A letter that was tendered in evidence by Charles Taylor as being one written by the former interim leader of the Sierra Leonean rebel group that Mr. Taylor is accused of providing support for could have been forged by another person. The witness today told the Special Court for Sierra Leone judges in The Hague that he did not write the letter addressed to Mr. Taylor.
As his cross-examination continued into another week, prosecutors showed Issa Hassan Sesay a letter that Mr. Taylor presented to the court as part of the documents obtained from his presidential archives while he was president of Liberia. The letter, which was signed in the name of “Essa Seasay” was tendered in evidence by Mr. Taylor on August 18, 2009 during his testimony as a witness in his own defense. Mr. Taylor told the court that he had received the said letter from Issa Sesay, who by then was the most senior commander in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) after the group’s main leader, Foday Sankoh, had been arrested following the abduction of UN peacekeepers by the RUF.
In the letter, the RUF complained about attacks from the UN, the arrest of their leader Mr. Sankoh, and the violations of the Lome Peace Accord by the government of Sierra Leone. The letter called for Mr. Taylor’s involvement in leading the peace process in Sierra Leone under the banner of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
When he testified in August 2009, Mr. Taylor told the court that “this is the letter from General Issa Sesay.”
Today, prosecution counsel Nicholas Koumjian showed Mr. Sesay the same letter, which was purportedly written by him and addressed to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Sesay told the court that he did not write such a letter to Mr. Taylor. Upon his denial, Mr. Koumjian suggested that the letter could have been written in Mr. Sesay’s name by Mr. Taylor’s men.
“It is obvious that if this was in the archive of Charles Taylor, then it is written by Charles Taylor’s men as the demands of the RUF…This is a letter that was written on your behalf by Charles Taylor’s people. He was using you as a puppet, correct?” Mr. Koumjian put to Mr. Sesay.
“Nobody was using me. ECOWAS only used me to disarm the RUF, but the Liberian government did not use me,” Mr. Sesay responded.
The letter, according to Mr. Taylor, was sent to him by Mr. Sesay after the RUF had abducted UN Peacekeepers and for which he (Taylor) had received a mandate from ECOWAS leaders to get the peacekeepers released. Mr. Sesay today said that when he negotiated the release of the peacekeepers with Mr. Taylor, he did not put forward any preconditions.
When asked whether Mr. Taylor had told him that his colleagues (West African leaders) had promised to make him Chairman of ECOWAS if he facilitated the release of the peacekeepers, Mr. Sesay said Mr. Taylor never told him that.
“He [Taylor] said to you that he can become ECOWAS Chairman and he’ll help you,” Mr. Koumjian put to Mr. Sesay.
“No. He did not tell me that,” Mr. Sesay responded.
When asked why he had taken the peacekeepers to Liberia before releasing them, when in fact, the UN peacekeeping mission was based in Sierra Leone, Mr. Sesay said, “I got the contact from Monrovia. If I had got the contact in Sierra Leone, I would have released them in Sierra Leone.”
“He [Taylor] told me to take them to Liberia, that’s why I took them to Foya and the helicopter took them to Monrovia,” he added.
Mr. Koumjian also accused Mr. Sesay of contradicting himself by testifying that he had gone to Monrovia only once in May 2000 during the negotiations for the release of the peacekeepers. According to prosecution witnesses, Mr. Sesay visited Mr. Taylor twice in May 2000 – the first visit to negotiate the release of the peacekeepers and the second visit to take the peacekeepers to Liberia for their release. On the second trip, Mr. Sesay allegedly returned to Sierra Leone with a consignment of arms and ammunition, which according to prosecution witnesses were given to him by Mr. Taylor.
When Mr. Taylor testified in his own defense, he told the court that Mr. Sesay had only visited him once in May 2000 and that was when he negotiated the release of the peacekeepers. When the peacekeepers were finally released, Mr. Sesay did not return to Monrovia, Mr. Taylor said. Mr. Sesay has in his present testimony corroborated Mr. Taylor’s account that he only visited Monrovia once in May. He has told the court in The Hague that when he took the peacekeepers to Liberia, he only stopped at Foya while a helicopter took the peacekeepers to Monrovia.
However, in his testimony in his own trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown, Mr. Sesay told the court that he had gone to Monrovia two times in May 2000, the first time to negotiate the release of the peacekeepers and the second time to meet with Mr. Taylor after the peacekeepers had been released.
“I was in the last helicopter that left for Monrovia… the following morning, [Joe] Tua came and took me to Charles Taylor…Charles Taylor said, ‘You have done well by releasing these people because Foday Sankoh was not listening’,” Mr. Sesay was quoted as having said in his trial in 2007.
When this contradiction was put to him today, Mr. Sesay said, “Well, I recall that when I went with the UN, I stopped in Foya.”
“If I did say that I went to Monrovia, now I recall that I stopped at Foya,” he added.
Mr. Sesay also told the court that when he became interim leader of the RUF, Mr. Taylor suggested to him that former RUF commander Sam Bockarie be made to return to the rebel group in Sierra Leone so that they would all work together. This account is in contradiction with what Mr. Taylor told the court during his testimony as a witness in his own defense. Mr. Taylor told the court that he never suggested that Mr. Bockarie be made to go back to the RUF. Mr. Bockarie left the RUF in late December 1999, after a fallout with RUF leader Mr. Sankoh. He was made to stay in Liberia and several of his supporters with whom he left the RUF were made to join Mr. Taylor’s security forces in Liberia. Mr. Taylor has said that he was acting in concert with ECOWAS leaders, who had all agreed that Mr. Bockarie was a hindrance to the peace process in Sierra Leone and there was a need to keep him out of the country.
Due to a scheduled dentist appointment, Mr. Sesay will be absent from court on Tuesday. A new defense witness is set to be called in Mr. Sesay’s absence tomorrow. Mr. Sesay’s testimony continues on Wednesday.
Wow,is it that Mr. Sesay can not recognize his own writing to the papay anymore or the papay himself lied as usual? A written letter is a major piece of evidence , especially when used by a defendant to corroborate his case, but when dismissed by the defendant’s own witness it supports the prosecution’s branding of the defendant and his witness as incredible. Not a single witness, i believe, will go through a cross examination without being proven as incredible and an imposter’s.
Mr. Taylor’s move to testify on his own behalf holds dial consequences for him; it even makes the prosecution’s case easier than what it would have been had he chosen to remain silent. We are watching an looking forward to having him cornered more until he breaks out of his secret world like his defendant, Mr. Griffiths, did in court the other day.
Above all else, Justice!
VEM,
Have you forgotten that the prosecution also put forward a letter in evidence purportedly written by Issa Sesay which was fradulent ? Apparently someone in the RUF was in the habit pf writing letters and signing on behalf of Mr. Sesay.
Mr. Taylor did not say that it was Issa Sesay who wrote him the letter. See what Mr. Taylor said , ” Foday Sankoh is now incarcerated. We have gotten a letter from an individual calling himself the field commander. The RUF, for all intents and purposes now, is without a leader. We don’t know who to talk to, and so consultations are held and decisions are taken now as of May to get this Issa Sesay in to talk to.”
So Taylor said , “We have gotten a letter from an individual calling himself the field commander.” So whether it was the field commander or not Mr. Taylor was not sure and he did not say that it was Issa Sesay that sent him the letter. Issa Sessay himself, just like Mr. Taylor has corroborated a lot of facts from the letter, expect that Issa is claiming that he did not write the letter. So the letter itself as a material fact to the case is immaterial since witnesses has established most of the facts in the letter.
The letter has no probative value to the case , for the fact that, minus the letter, the same issues have already been discussed and established as facts. So the prosecution is only attempting once more to appeal to emotions. This case is not about how bad one feels about Charles Taylor, it should be about facts. Taylor did not say that he knew where the letter came from, he said that the letter was found among his presidential papers that was presented to him by the court. It is possible, just as the prosecution has been changning transcrpits in this coourt, it is possible that they planted that letter among Taylor presidential papers.
Hey, Mr. Gray,
Great argument…..
If Issa stays on the stand for another week, we will have no need to call any other witness, it seems! What is your take on this, pros? The reason is that if Issa contradicts taylor or himself twice a day times five will equal ten contradictions per week, times three will total fifteen! This’s using common sence and inductive reasoning common among taylor’s support group. I am employing their type of logic such as “let the innocent man go since Naomi says two men gave her the diamonds, and not taylor.” Or “Issa says taylor did not support RUF and he is a general in the RUF, therefore the West is keeping this innocent man in jail for no reason.” I am sure the world is being entertained with our silly arguements and exposure of our dirty laundry in public over this trial. After the trial we need clean house, seriuosly, my people!
Fallah,
Just to correct you, our arguments haven’t been as so simple as you are putting it. We have analitically reviewed and precisely disected what makes no sence in the case presented by the prosecution from these vigorous sensibilities that have been established by the defence in direct propotion to the mandate of the court, which damands THE PROOVE OF FACTS. The is just plain and simple. Show evidencial proofs that Taylor commited the alleged crimes..The entire case is full and composed of profound lies and inhumaine complexities that are geared toward taken away one more of our africa HEROES.. like tthey always DOO.
So what has the prosecution achieved? have they PROVED that Issa Sessay indeed received arms from Charles Taylor? have they PROVED that Issa Sessay delivered diamonds to charles Taylor ibn exchange for arms? have the PROVED that Charles Taylor was the father of the RUF? have the PROVED that the RUF was part of the Freetown invasion? in my respectful opinion, the prosecution has FAILED to prove ANYTHING. the so called contradictions are immaterial to the substance of the prosecution case. most of the alleged contradictions are about the activities of the RUF and not about RUF’s relationship with Charles Taylor. Even if Charles Taylor “lied” about suggesting to the RUF that Sam Bockarie should be accepted back into the RUF what does that suggestion by him prove? does it prove that he is their “real” leader? well, the outcome of the situation has provided the answer to the question, since Issa Sessay did not accept to take Sam Bockarie back, it shows that Charles Taylor is not the “real” leader of the RUF, Issa Sesay would never have disobeyed the “orders” from his “leader”. Foday Sankoh was and still remains the “real” leader of the RUF.
@ Alpha
can you kindly reference the date of the transcript were you pulled sesay testimony where he said he visited monrovia 2 x in may 2000?
Cen,
The said transcript is dated May 25 2007 in the RUF trial and the relevant pages are 87-88. The transcript cannot be found on the Special Court’s website because it is closed session material. You can, however, read the relevant portion in yesterday’s transcript (Mon. Aug. 23 2010) which is already posted on the court’s website–http://www.sc-sl.org/CASES/ProsecutorvsCharlesTaylor/Transcripts/tabid/160/Default.aspx. Relevant pages are 46895 to 46897.
Hope this helps.
Alpha
thank u alpha
why are the witnesses voices being distorted on the live feed? it is making it difficult to understand the answer and weigh veracity.
Cen,
Voice distortion is one of the protective measures granted to a witness who might face some risk if his/her identity is made known while he/she testifies. Since it is the case that certain people can be identified by their voices, the court might institute such a measure (voice distortion) so as to prevent any likelihood of the public knowing the identity of a protected witness.
Alpha
I think I understand the use of voice distortion. But, why is the voice of today’s witness and Sesay’ yesterday being distorted? Or is it just a bad translation?
Cen,
On both days in question, ie, Issa Sesay’s testimony yesterday and that of the witness who testified today, the court did not use voice distortion. If the sound is being distorted on your end, then there might be a problem with the streaming as it flows through your computer. I am not an expert when it comes to how these things are transmitted through the internet or on our computers but you might want to check the sound system on your computer to be sure that the problem doesn’t lie there. On the part of the court, i can confirm that it has not used voice distortion for these witnesses.
Alpha
thanks
i will try listening on another lap top.
I require access to the original transcript which would contain the context of the testimony. Unfortunately. the transcript it is not available to the public. Do you have access to those transcripts or do you rely on what is cherry picked from them?
Alpha my previous post is a question directed to you.
thanks
Cen,
If the transcript is a public document, then i’ll have access to it like every other person. However, if it is closed session transcript and not available to the public, then i have to rely on what is read in court by either prosecution or defense lawyers.
Alpha
thanks Alpha
Do you have concerns as a reporter about your lack of access to the context of the secret transcripts?
Cen,
I certainly have concerns that i cannot have access to proceedings when they are held in closed/private sessions but acknowledging the importance of security measures for witnesses who testify in trials of this nature, i have to accept and cope with the court’s practice in that regard. Some of the things that witnesses have to testify about are very sensitive and some of them have to go back to or have their families residing in very volatile communities and it just makes sense that the court ensures that the security of witnesses is not jeorpardized while they help in making the trials successful. We, however, advocate that such protective measures are balanced with the accused person’s fair trial rights and that is why the judges always have to weigh each individual case on its merits before granting protective measures to either a prosecution or defense witness.
Alpha
I know you are correct. However, i just do not agree with the practice.
Dear cen,
Perhaps this link will help you out; began at Page 46895 to 46897.
Take care
Link: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Wi99CRDyIIU%3d&tabid=160
Hey Sam,
Great points!!!
@ fellow bloggers
Are you having some difficulty believing the witness because of his attire? Just curious?
peace & blessings
How is a witness protected when we can see him in court? Or are those not the actual witnesses? This does not make any sense whatsoever – to disort the voice and reveal the real identity which is the body itself.
@ Alpha and all fellow bloggers
Does any one have concerns about this court’s extensive use of closed testimony and redacting live testimony? WHY have live testimony if we are only allowed access to certain information. I’m sorry, I don’t subscribe to witness fear of danger if they testify. If you can’t testify in open court for all to hear and see then your credibility is zero. I get that the judges are learned and have a high standard of blah blah blah. BUT, they are political appointments at the end of the day. More importantly, they are human beings. There are some who will never be satisfied with the ultimate verdict of this trial whether CT is found guilty or not. The use of secret testimony and redacting live testimony will only serve to fuel the dissatisfaction.
WHEW…I’m just too frustrated with my lack of access to what I consider critical information.
The lord is my shepard, I shall not want! There but for the grace of God, go I.
peace and blessings
I really think that this is so disappointing because Charles Taylor’s lawyers are so brilliant but the prosecution are not even as good and I think it is a shame because Charles Taylor could go away for free. I also think that it is stupid to put Issa Sesay in the same room as Charles Taylor because you can see that he is nervous and he feels really uncomfortable.
What has the prosecution Proved?
The Prosecution and the defense team are both relying on circumstantial evidence, which happens to be the testimonies of various witness, hence it is crucial that on both sides that the witnesses (for the most part) are corroborating the testimonies of each other, as the judges are relying on the testimonies to determine who is more believeable, and consequently if the prosecution was able to prove it’s case, or if he defense was able to raise a resonable, the operative word being ‘resonable’ doubt through the testimonies of their witnesses.
When you have substantial (and I’m not talking about wrong dates and time or ‘misspeaking’) contradictions of key witnesses, (operative word once again is ‘key’) giving contradictory statements and have the defendant himself giving contradictory, or false statements, this works to discredict their testimonies and impeach the witnesses credibility.
And I know that you all are going to say ‘but’ the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other, the judge will look at if these witnesses were key witness, if the contradictions were substantial, etc…i. e, the judges will decide the fallacy of the statement based on the testimony, but that does not excuse the fact that key personnels in this defense team such as Taylor and Sessay seem to be giving contradictory testimony.
Why would Taylor enter a letter that he claimed Sessay wrote, and have Sessay categorically deny (i note Sessay never said maybe I wrote the note) writing the note. Maybe I’m strange, at any rate why would Sessay spell his own name wrong on such an important document.
Also if Sessay wrote this letter why is he categorically denying that he wrote it.
Also, despite what you say, going to a place twice, and going their once but stopping in two different locations are VERY different things, so why is Issa Sessay lying about going to Liberia. He specifically said he went before and after the release of ECOWAS troops?
Anyone?
Ms Teage,
Who bear the BURDEN of proving their case?? But this is NOT a normal court setting eventhough we’re told NOT GUILTY until……
Teage
I would offer a reply. However, with out full and complete access to the closed/secret transcript of Sesay’s prior testimony it is prudent to refrain from speculation at this point.
You might fair better by asking this question of a learned criminal attorney.
peace and blessings
Ms. Teage,
Indeed there is someone. And that someone is me, Jose Rodriguez. Folks, some times some things just don’t require any explanation; but, this one from Ms. Teage certainly require an immediate response, and I am here to provide it. Ms. Teage, you and your fellow individuals that see this fake case as the way it is, is just predictable, since you have nothing to lose. Folks, I knew it was the last false hope Ms. Teage has. I also know it was the last single bullet left in your arsenal, though not surprising, but familiar. “CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.” Yes, Ms. Teage is heavily relying on circumstantial evidence to have this innocent man burnt. First of all, Let us look at the kinds of evidences being discussed and how it affects this fake trial.Circumstantial Evidence. Circumstantial Evidence is an evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to the CONCLUSION OF FACTS AND MAY NOT BE A GUARANTEED ACCURACY”. Now let’s look at DIRECT EVIDENCE. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS AN EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE TRUTH DIRECTLY. Folks, I am very sorry that I have to attend to this emergency. I have to leave guys. SORRY, BECAUSE THIS IS INCOMPLETE.
Jose Rodriguez,
With all your talking and immediate response and ALL CAPS I wish you would have answered my questions! You never spoke specifically about the questions that I asked. I’m quite aware of what circumstantial and direct evidences are. Maybe i should have posed this question ‘DIRECTLY’ to someone who would have actually brought up a valid point, as in answering my question. You’re so emotional you no longer discuss the issues, you call your self ‘General fix it’. I don’t know if anybody else on here is as me, or if they are weak minded, but you can’t fix what Taylor spoiled already hun, it’s too late. You have your opinion about Taylor and so do we. Let’s discuss the issue cause you’re not fixing nothing on here. Let’s have a vibrant debate, the exclamation marks and the “LOOK YOU” etc… is getting a bit comical. And is not intimidating anybody into ‘fixing’ their opinions to suit what you want people to think. Put on the “G-est G.I morale” it makes no difference, neither is it changing who Taylor truly is, a madman, psychopath, etc.. etc…
Thanks for trying though.
If you want to take one more shot at it. Here it goes again.
Why did Taylor submit letter that Sessay has categorically denied being he author of? Someone said maybe a member in RUF was in the habit of doing so…ok that’s plausible.
But why would someone write a fake letter unbehalf of Sessay to Taylor, just because they felt like it?
If Sessay did write the letter why would he spell his name wrong, or why would he deny it.
If Sessay did have someone else write it for him, as he may have been busy why would Sessay deny the letter!
Also if Sessay did not write it, and nobody in RUF wrote it in the c/o Sessay, than where could Taylor have gotten the letter?
P.S:This time use all the Exclamation marks, and the ALL CAPS, but actually answer the question, since you didn’t have time to ‘COMPLETE’ the first response. Actually complete it this time ‘ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS I POSED’. Not what you “THINK” I was asking. The questions are explicitly detailed above.
-Cheers!
Ms. Teage,
Calm down please..I think theres too much harshness in your responses. No one is fussing with you. People are just trying to precisely get your views.. I like you to please treat with CEN a little bit.. I would love to read some legal exchanges between both of you, since it seems as though you guys are in thatk ind of business… I’m waiting..LOL. DO IT GIRL..
@noko5
thank you for your support and advocacy for peaceful exchanges. However, I would wager us dollars for crap that Teage does not hold any real law degree nor does she have any formal legal education. Her bend on the facts of the case are too skewed. Any one who has been through the rigors of a formal legal education would be deeply concerned about the formation of this court and the procedural aspects of this trial. Nevertheless, her comments remain humorous while illuminating the need for education and reconciliation.
Also, she would jump at the chance to tell all of us just how educated and or employed she is…yet she only makes references to her education not being important.
In closing, some people you have to leave them where they are…
peace & blessings
Regarding Issa Sesay purpoted lettter, I remember Mr. Taylor saying that he did not know the author of the letter and that it was not written by him or any of his staff. It was the court who collected those documents and presented them to Charles Taylor as the documents they claimed to have collected from Mr. Taylor’s resident.
Here is the exchange between Lead counsel Grifffth and Mr. Taylor dated 18 AUGUST 2009 in open court: Page 27036
http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=EV0XPCLp7pc%3d&tabid=160
Q. Now let us note the following: The meeting in Abuja takes place on 9 and 10 May?
A. Yes.
Q. As we noted from the list of the delegation, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Let us go behind divider 47 now, please. What is that?
A. Let me get to it.
Q. Behind divider 47?
A. Yes, this is a letter from General Issa Sesay.
Q. Dated, as we see, 11 May 2000?
A. That is correct. This is right after we return from the Abuja meeting. We meet this letter complaining about attacks on their forces by UNAMSIL and other complaints.
Further on the same page Mr. Griffiths asked:
Q. And help us, by this date, 11 May 2000, had you met Issa Sesay
Then the dialogue continues on Page 27036 in this manner, with Mr. Taylor responding to the previous question:
A. Never. Never had met him in my entire life. Never.
Q. Now, we see that the letter is addressed to you, President of the Republic of Liberia:
Then Griffiths goes ahead and reads the full letter. This exchange follows on Page 27041:
Q. On that note, Mr Taylor – now, given the passage of time, it may be difficult to recall – can you recall now how this letter was delivered to you?
A. This – well, this letter could have been faxed in because the date of this letter, I am probably just returning from Abuja because this meeting is from the 9th to the 10th. So this is dated on the 11th. I could have gotten this letter maybe sometimes even a little later than the date. I’m sure it would
have come through to my office. The date of this letter doesn’t definitely mean that I received it on the same date, but I’m sure it probably came through maybe a fax to Monrovia to either maybe the foreign ministry under Tambakai Jangaba. I don’t – because I don’t see the stamp on it here, but I do know that’s – I don’t see how it came through, but it had to come through after 11 May.
From this response by Mr. Taylor, we can clearly see that he was not sure of the letter orgins and did not know the letter orgins which prompted the presiding judge to asked: continue from Page 27041 -42
PRESIDING JUDGE: Mr Griffiths, your question was: Can your ecall now how this letter was delivered to you? I take it by Mr Taylor’s answer that he doesn’t know. Is that correct?
Then Mr. Taylor responded to the Judge’s inquiry this way:
THE WITNESS: Well, the way the question is asked, do you recall how it was delivered to me, normally, a President receives things through the ministry of state. I’m just trying to go through the process here. This had to come through my office through the ministry of state, but I do not know how it got into the country.
MR GRIFFITHS:
Q. That’s the specific aspect that I was inquiring about. That’s why I prefaced that question with the previous question about whether the RUF guesthouse was still operational.
A. It was operational.
Q. And maybe it’s my fault, and perhaps I ought to ask a more direct question. Was it the case that this letter was delivered by hand by someone coming over the border from RUF territory in
Sierra Leone? Do you know?
A. No, I don’t know. I don’t know. But it would not – it would not be that way. It would not be that way. A letter of this kind could probably be faxed in, okay. It could be faxed in.
Q. Do you remember, Mr Taylor; yes or no?
A. No, I don’t.
So with this testimony by Mr. Taylor , lets us examine the facts. Mr. Taylor stated that he did not know the orgins of the supposingly Issa Sesay’s letter neither did he know how it entered into Liberia. So where is the contradiction here? Mr. Taylor did not say that it was Issa Sesay who wrote him the letter. See what Mr. Taylor said further, ” Foday Sankoh is now incarcerated. We have gotten a letter from an individual calling himself the field commander. The RUF, for all intents and purposes now, is without a leader. We don’t know who to talk to, and so consultations are held and decisions are taken now as of May to get this Issa Sesay in to talk to.”
So Taylor said this, “We have gotten a letter from an individual calling himself the field commander.” So whether it was the field commander or not Mr. Taylor was not sure and he did not say that it was Issa Sesay that sent him the letter. Issa Sessay himself, just like Mr. Taylor has corroborated a lot of facts from the letter, expect that Issa is claiming that he did not write the letter. So the letter itself as a material fact to the case is immaterial since witnesses has established most of the facts in the letter.
The letter has no probative value to the case , for the fact that, minus the letter, the same issues have already been discussed and established as facts. So the prosecution is only attempting once more to appeal to emotions. This case is not about how bad one feels about Charles Taylor, it should be about facts. Taylor did not say that he knew where the letter came from, he said that the letter was found among his presidential papers that was presented to him by the court. It is possible, just as the prosecution has been changning transcrpits in this coourt, it is possible that they planted that letter among Taylor presidential papers.
It is good to see ms teage basically taking this forum to law school. The NPFL peanut gallary chooses to ignore the way the law actually works. Corroboration is the key. The Prosecution witnesses overwhelmingly corroborate each other on the KEY issues. If you had to dumb it down, it goes something like this…afrc/ruf committed intense crime just after Feb 1998,,,,and at this time guess whos in charge…Bockarie and his father Taylor. That is inescapable. It is also guilty. Unless you really think Taylor was calling/meeting bockarie in secret to promote “peace”…well if you believe well…that’s like believing Dick Cheney is actually an environmentalist.
@ Bundu
There is a reason why law schools in the US are accredited and lawyers must pass the bar.
peace and blessings
What on earth is Mr. Kourjian doing? How many times, and ways is he going to ask the “SAME” questions? He is dragging the case. For all the hours he stood up there posturing, he was and is incapable of connecting the dots. Both he is Ms. Hollis come off as “scramplers”. His conclusion this morning was soppy! Is that ALL they have to give? My goodness, what is the judicial system coming to… are these the best the British/American and Sierra Leonian Governments have to offer. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.. NOT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS MR. KOURJIAN/MS. HOLLIS! You want to shock us, then let’s have the “TRUTH”.!