Carole White Concludes Her Testimony, Says She Has Not Lied About Naomi Campbell And Charles Taylor

The last of three high profile witnesses, Ms. Carole White, the former agent for supermodel Naomi Campbell, concluded her testimony today, insisting before the Special Court for Sierra Leone judges in The Hague that she has not lied about former Liberian president Charles Taylor sending men to deliver rough diamonds to Ms. Campbell while they were all in South Africa in 1997.

“I have known this story since 1997 and it’s, you know, quite an amazing story…however, when I was told by my lawyer that Charles Taylor had been in The Hague in a war crimes trial, I realized it was very serious and the blood diamond issue had a big bearing on the case and it was my duty to tell my story, it happened 13 years ago, I haven’t lied and it is a true story,” Ms. White told the court.

Ms. White’s testimony, which ran into a second day, focused on her account of how Mr. Taylor allegedly sent men to deliver rough diamonds to Ms. Campbell after they had all attended a star-studded dinner that was hosted by Nelson Mandela. While Ms. Campbell in her testimony admitted that she did receive a gift containing rough diamonds from two men in the middle of the night, she denied knowledge that such men had been sent by Mr. Taylor. Ms. Campbell’s testimony was followed by that of Hollywood actress Mia Farrow, who told the court that it was Ms. Campbell who had told her at breakfast that Mr. Taylor had sent men to give her “a huge diamond.” When Ms. White took the witness stand, she told the court that she was present when Mr. Taylor and Ms. Campbell made arrangements for the diamonds to be delivered to Ms. Campbell and that she was also present with Ms. Campbell when the men arrived with the diamonds at night.

As defense lawyer for Mr. Taylor, Courtenay Griffiths, cross-examined Ms. White, he questioned Ms. White’s account that while at the dinner table with Mr. Mandela and his guests, Mr. Taylor and Ms. Campbell had been “mildly flirting” with each other.

“This flirtation between Mr. Taylor and Naomi Campbell is a figment of your imagination. You’ve made that up,” Mr. Griffiths put to Ms. White.

In her response, Ms. White said, “I haven’t made it up.”

Mr. Griffiths also read portions of Ms. White’s statement that was made to prosecutors prior to her testimony in court. According to Mr. Griffiths, there were several inconsistencies between Ms. White’s written statement and that of her oral testimony and that Ms. White had embellished her account with several lies.

“I suggest you’ve embellished this account with a number of blatant lies,” Mr. Griffiths said.

The witness denied Mr. Griffith’s assertion.

Mr. Griffiths also pointed out that in her written statement to prosecutors, Ms. White had stated that she “heard Mr. Taylor tell Ms. Campbell that he was going to send her diamonds.”

When asked whether she indeed heard Mr. Taylor say so, Ms. White told the court that it was Ms. Campbell who said so.  When Mr. Taylor overheard Ms. Campbell, the former president nodded in agreement.

“When Naomi Campbell leaned back to tell me that Mr. Taylor was going to send her diamonds…he [Taylor] was definitely acquiescing,” Ms. White said.

“He [Taylor] nodded that he was going to send her diamonds. I didn’t hear the words..I don’t recall..he was nodding in agreement,” she added.

Ms. White in her testimony also said that while they were in their guest house waiting for the men to deliver the diamonds from Mr. Taylor, Ms. Campbell was in constant communication with the former president. She, however, said that she could not remember whether they were in contact by phone or by text.

Mr. Griffiths informed the court that neither Mr. Taylor, nor any member of his entourage carried mobile phones in South Africa in 1997. One of the judges of the Trial Chamber, Justice Richard Lussick, pointed out that while there was no evidence to support such an assertion, it should be noted as a suggestion rather than a fact.

Mr. Griffiths also questioned Ms. White’s account that when the two men arrived with the diamonds inside Mr. Mandela’s presidential compound, they threw pebbles at her own window, and it was then that she informed Ms. Campbell that the men had arrived.

“How did the men know which window to throw pebbles at?” Mr. Griffiths asked Ms. White.

“I don’t know…they threw pebbles at my window…maybe it was a lucky guess,” Ms. White responded.

When asked whether the men told her that they had been sent by Mr. Taylor, the witness responded, “Not that I recall.”

She, however, added that when Ms. Campbell gave the diamonds to Jeremy Ratcliffe, former head of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, the following morning, she heard Ms. Campbell telling Mr. Ratcliffe that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor.

Ms. White also told the court that the diamonds were delivered in a scruffy piece of paper and that it was Ms. Campbell who put them in a pouch the following morning.

As Ms. White concluded her testimony, the court resumed normal business with a continuation of the testimony of Issa Hassan Sesay, the former interim leader of the Revolutionary United Front, the rebel group that Mr. Taylor is accused of providing support to.

Mr. Sesay’s testimony continues tomorrow.


  1. Dear All,

    Believe it or not Alpha Sesay is not a neutral guy on this site. Yesterday he was on the BBC World Have Your Say program and while commenting on the Charles Taylor trial, he spoke as if to say he is convinced that Charles Taylor committed those acts he is accused of. As you are all aware Courtenay Griffiths said the appearance of Naomi Campbell and others was a publicity stunt by the prosecution, and on the BBC show yesterday lot of people criticize the prosecution for making trial look like it was Naomi Campbell and others who were on trial and not Mr. Taylor. Alpha Sesay said the appearance of those women were important to the trial because the victims of Taylors’ war in Liberia and Sierra Leone wanted the world to know how people were forced to do diamonds mining in Sierra Leone and also how those diamonds were being used in other parts of the world by those who received them. Now does the above mentioned statement from Alpha Sesay represent somebody who is neutral and what does Liberia have to do with the Sierra Leonean charges against Charles Taylor. Is Alpha Sesay telling us that Charles Taylor is being for the conflicts in both countries?

    1. Golf773,

      Excellent points. Phenomenally awesome questions you have asked Alpha who is horribly incoherent and double sided and two faces like Mia Farrow, and Carole White . Let he and his intellectually superior and nuanced lawyers in persons of Nicholas Koumjian and Brenda Hollas show us the 5 billion dollars that President Taylor supposedly “has” or the gun manufacturing company he bought and or exchange the diamonds for arms. Alpha, I openly challenge you to show us the diamond companies this innocent man dealt with. Moreover, please provide proof that Issa Sessay was appointed by the arch enemy(Taylor) and not West African Leaders contrary to issa, Taylor, Salute report and ect. Show the world President Taylor rank in the Command and Control structure of the RUF. Show us your RUF’s Salute Report. I dare you. No case. No case on this innocent man.

      1. thanks a lot for that comment. Ex- President Taylor did not manufacture arms in liberia to supply the rebel.

    2. Golf773,
      Were you SURPRISED??? We know he is NOT but pretend…when asked for his view of the trial so far…..he cries WOLF. But goes on BBC to vent his view…..

    3. Shameful….absolutely disgraceful that you all will say the worst things about Alpha. He is doing us a service….we have the luxury to read and discuss the trial in this forum….Why are you all treating him in this manner….suppose his statement was his personal view and does not reflect those of the organization that created this forum….so, he spoke at though CT is guilty….So?

      Just as you all see CT as “innocent” others see him as guilty. Remember, Alpha is not the job, so your perception and understanding of his words may be all a “misunderstanding”. So whether he feels CT is innocent or guilty, he is entitled to his personal opinion and his personal views may not reflect those of his organization…..


      1. Giving a certain people what you pronounced as “Break” while crucifying others, Charles, are the reason the world is what it is. Though I agree each person is entitle to his or her own opinion on matter, I disagree with you on this matter about Alpha. Crocodile sleeping style of journalism should not be allowed because what we all want is Justice; which in my definition, does not come if truth is cover up in “Because I say so, therefore Taylor is guilty!”

        We’ve all had our painful lost because Taylor was recruited from jail and sent to Liberia as a missionary for these same people who wants him dead because he refused to give them what they want. But, they can’t dare putting him on trial because there will be more truth than they want us to know. However, in my humble opinion, I know they’re finding every possible ways to have him down as a conspiratorial statement for their future missionaries.

        Nevertheless, we don’t need a website that has a poster posting what they want us to believe when we should be debating about justice fair trial. Alpha should not be writing about the trial of Mr. Taylor in his own opinion. He’s a representative voice of those (ctt.o) web people he’s working with. And if he’s having difficulties publishing what is being said in the court house, because he’s being paid on the side by these same conspirators to keep reporting what they still want the world to believe, than he must be dismissed immediately for not being here for truth!

        I am not a journalist, but the truth journalism how learned in my college year were the Nutt-Crackers (muckrakers is the true word) from my US History class. In a room like this we need muckraking journalist to report what’s being said the trial of Taylor. No less, no more!!!

        1. Tomas,
          Thanks for your response! I am not commenting Taylor’s innocent or guilt and his magical acts of “escaping maximum security prison”. We all know that CT didn’t break jail in the US or Ghana….if he did, then the jail in the Hague is good.

          My comment is about Alpha. Remember you are entitled to your opinion and your opinion may not cloud your professional judgment. No one knows the capacities Alpha spoke. He could have spoken as a private person far from the belief of his organization. There is nothing wrong with him interjecting her personal opinions. We may not agree with it, but we have to accept different views. Because the are tempted to silence the voice of some, we have and continue to make the same mistakes. You may think from the far right and I from the far left, does that mean you are not entitled to your opinions. I believe Alpha spoke not as a representative of his organization but as an individual.

      2. Hi Charles or “Charlzo,” as I heard some people say that’s how your name is pronounced in Liberia.

        I understand your firmness, brother. If this conversation was about winning, or topic was about a war to finding a victor, maybe we could go on and on until we forget about the real reason we’re here. But we did not take our only times for rest to come bashing about Alpha. We came to discus our view on the report of the trial that does not stand a chance to wear the uniform of democracy. Nevertheless, let me put it this way for why I voiced on the topic of reporting fashion on this Taylor’s case.
        I personal don’t care whom the report are coming from, except I do care all that is being said is put forth to us without the reporter’s opinion. This is a room for fairness where you and I deserve to hear what Happen through those we trust and hope to hear the truth from so we can have our sayings without looking stupid because Alpha also want us to think his way. His only job as a journalist is to simply show us who said what; not an “I say” because he is entitle to his own opinions.
        We want the truth from poster Alpha, Charles, not his opinions on the case. He’s the reporter, and his job is to tell us what happened and leave the rest to you and I to decide and put forth our opinions that are deeply rooted from the TRUTH we get ALPHA SESSAY

    4. Golf773,
      Weve known it all along. its pretty obvious that Alpha has not been neutral from the start.

      1. Tracey,

        Thanks very much for your suggestion on my post, but let me be quick to assure you that I stand by what I say, and I will never change a single world in my post just as Alpha has refused to change his mind set against Mr. Taylor like what he said recently on the BBC. In as much as he thinks that Mr. Taylor is responsible for RUF war despite the ongoing court proceeding, I also think that he is not creditable as a lawyer. Finally, I’m prepared to stop making comment of this site if commenting on what Alpha says would be a problem. After all, no one is paying me for what I say here, but you and Alpha are. I think bloggers here deserve respect and justice, and not only for you to freeze their comments.

        Harris K Johnson

        1. Harris k. Johnson, you are welcome and I will be happy to post on any site you sponsor so I ca see if you will publish anything sent in! Goodbye Buddy.. this has been a rough week for taylor at his VIP room at the Hague..have a nice weekend.

  2. I contributed to the BBC WORLD HAVE YOUR SAY PROGRAM yesterday and was very shocked at Alpha’s statement. He was live on the program telling the world that people shouldn’t be looking at the trial like a publicity stunt because Taylor did horrible things both in his country Sierra Leone and Liberia. How can someone like Alpha, who being a lawyer by profession, accuse someone before the person is found guilty by a court of law? However, this is all this case is about. Even I was asked by the BBC WORLD HAVE YOUR SAY moderator if I believe that Taylor is innocent. I told him that if international justice is fair, he’ll surely walk a free man.

  3. Alpha,
    I listened to the BBC World Have Your Say program on Tuesday which you were a guest. I was a bit surprised when two callers from Liberia and Kenya stated as fact that Charles Taylor has killed many people in Sierra Leone and Liberia. You were silent and did not try to corrrect them. The moderator both times had to step in and say that Charles Taylor has not been found guilty of any crimes and all charges are alleged.

    I know this has been a hectic week for your but you must remain objective. I was hoping for you who have followed the trial so closely to have informed the listeners that this is in no way an easy trial for the prosectuion. It is time that the journalist and human rights organizations of Sierra Leone start to inform the people that Charles Taylor may be acquitted so it does not come as such a shock if it happens.

    1. Dear Aki,
      Once the BBC moderator had responded to these two folks who talked about Mr. Taylor’s guilt, it became unnecessary and there was no time for me to make any further comment on the issue. The discussion program was being moderated and i spoke when i was asked and allowed to speak. If the moderator had not responded to that issue, you certainly would have heard my response. If you speak to press men who interview me here, whenever they ask questions that point to Taylor’s guilt, i am always quick to tell them about the presumption of innocence or that as independent monitors, it is not for us to say whether Taylor is guilty or whether prosecutors have led enough evidence against him to support a conviction. We leave that to the judges. Hope this clarification helps.

  4. As I write I am sitting at an internet cafe in a suburb of Monrovia. I have observed the reaction of the public to the recent testimonies of celebrity witnesses. But first I must register my disappointment over the absence of a special court-sponsored information dissimilation center as we have been led to believe. For example the recent testimonies of these star witnesses drew substantial local attention to the case. However, one had to make his or her own way to an internet cafe to view the proceedings. These cafes charge fees that most Liberians cannot afford. So if the special court had some designated areas where an interested person can follow the trial free of charge, I believe this would be helpful. Another suggestion is to contract with a media institution that could convert the streaming video to live television or radio broadcast. I believe this is not asking much of the court. A Liberian president is being tried for a sierra Leonean problem; hence there is public interest in the case. But access to the trial ia difficult ult. Maybe Tracey could share this post with Morlu.

    Now back to the sensation of the star witnesses. From my random assessment i believe that there was more public sympathy and support for my Taylor as the testimonies disintegrated and contradicted each other. Mr. Taylor’s supporter rallied strength and courage while his opponents were disappointed and dismayed at the proceedings. The opponents of Taylor were more discouraged than the prosecution that attempted to impeach its own witness. Here in Monrovia the confusion over the testimonies led one of the media institutions (the new democrat) to print a nude picture of super model Naomi Campbell. The publisher of said media institution had been in the opposing camp to Mr. Taylor for quite a while. But to have allowed prejudice to overwhelm professionalism attracted a substantial monetary fine from the press union of Liberia for violation of code of ethics. The media institution has since apologized.

    1. Andrew Jlay,
      Alot of people found out late that Naomi’s testimony was carried live by DSTV in Liberia on Sky News, BBC and CNN. The other two witnesses were carried live on Sky News. It is amazing how popular Charles Taylor still is here in Liberia. Overwhelmingly the people I talked to believe Naomi Campbell version of events.

      1. Andrew jlay,

        I just got back from Monrovia three days ago. However, when Naomi Campbell testified, there were Liberians dancing, celebrating and standing up in cheers of President Taylor at the Attir Tea shop on Carey Street and other parts of the city. In fact, after that testimony, a New song emerged in favor of President Taylor. These are the words of the song.”YOU KILL MY MOM, YOU KILL MY PAP, YOU GO TO COURT, I WILL VOTE FOR YOU.” More importantly, people were saying that when President Taylor is released from the power of darkness, they will tot the car that he will be riding in from the Roberts International Airport to its final destination. I remember a female saying in the taxi cab I was in, if they ever gas the car President Taylor is in, they the Liberian people will put water into the gas tank in order for it not to move in order for them to carry the car on their heads like casket from the airport to his house. Nonetheless, for me, I told them those that would carry the car on their heads should have at least a minimal of a Master Degree and I volunteer to be one of those carrying the car President Taylor will be riding in on my head walking hundreds of miles. However, the reason why I suggested a minimal of a Master Degree is because, I don’t want haters, enigmatic leaders and people with no backbones and spines who can not withstand the public protest and continue to conveniently compromise in upholding what is right to say or point to those of us as uneducated, and illiterate.

    2. Andrew jlay,

      Remember that the publisher of the news paper, Tom Kamara, served as a prosecution witness in this court and is stay testifying even thou he’s out of court. But he will surely burse is own face and run away to this own country Sierra Leone, when the two million men march to welcome Mr. Taylor back home. Crazyness over took him by publishing such stupid picture.

      Harris K Johnson

  5. Dear Alpha,

    Is is true that you made these comments? Could you answer these critics?

    1. Please give jfallahmenjor the opportunity to respond to this seemingly, “angry verbal protest and accusations” from the taylor team, headed, this time by our notably regular pro- commentators and entertainers on the blogg:Jose,Thomas Liberty,Daniel B. Obchiche,Aki,and Emmanuel G.K.George; that this is not strange nor surprising since there is great anger and despair among the taylor fan since the ” testimony of Naomi Cambell” against all your protests that she should have not testified, in the first place! We understand the frustrations amongt you and the fear of taylor fate being in “limbo” from this moment on! We pity your frustrations and at times, either venting it on poor oldman fallah, or Ms Tracey. Attacks on Alpha are not new to any old Blogger on this site! That being said, let me address what I see among the pro-taylor cast:
      1.In psychology, there is a behavior called ‘display aggression’ which normally follows a reaction vented upon non-trigger, in order to feel enpowerment to built lost esteem.
      2. All the accusations, whether on fallah or Tracey, seem as means to finger pointing on why things are not going the way pro-support group feels.
      otherwise, why do you guys spend more time on arguements than substancial debate and acceptance of others view points without condemnations and cry of foul all the time? How will you pro-taylor gain sympathy from the world in your protests about the innocence of taylor, when in fact you are presenting yourselves, and your views as not only authoritorian, but angrily and at times, threatening and demeaning? Remember that the world is not only watching what we say here, but will judge us as a people that could possibly command the affairs of our destiny some day. How would they trust us in carrying out those responsibilities? Again I must admit that whether we are for taylor or against taylor, there must be those nuetral and we should be civil enough to respect their views. I have never known Liberians to be rude and unfriendly individuals and so fearful of forigners! Stop this madness everybody!

      1. Fallah,

        Can Alpha prove that this innocent man committed these horrible things he said President Taylor did in both Liberia and Sierra Leone?

        1. Jose, it’s not Alpha’s place to prove anything here.. get it? the Prosecution is and Defense to deny all and is clearly happening here, Jose. Stay focus and don’t confuse your mind by attacks where they do not belong. An african proverb says,” you should be looking where you stump your foot, and not where you fell.”

    2. Dear Emmanuel G.K George,
      Thank you very much for asking me such a direct question rather than just making conclusions. During the course of the celebrity testimonies, I have had several interviews with several media here in The Hague . It is unfortunate that people have misstated my comments on BBC. During my interviews here, I have been very clear that we, as Trial Monitors, cannot make any judgment on the testimonies of all these witnesses who recently testified for the prosecution. I stated in clear terms that the testimonies of the witnesses have all been contradictory to each other and it is now for the judges to determine what to do with the evidence, who among the witnesses is more credible and what weight to attach to the testimony of each witness. Journalists found it more rewarding to speak to me because according to them, I was not giving any onesided account like prosecutors or defense lawyers.

      Specifically about the BBC interview and the discussion on BBC World Have Your Say, my statements again have been wrongly stated. The discussion on BBC focussed on whether Naomi Campbell’s testimony was a distraction for the court. Now while many people think that it was a distraction, I maintain that it was not a distraction. I was clear that in an ideal situation, I would have loved to see the media world focus on the trial because this is not a trial about a celebrity, but rather about the crimes that were committed in Sierra Leone (note i did not say who is responsible for the crimes), it is about the numerous victims in Sierra Leone who are out there looking forward to this process, it is about a very important accountability measure that has been instituted and a former sitting head of state made subject to this accountability measure, it is about the very high fair trial standards that have been maintained in this trial and how Sierra Leone and Liberia can learn from it, and as far as I am concerned, this deserves attention. I added that this does not in anyway suggest Mr. Taylor’s guilt but that fact that a process is instituted and that such process is fair, then it is important. I explained that those who focus on Naomi Campbell’s personality are the ones that are missing the point. Focus should be put on the evidence given by the three witnesses and how such evidence will impact the trial. If the evidence was not relevant enough, the judges would not have allowed the case to be reopened and the witnesses made to testify. The judges ruled that the issues are certainly important and they have a significant bearing on the case. Once the evidence is in, it is left with the judges to determine whether such evidence is credible enough. That has been my point and I stand by it. It is not for me to say whether a witness has lied or has said the truth. When journalists ask me whether Prosecutors have done a good job and have led evidence that will convict Taylor, I say to them that it is for the judges to decide after the conclusion of the defense case. Now, on Aki’s point that people spoke of Mr. Taylor’s guilt and i was silent, the discussion was not on TV and so you cannot see what my reaction was at those comments. Note, however, that even when I tried stepping in on that issue, just because the moderator had already clarified things, then any comment from me in that regard was unwarranted. So that is what happened on the BBC program. Note that just as I have not said that the testimony surrounding Naomi Campbell is the smoking gun that prosecutors need, i also will not say that the evidence is irrelivant. Also know that i interact with Taylor’s lawyers here everyday, some of whom i worked with as part of the same defense team on the other trials that obtained in the Special Court in Freetown and these guys have all had nothing but praise for the interviews i did including the ones on BBC. Let me know if you have further questions.
      Thanks, Alpha

      1. Hey Alpha,
        Atleast I can be greatfull to my african brother, MR ALPHA SESAY today for addressing his own delima instead of Tracey being his spokeswoman all the time. Don’t you feel good answering Emmanuels direct question??? Please be speaking for your self brother… its important ok…It doesn’t matter your HATE for Taylor. He’s going to be free soon anyway…

      2. Alpha,
        Thanks for the clarification. Please remember I along with the majority of the people on this forum appreciate you hard work and dedication.

  6. Even though Carole White was grilled by the defence, her account of what happened that night is a lot more believable than Campbell’s account of randomly accepting a ‘pouch’ in the middle of the night by 2 strange men knocking on her door and then not looking at what was in the pouch until the morning…. Come on…!

    The defence’s claim that Carole White was lying doesn’t prove that she was.

    1. Observer,
      So who are the judges to believe??? The MAIN reason for them especially Ms. Campbell was to tell the court….MR. TAYLOR GAVE ME DIAMONDS….and that didn’t happen…..

    2. Observer,

      Clearly, you are struggling to accept a nonsensical strategy from the prosecution which will only eventuate into a money making opportunity for certain people including Carole White and Mia Farrow who works with the United Nations. How could you possibly conclude that she was believable when she was not the one that received the 2 or 3 “Dirty Looking Stones”? How can you say she is believable when she was not a roommate to Ms. Campbell who received the allegedly dirty looking stones that night. How could you say she is believable when she said Ms. Campbell was texting Taylor and Taylor was texting back when in fact there was no cellphone company in Liberia during the time under review and no record to show this innocent man had cell phone and with such a feature?

      Observer, let me make your job a lot more easier. Ask your intellectually superior and nuanced lawyers to bring President Taylor phone records for 1997.


      1. GENERAL FIX IT”
        This one one is a real slap on observers’ NOSE.. I don’t think he he’s going that route anymore…good job oldman..

  7. It amazed me to realize many of the Pro-Taylor folks on this blog haven’t yet realize that Both Alpha and Tracey are bias. If anyone goes back to most of my earliest posting, I’ve always raised issues about this partiality. What a shame for someone who claim to have a LAW degree, operating a So-called independent blog , catering to victims and the general public at-large to be so one-sided. Thank God, with a little noise from us, the daily summaries have improved.

    Like Jose said earlier, but I’ll go a little further and ask Alpha to please, Name me just one witness you (Alpha) believe evidence shifted your view(s) about Taylor being responsible for all those problems in SL. I just need the name of one (1) witness from the prosecution who was so believable to you and your supporters alike. Alpha, you write the daily summaries, so it’s very easy for you to come up with a name, please do me this big favor. I/we need just 1 single witness you believe was praiseworthy in this whole prosecution case. I bet, with all your law degree(s), I’ll rip both of you up with evidences from your same old daily transcript or the official one, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THEY-SAY

  8. Carol White I think, was a disgrace to the prosecutor’s case.She couldnt get any two consecutive statements to match , she kept contradicting herself and that story about pebble throwing and getting a ‘lucky guess’ in knowing which window to hit – I think that was utter nonsense. Her testimony is routed in revenge – as evidenced by her employees. How could she ‘just know’ what was being planned – is she implying that at the table there was open talk of diamonds being sent because i dont believe that on the other side of Naomi Campbell, President Mandela just sat by and listened to this arrangement.Or is she implying that they were whispering??Charles Taylor should account for the suffering and atrocities his people went through but people like Carol White spoil the case rather than build against him.

  9. Hi All:

    I wonder whether these “Taylorists” know the difference between being ‘neutral’ and playing the role as a ‘neutral’. In the first place there is nothing like neutrality, not even in heaven because God himself has taken sides on several occasions. I think Alpha and Tracy have really done a professional work in this whole trial except for the blindfoldedness and limitations of these Taylorists that every report must be in their interests. Take for example someone saying Alpha should have corrected callers on the BBC program who callled and gave their own opinion on the trial. Was Alpha the moderator?

    Congratulations! Alpha and Tracy for being so professional. I sometimes really can wonder about where you guys got such a brilliant training from. Keep it up and don’t let these blind and unconscious Taylorists distract you from your very experienced, delicated and professional work. These are people who beacuse of thier niavety even if God Almighty were to testify and reveal facts againt their “boss” they will still say it is a plot by God against Taylor. Keep it up!

  10. Who is on trial here, is it Taylor or Alpha? Let us not forget the main issue here. If these allegations against Alpha are true I think it reflected his personal opinion, which he is entitled to and will not influence Taylor’s trial no way possible. The fact remains that diamonds change hands in South Africa let us stick to that. The Prosecution alleged that diamonds were given to Naomi and we are seeing that indeed some diamonds transactions taking place. So is this not a fact from the Prosecution? Naomi did collaborate with the Prosecution allegation that indeed there was diamond transaction, but from two men. But who will send such precious stones to someone who they did not know, or who will received such precious gift from someone they don’t know?

    Please leave Alpha.

    1. Lib Justice,

      The more I read, the more I see people like you reacting to this fake case like the way you are reacting, the more I understand just what a huge win for freedom and liberty.

      Lib, it is true that Alpha is entitled to his opinion and certainly he is also entitled to his own view points. Conversely, he is not entitled to his own facts. And that’s just exactly what he did. He presented his opinion as though it was a fact. How does he know for sure that President Taylor did terrible things in both Liberia and Sierra Leone?

      Lib, if you truly believe in democracy, you will certainly accept everything that comes with it, even if the outcome does not favor you. We are in court. let’s respect the process. And if the presumption of innocent must mean anything and if the there is a rationale ahead of the trial verdict, President Taylor must be presumed innocent until otherwise.

  11. Just here to congratulate the great work coming from the defence lawyers, Mr. Griffuths and Mr. Anyah. Althought the political arena in the British and American goverment is making life hard for Mr. Taylor, the honesty of witnesses for the prosecution seemed deplorable. In spite the fact there was a war in Liberia and Seirra Leone, the British and American goverment know very well that blood is also on their hands, because the manipulation involved during the war. In war there is error, there is greed, there is killing and there are the thieves-it is amazing for this one Taylor holding the bigest blame. The big boys from England and America wanted minerals so quickly that blood had to be shared-check history.

  12. Noko4 and Grebo what did, very importantly, come out of the questioning regarding Campbell and the diamonds, was that indeed she did receive rough diamonds that night – which before that she had flatly denied. And of course – who was there at the dinner that night? None other than Charles Taylor. Just a coincidence…?

    Now that the diamonds are with investigators – analysis of them should reveal a lot of vital information.

    The testimonies of all 3 ladies was not great however this is surely just the beginning of the unravelling of that night.

    Does anyone seriously believe Campbell opened the door to 2 strange men in the middle of the night and accepted a ‘gift’ without looking at it or asking/knowing who it was from? Seriously?

  13. Dear Alpha,

    Thanks for you clarification. Let me congratulate you and Tracey for keeping this blog running. I believe everyone of our comments are open for personal interpretation so I understand your situation and I am happy for the clarification. You are not the only person been misunderstood on this blog – My friend J. Fallah Menjor has libelled me a Taylor supporter. Please keep your head up high and continue to do your work according to you conscience and the dictates of your profession.

Comments are closed.