Charles Taylor Trial Adjourned For One WeeK

Judges of the Special Court for Sierra Leone today granted a defense request for a one week adjournment of the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor.  The judges also granted a defense request for restrictions on Mr. Taylor not to discuss his testimony with anyone, including his own lawyers.

When the court adjourned with the conclusion of Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination by prosecutors on Friday, it was anticipated that the former president’s defense lawyers will commence his re-examination today.  However, when the court resumed this morning, lead defense counsel for Mr. Taylor, Courtenay Griffiths, informed the judges that certain contentious issues had been identified in Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination and that the former president wished to discuss those issues with his defense team before the commencement of his re-examination. Lead prosecution counsel, Ms. Brenda Hollis, raised her objection to the defense application, but her objection was overrulled by the judges.

Presiding Judge of the Chamber, Justice Julia Sebutinde, stated that it was part of Mr. Taylor’s fair trial rights to consult a lawyer of his choosing and for him to be given adequate time to prepare his defense.  According to Justice Sebutinde, the one week adjournment requested by the defense was not unreasonable.

Court was adjourned for one week and Mr. Taylor’s re-examination is set to commence on Monday February 15, 2010.


  1. At least someone -IE Courtenay Griffiths- realises that Taylor is in serious trouble and a major effort needs to be made to salvage something from the collapsing house of cards that was Taylor’s defence. The defence -IE ‘Courtenay Griffiths’- has a monumental task to rescue Taylor’s imploding defence…..Next week promises to be crucial to the outcome of this trial!
    As Always ,Wadi’The Zima’

    1. Wadi if that’s how you make analysis on legal issues then you’re a very poor legal analyst. The prosecution was given the same rights. Even with the introduction of fresh evidences. The judges are right and so far, they’ve been very fair in their decision making. I’ve high confidence in their ability to dispense fair judgements.

    2. Wadi,
      Do you need a HAIL MARY pass?? Because the defense asked for a week means Mr. Taylor is in trouble??? HOW??

      1. If you read my post you ought to have noticed that I outlined why I was of the opinion that Taylor was in trouble…May I suggest you re-read my post

    3. Wadi, “short sleeve long sleeve” are the works and trademarks of your countrymen, Sierra Leoneans. There is no other way to put it. OK Wadi Williams, if I instruct you to kill every body in your household right now, Will you do it? That’s exactly what you are telling us. However, “Sierra Leone Freetown Bobbor” Killed their own people. Blame Kabbah, Kamorjor, RUF, AFRC, JUNTA and every Sierra Leonean Rebel. Let me ask you. So was it President Taylor that told President Kabbah to form the Kamorjor, that one of the prosecution witnesses said she was amputated by Kabbah’s army? NO CASE!!!!

      1. Jose
        You need to bone up on the concept of ‘Command Responsibility’. Taylor is not accused of personaly amputating limbs…anymore than, Blair or Bush personally incinerated the thousands of civilians slaughtered in IRAQ, or that Hitler personally went around rounding up jews and murdering them, however this does not absolve any of the above of culpability for ‘Crimes against Humanity’, likewise the fact that Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak,and the rest of the Zonist Ruling cabal did not personally butcher palestianian Civilians and children in Gaza does not absolve them of ‘culpabiity’ for ‘War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity’.
        The common thread is ‘Command Reponsibility’.

        1. Wadi Williams,

          If you are putting Bush, Blair, and Taylor in the same category, than you are very desperate and ungrateful. Remember now, it was Bush and Blair that made it possible for Taylor to even be in this fake court. Show us your proof Wadi, that’s all we ask.

  2. It was brilliant on the part of defense counselor Perry Mason to petition the court for an adjournment. Only a novice counselor will immediately proceed to redirect the accused subsequently after over two months of cross examination.

    Firstly, the petition for adjournment was to grant the accused the right to counselor. President Taylor was ordered by the court while under cross examination to desist from discussing his testimony with anybody, including his counselors. For the order to be removed allowing President Taylor to have access to his counselors, it has to be done in open court by petitioning the court to do so. In the court of law what is not said or written, it never happened. Perry Mason is not a rookie; he knows the tricks of the trade. If Perry Mason had failed to ask the court to remove the order allowing President Taylor to meet with his counselors, the prosecution based on technicalities would have brought it to the attention of the court that the accused is violating the court’s order. The prosecution is in jeopardy; Ms Hollis will pull out any trick in the book to win. Perry Mason is leaving no screw unturned.

    Secondly, the petition for adjournment was to make the work load on the court much easier. Instead of the judges and the court attendants going through so many different binders to find a document, Perry Mason will have one binder for his redirect. The judges agreed it made sense.

    Thirdly, Ms Hollis can object to all she wants. She never wins, her objections are always overruled.

    1. Tracey, could you please make available prosecution opening statement for those who did not hear or read it? They told us their evodence willl show Mr. Taylor violated eleven counts against citizens of Sierra Leone. In addition, Mr. Taylor had billion stacked in foreign banks. They failed to produce such evidence as charged. Where is the diamond the size of a human head? Is this diamond in the Guiness Book Of Records? Did anyone see this diamond on CNN, BBC, or their local news? If Taylor acted in concert with RUF, why did many citizen of Sierra Leone lose theit limbs as oppose to Liberian in Liberia? When you provide funds for scratch cards, travel alloances, medical bills, rent, spare money for food, you’re influencing the witnesses testimony. I kept a score… Ms. Hollis 2 vs Mr Taylor 21. They failed to prove their case against Mr. Taylor. The world is watching, at the end of the day Taylor walks. My position would be same If it was another defendant all things being equal.

        1. Thanks Alpha, the reason for requesting opening statement is for readers to go back, take a look, and make a sound judgement for themselves. I do not believe Ms. Hollis and her team proved their case vs Mr. Griffith. This is just my opinion. One has to be careful in opening statement when you say the evidence wil show, this, this and this. These judges are experience lawyers and not our peers. They know how to apply the law and not base on feelings. If you take a look at one of many pisting I submitted on this forum, I stated the judges would not allow new evidence to be introduced, I was right. Ms. Hollis and her team must prove their case, If not, Mr. Taylor walks and that’s how the system is designed.
          What happened to the so-called first world countries that provided lojistic to rebel groups? Their bullets killed innocent people. Why are they not on trial? Long before Taylor, Sierra Leone experienced problems with Siaka Stevens, Sir Albert Magar et al. Same can be said when it comes to Nigeria Sir Alahi Abuka Kata Fawa Billoway et al. Same can be said about Ghana. Infact, Nigeria and Ghana experienced more over throws as opposed to any other African Country. Did Taylor have anything to do with this before he came into power? Africa’s problem has and will always be tribalism. Go back to the days of slavery and take a look at tribal wars, they conquered and sold their own. Slavery was commerce. Were children sold into slavery? Were women sold into slavery? You bet your last dollar. In Liberia we say old wine in new bottle.

  3. Wadi, I reaaly don’t know what you are looking at but if I am wrong please point me to the right direction. Where in these procedings, did the prosecution show the link between Taylor and the RUF. If the court of law permit “They Say”, than I think you are right. Than Taylor is in trouble. But if you were watching or following what I have been following, than, you have a tunnel vision.

    Majority of the prosecution questions were focus on Liberia. The trial is not about Taylor’s alleged role or activities in Liberia. It was Sierra Leone so the monumental task as the judges put it is on the prosecution, and they failed.

    They failed, they failed, they failed!!!

    1. Simeon
      In the trial that I have been following a veritable legion of witnesses have linked Taylor to the RUF in general and to it’s’ Leaders’ in particular……This is not to say that Taylors defence team has not questioned the veracity of prosecution witnesses, however when your Vice President, Minister of Defence etc etc all give evidence supporting ‘Linkage’, it ought to give you pause for thought.
      ‘Hearsay Evidence’, In this case the court is permitting ‘Hearsay Evidence’ and it is at the descretion of the judges as to the weight they ascribe to ‘Hearsay Evidence’.

      1. Wadi,
        What LINK??? Which witness or witnesses?? Opps I forgot, HEARSAY. So HEARSAY in the SECOND and THIRD degrees are FACTUAL FACT??? No way of questiioning the ORIGINAL HEARSAY….

        No Wadi…let’s look at the DOCUMENTS presented….none shows Mr. Taylor as been THE LEADER or A LEADER of RUF.

      2. Wadi,

        What/who is “a veritable legion of witnesses” ? You said it when your were referring to Simeon. I just clarity from you so we can discuss your so-call “veritable legion of witnesses”.

    1. No I am not watching a different Trial. I am endevouring to avoid the perceptual Hysteria which seems to affrect people on both sides of the argument

      1. Wadi,

        I don’t understand what you are trying to say in response to Aki. Could you expand on it a little bit?

  4. Wadi,
    It seems as though you really have not been following this trial. because saying Taylor is in trouble, is a mere joke..Are you embarrased to say who is actually in trouble? I can tell now that Brenda Holis is in trouble. She is now worried about what to tell her boss David Crane later>>ha..ha,,

    1. In case you have not noticed Ms Hollis is NOT, I repeat NOT on Trial… Taylor is on Trial for Crimes that are regarded as amongst the most henious….Please do not lose sight of this….At the heart of this issue is a veritable hecatomb of corpses and mutilated individuals, we would do well not to trivialise the horrors our nations have had to live through.

      1. Wadi Williams,

        No mutilated or amputated ever said it was Taylor that did me like this. In fact, fingers were pointed to President kabbah army of amputating his own people. On top of that, Kamorjor, AFRC, RUF, and CDF are all Sierra Leonean groups. Besides, we show you video and overwhelming evidence that it was your own people who annihilated Sierra Leoneans in concert with their sponsors and not this innocent peace loving man. Show us your proof Wadi, if you have any.

  5. Wadi-Williams,

    Yes next week promises to be an interesting time but not for the reasons you identified. The defence will be putting to rest all so-called contentious issues raised. You know something the best offence is disinformation. When you blend in lies with the truth, the lies seem to stick. This is what the Prosecution has done and in the process made it appear that the motives of Mr Taylor were sinister. That is what Mr Griffiths was talking about.

    Do you in your right mind believe for a minute that the so-called evidence of the prosecution is enough to secure a conviction? You have got to be kidding. Yes there may have been some inconsistencies in the testimony regarding some minute details which Mr Taylor said; however this does not amount to guilt. First of all those minor discrepencies related to Liberia and not to Sierra Leone. They consequently did not relate in substance to the indictment.

    Mr Griffiths being the shrewd lawyer that he is, is not taking any chances or leaving any stones unturned. I think this is very wise and very logical. It in no way implies as you suggest, an imploding defence testimony. Do not forget that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You must also keep in mind that Mr Taylor is only the first defence witness. There are many more to come who could confirm what he has said and/ or enforce it. So do not start rejoicing yet, this is still the very early stage of the game. It is not even the end of half term and the ball is still very much in the court of the defence.

    1. Helen

      I have always admired your posts. You are exactly right about the clarification the defense witnesses can bring but the prosecution has another opportunity to present its “fresh evidence” if the defense team slip up and talk about any thing related to the “fresh evidence”. Mr. Taylor testimony during direct-examination by far give a lot of reasonable doubt. But during cross-examination a means to supply arms was developed, possible corruption was establish, and unawareness of humanitarian violation was displayed. In my opinion these characteristic/behavioral pattern is not consistent with a person whose intentions is for peaceful purposes.

      1. Al-Solo,

        I am not sure I agree with you regarding Mr Taylor’s testimony during direct examination giving reasonable doubt. In what way does it do that. Where was it established that there existed a means of supplying arms? If such a means was established how is it that no concrete evidence was prosented by the prosecution. All the prosecution did was create scenarios based on their machinations.

        the fact that corruption may or may not have existed in Liberia is no new phenomena in political circles even in the west today. That does not prove guilt. How does the unawareness of human rights violation displayed prove that he did not have a peaceful intention. Maybe there is something you are seeing here that is being seen by you alone because you are actually looking for guilt.

        The fact that someone says they were not aware at the time of the crimes being committed; does that mean they were a part of the crime in your opinion? i say definitely not. Do not forget there were also unfolding events in liberia concurrently and this man had to deal with affairs of state and a rebel invasion at that same time. Do you think he is some omipotent omnipresent person who would have some pervasive knowledge of all things and be in all places at the same time? I dare say not.

        Be reasonable the prosecution will have to do a lot more than this to secure a guity verdict. They have the burden of proof not the defence. Remember this. They have failed to provide this evidence,.

        1. Helen

          Lets get this straight for the record. The only thing the prosecution has to do is establish a means, motive and a linkage to the crime. The burden of proof is only a tool used to establish the means, motive and direct linkage to the crime. Every piece of “burden of proof” validity can be question and argued. In my observation of the case so far; the prosecution has used the proper tools to establish a means and direct linkage (the testimony of several witness). The defense questioned the validity of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out inconsistency. In addition the defense argued that Mr. Taylor linkage to the RUF was for peaceful purposes. Mr. Taylor had means (a way) to supply the RUF, he admitted on the stand that he used a “covert account” to purchase arms for his defense against rebel forces. Here lays your burden of proof. Although it doesn’t prove he supplied the RUF or any direct linkage; it proves Mr. Taylor had the resources (means) to supply weapons. You must have misunderstood my comment referring to Mr. Taylor during direct examination. I said Mr. Taylor added a lot of reasonable doubt to the prosecutions case by indicating his relationship (known/documented interaction) with the RUF was for peace keeping. What troubles me is a true practitioner is aware of possible violations to there beliefs/moral values. For example a vegentian is aware of the food he/she eats, a religion person are aware of the sins they commit and a civil right activist are aware of possible civil right violations. In my view a true practitioner of peace do not ignore nor tolerate human right violations. Mrs. Hollis provided documents written by a Human Right Organization indicating thier immediate withdrawal due to human right violations committed by Mr. Taylor’s security forces (which Mr. Taylor ignored ). In actuality I have been looking at both sides of the case. In most jury cases the prosecution fails to establish means, motive or linkage but still obtain a guilty verdict. I know you heard of cases in which people were convicted of murder and no body was found or the murder weapon was never found. It’s only in the movies and cases which the accused pleads guilty were the prosecution has a case in which there is no suitable defense.

  6. Ha! Ha! Ha! very interesting. I am just following both the trial and all the discussions with keen interest. As already alluded to by Simeon, I would have expected more guilty statements if Liberians were charging CT. More to that, almost all the questions from the prosecutors were related to Liberia and not Sierra Leone. This makes it more challenging for even the judges to say CT is guilty. Let us wait for CT defence to see the direction of the case. But from what has already been said, the SL government has got no strong case against CT. Let them apologise to the big man and take out the case from the court, otherwise they could be embarrassed at the end.

  7. Just from sleep; will someone please tell me or list the evidences shown by the persecution team? Maybe I was in deep sleep when it was said or shown. Is there any second coming of the persecution team? If yes, will someone please tell me when will this trail end? Evidences, witnesses, persecution team all are still sleeping or I think there is something they called introduction or presentation (I’m not a lawyer and stand to be corrected) of the case is that what is still on going; my people we got long to still in The Hague. The second coming of the persecution team this time I will never sleep.
    Let me list some of the things I heard from the persecution team; Child soldiers in Liberia, bank Transfer, Issy going to Angola, somebody said that Taylor give Diamond to someone, conspiracy theory, Taylor’s political ambition in Liberia, press freedom in Liberia, they also said that Taylor lied, questions on the war in Ivory Coast, how many cars were there in his convey, during his rebel day there were no control in his AOR, never had judiciary jurisdiction in Liberia, never pay Government employee in Liberia during his term in office, someone overheard somebody saying yes sir to somebody on the Radio, and all about Liberia and Liberia, Liberia, so when will the questioning period come for Sierra Leone. “STILL WAITING RIGHT HERE AND THIS TIME I WILL NOT SLEEP FOR THE SECOND COMING OF THE PRESECUTION TEAM”.

  8. I hear people rejoicing at the close of the prosection cross-examination, well I think they shouldn’t. The case is still stack against Taylor. This case was never going to be about evidence of Taylor been in Sierra Leone, hence most of the references to Liberia.

    If you followed the case of the other accused, RUF, CDF and AFRC, non of the accuse accepted responsibility and infact some presented themselves as peace makers. Though their cases were slightly different because they had direct commands, any direct or indirect connection between them and Taylor puts Taylor in the frame. This is going to be a highly technical related case.

    As I said before, Taylor has questions to answer on Sierra Leone. Whether his answers were the right ones, only the judges can/will decide and so far, I think the judges have been fair. It would be insane for any victory celebration to be arrange yet.

    1. Eye,
      The difference in those cases, EYE WITNESSES. Can you name for us a EYE WITNESS in this case??? I will help you out…NONE. So what was this case based on….SUSPECT EVIDENCES….and the prosecutors didn’t provide ANY to BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT compound with the MANDATE of this court.

      But STRANGE things happen….

    2. Eagle-eye,

      Please leave us alone. Please let us do what ever the heck we want to do: be it celebrating, or rejoicing. Please mind your own business and forget about us and what we do or say. Stay in your paygrade and territory. Stay on your side. By the way, why are you talking to us? Why are you advising and admonishing us? Keep your advise to yourself, or advise the side you are on. They need it more than us. Besides, we don’t need your advise and side comments.

      1. Alpha, disregard my question. However, as soon as I hit the submit botton, the post appears as clear.

          1. Hi Alpha,
            Were you tuned in on the morning of February 5, hearing?
            Did the prosecution file for an appeal but was denied? From my understanding the appeal was based on (3) rules that governor’s the court that the prosecution believed were violated.

            Judge Sebutinde stated that their formal decisions for the denial will be posted probably next week for the public.

            What was that all about? I log on in the middle of judge Sebutinde’s ruling.

          2. Hi Big B,
            Yes, i took note of the decision by the judges to turn down the prosecution’s request for leave to appeal their decision which denied the prosecution’s efforts to use certain documents as new evidence in Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination. While the judges allowed the use of certain documents to impeach Mr. Taylor’s credibility, some other documents were refused because according to the judges, the said new documents were probative of Mr. Taylor’s guilt and the prosecution did not establish that it was in the interest of justice and the fair trial rights of the accused to use them. The prosecution then sought leave to appeal this decision by the judges but the said request was rejected. If the judges had granted such leave to appeal to the prosecution, then an appeal would have been made to the Appeals Chamber of the court. The decision of the Appeals Chamber would have determined whether the new documents probabtive of Mr. Taylor’s guilt were to be used in court. But as it stands, since the Trial Chamber judges have not granted a leave to appeal, there is no way the prosecution can go to the Appeals Chamber.That’s what it was all about on that day. Hope this gives a clear understanding of the issues that obtained in court on February 5. If you have further questions, please let me know.

          3. Alpha,

            Thank you much.

            Well, Well, Well. The first appeal denied. One down one to go. We are waiting for the second appeal. “Verdict”. That too will be denied. Case Closed!!!!

  9. Dear Ladies & Gentlemen
    I am a Sierra Leonean who believe the people responsible for the civil war in my country have either been tried and convicted or dead.

    Our ex-president Tejan Kabba had no option but to be a tool in this game of conspiracy against Charles Taylor by Britain & America…He was totally hopeless at the time a very desperate president who could not enter his own country..eventhough the people that will eventually help him oust the rebel from power were his own west african compatriot (ECOMOG) he was so desperate at the time and compounded with the fact that Britain,America & France inherently politically beleive that certain country in Africa should be under their influence based on the colonial ideology. Charles Taylor was looking a bit sharp for their liking,he cannot be tolerated…Rawlings of Ghana was under the same watch,but he navigate wisely.

    As the situattion developed,the first strategy was to discredit the ECOMOG, which they do hardently at the time…and secondly,tried to pushed them out of the way and replace them with the UN backed forces .But as this situation and history has thought us,only west african can fight wars in west africa anyone else will be defeated,hence the humiliation of the British and UN forces.

    I believe these ex-colonial people are making a mockery out of our intelligent,WE NEED TO JUDGE OURSELVES,why should a group of people who’s civilization is based on racism and the de-humanisation of others ever be a good judge to anyone different from themselve ….ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE IN THIS WORLD IS GOING AROUND MAKING WARS ON PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT OUTLOOK. COMFORMING TO THEIR OUTLOOK MEANS WORKING TOWARDS YOUR DEMISE OR IN MANY CASES THE DEMISE OF YOUR WHOLE NATION ….. ,And yet they managed to convinced this hypnothyse world that the other guys are the bad guys every time ……(THE UN IS AN ANGLO SAXON DONKEY)

    When they want to destroy China they will convinced the Africans the Chinese are bad people and vise -visa.It such an old game by these marsians..Are they really from this planet…

    Hey hoo…the world has woken up and more sophisticated.,,….The coming generation of african leader will be more of a charles taylor,mbeke,rawlings character than the Kabba’s of this world.


    1. Sierra,
      Can you please rephrase the fourth sentence in your post? It comes out as an attack with allegations which deserve some caution on a site like this. Kindly rephrase and the comment will be posted immediately.

  10. Hello people. I was reading the news and saw that george boley was arrested and charged for some immagration stuff. I also read about the war crime charge. My question is about the Us immagration acting out of it’s order. Who are they to charge a liberian for war crime base on TRC report. While can’t they ask for the report to be implemented. Clinton recent action show the US intention for Ellen johnson.. I know they will do the same to all the war leaders.They have all the war criminals living in the Us without charges.

    1. Charles,
      Your post about George Boley’s arrest is great. I however will suggest that you get rid of or rephrase your last sentence in the post. We just want to avoid anything that might have legal implications for the site. Kindly rephrase and i’ll post your comment immediately.

  11. Eagle-eye (Returns),

    What a joke you really think the scenario is the same with Mr Taylor and the leaders of the RUF, CDF and AFRC? How could that be possible? In this case the prosecution has not established any direct or credible indirect link of Mr Taylor to the crimes.

    As to your statement that Taylor has questions to answer, what do you think he has been doing for the last several months first in his direct testimony and for the last 2 months of cross examination. You and your friends need to face it that the prosecution have nothing on this man. They have put forward a very weak and ineffectual case. That is a matter of fact. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that Mr Taylor is guilty. They have not done so as there is just no evidence to do so regardles of all their concoction and framing.

    I understand you all want are bitter but be fair enough to not lose sight of the truth and the reality of the situation. THE CASE IS VERY WEAK. END OF STORY. No amount of disagreement on your part can change that fact.

  12. It is so interesting how people listen or read the transcripts every day of this trial and conveniently fail to see how Mr. Taylor was in serious trouble many times during the cross. He got very emotional at times, he was shown how he lied repeatedly under oath, it was shown how he met with Ruf operatives at various places and times, as point man on Sierra Leone and not one sentence was kept of his meetings with those rebels/killers, it was shown that he lied when he claimed to not have any money to buy weapons or to take care of himself in Nigeria, when all along he had Liberian millions sent around the globe to different shady characters and he not remembering why Liberian millions were spent for. He forgot when he needed to and remembered when he needed to. If Mr. Taylor is judged innocent, then the judges’ competence will be found wanting. Even a very young child who listened and followed the trial will not bring down a not guilty verdict. Guilty or not guilty, some of us know better. The reality will never go away. This man is a very wicked and cunning individual. He masterminded the death and destruction of peoples and nations. If others choose to proclaim him as their savior and redeemer, that’s their choice.

    1. Sansee,

      I knew it. I knew after all your misguided, half truth, and lies, you would have eventually returned to your roots. Your roots of name callings. This is just typical of what you said. ” This is a very wicked and cunning individual.” Sansee, you can call him all the despical names in the world all you want, we can care less. Show us the proof. Show us the 5 billion dollars the prosecution said this man”HAS” in foreign banks. Show us the evidence that this innocent man was the head of the RUF and AFRC. Show us his rank/position within the chain of command of the RUF/AFRC. Show us that the rebels took orders from him being their boss, directly or indirectly. Show us the gun manufacturing company in Liberia that was manufacturing these weapons for him, and in return, he gave it to the rebels. Show us the company and receipts of the purchased items, that he bought the Sierra Leonean weapons from. Show us the company that bought the alleged Sierra Leonean diamonds from Taylor, and later he used the money to buy arms for them. Show us that Taylor was captured in Sierra Leone as an illegal enemy combatant. Show us that super model Naomi Campbell said what her friend Mai Farrow said, that Naomi Campbell said, someone came to her hotel door the night after the Mandela’s dinner and said, the diamonds that you receive last night came from Taylor. Show us documentary evidence to prove he was not a member of the Committe of Five in bringing peace to Sierra Leone. Show us that he ordered the rebels to do what they did. Show us through documents that he was part of a plan to annihilate the Sierra Leonean people. Show us the pact or agreement between Taylor and the rebels. Show us that he did not help to bring peace to the suffering people of Sierra Leone while serving as a point man for the peace process. Show us that Sierra Leoneans were not in the Libyan’s training camp, way before Taylor ever thought of going there. Show us he did not release the 500.00 U.N hostages by the directive and request of the U.N. as a point man on behalf of the Committee of Five. Show us etc, etc, and etc.

  13. To those who keep saying the questions asked by the accused regarding Liberia…Let me keep repeating myself: Charles Taylor WAS NOT living in, and operating out of Sierra Leone…he was LIVING IN and OPERATING out of Liberia where he was the sitting president. As the sitting president of Liberia, the prosecutors presented evidence and witnesses to prove that Mr. Taylor funded, hosted, supported and helped the RUF to transport weapons to Sierra Leone, using Liberia as a transhipment point.

    The prosecutors sought to provide a clear link between President Taylor and RUF commander Sam Bockarie…establishing that Charles Taylor used his power as president of Liberia, to make Bockarie a Liberian Citizen, granting him a diplomatic passport, and then sending Sam Bockarie (while still a RUF commander) along with Taylor’s Chief of Protocol Musa Sesay to go and purchase arm for shipment to Sierra Leone. The prosecutors had earlier put forth witnesses who testified that they actually purchased and shipped arms to RUF fighters.

    The Prosectors tried to illustrate that the accused had the habit of supporting insurrections and distabilizations of other countries in the region by presenting evidence he (Taylor) supplied armed to coup-plotter and rebel leader Robert Guei who had just overthrown the government of Ivory Coast. Taylor did not deny this…he actually agreed. Taylor also was involved with sending troops to Guinea….and Taylor brought over 300 RUF fighters into Liberia, granted them all Liberian Citizens, incorporated them into Taylor’s elite ATU forces and used them to fight in Guinea, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone. If he had brought them in Liberia for peace’s sake, why incorporate these rebels (some of them had carried out attrocities in Sierra Leone) into the ATU?

    The prosecutor also provided evidence, and extracted information out of Taylor himself, how the arms-smuggling and dealings were done. The prosector provided bank accounts detailing deposits and withdrawals of millions. Those judges will have to make the value judgment to believe Taylor, or discount Taylor’s comment on why or how he was able to open such account. The prosecutors provided evidence/testimony to illustrate that the accused (Mr. Taylor) was not this innocent ”angel” that his defense and supporters tried to portray. The Prosecutor had to show how Taylor ruled Liberia, to illustrate this was a cold-hearted, and calculating man who had no problem supporting uprising in other countries, while at the same time, having no problem using real human skull as roadblock to terrorize civilians….this is called ”showing a pattern of behavior.”

    Now, if those judges agreed with you all, and chose to discount the Prosecutor’s case as nothing more than hearsays, and use the arguments (some are using in here) that witnesses were paid and therefore cannot be trusted, than Taylor walks as a free man. If he walks, kudos to the defense….that’s the beauty of democracy. But before the Defense and their supporters pop the Champaign bottle in celebration of victory, I’d caution them to wait till it’s all over.

    1. Cousin 6,
      I am glad you are using verbs like TRIED and SOUGHT; the fact that Mr. Taylor agreed with one sentence of the prosecutor does not equal to guilt…..

      Did you read the CHARGES?? I beg you to please do….infact, list on here ONE CHARGE and tell us where the prosecutors were able LINKED or NAILED him to the cross?? No Noko6…just one of the charges please.

      There is where you are confused Cousin 6….when the prosecutors informed the WHOLE WIDE WORLD about the EVIDENCES they have and DO NOT produced a SINGLE CONCRETE ONE…what are we to do?? I say LAUGH and that is what we’re doing.

      I have told you long before he landed in the Hague that the prosecutors got ZERO to go on and with; where is your slide show you promised to send to the Hague?? I am still waiting ooohhh. Fresh evidences were suppose to be FOC(fruits of the crime) but I guess those fruits are still GREEN.

      1. cousin,

        Boy ooooh Boy!

        You got this scoreboard thing going from the ‘get go’ and you are clinging on to it…enthusiactically predicting the scores. Hope your predictions will accurately reflect the verdict.

        Although we often don’t agree on issues pertaining to this trial, as I tend to weight both sides of the arguments, I like to read some of your comments, brother. Keep it going! Keep it going!

        1. Cousin 7,
          I hate to call the final score but if you want me to…..Mr. Taylor WALKS…

          The white male judge votes GUILTY, the white female judge votes NOT GUILTY…the tie breaker, the black female judge votes NOT GUILTY; but my senses tell me it won’t come down to this, the prosecutors will ask for EARLY dismissal after some kind of DEAL.

          If I should guess on that DEAL…Mr Taylor stays away from Liberia and a GUARRANTEE he will NEVER EVER be wanted for prosecution in Liberia.

    2. Noko6,

      Where did they purchase those arms from? Where is the receipt for those alleged arms he bought for the RUF?
      Noko6, we got two different accounts of the so-call arms transportion. Which one of these accounts are you talking about? Please be specific so we can discuss it. I however, remember two different testimonies from two different individuals, who are prosecution witnesses. The first one said, there were arms transported on the U.N. helicopter while the helicopter was transporting Sam Bockarie back to Sierra Leone from Liberia. This identical witness was not on board the “U.N. helicopter” But he got his story from hearsay or they say. Conversely, one of the passengers who was actually on board the “U.N. helicopter” and was one of the prosecutors’ witnesses said, there were NO ARMS on board that helicopter. So Noko6, Which one of these stories do you want us to believe? However, does Taylor control the U.N logistical and transportional departments now? Nonwithstanding, no account has gone this far in contextualizing the capriciousness of any arm transportation of the troubled witnesses past in such a vital and historic trial. But it is only you, who again, have failed to execute with perfect synchronization to show concrete and solid evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubts and finding every least resistance path to convict.

      Noko6, you are telling us the prosecution is trying to provide a clear link of President Taylor and the RUF commander Sam Bockarie. I tell you this. I think your behavior is just a dreadful act of survival. Taylor interaction with Bockarie was in acquiesce with both Ecowas, and the U.N. He was named the point man by the Committee of Five to do whatever it takes to help bring peace to Sierra Leone. Are you blaming the U.N also for interacting and providing transportation on U.N. helicopter for Bockarie to go back and forth to Sierra Leone? NO. Besides, what law Taylor broke by making Bockarie citizen of Liberia? Moreso, we are not interesting in what the prosecution is trying to do. However, we are interested in seeing the proof. And not bending over backward, inside outside, sideways, upstairs downstairs, and grabbing your ankle just to prove this innocent man guilt.

      Nevertheless, you talked about the accused having a habit of supporting insurrection, therefore, the prosecution is trying to illustrate this pattern. Noko6, you and the prosecution logic is not going to eventuate into any common sense victory. This is a losing issue and you need to drop it. There is no such thing like pattern here. Time and again, even people on your side, said this can not hold water because these things happen through out the world. More importantly, President Taylor has never supported any insurrection in Africa. So boss, Let me ask you. Who supported the alleged insurrection in Liberia againt Ellen government involving General Charles Julu? Who supported the Guinean insurrection? Who supported LURD and MODEL insurrection in Liberia? Who supporting the insurrection in Nigeria? Who supported the 1985 General Thomas Quinwonkpa insurrection in Liberia? Who supported ULIMO insurrestion in Liberia? And so many more. Noko6, be advised, it doesn’t require a smart person to understand you and your prosecution hoax. And that’s why I am here.
      Folks, the more I hear people react to this fake case like Noko6 in the way he’s selling it, and the more read, the more I understand just what a “HUGE” win for justice, freedom and liberty. Noko6, STOP SELLING US YOUR SNAKE OIL HERE.

    3. I was moved by your last paragraph, cousin6. Much as I don’t fully agree with much of what you said in preceding paragraphs, I thought you got it right in your concluding paragraph and want to add my comments.

      I once said that justice will be done in this case:

      • Justice will be done when the court acquits CT of the “politically trumped up” (I am here referencing a commentator) charges and walk out of the Hague a free man. He will spend the rest of his days in some kind of luxurious retirement surrounded by sympathizers and loved ones and will have the opportunity to share his thoughts with the rest of the world through a memoir. He will be loved and adored and could, if he chooses, serve as an African state person with the likes of Mandela and Rawlings. If that happens, YEA, it will be great.

      • Justice will also be served when the court finds CT guilty of the charges and condemns him to a cubicle. There he will have time to reflect on his life’s journey and come to terms with how events unfolded in his personal life narrative; how he became a visionary and revolutionary; a ‘want-to-hear rhetorician on BBC; and of course how he involuntarily or intentionally created or facilitate the situation(s) that put him where he finds himself right now. His name and memory will over the time fade from the memory of his people – the people he ruled and the people he claims to love so much – the people of Liberia. If that happens, YEA, it will be great.

      But hey, bro, whichever way it goes, I am not a prophet but one thing I am certain of is this: justice will be served. And this is where your concluding paragraph and mine dovetail.

    4. I was moved by your last paragraph, cousin6. Much as I don’t fully agree with much of what you said in preceding paragraphs, I thought you got it right in your concluding paragraph and want to add my comments.

      I once said that justice will be done in this case:

      • Justice will be done when the court acquits CT of the “politically trumped up” (I am here referencing a commentator) charges and walk out of the Hague a free man. He will spend the rest of his days in some kind of luxurious retirement surrounded by sympathizers and loved ones and will have the opportunity to share his thoughts with the rest of the world through a memoir. He will be loved and adored and could, if he chooses, serve as an African state person with the likes of Mandela and Rawlings. If that happens, YEA, it will be great.

      • Justice will also be served when the court finds CT guilty of the charges and condemns him to a cubicle. There he will have time to reflect on his life’s journey and come to terms with how events unfolded in his personal life narrative; how he became a visionary and revolutionary; a ‘want-to-hear rhetorician on BBC; and of course how he involuntarily or intentionally created or facilitate the situation(s) that put him where he finds himself right now. His name and memory will over the time fade from the memory of his people – the people he ruled and the people he claims to love so much – the people of Liberia. If that happens, YEA, it will be great.

      But hey, bro, whichever way it goes, I am not a prophet but one thing I am certain of is this: justice will be served. And this is where your concluding paragraph and mine dovetail.

      1. Alpha,

        I thoutht I made a mistake in clicking the reply tread in my earlier post. This post was intended for Noko6, not Jose. I had to repost hoping it will be placed under Noko6’s Feb. 9, 7:44pm post. But you know what best to do anyway as I thought I made a mistake in clicking the reply tread…

        1. Noko7,
          I have checked the post and it actually comes as a reply to Noko6’s originally post. It just happens that Noko6’s original post has several other replies under which your own reply comes but it still forms part of the dialogue under the particular thread.

  14. Ok….

    We witnessed the end of cross examination. We must admit Taylor withstood the barrage of attacks pretty well. There were some hiccups in the testimony that I think will “dog” in. I agree with Wadi that the defense move to ask for suspension was tactical. It allows them to review the testimony, especially those incidents where he clearly was trapped. The defense will use their closing on this witness to rebut and correct those inconsistencies. Was the necessary, I think so. I think whether his case seems unbreakable, the recess would have been requested. However, there were some mistakes and questionable transaction that he didn’t fully answer. At times he evaded the question.

    The prosecution also had its missteps and misfortunes during this period. I remember someone (Jose) mentioned that the prosecution was inconsistent, it is true. At times they even show desperation (in my opinion). Though no direct evidence was presented, there were credibility issues of the accused. The prosecution didn’t show any direct evidence but showed the lack of human life and human rights by Taylor and the behavior of the RUF was consistent to those of the NPFL. The argument could be valid, but this pattern of behavior mirror those of the SPLA of Sudan and the government forces, Rwanda, DRC, Angola and all other African and international conflicts. I assume that the defense will bring this up. That the pattern is not exclusively NPFL or RUF…it’s unfortunately human nature (true but sad). I guess we shall see the defense strategy and how the prosecution will combat that.

    Wadi made some interesting points, and she is entitled to her opinions. For those who don’t like it, sorry but respect it. ; to those who support it, well let’s be mindful that we all have different views and prospective–they all should be respected. Wadi, pay no mind to the bashing. You expressed yourself. Keep on posting, girl. I and others will continue to read; not everyone will agree with you, but write, dear write. I know how bashful and sometimes hateful some of the treads are sometimes. I will admit though, they are relatively mild these days. I’ve had my share of comments, still get them too, but it does not bother me. Word of advice, take nothing personal.

    Wadi you and Eagle, post can actually be combined into one. Eagle mentioned the verdicts in Sierra Leone. Eagle, I have read some of them and man some of these guys are in forever. They all claim innocence as you mentioned, but they were found guilty. CT case is slightly different, in that direct connection to the RUF is not fully established (in my opinion), though there are some questionable activities and arm running. I am still baffled over Samir the so-called “ambassador at large”, that CT knew nothing about his personal life. Maybe that is true, but it is not accident that this guy is a diamond runner and gun dealing partner of Victor Bout. Is this just a mistake? I doubt it. Taylor is way to calculative and smart.

    Eagle and Wadi, I agree that the trial is at it climax, by year’s end, I think there will be a conclusion and verdict. I really don’t think CT is going to get out of this. The next several months is going to be really interesting. I am eager to see the defense witnesses.

    1. Bnker,

      For you, I can understand about 59%. You said, there were no direct evidences presented by the failed procusetion, but there was credibility issue. I agreed. My reason is because you talked about both sides inconsistances and credibility issue. You however, talked about this so-call pattern of behavior by the prosecution team. I agreed with you on this one 100%; that, other war ravaged countries around the world comitted similar acts like the NPFL and the RUF. Therefore, it is not exclusive to the NPFL and RUF. Good points.

      Bnker, where my disagreement with you lies is this. You believe, there is no solid, concrete, and convincing evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubts to convict this innocent man. But, you think he will be found guilty, giving the political nature of the case. Fine Bnker. I don’t have a problem with your enduring feelings inside of you. But why are you not speaking out about justice and the rule of law? Why are you not saying anything to defend what you actually believed and subsequently subscribed to? And that is fair play and true justice. Why do you continue to conveniently ignore the critical aspect of the presumption of innocent, if there is a rationale ahead of the trial? I think with in that like, the trial is poisoned. And this is a lunacy.

      1. Jose,
        It’s always fun reading your tread….so now your trying to dictate what I should write about…shame on you. But for the sake of discussion, let me address these points for you.

        “But why are you not speaking out about justice and the rule of law?”
        I guess you probably either ignored or misread lots of my postings. Law states that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, right? I have neither said Taylor is guilty based on legal standard of law. I simply continue to say, he will be found guilty; this is based on what; my opinion. While he is innocent your and many eyes, others don’t see that, meaning the prosecution and some in this forum. I hope I answered that.

        Why are you not saying anything to defend what you actually believed and subsequently subscribed to?
        I have repeated what I believe and subscribe to, either some don’t comprehend or refuse to respect or acknowledge my view. We need trial in Liberia and all those responsible for the major acts should be prosecuted and if found guilty sent to the Correction Palace in Grand Gedeh…simple. You and others find it extremely difficult to see head waves by the prosecution and stumbles by the defense, but only acknowledge otherwise. It seriously dilutes your argument because the other side is not considered. A good debater would analyze the opposing views, dissect it, address each critical opposition, then present reasonable rebuttals and then present his/her views. I try to see the full picture. If Taylor is found guilty, guess what, so be it. I didn’t render the verdict, if he is found otherwise, so be it. I think thus far, both sides have concurred that the judges are impartial; this means when a verdict is render, impartiality will not be the accusation against the judges, agreed?

        Hey hope I help out there.

        1. Bnker,

          Seriously, I don’t have a problem with your take on Liberia. I am threading on similar narrow path with you. The only difference between you and I on the TRC is one: I don’t want it to be implemented after President Taylor is acquitted of this fake case. And I will tell you my reasons later, because my lunch break is almost over. Two: Not after President Johnson Sirleaf imminent defeat in 2011, at which time, she may run away from the country, and the Liberian people may not have the opportunity to prosecute her. So Bnker, why can’t you bring that same standard of measurement you have about Liberia to this false case? Meaning, defending the rule of law no matter what.

          Bnker, lastly, I swear under oath, I am not trying to dictate to you what you should or shouldn’t say. I am just looking at consisstances.

    2. Bnker,
      If I LIE to a police officer that I was not speeding eventhough I was, does that make me a MURDER?? What CREDIBILITY was lacking in this case….the man answered to the best of knowledge….one cannot remember ALL in full and he was corrected and he agreed….

      1. Noko4,
        Your example is comparing apples to oranges…if you lie under oath then its an issue. We all say we were not speeding when we were, but speeding cannot naturally be attributed to murder. However, if you were speeding and you hit someone and they die, then you will be accused of vehicular manslaughter, but your example don’t mesh together.

        1. Noko4,

          Don’t worry. Let not your heart be troubled. Bnker will be taken care of by Jose Rodriguez. Sit back and relax Noko4. Bnker, you said, “if you lie under oath then its an issue.” I agree with you. However, the prosecution and it witnesses lied under oath directly and indirectly. Therefore, it is an issue: according to your standard of measurement. For examples, 1: Ms. Hollis said, since one “charles” was doing diamond business, than it was His Excellency, DR. Charles G. Taylor, former president of the Republic of Liberia. That was a lie and poor impulse control. It is prudent to mention through reasoning, not all “charles”, because you are charles, do diamond business; not because your name is charles, you must have done diamond business. It could have very well being that Taylor was never in diamond business, and he said it himself. You Bnker conceded of her massive blunders and lies. Many think it was a lie and cataclysmic plot of stink and gimmick to contrivedly link him to diamonds, since they have to show a link. 2: Two prosecution witnesses giving contradictory accounts of the same story on the “U.N. Helicopter” transporting the notorious Sam Bockarie from Liberia to Sierra Leone: but, different versions. IE, the first prosecution witness, who was never on board the helicopter said, the “U.N Helicopter” that was transporting Bockarie to Sierra Leone from Liberia had arms and ammunition on board and it was given by Taylor to Bockarie. The second prosecution witness, who was actually on board the U.N Helicopter said, there was “NO ARMS ON BOARD” the helicopter that was carrying Bockarie. Which one of these prosecution witnesses should we believe? However, we all know, one of them is lying. It doesn’t matter which one. The prosecution lied under oath. The prosecution bears the “greatest responsibilty” of their witnesses lies. Third: The prosecution told us under oath that as the result of Taylor support to the RUF, people were being amputated. As the matter of facts, they have a witness you will testify about how RUF amputated your limbs and arms. The prosecution own witness took the witness stand and said, it was President Kabbah’s army that amputated my legs. The prosecution lied again under oath to the world. Their own witness said, it was not the RUF, but Kabbah. forth: We were told by the prosecution about Taylor having “5,000,000,000.00 dollars” in foreign bank accounts and this alleged 5 billion dollars will be given to the people of Sierra Leone. They lied. There is no money. They did not bring forward one cent. If they did, who is keeping the money? Where is the money right now? I remember however, Noko6 saying the judges will have to make the valued judgment of all the money mentioned by the prosecution. UNBELIEVABLE!! WHY CAN’T THE PROSECUTION BRING AN ACCOUNTANT OR CALCULATOR TO MAKE THE VALUED JUDGEMENT AMOUNTING TO 5 BILLION DOLLARS, BUT IT HAS TO BE THE JUDGES?

          “if you were speeding and you hit someone and they die, then you will be accused of vehicular manslaughter, but your example don’t mesh together.” Bnker, do you have to hit someone first while speeding, before you know you are in violation of exceeding the speed limits? Do you understand Noko4 example on speeding before comentting like this? Bnker, I tell you what. Just keep on speeding until you hit somebody. Oops!!! I have just bear the greatest responsibility for Bnker speeding if he ever speeds and gets pull over by the cops. I am in trouble now. But can I get away with this?

          Noko4, I truly and sincerely feeling sorry for Bnker. Bnker is having an internal struggle inside of him. For real. Bnker’s conscience and education can not just allow him to take a guilty verdict against this innocent man, though his emotion is craving so bad for guilty verdict. If you notice his recent posts, he concedes that there is no evidence presented by the prosecution so far that warrants a guilty verdict. But he still thinks, this innocent man will be found guilty, because of the political nature of the case. On the other hand, he can not voice out the wrongs and perhaps, what he sees as potential guilty verdict, based on politics, for this innocent man, dictated by his conscience and education.
          Noko4, lets give him little bit of credit for at least coming close of mentioning those vices of the prosecution. Some of these minority guys on this site will not even come close to say what Bnker has said.

          Now Bnker, I expect you to respond, but let me make it very clear. The vices that have you expressed about the prosecution, is totally different from your self described guilty verdict, because of politics. You have not however, expressed the wrongs of the potential guilty verdict that you foresee that will be exclusively out of the judiacial arena and not based on the corroboration of documentary evidence, and facts, but based on politics, and not on the tenets of jurisprudence/evidence.

      2. Jose,

        I purposely didn’t address your portion pertaining the speeding and breaking the law, because you apparently don’t understand what Noko4 said in his tread, or he didn’t express himself well….you are trying drawing more juice from this than this “fruit can give”. He said

        “f I LIE to a police officer that I was not speeding even though I was, does that make me a MURDER?? What CREDIBILITY was lacking in this case….the man answered to the best of knowledge….one cannot remember ALL in full and he was corrected and he agreed….”

        Then you interpreted it as,

        “Bnker, do you have to hit someone first while speeding, before you know you are in violation of exceeding the speed limits? Do you understand Noko4 example on speeding before comentting like this? Bnker, I tell you what. Just keep on speeding until you hit somebody. Oops!!! I have just bear the greatest responsibility for Bnker speeding if he ever speeds and gets pull over by the cops. I am in trouble now. But can I get away with this?”

        Where does Noko4 alluded speeding to personal or holding someone else responsible for my irresponsible actions? You asked this question that I would pose to you, ” Do you understand Noko4 example on speeding before comentting like this?” I don’t see where your example and his jive; help me out here. Maybe I am missing something.

        Noko4, I don’t think Taylor can remember everything certain things will be remembered, like the use of 2M dollars. Even Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would know where two million dollars was taken out of their personal account for. Rupar (Samir), the LBDI issue, but to his credit he remember the little less material things—smart.

  15. We witnessed the end of cross examination. We must admit Taylor withstood the barrage of attacks pretty well. There were some hiccups in the testimony that I think will “dog” him. I agree with Wadi that the defense move to ask for suspension was tactical. It allows them to review the testimony, especially those incidents where he clearly was trapped. The defense will use their closing on this witness to rebut and correct those inconsistencies. Was the necessary, I think so. I think whether his case seems unbreakable, the recess would have been requested. However, there were some mistakes and questionable transaction that he didn’t fully answer. At times he evaded the question.

    The prosecution also had its missteps and misfortunes during this period. I remember someone (Jose) mentioned that the prosecution was inconsistent, it is true. At times they even show desperation (in my opinion). Though no direct evidence was presented, there were credibility issues of the accused. The prosecution didn’t show any direct evidence but showed the lack of human life and human rights by Taylor and the behavior of the RUF was consistent to those of the NPFL. The argument could be valid, but this pattern of behavior mirror those of the SPLA of Sudan and the government forces, Rwanda, DRC, Angola and all other African and international conflicts. I assume that the defense will bring this up. That the pattern is not exclusively NPFL or RUF…it’s unfortunately human nature (true but sad). I guess we shall see the defense strategy and how the prosecution will combat that.

    Wadi made some interesting points, and she is entitled to her opinions. For those who don’t like it, sorry but respect it. ; to those who support it, well let’s be mindful that we all have different views and prospective–they all should be respected. Wadi, pay no mind to the bashing. You expressed yourself. Keep on posting, girl. I and others will continue to read; not everyone will agree with you, but write, dear write. I know how bashful and sometimes hateful some of the treads are sometimes. I will admit though, they are relatively mild these days. I’ve had my share of comments, still get them too, but it does not bother me. Word of advice, take nothing personal.

    Wadi you and Eagle, post can actually be combined into one. Eagle mentioned the verdicts in Sierra Leone. Eagle, I have read some of them and man some of these guys are in forever. They all claim innocence as you mentioned, but they were found guilty. CT case is slightly different, in that direct connection to the RUF is not fully established (in my opinion), though there are some questionable activities and arm running. I am still baffled over Samir the so-called “ambassador at large”, that CT knew nothing about his personal life. Maybe that is true, but it is not accident that this guy a diamond runner and gun dealing partner of Victor Bout worked and was in the inner workings of the NPP government. More interesting, he was not even a naturalized citizen, but had a Liberian passport. Is this just a mistake? I doubt it. Taylor is way to calculative and smart to let this one slip throw the cracks. He is almost a perfectionist at times.

    Eagle and Wadi, I agree that the trial is at it climax, by year’s end, I think there will be a conclusion and verdict. I really don’t think CT is going to get out of this. The next several months is going to be really interesting. I am eager to see the defense witnesses

    1. Bnker,
      Tracey is away for the week but she will be back next week. I have disposed of the post accordingly.

  16. Wadi be careful what you say man these are all CT supporters on this blog, the minute you say anything smart or intelligent they will jump all over you. They only see this case one way. These people think there will be edvidence or pictures in the courtroom that shows CT cutting off someone legs or arms.

    Eagle Eye you made an excellent point, its about time someone said something worth reading about the case. What most of these bloggers fail to realize is that the evidence is not about Taylor been in SL digging diamonds or commanding rebels groups in the jungle or directly cutting off arms.

    The case is about showing a link between Taylor and the rebel groups, did he associate himself with them or not, any connections, support or advice, this is what the judges will look at. And we also know Taylor has already admitted several times he give advice as “peacekeeper”. Now the judges will look and see if there were any lasting peace or end to the war due to Taylor advice.

    Oh yes he also associated himself with Sankoh while they were in Libya training.

    1. John Thompson,

      From Taylor bearing the greatest responsility to link and he should have known , or reason to know and did not stop it. Is he a “SUN GOD”?

      From supporting the rebel barbaric acts to association, connection, and advcie.

      From getting their diamonds to knowing them. UNBELIEVABLE. So John, if I know you, does it mean that I am responsible for your action? If your answer is yes, than I say prove it. John, I know people all around the world. But I am not responsible for their action or behavior. They are responsible and accountable for their own action. Besides, there is no law thats says because I know somebody, associate with no minor, or even advise to evil man, (according to you John Thompson) means I should carry their cross. It was only one man that did it for our sins, if you are a christian like me, it was Christ Jesus, who death, burial and resurrection reaffirms out faith. No way John Thompson.

      John Thompson, which one of the RUF/AFRC members said Taylor was their advisor. Which one of the prosecution own witnesses said Taylor advice the rebel to annihilate their own people and they did? John, all that you are saying is just witchful thinking. You wish the way you are thinking will be incompassed by just. However John, justice doesn’t work like that. Justice is show your prove that you say did what you say he did.

    2. John,
      Even Mr. Blah, the prosecutor’s MOST insider, told this court Sankoh was a TEABOY in Libya…he NEVER EVER met Mr. Taylor there….so where are you getting your tale from??

    3. John Thompson,

      Firstly you must admit that you believed at the beginning of this trial that there would be much more evidence produced on Charles Taylor’s guilt then that which has been presented. You believed they would show bank accounts with the billions of dollars, show where the diamonds were sold too, the the RUF leaders on trial would implicate Mr. Taylor, That the United States would provide satellite footage showing arms crossing from Liberia into Sierra Leone, that the British would provide radio intercept transmissions of Taylor ordering the RUF to amputate and kill innocent civilians, etc.
      Now that none of this was shown you want us to accept that Taylor should go to prison for the rest of his life based on what “paid witnesses” testified?
      There is an old saying in American law and that is ” When the lawyer has the facts he bangs the facts. When the lawyer has the law he bangs the law. When the lawyer has neither he bangs the table.” This is what the prosecution is doing just making alot of noise banging the table.

  17. Jose,
    We have agreed that comments which attack or insult other people will not be posted. Using the word “stupid” against another person is one such attack or insult that we have frowned at. Kindly rephrase and your comment will be posted.

      1. Rodriguez,

        Was it you that found that link of the canadian companies doing business with Kabbah and South African Mercenaries in S.L.?

        If so, could you or whoever, kindly attach the link once more. I couldn’t find it.


  18. Like most I agree that the coming week should be very interesting. My assesment of this trial so far is that while to some extent Taylor’s credibility has been damaged, the prosecution has not presented enough evidence to prove guilt and it’s evidence is circumstancial at best. I guess the intent was to show some type of patterns and to muddy the waters enough to affect the judges’ judgemnent. If anything their stategy showed that Taylor’s rule in Liberia was very suspect and he has lot’s of questions to answer in Liberia. For me regardless of the outcome of the case, I hope this serves as a deterent that no one is above the law.

    Since this case is not about Liberia but about Sierra Leone, my thoughs are as follows: Because I too feel that this case his highly politically motivated I predict one of 2 outcomes:

    1) Either the Judges will acquit him
    2) He’ll be given a life sentece…..I really can’t see a middle ground here, say 10 years.

    So far while I feel that the defence has the upperhand, given Taylor’s cunning and untrustful reputation, the prosecution may have sewn in the judges mind the possibility that arms shipments to Sierra Leone etc were possible. In My opinion CT’s guilt or inocence could rest on a few things;

    1) He has to bring in atleast 1 African President to corrobate his “peace maker” role
    2) He has to explain away this circumstancial stuff like Musa Cisse’s Travels and his relationships with alleged arms dealers like Ruprah etc
    3) He has to bring in an original eye witness such as Woewiyou to verify that there was no pact between the RUF and NPFL in Libya
    4) He has to bring in witnesses to corrobarate his account of Bockarie’s very suspicious death
    5) For the non african judges he has to add more meat to this so called western conpiracy theory

    All in all this should require more than 50 witnesses.

    1. Sorry that’s a typo in the last sentence of my tread. I meant all in all, the defense doens’t need more than 50 witnesses.

    2. Mas,
      Beautifully articulated!

      I couldn’t agree with you more. That’s all I can comment at this time, your sentiments, opinions and reasoning is “on point”. I am loving it!

    3. Mas, on these two counts from you:

      3) He has to bring in an original eye witness such as Woewiyou to verify that there was no pact between the RUF and NPFL in Libya
      4) He has to bring in witnesses to corrobarate his account of Bockarie’s very suspicious death

      The prosecution own star witness. who is also an orginal eye witness with the NPFL in Libya-Moses Blah has testified that NPFl did not have any pact with RUF in Libya. As a matter of fact, Blah said that Foday Sankoh was a nobody in Libya, and that he (BLAH) was not aware of any orders from Charles Taylor to killed Bokarie. Bokarie died in a gun battle at the Ivorian border with Liberia.

      So there you have it, the prosecution own witness has said it. So Mr. Taylor does not need to bring anyother witness to prove the prosecution wrong.

      1. Janice,

        If Blah actually dismissed the idea of any signed pact, then I agree with you. However I still maintain that this Bockarie issue is very very suspect. I say this because even as recently as a few weeks about Taylor said he didn’t know Bockarie was indicted. How believable is that?

        Second, If of all the RUF leadership, Bockarie had the closest relationship with Taylor wouldn’t you agree that Taylor would have an incentive to get rid of him? The point i’m trying to make is that Taylor’s story may be true or it could also be a lie, the circumstances are just to suspicious. For this reason, Taylor has to bring witnesses to corroborate his story. Janice, by 2002 it was pretty clear the entire RUF leadership would be indicted. Also I guess the only person who didn’t know Charles Taylor was also going to be indicted was Charles Taylor. Overall good points though.

        1. Mas
          Your analysis about Bokarie relationship with Taylor does not make any rational sense because Taylor did not want Bokarie inside Liberia. Taylor had sent Bokarie away from Liberia, so it does not make any sense that Bokarie had some deep deep secrets that Taylor was so afriad he would exposed. Taylor give orders for Bokarie to not come into Liberia, and if he decided to come into Liberia, Bokarie should not bring arms.

          Bokarie decided to come into Liberia, it was not Taylor that sent for him, he came into Liberia on his own and entered into a fire fight at the Liberian border with Liberian security personels. So for anyone to suggest that Bokarie was the closet person to Taylor is a myth.

        2. Janice Dennis
          You bring up a good point about these secrets that Bockarie was supposed to have on Mr. Taylor that he had him killed. I never understood why Bockarie left Liberia and spent over two years in Burkina Faso.

      2. Thanks Janice,
        We have mudding this case so much that the least motion by Mr. Taylor spells he is GUILTY. We all have seen what the prosecutors put forth in this case and for some to still BELIEVE is guilty is beyond.

        I was not there, none the judges but all we got are EVIDENCES to base our judgement on…again I say, if TRUE JUSTICE is what been sought, Mr. Taylor SHALL WALK…..the prosecutor FAILED to tell us why he should be in jail even today.

        Trying to CONVICT on a case that has ZERO to do with the charges is a DISGRACEFUL DISGRACE. When did we know of Mr. Taylor indictment??? Did Mr. Taylor know of his indictment before going Ghana?? The man said he was NOT awared of Mr. Bockarie’s warrant…how can we prove he did??

    4. Mas,
      He does not have to bring any African leaders who was around that time frame…he said they all were awared including the UN. The prosecutor has ALL LINKS to the UN to get a statement from Mr. Kofi Anan to disprove that, she didn’t….that tells me and others, the UN were on board of his activities. Plus, the prosecutors could have gotten a statement from Pres. Kabeh to DISPROVE since it’s his country been affected…

      He already to the court why he was going around the curves to get arm. To start, he was elected to PROTEST THE CITIZENS OF LIBERIA and not doing so, was TREASON!!. Yes he does need to go more into detail on the Cissy issue, but not a REASON to be guilty…his memory failed him and when shown the FACTS, he accepted his version was wrong. If the prosecutors had done such to most of his statement, then I will agree with you but ONE ISSUE means GUILTY???

      Like Janice said, Mr. Blahm who was a SENIOR member of NPFL, came into this court and told us Mr. Sankoh was a TEABOY. That was the prosecutors’ witness. He was more of a HELP to the defense than the prosecutors. Plus we saw DOCUMENTS(RUF manifesto and the Status) and nowhere did we see a CONNECTION with or to Mr. Taylor. Instead, we saw a LINK to Mr. Sheriff, who was suppose to be AN INSIDER to Mr Taylor, when he headed ULIMO.

      I say bring in less than 25 of TRUSTFUL witnesses and go after few points the prosecutors raised and set the record CORRECT, RIGHT and STRIAGHT.

      Pertaining to Mr Bockarie’s death, we heard atleast FIVE VERSIONS from witnesses brought in by the prosecutors… which one do we believe??

      Why the NON African judges???? Are you saying the black judge is dumb to believe all Mr. Taylor says??? All the judges will be looking at the same evidences and so far, they are making decision in SYN.

  19. Jose R,
    This is not some criminal court, this is a special court, something like a war tribunal, there’s not going to be some concrete evidence, as long as he’s link to the SL conflict in any form that escaletd the conflict he’s held liable. Similar to criminal courts, if you knew about a murder or crime and didn’t stop it or report it you will be charge with conspiracy to commit murder or a crime.

    Noko 4
    Even if Sankoh was a TEABOY or waterboy if Taylor had any contact with him and knew he was going start a war or commit a crime and he didn’t report it, Taylor is then held in conspiracy or failure or commit a crime. Put this to any legal expert and they will tell you the same.

    1. John Thompson,

      Are you sure you are talking to Jose Rodriguez? Think again bro. Just so you know, this court is a crimal court, civil court, and special court. The charges President Taylor is charged with are both criminal and civil. Besides, if he is convicted of any one of the 11 charges, he will be declared as a criminal, like the ones that came before him. Get it? In criminal cases, there must be concrete evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubts before you can convict. So John, by you reducing the court to your personal definition doesn’t mean he can not be found guilty of criminal charges. By the way, do you know the differences between criminal and civil crimes? Do you think this is a zombieland that you can just redefine a court of not having criminal or civil jurisdiction? Think again.

      Concerning your take on Noko4, You are speaking subjunctively. You said “if”. Therefore, I wouldn’t dwell too much time on it. Show us the proof.

    2. Johnny,
      We have YET to see that EARLY CONTACT in Libya and it won’t will NOT be presented; Remember the prosecutors had time to present FRESH EVIDENCES and it wan’t….do we give them another round for FRESH EVIDENCES??

      Not even the prosecutors’ witnesses that were in Libya mentioned of any contact to start with; RUF was around long before Mr Taylor according to evidence presented in court, evidence the prosecutors had and tried their best to HIDE from us and lastly, Mr Taylor did tell us the connection between he and Mr. Sankoh……strictly FOR SECURITY REASON from Aug 91 thru May ’92.

      Now go read the MANDATE of this court and tell me where we stand.

  20. Jose, Helen and Noko4, You guys are right, I don’t need to advise you and I haven’t, I mere stated the obvious. Yes, there are similarities between the cases of the AFRC,RUF AND CDF with the taylor case, that all the defendant denied their involvement. By the way there are also eye witnesses in Taylor’s case, it’s just that people will refuse to accept it as it blows a big hole in Taylor’s case. There are liberian who have testified carrying arms on Taylor’s instruction to RUF, people have testified taken “payments” back to Taylor, even if these “payments” are not traced and many other instances which have shown close relationship between him and RUF.

    The prosecution has no need to show the diamonds or bank statements, all the need to establish is that Taylor had a link with leadership of the RUF and he did so from a dominant position and the prosecution has done just that. It would have been nice to see the bank statements and the diamonds but that still does not diminish the charges.

    I actual believe Taylor performance badly in the cross-examination by trying to denied all knowledge but the judges will decide at the end. so stay cool brothers and sisters, this trial still has a long way to go.

    1. Eyes,
      The ONLY similarity I see is SIERRA LEONE but as to the FACTUAL FACTS in this case…NO!!!. Again, the cases in Sierra Leone had EYE WITNESSES….for the last time, could you show or point out an EYE WITNESSES in this case as in relationship to the charges??? Then it was the LINK, oh yes the INCREDIBLE LINK….where is it Eyes?? The RUF document plus her manifesto differed as to the ACTUAL PICTURE.

      We were promised lots of stuffs in this case and I haven’t see any….the billions, the messengers, videos etc etc. The prosecutors brought in the CLOSEST to Mr. Taylor….Mr. Blah and he did MORE for the defense than the prosecutor. But the sad part which is telling but overlooked in this case, the prosecutors LAST WITNESS told this court that his limbs were chopped off by SL ARMY…..but we’re told ALL the evil things were done by RUF/AFRC.


  21. The time is near, when all of God’s children from Bomi hills to Crown hills, from Snapper hills to Bunker hills, Mama Africa, the East and the West will sing and chant “FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST THANK GOD ALMIGHTY” HE’S FREE AT LAST!!

  22. John Thompson

    I think I missed your point, which Special Court out there that do not need concrete evidence. Are you kidding me?

    Do you think Special Courts are convene to weigh in on “they say”. No solid proof, render judgment on speculations. Are you serious???

    1. Simeon,
      To you very last comment, this was the question that some raised with Rapp (when we forwarded questions to him several month ago). You might want to read his response, and Tracey also clarified or explained the “hear say” ‘witness testimony. If I am correct, it can be used and held up in court. You should find your answers under Rapp response and maybe Tracey or Alpha may expound on this as well. I was surprise to learn that “hear say” is admissible also.


      1. Bnker,
        Yes HEARSAY is accepted, infact it’s part of the RULES but for a case of this statue and status to come down to ONLY HEARSAYS, is a DISGRACE!!!.

        The rush to CATCH HIM got caught up with the prosecutors….this case wouldn’t have see a DAY in any western courthouse…just the collection and the storage of the evidences was enough to DISMISS. Compound that with the activities of the prosecutor’s office….BRIBEING WITNESSES is beyond the norm of any TRUE JUSTICE, but like we say….a SPECIAL COURT so I guess most of the NORMS are left on the sidewalk.

        1. Noko4,
          I will refer you to the Scott Peterson (Lacy’s husband) murder case, the verdict was based on “hear say” and circumstantial evidence. So, this case probably won’t be kicked out of US courts, but it would be difficult for the prosecution considering the mistakes they’ve made.

          On your second concern, If I am not mistaken, Tracey addressed the issue of the so-called bribery. Providing lodging and paying for loss wages is not considered bribe. In the US when someone serves as juror, they are compensation, though very little amount.

          I guess you may ask for clarification on this issue from Tracey or Alpha.


        2. Bnker,
          The U.S.A does not compensate people for during their civil duty. If you are call for jury duty and you serve on a jury, you collect a jury fee, which is 8 dollar or less per day.

          The prosecution does not pay a witness lodging, rent, children school fee, medical bill, buy medication and loss wages for a job you do not have just to come to an interview or be a witness in a case.

          Now, paying for their witnesses airfare and lodging to come to the Hague to testify I can understand and would not call a bribe, but some of the things these witness say they was given enough money to do before even coming to the Hague is pure bribery.

        3. Tracey and Alpha,
          Is there a reason why don’t we have MORE REPLY link. Bnker responded to my respond and I don’t see HOW I reply except replying to my response.

          You just made the FACTUAL FACT….are there any “CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE” in this case?? If so, could you please DIRECT….Thanks.

          Now you read what I wrote….I said the COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF EVIDENCES ALONE WOULD HAVE QUALIFY DISMISSAL IN ANY WESTERN COURT….and the prime example was the O J’s case. The prosecutors couldn’t use some of her evidences due to that.

          As for witnesses been BRIBED and preventing as LOSS WAGES…how many were working Bnker?? And those that were pay, did the amount MATCHED what they were earning or MORE than what they would and could afford??

          1. Hi there Noko4 — on your question about the “reply all” link — I don’t know — it is just the structure of this program. Did it work out okay though when you replied to your own comment?

        4. Bnker,

          Your statement of the Scott Peterson verdict is not true. it was not based on hearsay. I challenge you!! Stop lying.

  23. Jose Rodriguez

    Jose, that’s false, this court is a criminal court with some war tribunal procedings, not a civil court. Yes its possible Taylor charges are criminal and civil but you can not try a criminal case and a civil case together. Once the criminal case is done then you try the civil case or vice versa. This is the criminal portion. Secondly an individual can only be sentence to jail or prison in a criminal case. An individual can not be sentence to jail or prison in a civil case. (Alpha can you help Jose on this issue).

    Going back to my point, an individual can be put on trial for a crime if he or she knew of the crime and fail to report the crime. This is call conspiracy or commit a crime or failure to report a crime. Therefore during Taylor interactions with the SL rebels during his peace efforts if he knew of any of the actrocities and didn’t report it he can be charge with a crime.

    Jose you mention you knew people around the world and if are you then liable for their actions, NO you are not liable for their actions but if anyone of them commit a crime that you knew about directly from the individual you can and will be held for failure to report a crime or conspiracy to commit.

    This is where Taylor is in a bind.

    Simeon you are right I think you miss my point, there are special courts out there that do need concrete edvidence but in the case of CT its not needed there only need to be a link. Similar to former Yugoslavia president (Milosovic) case. No concrete edvidence were presented in court, all the prosecutors did were proof the link between him the the Serb rebels and that he knew of the killings and did nothing to stop it (not personbally but at least report it to the UN).

    1. John Thompson,

      Why do you continue to contradict yourself in such an embarrssing manner like the failed prosecution? However, I will point out to you some of your contradiction. In your Febraury 10, 2010 @6:07 PM post, you said,” this is not some criminal court.” This particular statement gave rise to my response of this court being a criminal court that has criminal powers to convict with criminal conviction/convictions. However, just Today Febraury 11, 2010 @5:35 PM, you said, “this court is a criminal court.” Seriously, do you sometimes understand yourself? I am not kidding. I am very serious with this question. You know what? I will not go any further in explaining and breaking things down for you for free. because if I continue, Alpha may not want to post this identical post. Because I will really embarrass you John. Anyways John, just do yourself a favor. And I am serious. Go do some research on criminal and civil law, hybrib court, special court, national and international laws, enjoining potential international child abduction network link it with this trial, and what kinds of laws this SCSL are authorized to use in its working. All in all John, this is Jonh Thompson versus John Thompson.
      Oh!! One more thing John before I go, I am not a lawyer.

  24. Jose,
    The hero for the weak and feeble, poor man lawyer….

    You said…
    However, the prosecution and it witnesses lied under oath directly and indirectly…Maybe I am wrong, I have never heard of the defense team or prosecution swearing under oath in a trial. When witnesses take the stand, they swear to tell the truth. Unless, a lawyer takes the stand, he is not obligated and subjected to perjury (lying under oath). Lawyers promise to protect, defend, and uphold justice. Note, neither the defense or prosecution teams took the stand to be subjected to perjury. All witnesses did and will do; for those who lie, there should be consequences. I see you say “prosecution lied under oath” are you talking about the lawyers or the prosecution witnesses? Again, all witnesses who lie under other should be subject to penalty. The prosecution has made some embarrassing errors and I call them out when I see it—you all don’t see Taylor’s mistakes, even though they sometimes stand out like a “sour thumb. I concede that the prosecution fumbled, but didn’t use your language, “lie”. I suggested in my original tread, that at times they seem desperate (in my opinion), true. So, if I can say that the prosecution made major mistakes, why should the defense be excuse from equal critique? Jose, you need to be fair, and stop “nitpicking”. (I remember I came to someone defense, and it was you who rush out, you don’t have to speak for this person, they can express themselves well. I guess it does not apply to you huh? How Taylorwise!) I didn’t see you comment when the “Charles” issue came up and I said that the defense had a good week and the prosecution will have a terrible weekend. Stop being petty, really. If you want to fight for others good, maybe you feel they are too weak to stand up to the debate and you believe you may be a more formidable debater…you are entitled to your opinion, likewise I; but, if you want to discuss, be well rounded and see all sides. I would say you did better this time, but you are either confused about the “prosecution” and “prosecution witness”.

    Jose, I am so happy that you know me personally and knows where I stand when it come to this case….I guess I need not continue, right? Unfortunately, you don’t know me and I don’t know who you are….probably I do, but under this pen name, I don’t know you. I don’t understand your logic. I believe the trial is political….maybe this would put to rest your “internal demons”. I explained this in one of my very early tread, but I don’t think you were on board then, but I will put this to bed, so that you may have a restful night, OK?

    1- Since Charles Taylor appeared in the sub-region, the general economic activity fell. I don’t think it’s ironically that all our neighbors went to war. Sierra Leone, Guinea and Ivory Coast all were caught up in war during the tenure of CT, correct? As a result of these conflicts, their national economies were hurt, as well as their trading partners; what you will call Western powers. It seem as though Liberia was the spring board or launch pad for these problems. In order to have a stable region, there must be a stable Liberia. Based on my reasoning and belief on the politics underlying this trial, CT in jail means a stable region and better economic activities for the region. Thus far regional economic numbers (aggregate economic figures) have jumped since then (if you need proof, let me know, I have this in my reports). However, CT is being used as a “guinea pig” or “lab rat” so to speak; set example on one, all will be mindful…..they could have gone after Blaisse Comparore, but he started to come in check.

    2- As the war on terror intensify, US, Britain and other countries need countries that they can partner with. Liberia historically has been favorable for US and their intelligence network. Currently, extremism is growing rapidly on the continent; Liberia is probably the best and most conducive place for a network to monitor Al Qaeda and other groups. A ravished region greatly hurts global security efforts. You would probably say, well they could have worked with Taylor, possible, but remember he was linked with Al Qaeda. How was this link established? I recommend you google a gentleman called “Mohammed Bah” he is a Senegalese who fought in Afghanistan with Osama and the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. He also allegedly trained Taylor in Libya. It’s believed that Bah still has connection within this “base” (meaning of Al Qaeda). Further, Taylor is alleged to be involved with Ruphar (Samir), who is a partner with Victor Bout (Merchant of Death, Arm Dealer to FARH rebels, Taliban, and possible Al Qaeda. Additionally, Taylor’s alleged dealing with Executive Outcome—EO– (in Liberia. There was a documentary on the history channel that showed EO working at the Port of Monrovia) and other shady characters of the underworld that have the potential of causing havoc.

    Because CT was linked with world enemy number one, Osama (this is not good for him), and because the Mano River nations were in war allegedly caused by him, it’s not a good thing. Further, these countries have one common denominator, Liberia. Taylor harbored of regional rebels, like Bah, so-called Dr. Manneh and his other Gambian, Black Jesus (deceased), Jack the Rebel (you should know him he was in Buchanan. He loved riding motorbike. He bodyguards caused a shoot out in Buchanan)…these were all members of Gambian 6 day coup.

    As you will notice, there is no direct link with SL, right? Because the case is weak, but the political will is strong. This was my original basis for my OPINIONS in concluding the trial was political–regional economy and security and the Global security. Other leaders have fallen prey to this as well—
    Noregia for the Panama Treaty renewal
    Sadam Hussein—WMD
    Tolbert—his non-dependency of US and diplomatic tides with USSR and China
    Taylor—will be added to this list too (my opinion)

    Before, you and anyone get their feathers ruffled, this is my opinion. I could be wrong on the political nature but my reasoning is pretty strong.

    1. Bnker,

      I will begin with the most pressing issue of our times first. And that is the “Global War on Terrorism.” What you have done and what you are doing here, by linking this innocent man with the most notorious and atrocious terrorist group, Al Qaida, is so grossly wrong. And it is a losing issue that will not have the desired impact to shift the judgmental trajectory of this case: as it is not connected to this fake case. You need to drop it. You’re also however, completely out of step with reality. Your personal obsession and desperate attempts as evidence of using a knowingly discredited document known as the “Politics of the three, (Pakastan, Sauda Arabia, and Israel)” to show this man guilt of crimes that you Bnker thinks the prosecution has provided no concrete and solid evidence couple with the massive blunder of their contradictory witnesses to be found guilty as charged, is just a dreadful act of survival. Clearly Bnker, you are spooked about this man being acquitted for lack of evidence and the inevitably massive defeat on the horizon for the prosecution. You are very well petrified. You have been surrounded with the fog of paranoia compelling you to retreat to this appalling and absurd charge of Al Qaeda relationship. There is no other way to put it. However, when the unprovoked attacks on innocent Americans and other foreign nationales in New York City occurred, President Taylor was one of the first presidents who sent condolence message to the people and government of the U.S. He even declared a National Holiday in Liberia in remembrance of the 911 victims. Besides, I personally will never say anything positive of him if he ever did business with these terrorists. I love America too much to the point that I can die any time for this Great Country and I will not defeat that purpose of the vibes they have instilled in me by defending Taylor at all costs.

      Folks, this is the actual story of the alleged Al Qaida link. After the unprovoked attacks on September 11, 2001 on America, President Bush and the administration decided to decipline, chase, and root out Al Qaida where ever they exist. Al Qaeda was being hosted by the Taliban government of Mollah Mohamed Omar in Afghanistan. The govenment was asked to turn over Bin Laden and get rid of all Al Qaida elements and activities. The government refused. It gave President Bush no options, but to chase Al Qaida out of their hideouts. A coalition was formed. In particular, there were three very and highly important members of the coalition. It was General Pervez Musharaff’s Pakistan, King Fahd’s Sauda Arabia, and Sharon’s Israel. Each of these countries were simultaneously pursuing their own political agenda. For example: Pakistan, General Musharaff was primarily concerned with threats coming from his own Military and Military Intelligence Service, especially from the elites in the army and the Inter Services Intelligence, ISI. Folks, the elites in the military were involved in the production of poppy, opium, heroin, and other drugs related produce. That’s how they make more money by selling drugs. They even encourage the local people to grow more drugs in order to continue the support to the Mujahideen “Freedom Fighters.” Now with the U.S. presence in Pakistan fighting this global war on terrorism, it impedes and jeopardizes this lucrative business. Some of the General even warned General Musharaff about America presence including the locals who said they are on America side in the war. But America can not stop them from growing their crop, and when America brings her planes, they will shoot the planes down. Folks I think you get the point. So let me go to the next one and I wouldn’t make it too long, because I have other issue to talk about.

      Saudi Arabia: The wealthy families have always funded Al Qaida and other Islamist terror organizations in secret. And Washington is fully aware. Now, this is the tricky part. King Fahd was near death, and his designated successor, Crown Prince Abdullah is more actively hostile to the U.S foreign policy at the same time being aggressively sympathetic to other militant and terroist groups. As you may know, Sixteen (16) of the Nineteen Hijackers were all Saudis. Washington coalition appeared to be heading for trouble. Not only that, some wealthy Saudi’s family funnel money and other support to terrorist groups hoping that one day there will a government more align to militant and terrorist causes. They also try to expose the Royal family corrupt practices to the masses, hoping to make the people turn againg the government, thereby, declaring the government official as infidel and unpopular.

      My gentlest people, here comes the “Big One.” After 911, Sharon’s Israel embarked on a furious lobbying campaign to convince America that it was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that perpretrated the 911 attacks. Later, when Anthrax began appearing in U.S mails, Israel again renewed efforts that Saddam was behind it. However, Israel military aggression on the defenseless and innocent Palastinian people all in the name of “war on terrorism” started to put the Bush administration in sobriety check about Israel so-call intelligence and how unreliable it was; because they knew the truth. I mean Israel just wanted to find every reason to get Saddam. This ferocious urgency led to Israel again invoking the name of this innocent man Taylor, since he was not the chosen one for America to led the poor people of Liberia. Israel concocted, contrived, manufactured bunch of lies that President Taylor had link with Al Qaida through diamonds. And that is the report Bnker is taking his false news fron. However, Israel intelligent report was a lie and the report was discredited by the U.S government. Bnker, seriously, stop misleading this audience on purpose, especially when this Israeli intelligence has been considered as anything less than reliable. If you didn’t know, now you know. That report was thrown into the dumpster where it belongs. Bnker, why do you think Ms. Hollis did not make mention of Taylor-Al Qaida alleged link? And if she did, where? Why America did not arrest or question him?

      Concerning instability in the sub region, I was content to wait until after my dinner. But something percolated in here folks, so I have to comment before dinner. Nevertheless folks, there has alway been instability prior to and after Taylor. So how can you blame him for instability especially now that he is not around. Look at Guinea right now. That conflict has the potential of spreading much faster than you think giving the fragile situation in the sub-region. Let us not play tricks here. Had not been for the Approximately 15,000.00 U.N troops in Liberia, we probably could have gone back to war. The Ellen government just about 2 years ago accused General Charles Julu of attempts to overthrow her government. Let’s be honest and reconcile our country and not rely on big powers, that is on one side of the aisle Today. Their side could switch giving such a time and condition.

      Bnker, you fell in my trap. I said the prosecution directly or inderectly lied under oath. If you don’t know, prosecutors take oath when they are given their license in their respective states. The oath is to uphold the laws in an impartial manner. So if the prosecutor does not uphold the oath, he/she lied to uphold what was promised. Now in court where they are prosecuting or defending, such word as lie is not applicable to them. However, word like comtempt is applicable to them. it’s just another fancy way of addressing them. Another thing folks, the faulty gathering of evidence under the Poisonous Tree Principle”, where prosecution will lead their potential witnesses to lie, provides a questionable credibilty issue. We all know that the prosecution witnesses lied under Direct oath. For example: one of their witnesses said He was in a meeting with Taylor and Sankor in Monrovia in a year that Sankor was in jail in Nigeria at that time. So how could it be possible for a jailed Sankor in Nigeria to be in Monrovia at the same time? What has happened to the law of inpenetrability where two things can not occupy the same space at the same time. Another example, the U.N helicopter that I previously talked about on this same page, and etc.

      This concludes my post in response to you Bnker formally.

      1. Alpha,

        You have posted all my posts for Today, except my post in response to Bnker. If there is a problem, please tell me. Also, if you are posting it right now while I’m still typing, please disregard. But Alpha, this piece is very important to be posted.

        1. Jose,
          I have approved the comment that you refer to here. Since it was a very long comment, i just took more time to review it compared to the shorter comments which were already pending. Hope you have a great day.

        2. Jose,
          I got it, read it and thought it was nice, but you lack proof…show me web link or something. Your conspiracy is almost convincing for the weak minded, but where is the “beef”, bro?

        3. $$Ker bnker/bnker,

          Trust me. Bnker knows of at least one website that talks about the Politics of the Three. As the matter of facts, he posted it one time and I responded the same way like how I responded to this one. This is not bnker first time talking about his so-call Al Qaeda relationship. He knows and I know that he knows a link that talks about those three countries politics about 911.

      2. Clap, clap, clap….Good job Jose! But you fail realize one think…I HOPE YOU CAN SHOW ME LINKS AND PROOF SINCE YOU ARE NOT WRITING AS AN EXPERT ON THESE SUBJECT….SHOW ME PROOF! Please don’t use our old Liberian proof, “my man, I telling you”.

        The discussion mushroomed from why, I thought the case was political. The operative word here it, my “thought”, meaning my opinion. I stick to my opinion, I am begging no one to subscribe to it either. I gave my reasons why the case is political. Btw, I am not terrified of CT going free. He has done nothing personally to me or my family. I say it again, lots of my family members were and are within his inner circle. I am not terrified or “paranoid” of Taylor. In due time they all will get punished for their hideous deeds to the Liberian people.

        So while your explanation is well thought out, it’s if full of conspiracies and speculations. Throwing out names does not solidify your argument but suggest the extend to which you are willing to go to propagandize your suspensions. Unlike you, I expressed mine as opinions and how I arrived to my thoughts. I am going to ask you a question that you easily ask people, “what is your proof”. You are suggesting and speaking with authority. You neither mentioned “alleged” or “speculated”, this means there is proof. SHOW ME THE PROOF; I await this.

        You said you set a trap, wow, and you thought I didn’t really see it, while I am aware that lawyers take oath upon admission into the bar, lawyers will also tell you that they “see the truth from different perspectives”. So are the prosecution or defense lying under or deviating from their oath, no? Do they see things differently, yes. Let’s take a look as some cases and you decide whether the defense or prosecution lied. In the OJ case, the defense sought to seek OJ innocence, the prosecution saw him as a murderer and created stories to prove guilt; Chuckie case, the defense says he was wrongly accused (bc he was found guilty, did they lie under oath?), the defense says he is an animal. In both cases, prosecution created situations and possibilities to build their case, by doing so, are they liars and broke the law? In the case Scott Peterson who killed his wife, the prosecution believed and slightly made things look worse then they actually were, is this is lie as well. In John Hinkley Jr, trial, the prosecution depicted him as a man obsessed with a female and wanted to impress her, they even relived the events and the mind of the accused (when he was mentally deranged), was this lying under oath? My point this is, strategy may not be considered lies. Because the defense coached Taylor to deny everything that happened in Liberia, would you said that the defense disregarded their oath or not presenting facts in an “impartial manner”?…no it’s called strategy.

        All in all, good post, fully for folly, fallacies, and conspiracies. The only thing that is missing, you didn’t name this place where your so-called “facts” come from; I would call it “wonderland”.

      3. Wow!!!

        Jose, John, and Bnker got this this going ‘big time’…CNN style crossfire, I suppose.

        Dearest cousins4, 5, and 6 do your want to chap into this crossfire?

        Wow, these folks have got the ball rolling!

        I like the exchange, folks.


        Do you know if the defense will call any witness to the stand for cross examination this week?

        1. Hi Noko7 – I think it will be solely Mr. Taylor’s re-examination this week, but I will double check with ALpha and let you know if that is incorrect.

          1. Hey Noko7 – thanks so much for the welcome! It’s good to be back and following the trial with everyone here again.

        2. Noko7

          I enjoy dealing with Jose and everyone, it’s all in the spirit of good debate. After this thing (meaning the trial), I am going to #3 District in Grand Bassa county with Jose and eat some “dumboy” and “goat soup”. I have people from Fortsville, Hartford, Upper Buchanan and other parts of Bassa too.

          So Jose, what do you say? LOL

        3. Bnker,

          Thats right. I will like to have a “Dumboy and Goat Soup” with you in Buchanan, Grand Bassa County or even in Monrovia. Bnker, seriously, we as Liberians are not bad people. We are loving, forgiving, and caring people. We(posters) probably know each other apart from the debate on this site. But bro, that silly war just polarize eveything.

  25. Hi Alpha,

    I was expecting an appeal from the prosecution, but not at this junction. I mentioned in one of my earlier postings the reason Ms Hollis continued submission of documents into evidence and the continued rejection of those documents into evidence on the part of the judges showed, the prosecution was laying the ground work for an appeal.

    Alpha, let me ask you this. Is it legally permissible for the prosecution to request an appeal while in the middle of a trial? Under normal circumstances, an appeal is granted/denied at the end of a trial, after the verdict, not during the trial. Once the verdict is read, either party, the defense/prosecution have a time frame to file for an appeal. Maybe, this is not normal circumstances.

    Why would the prosecution request for an appeal at this time? What if the appeal was granted and the accused is found guilty? What happens to the appeal than? Or, is it an omission of guilt on the part of the prosecution that the accused will not be found guilty?

    1. Big B,
      Thanks very much for raising this very important issue. To answer your question as to whether the prosecution can appeal during the trial when the case is not yet concluded, yes, either party (prosecution or defense) can appeal a decision of the judges on a specific issue during the trial. Take note that during the conduct of the trial, both parties file several motions to the judges. These motions can be filed for various issues such as the admission of documents, the request for protective measures for certain witnesses, motion to dismiss specific kind of evidence submitted by either party, etc etc. The judges, in their wisdom will rule or render a decision on the issue and if it goes against either party (whether the prosecution or defense), that party can appeal the decision to the Appeals Chamber of the court. This was the situation that we discussed in the previous posts. The prosecution sought to appeal the decision of the Trial Chamber not to allow the use of certain documents as new evidence which were probative to Mr. Taylor’s guilt.

      Now at the end of the trial, when the judges deliver their final decision on whether or not Mr. Taylor is guilty, either party (prosecution or defense) will be entitled to appeal the said decision. It might be the case that both parties will appeal on different grounds based on what the judges say. In the trials that took place in Freetown (RUF, CDF and AFRC), even though the then accused persons were found guilty on most counts in the indictment, there were certain counts on which the prosecution could not get convictions against them. In those cases, both prosecution and defense appealed the decisions of the judges. Prosecution appeal the judgment for the counts that they did not get convictions on and defense appealed the decisions for counts on which their clients were convicted. Once the Appeals Chamber judges rule on a particular issue or Trial Chamber judgment, then that decision becomes final. I hope this makes the issues clear. If you have any other questions, please let me know.

    1. V man,

      I appreciate your kind words bro. I can not do all this analytical and intensive thinking with out you guys. Nontheless, V-man, I know myself to not be a very good debator. But I don’t know what has happened to me. Since I started this trial however, I am improving every day. I don’t know where those ideas even come from. Believe me. I sometimes re-read my previous posts and I can not believe myself that I actually wrote what I thought I wrote. Brother, I have been fiber optic and auto-fast in thinking of responses. I even have friends in the States and Liberia that sometimes call me to tell me how well I am doing in the debate. I am not a lawyer. I am a career military man by choice and Engineer by profession. But again, thank you V-man. I will surely get in touch with you and Noko5.

  26. Jose R

    I will admit I had a error in my statement on Feb. 11, I meant to say the court is a criminal court I will give you that one, but you still haven’t relate to my point that this case is not a civil case and you can not tried a civil and criminal case together. Either you tried the civil case first and then the criminial case, vice versa, but you can not tried the two at the same time.

    Jose please get me your reponse on this by all means it seems that you’re trying to avoid answering my question. You previously stated on Feb 11, @9:53am “The charges President Taylor is charged with are both criminal and civil. Besides, if he is convicted of any one of the 11 charges, he will be declared as a criminal, like the ones that came before him.”

    Yes Jose I understand you’re not a lawyer but currently Taylor is only on trial for criminal matters not civil, once the criminal case is don’t win or lose then he will be charged in a civil court by the victims. The international tribunal can not charge Taylor with civil matters, only the victims can do so.

    Plus your response to been held responsible if one knows directly about a crime and didn’t report it, he or she will be charge with failure to report a crime or conspiracy to commit. Do you agree, YES or NO, I need a definite answer.

    So Jose please don’t try to twist things, I admitted I had an error but that doesn’t give you the right to elude my questions.

    1. John Thompson,

      I will say this real quick because my Liberian friend is down stairs waiting for me. I however, have not had our Liberian dish, “Fufu and Soup” for a long time, since being in Japan. Therefore, I will not allow this opportunity to slip from me. Right now his wife is preparing this meal for us. Anyways john, This “Hybrib Special Court for Sierra Leone has charged President Taylor with Eleven (11) counts of War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and other violations of International Humanitarian Laws. More importantly, this court has the mandate to try those who they consider to bear the greatest responsibility under both international humanitarian laws and Sierra Leone laws. Note: Sierra Leone laws are comprised of both civil and criminal laws. There is no statute of limitation that has put into effect to prevent this court from using criminal or civil laws of Sierra Leone. There is vast parameter and land mass this court can cover when ever it deems fit including changing the rules in the middle of the trial and etc.

      Your second concern, or question has to do with an individual having knowledge of some one wanting to, or about to commit crimes, and doen’t report it to the proper authority. Well, I don’t know what they might be charged with. But it also depends on so many other legal issues. For some states in America, they could be charged . But like I said, I don’t know what they might be charged with. Nontheless, it is very difficult to prove that some one had knowledge about a crime but did not report it: like in the case of this innocent man. For example, in the case of President Taylor, the prosecutors have not shown any shred of evidence to prove that this man knew and did not stop it. In contrast, you talked about Slobodan Milosevec trial in one of your previous post above. Milosevec was the legal head of the Yugoslav military and police. That alone reaffirms his legal criminal liability charges by these people actions. Therefore, he bears the greatest responsibility. Unlike President, who was never a part of the rebels command and control structure, or directly or indirect in their chain of command as far as the evidence before those judges are concerned. John, we can not continue to conveniently ignore and disregard the facts and evidences in this trial. Anyways, I am going to swallow my Fufu bro.

  27. Noko4, I think the judges will decide the case. I think the judges are very professional and inteligent people. We can all argue until the sunset, that will not change the judges ruling.


    Mas, this is the information that you asked me to provide you and the audience with.
    Folks, this website will actually show you how Kabbah destroyed his own country and the people of Sierra Leone.
    This website will enlighten you about an in depth analysis of how arms and ammunitions were actually transported to Sierra Leone.
    This website will inform you of who really benefitted and took Sierra Leone diamonds.
    This wibsite will tell you the companies that bought Sierra Leone diamonds.
    This website will prove the amount of investment and the disproportional profits.
    This website will show the deal and transaction cut by Kabba and his sponsor
    This website will tell you the country that broke the U.N resolution in violation of an arm embargo. Don’t be surprised to know, that it was GB that broke their own resolution that the wrote and was passed by the U.N. And later on they say they understand their own handwriting. UNBELIEVABLE.
    Folks, these are hardcore facts. These are tangible evidences. And they know. But they think all of us are stupid. We will not buy their lies. Let them show us their proof. NO PROOFS, NO CASE, END OF CASE.

  29. My dear Wadi Williams,
    These are the children and grandchildren of Charles Taylor who have either been among his NPFL fighters or their parents having held government positions during the reign of their god father. They are totally frustrated beasts and therefore they can say anything against anyone they find or suspect to be anti CT.
    My opinion is that if these worshipers of Charles Taylor had the opportunity they would have mobilized themselves and attack the Hague to free their god father. They are wounded lions who took oath on human blood and flesh not to ever betray CT in either trouble or joy. Therefore let us don’t blame them for they are performing their moral obligations as per agreement with their god father.
    Any mindful person within the sub-region knows that CT had great involvement in the Sierra Leone conflict. This goes back to the late 1990 when CT promised that Sierra Leone will taste the bitterness of war since it is the country that is the base for the West African Force (ECOMOG) to attack his base. Indeed he fulfilled his threat by given free passage, moral and human support to his friend and collaborator Foday Sankoh who attacked the soil of sierra Leone on the 21st. March 1991. The majority of fighters that invaded at that time were Liberians from the NPFL.
    Let us wait and see but CT is going to pay the price for his righteous deeds as some of his worshipers believe.

    1. Alpha, Faud

      I didn’t know folks can now call others beast on this blog. Is it selective sensoring or you just didn’t catch it. If it’s okay, then I’ll say, faud is a beast for not proving anything besides restating the same old lies. Mr faud, we’re not in the woods where beast roam freely and over power the powerless. We’re tired of hearing the already stated lies, please help the prosecution and give us proof!

      1. Grebo,
        Can you please refer me to where Faud referred to another reader as “beast”? Maybe i inadvertently skipped it and will be glad to review it once it is established that he used that word against another person.

    2. Fuad,
      The post above show that you are not up todate on the trial. You are speaking on emotion. Charles Taylor has challenged the prosectution to show on any interview that he ever said that ” Sierra Leone will taste the bitterness of war”

  30. What a myth rolling on this site regarding the guilt of Taylor by those who have never valued due process and justice. The question before us is not whether Mr. Taylor will be found guilty or not but why was this case brought to trial? Why was Mr. Taylor arrested from Nigeria and taken to Liberia where he was pronouced a UN prisoner? Why? That is the issue that should burden the world community and lovers of real justice. If we can truly respond to this issue that I have raised then it would be easy to understand that Mr. Taylor is already guilty of the lies, deceptions , and propoganda that was fed the whole wide world. It would be easy to understand why this court is relying on hear say, they say, she say, her say, them say, dead man say, mystery man say, supermodel say, and all the say say to convict Mr. Taylor.

    The rules of the court does not favor a true justice outcome of this case, except the justices decided to go against the political policy that established the rules of this court. Maybe Alpha can help us to explain when was the hear say rule applicable in this court? Was it at the very beginning of the court establishment? I need some help here.

    However, the political nature of this court is very clear:
    1. This court is heavily finance by the United States and Great Britian
    2. The United States approved of the indictment against Taylor several months before it was unsealed
    2. George Bush personally , on public television, called for the removal of Charles Taylor as a president of a soveriegn nation. A man who his own people had voted into office.
    3. Great Britian wrote the sanction at the UN against Taylor because of their diamond interest in SL.
    4. Both US and Britian violated the asslyum agreement granted Taylor by Nigeria. Obasanjo, then Nigerian president, had promised to only turn Taylor over to Liberia once an elected Liberian government made a request that it was ok for him to return to his homeland.
    5. Upon becoming president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf appeared before the US congress, and was told point blank that if she did not turn Taylor over , she would get no support from the American.
    6. Thereafter, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf writes a letter to Nigerian president Obasanjo requesting the Nigerian government to send Taylor back to Liberia. Obasanjo responded that Taylor was a free African living in Nigeria and if the Liberian government wanted Taylor , then they could come to Nieria to get him. While these discussions are ongoing, Obansanjo makes a trip to Washington, DC. Then news break that Taylor has escaped Nigeria, within that news circle , it was reported that US president Bush refused to meet with Obasanjo and romours had it that Obasanjo was being held under detention in Washington until he gave orders for Taylor arrest. Bang! Taylor is arrested at the Nigerian border and immediately flown on Liberian soil for 30 minutes.
    7. Following Taylor arrest, Liberia’s president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf is given donor money and allowed access to the White House.
    8. Great Britian built a special prison just for Charles Taylor although he had not yet appeared in court. Britian could not even wait for the case to come to court, although they are responsible for the devastation of SLeons and exploitation of SL diamonds. (These iinformation that I have provide are public records, and not my imagination.)

    These are just some reasons why this case is a political trial and why Charles Taylor is being persecuted due to his political idealogy of Pan Africanism. Africa greats like Kwame Nkrumah, Steve Biko, and others were all presecuted and in some instances murdered for their political beliefs of Pan Africanism. Even Nelson Mendella was one of the most hated person by international greedy profiteers and exploiters. This trial is not about justice but political ideology of a master-slave relationship, in which the master refuses to recognize the humanity of the slave. The good people from Europe, America, Asia, Austrialia, South America, and other parts of the world needs to stand against corporate greed and human abuse of poor people. This case is just TOTAL TOTAL NONSENSE!!

    1. KING GRAY,



  31. King Gray, can you please tell me where and when Britain built this prison for taylor you are referring to?. Sounds like misinformation again. I believe Britain only accepted to host Taylor if he is found guilty. This happened only after the Netherlnads said they could not host him, maybe if he is found guilty he should BE SENT TO CENTRAL IN MONROVIA. That way British will not need to house him.
    Please don’t try to patronise us with Taylor Pan-african crendential, in the hall of fame for pan africanist taylor could never be a toilet attendance. Taylor did nothing for Liberia, let alone africa. You may worship Taylor, that is your right to do so, most people only fear him, never respected him. There is a difference here.
    Libria and West africa is a far better place without a Taylor govt and thank God the majority of Liberians finally saw the light and refuse to fight for his dictatorship. TAYLOR HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ON SIERRA LEONE AND I HOPE HE CAN NOW CLEAR THE AIR FOR ALL THESE “RUMOURS” TO BE LIED TO REST.

  32. Taylor and his defendent team make good acting. I bet their rival AVatar. All of sudden Taylor sharp memory I returned.

  33. Jose R, how was the fufu and soup, I hope you enjoy it, but I would like to know how did you get fufu in Japan. Does it taste like real cassava fufu or is it that funning stuff in the box. For me I don’t really like that stuff in the box but you have to do with what you have.

    I open the Washington Post this morning and guest who I saw on the front page, your man Taylor, please go to the Post website and read the article. Thanks

  34. Hello King Gray,
    I received a very detailed and interesting post from you yesterday at 8:12pm which alas I cannot post. The last paragraph focuses on a specific reader. If you can rephrase and resubmit your post in a way which makes the final paragraph more generalized and not focused on another individual reader, I will be happy to publish it.
    Thanks in advance for your understanding,

  35. Hi there Fuad — I received a comment from you today at 3:31pm, but alas I cannot post it as it focuses on another reader personally and therefore doesn’t accord with our policy of focussing on the trial and not other readers. Would you mind rephrasing your post to fit with this policy? Let me know if you need a copy of your comment and I’ll email it to you.

    Best, and thanks in advance for your understanding,

  36. Ken and Noko4

    I didnt suggest that prosecution or defense pays juror….I simply mentioned that Tracey address this in the past. She explained this to us. If you need further clarification maybe she can help out there.

    Tracey, we want to know is it wrong to provide lodging and meals for the witnesses; albeit defense or prosecution?

    Your question is only trivial, how do you expect me to know how many of the prosecution witness is working. So, would it be wrong if the defense provide meals and lodging for its upcoming witnesses?

    1. Hi there Bnker — great to see you so active in the conversation while I was away!

      On the payments for witnesses — yes, it is very normal for witnesses to be paid allowances for meals and lodgings at the Special Court — both for defense and prosecution. The idea is that people are not put in a worse financial situation because of their decision to assist the court through testifying — but it is not meant for people to make a tidy profit form testifying. In cases like this one, the problems arise when those payments seem excessive, which is what the defense is claiming about payments made to prosecution witnesses. Let me try to look up the guidelines for the payments of expenses for witnesses which can help us see what is classified as normal and regular in the course of a trial. I’ll revert — it’s a good issue to try to clear up and discuss.


      1. Thanks Tracey. The “tidy profits” as you put it, is obviously wrong. My other question is this, what is considered profiteering? What measurement or ratio is used to determine whether the monies provided for lodging and meals is “unacceptable”? How is “unacceptable limits” or “incontestability” amounts determined?

        Thanks Tracey

        1. Good questions $$Ker-bnker – I will be able to get to this soon. Today is a wash for time — can you be patient with me?

  37. Jose,
    You know I enjoy reading your postings….you still have not provided links for your “spider story”. Don’t get me wrong, your argument seem ok, but I need to see links, if there are no links about your accusations then it’s at best a “story”, which I honestly believe it is. Don’t let others think that Jose is making lies up here now. Rescue yourself or should I say help me out here; I am slow.

    You asked me why I think the case was political, I explained why and how I came to that conclusion. If there is genuine link or not, Taylor is a fall guy as others. He is the example child for Africa.

  38. Jose,

    You know what I found interesting, try to rebut like most of us (Liberians) when we come up with these wild, outlandish stories with no supporting evidence or document. When asked where is the proof, we generally say, “my man, I telling you”, you implied the same thing, but in a much shorter way, you say, “Trust me”? No, Jose, sorry, I can’t trust you! Come on, you are in school, if you write a paper you are asked to “cite”, right? You also know there there are two main source of information, primary and secondary.If I submit a document to Liberians to review and have numbers and stories I picked out of the sky (as it seems you did), doesn’t that bring questions to my research authenticity and my credibility? While I will say, you wrote like an authority, it is almost convincing.

    Bring me to shame, Bro. show us where did you get those things from, if you want it to be “our little secret”, I will give you my email address so you may show me, deal?


    1. Bnker,

      Are you the same as $$ker-bnker? Anyways, you most often fall in my trap. I was somehow relunctant to provide the link in my post that I think you know about, but I didn’t. Anyways, I am on my way to work now, but I will post it for you later when I get back. Be patient, but not Eagle-Eye way of being patient.

      1. Bnker,
        Check these websites out. In fact, the second one was provided by you on September 10, 2009 @ 9:01 pm. So when I said you know of at least a website that talks about the “Politics of the Three Coalition” during the aftermath of 911, I was correct; because, you have posted it before. But you pretended like I didn’t know what I was talking about and you never had any idea of the “Politics of the Three”, because the post was not accompanied with any website.

        Be advised, more to come, but I will stop here for now.

      2. Man,
        What kinda man from District #3 can’t set trap? You need to go to Ranger training now bro. They will show you how to set better snares–you are terrible at setting trap—LOL

        anyhow, I look forward to those links.

        Ps, I am patient!

  39. Jose,

    Ok, we will do the dumboy when I am in Liberia. Are you there in May? I should be home!

    You are right, the war has polarized us, but frankly it’s up to us, the younger generation who sees beyond ethnicity and class; the generation who knows we can disagree get into verbal spat, yet we know we are not enemies, but political opposition. We all want to see Liberia move forward. We have been used by selfish individuals (I mean all of them), who’s goals are not everyone’s children and grand children, but theirs. We are all one family and we need to act as one. That said, in a family in every family, when a child misbehaves, there are punishment for them to discourage him/her and the other kids from doing same. Liberia is our family, some of our kids have done wrong, they need tell us why they did these things, give reasons why they should not to be punished, and if we don’t agree they should be given “timeout”–jail. We both have come to a compromise and agree on this aspect.

    All in all, I love my fellow Liberians all of them….Notice, I said Liberians, I didn’t mention tribes…We are Liberians first, second, third…

Comments are closed.