Mia Farrow and Carole White Contradict Naomi Campbell’s Testimony, Issa Sesay’s Cross-Examination Begins

The much anticipated testimonies of three celebrity witnesses were concluded this week with Hollywood actress Mia Farrow and modeling agent Carole White both contradicting the evidence of supermodel Naomi Campbell about allegations that Charles Taylor gave the supermodel rough diamonds in South Africa in 1997. This week also saw the conclusion of the direct examination and the commencement of the cross-examination of Mr. Taylor’s 19th witness, Issa Hassan Sesay.

Last week, Ms. Campbell herself testified about the incident that happened in South Africa, telling the judges in The Hague that two men had knocked on her door in the middle of the night, gave her a pouch, and said, “a gift for you.” When she opened the pouch the following morning, she discovered that it contained “dirty-looking stones,” which she later gave to Jeremy Ratcliffe, the head on the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund. When she told Ms. Farrow and Ms. White about the  incident at breakfast, one of the two ladies suggested that the diamonds must have come from Mr. Taylor, an assumption that she also came to make, she said.

On Monday, both Ms. Farrow and Ms. White testified that Ms. Campbell’s account of the incident was not correct.

First to testify was Ms. Farrow, who explained that the morning after they had all attended the star-studded dinner that was hosted by Nelson Mandela, she was at breakfast when Ms. Campbell approached her with excitement and told her that Mr. Taylor had sent her “a huge diamond” while she was asleep the previous night. Ms. Farrow said Ms. Campbell went on to say she was going to donate the diamond to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Charity Fund.

“She [Ms. Campbell] said at night, some men had knocked at her door and there were two men that were sent by Charles Taylor, and they had given her a huge diamond and that she was going to donate it to Mr. Mandela’s charity,” Ms. Farrow told the court.

“As I recall it, she was quite excited,” she added.

Ms. Farrow said she was never shown the diamond. When asked a direct question as to whether she was the one who had told Ms. Campbell that the diamonds must have been from Mr. Taylor, Ms. Farrow said, “Absolutely not…Naomi Campbell said that diamonds were from Charles Taylor.”

Under cross-examination, defense lawyers tried to establish that Ms. Farrow had difficulty recollecting different things, that her testimony did not only contradict that of Ms. Campbell but also contradicts the statements made by Ms. White to prosecutors, and that as an activist involved in issues relating to Africa, such as Darfur, she had a motive of working against African leaders she perceived to be oppressing their people.

Defense counsel for Mr. Taylor, Morris Anyah, in cross-examining Ms. Farrow pointed out that while she was testifying that the gift given to Ms. Campbell was a “huge diamond,” Ms. Campbell herself who received the said gift had testified that there were “two to three small dirty-looking stones,” and that Ms. White in her statement to prosecutors had said there were about five pieces of diamonds.

In her response to these points, Ms. Farrow said, “I didn’t see the diamond or diamonds, I can only tell you what Naomi Campbell said.”

Mr. Anyah also read a BBC Africa news article that quoted Mr. Jeremy Ractcliffe, the former head of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund to whom Ms. Campbell had handed the diamonds, stating “three small uncut diamonds were given to me by Naomi Campbell.”

“Three persons referring to diamonds in the plural…they were small in size,” Mr. Anyah told Ms. Farrow.

“Do you stand by your recollection that what you heard Naomi Campbell say was that this was a huge size diamond?” Mr. Anyah asked Ms. Farrow.

“That is what I recall. The other persons saw the diamonds…I can only recall what Ms. Campbell said,” Ms. Farrow responded.

“What Naomi Campbell said that morning, to the best of my recollection, she said a large diamond,” she added.

As Ms. Farrow concluded her testimony, Ms. Campbell’s former agent Mr. White commenced her evidence during which she not only contradicted Ms. Campbell’s account, but also contradicted several portions of Ms. Farrow’s testimony.

According to Ms. White, while they were all having dinner at Mr. Mandela’s residence in September 1997, Mr. Taylor and Ms. Campbell “were being charming to each other…mildly flirting…they were just being affable.”

Ms. White told the court that during the said company between Mr. Taylor and Ms. Campbell, the supermodel informed her (White) with excitement that Mr. Taylor had promised to send her diamonds.

“Naomi was very excited and said ,’Oh he is going to give me some diamonds’,” Ms. White said.

Ms. White also explained how Mr. Taylor and Ms. Campbell discussed that two men would enter the guesthouse with the diamonds and hand them over to Ms. Campbell. At night, she said that herself and Ms. Campbell were anxiously waiting for the two men to show up with the diamonds, but when they waited longer than expected, they decided to go to bed.

According to Ms. White, when the men eventually arrived, she was the one who first woke up to receive them before she woke Ms. Campbell up.

“[I] heard some clinking noises on my window…I opened the window and there were two guys standing on the ground…’we [the two men] have something for Ms. Campbell’…and I told them to wait. I went to Ms. Campbell’s room and told her that the men were here,” she explained.

When the men came into the house, Ms. White said, “they took out a scruffy piece of paper and gave it to Ms. Campbell…she opened it and showed them to me. They were quite disappointing because they were not shiny.”

Contrary to Ms. Campbell’s testimony that there were three pieces of diamonds in the pouch and Ms. Farrow’s account that she had been informed of a “huge diamond,” Ms. White told the court that she believed there were five to six pieces of diamonds in the piece of paper.

Under cross-examination by lead counsel for Mr. Taylor, Courtenay Griffiths, he pointed out that Ms. White had a breach of contract lawsuit against Ms. Campbell, and she wanted to use this story to destroy her (Ms. Campbell).

“You have a very powerful motive for lying about Ms. Campbell,” Mr. Griffiths put to Ms. White.

“I suggest…that you don’t come to this court with clean hands…your motive for lying…is to provide yourself with ammunition for use against her in the lawsuit,” Mr. Griffiths said.

Ms. White responded that this was not the case and that the issue of blood diamonds had nothing to do with a civil matter that she had to settle in court with Ms. Campbell.

Ms. White was also confronted with materials printed from the social networking site Facebook under the page of one Annie Wilshaw, who is an employee of Ms. White’s modeling agency. On this Facebook page, Ms. Wilshaw displayed photographs of a party that was hosted by Ms. White on the Thursday that Mr. Campbell testified and then titled the pictures “blood diamond night.” Subsequent comments which followed the photograph included “this is a big inconvenience for me” (a line stated by Ms. Campbell in her testimony). It was followed by “it will be when Carole arrives at The Hague and ruins your tale on Monday.”

Ms. White responded that the pictures were from a party to open a new modeling house, and she was not aware that her employees had made such comments about the event.

On Tuesday, defense lawyers concluded the cross-examination of Ms. White, during which she said that she has not told lies about this incident.

“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.

As Mr. 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.

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. She said that she was present when Ms. Campbell gave the diamonds to Mr. Ratcliffe saying that the diamonds had been given to her by Mr. Taylor.

On Wednesday, the court returned to normal hearings with a continuation of the testimony of Mr. Sesay, the former interim leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel group.

Mr. Sesay told the court on Wednesday that allegations of the RUF capturing materials from United Nations peacekeepers in Sierra Leone and sending such materials to Mr. Taylor are false.

In May 2000, as Sierra Leone was getting ready to disarm thousands of rebel fighters, RUF rebels took hundreds of UN peacekeepers hostage and seized several materials including arms, ammunition, vehicles, and communication equipment from the peacekeepers. RUF leader, Foday Sankoh, was arrested by the government of Sierra Leone and Issa Hassan Sesay, after a meeting with Mr. Taylor in Liberia, facilitated the release of the peacekeepers. Mr. Sesay eventually became interim leader of the RUF.

In 2008, a witness who claimed to have been working within Mr. Taylor’s security apparatus in Liberia, testified for the prosecution and told the court that on Mr. Taylor’s instructions, the heavy artillery weapons that were seized from the UN peacekeepers were taken to Liberia by Mr. Sesay, and the weapons were used to provide security for Mr. Taylor. Mr. Sesay described this account as false. According to Mr. Sesay, all materials that were seized from the peacekeepers were given back to the UN in Sierra Leone.

“That did not happen…I did not send any artillery pieces to Mr. Taylor in Liberia,” Mr. Sesay told the court.

“I did not give any instruction to take any UNAMSIL [United Nations Missions in Sierra Leone] weapon to Mr. Taylor in Liberia. The weapons that were captured from them were handed back to the UN before disarmament,” he added.

Mr. Sesay further denied prosecution evidence that he provided some help through the transfer of weapons from Sierra Leone to Liberia’s Special Security Services (SSS) Director, Benjamin Yeaten, who was mobilizing forces to attack Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) rebels. At the time LURD rebels were threatening to unseat Mr. Taylor’s government in Liberia. TFI-375, the witness who testified about this incident claimed that he was present and saw the weapons being handed from Mr. Sesay to Mr. Yeaten.

When talking about the support that Mr. Taylor and his forces allegedly gave to the RUF in Sierra Leone, TFI-375 told the court in 2008  that he was very close to Mr. Yeaten and that he was personally involved in transporting arms and ammunition for rebel forces in Sierra Leone. Mr. Sesay denied this claim, telling the court that he only had contact with Mr. Yeaten in 2000 and at that time, RUF forces were no longer fighting in Sierra Leone.

“During this time when I was in contact with Benjamin Yeaten, the war was not continuing in Sierra Leone, and I did not have any arms dealings with Benjamin Yeaten,” Mr. Sesay said.

“I did not have anybody that was bringing arms and ammunition for me from Benjamin Yeaten, that is not true,” he added.

Witness TFI-375 also told the court that when the RUF arrested the peacekeepers in 2000, it was Mr. Sesay who first contacted Mr. Yeaten to seek advise from Mr. Taylor on how to handle the situation. Mr. Sesay said that this never happened.

“That’s a lie, I did not talk to Benjamin Yeaten on satellite phone, and I did not send a radio message to Benjamin Yeaten after the capture of the UN peacekeepers,” Mr. Sesay said.

According to Mr. Sesay, after the capture of the UN peacekeepers, Mr. Taylor sent Mr. Yeaten to invite him to Liberia where they discussed the release of the peacekeepers. If he had communicated with Mr. Yeaten by satellite phone or radio, there would have been no need for Mr. Taylor to send Mr. Yeaten to fetch him with a helicopter, he said.

On Thursday, Mr. Griffiths concluded the direct-examination of Mr. Sesay, paving the way for prosecutors to commence the cross-examination of the witness.

As he concluded the direct examination of Mr. Sesay, Mr. Griffiths, asked the witness whether he has anything to gain by coming to The Hague to testify for Mr. Taylor.

“I don’t have anything to gain,” Mr. Sesay told the court.

“My decision to come here is because I was sitting in my detention and listening to the radio and hearing people say lies about me just because I disarmed the RUF, so I decided to come here and testify. I have nothing to gain,” he added.

As his cross-examination started, prosecution counsel conducting Mr. Sesay’s cross-examination, Nicholas Koumjian, immediately went to the testimony that Mr. Sesay gave as a witness in his own defense during his trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown. Mr. Koumjian focused on the arms and ammunition that were bought and used by the RUF to attack the diamond rich town of Kono in December 1998.

The issue of who provided arms for the December 1998 attack on Kono has been widely discussed in this trial. According to prosecution witnesses, with Mr. Taylor’s assistance, RUF rebels travelled to Burkina Faso, where they obtained the arms and ammunition needed for the attack. The aircraft that transported the arms and ammunition for the mission landed at Roberts International Airport (RIA) in Liberia before they were transported to Sierra Leone. A particular RUF member, who claimed to have been involved in transporting these materials from Burkina Faso, testified for the prosecution in 2008 and told the court that they met with Mr. Taylor at his Executive Mansion in Liberia.  During this meeting, they discussed the operation to obtain the arms in Burkian Faso.

Mr. Sesay in his testimony this month has told the court that these pieces of evidence are false. According to Mr. Sesay, the arms and ammunition used for the attack on Kono were purchased from United Liberation Movement for Democracy in Liberia (ULIMO) rebels in Lofa County, Liberia.

However, under cross-examination today, Mr. Koumjian pointed out that Mr. Sesay’s account in his testimony for Mr. Taylor differs from what he said when he testified on behalf of himself before the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown in 2007. During his 2007 trial, Mr. Sesay gave testimony that supported the evidence of prosecution witnesses.  In 2007, he testified that the ammunition used for the attack on Kono was obtained from Burkina Faso by Mr. Bockarie.  When confronted with the contradiction, Mr. Sesay said that at the time he testified on behalf himself in 2007, he could not recall all these issues. He has only now been able to recall what happened, he said. Mr. Koumjian put to him that he was lying because he wanted to protect Mr. Taylor.

“Because you yourself testified in 2007…that the ammunition came from Burkina Faso and you are lying to this Trial Chamber about it, trying to protect Charles Taylor for his responsibility for the terrible things that happened in 1998 and 1999 in Sierra Leone, isn’t that true…you testified under oath in 2007 the ammunition came from Burkina Faso. That was the truth. Were you telling the truth in 2007 or were you lying?” Mr. Koumjian asked Mr. Sesay.

“I said when after I had testified, when I was reading the transcript, I realized that the account I had given was not the right account,” Mr. Sesay responded.

On Friday, Mr. Koumjian asked Mr. Sesay to account to the people of Sierra Leone what the RUF did with the country’s diamonds and whether the war in Sierra Leone was about diamonds.

When asked whether “the war in Sierra Leone was a war about diamonds,” Mr. Sesay said, “No.”

“It was not a war about diamonds because from 1991 to 1997, the RUF was not occupying diamond areas,” Mr. Sesay said.

When asked whether this situation changed  after 1997, Mr. Sesay again said, “No.”

“If it was a war about diamonds, I wouldn’t have disarmed in the diamond areas…” he added.

Mr. Koumjian read a portion of a November 2000 newspaper, which quoted Mr. Taylor as saying, “Yes, I think that the war in Sierra Leone is a war about diamonds but not for Liberia to take those diamonds.”

In response to this statement, Mr. Sesay said, “I wouldn’t agree because the war in Sierra Leone was not about diamonds.”

When Mr. Sesay was asked to account to the people of Sierra Leone what he did with the country’s diamonds, Mr. Sesay explained that he sold the diamonds and the proceeds were used to take care of RUF members, who were also Sierra Leoneans.

“The diamonds that I got I used to sell and used the money to take care of the RUF…The RUF soldiers that I took care of, they were Sierra Leoneans,” he said.

In response to a question as to the number of “stones” [diamonds] that he received while he was in control of the RUF, Mr. Sesay said, “I can’t remember the exact number of stones I received.”

He also said that he cannot recall the exact amount of money that he obtained from the sale of the diamonds that were mined by the RUF.

“You can’t account because the bulk of the diamonds went to Charles Taylor, isn’t it,” Mr. Koumjian put to Mr. Sesay.

“Well, as far as money was concerned, the diamonds I used to receive I used to sell, I did not give diamonds to Mr. Taylor,” Mr. Sesay responded.

Prosecutors allege that the RUF subjected civilians in diamond mining towns to forced labor in order to work as miners. Some of these civilians were killed when they could not work as miners, prosecutors allege. It is further alleged that the diamonds, once mined, were taken to Mr. Taylor in Liberia by RUF commanders, including Mr. Sesay. Mr. Taylor has denied receiving diamonds from RUF rebels, and in his testimony as a defense witness for Mr. Taylor, Mr. Sesay has also denied taking diamonds to Mr. Taylor in Liberia.

Prosecutors also noted today that Mr. Sesay himself and RUF commander Sam Bockarie looked at Mr. Taylor as a father figure in their lives, and Mr. Taylor took them to be his sons. Prosecutors highlighted the crimes committed by Mr. Bockarie in Sierra Leone and his public pronouncements about being a “ruthless commander.” Even with, such pronouncements and reports of Mr. Bockarie’s atrocities in Sierra Leone, Mr. Taylor still took him to be his son, Mr. Koumjian said in court.

Mr. Koumjian read a portion of Mr. Taylor’s testimony in which the former Liberian president told the court how he liked Mr. Bockarie after he was confronted with evidence that he ordered the execution of Mr. Bockarie.

“I never wanted that boy dead, I liked him like a son. I never wanted him dead. I never would have handed him to Kabbah [former Sierra Leonean president]…I loved that boy,” Mr. Taylor said in 2009.

“That’s what Charles Taylor said about Sam Bockarie, the man who did all this evil and threatened a campaign of evil to kill all living things,” Mr. Koumjian said after reading the statement.

“Well, I don’t know, that is what Charles Taylor said, that was his opinion,” Mr. Sesay responded.

Mr. Koumjian also pointed out that when Mr. Bockarie left the RUF and relocated to Liberia, Mr. Taylor gave him a huge salary because of the relationship that existed between them.

“Sam Bockarie had a salary of 1000 USD a month when the average Liberian is living on less than one USD a day…that’s how a father treats a son,” Mr. Koumjian said.

Mr. Sesay responded that he never knew that Mr. Bockarie was receiving 1000 USD per month while in Liberia.


  1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/nelson-mandela-charles-taylor-meeting

    “Thanking Gaddafi for his backing in the anti-apartheid struggle, Mandela was once quoted as saying: “Those who feel we should have no relations with Gaddafi, have no morals. Those who feel irritated by our friendship with President Gaddafi can go jump in the pool.”.

    “Political commentator Andile Mngxitama, publisher of New Frank Talk, said he did not blame Mandela for hosting Taylor that night in Cape Town. “African leaders are given the respect that befits their office,” he said. “I don’t think we should say Mandela should never have met Taylor. Even now Taylor is still on trial and has not been found guilty.””

    1. This tell that Mia Farrow and Carol White was lying about what the now Mrs. Mandela said to them about Mr. Taylor. Farrow and White made it up.

    2. and so it begins! i was wondering how long before some one said something about mandela having CT over. This is an underhanded attack on African leaders meeting with each other for business, social, empire building or otherwise.

  2. Hello to all,
    I am just so flabbergasted about the blatant lies being told by the “anti-Taylor campaigners” on here. I have stayed in Liberia through all our wars and I am a living witness and willing to testify about the how the American government supplied LURD with assorted weaponry from the onset of their struggle to remove the Taylor’s government in the guinea town of Gaugaudu to Vai town in Monrovia. George Bush should bear the greater responsibility for atrocities committed against our fathers, mothers, sisters, aunts etc. from Voinjama to Monrovia by their surrogate LURD…

    The days for jungle justice are over; please free this innocent CHARLES TAYLOR. Sierra Leoneans should find a better to way to heal their wounds and not let western countries to remote control them. Has anyone thought or come to realize that Liberia is a diamond rich country too? Do we need to split open the heads of some of these anti-Taylor campaigners to know that Liberia has uranium, iron ore and vast timber? If for any reason someone should be sitting before that kangaroo court, that person should be Tenjan kaba. He was the first sierra Leonean president who presided over and sponsored rebel group to invade Liberia.
    What do these white people know in that kangaroo court about our continent that will make them to render sound judgment? Can Ms. Hollies (the devil, the liar and their followers) whatever, tell me how many kilometers from Gbarnga to Voinjama? Can koumjian tell me how many kilometers borderline Liberia has with Sierra Leone? I say absolutely none of them can without being schooled. Please leave Charlie alone. I will be brutally frank that yes people got killed and properties destroyed during the Liberian crisis however, we did not slice the hands and legs of our people. Mr. Taylor cannot be responsible for that as it was not a record of his fighters.

    1. You(we are here2) are just another imposter , man. Pro-Taylor, keep multiplying yourselves by creating more accounts while you already exist on the site. It’s not going to change anything because you are justling with people with mantured reasoning abilities. We are not in the Pepper Bush. We are here, instead, to make use of the principles of the Prodution Possibility Curve….

      1. To you VEM,

        I conjecture you are fairly a disappointed anti- Taylor campaigner as you don’t know the writing patterns of posters here. Be convinced that this is my first post and will do more if and when necessary.

        1. No guns are manufactured in Africa. Why don’t we put the European or American arms dealer on trial for selling guns for money(so they can buy their mistress diamonds:). Furthermore, why don’t we put the manufactures of guns on trial for murders, raped…?

          May God open the eyes, clear our minds, and clean our hearts! All of us.

    2. Hi “We are here2,”
      You said buch should be blamed for the lost of Liberians? How does that fit the space of history’s calender? Bush came to office in 2000.
      Liberians started dying since 89.
      Taylor was oust in 2003, which means Bush was only here for the last 3yrs of the 14yrs old blood bath war. My question is: How can you put that on President Bush?
      I hope you know that US had two Bushes, the high forest Bush and the low-forest Bush. Which one of them are you referring to as the one responsible for our lost, ‘We are here2’?

      1. @ Tomas
        No, you are wrong! Liberians started dying in 1980. How conveniently we forget about the assassination of our beloved president Tolbert in 1980 and the others that were killed.

        1. Cen, forgive me if I’m wrong. But to record well, I was referring to when the civil war started. During my senior research in high school, it said the war began in 1989. If I’m right from what I learned in US national government and US history classroom at college, I believe at this time the father of the last Bush was serving as president. His son {W. Bush} came to office after Bill Clinton. Do I stand corrected or wrong? lol

        2. @ Tomas
          We must all strive to be learned individuals. We can’t rest on what others write in history books. A civil conflict always has a preamble of sorts. The first day a bullet is fired or the first day the west acknowledges a civil conflict is amidst is not finite or written in stone. Liberia was a peaceful country once upon a time. Even during that peaceful period there were undertones and antagonists that eventually led to the coupe.
          Tomas this no laughing matter. Insisting that Liberia’s civil unrest began in 1989 is tragic, ignorant and misleading. Especially coming from someone who claims to be educated in the US.
          The US presidency is an institution not representative of one man or party.
          peace, blessings and education to you.

  3. Thanks Alpha for this well detailed and balanced reporting even though, support group will find faults with it as their usual pattern of behavior on the site in order to distract attention from the main ingredience of the trial. My only suggestion is that you should have also mentioned the “unprofessional out-burst from Courtney Griffiths” that carried the Headlines in Liberia;”Courtney Silenced” until he made formal apologies for his low class lawyering and to which he complied! I think this is important. An African proverb says;” you cannot kill the crocodile, and leave the eggs behind to hatch.” This Trial will go down History in Africa. As always; jfallahmenjor, the problem to suport group.

  4. Alpha, here is how you begin this summary: ‘The much anticipated testimonies of three celebrity witnesses were concluded this week with Hollywood actress Mia Farrow and modeling agent Carole White both contradicting the evidence of supermodel Naomi Campbell about allegations that Charles Taylor gave the supermodel rough diamonds in South Africa in 1997.’

    Yes in your view Farrow and White contracticted the testimomy of Cambell – a tacit approval of the prosecution’s thesis on this testimonies. Were they all not prosecution witnesses as indicated openly by the court? How is it that you cannot come to terms with the reality that these were prosecution witnesses contradicting each other? If Cambell’s testimony had incriminated Tarlor your thesis and that of the prosecution would have been different, you would have been writing: ‘three prosecution celebrity witnesses testify that Taylor gave Cambell uncut diamonds’, not so?

    The truth is that this is a prosecution team learned only in the art of approbating and reprobating at thesame time. In the build up before these three prosecution witnesses testified, the lead prosecution counsel was all over the press telling the entire world what an important witness Cambell was for them. They applied for a supoena that was vehemently opposed by the defense, but the court ruled in their favour. Cambell testified, the prosecution examined her in-chief, the defense cross-examined, and the prosecution re-examined. However, as the evidence of Cambell did not incriminate Tarlor the prosecution denied her as their witness. Surely, if I am ever to recommend a Law School for any one it will not be in America!

    Back to you Alpha. Please do not place the testimony of Cambell on one hand, and that of Farrow and White on the other, for that is disingenious to the extreme! They are all part of the whole pack of prosecution ever discredited eveidence. You as a purported agent of an independent organisation should not be using this forum to sell the prosecution’s twisted case! I once had confidence in you and Tracy, but the benefit of hind-sight and the revealing tendency of time has yielded!! And for those other arm-chair commentators on this site, whose only pre-occupation is to attack persons rather than issues know, you may go ahead and have your moment, but justice cannot be mocked!!!

    1. Sylvanus,
      Very good point. Those witnesses were brought to court by the prosecution to challenge Mr. Taylor story, which Alpha has totally ignored in his summaries. Alpha continues to dwell on the fact that the prosecution own star witnesses contradicted themselves. Alpha is pointing out the Farrow and White contradicted Campbell story, although Campbell contradicted Farrow and White stories, but nothing is said about that in his summaries.

  5. How does Mr Koumjian’s line of questioning provide the LINK between Mr TAylor and the RUF diamonds? he is just beating about the bush here why not just hit the nail on the head and show that Issa Sesay was lying because you have a reciept or a delivery note to show the he infact delivered diamonds to Charles Taylor.

  6. i think it’s ridiculous how all three of them (the celebrities) can’t get there witness statements straight. Can’t they leave their own feuds out of this and rather than being spiteful to each other by making false claims they should be thinking about all those people that have suffered at the hands of Charles Taylor and help bring justice to them.

    I understand how Naomi Campbell may be frightened of what might become of her family etc but if she is going to say something, then say it truthfully and the same would apply to Mia and Carole. it’s ridiculous how all three accounts given contradict each other.

  7. Should Ms.Farrow and Ms. White testimonies be given credence?
    Please leave Mr. Taylor alone if you can’t prove him guilty.

  8. In your caption heading “Mia Farow(Rosemaries Baby) and Carole White contradict Naomi Cambell” you failed to mention “Mia Farrow and Carole White contradicted one another”.

    Are you aware Issa Sessay that the Dutch were the first to initiate the Slave Trade ,with the aid of Gullible Africans, to the New World? Have you seen any evidence in the Museums there of this activity that you can tell us about? Isnt that where they have the stuffed Black Man? have you seen that also? Well you may be aware thay- you Issa, Tracy- Bwana.

    Your kids and grand kids will read this one day . Ther is still time to make them proud.

    We appreciate fair reporting not biased opinions. I’ll stick to the WSJ going forward

  9. Guys Read my exchange with Fallah,

    Fallah,don’t see Africa the way we do!!

    On August 11, 2010 at 8:38 am, Cee said:
    Fallah ,
    There is a saying…Don’t cut your nose to spite your face.
    Even after reading my postings,you still seems to think i support impunity,just because i oppose the principle of Mr Taylor being tried for the war in Sierra Leone,i am feeling vindicated as this trial unfold.Infact he and others currently sitting in power in Liberia should be answerable to a liberian court for war crime….But i strongly suggest you reconcile and put this behind you.
    You seems to think the people that are moving this case cares about Liberian or Sierra Leonean,or are you actual part of the team that are moving this case?
    I worried about the state of mind of some of our Sierra Leone and Liberian brothers and sisters with this tendency of been a mindless,lazy pro-colonialist whose instinct of wisdom and justice is based on the teaching of an unjust actor.
    Fallah where you born in colonial times?maybe i’m too young to understand your spirit sometimes…well if you are infact an african.

    On August 12, 2010 at 5:53 pm, jfallahmenjor said:
    I am a Labanese, Mr.Cee. Let’s focus on the crimes, including rapes and sexual slavery,alleged by the Sierra Leone Court, committed by taylor and probably, associates. Yes, I was born during the colonial period that might probably be why I appear better informed, well educated, and civil enough to know between right and wrong! I am not African enough for people like your type that seem to have problems with people who disagree with your twisted views of the world and others. I wish you had wisdom to re-evaluate your comments about others and how that impacts how you are viewed, in return..boy I save some ..thanks anyway Cee.

    On August 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm, cee said:
    So focus on Israel Fallah or are you one those israeli spy nasrellah was talking about?they are on your case the people that are supporting your tormentors are making this mess.

    lebanese eh,have’nt you people profit enough….i’m sure you are comfortable with the staus quo been restored.Busy playing devils advocate silly!!

    You are operating like a demi-colonialist,Enjoy Fallah Enjoy…because you will be paying tax very soon.Don’t worry there won’t be anymore wars,but what i can assure you is the next generation that will be occupying powers in that region are gonna be in spirit like Mr Taylor.

    And fallah,i am not what you are used to in the region i was born there but i moved away since i was a child.

  10. Interesting that people seem to think it is ‘Alpha’s’ opinion that the other two witnesses testimonies contradicted Campbell. Clearly u all must not watch the news, just to name a few, ‘the telegraph’ ‘New york times’ ‘New york post’ ‘CNN’ and ‘BBC’ seem to all think the same thing.

    1. Ms Teage,
      ‘the telegraph’ ‘New york times’ ‘New york post’ ‘CNN’ and ‘BBC’,Please Miss!!!

      Most fair minded people around the world will question the integrity and fairness of this western papers!

      They write what their political masters are preaching when it comes to foreign affairs.

    2. Ms. Teage,
      Yes, other news outlets are repeating the same thing. Some of those you mention I have post on there sits and point out the same issues that I have pointed out to Alpha. It might not be Alpha’s one and only opinion, but it is the opinion he has adopted in his summaries and is putting forward.

      1. The opinion he ‘adopted’ really….I was discussing this trail via Email with several of my colleagues who have no emotional attachment to this trail…but the all know I was born in Liberia, they expressed well about 3 to be exact read the testimonies and have the same opinions that the testimonies were contradictory. They didn’t didn’t adopt that opinons from anybody they have brains and can read. Naimoi said it was Mia Farrow who said ‘the diamonds must be from Taylor, Farrow said no, Naomi told me the diamonds were from Taylor…so in its nature that testimony of Farrow immediately differs, go against i.e CONTRADICTs Campbells testimony, where Campbell is lying or Farrow is lying…is another discussion.

  11. Mixed fortunes for Taylor at Hague trial

    ” Astonishingly, of the 91 witnesses the prosecution had called, none had outdone Ms Campbell. Whiffs of investigative incompetence floats.’

    ” Anyway, the supermodel’s appearance “resurrected” Mr Taylor’s trial and memories of issues related to it. One is “selective” international trials for African leaders. ”


  12. Cee,
    We’re back to the entire West controlled by U.S and U.K trying to tarnish the image of this nobody rebel leader turn President who did jack squat for his country ? Cause if we’re going to talk about the West u know that’s how the see Taylor right…. I do agree with you on Western media not always presenting 100 percent fact or just even facts but to claim that from U.K to Atlanta to New York, all these news sources decided to concoct a lie or misrepreset the testimonies of the three witnesses ‘just to get Taylor’ is quite ‘the joke’ and leaning towards being extremly propostrous. The only reason why these guys are even covering the story is because it involves a model an actress and a madman. ”The West don’t care about No Charles Taylor”. This trail and Tayloor barely made it to the public eye entirely, until Campbell and Farrell came on. If they were soooo bent on destrying Taylor, who means absolutely nothig to the West, his Trail would have continously been in the media. Aljazeerah english is one of the only news media that have semi-covered the story of Taylor trail in an actual show not news article. The West don’t care about ur dear Taylor…..this testimony is the making of Hollywood ‘master pieces’, sweet gossip that’s why the covered the story. Not to ‘lie against/on’ your dear beloved Taylor.

    1. Ms Teage,
      I am a Sierra Leonean,I hope you people in liberia will be brave enough to set up a war crime tribunal in Liberia as we have done in Sierra Leone,did’nt the people in liberia deserve justice?

      I am sure your grievances is based on the atrosities commited in Liberia.

  13. Who determine contradiction in this case? The poster of this website or the visitors,
    Three people said three dissimilar things, but each one of them are right in their own view. Mia blew the whistle because she wanted to be heard and that was her right, to clear her chest. White came from the back to vomit all she knew but could not remember everything so she had to say something to proved hero.
    Naomi said all she could remember in the transaction and accordingly it had been thirteen yrs soooooooo. Go to the Bible and have a look at Jesus’ account of death and resurrection from the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The writer presented it as they saw and heard it, guided by the Holy Spirit but it was their version of how they understood it. So what is true could be a lie to someone and a lie could be the opposit.

    1. Well put, Chappy. All four Gospels agreed that Jesus Died, Rose again from the Dead. That should be the buttom line. Whether the descriptions or naratives defered does not, in iself, mean diamonds were not present and from twomen,and right after the party, attended by Naomi and taylor, and including the witnesses. These guys do not realize how foolish their isea of “show me the proof, videos or crazy psycho talks about “could have been other rich africans that were there and etc..” does more damage to not only their credibilty, but taylor’s as well. Keep the fight on..so say jfallahmenjor the one you love to hate.

  14. Chappy,
    I’m not sure I understand you.
    If I said, ‘ John did not gave me a nickle’ And along comes Sallly who says, ‘well actually Ms. Teage told me that John gave her a nickle’…Sally’s testimony automatically contradicts mine testimony. It could be I was lying or Sally is lying but that’s not the point the point in this anology is that the latter testimony by Sally has contradicted my previous statements its that simple.
    Lucky for you I read and have read the gospels many times. There is nothing about the four gospels that contradicts each other. So poor example. When Jesus feed the multitude in Matthew, Luke story was a bit different and his writting was not exactly the same but the five loaves two fishes, and little boy that fed the group was the same. Luke’s perspective did not contradict matthews as a matter of fact it ‘boosted’ Matthew’s account. Had Luke said there was a multitude and they were not fed because of the lack of food or that thousands of fishes and bread was brough for the town near by to feed the crowd, that would have ‘CONTRADICTED’, Matthews account. Lukes account, though from his perspective even told about the 12 baskets remainding after the multitude was fed. So that anology does not even make sense when talking about a contradiction as the two womens testimony…..
    Now if u want to Talk about who’s lying that would make sense. But to speak about contradictory statements as if they were merely two different accounts of the same situation, that’s where u loose me in your logic.
    But as I always say it’s ur opinion/interpretation and you’re more then entitled to it…..Its just, I don’t quite understand it.

      1. Cen,
        So your idea of having a vibrant debate with me is continuosly attacking my logic and education? That is comical actually, I always get akick out of reading your coments.
        Do take a note from my brother Aki, although we share very different opinions he sticks to discussing the issues I raise rather then me.
        I do look forward to having a vibrant debate with you. Let me worry with my logic and education, all you have to do is debate the issues raised from this blog with me.
        By the way my name is TEAGE, as in Hilary Teage, not TEAGUE.

        1. teage (a thousand pardons)

          a part of debating is marginalizing the other persons logic, education and confidence.

          I admit, I have been guilty of debating and not educating. The postings in general have become cheap and meaningless debates.
          But to be clear, you post some interesting and valid points.
          peace and blessings

  15. Hey Ms Teage
    I was not writing or talking about contradictions, I may not say if you understood me, for me it is an insult, but was trying to spell out people way of presenting and narrating issues as it happen and as they see it. I will never say the BIBLE is contradictory because I believe in the Bible and respect God.
    If, as you said you have read the four Gospels, there is nothing like contraction in them but the events and accounts are not the same.
    One of the books said before dawn Mary, and the others went to the grave (tomb), the other mention only Mary and said when it was dawning, after it had dawned, when it had dawned. If you read deep you will see different narratives of the same issue.
    Let me say this too, four guys from four continent s if ask to give account of anything that happen on Thursday the 12th of August 2010, their version will never be alike because we do have the same geographical condition. So it were during the time of the writing of the four Gospels, these men sat in different locality to write what they heard and what was narrated to them.
    To bring it to what is unfolding, Naomi was right as well as Mia and white, they explained things as they saw and heard it. The hard part about it is to say who was lying or contradiction.

  16. Look Teage,

    Naomi told you and the rest of the world on ABC news and in this inherently flawed court that this innocent man, President Taylor, did not give her diamonds. How clear could she get? However, the calling of the these three prosecution witnesses was just an unmitigated disaster for the prosecution and a huge win for Mr. Taylor.

    1. Great, Jose, and that is why you guys fighting hard to find “justification” to every issue that arises here about taylor. If this man is that innocent as you continiously claim, why would it take you all the efforts to convince others? Taylor is free to leave right away, Jose! I suggest that some on this sight need serious review of their twisted thoughts to find out the mental state. How in the world can you say taylor is innocent of all counts? I see, Jose. I would too, if I had depended wholly and solly on this Bandit!

    2. Look Rodriguez,
      You’ve been all over this website, like a self appoinnted general who’s trying to indimidate someone with your words and extra exclamation marks. So comical! Calm yourself let’s have a real conversation, you starting off a conversation with ‘look’ does not intimitdate nobody better yet me. You could never ‘fix’ nobody minds about their opinion of Taylor. I experience and have seen this fool Taylor’s madness, I believe he’s a murderer and what Taylor spoil you will NEVER fix. You make your self look like a buffone with this psuedo character as general fix. But when you are ready to have a real conversation on the issues you know where I’m at ‘ general fix what?’……

Comments are closed.