Martin Bryant's trial was not by jury but rather by media and when he pleaded 'not guilty' at his hearing the commotion that this caused indicated to me that this was not what the judicial system had in mind. In fact his plea was refused. He was, in actual fact, refused a trial. After a lengthy stay in solitary confinement Bryant re-emerged at another hearing and this time pleaded guilty but strangely laughed as the names of the dead were read out. Now, if this wasn't the actions of a deranged man then perhaps it was the reaction of an innocent one. Perhaps the actions of a man who had tried to plead not guilty because, despite his instructions, he knew that this was not right. Perhaps a man who was forced to change his plea in order to satisfy the lust of the public and now found only irony in the legal system that was railroading him. The media told us that it was obvious that Bryant was the assassin and therefore it would only cause more distress to the victims of Port Arthur if a trial by jury forced them onto the stand to testify. Never mind that another man's life was at stake. The headlines told us that he could "Rot In Hell". Never mind whether he was guilty or not. Trial or no trial everyone agreed that this eccentric half wit performed the single most devastating killing spree of the century in a style and manner that defied all reasonable explanation. CONFISCATION OF BRYANT'S ENTIRE ESTATE In an unprecedented move Martin Bryant's million dollar estate that was left to him by an older woman friend who apparently thought a great deal of him and wanted him to live comfortably when she died, was confiscated by the court soon after he was charged. Never had this happened before, in fact they changed the law so that they could do this. The intention was, so we were told, to provide compensation for the victims of the massacre. Provide compensation for the victims from the estate of a man who had not yet been tried and proven guilty? To this day I have not had one survivor tell me that they saw any of this money. All this preposterous action did was to deprive a man of funds for a decent defence. Never heard of before. This decision was made before his trial and while he should still have been considered innocent. He was relatively left penniless and unable to afford a lawyer. Because of this impoverishment he was appointed a lawyer who was very reluctant to take the case. The lawyer later resigned himself from the case after being threatened by the public for defending a madman. Another state lawyer was appointed who obviously had very little experience since none of the very convincing evidence in these pages was collected or consequently presented during the hearing. In fact his counselling to Martin was that he was going to jail anyway and if he pleaded guilty he could have a comfortable cell with a colour TV but if he didn't do as he was told he'd get no TV. Now to an intellectually handicapped man like Martin Bryant to live the rest of your life without television would be a very powerful motive for pleading guilty and I believe that that is the only way they got him to do it. It is without a doubt that Bryant's estate was confiscated in order to deter some clever lawyer from earning his money and digging up the truth on the Port Arthur Massacre and declaring Bryant the patsy that he obviously was. The media had whipped up such frenzy around Martin that very few lawyers were willing to be the hated defender of a mass murderer but with a million dollar estate behind him I'm sure he would have found someone who would have been persuaded to earn a healthy fee. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT It is an inconceivable notion that in this day and age a man could be found guilty by the media with headlines saying that he was the Port Arthur murderer and showing a picture of him even before he was charged. Within days newspapers and television crews all over the country were telling the people that Martin Bryant was guilty while he lay in a hospital bed in Hobart recovering from bad burns suffered in the Seascape fire where he was arrested. One of the survivors of the massacre, a former military man and unlikely to mistake an ID, was in the hospital only a few meters away from Bryant in an adjacent ward and told police that he had got a good look at the shooter and could definitely identify him but was never asked to do so. This ID would have been the only time that a formal identification could have been made since the media had corrupted all others by illegally publishing Bryant's photos and accusing him of being the killer. The survivor had not yet seen that paper while recovering from being shot in the neck. I have had these pages up and running since 1997 and have never had anyone tell me that they saw the Port Arthur shooter and it was Martin Bryant. Yet I have seen several sworn statements from eyewitnesses who could identify the shooter and give descriptions of a man other than Martin Bryant where the killings took place. While there were witnesses who said that they saw Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur area not one could identify him as being anywhere near the Broad Arrow Café, where most of the murders took place, or any other crime scene on the way to the Seascape Inn. Those who eyeballed him said that he had a pocked ugly face and long hair. Martin Bryant has clear skin and on that occasion his hair was less than shoulder length. Photographic evidence shows a man wearing what looks like a woman's wig. Witnesses said the shooter shot from the right hip, yet Martin was left handed and the list goes on and on. All of which will be revealed in these pages. " WISH I KNEW HOW TO BE FREE" CHERRI Bonney. PERTH W.Aust.