Mia Farrow and Carole White Contradict Naomi Campbell’s Testimony

Two prosecution witnesses, who were called to testify about allegations that Charles Taylor gave rough diamonds to supermodel Naomi Campbell during a visit to South Africa in 1997, have today contradicted the account given by the supermodel in her testimony last week before the Special Court for Sierra Leone judges in The Hague.

When prosecutors decided to reopen their case against Mr. Taylor, they submitted the names of three witnesses – Ms. Campbell, Ms. Farrow, and Ms. White – to testify about the allegations surrounding the receipt of diamonds from men believed to have been sent by Mr. Taylor after the former Liberian president and all three ladies had attended a star-studded dinner that was hosted by Nelson Mandela in South Africa in 1997.

Last week, Ms. Campbell testified about the events, telling the court that after the September 1997 dinner, she was sleeping when two men woke her up and gave her a pouch with only the words “a gift for you.” When she opened the pouch the next morning, it contained “dirty-looking stones” and upon sharing the information with Ms. Farrow and Ms. White, one of them suggested that the diamonds must have come from Mr. Taylor. Today, Ms. Farrow and Ms. White took the witness stand to testify about the same incident.

First to testify today was Ms. Farrow, who contradicted Ms. Campbell’s account about how Mr. Taylor became associated with the diamond gift. According to Ms. Farrow, it was Ms. Campbell who had informed her that Mr. Taylor sent men to deliver the diamonds to her. Ms. Campbell was excited, Ms. Farrow testified today.

“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.

When asked by prosecutors whether Ms. Campbell had shown her the diamond, Ms. Farrow said, “No, she did not.”

When asked again 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.

Ms. Farrow insisted, “I swear to this Bible as I have, before this court and beyond that that is what Naomi Campbell told me. I stand by my recollection.”

Mr. Anyah also pointed out a prior statement made on ABC News in which Ms. Farrow had urged Ms. Campbell to cooperate with the Special Court on this particular issue with the words, “Step up and do your part. I am eager to see the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia see justice. They need that.”

Mr. Anyah also referenced Ms. Farrow’s personal blog (www.miafarrow.org) where there are postings in which Ms. Farrow expresses personal views on the prosecution of African Heads of States who commit crimes against their own people.

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.”

“Naomi I think was flirting with him [Taylor] and he was flirting back…they were enjoying each other’s company,” she said.

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.

Ms. White’s testimony continues tomorrow.


  1. Could Alpha also give a balance account by reporting that Naomi Campbell statement that she did not show the “dirty stones”during breadfast, to both Mia Farrow and Carole White are true?

    “When asked by prosecutors whether Ms. Campbell had shown her the diamond, Ms. Farrow said, “No, she did not.”” “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.””

    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.” So how did Carole White know that those “dirty stones” were diamonds?

    1. King,
      Ms. White said she was there when this interaction took place….according to her, Ms. Campbell handed her the stones and she returned, both acknowledging that they were disappointed that it was not shinny…..I read my accounts from various news media so I get bit and pieces of the testimony from various source

      1. Charles,
        the question now is: Owing to Naomi Campbell’s “disappointment” that the diamonds did not turn out to be the ones she had expected, why was she excited the next morning to the extent that she could not even wait to sit down before “boasting” about the diamond gift to a total stranger like Mia Farrow who she had just met for the first time? The answer is that Mia Farrow either does not remember exactly what happened or she was lying and Carole white lied through her teeth.

  2. So what if Taylor had diamond in S. Africa! What if he got his diamond from countries other than Sierra Leone? I do not see the relavance? Even if it were to establish that Taylor lie about giving diamond to Ms. Campbell, how does it relate to crimes for which he is charged…..
    Throughout this trial, the prosecution has demonstrated weaknesses in thier case. It is becoming frustrating to watch. How it is difficult to prosecute a man who committed heinous crimes, with so many evidences against him is beyond believable.

    1. Liberian Pekin….

      I think your questions are good, but the blood diamond or rough diamond aspect of this case is relevant. Remember, the prosecution is saying that Taylor exchanged rough diamonds for guns which were used to commit crimes in SL. For this, Taylor denied ever having possession of uncut diamonds. Earlier the prosecution argued that CT went to South Africa during this time also to negotiate arms for the RUF. According to the prosecution, it was about the same time or shortly thereafter that a shipment of arms were discovered coming to the region. So, they say it’s no coincidence that these events occurred about the same time CT was there.

      Anyhow, the test of the stones will reveal their origin.

      1. Charles,
        My question is that, is it only Sierra Leone that have diamonds? Does Liberia, Guinea or the Ivory Coast have diamonds? Let us not forget that Liberia have diamonds as well as Sierra Leone! I think the prosecution should show us the Billions of dollars they claim Mr. Taylor got from Sierra Leonean diamonds!

        1. Jocone,
          These people got notthing to show; My worry right now is whether Charles Taylors life will be safe until the end of the trial. Cuz, they know, they’ve failed; what is their plan BBB…

        2. Jocone,
          No one denies that Liberia, and Guinea also has diamonds…..Taylor says that he never was in possession of rough diamonds. If he had said, I had diamonds, but they were mined in Liberia….well then, its might be different.

      2. Charles,
        Mr.Taylor never said he had no diamonds, instead, he said he didn’t get diamonds from Sierra Leone and or exchanged guns for rough diamonds in Sierra Leone! The prosecution claimed that Mr. Taylor supplied weapons to the RUF during the 15 years civil war in Sierra Leone. But what they ( the prosecution) failed to investigate is that from 1992, Mr. Taylor and the NPFL didn’t control western Liberia up to the border of Guinea and Liberia.
        Instead, ULIMO was in controlled of the Sierra Leonean border with Liberia. So how was RUF getting weapons to continued fighting in Sierra Leone until August of 1997 at which time Mr. Taylor became president of Liberia? Remember what the SALUTE report of Sam Bockarie to Mr. Sankor said. In that report, he Bockarie told Sankor how he was able to get weapons supplies for the RUF while Mr. Sankor was in Jail in Nigeria!
        At no point or any where in that report Mr. Taylor was name as one of those who supplied the RUF with arms while Mr. Sankor was in Jail. Another point is that, if the prosecution knew for sure that Mr. Taylopr was the one who was supplying the RUF with weapons through out the war in Sierra Leone, they could have had Issa Sesay or some of the ECOWAST head of States who were involved with the peace process in Sierra Leone testifying for them instead they choose not to do so. In this case, what does tell us?
        In as much as I hited Taylor, this case against him is a joke and it’s no Justice at all but playing on the suffering of both Liberians and Sierra Leoneans!

      3. Charles,
        The charles Taylor that I know and see standing in that court room , knows and knows better; I tell you for fact, if CT had decided to take any stone on that trip for such a reason as giving a gift to a lady like Naomi Campbell, or for any purpose as such; those stones were going to be clean ones…Charles Taylor is not a cheap or a dirty man to be taking pieces of filty stones arround.. I am talking about GHANKAY..

  3. It was hilarious when Justice Lussik asked Mia Farrow if she might be getting ” The huge diamond mixed up with what she might have seen in the movie Blood Diamonds “

  4. Can somebody help me with this:
    1. Since Carole White said “Naomi leaned back” and “Charles Taylor leaned forward” to inform Carole White that Charles Taylor has promised to send two men to give Naomi diamonds, and also claimed that she and Naomi Campbell were expecting those two men that night why was it that she was “afraid” to open the door and welcome them?

    2. What was the nature of the discusssion they had with those men during the time the men were enjoying their bottle of coke? (At least this will give an indication of who they were)

    3. If those men were total stangers in the presidential Palace how did it happen that they were able to locate Carole White’s window in the middle of the night in order to throw stones at it instead 0f looking for Naomi’s window which was just two doors away?

  5. Again, what’s more to be said……Ms Farrow cannot remember dates plus TWISTING others words to fit her mood….then comes Ms. White…..lying thru her teeth. I asked this questions and Perry Mason must have been reading…..with the grounds of Mr. Mandela so SECURE, how can STRANGERS just walk on there???

  6. Who will tell me or bloggers on this case that the testimonies of both Ms Farrow and Ms White would be a suprise? I guess both the Charles Taylors’ supporters and anti-Taylor group will agree with me that the testimonies of the three people including Ms Cambell herself seems going the either way. But what I want to say here is that both Ms Farrow and Ms White have all made their stories. While it is true that all of them were together when the so-called HUGE diamond and or diamonds story came about in South Africa, the recollection after 13 years seems far from the truth. Mr Farrow apperance on the stands instantly could tell you that she was going to lie and has said nothing to the court but lies. What do people go to court anyway? is to establish facts from lies. why if the testimonies becomes contradictory like in this case? As for Ms White, from the first day of the defence council cross examination, one can tell that she is not credible at all in whatever she is doing. You see many of these people collect people money in the name of going to serve humanity, but instead they go their with different motives. this is in the case of Carole White whom motives was highly political. Why on earth someone like her should determain as to who can make a good president and who canoot make a good president in Africa. From her own testimonies, she has hanged herself with her own rope. What has she done since her own government officials were found of big corruption over the expenses claim? What has Carole White done so far when Northern Rock collapesed due to corrupt practices in the UK? what has she done when Wall Stree caused the World to come to an economic stand still? She sits there tell the court and the world that African leaders including the Sudenese President and former Liberian Presiden Charles Taylor are corrupt. I await to see her answering questions about the cut and paste thing on her so-called blog. I been her blog twice long since before her testimonies and thought that everything that was there in truth, but now that I know, I regret it so much visiting her blog. Is this what the proscution actually wanted to hear? Sorry, but I don’t get it.

  7. Alpha Sesay, will it be right to say that both prosecutor witnesses contradicts themselves and not Ms Campbell?
    Will it also be right to asked that you to PLEASE give truthful account of what is discussed in the court room.
    In Sweden the case starts @ 9:30 am which is 9:00am in the Hague. Liberians and Sierra Leoneans watched the programs live, and for the fun of it we get together and read your account every morning before the court room start.
    We also know that most African do what they do, good or bad for international recognitions.

  8. African brothers and sisters,
    I hope this case is showing you that instruments are in place to stop African moving and dealing in diamond,one of our main resources.

    They took the opportunity to control our dealings in uncut diamonds because of the wars.We should be mindful and clear about the fact that the wars in Sierra Leone & Liberia did not started because of the diamonds.As the evident from the trial shows the rebels used different means to purchase weapons,including funds from Libya,Ivory Coast,Bukina Faso ,sale of agriculture produce and they obviously took the opportunity to exploit the diamond mines which is usually lease to foreigners…..It beggars belief how you can rent out your treasure hole to someone for a near fix fee….this level of stupidity is mind buggling.

    The gods will never make anybody with such instinct to be stupid prosper.you should see how these government ministers beg foreingners to come and exploit them,Instead of trying to institutionalise the diamond industry and master the art of polishing diamond.

    So the predetors have spotted the weakness and are moving to ban us from dealing in diamond without their permisision.


    This is a shame to the human spirit, “well liberia and sierra leone spirit”


    1. Cee, Just for the record if you did not read my posting earlier:On August 10, 2010 at 1:50 am, J. fallah menjor said: Is this a tale told by an idiot full of sorrow and horror, signifying nothing, Mr. CEE? The present leadership of Liberia is very credible and accepted in International Body, and that is why The WORLD BANK cleared your debts. Do you read other news sources? Hope you do and stop all this disrespectful claims about your leaders, and turn around to mock your African System, that you feel is superior to the Whiteman system that you crave! Is this why Taylor’s vision was about? Come on Cee, these are inflamatory remarks that get me to believe that these are the types of mentality that has kept Africa from developing! You seem to hate the whiteman ways but yet depend on him shamefully and talk about justice and democracy that you know nothing about much more to promote its establishment in your African society. Proof is that if you believe Taylor promoted justice on his country African Brothers in both Sierra Leone and Liberia by waging wars and terror, then you should not be taken seriously by any peace loving individuals! Please remain on your senless arguement about taylor’s innocence and stop picking fight with whiteman who you sold your own brothers to in the 16th Century and now in the 21th century for few pieces of diamons! Say what ever you wish to say but this is my position and I will tell you more news if you keep on this cause, Cee, and to anybody else that wants some hard facts! Jfallahmenjor is back and well

  9. What a day!!!!, it was pretty obvious what a liar Carole White was. Mr Courtney Griffiths QC was methodical is tearing apart her pack of lies. And the presiding judge’s last questions to Carole White obviously says it all. it will take a complete dumb to believe even a shred of the cock and Bull story Carole white travelled from London to the hague to tell this honourable court. What a waste of valuable court time.

    1. With all due respect Sam, if anyone is a liar it is Naomi Campbell. Yes, Carol White may have some sort of an agenda, but equally, so does Naomi Campbell, and that clearly is for showing both of themselves to the media in advance of the breach of contract trial.

      But to me, Whites version is much more plausible. Campbell did herself no favours by indicating the inconvenience factor at having to appear at the Tribunal. It is trite that Campbell has a reputation for treating people with disrespect, and I’m sure that she treated White, her agent of some fifteen years, the same way. If anything, White should be given her £600k by Campbell, if only as a consolation for enduring the torture she must have been put through by being Campbell’s agent. Oops someone just threw a cellphone at my head.

      Back to the case. Griffiths, on his first day of cross examination of Campbell, came across to me as a hugely talented lawyer, filled with gravitas, eloquence and legal skills, and to be honest, quite entertaining. After watching him deal with White, I reversed everything I thought about the man. No doubt his big head, which the man does possess, got even bigger through the media exposure he clearly received, and this must have got the better of him, because his cross examination of White was amateurish and childish to the degree of “Daddy says you’re lying”; “No daddy, I’m not”.

      I practiced law for ten years in South Africa, and I must say that Griffiths, in dealing with White, reminded me of a lawyer in typical proceedings in a low grade Magistrates’ Court Criminal Trial. Even the manner in which he put it to White that there were no cellphones in Liberia in 1997, was the most ludicrous thing for him to have done, and I’m sure it resulted from his genius genocidal client telling him:

      “Tell dat white, White woo maan dat der waz no cell loo la fons in Liberia in 1997”, but for God sakes, why even listen to such crappy instructions from your client. Griffiths knows better than that. No doubt a case of a really, really big fish client here for Griffiths. White fended off Griffiths’s blows like a ninja and Griffiths, in getting more and more upset, tried to use atomic bombs to kill ants, but sorely lost.

      It’s an intersting story nonetheless: supermodel meets warlord meets american crusader meets tough as nails manager all under one roof with madiba and other illustrious guests. Why wasn’t I invited? I could’ve given Campbell a few pebbles from the outside garden if only to get a glimpse of her in her nightgown covered by a cashmere jersey.

      But who gives a damn. Griffiths gets his cash. Naomi gets her limelight. White shouldn’t have such bright lights bear down on her and Farrow can champion her altruistic cause in nailing another scumbag.

      Where does this all leave Liberia and Sierra Leone? No where I suppose. But at least Americans now know the names of two other countries outside of Omaha.

      Over and out.

  10. Yet again that arrogant yet incompetent defence lawyer made a fool of himself and his case. He badly lost his way and got tongue-tied during this second day of cross-examination of Carol White, having to resort to calling her a liar rather than proving it, on more than one occasion.

    If the defence really wanted to know if Naomi Campbell had phone/text communication with someone on the night in question, they would have sequestered her telephone call records. Maybe the prosecution team could do this? Also, if he believes Naomi Campbell (now there’s an oxymoron) that she had the two big black guys knock on her bedroom door in the middle of the night, it makes his protestations about the compound being a high security area a little weak, to say the least.

    I would like to congratulate Carol White for biting her tongue on those occasions when defence counsel repeatedly asked her stupid questions…I’m not sure I could have held back from making comment the way she did; although she does have a good arsenal of facial expressions!

    1. James
      Be responsible and respectful the defence lawyer is only doing his job. It’s a shame that some guys will meet a woman and half an hour time give her everything in your wallet.
      Mr Taylor is not a squire, he’s a grow na man. And grow na men, own something before they give something or anything.

    2. James,

      You seem to be 1 in a million to think Ms.White did a good Job after watching the trial. As Griffiths says it best, maybe the millions of us that thoughts otherwise after watching are Clinically Insane or perhaps the other way around. Go Figure!!!

    3. James,
      Whose witnesses were Naomi Campbell, Carole White and Mia Farrow? Is it the fubnction of the defence to prove its INNOCENCE? Common Man the defence did their job – Cast doubt on the prosecution evidence – which was excactly what they did. it is not their duty to prove anything, they only need to deny and cast doubt.

  11. My people there is no justice in this world, if there was justice the people that are judging Taylor would be judged first, when will this end in Africa mickey mouse justice by the so super power who can be judged. Taylor will not get just trail because he is not the one that sponsor the war in WEST Africa, those who committed the crimes want to judging him, so how can he get justice If you disagreed with me , who bought the blood diamond, where they not aware of what they were doing? I tell is the blood diamond that building America, Canada and the EUROPEAN economics, you know it I know it They know it,Why they can’t they return the diamonds to the people of sierre Leone and Liberia who is the victim of situation. Let look at root cause of this war, where did Taylor came from who sent him, the answer is America, he ran from Liberia for corruption to the US, and according to the US government he was in jail in the US, they refused to sent him to Liberia to answer to those charges. But he was sent to kill us, is that justice? Infact White is sent to lie by the same people including her group . GUS in Holland with Liberia people money, in EUROPEAN BANKS.please if you can’t judge these people please leave TAYLOR ALONE. I will take Holland to court for not getting the Liberia people money return to them.

  12. Just for the records, if the accounts of these witnesses(Mia Farrow and Carol White) are thrown out by the judges, what will happen to Mr Charles Taylor knowing fully well that a former RUF leader who is presently serving a 54 year jail in Rwanda for war crimes charges did witness at this same court and exonerated Taylor of any wrongdoing and that he did NOT supply any arms and ammunitions.

    1. Wale,
      the prosecution will be back to square zero. they call these new evidence because they thought that their evidence was not enough to get a conviction ans sincerely HOPED that Naomi Campbell’s testimony will help them to prove their case but that dis not happen!

  13. On today Tuesday August 10th even I started to feel embarrassed for Carol White when Courtenay Griffiths was grilling her on cross examination. She was a totally discredited witness that not even Fallah Menjor or Ziggy Silas could defend with a straight face. Where has been Msteage been have not heard from her since the testimony of these three witnesses begun ?

      1. Teage,

        You had all of those in the past and you were still writing, why Now. We all have the same, plus much much more, That’s NO EXcuse!!!

        1. Grebo,
          I clearly owe you no explanation, I comment as I choose if I choose to stop commenting for whatever reason is my porcative. You know nothing about my schedule, so I don’t need to make an ‘excuse’ dear. Now you stand corrected. But just incase you really wanted to know my opinion while I was away for my brothers wedding read below.

      2. Did you watch the testimonies of the ’97 THREE Ms. Teage??? I know you did, so please tell us your take.

  14. Boy, Boy, Boy..If this testimony and detailed account surrounding the night the diamonds were delivered does not sound credible enough to taylor die-hard followers and associates, then nothing else will. However, it doen’t matter what arguements they may bring forward, the damage is done to taylor! It is sad that nearly anyone that seems to have associated with taylor, even for a brief moment, becomes DISHONEST and no truth matters there after! Why has this seem to be a pattern surrounding this Accused Man? This must be a “conspiracy,” as the die-hard associates are going to scream in more anger than logical thinking! But the truth is that whether Naomi remembered the sizes of the diamonds, nor Ms Whites accounts on how many dirty stones were in the pouch, or Mia’s detailed account of what Naomi said,it has been established that DIAMONDS were involved and that they, most likly, came from the ‘flanboyan flirter and arrogant” taylor, as alleged by the prosecution all along! No one else, my people! Taylor is your suspect and not any Whiteman Conpiracy Theory!

    1. Fallah, what is your definition of ‘honesty’? That strange men can walk into a presidential residence at 1 am? You’ve got some work to do on your mind mate!

    2. Fallah,
      The diamonds “most likely came from the flamboyant flirter and arrogant Taylor”? where did you get they Idea from? please read the Transcript of Carole Whites Cross examination and Mia Farrow’s cross examination if you dont change your mind after reading those transcripts, then your mind must be made of concrete.

    3. Fallah,
      I will join you and say…..SOMETHING IS MISSING IN ALL THE TESTIMONIES!!!! But the fact that the prosecutors brought in all THREE to come to court make them(the prosecutors) look silly is the story. For the first time in this case, the WHOLE WORLD got to watch and the end result…..SHAKING OF THEIR HEADS in ONE MOTION was telling.

      Really, what I gathered from that fiasco, the prosecutors DID NOT again do their homework….RUSH TO JUDGEMENT without knowing the facts. Why couldn’t they just go over the notes of Ms Farrow and Ms White to make sure atleast those two ladies were on the same wave lines?? That simple test would have given them TRUTH to the mess of ’97 instead, those two were contradicting each other…..their STAR WITNESSES…

      A DISGRACEFUL DISGRACE to say the least.

  15. these ladies (carol and Farrow )are far to be credible. both of them have reasons to lie. this is a westerners’ cabale. why don’t they call compoare, their man? because compaore who was their front man for the dirty work in Liberia, sierra leone and cote d’ivoire is still working for them. why did they decide to judge Taylor in europe for crimes he committed in africa? why don’t they put on trial taylor for the crimes he committed in Liberia. they can’t because these people, the american puppet who is ruling liberia today is involved. the whole would have known the role of the bushes, cia and co, Chirac and all these so-called good people.

  16. Hear Ye, Hear Ye…

    Ok, I have read most of the arguments thus far regarding the testimony of Farrow and White and compared them to that of Ms Campbell. I think everyone in the forum makes some compelling points. I personally think Ms. Campbell testimony was at best disingenuous. It’s obvious that she didn’t want to be involved and reluctantly appeared therefore her testimony crippled the prosecution and emboldened the defense. I think she deliberately omitted and was coached well to leave lots of vagueness with more questions about that night.

    For their part, White and Farrow testimonies have some consistencies, but have levels of inconsistencies also. Farrow says, a “hugh diamond” according to what she was told by Campbell, when the stones were “small” confirmed by both White and Campbell. Is it possible that Ms. Campbell said that it was a large one, “absolutely”! Why, one may ask? Simple, to create a higher level of importance. Remember, this lady is a “diva” and requires lots of attention and at times she has successfully gotten it too, example her many court trial for temper. I think the prosecution might have to pull in two new witness Mr. Radcliff and Farrow’s oldest son.

    And Ms. White does have a motive, but was that part of the reason she took the stand? Possibly! whatever the reason is her and Ms. Campbell’s accounts have severe divergence. There were also consistency in all three ladies testimonies.

    So who or what will speak the truth? The diamonds will tell you who is the liar. The data that determines the stones origination will give a bit more and the line can then be drawn.

    1. Charles,

      I enjoy your insights as you tend to bring an objective analysis to the debate. While I agree with you that all 3 witnesses have some inconsistencies in their testimony, I really don’t see where the prosecution goes from here. My view of the 3 witnesses testimonies are as follows:

      1) Ms. Campbell was vague and i’m don’t believe all of her testimony although I can’t point to where she might be lying

      2) Mia Farrow is the odd man out in this saga because she didn’t see these events herself and is only going off on her recollection of what she claims Ms. Campbell told her. Her testimony is at be inconsequential given the hear say factor and the fact that we no know there was no “huge diamond”

      3) Of these 3 Ms. White in my view was proven to be the least credible and quite frankly I agree with the defense that she’s a liar in this instance.

      No where does that leave both the prosecution and defense? One would think that the prosecution would’ve subpeona Mr. Ratcliffe in the first instance, Why didn’t they and is it too late to do that? Even if he was subpeona, his testimony will be very much like Mia Farrow in the sense that unlike Ms. White and Ms. Campbell, he wasn’t there to witness the actual event.

      Furthermore, to your point about the testing of the origin of the diamonds, From my understand that is not yet scientifically possible and even if it we’re I can assure you the defense would attempt to drag this thing out by questioning the science etc.

      In closing, i’m afraid Charles that this sequence of events has come to a dead end and the prosection may have put the nail in the coffin of this case. I say that for several reasons, with all of the hype and drama surrounding these 3 testimonies, the judges like us all was expecting clear linkage. I’m sure you would agree that whether these diamonds came from S.L. or not, the question remains who were these men and how did they enter the presidential compound in South Africa. This sir is what the prosecution should be focusing on.

      Overall good points raised in your writing.

      1. Mas,
        Nice post! In regards to the diamond telling the real story, correction, the process of testing it’s origin is scientific. While all diamonds are made out of carbon, soil composition differ geographically and that’s where the scientific evidence come from. You are probably saying, but the soil composition in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea are the same, it probably is, but then there could be variations, which could be due to the chemical composition caused by the interaction of various chemical elements along with environmental factor. For example, Guinea has bauxite and alumina and Liberia does not, so as chemicals decompose, it filters in the soil….so the soil composition may differ. Anyhow, I enjoyed your analysis….keep it up.

        1. Charles,
          I do not know if you followed Carole Whites testimony to the end but towards the end of re-examination, Ms Hollis attempted to argue that those men were not Liberians infact she left their nationalities open ended she only claimed they were black african men. So if they were sent by Charles Taylor were they Liberians? or He simply hired two black african men to break into South African Presidential compound and throw stones at the window of Carole white after the men had been in contact with Naomi by text message all through their journey?

  17. By the river of Babylon; where he sat down, and there he went, when he remember Zion. for the wicked carry us captivity required of us a song; how can we sing the lord’s song in the strange land. I think this is the beginning of the end of the long night of captivity for Charlie – with liers contradicting themselves, and the western media keeps publicizing their lies!

    The puzzling thing about this trial is that when key witnesses come up and testified about facts that totally vindicate President Taylor, western media ignored it! How many times have we seen the BBC and CNN carry the headlines: “Sierra Leonians Rebel Leader Vindicate taylor”, etc? The framers of this Neo Colonial cum western hypocricy think we are still fools in Africa. we know the difference between “quilty in the court of public opinions” and “quilty in the court of laws”.

    We are watching and waiting for that day when Charlie will be exonerated in the court of law ,walk out as a freed man, and take a flight to back to mother Africa – when “operations million men welcome” will be lunched to welcome him back to where he belongs, which will be one of the greatest victory for Africa since Nkrumah defected the British in 1957, and spend the rest of is life with his people in the country he so loveth. THAT DAY IS NEAR! I still have a faith and hope. Therefore, let the words of our mouth and the meditations of our hearts be accepted in thy sight, on our lord………..this is about good and evil, and as always, good will win over evil. Noko 4……..you stop giving scores……..pls score this one!

    1. Crown,
      No need….mostly after those three witnesses….who in a FAIR MIND will say the prosecutors gain?? Whatever hope or HAIL MARY pass from GOD sailed over their head…..the game is OVER and if I had a back door the prosecutors…we STRIKE A DEAL to save face.

  18. I believe that Naomi and Charles Taylor had other relationship more intimate than the blood diamond issue. Charles Taylor I know to be a man that will want to go to bed with women . he must have used those diamonds to lure Naomi for bed arrangement. Noami is not honest but the blood of innocent Sierra Leoneans that were killed during the gruesome war will ever remain to haunt him. God will cast her out of His people. She will die pauper.

  19. Alpha,
    What I find rahter puzzling is the damage the prosecution seems to be doing to its own case. Why call witnesses that are contradicting each other. Why call Naomi as a witness when it was clear from her transcipts and pre trial interviews that her evidence would not assist the prosecution as far as establishing whether Charles Taylor dealt in dimaonds or not.

    I would have thought that unless a witness is declared a hostile witness, it is not safe to call other witnesses to contradict such a witness. Why would a court have to go throught the task of picking and choosing which of the prosecution’s witnessess’ contradictory evidence it should rely on?

    Will someone please tell me what the prosecution is trying to achieve.

    1. Peter,
      They fell Ms. Farrow and Ms. White were going to STOP THE BLEEDING but they opened the wound wider and deeper. Thanks to Perry Mason and his crew…they came PREPARED!!!

  20. I have been following this case as closely as possible and will admit it has not been easy. I live in a time zone that is 7 hours behind The Hague, in the Netherlands; In order to view the live steams I must be awake at 2:30 A.M. Transcripts are not current enough to view and comment in a timely fashion with this blog. However, I was able today to gather some information I think is important to the defense.

    On Google today August 10, 2010, there is an article posted on guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010, concerning white’s attorney daniel bright confessing that; “Urging his client to appear in Taylor’s trial, Bright said, had been a “moral issue” as his grandfather had died in Auschwitz and his mother was a Holocaust survivor. He had felt so strongly about her appearance, he told journalists, that he would even have considered severing his professional relationship with White had she refused to testify.”

    The link is, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/naomi-campbell-agent-lies-trial

    This is considered to be Witness Tampering;

    •Witness tampering is harming or otherwise threatening a witness, hoping to influence his or her testimony.

    •Talking to a witness, hoping for them to lie, or change their opinion, about what really happened

    As you remember, Mr. Taylor’s Lead Counsel Courtenay Griffiths had questioned white as to what was the extent of bright’s counsel to her, and she refused to admit that bright had pressured her to testify. This perhaps certifies white’s inconsistencies since the objective of her testimony was to please someone not directly connected with this case. Someone who apparently is operating under a new assumption: Guilty until proven innocent. The defense should be asking the court to bring this individual before it to face the charge of witness tampering; since he has incriminated himself.

    I understand that the outcome of this case is dependent upon the Judges final decision, but the evidence I have seen does not link Mr. Taylor to diamonds in South Africa. The only witness (white) to claim they saw Ms. Campbell with Mr. Taylor during the event, admits any reference of diamonds from Mr. Taylor is factually none-existent. According to white, farrow was sited at the same table with Ms. Campbell and Mr. Taylor, but farrow could not remember seeing Ms. Campbell or Mr. Taylor at her table in spite of the alleged precaution from Mr. Mandela’s partner Graca Machel; not to be photographed with fellow guest Mr. Charles Taylor, the then leader of Liberia.

    This inconsistent selective memory on the part of prosecution witnesses forms the opinion that Mr. Taylor was not at Mr. Mandela’s event offering diamonds to anyone, including, but not limited to, Ms. Campbell.

    What this course of events in August 2010, has proven; Mr. Taylor is not guilty of the charge(s) relating to his trip to South Africa to purchase war supplies with diamond.

  21. sam,
    Carole White testimony seems factual and very logical.
    One of the signposts of a made up story is its unfathomability and grandiosity, which are completely lacking in Carole White’s testimony.
    Yes, I can help you with answers to you questions.
    You asked, ” Since Carole White said “Naomi leaned back” and “Charles Taylor leaned forward” to inform Carole White that Charles Taylor has promised to send two men to give Naomi diamonds, and also claimed that she and Naomi Campbell were expecting those two men that night why was it that she was “afraid” to open the door and welcome them?”
    Fear is natural, especially in a country with the highest crime rate, when strange men visit you at night. Charles Taylor is no Jesus Christ or God for his promise or word to be taken as the gospel or believe that he will send angel at midnight. Also, considering the impression about Taylor already created by Gracia Michel, it is just normal for Carole White to be cautious.

    You also asked ” What was the nature of the discusssion they had with those men during the time the men were enjoying their bottle of coke? (At least this will give an indication of who they were).”
    It really depend on the length of time spent, the mood of the ladies and the status of the two men. What meaningful discussion can a supermodel and her agent have with mere bodyguards especially at the late hours when the ladies would have been sleepy? If Carole White wanted to lie Taylor, she would have created a conversations that would associate those men with Taylor.
    You asked’ If those men were total stangers in the presidential Palace how did it happen that they were able to locate Carole White’s window in the middle of the night in order to throw stones at it instead 0f looking for Naomi’s window which was just two doors away?”
    Carole White didn’t say those men were strangers in the Palace. She said those men were strangers to her. Strangers to her can in no way translates to strangers in the palace unless you want us to believe that Carole White ought to know everyone who comes and go from the Palace.
    Nobody who know the function of an agent to a superstar or supermodel will ask why the strange men didn’t go directly to Naomi Campbell. Bodyguards or messengers don’t go directly to a superstar or a very prominent person. Of course these ladies room had addresses can would be easily obtained.
    A possible scenario is this: Naomi would have given the address of Carole White’s room to the person she was communicating with and requested that the men first meet her agent for surety and security sakes.

    1. Morris,
      So the rest of the world that watched were BLIND??? How can you with a STRAIGHT FACE even try to put a LOGIC behind such??

    2. Morris Kanneh,
      Carol White testimony seems no more truthful and rational then your posted comment.
      If Ms. Campbell and Mr. Taylor was carrying on the way Carol White said at the Dinner table at this small gathering, then others guest there would have seen this and frankly I do not think Mr. Mandela would have allow such behavior.

      Mia Farrow was so brainwash by Koumjian, she could not remember the age of her children who she mentions a hundred times. Farrow could not remember where she was setting to Mr. Mandela who invited her as a special guest to South Africa and his home for dinner nor could she remember if this dinner was a large, medium or small gathering. The only thing Farrow remembers about the trip was that at breakfast Ms. Campbell told her and other she received a “huge diamond” from Mr. Taylor. Farrow claim she remember that clearly because it was an unforgettable moment a moment she stated she have forgotten until Koumjian contacted her 13years later. I would think the unforgettable moment would be meeting and having dinner with an African President. Morris Kanneh there is something wrong with the picture Farrow has lay out.

    3. Morris Kanneh,
      Having watched the conclusion of Carole White;s testimony do you still hold these views you expressed in answer to my questions?

      On the FIRST POINT Carole White testified that she and Naomi were EXPECTING the men. Infact they had rushed downstirs twice in vain thinking that those men has arrived. SO their eventual arrival need to come as a suprise to her. Since she did not even border to ask them who they were because she already knew they were from Taylor, why the fear? Also their accommodation was not in an hotel it was in the SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENTIAL COMPOUND. the premises with the highest security in South Africa so the fear honestly is misplaced.

      On the SECOND POINT Carole White did not say those men were “mere bodyguards infact during re-examination Ms Hollis got Carole White to deny that she said those men were LIBERIANS so whose body guards were they? Carole White also testified that she and Naomi sat down with those men for about 20 minutes while the men were taking the coca cola she offered them. When asked what they were discussing in that meeting she said Naomi only thanked the men but that did not discuss anything about who the men were and where they come from. You cannot honestly tell me that the same men Carole White was afraid to open the doors for are the same men she invites into the house and gave coca cola to but yet she did not ask them who they were and where they came from?

      on the THIRD POINT: So who were those men? remember she did not say they were staff of the presidential palace infact in her evidence in chief she said she knew that those men have been dispatched by the Liberian defence minister even before the end of the dinner to go to johanesburg and bring the diamonds. and that after the dinner in a discussion between her and Naomi and the defence minister they concluded plans to deliver the diamonds to Naomi. and that when she and Naomi got the lodge they were in expectation of the men. Now if those men now are no longer Charles Taylor’s body guards, who were they? were they South African presidential guards? well there is no evidence of that on the record before the court . infact that is not the prosecution case. and it is of no use at this stage in the case.

      Finally, bear in mind that Carole white eventually admitted that contrary to her statement and interview notes to the prosecution, she did not actually hear Charles Taylor tell Naomi Campbell that he is going to give her diamonds. She also Admitted that those men who came to deliver the diamonds did not say they were from Charles Taylor. (I can post the relevant parts of the transcript if you want).

  22. J. fallah menjor,
    In order to be a valid scientific theory there must be some way that an observation or experiment could prove it to be false. A theory that can’t be falsify is a useless theory and it is simply a testament of faith being masqueraded as fact. An example is the theory about Entropy which says things leave from order to disorder. According to the theory of Entropy, a person can only get older. Nobody can get younger with age. That is time flows only in the forward direction. Now, the falsifiability of this theory is that the theory should is wrong and should be discarded if you find anyone who grow young.
    In other words, please don’t waste your time debating issues with people who have already set up a theory that can’t be falsified in anyway. For them, there is just no way Taylor can be found guilt. If testimony is made to the contradict their theory, that testimony is made out of bribery or Western influence. If evidence are produced to contradict their theory, such evidence is fake or manipulated by the West. For instance, if Naomi Campbell would have testified that Taylor gave her diamond(S), these hard-core supporters of Taylor would have claimed that she has either been bribed or she was being used by the West. If the diamond ( s) is forensically found to originate from Sierra Leone, these pro-Taylor will claim that either the analysis is fake or the diamond (s) has been switched.
    The mannerism of Taylor’s arrogance and incompetent leading counsel is the signal that justice will soon be served. Let him keep shouting and making fool of himself.

  23. Campbells testimony are all lies and she cannot be trusted. Even before farrow spoke it was obvious that Campbell was lying. From the beginning even before Farrow was brought to court to testify, Farrow stated that Campbell told her that Taylor gave her (Campbell a diamond). Campbell expects us to believe that two total strangers brough her a pouch with an unknown substance, she did not know who it was from whether it was something good or bad, she just laid it on her dresser, what if it was drugs, what if it was a bomb, or something else that could put Campbell in a precarious situation? I am not a celebrity and if I was in the situation staying at a house full of international guess, I will atleast look and see what was,especially not being aware of the sender. She has told too many stories, she is trying not to get herself into this situation but she did when she execpted those diamonds from, not total strangers, but messenger of Taylor. Mia Farrow story has not changed since she first stated that her friend Campbell received diamonds from Taylor, yet Campbell has denied the allegations of receiving diamonds. confirmed it finally and then omitted Taylor. Who else could have given her those stones, but Taylor. Mia Farrow story is consistent, Campbell story has changed atleast twice so how is Farrow lying and Campbell being truthful seriously explain.
    Somebody said she is lying because she doesn’t remember dates, I am very young this year in Liberia I wanted to get a copy of my birth cert. as I had gotten one in 08…i could not remember the date specifically and it was only two years ago..so how about 13 yrs. Give me a break! The only reason why yall say the two other people are lying is because their testimony indicates Taylor as a participant of the whole blood diamond scene. What are the odds of Taylor being at Nelson Mandela’s house, and blood diamonds some how showing up in the mix. Make this what you want but the truth is clear.
    I will agree that Campbell cannot be trusted as a witness though.

      1. Cen,

        It makes no use to debate with people whether pro-taylor or anti-taylor who’s mind is clouded beyond repair. My advise to you is to not even bother wasting your time responding to other people’s opinion. There are those of us who try to be objective and there are those who are clearly bringing zero logical reasoning to the debate but instead chose to spout emotional venom even if the truth’s stearing them in the face. I sometimes wonder if these people are the watching the same trial I am.

  24. So why did Mia Farrow not see Taylor and Naomi flirting at the dinner table as alleged by the lair Ms. Carole White? Carole White has lost all credibility , she is nothing but a gold digger.

  25. I think it is vital for the prosecution to prove which country the diamond originated from, because the Niamo Cambell linkage is shaky. In my opinion, all they have proven was that rough diamonds (from one of many diamond mining countries) were given to Niamo Cambell by two unknown assailants. There’s no proof that the diamond are even associated with SL. If the prosecution can establish that the diamonds are from SL, then the Niamo Cambell linkage would make more since.

    1. Al-Solo Nyonteh
      If it was proving that, those diamonds came from Sierra Leone that does not prove that Mr. Taylor sent them to Ms. Campbell. The prosecution has to prove that Mr. Taylor sent her those diamonds not Ms Campbell.

      1. Ken

        Lets overlook the fact that Carole White testified that she overheard Naomi Campbell say Mr. Taylor would send his men to give Naomi Campbell some diamonds. If we just look at Naomi Campbell testimony, suggesting who give her the diamond plus verification of where the diamonds originated from equals border line sufficient burden of proof to point the finger at Mr. Taylor. If the prosecution can verify that the diamonds given to Naomi Campbell where conflict diamond, it proves someone in South Africa (during the time of Naomi Campbell visit) had access to conflict diamonds. With Carole White testimony in mind the prosecution provided sufficient burden of proof to point the finger at Mr. Taylor. Additional, the prosecution indicated that the discrepancy in Naomi Campbell testimony was due to her fear of Mr. Taylor. In my opinion the defense only succeeded at assassinating Carole White character but failed to add reasonable doubt.

        My question is (if Carole White testimony is true) , What did Naomi Campbell do with the other diamonds that did not make it to Jeremy Ractcliffe. I just don’t buy the whole fear for her family act, it’s more like fear of self incrimination.

        1. Al-Solo Nyonteh,
          First, I total believe that Carol White is a liar. I truly believe she made the whole thing up about her direct part in this diamonds issues. I believe she knew nothing about those diamonds until Ms. Campbell told White and Farrow at breakfast at the same time.

          Secondly, what is your definition of “conflict diamonds?”

          Thirdly, the prosecution is done with verifying or proven anything about those diamonds. Their case is close again and the judges will not allow them to reopen it base on that same evidence. They should have research and reopen the case at the end of the defenses case.

    2. Those diamond can not be accepted in the court of law,cause who u expect to believe it is the seem diamonds,and the whole story is they say.show picture,voice recording,or video,that Taylor gaving diamonds or order to ruf,or among the rebel in SierraLonne,Taylor is only guilty of Liberia war,but SierraLonne war no cause there is no evidence.even the SierraLonne rebel leader say Taylor and him only talk about peace,so tell me how a man already in jail for 54years for a crime lie.

      1. bruko

        Tampered evidence is a great arguments but thus far the judges has been very released on accepting evidence. Mr. Sesay is a convicted co-defendant that is still claiming his innocents, this alone gives him all the reasons to manipulate the truth. Mr. Sesay was convicted on command responsibility for RUF rebels role in SL, he claimed the atrocities that took place in SL were not official RUF policies. Mr. Taylor is being accused of command responsibility for the atrocities that took place in SL through RUF commanders (such as Mr. Sesay) roles. There is a direct link to the allegation of Mr. Taylor’s case and the crimes Mr. Sesay were convicted of. The truth is Mr. Sesay continues to denied responsibility for the atrocities that took place in SL. Mr. Sesay is not testifying on behalf of Mr. Taylor defense, he is playing the same role that got him convicted (I guess this is Mr. Sesay version of attempting to appeal his case in open court). Mr. Sesay testimony was interrupted to accompany a defense witness testimony, this type of act should enlighten you on the importance of his testimony.

        1. Al-Solo Nyonteh,
          The vast majority of offender and serving there sentences claim they are innocent and do so until proven otherwise but they continue to stay in prison. Sesay testifying for Mr. Taylor is not going to set Sesay free.

  26. Cee,
    LOL now were on my education. I’m not sure what my education has to do with my personal opinion but ummm let’s discuss the issue not law school. Here is a bit of, not law school, but Law school practice homework I’ll give you, this will be my second time giving someone some homework….look up ‘Ad hominem’, and do the opposite of what u read about. Let’s get back to the issue.
    True or false, the only reason Campbell had to testify in the first place is because Ms. Farrow said something about this whole incident? True or false Ms. Farrow story has been the same since she started talking outside of court. True or False Campbell story has changed. How do you logically conclude that Campbell is being truthful or is lying by being a supporter of taylor or not being a supporter of Taylor?
    Campbell wants to distance herself as far from Taylor as possible that is why she has been throwing these tantrums and not denying when asked about the diamonds. If I was accused of receiving such a gift from a madman like Taylor, from the beginning I will categorically deny it, and my further testimonies will suport that. But Campbell lied on the Oprah show of being in possession of such diamonds, smacked a camera man, denied again to another source, but under oath finally says yes but distance herself from Taylor. I don’t blame her she’s heard about Taylors rapp sheet and what he can do so she’s afraid but that is no reason to lie. The only reason I believe Campbell is lying and Farrow isn’t is because from the beginning, Farrow gave up that information without being prompted or forced or coerce…Campbell was a friend of hers why would she make up such a story to lie on a friend about some ‘nobody’ ex president that the West could care less about? Let me guess this was all ‘planting of evidence by the prosecution huh? I 100% believe that Campbell received diamonds from Taylor as Farrow first said and later said in her testimony. She only reiterated in court what she had said before even coming to court.

    1. Msteage,
      How has Naomi’s story changed ? She has always maintained that she did not receive any diamonds from Charles Taylor.

    2. @ Teague
      I c you are not a law student. Now I understand your circular ranting. My dear, education and the lack of is often exploited to bend others to their will or position. Thus, the contention about the diaspora Liberians voting in the next election.
      Only well educated persons coupled with common sense can see both sides of a coin. One must look within if they easily offend to perceptions of personal attacks.
      I was only seeking clarity regarding your education. I thought you made reference before about being in law school. I stand corrected and relieved.

  27. Perhaps the diamonds and/or the ‘paper’ or ‘pouch’ in which they were given, will have finger prints and dna evidence as to who handled the diamonds. Perhaps they will help to trace back exactly who the ‘men in the night’ were who delivered the diamonds to Naomi…

    Naomi stated she ‘feared for her and her family’s safety’ with regards to Taylor. It’s really no wonder she gave such a vague and shaky testament. Perhaps she was threatened or in any case seems to feel threatened. While giving her testimony her eyes and body language clearly revealed fear.

    1. She said on bbc on august 10,which was yesterday that she never lie at the court,and about been fear,she not living in Africa,so who u think will harm her,she not fear,nice try,but Taylor can not harm,for finger print or testing the diamond are u guys dreaming,after 13years u want me believe it the seem diamonds.and finger print,u means the people that got the diamonds hands already touch it,so their finger print erase the two men that gave the diamonds to Campbell.

  28. Ms. Teage,

    For your information, on the ABC news and the Oprah show Naomi Campbell was asked whether she received diamonds from Charles Taylor and not whether she received diamonds in general. This is why she said she did not received diamonds. Please go and check these facts again.

  29. Bruko,

    Naomi clearly stated that she ‘feared for her and her family’s safety’ with regards to Taylor. She said that of her own free will. Like it or not. Her testament was vague and shaky.

    Secondly, dna evidence lasts a long time longer than 13 years. Or do you claim to be an expert? Only time will tell what analysing the stones will reveal.

  30. Ken,

    I have the same question as to what happened to the other 2 or 3 diamonds – if Carole White is telling the truth. Also, if Jeremy Ratcliffe didn’t feel comfortable keeping the diamonds, why didn’t he hand them over to the police sooner? Handing them over to the police wouldn’t have embarrassed the NMCF nor Naomi Campbell – it would’ve been the right thing to do and they would’ve been respected for doing so.

  31. sam ,
    Stop being a comedian. You strongly believe that a supermodel can open her door at the unholy hour of the night to complete strangers and take unknown item into her room without bothering to know its content and the sender but you don’t believe that her agent would a afraid to open door for strangers.
    You must be the biggest joker of our time.

    1. Observes and al solo nyoneth. Do u guys have videos or voice recording with Taylor on itgaving diamond or in SierraLonne with the ruf gaving command,or are u guys relying on they say to find the first living ex president of Liberia guilty,Issey is already guilty,he serving his time in jail,he was the leader of ruf,he said no Taylor hands is not in SierraLonne war,so for now we wait for ur to bring proof,video,picture,voice recording of Taylor in SierraLonne or gaving orders to ruf.I have video,picture and voice recording gaving command to npfl, so I find Taylor guilty of Liberia war, SierraLonne war I find Taylor not guilty,and this please Liberia is also rich with diamonds,and Taylor was president of Liberia had access to Liberia diamonds,he not greedy to leave that and go through a lot for SierraLonne diamonds.we Liberian and African are not stupid.

      1. bruko

        If you saw snow on the ground. Would you need a video recording of snow falling from the sky, to determine that its a strong possibility that snow may have falling from the sky. This is what the prosecution is trying to prove. While the defense team uses similar term (we can’t be sure it was not delivered to that location without having video evidences) like you to add doubt. The prosecution did not catch Mr. Taylor in the act but have established an opportunity (Mr. Taylor was Liaison to RUF) and means (through Samuel Bockarie) to supply the RUF. Mr. Taylor admitted out his own mouth he had a way to receive weapons under the radar of the UN in which he used a secrete bank account to purchase arms to defend his government from rebel forces. Former NPFL fighter were fighting with the RUF during the SL war. The snow is on the ground, so please don’t act like Mr. Taylor don’t have cookie crumbs on his hands because his hands where not caught in the jar. But I have to agree with you, because so far the defense team have done a great job painting the picture that Mr. Taylor involvement with the RUF, were strictly for peaceful purposes. At one point I was furious, I thought they were picking on African leader. But the snow is on the ground and we need to let our emotion go, in order to determine were it came from.

        Of course we are not stupid we are just Gullible. The 1997 Liberian election proved that.

  32. Al solo nyeton, look bro I am from Logan town,so don’t try to tell me what happen,I left Liberia for the usa 2003 after the third war,the 3 war was supported by SierraLonne government,guinea and some white missionary,I say so I am also the victims of charle Taylor,but to be truthful on this earth,Taylor is not responsible for SierraLonne war and there is no evidence,I wait on u to show me evidence.I want Taylor on trail for Liberia war,because I get a lot of evidence and proof,video,voice recording,picture.but I wait for the prosecutor to show me such evidence,African are not fool,we know the man did wroung,but hold him responsible for the real wroung,don’t fake it.

    1. You really want us believe your tall tales bruko? You did not go through what you are claiming, nor do you have any evidence to prove what you are saying so chill brother.I can tell you more about Logan town during charlie days that you wouldn’t imagine! Stay away from this debate if you have nothing to offer just like you think about others not to participate because, according to you, they have nothing to offer!

  33. Bruko,

    There’s no smoke without fire.

    Very important fact: Rough diamonds were given to Naomi as a ‘gift’ on behalf of ‘someone’ the very same night she met none other than Taylor. What an astounding coincidence. (What was Taylor doing in South Africa at that time anyway?)

    Campbell made a big mistake in not handing those diamonds over to the police. Since she calls Mandela her ‘grandfather’ – why didn’t she at least tell him about them? Surely he would have handed them over to investigators.

    Let’s wait and see what the analysis of the stones, reveals.

    (By the way, regarding being ‘not stupid’. There are many, many super bright, intelligent people in Africa. Some use their intelligence in positive ways others use theirs very selfishly and destructively.)

  34. Observes south Africa is a diamonds rich country,know that in the film blood diamonds there where missionary from south Africa in SierraLonne for diamonds.Taylor was president at that time,he was invited to south Africa,he never crash no party,well Campbell diamonds could have come from anybody or be a set up.the women say Taylor never gave her diamonds,it her friend suggested it came from Taylor at the breakfasts table.now my question is do u have picture,video or voice recording to proof to the world that Taylor gave diamonds and Campbell is lying,no there is no proof,no evidence,only they say from two people that can not even proof their they say.

    1. Observer please also know that Liberia is a diamonds rich country also and Taylor was in control of Liberia mineral resources.he was sitting president.because this case is about diamonds,and Taylor had access to his country diamonds.I need evidence please observer not they say.

  35. Observer that Campbell diamonds don’t stand a chance in the court,cause it never came from the police or crime seen,it can not be the seem diamonds that Campbell receive 13years ago.by now a lot of people finger have already touch it.sorry bro no evidence.

  36. AYE!!!!! Bruko;
    I don’t think anyone can ever,ever,ever explain this thing like you have done……Thank you brother..

  37. J fallah,why in the world will u tell me to stay away from the case of othe former president of Liberia,I am a Liberian and for ur information I play high school basketball for st.Edward ,I was born in Logan town and never run from no war,I was in my home,only octopus war took me from Logan town,if u want proof I can show u,but show me video with Taylor in SierraLonne and having gun with diamonds in his hands,please also note that Liberia is a diamonds rich country.you think we stupid as Liberian we want justice but the right one.

    1. My cousin taught at this school you are talking about and confirms there was no one with such name; bruko, in the first place..you are lying bruko..you were no child soldier so chill and stay away, this is an intellectual debate and it’s about taylor’ alleged involvement with the Rag-tag Thugs, calling themselves RUF who taylor allegedly got close to so he could get his hands on the dirty stones called diamonds. This is the simplest explanation I can afford bruko, for laymen understanding.

      1. @ Everyone

        I vote that we all just simply ignore anything that jfallahmenjor posts unless it is the truth and/or makes some sense. Clearly he just wants to incite meaningless exchnages.

Comments are closed.