Comments on: Prosecutors Conclude The Cross-Examination Of Charles Taylor http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/ International Criminal Justice in the Making Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:34:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: King Gray http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-22909 King Gray Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:28:07 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4743#comment-22909 Andrew The prosecution lied so they could not confront Taylor on the points you have raised. This is why they decided to focused on Liberia to show what they called "pattern of war behavior". As if to suggest that the Liberian and SL war was so unique to all wars ever in human history. What a shame for this prosecution. NONSENSE! Andrew
The prosecution lied so they could not confront Taylor on the points you have raised. This is why they decided to focused on Liberia to show what they called “pattern of war behavior”. As if to suggest that the Liberian and SL war was so unique to all wars ever in human history. What a shame for this prosecution. NONSENSE!

]]> By: joseph http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-22889 joseph Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:14:22 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4743#comment-22889 I do not have a legal background, but common sense sometimes is more insightful than being a professional and I am a professional. The prosecution should be prosecuted for wasting peoples' time and the vast sums of money used to bring a useless case against this man that they knew they could not prove. What a travesty! Joseph I do not have a legal background, but common sense sometimes is more insightful than being a professional and I am a professional. The prosecution should be prosecuted for wasting peoples’ time and the vast sums of money used to bring a useless case against this man that they knew they could not prove. What a travesty!

Joseph

]]> By: Alpha Sesay http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-22812 Alpha Sesay Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:10:33 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4743#comment-22812 Aki, Thanks for giving this reminder. With the new schedule, i am sure we have to let readers know what schedule applies on weekly basis. For this week, the trial will go back to its normal time, ie, 9:30am to 4:30pm Hague time. To view it online, there is always a 30 minutes delay. This means, streaming will commence at 10:00am and adjourn at 5:00pm Hague time. If you are viewing from the US, this will mean 4:00am to 11:00am Eastern Time (NY time). There will be no trials on Friday. Best, Alpha Aki,
Thanks for giving this reminder. With the new schedule, i am sure we have to let readers know what schedule applies on weekly basis. For this week, the trial will go back to its normal time, ie, 9:30am to 4:30pm Hague time. To view it online, there is always a 30 minutes delay. This means, streaming will commence at 10:00am and adjourn at 5:00pm Hague time. If you are viewing from the US, this will mean 4:00am to 11:00am Eastern Time (NY time). There will be no trials on Friday.
Best,
Alpha

]]> By: Aki http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-22774 Aki Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:23:30 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4743#comment-22774 Alpha, Could you please let us know what the time schedule of the trial is this week ? Alpha,
Could you please let us know what the time schedule of the trial is this week ?

]]> By: Jose Rodriguez http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-22730 Jose Rodriguez Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:03:44 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4743#comment-22730 Andrew, OUTSTANDING PIECE. Your brilliant post is not and will not be re-echoed in any major media. be it print or electonics. Andrew, the truth will never hide. No matter how hard people try to hide it. Andrew,

OUTSTANDING PIECE. Your brilliant post is not and will not be re-echoed in any major media. be it print or electonics. Andrew, the truth will never hide. No matter how hard people try to hide it.

]]> By: andrew jlay http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/06/prosecutors-conclude-the-cross-examination-of-charles-taylor/#comment-22659 andrew jlay Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:48:47 +0000 http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/?p=4743#comment-22659 Gentle People, It appears as though no one want to comment on this thread. So I begin the discussion hoping that others may join. In my mind this thread is the most important of all summaries that Alpha has posted to date. I stand challenged, but this is my conviction. This is the critical point at which the prosecution chose to limit, in other words define its confrontation with the man it so desires to incarcerate. Yet, resting its case without confronting this man on the major tenents of their theory, nor confronting him on critical testimonies that he gave that undermined the tenets of their theory. I believe that the failure to confront Taylor on these grounds amounted to a travesty. For those who are novice to this case and site, I pinpoint a few instances to support my statement. 1. Taylor argument that Sankoh was in jail in Nigeria on a date that the prosecution claimed that Sankoh and Taylor were trading arms and diamond in Monrovia. 2. Taylor argument that he was attending ECOWAS summit in Nigeria and Togo, where he signed the final communique in contrast to the prosecution claim that he was in Liberia on the same date trading arms and diamond at the White Flower residence. 3. Taylor argument that it was United Nations Helicopter that transported released hostages from Sierra Leone and that he did not use the opportunity to ferry arms to the RUF onboard the UN helicopter, contrary to the prosecution claim that it was the government of liberia helicopter that transported the released hostages and that taylor transported arms during the process. 4. Prosecution argument that a Charles mentioned in a document involving diamond dealings with Sankoh was not referring to Charles Taylor because the Charles mentioned in the document has a father who was also mentioned in the document and that this father was aware of the diamond dealings. Taylor contention was that his(Taylor's) father had long passed prior to the deal ever taking place. Gentle people, I could go on, but we all know the evidence Taylor presented that the prosecution should have addressed during their cross examination. Yet they chose to dwell on trivial matters. It leaves one without legal mind baffled, what more about the judges? Gentle People,

It appears as though no one want to comment on this thread. So I begin the discussion hoping that others may join. In my mind this thread is the most important of all summaries that Alpha has posted to date. I stand challenged, but this is my conviction. This is the critical point at which the prosecution chose to limit, in other words define its confrontation with the man it so desires to incarcerate. Yet, resting its case without confronting this man on the major tenents of their theory, nor confronting him on critical testimonies that he gave that undermined the tenets of their theory. I believe that the failure to confront Taylor on these grounds amounted to a travesty.

For those who are novice to this case and site, I pinpoint a few instances to support my statement.

1. Taylor argument that Sankoh was in jail in Nigeria on a date that the prosecution claimed that Sankoh and Taylor were trading arms and diamond in Monrovia.

2. Taylor argument that he was attending ECOWAS summit in Nigeria and Togo, where he signed the final communique in contrast to the prosecution claim that he was in Liberia on the same date trading arms and diamond at the White Flower residence.

3. Taylor argument that it was United Nations Helicopter that transported released hostages from Sierra Leone and that he did not use the opportunity to ferry arms to the RUF onboard the UN helicopter, contrary to the prosecution claim that it was the government of liberia helicopter that transported the released hostages and that taylor transported arms during the process.

4. Prosecution argument that a Charles mentioned in a document involving diamond dealings with Sankoh was not referring to Charles Taylor because the Charles mentioned in the document has a father who was also mentioned in the document and that this father was aware of the diamond dealings. Taylor contention was that his(Taylor’s) father had long passed prior to the deal ever taking place.

Gentle people, I could go on, but we all know the evidence Taylor presented that the prosecution should have addressed during their cross examination. Yet they chose to dwell on trivial matters. It leaves one without legal mind baffled, what more about the judges?

]]>