12:01 Witness Karmoh Kanneh confronted with inconsistent prior statements

9:33 (10:03 with the delay in video and audio): Court is in session.

Defense Counsel Terry Munyard continues his cross-examination of prosecution witness Karmoh Kanneh:

Def: You were telling us yesterday that you had been in Liberia on two occasions fighting against LURD. It was on the first of those occasions in 1998 that you saw Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh. When in 1998?

Wit: That was the first mission I spoke about, when I went with Sam Bockarie.

Def: When in 1998 was this first mission to fight the LURD?

Wit: That happened just after the intervention, around April, around that time.

Def: Around April 1998, LURD have invaded Liberia and you’re on a mission there to fight them?

Wit: Yes.

Def: I suggest that LURD did not invade Liberia until 1999. Do you think you may have the facts wrong by a whole year?

Wit: No, it was in 1998, just after the intervention that they invaded.

Def: When did you first tell the prosecution about seeing Zigzag Marzah having a dinner of human flesh?

Wit: I told the prosecution I saw Zigzag at the time of the attack.

Def: When did you first tell the prosecution you saw him eating human flesh?

Wit: I can’t recall, but it is in my statements. Different people took different statements.

Def: What did you tell the prosecution about Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh?

Wit: They asked me whether I knew him, and I said yes. During my explanation, I made those comments. They asked how I knew him and I explained.

Def: Had you ever seen any other person eating human flesh before this incident with Marzah?

Wit: That was my first time to see that happen.

Def: And since that time?

Wit: No.

Def: Is it fair to say that it was a very shocking sight to you?

Wit: Too much.

Def: I think you’re agreeing with me that it was a shocking sight?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Something that would never have gone out of your mind?

Wit: Not at all.

Def: Would you agree it is the most important thing you could tell people about Zigzag Marzah?

Wit: Yes.

Def: And that’s why you told the prosecutors this about Zigzag Marzah?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Coming forward in time to this year, were you aware that Zigzag Marzah gave evidence before this court?

Wit: No.

Def: Is that an honest answer?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Do you listen to the BBC?

Wit: It’s been a long time I have not been listening.

Def: Do you read newspapers?

Wit: No.

Def: Do you ever watch television?

Wit: Sometimes football matches.

Def: Did you hear anything at all in the news about Zigzag Marzah’s evidence before this court in March this year?

Wit: No. It’s now that I’ve heard that he’s been here.

Def: What do you mean by now?

Wit: As you ask me whether Zigzag came here, it’s as a result of the question you asked.

Def: Today is the first time you’ve heard?

Wit: Yes.

Def: You mentioned Zigzag Marzah in more than one interview with the prosecution?

Wit: I don’t believe.

Def: Can you remember when it was that you first told the prosecution that Zigzag Marzah ate human flesh?

Wit: I can’t recall the time now.

Def: [references document] This is from March 2007: “Witness also knows Zigzag Marzah, who was also a Liberian NPFL commander.” Did you tell the prosecution that?

Wit: No.

Def: Did you tell the prosecution in March 2007 that you knew Zigzag Marzah?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Did you tell them that he was sent most times from Monrovia to the RUF commanders?

Wit: No.

Def: What did you tell them about him?

Wit: They asked if I knew him, and I said yes, that he was a commander in the NPFL.

Def: Did you tell them anything else?

Wit: Later, when they asked what he was doing that I explained.

Def: Later in the same interview or on a later occasion?

Wit; I said he was one of the commanders in Liberia. It was through the interviews they asked what he did and I explained the details.

Def: “Witness saw Zigzag in Lofa during attack by LURD…also saw Zigzag on all trips he made to Monrovia…saw Zigzag up to three times in RUF territories.” Did you tell them that?

Wit: [Yes to first two, no to third.]

Def: Did you tell them anything about seeing him in RUF territories.

Wit: I told them about seeing him in Pendembu.

Def: You only saw him once in RUF territory?

Wit: Yes.

Def: What led the interviewers to write that you saw him up to three times in RUF territories?

Wit: I can’t recall anything like that.

Def: We have hand-written notes for this interview and there isn’t any correction to any of these sentences about Marzah. Do you remember them reading it back to you?

Wit: No.

Def: Do you agree that when they read it back to you, you made no corrections?

Wit: I can’t recall whether that was read out to me, that I saw Zigzag three times.

Def: “Witness states that Zigzag mostly travels together with Jungle to Sierra Leone”. Did you tell them that?

Wit: No.

Def: [laughs] So this is pure invention?

Wit: Yes.

Def: You didn’t correct them.

Wit: They put it there.

Def: They just made it up?

Wit: Yes.

Def: [laughs] Was it this time that you told them about Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh?

Wit: No.

Def: When was it?

Wit: I think I added that here. It was because they asked me about his activities. I told them I saw him in Lofa and Monrovia. They asked be about his behaviors and activities.

Def: What did you add?

Wit: The eating of the human flesh.

Def: When?

Wit: I think it was in April when I was here.

Def: It was discussed in April?

Wit: When I went on prepping, they asked about what people did, and I recalled.

Def: What do you mean, “when I went on prepping”?

Wit: When they read through what I said before for me to confirm it. If you recall other things, you add them.

Def: They read what you’d said before for you to see it, understand it, and confirm it? So they read through all your previous statements?

Wit: They read everything when I came.

Def: Read it to you?

Wit: Most of the things I have seen, yes.

Def: I want you to explain to us in detail what exactly happens in these prepping sessions so that we can understand how you’ve come to give this evidence. Did they start by reading your first statement?

Wit: You explain the things you’ve been explaining before, and they check it in your statements.

Def: So they read the statements?

Wit: As you explain, they work through your statements.

Def: Did they read back your statements to you, so that you can correct anything is wrong?

Wit: Yes.

Def: And indeed, we have a series of line-by-line corrections you have made to various statements. About the second interview, I read passages from that yesterday that you said you had never told the prosecution – that they recorded it wrongly but you had failed to correct it when they read back to you. Why then, when it was read back to you in these prepping sessions, didn’t you correct the errors then?

Wit: That was the mistake I did. There are those they did not read out to me.

Def: Are you telling us they only read some of your statements and not others?

Wit: The way I see the paper now, yes sir.

Def: The prosecution read your statements to you, you told us. [references document] Here it says “Corrections to Previous Statements” and they relate to your statements of 8 and 10 March 2008. There’s a list mainly of names being spelled differently, but there are some other minor corrections. On the next page, corrections to statements of October and November 2007. They read that statement to you, and you corrected how long you’d been in school?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Then there are various other minor corrections. Finally on that page: Corrections to statement of March 2007. That is the statement we’re considering at the moment. The only correction made: “one civilian” should read “one battalion commander”, in reference to a person named Good Good Thing. You corrected that?

Wit: Yes.

Def: So they read all of that statement of 27 March 2007 back to you and that was the one correction you made?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Why didn’t you correct them about what they read to you concerning Zigzag Marzah if they’d invented the fact that he and Jungle traveled most times together to Sierra Leone?

Wit: Maybe I did not get it clearly when it was read to me, or I would have made the correction.

Def: Could it be that you knew perfectly well that that was what you told prosecutors in March last year, and therefore there was no need to correct it?

Wit: No.

Def: Didn’t you say to them, well I told you before in one of my interviews that I saw Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh. Why wasn’t that written?

Wit: If I understood it well when it was read to me, I would have made the correction.

Def: You’ve given us two accounts this morning: one is that you did tell them that you’d seen Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh, and then you said you didn’t say that until you were here being prepped. Which do you want the judges to believe?

Wit: Your statement is too long. You have to make them short.

Def: I’ve been trying to be as short as possible. You told us that when you were interviewed, you told them about Zigzag Marzah ate human flesh?

Wit: In my first statement?

Def: You told the court it was something you said in one of your interviews.

Wit: No. He asked me whether the time I was shocked when I saw Zigzag eat human flesh. I said yes. It was when you asked me, not when they interviewed me.

Def: What were you asked in prepping about Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh?

Wit: They asked me what people did, and if I recalled I added it. It was not in my original statement, I just added it.

Def: Were you asked in prepping, “Did you see Zigzag Marzah eat human flesh”?

Wit: No, I added it.

Def: It just came to your mind during prepping?

Wit: It was not all I knew that was in the paper. Not everything is in the paper. If I recall something else, they would add it.

Def: We’ll look at the prepping information. [references document] This is the interview in which you talk about Zigzag Marzah. Presumably it was when they went over the passage we were just looking at that they then asked you what Zigzag did in April 1998. Am I right that it was when reviewing this part that they asked what you’d seen Zigzag doing?

Wit: There is a statement you have added that I have not said. Zigzag was not LURD forces, and I did not say that. I did not say Zigzag was a member of the LURD forces.

Def: I was trying to summarize the passage we were looking at. I meant that you saw Zigzag in Lofa during the attack by LURD. Was it when they were reading back this passage that you added the information about him eating human flesh?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Were they writing down or typing as you spoke?

Wit: No, they were writing it on a different paper.

Def: Are you sure about this – April of this year, just after Zigzag Marzah had given his evidence? They were writing by hand?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Maybe what you told them about Zigzag hasn’t made it onto the printed page, but we haven’t seen any handwritten notes. We have no record of you saying a word about that in any of these prepping sessions. Why, if you told them that, didn’t it appear on the typed version of your corrections?

Wit: I can’t give a reason for that. It was up to them. I said it in that particular area.

Def: [References document.] This is from a “proofing session” in April this year. There’s not a word in there about Zigzag Marzah. [references another document from April 2008] And there’s not a word about Zigzag in there. These proofing or prepping sessions all occurred shortly after Zigzag Marzah had given his evidence, which was widely broadcast around the world. Are you saying you never heard from anyone that Zigzag Marzah was here testifying and spoke about eating human flesh?

Wit: Not a day.

Def: You’ve never told the prosecution about Zigzag Marzah eating human flesh before coming into this court, have you?

Wit: Yes.

Def: [references document] This is an interview from 8 and 10 March of this year. You mention Zigzag there, and say that Ibrahim Bah and Zigzag Marzah visited Bockarie in Buedu after the intervention. Did you tell them that?

Wit: I made mention of General Ibrahim, but I did not make mention about Zigzag Marzah.

Def: So this is yet another error by the prosecution?

Wit: Yes.

Def: You have mentioned Ibrahim Bah, and they have invented a second visitor to Bockarie in the person of Zigzag Marzah?

Wit: Yes. It’s also a doubt to me. He was not a part of that group.

Def: [references another document] On 14 and 15 April of this year, you corrected this statement we’ve just been looking at, and you corrected the name of a village in that same paragraph. You remember?

Wit: Yes.

Def: So why didn’t you tell them you never said you saw Zigzag Marzah visit Bockarie?

Wit: I didn’t get it.

Def: During these sessions, when you’re being interviewed or prepped, were you told what other witnesses had said in their statements or evidence?

Wit: Not a day. Nobody told me that.

Def: I want to go back to the question of arms shipments. You were a senior commander in the RUF for how long?

Wit: I became battalion commander in 1998, after the intervention.

Def: Shortly after the intervention?

Wit: Yes.

Def: You’ve told us about the RUF receiving arms from Monrovia via Foya. Are you aware of arms through any other route from Liberia?

Wit: No.

Def: Or from Burkina Faso?

Wit: Yes, I knew that. It was after the Fitti Fata Operation, around the end of 1998.

Def: How were those arms delivered from Burkina Faso to the RUF?

Wit: They came through Liberia before it got to the RUF zone.

Def: How?

Wit: We saw Sam Bockarie. When he came he told us he came through Liberia. He came to our zone.

Def: Is this the meeting you told us earlier in your evidence, when Bockarie showed you arms and materials from Burkina Faso?

Wit: Yes.

Def: How did he travel with these arms from Burkina Faso to Liberia and then to your ground?

Wit: He didn’t explain how he traveled to Liberia. but he said Taylor arranged it. I can tell you how he came into Sierra Leone.

Def: How?

Wit: Through the Foya route.

Def: Helicopter, road?

Wit: He did not tell us that because the helicopter would not come into Sierra Leone. He landed in Foya, and from there they got the items into Sierra Leone.

Def: Do you know a place called Magburaka?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Were you aware of arms coming into there?

Wit: I heard, but did not see it.

Def: From whom did you hear it?

Wit: From Issa Sesay in 1997.

Def: What about arms, materials, or money from Libya? Did you ever hear about that?

Wit: No.

Def: You told us Sankoh was going to go to Libya in 1997. What was he going for?

Wit: On a political tour.

Def: Was he going anywhere else?

Wit: He told us about Libya and Nigeria.

Def: He didn’t tell you about any other places?

Wit: No.

Def: I asked you about the last occasion when you went to Monrovia. You told us it was August or September 2000. I think you said yesterday that you had not gone to Monrovia on that occasion for materials?

Wit: Yes.

Def: So what was the purpose of that trip to Monrovia?

Wit: I led the troop from Sierra Leone after we’d attacked and succeeded in Voinjama. So Benjamin told me to go meet the president.

Def: So it wasn’t a trip you made with Issa Sesay for materials?

Wit: yes.

Def: Are you agreeing with me that it wasn’t a trip you made with Issa Sesay to Monrovia for materials?

Wit: Not for materials.

Def: At this stage Issa Sesay and Sam Bockarie were not speaking with each other?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Did they meet on that occasion?

Wit: No.

Def: [references document] This is from 28 March 2007: “Witness states that during third trip he made to Monrovia with Issa Sesay for materials, Bockarie was already there.” Did you tell them you were going to Monrovia for materials?

Wit: No.

Def: Why didn’t you correct it?

Wit: They asked how many times I’d been involved in arms business in Liberia. I said three times, but it wasn’t Monrovia.

Def: Did they tell them you’d gone with Issa Sesay for materials?

Wit: I did not go with Issa Sesay, I went with Director.

Def: Did you go for materials?

Wit: No.

Def: So that’s the third error in that line. Did you tell them that Bockarie was already there after he left the RUF?

Wit: Yes.

Def: So they got that right, but made three mistakes. Why didn’t you correct them?

Wit: It was due to a mistake on my part that I did not correct them.

Def: Or could it be that it’s because it was correct and there was no need for corrections?

Wit: No.

Def: The next sentence: “During that trip, Bockarie met Sesay and the witness at Yeaten’s house.” Did you tell them that?

Wit: No.

Def: How many errors are there in that sentence? Did Bockarie meet Issa Sesay?

Wit: Not correct. He went there before I got there.

Def: This is wrong because Sam Bockarie never met Issa Sesay then. Why didn’t you correct that?

Wit: It’s a mistake that I didn’t correct it. Had I recalled, I would have made the correction. They didn’t allow them to see each other.

Def: Who didn’t allow it?

Wit: The Director did not allow Mosquito and Issa Sesay to see each other.

Def: So the prosecution has invented that you said this?

Wit: If I said it, then it’s a mistake.

Def: So you might have said it?

Wit: Yes, but it’s a mistake.

Def: Do you accept that you might have said all of these things that you’ve said today are mistakes?

Wit: No, I did not say all of them, but this one I can recall a little.

Def: What did you mean by saying “That is a mistake that I did not correct because it was just a day and a half that this was read to me”?

Wit: It was hastily done. It was a day and a half that that thing was read to me.

Def: What do you mean?

Wit: One and a half days since my arrival here.

Def: A day and a half after your arrival here, or a day and a half ago?

Wit: After I had arrived here, the first time they read my statement to me.

Def: What date?

Wit: I can’t recall the date that that happened. I came here on the 9th.

Def: You arrived on the 9th?

Wit: Yes.

Def: The proofing session at which you looked at these statements started on the 14th and 15th of April. The 14th is six days after you arrived, so it wasn’t a day and a half.

Wit: It was the 14th and 15th, just like you’ve said.

Judge Doherty: Is the witness saying the proofing took one and a half days?

Def: You said earlier that it was one and a half days after you arrived that there was the proofing session. Are you saying that the proofing session started a day and a half after your arrival, or that it lasted for a day and a half.

Wit: The 14th and the 15th – the first day took all day and the next day it ended earlier.

Judge Doherty: You came here on the 9th of April. When was the first proofing session?

Wit: The 14th.

Judge Doherty: How long did it last?

Wit; The first day we were there for the rest of the day, and the second day we went off early.

Def: And then there were a number of other proofing sessions?

Wit: We used to meet. I don’t know whether they were proofing sessions.

Def: [references documents] Proofing went on up until the 23rd of April.

Wit: We used to meet, but I don’t know if that’s what you call it.

Def: Yesterday you described all the weapons you obtained on that third trip to Monrovia. You remember?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Tell us again what they included.

Wit: AK rounds, AK weapons, RPGs and rockets, grenades and other materials. And money.

Def: You’ve just mentioned grenades?

Wit: No, I mentioned it yesterday. Maybe you didn’t take not of it.

Def: I don’t believe you did mention grenades yesterday. [pause while checking transcript] Yes, you did say grenades – you’re absolutely right. Was it just ammunition that you brought back on that third trip?

Wit: Ammunition and weapons.

Def: Just ammunition and money?

Wit: And arms. AK is a weapon. I mentioned all of that yesterday.

Def: [pause] [references document] This was additional information you gave the prosecution on 23 April, about three weeks ago. Were they writing down what you said?

Wit: Maybe if you read it, I can recall if they were writing.

Def: Try and think back. This is the last occasion you saw the prosecutors and you gave them more information. During each of those proofing sessions, how did the prosecution record what you were saying?

Wit: They were writing it down.

Def: Yesterday you said it was by hand, on a piece of paper?

Wit: Yes.

Def: “Witness said that with regard to the time he met Bockarie in Monrovia, this was during the time Sesay was in power in the RUF.” You said that?

Wit: Yes.

Def: “His third mission to Monrovia”?

Wit: No, to Liberia.

Def: “In Monrovia, Yeaten called a formation”?

Wit: It was not in Monrovia, but Kolahun.

Def: “Yeaten introduced Col. Stanley and Liberian Mosquito”?

Wit: Yes.

Def: “They waited 2-3 days then went to Kolahun.”?

Wit: Voinjama. We had been in Kolahun whilst we were waiting.

Def: So they got that wrong?

Wit: Yes, this Monrovia and Liberia, that is where the complication always is.

Def: Now they’ve got Kolahun when they should have written Voinjama?

Wit: Yes.

Def: “Bockarie himself joined the group and arrived with more materials from Taylor”?

Wit: Yes.

Def: “The group attacked Voinjama.”?

Wit: Yes.

Def: “There was serious fighting that evening…LURD received heavy casualities and retreated to Guinea…Witness later went with Yeaten to Monrovia to see Issa Sesay. Sesay went to see Taylor and received 50,000 and ammunition”?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Did you see the money?

Wit: He told me. The money was in a bag.

Def: “Witness saw the money and Sesay said he got it from the pa.”?

Wit: I saw the money but it was in a bag. We didn’t count it.

Def: “It was sometime in 2000…the ammo and money were taken to Kono.”?

Wit: Yes.

Def: But you told us yesterday and today that there were weapons as well…

[Brief interruption in video and audio.]

Def: “That was the reason for the ammo and money they had collected in Monrovia.” You never mentioned arms in relation to that third visit by you when you were interviewed, did you?

Wit: I did not talk about arms, but that was my intention.

Def: You told us yesterday and in your earlier evidence that Mr. Taylor was concerned about how much Sam Bockarie knew. That’s right?

Wit: How Sam Bockarie knew what?

Def: About the connection between Mr. Taylor and the RUF.

Wit: How Sam Bockarie knew?

Def: [references yesterday’s transcript] “He said that Taylor had had a lot of pressure from the international community to hand over Sam Bockarie. He would explain all the details of what he knew to the Special Court. After that day he was released again and returned to his house.” Bockarie was telling you in the year 2000 that Mr. Taylor was concerned that Sam Bockarie would explain everything to the Speical Court?

Wit: I said Sam Bockarie was concerned about what Mr. Taylor had told him. Mr. Taylor was not concerned.

Def: You said that Sam Bockarie would explain to the Special Court?

Wit: No, I did not talk about Mr. Taylor’s concern. I did not mention that.

Def: I’m going to ask about just one part. These are your words: “He would explain that to the Special Court”. You said that yesterday?

Wit: Yes.

Def: You were recounting a discussion you’d had with Bockarie in August or September 2000?

Wit: Yes.

Def: The Special Court didn’t exist then.

Wit: They’d already said the Special Court was for those men. It was not in 2000 that the Special Court had started.

Def: At the time we’re talking about, Mr. Taylor was planning to make Bockarie the leader of the RUF again?

Wit: Yes, they suggested that.

Def: That was what he wanted to do, according to you?

Wit: That was not what he wanted to do. I heard it from the Director that that was what the pa wanted to do.

Def: You said “Sesay called witness to Kono, and he was not to allow disarmament to take place in Kailahun. Taylor given him a mission to go to Guinea, and that was the reason for the ammo and money.”

Wit: Yes.

Def: Whose idea was it not to allow disarmament in Kailahun?

Wit: The Pa. He passed the order.

Def: Who passed the order?

Wit: Issa Sesay passed the order to me, the Pa.

Def: Whose order was it. Where did it originate?

Wit: He said Mr. Ghankay had told him we should carry out the mission. So he told me we should not carry out the disarmament.

Def: [references document] These are the questions and answers from an interview with you in November last year. “Do you know if Taylor gave any orders during the time of disarmament?”

Wit: No.

Def: Answer: “no I don’t know”. Did you give that answer?

Wit; I don’t know

Def: Is it correct that you do not know of any orders Taylor gave during disarmament?

Wit: No.

Def: That’s not correct?

Wit: No.

Judge Doherty: These double negatives are confusing.

Def: Towards the end of last year you were interviewed for two days by ____ Streeter and Christopher Santora?

Wit: Yes.

Def: Do you remember being asked the question of whether you knew of Taylor giving orders during disarmament?

Wit: No, I can’t recall.

Def: They record below the question, “No, I don’t know.” Is that answer accurate?

Wit: Not at all.

Judge Doherty: When you say not at all, do you mean you did not say those words, or do you say that you don’t know that orders came from Taylor?

Wit: I did not know if Taylor gave orders about disarmament.

Def: So it would not be right to say that the order from Issa Sesay not to disarm came from the Pa?

Wit: Yes, because I heard it from Issa Sesay, not from the Pa.

Def: Did Issa Sesay say the order came from the Pa?

Wit: No.

Def: I want to ask now about some meetings you told us you’d attended. The first of these meetings you say took place at Giema, at Sam Bockarie’s house. This is when Sankoh was just about to go on his political tour. Remember telling us about that?

Wit: I don’t remember saying it was Payema.

Def: Where do you say that first meeting took place?

Wit: Giema.

Def: It may have been my mispronunciation, but we’re agreed on Giema. What did Sankoh tell you he was going for?

Wit: He said he was going on a political tour. At that time the peace had been signed.

Def: This is in early 1997?

Wit: No.

Def: When?

Wit: 1996.

Def: When in 1996?

Wit: Late 1996.

Def: Before or after the Abidjan Peace Accord?

Wit: After.

Def: It’s an agreed fact that that was 30 November 1996. So it was sometime in December?

Wit: It could be around that.

Def: Can you remember ever saying it was the dry season of 1997?

Wit: No.

Def: [references document] You were asked where the meeting was held, you said the meeting was in dry season, Jan-Feb 1997?

Wit: No.

Def: Did you correct that when it was read back to you?

Wit: I’m not sure they read this to me.

Def: You’ve already told us that at the end of every interview they read it back to you.

Wit; This was not read to me.

Def: You also said that all your statements were read back to you in the proofing sessions?

Wit: Yes, but this was not read to me.

Def: [references document] “Corrections to Statement of interview of 31 October 2007” You already confirmed to us that you mad corrections to this interview during proofing, so it’s quite wrong to say this was not read back to you, isn’t it?

Wit: No.

Def: Was this particular answer read back to you at any time? – that it was in the dry season on 1997?

Wit: When Sankoh came to Giema? No.

Def: So that’s never been read back to you?

Wit: They did not read that out to me.

Def: The page on which you tell them the time of the meeting was read back to you. We can see from the list of corrections, you corrected paragraph 11 of that page regarding mining. So do you agree that this interview was read back to you in full or not?

Wit; Which one, about the mining?

Def: The whole interview.

Wit: The one about Sankoh coming in January 1997, I can’t recall them reading that back to me. I would have corrected it. Not at all.

11:31 (12:01 with the delay in video and audio): Court is now adjourning for the mid-morning break.