– As cross-examined witness admits fingerprint testing was impossible on key evidence
The prosecution’s case in the Capitol Building arson trial suffered a major setback on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, when its own first witness, Criminal Investigator Rafael Wilson of the Liberia National Police, openly admitted in court that the government did not conduct any forensic or scientific fingerprint examination on the clora bottle and matchbox retrieved from the crime scene—items the prosecution has repeatedly suggested were used by the defendants.
Under intense cross-examination, Wilson confirmed that forensic technicians informed investigators that fingerprint testing was “impossible” because the container was rubber. The defense immediately capitalized on the admission, questioning how the government could confidently link the accused to the alleged arson when the most basic scientific procedure to establish physical contact was never performed.
“For the fact that anyone handling such materials would naturally leave fingerprints, investigators are obligated to test these items using scientific methods,” defense lawyers argued. They maintained that investigators should have worn gloves at the crime scene and conducted proper laboratory examination in accordance with standard investigative practice—procedures the government clearly failed to follow.
When asked directly whether he conducted any fingerprint investigation to link the defendants to the crime, Wilson responded:
“The clora bottle and matchbox are raw surfaces, and as such, we couldn’t conduct prints. The forensic technician told us it was impossible to conduct fingerprint analysis. So, we didn’t conduct forensic fingerprint investigation.”
The defense questioned aloud—and placed on the record—what evidentiary basis the prosecution used in charging the defendants when no fingerprint testing was done on the very items allegedly connecting them to the arson.
The prosecution avoided further exposure only after Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie overruled a key defense question, claiming the witness had already testified that documentary and oral evidence supported the charges. The ruling visibly dissatisfied the defense bench.
Earlier, before the cross-examination, prosecutors attempted to introduce the police charge sheet and investigative report into evidence. The defense strongly objected, describing the documents as strange because they were never disclosed during discovery—an omission the defense insisted violated legal procedure.
Despite the objection, Judge Willie denied the defense request. Defense lawyers then formally submitted that the court order printed and reliable copies of the documents to allow them to adequately prepare for subsequent cross-examination of the witness.
As it stands, the prosecution faces increasing scrutiny over the credibility of its investigative process, especially after its own witness confirmed that no scientific evidence links the defendants to the alleged arson.
Before the cross-examination commenced, tensions had already escalated in Criminal Court when defense lawyers objected to the prosecution’s request to have certain audio recordings marked and admitted into evidence. The defense argued that the recordings lacked the basic chain-of-custody elements—date, time, place, and source.
Judge Willie, however, overruled the objection, citing established precedent that evidence may be admitted even when its authenticity is later left to the jury.
“The fact that evidence is admitted does not mean it is true,” Judge Willie stated. “It is the jury that determines its credibility.”
The ruling prompted a sharp reaction from Defense Counsel Cllr. Arthur Johnson, who expressed concern that the court appeared to be siding with the prosecution.
“Your Honor, your ruling sounds as though you are arguing for the prosecution,” Johnson said. “When we make objections, your role is to rule—nothing more. You are arguing the case to the jury, as though you are angry with the objectors, and the rules of court prohibit that.”
The defense further maintained that the testimony concerning the audio recordings should be stricken, arguing that jurors had already heard the recording and that the witness lacked expert qualifications to interpret it.
“The only thing the prosecution should have done was identify those in the recording,” Johnson said, insisting that admitting the audio into evidence would amount to hearsay and that the witness was not an expert, contrary to evidentiary rules.
While on the stand, Wilson was also questioned about the origin of the recordings. The court noted that the investigation had been conducted at the Liberia National Police headquarters with assistance from the NSA, and therefore overruled the defense’s hearsay objection.
