Comments on: Q & A for Prosecutor and Defense Counsel – Your Questions Wanted http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/ International Criminal Justice in the Making Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:42:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: T-bone http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-26544 T-bone Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:03:07 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-26544 Mr. Griffiths, 1. Taken into consideration the facts that, Tejan Kabbah was the individual who started the war in Sierra Leone, and in the minds, of many of should have been in the chair now occupied by CT, do you intend to call him as a witness? 2. Mr. Rapp has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons of late and we have seen that he is now the snake oil of the West-African sub-region. My question is: is Mr. Rapp`s credibility not an issue in this case? Mr. Griffiths,
1. Taken into consideration the facts that, Tejan Kabbah was the individual who started the war in Sierra Leone, and in the minds, of many of should have been in the chair now occupied by CT, do you intend to call him as a witness?
2. Mr. Rapp has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons of late and we have seen that he is now the snake oil of the West-African sub-region. My question is: is Mr. Rapp`s credibility not an issue in this case?

]]> By: Tracey Gurd http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-26311 Tracey Gurd Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:33:14 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-26311 Alex -- I'm afraid we wil no longer be able to get answers from Mr. Rapp, as he has moved away from the Special Court and is now the US Ambassador for war crimes. We will be trying to get an interview with the prosecution team at some stage in the coming months, though, so please keep your answers for then. In the meantime, please feel free to ask Mr. Taylor's lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, a question. We are interviewing him this week. Best, Tracey Alex — I’m afraid we wil no longer be able to get answers from Mr. Rapp, as he has moved away from the Special Court and is now the US Ambassador for war crimes. We will be trying to get an interview with the prosecution team at some stage in the coming months, though, so please keep your answers for then. In the meantime, please feel free to ask Mr. Taylor’s lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, a question. We are interviewing him this week.
Best,
Tracey

]]> By: Tony Neiburg http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-26065 Tony Neiburg Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:04:36 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-26065 It is very remarkable to enjoy the court proceeding but it is so disappointing how Judges or the court worry so much about the third man in any crime scene or war logistic. Hitler killed himself in war ll becuase the world was serious, but now everyone point the finger to the third man and not the master mind of war in this century-in spite of Bosnia, the justice system dealing with Africa got little trivial attitude and process prejudice enlightenment which to be enjoyed by the novice. But, as yet, the third man from the third stone(earth)from the sun suffers the consequence. Iraq enjoys diplomatic warfare because Sadam got the blame; most and powerful leaders in the world are just part Sadam, though, but it is like a hidden files in computers. War is necessary for critical conditions but not necessary to confine justice-justice got to be heard. It is very remarkable to enjoy the court proceeding but it is so disappointing how Judges or the court worry so much about the third man in any crime scene or war logistic. Hitler killed himself in war ll becuase the world was serious, but now everyone point the finger to the third man and not the master mind of war in this century-in spite of Bosnia, the justice system dealing with Africa got little trivial attitude and process prejudice enlightenment which to be enjoyed by the novice. But, as yet, the third man from the third stone(earth)from the sun suffers the consequence. Iraq enjoys diplomatic warfare because Sadam got the blame; most and powerful leaders in the world are just part Sadam, though, but it is like a hidden files in computers. War is necessary for critical conditions but not necessary to confine justice-justice got to be heard.

]]> By: Alex http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-26030 Alex Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:44:12 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-26030 DEAR STEVE RAPP? DOING 1991,ULIMO REBELS WERE TRAINED IN SIERRA LEON BY THE SIERRA LEONIANS GOVERMENT TO FIGHT AGAINST MR.TAYLOR AND ULIMO CROSSED FROM SIERRA LEONE AND ENTER LIBERIA BY THE WAY OF LOFA AND BO WATERSIDE GRAND CAPE MOUNT COUNTY.HOW CAN TAYLOR CROSS ARMS AND AMINATIONS THROUGH THE ULIMO REBELS TERRITORY WHO WERE CONTROLLING GRAND CAPE MOUNT AND LOFA COUNTY WHICH HAS BORDER AND WERE CONTROLLED BY ULIMO FROM 1991 TO 1997.HOW DID TAYLOR CROSS AMINATIONS TO RUF WHEN THE BORDER WERE BEING CONTROLLED BY ULIMO REBELS? DEAR STEVE RAPP?
DOING 1991,ULIMO REBELS WERE TRAINED IN SIERRA LEON BY THE SIERRA LEONIANS GOVERMENT TO FIGHT AGAINST MR.TAYLOR AND ULIMO CROSSED FROM SIERRA LEONE AND ENTER LIBERIA BY THE WAY OF LOFA AND BO WATERSIDE GRAND CAPE MOUNT COUNTY.HOW CAN TAYLOR CROSS ARMS AND AMINATIONS THROUGH THE ULIMO REBELS TERRITORY WHO WERE CONTROLLING GRAND CAPE MOUNT AND LOFA COUNTY WHICH HAS BORDER AND WERE CONTROLLED BY ULIMO FROM 1991 TO 1997.HOW DID TAYLOR CROSS AMINATIONS TO RUF WHEN THE BORDER WERE BEING CONTROLLED BY ULIMO REBELS?

]]> By: Alex http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-26028 Alex Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:37:09 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-26028 Dear Steve RAPP, YOU PROSECUTORS TOLD THE WHOLE WORLD THAT TAYLOR RECIEVED DIAMOND FROM THE RUF REBELS FROM SIERRA LEONE.CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS SITE PICTURES ,DOCUMENTS OR VIDEO RECORDING TO PROVE TO US OR THE WHOLE WORLD THAT TAYLOR DID RECIEVE SUCH DIAMOND FROM RUF? ALEX Dear Steve RAPP,
YOU PROSECUTORS TOLD THE WHOLE WORLD THAT TAYLOR RECIEVED DIAMOND FROM THE RUF REBELS FROM SIERRA LEONE.CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS SITE PICTURES ,DOCUMENTS OR VIDEO RECORDING TO PROVE TO US OR THE WHOLE WORLD THAT TAYLOR DID RECIEVE SUCH DIAMOND FROM RUF?
ALEX

]]> By: Your Questions Wanted: Interview with Courtenay Griffiths, lead Counsel for Charles Taylor « The Trial of Charles Taylor http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-25995 Your Questions Wanted: Interview with Courtenay Griffiths, lead Counsel for Charles Taylor « The Trial of Charles Taylor Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:40:13 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-25995 [...] We are seeking your questions for him, which we’ll be accepting through until 9am EST, Tuesday morning (March 9, 2010).  We are still keeping in mind the questions asked when we interviewed Stephen Rapp, which are available here:  http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-w... [...] [...] We are seeking your questions for him, which we’ll be accepting through until 9am EST, Tuesday morning (March 9, 2010).  We are still keeping in mind the questions asked when we interviewed Stephen Rapp, which are available here:  http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-w… [...]

]]> By: Tracey Gurd http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-14665 Tracey Gurd Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:57:26 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-14665 FROM "QUESTIONS" for Mr. Griffiths -- Submitted on 2009/12/04 at 9:46pm Hello Tracey, A while ago I remember both the prosecution and defense said they would answer questions from the public. Mr Rapp did that. Will Mr Griffiths? If so, could I respectfully ask the following questions for Mr. Griffiths: 1. I understand that the Court is paying Mr Taylor’s legal bills because he is ‘partially indigent’. http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090717_Rapp.doc.htm Can you please explain: a) What is Mr Taylor’s current financial situation? Does he continue to receive any income from any investments, businesses or otherwise? b) How much of Mr Taylor’s bills are being covered by the Court? c) What does it mean to be ‘partially indigent’? d) Why is it that the Court is paying any of his bills when the most recent report of the UN Panel of Experts disclosed that: a. Mr Taylor owns property in his name in Monrovia worth hundreds of thousand of US $; and that, b. Since 2003, the company PLC has received millions in US$ from Lonestar cellphone company in Monrovia (note that Page 343 of the Vol 2 of the TRC Final Report: says that “PLC Limited, a corporation owned jointly by Charles Taylor and Benoni Urey and Emmanuel Shaw II, two of Taylor’s financial advisors.”) 2. Has the defense or the Court paid any of the expenses or given any other benefits to any of the witnesses that the defense will call? Why did Mr. Taylor talk to potential defense witnesses on a secure/unmonitored telephone line? 3. While he was on the stand, you asked Mr Taylor to explain the Liberian shipping registry. His explanation was factually incorrect. What was the purpose of asking him to explain the registry? Did Mr Taylor ever benefit personally from the Shipping and/or Corporate registries? 4. During Mr Taylor’s cross you seem to be portraying two Liberia’s after his 1997 election: 1) a Liberia that was broke after decades of theft and war; and 2) a Liberia rich in natural resources. It appeared that the purpose of the second depiction is to suggest that Mr. Taylor had no interest in SL’s riches because Liberia is rich enough. a. But doesn’t the first depiction of a broke-Liberia undermine this defense by contradicting the argument? b. Regardless, when does someone have ‘enough’ that they won’t go after other – especially easier – money? 5. I understand from the media that Mr. Taylor does not have any Sierra Leoneans or Liberians on his legal team. If this is correct, why doesn’t he? If this is not correct, what positions do they hold? 5. How do you think that the conviction of Mr. Taylor’s son on torture charges in the US will affect Mr. Taylor’s case? Is it possible that Mr. Taylor’s son might give evidence against Mr. Taylor in order to reduce his sentence? Hello Tracey, A while ago I remember both the prosecution and defense said they would answer questions from the public. Mr Rapp did that. Will Mr Griffiths? If so, could I respectfully ask the following questions for Mr. Griffiths: 1. I understand that the Court is paying Mr Taylor’s legal bills because he is ‘partially indigent’. http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090717_Rapp.doc.htm Can you please explain: a) What is Mr Taylor’s current financial situation? Does he continue to receive any income from any investments, businesses or otherwise? b) How much of Mr Taylor’s bills are being covered by the Court? c) What does it mean to be ‘partially indigent’? d) Why is it that the Court is paying any of his bills when the most recent report of the UN Panel of Experts disclosed that: a. Mr Taylor owns property in his name in Monrovia worth hundreds of thousand of US $; and that, b. Since 2003, the company PLC has received millions in US$ from Lonestar cellphone company in Monrovia (note that Page 343 of the Vol 2 of the TRC Final Report: says that “PLC Limited, a corporation owned jointly by Charles Taylor and Benoni Urey and Emmanuel Shaw II, two of Taylor’s financial advisors.”) 2. Has the defense or the Court paid any of the expenses or given any other benefits to any of the witnesses that the defense will call? Why did Mr. Taylor talk to potential defense witnesses on a secure/unmonitored telephone line? 3. While he was on the stand, you asked Mr Taylor to explain the Liberian shipping registry. His explanation was factually incorrect. What was the purpose of asking him to explain the registry? Did Mr Taylor ever benefit personally from the Shipping and/or Corporate registries? 4. During Mr Taylor’s cross you seem to be portraying two Liberia’s after his 1997 election: 1) a Liberia that was broke after decades of theft and war; and 2) a Liberia rich in natural resources. It appeared that the purpose of the second depiction is to suggest that Mr. Taylor had no interest in SL’s riches because Liberia is rich enough. a. But doesn’t the first depiction of a broke-Liberia undermine this defense by contradicting the argument? b. Regardless, when does someone have ‘enough’ that they won’t go after other – especially easier – money? 5. I understand from the media that Mr. Taylor does not have any Sierra Leoneans or Liberians on his legal team. If this is correct, why doesn’t he? If this is not correct, what positions do they hold? 5. How do you think that the conviction of Mr. Taylor’s son on torture charges in the US will affect Mr. Taylor’s case? Is it possible that Mr. Taylor’s son might give evidence against Mr. Taylor in order to reduce his sentence? FROM “QUESTIONS” for Mr. Griffiths — Submitted on 2009/12/04 at 9:46pm

Hello Tracey,
A while ago I remember both the prosecution and defense said they would answer questions from the public. Mr Rapp did that. Will Mr Griffiths? If so, could I respectfully ask the following questions for Mr. Griffiths:

1. I understand that the Court is paying Mr Taylor’s legal bills because he is ‘partially indigent’. http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090717_Rapp.doc.htm

Can you please explain:
a) What is Mr Taylor’s current financial situation? Does he continue to receive any income from any investments, businesses or otherwise?
b) How much of Mr Taylor’s bills are being covered by the Court?
c) What does it mean to be ‘partially indigent’?
d) Why is it that the Court is paying any of his bills when the most recent report of the UN Panel of Experts disclosed that:
a. Mr Taylor owns property in his name in Monrovia worth hundreds of thousand of US $; and that,
b. Since 2003, the company PLC has received millions in US$ from Lonestar cellphone company in Monrovia (note that Page 343 of the Vol 2 of the TRC Final Report: says that “PLC Limited, a corporation owned jointly by Charles Taylor and Benoni Urey and Emmanuel Shaw II, two of Taylor’s financial advisors.”)

2. Has the defense or the Court paid any of the expenses or given any other benefits to any of the witnesses that the defense will call? Why did Mr. Taylor talk to potential defense witnesses on a secure/unmonitored telephone line?

3. While he was on the stand, you asked Mr Taylor to explain the Liberian shipping registry. His explanation was factually incorrect. What was the purpose of asking him to explain the registry? Did Mr Taylor ever benefit personally from the Shipping and/or Corporate registries?

4. During Mr Taylor’s cross you seem to be portraying two Liberia’s after his 1997 election: 1) a Liberia that was broke after decades of theft and war; and 2) a Liberia rich in natural resources. It appeared that the purpose of the second depiction is to suggest that Mr. Taylor had no interest in SL’s riches because Liberia is rich enough.
a. But doesn’t the first depiction of a broke-Liberia undermine this defense by contradicting the argument?
b. Regardless, when does someone have ‘enough’ that they won’t go after other – especially easier – money?

5. I understand from the media that Mr. Taylor does not have any Sierra Leoneans or Liberians on his legal team. If this is correct, why doesn’t he? If this is not correct, what positions do they hold?

5. How do you think that the conviction of Mr. Taylor’s son on torture charges in the US will affect Mr. Taylor’s case? Is it possible that Mr. Taylor’s son might give evidence against Mr. Taylor in order to reduce his sentence?

Hello Tracey,
A while ago I remember both the prosecution and defense said they would answer questions from the public. Mr Rapp did that. Will Mr Griffiths? If so, could I respectfully ask the following questions for Mr. Griffiths:

1. I understand that the Court is paying Mr Taylor’s legal bills because he is ‘partially indigent’. http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090717_Rapp.doc.htm

Can you please explain:
a) What is Mr Taylor’s current financial situation? Does he continue to receive any income from any investments, businesses or otherwise?
b) How much of Mr Taylor’s bills are being covered by the Court?
c) What does it mean to be ‘partially indigent’?
d) Why is it that the Court is paying any of his bills when the most recent report of the UN Panel of Experts disclosed that:
a. Mr Taylor owns property in his name in Monrovia worth hundreds of thousand of US $; and that,
b. Since 2003, the company PLC has received millions in US$ from Lonestar cellphone company in Monrovia (note that Page 343 of the Vol 2 of the TRC Final Report: says that “PLC Limited, a corporation owned jointly by Charles Taylor and Benoni Urey and Emmanuel Shaw II, two of Taylor’s financial advisors.”)

2. Has the defense or the Court paid any of the expenses or given any other benefits to any of the witnesses that the defense will call? Why did Mr. Taylor talk to potential defense witnesses on a secure/unmonitored telephone line?

3. While he was on the stand, you asked Mr Taylor to explain the Liberian shipping registry. His explanation was factually incorrect. What was the purpose of asking him to explain the registry? Did Mr Taylor ever benefit personally from the Shipping and/or Corporate registries?

4. During Mr Taylor’s cross you seem to be portraying two Liberia’s after his 1997 election: 1) a Liberia that was broke after decades of theft and war; and 2) a Liberia rich in natural resources. It appeared that the purpose of the second depiction is to suggest that Mr. Taylor had no interest in SL’s riches because Liberia is rich enough.
a. But doesn’t the first depiction of a broke-Liberia undermine this defense by contradicting the argument?
b. Regardless, when does someone have ‘enough’ that they won’t go after other – especially easier – money?

5. I understand from the media that Mr. Taylor does not have any Sierra Leoneans or Liberians on his legal team. If this is correct, why doesn’t he? If this is not correct, what positions do they hold?

5. How do you think that the conviction of Mr. Taylor’s son on torture charges in the US will affect Mr. Taylor’s case? Is it possible that Mr. Taylor’s son might give evidence against Mr. Taylor in order to reduce his sentence?

]]> By: bnker http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-5515 bnker Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:37:16 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-5515 Jose, I don't understand your trend of thought at all. However, you reinforced my point, you definitely lack diplomacy and tactful mannerism. I have not said anything that is considered false, misleading, or untrue. However, I could volley jabs with you; however, it is definitely not in my best interest to do so, why? I have read your arguments and pretext for them are usually dumbfounded, lack of substance, and frankly poorly cnstructed. Engaging in a tug of war or words with you does only thing and one thing only, you gain because you learn from it--unfortunately, I won't. FYI, there are ways in which one can construct a debate or argument, you are not there yet buddy. If you didn't understand the premise of my statement, I was thanking Rapp in advance for taking these questions (the future) not the past (as you claim). Please don't tell me you were confused because I didn't put the word, "advance" in my thank you line. So, if you want to debate please lets do so, I surely don't appreciate you or anyone throwing insults or attempting to ridicule yourself while thing it a "discussion". Discussion and debates though at times heated are respectful. Its obvious you miss the big picture. It's apparent that you are dwelling on one line or phrase and you are pathetically, unsuccessfully framing a discussion, while in the same breath, portraying yourself as somewhat intelligent--sorry not working for me. Whatever my questions, compliment, opinions are about Steven Rapp, you or no one will change that. I try to be tactful and show restrain to some comments, yet there are some people who actually deserve to be listened to and others we put them on "redemption road" thinking that they are restructure their thought process (you are one of those). Professionalism and mannerism is something you learn from exposure. Get out and hang with the right crowd, you might learn a thing or two, I am sure you are capable of learning; you have exhibited that to me--the progress is slower that most would like, but you will get there. For the record, I will not comment on Steve Rapp any further, you may cry over spilled milk, that's your choice, but I am sure not giving you the opportunity to feel smarter than you actually are. So, my friend, don't jab if you don't have a strong jaw to take a punch. Let's get back and debate the case! Jose,

I don’t understand your trend of thought at all. However, you reinforced my point, you definitely lack diplomacy and tactful mannerism. I have not said anything that is considered false, misleading, or untrue. However, I could volley jabs with you; however, it is definitely not in my best interest to do so, why? I have read your arguments and pretext for them are usually dumbfounded, lack of substance, and frankly poorly cnstructed. Engaging in a tug of war or words with you does only thing and one thing only, you gain because you learn from it–unfortunately, I won’t.

FYI, there are ways in which one can construct a debate or argument, you are not there yet buddy. If you didn’t understand the premise of my statement, I was thanking Rapp in advance for taking these questions (the future) not the past (as you claim). Please don’t tell me you were confused because I didn’t put the word, “advance” in my thank you line. So, if you want to debate please lets do so, I surely don’t appreciate you or anyone throwing insults or attempting to ridicule yourself while thing it a “discussion”. Discussion and debates though at times heated are respectful. Its obvious you miss the big picture. It’s apparent that you are dwelling on one line or phrase and you are pathetically, unsuccessfully framing a discussion, while in the same breath, portraying yourself as somewhat intelligent–sorry not working for me. Whatever my questions, compliment, opinions are about Steven Rapp, you or no one will change that.

I try to be tactful and show restrain to some comments, yet there are some people who actually deserve to be listened to and others we put them on “redemption road” thinking that they are restructure their thought process (you are one of those). Professionalism and mannerism is something you learn from exposure. Get out and hang with the right crowd, you might learn a thing or two, I am sure you are capable of learning; you have exhibited that to me–the progress is slower that most would like, but you will get there.

For the record, I will not comment on Steve Rapp any further, you may cry over spilled milk, that’s your choice, but I am sure not giving you the opportunity to feel smarter than you actually are. So, my friend, don’t jab if you don’t have a strong jaw to take a punch.

Let’s get back and debate the case!

]]> By: jose Rodriguez http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-5472 jose Rodriguez Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:06:44 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-5472 bnker, you have still not answered my question. Where and when did Mr. Rapp answer these tough questions as alleged by you. All the other things you are saying is distraction and irrelavent to my question. If Mr. Rapp will write or sell books, I can care less. If he has been elevated or promoted, is none of my business. If you believe in capitalism or free market, that's your problem. If you think he's a diplomat that has not been confirmed by the united States Senate, that's your thinking; he is still Steven Rapp. Keep your side comments to yourself. Please answer this simple question. The reason why I'm in pursuit of answer from you is because I have learned something from this trial. If someone says something that is not true, it is better you confront it immediately; or else, they will keep on saying it until they actually believe it to be true and if possible, mislead many people believing it also. If this happens, I will have to work twice in order to inform the people of the truth and I don't want to work double. bnker, you have still not answered my question. Where and when did Mr. Rapp answer these tough questions as alleged by you. All the other things you are saying is distraction and irrelavent to my question. If Mr. Rapp will write or sell books, I can care less. If he has been elevated or promoted, is none of my business. If you believe in capitalism or free market, that’s your problem. If you think he’s a diplomat that has not been confirmed by the united States Senate, that’s your thinking; he is still Steven Rapp. Keep your side comments to yourself. Please answer this simple question.
The reason why I’m in pursuit of answer from you is because I have learned something from this trial. If someone says something that is not true, it is better you confront it immediately; or else, they will keep on saying it until they actually believe it to be true and if possible, mislead many people believing it also. If this happens, I will have to work twice in order to inform the people of the truth and I don’t want to work double.

]]> By: Wadi Williams http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/08/25/q-a-for-prosecutor-and-defense-counsel-your-questions-wanted/#comment-5411 Wadi Williams Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:35:42 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4319#comment-5411 Mr Rapp My question is a simple one Given that the proscution's case hinges on the question of 'Linkage' Why have some of the 'key Actors' with possibly, first hand information that goes to the heart of this issue, such as Issa Sesay, Kallon and Gbao etc, not been called to give evidence? Mr Rapp
My question is a simple one
Given that the proscution’s case hinges on the question of ‘Linkage’ Why have some of the ‘key Actors’ with possibly, first hand information that goes to the heart of this issue, such as Issa Sesay, Kallon and Gbao etc, not been called to give evidence?

]]>