Published: December 19, 2025
MONROVIA — Allegations of police misconduct and claims that key evidence was manipulated dominated proceedings on Thursday in Criminal Court ‘A’, where defense lawyers sharply challenged the credibility of the state’s case in the trial over an alleged plot to burn the Capitol Building.
During continued cross-examination of the prosecution’s principal witness, defense lead counsel Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson accused the Liberia National Police of heavy-handed tactics in the arrest and handling of defendant Thomas Etheridge. Johnson alleged that police deployed more than 14 pickup trucks filled with armed officers to Etheridge’s residence and forced him to hold a bottle of Clorox during the operation.
Johnson further claimed that on Jan. 13, 2025, LNP Inspector General Gregory O.W. Coleman and prosecution witness Raphael Wilson transported Etheridge from LNP headquarters to the National Security Agency, where officers again attempted to coerce him into holding the bottle.
The defense also alleged that police sought to use Etheridge’s cellphone — reportedly in police custody since Dec. 18, 2024 — to place a call to former Speaker J. Fonati Koffa, instructing him to say, “Chief, I received the money.”
Prosecutors objected to the line of questioning, and Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie sustained the objection, directing the witness not to respond.
At the center of the case is an audio recording prosecutors say captures defendants discussing a “Plan B,” which the state contends referred to burning the Capitol Building after earlier efforts failed.
Defense lawyers rejected that interpretation, arguing the recording contains no explicit reference to arson. They maintained that references to “parking chairs” in the audio related to seating arrangements and prior renovation work in the Joint Chamber, not criminal activity.
Johnson said the discussions referenced in the recording predated October 2024 and accused the prosecution of failing to produce official records linking the defendants to any arson plot. He argued that the state was attempting to recast routine legislative or renovation-related discussions as evidence of a criminal conspiracy to disrupt a legislative session.
A major point of contention has been the authenticity of the audio recording itself. The defense alleged the recording was generated or altered using artificial intelligence, accusing investigators of fabricating evidence to implicate the defendants. Defense attorneys cited testimony suggesting such audio could be easily produced using widely available technology.
The defense urged the court to restrict testimony on the recording’s authenticity to qualified voice experts, warning of the risks posed by AI-generated voice impersonation, digital manipulation and misleading audio artifacts.
Cllr. Johnson asked whether the LNP generated and packaged the recordings. Prosecutors objected, arguing the question was argumentative, opinion-based and violated the witness’s right against self-incrimination. Judge Willie again sustained the objection.
Prosecutors denied any fabrication, insisting the recordings accurately captured discussions among the defendants and reflected a criminal conspiracy rather than lawful activity.
As testimony continues, the court is expected to rule on the admissibility and credibility of the contested recordings — a decision that could prove pivotal to the outcome of the case.
Discussion about this post