Monrovia — After nearly two weeks of direct and cross-examination by both the prosecution and the defense, jurors on Monday subjected the state's first witness, Investigator Refael Wilson, to pointed questioning, zeroing in on the quality, source, and credibility of evidence in the ongoing Capitol Building fire trial.
Following the close of cross-examination, the court opened the floor for juror questions. Most inquiries focused on whether audio recordings, video footage, and photographs formed the backbone of the prosecution's case. In response, Wilson told the court that investigators also relied on alleged voluntary statements, call logs, and other investigative materials.
Defense counsel, however, sharply challenged the credibility of the purported voluntary statements during cross-examination, arguing that some were obtained through torture and coercion and that several were unsigned. The defense maintained that such statements were unreliable and should not be given evidentiary weight.
Jurors repeatedly pressed Wilson on what evidence the state intended to rely on beyond electronic recordings and images. Wilson reiterated that investigators collected statements and call records in addition to audio and video materials.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
One juror asked whether security personnel assigned to the Capitol on the day of the incident were questioned and what the investigation revealed. Wilson testified that security officers were interviewed and that investigators uncovered several irregularities. According to him, some officers who were scheduled for duty were never informed of their deployment, while others failed to report for work. Some claimed illness, while others admitted they did not report but denied any involvement in the alleged arson.
Another juror referred to a PowerPoint presentation previously shown in court and questioned Wilson on how investigators obtained footage when he had testified that there was no CCTV system on the Capitol compound. Wilson explained that investigators relied on photographs taken during the investigation, including images of the exterior of the Capitol Building, the Joint Chambers after the incident, and photos retrieved from the mobile phone of defendant Thomas Etheridge.
Beyond juror questioning, the defense renewed strong objections to several documents submitted by the prosecution, challenging their authenticity and admissibility. Defense counsel questioned the absence of original copies of letters dated December 24, 2024, and January 3, 2025, noting that only photocopies were presented to the court.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The defense further argued that the documents were not obtained directly from the alleged author but from a brother-in-law whose identity the prosecution witness could not clearly recall, raising doubts about the documents' origin and reliability.
Counsel also objected to two alleged voluntary statements, citing inconsistencies in content and signatures. According to the defense, the December 24 letter was addressed to a different recipient and bore a different signature, while the January 3, 2025 letters were unsigned, calling into question the basis upon which the prosecution attributed the documents to the alleged author.
Medical evidence was also scrutinized. A report presented in court indicated that the alleged victim suffered broken and missing teeth, back pain, and blindness in one eye. However, defense counsel noted that the medical opinion stated the findings were "hardly consistent" with allegations of torture, further undermining the prosecution's claims.
At one point, defense counsel accused investigators of coercion, alleging that certain statements were written by investigators rather than the accused and signed in the absence of the defendants in an effort to implicate other individuals. The defense emphasized that cross-examination is a constitutional right and urged the court to uphold its previous rulings allowing witnesses to respond fully to questions.
The trial continues as the court weighs arguments over the admissibility and probative value of the contested evidence.
