As Prosecutors Seek Issuance of A Subpoena For Supermodel Naomi Campbell, Defense Witness Says He Did Not Train RUF Radio Operator

Prosecutors in the trial of Charles Taylor this week made an application to Special Court for Sierra Leone judges in The Hague for the issuance of a subpoena to supermodel Naomi Campbell, who is alleged to have received a rough diamond gift from the former Liberian president after a 1997 state dinner with former South African president Nelson Mandela. As proceedings continued in his trial, Mr. Taylor’s 12th witness, who previously served as a radio operator for the former president’s rebel group, refuted claims by a former Sierra Leonean rebel member who in his testimony for prosecutors said that he was trained as a radio operator by the present witness while in Liberia.

Mr. Taylor’s trial took a dramatic twist on Thursday, when prosecutors, who closed their case against the former president in February 2009, made an application to the judges that they be allowed to reopen their case or bring evidence in rebuttal against Mr. Taylor by calling three additional witnesses, namely supermodel “Ms. Naomi Campbell, Ms. Carole White and Ms. Mia Farrow.” The application also requested that the judges issue an order to subpoena supermodel Ms. Campbell to testify about a diamond gift she allegedly received from Mr. Taylor in South Africa in 1997.

During the cross-examination of Mr. Taylor in January 2010, prosecutors raised the issue of Mr. Taylor allegedly giving the gift of a rough diamond to Ms. Campbell while the former president was on a visit to South Africa. Prosecutors alleged that Ms. Farrow, a close friend of Ms. Campbell, had informed them that the supermodel (Ms. Campbell) told her that after having dinner with former South African president Nelson Mandela in 1997, Mr. Taylor had sent his men to meet her in her hotel room and offer her a gift of a rough diamond. The prosecutors allege this diamond was obtained by Mr. Taylor from the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) military junta that, in partnership with Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels, ruled Sierra Leone in 1997. Mr. Taylor dismissed the allegation as “nonsense.”

The judges refused to allow the admission of evidence relating to this incident because there was no evidence to show that Ms. Farrow had made such statement under oath or by sworn affidavit, and the admission of such “fresh evidence” would be prejudicial to the accused, such prejudice outweighing the probative value of the evidence.

Prosecutors now argue in their motion that “the evidence was unknown to the prosecution when it formally closed its case on 27 February 2009.” They argue that “it concerns a ‘central issue’ to the prosecution’s case: The Accused’s possession of rough diamonds.”

“When considered in the totality of the prosecution evidence, the proposed evidence supports prosecution allegations that the Accused used rough diamonds for personal enrichment and arms purchases for Sierra Leone, especially during the AFRC/RUF period in 1997. The proposed evidence also rebuts the Accused testimony that he never possessed rough diamonds,” the prosecution motion states.

If judges grant the prosecution request to call these three additional witnesses, the next question will be how do they get Ms. Campbell to come to the court and testify about the alleged incident, after she has already refused to comment on the matter to newsmen. It is in this light that prosecutors have also requested the judges to issue a subpoena to oblige Ms. Campbell to avail herself before the Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague.

Relying on the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, prosecutors are seeking that the subpoena be issued ordering Ms. Campbell to testify before the court and an order be given to the Registry of the court to serve and enforce the subpoena on Ms. Campbell.

“Ms. Campbell, the actual recipient of the Accused’ gift of diamonds, is clearly in a position to provide material evidence about this event,” the motion states.

“The prosecution’s repeated efforts to interview Ms. Campbell about this event have been unsuccessful and Ms. Campbell has given public statements that she does not wish to be involved in this case. Thus, judicial intervention in the form of a subpoena is necessary,” prosecutors argue.

Prosecutors also argue in their motion that Ms. White, who was Ms. Campbell’s representative in 1997, has told prosecutors in an interview that she was present in South Africa in 1997 and “personally heard Mr. Taylor say he wanted to give diamonds to Ms. Campbell and she personally saw the diamonds delivered to Ms. Campbell by men on behalf of Mr. Taylor.”

As proceedings continued in court this week, Mr. Taylor’s witness, Joseph Menson Dehmie, told the court that prosecution witness and former RUF radio operator Dauda Aruna Fornie, commonly called DAF, lied to the court when he testified that he had undergone training as a radio operator under the present witness while in Liberia. Mr. Dehmie described Mr. Fornie as a starving young man who had come to him for assistance, which said assistance he had given to Mr. Fornie. Mr. Dehmie said Mr. Fornie spent about 4-5 months with him during which he (Fornie) cooked and fetched water for him.

“Counsel, I have told you that the only thing that I know about DAF was that he was in need of assistance and I gave him assistance. He was a cook and he used to fetch water for us. He was not a radio man, he never held a microphone. He was a cook,” Mr. Dehmie said as he responded to questions about Mr. Fornie undergoing training as a radio operator.

Mr. Fornie testified in 2008 that about 300 of RUF rebels were taken to a Liberian rebel base at Bomi Hills in Liberia in 1991 where they underwent advanced military training. Mr. Fornie also said that at Bomi Hills, the RUF rebels performed domestic chores for Mr. Taylor’s NPFL commanders. According to Mr. Fornie, he was in the RUF group assigned to the NPFL Signal Unit at Bomi Hills and was trained in the use of communication or radio equipment by the NPFL Signal Regional Commander named “Joseph Dehmie”– the witness who is presently testifying in Mr. Taylor’s defense.

On Thursday, Mr. Dehmie expressed his surprise to find out that Mr. Fornie was an RUF fighter. According to Mr. Dehmie, he only knew Mr. Fornie after the young man had approached him at Bomi Hills as a hungry man who was desperate to get food.

“I am only hearing this today,” Mr. Dehmie said.

“Up to the time he was with me, he did not tell me that he was a soldier. That is surprising to me. I am only hearing this now.”

Mr. Dehmie told the court that when Mr. Fornie approached him for help at Bomi Hills, “he [Fornie] was so desperate. He was tiny — even a Somalian refugee was better than him.”

On Friday, Mr. Dehmie contradicted Mr. Taylor’s account about the existence of radio stations belonging to the NPFL in Liberia. The witness also said that there were no communications between the NPFL and RUF rebels in Sierra Leone in the early 1990s, contrary to what Mr. Taylor himself had told the court in his testimony as a witness in his own defense.

After pointing out on a map of Liberia the various locations where the NPFL installed communication radios in Liberia during the West African country’s conflict, Mr. Dehmie told the court that he did not know anything about a radio station belonging to the NPFL that was called “Tree Top.”

Lead prosecutor Ms. Brenda Hollis pointed out that on September 19, 2009, Mr. Taylor himself, testifying as a witness in his own defense spoke about the radio station “Tree Top” when asked by his defense lawyers.

“Tree Top, to the best of my recollection – Tree Top was a radio – the principal – I think one of the principal radio posts in Gbarngha, if I am not mistaken, was called  Tree Top,” Mr. Taylor told the court in September 2009.

Ms. Hollis also read from a February 24, 2010 transcript in which she quoted Mr. Taylor’s first defense witness Mr. Yanks Smythe, himself a former member of the NPFL who said that the “radio station Tree Top was located in Gbarngha.”

Mr. Dehmie still insisted that he did not know about “Tree Top.”

Mr. Taylor also in his testimony told the court that the NPFL maintained a radio station at Foya in Lofa County and that in the early days of the Sierra Leonean conflict in 1991-1992, there was radio communication between RUF rebels in Sierra Leone and his NPFL in Liberia. On Friday, Mr. Dehmie denied the existence of any NPFL radio station at Foya, insisting also that there was no radio communication between the RUF and the NPFL in the early 1990s.

Ms. Hollis read from an October 27, 2009 transcript in which Mr. Taylor’s defense counsel Courtenay Griffiths asked him (Taylor) about radio communications with the RUF in the early 1990s.

“If you wanted to communicate some information to an individual in Sierra Leone, how would you do that?” Mr. Griffiths asked Mr. Taylor in October 2009.

“I would instruct my radio operator Butterfly to transmit a message,” Mr. Taylor had responded.

When this was read out to Mr. Dehmie on Friday, he responded that “I am not convinced that this is what Mr. Taylor said but if this is from Mr. Taylor, he would have communicated on a radio that I did not know about.”

Earlier on Monday, prosecutors sought to impeach the credibility of Mr. Taylor’s 11th witness, former NPFL commander Timan Edward Zammy, by pointing out that the witness has not been truthful about how he was recruited into NPFL, as well as the positions he claims to have held in the rebel group during the early days of the Liberian conflict.

Mr. Zammy, who spent more than one week testifying for Mr. Taylor, focused mainly on the conduct of the NPFL in Liberia and refuting claims that the Liberian rebel group was best known for committing heinous crimes against civilians. Prosecutors say that the RUF rebel group – a group that Mr. Taylor is accused of supporting in Sierra Leone – copied their tactics from the NPFL. Mr. Zammy has said that civilians were protected in areas under NPFL control. As his cross-examination continued on Monday, prosecutors focused mainly on pointing out areas in the witness’s testimony where they believe he has not been truthful.

One area of focus on Monday was Mr. Zammy’s account about how he was recruited into the NPFL. What he has told Special Court for Sierra Leone judges is different from what he told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Liberia. During his direct-examination last week, Mr. Zammy told the court that he was recruited into the NPFL in the 1980s by one Alfred Mehn, popularly known in the NPFL as the “God Father.” Prosecution counsel Katherine Howarth pointed out to the witness that he had told the Liberian TRC that it was Mr. Taylor who recruited him into the NPFL while he was in Ivory Coast. Noting the discrepancy, the witness said that his testimony before the TRC was a mistake.

“So when you told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that Charles Taylor recruited you from the Ivory Coast, you got that wrong, correct?” Ms. Howarth asked the witness.

“It is not wrong, it is an error. I am repeating it, it’s an error, it’s a mistake,” the witness responded.

Asked directly whether he was saying that he had “made a mistake when giving evidence to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” the witness said “yes.”

“A mistake is not a lie, a mistake is allowed to be made, anybody can make a mistake,” Mr. Zammy said.

Ms. Howarth also pressed the witness hard on his evidence in direct-examination that in 1991, Mr. Taylor appointed him as Battalion Commander for the sixth Battalion of the NPFL, which was stationed in Bomi Hills. Ms. Howarth pointed out that other defense witnesses who testified about the NPFL command structure did not mention Mr. Zammy’s name as Commander of the sixth Battalion. These defense witnesses included Yanks Smythe, Karnah Edward Mineh, and Mr. Taylor himself.

Reading from a January 2010 transcript, Ms. Howarth pointed out that Mr. Taylor, while he testified on his own behalf, only referred to Mr. Zammy as “an Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) officer” and as “one of the Special Forces.”

“This is all he [Taylor] had to say about you. He doesn’t mention you as sixth Battalion commander. Another defense witness Yanks Smythe does not mention you as sixth Battalion commander and your one time friend Edward Mineh does not mention you as sixth Battalion commander. Were you actually sixth Battalion commander?” Ms. Howarth asked the witness.

“I will not tell lies. I served as sixth Battalion Commander in 1991…I was commander of the sixth Battalion from February 1991 to November 1991,” the witness responded.

Prosecutors believe that pointing these flaws in Mr. Zammy’s testimony will impeach his credibility and make him a witness whose account cannot be relied on.

As he concluded his testimony on Tuesday, Mr. Zammy told the court that areas controlled by the NPFL were the safest zones for civilians during the Liberian conflict.  The witness also dismissed as “lies” claims that the NPFL was involved in looting civilian property, killing of civilians, rape, and sexual slavery – at least in his area.

“Civilians came to NPFL controlled areas because it was only the NPFL areas that were safe,” Mr. Zammy said.

When pressed with reports of more abuses allegedly committed by NPFL rebels against the civilian population of Liberia, the witness clarified that his knowledge of NPFL conduct was limited to places which were under his control.

“I am not saying that within the whole of Liberia there was no violation, I am talking about my controlled area. I did not control Grand Jida, I did not control Lofa. The things that happened there I can’t tell. But within my controlled areas is what I am talking about,” he explained.

The witness dismissed as “untrue” the Liberian TRC report that the highest number of atrocities during the Liberian conflict were committed by NPFL rebels.

“The TRC report is not correct. Members of the TRC, even the chairman said he was victimized by the NPFL. What do you expect him to say about the NPFL?” the witness asked.

“The chairman was supposed to be neutral but if he makes such a comment about the NPFL, what do you expect him to say? The TRC report is not correct,” he insisted.

Mr. Taylor is responding to charges that he provided support to RUF rebels in Sierra Leone during the West African country’s 11 year civil conflict. The former president has denied all charges against him.

There will be no court sittings next week as the judges will be attending the plenary session for judges of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor’s trial will resume on Monday, May 31, with a continuation of Mr. Dehmie’s cross-examination.

57 Comments

  1. Why can the defend enforces Taylor’s claim of innocent and strengthen their argument by simply calling in supermodel Naomi Campbell to testify?

    1. Morris kannah,

      The defense doesn’t take instruction from man like you. The defense has enough witnesses to corroborate and support President Taylor truthful testimony and at the same time has already debunked the many lies from the prosecution including the 5 billion dollars and Naomi Campbell diamond story. Morris, also be advised, Naomi Campbell has already said to you and the entire world through the ABC News Interview, that she did not receive any diamonds from President Taylor as was alleged by the prosecution. What more do you want her to say? However, the prosecution brought a statement from her friend Mai Farrow that was not notarized, never a sworn affidavit, and expected the honorable judges to admit it into evidence. Thank God the judges rejected that worthless piece of paper. Notwithstanding, you need to strongly encourage your intellectually superior and nuanced prosecution lawyers to either notarize, or make Mai Farrow’s Statement a sworn affidavit the next time before taking that toilet paper to court.

    2. Big B, you comment regarding Mr. Taylor’s refusal to attend court has not been approved because you made an allegation or made a statement that has not been or cannot be substantiated. This certainly does not fit into our guidelines for comments on this site. I hope you do understand.
      Alpha

      1. Alpha,

        Thanks for your respond. However, I clearly stated that it’s my opinion. 99.9% of what are written on this site is opinionated. I am not going to quarrel to why my opinion was suppressed. Under no circumstances, I was making an allegation, as you alleged. Even though, my opinion/sataement is from a reliable source, the plan failed.

        President Taylor is not a fool, he is not Slobodan Milosevic. They will have to shoot him in the head to eliminate him.

        1. Big B,

          Alpha Sesay,

          Folks, look at this blatant display of moral and legal hypocrisy by Alpha again, This time, I don’t even I have to go into my stack of stuff to expose Alpha hypocrisy. However, I will only copy and past what Morris Kannah wrote about this innocent man, Taylor; who has never been convicted of any crimes in a competent court of jurisdiction or even in any court, including this fake court.
          This is Mr. Morris Kannah’s statement on this same page:
          “this notorious murderer and rapist Taylor would have been in tatter by now.”

          Now, lets look at the policy of this Site:

          “What is not allowed: comments which accuse specific individuals — including Mr. Taylor — of committing, or being responsible for, specific crimes made as a statement of fact if that individual has not been convicted of the crime by a court of law. An example: “Mr. X is a murderer.” This should not prevent objective discussion of available evidence about criminal responsibility, just broad unsubstantiated statements. Also not allowed are defamatory comments about an identifiable individual or group.”

          Big B and the general audience, this is their own rules/policies being published on this website, just in case you need to read more, check this out.

          http://www.charlestaylortrial.org/2010/02/02/an-update-what-is-our-policy-for-comments/

          Anyways folks, this is Alpha’s reason why he could not have posted or cleared Big B post.

          “Big B, you comment regarding Mr. Taylor’s refusal to attend court has not been approved because you made an allegation or made a statement that has not been or cannot be substantiated”

          UNBELIEVABLE!!!!! Again folks, though not surprising, but familiar, the behavior of Alpha and Tracey is becoming uncontrollable. Like I always say, these people are not even bothering to put on their masks anymore. They are doing it in openly daylight and they don’t want to know.

          1. Jose,
            I am sure you appreciate the fact that we make as much effort as possible to make sure that every reader adheres to the guidelines governing the use of this site. While we do not want to censor what people write, we do expect everybody to me responsible enough in the things that they post here. Records here will point that in moderating the comments of readers, we do so without regard to whether one person is for or against the trial of Mr. Taylor. Sometimes, our motives might be misunderstood but we try to be professional enough not to allow such misunderstandings to affect the work that we do. The system we seek to implement might not be perfect because we are all humans but we do make our own conscious effort to ensure that no one person feels that the rules are beign applied unfairly to him or her. We will continue to work in this direction. Those comments which go against the guidelines will not be posted and we’ll always let readers know this. The bigger responsibility in making sure that all these work well for everybody lies with you the readers. We know and approciate how passionate people are about this case but let us all have regard for our fellow readers and to any person whose name we want to mention on this site.

            Thanks,
            Alpha

          2. Alpha,
            What STANDARD was applied in this case??

            This is Mr. Morris Kannah’s statement on this same page:
            “this notorious murderer and rapist Taylor would have been in tatter by now.”

          3. TO ALL,
            A comment of mine was recently rejected because it stated that taylor was a murderer as a fact and not as my opinion which goes against the policy of this site. I am glad the rules are being enforced because it holds readers accountable, which means we cannot write any ole mess to each other or attack each others character…
            A while ago .instead of sticking to the isses that were being discussed
            I was told that I needed my opinion ‘whipped’ out of me…etc…Now that the policy is being enforced and people are being held accountable for what they write…. people are crying foul!!
            The policy is simple don’t state you opinion as a fact, don’t attack other readers no matter how much they dislike Taylor or support Taylor, and be respectful to other….
            Screaming foul and accusing people of being unprofessional when they are enforcing the policy is childish and ridiculous. When Apla asked me to rephrase my comment I did, no hard feelings no ‘taking it personal’. We are all adults here and I’m sure we are capable of following the rules.

          4. Ms. Teage,
            I don’t think we have issue with the RULES been enforce but to CHERRY PICK is what we have problem with. All we do here is give our TWO CENTS; We all can describe Mr. Taylor and all the parties involve in this case as how we see them….what does that have to do with CRUST of what we want to say.

            I will understand if it gets PERSONAL between the writers in here but to DISALLOW one view about certain characters or players in this case?? I don’t get that one.

          5. Jose,
            Alpha is caught between a rock and a hard place…..we all know where he stands on this case eventhough he does not want to say.

  2. Folks,

    What is this? “The prosecution made an application to the judges that they be allowed to reopen their case or bring evidence, even though the prosecution has already closed their case”? UNBELIEVABLE!!!! HOW MUCH MORE LONGER CAN WE TAKE THIS? AFTER THEY CLOSE THEIR CASE THE FIRST TIME, THEY ASKED THE JUDGES TO ALLOW FRESH EVIDENCE AND IT WAS GRANTED. NOW THEY ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE. WHY THEY DID CLOSE THEIR OWN CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN THEY WERE NOT PREPARED OR READY TO CLOSE THEIR CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE? UNBELIEVABLE!! I HOPE THE JUDGES DENY THEIR REQUEST THIS TIME.

  3. If Ms. Campbell should take the witness stand and testify that President Taylor didn’t give her any diamond, then what next for the prosecution? Oh! I know what will be the prosecution next move. The next move will be to subpoena Jesus Christ, because he was the only person invisible at the time the diamond was handed to Ms. Campbell.

    Even though, Jesus is alleged to be white with “blue eyes”, but he’s not a devil.

  4. I believe this motion by the prosecution will be denied by the judges. The judges’ ruling has been that only evidence which does not go to the guilt of the accused be admitted as fresh evidence. In this case the allegation of Mr. Taylor giving Naomi Campbell a ” blood diamond” definitely goes to guilt and therefore can not be admitted as fresh evidence.

  5. You people think they would request subpoena unless they knew it to be true? Her refusal to “deny” it speaks for itself. This case is so strong it would have been advisable for him to plead atthe outset. So many witnesses from so many vantage points. And Sam Bockarie is the lynchpin. And by the way….if the Prosecutoin didnt request subpoena you would all be crying that they should have…I mean you cant have it both ways?

    1. Bundu,

      Nothing the prosecution is doing other than engaging in a propaganda blitz and just fronting. However, Mai Farrow, who started cooperating with them from the beginning , one will think the prosecution will have the common courtesy and sense to notarize and have a sworn affidavit from her. But instead, they took a worthless piece of paper from her and took it to this fake court. Guess what was on this worthless piece of toilet paper. Mai Farrow says, Super Model says, some mysterious man says, the diamond Ms. Campbell received last night came from Taylor. Bundu, do you see where I am going with this, in relationship to your to immensely naive post? “You people think they would request subpoena unless they knew it to be true? Her refusal to “deny” it speaks for itself.” Bundu, this is an utter incompetence and bumbling prosecution I have ever seen in my lifetime. Buddy, where is the 5 billion dollars the prosecution told you and the entire world this innocent “has”, since you believe in them so much?

      1. Jose Rodriquez,
        In addition to what you said above. We now have two potential prosecution witnesses contradicting themselves before they are even sworn in. A Ms. White haa come forward to say she saw the transaction of diamonds but that it was half a dozen uncut diamonds given to Naomi Campbell.

        1. Aki,

          Right on. you right on it brother. They both haven’t shown up yet in court, but they have already contradicted each other on the accounts of “Blood Diamond” in the public sphere. However, according to Mai Farrow not notarized, and not sworn affidavit that was taken to this fake court, by this utter incompetent and bumbling prosecution said, Mai Farrow says, Super Model says, some mysterious man says, after the Nelson Mandela’s Dinner, some men came to her hotel room and knocked on her door that night and gave her diamond. These men said they were sent by Taylor. On the other hand, Ms. White is saying she was there when the diamond was given. In fact, she heard President Taylor saying he will give Naomi Campbell blood and cut diamond. Folks, this this is preposterously insane. And it is also laughable too. Overall, the Super Model herself has said she didn’t receive any diamond from Taylor. Check this out!!! Mai Farrow also said, Naomi Campbell said that she will donate the diamond to the Nelson Mandela Charity. But guess what? They asked the charity about this. The Nelson Mandela Charity said they did not receive any diamond from Naomi Campbell. They only received $50,000.00 in donation from Ms. Campbell that year, who gives monetary donation every year. So where is this one diamond?

          FREE THIS INNOCENT MAN AND JUST CONTINUE TO RUN YOUR SLAVE PLANTATION, LIBERIA. WE CAN SEE STRAIGHT THROUGH YOU AND YOUR GIMMICK. YOU HAVE NO CASE AGAINST THIS INNOCENT MAN IN SIERRA LEONE. PLEASE HAVE SOME SEIZURE OF CONSCIENCE.

      2. GENERAL FIXIT( JOSE )
        You spoke like a LAWYER brother, I believe Bundu appreaciates this one….. Thanks Pekin,

  6. Hi Fellows,
    I think Big B as u call yourself, in what contest are u measuring the name of JESUS ? If u don’t kwon let
    me tell u, it is written in Galatian6:7 I COTE ” Be not decieved God is not mocked : for what soever a man soweth,that shall he also reap.” I know how deally u cherish Mr CT , but don’t trash ur salvtion
    for man that has is own salvation to work on.Mind u the end justifies the means. Mind u JESUS is GOD.

    1. Willie, you’re missing the point Big B made. Religion is personal, according to your faith so shall it be Isiah 41:10-13. Maybe, you believe in Jesus Christ, maybe, you believe in God, maybe you believe in Ali, Maybe you believe in Buda. It all boils down to faith. Some individual believes in nothing. Who are you to question Big B’s comment concerning Jesus or in what context?
      Big B, right on Bro.

  7. Mr. Taylor said he didn’t….so if Ms Campbell comes in and say I GOT DIAMOND FROM HIS MEN…..really what is WRONG with that?? Does that mean that THAT DIAMOND came from Sierra Leone?? These prosecutors need to understand Liberia has DIAMOND listed as one of mineral resources.

    FROM HIS MEN…..can she identify HIS MEN?? How SURE are we those MEN were acting on Mr. Taylor’s behave?? And what was his reason if he did for giving her a diamond?? SEX???

  8. Is this a contradiction??
    Lead prosecutor Ms. Brenda Hollis pointed out that on September 19, 2009, Mr. Taylor himself, testifying as a witness in his own defense spoke about the radio station “Tree Top” when asked by his defense lawyers.

    “Tree Top, to the best of my recollection – Tree Top was a radio – the principal – I think one of the principal radio posts in Gbarngha, if I am not mistaken, was called Tree Top,” Mr. Taylor told the court in September 2009.

    He was NOT certain as to the name of the station. Again as a LEADER and wanted message send out…..YOU INSTRUCT…there could have been a METHOD or PROCESS used to send the message that Mr. Taylor was NOT awared of….and that’s a CONTRADICTION……Holy cow!!

  9. Let prosecutor resign or drop this baseless case against the former President. I also noticed something in this case too. Other big hands feels that If the former President is set free, they would have problem with election- 2011 which is not true. Please leave him alone!

  10. DIAMOND!!!! DIAMOND!!!! DIAMOND!!!!!
    WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS DIAMOND ISSUE.WHAT IF THIS LADY HAVE A DIAMOND CAN THE PEOPLE WHO TRYING TO FIND OUR BELOVE LEADER GUITY PROVE THAT SUCH DIAMOND ARE FROM SL.HAVE THEY FORGETTON THAT LIB ALSO HAVE DIAMOND.OR DO THE DIAMOND FROM SL HAVE THE TRADE MARK ON IT AS(MADE IN SL OR IAM FROM SL SOIL).SHAME ON THEM,ABOVE ALL ELSE THE PEOPLE.BY THE WAY PRESIDENT TAYLOR, THE PEOPLE OF SL KNOW VERY WELL WHO THEIR KILLERS ARE.ONE OF THESE DAYS THEY WILL WRITE A BOOK ABOUT HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THIS PLAIN TO HOLD OUR LEADER DOWN.BY THE WAY GHANKAY ONE SAID THAT THERE ARE A MILLION CGT OUT THERE..

    1. @Will-I-Am,Noko4, Big B & jose… You seem to have missed the point, at issue is Taylors credibility. He has asserted, under oath, that he did not give Ms Campbell diamonds of any descripition, infact, he goes further, he calls the notion a ‘Nonsense’, a diabolical lie and as such, the evidence of Ms Campbell, Ms Farrow, and Ms White( who claims to have been present in South Africa in 1997 and “personally heard Mr. Taylor say he wanted to give diamonds to Ms. Campbell and… personally saw the diamonds delivered to Ms. Campbell by men on behalf of Mr. Taylor “) such evidence, if delivered, goes to the issue of ‘impeaching Taylors credibility’ and not necessarily to guilt. In this context, it matters not whether the said diamonds are from, Liberia, SL or the Moon…..If he gave Naomi Campbell diamonds and the witnesses confirm that to be so, then his credibility will be all but destroyed and his defence will be left in tatters.
      As Always Wadi ‘The Zima’

      1. Wadi Williams,
        Please answer this question what do you think of the scenario where Ms. Campbell comes to court and said she did receive a diamond from Mr. Taylor? Upon cross examination by the defense they play the ABC tv interview where she said she did not receive a diamond from Mr. Taylor. Whose credibility do you think will be at issue with the judges ?

      2. Wadi Williams,

        President Taylor truthfully answered the question posted to him concerning the issue of “BLOOD DIAMOND AND NAOMI CAMPBELL”. In support and corroboration of his undisputed testimony, Super Model Naomi Campbell yourself said, “she did not receive any diamond from President Taylor.” She made this stunning revelation during an Interview with the ABC News. These are the available facts we have and not your hypothetical of what if. Giving your logic of what if, don’t you think it undermines and impeaches the credibility of Ms. Campbell and overall the prosecution, if she changes her previous statement that she had with ABC News? If she changes your statement, which I think only a fool will provide two public separate contradicting stories on one account. Anyways, it raises suspicion. It raises more questions than answers for the prosecution. And I have no doubts in my mind, that it will require a robust increase in threats, back door deals being cut, and a “BIG BRIBE” BY THE PROSECUTION. Look Wadi, President has won this fake case already. The prosecution only wasting this man’s life in detention for political reason and personal gains.

      3. Wadi,
        Even if did, can you proof that the diamond is from Sierraleone??????You guys are unbelieveably unbelieveble;;;;; is every diamond from Sierraleone?

      4. Wadi,
        With all the other issue in this case, will this be the SMOKING GUN?? Really?? Even if she comes out and says I GOT DIAMOND FROM HIM THRU HIS MEN….what does that really do to this case?? If we roll the dice on Ms. Campbell, then I say the prosecutors will LOST with eggs on their faces.

        Here is what I don’t get…..someone said RUF gave Mr. Taylor diamond to buy weapons. How did they Mr. Taylor was heading to South Africa?? Who was his arms contacts in South Africa?? Did Mr. Taylor meet them and used Ms. Campbell as the go in between??? As far we know, South Africa did her internal investigation and NOTHING to support that Mr. Taylor even met with anyone outside of his protocol.

        I see it as WASTE OF TIME….let them deal with evidences and testimonies they presented to win their case; but as we can now see, those evidences and testimonies are NOT adding up. I mean we are trying him for Liberia if you ask me….I wonder why

  11. What if Mia and Naomi both confirm that Taylor’ did’ make a gift of ‘Blood Diamonds’? What new convoluted explaination/rationale will the ‘C T defenders’ be presenting for our consideration?
    It is well within the prosecution’s brief to request the right to present rebuttal evidence, particularly, when”the evidence was unknown to the prosecution when it formally closed its case on 27 February 2009″ Further more, given the centrality of ‘Blood Diamonds’ to this unfolding drama, the court would be remiss if it failed to grant the prosecution’s application.
    As Always Wadi ‘The Zima’

    1. Wadi Williamns,
      Hope you are aware that the prosecution does not have a blanket right to reopen their case or call rebuttal evidence for that matter. there are rules and procedures that have to the followed. the first issue here is that for the prosecution to have an opportunity to call rebuttal evidence according to the rules of the court, the evidence they want to refute must be one that was raised in the defences evidence in chief without it being made in the prosecution case. issues that came up in cross examination by the prosecution are not issues you can call rebuttal evidence on. in the present case, it was the prosecution that brought about issue of diamonds given to Naomi Campbell by Mr Taylor during cross examination. Mr Taylor only said during his examination in chief that he went to South African on a trip on assumption of office as president of Liberia. he did not mention being at a dinner with Naomi campbell and others neither did he mention the issue of diamonds. it was during cross examination that issue of diamonds in relation to Naomi Campbell came up.

      So man, even the prosecution knows that they have a serious war with the defense on their hands in order to be able to either reopen their case or even call rebuttal evidence. it will be interesting to see how the judges decide on this matter.

  12. ill-I-Am,Noko4, Big B & jose,
    If only you would put your emotion aside for a second and seek legal opinion on the issue of the prosecution requesting permission to call new witnesses after closing it case, you will quickly see that there is nothing amiss or illegal about the prosecution request.
    You were the same guys here lambasting the prosecution for relying on news articles rather than calling Naomi Campbell and Co. Now that the prosecution has decided to fulfill your wishes you are crying injustice. As the saying goes ” be careful what you wish for as you wish might just be granted.”

    1. Morris Kanneh,
      LIES..LIES..LIES
      Jose has not been emtional in anyway. You guys overthere, just don’t want to accept the reality of failure by the prosecution. Theres no need to call Naomi Cambell in this case. She has already asserted that the NO word on this diamond thing. For her credibility in the international community and as a world class celeb, there is noway shes going to change her tongue. That could affect her career….think about it and get back to me…..

    2. Morris,
      Why don’t you put away your emotion too and look at the evidences and testimonies and make a SOUND JUDGEMENT like we are doing?? Please tell me what evidence or testimony in this case that really puts the rope around Mr. Taylor’s neck???

      I will tell you….there isn’t any!!!!! I advise that you reread the CHARGES and the MANDATE of this court to help you understand where and why we stand. If he is convicted, it will PURELY POLITICAL!!!!!!

  13. Jose Rodriguez,
    The Taylor and his defend can be grateful that you are not their spokesman otherwise their entire defend of this notorious murderer and rapist Taylor would have been in tatter by now.
    Definitely, I cannot give instruction to the Defend team of Taylor because I can never be a murderer, rapist, looter or supporter of anyone who participate in such despicable acts. If I had the power to instruct Taylor’s defend team I would have told them to persuade Taylor to confess his evil deeds, stop wasting the time and resources of the Special Court and stop bringing Liberia, Africa and the Black race into further disgrace.
    Bringing buffoons out there as defend witnesses will not help Taylor in his fruitless attempt to win a lost battle but will only bring Liberia and Liberians into further opprobrium and odium

    1. Morris Kannah,

      Thanks for saying nothing. Again, you have miserably failed to show the audience and any evidence why you think I will/should/would not have been a good “spokesman”for the defense. And as the result, this innocent man and his defense need to be grateful. Please, Sir, answer these simple questions. However, what are some of the good things or utterances, or defense, the defense team has done that I could not have done? I will like for you to enumerate some of the spectacular performances of the defense team that I could/would not have done. Morris, let me say this to you. You can scream like a bunch of pigs in a tight confined space all you want; it’s not going to change anything. You can have an endless name calling of this innocent man like what you have done in the post I am responding to. But the prospect for the quick turnaround of this fake case is dismal. It is clear by now, that you are trying so hard to criminalize anyone who differs with you and the prosecution. You call some of us names and even worse names. Notwithstanding, you did not stop there. You are on the sideline as cheering squad leader, chanting for the prosecution, who continues to inflict upon this innocent man with the cruel denial of the utter humanity of mankind for no “JUST CAUSE”. Let me make it perfectly clear to not just you alone, but all those who disagree with President Taylor. You have the right to do so. But to disparage his good character and to assert these unfounded proposition and idea, is just dumbfounded.

      Alpha, this is for you; take your time and read Morris kannah’s post. In his post, he said the following about President Taylor: “this notorious murderer and rapist Taylor would have been in tatter by now.”
      Now Alpha, does this identical statement fall within the purview of your policy on this site? Why did you clear this post? UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

    2. Morris Kannah,
      I wonder what your defination of Buffoon is. What do you call Zigzag Marzah a self confessed Carnibal, mass baby killer, mass pregnant women killer, mass murderer and war criminal who was called by the prosecution as an “insider” witness in this trial? Infact when asked during cross examination by defence counsel wether in hindsight he has regretted any of those things he has confessed to doing, he replied: “Regret for what? I do not regret it…”

  14. Morris Kannah,

    I will be blunt with you. One of your legs is already in the grave and the second one is soon to be buried. In fact folks, this man has just graciously conceded in this identical post that I am responding to. He said, the prosecution has already “CLOSED” its case. Morris, how do you understand the word “CLOSE”? Close means THE END. Close means, FINISH. Close means, KEEPING QUIET ABOUT ONESELF. Close means, COMPLETELY SHUT. UNBELIEVABLE!!! However, when will this fake case ever come to and end? Is this an open ended case? Morris, the prosecution had more than enough time to do what you are defending of their action. President Taylor was indicted since 2003. When did they realize that they needed to do what they are doing now? They had their time. In fact, they had it twice. But you something? They were taking us for granted; until they realized that their school yard bully behavior, their pomper coward attitude, their character flaw behavior, and not taking responsibility for their action, it is about time that somebody calls them on that one. And that someone is me, Jose Rodriguez.

    Morris, before I “CLOSE” this post, I will say this to you. You are entitled to your own opinions. And you have every right to say what you want to say. But what you are not entitled to, or don’t have rights to, is your own facts, and certainly, your own legal rules. There are rules put in place in court. Notwithstanding, the prosecution fake case has fallen apart. Folks, make no mistakes; it is because of the lack of cohesion. Their instinct is always wrong. What they are trying to do here now is to pull the “MAGIC RABBIT” out of the hat. Can you imagine, they and their few Liberian supporters are saying to the defense to reduce the number of witnesses that will be called. But on the other hand, They, the prosecutors, want to bring more witnesses, even though, they have already “CLOSED” they fake case TWICE. UNBELIEVABLE.

    1. “GENERAL FIXIT”,
      Take a COLD BEER brother, I think this time Morris and his prosecution gurus will somewhere to pack their SATOKA….

  15. LONG LIVE GHANKAY!!!!!!
    MY GOOD CITIZEN WE ALL NEED TO AGREE THAT TAYLOR DID NOT GIVE ANT DIAMOND TO N.C.SHE IS NOT AFREAID OF ANYBODY NOR DO TAYLOR OWN HER ANYTHING.THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT HAPPEN IN SL SHOULD BE ON THE PEOPLE OF SL.RIGHT NOW WE ALL CAN C THAT TAYLOR CASE IS MORE ABOUT KEEPING HIM AWAY THAN JUSTICE.CANNOT WAIT TO GO BACK TO LIB WITH OUR LEADER AND CELEBRATE.AT THE END OF THE DAY N.C WILL LOOK IN THOSE JUDGES EYES AND TELL THEM HE DID NOT GIVE HER ANY DIAMOND AND SHE DO NOT KNOW WHERE THOSE NEWS ARE COMING FROM.

    MAJOR TAYLOR OUR LEADER…..

  16. Sam,
    If you Taylor’s supporters would just allow reasoning to prevail for even a picosecond you wouldn’t have been asking questions like ” I wonder what your defination of Buffoon is. What do you call Zigzag Marzah a self confessed Carnibal, mass baby killer, mass pregnant women killer, mass murderer and war criminal who was called by the prosecution as an “insider” witness in this trial?”
    Only people who have chosen to renounce the use of reasoning will even entertain the notion that this is a case of Zigzag Marzah Vs Charles Taylor, that the Zigzag Marzahs of this world are creation of the prosecution or that the prosecution are defend lawyers for Zigzag Marzah.
    The fact that Taylor own stooges can come to court and under no duress speak of those atrocities that were condoned and encouraged by your Papay Ghangay Taylor just go to show how now ‘innocent’ Taylor is and Taylor’s ‘great’ plan for the Subregion.
    I know when it comes to loyalty to Taylor you guys minds are so much set in concrete that no amount of evidence or logic will change your opinions of Taylor.
    It is very much normal for a son to go to the defend of his father but for a son, without duress, to choose to serve as witness against his father give lot of weight to the case against his father. Zigzag Marzah serving as prosecution witness and exposing Taylor’s devilish activities placed a pivoted nail in Taylor’s coffin.

    1. Morris Kanneh,
      who is the “son” here and who is the “father”? I was responding to your post where you claimed that the defence witnesses have no credibility since the defence are “Bringing buffoons out there as defend witnesses”. Well my point to you which you failed to see is that if defence witnesses are Buffoons as they are described by you what do you call prosecution witnesses such as Zigzag Marzah, Varmuyan Sherriff and Moses Blah among others?

      At least up unil now no defence witness has been accused by the prosecution during cross exam to be either a carnibal, mass murderer, baby killer, pregnant women killer like prosecution Zigzag Marzah who when asked by defence counsel if he regrets any of those attrocities and crimes he had admitted commiting he replied “Regret for what?… I do not regret it…” so I ask you again who is a bufoon?

  17. MS. Teage,
    I am so happy you have finally conceded to the acceptance of equal justice for all men, and the acknowledgement of the rule of law ..I am happy Sister Teage, A BIG THANKS.. Now we can all pray for our president, MR. CHARLES TAYLOR be set free….

  18. Morris Kanneh,
    Kindly rephrase some of the adjectives used to describe the accused in your comments of 2010/05/27 at 11:53pm and 2010/05/28 at 12:09am. Once that is done, your comments will be posted.
    Thanks,
    Alpha

  19. Mr. Alpha Sesay,
    I have done what you asked only because I appreciate the great job you are doing. Nevertheless, I vehemently oppose, and respectfully disagree with your refusal to post my response to Jose and beg to differ with the reasons given.
    Calling Taylor a murderer, looter and rapist besides being my personal opinion and being an eye witness to the looting, rapes and murders perpetuated by the NPFL under the watchful eyes of Taylor, there are sufficient evidence to my claim. The Liberian TRC report, the BBC, VOA, Human Right Watch, Amnesty International, the UNO and many other credible organizations both local and Internationally attest to the uncomfortable fact that Taylor presided over the brutal murder, systematic rape and wholesale robbery of Liberia. Whether Taylor is responsible for murder, rape or loot in Sierra Leone is debatable. What is never debatable is his devilish acts in Liberia. Even the staunchest supporters of Taylor find it insurmountable denying that Taylor masterminded the taken away of the lives of over 10% of Liberia entire population, supervised the raping of over 30% of the women of Liberia and instructed his hooligans to loot as bounty. If such person can not be call a murderer, rapist and looter than someone need to educate me on the meaning of murderer, rapist and looter.
    I hope you are not suggesting that one cannot rely to his own his own account of events or on evidence from highly reputable institutions to make claims.

    1. Morris,
      This case is about Sierra Leone in case you DO NOT know. This has NOTHING to do with Liberia. Again, go and read the CHARGES and the MANDATE of this court please. You saying X, Y or Z does not make them FACTUAL FACTS….that’s why we are in this court!!!

      With the monies spend in this case, it could have help the people of Sierra Leone more then trying to JAIL ONE MAN just because.

  20. Mr. Alpha Sesay,
    I have done what you asked only because I appreciate the great job you are doing. Nevertheless, I vehemently oppose, and respectfully disagree with your refusal to post my response to Jose and beg to differ with the reasons given.
    Calling Taylor a murderer, looter and rapist besides being my personal opinion and being an eye witness to the looting, rapes and murders perpetuated by the NPFL under the watchful eyes of Taylor, there are sufficient evidence to my claim. The Liberian TRC report, the BBC, VOA, Human Right Watch, Amnesty International, the UNO and many other credible organizations both local and Internationally attest to the uncomfortable fact that Taylor presided over the brutal murder, systematic rape and wholesale robbery of Liberia. Whether Taylor is responsible for murder, rape or loot in Sierra Leone is debatable. What is never debatable is his devilish acts in Liberia. Even the staunchest supporters of Taylor find it insurmountable denying that Taylor masterminded the taken away of the lives of over 10% of Liberia entire population, supervised the raping of over 30% of the women of Liberia and instructed his hooligans to loot as bounty. If such person can not be call a murderer, rapist and looter then someone need to educate me on the meaning of murderer, rapist and looter.
    I hope you are not suggesting that one cannot rely to his own his own account of events or on evidence from highly reputable institutions to make claims.

  21. Noko4,
    Are you suggesting that a man who committed murder in Ghana should not be called a murderer because he is being tried for murder in Sudan? Your leap in logic is truly amazing.
    The fact that you wouldn’t challenge my arguments on why Taylor should rightly be called the names I consistently called him but you would come up with the flimsy excuse ” This case is about Sierra Leone in case you DO NOT know. This has NOTHING to do with Liberia” shows how indefensible Taylor is against his crimes against the Liberian people.

    1. Morris Kanneh,
      A basic priciple of law is that a charge leveled against an accussed must be distinct and distinguishable and it must be specific. In other words a charge levelled against an accused must not be vague else the charge fails. Now if someone commits murder in Ghana according to your example, he has to be charged for that particular crime committed in Ghana even if he is being tried in sudan instead of being tried in Ghana. However, he cannot be charged for a murder that occured in Sudan simply because he committed murder in Ghana. Ghana and Sudan ar not the same. SO bro your logic is not appropriate in this present circumstance. Charles taylor was charged with crimes committed in SL not crimes committed in Liberia, and majority of the witnesses the prosecution called during its case in chief testified about events in SL not Liberia infact only very few prosecuton witnesses testified about Liberia. It was during cross examination of Charles Taylor that the prosecution having reviewed its case and seen that it has very slim chances of securing a conviction based on the charges and the evidence they provided, made a U-turn and decided to make Liberia a central issue in this case. there is no charge in the indictment that relates to crimes committed in Liberia all the charges relates to crimes committed in SL.

  22. Mr. Alpha Sesay,
    Despite doing what you asked me, I’m yet to see my post.
    Since there are high probability that your very busy schedule might has resulted in you forgetting to post it so I’m resending it

  23. Jose Rodriguez,
    What an irony that a man who sees nothing wrong with Radio Liberia, Kiss FM, Kiss TV and the Patriot Newspaper broadcasting or reporting only news and views favorable to Taylor, NPFL and NPP can now be talking about display of moral and legal hypocrisy.
    Probably you are now a born again crusaders of free speech and you have just gotten to know the important of allowing plurality of views. Wow! These must be strange times for you.
    Have you not call Doe a dictator and murderer on this site? Have you not accuse President Sirleaf and the West (US and UK) of conspiracy on this site? Have you not accuse the prosecution of tampering with evidence? Have you not accuse Alpha and Tracey of bias? You have done all the aforementioned yet Doe, the West, President Sirleaf, the prosecution, Alpha or Tracey have not never been convicted of any crimes in a competent court of jurisdiction or even in any court. In the very sentence where you are trying to play paragon of justice and fair play you thoroughly display a high degree of hypocrisy. “This time, I don’t even I have to go into my stack of stuff to expose Alpha hypocrisy. However, I will only copy and past what Morris Kannah wrote about this innocent man, Taylor; who has never been convicted of any crimes in a competent court of jurisdiction or even in any court, including this fake court.”
    You said Taylor shouldn’t be called a murderer because he has never been convicted of any crimes but in that very sentence you referred the Special Court as a fake court. Probably, you see yourself as the competent authority to declare the status of a court. Megalomaniac seems to be the anointing Taylor rubbed on his followers.
    Let forget the glaring hypocrisy in your statements and focus on its illogicality. In your great wisdom you are suggesting that an eye witness of a murder should never called the person he saw committing murder a murderer until that person can be convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. No wonder why defend witnesses are telling the whole world that the NPFL never killed anyone despite plethora of videos eye witnesses accounts and other evidences to the contrary. I’m gradually seeing the line of thought of those who are desperate to see this Taylor given a third chance to rage havoc on the West african subregion.
    Whether Taylor is convicted of the charges levied against him by the prosecutors of the special court or not fudge the fact of whom Taylor is. Victims of Taylor’s barbarism and brutalities don’t need the conviction of a court before calling the looter, rapist and murderer Taylor who he actual is. We who love lost innocent love ones and have our dreams and aspirations destroyed because of Taylor selfish quest for illicit wealth and power don’t need a conviction to declare the true nature of Taylor. No amount of propaganda, appeal to emotion, sentiment or damage control will change the fact that the childhood of almost all the children of Liberia and Sierra Leone was taken away simple to satisfy the evil personal aggrandizement and greed of Taylor. The facts of our uncivil war and the unspeakable horror and nightmare Taylor and his gang visited upon our people speak for themselves and no judgment from a court can ever change those facts.
    You should be very grateful to the Open Society as well as Alpha and Tracey for giving you the chance to freely express your support for Taylor and his gang.
    If your understanding of the guidelines to posting comments on this site is implemented to the letter, not a single comment from you will be posted here.
    Be careful what you are asking of Alpha and Tracey.

    1. Morris,
      Well said! Very articulate! Nice read for me…
      I’m totally totally with U?

  24. Noko4,
    Your view is not disallowed, you all keep forcing the moderators to take sides. When you write an email attacking another blogger you all want it to be posted and it will not be. You all talk from both sides of your mouths; you want the rules enforced so that Taylor is not called any names because it hurts you all so much! But yet you call other people name, you all call our now PRESIDENT a murderer and every name in the book, what court of law has found her guilty but she is called everything in the book, and that is fine that is your opinion. But don’t get upset if the same is done to Taylor don’t you see the hypocrisy in that? We freely express our opinions about him, you all get hot headed and the subject becomes a personal attack on bloggers. That is a problem. And you all will never be allowed to taunt, disrespect or attack other readers as long as this blog exist.

    You all make childish comments like ‘suck it to him’ and ‘let him have it good’ as if you all are scaring someone from sharing their opinion. I believe Taylor is a murderer; The rules via Tracey’s clarification of it clearly stated that we can share our opinions but not to state our opinions as fact as this has not been established “legally yet”. If you see that this is not being enforced ALL the time and some comments are getting through bring it to their attention and let them know hey, this is this…..the rules clearly stated that there will be lots of leeway for people to share their opinions freely. That does not make them fake etc…I’ve brough to Tracey’s attention before a comment that was attacking another reader because i felt like that shouldn’t have been let through and they welcomed that.
    Yall need to stop the pouting, and stop the defamition of character and let the moderators do their jobs.
    You are always asking Alpha to pick sides and “definitively state his opinion”, you’re educated you know that a moderator cannot choose sides in any debate, although they may have their opinions, this site is NOT the place to share it. Yet you all are continuously pushing to get their opinion. Whether Tracey or Alpha opinion is the same as mine or not I don’t care I want them to do their job moderate and leave the debate to the bloggers. THAT IS WHAT MODERATORS DO….

  25. THEY WILL NOT DROP THIS CASE BECAUSE ITS MORE TO THIS CASE THEN MEETS THE EYE THINK ABOUT IT THE US GOVERMENT KNOWS WHY

Comments are closed.