why do you say the necessity of several prosecution victim witnesses was questionable? My understanding is the defence did not accept or stipulate to the fact that there was a widespread attack on the civilian population of Sierra Leone and specifically denies the Prosecution allegation that there was a campaign of terror by the rebels against these victims. The defence called many witnesses to claim that the rebels were fighting for legitimate reasons, they read long propoganda speeches into the record and denied most of the crimes, with many witnesses, such as issa Sesay even denying that the RUF used child soldiers. So why do you think the court should listen to Charles Taylor for 7 months talking about walking to school barefoot and listen to convicted killer and rapist Issa Sesay deny all crimes for two months but think that it was unnecessary to hear from those who really suffered in this confict about what happened to them when that is part of what the prosecution- correct me if I am wrong – has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?