2nd Session: Griffiths Establishes Inconsistencies in Statements and Testimony

The Hague,

October 20, 2008

Statement to the OTP dated October 29, 2003

Lead Defense Counsel Courtenay Griffiths continued his cross-examination. Griffiths took the witness through her first statement with an investigator of the Prosecution of the Special Court dated October 29, 2003. At the time Edna was 19 years old. Griffiths read through the statement and asked each time whether the statement was true or not. In case of a non true statement the sentence(s) or part of a sentence were highlighted. There are different marks for: a) if the untrue statement was made by the witness, b) if the untrue statement was a mistake by the interviewer and c) if the witness did not remember it to be a or b.


There were many inconsistencies, some of which pertain to the following:

  • In the statement Edna said she was raped by four men, in Court she stated she was raped by three men. Three is correct.
  • According to statements by other witnesses before this Court Monica Pearson was never in a training camp in Buedu. The closest she was ever to Buedu was at a camp called Bonumbu, 14 miles from Buedu. Edna insisted she was trained by Monica and explained that her training camp was not in but near Buedu Town, but she cannot give an exact estimate to the amount of miles that separates the two. She does not know if the name of her camp was Bonumbu.
  • There is some confusion about Edna’s “husbands”. “On a previous occasion” (for an explanation, please see information on this issue posted on this web log last Friday, October 17, 2008, second session) the witness mentioned two husbands named Ali and Musa. This morning she mentioned Ray and Musa. Edna stated that Ali and Musa are the same person. Griffiths subsequently referred to a transcript of previous proceedings of this Court (“the other occasion”) where the witness was called to name her husbands as A and B. Prosecutor Santora objected and said it referred to two men who raped her. Presiding Judge Doherty ruled that, as the witness referred to herself as being the wife of one of the names, that would make him her husband. Both names were exhibited and Griffiths put the two exhibits before the witness. Edna agreed it was her writing. A is C.O. Musa and B is C.O. Ali. Edna explained that she was only a short while with C.O. Ray before he died and that she therefore not considered him a “husband”. She was then with Ali and after Ali’s death with Musa. When Griffiths asked her why this morning she called her two husbands Ray and Musa and not Ali and Musa, she answered that she was confused by his questions. Griffiths then pointed out “that it was the nice gentleman on the other side who put the questions before you and not I”. The two pages are both without date and signature but have cover sheets from SCMS and are marked for identification as MFI-1 and MFI-2.

At this point in her testimony Court is adjourned at 1.30 p.m. for lunch break.


  1. The interview was interesting but I wished you had asked questions such as “Where are the billions of dollars you said Mr. Taylor had.” (B) If he indeed received so many diamonds from Sierra Leone ” How come you have not shown in evidence where he sold these diamonds or did he keep them under his mattress ” (C) How do you justify spending over 70 million dollars on this trial when the amputees and victims of the war have to beg on the streets of Freetown?

Comments are closed.