained. Because Bryant has never been seen to speak publically it's impossible for people to know if he understood what he was doing on that day, or why he did what he did. Assuming, of course, that Bryant knows himself.
BORN OR BRED? is therefore dancing on a tightrope. Whilst the authors are ostensibly trying to analyse the perpetrator and his background, it's a difficult task. Without access to Bryant, without access to Bryant's father (who it could be said understood him best), there is never likely to be a clear cut answer to the question - why. Maybe with access to them both there could still not be an answer. There are best guesses as to why Bryant did what he did, and it has to be said that the book discusses what, in some ways, could be gleaned from the outside by anyone considering the case. The problem with a book like this is that without answering the question of why the crime occurred, does the book itself deserve a chance to stir up emotions all over again for Bryant's mother, for his sister, for the families of the victims, for the survivors of the day? Books about true crimes - recent and past are common in Australia, yet there's been little written about Port Arthur. There are some suppositions outlined in Born or Bred? and some of them are going to be more palatable than others. There were also aspects of the book that I found less than satisfactory, but it certainly never felt like the reader was being pulled into voyeuristic territory. But, if we're to understand why it is that somebody can turn to the incomprehensible, then, as hard and as uncomfortable and as confronting as books like this are, as lacking in a definitive concrete answer, the book was informative, if only for the reason that it spelt out how inexplicable human actions can be.
February 3, 2017
This is an unusual choice of book for me. A part from some classic true crime, like Capote's 'In Cold Blood' or the excellent crime writing of Helen Garner, I tend to avoid this genre as much as possible. I often find it disturbing and not well written, often becoming nothing more than a sensationalist hack job. However, I decided to pick this up - a case study of Martin Bryant and his terrible act - for a number of reasons. Firstly, having recently visited Port Arthur, where this terrible mass shooting took place, I was shocked by the way in which the site seemed to have all but erased the events of that day. Port Arthur has a rich and fascinating convict history, and the excellent tourist experience is a living testament to the convicts who lived, worked and died there. However, unfortunately the massacre has become another sad chapter in this history of that site. I was surprised that the memorial to the victims was so difficult to find, and a part from a tiny frame tucked away on a wall at the visitors centre, listing three employees who died, there was nothing at all about the victims or the event. This puzzled me. I would have thought (perhaps naively) that the families and friends of those who died may have wanted a more significant sense of memorialisation for their loved ones. It was as almost as though the massacre never happened. Secondly, when asked about writing about true crime, Helen Garner has said that she isn't interested in "monsters" but more in the story of ordinary people for whom the darkness (which resides in us all) suddenly, and perhaps only momentarily, cannot be controlled. Do "monsters" really exist, and if they do, surely Bryant is one?
Both of these questions, and many more, were answered for me within the pages of this difficult to read, but thorough case study. The book is well researched and well told, covering every angle of the case. The writers are careful to outline their motivation for writing the book, which essentially comes down to wanting to understand how a mass murder is created and if it can be prevented. The story is told in short, sharp chapters which jump between the aftermath of the massacre (the siege, police interviews, discussions with Bryant's lawyer) and the ancestry and life of Martin Bryant. It charts his disturbing development from an intellectually impaired, behaviourally difficult child to an isolated, ostracised and feared adult. It discusses the role of mental health and social services, as well as the importance of Australia's altered gun laws in light of what happened. There are some interesting, but long bows drawn in relation to his violent convict heritage perhaps hinting at the genetics of violence in some people. There is also a subtle, but I felt unfair attempt to lay some blame at the feet of his mother (who admitted to having difficulty bonding with her son and maintaining a healthy relationship with him). The last ten pages of the book are sectioned off as they involve a detailed description of what happened at Port Arthur - step by step, who was killed and injured and how - and these pages reveal the abject horror and utter inhumanity demonstrated in that short time frame that day. This is gut-wrenching reading, and whilst I thought about skipping it, I felt in some strange way that I owed it to the victims and the writers to read it.
Discussion and reflection of what happened that day has been all but extinguished by the Tasmanian government and it's people. I learnt through the book that this is due to Bryant's continuing obsession with wanting to remain famous for the deed and relive what happened (it's revealed in the book that he wanted to plead not guilty initially, not to prove his innocence, but to experience the glory of a trial and hear about what happened and the impact he had). Until Bryant dies in his prison cell, I cannot imagine the situation changing. As for the question of "monsters", the highly regarded criminal and forensic psychologists and psychiatrists interviewed argue Garner's theory in part. They all hypothesise that "monsters" don't exist - that sadly, people like Bryant are also normal people, for whom a disastrous mix of genetic make-up, experience and circumstance unleash their inner darkness tenfold.
Both of these questions, and many more, were answered for me within the pages of this difficult to read, but thorough case study. The book is well researched and well told, covering every angle of the case. The writers are careful to outline their motivation for writing the book, which essentially comes down to wanting to understand how a mass murder is created and if it can be prevented. The story is told in short, sharp chapters which jump between the aftermath of the massacre (the siege, police interviews, discussions with Bryant's lawyer) and the ancestry and life of Martin Bryant. It charts his disturbing development from an intellectually impaired, behaviourally difficult child to an isolated, ostracised and feared adult. It discusses the role of mental health and social services, as well as the importance of Australia's altered gun laws in light of what happened. There are some interesting, but long bows drawn in relation to his violent convict heritage perhaps hinting at the genetics of violence in some people. There is also a subtle, but I felt unfair attempt to lay some blame at the feet of his mother (who admitted to having difficulty bonding with her son and maintaining a healthy relationship with him). The last ten pages of the book are sectioned off as they involve a detailed description of what happened at Port Arthur - step by step, who was killed and injured and how - and these pages reveal the abject horror and utter inhumanity demonstrated in that short time frame that day. This is gut-wrenching reading, and whilst I thought about skipping it, I felt in some strange way that I owed it to the victims and the writers to read it.
Discussion and reflection of what happened that day has been all but extinguished by the Tasmanian government and it's people. I learnt through the book that this is due to Bryant's continuing obsession with wanting to remain famous for the deed and relive what happened (it's revealed in the book that he wanted to plead not guilty initially, not to prove his innocence, but to experience the glory of a trial and hear about what happened and the impact he had). Until Bryant dies in his prison cell, I cannot imagine the situation changing. As for the question of "monsters", the highly regarded criminal and forensic psychologists and psychiatrists interviewed argue Garner's theory in part. They all hypothesise that "monsters" don't exist - that sadly, people like Bryant are also normal people, for whom a disastrous mix of genetic make-up, experience and circumstance unleash their inner darkness tenfold.
May 17, 2021
Born or bred:
"How DARE someone murder two little kids after murdering their mother and chase one of them around a tree to kill her. It just beggars believe." - Journalist about Martin Bryant.
When it comes to mass murderers/spree killers Martin Bryant strikes me as very different in terms of character. In 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people. Making him number 2 when it came to body count. Woo Bum Kon with 54 killed in South Korea was of course number one. In terms of mass murder over all Bryant would of been 3rd because Andrew Kehoe killed 44 in 1927 with a bomb device made with an obscene amount of pyrotol. Of course in recent years all of these records have been surpassed making the whole notion of record breaking meaningless.
In Bryant's immediate confession/interrogation he asked how many were killed. When they told him he had killed 35 people Bryant's jaw dropped, clearly surprised and shocked at how many he killed. Whispering shocked "35?! Wow."
Martin Byrant's death toll has obviously been passed by Omar Mateen [which was more of a terrorist attack, not a mass shooter], Anders Breivik [Terrorist attack/mass shooter combo], and Stephen Paddock.
Of course from reading my first book on the case I am well aware of the fact that he killed one extra person. One of the surviving victim's while still in the hospital said his grandmother had a heart attack and died when she heard the news. So Martin Bryant's real death toll would have to be 36. Just like Marc Lepine's real death toll would have to be 15 since his sister died from an overdose in her self made junkie's pad. As one of the police officers described it "it looked like a young person destroyed by drugs" A direct cause of her brother's crimes. It's so incredibly easy to just say "what about the victims?" "this really should be about the victims." fake virtue signaling. Self righteousness "what about the victims?"
Whether it be Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Joseph DeAngelo, Marc Lepine, Martin Bryant, Robert Hawkins, etc. The victim count in terms of the lives effected extends so much farther and that is something society OFTEN forgets including these fake virtue signaling idiots because they mean the victims who were killed and possibly their family. Quite often we see society going after additional victims. The show A monster in my family is a perfect example. I've seen a ton of comments online from idiots bashing Melissa Moore, calling her a "psychopath just like her father" etc. Saying she is exploiting her fathers crimes and other crimes, exploiting the families of victims, etc......which is laughable. Especially in one episode where the victim of Bobby Joe Long [Florida serial killer/rapist] asked "why hasn't anyone thought of doing this before?" Praising the show Melissa came up with.
You also got the Conner Betts case where I found article after article after article
"Ohio shooter’s parents apologise for ‘insensitive’ obituary"
" ‘Funny, articulate and intelligent’: Dayton shooter’s parents apologize for ‘insensitive’ obituary"
"The family of the Dayton shooter published a flattering obituary of the gunman. Now they’re apologizing"
"Dayton shooter Connor Betts’ obituary says he had ‘kind smile,’ omits mass killing"
"Obituaries paint flattering portraits of the Dayton shooter and the sister he killed"
"Ohio gunman’s now-removed obituary called him ‘funny, articulate’ "
WHAT ABOUT HIS FAMILY?! WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO GRIEVE HOWEVER THEY WANT?! WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS?!
It's so incredibly easy to do a cheap pop [Comments or remarks made by a performer or speaker meant to incite a positive response from an audience. Example: "The lead singer mentioned the name of the town in the song lyrics and got a cheap pop from the crowd." Sheldon: "If you vote for me I promise to do my best to get new science equipment for our schools" *Crickets in the audience* Sheldon: "...DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!" *Audience claps, hoots, and hollers and begins chanting "SHELDON!"*.]
"What about the victims? This should really about the victims" WHAT ABOUT THOSE VICTIMS?! WHAT ABOUT CONNER BETT'S FAMILY?! Who lost their son and daughter?! Their son to murder and dying by police and their daughter to being murdered by their son among 8 other victims.
Hypocrites one and all. How about we talk about ALL the victims?! Also, isn't the killer them selves a lot of the time a victim them selves? A victim of society, a victim society neglected? A victim who was abused? WHAT ABOUT THOSE VICTIMS?!
I am just sooooooooooooooooooooooooo SICK AND TIRED of this fake virtue signaling "The victims. The poor poor victims. Thumbs me up. Hashtag. Like. Sub. Reward me for giving this cheap pop" and just ignore the nuances and the logical extensions and the reasoning and all the other victims who deserve a voice or at least some understanding in context of the killer being a victim. Society needs to stop PICKING victims. ALL victims matter. Therefor stop trying to CONTROL the narrative, stop ignoring specific victims and downplaying other victims, etc. Let everyone have what they want.
Born or Bred is a book I had really wanted to get after getting another rare book about the Port Arthur massacre "Suddenly one sunday" which made the case one of my all time favorite true crime cases. I originally got my copy of Born or bred in 2019. My copy is in very good condition and I intend to keep it that way like the rest of my rare books.
The book starts right off with the creation of the book; Martin Bryant's mother.
Another victim of the massacre, his mother decided after 10 years to write her "life story" detailing some of her observations on the life of her son. The authors of Born or Bred were involved in the publication company, eventually due to his mother's denial and obvious willingness to air some legitimacy to the right wing/gun nut conspiracy theories arguing that Martin Bryant was a "patsy" or vaguely "involved in a minimal way", eventually she, NOT the authors of this book broke off the book deal but that is basically how this book came about. "Your implying guilt." and complaining about the author's description of her/her son's facial features.
It begins with the near end of the massacre with Martin messing around with negotiators on the phone while locked up in the fancy house he coveted. It then switches back and forth between that and the family history, specifically about his mother's childhood experiences including her abusive father who was traumatized by WW1.
Some reviewers said they found the family history of Martin Bryant unnecessary. Of course a true crime purest like my self disagrees. Plus it's actually a pretty minor short detail in the book and largely centered on the parents of Martin Bryant where the book is talking about the background of Martin's parents, the context of who birthed him into this world. It does a few pages later on talk about his great great grandfather on his mothers side who immigrated to Australia and of course who were the immigrants that originally populated Australia? Criminals. Prisoners. Inmates.
The book through out is the switching between Martin Bryant the killer being interviewed and Martin Bryant's past. Which usually only last for a short period in true crime books. Not so with this one. Also the author points out and it is true, that the description of the massacre it's self is written at the very end of the book. The author explains "so you can avoid it if you want" So the book isn't as well paced as other true crime books. The book does have a photo collection which is always nice and what makes this book different as far as that is concerned is the fact that it has colored photos. Which is very rare. Even has a colored photo of Bryant's prison art work and if you read the back of the book for the synopsis, a mini version of one of the art pieces is featured on the back as well. Although my copy, the painting is obscured by a a sticker.
This book isn't as well written or paced as Suddenly one sunday. It does have a lot of new information and I once again have to carp about "No notoriety" It was widely and still is widely speculated that the Dunblane massacre in March of 1996, a month before the Port Arthur massacre must/might of played some role in the massacre. Dunblane must of "sparked" it, inspired Martin Byrant. From reading Suddenly one Sunday and Born or bred that is clearly not true what so ever. In fact Born or Bred 100% confirms it didn't.
1.Martin Bryant never said so.
2.Began planning the massacre in December of 1995. We know this because of Martin Bryant admitting so while at the same time denying he is guilty. The later on to his lawyer.
3.Wanted to do it since a teenager in the 80s. When he was 14 his father gave him a BB gun. A neighbor caught him sniping through bushes from a creek bed into the main local road. Sniping passing cars as they drove by. Shot at tourist at a food stand with his BB gun, etc.
4.Cruelty to animals: At least two instances of torturing or killing animals for fun. Both witnessed by neighbors or former friends.
5.Admitted to a psychologist he wanted to go on a shooting spree in 1991. 4 years BEFORE the massacre and the massacre at Dunblane. Made this threat several times to several people including his parents BEFORE Dunblane.
Reminds me of Robert Hawkins who wrote "Just think though, I'm gonna be f**king famous" Just ignore 99% of the rest of the suicide letter. Him saying "I just want to take a few pieces of sh*t with me" Forget the "I just don't want to be a burden." "just think of how much better off you'd all be without me to support." Like Trump when Oreilly said "but the data has to show that 3 million illegals voted" and Trump replied "FORGET! FORGET ALL OF THAT!" Also just ignore the fact that Hawkins was institutionalized since he was 4 and told his psychiatrist at the mental hospital that he wanted to go on a shooting spree....when he was 6 years old. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT A 6 YEAR IS THINKING ABOUT "I want to be famous. I want fame. Notoriety"???? SERIOUSLY?!
And this is common when it comes to the supposed "inspired by" claims. When you look at the actual cases like Robert Smith or Matti Saari. "they were inspired by Charles Whitman/Richard Speck." "they were inspired by Pekka Auvinen" yet you find multiple pieces of evidence indicating/showing they had been planning it before their "inspirations" committed their massacres. In the case of Robert Smith, he had been planning it since he was 13. He committed the crime when he was 18 a month after Whitman. We also see OBVIOUS confirmation bias and double standards. He admitted he idolized and was inspired by Julius Caesar and Napoleon. SO ARE WE GONNA BAN/CENSOR the mention of Caesar and Napoleon now? "no" WHY NOT?! I WANT TO KNOW WHY! TELL ME WHY AND EXPLAIN TO ME WHY! I've asked this repeatedly to many people and they NEVER EVER give an answer and if they do they AGREE with me but give some lame red herring/non-sequitur. "well Hitler is in the public domain. That's public information." WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH NOTORIETY?! I asked "What about Hitler? He's probably the most INFAMOUS, NOTORIOUS, FAMOUS killer in history." and your response did not answer that. It's also a FALSE distinction because Whitman/Bryant/Lanza/Purdy etc ARE in the public domain and you can even sue to get all the information from what is known as "The freedom of information act" that is what happened in the case of Adam Lanza. Where the police refused to release the evidence. A news organization sued through the freedom of information act and a trove of evidence was given and now we have a far far better coherent understanding as to WHY the massacre happened. WHY Adam Lanza did it, what his problems were, his psychology, etc. INSTEAD OF GUESS WORK provided by 3rd hand accounts of investigators with their own interpretation of the evidence. Which is ridiculous and no reasonable person would accept that in any other context.
Soft ball "no notoriety" debate with founders:
Journalist: When I hear law enforcement in front of cameras. On day one, say 'I'm not gonna use the name. I'm not gonna say who the killer is" As a journalist that scares the hell out of me because that is the government telling the public 'we're gonna cut you off from this information" Help me understand what your ask is of law enforcement and why that isn't something separate.
"No notoriety" founder double speaks and lies: Yeah, well that isn't what they say [yes it is and what you are advocating]. Let's be clear, that's not what they say. What they are saying is 'I as an individual [as a representative of the public and an officer of the law]. A person who has dedicated my life to protecting the public realize that if I make this 'thing'...bigger then life [A name is making 'bigger then life' REALLY?! That is the problem? How absurd!] character, I will get somebody else [no evidence for this.] either in my community or the way the world is connected now. To possibly do this [which they would of done ANYWAY]. I'M NOT GONNA KEEP YOU FROM THE INFORMATION AND IF YOU WANT TO BE IRRESPONSIBLE. You know, DO A LITTLE HOMEWORK, GO AND GET THE RECORDS. BUT I'M NOT GONNA STAND IN FRONT OF A MIC AND USE THEIR NAME because I know as an 'expert' in keeping the public safe that this is going to cause harm to someone else.
How is that not contradictory and not double speak? It reminds me of every other censorship group in history using double speak to try and deny what they are doing.
Your calling the people who would do the information through the Freedom of information act IRRESPONSIBLE....yet your at the same time claiming
"we arent trying to censor. We aren't for blacklisting." YES YOU ARE! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT AND CALL ME IRRESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIVELY FIGHTING TO GET THE INFORMATION!!!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!
It's the same nonsense we see in coercion in terms of plea bargaining, the MPAA, PMRC, etc.
Journalist: What if he says 'I'm not only gonna not say it at the mic and say it but I'm gonna make it hard for you to get the record because I believe if you have the name and record then that will have the same contagion effect.'
"No notoriety" founder: I don't think he has the legal right to do that. I don't think I've ever heard of somebody doing that.
SANDY HOOK! SANDY HOOK!
I'll quote an article from 2019.
"A bill before a Connecticut legislative committee would bar the public release of seized property in cases that don’t lead to arrests. Critics say the bill would have blocked a major release of documents related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The Hartford Courant won a nearly 6-year-long legal battle to get access to thousands of pages of private documents seized by the Connecticut State Police."
Continue long review in comment section -
"How DARE someone murder two little kids after murdering their mother and chase one of them around a tree to kill her. It just beggars believe." - Journalist about Martin Bryant.
When it comes to mass murderers/spree killers Martin Bryant strikes me as very different in terms of character. In 1996 Martin Bryant killed 35 people. Making him number 2 when it came to body count. Woo Bum Kon with 54 killed in South Korea was of course number one. In terms of mass murder over all Bryant would of been 3rd because Andrew Kehoe killed 44 in 1927 with a bomb device made with an obscene amount of pyrotol. Of course in recent years all of these records have been surpassed making the whole notion of record breaking meaningless.
In Bryant's immediate confession/interrogation he asked how many were killed. When they told him he had killed 35 people Bryant's jaw dropped, clearly surprised and shocked at how many he killed. Whispering shocked "35?! Wow."
Martin Byrant's death toll has obviously been passed by Omar Mateen [which was more of a terrorist attack, not a mass shooter], Anders Breivik [Terrorist attack/mass shooter combo], and Stephen Paddock.
Of course from reading my first book on the case I am well aware of the fact that he killed one extra person. One of the surviving victim's while still in the hospital said his grandmother had a heart attack and died when she heard the news. So Martin Bryant's real death toll would have to be 36. Just like Marc Lepine's real death toll would have to be 15 since his sister died from an overdose in her self made junkie's pad. As one of the police officers described it "it looked like a young person destroyed by drugs" A direct cause of her brother's crimes. It's so incredibly easy to just say "what about the victims?" "this really should be about the victims." fake virtue signaling. Self righteousness "what about the victims?"
Whether it be Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Joseph DeAngelo, Marc Lepine, Martin Bryant, Robert Hawkins, etc. The victim count in terms of the lives effected extends so much farther and that is something society OFTEN forgets including these fake virtue signaling idiots because they mean the victims who were killed and possibly their family. Quite often we see society going after additional victims. The show A monster in my family is a perfect example. I've seen a ton of comments online from idiots bashing Melissa Moore, calling her a "psychopath just like her father" etc. Saying she is exploiting her fathers crimes and other crimes, exploiting the families of victims, etc......which is laughable. Especially in one episode where the victim of Bobby Joe Long [Florida serial killer/rapist] asked "why hasn't anyone thought of doing this before?" Praising the show Melissa came up with.
You also got the Conner Betts case where I found article after article after article
"Ohio shooter’s parents apologise for ‘insensitive’ obituary"
" ‘Funny, articulate and intelligent’: Dayton shooter’s parents apologize for ‘insensitive’ obituary"
"The family of the Dayton shooter published a flattering obituary of the gunman. Now they’re apologizing"
"Dayton shooter Connor Betts’ obituary says he had ‘kind smile,’ omits mass killing"
"Obituaries paint flattering portraits of the Dayton shooter and the sister he killed"
"Ohio gunman’s now-removed obituary called him ‘funny, articulate’ "
WHAT ABOUT HIS FAMILY?! WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO GRIEVE HOWEVER THEY WANT?! WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS?!
It's so incredibly easy to do a cheap pop [Comments or remarks made by a performer or speaker meant to incite a positive response from an audience. Example: "The lead singer mentioned the name of the town in the song lyrics and got a cheap pop from the crowd." Sheldon: "If you vote for me I promise to do my best to get new science equipment for our schools" *Crickets in the audience* Sheldon: "...DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!" *Audience claps, hoots, and hollers and begins chanting "SHELDON!"*.]
"What about the victims? This should really about the victims" WHAT ABOUT THOSE VICTIMS?! WHAT ABOUT CONNER BETT'S FAMILY?! Who lost their son and daughter?! Their son to murder and dying by police and their daughter to being murdered by their son among 8 other victims.
Hypocrites one and all. How about we talk about ALL the victims?! Also, isn't the killer them selves a lot of the time a victim them selves? A victim of society, a victim society neglected? A victim who was abused? WHAT ABOUT THOSE VICTIMS?!
I am just sooooooooooooooooooooooooo SICK AND TIRED of this fake virtue signaling "The victims. The poor poor victims. Thumbs me up. Hashtag. Like. Sub. Reward me for giving this cheap pop" and just ignore the nuances and the logical extensions and the reasoning and all the other victims who deserve a voice or at least some understanding in context of the killer being a victim. Society needs to stop PICKING victims. ALL victims matter. Therefor stop trying to CONTROL the narrative, stop ignoring specific victims and downplaying other victims, etc. Let everyone have what they want.
Born or Bred is a book I had really wanted to get after getting another rare book about the Port Arthur massacre "Suddenly one sunday" which made the case one of my all time favorite true crime cases. I originally got my copy of Born or bred in 2019. My copy is in very good condition and I intend to keep it that way like the rest of my rare books.
The book starts right off with the creation of the book; Martin Bryant's mother.
Another victim of the massacre, his mother decided after 10 years to write her "life story" detailing some of her observations on the life of her son. The authors of Born or Bred were involved in the publication company, eventually due to his mother's denial and obvious willingness to air some legitimacy to the right wing/gun nut conspiracy theories arguing that Martin Bryant was a "patsy" or vaguely "involved in a minimal way", eventually she, NOT the authors of this book broke off the book deal but that is basically how this book came about. "Your implying guilt." and complaining about the author's description of her/her son's facial features.
It begins with the near end of the massacre with Martin messing around with negotiators on the phone while locked up in the fancy house he coveted. It then switches back and forth between that and the family history, specifically about his mother's childhood experiences including her abusive father who was traumatized by WW1.
Some reviewers said they found the family history of Martin Bryant unnecessary. Of course a true crime purest like my self disagrees. Plus it's actually a pretty minor short detail in the book and largely centered on the parents of Martin Bryant where the book is talking about the background of Martin's parents, the context of who birthed him into this world. It does a few pages later on talk about his great great grandfather on his mothers side who immigrated to Australia and of course who were the immigrants that originally populated Australia? Criminals. Prisoners. Inmates.
The book through out is the switching between Martin Bryant the killer being interviewed and Martin Bryant's past. Which usually only last for a short period in true crime books. Not so with this one. Also the author points out and it is true, that the description of the massacre it's self is written at the very end of the book. The author explains "so you can avoid it if you want" So the book isn't as well paced as other true crime books. The book does have a photo collection which is always nice and what makes this book different as far as that is concerned is the fact that it has colored photos. Which is very rare. Even has a colored photo of Bryant's prison art work and if you read the back of the book for the synopsis, a mini version of one of the art pieces is featured on the back as well. Although my copy, the painting is obscured by a a sticker.
This book isn't as well written or paced as Suddenly one sunday. It does have a lot of new information and I once again have to carp about "No notoriety" It was widely and still is widely speculated that the Dunblane massacre in March of 1996, a month before the Port Arthur massacre must/might of played some role in the massacre. Dunblane must of "sparked" it, inspired Martin Byrant. From reading Suddenly one Sunday and Born or bred that is clearly not true what so ever. In fact Born or Bred 100% confirms it didn't.
1.Martin Bryant never said so.
2.Began planning the massacre in December of 1995. We know this because of Martin Bryant admitting so while at the same time denying he is guilty. The later on to his lawyer.
3.Wanted to do it since a teenager in the 80s. When he was 14 his father gave him a BB gun. A neighbor caught him sniping through bushes from a creek bed into the main local road. Sniping passing cars as they drove by. Shot at tourist at a food stand with his BB gun, etc.
4.Cruelty to animals: At least two instances of torturing or killing animals for fun. Both witnessed by neighbors or former friends.
5.Admitted to a psychologist he wanted to go on a shooting spree in 1991. 4 years BEFORE the massacre and the massacre at Dunblane. Made this threat several times to several people including his parents BEFORE Dunblane.
Reminds me of Robert Hawkins who wrote "Just think though, I'm gonna be f**king famous" Just ignore 99% of the rest of the suicide letter. Him saying "I just want to take a few pieces of sh*t with me" Forget the "I just don't want to be a burden." "just think of how much better off you'd all be without me to support." Like Trump when Oreilly said "but the data has to show that 3 million illegals voted" and Trump replied "FORGET! FORGET ALL OF THAT!" Also just ignore the fact that Hawkins was institutionalized since he was 4 and told his psychiatrist at the mental hospital that he wanted to go on a shooting spree....when he was 6 years old. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT A 6 YEAR IS THINKING ABOUT "I want to be famous. I want fame. Notoriety"???? SERIOUSLY?!
And this is common when it comes to the supposed "inspired by" claims. When you look at the actual cases like Robert Smith or Matti Saari. "they were inspired by Charles Whitman/Richard Speck." "they were inspired by Pekka Auvinen" yet you find multiple pieces of evidence indicating/showing they had been planning it before their "inspirations" committed their massacres. In the case of Robert Smith, he had been planning it since he was 13. He committed the crime when he was 18 a month after Whitman. We also see OBVIOUS confirmation bias and double standards. He admitted he idolized and was inspired by Julius Caesar and Napoleon. SO ARE WE GONNA BAN/CENSOR the mention of Caesar and Napoleon now? "no" WHY NOT?! I WANT TO KNOW WHY! TELL ME WHY AND EXPLAIN TO ME WHY! I've asked this repeatedly to many people and they NEVER EVER give an answer and if they do they AGREE with me but give some lame red herring/non-sequitur. "well Hitler is in the public domain. That's public information." WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH NOTORIETY?! I asked "What about Hitler? He's probably the most INFAMOUS, NOTORIOUS, FAMOUS killer in history." and your response did not answer that. It's also a FALSE distinction because Whitman/Bryant/Lanza/Purdy etc ARE in the public domain and you can even sue to get all the information from what is known as "The freedom of information act" that is what happened in the case of Adam Lanza. Where the police refused to release the evidence. A news organization sued through the freedom of information act and a trove of evidence was given and now we have a far far better coherent understanding as to WHY the massacre happened. WHY Adam Lanza did it, what his problems were, his psychology, etc. INSTEAD OF GUESS WORK provided by 3rd hand accounts of investigators with their own interpretation of the evidence. Which is ridiculous and no reasonable person would accept that in any other context.
Soft ball "no notoriety" debate with founders:
Journalist: When I hear law enforcement in front of cameras. On day one, say 'I'm not gonna use the name. I'm not gonna say who the killer is" As a journalist that scares the hell out of me because that is the government telling the public 'we're gonna cut you off from this information" Help me understand what your ask is of law enforcement and why that isn't something separate.
"No notoriety" founder double speaks and lies: Yeah, well that isn't what they say [yes it is and what you are advocating]. Let's be clear, that's not what they say. What they are saying is 'I as an individual [as a representative of the public and an officer of the law]. A person who has dedicated my life to protecting the public realize that if I make this 'thing'...bigger then life [A name is making 'bigger then life' REALLY?! That is the problem? How absurd!] character, I will get somebody else [no evidence for this.] either in my community or the way the world is connected now. To possibly do this [which they would of done ANYWAY]. I'M NOT GONNA KEEP YOU FROM THE INFORMATION AND IF YOU WANT TO BE IRRESPONSIBLE. You know, DO A LITTLE HOMEWORK, GO AND GET THE RECORDS. BUT I'M NOT GONNA STAND IN FRONT OF A MIC AND USE THEIR NAME because I know as an 'expert' in keeping the public safe that this is going to cause harm to someone else.
How is that not contradictory and not double speak? It reminds me of every other censorship group in history using double speak to try and deny what they are doing.
Your calling the people who would do the information through the Freedom of information act IRRESPONSIBLE....yet your at the same time claiming
"we arent trying to censor. We aren't for blacklisting." YES YOU ARE! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT AND CALL ME IRRESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIVELY FIGHTING TO GET THE INFORMATION!!!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!!!
It's the same nonsense we see in coercion in terms of plea bargaining, the MPAA, PMRC, etc.
Journalist: What if he says 'I'm not only gonna not say it at the mic and say it but I'm gonna make it hard for you to get the record because I believe if you have the name and record then that will have the same contagion effect.'
"No notoriety" founder: I don't think he has the legal right to do that. I don't think I've ever heard of somebody doing that.
SANDY HOOK! SANDY HOOK!
I'll quote an article from 2019.
"A bill before a Connecticut legislative committee would bar the public release of seized property in cases that don’t lead to arrests. Critics say the bill would have blocked a major release of documents related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The Hartford Courant won a nearly 6-year-long legal battle to get access to thousands of pages of private documents seized by the Connecticut State Police."
Continue long review in comment section -
May 19, 2016
Such a sad story. I agree in part with many of the other reviews, it did seem a little tedious at times reading about the back story of five generations of Martin Bryant's family, although towards the end these details made sense as they alluded to the possibility of depression and violent desperation being an almost hereditary condition. The saddest realizations to walk away from this book is had Bryant had no access to guns this book would never have been written. Had Bryant had no access to semi automatic guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition 35 people would most likely still be walking amongst us. Had we as a society had the resources to spot troubled children and get them help and encouragement as soon as their obvious troubles were first identified, a massacre could have been avoided. Sadder still was reading about the gun lobby in Australia saying that this awful tragedy was "staged" by the government to take their weapons away. Staged? Despite 35 dead. 12 wounded, horribly. 200 witness statements. Three weapons. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition. A culprit caught in the act and confessing. Guns don't kill people, it's true. Troubled and disturbed people with access to guns kill too many people.
August 31, 2018
I found it hard to rate this book as the subject matter is obviously extremely disturbing, but I certainly found it very interesting and extremely thoroughly researched and well written.
The authors have done an amazing job of keeping themselves very impartial and stating the facts of the crimes but also delving into the life and history of a very disturbed man. This book wasn't just a telling of the massacre at Port Arthur but more of a study into why it may have happened and how similar tragedies could possibly be avoided in the future by understanding mental illness in our youth.
I found it a very disturbing and confronting read about a tragic event in Australia's history but it was very important and eye-opening.
The authors have done an amazing job of keeping themselves very impartial and stating the facts of the crimes but also delving into the life and history of a very disturbed man. This book wasn't just a telling of the massacre at Port Arthur but more of a study into why it may have happened and how similar tragedies could possibly be avoided in the future by understanding mental illness in our youth.
I found it a very disturbing and confronting read about a tragic event in Australia's history but it was very important and eye-opening.
July 7, 2012
interesting book - I did enjoy it, however I found the genealogy tour a little tedious and not totally relevent, going back to ancestors in england took up a good portion of the book with in my opinion was un-necessary historial famiiy data that I am sure the author found interesting to include however for the reader it seemed to take alot of time to get to the actual event.
the book was definately well researched, but slow to get moving, it did include some very relevant and interesting data on the relationships in the family and within the community which helped to tie it all together.
overall a good read
the book was definately well researched, but slow to get moving, it did include some very relevant and interesting data on the relationships in the family and within the community which helped to tie it all together.
overall a good read
February 23, 2011
Another book written by journalists, but this book is both brilliant and haunting. Really, only a true journalist could have put this together so soon after the actual event. The revealing of Martin Bryant's upbringing and how disturbed he was, and how his father did everything he could to keep him on a straight and narrow path but could never, no mater what, succeed, it's all very haunting when you know what happened in the end.
September 26, 2012
Was easy to read and well researched but I didn't like the choppy pacing of it and at times it went off track.Not only an interesting insight into one of the worst mass murders in history but A look at what we can do to prevent this ever happening again.
February 20, 2025
This story has left me wandering if Martin was guilty or innocent. I am Tasmanin and we are only given the medias narrative which in my opinion is Inefficient.
How be it, easy to say he is guilty.
There are inconsistencies with the media story, what we perceive and what we hear.
The book reveals Bryant's idiosyncrasies and details of his life events. It even discloses the fact that Martin had supernatural experiences familiar with other disastrous affairs.
Clearly Martin was a hive of contradictions wether Intentional or unintentional who could know?
He seems to have the mental aptitude of a tad pome yet one could argue the tab poles mentality is superior as it does what it's meant to do.
His adept memory seems to conflict with his inept sympathy. His dislodged logic isn't parallel to his composed massacre. His selfishness isn't adjacent to his depraved desire for attention. His juvenile cognition doesn't match his ability to conduct six months of international travel.
He's just a unique well of weirdness, hannible lecter has a caged quick witted mouth yet Bryant has a dosile grin in shackles.
I suggest that anyone who wants to know the back of house story behind this, read this.
It's also exquisitely written by serious researchers.
80% of the variables we are ignorant to - this book discloses undisclosed information such as the interview with John Avery leaving no doubt, presuming it's legit that Martin is guilty.
The book goes into historical details and modern details about Bryant.
It also goes on a ramble about the lack neurological research conducted by a government that heavily invests in I dustries of little benefit to us.
I'm surprised it didn't talk about the adverse affects of pregnancy medications, vaccine, malnutrition and other practices such as meat and dairy consumption that are now know to cause neurological deficiencies.
That night make a much larger book.
A brilliant read highly recommended.
How be it, easy to say he is guilty.
There are inconsistencies with the media story, what we perceive and what we hear.
The book reveals Bryant's idiosyncrasies and details of his life events. It even discloses the fact that Martin had supernatural experiences familiar with other disastrous affairs.
Clearly Martin was a hive of contradictions wether Intentional or unintentional who could know?
He seems to have the mental aptitude of a tad pome yet one could argue the tab poles mentality is superior as it does what it's meant to do.
His adept memory seems to conflict with his inept sympathy. His dislodged logic isn't parallel to his composed massacre. His selfishness isn't adjacent to his depraved desire for attention. His juvenile cognition doesn't match his ability to conduct six months of international travel.
He's just a unique well of weirdness, hannible lecter has a caged quick witted mouth yet Bryant has a dosile grin in shackles.
I suggest that anyone who wants to know the back of house story behind this, read this.
It's also exquisitely written by serious researchers.
80% of the variables we are ignorant to - this book discloses undisclosed information such as the interview with John Avery leaving no doubt, presuming it's legit that Martin is guilty.
The book goes into historical details and modern details about Bryant.
It also goes on a ramble about the lack neurological research conducted by a government that heavily invests in I dustries of little benefit to us.
I'm surprised it didn't talk about the adverse affects of pregnancy medications, vaccine, malnutrition and other practices such as meat and dairy consumption that are now know to cause neurological deficiencies.
That night make a much larger book.
A brilliant read highly recommended.
Read
December 20, 2020I find it that this book is just a story book. It gives some details, it misses many a detail . And it don't matter who you ask. How many you ask. Unless they were with him on the day or every day leading up to the event.
Then you can't say you know why he did what he did. No one knows .. unless you ask byrant himself and get it straight from. It's miss leading and lies to say you know. The book leaves out how the main weapon used at the port Arthur in the cafe. How did become to be found at Martin's house with the rest of the weapons used that day. Cause that main assault rifle was handed in to Victoria police 92 gun buy back. 4 years before port Arthur.
Victoria sos was using it for 2 years. Then it was so called destroy . Yet the bloke who handed it in has stated publicly that it was hes weapon . Even describing two distinctive marks. That were on it . Just so happens the weapon has those two marks I'm the exact same spot
Then you can't say you know why he did what he did. No one knows .. unless you ask byrant himself and get it straight from. It's miss leading and lies to say you know. The book leaves out how the main weapon used at the port Arthur in the cafe. How did become to be found at Martin's house with the rest of the weapons used that day. Cause that main assault rifle was handed in to Victoria police 92 gun buy back. 4 years before port Arthur.
Victoria sos was using it for 2 years. Then it was so called destroy . Yet the bloke who handed it in has stated publicly that it was hes weapon . Even describing two distinctive marks. That were on it . Just so happens the weapon has those two marks I'm the exact same spot
May 10, 2025
Journalism, genealogy, and history all rolled into the story of the nightmare of a human that Martin Bryant was. This was an interesting read beginning 5 generations back with Martins ancestors (a bit tedious) and working through the day of the Port Arthur massacre, the trial and the after math. In the end, the family history revealed a lot, and the whole book lays out the reasons for Australia's decision to ban gun ownership. I started this on the 29th anniversary of the shooting, and to date the country hasn't experienced another mass shooting; very telling
November 30, 2019
I couldn’t put this book down. The twists and turns just make me want to understand more and more about Martin even though he committed such a horrific crime.
July 2, 2023
I really enjoyed the story and found the history of his family interesting as well.
January 7, 2020
An insight into what made Martin Bryant who he is today - the question that is asked, is the monster born or bred and it is never fully answered.
This book is a great read although in some parts very detailed but it is quite slow in some chapters.
There is plenty of detail and background about Martin Bryant but there is also a lot of detail about how he committed his crime & why
This book is a great read although in some parts very detailed but it is quite slow in some chapters.
There is plenty of detail and background about Martin Bryant but there is also a lot of detail about how he committed his crime & why
May 2, 2021
I was a child when the Port Arthur massacre occurred, but I still have vague recollections of the time and learning of the aftermath that followed. I read a lot of true crime but hadn’t looked into this one as an adult and, given that it is close to home, I was excited to educate myself and learn a little more.
Unfortunately, while the authors were gathering facts and interviewing anyone they could in order to paint a clear picture of Martin’s life and the circumstances that led to this horrific event, they also saw fit to investigate however many generations prior and I cannot tell you how uninterested I was in what whatever distantly related family member was getting arrested for back in England all those years ago.
I mean, I think I kind of get it? Showing a history of untoward behaviour in the bloodline or whatever – but it was tedious, detracted from the real crime being explored, and felt completely unnecessary to me.
Thankfully, the remainder of the book was, for the most part, well-structured and I cannot deny it felt well-researched. The exploration into Martin’s life right from childhood, the changes in circumstances (from major life events to more minor disruptions in routine ) that shaped the man he became, the short fallings in his support system, all of the warning signs and triggers and, of course, the blow by blow of the shooting itself – Born or Bred is a truly eye opening read and provides a chilling insight into the actions and mind of a monster.
Unfortunately, while the authors were gathering facts and interviewing anyone they could in order to paint a clear picture of Martin’s life and the circumstances that led to this horrific event, they also saw fit to investigate however many generations prior and I cannot tell you how uninterested I was in what whatever distantly related family member was getting arrested for back in England all those years ago.
I mean, I think I kind of get it? Showing a history of untoward behaviour in the bloodline or whatever – but it was tedious, detracted from the real crime being explored, and felt completely unnecessary to me.
Thankfully, the remainder of the book was, for the most part, well-structured and I cannot deny it felt well-researched. The exploration into Martin’s life right from childhood, the changes in circumstances (from major life events to more minor disruptions in routine ) that shaped the man he became, the short fallings in his support system, all of the warning signs and triggers and, of course, the blow by blow of the shooting itself – Born or Bred is a truly eye opening read and provides a chilling insight into the actions and mind of a monster.
July 9, 2014
I found the chapters that go back to his ancestors really didn't have anything to do with his actions OR his upbringing. I get that they were trying to convey the coincidences with his actions, but they could have just kept it to his upbringing.
At times it seemed a desperate reach at filler before revealing the actual incident and his confession.
I did like that they had an in depth description of the events separate from the rest of the story - it's own section at the back and a warning for anyone who reads further that the details are graphic.
At times it seemed a desperate reach at filler before revealing the actual incident and his confession.
I did like that they had an in depth description of the events separate from the rest of the story - it's own section at the back and a warning for anyone who reads further that the details are graphic.
June 13, 2016
A particularly harrowing and disturbing read to finish up this weekend, as news of another mass killing reaches us. This book demonstrates detailed research as it searches for answers and seeks to understand what took place at Port Arthur decades ago. I found one of the last chapters"the psychiatrist" very worthwhile as it really did offer a useful perspective on exactly how we can intervene when young men seem set on a trajectory such as Bryants, and how a practical focus on child and adolescent mental health might benefit all of us. A compassionate and thoughtful book.
October 29, 2013
Heaps of comments on why the history included was a bit boring, but I think it is worth knowing and I am glad I got to read it.
I am probably bias as this is my home state, my dad knows John Avery well, I knew people that knew Bryant etc..
Considering it is such a painful subject and will stay fresh and hurtful for a few more generations yet, it's a good approach offering all sides, point's of view or realities, how ever you phrase that, in a straight forward way(less)
I am probably bias as this is my home state, my dad knows John Avery well, I knew people that knew Bryant etc..
Considering it is such a painful subject and will stay fresh and hurtful for a few more generations yet, it's a good approach offering all sides, point's of view or realities, how ever you phrase that, in a straight forward way(less)
January 7, 2017
An in depth look at Martin Bryant and his family in an attempt to see whether "nature or nurture" contributes to the making of a mass killer. An outcast for all his life Martin Bryant was odd and younger in development than his actual age. The last few pages of the book document the killing spree
at Port Arthur and is chilling in the description.It is put at the back so that the reader can skip it if they so wish while having read the family history of the Bryant family
at Port Arthur and is chilling in the description.It is put at the back so that the reader can skip it if they so wish while having read the family history of the Bryant family
March 14, 2013
I really enjoyed this book even if it is a depressing subject! I see that someone else didn't enjoy the bit about Martin Bryant's ancestors but I thought that was really good as it all helped to show what sort of family he came from and how he came to be who he is. Having been to Hobart and Port Arthur I found it all really interesting - but sad.
July 1, 2016
Brilliant, yet disturbing exposé on Australia's most notorious killer Martin Bryant. The authors have done meticulous research into his life. The book also poses many questions for us to ponder. This book is not so much about answers as to why the atrocity committed by Martin happened, but why, at several points throughout his life, wasn't he stopped from becoming a monster ?
September 17, 2013
Horrible tragedy but a very interesting look into the younger years and genealogy that may have contributed to this.
June 17, 2015
Well written and an extra star for the comprehensive research.
January 16, 2016
An interesting read, very insightful considering I knew nothing of Martin Bryant before-hand. The genealogy was a little tedious at times, but on the whole an insightful and well researched book.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews