From: David Clarke <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 07:01:28 -0400 Fwd Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 17:42:10 -0400 Subject: Re: From Maxwell Burns >From: C. <xxxxx.net> >Subject: From Maxwell Burns >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:35:18 -0000 >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. The rules of evidence of this case are these: A jury at Sheffield Crown Court during a four-day trial viewed all the evidence - prosecution and defence. During the trial, Burns declined to give evidence he is now prepared to provide to Updates posters. After deliberation the jury reached majority guilty verdicts on both charges. Sentencing, the Judge Robertshaw said to Burns: "There is no explanation forthcoming from you which might have placed this case into a context which might have provided some mitigation. "This offence would have made a significant contribution to the drug scene and the drug scene is one which decent people are heartily sick and tired of. "By pre-appointment and arrangement you were at this motorway junction to pick up this sizeable amount of tablets and I have no doubt that they would have been distributed to people who would have used them upon themselves and passed them onto others." If Max is so sure of his innocence, why did he not take the stand and explain these facts to the Jury which he is now happy to communicate to Updates posters? >From: Tim Matthews <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: From Maxwell Burns >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:56:08 +0100 >What people should not forget is that in interviews with Dave >Clarke - an aware-winning local journalist (amongst other >things) - Burns admitted he was guilty. He said he expected to >go down for his drug-dealing. In actual fact Tim, Maxwell did NOT admit his guilt to me - he simply said he "expected" to be found guilty and serve time. If Max had pleaded guilty in court he would probably be a free man today - performing community service. That was his decision, and his right within British law. But by pleading not guilty and being found guilty, he has to take the penalty like anyone else in his position. UpDates subscribers should note that despite the exchanges on this list there was a time when Max used to ring me regularly and paid at least one visit to the newspaper office where I worked. On those occasions he was quite open about the fact he had been charged with a serious drug offence and was in a lot of trouble with the police. He lost no time in connecting his drugs charge with his investigation of what he calls the "Sheffield UFO incident" in a number of public places many times. He has said many times that he believes he was set up with the drugs because of what he had discovered about the case. If that is so why did he not use this claim in his defence, and take the witness stand in court? Taking all of this into account, that is is why I could not understand how he and his cohorts could then accuse others of using his personal life to attack his character. If Max's drugs charge and his character have nothing to do with his claims about UFO cases, then he should have kept his mouth shut from the start. You cannot have it both ways. <snip> >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! It certainly would be a big break and would solve the case once and for all - and I would be the first to admit I was wrong.. But I predict that this audio cassette and its wonderful owner who can apparently tune in to both police and RAF frequencies simultaneously will, like the rest of Burn's "conclusive evidence" on this case, never materialise. As they say in this part of the world - "pigs might fly."
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp