Nexus - 1306 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

force a trial. As he told the Bulletin earlier this year (4 April and furthermore that the risk had become a reality because the 2006): "That was the hardest thing, because if Bryant wanted to gunman noticed Balasko filming and fired a shot at him. Can we be the ringmaster, it was going to be difficult to stop him." When really believe that Balasko would have risked his life to make a Avery met Bryant on 3 October 1996, Bryant clearly still video? regarded himself as the "ringmaster" and was anticipating a trial The two contradictory statements Balasko made regarding the in the not-too-distant future. Only five days later, according to circumstances in which he allegedly made the video are proof of the second transcript (8 October 1996), Bryant was apparently the hoax. In his 29 April statement, he said that he ducked behind prepared to accept responsibility for literally any acts Avery the campervan precisely because he saw the gunman take aim at wanted him to, no matter how heinous, meaning that a trial would him. He made no mention of either possessing a video camera or no longer be necessary. filming the gunman. In his 1 August statement, however, Balasko Two factors seem to have contributed to the transformation. said: "As I was filming the shooter, he noticed me sticking out The first was Avery's success in convincing Bryant that, without behind the van with my camera..." Not only are the two an alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the massacre, he had no statements irreconcilable, but if Balasko really had made a video viable defence strategy. "I can't magically find a defence that you of the gunman it beggars belief that he would not have mentioned were in Hong Kong or somewhere else," he told Bryant. it to the police at the first opportunity. At this stage, the footage The second factor was Avery's use of "evidence" allegedly would have been of immense value to both the police and the putting Bryant at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996. In addition to the Australian media. What's more, failing to declare the existence of old chestnut that lots of people saw Bryant at Port Arthur— footage pertaining to the commission of a crime would probably "Heaps and heaps of people [say] you're it, have constituted a felony. you were there"—Bryant was given an There can be little doubt, therefore, that undisclosed number of witness statements to Balasko and Tasmania Police are lying and study. Since his low IQ would have rendered the video was actually concocted after the him unable to consider the possibility that the event. Balasko, who is rumoured to be an statements he was given had been faked or American CIA operative, would readily have were being presented to him in a misleading agreed to help the police out by vouching for way—matters concerning the integrity of the . the spurious footage. (He also agreed to evidence are, of course. normally the There can be little overdub some corny commentary for the responsibility or we seence: put Avery was doubt, therefore, ye first ai Presenation on 1996). not seeking to defend Bryant, only persuade 's A Current Affair on jovember . him to plead auilty Bryant was left in the that Balasko and The spuriousness of the video becomes position of being forced to conclude that the Tasmania Police readily apparent upon close examination. man they referred to could only have been Particularly suspicious is the fact that the himself. are lying and the images of the shooter captured in the vi Ww; ll video entirely lack facial detail. The The Balasko video deo as actua y facial area looks unnaturally washed out, Avery told Bryant that the evidence concocted after which can only have been the result of against him, in addition to the witness statements, included a video image: "they've even got a photograph of you off the video walking round with a gun at Port Arthur shooting everyone. So you're pretty distinctive." The video to which Avery was referring can only have been that allegedly made by American tourist digital tampering. The only discernible facial feature, in fact, is the outline of the actor's nose, which looks pert and feminine—in clear contrast to Bryant's extremely full nose. In this regard, Ian McNiven, a critic of the official Port Arthur story, has made an interesting observation that towards the end of the footage: ust as the James Balasko, which is a fake. It was gunman turns to face B ko's camera reportedly filmed from behind a showing the gunman's face, the head of campervan as the gunman returned to his vehicle. However, the the gunman disappears having been clearly fuzzed out when the actual circumstances in which the video came to light are highly remainder [of] him is quite clear... The dazzling gold hair also suspicious and militate strongly against its authenticity. has disappeared... This fact is clear evidence someone didn't want The official story is that Tasmania Police only became aware of the gunman's face seen and the reason is because it wasn't that of the video's existence after a follow-up interview with Balasko on Martin Bryant. What they wanted the public to see was the 1 August 1996, two weeks before its investigation concluded. To blond-haired man..."° be sure, Balasko did not mention having filmed the gunman in the police witness statement he gave on the day following the Abducted and drugged? massacre. The best explanation for Balasko's failure to mention Now that it's been established that Bryant appears to have been the video on that occasion is, quite simply, that he hadn't made persuaded to plead "guilty" to the massacre because he had no one. It is, after all, extremely improbable that he would have tried alibi, the question that arises is this: if Bryant was not guilty of the event. filming the gunman. Like most of the latter's other potential the crimes at the PAHS, where was he when they took place? victims, the American's priority at that stage would have been to Why is it that no one can provide him with an alibi for his remain as inconspicuous as possible. Yet seven months later, whereabouts between 12.50 pm and 1.50 pm on 28 April 1996? Damian Bugg, QC, told the Supreme Court that Balasko had There are, as we should expect, very few clues as to what "placed himself in a position of danger" in order to make the film, happened. All that can be said with confidence is that something doubt, therefore, that Balasko and the event. Abducted and drugged? Now that it's been established that Bryant appears to have been persuaded to plead "guilty" to the massacre because he had no alibi, the question that arises is this: if Bryant was not guilty of the crimes at the PAHS, where was he when they took place? Why is it that no one can provide him with an alibi for his whereabouts between 12.50 pm and 1.50 pm on 28 April 1996? There are, as we should expect, very few clues as to what happened. All that can be said with confidence is that something 14 = NEXUS There can be little Tasmania Police are lying and the video was actually concocted after www.nexusmagazine.com OCTOBER —- NOVEMBER 2006