A courtroom drama unfolded this week as prosecutors and defense lawyers vigorously debated the interpretation, credibility, and authenticity of an audio recording allegedly tied to a plan to set fire to the Capitol Building.
Prosecutors contend that the recording captures the defendants discussing a “Plan B,” which they claim referred to burning the Capitol if earlier actions failed.
The defense, however, strongly disputes this assertion, insisting the audio contains no direct or implied reference to arson.
Lead defense counsel, Cllr. Arthur T. Johnson, argued that references in the recording to “parking chairs” relate solely to seating arrangements and previous renovation work in the Joint Chamber.
He maintained that such discussions occurred well before October 2024 and criticized the prosecution for failing to present official documentation linking the accused to any arson scheme.
Cllr. Johnson accused state prosecutors of consistently attempting to reframe routine legislative or renovation-related conversations as evidence of a criminal conspiracy aimed at disrupting a legislative session.
A central point of contention is whether the recording itself is genuine.
The defense alleged the audio was fabricated or manipulated using artificial intelligence, claiming investigators manufactured evidence to implicate the defendants.
According to the defense, Liberia National Police (LNP) Chief Investigator Rafael Wilson acknowledged the defendants’ claim that the audio was AI-generated.
They also referenced testimony suggesting that similar recordings could be easily produced with widely available technology.
The defense urged the court to limit testimony regarding the recording’s authenticity to qualified voice or forensic audio experts, warning of the increasing dangers posed by AI-generated voice cloning, digital alteration, and deceptive audio manipulation.
During a tense cross-examination, Cllr. Johnson questioned whether the Liberia National Police created and packaged the audio recordings.
Prosecutors objected, arguing the question was argumentative, speculative, unconstitutional, and designed to incriminate the witness.
They further asserted it violated the witness’s constitutional right against self-incrimination. Presiding Judge Roosevelt Z. Willie of Criminal Court “A” sustained the objection.
Prosecutors rejected all claims of fabrication, insisting the recordings accurately document discussions among the defendants about burning the Capitol after earlier plans failed.
They cited alleged meetings, phone calls, and coordinated actions as proof of intent and planning.
As cross-examination continued, Cllr. Johnson accused the LNP of deploying more than fourteen pickup trucks filled with armed officers to the residence of defendant Thomas Etheridge.
He alleged Etheridge was forced to hold a bottle of Clorox during the operation.
The defense further claimed that LNP Inspector General Gregory O.W. Coleman and witness Rafael Wilson transported Etheridge from LNP headquarters to the National Security Agency (NSA) on January 13, 2025, where officers allegedly attempted to coerce him into holding the Clorox bottle again.
Cllr. Johnson also alleged that police tried to use Etheridge’s cellphone, reportedly in police custody since December 18, 2024-to place a call to former Speaker Koffa and say, “Chief, I received the money.”
Prosecutors objected to these allegations, and the court again sustained the objection, directing the witness not to respond.
As proceedings continue, the court faces the critical task of deciding whether the disputed audio represents evidence of a criminal conspiracy or reflects lawful and unrelated activities.
The court’s ruling on the admissibility and reliability of the recordings is expected to be pivotal to the case’s outcome.
