MONROVIA – Criminal Court “A” this week witnessed renewed legal confrontation as defense lawyers leveled serious allegations of police misconduct while challenging the authenticity of audio recordings central to the state’s case in the alleged plot to burn the Capitol Building.
During cross-examination of the prosecution’s prime witness, defense lead counsel Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson accused the Liberia National Police (LNP) of deploying more than fourteen pickup trucks carrying armed officers to the residence of defendant Thomas Etheridge. Johnson alleged that during the operation, Etheridge was coerced into holding a bottle of Clorox.
The defense further alleged that on January 13, 2025, LNP Inspector General Gregory O.W. Coleman and prosecution witness Rafael Wilson transported Etheridge from LNP headquarters to the National Security Agency (NSA), where officers again attempted to force him to hold the same bottle.
Johnson also claimed that police attempted to use Etheridge’s cellphone—said to have been in police custody since December 18, 2024—to place a call to former Speaker Amos Koffa and deliver the statement, “Chief, I received the money.”
Prosecutors objected to the allegations, and the court sustained the objection, ordering the witness not to answer.
The trial centers on an audio recording prosecutors say documents a “Plan B” discussed by the defendants, which the state argues referred to setting fire to the Capitol after earlier efforts failed.
Defense counsel rejected that interpretation, stating that the recording contains no direct reference to arson. Johnson argued that references to “parking chairs” relate to seating arrangements and renovation work in the Joint Chamber, not criminal conduct.
The defense maintained that discussions about renovations predated October 2024 and criticized prosecutors for failing to produce official records linking the defendants to any plan to burn the Capitol. Johnson accused the state of attempting to reframe routine legislative or maintenance activities as evidence of a criminal conspiracy aimed at disrupting a legislative session.
A key issue in the proceedings is the authenticity of the audio itself. The defense alleged the recording was generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence, accusing investigators of fabricating evidence. Defense attorneys cited testimony suggesting similar audio could be produced using readily available technology.
The defense urged the court to restrict testimony on the recording’s authenticity to qualified voice experts, warning of the dangers of AI-generated voice impersonation, digital manipulation, and misleading audio artifacts.
Tensions rose further when Johnson questioned whether the LNP created and packaged the recordings. Prosecutors objected, arguing the question was argumentative, opinion-based, unconstitutional, and violated the witness’s right against self-incrimination. Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie sustained the objection.
Prosecutors denied the allegations of fabrication, insisting the recordings accurately captured discussions among the defendants and constituted evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
The court is expected to rule on the admissibility and credibility of the contested recordings as the trial continues, a decision likely to have a decisive impact on the case.
