Ms. Teage, for the record, Mr Taylor presented ample of FACTUAL FACTS(documents) to debunk 90% of the testimonies in relationship to the charges and the MANDATE of this court.

Please never apologize for a “long rant” – we are very glad to welcome you to the site and we welcome your contributions. The questions you ask are excellent ones.

On cross-examination — yes, the prosecution will get an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Taylor on his testimony. That is expected to start within the coming weeks. Though the Prosecution has rested its case, this cross-examination still offers an opportunity for the prosecution to challenges any inconsistencies in Mr. Taylor’s testimony. We will keep readers posted when we know more about when this phase of Mr. Taylor’s testimony will start. The defense will then have an opportunity to re-examine Mr. Taylor on issues raised during the cross-examination. The procedure is the same for each witness.

In terms of the evidence being put forward, the judges will decide after hearing both the prosecution and defense cases (and any other evidence they wish to order) the weight they want to attach to each of the pieces of evidence they have heard and read to determine what is credible and what is not in deciding whether or not Mr. Taylor is guilty or not of the charges against him. To explain a little further, the judges may find some witnesses not to be very credible or consistent in their testimony and so attach little weight to it. Others they may find very consistent and compelling and attach greater weight to what they say (ie that it will count more heavily) in making their final determinations. Keep in mind that the Prosecution bears the weight of proving Mr. Taylor’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Mr. Taylor on the other hand, does not have to prove his innocence as he is entitled — as is the right of defendants in any fair trial — to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Instead, Mr. Taylor’s job, and that of his defense team’s, is to try to create a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

I will write more soon on the Special Court’s ability to call other West African leaders to testify, and the challenges it may face in doing so.

I agree with you, Ms. Teage, on Sierra Leonean voices. I would welcome hearing more of them also, and I’m delighted that you will let Sierra Leoneans you know about the site.

Best, and thanks for your kind words about the site — glad you find it useful for facilitating conversations about the trial.
Tracey

I’ve been following the trail for some time since I stumbled upon this website (not closely though) shortly after it was created.
I believe that the prosecution has presented many witnesses to attest that Taylor did participate in crimese in Sierra Leone. After reading Taylors defense postings, it seems as if this is bascially a war of words between Taylor and the prosecution. It is quite evident that Taylor will deny every charge brought against him. So this is a case of “your word against mine”, is it not, please correct me if I’m incorrect. I do not see any substantial proof that Taylor is presenting to refute the charges, and as for the prosecution I see that a lot of circumstantial evidence as far as the testimonies of the different witnesses. It seems as if It will be imposstible to get any hard core forensic evidence to link Taylor to the wars in Sierra Leone, because this happened many years ago and over a period of time.

So here is my question, can the prosecutors not try to puncture wholes in Taylors statments by pointing out flaws in staments made, and can the West African leaders that Taylor speak about “peacfully giving advice with” not be willingly asked to confirm that Taylor and them (who ever the leaders are) did peacefully offer advice to Sierra Leonean leaders. Or will it be too complicated getting those West African leaders involved, I can imagine it will be. But if this is a case of my word against yours, I’m just thinking, there will need to be more to confirm or dispprove Taylors statments, or even the prosection’s statments. Also Taylor willingly admitted that he did not want Sam Bockarie dead, as so much that he even sent his Vice President to intervene becauseSam Bockarie was like his “son”, but then in the same statment he states that Sam Bockarie and Him (Taylor) did not have a “cozy” relationship, and that “Chief” was just a sign of respect. But is it not true that in-order to have a father, son Type relationship, one must be quite “COZY” for such a relationship.
My last question, I missed the beginning of Taylor defence trail, how does it work, The prosecution presented it;s case already right, and Now it is the defence presenting their case. Is there any “cross-examination” of Taylor, because from reading the few postings I’ve read recently it seem as if there is no cross examination.

Thanks once again for all the information, your time and hard work! The Open Society Justic Initiative is awesome, for posting this website and allowing Liberians whether agree or disagreeing to voice their opinions about this Trail. I wish there were more Sierra Leoneans on this site. I would be nice for them to voice their opinions, I know many Sierra Leoneans affected by the civil war. I will inform many of them (Sierra Leoneans) about this site and hope that they would come and share their feelings about this trail, whether they are infavor of it or not.

P.S: Sorry about the long rant.