SIGHTINGS



UFO Researcher Maxwell
Burns Responds To
Drug Conviction
From UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
Posted for Maxwell Burns
10-6-99
 
 
 
 
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)





SIGHTINGS HOMEPAGE