After nearly two weeks of testimony from both the prosecution and defense, jurors in the Capitol Building fire trial on Monday directly questioned the state’s first witness, Investigator Refael Wilson, pressing him on the reliability, origins, and overall strength of the evidence presented.
Once defense cross-examination concluded, jurors were given the opportunity to ask questions.
Many focused on whether the state’s case relied primarily on audio recordings, video footage, and photographs.
Wilson responded that investigators also depended on voluntary statements, call logs, and other investigative materials.
Defense counsel, however, sharply disputed the credibility of those statements during cross-examination, arguing that some were obtained through torture or coercion and that several were unsigned.
The defense insisted such statements should not be considered reliable evidence.
Jurors repeatedly sought clarification on what additional proof the prosecution intended to use beyond electronic media.
Wilson reiterated that statements and phone records formed part of the broader evidentiary record.
One juror asked whether Capitol security personnel on duty the day of the fire had been questioned and what investigators uncovered.
Wilson testified that security officers were interviewed and that investigators found several irregularities.
Some officers scheduled for duty were allegedly never notified, others failed to report to work, and while some cited illness, others admitted they did not report but denied involvement in the alleged arson.
Another juror referred to a PowerPoint presentation shown earlier in the trial and questioned how investigators obtained visual evidence if, as Wilson testified, there were no CCTV cameras on the Capitol grounds.
Wilson explained that investigators collected photographs from various sources, including images of the building’s exterior, the Joint Chambers after the incident, and photos recovered from the mobile phone of defendant Thomas Etheridge.
Beyond juror questioning, the defense renewed objections to multiple prosecution documents, challenging both their authenticity and admissibility.
Counsel highlighted the absence of original copies of letters dated December 24, 2024, and January 3, 2025, noting that only photocopies were submitted.
The defense further argued that the documents were not obtained directly from the alleged author but instead from a brother-in-law whose identity the prosecution witness could not clearly recall, raising concerns about their reliability.
Objections were also raised regarding two alleged voluntary statements, with the defense pointing out inconsistencies in content and signatures.
According to defense counsel, the December 24 letter was addressed to a different recipient and carried a different signature, while the January 3, 2025 letters were unsigned.
Medical evidence was also questioned.
A report introduced in court indicated the alleged victim suffered broken and missing teeth, back pain, and blindness in one eye.
Defense counsel noted, however, that the medical opinion described these findings as “hardly consistent” with claims of torture.
At one stage, defense counsel accused investigators of coercion, alleging that some statements were written by investigators rather than the accused and signed in their absence to implicate others.
The defense emphasized that cross-examination is a constitutional right and urged the court to maintain its earlier rulings allowing witnesses to respond fully.
The trial continues as the court weighs arguments over the admissibility and evidentiary value of the contested materials.
