-As Defense Exposes Gaps
Monrovia: Jurors in the Capitol Building fire trial on Monday sharply questioned the strength and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence after nearly two weeks of testimony from the state’s first witness, Investigator Refael Wilson, signaling growing scrutiny of the case presented against the defendants.
Following the conclusion of cross-examination by defense counsel, jurors directed a series of questions at Wilson, focusing largely on whether audio recordings, video footage, and photographs formed the backbone of the prosecution’s case.
While Wilson maintained that investigators also relied on voluntary statements, call logs, and other materials, defense questioning cast serious doubt on the reliability of those sources. During cross-examination, defense counsel challenged the alleged voluntary statements, asserting that some were obtained through torture and coercion and that several were unsigned by the accused.
The defense argued that statements obtained under such circumstances could not be considered credible evidence and should not be relied upon by the court.
Jurors repeatedly pressed the witness to clarify what evidence the state intended to present beyond electronic recordings and images. Wilson reiterated that statements and call records were also collected, but the questioning underscored concerns about whether such materials were sufficient to support the charges.
Jurors also questioned the handling of Capitol security on the day of the incident. Wilson testified that security officers on duty were interviewed and that investigators found irregularities, including officers who were scheduled but never informed of their deployment, others who failed to report to work, and some who cited illness.
According to Wilson, those officers denied any involvement in the alleged arson. Another juror referenced a PowerPoint presentation shown earlier in the trial and questioned how investigators obtained footage when Wilson had testified that there was no CCTV camera on the Capitol compound.
Wilson explained that investigators collected photographs during the investigation, including images of the Capitol’s exterior, the Joint Chambers after the incident, and photos retrieved from the mobile phone of defendant Thomas Etheridge.
Meanwhile, the defense renewed objections to several documents introduced by the prosecution, questioning their authenticity and admissibility. Counsel highlighted that original copies of letters dated December 24, 2024, and January 3, 2025, were not produced and that only photocopies were presented.
Defense counsel further questioned the source of the documents, noting they were not obtained directly from the alleged author but from a brother-in-law whose identity the prosecution witness could not clearly recall. The defense argued that this uncertainty undermined the reliability of the documents.
Medical evidence presented by the prosecution was also challenged. Although a report cited broken and missing teeth, back pain, and blindness in one eye, defense counsel pointed out that the medical opinion stated the findings were “hardly consistent” with allegations of torture.
At one point, defense counsel accused investigators of coercion, alleging that certain statements were written by investigators and signed in the absence of the defendants to implicate others. They emphasized that cross-examination is a constitutional right, the defense urged the court to uphold its rulings allowing witnesses to respond fully.
