Naomi Campbell Testifies In The Charles Taylor Trial, Says She Received “Dirty-Looking Stones” From Two Men

Supermodel Naomi Campbell testified today before the Special Court for Sierra Leone judges in The Hague about allegations that she received a gift of blood diamonds from former Liberian President Charles Taylor while they were both present in South Africa in 1997.

Ms. Campbell, who appeared before the court after being subpoenaed by the judges, testified that she was in her room sleeping after attending a star-studded dinner that was hosted by Nelson Mandela when two men knocked on her door and gave her a pouch saying, “a gift for you.”

“When I was sleeping, I had a knock on my door, I opened and two men gave me a pouch and said,  ‘a gift for you’,” Ms. Campbell told the court today.

Ms. Campbell said that she did not know the men, they did not introduce themselves to her, and they did not say who they were.

“I was not sure who they were. When they gave me the pouch, I just put it next to my bed, and I went back to bed,” Ms. Campbell said.

When asked why she did not ask the men who had sent them to deliver the gift, Ms. Campbell said, “I was sleeping, I had travelled for many hours, and I was exhausted.”

“The next morning, I opened the pouch…I saw a few stones in there, and they were very small, dirty-looking stones,” she added.

Ms. Campbell said that at breakfast, she explained the incident to her friends, Hollywood actress Mia Farrow and Ms. Campbell’s former agent Carole White, both of whom are scheduled to testify about the same incident on Monday. When one of these two persons suggested that the diamonds must have been from Mr. Taylor, Ms. Campbell said she also thought the former Liberian president had sent her the gift.

“The next morning, I told Ms. Farrow and Ms. White, and they said it must be Mr. Taylor, and I said I thought [that it] was,” Ms. Campbell testified.

Ms. Campbell said she cannot remember who between Ms. Farrow and Ms. White told her that the diamonds must have been from Mr. Taylor.

Ms. Campbell said she did not want to keep the diamonds, so she handed them over to her friend, Mr. Jeremy Ratcliffe, the former head of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund in South Africa. When prosecutors contacted her lawyers last year about the incident that took place in South Africa in 1997, Ms. Campbell contacted Mr. Ratcliffe who informed her that she still has the diamonds in his possession.

Ms. Campbell explained that Mr. Taylor showed up at the dinner that was hosted at Mr. Mandela’s house and introduced himself as president of Liberia. That was the first time she met Mr. Taylor and was the first time she heard about the country Liberia, she said.

“I never knew Mr. Taylor before, and I had never heard of Liberia before, never heard the term blood diamonds,” she said.

She said she has had no contact with Mr. Taylor since then. While telling the court that she just wants the whole process done with so she can move on with her life, Ms. Campbell added that she has read about Mr. Taylor killing several hundreds of people.

“I didn’t want to be here, I was made to be here,” she said. “I just want to get done with this and get on with my life.”

“This is someone I read on the internet that killed several hundreds of people, supposedly,” she added.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Taylor’s lead defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, Ms. Campbell told the court that Ms. Farrow and Ms. White gave the wrong accounts of the incident in statements they made to prosecutors.

Ms. Campbell said that Ms. White lied when she made a statement that she (White) was present when the men arrived with the diamonds to give to Ms. Campbell.  In Ms. White’s statement, she said that she was the one who opened the door for the two men and offered them bottles of coke before they offered the diamonds to Ms. Campbell in a piece of paper.

“I didn’t see Carole White, I saw the two men, she might have been around the corner but I did not see her,” Ms. Campbell said.

“This is a woman that has a powerful motive to lie about you,” Mr. Griffiths asked Ms. Campbell.

“I trusted her, but I no longer trust her and no longer work with her,” Ms. Campbell responded.

Ms. Campbell admitted that Ms. White has filed a lawsuit against her for breach of contract, a lawsuit that she said she did not want to discuss in this court.

When asked whether Ms. White was present when she handed the diamonds to Mr. Ratcliffe, Ms. Campbell said, “I don’t recall that she was but she could have been, that’s 13 years ago.”

Mr. Griffiths also asked Ms. Campbell whether it was mere speculation that her friends made when they said that the diamonds were from Mr. Taylor.

“I just assumed that they were. I can’t speak on behalf of them [Farrow and White] but when it was brought, I just believed that it was,” she said.

As lead prosecutor, Ms. Brenda Hollis re-examined Ms. Campbell, the prosecutor referenced the supermodel’s appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show in United States where she said that for the safety of her family, she did not wish to be associated with Mr. Taylor’s case. In an attempt to impeach the witness, Ms. Hollis pointed out that she was being dishonest with the court because she feared Mr. Taylor.

“Isn’t it correct that your account today is not entirely correct because of your fear of Charles Taylor?”

Defense lawyers objected on the basis that the prosecutor was trying to impeach her own witness. The judges upheld the defense objection.

“It is incorrect to impeach your own witness,” Presiding Judge Justice Julia Sebutinde told Ms. Hollis.

In an exchange that showed a disagreement between the Presiding Judge and Ms. Hollis as to what category of witness Ms. Campbell is, Ms. Hollis told the court, “For all practical purposes, this witness is not a prosecution witness.”

Justice Sebutinde  responded, “Ms. Campbell is not a court witness, she was subpoenaed by the court on request by prosecution.”

Ms. Hollis conceded.

As Ms. Campbell concluded her testimony and walked out of the court, the court took an adjournment.  Later, court resumed with the continuation of the evidence of Issa Hassan Sesay, the convicted former interim leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel group, which Mr. Taylor is accused of receiving blood diamonds from.

Mr. Sesay’s testimony continues on Friday.


  1. All,

    Please click on the below link. It’s BBC’s attempt at saving face after a woefully biased article they put out as soon as Naomi Campbell started to testify. The below article was revised a few hours later. My point is to show the clear bias and sensationalism that guides most media, western included. Believe it or not, FOX news of all the western media had the most balanced article.

    Now that the hype of today has died down, let’s soberly think about what was accomplished today. In my opinion, it was a wash. Today had no clear winner between the defense and the prosection. For example, on the one hand the fact that diamonds were given to Ms. Campbell by unknown persons still could leave open the question as to whether Taylor sent them or not. For the prosecution, I’m said to say today’s presentation did not produce the slam dunk they were looking for. It was also very woeful that in the end they tried to impugn the integrity of their own witness when she didn’t emphatically state what they were hoping she would state.

    1. The one thing accomplished today, in court was that the prosecution does not have any proof to sustain their charges against Mr. Taylor and will not be able to reopen their case.

    2. Mas,
      Well for me , I like to hit the nail on the head while it iis hot . Lets look at the issue from this perspective.
      In my view, the prosecution decided to make cambell appear by all means so that the opportunity to directly link Talor to the blood diamond trade directly be established. But what I saw on the clip of the link you provided which videos Naomis’ testimony tells me they failed due to the fact that she did not say the stone was from Taylor. So, I will say the defence clearly won…..

    3. In a criminal case there is no room for speculation or doubt. the prosecution has a burden to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that their case is true. but given the kind of hype that the prosecution raised before Naomi Campbell was subpoenaed by the court it is clear that the prosecution has woefully failed to prove anything by reopening their case infact thay have seriously damaged their case. Because the very brilliant Courtney Griffiths QC made the most of the doubt Naomi Campbell’s testimony raised about the incident and wether you accept it or not, it was a BIG victory for the defence. they have greatly undermined the credibility of the two remaining prosecution witnesses even before they are called. it is for the prosecution to prove their case and not for the defence to prove their innocence.

      1. Sam,

        I would agree with you that the prosecution’s subpeona of Naomi Campbell did blow up in their face, however, the legal standard is not beyond ‘ALL’ reasonable doubt its beyond ‘A’ reasonable doubt. The legal defintion and difference btween ‘A’ and ‘All’ is a big one when looking at the standard of proof in a criminal trial.

        In order for someone to be convicted beyond ‘ALL’ reasonable doubt the Judges in the Tribunal would need to have first hand knowledge of what happened…i.e. each judge would have had to witness CT in the act of each of the 11 counts he’s being charged with.

        Beyond ‘A’ reasonable doubt suggests that a reasonable person who is viewing the evidence would find that the evidence being presented by the prosecution is more likely to have happened than to have not happened. Justice is not perfect but CT is getting his day in court, even if the West is pulling some puppet strings here. This system is the best we got…

        1. I said all of the above because its important that we keep in perspective exactly what this Tribunal is charged to do.

  2. Fallah Menjor,Ms.Teage Morris Kanneh, Fuad, all the prosecution great lawyers and advocates. Please don’t be shame gurus. What your honest catch…. Did Naomi lied tooo…???????

  3. Supermodel Naomi Campbell said, “I never knew Mr. Taylor before, and I had never heard of Liberia before, never heard the term blood diamonds”.

    Now, if we examine this statement by the supermodel, it informs us that it would have been impossible for the supermodel to simply have a negative reaction to Mr. Taylor even if we agreed that Taylor sent those diamonds to her. The fact that she accepted the “diamonds gift” from the two men at the previous night without any suspicion means that she did not know that it was from Mr. Taylor and she did not expect it to come from Mr. Taylor.

    Why would the supermodel suddenly tried to get rid of the gifts? Why would the supermodel after having breadfast with her friends decided not to keep the gifts? Why would the supermodel gave the gifts away to the Mendala’s charity ? Why would she have refused to keep the gift? The answer to these questions can be found in the supermodel testimony: “The next morning, I told Ms. Farrow and Ms. White, and they said it must be Mr. Taylor, and I said I thought that it was,” Ms. Campbell testified.

    So , it was the next morning while having breakfast with her socalled friends that the supermodel became aware of what was alledged against Charles Taylor relatiing to blood diamonds. Remember, the supermodel said that , “I never knew Mr. Taylor before, and I had never heard of Liberia before, never heard the term blood diamonds”. She , the supermodel, Naomi Campbell said that it was one of her friends , Ms. Farrow or Ms. White, who told her that the diamonds must have come from Mr. Taylor. So we can assume here that these socalled friends, who provided this false information to the prosecution, must have been aware of the prosecution case against Mr. Taylor. Therefore , they planted this evil thought in Ms. Campbell head against Mr. Taylor. Again lets remember the supermodel statement, “I never knew Mr. Taylor before, and I had never heard of Liberia before, never heard the term blood diamonds”.

    So Ms. Farrow and Ms. White might have convinced the supermodel that the “gift” were blood diamonds which prompted the supermodel to have nothing to do with bloood diamonds. Therefore, she decided to give “the gift” to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund in South Africa. Otherwise, how can we explain the negative reaction of the supermodel to Mr. Taylor following breakfast with her friends the next morning ? Let us not forget that before the breadfast, the supermodel had only met Mr. Taylor at the Mendala’s dinner and she said, “I never knew Mr. Taylor before, and I had never heard of Liberia before, never heard the term blood diamonds”.

    This case is “TOTAL TOTAL NONSENSE!”

    1. King Gray,
      I think Ms. Campbell decided to give the diamonds away because she was told by her friends that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor. But one thing that came to my mind is that, it could has been that Ms. White and Ms. Farrow knew those men who brough the diamonds to Ms. Campbell as a set up by Western power to prosecute Mr. Taylor.

      The reason is that, they both quickly told Ms. Campbell that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor. How could they conclude that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor? Infact, Ms. White Stated that she was the one who opened the door for the men and offer them drinks….. I think she was the one who call Ms. Campbell to come see the men! I don’t think the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor instead it was planned with the backing of some big fish so as to speak but it backfired so badly!

      1. Jocone,

        I agree with you 100% that the socalled friends set up this mess against Mr. Taylor, but God was on his side. Remember a gift from an evil man is a trap, so was it with Ms. Campbell.

        Harris K Johnson

    2. King

      Interesting analysis. You harp on Ms. Campbell’s knowledge about CT, blood diamond and Liberia–she is not on trial, her knowledge of CT is not important, the point, was she given stones. Remember, the prosecution was only trying to establish that she received diamonds from Taylor. Not whether she knew of him and the atrocities in Liberia or the alleged crimes in Sierra Leone, which I feel the relationship btw the guys and CT was not established, she evaded the answering forthrightly. It was obvious that she was there reluctantly and it showed.

      In your second paragraph, you asked a series of questions that I found “sweet”, and you used them wisely to establish your points. They can also be used to show that Ms. Campbell may not have been truthful after all. The following morning she was told her friends who later suggested that the stones could be from Taylor (according the Naomi). Then she gave them to Mr. Radcliff. The question may be then, why did she gave it to someone. One can argue, because she actually knew who Mr. Taylor was and maybe advised (I am only speculating, as most of us here) to not hold on to them as they might ruin her reputation further. Either, she became educated of who CT was or she knew and didn’t want anything to do with the stones and/or CT.

      I think she probably opened the prison doors for Taylor to go free. I am not a fan of this man, but I thought she was going to be the most compelling witness; someone who could actually connect Taylor to rough diamonds— I don’t think that was properly established. She cleverly said of the men, I don’ t know where they were from and who sent them, basically. There were other accounts that wrote about her cordial relationship or level of comfort with the Defense and resistance or stone-walled she gave the Prosecution. At times she even smiled with the Defense lawyers. I guess it shows the level of anger she had…remember she didn’t want to be involved and Hollis et all compelled her.

      Anyhow King, I found your argument compelling and interesting. It makes for a good discussion. I hope others follow.

      1. So Charlie….did she say she RECEIVED diamonds from Mr. Taylor or TWO MEN and no questions ask….went back to bed??? The prosecutors didn’t get what they wanted….giving the defense a FREE PENALT Y KICK…which Perry Mason netted in the upper right corner….plus Perry Mason wanted that story to be the ONLY story and he made sure it was the ONLY story…..gamemenship….

        1. Noko4
          I am saying the established link that the prosecution sought was not defined….in others words the lines were not connected. However, today, we learn that the diamonds were turned over the police and gemologists are examining them to determine its country of origin. In case you are questioning the authenticity of this practice, it was developed in Switzerland many years ago and the the foundation for the “Kimberly Certification” process or certificate of origination required by all countries that extract stones. People in possession of them without the Kimberly Certificate could face charges as Mr. Radcliff may discover. Over the years studies in the field of gemology and geological science have developed to where diamond forensic are done to determine the place of origin. But, as of yesterday, she cleverly carved her answers, i think it was a brilliant strategy whoever coached her….


        2. Charles,
          We know that these at least 13 years old diamond will not have a Kimberly Certificate. The Kimberly Certificate scheme did not come into play until 2003 and the Kimberley Process Certificate is nothing more then paperwork and broken promises from governments. Have there been any diamonds forensic studied to identify where diamonds were dug up from the earth.

    3. the purpose that Naomi was in South Africa was to generate fund for the Children that Nelson Mandela cares for. so it was not wrong for her to have given the gift to the children home/fund or whatever. Therefore, don’t think that she was afraid that’s why she gave away the gift. Taylor did not give her any gift. PERIOD!

      1. I guess you miss the point…. She might receive gifts, but it’s it odd that someone will come to your door in the middle of the night and you open it (especially in South Africa that is known for its high crime rate) without prearrangement? I think she honestly didn’t want to be associated with those stones and so she relinquished them. Her recent interviews were reflective of such. My friend, we are having dialogues and I am open to discussions and challenges….no one has proven that the gift was from CT (which I stated).

        Your argument is best when you look at both sides and dissect the opposing views….King did a good job at providing a logical explanation, but you have failed to take such stand of progression is establishing your point…..anyhow, we have lots of time to discuss, brother…

        God always bless Liberia and us individually

        1. Charles,
          Ms. Campbell room was on the grounds of the President resident home not in some hotel. She stated that the grounds have security and staffs 24/7. Therefore, in that type of environment opening your door to a knock in the middle of the night to someone would not be that uncommon. Why would you think someone at the home of the President would want to harm you? In addition, the country President resident is the most security place in any country. This is why Ms. White statements about the events will be prove false.

        2. Charles,
          I have posted majority of the parts of the transcripts that relate to the points you have raised. the point is Naomi Campbell is a celebrity who is used to receiving gifts at all times of the day and nite. so two men kshowing up at her room door at nite is not unusual for her. Also she was not just lodged anywhere she was lodged in the south african presidential compound so why would she be afraid to open the door when she is surrounded by so much security. infact she insinuated that those men could have been staff of the house so she did not ask them who they were. In short the prosecution case is FRIED! the remaing witnesses being called by the prosecution is meaningless they can only do damage control. the damage has already been done.

      2. Charles,
        The origin countries of diamonds can not at this time be scientifically proven. It is a process which is being worked on but todate has not been finalized. The latest news is that the test were done on the stones on friday and they are indeed diamonds.

        1. True…I was saying that they are being tested to determine its origin….I gotcha…thanks for the info

  4. Alpha,
    Thanks for the speedy summary. However there is one small but very importnat correction which needs to be made. Ms. Campbell said she was told by either Carol White or Mai Farrow that the gift must have been from Charles Taylor. Ms. Campbell said based on this she assumed that it was from Charles Taylor. It is important that the public know that it was based on Carol White and Mia Farrow’s speculation that she came to this conclusion not on her own.

    1. Ms. Campbell appears to provide conflict testimony. On one hand, Ms. Campbell states she was told by Ms. Farrow and Ms. White that the stones must be from Mr. Taylor. However, she also states she assumed it was from Mr. Taylor when they were dropped off at her door: “I just assumed that they were. I can’t speak on behalf of them [Farrow and White] but when it was brought, I just believed that it was.” So, in this chronological sequence, when neither Ms. Farrow or Ms. White were present, Ms. Campbell indicates she assumed at the time the stones were delivered late at night, they were from Mr. Taylor. Surely, such a gift to a woman of Ms. Campbell’s stature is designed to impress, and would not be given anonymously.

      1. Do you know why the prosecutors were doing their best to distant themselves from Ms. Campbell?? Because they got Ms White and Ms Farrow coming in on their side and wanted to make sure they don’t have testimonies of TWO SIDES…if they discredit Ms. Campbell, then what good was there to bring her in as their witness??

        They cannot win on this one…..I say just pack it up and move on.

  5. @ Alpha Sesay

    “The next morning, I told Ms. Farrow and Ms. White, and they said it must be Mr. Taylor, and I said I thought [that it] was,” Ms. Campbell testified.

    This following part of your summary is a distortion!

    and I said I thought [that it] was,” Ms. Campbell testified.

    I played that part of her testimony multiple times and she never said “i thought that it was” in the context that you are summarizing.

    I wasn’t certain, but your summaries are slanted. Moreover, you just plain ignore any comments that call to question your slanting.
    Prime example, I asked for a clear explanation regarding the burden of proof that you said the defense has. You simply posted my request BUT failed to respond with any statute or clear explanation. I also asked for some clarity regarding the use of secret witness testimony…you also ignored that request.

    1. Dear cen,

      We will continue doing our best to ensure this site carries fair and accurate reporting, and that our moderation of policy is based on transparent rules which we apply as fairly as we can. I continue to welcome any comments when you or other readers feel we have treated you unfairly. We remain happy to discuss. Due to the recent events at trial, Alpha has been unable to respond to requests as quickly as usual. We hope you continue to be part of the discussion on this site and welcome your comments.

      1. blah blah blah!
        I’m being generous by saying his reporting is slanted and taken out of context. Moreover, just refrain from the legalese, Your best is not sufficient in this context. There is a higher standard for attorneys in the US when referencing the law.

        How long does it take to cite a statute that Alpha has already made refernce to? Or explain with clarity that which he has already fumbled?

        In closing, as I suspected you and Alpha are playing good moderator bad moderator. One summarizes but can’t be accountable so says the other.

      2. But as of the time I am posting this comment, you have not corrected the part of your summary pointed to by Cen. immediately I read that line I had intended to draw your attention to it but I just refrained from doing so in order not to come accross as someone who always finds fault. but I am happy that I am not the only one who observe this things. They may not be important to you but these little mistakes have a capacity to turn public opion against this innocent man. just like the irresponsible western journalists who reported on Naomi Campbell’s testimony and said she “accepted that she received blood diamonds from Charles Taylor” which is a complete distortion of her testimony because when asked during cross examination wether she stood by her statement that she did not receive a diamond from Charles Taylor she replied YES.

    2. Cen,
      I certainly owe you an apology for not responding to your questions earlier. Things have been busy on my end and with such busy schedule, it becomes difficult to do everything at the same time. I am sure that Tracey has responded to you that we try as much as possible to give a clear picture of what obtains in court. Sometimes, we cannot be in agreement with you the readers on how we perceive or report what obtains in court. We,however, still have room for your opinions and where we can clearly identify our mistakes, we are never afraid to make the necessary corrections. In this case, we have not identified such a mistake. I hope this helps.

      On your two questions, i have given individual responses to the individual questions. I hope you find them helpful. I’ll wait to hear from you on the clarifications needed for the “secret witness testimony.”


      1. @ Alpha and Tracy

        Ok. I just wanted to point out where you two fall short. Neither of you have ever acknowledged any mistakes or made corrections. In fact, your tone becomes arrogant and condescending. For example, you more than have room for my comments and the comments of other bloggers. Your jobs depend on us utilizing this site.
        However, the bigger picture is your credibility and professional growth & development, Nobody is correct all the time. A prime example is when I pointed out the publishing of a comment that accused a witness of murder(which was a clear violation of your “rules”) You talked about looking into the matter, but never deleted the comment. The fact that the comment was posted speaks volumes about the quality of what is done on this site.

        In closing, integrity is everything!

      2. @ Alpha
        I just read your reply to my concerns about the burdens and your clarification. You did an excellent job. Thank you.
        Remember, most of the bloggers here probably do not have legal training and can be easily confused or misled about the basics of criminal rules of evidence and procedure.

  6. Why would a President give dirty pebbles as gift to a beautiful supermodel?

    1. Which president are you talking about? did Naomi Campbell say she was given any pebble by any president? go back and listen to her testimony.

    2. Aye !! Emman,
      Please ask these people this very simple again? The statement by itself sound so foolish. WHY WOULD A PRESIDENT GIVE DIRTY PIECES OF DIAMOND TO A SUPERMODEL?? My people please answere Emmanuel….Especially a man like Charles Ghankay Taylor. Even while in jail, the guy still looks better then some of us arround here. It’s a shame for anyone to even try imagining such thing……Thats not Taylor…..

  7. Dear Mr narrator we all know that Mr Sesay is serving time for crimes in his country. Can you please be a bite more human and stop the NAME CALLING?

    I had the opportunity to watched the trail today, and witness the frustration’s of Ms Holli in court today.
    If Ms Campbell was the prosecution key witness, then one can only say that the prosecutions did a BEAUTIFUL JOB for the defense.
    Today was the first time I saw so many on the prosecutors branch. And after Ms Campbell testimony, all those on her branch was gone. LIKE THE MOVIE GONE IN 60 SECOND.
    what a day for the defense and a joke the prosecutors made of themselves

  8. I’ve been away from this site for almost a year now but because of today’s revelation, I’ll like to add. Naomi did very well to exonerate Taylor than to convict him. I’m also highly disappointed in the western media. They made a stunt of this testimony only to be made shame at the very end. I’m also surprised that Ms Hollis will try to impeach her own star witness. Oh yes, Naomi threw their case in the water. It’s a pity for the prosecution. What can White and Farrow say to convince the judges? I’ll like to see that.

  9. Not to get off subject, but I received a fax from someone claiming to be the son of Charles Taylor. He said he had 6 million dollars of America money and need help to get the money that his father had in the bank from buying millitary guns. Have anyone herd of such an organisation?

    1. Jacque,
      This is a 419 as it’s called in Nigeria a Black Money deal as it is called in Liberia a scam as it is called in other places.

  10. Tracey,
    That was a horrible mistake for Ms. Hollis to state for the record that Ms. Campbell “For all practical purposes” was not a prosecution witness. Too, be told by the judge(s) that if Ms. Campbell was not a prosecution witness then who witness, which Ms. Hollis replied a court witness. Too, be told by the judge(s) that Ms. Campbell was not a court witness, but was subpoena by the court on behalf of the prosecution. I think that the breaking news from the trial especially in the international Medias outlets should be about Ms. Hollis and the prosecution team.

    It was very foolish of Ms. Hollis and her team to ask the court to reopen their case for new evidences in a form of witnesses they had no knowledge of when they was presenting their case evidences. In addition, wins the motion to reopen their case. When their first witness takes the stand, during redirect examination, Ms. Hollis proclaim that is not the prosecution witness. Ms. Campbell testimony is link to the two witnesses the prosecution planning to call Monday. Ms. Hollis need to retire.

    On Monday, Ms. Farrow and Ms. White will be testifying. What will they be testifying too? Ms. Campbell who the prosecution said would link Mr. Taylor to the so-called blood diamond has given her side to the court under oath. Ms. Campbell did not link Ms. Taylor to these diamonds or the men who brought them to her.

  11. Well, I have just finished watching the Naomi session and I must say it was very interesting. Though Naomi did not finger Taylor, I believe the damage is done. It wasn’t done by Naomi or prosecution but by Judge Lussick, who asked Naomi two simple questions at the end, which in my view finished off Taylor.

    One was that if there was security and only invited guest went to the dinner and that if Naomi believe the diamond could have come from any other guest, her answer was that “Only invited guest were there and they assume it was from Taylor”. Now we can call that speculation but judges will have to decide and I don’t think Taylor should celebrate yet.

    1. Eagle,
      I know you are trying your best but Ms. Campbell said Mr. Taylor was NOT…repeat NOT in the same hotel with her… did those MEN slipped pass security is what we need to know.

      Yes the judges have the final say but when the prosecutors run from their own witness….that’s telling and for you to down play that segment is probleming.

    2. Eagle-Eye;
      You are absolutely right of thinking ‘Taylor should not celebrate yet.’ However if one took a look at the examination of the prosecution witness Ms Campbell you will realize the the prosecution almost brought in Corpus Delicti. Then again ALMOST doesn’t count. The judge can in no way ingnore this; a conviction will be selective at best….VOIR DIRE.

    3. Eagle Eye-Returns,
      Yes I agree that Judge Lussick’s question about everyone being invited was important. However you must know that Mia Farrow in some of her interviews has stated that she did not think Charles Taylor was even invited to the dinner. Ms. Campbell herself said that he ” showed up” which may imply he was not invited. Now you as a Liberian or African should have been insulted by this suggestion. That somehow the first democratically elected president in the history of Liberia crashed the dinner without an invitation. Do you really think with all Mandela’s security a sitting president or anyone else could just walk into Mr. Madella’s home ? This is the way the West continues to try and demonize our leaders as if we are still uncivilized.

    4. Eagle…..

      Good observation! Since the events was by invitation. When one look at the picture of the guest, there were only two African Presidents (Madeba and Taylor) and only one of these have been associated with blood diamonds. Remember during this trip, it was alleged that CT also bought arms for the RUF with rough diamonds. Is it coincidence that rough stones happens to be in the same place Taylor was, possibly, but unlikely.

      I think this discussion will go on for a while…..but I expected spectacles and fireworks and I didn’t get it. I am disappointed at the performance of all…there were little said or revealed and the challenges were weak and at times immaterial (in my opinion)

      1. Charles,
        My question based on your post above is. Who was president of a larger diamond producing area, Mr. Mandela or Mr. Taylor. If you are not aware South Africa is the largest diamond producing area in the world. Lastly, when this photo was taken in 1997 as Naomi Campbell rightfully said there was no such thing as ” Blood Diamonds “

        1. Aki,
          I am aware SA is a large producer, you are right the largest…Debere (I think I misspelled it) is the kingpin in that area and the world. This company owns approximately 80% of all the diamonds that are traded. Now that the stones have been turned over, geological studies will give its origination. It’s currently being tested as revealed on BBC.

          As mentioned in a earlier thread, some people will agree with verdict and others won’t. The final decision will be determined by the judges. Thereafter, the appeal process begins…which could take a long time also.

          But, Aki, you are right. I am aware that SA as well as Botswana, Lesotho, and Nimibia are all diamond rich countries.

    5. ladies and gentlemen, let us not be overly emotional for the simple fact that this case is not entirely a legal matter but also highly political and a kind of supremecy contest between the west and a single insignificant Afrcan leader.
      Relative to bring credible and reliable witnesses for the prosecution, I am recommending my Uncle Fallah Menjor as a witness. he has very good information to find the president Guilty.
      I early informed the viewers of this blog that bringing Naomi was a wast of legal time but anyway to further disgrace the prosecution and those alike, nature had to allow this.
      upon hearing the news about the testimony of naomi, many liberians in Gbarnga expressed joy at amost drinking shops and people centered places.

      Finally, I would like the court to consider this trial period as pre trial conference to further allow the present prosecution to properly open its case.

  12. Why will Mr Taylor President of Liberia travel from Liberia to South Africa with small dirty stones or diamonds?
    Why will Mr Taylor sent to Ms Campbell room 2/3 small dirty stones or diamonds as a gift?
    I need help

    1. 4 Ur eyes,

      I will agree there is direct link to CT and the guys who deliver the stones. However, your questions in my opinion has no relevance (no disrespect intended). Diamonds in its natural state or uncut or polished state is nothing but a dirty rock. If you’ve seen some, you probably would think its dirty “quartz”–except you are trained to detect it in its rough stage. For the layman, it’s dull even if its been washed over and over again….Please Ms. Campbell received small stones could me a way for her to down play the magnitude or the value of those stones. It could have been big….all this is irrelevant, the link was not established!

      1. Charles
        NONE TAKING. But if you read the transcript or listing to Ms Campbell testimony, she stated the the stones / pebbles or diamonds were small and dirty. I am not a diamond dealer to know if they should be shining or dirty. The only questions I asked is why should President Taylor travel DIRTY DIAMONDS why will he sent dirty stones or diamonds to Ms Campbell as a gift.
        If you can help please answer the questions, and stop trying to educate me on size or cleanliness of DIAMONDS.

        Please Reply

        1. 4 Ur Eyes,
          The only way to answer your question is through education….First, Liberia didn’t and still does not have the technology to cut and polish rough diamonds. Therefore, the only way he could travel with stones from Liberia to anywhere in the world (if he did that is) is in its natural stage, which I explained is dirty or looks unclean. Unless he sent the stones somewhere prior to be cut, and polished then he could have finished products–the risk in that is too high. Most stones are now cut by laser. If you look at the cross examination or the war of words, you will noticed that things that lawyers try to down play craftily use words to minimize its magnitude or intensity. Take for example the defense question to Ms. Campbell about her relationship with Ms. White. He sought to show that Ms. White is angry and would seek to destroy Ms. Campbell. Another, during the prosecution questioning of Naomi about her interview with Oprah. She said were you afraid for your life that why you didn’t want to testify….insinuating that CT evil and has people who could make her life uncomfortable. My point here is the size “pebbles” (according to her) could have been a calculative move. You know, watch and listen to politicians and lawmakers on the Hill in DC, you will see how words are either amplified to hurt or deflated to downplay an event. For instance the health care reform bill, we heard the word, “Armageddon” by John Benner to instill fear in the people (saying that all hell will break lose and thing that we know it will come to the worst). Back to Taylor Trail, If Taylor had diamond in his possession at anytime, I guarantee you will would have had all sizes…big, medium and even pekin-ne-nein.

          My brother, I hope I helped…if not let me know I will try to elaborate.

      2. Charle,
        I really don’t see how Mr. Taylor is link directly to the guys who delivered the diamonds to Ms. Campbell! How did you come up with such a conclution?

        1. Jocone,

          I am not saying that there is an established link…I’ve said after the testimony…one was not found or at least not mentioned…..the origin part may give some light on the stones

    2. Because David Crane wanted EVIDENCE!!!!!. How did those men slipped by security and NO ONE know…..This spells!!!

  13. Eagle-Eye(Returns),
    Judge Lussick questions help the defense. There was plenty of security and if only invited guest went to the dinner and Mr. Taylor was there, he was an invited guest as he said he was.

    Ms. Campbell as you stated said, “Only invited guest were there and they assume it was from Taylor”. If she said that Judge Lussick should have follow up with who were “they. “ As you stated Judge Lussick asked Ms. Campbell did she “(Naomi) believe the diamond could have come from any other guest.”

    If Judge Lussick finished any one off it was the Ms. Hollis.

  14. Ladies and Gentlemen,
    Some are tossing away wisdom in their slavish desire to see the criminal Taylor set free.
    Firstly, in no shape or form can Naomi Campbell be classified a prosecution witness. I bet anyone to provide reasons why a woman who was compelled by the Special Court to appear and who refused to cooperate with the prosecution should be classified as a prosecution witness. She is simply a material witness. Some times, I find these judges ruling and arguments funny. It is unfortunate that in their quest to being seen as fair and impartial these judges dwell unnecessarily on semantics and lost sight of the meat of the issue. The issue of Naomi’s testimony is a classical case in point. Here the prosecution claims that Naomi knowingly received diamond from Taylor which she denies but the prosecution’s attempt to corner her into admittance is classified as impeaching one’s own witness by the judges. Is it the judges’ duty to tell the prosecution what to do with its own witnesses (if one accepts the illogical argument that Naomi is a prosecution witness)? Why should these judges be willing to sacrifice facts and evidence for ceremonies and procedures?
    Secondly, this woman’s testimony is so nonsensical that I am becoming to question her state of mind. She denied on numerous occasions that she got diamonds as gift in 1997 but she forcefully come to court to tell the whole world that a supermodel will open her room door to strange men at the unholy hour of the night and accept gift and then gave the silliest excuse that she didn’t want to talk about it because of concern for the safety of her family. Oh! She was never concerned about her security when opening door for strange men and taking unknown material into her room. She didn’t entertain the notion that these strange individual would be criminals. She didn’t care that she was being given illegal drug or harmful object. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are talking about South Africa, the crime capital of the World, not one peaceful village. Here is where is become more absurd and give full display of Naomi’s acute intellectual bankruptcy. It is suggested that the gift is from Taylor and she is extremely gullible to accept such suggestion and didn’t bother to do the simplest and wisest thing of verifying such claim especially when Mr. Taylor was much accessible. Naomi needs to be prosecuted for either possession of counter band, for abetting crimes or for lying under oath.
    There is simply one logical reason why a supermodel will open her room door to strange men at the unholy hour of the night, take unknown gift into her room without bothering to see its content and never bother to ascertain the source of the gift especially when it was suggested to her that the gift was from Taylor. The simple reason is that she was well informed about the source of the gift, the content of the gift and she was waiting for it. One needs not be a rocket scientist to see from Naomi’s testimony that she is simply a white collar practitioner of the World’s oldest profession and her denial or failed attempts to exonerate Taylor and her incorporation with the prosecution is not out of an interest in Taylor or fear of Taylor (for God’s sake, how can Taylor harm Naomi’s family?) but a plot intended to cover up the disgrace associated with a supermodel having a war criminal as a client.
    Naomi has only succeeded in making buffoonery out of herself, disgrace herself before the whole wide world and bring supermodel into disrepute.

    1. Morris Kanneh,

      As always Mr. Morris Kanneh, your piece was well put together; however, the law is not on your side my Liberian Brother. Let us stick to the law regardless of a witness being hostile or not, if you call a witness, that witness belongs to you (period).

    2. Morris Kanneh,
      Material witness for whom. The transcript is posted read it and get the fact about Ms. Campbell testimony. You are really going to be upset Monday when the defense shows that Ms. Farrow and Ms. White are both liars.

    3. Morris Kannehn,
      Relax Bro you seem so disappointed that Naomi did not implicate Mr. Taylor. I suggest you don’t watch the trial on Monday cause Perry Mason is going to make Mia Farrow and Carol White look like jack Asses.

    4. Hi Brother Kanneh, let me agree with you that the witnes is not a prosecution witness. Are you telling me that the judges are also serving as prosecutors? or are they in the business of finding evidence or witness to testify? Any way , What do you mean by the witnes refused to cooperate with the prosecution ? Please answer this question my dear brother.
      I have more questions but after your response to this question, i will continue.

  15. Ken,Aki,&Noko5
    I continue to wonder as to how your understandings of Naomi Cambell’s testimonies exonorates Charles Taylor? especially considering that Naomi, did not come forward voluntarily with these testimonies that we were privillage to today, and what a testimonies it was! now to set the story striaght which confirms prosecution witnesses including some key RUF insiders accounts so far is:
    (a) that Issa Sesay left Kono in an helicopter with dimonds in 1997,and was headed to Monrovia with the intention of exchanging it with Charles Taylor for arms and ammunitions, which Sesay partially admitted to but stated the dimonds got missing in Monrovia where Taylor lived.
    (b) and now Ms. Cambell’s testimonies under oath today that she attended a dinner in the same year 1997, as a guest of mr.Mandela, and Charles Taylor was in attendance & introduced himself as president of Liberia, and after the dinner she was approached by two men in her suite shared with her manager Carol white, and according to Carol’s account in other interviews, she did offer these men who had claimed to be representitives of Charles two bottles of cokes to dink, while she awakens Naomi, and she saw dimonds changing hands from the men to Naomi, an account that was confirmed to Ms. Farrow during breakfast the next morning.this does not look good for CT. who said that he had no dimonds on him in SA; the sad and innocent victims of Charles Taylor’s atrocities are speaking once again and his supportes are not listening, and lets wait for the arrival of Ms. Farrow & White to come and and put the final nails in this coffin.

    1. Ziggy Salis,
      All what you said is base on what Ms. Farrow and Ms. White are saying. Let us wait until Monday and see if Ms. Farrow and Ms. White will be saying the same things when their wild made-up story is cross-examination by the defense.

    2. Ziggy,
      I think this argument could go on forever. Our perception of things are always one-sided. I have a friend who is a lawyer…I told her “lawyers lie” and she said, we don’t we see things from different views or vintage points. This is also true with this forum. Some would see incriminating and damning true in Ms. Campbell’s statement, others would see it as weak and no direct link. Remember, most of us are not lawyers by profession, yet, this is good practice, oh for the heck of it, because our limited legal minds or lack thereof, will have no impact on the verdict. But, the discourse is encouraging. Back to the trail now, in fact some analyst believe Naomi’s testimony will not have much bearing on the trial, I disagree. Both sides have compelling arguments to be made. Personally, I thought she was going “put the final nail in the coffin”, but instead, I believed she opened the prison doors for him.

      Fast forward, the next day, Mr. Radcliff turned over the diamonds. So now, her testimony may be lackluster since the stones have turned up and will be tested to determine its origins. Poor Mr. Radcliff, he might be charged with possession of illegal stones (since he didn’t have the Kimberly Certification).

      I think, no side should rejoice “just yet”. Naomi’s testimony got Taylor closer to freedom then he’s ever been, but then the stones in the possession of police may then put him in even deeper in the cell and the door may be locked for a long time on him….let’s wait and see what the gemological and geological test reveals—-this is like a damn soup!

      1. Ziggy,
        This time I leave you with your countryman( Charles). I think his interjection makes a lot of sence.. I reest my case…

  16. King Gray,
    From your latest comments I now see why you see this case as Total Nonsense. Only a person with unconventional notion and definition of nonsense will see Naomi’s account of the event of her being diamond as anything other than total nonsense.
    Even you as unimportant or unknown as you are can never open your door at the unholy hour of the night for complete strangers worst of all personally take unknown items from complete strangers yet Naomi want us to place that she will throw all precautions to wind in a country with the highest criminal rate in the world.
    Only a person with a different understanding of what constitutes a nonsense from those share by educated, intelligent and informed persons make such statement “So we can assume here that these socalled friends, who provided this false information to the prosecution, must have been aware of the prosecution case against Mr. Taylor. Therefore , they planted this evil thought in Ms. Campbell head against Mr. Taylor.” Wow! these women must be clairvoyant to see into the future, to see that 6 years into the future Taylor will be indicted and Naomi will be so brainless to accept her statements as fact and didn’t bother finding out.
    What is the litmus test that Naomi’s statement “I never knew Mr. Taylor before, and I had never heard of Liberia before, never heard the term blood diamonds” is a fact? How can you base your entire argument on a false premise?
    King Gray, your argument is the poorest I have seen in recent time.

    1. Morris Kanneh,
      Please read the transcript. if you are having problems with the english version, we true justice lovers are currently working on the Creole, Liberian english, kpelle, mende, temne and gbandi versions which should be ready latest next week and posted for all the world to see.

  17. Eagle-Eye,

    I do not agree that the questions asked by the Judges did any damage to Mr Taylor. I believe it was simply a clarification as to who all were at the dinner. In response Campbell said there were about 40 persons at the dinner.

    She also said that there were security present at the dinner. This was in relation to the allegation put forward by the prosecution that Mr Taylor was not an invited to the Dinner but just showed up. We all now that that is ridiculous that an uninvited guest would just show up at a State dinner and then sit next to the host president and take pictures with the host and other honoured guests.

    With regards to the number of persons present, my view is this was to establish that there were others who could have possibly given Campbel the diamonds. The fact that the men did not state who sent the diamonds suggests a sinister motive and definitely not one that would implicate a sitting President.
    We need to take a step back and examine the issues here. In 1997 there was no such thing as Blood Diamonds and there was no stigma on being in possession of rough diamonds. So if Taylor wanted to give a gift to Campbell, why would he need to be secretive about it? Why would he want to give an anonymous gift anyway? It makes no sense and points to the conclusion that it could not have been Mr Taylor at all who sent those diamonds.

    It appears to me that there were individuals who probably had romantic or other interest in Campbell and were hoping to score with the lady by giving the diamonds.

    All in all the relevance of this testimony is minimal and it actually trivializes the whole trial.

    I was shocked at how the western media spun this story to make it look like the woman said Taylor give her the diamonds. They make me sick. They have no scruples whatsoever. I listened to some man who said he was UN representative for diamonds saying that he knows that Taylor was involved in diamomds because diamond merchants went to Monrovia and lived in Boulevard Hotel near Taylor’s house. Now anyone who knows Monrovia knows that Boulevard Hotel was a privately owned hotel and that it was not located near Taylor’s house at all. That is a blattant lie. Also what has a hotel’s location to do with Taylor being the one who was dealing with the merchants?

    This is the typical western ignorance of African societies that they continue to perpetuate all the time. Could we say that because a hotel in Washington DC housed an drug dealer then President Obama knew about the drug deals that went on there? Likewise if a drug dealer stayed at the Dorchester or Four Seasons Hotel, does it mean that the Queen was involved in the trade in drugs? What level of sheer ignorance and idiocy is that?
    This is the way they jump to conclusion without even stopping to reason. ‘If it has four legs it must be a cat’ kind of scenario. These are the types of people who decide people’s destiny. What a shame?

    1. Helen,
      I agree with you and I will add that the diamonds did not have to come from someone at the dinner or who had an invitation. It could have come from a fan who just knew Ms. Campbell was going to be in the country. There are many rich South African and they do have asses to raw diamonds as will as other in the world. Mr. Taylor does not hold the exclusive rights on raw diamonds.

  18. Eagle-Eye(Returns
    Naomi stated that this was not her first time receiving gifts in these kinds of situation. So how could any body simply reached a conclusion that it was Charles Taylor who gave her rough diamonds? South Africa is one of the center of rough diamonds in the world or you do not know that? The woman said that she did not flirt with Taylor and she did not sit with Taylor at the dinner table. So what kind of real thing that would make Taylor to just send her rough diamonds, not even the shine shine ones?

  19. Now Iam confused. Please help me out of this mess. Who is persecuting who here? It seems the persecuting team has run out of ideas here. Why can they then release this guy ptherwise you gonna pay him alot, not so?

  20. Tracey please read this articule and you will see that it is almost a copy of Apha’s summary and it carried the same misleading thought that was expressed in Alpha’s summary. (See CEE comment above which you replied to).

    you see that many media houses lookup to this site for information about the trial. and they simply re-propagate the information they get here. so one cannot underestimate the power of this site to shape public opinion either in favour or against Mr Taylor in this case. if this site wants to be fair as it claimed it is, then utmost care must be taken to present the proceedings in as clear and as balanced a way as possible.

    I know the difficult situation under which you function but this is just a reminder so that accurate information is presented to the public. when corrections are suggested by other readers, it is important to act promptly to correct it if you have carried out your investigation. This is not a criticism it is just a reminder of my earlier discussion with you on this issue.

  21. I really hope that most of us follow Naomi Cambel yesterday. Beit Taylor supporters or those that just want to see Mr Taylor be hang now, the fact reamain that we have sit and wait for the final judgement. From my point of observation, all that Ms Cambel was expected to say went the order way round. her most awaited testimony was nothing but SPECULATION. I agreed with Naomi when she was asked as if she was nevious, she said yes, because I din’t want to be here for the security of my family. The attempt to take her from her busy scheduled only to come and speculate, means that the judges themselves are part of the making of wast of time attitude. At the end, the testimonies of the three involved especially Ms Farrow will be because of the past between them, Naomi and Cambel. Lets wait and see then.

  22. @ Eagle Eye, you’re just another frustrated supporter of the prosecution that refuse to learn. How will you capture such that has no direct link towards Taylor? It’s a pity for most of you. You should be very much ashame of yourself to post such a comment. It reminds me of my elementary years. Anyway, where are all the prosecution supporters gone? Take your time and check the archives of almost all the western media and read or listen to their analysis of this case again. After that, you can add another post.

  23. In my country there is an old saying and it goes liks this, if you see goat selling cassava leaf them done ask question, like ms. Hollis who was impeaching their only witness, this hold case just a mess.

  24. Taylor is not guilty! it’s obivious. prosecution will like to find other means, but, still will not real fact to convict him.

  25. Hey people,

    here is one very interesting news story I just got which supports Naomi Campbell’s testimony about the number of the diamonds that was handed over to her. she said she recieved about 2 or 3 pieces of diamonds which was given to her in a pouch and that the next day she handed them over to Mr Ractcliffe who was then head of the Nelson Mandela foundation. Now Mr Ractcliffe has issued a press statement in which he acknowledged receipt of the “three small pieces of diamonds from Naomi Campbell and that he is willing to testify about it if called upon by the court.

    Now where did Carole White get her 5 to six diamonds from? and where did Mia Farrow get her “huge” diamond from?

    1. That is an interesting news story. How will they be testing the starting point of diamond dug up at least 13 years ago? Hope they will illustrate the method.

    2. Sam,
      i don’t know why some of your collegues are celebrating Naomi’s testimony? We were made to understand by even Naomi and a lot of you (pro-Taylor folks) prior to this testimony, that stones, meaning diamonds never even changed hands between Naomi and some men. The mere admission that there was an exchange is a point for the prosecution.

      Now my point with you is the number of stones; that is insignificant. The key here is that stones were exchanged.

      What’s amusing to me is that pro-Taylor folks are provoking Fallah for what i do not understand. Naomi’s testimony was not a slam dunk for either side. There was confirmation of the prosecution charge that diamonds were given to Naomi by some men. The prosecution failed to emphatically connect Taylor with exchange.

      Let me tell you what was established from this testimony; credibility. The prosecution claimed diamonds were given to Naomi by representatives of Taylor initially; the defense and Naomi claimed there was no such exchange only for Naomi to later on during testimony agree to the exchange but not sure who it was from. Intellectually tell me who is atleast believable?

      In a purely circumstantial case, the jurors or judges relies on credibility and this case won’t be any different.

      1. Nosirrah,
        Ms. Campbell never said she did not received diamonds. I am not a pro-Taylor folks, but I do believe in the court system. After serving on juries where I have voted guilty and not guilty in cases, which depended on the laws and courts system, I believe I was right in my choices. So far not one of these cases has come back to hunt me. Please read the excerpts from Ms. Campbell cross- examination, which the prosecution did not challenge.
        Q. Now, you’ve been consistent in your account about these
        events, haven’t you?
        A. Correct.
        Q. Because when you were asked on ABC News about this, you
        immediately and promptly denied that you’d received diamonds from
        Charles Taylor, didn’t you?
        A. I did.
        Q. And later, when you arrived on the Oprah Winfrey Show,
        Oprah recited the transcript of that interview with you, didn’t
        A. She did, yes.
        Q. And you refused to make any comment?
        A. I did, on the basis that I’ve said before; that I was
        afraid for my family.

      2. Nosirrah,
        We all were made to understand that the diamond not diamonds was a very large diamond sent by Mr. Taylor through two men to Ms. Campbell! Correct me if I’m wrong but it turned that the highly talked about large diamond was infact 2 or 3 pieces of litle diamonds. I do believed today that if those diamonds ever came from Mr. Taylor to Ms. Campbell as a gift, there would have been a note to make it known to Ms. Campbell that indeed he ( Mr. Taylor) sent those diamonds but nothing to indicate that at all.
        All that comes to my mind is that, Western Power conspired with Ms. Carole White and Ms. Mia Farrow to set Mr. Taylor up so could prosecute him! All the distruction of lives and properties in Liberia at the hand of Mr. Taylor and the NPFL, why can’t the international Community prosecute Mr. Taylor for that? Is it that lives of Liberians are less important than those of Sierra Leoneans?
        The answer is no but the international community or those who are behind the process of prosecuting Mr. Taylor base on falsehood are protecting themselves and the very people who supported the murder of hundreds of thousand of Liberians and Sierra Leoneans!
        Now like’s take for example the released of the only man found guilty for the bombing of the Pen-American flight over Scotland that killed over 200 plus people, this man was released because the same people who are behind the prosecution of Mr. Taylor wanted the opportunity get an oil deal from the Libyan government! So we look forward to hearing from Ms. White and Ms. Farrow on Monday August 9,2010, which will not make any different from what Ms. Campbell had said anyways.

        The bottom line is that, Ms. White is trying to get at Ms. Campbell for firing her, there by saying that she opened the door for the men who delivered the diamonds to Ms. Campbell and infact offered the men a bottle of coke before they could delivered the diamonds. So, what I can say is that, Ms. White knows who the men in question are and how they got the diamonds in the first place. She was involved with this set up but it’s not going to work!

        1. Jocone,
          Wake up; if this lady can lie about not knowing the identities of the messengers and the source of the gift, are you telling me she will confirm a note from the source? Be real please.

  26. What is so significant about Campbell apprenace in ICC to testify against Taylor?
    If the diamonds were to to her (Campbell) by Taylor, are they going to be tested to know if the diamonds are from Sierra Leone or Liberia?
    This question is Mr. Sesay.

    If no then this whole this is just drama.

    1. I mean they may have gotten the diamonds from Liberia or Sierra Leone set Mr. Taylor up for prosecution!

  27. Alpha Sesay like all Sierra Leonean who are known misinformation, Naomi did not say CT gave her blood diamonds. I have known all this while that this was a stiched up. But the BBC, ANNESTY INT,so call Human Right Watch have all planned this pack of lies which is now being dismantled in front of us

  28. If u look at this on the other hand Sierra Lone should be head responsible for the people killed for the pass war before Taylor left office for the sick of peace in LIB. Rebel used the root of Sierra Lone and reside there, received all their necessary equipement to acttack LIB, I believed, therefore, how can prosecutor for get their dirty deed towards their neighbor, LIB. not because taylor is in trail, but, let the tuth b told and let justice served, but justices should’d been liberian taken taylor to this world crime court, not Sierra Lonian, even some sierra lonian know that taylor have no part to play in their no human feeling war. the whole world now know t hat with truth earnest judgement taylor is not guilty. prosecutor evidents is not natural. well judgement is up to the judge. taylor shouldn’t b convicted because of been a former rebel leader, let him b judge by natural guiltiness. look forward to justice.

  29. I think Ms. Compbell is not fear to testify against former liberian president Charles Taylor, as prosecutor want to put it. it just that she is playing her part as she is called upon by the judge upon the prosecutor request (if u read the entire scense u gonna know that prosecutor ask the judge to required Ms. compbell to testify) and she had said the truth, instead of she lying of what she had no idea about, therefore, prosecutor shouldn’t bass on she being afraid of Taylor, no, no, no, definitely. she had just said the part of herself being in connection with taylor as prosecutor thought. she don’t wanna b like others that gonna say stuff that they can’t defend. I think she emphasize about the safety of her family, when she had spoken with oprah because she don’t wanna say something or lie about a man she don’t really know, that will cause a reputation to her family. Like she said never knew him, never head about LiB. A big point for defendent. let justice be served, let the free go free.

  30. Yeah, I heard a knock on my door last night. I woke up and answer the door and it was two strangers(men), they give me a small sack and said here a gift for you. I didn’t bother to asked the men who or where did the gift come from, or who whats their names. I just went back to bed without even opening the sack.

    Uhm, this sounds like a lie to me. She must have had plenty to time to think about what to say on the stand. What she fail to realize that last year she said she did not receive any gift or diamonds while visiting Mandela, but when she realize Mia Farrow was going to testify she changed her mind and was willing to testify

  31. Like Mr. Taylor’s lead defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths once said that “Mr. Taylor trial was more political then legal”. Today Mr. Griffiths is a legal prophet. His prophecy has come to pass. Though I’m not a lawyer, but I am repeatedly reminded that when a witness from either side of a case is put forth for questioning and says things that run contrary to what has already been said by the party who produced said witness, it is reasonable to sense four been played. Today people outside The Hague following this trial can have a clear understanding of the political and legal maneuvering that unfolds. The best friend of the law is the one who follows a case to the logical conclusion, let’s all follow this case.

  32. hey people! here is the relevant part of the transcript of Naomi Campbell’s testimony as released on the official website of the SCSL:

    Q. Did anything happen after you went upstairs to your room?
    A. Yeah. When I was sleeping, I had a knock at my door and
    I opened my door, and two men were there and gave me a pouch and
    said, “A gift for you.”
    Q. Do you know what time that was that that happened?
    A. No, I don’t know. I just – I was sleeping so I was woken
    up from my sleep.
    Q. And these two men, did you know who they were?
    A. No, I’m afraid not.
    Q. Did these two men introduce themselves to you?
    A. No, they did not.
    Q. Did you ever learn who they were?
    A. No, I did not.
    Q. And you said they knocked at your door and they told you
    A. “A gift for you”, and they gave me a pouch.
    Q. And did they say anything other than that?
    A. No.
    Q. Did you ever subsequently learn who this gift was from?
    A. No. I was – the next morning, at breakfast, I told
    Ms Farrow and Ms White what had happened, and one of the two
    said, “Well, that’s obviously Charles Taylor”, and I just said,
    “Yeah, I guess it was.”
    Q. Now, you’ve mentioned a Ms White. Who is Ms White?
    A. Ms White is my ex-model agent.
    Q. And so she was on that trip with you at that time?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And when the men came to your door and awoke you from
    sleep, I understand, did you ask them who they were?
    A. No, I was extremely tired and I wasn’t sure if they were
    from the staff of the house or – I wasn’t sure who they were.
    Q. And this pouch that they gave you, what happened after they
    gave you the pouch?
    A. When they gave me the pouch I just put it next to my bed
    and went back to bed.
    Q. So at that time you didn’t look into the pouch?
    A. I opened the pouch the next morning when I woke up.
    Q. And when they came to your door, did you ask them what this
    pouch was, what was in the pouch?
    A. No, I took it and I just said, “Thank you”, and went back –
    took it and shut my door.
    Q. Did they say anything about why they were bringing this
    pouch to you?
    A. There was no explanation, no note.
    Q. So you put the pouch by your bed and then you went back to
    A. Correct.
    Q. At some point did you look into this pouch to see if there
    was anything in it?
    A. In the morning I did, yes, when I opened up in the morning.
    Q. And when you opened up this pouch, what did you discover?
    A. I saw a few stones in there.
    Q. And —
    A. And they were very small, dirty looking stones.
    Q. And these small dirty looking stones, what did you do with
    them after you —
    A. I went downstairs to breakfast and I took all my luggage,
    my – yeah, my luggage with me, as we were to leave from breakfast
    to the cars to the train, and I wanted to find my friend, who is
    someone that I trust and does great things in South Africa with
    charity, to give them to him to do something with. I didn’t want
    to keep them. And that’s exactly what I did.
    Q. Now, let’s explore that in a bit more detail in a moment
    but, going back to these men who came to your door, what was
    their race?
    A. They were black men, two black men.
    Q. And you had never seen them before?
    A. Never.
    Q. And when they came to your door, do you recall what they
    were wearing?
    A. I’m sorry, it’s 13 years ago, I really don’t.
    Q. All right. So you had these stones. Why did you take them
    to this person?
    A. Jeremy is someone that that I’ve known for a long time and
    I trust, and, as I said, he is someone that does great things in
    South Africa for children, so that’s why I wanted to give them to
    him to do something with as I did not want them, and, as I was
    there in South Africa working on behalf of the Nelson Mandela
    Children’s Fund, it’s not my nature when there to take something
    when I’m trying to raise funds for underprivileged children.
    Q. And Jeremy is – what’s his last name?
    A. Jeremy Ractliffe.
    Q. And what was his position at the time?
    A. At the time I believe he was the head of the Nelson Mandela
    Children’s Fund.
    Q. What did you think these stones were?
    A. Well, I was set – when I told to Ms White and Ms Farrow at
    the breakfast table, one of them, I’m not sure which one of them,
    said, “Well, they’re obviously diamonds”.
    Q. So they recognised them as diamonds?
    A. I don’t remember showing them the diamonds. I don’t
    remember opening the pouch and showing either one of them.
    Q. So tell us again, you went to breakfast, you were
    breakfasting with Mia Farrow and Carole White?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And what did you tell them exactly that happened?
    A. I told them exactly what had happened in the middle of the
    night, my door was knocked at and I opened the door and I was
    given a pouch, and I told them the whole – what I just told you,
    and I’m not sure which one of the two said, “Well, that’s
    obviously Charles Taylor”.

    Q. Ms Campbell, I certainly don’t want to inconvenience you
    more than you’ve been inconvenienced already, and I mean that
    quite sincerely. So I want us to get through this as quickly as
    Question number one: On that night, neither of the men
    told you that these diamonds came from Charles Taylor; is that
    A. Correct.
    Q. Furthermore, the next morning at breakfast, you did not
    tell either Mia Farrow or Carole White that the men said the
    diamonds came from Charles Taylor, did you?
    A. No, I did not.
    Q. The suggestion about Charles Taylor came from one of them?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And so consequently, it is pure speculation that these
    diamonds came from Charles Taylor; that’s correct, isn’t it?
    A. Well, I just assumed that they were.
    Q. But it’s pure speculation, isn’t it?
    A. I just – I don’t know, I just assumed that they were.
    Q. But when either Mia Farrow or Carole White said, “It’s
    probably from Charles Taylor”, that was pure speculation, wasn’t
    A. I can’t speak on the behalf of them but I just – when it
    was brought up I just said, “Okay, I guess it is”.

    it later continues:
    Q. Now, we have no basis whatsoever, Ms Campbell, to challenge
    what you have told these judges because, this is right, isn’t it,
    you were alone in your room that night when the men arrived?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You weren’t sharing with anyone, were you?
    A. No, I was not.
    Q. And what alerted you to the fact that these men were
    A. They knocked on the door.
    Q. Did they do anything else?
    A. No.
    Q. Now, you’ve been consistent in your account about these
    events, haven’t you?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Because when you were asked on ABC News about this, you
    immediately and promptly denied that you’d received diamonds from
    Charles Taylor, didn’t you?
    A. I did.
    Q. And later, when you arrived on the Oprah Winfrey Show,
    Oprah recited the transcript of that interview with you, didn’t
    A. She did, yes.
    Q. And you refused to make any comment?
    A. I did, on the basis that I’ve said before; that I was
    afraid for my family.
    Q. And tell me, when the two men arrived outside your door,
    was Carole White there?
    A. I didn’t see Carole White, I saw two men. She may have
    been around the corner, but she was not in front of my face when
    I opened the door.

  34. Dear All,

    For you information the diamonds given to supermodel Naomi Campbell has been found. After 13 years Mr. Jeremy Ratcliffe, former head of the Nelson Mandela Children foundation, has finally decided to hand the diamonds to police according to Sky News today (August 6, 2010). Wow, Ms. Campbell said she donated the diamonds to charity, the charity says they did not received it now it has suddenly appear. Did Mr. Ratcliffe keep the diamonds for personal gain? Why did he not hand it over to the Foundation in 1997? Why is it resurfacing now? How are we sure it is the same diamonds, Ms. Campbell is talking about.

    I am amazed by how stupid our friends in the West think we are. Do they want us to believe that since the western media started reporting the appearance of Ms. Campbell at the tribunal, Mr. Ratcliffe did not have the time to present the diamonds. Did he go on a voyage to space with Virgin? Out of the sudden he has found the diamonds and presented it to the police. After a somewhat shaky testimony from Ms. Campbell.

    Let us hold Mr. Taylor accountable for his actions but at the same time let us do it fairly. This case will have either enhance respect for the ICC or bring disgrace to the process ofbringing to book those responsible for crimes against humanities.

  35. Having watched excerpt of Naomi’s testimony, I conclude this was a blow for the persecution. However said that, Naomi was subpoenaed to appear and testify. She did not come voluntarily. What this suggests is that there was the expectation at least on the part of the persecution that her testimony could be neutral (i.e., I do want to be associated with this Taylor man who killed many people or associated with an unknown country called Liberia) or tilt towards either the persecution or defense. Besides, her connection with blood diaomonds could dent her public image. But by far and large, the persecution got a good beating from a witness they forced to appear before the court. Lesson learned! Lesson well deserved!

    Now, let me critically analyze Naomi’s testimony as it raises more questions than answers. First, Naomi is a world-class celebrity with personal aid and bodyguard protection. In other words she has in place protective perimeters that would avert “two strange men” from knocking on her door. The question is how did these “two strange men” invade her personal and protective perimeter to knock on her door in the middle of the night? This question considers the fact the Naomi was sleeping in an executive suite at a well protected hotel in South Africa.

    Second, is it normative to receive a pouch, not a gift box, from strangers without asking in whose name they came? Why would the model awake from sleep/bed at midnight to receive a pouch which could contain possibly harmful substance without caring to know who sent it?

    Third, for somebody of her socio-economic status (a millionaire), is it normative for her to answer knocks on her door in the middle of the night? This question ties in with the first question. Here, the emphasis is on the time – middle of the night.

    Fourth, why did she give the “dirty stones” to the then head of Mandela’s charity and called many years later to inquire if the “dirty stones” were still in his possession? Did she sense what was coming her way and was preparing her story?

    That said why would the persecution subpoenaed a witness with a history of admitting no wrong in court? What did they hope to get out of this seasoned court bird nothing but their own beating? Is their tramp card not Naomi but Farrow and White? Goodness, this case is boring!

    And Oh!
    Charles Taylor, you can sleep like a baby for the next few weeks and dream sweet dreams of being acquitted but alas your dreams will be interrupted with a knock at midnight. You will realize it was only dreams. Dreams that quickly faded with the coming and departure of Naomi. Then, yes, then, you will once more hear the cries of those many innocent people you killed in Liberia and sierra Leone crying for justice. And yes, you will realize it was only dreams, Mr. Jungle president.

    1. davenport,
      Your critical analyze of Naomi’s testimony is “Total Nonsense.” Ms. Campbell was not sleeping in an executive suite at a well-protected hotel in South Africa. Ms. Campbell personal aids and bodyguard protection was provided by the government of South Africa, which I am sure every one of them was a stranger to her. Ms. Campbell stated she did not know if the men was staff or security a lots of people work there. There is nothing abnormal about that. Ms. Campbell was invite and stayed on the residential ground of the President of South Africa, why would Ms. Campbell be so paranoid to think that Mr. Mandela would allow harm to come to her. Everything that comes through the gates of the presidential home is check so no harm will come to the president, nothing abnormal about that. Uncut diamonds look like dirty rocks look at some on the internet or TV. Ms. Campbell did not give the diamond to Mr. Mandela’s charity; she gave them to her friend to do some good with them.

      Ms. White with her socio-economic status a millionaire or wannbe millionaire is claiming she open the door in the middle of the night to strange men who was throwing rocks at her window. Now that is very abnormal. With all the security and telephones at the president home, Ms. White did have the opportunity to call someone before she let these strangers into a home that should have cause her and other harm including the president.

      Ms. Farrow is on court recorder of being guilty of lying in court and couching a witness to lie in court, and the prosecution is calling her as one of their main witness. However, when the defense expose Ms Farrow as a liar and part of the prosecution plan to create evidence agonist Mr. Taylor, the prosecution will say she is not a prosecution witness.

      1. Ken,

        Thanks for your rejoinder.

        However, I am very disappointed in rationalization. Since you claimed my analysis was total nonsense, I was hoping to tap into your reservoir of wisdom from your rejoinder. However, regrettably, what you attempted to articulate was total nonsense to say the least. Please reread your comment.

        Once again, thanks, Ken.

        Tracey and Alpha, I understand your policies on the use of language and personal attacks but this is a direct response to Ken who described my analysis as total nonsense.

      2. Ken,

        My friend…on a softer note I suppose we can dialogue or debate meaningfully without emotionally rants and words calling.

  36. The world should know that there is no justic in the world for blackman. My beloved former president Mr. Charles Taylor was humiliated by the international community.Let the light of justic shine on those who try to picture Mr.Taylor as a world criminal. Remember what goes around, comes around.

  37. This is another blow to Taylor’s side. Common sense tells one that the supermodel is lying. I don’t know why she is lying, but it is clear that she is. As one of the posters stated already, how can a lady, who is in a foreign country, asleep, at night, by herself, open her room door during the night, at an hour that she doesn’t know, to a knock, see two strange men, accept a pouch from them, without any questions or answers, say thank you and go back to bed. That did not happen. Sorry all Taylor’s supporters, but this lady is lying plain ans simple.
    This is the way that it could happen. Taylor meets her at Dinner, informs her that he will send her a gift later that night. He sends two of his many aides to take the gift to her. When she realzes that her friends knew about Taylor and his record, she panicked and decided to part with her gift.
    She is not a prosecution witness. she was called to testify because she was in possession of diamonds that came from Sierra Leone. This is my summation.

    1. Samsee,
      I too have issue with the story but look at it from this point…..she had NOTHING to fear….she was at Mr. Mandela’s compound which is under SECURITY LOCK…..she figured those men were just doing their job….delivery a pouch to her room..

  38. Emmanuel G. K. Goerge,
    As for me , I think for the worse; They have gotten to know that C.T got nothing to do with this stone thing. Now , what they are going to do, is to find a way to scientificly link him directly. Either by creating a fake sustainable forensic means. They will try to plant his DNA someway, somehow on it, just to incriminate this guy. THAT’S HOW MUCH WICKED THEY ARE…. oh my GOD.. I feel so sad..Watch and see after it leaves the police labs and gets in the public…. I feel sorry for Taylor..WHY>>WHY>>WHY>>>

  39. Here is the key to solving this puzzle. Lets not forget that Mia Farrow became an UNITED NATIONS GoodWill Ambasador later. So Mia Farrow knew about this “dirty-stones” before it happened and she was planted by the prosecution. Background: Helen makes a very interesting analysis regarding the orgins of the term “blood diamonds.” During this period of 1997, there was no pursuit of “blood diamonds” and this kind of gift would not have raised any suspicion by anybody. Since they would not be thinking that they would be involved with any thing illegal. But here is the main point to remember from Naomi Campbell’s testimony:

    Q. What did you think these stones were?
    A. Well, I was set – when I told to Ms White and Ms Farrow at
    the breakfast table, one of them, I’m not sure which one of them,
    said, “Well, they’re obviously diamonds”.

    Ponit number one as Griffith rightfully noted, it was “Ms White and Ms Farrow at
    the breakfast table, one of them, I’m not sure which one of them, said, “Well, they’re obviously diamonds”.”

    If we examine the statement that follows , you will notice the conspriracy in this whole Naomi Campbell being given ‘dirty-stones.” Here is it:

    Q. So they recognised them as diamonds?
    A. I don’t remember showing them the diamonds. I don’t
    remember opening the pouch and showing either one of them.

    Note the clear fact that Naomi Campbell did not show them the socalled “pouch” with the “dirty-stones.” And though they did not see what was in the “pouch” they, Ms White and Ms Farrow, immediately concluded that it was diamonds. And that it was Charles Taylor who send the diamonds. Just imagine that for a moment!

    Again, Naomi Campbell said, ” I don’t remember showing them the diamonds. I don’t remember opening the pouch and showing either one of them.”

    So how could they, Ms White and Ms Farrow, have known that it was diamonds when they wre never shown the “dirty stones” by Campbell? How did they, Ms White and Ms Farrow, come to know that the “dirty-stones” were diamonds and further reached a false conclusion that it was Charles Taylor who send those rough diamonds? How did they know? What did those two, Ms White and Ms Farrow , know about Charles Taylor at that time? Let remember that Naomi Campbell said that she (Naomi Campbell) had never heard about Charles Taylor before that event and she had never heard about Liberia before that event.

    Let also remember that Charles Taylor was just elected president in Liberia and the issue of his indictment had not yet come about. So Taylor was not known to be under any kind of international criminal list for prosecution. So how did Ms White and Ms Farrow come to know that Charles Taylor was dealing in “blood diamonds” and they were able to persuade Naomi Campbell to agreed with them?

  40. _____________________
    Second key ppint

    Q. And tell me, when the two men arrived outside your door,
    was Carole White there?
    A. I didn’t see Carole White, I saw two men. She may have
    been around the corner, but she was not in front of my face when
    I opened the door.

    Naomi Campbell says that Carole White was never present when the two black men (NOTE: black men associated with criminal behavior). So Carole White was ” not in front of my face when
    I opened the door.” Naomi Campbell did not see Carole White “in front of my face when
    I opened the door.” So how did Carole White see these two men? Was Carole White working with the prosecution to set this whole thing up?

    I have a funny feeling that the prosecution already have some rough diamonds in their possession from SL, and they would use such diamonds to show it is the exact “dirty-stones” that Naomi Campbell should have given to Jeremy Ractliffe.

    The prosecution will claim that it is the rough diamonds that Jeremy Ractliffe gave to them . They will cliam that they tested the rough diamonds and that the test results from the diamonds proves that it came from SL.. So if it came from SL then it was Charles Taylor who took the rough diamonds to SA. TOTAL TOTAL NONSENSE!

    1. King Gray,
      I do believed that the prosecution bought these diamonds from Sierra Leone or Liberia so when they are tested, it will appear as if they came from Taylor. To get a diamond from Liberia and Sierra Leone is not difficult at all. Anyone can get diamond and gold from both Liberia and Sierra Leone. I recently some gold and a diamond from Todee to make the engagement and wedding rings for me and my wife to be, so what’s wrong with that?

  41. All,

    I have one question I would like to get everyone’s thoughts on. As you all know, Naomi Campbell’s friend Mr. Radcliffe has today said he found the 3 stones and has turned them over to the South African Police for forensic testing.How do you all think this will affect the case? What it the stones are proven to be of Sierra Leoneian origin? Tracey and Alpha please give me the legal feedback on what options exist for both the defense and prosecution given this latest development.

    1. Even if they are from Sl origin, the prosecution still has to show that the two men who handed over those diamonds to her were from Charles Taylor. from the evidence before the court so far, and even from the anticipated evidence of the two remaining prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has failed to link mr Taylor to those diamonds and consiquently have failed to prove their case.

    2. Mas,
      First, we are not quite sure whether the Court will go to the point of seeking to test the origin of the diamonds. If we should, however,get to such a point, i am sure it will be for prosecutors to make an application to the judges that such a test be applied as part of their evidence implicatind Mr. Taylor to the alleged diamond trade in Sierra Leone. Prosecutors will need to convince the judges that this is material evidence that will go to the heart of the case against Mr. Taylor. Again, it will be left with the judges to determine whether such an application should stand. As it is right now, we all do not know who sent the men to give the diamonds to Ms. Campbell. The judges cannot make any judgment on the issues based on Ms. Campbell’s testimony alone. They will have to hear from Mia Farrow and Carole White, both of whom should testify on Monday, and then determine who among them is more credible and what weight should be attached to each individual’s testimony. It is still a wait and see game.

      1. Alpha
        We also need to remember that Naomi Campbell is a PROSECUTION WITNESS and not a defence witness. A situation where three prosecution witnesses are giving three different accounts of the same event is a serious blow to the prosecution case. the judges will not in this case consider credibility (as in comparing the prosecution case vs the defence case and see which one is more believable) the prosecution case is automatically faulty. In a criminal case the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt once a doubt exists as in the current instance(Naomi Campbell’s version is different from Carole white’s version which is different from Mis Farrow’s version), the case automatically favours the defence.

      2. Alpha,

        Thanks for your response. In light of the fact that all 3 witnesses have now testified, from your experience as a legal practitioner what are the possible next steps for both the prosecution and defence regarding this diamond issue?

  42. I thought her testimony was shakey in at least three places that immediately spring to mind.

    1. She said she wasn’t entirely sure whether she gave the diamonds to ratcliffe at the house or on the train – Later insisting she gave him them on the train.

    2. Any woman – supermodel or not, would look in the pouch as soon as was possible – not wait till morning!

    3. She claimed she didn’t know if she showed the breakfast guests the diamonds. really? But yet the pouch was with her at breakfast. If one is delighting weary breakfast guests with such an unforgettable tale, surely it would have been essential to show them. How could she have resisted?

    Mia farrow obviously can’t have seen them, unless she suffers from a eye disorder whereby three stones become one.

    So at which point did naomi discover they were diamonds? at breakfast? At which point did she think they would be of any value to Radcliffe? – she claims it was at breakfast yet she had already decided to give them to radcliffe before breakfast – had she not?

    She is good, but not that good.

  43. jfallah,

    Where have you gone to? You need to tell us what you think about Naomi testimony. I warned you never to count your chicks until they are hatched, but you never listened and now you have it all outside down. Too bad that you talk too much without thinking about tomorrow.

    Harris K Johnson

    1. Harris K. Johnson,
      Leave Fallah alone as we say the typical Liberian way. Why are you guys running amock with Naomi’s testimony? It is full of flaws and deceptions on her part and therefore makes her testimony unbelievable.

      Not to repeat what other folks have expressed, but i am afraid there is no other way to enlighten you but to do so.

      1) a knock on your (Naomi) door in the middle of the night and two strange men brought you a present without identifying its source? Amazing

      2) You were handed a pouch from total strangers and she did not see what the contents were, but rather took it to her bedside till the next morning? For all astute purposes that pouch could have contained contraband or worst still a bomb. Naomi is not that careless.

      The judges are intelligent folks that can easily deduce that Naomi is concealing some key information and that her reponses from the beginning of the accusation to the present has not been consistent. From not recieving any diamonds to recieving dirty looking stones from two total strangers in the middle of the night without identification, in my opinion that is a 360 or atleast 180 degree.

      1. Nosirrah,
        If Ms. Cmpbell testimony is full of flaws, whoe witness is she? Isn’t she a prosecution witness that you guys were waiting to hear the guilt of Mr. Taylor from her testimony? If you don’t believed her, would you believe Carole White who stated that the men were hiting her window with rocks before she woke up and opened the door and offered the men bottles of coke before carrying on their delivery of the diamonds? Why didn’t she ( Ms. White ) call the security on duty?

        Doesn’t it tell you that she knows these men personally just by failing to call for help instead she opened the door and offered them bottles of coke? To you, those men were strangers to both Ms. White and Mia Farrow…… there’s no way those men could have been strangers to them instead they conspired to set Mr. Taylor up so they could prosecute him!
        Long live the people of Liberia and Long live members of true Justice on this site!

        1. Jocone,
          This witness was not a willing witness, she had to be subpoena. The prosecution knew that she would inadverdently divulge information in the prosecution’s favor that she was unwilling to give without the order i.e admission that she recieved diamonds or “dirty stones.”

          Forget the conspiracy theory. By 1997, there wasn’t any connection of blood diamond or any indictment in the works for Taylor, so Farrow and White couldn’t have been planting evidence.

  44. It wasn’t necessary to impugne this witness.Her lies couldn’t be more blatantly obvious!

    1, Two strange men knock on her door and wake her up! “In the middle of the night” she gets up and opens said door to two strange men? (Would you?)

    2, They hand her a small bag and say “a gift for you”. She doesn’t ask from whom?
    She takes bag, closes door, puts bag on table and goes back to sleep! and only looks in bag when she wakes up in the morning! (Would any normal person not look in the bag as soon as the door was shut!, just out of curiosity)

    The woman is diabolical and reprehensible! Another waste of space from the endless line of meaningless young celebrities who now flood the air waves and mass media, famous for being famous and laying waste to the morals, values and minds of the worlds youth.

    1. Exumab, the witness you are now demonising is a prosecution witness and not a defence witness. so you need to ask the prosecution to explain why they decided to forcefully bring her to court. the answer was that they sincerely HOPED that she would come and tell the court what the prosecution want to hear but unfortunately that did not happen!

  45. Q. And at the breakfast where you told them about this – where
    you told them about this event, why was it you told these two
    ladies about what had happened?
    A. Because they were – some people had eaten breakfast already
    and some hadn’t come down, and Carole White I trusted at the
    time, she was my agent, and I told them, you know, someone came
    to my door and gave me this pouch. It would be normal for me to
    tell someone I trusted and someone I had worked with.
    Q. And at that point in time, what was your relationship with
    Mia Farrow?
    A. That was the first time I ever met her.

  46. Q. Thank you. And how would you characterise the relationship
    that you currently would have with Mia Farrow?
    A. I don’t. I didn’t – I haven’t had one since 1998. I never
    saw her again.
    Q. So it was just a casual acquaintance on those two
    A. Someone that was supporting the same thing I was,
    underprivileged children in South Africa. That’s about it.

  47. Jfallah,
    Have you had heart attack, or have you gone back to school? Please come back trial is growing more intrest by the day.

    Harris K Johnson

  48. Guys, the view that it was strange for Naomi to recieved such gifts from strangers does not make sense at all. The lady clearly stated that she was in a very well secure facility and it was not uncommon for her to receive gifts in that way. She said that she usually recieves gifts on many occassion after attending events and she would just put them down and look at them the next morning. So for her, this was a routine behavior.

    I am convinced that Naomi was telling the truth because according to her , she did not know what those “dirty stones” was, so she was not impressed about the gifts. That was why she decided to give it to Ratcliffe. Mia Farrow statement with the prosecution supports Naomi on two levels.
    1. Mia Farrow said that Naomi told them at breakfast about two strange men knocking her door and giving her some pieces of stones.
    2. Mia Farrow statement with the prosecution says that she did not see the stones. That is Mia Farrow says that she (Mia Farrow) did not see the stones.

    Here is portion of Mia Farrow statement which was presented to the defense during the time tha Charles Taylor was not the witness stand, in his own defense. Mia Farrow said: “I did not have further contact with Mr Taylor and I believe he may have departed before the dinner. The next morning, when the other guests, my children and I met for breakfast, Naomi Campbell was there and had an unforgettable story. She told us that she had been awakened in the night by knocking at her door. She opened the door to find two or three men, I do not recall how many, who presented her with a large diamond which they said was from Charles Taylor.”

    So there you have it, Mia Farrow own statement is very clear:
    A. “The next morning, when the other guests, my children and I met for breakfast, Naomi Campbell was there and had an unforgettable story. She told us that she had been awakened in the night by knocking at her door. She opened the door to find two or three men, I do not recall how many, who presented her with a large diamond..”

    So it was Naomi Campbell who told the two other ladies, Ms Carole White and Ms Mia Farrow, that “she had been awakened in the night by knocking at her door. She opened the door to find two or three men.” Now lets examine this further statement from Mia Farrow:

    B. “Ms Campbell told us that she would be donating the diamond to Mandela’s children’s charities. As far as I recall, I did not see the diamond.”

    Again, Naomi Campbell testimony in open court is being corroborated by Mia Farrow’s statements to the prosecution. Mia Farrow clearly stated that “As far as I recall, I did not see the diamond.” So Naomi Campbell was truthful that she did not show them the “dirty stones” during breadfast. We can also add a third point to support Naomi Campbell. According to Mia Farrow , “Ms Campbell told us that she would be donating the diamond to Mandela’s children’s charities.” This shows that Naomi Campbell had already decided to give the “dirty stones” to Ratclifffe before meeting the two ladies at the breadfast table.

    Thus, we can see clearly on three points that Naomi Campbell was truthful:
    1. “she had been awakened in the night by knocking at her door. She opened the door to find two or three men.’
    2. “Ms Campbell told us that she would be donating the ” [dirty-stones]” to Mandela’s children’s charities. ‘
    3. Naomi did not show the “dirty stones” during breadfast. “As far as I recall, I did not see the diamond,” says Mia Farrow.

    So here is the great question: Why did Ratcliffe keep those “dirty stones” for all those years? There was a conspriracy to lie against M. Taylor.

  49. King Gray,
    That also going to discredit Ms. White statement, because Ms. White claim it was her who open the door and let the men in and offer then cokes. Therefore, there was no need for Ms. Campbell to tell Ms. White the story. Ms. Farrow did state, “She told us that she had been awakened in the night by knocking at her door.” The only “us” that have been named is Ms. Farrow and Ms. White.

    I think the defense is going to ask Mr. Farrow more about the event that she had when a photographer who was going to take her picture with Ms. Taylor. At that moment, it appeared that Ms. Farrow did not know anything about Mr. Taylor. Mr. Mandela now wife fill her in on some of the alleged activity of Mr. Taylor. Ms. Campbell stated she was not aware of Ms. Mandela objection to Mr. Taylor been at the dinner. Ms. Campbell testifies that it was Ms. Farrow or Ms. White who said the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor.

    I believe it was Ms. Farrow and Ms. Farrow told Ms. Campbell what Ms. Mandela had told her about Mr. Taylor. It that moment Ms. Campbell did not want to have anything to do with those stones, and Ms. Campbell rid herself of them as fast was she could by giving them to her friend Mr. Radcliffe who she had know for a long time and trusted that he would do the right thing with them.

    Mr. Radcliffe is a completely new different story, which he will have to answer too, not Ms. Campbell. As Ms. Campbell stated when Mr. Radcliffe took the stones, it was out of her hands she did not care what he did with them.

    Ms. White her story of events is so crazy she just might not show up in court.

    Ms. Farrow, her story of events is heavy influences by Mr. Koumjian because she stated in her statement that it was Mr. Koumjian who calls her she did not contact the prosecution.

    Mr. Taylor up coming trial was well publicized, because of the many children that were involved in Liberia and Sierra Leone’s wars. but according to Mr. Farrow, so-called well known human right active for children, did not know any thing about Mr. Taylor, Sierra Leone war crime court until Mr. Koumjian contact her. In addition, where was Ms. Farrow when her own President Bush was acting a fool about Mr. Taylor on the TV?

  50. Guys, guys! To Naomi Campbell , those two men were strange because they did not know them but that does not mean that those two men were strangers in that place. This was the presidential place and many many people worked in there. Naomi did not know all the people that worked in that place, so to her those two men were strangers.

  51. Joseph O.Beyan Jr.
    I think Ms. Campbell decided to give the diamonds away because she was told by her friends that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor. But one thing that came to my mind is that, it could has been that Ms. White and Ms. Farrow knew those men who brough the diamonds to Ms. Campbell as a set up by Western power to prosecute Mr. Taylor.

    The reason is that, they both quickly told Ms. Campbell that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor. How could they conclude that the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor? Infact, Ms. White Stated that she was the one who opened the door for the men and offer them drinks….. I think she was the one who call Ms. Campbell to come see the men! I don’t think the diamonds came from Mr. Taylor instead it was planned with the backing of some big fish so as to speak but it backfired so badly!
    I think this case is not necessary but to pand money on TOTAL NONSENCE!!!!!!!!!

  52. The defence has miserably damaged thier case. Naomi said and empasized that the stones came from two men and not Charles Taylor. @ crminal law the prosecution case automatically fails here. They can’t get a conviction. Period. A What a waste of time.

  53. I am not in the legal profession myself so please excuse these questions but I am curious as to how not one person of the presidential compound both staff and security have no means of identifying those two men whom made the drop of the diamonds to Ms Campbell’s room on the night in question?Plus are there no records of the calls or texts made from Ms Campbell’s phone on this night in question also?

    In response to the idea that maybe Mr Taylor was set up by a Western power , could it possible that maybe Mr Taylor could have been set up by someone or some power closer to home?

  54. Greetings to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
    Sir i am from India, hear i have one children home with some children i feed them with very very sturguls,Please share your Love and Compassion to the children.
    Yours in HIM,
    Bishop Rev Dr P.J.Kennedy.

Comments are closed.