- 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
- 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
- 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
- (As relayed via letter to a trusted friend)