I’ve been following, to an extent, the coverage of the trial of Charles Taylor. Naomi Campbell’s testimony last week was intended to demonstrate that Taylor had at some point been in possession of un-cut diamonds that he had received as a consequence of trading arms with the rebels in Sierra Leone. Except, of course, it didn’t – not even close. Listening to Campbell, all that could be deduced is that two unnamed men – who may or may not have been linked to Taylor – gave her some un-cut stones. The stones themselves have since been recovered, therefore verifying to an extent her testimony.
All that this evidence tells us is that two anonymous men gave Naomi Campbell a pouch containing some un-cut diamonds. That’s it. As an impartial observer, I could see no link being established between Taylor and the stones, let alone arms trading.
Today, it was worse. Mia Farrow gave testimony that contradicted Campbell, but the recovery of the stones in the interim places more weight on Campbell’s testimony than Farrow’s. Farrow was then cross-examined by the defence lawyer who went into great depth about comments she’d made on her blog. Okay, it’s bad form to edit a quote when reproducing it on one’s blog, but what did this have to do with the evidence trail? Nothing, is what. All that Farrow could offer the court was second-hand hearsay – “he said, she said” and so on. The only point that could be verified has already been shown to be either false or unproven; that Charles Taylor gave Campbell a large diamond. No, he didn’t. Two men gave her three small un-cut stones, this has now been partially verified.
Farrow’s testimony was not evidence, it was gossip. At times, counsel was asking the witness to speculate on what other witnesses may have been thinking at the time. What!?!
Listening to what was little more than tittle-tattle, speculation and hearsay being presented as evidence of a smoking gun that it quite clearly was not, I asked myself the question; why was this not dismissed by the bench? What passes for evidence in the Hague clearly isn’t what I understand as evidence.
If Taylor is convicted on this, then there is something very, very wrong here.
The whole ‘war crimes’ thing has more in common with theatre than it does with justice…
Indeed. Since I wrote this, Carol White has given her evidence. It is closer to Campbell’s but implies that Campbell knew where the diamonds were coming from and who sent them. Her testimony was, therefore, more use than Farrow’s. That said, there is still only circumstantial evidence that links Taylor to the gems and then to arms trading from this testimony.
I wonder if this is much of a story at all. It’s rather quaint the way Radio 4 has just presented it as a main item, when there’s absolutely no bloody point of carrying it on radio at all: the whole point of any story involving Naomi Campbell is lots of pictures of her.
Why the hell do we need it on the TV for hour after hour at all? Is it just because a “super-model” is involved ? But what an entertaining circus it is. It looks like the bar from Star Wars. Rows and rows and bored looking bints in lawyer-chic. Gizz a job. I could dress up and sit there staring at the camera to make sure it is still on me.
Three years this has been going. Plenty more goodies in the trough yet. And the UK gets the pleasure of keeping him in a four star prison if he is found guilty. Goodie-goodie.
And isn’t the woman doing the swearing in a gem?
If the rest of the “evidence” is anything like what I’ve been seeing this past few days, no wonder it is taking so long. Instead of going into the details of what is or is not on Farrow’s blog – with is entirely irrelevant to the case, the defence should have been seeking to get her evidence ruled inadmissible.
Or is Taylor to be convicted on gossip, hearsay and tittle-tattle because everyone knows he is guilty? A bit like the Iranian system of “judges knowledge”, eh?
“Or is Taylor to be convicted on gossip, hearsay and tittle-tattle because everyone knows he is guilty? A bit like the Iranian system of “judges knowledge”, eh?”
Bingo!
It seems to me that the outcome had already been decided… Taylor = Guilty.
Now they just need to scrape together some ‘evidence’ to prove that due process has been followed… who is paying for this farce?
No wonder the Yanks refused to sign up to the ICC.