Prosecutors Say Charles Taylor Waged A War In Liberia Not To Free The Liberian People But To Capture Political Power

Prosecutors today told former Liberian president Charles Taylor that he waged a civil war in Liberia not because he wanted to free the Liberian people but because he was desperate to capture political power. Mr. Taylor dismissed this claim.

In his direct-examination, Mr. Taylor had testified before that court that the controversial elections of 1985 in which the then Liberian president, Samuel Doe, had cheated his political rival Jackson Doe of victory had been a major contributor to the conflict in the country. Mr. Taylor said that his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebel group had aimed to oust Master Sergeant Doe and get Jackson Doe to power. In his cross-examination today, lead prosecutor, aiming to impeach Mr. Taylor’s credibility as a witness suggested that Mr. Taylor had just used Jackson Doe’s name as a public relations stunt and that his aim was to capture power himself. The former Liberian president disagreed.

In putting her points to Mr. Taylor today, Ms. Hollis asserted that the NPFL’s “right and bounded duty to rid the people of Liberia of the despotism by whatever means at your disposal wasn’t really a true statement.” Instead, the group’s aim was to capture political power.

“You wanted to rid Liberia of Master Sergeant Doe because you wanted to be in power in Liberia,” Mr. Hollis put to Mr. Taylor.

“You can draw your own conclusion but I disagree,” Mr. Taylor responded.

“And Mr. Taylor had you, after Master Sergeant Doe’s death in 1991 made Jackson F Doe president, then your years of civil war wouldn’t have occurred, would they?” Ms. Hollis enquired further.

“I don’t know the basis of your conclusion, maybe from some expertise, but I disagree with your conclusion or your assumptions, or your speculations, I cannot comment on speculations. We have serious disagreements with that,” Mr. Taylor responded.

The former president insisted that as a Liberian citizen, it was his duty to rid Liberia of Master Sergeant Doe, who by all indications had become a despot in the country. He, however, insisted that “we were not an army for Jackson Doe. We did not fight the revolution for Jackson Doe.”

Ms. Hollis suggested to Mr. Taylor that using Jackson Doe’s name as part of the reasons for fighting the war was a mere “public relations campaign.”

In his response, Mr. Taylor said that “it is part of a public relations campaign but it is more than just that.”

Asked whether this was a propaganda effort to win over the favors of Western powers like the United States, Mr. Taylor said that “that I totally reject. Did I want to win over the United States? Yes, but was I beholding to any foreign power? No.”

Ms. Hollis pointed out that Mr. Taylor received support from foreign powers such as Libya and Burkina Faso in pursuit of his war. While agreeing that he received support from these countries, Mr. Taylor insisted that “we were not beholding to them.”

Prosecutors have been seeking to impeach Mr. Taylor’s credibility as a witness testifying in his own defense. In his cross-examination, prosecutors have not only questioned Mr. Taylor about events occurring in Sierra Leone, for which he stands charged before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, but they have sought to question him about his activities in Liberia in order to establish that the actions of rebel forces in Sierra Leone were consistent with those of the NPFL in Liberia. Prosecutors have also sought to establish that Mr. Taylor was not truthful on many issues that he discussed during his direct-examination. One of the issues covered today was to establish that Mr. Taylor was not truthful about his reasons for waging a war in Liberia. It will be for the judges to determine whether Mr. Taylor has been credible as a witness or not.

Also in court today, lead prosecutor Ms. Hollis informed the court that she will need about 7-8 more days to conclude the cross-examination of Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination continues on Monday.


  1. Wow!
    So….I quite remember in one of my post, I suggested that “pattern”. To Taylor’s defense, I think similarities in some crimes may be (operative word, “may be) difficult to establish by the prosecution. It’s an established fact that women were raped in both countries, child soldiers were also used, sex slavery was not uncommon in Liberia and Sierra Leone, but chopping of limbs was not an occurrence in Liberia (there were two incidences of two Nigerian gentlemen). The named criminal activities is not uncommon in African conflict either–DRC, Sudan, Ruwanda, etc.

    I think one of the reasons that some of the crimes in SL were escalated, unlike Liberia, RUF was resisted by the the general population. RUF movement was not as popular and welcomed as NPFL was. As a punishment for not compromising, RUF committed the unthinkable (limb hacking)


    Child Soldiers:

    Another thing, I better make my position known, I disliked Samuel K. Doe. He was one of the most ruthless leaders on the continent and worse leader in Liberian history. He was deposed from that title by CT. Doe killing of Tolbert affected our development. I thought removing him (Doe) was probably the best things for Liberia. While it’s obvious that Taylor wanted to seize power and has a reputation of imposing himself in positions, ex GSA, Doe was a “cancer” that needed to be “cut off” (I could be biased here). For many at the time especially those from Nimba who were suppressed and murdered by Doe’s army, Taylor and his militia was a redemptive force. I certainly don’t support Taylor’s assertion that he intended to put Jackson Doe in power. I will bluntly say it was a LIE that only the devil himself can create. Taylor expressed his intention to lead Liberia and later killed Jackson Doe–the guy he said he was going to put into power. While he might have had an underlying motive, Doe had to go (maybe war was not the answer as Chea eluded in his interview.

    While this trial is on SL as many have reminded me, CT seem way to smart to have done some of the stupidest acts only expected of a “fool”. He allowed too many people to die in Liberia. Some called Jackson Doe’s and others’ death expense of war. Mr. Doe (Jackson) was one of our best political brains–ever! He was eliminated by one of the most paranoid person ever to hold a gun.

    I expect some to get an aneurysm, emotional high or an “orgasmic outburst” at this posting. But face it, Taylor is nothing but trash, filth, and a disappointment to even himself. I wonder how that “bastard” sleeps (yes, I am angry). As I mentioned sometime back, one would think that CT killed my whole family, no! My family is in tact, but many lost theirs. The 250,000 were no better than, me, you, my only brother and only sister, or parents—they were not. We should mourn these people, but rather some try to justify or degrade their lives by saying, “its war” or “what do you expect from war” or as Noko5 asked once what do you think war is, or Aki classifying J.F Doe’s murder as part of war? No, this is not….face it and call it as is, “murder”. When someone is beheaded….you call this war? No, it sub-human.

    Ok, I am done with my venting!

    1. What you are saying is purely subjective: did Liberians by the way tell Charles Taylor they were Suffering before he waged his greedy war? if your answer is yes what good did he bring to liberians? I don’t prefer one dictator to another but in this case Doe was after his enemies , rather Taylor was after the poor, the disable, the widows , the voiceless and a sivilized society. Taylor does not deserve better treatment than Doe. Reasonably weigh the two and and see the gravity of Taylor’s crime

      1. Well mr. Massaquoi,
        The mere fact is that Taylor was not told to bring war to liberia.. But lets ask our selves this simple question, what is the meaning of the word it was formed and under what baner..if and only if this land was form by free slaves and was supposed to habitate people of the free, were the Gios and Manos or people from Nimba county enjoying that during the Does regime at some point? How and who could have possibly put to hut the carnage and massacre that was going on against this group of product citizens in our country? MY brother , CHARLES TAYLOR WAS DE ANSWERE. No body wanted to be ruled by any form of dictatorship, but Taylor was able to change the political dynamics of Liberia, which created the chance for everyone to retreat into default mode. I am not in denial of the fact that serious crimes against humanity were comitted during Taylors’ times, but I regret to say that Doe had to be removed. Fortunately, you and I know that nothing else could have removed Doe besides what Taylor brought.” (WAR)” I will always extend my deepest sympathy to everyone who suffered, including the people from Grand Gedeh . These are cousins of the nimbaians. Infact some of my best friends are from Grand Gedeh and they still remain.. but frankly, the incursion of the NPFL was neccessary…

        1. Noko5, I find your posts all over this forum and with what seems to be no form of understanding of the impact of war. You say in this post one group of people were being badly treated and yet justify the incursion of a war that resulted in many more being treated as the solution to Doe’s regime. I will leave you to your musings, as this is part of free speech.

    2. Bnkr,
      You put your thoughts on paper well! I didn’t mean to minimize the death of Jackson Doe or all the other people who were killed. The point is in war excesses sometimes happen. If as Mrs. Hollis suggest that Taylor only used Jackson Doe as a” public relations stunt.” Then why on earth would Mr. Taylor kill Jackson Doe before he captured state power ? The killing of Jackson Doe, Gabriel Kpolleh and others were a mistake. It was also a mistake in all sides killing unarmed civilians.However there is no proof that Charles Taylor ordered the killing of these people. Unlike with Prince Johnson were we saw pictures in the newpapers of him executing a Liberian relief worker for alledgedly stealing. No one has ever said they saw Charles Taylor killing anyone.

      1. Aki,
        You know some of these guys don’t even know a micro of what they are talking about. Taylor did not kill Jackson F Doe, the man was killed by his own people. I mean the special forces from nimba county. A guy like paul vaye who also killed my uncle, MOSES DUOPUE. Even though, one would say Taylor is responsible because he brought them under his command, but, hey ! it is good to say the true and it shall set you free. THE NIMBA COUNTY NPFL SPECIAL FORCES KILLED THEIR OWN LEADERS>> PERIODE !!! not Taylor ok…some of us were there and saw it…

        1. Now, some of us are beginning to grasp or understand reasons behind some of the strong support for Mr. Taylor here. But, you know what Noko5; you could make a very good defense witness.
          I mean, you know more than micro of what took place, you were there and know who killed who, you also understand that saying the true shall set you free.

          No wander why you started calling good people names and I, not knowing from where you stood, got angry. Good Luck My Brother!!

        2. George Dillion,

          I did not know from whence you come or stood also. Good luck to you too George.

    3. For those Taylor’s haters , it is good for you guys to watch this video and hear what one of the LURD General who fought against Taylor had to say recently, in an interview with an American journalist. He basically said that there are still arms into the Lofa forest, and that if UN left Liberia, some of them are capable of over runing Monrovia in two to three hours. The point here is simple, the LOFA area which the prosecutor has accused Taylor of having control over , up to today’s date is not yet under the full control of UN forces in Liberia.

      These UN forces that has all of the military means and might have not even gotten full control over LOFA county but that Charles Taylor they expect to have been in full control of ULIMO and LURD forces in Lofa, and Taylor should have known about every detail events going on in Lofa forest. See the link, it might be hard for some:

      Taylor is no more in Liberia but just see what is still going on. What a shame!!!

      1. King Gray – thanks for sharing these links with us. Both are truly devastating. Each suggests a dire situation in Liberia — either through violence when the UN leaves, or the public health disasters (disease (including AIDS); rape; drug abuse by children) that has erupted to compound the devastating poverty and lack of resources and services for people in places such as West Point.

    4. Mr. bnker,
      Like it or not, WAR IS WAR !! GAME OF DEATH!!! DEATH AND DISTRUCTUON. I will advice you again and again, when ever you hear war in your environment, GET OUT…ITS NOT CHEWING BISCUIT OK!!!!!!!!! NOT LICKING ICE CREAM EITHER….hope you get it this time…..

      1. some people sound so premature, immature, and shows lack of mental development and intellect. What if you were one of the victims, would you have considered it war if you were being beheaded, or your sister or mother being raped? Please man, if you cannot say anything responsible, I would advise you don’t address my threads.


        1. Bnker,

          Your incendiary statement/comment continues to be overlooked. However, I have brought this up before and attempted putting you on notice. But unfortunately, Tracey did not clear that post. Again, I am putting you on notice for accusing other of “sounding premature, inmature, and lacking mental development and intellect.” Hopefully this time around, Tracey will clear this post.

    5. bnker or banker please.
      Mr Taylor never killed Jackson F Doe, Jackson Doe were killed by his own ungreatful country men and thats the story. i served in the Special Anti Terrorest Unit (SATU) under The late President Doe, and i know the story stop misleading the readers . at fendell campus three young mano university students were killed by the Gio fighter of NPFL who claimed that, “you think we will fight the war and you will rule us and enjoy” i
      in your own mind if Mr Taylor was on the same would he give orders to kill those young L.U. students? Do you think if Mr Taylor had caught the late Samuel Doe as confused Prince johnson did, would Mr Taylor kill him? i can tell you Gios killed and even killed their own relations, if really Mr Taylor came for the poor and hands full of educated ones then their would have been no educated people in Sieleaf Goverment today. and to mr EDWARD MASSAQUOI the poor voted Mr Taylor into power get your records right.

      remember also that Mr Taylor was not and he’s not an anger or spirit to be present everywhere at the same time.

      1. Varney,
        Ethnic politics I will not be drawn into….I am not saying that CT must be everywhere. This thing is not about Mr. Taylor. It about people being murdered by all groups. If someone takes on a leadership role, failures on his/her watch are his/her responsibility (I am sure you will agree). If steps were taking to curb these acts many lives would have been saved and many more would have not been raped and made mothers of kids that they are angry with. Maybe, you all are the rational one and I am insane, but I find it difficult to believe so. People were hurt, killed, raped, I was almost killed twice. One time because they say I am Krahn; I am not either, I am congo (even though I have Krahn cousins–Yancy Peter Flah wife is my cousin). Though I mention Taylor often, it is not about him. Dwelling on this individual I think gives him the unnecessary attention.

        I notice you then to mention ethnicity a lot….I see beyond someone’s tribal lines—we all have our individual characteristics that makes us unique. Our ethnicity don’t make us, its only a cultural identity.

        1. Bnker,
          Let’s apply your THEORY to Pres. Bush….he order his men into Iraq and some did things beyond what they were told to do…..who were punished??? Pres. Bush or those soldiers??? So why we apply the same principle when it comes to Mr. Taylor???

  2. The lead prosecutor was excellent in her questioning of Taylor today because Taylor used the people of Nimba county to waged his war againt the Samuel Doe Government and the people Liberia and when Taylor got his hand on Jackson F Doe he murder the poor man Taylor is a cold bloody murder who killed anybody who he (Taylor) think will stand in his way is time for Taylor to stop the lies and paid for all his evil deal Taylor is a murder and to all the so-called Taylor support to quit and let this murder paid for his crime againt humanity.

    1. Joe,

      Taylor did not kill President Johnson Sirleaf, Dr. Sawyer, Dr. Fahnbullah, Brownie Samukai, Morris Satuma, Baccus Mathews, Taiwon Gongloe, Vamuya Sherif, Harry Greave, Francis Johnson Morris, and all those other politicians and trouble makers who despise him. However, as so as they got power, they sent him to the Hague. So why are you misrepresenting the facts intentionally Joe? Boss, we are talking about Sierra Leone here and not LIberia. Stick to the 11 counts of charges against this innocent man.

    2. Joe and Bnker,

      Sometimes I wonder at the logic used here. You claim that Taylor killed Jackson Doe as if you had veritable truth to that effect. Do you all believe it is possible for Taylor to have had absolute control over every aspect of the war at the same time or be everywhere at the same time? Have you forgotten that there were civilians in arms who in many instances had personal grudges against other individuals?

      Let us back track a little here. Do you remember what happened during the coup and how many individuals got beaten and killed by neighbours and or some of their very servants? Have you forgotten hwo many people were harmed during November 12, 1985 during Quiwonkpa’s invasion by not only the military but by some of their own peers and associates? Were all the mayhem carried out necessarily by the Doe group? No!

      Liberians sometimes have a wierd way of settling scores during times of crises which is not always attributed to the authority at the time. You know that very well. Why is it different now when it comes to Taylor?

      It was most unfortunate that Jackson Doe and G. Kpolleh got killed during the war but I believe strongly that Taylor was unaware of this and did not give the orders. I know this because I heard some Nimbians during the war saying that they were setting for those politicians who sat by and allowed Doe to slaughter them the Nimbians in 1985 and did nothing about it. They were planning to deal with them. It was so easy for them to do so as they all held arms during that time. People were taking revenge on certain individuals when the opportunity presented itself. Do not forget the war in Liberia was not carried out by a formally trained conventional army. It was a popular civilian uprising. CIVILIANS took up arms and some personal scores were unfortunately settled.
      Can Taylor be held for everything that individuals personally took upon themselves to do?

      It was commonly known during that time that the boys always said that they would do what had to be done before Taylor came or got to know because he would not let them do what they wanted to do. Have you forgotten? If Taylor was on a killing spree as you are alluding to, why didn’t he kill people like Kekula Kpoto who was known to be very close to Doe and wielded a lot of political clout? He rather dispatch a unit to ensure his safe passage as did he of Ernest Eastman and many others.

      In your aner and hatred be fair here. Taylor could not protect everyone from the wrath of their enemies. It is sad and most unfortunate. Taylor himself lost many close friends and relatives in much the same way. So he ordered their killing as well?

      Now regarding these so-called new articles that the prosecution is bringing forth; you all should know better. These articles are usually very biased and voice opinions of the news service and the journalists. I do not find them credible sources of evidence in the slightest. Anyone could get up and report their angle on a topic without any validity whatsoever. There is so much shabby journalism and sensational journalism. We all know in Africa if you want to be funded, just become anti-government and the West would immediately give you support. This is especially if the regime is one that they already do not like.

      As a result of this you had all kinds of quasi- NGOs and journalists emerging from the works writing senational stories without any concrete basis.

      Let’s keep watching the trial. I am sure Mr Griffiths will rebut all those nebulous attempts of the prosecution to discredit Mr Taylor. Just you watch!

    3. Hi there Harris — I received a post from you at 11:34am today which I am afraid I cannot post. There are three sentences which I will need you to revise, and if you can resubmit, I will happily post you comment. Specifically, the two sentences starting “some of you ran….” and ending “showing any prove.” And then just the first phrase from the last sentence. You might also be interested in reading this post too as it talks about the issues we are going to be looking at on this site: based on legal advice we got this past week.

      If you need me to resend your commend so you can adjust it, please just let me know. I am happy to do so.

      THanks in advance for your understanding,

    4. Joe and Bnker.
      Ask yourselves on question why the Kranh never killed their own country men wether educated or not but rescuse them to the BTC for safty. and i want you to alson know that not all the Krahs supported Doe’s attrocities agaisnt other tribe in liberia, and was not also enjoying like the elite did. i hope you know that this is a sierra leone trial, the 11 counts is what matters here. joe one thing you have forgotten here is that since the late President Tolbert Liberia have not found any leader as smart like Charles Taylor, so most of you guys just expect him to agree to lies against himself.

      if the western world of democray or democrazy really want to balance the attrocities in sierra leone and liberia for justice sake,AND TO BRING THOSE INVOLVED IN CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY then let there be a WAR CRIME COURT IN LIBERIA .


      1. Hi Bnker — I have a post from you from yesterday at 6:51pm which I cannot publish in its current form for one reason: it makes an allegation of a crime committed by a specific individual. If that individual has not been prosecuted or proven guilty of the crime, then it can create legal problems for this website if we post such allegations. If you can remove the reference to a specific name in brackets in the second last paragraph and resubmit, the rest of the comment is good to go. Let me know if you need me to send you a copy of your comment as I am happy to do so.
        Thanks in advance for your undersatnding,

        1. Hi Banker — you are absolutely correct on the individual – looking forward to the resubmission.
          Best, and thanks for your understanding,

    5. Joe,
      I always beam with laughter when I hear people like you accused Taylor of killing or using the people of Nimba. The people of Nimba were under no obligation to support or fight for Taylor. They joined Taylor because they were seeking revenge against the Doe and the Krahns.

  3. It is pathetic the prosecution has failed to prove her 11 counts indictment against Taylor, and Brenda Hollis is talking about rapping up in about 7 to 8 days. Hollis’ cross examination this week is sensational but there is no SMOKING GUN.

    The prosecution strongest evidence to get a guilty verdict is to discredit Taylor’s testimony under direct examinations. Hypothetical, if the judges discredit Taylor’s testimony I believe, the sentence will be suspended, because the contradictions were not done with malice aforethought. Whereas, the prosecution bribed her own witnesses to lie under oath,

    The prosecution has failed to showed proof directly linking Taylor to the RUF. Failed to prove Taylor had command control over the RUF. Where is the beef?

    The only think left for Taylor to be a free man is the closing argument. Who is more persuasive, Hollis or Griffiths? You decide.

    1. Big B,
      I like your posting except this comment “Whereas, the prosecution bribed her own witnesses to lie under oath” that has aroused my curiosity. I believe in a court of law material evidences and motive mattered more than hypothesis and speculations. Do you have in your possession any evidential support to back your claim ‘the prosecution bribed her own witnesses to lie?’

        1. Hi Noko6 — noone is quite sure, but the defense has about 98 witnesses to call. Some say it could last between 6-12 months more, then another few months before the judges deliver their judgment.

      1. Noko6,
        Be patient Courtenay Griffiths in his opening statement has told the world about the corruption of the prosecution. He will not say this without bringing witnesses to corroborate what he said.

      2. Noko6, I’ll answer this question for Big B concering prosecution bribing her witnesses. Many of the witnesses, not all received some form of compensation to pay hospital bills, travel allounces, scrashed cards, rent, and school fees, just to mention. People in general will lie for few dollars. Taylor is blamed for everything that went wrong in Sierra Leone. Sometimes, people should take responsibity for their actions and not pass the blame to others. I’m sorry so many died including my ten year old daughter, brother, cousins, and friends. However, they were not Taylor’s men who killed my family members.

        1. I am african american and I strongly agree with you,the most important thing is that he get a fair trial based on evidence. If taylor is guilt of crimes against humanity,what about Iraq, no one dare mention that what about the french in the Rwanda,how did they get Charles Taylor,they europeans made promises and then captured him. I do not think he will get a fair trial.

        2. Big B — you posted two comments about the prosecution payments to witnesses. I am very happy to post either or both of them — however, the sites terms of use say I cannot post profanity. If you remove the last sentence, or reframe it to fit with our policy here, I will happily publish your post. (Please note, I am not allowed to make such changes in readers’ posts).
          Thanks for your undersatnding and my apologies for my delay in getting back to you on this.

      3. Noko6,

        Excellent question. I really like your question you asked Big B about having evidence and facts to prove as to whether the prosecution paid their witnesses. Good question buddy. However, if the defense bring people such as Kadi Finley, Gen. mikazohn, Sen. Sanoe Johnson, and even some on this site to say yes. We were paid and enticed by the prosecution to lie on this innocent man. Will you accept it as facts? Wouldn’t you ask further questions, such as show us the proof? wouldn’t you want to know the relationship between the witness and Mr. Taylor? Will you accept anything anybody says about the prosecution? This is exactly what is happening in this court. Bringing in Taiwon Gongloe, Varney Sherman, TRC report, Teajan Kabbah, vamuya Sherif, Dr. Sawyer, Lassana Conteh, LURD, MODEL, former and current foes of this man statement. So my brother, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to bring the proof. Nontheless, it is easy to lie and hard to defend. As the result, you will continue to use one lie to cover the other lie. And new lie to makeup for the previous lie. And it goes on, and on.

        1. Folks,

          I have read most of our postings and there is unanimity that we want the persecution to provide material evidences not speculations on every claim made. ‘Don’t say it if you can’t proof it!’ has become the norm, better yet the unspoken rule, governing most of our discussions and this is fantastic. However, if we could apply this same rule to oursleves when one of our own distinguished readers makes a very serious claim as “the prosecution bribed her own witnesses to lie under oath”, it will be fair. Wouldn’t it?

          But thanks, folks, for your rejoinder anyway.

      4. Hi Big B — I received a post from you at 9:18pm yesterday (January 22) that contains one word I cannot allow through as it doesn’t accord with the terms and conditions for the use of this site. If you could simply remove or rephrase the last sentence of your post, I will happily publish it. Do let me know if you would like me to send your post to you as it would be no trouble.
        Thanks in advance for your undestanding.

    2. Perry Mason aka Griffith.

      Ms Hollis is CONFUSED….lacking preperations to the issues…..she depending on HEARSAYS or like we say in Liberia, THEYSAY to be FACTS. But she met a MATCH….

      If these judges convict on such TWO by FOUR evidences, they will go down as the LOWEST 0f the LOWS.

  4. Oh my God, it would have been better were Ms. Hollis present to the court a copy of Mr. Taylor NPFL profile as a ground to test the truthfulness of Mr. Taylor testimony. But outside of this Ms. Hollis will never get anything out of Mr. Taylor to cast doubt on his credibility as a witness. Ms. Hollis has never known the aim of the founders of the NPFL and will never know anything better than Mr. Taylor. My conclusion is that today hearing, and the next 7-8 days remaining is a complete waste of precious time. When will we see those diamonds or millions that Mr. Taylor allegedly stands accuse for, before he leaves the witness stand? Ms. Hollis, you will always be remember in history as failure.

    Harris K Johnson

    1. Harris K. Johnson,

      I can tell you this. It doesn’t require any smart person to know that there will be no times, that we see the diamonds or billions, they alleged that this innocent man “has”. They can not show it. They have not shown it. And certainly, they will not show it. It is all because it is not true. The man has challenged the entire world. Meaning, US, GB, UN, Intl Com, and etc, to show the moneys and diamonds. Why they can not produce it?

  5. A quiet day really. An accusation followed by denial, or perhaps a counter-claim. No ground seems to have been won or lost by either side.

    1. Richard B,

      The problem here with these guys (prosecutors), they were solely operating on hate and emotion. if the prosecution was prepared as they told the world, they could not have relied on the recent controversial TRC report that just came up couple of weeks ago to prove this man’s guilt. They would not have counted on President Teajan Kabbah’s interview he had just last year November. They could not have depended on Naimo Campbell’s friend, Mai Farrow statement she just made in August 2009. They could not have relied on so-call fresh and new evidence. That alone speaks volume. It tells you that these guys were never prepared as they wanted us to believe.

      1. How do they hate taylor? These are professionals and do not perform their responsibilities favouring any one side. Let us give them some credit for the work they do and not get emotional about this trial. If indeed taylor is innocent, he will walk otherwise, well…

        1. Salida,

          The very first prosecutor of this inherently flawed court in person of Mr. David Crane said, “the court is an imperfect court.” Now Salida, why didn’t they correct the impection before illegally sending this innocent man there. Don’t you think it was based on hate and emotion? Lastly, when did he realize that this is an imperfect court? And what did he do to correct the imperfection? More importantly, what, when, and how, did he know about the court not being a perfect? Besides, will it fair to you for an imperfect court to render an imperfect judgement that will put you or any innocent person behind bar for the rest of his/her life?

  6. Ithink by now Liberians are getting things quite clearly that Mr Taylor is more a egoistic than any other in the rest of Liberia.As a selfish politician,he assumed”instant gratification mentality-the wrong perception that attaining success is more automatic than progressive.Thia saw him a desparate hence a very dangerous figure in the sub-region with a name synonymous with mayhem and related excesses.His absence,as we have seen recently,ushered in the peace imminent in the Mano River Union basin especially.He just thinks those bunch of hoax he presents to the court look likely to save him.But his days are now numbered.Surely,the end always tells the means.

    1. Vaa Alie Mansaray
      i don’t know where most of you anti-Taylors sense of history rest. Because, the facts are evidently clear that Taylor did not introduce war into West Africa. Do you remember the 1983 Nimba raid of Liberia that came from the Ivory coast? When a group of Liberians invaded Liberia from the Ivory Coast into Nimba county? Sam Dokie was part of that group. Do you remember the 1985 Quiowonkpa invasion of Liberia? Do you remember that was supported by SL?

      So the facts remain that long before Taylor became a part of the NPFL, it was already an established military organization that had waged war against Liberia. That both SL and Ivory Coast had already sponsored war against Liberia and introduce warfare in West Africa. So Taylor NPFL was simply a continuation of what was already established.

      The difference with Taylor was the fact that he was successful. And that is the jealousy from the failed Liberian political class, and West African military ditators. Taylor shock the foundation of their corrupt and tyrannical leadership that ordinary people were willing to take their destiny in their own hands.

    2. Vaa Alie Mansaray,

      Is Taylor on trial for being “egoitistic and selfish politician” now? UNBELIEVABLE. You are hurt. You are sored. You are all over the place looking for anything to prove this man guilty. Stick with the case and the charges. Present your evidence in court. Show us that Taylor was the RUF head through documents. Show us that Taylor was captured as an illegal enemy combatant in Sierra Leone. Show us the weapons that Taylor bought or manufactured for the rebels. Show us the diamonds the junta gave him and in return, he gave one piece to super model Naomi Campbell. Show us the 5 billion dollars in foreign banks. show us so many things that you say this man did through documents and facts in relationship to the charges. How hard is it? I think it is very easy especially if you have it availiable. But the bottomline Vaa, the prosecution does not have any evidence. That’s is why you are talking about this innocent man being blah, blah, and blah.

  7. Bnker,

    I read with dismay your post regarding analysis of pattern in Mr. Taylor’s involvement in the destabilization of other countries in west africa. Since you premised your discourse on the arguments and documents of the prosecution, I wish to counter your analysis.

    1.The alleged contents of the interview of Daniel Chea that the prosecution presented cannot be admitted into evidence because the defence does not have the opportunity and capability of testing the veracity of said documents.

    2. How can the defence ascertain that the exact wordings of the article were published as spoken by Mr. Chea.

    3. How can the defence ascertain that the composure of Mr. Chea at the time of the purported interview was free of duress?

    Under what conditions and environment were this interview conducted?

    What opportunity can be availed to the defence to test the credibility of this purported document?

    In my opinion, the prosecution is purchasing time because the prosecution is fully aware that these documents(alleged letter from some actress, etc) cannot withstand legal scrutiny for admissibility as evidence in court.

    Another point is the issue of pattern in Taylor behavior. Let us grant the premise of the argument. The question that amount is that unique to Taylor. We have seen the creation of ulimo to destabilize liberia, lurd to destabilize liberia, green berets to destabilize liberia, general Quinwonkpa npfl to desabiblize Liberia, and the list goes on. We have evern seen the executive outcome and sandline from as far as canada and england militarily intervening in another country’s affairs.

    Bnker, these are issues of foreign policies. America has demonstrated intervention in other countries’ affairs for centuries. To acclaim that this is unique to Taylor is disappointing especially when it comes form an academician. One advice I should give is that academician usually disclose their biases, and as you are aware it known as author bias.

    That is why I always salute Mr. Teage, because she disclosed her bias prior to engagements.

    1. Andrew,
      I was wondering when you were coming out of that hole. I always enjoy your writings… I am assuming you are referring to this portion below:

      “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.”

      Andrew, if you take a better look at these lines, there are portion that I mentioned that even though reasoning dictates Liberia’s involvement in these countries, I also said there is no evidence and reasoning is may not be sufficient to render a verdict. I am not interjecting a guilty or otherwise judgment against CT. I simply stated that the prosecution is attempting to establish a pattern. Now, patterns might be sufficient to render a decision. I clearly stated that even though reasoning exist and look “fishy” I also mentioned in the following sentence that my reasoning lacks evidence. I am most certain that it might have been an oversight.

      In regards to the other players, Lurd was formulated in Guinea. My question that I put to you my friend, why did Guinea support the formation, and support of Lurd? I thought it was because CT alleged supported an incursion into Guinea and that government retaliated with Lurd? I could be wrong, so help me out there, please. One country’s involvement in another is unique to CT. I have not eluded to such and I think it would be premature to make such statement. Don’t you find it weird that all Liberia’s neighbors have been destabilized and all conflict started at or near the Liberian boarder? Is this coincidence? Maybe. Aki, suggested that these guys could have been mercenaries? possibly, but the defense will have to rebut that. I am aware that other players have been involved way beyond their region, you mentioned them in your tread.

      On the Chea’s interview, there are some things that one can probably question about the interview. However, we are spectators and the judges made the decision to allow it and they thought it was material. The statement was still a dagger for the defense. The defense will have the opportunity to rebut these statement upon completion of the cross. That team is probably thinking as you are.

      I don’t dispel the involvement of western countries and other foreign force involvement in the region (FYI, Executive Outcome was a South African mercenary company). In one of my earlier treads, if you can re-call, I said this trial should serve as a lesson to African leaders who to get in bed with. Taylor’s life has many dark spots that only he few others know about. I also gave examples of leaders who were agents, but were later dethroned, eg. Noriaga. He worked for the Agency since he was 16 years old.

      In regards to my so-called “biased”, I make no secret of it that I dislike CT; you know that. I have not shy away from it either. I think he needs to be locked forever (for crimes committed in Liberia). Though, I am not fond of him, I think the trial in SL lacks evidence as I have always said. I also think the trial is political motivated. That said, it does not remove the fact that the trial is still interesting. I guess there is nothing to be said about my criticism of the prosecution’s irresponsible and immature handling of the trial? I’ve mentioned that the prosecution has fumbled, used “hail mary” and even the spaghetti test to get something to stick. That’s my assumption, am I biased against the prosecution? I praised the lead defense as by far the smartest person on either side, and his mastery of the legal language; and creating an almost solid case; I guess that was also biased?

      Come on Andrew, I am unlike most who see one sided in this trial. When points are scored on either side I mention it. When there are blunders I point them out. When Ms. Hollis used the “Charles” name in some diamond dealing I called it as I saw; then the Naomi Campbell issue was brought forward, I comment as “hail mary” attempt. It’s interesting that when I bash the prosecution the room is quiet, when I take on the witness or suggest in consistencies, I am biased. Come what may (the old folks say), “you damned and you do and you damned if you don’t”. So my brother, I have the highest respect for your intelligence (and I sincerely mean that, I am not seeking political correctness), but on your judgment call on this one, you may be wrong. I cannot change your perception or anyone’s and I am not attempting to either….

      Correction, I am not an “academician”…I am an everyday Joe who happens to have opportunities to speak at Universities and who is involved in researches with the sole purpose of moving Liberia forward. I am not in the classrooms….thanks for the promotion :0).

      Thanks for reading and I look forward to more from you…..and Happy New Year!

      1. Bnker,

        Off the list of countries you have named of making trouble against the other, including Liberia, could you tell us which one of these countries started supporting war against their neighboring country first?

        1. Yea, let me see if I can pass your test Jose….

          Sierra Leone—started against Liberia or CT
          Ivory Coast—Started Against Liberia (supported Taylor, but never attacked Taylor)
          Guinea–rumored, Liberia started the incursion into Guinea

          So did i pass?

          Btw, read the update on Guinea, they are having an interim leadership and elections in June. I guess its good for the region.

  8. I am convinced more than ever before, folks: that this trial is more of a tone than substantive accomplishment. However, Ms. Hollis desparate attempts of interchangeably replacing Sierra leone with Liberia, and sometimes, confusedly zig zagging on Guinea and Ivory Coast, it’s almost like she is trying so hard to save this titanic ship from sinking. The bottomline guys, there is no proof here. Can you imagine, this prosecution is using the most controversial document of our times, the TRC Report to find this innocent man guilty? The same TRC report they have viscerally refused to help us implement is being used nefariously by them. They are however, grabbing anything they can get hold of, once it is not favorable to the defense. The only requirement for any document to be included into their archives of the prosecution and taken to court the next day, is to not be favorable to President Taylor. Folks, the floor is open to all. just write anything negative about Mr. Taylor, even if the paper is worth more than your brain, Ms. Hollis will take that paper to court the next day. Look folks, this case will help to reinforce the already overwhelming facts amongst many concerning “big and small countries”. Nontheless, both poor and rich countries, are of the views that “Might Makes Right.” However, here is a piece of advice for the International Community. Acquit Mr. Taylor, based on the facts and evidence. That way, you may be able to re-brand or reinvent your image and have some credibility: or, continue your path of injustice and unspeakable horror to the poor and the disadvantage, that way, you will not be able to get another African like Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir, Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam, Zimbabwe”s Robert Mugabe and etc.

    1. Bnker,

      Yes. You have successfully answered my question and rightfully too. Sierra Leone was the first to attack CT and Liberia. We both agreed on this.

  9. The score reads….Ms. Hollis & Mr. Koumjian 1 vs Mr. Taylor 15.

    What was gained today….really can anyone tell me?? DISCREDITING?? How can one DISCREDIT someone who knows MORE about the subject??? Plus, what is the RELATIONSHIP to the charges??? If this was Liberia….BINGO, but again, we’re told this case is about Sierra Leone…..ZERO about Liberia. I am CONFUSED…help!!!

  10. Bnker,

    I concur with most of your view but regret to differ with few. The suspicion that conflicts that arose in countries that share border with liberia cannot be mere coincidence has not basis unless proven by hard evidence. That issue might raise intelligent questions yet those questions remain mere suspicions. As I mentioned earlier, were we to consider the argument that taylor wa invovled in the sparking of those conflicts, the act does not constitute a crime. Counselor Rapp said it was not a crime for countries to interfere in the affairs of other countries. What is a crime is the afflicting harm upon others in violation of laws and the liberty of humans.

    Hence the heart of the prosecution case should attempt to establish guilt supportive of the counts of the indictment. Casting doubts on Mr. Taylor comments though a legitimate aspect of criminal proceedings, proof of guilt has to be established. So far, the defence evidence of rebuttal appeared to have had more legal weight than the evidence presented by the defence.

    I have to go, I will finish this later brother.

  11. Hi Tracey,
    The lines below are excepts from bnkers’ 01/22/10 at 3;26am posts. and it reads,
    “But face it, Taylor is nothing but trash, filth, and a disappointment to even himself. I wonder how that “bastard” sleeps”. Now pray tell us Tracey, how is he allowed to rain these amount of insults when you’ev stopped some of us from getting at him in this manner. I don’t know , but this is actually getting unbearable and very much unacceptable. If one cannot no one should be allowed. Mr. Taylor has not been covicted of any crime and I think letting some of these irresponsible remarks to be stated at is way way going too far.. if this guy thinks mr. Taylor did something that he is angry about, he has the right to take his matter to the court instead of using you site to vent it. Only cowards do these things. Or if he thinks it has to be done otherwise in another form, I can voluntere on Taylors behalf so we can settle it once and for all.
    There is no need to hide behind the computer.. My brother, Taylor got people. I F YOU GOT ISSUE BRING IT ON !!!! THIS IS AN OPEN CHALLENGE…….

    1. Noko5 — I understand the issue and I have checked with people here who are legal experts in freedom of expression. I don’t think there is any need for personal challenges — instead, I would ask that you read the posting I just did on this issue here:

      I think the main point is this: this is an emotional trial and people have understandably strong emotions about people and events. On this forum, however, we need to show each other respect, and we need to show respect to everyone who we call by name, or identify as a specific individual, with the same level of respect. Bnker has expressed an opinion about Mr. Taylor but he did not made any allegations of fact like the one that originally prompted the questions about the policy (ie “Charles G. Taylor is a hard core criminal”). We still want to allow people to freely express their opinions here and not have to censor anyone or ask people to overly censor themselves, but we need to balance this with people’s individual right to reputation. We also have to remember as a group that Mr. Taylor is on trial charged with serious crimes, but no judgment has been made about his guilt or innocence. Until the judges make that decision, Mr. Taylor has the right to be presumed innocent, and we have to be cognizant of that when we comment on the trial.

      The best approach for us going forward: let’s just treat everyone with respect when we single them out as individuals, and focus on the issues emerging from the trial. Sound fair?


    2. Noko5….
      Oooo…poor guy! If you take time to see beyond the the blinders you might see that when I talk about Taylor or other rebels is such manner, I reference to crimes in Liberia. I say it again, he is filth and sub-par human. If you don’t like it, well you may lose sleep over it, but I am certainly not. If a man can sanction the death of anyone when he has no power to give life, he is trash. All the rebels are nothing but barbarians..

      Now, to your pre-teen challenge, I could respond, but if I did I would be reinforcing the preconceived notion that fighting resolve all things (street virtues)…maybe it’s time that some of us seek to be detoxed. Take a breather….

      I will continue to talk against all rebels, from Taylor to Boley even the dead one. You mentioned seeking court action; don’t worry they all will see trial in Liberia, every single one of them. My next project is to get testimony from victims, recording, and pictures compile a document of over 100 pages, then attach a letter seeking war crimes in Liberia against these cowards. I will use my contacts at the UN security council to make sure that victims who screamed, beg and cried for their lives are justly rewarded by getting justice. Noko5, you shall see what transpires. What and wait! This project is starting this year too.

      1. Hi Banker — thanks for your comment and I know you feel so strongly about Mr Taylor, and you are expressing your opinion and not making allegations against him or any rebel specifically. You are entitled to that opinion.

        But may I please use this opportunity to make a plea to all our readers here: let’s focus on the trial and the issues arising from it (and that includes the possibility of a war crimes court in Liberia too). Apart from the legal issues which I explain here:, I fear we may get distracted from the intelligent and thoughtful discussions about the issues surrounding this trial when we foray into the arena of perceived personal traits or descriptions of specific individuals.

        I look forward to our continued debate and discussion,


        1. Thanks Tracey. I am neither moved or deterred from voicing my opinions. This forum allows us to express our suggestions, opinions, and otherwise thoughts. Even though we don’t see things from the same prospective, I am sure that the greater interest of Liberia is being considered by each and everyone, even those who make threats….

          Thank you for this forum….


          1. Hi Bnker — yes, absolutely. The key issue for us is riding that fine line between opinion and allegation of fact regarding crimes for which a person has not been prosecuted for, or found guilty. It has the potential to get this site into legal trouble (at least that is what I was advised by our counsel). This is one of the reasons why we will be trying to take particular care when people voice opinions in relation to specific individuals.

            But I agree with you — while people on this site might approach this trial with a range of perspectives, everyone on this site is considering this trial in its broader context and with a vision for a brighter future for Sierra Leone and Liberia — and that is the most important thing about this conversation.


      2. Bnker,
        I wait to see all of what you’ev said happen; Will highly appreciate seeing all of those who help destroy lives and properties in our country be brought to justice as long as it is not done for personal gains. As long people don’t build up lies from mere romours. As long as it done fairly across the board. The fact that every DICK, TOM and HARRY wants to get at only Taylor after brushing their teeth in the morning is just god damn wrong. We all know where the touble liberian came from and how it started. Why every thing else is being ignored and all focus is geared towards Taylor? Now, one question for you bnker, how come some of you who got all these great contacts around the glob sat there, watch Doe slaughter the people of Nimba County including other citizens and could not use these powers to stop him? What ‘s about those who die before the 250,000… when are you human rights gurus going to start talking for them? What’s about their families and love ones… How are they making it? Do some of these issues click to you too… PLEASE !!!

        1. Noko5,

          I try to think from a holistic prospective. You mention good points. When I refer to rebel leaders, I am not only referring to those 1989 and after. I mean rogue soldiers. I am talking about the soldier like the one who killed the Green family on the Old Road and later who served in governmental functions (I can’t call names for legal issue–besides if I did Tracey will call me out). I referring to those elements in the military who were allegedly responsible for throwing kids in wells in Nimba etc. No, but my limit is not post 1990.

          You asked several questions, I will attempt to answer them:
          Why every thing else is being ignored and all focus is geared towards Taylor?
          I think one of the reasons there is so much concentration on Taylor is because of the ongoing trial and he is the subject of many if not all the discussion in this forum.

          Now, one question for you bnker, how come some of you who got all these great contacts around the glob sat there, watch Doe slaughter the people of Nimba County including other citizens and could not use these powers to stop him? What ’s about those who die before the 250,000… when are you human rights gurus going to start talking for them? What’s about their families and love ones… How are they making it? Do some of these issues click to you too… PLEASE !!

          To answer these questions, most of my contacts were established upon leaving Liberia. At the inception of the war, I had just completed high school (St. Patrick’s) and was in Liberia until 1996. But to answer your question, these contacts came from meeting people outside our community. I have been fortunate to meet and befriend some well connected people.

          Did I answer your questions….?

      3. By the way, Bnker — I am very interested to learn more about your proposed project for a Liberian war crimes court to be set up. That sounds like a fascinating way to push the possibility for a court forward and something that civil society itself can be very active on if they are interested in ensuring this possibility does not evaporate.

        1. Tracey,
          I think past approaches to establish war crimes in Liberia were done wrongly. Those in the quest took an antagonistic stance, thus they seem combative. Moreover, screaming and shouting “we want war crimes court is not sufficient”. The question that arises is on what basis a war crime court should be established? True, there were thousands killed, but it’s the foundation for prosecution, but a case or argument has to be build. Murder is somewhat basis, but the foundation for a case or court was not established by others. Rather than presenting a letter as others did, I intend to use another approach. I will conduct interviews, video and tape recording for victims. I intend to have pictures, accounts of torture marks, rape, accounts from child soldiers, burial spots, magazine clippings, weblinks and quotes. All this information will be compiled into a large volume and then copies along with letters and petition requesting support proceedings from human rights agencies, the US Senate and UN for the establishment of such court.

          I acknowledge this is an expensive and tedious task, but I intend to do so with my own resources. I don’t intend to solicit support from any “western nation”; I don’t want the credibility of the findings questioned. Well, regardless it will be, but I can minimize it.

          Regardless of the outcome of this trial, the project will continue. This is not about the accused in SL, but about all the heads of the serpent.

          1. Hi Bnker

            This is a fascinating task you have set for yourself, and an important one. One unsolicited thought in response from me if I may: your task is a difficult one and potentially fraught with some legal and logistical issues that I think other NGOs involved in this work have also confronted in the past when trying to promote accountability for past crimes. One example: To the extent that the information is not already in the public realm, projects like the one you propose also usually need to consider witness safety and protection issues (ie one question you may want to ask: if the dossier you are compiling got into the hands of the Liberian government/parliament/others in power, for example, are there any safety or retribution concerns for the people who have given their testimonies (if they are identified) or have their photos/video-images included?) Also, I know there have been challenges in the past when NGOs have collected survivors’ testimonies — and then if these are ever used in court, or if the same people talk to war crimes investigators later down the track, there have sometimes been concerns about the consistency of the accounts, no matter how expertly or sensitively done by the NGOs in the first place. In any case, all this is to say that the idea you propose is a great one — and there may be some value to be gained for you and your project, even just for information’s sake, if you were able to speak to other NGOs who have done this type of information collection and advocacy in other places (although I’m sure you are already way ahead of me on that front). I hope I haven’t overstepped the mark in sharing ideas with you on this – but NGOs and independent actors can play such an important advocacy role in these areas, and I am sure your project would be one of them.


          2. Tracey,
            Thanks and well taken….I appreciate your input. Actually, this is not my first controversial project, I did a something years ago on the Liberian banking sector that exposed much of the problems and corruption and was advised not to have it released to the public or the government of Liberia. My parents had a copy and still do.

            Yea, but thanks for the input…it’s appreciated.

    3. Noko5,
      This is what I am angry about, 250,000 lives lost; It’s simple. Taylor has done nothing to me personally. some of his children are my little cousins (he was married to my cousin, Agnes), his former brother-in-law is my cousin, Henry Cassell, his former lawyer Charlene is my cousin, his good friend Charles Bright is my cousin, and I can go on…but come on…I’ve known John T and his his brother the late Nat Richardson since I was a kid. I personally don’t have anything against the man or others, they just need to be held responsible.

      You said that Tracey prevents you all from saying things to me. See this is the difference, if you are Charles Taylor or any of the other rebel leaders in this forum, then I am attacking you, but you are not, so you are not being attacked. Yea, like the “kindergarden playground” threats will deter me, please, Noko5–that’s comical.

      I try to keep a level head when I am responding to some of these things that could make someone upset, I am above the fray and I hope you get there too.

      1. Bnkr,
        I am sure John T. Richardson will be taking the stand. When he does the prosecution will be in for another shock of their lives. In some ways he is even more eloquent then Charles Taylor and will give a good prospective in refuting the charges against Mr. Taylor

        1. Aki,
          Hey Bro…thanks for inputting. Yea, I know JT is very charismatic and eloquent, but there are always many others smarter and wiser.

          I learned he is not too well, I certainly wish him well though.

    4. urrh.. noko5, a man scolds your interest, Mr. Taylor, and you sound desperate to get back at him.. is it high-grade?
      Think about those who were wronged by Mr. Taylor but had to wait for some fourteen years or so to see him brought justice. These are just words yet ,remember, and not the achual verdict.

  12. I still am at a loss as to why no commentary from objective legal expert outside on what the bench is doing to the Prosecution and impeachment. Even many on this site are so confused about the use of materials for impeachment vs guilt. Let me repeat – it is elementary evidence law (in both common law domestic and int’l tribunals) that when cross examining party allowed to use outside materials to impeach. Whether those materials have info that maybe probative of guilt is irrelevant as even juries deal with limiting instructions. It is a shame that this has happened in cross and no one is screaming about it. They should stop using term professional judges. This is flagrantly agaist any understanding of impeachment any first year law student knows. Please name one other trial in any jurisdiction where party crossing is not allowed to impeach the direct exam?! It happene again a bunch of times this week. And remember these issues of Liberia were brought out in DIRECT! Of course one should be crossing on it! Taylor brought up his suppsoed great human rights record or his great “freedom” of press in Liberia. Some of you think Prosecution shouldnt cross him on that?!

    1. Bundu — the prosecution has submitted a filing to appeal this issue you raise. Early this week, we should know if the defense is also submitting a filing (if it is a public document). That will provide a good opprtunity to discuss this issue some more.

    2. Bundu,
      It is the prosecution who is not understand how “fresh evidence” is introduced in a trial when they have rested their case. The prosecution wants to introduce this “fresh evidence” during cross-examination base on what the accused has testified to during his testimony, to impeach that testimony. The judges are allowing the prosecution to do so.

      Any “fresh evidence” showing guilt goes through another method. When the judges feel that, the “fresh evidence” is pointing to guilt, it is not allow. If the prosecution wants to reopen their case with “fresh evidence”, to show guilt they need to make an application to do so, not try to do it during the defense case, under the banner of impeaching testimony. The prosecution is the one who is confused about the procedure of impeaching ones statements and showing ones guilt of the crime.

      1. Bundu
        In addition, let me add that a first year law student is not expect to know these things but an experience-practicing lawyer as a prosecutor should. The judges have explained to Ms. Hollis at least twice, how these procedures will be done. It is the judges who control the court and how thing are to be done not the prosecution.

    3. Bundu,

      Do you know what is really a shame here? It is when the prosecution has finished closing their case and allowed to bring in “fresh new evidence.” I think it will be of vital importance talking about that also. Bundu, you can not have it both ways.

  13. Hi Ziggy Salis – just a quick note to let you know that I cannot post your comment from today at 4:53am in its current form. There is a descriptor of a person in the first line that I have to ask you to remove so it fits with the policy and terms of use for this site — I’ve given an overview in this post:

    If you can just remove the description in the first line and resubmit, I am happy to post the comment. Do let me know if you need a copy of your comment and I’ll be happy to send it through to you.

    Very best, and thanks for your understanding

  14. Hi JOe — I got a comment from you yesterday at 7:05pm that unfortunately I cannot publish. You might just want to check out this link which better explains why: If there is a way you can rephrase your comment to fit with this policy and conditions of use on the site, I will happily post anything you resubmit. If you need me to send you the post you did, I can happily do that too.

    Thanks in advance for your understanding,

  15. Helloo King Gray — I received a post from you at 2:58pm on January 22, which alas I cannot post as it doesn’t fit with our policy and terms of use. Would you mind just reading this post which sets out our policy based on discussions I had with freedom of expression lawyers and in-house counsel here:

    You make interesting points in your post which I think readers would want to read: however, I just need you to ensure that any individuals referred to are treated with the same respect we show other readers, and that the focus of the comment remains on the trial and issues arising in the courtroom, and doesn’t go to the character of the individual at issue. Sound fair?

    Thanks in advance for your understanding, and just let me know if you need me to email you your post,

  16. Hi J Fallah Menjor — I have a comment from you from yesterday which I am happy to post if you don’t mind making one slight change — that is you ascribe a psychological term to an individual which may not fit with our policy (you can read my new post on it here: Would you mind just removing that word/phrase and I am happy to post? Also happy to send you the text of your comment ifyou need it. Just let me know.

    Best, with thanks for your understanding,

  17. Big Joe — you posted two comments yesterday, both of which made some important points. However, both seemed to imply that specific readers on this site may have also potentially committed crimes. There is no way for us to prove or disprove this allegation, and that – as well as legal issues for this site around defamation and libel — mean that we cannot publish your comments in their current form. I do not object to your larger points you are trying to make in your posts, however, and I wonder if there is a way that you can reframe your comments and resubmit them so that they accord with our policy as I’ve explained it here:

    I am happy to send you a copy of the comments if you need them, and will post them if they can simply fit with our policy and terms of use for the site. SOund okay?


  18. Tracey,
    The part you want remove is the meat of the issue I wanted to discuss. So there is really no need to resending it.
    I must confess that I am greatly disappointed in your latest decision.
    Anyway, it is your site. You made the rules and interpret it as you find fit. I’m neither a lawyer nor a student of law but I am definitely sure my post did passed your policy for posting which I have read.
    For me posting here is not an intellectual exercise. It is a mean of relieving myself of the pains and griefs of living in the hell hole creating by Taylor and his cohorts for their greed and setting the record straight on the wickedness of this man and his supporters I experienced first hand. Trying to take that away from me in the name of some rules are truly disappointing.
    I hope and pray that this is not the beginning of curtaining our freedom to freely express ourselves on this site.

    1. Big Joe — I am sorry to hear that our decision on comments has disappointed you. I do indeed understand that this trial provokes so much emotion. I don’t in any way want to censor what you are saying – but I do need to balance two goals which are at times competing: freedom of expression and defamation/libel. The best way I can see for us to do so as a community of people who are all deeply interested and invested in this trial is to focus on the trial itself and the issues arising from it.

      I do hope that we continue to hear from you, and I do hope there is enough leeway within the rules for you to express yourself meaningfully beyond an intellectual exercise.

      Very best,

  19. Impeachment vs Guilt – Why is this notr sinking in? Of course something “may” go to guilt and still be used for limited purpose of impeachment. Have you ever seen a trial at home…or even on TV? Even juries are asked to limit consideration for certain materials. This is the whole point. Your position (and seemingly the chambers which I assure is way out of the norm) is that if something may have some material which may go to guilt under some interpretation, it cant be used to impeach?! Think about that. It makes impeachment impossible! How can it come in case-in-chief…was the Prosecution supposed to have a crystal ball and guess what Taylor would testify to? I am not saying this in favor or with bias…it is objectively looking at it…what is happening to prosecution is unfair and completely out of the norm in any common law jurisdiction.

    1. Hi Bundu — you are right that this is an important issue. We will be doing a piece something this week on the prosecutor’s appeal on teh use of “fresh evidence” — we just need to get all the relevant documentation first.

      1. Tracey,
        Is the prosecution going to file an appeal about the judge’s ruling of the use of fresh evidences?

        1. Hi Ken — yes they have, and the defense have submitted a reply. I hope to write about it in the coming days so people are kept up to date.

    2. bundu,
      Its not impeachment v.s. guilt. If the prosecution has come across “fresh evidences to prove Mr. Taylor guilt they need to file a motion to reopen their case and take it from there. During the prosecution cross- examination of Mr. Taylor they can only impeach his testimony not try to prove guilt. Evidences of guilt are revealed during the prosecution case and evidences of innocent are revealed during the defense case. The prosecution did not need a crystal ball to know that Mr. Taylor was going to plea not guilty. So far, the Judges has not done anything that is unfair to either side. The Judges are following the rules of jurisdiction law.

  20. To those who are supportive of Taylor’s defense. I think Mr. Taylor himself will disagree with any intent to suppress the free speech of any body on this forum, especially as it relates directly to this trial. It disappoints me, that those who are supportive of Mr. Taylor’s defense will be focusing on these elementary things about insulting Taylor or calling him name. Taylor is a big boy and I think , as a public person, such insults come with the territory.

    What this reminds me about , is the same kind of behavior that some NPFL soldiers displayed duriing the war and killed innocent people, in the name of defending Taylor. It was those kinds of behavior that have got Mr. Taylor to where he is today, because some of Taylor’s supporters took up national matters in their own hands. We, Liberians, should stop this kind of behavior , and stop disgracing ourselves on the international stage. This is a clear example of how people like Jackson Doe, Gabriel Kpolleh , Sam Dokie and many other that either directly opposed Taylor or were percieved to be in opposition to Taylor got killed. And Taylor had no knowledge about those killings. Taylor himself has always allow free speech and believes in the protected right of Liberians to freely express themselves.

    This is why during the Taylor’s government, ordinary Liberians could gather at the Aitay place and have open discussion about the government without fear, ordinary people could call on radio stations and speak their mind freely without fear that Taylor would send security forces to arrest them, this is why people like Varney Sherman, Tiawon Glongloe, the many socalled human rights groups, the socalled Catholic Justice and Peace Commission could make all kinds of insulting remarks against Taylor personally and Taylor did not ordered his security forces to arrest them. Even our current president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf made many insulting remarks against Taylor, yet Taylor invited and held meetings with her at the executive mansion for all Liberians to work together for peace. Taylor himself loves debate as we can cearly see from this trial.

    So people should wear a thick skin and expect opponents to insult Mr. Taylor. For me, I can understand their hurts and emotions because they have been misled by powerful international forces, who have demonized Taylor in every way possible. So guys , let us focus on the substantive nature of this trial and if others choose to insult Taylor , let them do so. I am a strong advocate of free speech and respect , so I felt compelled to add my vioce to this line of discussion. The Taylor’s haters are disappointed, frustrated, and ashame of their prosecution lack of facts. Thus , their only option is to result to homo habilus behavior. Its ok guys , let them insult, it means nothing to the facts.

    1. OOH Old and New King Gray from the Great Bassa Tribe of West Africa, very well. Take charge and carry out the plan of the day. Outstanding.

  21. Jose,
    BRAVO, Jose. Thanks for your posting, sorta warning me….I find it, let say, “it lacks teeth” and it reflects the need that we all need to be detraumatized….Operative word, Jose, “we”…not Jose.

    Now you go and watch football because I am, today are two good games NFC and AFC championship games.

    Good day!

  22. Bnker,
    I am glad the platform for brotherly discussions has been established. Thanks for answering my questions. I understand “turtle wants to box, but go short hands”. However, I wish you success in getting your project started. But please please don’t be like those who only chose times of the Liberian crisis that they wanted to deal with, instead of going back to the 1979 rice riot. Also, I advice that all players of the liberian conflict be considered one way or the other, and not just charles taylor as previous human rights organizations did. Because , that is why the problem cannot be solved todate. God bless you in your endevore…thanks

Comments are closed.