Comments on: Judges Order Prosecutors To Disclose To The Defense All New Documents They Intend To Use In Cross-Examination of Charles Taylor http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/ International Criminal Justice in the Making Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:22:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Impunity Watch » Blog Archive » Taylor’s Cross-Examination Continues http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-27657 Impunity Watch » Blog Archive » Taylor’s Cross-Examination Continues Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:45:26 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-27657 [...] Taylor Trial – Judges Order Prosecutors To Disclose To The Defense All New Documents They Intend To Use In Cross-Ex... – 3 December [...] [...] Taylor Trial – Judges Order Prosecutors To Disclose To The Defense All New Documents They Intend To Use In Cross-Ex… – 3 December [...]

]]> By: Tracey Gurd http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-15915 Tracey Gurd Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:01:53 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-15915 Hi Jose -- I appreciate your concern in trying to keep this website a respectful place, but I actually did not see a problem with that word in the context in which Bnker was using it. Just to make sure -- this is the comment to which I think you are responding, which was posted on December 5, 2009 from Bnker: "Hey Gang, I will join you all tomorrow. I am currently in Dakar…hope to catch up!" If so, I understood him to be using it affectionately with the group, rather than in a derogatory way (eg calling a group of specific readers a "criminal gang" for instance). I have no problem in letting it through as a result. Thanks for calling it to my attention, though. Best, Tracey Hi Jose — I appreciate your concern in trying to keep this website a respectful place, but I actually did not see a problem with that word in the context in which Bnker was using it.

Just to make sure — this is the comment to which I think you are responding, which was posted on December 5, 2009 from Bnker: “Hey Gang, I will join you all tomorrow. I am currently in Dakar…hope to catch up!”

If so, I understood him to be using it affectionately with the group, rather than in a derogatory way (eg calling a group of specific readers a “criminal gang” for instance). I have no problem in letting it through as a result.

Thanks for calling it to my attention, though.

Best,
Tracey

]]> By: Jose Rodriguez http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-15908 Jose Rodriguez Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:50:10 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-15908 Tracey, I don't see why you did not consider this post. bnker is calling us "gang" and I am trying to put him on notice. This is the same man who accused me of having high stress lever, comparing me with tyranical African leader behavior in shutting people down, and saying demeaning things about me and others. What is wrong with this post? let's put the man on record. Tracey,

I don’t see why you did not consider this post. bnker is calling us “gang” and I am trying to put him on notice. This is the same man who accused me of having high stress lever, comparing me with tyranical African leader behavior in shutting people down, and saying demeaning things about me and others. What is wrong with this post? let’s put the man on record.

]]> By: Tracey Gurd http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-15603 Tracey Gurd Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:19:27 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-15603 Thank you Al-Solo Nyonteh - glad you asked the question. The Special Court has 124 rules so there's a lot of detail there for all of us to get familiar with throughout the trial. It's good for asking the questions and giving us the space to discuss and debate these rules and processes, as I know a lot of us wonder the same things. Alpha and I constantly need to go back to the rules to double check our own understandings and assumptions too. This trial is a learning process for all of us. Thanks also for your kind comments about the site. Best, and hope to continue our conversations on the site, Tracey Thank you Al-Solo Nyonteh – glad you asked the question. The Special Court has 124 rules so there’s a lot of detail there for all of us to get familiar with throughout the trial. It’s good for asking the questions and giving us the space to discuss and debate these rules and processes, as I know a lot of us wonder the same things. Alpha and I constantly need to go back to the rules to double check our own understandings and assumptions too. This trial is a learning process for all of us.

Thanks also for your kind comments about the site.

Best, and hope to continue our conversations on the site,
Tracey

]]> By: Al-Solo Nyonteh http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-15503 Al-Solo Nyonteh Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:59:48 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-15503 Tracey Gurd The idea that the court had a rule which required a defendant to testify in his own defense, sounded correct. I guess being so gullible and unaware that “the fiction of a person imagination, could be transferred into text” was the main contribution to my misguide understanding. Thank you for your ongoing dedication towards keeping this site respectful, honest (with emphasis) and peaceful. In addition, I would like to thank Alpha Sesay for his critical role in maintaining this website. Your hard work and dedication is greatly appreciated. Tracey Gurd

The idea that the court had a rule which required a defendant to testify in his own defense, sounded correct. I guess being so gullible and unaware that “the fiction of a person imagination, could be transferred into text” was the main contribution to my misguide understanding. Thank you for your ongoing dedication towards keeping this site respectful, honest (with emphasis) and peaceful. In addition, I would like to thank Alpha Sesay for his critical role in maintaining this website. Your hard work and dedication is greatly appreciated.

]]> By: noko5 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-15065 noko5 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:29:29 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-15065 question I pause to deal with this one regardless of my busy schedule; answer to to yo..ur second no.5. that would be the 11th wonder of the world; Son testify against his father, yah right!!. you wish!!!! ...ain't .... happening..ok!! question
I pause to deal with this one regardless of my busy schedule; answer to to yo..ur second no.5. that would be the 11th wonder of the world; Son testify against his father, yah right!!. you wish!!!! …ain’t …. happening..ok!!

]]> By: King Gray http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-15038 King Gray Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:43:08 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-15038 hi Tracey, welcome back to the forum. I think we can now gain some energy in this discussion. Our man Alpha did his best but you know everybody got their area of speciality . Concerning your inquiries regarding our views about the case so far. I think the prosecution has gone from bad to wrost, they are truly losing their mind here! It appears that this case is no more about blood diamonds and Mr. Taylor support of RUF but rather the prosecution attempting to prove that Mr. Taylor is a liar and by extension he lied regarding this actions in SL. Even IF the prosecution can prove that Mr. Taylor is a liar, it does not represent facts that Mr. Taylor engaged in the looting and selling of blood diamonds and that he had commanding control of the RUF. The prosecution whole strategy of attempting to impeach Mr. Taylor's testimony by pointing out inconsistences misses the essence of this trial. The burden of prove in this case is for the prosecution to show serious evidence that CHARLES TAYLOR was responsible for all of the war crimes that was committed in SL. The prosecution has a burden to prove that RUF did not have any other commanding authority except Mr. Taylor. This is the issue at bar, not Mr. Taylor's credibility. Furthermore, if pointing out inconsistency is the standard in this trial to determine GUILT and the untruthfulness of witnesses in this court, then the prosecution has no case. Because nearly all of the prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves , and further contradicted one another. So how can the inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses be admitted as factual evidence but Mr. Taylor, if he eveer made inconsistencies, cannot be accepted as factual? Again, I repeat , this case is "PURE NONSENSE!" hi Tracey, welcome back to the forum. I think we can now gain some energy in this discussion. Our man Alpha did his best but you know everybody got their area of speciality . Concerning your inquiries regarding our views about the case so far. I think the prosecution has gone from bad to wrost, they are truly losing their mind here!

It appears that this case is no more about blood diamonds and Mr. Taylor support of RUF but rather the prosecution attempting to prove that Mr. Taylor is a liar and by extension he lied regarding this actions in SL. Even IF the prosecution can prove that Mr. Taylor is a liar, it does not represent facts that Mr. Taylor engaged in the looting and selling of blood diamonds and that he had commanding control of the RUF. The prosecution whole strategy of attempting to impeach Mr. Taylor’s testimony by pointing out inconsistences misses the essence of this trial. The burden of prove in this case is for the prosecution to show serious evidence that CHARLES TAYLOR was responsible for all of the war crimes that was committed in SL. The prosecution has a burden to prove that RUF did not have any other commanding authority except Mr. Taylor. This is the issue at bar, not Mr. Taylor’s credibility.

Furthermore, if pointing out inconsistency is the standard in this trial to determine GUILT and the untruthfulness of witnesses in this court, then the prosecution has no case. Because nearly all of the prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves , and further contradicted one another. So how can the inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses be admitted as factual evidence but Mr. Taylor, if he eveer made inconsistencies, cannot be accepted as factual?

Again, I repeat , this case is “PURE NONSENSE!”

]]> By: andrew jlay http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-14997 andrew jlay Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:37:27 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-14997 Noko6, Are you serious? do you not know that the prosecution has closed their case after 6 years? Are you suggesting that they should reopen their case on the basis of this evidence? How weighty or strong is it to twist the tide in favor of the prosecution inspite of all other evidences that they presented? Please rethink your arguments. Noko6,

Are you serious? do you not know that the prosecution has closed their case after 6 years? Are you suggesting that they should reopen their case on the basis of this evidence? How weighty or strong is it to twist the tide in favor of the prosecution inspite of all other evidences that they presented?

Please rethink your arguments.

]]> By: Tracey Gurd http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-14988 Tracey Gurd Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:17:04 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-14988 Hi Al-Solo Nyonteh, Just a quick note in response to your posting: Under the rules of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Mr. Taylor may choose to testify in his own defense, but he has no obligation to do so. Here is the text of Rule 85(C): "The accused may, if he so desires, appear as a witness in his own defence. If he chooses to do so, he shall give his evidence under oath or affirmation and, as the case may be, thereafter call his witnesses." So in this case, Mr. Taylor actually chose to take the stand in his own defense -- he was not forced to do so. Best, Tracey Hi Al-Solo Nyonteh,

Just a quick note in response to your posting:

Under the rules of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Mr. Taylor may choose to testify in his own defense, but he has no obligation to do so. Here is the text of Rule 85(C):

“The accused may, if he so desires, appear as a witness in his own defence. If he chooses to do so, he shall give his evidence under oath or affirmation and, as the case may be, thereafter call his witnesses.”

So in this case, Mr. Taylor actually chose to take the stand in his own defense — he was not forced to do so.

Best,
Tracey

]]> By: Jose Rodriguez http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2009/12/03/judges-order-prosecutors-to-disclose-to-the-defense-all-new-documents-they-intend-to-use-in-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-14986 Jose Rodriguez Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:02:51 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4582#comment-14986 Tracey/ Alpha Big Joe please Tracey and Alpha, do not post the incomplete post that I was writing when I mistakely hit a bottom on my laptop computer. However, the point that I was trying to make is that Mr. Steven Rapp told us that the court is being financed by volunteery contribution from various counties including African countries. Big Joe, can you tell us which African counry Mr. Rapp was referring to, if it is not Nigeria? Tracey/ Alpha

Big Joe

please Tracey and Alpha, do not post the incomplete post that I was writing when I mistakely hit a bottom on my laptop computer. However, the point that I was trying to make is that Mr. Steven Rapp told us that the court is being financed by volunteery contribution from various counties including African countries. Big Joe, can you tell us which African counry Mr. Rapp was referring to, if it is not Nigeria?

]]>