For the past few weeks I’ve found it hard to care about Naomi Campbell’s connection to the Charles Taylor trial. For as long as I could, I ignored my Special Court for Sierra Leone Google News Alerts on the topic. But as her testimony on August 5 approaches, I’ve started to see some marginally interesting angles. Here are some non-sequitur thoughts.
I’ve got to believe a lot of people received “blood diamonds” as gifts from Charles Taylor. And I bet there are some who would have been much happier to testify for the prosecution. This supports my hunch that the prosecution wants Taylor to testify for the publicity. Another less likely possibility is that the prosecution thinks the public/judges will see a Westerner’s testimony as more credible than a West African’s testimony.
I’m on the Special Court’s press email list, and recently received an email saying that the main viewing area is completely booked on the day of Campbell’s testimony. To best of my knowledge this has never happened before. Even on the day Taylor started testifying.
The anthropologist Tim Kelsall has written about the tendency of many West African witnesses to give non-answer answers under direct and cross-examination. Eg ‘Was Taylor at the meeting?’ ‘If he was at the meeting I didn’t see him there.’ Campbell will be one of the first Western witness to testify who might have reason to dissemble. It will be interesting to see if she adopts this evasive rhetoric.
Two possible defense strategies:
Defense might not dispute that Taylor’s men offered Campbell a diamond, but argue that Taylor did not order them to do this. This would be an interesting continuation of their strategy of arguing that Taylor did not control RUF fighters who committed human rights abuses.
Defense might attempt to discredit Campbell by pointing to her inconsistent statements to the media.
For the past few weeks I’ve found it hard to care about Naomi Campbell’s connection to the Charles Taylor trial. For as long as I could, I ignored my Special Court for Sierra Leone Google News Alerts on the topic. But as her testimony on August 5 approaches, I’ve started to see some marginally interesting angles. Here are some non-sequitur thoughts.
- I’ve got to believe a lot of people received “blood diamonds” as gifts from Charles Taylor. And I bet there are some who would have been much happier to testify for the prosecution. This supports my hunch that the prosecution wants Taylor to testify for the publicity. Another less likely possibility is that the prosecution thinks the public/judges will see a Westerner’s testimony as more credible than a West African’s testimony.
- I’m on the Special Court’s press email list, and recently received an email saying that the main viewing area is completely booked on the day of Campbell’s testimony. To best of my knowledge this has never happened before. Even on the day Taylor started testifying.
- The anthropologist Tim Kelsall has written about the tendency of many West African witnesses to give non-answer answers under direct and cross-examination. Eg ‘Was Taylor at the meeting?’ ‘If he was at the meeting I didn’t see him there.’ Campbell will be one of the first Western witness to testify who might have reason to dissemble. It will be interesting to see if she adopts this evasive rhetoric.
- Two possible defense strategies: 1) Defense might not dispute that Taylor’s men offered Campbell a diamond, but argue that Taylor did not order them to do this. This would be an interesting continuation of their strategy of arguing that Taylor did not control RUF fighters who committed human rights abuses. 2) Defense might attempt to discredit Campbell by pointing to her inconsistent statements to the media.
Recent comments