(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Mia Farrow's 'blood diamond' testimony at war crimes trial: as it happened

Naomi Campbell's evidence at the war crimes trial of the former Liberian leader Charles Taylor was challenged today by her former agent Carole White and the actor Mia Farrow. Follow how the day unfolded

Mia Farrow at the international criminal court in The Hague
Mia Farrow at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, The Hague. Photograph: BBC

7.45am:
Last week the supermodel Naomi Campbell admitted accepting "dirty looking stones" after meeting the former Liberian leader Charles Taylor at a charity dinner in 1997. This added weight to the prosecution's case that the former warlord traded blood diamonds in return for supplying weapons to the Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone.

Campbell said she was told by her former agent Carole White and the actor Mia Farrow that the diamonds came from Taylor, but otherwise she had no idea who sent them. That testimony is likely to be challenged by White and possibly Farrow.

In evidence to the tribunal, White said she heard Taylor tell Campbell he would send her some diamonds. Taylor's defence lawyer Courtenay Griffiths QC claims that White is using the case to smear Campbell as part of a separate dispute.

You can follow a web feed of today's testimony, on a 30-minute delay, from the court's website.

Lizzy Davies, who is at the court, writes:


The mood at the Special Court for Sierra Leone at Leidschendam is a good deal calmer today than last week, but the tension is mounting.

Observers are keen to see whether Naomi Campbell's fellow dinner guests will indeed contradict her testimony, as their declarations to the prosecution would seem to suggest.

We're expecting White's evidence to be lengthier – the court has predicted it will last two hours – and more detailed than Farrow's, whose only knowledge of the diamonds seems to have been over breakfast the next morning.

Campbell's former agent, on the other hand, has told prosecutors she was asked to help arrange the delivery of the diamonds, and that her protege invited the men in for cans of Coca-Cola in her bedroom. Asked about all this on Thursday, Campbell denied it all.

Meanwhile, Campbell's "people" are milling around the press room – which is, incidentally, far more sparsely populated than Thursday. They don't know where she is, they said, but they'll be her eyes and ears today.

8.38am:
The hearing starts with a complaint from Taylor's defence counsel Courtenay Griffiths about the order of who appears today. Carole White was supposed to appear first, it now seems that Mia Farrow will take the stand first, and there's no sign of White.

Griffiths says this reversal in the timetable is "totally out of order" and he accuses the prosecution of "playing fast and loose" with the court. Apparently White has an appointment elsewhere today. Griffiths says the tribunal is not being held for convenience of witnesses, in an echo of Naomi Campbell's phrase last week.

8.44am:
Mia Farrow comes into the court wearing glasses and a black suit. She takes the oath.

mia-farrow

8.49am:
Farrow confirms that she attended the Blue Train charity party in South Africa at the invitation of Nelson Mandela. She says she travelled to South Africa with her three children.

She also confirms she attended a now infamous dinner at Mandela house. She was advised by Mandela's partner Graca Machel not to be photographed with fellow guest Charles Taylor, the then leader of Liberia.

Farrow confirms the names of the other guests including Naomi Campbell, Quincy Jones and the cricketer Imran Khan (who she describes as a soccer player).

8.56am:
Farrow says that Campbell recounted a story that Taylor had sent men to give her a "huge diamond" and that she intended to give it to Mandela's charity.

The feed shows Taylor taking notes at the back of the court.

Campbell did not show the guests the diamond, Farrow says.

8.59am:
Farrow said she and Campbell "became friendly" and that they had discussed organising a party with supermodels, including Kate Moss and Christy Turlington, to raise money for Mandela's charity. Farrow said her children "adore" Campbell. She was "very maternal" with the children and lent a dress to her daughter Malone. "She was just great," Farrow said.

9.03am:
The court is showed this video of an ABC interview in which Campbell denies receiving a diamond from Taylor.

9.06am:
Is that statement in the interview consistent with what Campbell told you, Farrow is asked. "No," she replies.

9.08am:
The court is shown a transcript of Campbell's testimony. Farrow denies that she or White told Campbell that the diamonds had come from Taylor. Farrow says she can't remember Carole White and has had no contact with her since.

The suggestion that the diamonds came from Taylor was made by Campbell, Farrow insists.

It was "only hers – I didn't know anything about it," Farrow says.

Farrow says she didn't know who Taylor was and "shamefully" she didn't know about the war in Sierra Leone.

9.13am:
"Who said the diamonds came from Charles Taylor?" Farrow is asked directly by the prosecutor. "Naomi Campbell," Farrow says.

The defence raises an objection that one witness is impeaching another.

The objection is overruled by the judges.

9.16am:
Farrow is asked more about a breakfast conversation with Campbell in which Campbell says she discussed what she planned to do with the diamonds. Campbell said she would give the diamond or diamonds to Madiba's [Mandela's] children's charity, Farrow said.

9.19am:
Campbell's testimony from last week is read out. "Miss Farrow, did you tell Miss Campbell that the diamond or diamonds came from Charles Taylor?" She replies, "Absolutely not," and again insists that Campbell made the suggestion that the stones came from Taylor.

9.22am:
Farrow is cross-examined by Taylor's defence lawyer, Morris Anyah. She confirms she doesn't know where the diamond or diamonds came from, and that she did not see the stone(s). The defence is trying to suggest that Farrow's memory is hazy.

9.26am:
Farrow says Campbell's breakfast time story about the diamond from Taylor was an "unforgettable moment". She says her children also remember the story. The children were 16 or 17, 12, and 10 years old at the time, the defence establishes.

9.29am:
The defence quizzes Farrow on whether there was one "big diamond" or several. Campbell talked about two to three "dirty looking stones", Anyah points out. He also talks about White's various accounts of the number of diamonds.

"Yesterday, Carole White told her lawyer that there were five uncut diamonds," Anyah said.

Farrow says she remembers a discussion of only one big diamond. Anyah says a lot has happened to Farrow in the last 13 years.

"Do you know somebody by the name of Jeremy Ractliffe?" Farrow is asked. She says she knows he was the director of Mandela's childrens' charity from recent coverage of the trial.

9.36am:
The president of the tribunal asks to clarify the age of Farrow's oldest son at the time of the party. He was 27, not 17, Farrow confirms.

9.37am:
The tribunal is shown a copy of this BBC story which begins

The former head of Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, Jeremy Ractliffe, has said he did receive uncut diamonds from the model Naomi Campbell.

Anya reads out bits of the story including this:

"Three small uncut diamonds were given to me by Naomi Campbell on the Blue Train on 26 September 1997," he [Ractliffe] said in a statement sent to the BBC.

South Africa's special Hawks police unit has since confirmed to the BBC that they received the stones on Thursday from Mr Ractliffe, who first made contact with them on Tuesday.

Charles-taylor-Anya

9.43am:
Anyah, with Charles Taylor sitting behind him, presses Farrow again on whether there was one diamond or more. A judge from the tribunal says Farrow has already answered this.

Farrow says what she knows is based on what Campbell said. "She said a 'large diamond' singular, that's what she said," Farrow said.

9.49am:
Farrow is asked to clarify whether Taylor stayed for the charity dinner. "I believe he may have departed," Farrow says. "He may have stayed, she [Campbell] may have a better recollection," she says.

Farrow says her attention was focused on her children during the dinner. She remembers a "large group" at the dinner on three or more tables. "I'm sorry I can't be more precise," she tells the president of the tribunal.

"I didn't know much about him [Taylor] before the dinner," she says.

Anyah reminds the court that Campbell said there was only one table.

9.54am:
"I didn't see any flirtation" [between Campbell and Taylor], Farrow says in reference to White's testimony. Farrow says she can't remember where Campbell or White sat at the dinner.

9.56am:
The court is shown the now infamous photo of the party.

Jemima Khan, Imran Khan, Naomi Campbell, Nelson Mandela, Gracha Machell, Mia Farrow, Tony Leung 1997 Jemima Khan, Imran Khan, Naomi Campbell, Nelson Mandela, Gracha Machell, Mia Farrow, Tony Leung in 1997 Illustration: Sipa Press/Rex Features

9.58am:
Farrow confirms that she appeared in the photograph wearing "traditional African attire".

According to White, Taylor's wife was also at the party wearing African dress. Farrow can't remember this. Farrow recalls the names of the guests in the photograph, she apologises for describing Imran Khan as a soccer player earlier (8.49am).

10.05am:
The defence drifts way off topic by asking Farrow about when she split up with Woody Allen. The court is shown a photograph of Farrow, Campbell and the models Christy Turlington and Kate Moss with Mandela at a fundraising party in 1998. Not quite sure where this is going.

10.10am:
"Did you ask Campbell whatever happened to that diamond," Farrow is asked of the 1998 party. "No I didn't," she replies.

10.14am:
Back to the 1997 dinner picture featuring Charles Taylor. Why is Graca Machel smiling in the picture if she warned Farrow not to be photographed alongside Taylor? Farrow is asked.

Maybe she had obligations, Farrow suggests.

10.24am:
Farrow said it was her impression that Charles Taylor overstayed his welcome at the Mandela dinner in 1997.

Anyah points out that Machel was previously married to Samora Machel, a rebel turned president of Mozambique. She is not someone who would be unnerved by the company of rebel leaders, Anyah points out.

Farrow confirms she is aware of Machel's background.

10.31am:
The court takes a mid-morning break. While we wait for more, here's Lizzy Davies's write-up of this morning's testimony.

Naomi Campbell told guests staying at Nelson Mandela's home in South Africa that she had received diamonds from the former Liberian warlord Charles Taylor, according to testimony given to a court in The Hague today by the actor Mia Farrow.

Speaking before the special court for Sierra Leone, the US film star contradicted parts of evidence given by the supermodel last week, in which Campbell alleged that she had no idea who had sent her the "dirty looking stones" until breakfasting with Farrow and others the morning after.

10.56am:
My colleague Adam Gabbatt has talked to Lizzy Davies who was in court as Mia Farrow gave her evidence. Lizzy says Farrow told the court "very clearly" that Naomi Campbell had told her that the diamonds had come from Charles Taylor.

Taylor's lawyer is arguing that if Farrow cannot remember other points from 13 years ago (the actor has been hazy on what happened at the dinner hosted by Nelson Mandela) then perhaps her evidence is faulty.

Farrow insists she remembers what Campbell said about the diamond accurately, however.

Listen!

11.03am:
The proceedings have resumed and Farrow appears again after another discussion about the order the witness should appear.

Was Carole White present at the breakfast meeting, Anyah asks. "I don't remember," Farrow says.

Farrow confirms that she travelled on the Blue Train in September 1997 with other guests including Mandela, Campbell and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. She says it is likely that Ractliffe was also on the train but she can't remember if he was. She can't remember whether White was on the train.

11.14am:
The court is shown testimony stating that White and Campbell discussed what to do with the diamonds while on board the Blue Train. Farrow repeats that she heard that Campbell wanted to give the diamonds to the charity at the breakfast - in other words before the Blue Train ride.

"You knew the country Liberia?" Farrow is asked. "Yes," she replies with a smile in apparent reference to Campbell's stated ignorance of the country.

11.18am:
Campbell said it was you or Carole White who said the stones were diamonds and that they came from Charles Taylor, Farrow is told. One of you is not telling the truth, it is put to her. Farrow says is not possible that she did not remember the events accurately.

11.23am:
Is it possible that the gift could have come from anyone in South Africa? Anyah asks. "But for the fact that she said it came from Charles Taylor," Farrow replies.

The prosecution name-checked the Guardian referring to an interview in which Farrow said she was interested in books. "You are an enlightened person?" Anyah asked. "I'm working on it," Farrow said.

Is this the article? Here's an extract:

Farrow reported that the previous night she had watched Schindler's List and couldn't stop crying. She has been reading Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha and Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi - Thomas Moore's Care of the Soul is next up - and listening to the slow movements of Bach and Mahler. "Alongside my bed is a large window through which I can see the sky, a lake, trees, birds and, at dusk, the deer. I am at peace and busy with my thoughts."

She also mentions reading in this interview.

11.34am:
As a well-read person with an interest in Africa, did it occur to you to contact the tribunal about what you had heard? Farrow is asked. "I didn't know this incident would be so consequential," she says. "My focus was on Sudan," she says.

Farrow says the Rwandan genocide "changed my life".

Farrow says she had forgotten about the diamond story. "Yes, I regret not putting it together earlier," she says.

If Taylor is found guilty of the crimes, I am "gratified" that he was arrested, Farrow says clarifying her declaration to the court. She says she is "happy" to provide evidence.

11.40am:
"I am willing and pleased to offer whatever I can," Farrow says. She says using the word "pleased" in that context is a figure of speech and doesn't mean she is "elated".

The court is shown a clip of a news item in which Farrow talks about hearing of Campbell receiving the large diamond. In the clip Farrow says that she stands by the story in the face of denials from Taylor.

"I'm eager to see the people of Liberia and Sierra Leone see justice. They deserve that," Farrow says in the clip.

Anyah points out that Taylor is not accused of anything in relation to Liberia. Farrow admits she didn't know that.

11.54am:
The court is shown extracts of Farrow's blog.

These bits are read out:


Mr. Bashir is indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the African Union Panel on Darfur has clearly aligned itself with Khartoum.

For seven years, the people of Darfur have been pleading for protection and for justice. They do not believe either peace or justice can come while Mr. Bashir - orchestrator of their suffering - remains president of Sudan. Nor do they believe "locally owned accountability" is remotely possible under the current regime.

When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, hope abounded, even in Darfur's bleak refugee camps. Darfuris believed this son of Africa could understand their suffering, would end the violence that has taken so much from them, and bring Mr. Bashir to justice.

I have held new babies named Obama and watched as Darfuris began to dream again.

It is past time for us to step up and accept our moral obligation to protect a defenseless people. The American people should urge Mr. Gration and the Obama administration to lead a diplomatic offensive to convince the world to isolate Omar alBashir as a fugitive from justice, and to whole-heartedly support the only body offering Darfur's people a measure of authentic justice: the International Criminal Court.

12.00pm:
What has all this got to do with what Naomi Campbell told the witness about receiving diamonds, one of the judges asked of the defence's line of questioning.

Anyah is allowed to continue. "Do you really believe that the international criminal court is the only body that can offer the people of Darfur justice?" he asks. "Yes," Farrow replies.

She also talks about her hunger strike over Darfur. It lasted 12 days, she says. "I just couldn't sit by and watch" Farrow says.

The court is shown another video, this time of Farrow campaigning against Omar al-Bashir's regime in Sudan. In the clip she talks of thugs "who hack their way to power".

Farrow says she believes Bashir is guilty of genocide before the verdict of the international criminal court.

12.20pm:
Farrow is challenged about a blog entry last Thursday in which she cut and pasted a Guardian article about blood diamonds.

The article is shown to the court.

Mark Tran, who wrote the article, is sitting next to me chuckling. (Mark says he himself cut and pasted much of the article from another one that he wrote on the subject in 2007).

Farrow admits she made changes to the Guardian article before pasting it on her blog.

12.27pm:
Farrow admits taking out the crucial words "if true" from the Guardian article. Farrow said she couldn't bring herself to write "if true" because she knows it to be true. Here's the extract from Mark's Q&A.


The supermodel was called to testify by the prosecution for having allegedly received a diamond as a gift from Taylor in 1997. There is no suggestion that Campbell knew the possible origin of the diamond. She admitted in court to receiving "dirty-looking" diamonds that she was later told came from Taylor.

Prosecutors say the story, if true, would back up allegations that Taylor traded guns to neighbouring Sierra Leone rebels in exchange for uncut diamonds.

Here's how it appeared in Farrow's blog:

Naomi Campbell was called to testify by the prosecution for having allegedly received a diamond as a gift from Taylor in 1997. There is no suggestion that Campbell knew the possible origin of the diamond.

Prosecutors say the story backs up allegations that Taylor traded guns to neighbouring Sierra Leone rebels in exchange for uncut diamonds. The prosecution argues that the diamond allegedly given to Campbell was likely to have been part of a batch obtained by Taylor from Sierra Leone and taken to South Africa for sale or exchange for arms.

Farrow says she probably shouldn't have edited the article. "I used the Guardian to explain what the trial is about," Farrow said.

12.39pm:
Farrow is asked to clarify a few points about her testimony by the tribunal's judges. She says she wants to retract her estimate of the number of guests at the party. She also says that Mandela's partner, Graca Machel, pointed out Charles Taylor at the party and said that he "should have gone by now".

"What was Campbell demeanour at breakfast?", the president of the tribunal asks. She seemed excited, Farrow says. "She didn't sit down before telling the diamond story."

Charles Taylor definitely wasn't on the Blue Train ride, Farrow said.

There are no more questions.

Before she leaves, Farrow tries to clarify a point about the breakfast conversation. "I assumed there was a diamond as Miss Campbell was accustomed to receiving. I didn't know it was diamonds in the rough. I pictured a diamond in a box, she didn't say it was a diamond in the rough."

That's it from Farrow. She is thanked for her evidence and leaves the court.

carole-white

12.56pm:
Carole White, Naomi Campbell's former agent, takes to the stand. "I was her agent in London, then I became her mother agent," White says. She says she worked with Campbell for 17 years.

White confirms that she went on the Blue Train trip in September 1997 and stayed the night in Mandela's guesthouse.

White says she kept a record of the itinerary of the trip, but before she goes into details the court adjourns for its lunch hour.

Live blog: recap

1.08pm:
While the court is at lunch, here's a summary of the main points from Mia Farrow's testimony:

Farrow contradicted key parts of Naomi Campbell's testimony about rough diamonds she received after meeting Charles Taylor at a charity dinner with Nelson Mandela in September 1997. Farrow, who believed there was only one large diamond, said it was Campbell who suggested that the gift came from Taylor.
Farrow said Campbell was excited as she recounted receiving the gift. Farrow said it was an "unforgettable story", but her recollection of other details about the event seemed hazy.
Campbell told Farrow that she planned to donate the diamond(s) to Nelson Mandela's children's charity. Jeremy Ractliffe, who last week admitted receiving the diamonds from Campbell, was probably on the Blue Train ride that guests took after Campbell was given the stones, Farrow said.
Charles Taylor's lawyers suggested that Farrow was an unreliable witness by pointing out that she had preconceived ideas about alleged African warlords. The defence revealed that Farrow had omitted the words "if true" when she cut and pasted a Guardian article referring to the allegations that Taylor had given Campbell rough diamonds.

There's more in our news story on Farrow's evidence.

2.06pm:
The trial continues with questions to White from prosecution lawyer Brenda Hollis about Campbell's trip to South Africa. White describes Mandela's guesthouse as "baronial".

White says that Taylor attended the dinner at Mandela's house together with Campbell and Farrow. White says she met Taylor briefly before the dinner. "I was seated three down from him" [during the dinner] she says. Campbell told White that Mandela's partner, Graca Machel, was annoyed that Taylor was at the dinner.

2.17pm:
"Naomi leant back and Charles Taylor leant forward. Naomi was very excited, and told me 'he's going to give me some diamonds'" White told the court.

"They were being charming to each other. Mildly flirting," White said. "They were just being affable," she clarifies. "Naomi was flirting with him [Taylor] and he was flirting back," she adds. "I heard them laughing and talking, but I can't recall the conversation," White says.

2.23pm:
One of Taylor's ministers discussed bringing diamonds to Campbell's room in the guesthouse, White said. She doesn't recall which minister. She said he was wearing African dress and was about 35 to 40 years old. White said she heard this conversation but did not take part in it. "Naomi was very excited about these diamonds" White says describing the moment she and Campbell were waiting for the diamonds to arrive. On two occasions White and Campbell went into the garden to see if the men with diamonds had arrived. "She knew they were on their way," White said. She said Campbell was in touch with someone on her phone. "I don't recall if it was a phonecall or a text," White says.

2.28pm:
"As I was getting ready for bed I heard some chinky news at the window as if someone was throwing pebbles," White says. "'We have something for Miss Campbell'. I told them to wait," she said. White told Campbell that the guys with the diamonds had come, White recalled.

"She really wanted to let them in" [to the guesthouse] White says. "The guys came in. I gave them a Coca-Cola each. They took out a scruffy piece of paper [containing the diamonds]. They were quite disappointing because they weren't shiny."

White said there were five or six diamonds and that she handled the paper containing the stones.

2.33pm:
"I was quite worried about the gift, because if she took them out of South Africa I thought it would be me who would have to carry them and that it was illegal to take diamonds out of South Africa," White says.

White says she told Campbell the next morning to "do some good" with the diamonds and that she should donate them to Mandela's charity.

We both discussed that the diamonds were not very impressive, White recalled.

2.36pm:
"When we were on the Blue Train we went to see Jeremy Ractliffe in his carriage," White says. By then the diamonds were in a pouch, White says. She doesn't recall how many diamonds were given. "He looked shock and horrified. He didn't want them. Reluctantly he did take them," White says.

Both White and Campbell pressed Ractliffe to take the stones, she adds. "We explained to him that we knew it was bad to take them out of South Africa, and that he could do something better with them," she says.

2.45pm:
White is asked to label a photograph taken by David Bailey showing Mandela, Ractliffe and Campbell. (It must be one of the worst photographs David Bailey has ever taken).

Bailey-photo

Hollis says she doesn't want to ask any more questions.

2.48pm:
Taylor's defence counsel Courtenay Griffiths begins cross examination by asking White whether she watched Campbell's testimony. White says she saw snippets on the news.

White admits she may have been expected to appear live on CNN tonight for an interview with Anderson Cooper. Many people have asked me to appear on TV tonight, she says. "I did not agree, my attorney might have agreed," she says. White says she wasn't sure whether she wanted to appear, and wanted to wait until after she had given testimony before agreeing to the request.

2.58pm:
"Did you have a blood diamond party in your offices last week?" Griffiths asks White referring to a Facebook posting by White booking agent Annie Wilshire. White says she was with Wilshire last Friday but denies going to such a party.

3.03pm:
There was a party on Thursday night, White says, but it was nothing to do with blood diamonds. It was a party to mark the purchase of new house for models. No one referred to it as blood diamond party, White insists.

A caption of a photo from the party refers to it as a "blood diamond night" Griffiths points out. White is asked to label the people in the photo.

blood-diamond-party

3.10pm:
White says she is surprised that the party was referred to as a "blood diamond night". She confirms Campbell's testimony was discussed at the party. "It does surprise me that terminology, because I'm not crass enough to organise a party like that," White says.

Griffiths confirms that "the whole of my office" was watching Campbell's testimony live last Thursday. When Campbell said her appearance was an "inconvenience" the whole office laughed, according to a Facebook posting from one of White's employees. The comment was made by a former employee White says.

Here's the offending Facebook page.

blood-diamond-facebook

3.21pm:
White confirms that she has a legal claim against Campbell worth around £600,000. "You have a powerful motive to lie about her," Griffiths states.

She later accepts that she is looking for more than £600,000. You are looking for ammunition against Campbell, Griffiths states. "That's not true", White replies.

3.28pm:
Why did your lawyer think it important that you go public with this story? Griffiths asks. Did your lawyer say it would help with your lawsuit against Campbell? Griffiths asks.

No, White insists.

"You are not being frank with this court," Griffiths replies.

charles-taylor-griffiths

3.33pm:
"Would you have had an opportunity to meet Nelson Mandela, were it not for Miss Campbell?" Griffiths asks. "Probably not," White accepts.

While all this is going on Taylor continues to take notes in his seat behind Griffiths.

"I suggest you are the one who owes Naomi Campbell," Griffiths says.

3.39pm:
White says the last time she spoke to Mia Farrow was 1997 on the Blue Train. She has made no contact with her since, she says. Griffiths asks her to provide telephone records to prove this. White says she is willing to do this. She says it is coincidence that Farrow provided written testimony to the court two weeks after White launched her lawsuit against Campbell.

White again insists that she has not spoken to Farrow since 1997. She adds that no one else, to her knowledge, has contacted Farrow on her behalf.

3.46pm:
White says she knew nothing about blood diamonds in 1997, but she knew who Charles Taylor was, and she knew a little about Liberia.

3.49pm:
White admits her knowledge of Mandela's compound in Pretoria is sketchy. She can't remember if the compound is surrounded by fields. Were you there? Griffiths asks. I was there, I may have been asleep when we drove there, White says.

She says she can't recall if there were lots of armed guards at the compound. How did two burly black men get into the compound to through stones at your window? White is asked. "It is question I ask myself," she replies. She insists that two men came into the compound with diamonds. She admits that she can't recall whether they came from Liberia or whether they had been sent by Charles Taylor.

4.01pm:
White is thanked for her evidence and asked to return tomorrow. She is told not to discuss the case with anyone including her lawyer.

That's it for now. Thanks for your comments.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • gandrew gandrew

    9 Aug 2010, 8:28AM

    News stories which focus on 'expectations' are not and should not be regarded as news--simply innuendo and gossip. Where are your editorial standards???

  • s0n0fg0d s0n0fg0d

    9 Aug 2010, 9:00AM

    "This is such a BIG deal"...............
    can't the Guardian spend their resources on a proper story, something that really deserves digging into, I bet you have a pile of stories that could do with a little financial injection and that are 100x more interesting....

  • monopolyongod monopolyongod

    9 Aug 2010, 9:05AM

    So, since the 5th of August, the fourteenth article with celebrity focus, the second ´As it happens...´.

    Will all the other witnesses in this genocide trial also receive such harrowing treatment?

  • FerventPixel FerventPixel

    9 Aug 2010, 9:06AM

    And there I was thinking that this was Charles Taylor on trial for war crimes.

    Honestly, who cares about Naomi Campbell? Can the Guardian become even more vacuous than this?

  • MissMarples MissMarples

    9 Aug 2010, 9:18AM

    How come two unknow men would know where Ms Campbell was spending the night. Did she tell any one special ?

    Would you open a hotelroom door when you were already sleeping to someone knocking that you didn't expect, especially if your you are a celebrity ?

    If Ms Campbell was, staying at the house of Mr Mandela, how could two unknown men be roaming the premises in the night ?

    For whatever reason Mr Ratcliffe would have felt that protecting the reputation of Mr Mandela and his guests by hiding the stones was more important than handing them to his charity ?

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 9:21AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • soonah98 soonah98

    9 Aug 2010, 9:33AM

    I must say, it looks like a joke. Why spend such an excessive amount of time on trying to recall the minute details of a simple dinner conversation 13 years ago when the question is about war crimes? It is almost as if the court is getting into tittle tattle.

  • Foxest Foxest

    9 Aug 2010, 9:34AM

    Jesus fucking Christ Guardian.

    I generally appreciate and respect your content, however what part of "Blood Diamond Trial - Mia Farrow at International Criminal Court"

    Is anything other than gutter press tabloid journalism?

    This trial isn't about Mia Farrow.
    This trial isn't about Blood Diamonds.
    This trial is about a man whose actions lead to the deaths of 75,000 people.

    Or in the tone you've adopted today: 25 9/11s.

    Have some fucking respect. For 2 years, horrendous testimony from those who survived, scarred, traumatised, amputated but somehow still breathing has been addressed by few.

    Two bimbos whose involvement was limited to the provision Tits and Arse at a dinner party turn up and suddenly, it's front page news...

    I'd expect this of News Corps, but alas I'd held you in higher regard.

  • Foxest Foxest

    9 Aug 2010, 9:46AM

    revamol

    9 Aug 2010, 9:14AM

    Why was Mandela inviting Charles Taylor to a star-studded dinner party? Had he not heard of Sierra Leone. Liberia, blood diamonds etc....?

    'Blood Diamonds' or 'Conflict Diamonds' were not terms that had been coined or a concept that was formed.

    It's also quite clear that no-one had expected or predicted diamonds would be being offered about. Except Charles Taylor, who, like no minority of men before him, was trying to worm his way into a woman with diamonds.

    At that stage Charles Taylor was simply an ex-freedom fighter and the elected head of another African country.

    I'll restate, since ignorance seems abound, that this is not a criminal act. Nothing involving NC, MF, NM et al. was criminal, the focus is on linking the Blood Diamonds used by CT to pay Sierra Leonian guerillas to the Blood Diamonds used by CT to try to entice Campbell.

  • revamol revamol

    9 Aug 2010, 9:52AM

    @foxest

    My main reason for asking is that everyone seems appalled that Naomi Campbell had no idea about Taylor and Sierra Leone at the time of the party, yet no-one is questioning that if this was known by "everyone", why was he there? So, from what you are saying, some of the criticism of her knowledge of Africa is wrong.

  • satchelmouth satchelmouth

    9 Aug 2010, 10:00AM

    OK how seriously are we to take Mia Farrow's testimony after being unable to work out that her son, born in 1970, would have been 27 in 1997!!!!!!!!!

    Good God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • alexito alexito

    9 Aug 2010, 10:11AM

    11.30 am: Mia Farrow finishes testimony. Guardian Live Blog winds up. Story moved from homepage to World News. Average life expectancy in Sierra Leone remains 42.6 years.

  • Foxest Foxest

    9 Aug 2010, 10:14AM

    revamol

    9 Aug 2010, 9:52AM

    @foxest

    My main reason for asking is that everyone seems appalled that Naomi Campbell had no idea about Taylor and Sierra Leone at the time of the party, yet no-one is questioning that if this was known by "everyone", why was he there? So, from what you are saying, some of the criticism of her knowledge of Africa is wrong.

    Yes it's probably wrong to criticise here for not know anything about Taylor or Liberia.

    I mean the woman is ignorant, but no more than the very vast majority - Liberia is a little country in Africa with a GDP somewhere in the region of Norwich's.

    It's one of the smallest countries in its area and Taylor's 'Freedom Fight' was a pretty nominal kind of affair.

    Afghanistan is far more significant, and always has been, but prior to 2001, you'd have had a pretty depressing result had you canvassed public knowledge of it.

    In fact, I'd wager, that if I were to ask about the liberation of Benin and its leader I'd struggle to find anyone who even knew what Benin was and Benin has almost three times the population of Liberia.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 10:53AM

    I am not really interested in the fact that most of the western world is ignorant of African affairs to be frank. Most of the west are ignorant of their own affairs. Ask them what an insipid pop star is wearing and most will know, but the name of their own prime minister escapes them.

    Nobody is surprised and not much will change.

    However, dodgy geezers at parties with celebrities is news - especially if they a diamond peddling mass murderers at the parties of "beloved" presidents of pro-west African countries.

  • Foxest Foxest

    9 Aug 2010, 11:19AM

    *
    teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 10:53AM

    I am not really interested in the fact that most of the western world is ignorant of African affairs to be frank. Most of the west are ignorant of their own affairs. Ask them what an insipid pop star is wearing and most will know, but the name of their own prime minister escapes them.

    Nobody is surprised and not much will change.

    However, dodgy geezers at parties with celebrities is news - especially if they a diamond peddling mass murderers at the parties of "beloved" presidents of pro-west African countries.

    You've completely contradicted yourself.

    Unless you are informed about African affairs, how would you KNOW that Charles Taylor was a mass murderer?

    Unless you are informed about African affairs, how would you KNOW that there was anything wrong with a diamond from that part of the continent?

    More importantly, and though equally annoyingly, Charles Taylor's form of mass murder is exactly the same as any arms company's he supplied guerillas with arms to go and kill other people. The fact that this was paid for in diamonds is not qualitatively different from the fact that Charles Taylor's arms (procured from the US) were bought with the proceeds of the sale of those diamonds.

    Is it qualitatively different from Indonesia's purchase, with cash, of arms from the US to slaughter Timorese?

    I'm extremely pleased that Mr Taylor is likely to face some paltry effigy of justice, but the chain does not and should not stop there.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 11:24AM

    You've completely contradicted yourself.

    No I did not. There are not many people on this blog. Please note.

    My point is not that - you are mixing my words. Regardless of the majority- the minority who do read the papers - is interested in Africa affairs. And this case.

  • Workshop Workshop

    9 Aug 2010, 11:33AM

    So there is something 'fishy' about those 'dirty stones' . Mr Ratcliffe hides the diamonds and is too scared to hand them into Mandela's charity. Naomi Campbell is too scared to appear at the war trial at the Hague.

    Case closed. What further proof is required that Charles Taylor's diamonds are blood diamonds.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 11:35AM

    Unless you are informed about African affairs, how would you KNOW that Charles Taylor was a mass murderer?

    This is getting in a pickle now. Are you talking about him in 1997 or now?

    Now I know- maybe then I would not have done. However I think someone would have told Naomi Campbell who he was at the time - whether he was introduced as - Charles Taylor murderer and diamond peddlar is not known.

    There are two points going on at the same time here.

    My view is that I want to know what is going on in this trial that I have been following because it is important world news. (The minority) The other view is that some people believe that it only now news because Naomi Campbell and Mia Farrow are in it. (The majority)

    I am in the former group.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 11:37AM

    More importantly, and though equally annoyingly, Charles Taylor's form of mass murder is exactly the same as any arms company's he supplied guerillas with arms to go and kill other people. The fact that this was paid for in diamonds is not qualitatively different from the fact that Charles Taylor's arms (procured from the US) were bought with the proceeds of the sale of those diamonds.

    I learn - ergo the live blog is important. Thank you.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 12:06PM

    Jeez the west can't win can we? We are either interested and over "eager" to see justce or not interested and couldn't care less unless a super-model is involved.

    Now we are in a pickle.

    What are right thinking people supposed to do here?

    What indeed? The defence is using her eagerness to help against her. Madness.

  • frothwrath frothwrath

    9 Aug 2010, 12:07PM

    You can't take this Farrow witch seriously. Her blog describes Omar al-Bashir as 'a Hitler'. She obviously, obviously, has an agenda. She's not an unbiased witness.

  • Foxest Foxest

    9 Aug 2010, 12:30PM

    teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 12:06PM

    Jeez the west can't win can we? We are either interested and over "eager" to see justce or not interested and couldn't care less unless a super-model is involved.

    Now we are in a pickle.

    What are right thinking people supposed to do here?

    What indeed? The defence is using her eagerness to help against her. Madness.

    The correct action, is to consume responsibly. Trade as directly as possible with responsible African, Asian, Latin American and Eastern European companies which are treating their workers ethically and contributing to their communities.

    To maintain that interest whether it's on the front pages of tabloids not not mentioned at all.

    ...And to be willing to accept fallibility.

    For me, Farrow has shown herself well read and well considered, but has let herself down only on her refusal to accept the possibility of a hazy memory after 13 years just as Campbell failed accept that she might have said 'a diamond' and meant 'some diamonds' either of which is possible, but to me, neither is, or rather should be, consequential.

    Farrow and Campbell's testimonies, to me are very much more conformational than contradictory, the only factor of contradiction stems from a minuscule "she said/she said" which is no more important or significant than recollections of who said what to whom over your breakfast yesterday.

  • Bronwyn99 Bronwyn99

    9 Aug 2010, 12:42PM

    Farrow and Campbell's testimonies, to me are very much more conformational than contradictory, the only factor of contradiction stems from a minuscule "she said/she said" which is no more important or significant than recollections of who said what to whom over your breakfast yesterday.

    But this is a court of law and it should be consequential. If you don't believe Farrow and White then a crucial point about how Taylor supported the war is out (which I think would throw out the most of the rest of the charges; after all if he couldn't pay for it , he couldn't do it right?) If you do believe them over La Campbell then the prosecutors have proved the connection and thus fills in a crucial link.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    9 Aug 2010, 12:45PM

    The correct action, is to consume responsibly. Trade as directly as possible with responsible African, Asian, Latin American and Eastern European companies which are treating their workers ethically and contributing to their communities.

    Then it is up to the Governments, yes?

    Unfortunately the global nature of our trade set-up is that we are not altogether sure that a rogue state was not involved somewhere in the item.

    This may rely on trust. I am afraid I am very cynical. We all want to feel like we have acted responsibly. How many people give anything any thought t all when they purchase an item? Very few sadly.

    The diamond system of certification is proved to be rubbish. How can we trust anything or anyone at all?

    Even Mia Farrow alters Guardian articles and posts them on her blog. A criminal offence in itself. ;-)

    To maintain that interest whether it's on the front pages of tabloids not not mentioned at all.

    I feel very doubtful about that happening but I hope the Guardian maintains its coverage.

  • fanningtheflames fanningtheflames

    9 Aug 2010, 12:59PM

    Campbell and Farrow are involved to get publicity for the court, that is not necessarily a bad thing because it may deter other dictators if they see some sort of justice being meted out and may make lots of people think about what happened.

    Unfortunately convicting a mass murderer would get news on the inside pages for one edition, by involving Farrow and Campbell they have got front page news for days and weeks.

    A very sad reflection on out culture but it is possible some good will come of it.

  • frothwrath frothwrath

    9 Aug 2010, 1:01PM

    So now Farrow, who all along has been banging on and on about a 'huge' diamond, now admits that she might have made up the word 'huge'.

    She posts Guardian articles on her blog but edits them to make them fit her agenda.

    Why did Mandela even invite her to dinner? She has 'American do-gooder' and 'flake' written all over her.

  • Wilderness Wilderness

    9 Aug 2010, 1:02PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Archibald74 Archibald74

    9 Aug 2010, 1:03PM

    I'm slightly confused why a few people are getting angry with the Guardian on this, speaking as though they are defenders of the dying art of true journalism. This blog was live updates of someone's testimony. It is clearly titled as such. It's not comment or editorial opinion or even an article about the appearance. I don't really know why that is so hard for you to comprehend, given that you're all clearly journalism buffs. It's almost as if you're all a bunch of total muppets or something.

    Likewise, those so upset about the weighting this is given in relation to previous reporting on the trial, you've clearly all just arrived from Mars - welcome to planet Earth, this is how we roll. Shit, isn't it?

    That said, the paper's coverage has been good pre celebs I think, but I'm guessing many of you have only read the celeb stuff, and then got yourselves all angry and indignant.

  • Bronwyn99 Bronwyn99

    9 Aug 2010, 1:04PM

    Here's a link to a pretty good article that sums up the trial till about May:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2253842/

    It would be nice if the Guardian even did this once in awhile.

  • Gormenaghast Gormenaghast

    9 Aug 2010, 1:05PM

    Back to the trial of Mia Farrow.. . all that stuff about her pleas for Al Bashir to be brought to book over Darfur.
    Was the defence trying to prove she's biased against genocidal dictators?
    Is that a bad trait, and enough to discredit her evidence about what Naomi Campbell said?
    She was also accused of cutting out bits of Guardian articles, and editing them for clarity, to post on her blog (albeit with the links to the original).
    Is that another of her crimes?
    Perhaps the Guardian editor could respond?

  • horacemanoor horacemanoor

    9 Aug 2010, 1:06PM

    farrow is one of many american celebrities that washington encourages to show interest in sudan because sudan is swimming in oil -- don't hold your breath waiting for such folks to show interest in the women & children suffering under the apartheid imposed by an american ally

  • PetinaGappah PetinaGappah

    9 Aug 2010, 1:15PM

    The Charles Taylor trial is the first time that an African head of state has been on trial for international crimes. It raises all sorts of issues: the nature of international justice, the appropriate sentence for such crimes, the question of compensation, and whether this really is justice that is being pursued here or a rather expensive form of politics.

    There has been some harrowing testimony from witnesses. In the last two weeks, we have heard the crucial evidence from Issa Sessay, one of the rebel leaders (RUF). His evidence is absolutely key in this trial.

    And yet, according to the world media, the most important thing about this trial is the testimony of a vapid model and an equally vapid actress.

    But there is hope yet ... the Guardian and other media can make up for lost opportunities. The trial is set to continue for another six months at least. I hope the Guardian devotes as much space to other witness in this trial as it has done to these two, and to Carole White.

    Better get those live bloggers on stand by, you will need an army of them:)

  • TashG TashG

    9 Aug 2010, 1:23PM

    It's a bit sad to see the Guardian, BBc and other media focusing on this trial just because Naomi Campbell is in some loose way involved. Will we have live coverage next week when they are just hearing evidence on war crimes??

  • Jubilation1 Jubilation1

    9 Aug 2010, 1:34PM

    It is to be hoped that after seeing Naomi Campbell dragged to court, celebrities without the faintest idea of the real price paid by others will keep away from meddling in politics in the future.

  • mickangelo mickangelo

    9 Aug 2010, 2:09PM

    Foxest (and others): you seem to over look the fact that possibly Charles Taylor's eventual conviction or acquittal may depend on whether he gave "rough diamonds" to Campbell. If he did, then he was part of the trade that was itself part of the war crimes he is accused of. This is how I understand it, anyway. And this means that it is of possibly crucial importance to establish whether or not Taylor gave Campbell some "blood diamonds" as a present. Get over your anger at so-called "bimbo" models and consider the realities and importance of the case!

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

News blog – most commented

  1. 1. 'Blood diamond' testimony - as it happened (58)

News blog weekly archives

Aug 2010
M T W T F S S
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed