TILBURG(UNIVERSITY(
The(Question(of(“Why?”(
People(Become(LoneB
Gunmen(
A(Literary(Research(on(the(Motivation(of(LoneB
Gunmen(
!
M.#Guijt#
25/06/2014#
#
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Supervisors:(prof.(dr.(S.(Bogaerts,(prof.(dr.(J.(Denissen(!
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The Case of Martin Bryant: Understanding the Motives of a Mass Murderer, Exams of Theatre
An analysis of the Martin Bryant case, a mass murderer who killed 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996. transcripts of interviews with Bryant, descriptions of his behavior during the massacre, and insights from psychiatrists and prison doctors. The document sheds light on Bryant's motivations, his early signs of egotism and sadism, and his desire for attention and acceptance.
Typology: Exams
2021/2022
1 / 59
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download The Case of Martin Bryant: Understanding the Motives of a Mass Murderer and more Exams Theatre in PDF only on Docsity!
TILBURG UNIVERSITY
The Question of “Why?”
People Become Lone-‐
Gunmen
A Literary Research on the Motivation of Lone-‐
Gunmen
M. Guijt 25/06/ Supervisors: prof. dr. S. Bogaerts, prof. dr. J. Denissen
1. Table of Contents
2. Abstract In 1996, 2011, and 2012, three atrocities have been committed that ended in the combined deaths of 124 people and the injuring of 412 people. These three separate killings were all committed by what is known as “lone-gunmen”. These lone-gunmen typically go into a – seemingly randomly selected – public place, pull out a gun or multiple guns, and start shooting. Often times there isn’t a specific target these lone-gunmen were after in these places and the act appears senseless and without any purpose. The seemingly senselessness of these acts is what this thesis will research. More specifically this thesis will research the motivation of these lone-gunmen and what kind of predictors we can find from three separate cases. The cases are that of Martin Bryant, Anders Behring Breivik, and that of James Eagan Holmes.
3. Introduction In the past decades, the number of killings by lone-gunmen has increased significantly. Especially in the United States, there have been more than 200 mass killings since 2006 (USA Today, 2013). This problem continues to frighten nations, and creates terror in people when walking through crowded places; it can even create a moral panic (Burns, Crawford, 2000). However, these shootings aren’t just limited to the United States. Over the past decades, these instances of lone-gunman shootings have also occurred in Australia, Europe, and every other continent. The fact that the numbers in Northern America are higher than in any other continents is speculatively because the gun laws are less strict in this area and the acquisition of guns is easier (Ludwig, Cook, 2003). The fascinating question surrounding these shootings is “why?”. According to Baumeister (2000), there are several ways to answer this question. Baumeister states that one way to answer this is to “describe a reasoned or intentional purpose that evil actions serve, on the assumption that the actions are taken to serve this purpose. Another is to explain them in moral terms. Yet another is to explain their causes” (2000, 2). The latter is what will be researched in this thesis. In order to answer the pressing question of “why” would someone commit these atrocities, this thesis will look into the motivation of lone-gunmen. Therefore the first research question is: “What motivates or drives people to mass-shooting sprees?” In order to examine this question of ‘why’ people commit mass murder, this thesis will focus on three cases. These cases are chosen because they are spread across the globe, differ in situation and victims, and all the men committing these shootings have different backgrounds.
In answering these research questions, a tentative answer will be formulated in why and what kind of people will be driven to become lone-gunmen. This will then create an answer surrounding the bigger ‘why?’ question as stated by Baumeister (2000).
4. Method A literary review is conducted. In order to answer the four research questions, this study researched three separate case studies. For this literature study there was a search for scholarly articles and online news articles regarding lone-gunman shootings. The focus was on the three cases that had been chosen to research. We also refer to several books regarding the nature of evil. For the background information surrounding the actual situations during the shooting, this research has searched for news articles from around the globe. Because the cases are spread globally, the Australian press, Norwegian press, and American press were consulted. The press often receives witness accounts, and can be present in the court room where witnesses tell their stories. When considering the question of how the justice system deals with lone-gunmen, a thorough search for transcripts of the court cases was done. For the Breivik case, the transcripts are available in Norwegian, and translated to English by a special google database. This database also contains the psychiatric evaluations of Breivik. The Holmes trials are unfortunately delayed so there will only be a discussion surrounding the insanity plea. For the Breivik case the book “Born or Bred?” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009) contains analyses and parts of transcripts. For the history of the suspects we had again consulted news agencies from around the world, since these have exclusives with the family and friends. For the Breivik case, the Google
database was consulted and for the Bryant case the same book (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009) will be discussed since these include descriptions of the medical examination and an interview with the psychiatrist. This study has examined empirical reports regarding lone-gunmen and has also studied literary researches that study lone-gunman shooters. Books and articles available on the nature of evil and the nature of mass murderers have also been taken into consideration when conducting this literary study. This was done using content analysis. By reading and reviewing the information available, conclusions were made based on content. Therefore this research has examined what exactly happened during the shootings, how the criminal proceedings followed, and what kind of upbringing or childhood the shooters had, and finally will discuss the motivation. The importance of someone’s history and background is such that it is taken into account when considering predictors and motivations. Some limitations regarding this literary review can be that some information necessary to answer the main research questions might not be available to the public. As is the situation in the Holmes case, where very little information is made public, and in the case of Breivik, where too much information is available and it is unknown how much is based on reality. Therefore there can be a gap in reliable information, which means that the reader must take this into account. However, the research and information that is available will provide with what this research assumes as adequate information to create tentative answers to our research questions. 5. Martin Bryant In 1996 Martin Bryant went to Port Arthur, a Tasmanian tourist attraction, and killed 35 people. Among these 35 victims were two young children and two people that Bryant knew before the
film the massacre. Bryant commences his mass murder by first shooting an Asian couple that he was overheard complaining about earlier. Within 15 seconds, Bryant has killed 12 people and fired 17 shots of his gun (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). Witnesses report seeing Bryant, “laughing to himself as he walks from table to table killing” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 272). After Bryant empties his 30-shot magazine – killing 20 people and injuring a similar amount – he finally leaves the café (Bellamy, n.d.). The time Bryant spent in the café from the start of the shooting was between 90 and 120 seconds. An especially tragic twist are the stories of the victims that went towards the gunfire because they believed they were missing a re-enactment of sorts. Since this was a tourist attraction and a former prison, this concept is not unheard of. One story of a woman who was being shot at and still believed it was a re-enactment is one that is tragic and makes the atrocities that Martin Bryant committed even more disturbing. He found a historic location where people would not initially run from the sound of gunfire and thus increased the number of victims and targets to shoot at (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). Outside the café, Bryant has reloaded his gun and is now aiming for moving targets. People are running away and towards the busses standing near the water’s edge. Bryant follows the people running towards the busses and continues his shooting spree. When his gun runs out of ammunition he walks back towards his car, seemingly contemplating driving away or continuing his shooting spree. He decides on the latter. He walks back to the coaches and kills the people hiding inside and behind the busses. When one man manages to avoid getting shot by Bryant and flees, Bryant utters his first words since the shooting spree began. While he fires he says to the man; “No one gets away from me” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 280). The man lives,
despite his injuries, however his wife dies in his arms. Following this incident Bryant gets into his car a second time and drives off, firing blindly behind him. However Bryant wasn’t done yet. As he drives towards the tollbooth he encounters a woman with her two children. Thinking they have found safety, the family moves towards the car, pleading the driver to take them with him. It is only after Bryant gets out of the car with another military weapon that the mother realizes her mistake and orders her children to run. Bryant orders the mother to get on her knees, “his voice is calm, in control” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 283) according to witnesses. The woman pleads with the young man not to hurt her children. He shoots her in the head. He finds the first child and shoots her twice; he then continues to find the second child hiding behind a tree only a few meters away but misses twice. Bryant appears especially cruel when he pushes his gun into the side of the child’s neck and kills her. The children were three and six years old (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). Bryant continues his drive towards the toll gate again and kills several more people on his drive there. He encounters a BMW, kills the people sitting in it and starts transferring the belongings of his Volvo towards the BMW which he then decides to use as his vehicle of choice. Bryant drives towards the service station where several people that escaped are warning drivers to not continue towards Port Arthur. He stops a Corolla and finds a hostage, killing the other passenger. He continues his drive towards Seascape, where his murderous spree started earlier in the morning. On his way there he keeps shooting at cars coming along on the Port Arthur highway and injures several more people. When he gets to Seascape where the bodies of his morning murders still lie in their bed, he takes the hostage out of the boot and locks himself in the house. Direct assault on the seascape house was ruled out by the police, because of the hostages in the house and the lack of cover (Bellamy, n.d.).
appearance saying; “[…] I’ve got blond hair and they’ll know me, if you don’t know how much of a character I am. I’m, I’m 28 years old. […] Yeah, and I’ve got blond hair and I’m slim. […] I’m well, always well dressed and they’ll know… if you can get in touch with them you can get all information on who I am and where I live” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 27). Bryant doesn’t appear to be hiding in particular, but also doesn’t seem to want to state his name bluntly. The telephone calls that ‘Jamie’ made are only the beginning of the evidence that the police collected. “It seems he can’t decide if he is hiding from his crime or wants to be known, lauded for it” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 26). Another important aspect that – if the case ever went to trial – would have led to the conviction of Martin Bryant are the videos taken by several bystanders. Some of these videos are cut short by a gunshot near the camera and some because the camera man was shot while recording. However all show clear images of Bryant shooting and killing the people in the Broad Arrow Café and around the coaches. The people that survived the massacre would have been witnesses in the trial. Another piece of evidence that the police have is when Martin Bryant was being interviewed by the police, he pointed to himself whilst discussing who the killer could be. In the transcript we read; “‘Yeah… Mmm. I’m not signing anything. Not until me lawyer sees me. I’m sure you’ll find the person who caused all this. Me. The bastard sits back in his chair and points to himself” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 146). Bryant afterwards says that the police should have recorded that, the officer responds by saying that it was still recording. At this point Bryant realizes his mistake and the interview is ended shortly afterwards. All this evidence would have made for a blatantly obvious case against Bryant; however the case never went to trial. This is mostly thanks to Bryant’s lawyer John Avery. From the recorded meetings that Avery had with Bryant, we can recover quite some interesting facts about
Bryant’s psyche. After the massacre, the whole of Australia was shocked and ashamed that a tragedy of this magnitude had happened on their soil (Coulehan, 2000). Avery wanted to keep the public, and especially the victims, from having to relive this tragedy. This is why Avery had to try to make Bryant plead guilty, but he couldn’t force Bryant to plead guilty, he wanted it to come from Bryant himself. Bryant’s first lawyer David Gunson, withdrew from the case for ethical reasons. Many speculate this is because Bryant had confessed to him but wanted to plead ‘not guilty’ in court. John Avery accepted the case with much resistance from his colleges. From the descriptions and the transcripts of the conversations between Avery and Bryant we perceive a very childish man who seems eager on going to court. Bryant seems to want to hear what people say about him, and he wants to hear all his ‘accomplishments’ again. During this mass murder Bryant felt powerful; his day in court would make him feel powerful again. Bryant was diagnosed to be clinically sane, even though he admits to trying to pretend he heard voices, none of the psychiatrists fell for this (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). Avery eventually manages to convince Bryant that it is in his best interest, and the community’s best interest, to plead guilty. Before this persuasion, Bryant had always insisted on not even being in Port Arthur that April day, even though his car was found there and many witnesses placed him on the scene. After Avery convinced him to plead guilty, Bryant changed his story. However because of the absence of a complete trial many conspiracy theorists jumped to different conclusions. These conspiracies range from an evil government, to a terrorist group, to Bryant being the fall guy for other gunmen. However these conspiracies say more about the human tendency to believe in the good in people than it does about Bryant. People who are close to
combined with conduct disorder. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association , 2000), conduct disorder is described as “a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated” (p. 93). Bryant was never diagnosed or examined for conduct disorder; however he appears to consequently show certain symptoms of this disorder. This might be a predictor for his violent behavior. Bryant also showed early signs of egotism and sadism (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). According to Baumeister (2000), sadism can be described as the pleasurable experience that one gets from hurting someone, and wanting this feeling of pleasure repeatedly. One teacher of Bryant writes “‘Aggressive, destructive, kicks, spits and has been known to urinate over other children’” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 65). After an incident with firework where Bryant ended up in hospital, Bryant showed no intellectual progress and even seemed interested in playing with firework again. This may show a lack of perception of pain. During adolescence, he once purposefully set fire to himself at a beach party and was saved by others rolling him in the sand. “He seemed impervious to emotion, physical discomfort – or pain – often swimming in the dead of winter with snow on the ground” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 103 - 104). These are relevant symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome or conduct disorder. Bryant shows his tendency towards sadism when he enjoys the thought of going to court and telling the world in detail what he had done, even grinning whilst discussing this with his lawyer and laughing in court when others are talking about his atrocities. Cruelty towards animals was another aspect of sadism that Bryant portrayed. He once tried to pull apart a cat with his bare hands and killed a parrot with his air rifle, when the animal dropped he continued to shoot slugs into its head (Avery, 1996). The air rifle was a gift from his
father, and initiated Martin’s obsession with fire arms. However his obsession with hurting people and things, and finding enjoyment in these actions seemed to long precede the air rifle. Animal abuse has become a more common indicator of future violence. Indeed Wilson and Norris (2011) discuss the fact that animal cruelty indicates future violent tendencies. According to them there is a causal link between juvenile animal abuse and adult violent behavior. During his whole life, his speech has often been described as unintelligible and he appears easily distracted and attention-seeking in several instances (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). This attention-seeking behavior is revealed after the murders when Bryant initially insists on wanting to have a trial and hear what people say about him. He appears fascinated by other people and their perception of him. During the interviews with his lawyer he insists on wanting to hear what people say about him and seemingly wanting to relive his rampage (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009). He also spend days in his cell reading through the witness accounts, this could appear as an obsession with his accomplishments and reading what people say about him. His intelligence was well below average throughout his entire life, with an IQ of 66, and his emotional development was stinted – estimated to be similar to that of an 11 year old according to Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist (“Shedding light on Port Arthur killer”, 2006). Joblin, who examined Bryant after the murders, also concluded that he was borderline as well as intellectually disabled (“Shedding light on Port Arthur killer”, 2006). Because of the lack of social skills, and the weird ‘vibe’ that Martin gave off, he was singled out and bullied during his school experiences. He was also sent to a special school in order to work around his impaired learning abilities (Bryant, 2010). Being singled-out like this most likely had a very disturbing effect on Bryant, since everything he ever wanted was to fit in. Bryant became more introverted and manipulative. When asked about his school experiences, Bryant spoke of “fear and
Bryant’s supportive social network at this point in time consisted of Helen, his father Maurice, and in a lesser amount, his mother Carleen. Helen died relatively shortly before the massacre, and his father committed suicide around the same time. The only two people in the world that understood him had now left him to live in solitude. The removal of Bryant’s support system might have been the trigger that pushed Bryant over the edge. He inherited a lot of money from his father as well as from Helen, and started travelling, just because the people next to him on the plane were forced to talk to him during the hour long flights. This desperate need for human contact and acceptance shows just how much Bryant has been rejected throughout his entire life. Such experiences would be traumatic to anyone, but it doesn’t turn everyone into a murderer. When Helen and his father died, Bryant reacted in an odd manner. When Helen died he turned his attention to much younger children, seeking company in his time of solitude. When his father was found dead Martin was casually mowing the lawn and working in the garden, seemingly pleased with himself, not showing any outward signs of distress. His father had killed himself using Martin’s weights that he took diving, and yet Martin didn’t show any outwards signs of distress, in fact showing the exact opposite – laughing and joking around while the police was recovering his father’s body. This emotional stiltedness is also demonstrated in court when Bryant giggles during court sessions when his charges are called out. The neighbors suspected something wrong with this man long before the shootings happened. At times Bryant would appear as a “silly kid, and yet there are other times when he exudes a manipulative superiority” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 193). One of the problems that Bryant might have struggled with his entire life is his looks. He was an attractive man with long blonde hair, good facial structures, and an athletic build. Indeed
during the ‘Jamie’ phone calls he talks of his own ‘striking appearance’ and others recall Bryant by this appearance as well. He looked like the Australian surfer boy stereotype. However these good, easy-going looks, created a problem for Bryant because “to those who met him, when he opened his mouth, the reality did not meet the expectation. He read the disappointment as rejection, even revulsion” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 123). His good looks worked against him when trying to be accepted by others. The contradiction of his good looking appearance and his socially awkward behavior made it more difficult for people to understand him. According to the police negotiator during the ‘Jamie’ phone calls he writes that “This man hates himself” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 22). These phone calls also mention that it was like “dealing with a scatty teenager” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 26). ‘Jamie’ also says during the phone calls, seemingly threatening his hostages that; ‘It’s not only, um, dying, it’s the pain that people can inflict” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 28). These words seem not only to reflect on what he has done to the people on this dreadful day. It also seems to resonate in Bryant himself, and how he has felt like a victim of the world his entire life. How the pain that people inflict can be more painful than dying, you die at once, pain lasts a lifetime. The police officer perceived this notion as a threat, as it may well be meant, however one can also read Bryant’s own psyche and pain coming through in this statement. Bryant felt victimized his entire life, never fitting in, even being bullied in school. He seemed to be “misunderstood by the world” (Wainwright & Totaro, 2009, 243). During adolescence this resulted in him alienating himself from the outside world, preferring to spend time under the water scuba diving, than spending it above the surface with other people. After his incarceration Bryant attempted suicide at least six times (“Razor blade used in second Bryant suicide attempt”, 2007).