Capitol Hill, Monrovia – The Capitol Building arson trial took another unexpected turn on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, when the prosecution’s own first witness admitted that no scientific fingerprint analysis was ever conducted on the very items the government claims were used by the defendants.
During cross-examination, Liberia National Police Criminal Investigator Rafael Wilson acknowledged that the matchbox and clora bottle that were recovered from the scene had never undergone any forensic testing that could have connected them to the accused. He claimed that technicians informed investigators that fingerprint testing on the objects was “impossible” due to their surfaces.
The admission offered the defense a significant edge and cast doubt on the validity of the investigation and the charges’ supporting evidence. Defense attorneys vigorously argued that the prosecution’s argument is still hypothetical in the absence of fundamental scientific analysis.
“For the fact that anyone handling such materials would naturally leave fingerprints, investigators are obligated to test these items using scientific methods,” the defense insisted, stressing that standard procedures—such as using gloves at the scene and conducting laboratory analysis were not followed.
Confronted directly, Wilson stated plainly:
“The clora bottle and matchbox are raw surface, 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.”
With that admission on record, defense lawyers challenged the foundation of the prosecution’s case, asking what factual link existed between the defendants and the alleged arson when the supposed evidence remained untested.
The prosecution narrowly avoided further damage when Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie overruled a defense question, asserting that the witness had already indicated the existence of oral and documentary evidence. The defense appeared visibly dissatisfied with the ruling.
When prosecutors tried to use the police charge sheet and investigative report as evidence earlier, tensions had already increased. Defense attorneys vehemently protested, calling the records “strange” because they were never revealed during discovery, which they claimed violated procedural standards. The defense asked the court to order clean and trustworthy copies for appropriate review after the judge rejected their motion in spite of the objection.
Another disagreement arose around audio recordings that the prosecution sought admitting into evidence prior to Wilson’s cross-examination. The defense claimed that the recordings were missing important chain-of-custody information, including the date, time, location, and source. Judge Willie overruled once more, saying: “The fact that evidence is admitted does not mean it is true. It is the jury that determines its credibility.”
Defense Counsel Cllr. Arthur Johnson objected strongly, suggesting the court appeared to be speaking for the prosecution. “Your Honor, your ruling sounds as though you are arguing for the prosecution,” Johnson protested. “When we make objections, your role is to rule nothing more.”
He insisted that the testimony be struck because jurors had already heard the recording and its veracity was still in question, adding that the witness lacked the skills to evaluate the audio. Wilson was subsequently questioned regarding the source of the tapes, and the judge overruled a hearsay objection after pointing out that the NSA and the Liberia National Police were involved in the inquiry.
