Published: January 29, 2025
Monrovia – Prosecutors in the high-stakes trial over the Capitol Building arson case have requested additional time to produce the mobile phone of defendant Thomas Isaac Ethridge, which they claim holds critical evidence linking him to the December 18 arson. The request came after the defense successfully objected to the admissibility of printed WhatsApp messages presented by the prosecution, arguing the phone itself is the best evidence.
Solicitor General Cllr. Augustus C. Fayiah, leading the prosecution alongside Atty. Monbeydo Joah and Montserrado County Attorney Cllr. Richards Scott, acknowledged the objection and assured the court of their intention to ensure due process. They sought a brief adjournment to retrieve the phone and satisfy the defense’s demand for the original evidence.
The defense, represented by Cllrs. Jonathan Massaquoi, Elisha Forkeyoh, and M. Wilkins Wright, did not oppose the prosecution’s request but stated the importance of adhering to the principle of presenting primary evidence.
The case accuses Ethridge, Erie Susay, and others of arson, criminal conspiracy, attempted murder in connection with the December 17 protest at the Capitol which turned violent and the December 18 fire on the Capitol Building.
Chief Inspector Peter W. Johnson of the Liberia National Police, testifying as the state’s third witness, revealed that forensic analysis and phone records implicated the defendants in orchestrating the fire and related crimes. He detailed WhatsApp messages and audio recordings that allegedly exposed a coordinated effort involving Ethridge and others, including discussions about removing him from a group chat and messages suggesting an attack on a police officer.
However, when the prosecution sought to introduce printed copies of the messages as evidence, the defense objected, citing the absence of the phone as a breach of the chain of custody. Judge Korto W. Wesseh sustained the objection and granted the prosecution’s request for a delay to produce the phone in court.
Discussion about this post