Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Oct -> From Maxwell Burns

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: C. <xxxxx.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:35:18 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:03:04 -0400
Subject: From Maxwell Burns


Posted for Maxwell Burns

-----

To UFO UpDates:

This is the first legal opportunity I have had to speak about
the case. If the dogs have finished tearing at my flesh I would
like to enlighten you as to this travesty of British justice.  I
would also like to talk about the rules of evidence which you
have heard Matthews, Roberts and Clarke talk about so much.

On the day of the trial the co-accused Suzanne Bradley and
Louise Goodison cut an immunity deal with the police and turned
'Queens' evidence which meant they gave evidence for the crown.
On the stand Goodison admitted under cross-examination that she
had previously lied and accused her housemate Bradley of lying.

Bradley took the stand and accused Goodison of lying. My
barrister then listed a large list of convictions that Bradley
has already (this was unknown to me and incidentally Bradley's
ex-fellow, the father of her son, has just finished a 14 year
sentence for heroin importation).

These previous convictions include four offences of theft,
handling stolen goods and, 1 month before she was arrested with
me, a drug-raid at her home found her in possession of cocaine.
She admitted to being the target of Operation Morph (the name
given to the operation during which I was arrested). Before this
time the police had never heard of me.

One amazing thing about this case is the complete lack of
forensic evidence. Four police officers (whose statements all at
one point or another contradict each other) claim I handled this
large plastic bag which I supposedly touched with both hands
without gloves and then pushed under the cars handbrake. Yet not
one fingerprint was found on it. Not one unique little
fingerprint on a bag I was supposed to have held and then pushed
between two car seats. My barrister in light of this fact asked
if I had seen or handled this bag. I replied no.

He asked all four officers if they had seen me with the bag and
they said yes. My barrister asked if the bag had been sent for
testing - it had. Now for fingerprint evidence to be admissible
in court 14 reference points are required but there were none.
My barrister asked all of the officers if I had been wearing
gloves or if gloves had been found in the car. They had not.

The bag was tested and no prints were found. So how could I have
handled it? My barrister accused all four men of lying and
attempting to fabricate evidence.  He directly asked the officer
in charge of the case if my fingerprints had been found, they
had not!

Now all I have just said is a matter of public record in a court
of law. I have been convicted with no evidence, the four police
officers had only conflicting stories to back up their
allegations. No one in the car was wearing gloves, whoever
placed the package in the car either was wearing gloves or was
very careful. I could say more but I am in the process of
putting together an appeal.

When DC [Detective Constable] Guite - the officer in charge took
the stand my interview tapes were played in full from 2 years
ago, DC Guite was one of the officers who had questioned me at
the time during all three of the interviews. My barrister asked
Guite "my client answered every single question you asked him
during questioning didn't he?" Guite replied yes.

My barrister then asked "My clients version of events did not
waiver at all in the three interviews did it?"

Guite replied "No it did not"

Guite admitted on the stand that I had supplied details of the
second hand car dealer who I had arranged to meet that night,
the one the crown barrister had stated did not exist.

Under the law in a police investigation it is the investigating
officers' duty to follow all the leads supplied by a defendant
even if the finger of guilt may lead away from the defendant
because of it.

I had supplied the phone number of the man while detained so
that the police could verify my story. My barrister asked if
they had contacted the car dealer, to check out the information
supplied by me. Guite replied that he had not and had to admit
that he had not followed up this lead effectively breaching
operating procedure.

In fact all four officers had to admit that they had breached
procedure in investigating and bringing this case to court.

Now whilst you read this next paragraph keep in mind that in
sentencing the judge said I am high up in the drugs world, a
'wholesaler'.

My barrister asked Guite if he had carried out a full financial
check on myself to discover if I had any secret stashes of
money, gold, cars, share, houses etc. that could be confiscated
in the event of a conviction. Guite replied they had. My
barrister asked if they had found any of the trappings
associated with such a lifestyle, he replied they had not.

My barrister asked Guite if I had any previous convictions or
cautions. Guite replied that I did not.

My barrister asked about the search of my home and whether any
evidence such as drugs, money, lists of names or scales had been
found. Guite replied that they had not found any evidence at my
home but when prompted admitted they had found drug dealing
paraphernalia at the home of Suzanne Bradley.

There was no evidence offered to back up the allegations of four
police officers (who all admitted breaching procedure) and the
two co-defendants. There is no evidence and I should not have
been found guilty.

Here is an interesting thought for all of you who have been
following the Sheffield case. Do you think that it would be a
big break in deciding the true facts about the incident if
someone were to produce an audio cassette of the launch of the
Tornado jets from the base. All the jet-to-base chatter and the
pilot-to-pilot chatter and all the police-radio chatter between
Ecclefield police station and officers on the ground that night
- recorded by a radio ham? It would certainly settle the matter
or whether the jets were scrambled on red alert or were just on
a training mission, wouldn't it? Watch this screen!

I am due for release on the 19th December 2000 if I do not win
the appeal. Those of you in ufology who know me know I am not a
drug dealer, anyone who would like to keep in touch with me and
maybe send me some reading material or articles etc. for which I
would be very grateful can do so by writing to:

Maxwell Burns
DL8712
HMP Oultcourse
Higher Lane
Fazakerley
Liverpool
L9 7LH

I remain and am most sincerely

Maxwell Brierley Burns
Convict DL8712

(As relayed via letter to a trusted friend)