Charles Taylor Denies Sending Fighters To Destabilize Ivory Coast

Charles Taylor did not send fighters to destablize neighbouring Ivory Coast, the accused former Liberian president told Special Court for Sierra Leone judges today.

Mr. Taylor, who stands accused of supporting rebel forces in Sierra Leone, was responding to prosecution allegations that he had an agenda to destabilize the West African sub-region by not only supporting Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels in Sierra Leone, but that he also gave similar support to other rebel forces in the Ivory Coast. Lead prosecutor, Brenda Hollis, today read several reports in court which alleged that Mr. Taylor did send fighters to Ivory Coast in support of rebel groups in that country. Mr. Taylor dismissed all the reports as “totally incorrect.”

Reading from a May 2005 Frontline World news interview with Mr. Taylor’s former defense minister Daniel Cheah, Ms. Hollis quoted Mr. Cheah as saying that “On the Ivorian issue, when I realised that militia forces from Liberia were involved, I talked to him [Mr. Taylor] one day… and I said ‘Look, before going into an area, you must have an objective, either military or political, and in this case, we have none. We have our own issues, we are under attack by LURD [Liberians United for Reconciliation and Development] forces.’ And he said to me, ‘Well, Dan, sometimes there are things that you do not understand. There are too many things happening in this region, and sometimes you can be consumed, and you can be assured that whatever it is will get under control.'”

Mr. Taylor dismissed the news report as “untrue.”

“That is not right. This is an interview. No one knows who conducted the interview, no one knows this paper. My minister of defense, knowing that I was fighting a war, could not have said this to me,” Mr. Taylor said.

Ms. Hollis also read a portion of the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) report in which it is stated that “October 21, 2002: The incursion by Benjamin Yeaten, Joe Tuah, Edward Zarmey, Joe Walloe, Osebeo Dehmin, and Mathew Karn into Ivory Coast on the mandate of Charles Taylor. The purpose of the incursion was to act as mercenaries for Philip Doh. A number of people died in the operation, including those who refused to sign on.”

Mr. Taylor also dismissed the TRC’s findings as untrue, saying that it is merely somebody’s opinion.

“That’s total nonsense. Totally incorrect. This is an opinion of somebody that has not been tested in this court. Totally incorrect,” he said.

Also read in court by Ms. Hollis was an April 2003 report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) which revealed that after the assassination of the Ivory Coast’s former military ruler, Robert Guei, Mr. Taylor sent fighters to assist Mr. Guei’s supporters who had promised to revenge the former military ruler’s death.

“At least 500 fighters from Mr. Taylor’s former NPFL [National Patriotic Front of Liberia] rebel group, from the Sierra Leone RUF and ‘able bodied men and women trained in Nimba County, apparently crossed into Danane to join fighters that had been loyal to General Guei. Liberians in Nimba County reportedly saw Taylor’s commanders Benjamen Yeaten and Roland Duo take truckloads of Liberian fighters recruited in Nimba County to Danene late at night every week following Guei’s death,” the report said.

In his response to the ICG report, Mr. Taylor said that “I diasgree with everything you have read here. I disagree with this… it is warped. It is totally incorrect, everything that you have read.”

Ms. Hollis further read from the 2003 United Nations Panel of Experts report in which it was alleged that rebel forces in Ivory Coast admitted that they had received support from Mr. Taylor.

“Political leaders of the forces nouvelle acknowledged to the panel that they had asked for and received support from Charles Taylor,” the UN Expert’s report read.

Mr. Taylor again dismissed the contents of the report as “totally incorrect.”

While Mr. Taylor is being tried for his alleged support to RUF rebel forces in Sierra Leone, prosecutors have sought to establish that Mr. Taylor had a policy to destabilize the West African sub-region by supporting rebel groups in various countries including in Ivory Coast. To establish that Mr. Taylor’s activities in Sierra Leone were of a consistent pattern, prosecutors have tried to lead evidence on his alleged activities in Ivory Coast, arguing that it was similar to that of his alleged support to RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor has maintained that his involvement in these countries was merely to enhance peace in the sub-region. Ms. Hollis said otherwise.

“Mr. Taylor, in the Ivory Coast, while you were publicly presenting yourself as working for peace, you were in fact involved in escalating and continuing the conflict in Ivory Coast…And in fact Mr. Taylor, that is similar to your approach regarding Sierra Leone, isn’t it?” Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor responded that “that is not correct.”

Also in his cross-examination today, Mr. Taylor dismissed suggestions that he ordered the execution of RUF commander Sam Bockarie because he knew that Mr. Bockarie had been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone and he did not want Mr. Bockarie in the hands of the court.

While denying that he ordered the execution of Mr. Bockarie, Mr. Taylor also insisted that at the time of Mr. Bockarie’s death in 2003, he did not know that Mr. Bockarie had been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Ms. Hollis read news reports which revealed that as of March 10, 2003, seven people had been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone and this included Mr. Bockarie. Mr. Taylor insisted that he did not hear the news reports.

“I did not hear the announcement,” Mr. Taylor said.

“With all due respect counsel, I was not aware of the list of people that had been indicted,” the former president added.

Ms. Hollis also read a BBC news article which indicated that after the arrests of some people who had been indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a public request was also made that any government in the possession of two accused persons who remained at large, including Mr. Bockarie, were to be handed over to the court. Mr. Taylor also maintained that he was not aware of the request.

“Truthfully, I was not aware.”

Mr. Taylor is responding to charges that he was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor has denied allegations that he supplied arms and ammunition to the rebels in return for Sierra Leone’s blood diamonds and that he helped them plan certain operations during which atrocities such as rape, murder and amputation of civilian arms were committed. From July 14 to November 10, 2009, Mr. Taylor testified in direct-examination as a witness in his own defense.

Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination continues tomorrow.


  1. BRAVO! Ms. Hollis, this man Charles Taylor has lied so much, and their is no where to hide, keep charging we are seeing this man is coming to a breaking point. their is enought evidance admitted for identifications by these judges that would only leads to IMPEACHMENT & QUILT!

    1. Everybody has an opinion, but in the court of law opinion means nothing. What matters are the totality and the weight of the evidences in a criminal proceeding. Brenda Hollis is presenting document (Not evidence) to be identified and marked by the judges. Most of those documents for identifications are contradicting. Take for example; Hollis submitted a document from Kabba to be identify indicating that President Taylor was supporting the RUF. However, while under direct examination the defense introduced into evidence a letter from Kabba thanking President Taylor for the efforts towards bringing peace to Sierra Leone.

      When the prosecution is finished with her cross examination, the defense will rehabilitate her witness. You can rest assured Perry Mason will punch a hole in each and ever one of Hollis’ contradicting questions. Hollis had her fact all twisted. She attempted to introduce a document for identification with the name of Joe Wyle as one of Taylor’s generals. The fact of the matter, Joe Wyle, was a LURD general, and during the transitional government was one of the ministers of Defense. In addition, Hollis had another document for identification from the Mayor of Bomi County (I stand corrected) accusing President Taylor army of atrocities. The fact of the matter, the Government of Liberia never had control or was in Bomi during the time and date of the letter.

      I can go on and on, with the paradoxical cross examination of Hollis, but I will leave the rest to Perry Mason.

      We shouldn’t take our eyes off the ball. The prosecution has to prove her case, the 11 counts indictment. Hollis can rigmarole all she wants, but at the end of the day the prosecution has to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. So, to all you Taylor haters all of a sudden coming out of the wood works, talking loud and saying nothing, because your think that Hollis is gaining ground, this case is far from over.

    2. Ziggy Salis,

      Bravo for what? Nothing has she done, but to continue to read fake documents from sources that were never under any oath in their wrinting or statement. You wish she had done something great like her counterpart, Counselor Griffith. By the way, what lie has president Taylor told that is known to be facts through documents? Please answer this simple question

    3. Even if Taylor is not convicted in this trial, the national security of the West African region and Liberia demands that he remains incarcerated for his lifetime.

      If Taylor were to be tried for his crimes in Liberia, it would unearth too many secrets of our foreign “allies” who brought Taylor to power and sustained him.

      But who can Liberians blame? When Tolbert was there, Liberians cried, “help! help! help!” Doe got there, Liberians still cried “help! Help! Help!” So there were only a few Liberians, including Taylor, brave enough to challenge Doe. In it all, I take my hat off to the Late Elmer Johnson, who was a true patriot and son of Liberia. Then when Taylor got there, and after sing the loyalty songs to Taylor, Liberians started to cry “help! Help! help!” again.

      So, getting rid of Taylor was also in our foreign “allies’” best interests for “peace and quietness” in Liberia and the region. Also, he and his boyz were stealing too much, ignoring the plight of the masses of Liberian people, and becoming an international problem. Moreover, Taylor was incapable of maintaining the “peaceful and quiet” Liberia our foreign “allies” wanted and needed, so he had to go! And our own GW Bush was not taking any nonsense about it. Taylor sensed that and went flying out of Liberia.

      Now, knowing quite well that Taylor is incapable of staying silent or quiet, out of sight, and/or our of politics in Liberia; and knowing that Taylor’s intervention, involvement, and/or participation in the political affairs in Liberia and/or the region will result in more of the same problems and the possible destabilization of the region and Liberia again, it is in the best interests of the international community, America, ECOWAS, Liberia and the region to have Taylor remain in jail for his lifetime; not primarily for Liberia’s or Sierra Leone’s sake but for the sake of keeping “peace and quiet” in the region so as not to cause our foreign “allies” any more headaches.

      I may be wrong, but let’s watch and see!

      ALUTA CONTINUA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. I think only George W. Bush would make taylor confess correctly had we the chance to send him to “abu grail Prison”to get taste of torture technique he taught his son chuckie! Prince Johnson needs to interrogate taylor behind close doors like he did to Samuel Doe so this lying tongue can get cut off!

    1. Fallah,
      Are you hailing Prince Johnson for brutally killing your countrys’ president . Oh my God !!!… I thought when people become very educated it also reflect their thoughts.. I don’t think you really ment this post Fallah. Look Fallah, regardless of the fact that I hail from Nimba county, I think it was very ugly for Doe to have been killed the manner in which prince Johnson did… Believe it or not, what the liberians did to each other during war, have given people some form of negative views about Liberians today whether you took part in the war or not… It is so so disheartning that you spoke the way you did…

      1. Cousin 5,
        You said it all, bro, and this is the first time cousins can see ‘eye to eye’ on an issue.
        Yep, no matter where we come from, or who we are, or our political predisposition, one thing is clear: We must not condone blood bath or killings, whether it is the killing of Presidents William R.Tolbert or Samuel K. Doe, or the killings of innocent, helpless, non-combatant krahns, mandingos, gios, manos, or other innocent Liberians. Civilized and well meaning folks in the part of the world that I live in do not have high regard for Liberians because of what we did to one another…and I sometimes feel ashamed to be a Liberian. This is hard, serious,emotional stuff!
        Have a nice day, cousin!
        Blessings and peace.

      2. Exactly! That, perhaps, would have put an end to many more innocent deaths just as some think that the early death of Doe spared deaths for many Gios and Manos in Nimber County.Don’t you think so?

  3. Yet again, here is another example of where Mr. Taylor’s persistent denials are undermining his defense. How can Mr. Taylor claim on the one hand to be an effective peacemaker while claiming on the other to be mysteriously unaware of key events involving the very people he was supposedly negotiating with? I’m no expert, but if I was appointed as a peacemaker in a conflict, one of the first things I would try to do is to ensure that all sides were negotiating in good faith. This would require me to monitor any news reports involving the parties. I think the truth for Mr. Taylor is that too many little dots are starting to connect and that he’s becoming desperate. Let Mr. Taylor continue his denials–if we leave him on the stand long enough, he will eventually prove the prosecution’s case!

    1. Paivy,
      I think you should understand that Mr Taylor was responding to questions as possed by the prosecution. He never denied having knowledge of events as they go on in Sierra Leone he said he was not aware of the SPECIFIC information Ms Hollis was asking. for example Ms Hollis will bring an AFP report and read it into the records after which she will ask him: Are you aware of this report? of course you do not expect Mr Taylor to be aware of every report that says something about Sierra Leone. He is simply answering the questions asked. I tell you during re-examination, many of this seeming gray areas will be cleared up.

  4. These organizations reports and news media report has many allegations in them but offer no proof that these allegations are true.

  5. Taylor’s greatest mistake was to kill Sam Boakarie as cover up! This was a principal witness he tempered with! The Judges know this as well as taylor himself! What happens in dark shall surely come to light taylor! Don’t you remember ordering the killing of Ma Fatu too? The mother of Sam Boakarie and all his children? Gankay Count Dracula 666.!

  6. What an interesting day. I think the prosecutors are coming to some interesting point in this case. Those are very good evidences. If he was capable of supporting Ivory Coast war, he could be very capable of supporting Sierra Leone war which had diamonds issues.

    1. Lotson,
      According to you he supported Sierra Leone war because of diamonds can you give a reason why he supported Ivory Coast war?

    2. Lotson,

      The prosecution has cratered on so many fronts, including the infamous diamonds. Why are you still dwelling on this diamond business? They have not shown any link to Taylor and the diamonds. The only time they ever mention diamond is was when they were talking about Nelson Mandela’s Dinner. Again, it was another “they say.” Some mysterious man went to Naoma Campbell’s hotel room the next morning after the dinner and told her the diamonds given to her at the dinner was from Taylor. And Naioma Campbell told her friend Mai Farrow, and Mai Farrow told the prosecution. Lotson, do you think we are still in high school with little gossips here and there?
      Bro. show us the prooooooooooooofffffffffffff.

  7. It will be important for the defense team to have Daniel Chea testify to clarify whether infact he made this statement or not. As for the other allegations made I don’t think much is to be made of them. For instance when it benefits the prosecution they talk about his loyal ATU men. When they can not use this they talk about his fighters from Nimba. Remember these people were mostly mercenaries who went and fought were ever they could make a buck. Right now you have former Liberian rebels fighting as far away as the Democratic Republic of Congo. So for former NPFL rebels to be in Ivory Coast is no surprise. The fact that they fought for the late Guei’s forces helps Taylor’s argument because Robert Guei’s was an Ivorian Krahn tribesman who was affiliated with the Liberian Krans

    1. Aki,
      You made a good point that there are Liberian mercenaries all over Africa. It’s also possible that the guys who fought in Ivory Coast (IC) were soldiers of fortune. What I find puzzling about the whole thing is that, all these regional wars have one common country and one common boarder nation–Liberia. But you bring up a good point that I think the defense will rebut when they don their final examination before CT gets off the stand. For now, CT is in trouble.

  8. After parading hundreds of witnesses, here come the big ones like News papers reports, rebel group report, News magazines, BBC news cast and finally, Liberia TRC report. It is widely known that Mr. Taylor has never had the opportunity to confront most of the writers in order to test their credibility and truthfulness, but the reports are being use as evidences against him in court. Will these report and radio news cast make any different? Someone please help me out. I can’t just believe what I’m reading here. God please help Mr. Taylor.


    Harris K Johnson

    1. Harry,
      It’s the HAIL MARY pass…..amazing to see some CHAMPIONING such as to say they are FACTUAL. So the goal is to DISCREDIT and PATTERN but don’t bring any FACTS as it relates to the charges…..Let’s pray……

      The score reads Ms. Hollis & Mr. Koumjain 1 vs Mr. Taylor 15!!!

  9. “Total nonsense”, “Totally incorrect”, “I disagree” etc has become a theme song for Taylor. Is Taylor saying that Frontline World news (who he claims that no one knows –, TRC, ICG and UN panel of experts are all telling lies against him? Is he saying that all these reports were fabricated by the west? If these are all lies, then Taylor needs to tell us his version of the truth. Singing his theme song is not good enough!

    I must admit that even though the prosecution hasn’t presented any evidence (in my opinion) directly linking Taylor to his alleged crimes, I think they are doing a good job exposing Taylor for who he really is… a lying anarchist, who caused a lot of instability in the sub-region.

    1. Hi Elbee — just curious whether you were hoping to point readers to any particular story at the Frontline World link? There is a link to an interview with Daniel Chea (Mr. Taylor’s former defense minister, here — For those interested, this was the article that includes the quote discussed in court yesterday and which is referred to in Alpha’s summary here:


      1. Tracey,
        Thanks for the link below. The second one led us to the article. It was a very good informative one. Chea is intelligent. I met him once and he was a no nonsense guy. He was one of those guys in CT team who was for the most part, civil and as he puts it, “levelheaded”

        Anyhow, thanks for the article Trace.

        1. Hi Bnker — I’m glad that link worked and you found the article interesting. I found it interesting too – it is the first time I had read an interview with Daniel Chea.

    2. Elbee,
      So what are we down to…..EXPOSURE or GIVE US THE EVIDENCES to convict??? I am of the opinion that the defense will make Ms Hollis look silly again….I saw Mr. Griffith laughing at times…I wonder what he’s coming back with??? Hmmmm

  10. Hey

    I told you guys that Ms Hollis will keep throwing everything she have until the end again. Today is TRC report from who nobody. Ms Hollis should not have even brought up this ICG report because it is assumption, The report stated that 500 men trained in Nimbia apparently cross into Ivory Coast this mean that they were sure where these people went.

    Why couldn’t it be Lofa were we had any active war ragging but Ivory Coast to damage Mr Taylor Image

    Ms Hollis from your understanding of this alleged interview with Mr. Chea, who was the peace maker?

    Mr.Taylor I think because Mr. Chea was waiting for order to go and deal with the Liberian militia fighting alone side the Ivorian government and rebel and attacking Liberia and positing a Treat, and finally those group became MODEL rebels.

    So if it had been the decision of Mr.Chea and many Liberian, That order would have been given to move in and deal with what ever treat.

    So just from this simple Interview show that Mr.Taylor had nothing to do with Ivory Coast my dear.

    Remember Iraq was attacked because they pose a treat to America.

    My people let our papay go to save you face declare this a missed trial



  11. I think the trial took a drastic downward turn for the defense thus far this week. This week is apparently the first week in my opinion that the defense has sustained assault on the defense and witness for several days. The prosecution has a reputation of fumbling, attempting “hail Mary” or using the spaghetti test (when cooking spaghetti, to test whether it’s ready, the cook may fling some on the wall and if it sticks, then it spaghetti is done). The prosecution case is becoming clearer. Many questions the place of the crime and suggest that the prosecution is dwelling on everything other than events in SL. They touched on Liberia and now Ivory Coast. I would suggest that they will talk about alleged Taylor’s involvement in Guinea also. The prosecution is trying to establish a pattern. The Daniel Chea interview was a dagger. Simply because “Dan” was in the inner circle of this administration. He was a member of the national security team (not like the other jokers who claimed to be). It was long rumored that CT was involved in Ivory Coast. Reasoning will dictate Liberia’s involvement in destabilizing these nations. Ivory Coast war started near the Liberian-Ivorian boarder; Guinea’s conflict, the Liberian-Guinea boarder; Sierra Leone’s strife, not far from the Liberia-Sierra Leone lines. Reasoning will reveal that there is one focal country, “Liberia”. While this is not evidence, it looks fishy at best and it possibly could establish a pattern, which is not good for the accused, defense or witness. Still, speculation does not translate to rendering a guilty verdict. Reasoning, maybe, not sure.

    All in all, this is by far the best week for the prosecution and the worst week thus far for the defense. The attacks and evidences have been streaming. Even though, this is by far the best week for Ms. Hollis et al, there is no time for early party, they also have a pattern of erasing all weekly gains by being careless and irresponsible at times.

    Trace, is it possible for someone to be found guilty based on reasoning? Please help me out here.

    Thanks Trace

    1. Hi Bnker,

      I always enjoy reading your analyses. As to your question about whether someone can be found guilty by reasoning, perhaps I can best answer it this way (but tell me if it fails to make sense or doesn’t fully address the question you are asking):

      There are rules and laws governing how the Trial and Appeals Chamber comes to their conclusions about finding a person guilty or innocent at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

      First of all, after all the evidence has been presented, Rule 87 of the court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides guidance for the judges’ deliberations. This rule says “After presentation of closing arguments, the Presiding Judge shall declare the hearing closed, and the Trial Chamber shall deliberate in private. A finding of guilty may be reached only when a majority of the Trial Chamber is satisfied that guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

      Then, under the Special Court’s Statute, which is its founding legal document that sets out the laws by which the court is to operate, Article 18 deals with judgments. For a judgement to be delivered on a person’s guilt or innocence, it must be agreed to by a majority of judges on the chamber, delivered in public, and most importantly for your question, it must be “accompanied by a reasoned opinion in writing.” Rule 88 of the court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence says much the same thing.

      So what all this means is basically, yes you are correct that Mr. Taylor will be found guilty or innocent based on a process of reasoning by the judges. The judges undertake this reasoning by evaluating all the evidence they have heard and read, working out which forms of evidence/which witnesses/which documents they found most credible or believable and thinking about that evidence in relation to the charges against Mr. Taylor, and determining whether the evidence put forward to link Mr. Taylor to the crimes in a way that meets the requirements of the forms of responsibility (eg command responsibility, joint criminal enterprise) was convincing. They then have to explain their thinking (or reasoning) in the judgement – but it has to be based on the facts and evidence in front of them, and they have to explain why they think those facts and evidence proved Mr. Taylor’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or conversely, why that standard of guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” was not met. And under Rule 87B of the courts rules of procedure and evidence, they have to undertake this reasoning process in relation to each of the 11 charges against Mr. Taylor.

      Is this what you were wanting to know with the question you asked? If it was something different, let me know.


      1. Trace,
        Yea, you answered by question. Thanks. If I have more questions I will refer them to you, OK?

        If this is the case, the trial has taken a serious change of momentum.


  12. Bravo Ms Hollis! Keep your questions regardless of taylor’s usual responses:”not to my knowledge,” “Not correct,” “total nonsense,” “I ghankay, never heard such and such…” He is breaking up! Keep the pressure on him and don’t let him sleep! Bring back all the memories he is trying to erase from his nightmare Hollis. This guy murdered sleep, sleep no more gankay! jfallahmenjor

  13. Ha ha ha…..and what does that have to do with the CHARGES Menjor??? Ms. Hollis can even bring in the kitchen sink…the one question still reminds….WHERE ARE THE EVIDENCES??

    1. Noko4,
      If I am not mistaken, they don’t need concrete evidence, a case that erases “all reasonable doubt”….I refer you to Traceys post at 8:37pm. I also had questions that were similar in nature. I asked if reasoning is sufficient to render a guilty verdict. It helped me, maybe it wil assist you as well.

      1. Hi Bnker — yes, just to summarize very briefly — for each charge, the prosecution need to put forward evidence that demonstrates to the judges beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor should be held responsible for those crimes for him to be found “guilty”. Conversely, if they do not put forward evidence to the judges that – when weighed against the defense arguments and evidence — proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taylor was responsible for those crimes, then he will be found “not guilty”.

        1. Thanks for your intervention Tracey. I just don’t undrstand why folks on this site feel that Taylor should be killed and forgotten about even in the absence of an evident. Where is the rule of Law and justice that they invasaged. No matter what , these Judges are sound people and in my belief, will not redender emotional judgements, but one that will make the world to know that they did their job, and actually did it well.

          1. Noko5 — I agree that it is completely fundamental and necessary that the judges do not render emotional judgments – that would not do the credibility of this process any good or make anybody feel that justice has been done. Instead, the judges need to demonstrate very clearly that they have weighed all the evidence they have heard from the case, and base their judgment very soundly in law, and on the facts and evidence before them. Like you, I am sure that they understand the gravity of the task that lays ahead of them.

        2. Tracey,
          What happen with the prosecution request for an appeal on the decisions about the use of “fresh evidence” This is in response to your response to me about my question, do you think the evidence the prosecution are having mark as ID will stand the test for it to be accept as fresh evidence to the court.

          1. Hi Ken – thanks for the reminder. I am on it! I had just been waiting to see if the defense would file a reply this week, but I have not seen one of the public records site yet — so I may go ahead and just give an overview of the prosecution’s filing and then we can update it once we get a sense of the defense’s response.

      2. Bnker,
        Without FACTUAL and CREDITABLE evidences, how can those rule beyond REASONABLE DOUBT?? So far, none has been presented…maybe the best is yet to come but if those judges based their verdict on what is currently presented…where will their place been when it comes to JUSTICE??

        1. Noko4…
          You have a point…I guess we shall see what happens in the coming days. I still think though the evidence is lacking, the trial is political in nature…just like Col Oliver North (Regan fall guy) in the Iran-Contra arm affair. It’s rumored that the shipment pass through Liberia (rumored)

  14. Will someone plaese tell me how long will this case last, cuz we are looking for funds to help our brothers and sisters in HAITI.

  15. Charles G. Taylor is a hard core criminal. Being a terrorist with blood of inoscent people in his hand, he will never say the truth even if he is taking to the gallos.
    Mr. Terrorist Charles Ghankay Taylor was awere of the UN indictment of Sam Bockarie and Johny Paul Koroma and all these two men were in Monrovia with the support of Charlie boy. He assasinated Sam Bockarie on the fear that if he gives him up to UN special court for Sierr Leone after he has granted him political asylum, the former will eventually prosecute him.
    Charles Taylor has the blood of sam Bockarie and his entire family in his hands.
    My word of caution is that, for the next 20 or more years, Charlie boy a hard core crimal Africa has ever produced will not accept his evil carnage before the court. He will continue to deny onto the end of the court’s proceedings.

    1. Hi Ismail Fuad — I don’t think I have seen you comment on the site before. Welcome and we are glad you’ve joined us to contribute your thoughts to the conversation here. I hope you continue to be involved in the discussion here.


      1. “Charles G. Taylor is a hard core criminal” this is not acceptable. i do not this you will allow it used on any one on this forum.

        Tracey Gurd take note

        1. Hi Nii Darku — yes,you are absolutely correct that Mr. Taylor has not been proven guilty at the Special Court. And we are still in for a lot of arguments by his defense team in the coming months.

          On why that comment was let through: everyone on this forum is entitled to their opinion. As long as it focusses on the trial and not each other, it is in accordance with our policy for comments to be published on this site.


        2. Nii,
          Thank you very,very much for this smart pickeup. Just to add to your voice, I just don’t understand why this site allows people to say anything to Mr. Taylor with impunity
          or any form of repremend for that matter. Tracey, are you guys 100% convinced that Mr. Taylor is absolutely not a part of the reading audience? If so HOW???? I definitly feel it is very very and I say , absolutely wrong for people to be throwing insults at him here.. thank you..

          1. Noko5 and Nii — thanks for raising this issue with me — it is an important point. I’m currently discussing your concerns with some freedom of expression lawyers and also our in-house counsel. I will get back to you as soon as I have received legal advice from them on these issues.


      2. Tracey Gurd

        Then you will leave me with no choice to use hard description to contributors like Ismail Fuad .

        Please if you want decent language on this forum the you must take note because English language can be used in many ways.

        And trust me I will do it better.

        Ismail Fuad be warned!

        Nii Darku, Accra Ghana

        1. Guys, I thought to intervene on Tracey’s behalf , to add my own understanding about the policy of this site. One can say whatever they want to say, as long as it is not directed personally to other forumites. Taylor’s haters can say whatever they want to say against Taylor , it is not a violation of the site rules. But Taylor’s haters cannot insult other posters on this site who support Taylor’s defense. This should be a simple thing for all of us to understand. I think Tracey has been fair with this pocily. For example, some of us continue to attack Ms. Brenda Hollis and Tracey has not stop us.

          So let us be fair to ourselves, the reality here is simple. I don’t care how much insults these people direct at Taylor, the facts remian that they are operating on pure emotions and believing that their hurts is more valuable then our hurts. We too suffer and are still suffering from their ULIMOS, MODEL, LURD, LPC, BLACK BERET and other groups that waged a deadly war upon us (Liberians). But because their international masters have not condemn those murderer groups , they believed that all the brutalities against civillians by those group are justified because of the socalled iinternational community blind hatred for Taylor. “TOTAL NONSENSE!”

    2. Ismail Faud,
      You are the first person on this forum to actually sound as if you are sorry that Sam Bockarie was stopped from hurting Sierra Leoneans anymore. Most people felt what ever end came to Sam Bockarie justified the means? Now if your concern is that he could have provided information to the Special Court on Charles Taylor’s alleged involvement. My answer is why depend on a dead person when the living RUF and AFRC members on trial did not implicate Mr. Taylor ?

    3. Ismail,
      Why are you MAD??? The prosecutor should be the one to PROVE that he is lieing…has she??? NO!!! Instead she asked that whatever she read be put into evidence….an evidence that lacks foundation…..

  16. Yes, these are the links we talk of : great circumstantial evidences!!
    He acknowledged the acceptance of Sam Bokarei on grounds for peace in Sierra but made him a liberian illigally and used the same Bokarie to distiblelise Ivory Cost , yet he mentains he was frostering peace . How can you keep peace with one hand and creat War with the other? Time now is your grace Mr. Taylor

  17. I don’t know what some of you guys have being listening to, but the prosecution is focus mainly on Mr. Taylor activities in Liberia. When will they start on the core of their case. Someone stated that he is breaking… what can that means? The prosecution case is filled with “they say”, other people opinions and not facts. If using the TRC reports, which, of itself, is filled with lies, is what they prosecution is depending on after spending millions of dollars to get at one person is pathetic.

    1. Bro. Wright…WELCOME.

      The TRC has yet to be accepted by the Liberian people but Ms. Hollis is treating it like the Bible…LORD HELP US.

  18. bnker,
    I’m glad you have started seeing where Ms. Hollis and her team are heading. I have long suspected that her strategy is to corner Taylor with what seems to be inconsequential to this case so much so that when the smoking guns are brought out Taylor will either force to admit in order to maintain the heap of lies he had built or deny thus undermining his entire testimonies.

    1. Big Joe,
      Like you, I suspected where Hollis was going and many time eluded that. Thanks for reading the tread on my assessment of the prosecution strategy (not everyone likes my writings on strategy). In one of my post, I mentioned that CT could be his own enemy. He talks too darn much. I said his “chatty” nature and his “long winded” characteristic could expose his “vulnerability”. He provided the prosecution “ammo”. He is experiencing a stream of bombardment…his comments are being used against him (like the reason he was stepping down). I remember an exchange between CT and Hollis last week when he tried to narrate and she said, Mr. Taylor I don’t want speech…he CT referred to the judges for guidance on answering a question…I thought that being short and specific may help him and weaken the prosecution…Taylor is an egotistical character and will as such talk himself into further quick sand. If he is not careful, he might just talk himself “in” rather than “out” of jail. Even though the prosecution is showing a pattern, they have not provided concrete proof—Mr. Chatty, might just provide them the information or lead them down the yellow brick road.

      1. Bnker,

        When Ms. Hollis said she doesn’t want speech to President Taylor, he also told her that if he was giving a speech, than she was the audience. Apparently you forgot to mention that part. Bro, we all are watching this trial.

    2. So Big Joe, the “smoking gun” has not been brought out yet? At least, you said it yourself. We want to see it too. What we don’t want to see or know, is their strategy. That is their problem and worry, and business.

  19. Another desperation by the prosecution , and it is so comical that some folks will be celebrating clear incompetence by a weak prosecutor. Ms. Hollis has achieve nothing but wasting precious dollars that could be spent to help poor people around the world. Ms. Hollis expect Taylor to know about every detail inside SL when he was not the president but at the same time she does not seems to have problem that Taylor not knowing of every detail issue that happened in Liberia.

    Take for example, she reads excerts from some books and read documents from the UN and ECOWAS to remind Taylor about announcements regarding UNMIL and ECOMOG troops strength. In those instances, we did not hear of her famous “wrap up logic” that Taylor was supposed to have known about everything that goes on in Liberia regarding UNMIL and ECOMOG troops strength, she accepts Taylor knowledge on this issue. But when it comes to some kind of court announcement in SL about a list of RUF leaders , to be prosecuted , than she expected for Taylor to know al the details. Complete desperation by Ms. Hollis that she is inconsistent in her allegations concerning Taylor’s knowledge of events.

    How many of us on this forum ever heard about or read about a court list from SL regaring RUF leaders to be tried? If this was a serious public information, then anybody or atleast most people would have been aware of it. But the fact remains that Ms. Hollis view is subjective and has no merit about whether Taylor heard of announcements or not. The burden of proof is on her to show that Taylor heard about a specific annoucement. This case is turning into a pure comic drama with Ms. Hollis contradictng herself.

    For example, she read from one of her own documents that ULIMO, NPFL, and ECOMOG fought together to arrest Rosevelt Johnson during April 6 war. This was a fact that some of us eye witnessed ECOMOG participation in that war. After reading her own document , she took a great leap arguing that ECOMOG was neutral in that war-pure lie. Then she read another UN document that stated the NPFL delayed to disarmed because they were attacked by LPC. Yet she accused Taylor of intentionally delaying the peace process. How could Taylor had disarmed when he was under attack by LPC? This is the evil behavior of these socalled iinternational justice that punishes a man for defending his people. These are the lies that was fed the international community that Taylor refused to disarmed, and these are the same lies that Ms Hollis continue to present in this court as facts. “TOTAL NONSENSE!”

Comments are closed.