More information needed about story of striking an alien in the woods
3/25/2000
Reality Check showcases UFO lawyer Peter Gersten's rare perspective, one that combines legal expertise and cosmic awareness.
Dear fellow AlienZoo Experiencers: I want to take this opportunity and thank everyone associated with AlienZoo for allowing me to freely express many of my ideas, thoughts, and beliefs each Saturday in this column, Reality Check. So, to celebrate the beginning of my timeless journey through the natural habitat of AlienZoo, I present for my debut article, "The Cross-Examination of Jonathan Reed."
Sincerely,
Peter Gersten
Only at the International UFO Congress's semi-annual convention, held at the River Palms casino in Laughlin, Nevada, could an incredible story receive several standing ovations and be verified by .experts. in the unverifiable fields of "reverse speech" and "remote viewing." The story, of striking and nearly killing a humanoid creature with a piece of wood in the forests of the state of Washington in 1996, was relayed by Dr. Jonathan Reed to an audience of more than 600 UFO enthusiasts.
I was there. I sat and watched the story unfold with amazement. On the one hand, the story.s nature was fantastic. On the other hand, the behavior of most of the people in attendance showed me how quickly the old adage .Incredible claims require credible proof. can be discarded in favor of unquestioned acceptance of a story that defies logic and common sense. As I listened to Reed, memories of my days as a trial attorney repeatedly flashed through my mind. At that particular moment, I wanted nothing more in life than to have the opportunity to cross-examine him.
In any trial, whether it be civil or criminal, the cross-examination of each witness is a fundamental right afforded both sides. Cross-examination is the most useful tool to assist a jury in determining a witness's credibility. In criminal cases, the right to cross-examine a witness who testifies against a defendant is so fundamental that it is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
While practicing law in New York City for 25 years, first as a prosecutor and then as a defense attorney, I specialized and participated in more than 100 trials. I would discuss with juries in closing arguments (.summations.) that any stranger can walk into a courtroom, take the witness stand, swear to tell the truth, and lie for whatever period of time he or she testifies. It's not that difficult to lie, even while under oath. Some people do it better than others. So how can you tell if a complete stranger, who you only see for maybe one or two hours, is telling you the truth? Hopefully, by the skill of the opposing attorney in cross-examining the witness.
Before a witness is cross-examined, the opposing attorney has completed a thorough investigation into the background of the witness. In addition, all prior statements made by the witness concerning the subject matter are analyzed, all relevant medical, police and scientific reports are gathered, and all other witnesses . including friends, neighbors and business associates of the witness . are interviewed. Thus, the attorney is fully prepared to show any lies, mistakes, errors, and inconsistencies in the witness's trial testimony prior to asking a single question.
So let me use Jonathan Reed as an example. Let's assume that I had the opportunity to cross-examine him after his presentation. Because of space constraints, my cross-examination will be summarized, rather than presented in a .Q & A. format.
I would spend the first part of my cross-examination exploring his background. Some of the criteria of the cross-examination include occupation, employment history, education, present and previous residences, and criminal convictions (arrests are not admissible). Further questions would be on such things as: marital status, military record, drug and alcohol use, as well as any other information obtained through a background check using his date of birth and social security number.
Next, I would question Reed about his interest and involvement with UFOs and related subjects. Did he have any prior experiences? Did he have any interest in the subject? If so, what was that interest? I would also be interested in learning about his views concerning law enforcement and our government.
The next area of cross-examination would involve his story. I would bring out any inconsistencies between what he said on prior occasions, specifically the Art Bell shows that he appeared on, and what he was saying at the conference. But the majority of my questioning would focus on his statements at the conference in order to show his lack of credibility. What follows is a sample of the topics I would explore, and questions I would present in my cross-examination of Reed.
Events prior to the encounter
How long was the trip supposed to be? How much time was to be spent in the forest? How far was the distance traveled? Have you ever been there before? What equipment and supplies did you take and which did you exclude?
Events during encounter
Regarding the creature: What events and circumstances were involved in this encounter? How was the dog involved? How was the alien attacked, and what were the details of his incapacity and recovery? Regarding Reed.s initial actions and activities involving the alien body: Why didn.t he find a place to leave it behind? Why did he take it back home with him?
Regarding the obelisk: What were the events and circumstances of this experience? According to Reed, the obelisk could have been suspended between dimensions. Conveniently, it had not been photographed up close. It.s interesting that Reed presented many photos and even a video. But all footage was taken from afar.
Regarding the artifact: I.d question the events and circumstances of the discovery, possession, and concealment of the alien artifact, referred to as "The Link," which was found by Reed at the scene of the alien attack. The bracelet still exists, but it.s hidden where some unidentified evil empire cannot find it.
Events subsequent to encounter
Why didn't Reed initially report the incident to the authorities? Theoretically, if someone breaks into your house, and you shoot the person, you don't take the time to make a video of the intruder's body. Instead, you call the authorities. It.s interesting how one of the first things Reed did when arriving back at his apartment was to videotape the creature, as if he knew it would not be available for future examination. Further, I.d question the details of the nine days in which the creature was in his home.
Alleged criminal activities
The events and circumstances surrounding the burglary of his apartment, the attack of his friend, the death of another friend and his own shooting, all need to be questioned. Were these events reported to the police? If not, why not? Prior to cross-examination I would have obtained the police reports and/or medical reports, or know if there weren't any. Were the police and medical reports consistent with his story?
Videos and photographs
I would question the circumstances surrounding the videos and photographs. All such evidence would also be subject to expert analysis, to determine genuineness of content and possible alteration.
Activities since the creature.s disappearance
This line of questions should address his statements about the .Alliance.. Reed continually referred to this underground support group, which, of course, could not be discussed at the presentation for fear of reprisals. It.s interesting how their identities were not compromised by the gratuitous acknowledgement of their existence.
His demeanor while telling the story
It was obvious that Reed was intentionally playing to the crowd. Many in the audience were eagerly accepting his story, lapping on his continuous applause and standing ovations, as if on cue. Reed, while describing his experiences, would alternate between a variety of emotions: tears, anger, indignation, and laughter.
Discussions and/or agreements for a movie or TV series
Reed.s story had all the elements of a pilot for a prospective TV series. I can envision it this way: .The Link. involves the search for an alien artifact hidden by the good guys from the evil empire and the ETs who misplaced it. Why did Reed decide to appear on Art Bell.s radio program instead of a program like 60 Minutes? Had Reed thought of hiring an attorney and calling a press conference when the bracelet-like device was still in his possession? Didn.t he consider it a .smoking gun.?
Concluding remarks
The above examples are presented to give the reader an idea of the scope of questions that should be asked and answered before anyone accepts Reed.s story as the truth. In a trial, where you are the juror attempting to determine the truthfulness of Reed.s story, wouldn.t you want to hear both sides to explore all the issues? Wouldn.t you want all the facts before you were to reach a verdict? Why should ufology be any different? Actually, shouldn.t the discipline be held to a higher standard, due to a history of false claims?