Charles Taylor executed Liberian politicians whom he perceived as threats to his political ambitions, killed rebels who failed to carry out his orders, and persecuted human rights activists who opposed his policies, prosecutors alleged today at the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor denied the allegations.
Lead prosecution counsel, Brenda Hollis, today questioned Mr. Taylor about the execution of several Liberian politicians including Jackson Doe, Gabriel Kpolleh, Moses Duopoe and Samuel Dokie. These men, Ms. Hollis alleged, were executed on the orders of Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor dismissed these allegations as stories made up by Tom Woweiyu, another rebel leader with broke ranks with the former Liberian president but later joined Mr. Taylor’s National Patriotic Party (NPP) Government.
“After we broke up, after Tom Woweiyu formed a rebel group and attacked the NPFL [National Patriotic Front of Liberia] and broke away in 1994, “ Mr. Taylor said. “Tom Woweiyu made a lot of wild allegations that later he apologized for, I forgave him, and brought him into my government.”
“I am aware of the nonsense he wrote. He later apologized and I brought him into my government . He became senator from the NPP,” Mr. Taylor said.
After denying allegations that he executed Gabriel Kpolleh, whom he allegedly saw as threat to his power, Mr. Taylor also referred to allegations that he killed Jackson Doe as another story by Mr. Woweiyu.
“Mr. Taylor, you were also responsible for the killing of Jackson F. Doe, weren’t you?” Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor.
“That is not correct. That’s Tom Woweiyu again. That is not correct. Jackson Doe was a very well respected man,” Mr. Taylor responded.
Mr. Jackson Doe, a former Liberian politician is reported to have won democratic elections against then Liberian president, Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe. The elections, reports indicate, were rigged against Mr. Jackson Doe. Mr. Taylor’s NPFL has previously stated that one of the reasons for its fighting in Liberia was to reverse the election victory that was stolen by Sergeant Samuel K. Doe at Mr. Jackson Doe’s expense. According to other reports, Mr. Taylor later killed Mr. Jackson Doe in order to eliminate any threat to his power. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations.
Mr. Taylor was also questioned about the death of Mr. Samuel Dokie, another politician who was reportedly executed with his family. Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor whether any action was taken against those who committed those murders.
“Was Benjamin Yeaten ever arrested for the killing of the Dokies?” Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor.
“No, Benjamin Yeaten was not arrested,” Mr. Taylor said. “Those that were involved I think were arrested.”
“Benjamin Yeaten – I said that he had asked for Dokie to be arrested and brought to Monrovia, according to reports, but those that went to carry out the orders went beyond the orders and I think that those were the people that were sought,” Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor also denied allegations that he had ordered the execution of some of his rebel commanders, including Oliver Varnie and Sam Larto. These commanders, Ms. Hollis alleged, were executed because they had failed to carry out Mr. Taylor’s orders. Mr. Taylor denied the accusation, saying that they were executed because they had been involved in subversive operations.
Mr. Taylor explained that Mr. Varney was executed “because he was part of a group that planned to overthrow the leadership of the NPFL.”
On the execution of Mr. Larto, Mr. Taylor explained that he was executed because he had been involved in the killing of civilians. Ms. Hollis suggested that Mr. Larto was killed because Mr. Taylor was concerned that he had connived against him. Mr. Taylor responded that while it was true that Mr. Larto had connived against him, the main reason for his execution was because he was involved in the killing of those civilians. He added that Mr. Larto was tried and convicted before he was executed.
As in the past several days, Ms. Hollis again today accused Mr. Taylor of persecuting human rights advocates who were critical of his government.
One person who is said to have gone into hiding, allegedly to escape arrest by Mr. Taylor’s government, was one Mr. Adebayo. Mr. Adebayo, Ms. Hollis said, “went into hiding after the Liberian Watch for Human Rights issued a statement describing the ATU [Anti Terrorist Unit] as unconstitutional.” The group, Ms. Hollis said, had called for the disbandment of the ATU. Mr. Taylor responded that he had no idea of such an incident and that he did not even know Mr. Adebayo.
“I have no recollection of anybody calling on me called Adebayo—that’s not even a Liberian name — to dissolve the ATU. I don’t have any recollection of that,” Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor insisted that he had no idea that the Liberian police had gone after Mr. Adebayo after the Director of the Liberian Police, Paul Mulba, had said that Mr. Adebayo will be “apprehended to answer.”
Mr. Taylor also said he did not recall knowing a James Torh, a human rights activist who had been forced to go into hiding because his organization, The Focus, had become critical of Mr. Taylor’s government. The former president further denied knowledge of the arrest of another human rights activist, Aloysious Toe, who had criticized the actions of Mr. Taylor’s son, Chuckie Taylor. Mr. Taylor Jr., who was head of his father’s ATU, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a United States court for crimes of torture committed in Liberia. Mr. Toe later went into hiding, Ms. Hollis told the court today.
Prosecutors have been questioning Mr. Taylor about his actions as head of the NPFL and as president of Liberia. While those actions are not the subject of the charges against Mr. Taylor, prosecutors seek to establish that the former president’s actions in his own country were reflective of the actions of Sierra Leonean rebels, who Mr. Taylor is accused of supporting.
Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination continues tomorrow.
It’s sad that all the prosecution can come up with is this.
Onething I know today is that Judge Sebutende displyed her judicial anger on Hollis. She scream at and said” look Ms Hollis, the parading of unneccessary new evidences is going to cause more problems for you ok”!!!!…and Hollis stood there feeling and watching like a wet chicken.. she was like “oh my god the oldma is now piss”….hahaha..fun never dies..that was one of the best parts of the trial today for those who were not lucky to witness…AYE the GREAT NOKO5..
Where is Benjamin Yeaten all you Taylor supporters (Noko4, Aki and so on)?
Did Taylor eliminated him as well? I know he is not in Liberia, because he would have already face jungle justice long time. He is worse than most of the former war lord in Liberia at a moment.
His name keep popping up time and time again.
Why are you asking me for Mr Yeaten??? The prosecutors know where he is….he might show up as a witness for Mr. Taylor….but he will a FOOL to even leave this safety.
The Liberian gov’t has issued a INTERPOOL WARRANT on him for the Dokies’ death….a TRICKY TRICK to get him into the Hague. After 7 plus more years, what EVIDENCE does the Liberian gov’t has??
Prince Johnson who allegedly savagely murdered the sitting president at the time, was not served arrest warrant. But it is Yeaten, that rumor had it he was involved in the slain death of Mr. Dokie. Ellen and Brownie Samukai can not be serious. What an irony. Ellen, implement the TRC report first before going after perceived enemies. Didn’t I say these guys will be a victim of their own trap? it is happening. What has happened to the TRC report? DEAD!!!! I knew it.
Just a quick note.
Taylor only and main threat was the “big countries” and they know who they are. It is those same old big countries who made sure he is where he is today. And not the likes of the names being called and even Ellen and the rest of them. We all know Pres. Bush and P.M. Blair roles in bringing this innocent down. Nontheless, as we speak right now, they are still of no threat to him. They were not not even a threat to begin with. And certainly, they will be no threar. However, if you think they are threat, release him and let see which one of them that we the Liberian people will choose over the other.
Tom Woewiyu was one of the founders of the NPFL, the only reason he broke away is because of Mr. Taylors deviating from the goals of the organization. Which was not to shed blood throughout the nation. The “Wild Allegations” he says Tom had made are not false.
When did Tom Woewiyou realize that Taylor deviated from the plans? So if Taylor deviated, is that justification of Woewiyou forming another armed group (CRC) which killed more innocent people in Gbanga and other places in Liberia? Bear in mind now, it was the same Tom, who came back and apologized to Taylor and served as a senator for Grand Bassa county on the popularity of Taylor’s NPP. Lib, why will he come back if the man deviated and still deviating? Nice try though.
Thanks for helping Lib Don. Atleast you thought him/her the lesson of researching and the old liberian saying “think before you talk”…
I just got back in the country, to find this mess. Who in liberia can say Tom Woewiyu gave orders to kill or harm or steel from anybody. Taylor lied he called Tom, Tom nevered apoligized. For what? To
It is even more clearer that people who want to see this innocent man being put away for crimes he did not do are finding it difficult and struggling to accept a nonsensical strategy from their intellectually superior and nuance lawyers. I know how difficult it is for them to go along with Ms. Hollis line of thinking. Especially in accepting a report from the U.N. Panel of Expert of contractual agreement between the government of Liberia and foreign and domestic companies without the actual copy of the agreement and the laws, being attached to their report. How can Ms. Hollis bring forth an irresponsible document from the panel of experts accusing this man of contracts that were not in agreement with the laws of Liberia in this inherently flawed court, and could not bring the physical and actual contract to reconcile with the laws? Folks, again, it is a political coverup by theorically relying on the expert.
However, it is becoming brutally bad folks. It was horribly incoherent yesterday. And it was so narcissistically self-absorbed by Ms. Brenda Hollis. Can you imagine, Ms. Hollis is saying, one Mr. Fawhy,(stand to be corrected on the spelling of the name) gave money to President Taylor by putting the money in his (Fawhy) personal account in France and Swiss banks for Mr. Taylor? Can you imagine this? But you what? As also, he gave a brilliant and awesome answer. His answer was, if this man wanted to give him money, why he could not have just given it to him in person, but he had to put it in his personal account and says, it is for Taylor. In the first place, we don’t even know if this man said anything of such. Guys, I am writing this piece and can’t help but to laugh. Seriously, is Ms. Hollis serious? Ms. Hollis, there are pointy-headed intellectual academics and common sense people with backbones and spines who can not and will not compromise to uphold what is right. You are just not making any sense. Aparrently, you think we are living in an alternative unverse here and not planet earth. Notwithstanding, almost everyone can easily see through your gimmicks and lies. Sometimes, right and wrong is very clear. Sometimes, sense and nonsense can be easily seen. Folks, I am telling you again. At the end of this trial, don’t be surprised, when the prosecution adds up all their self made monopoly money, and come up with a figure of 5 billion dollars and probably go above the 5 billion dollars: than, they will say, see, we found your money. Therefore, your put him in jail. Just watch my word. By the way, this account of the trial yesterday is not being reflected in Alpha’s summary/report. SWEET.
It’s called THROW IN THE KITCHEN SINK ALONG WITH THE BATH TUB……..I couldn’t stop shaking my head.
JUDGE SEBUTINDE GRILLED BRENDA HOLLIS IN TODAY’S HEARING.
Another big set back for the prosecution. Judge Sebutinde upright told Ms Hollis that the burden of proof rest on the prosecution and not the defense. Therefore, Ms Hollis should stop acting as if the burden of proof lies with the defense. What lead to judge Sebutinde’s burden of proof comment to Ms Hollis derives from documents Ms Hollis attempted to introduce to be marked and identify, but defense counsel Mr Anyah objected to said documents on the ground, the documents proves guilt. The judges conferred, and upheld the defense’s objection. Ms Hollis was not pleased with the judges ruling; as a result she (Hollis) became combative and argumentative. Ms Hollis and judge Sebutinde were exchanging words for words. At a point in time, Ms Hollis was talking over judge Sebutinde. That didn’t go down well with judge Sebutinde. As the matter of fact, during the exchange between Ms Hollis and Judge Sebutinde, Ms Hollis give the judges alternatives. Ms Hollis told the judges that they have two choices to make on the ruling of her submission. She told the judges, in the name of justice and fair trial, they must accept the evidence as guilt and/or to discredit the witness. That too didn’t go down well with judge Sebutinde. After conferring, judge Sebutinde told Ms Hollis by “unanimous decision” you can not use the documents because it proves guilt.
It appears as if Ms Hollis were perplexed in her line of questioning. At one point in her cross examination she asked President Taylor about his house (White flower). She gives reference to the many pictures taken of White flower, video and even a (non professional) sketch by defense counsel Perry Mason. Ms Hollis asked President Taylor to describe what is outside the fence from the right and left side. Ms Hollis didn’t have problem with President Taylor’s answer to what is on the right side of the fence. Her concerned was the left side. Ms Hollis asked about the Special Security Services (SSS) building on the life side of the fence that she alleged has a direct link leading into White flower. President Taylor disagreed with her proposition. I thought for a moment that Ms Hollis had a smoking gun. Surprisingly, Ms Hollis deviated from White flowers and proceeded to asked questions about LPRC. I said to myself, what is the signification of her questions?
Another one of Ms Hollis’ propositions “twisted logic” a new phase by President Taylor, Ms Hollis posted a question to President Taylor that went something like this. Isn’t it true that Mr Farwaz a Lebanese businessman deposited money in Europe into his account for you? President Taylor responded “NO”. But it didn’t stop there. President Taylor told Ms Hollis your logic is twisted. Why would Farwaz deposit money supposedly mine into his account? Why couldn’t he (Farwaz) give the money to me instead of deposition it into his account?
Lastly, Ms Hollis questioned President Taylor about armed shipments that were allegedly brought in at the Port of Buchanan by OTC. President Taylor told Ms Hollis it is not true and she (Ms Hollis) knows very well that it’s not true. President Taylor proceeded to tell the court that a group of Dutch (UN) investigators went to Liberia to inquire about the alleged arms coming into the Port of Buchanan; their findings were contrary to Ms Hollis’ proposition. The Dutch investigators report stated that there were no arm shipments into the Port of Buchanan. Ms Hollis clarified that the shipment of arms to the Port of Buchanan by OTC came from the TRC report. Obviously, President Taylor wasted no time to bring it to the attention of the court, that the TRC report is being contested in the court system in Liberia. It is not a binding document in Liberia. President Taylor reiterated, the court in Liberia might put a sealed to the TRC report, because the way in which evidence and witnesses were selected. Finally, President Taylor told Ms Hollis that if she is relying on the TRC report than, it means that the Dutch investigators report is false.
Big B — thanks for sharing with us your impressions of the day’s events in court.
No problem, I am grateful.
Mr. Woweiyu was not just making stories, but was also looking for political relevance after he broke away from the NPFL in 1994. If Mr. Taylor was executing politicians whom he perceived as threats to his political ambition as alleged, why didn’t he kill Ellen Johnson Sirleaf? Like Dokie, I remember Ellen make several visits to Monrovia between 1997 and 2003. It is a shame for Ms. Hollis to have asked Mr. Taylor about stories that were rubbished and retracted by Mr. Wouweiyu. I’m sure a first year law student wouldn’t have given credit to such document in a court of law. It would have been better for Ms. Hollis to be appointed a head of a war crime court in Liberia, but too late the TRC report is already dead because America interest is hooked.
Harris K Johnson
I honestly doubt the prosecutors strategy of tryin to relate the actions of Taylor to that of the RUF as prove that he had any link with them. The point is that.the activities of all rebel factions have been n will continue to be the same in Africa. world crimes n crime against humanity were commited in Angola,Congo, somalia, Liberia al et of which freetown is of no exception.The prosecutrs should not forgt they have got to prove their allegstions beyond all reasonble doubts. However, I think wit taylor continuous dismissal of all the human right abuses, murders, and injustices that were carry out during his maliatia and presidential days, he might not be credible as a witness….cus these are known facts.
Taylor and his forces or loyalists commited mayhem and heinous crimes against the Liberian people for which he should rot behind bars. However, he has been indicted for allegly supporting the RUF, which is shame because of all the atrocities he commited against the Liberian people, no body cares
This case is NOT and I repeat for the MILLION time….is NOT about Liberia. The TRC Report we heard about in this case is about to be THROWN AWAY; WHY??? Because if VIOLATES some of the citizens of Liberia CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…..this rights to a DUE PROCESS.
President Taylor, on numerous occasions graciously conceded to the court and people of Liberia, that his forces did some terrible things in Liberia. He however, apologized to the Liberian people, and the Liberia people forgave him through their votes of electing him president. So I don’t understand where the issue of credibility coming from. What more do you want this man to say or do? He already told you and the world, that some of his forces did things out of the ordinary. As the matter of facts, some of them were cout martialled. For example, Sam Lato and others. But those acts were not of a policy of the NPFL.
However, thanks for doubting that the prosecution strategy of trying to relate the actions of Taylor to that of the RUF, does not prove any linkage. Because, according to you, these crimes are committed in wars all around the world. Kelvin, I agree with you 100%.
Just a quick note.
Taylor only and main threat were the “big countries” and they know who they are. It is those same old big countries who made sure, he is where he is today. And not the likes of the names being called and even Ellen and the rest of them. We all know Pres. Bush and P.M. Blair roles in bringing this innocent down. Nontheless, as we speak right now, these names being called are still of no threats to him. They were not not even a threat to begin with. And certainly, they will be no threat. However, if you think they are threats Ms. Hollis, concede and release him, and let see which one of them that we the Liberian people will choose over the other in a democratic process.
could you please give a little lecture on your view in respect to the cross examination when it comes to gains and losses,..thank you
Hi Noko5 – we will likely be releasing a report that will cover the cross-examination at some stage, and if you don’t mind, it might be more approrpiate to leave our broader analysis of how it played out until then. But I would be very interested to hear your take on how the cross-examination went.
Come on Tracey,
You love to quiz people..hahaha..
Noko5 — you are right! I do like to quiz people! I very much enjoy hearing your opinions.
Hey Tracey, Whz up? I think this is another slip of the eyes. My post of February 5, 2010 at 7:15 is still awaiting modration. Please do something lets move on and keep talking.
Harris K Johnson
Hi Harris — it is posted. The delay in publishing comments this morning was because of other pressing work commitments. But it is there now.
Its ok Tracey, we really understand the work load on your hands everyday. I must admit that you are doing your best to keep the talks on. Thank as usual.
Harris K Johnson
Harris, you are always so understanding. Thank you. I do appreciate it.
Jose – I received four comments from you overnight — at 12:49am, 5:21am; 10:01am and 10:12pm. The last one was a duplication of an earlier post which was published on the same page, and so I did not publish it. The previous three did not meet our stated policy for the site: that is, to focus on the trial and not personally attack other readers. In all three cases, the attack was directed towards me. I might remind you, Jose, that just because I am the moderator does not exempt me from being treated with the respect and courtesy that I demand for comments directed towards all other readers. The same applies to Alpha and to any other Justice Initiative staff who contribute to this site. I will not post personal attacks on other readers and participants on this site, no matter who they are directed towards.
Apart from the personal attacks, you also made some substantive allegations against my work here as a moderator, which I will address. You argued that I was defending the prosecutors, defending David Crane, and making misleading connections between Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor. You asked me to stop explaining on behalf of the prosecution, and you claimed that I was both censoring the site and failing to provide information in a timely way. Let me give you a general response.
1. It is mine and Alpha’s job to explain what is happening in the court each day. Alpha aims to provide a fair and balanced overview of the day’s events in court. I moderate comments, try to ensure that patterns and developments that are emerging in the trial are explained as they often happen over a series of days and weeks and are not always easy to capture in daily reports. I also try to answer readers’ questions when I can. Both Alpha and I try to do this in a balanced way. We do not take sides, but we do try to help explain what is happening. Sometimes we focus on what the prosecution does, sometimes on what the defense does, depending who is taking the floor or making particular arguments. This is part of our job on this site. We will continue to undertake these tasks going forward, and we will likely start explaining trends and patterns in what the defense is trying to do when they resume their case again on Monday (I will be away for the coming week, but my colleagues will be on hand).
2. This site is one of many projects that I am responsible for. Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of spending 100% of my time on it, but I spend as much time as my other work commitments will allow. This means that I cannot always moderate coments immediately. This means that I may take time to get back to you with answers. Sometimes it may not be the same day or the same week. Sometimes I will not be able to answer, as much as I would like to. I will ask readers’ patience with this. But the reality is, my time on this site is limited and that is not going to change.
3. Finally, if there are gross factual errors in what I write, or a pereived consistent pattern of bias in my moderation that is backed up by facts and examples that show I am not adhering to the stated purposes of the site and doing so in a balanced way, then I want to know about it so I can address it if needs be. However, when I am simply explaining processes, or need time to moderate or look up information, there is not much else to address. I have made clear my time limitations. I have made clear our goals for this site. And we have been transparent in our policy for comments. There is not much else I can say. Other sites which allow comments, such as the New York Times, also include in their own policies that they welcome comments about the moderation, but will not post them when they threaten to overwhelm the main purpose of the comments, which is to focus on the substance of the issues. Right now, I fear that the focus on moderation threatens to overwhelm the real reason why we are all here: to follow the trial of Charles Taylor. If more posts continue and threaten to overwhelm the site, then we may need to consider adopting a similar policy to those other sites.
Jose, I want to help you publicize your comments on the trial, as I do with other readers. But I also need all readers to respect our processes and policies here, as well as each other. Please, let’s focus on the trial and not on each other, okay?
My outstanding post that you did not clear and yet responded to it, is just not fair. Clear the post, so every one can see and read the post that you are responding to. I think it will be fair. I also understand how tough of a task you and Alpha are faced with. Trust me. I understand. But when you are quick to rush to the defense of the prosecution and not the defense team, some of us feel queasy and jittery about your role as a moderator. Anyways, Please clear that post so we can address those issues and concerns, if you may. I know how hard it is for you to see such a “tough love” coming from one of your staunchest and ardent supporters of this “Great” site. I mean, Jose Rodriguez.
Thanks for your note. I have cleared all the posts that I have for you, except for the ones which did not meet the policy. I do take seriously your concerns, Jose. I would ask you to give us the chance to demonstrate that we try to do the same thing for the defense as we do for the prosecution when Mr. Taylor takes the stand for re-examination and teh rest of teh defense case — which is try to explain what they are doing in the courtroom, and highlight lines of argument and how they relate to the charges/allegations. I will not be here next week and my colleagues will be taking over moderation in my absence, but on my return, I will continue to try to explain events as they relate to the defense case as well.
Meanwhile, good luck with your exams, okay?
I understand. Good luck and peace be with you while on your break. Anyways, thanks for wishing me good luck on my exam.
Of course — remember to tell us how it goes once it’s over!
Best, and see you back here in a week.
Tracey, if I pass, I will tell you guys. But if I fail, I will keep it to myself. Ha, ha, ha. Just kidding. I will definately pass. And I will pass for myself, U.S, Liberia, and Ghankay.
Rodriguez, noko and the rest of Taylor supporters, today or tomorrow if Taylor is set free or found guilty, what’s next, what do the people in Liberia do, the kids that are on hardcore drugs like heroin and cocaine, what should they do, will Taylor help them out, bring their parents back to life.
If you all say Taylor is so smart couldn’t there have been a better way to make changes in Liberia or get Doe to step down. I am sure you all have heard of non-violence revolution, Martin L. King, Ghandi, Dalai Lama, etc. Was all the blood shed necessary? The bottom line is that guilty or not guilty everyone loses. And the biggest loser is all Liberia, generations lost, how can the kids be the future.
Folks I think we should start shifting the concern and focus on how to rebuild Liberia and stop the current violence going on right now. Its a shame a man can not walk the streets of Monrovia without fear of being robbed or hurt.
Lets focus on rebuilding, if you’re so mad at the West and their evil deeds well do something about it be innovate or invent something, create a product people can buy. Oh I forgot its almost impossible because years of war and lack of education. It hurts to see what Liberia has become, how can we complain about the West when we don’t know how to conduct our businesses and gain wealth off our minerals. We sit back and let another man dictate the price and we get currupt leaders who steal the wealth.
Don’t be so pessimistic about Liberia’s future. Western Europe was destroyed after War World II but look at it today. In the few short years of peace in Liberia alot has been achieved. Roads, Schools and hospitals have been rehabilitated. This is not to say Charles Taylor did not want to do these things but he had a war on his hands and no help from the international community. Don’t give up !
Why don’t you ask the Gov’t of Liberia what she is doing to HELP the destitutes??? I hope your answer lies within my answer.
This is the very first post of yours that at least, has a minimal passing grade of 70%. You were very slendid and to the point. I almost agree with you in its entirety. But I’m very skeptical because of your previous posts. Anyways, I served in the world’s most power military to ever exist on the face of the earth. I mean, the U.S. Military, with two degrees earned in the U.S. I was told by friends and some high ranking military top brass of the AFL, to come and help the Liberian military. I told them, I will never do it. My reason was, I was not taking orders from any Nigerian man who is serving as a Chief of Staff of the military that is not even a citizen of Liberia. I also said, Ellen had no business appointing a Nigerian man, who wears the Nigerian “flag” patch and insignia on his collar device within my chain of command. This Nigerian man did not take any oath to defend and protect the constitution of Liberia against all foreign and domestic enemies and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So John, lets take our country back and move on. But Ellen and the rest of the failed politicians will not do it. Because they are weak. As the result, they will have to rely heavily on the international community for support and everything.
I don’t know if i consider myself a Taylor die-hard or more a supporter of the rule of law that upholds fair and justice; nervertheless, I am convinced that if justice and fairplay are upheld under the rule of law CT will be set free. I think you would agree with me or those of us who are still waiting for the prosecution to prove CT guilty of the charges for which he was brought to the Hague. Being responsible for the atrocities he committed against the people of Sierra Leone by lending financial and material support to the RUF. If they have please enlighten me.
Mr. Thompson, I don’t know where were you in Liberia during the inception of the Liberian civil war; for other than Samuel and his henchmen almost all Liberian supported the NPFL invasion. It is sad that those kids are on drugs; but to blame Mr. Taylor soley for that is
partiality at it best. ULIMO-J, ULIMO-K, LPC, LURD, MODEL LDF all of whom took advantage of Liberian youth.
I agree fully that the youth of Liberia need help in meeting the challenges of post-war Liberia; and one way of responding to this need is to be truthful to them and not serve them with seeds of hate and barrels of lies. Yes, Mr Taylor started the war but the ruins and carnage of Liberia can not and should not be attributed to him alone.
If I may, how do you suppose a tyrant like SKD would have vacated power? And where were you at the start and during the war? And what was position on the war? And finally how do you suppose we help those kids and rebuild Liberia? You may choose to answer or not.
Maybe, i would have felt different if CT was tried for crimes the NPFL committed in Liberia rather than this bogus claim of atrocities he allegedly committed in Sierra Leone.
I’m feeling so bad that because of the poor internet availability in our county, most of us are not able to watch live streams of this case. We depend solely on this site for summaries of the days proceedings. I’ve realized that this site is biased. Most of the negative performances of the prosecutions are over looked. I’m only getting these information from those that post comments or reading thru the entire transcripts. For me and several others, it’s bad. Alpha is a Sierra Leonean and as such, he will not give a good summary because all he believes is that Taylor is guilty. I’ve lost confidence in this one sided reporting. It’s almost like the reports and stories we see in the New Democract newspaper here daily. I’m too sad Tracy.
I’m sorry to hear that you are disappointed with the reporting here. I just wanted to highlight two things from our perspective: the first is: we report what happens in the court each day. We do not take sides nor do we aim to pass judgement on the performance of one side or the other, but we are interested in ensuring that the process and developments are explained properly, and that the legal issues are explained. We do not aim to critique either the prosecution or the defense, but rather to give a balanced reflection of what happened each day in court, and to discuss the issues arising in court in our commentary forum. Secondly, Alpha’s nationality is irrelevant to his level of professionalism. He is a trained lawyer and he takes his role seriously as a monitor, and as a person trying to reflect the day’s events in a balanced and even way. I believe he has met that goal each day and has developed a track record on this site of fair and balanced reporting. Indeed, we greatly benefit from Alpha’s history in Sierra Leone as he knows the places, people, context and events referred to in court, which I often do not. If you or other readers can point to reports where he has not reflected both sides of an issue as they happened in court, please do point it out. But both he and I know that our credibility rests in our ability to present fair and balanced reports. We are both professionals and try to do our job professionally. We can always improve of course, but we do have principles we adhere to on this site and we try to live up to them daily.
Ms. Hollis rested with SHAME….I cannot believe we went thru this CROSS EXAMINATION and got ZERO….truly a FAT ZERO. So the only plan was to DISCREDIT him??? NO FACTUAL EVIDENCES as they relate to the charges??? Really???
The score reads Ms. Hollis & Mr. Koumjain 2 vs Mr. Taylor 19.
One of last responses by Mr. Taylor was teling……”YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVE IT BEYOND RESEANABLE DOUBT”…..this was after Ms. Hollis went on her childish game…name the WHOLE WIDE WORLD as conspirators.
Are they done cross examining President Taylor? If that is the case, well, the innocent man has won the second round again, like the way he massively defeated the prosecution and its false evidence in the first round. Folks, he alone did it, with no help yet from his witnesses that are yet to come. SWEET!!! UNBELIEVABLE.
Noko4, will they have a third round in this case? UNBELIEVABLE!!!
Ms. Hollis or Mr. Koumjain can RECROSS base on what Perry Mason does…but they won’t have much to go on because it’s their evidence will be on the disecting table.
Okay, Tracy I understand your position and have read your response well. Just to let you know that most people have lost credibility in the reporting of this site.
Hi Daniel. Okay, thanks for letting me know.
The trial looks failed. From what you people have contributed, what do you think would be the outcome of the whole money spent? Is it in favor of procecutors or defence? If it were in boxing ring, though I am not a professional judge, I would give CT 97 against his oponents 49. What do you think?
Secondly, I am aware that somewhere, somebody is sweeping his jail (CT’s jail) what will happen if proved not guilty? Is he to be paid for the torture and force imprisonment?
Thirdly, suppose he (CT) wants to contest as a president in Liberia, is he going to be accepted?
Quite frankly, your questions are kind of easy, but hard at the same to answer. I could answer it, but remember, he is still in the hands of the powerful. Just remember one thing. ULIMO-K Kromah, contested this gone by senatorial election. No problems. Ellen has announced she will contest the presidential election in 2011. No qualms. Prince Johnson has expressed his declaration of intent to run for president in 2011. No queasiness.
BUT, I DON’T KNOW OF “THE MAN GHANKAY.” RIGHT NOW HIS ACQUITTAL IS OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN. HOWEVER, WHO KNOWS THE FUTURE?
Comments are closed.