Radio Netherlands Worldwide

In my earlier posting I said that Charles Taylor will actually walk a free man at the end of the day because the case against him were Fabricated and there were NO proof. I also mention of all the Prosecution witnesses being paid. Please read the below transcript. This is a Defense witness who was paid to lie against Charles Taylor but refused and switch side. He has all the western UNION payment documents as proof. Please read below

The Defence submits that the Prosecution has failed to comply with its Rule 68
obligations in regard to Witness DCT-097/TFI-354.'
2. Despite repeated requests for disclosure of statements given by DCT-097 and
records of money given to DCT-097 by the Prosecution, the Prosecution has failed
_____ ___io_discloseinfonna.tioR.rdating-to-the-folk>wing:
i) the existence and substance of a statement given by DCT-097 to Global
Witness, which the Prosecution is aware and which pre-dated Prosecution
interviews with OCT-097 ("Statement"), and
ii) an accounting and explanation of money (estimated at almost $30,000) paid
to or benefits conferred on DCT-097 by the Prosecution from 2004 to 2006
("Payments").
3. The Defence have established on a prima facie basis that the Prosecution has
failed to disclose the Statement and Payments which tend to suggest the innocence
or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution
evidence. Thus the Defence request the Trial Chamber to compel the disclosure
of the Statement and Payments forthwith.
II. BACKGROUND
4. On 12 May 2010 the Defence indicated that DCT-097 was on its Core Witness
List.2 DCT-097 is a protected defence witness according to the 27 May 2009
Defence Protective Measures Decision.'
5. On 19 May 2010, the Defence disclosed the name of DCT-097 to the
Prosecution." In its First Disclosure Letter, the Defence specifically requested:
"[.. .] any material, within its possession, which is relevant to the named witnesses
including, but not limited to, witness statements and/or disbursement records . The
Defence have reason to believe that the Prosecution has previously been in contact
with DCT-097 and thus asks specifically for unredacted copies of any statements
I The Prosecution have acknowledged that DCT-097 is the same as TFl-354. See Letter from Brenda
Hollis to Courtenay Griffiths , QC, 14 June 2010 [Confidential Annex A] ("Disclosure Receipt").
2 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-Q3-01-T-957, Defence Rule 73ter Filing of Witness SummariesVersion
Five, 12 May 2010, Annex C.
3 Any materials which may identify the witness are included in confidential annexes . Prosecutor v.
Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-782, Decision on Urgent Defence Application for Protective Measure s for
Witnesses and for Non-Public Materials, 27 May 2010.
4 Letter from Courtenay Griffiths, QC, to Brenda Hollis, 19 May 2010 [Confidential Annex B] ("First
Disclosure Request").
SCSL-03-0 1-T 2 4 August 2010
2qb33
taken as well [sic] records of any expenses paid to (or on behalf of) this witness
through the Prosecution's Witness Management Unit".
6. The Prosecution did not disclose anything. So the Defence followed its First
Disclosure Letter with a second, stating that the delay in disclosure was hindering
the Defence's progress in preparation asking the Prosecution to clarify whether:
"[...] you do not have an"y_oftheL~q!!l&l~!lmateriaLin.YQuLpossession; -Y.QU.at"e-m-too--------------:
p~r:o::cessot disclosingi"Cand if so, when such disclosurewould be made; or you have
the requestedmaterial in your possessionbut are not inclinedto disclose it".5
7. The Prosecution did not immediately disclose anything nor respond directly to the
Second Disclosure Request.
8. On 10 June 2010, the Prosecution sent the Defence a letter (in relation to another
witness) noting that:
"[ ... ] when the Prosecution does not reply to your requests for the disclosure of all
statements/disbursement records in relation to Defence witnesses, it indicates that
there are neither statements nor disbursement records in the Prosecution's possession
to be disclosed"."
9. On 14 June 2010, the Prosecution disclosed rune statements and/or
correspondences in relation to DCT-097/ dated: 27 May 2004,28 May 2004, 11
October 2004, 14 February 2005, 22 February 2005, 28 November 2005, 15
January 2006. One disclosure was undated. The Prosecution did not disclose the
existence or substance of the Global Witness Statement nor a record of Payments.
The Prosecution has given no explanation to the Defence regarding its lack of
disclosure in relation to OCT-097.
10. On 21 July 2010, a Defence lawyer and a Defence investigator met with DCT-097
and interviewed him, partially in respect to his interaction and cooperation with
the Prosecution. On this occasion, DCT-097, inter alia, told the Defence the
following: 8
i) That he was first approached by the Prosecution in 2004 through Alex
Yearsley of Global Witness;"
5 Letter from Courtenay Griffiths, QC, to Brenda Hollis, 3 June 20 I0 [Confidential Annex C] ("Second
Disclosure Request") .
6 Letter from Brenda Hollis to Courtenay Griffiths, QC, 10 June 2010 [Confidential Annex D)
("Disclosure Explanation").
7 Confidential Annex A, Disclosure Receipt.
8 See Signed Statement by Logan Hambrick, Legal Assistant, 22 July 2010. [Confidential Annex E)
("Interview Notes").
9 See, FYI, www.globalwitness.org.
SCSL-03-01-T 3 4 August 2010
ii) That Alex Yearsley of Global Witness had interviewed and taken a
statement from him in Abidjan in 2001 or 2002;
iii) That the person who put Alex Yearsley of Global Witness in touch
with OCT-097 was [Prosecution Witness TFl -151]; 10
iv) That the statement he (DCT-097) gave to Global Witness in 2001 or
___ ___ _ __..2002_re1ated.-to.-OC+-0-97.~B_iflwlvement-in- trading·-diamornts-fur-the
RUF in Monrovia from 2000;
v) That he told Global Witness that the RUF were not involved in trading
diamonds with Charles Taylor or the Liberian Government, but that
this was the story Global Witness wanted OCT-097 to confirm;
vi) That Alex Yearsley of Global Witness called DCT-097 from the
Congo in 2004 to say that a contact of his from the Special Court from
Sierra Leone would be in touch with OCT-097 and that he should
cooperate;
vii) That a few days later, Gilbert Morissette of the Prosecution called
DCT-097 and asked OCT-097 to meet with him in a location of his
choice;
viii) That the Prosecution wanted OCT-097 to confirm what they said they
had heard from other sources - that DCT-097 was the main RUF
person who carried diamonds to Charles Taylor;
ix) That after meeting with and while being interviewed by various
members of the Prosecution (including David Crane, Gilbert
Morissette, John Berry, Maggie, and an Australian), the Prosecution
paid OCT-097 a monthly "allowance" of approximately $1200 a month
from sometime in 2004 until sometime in 2006;
x) That the Prosecution did not provide this allowance for any specific
purpose, but for OCT-097' s general "upkeep";
xi) That this allowance would be given to DCT-097 in cash if he was in
Freetown or would be sent to him via MoneyGram ifhe was travelling
throughout the sub-region;
10 DCT-097 referred to the contact by his proper name, but the Defence knows him to be TFl-151 .
SCSL-03-0 1-T 4 4 August 2010
xii) That this allowance stopped when DCT-097 met with the Prosecution
for a final time in Senegal in 2006 and the Prosecution told DCT-097
that they were not getting what they needed from him.
11. DCT-097 has given the Defence color copies of seventeen MoneyGram receipts
showing payments being sent from five different Prosecution employees to DCT097
in various West African3QuntIi_eJ!~ __during.the__period-OflLApril-20Q4-·t&·19- · --- --,_.._-_.._--~--~._.__._---_._._-----------_.--_.-~._------_.---------_. -
June 2006, in amounts such as $2000, €1552, 8,989,200 Ghanaian Cedis, and
526,269 CFA Francs. I I
III. ApPLICABLE LAW & LEGAL BASIS
12. The plain language of Rule 68(B) states:
The Prosecutor shall, within 30 days of the initial appearance of the accused, make a
statement under this Rule disclosing to the defence the existence of evidence known
to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the
guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence. The
Prosecutor shall be under a continuing obligation to disclose any such exculpatory
material.
13.