[Omen]

Anyway, this is like a trial within a trial, the trial was over about a year ago and the verdict under consideration, only for the trial to be reopened to hear this particular accusation; ie that here was proof - a connection between Charles Taylor and the so-called blood diamonds. He had given diamonds to Naomi Campbell 13 years ago. She had the misfortune to brag about it in front of pro-African human rights activist, Mia Farrow, the morning after. Mia Farrow brought her knowledge to the attention of the prosecution, last year when learning of Charles Taylor's trial and the significance of that chance encounter all those years ago dawned on her -

that is, if Charles Taylor could be directly linked to the blood diamonds, the case against him (of crimes against humanity) could be significantly strengthened.

There were 3 witnesses, all called by the prosecution. 2 of them volunteered to come to the Hague, (in the interest of justice), Carole White and Mia Farrow. The third witness, Naomi Campbell, had to be compelled to come.

The defence's job was to break the link the prosecution were trying to assert between the diamonds and Charles Taylor; ie, that it could not be established beyond resonable doubt (blah blah blah) that the diamonds given to Naomi Campbell came from Charles Taylor. Only Naomi Campbell assisted their (defence) case by saying she didn't know who gave them to her, and that it was others who told her it must have been Charles Taylor. She'd be called in a courtroom drama a hostile witness for the prosecution,there at their behest, their witness, but really acting for the defence.

The upshot of the 3 witness testimonies is that it has become all too apparent that one (or more) of them is telling whoppers. And all but the cliically stupid know which one of them is.

So tho not being on trial in any legal sense, Naomi Campbell has just has just been trialed and found guilty in the court of public opinion.

The kindest slant on her actions is she's in fear of Taylor, but the other 2 weren't; are they braver?

The whole thing seemed pointless wrt the real trial, as noone could be in any doubt who gave her the diamonds. The authorities got the diamonds back from he man who's had them since 1997, and if they can prove where they were mined - the source of them, then that's Taylor linked to them and that little sub-trial in the trial more or less proven.

So what's the verdict on Ms Campbell? That she committed perjury? That she's morally bankrupt, a coward, or both? And what about the discrepancy between the 5-8 diamonds she allegedly received and the 3 the head of the children's charity got? (Unless he nicked them?)

I don't think she even knew what blood diamonds were back in 1997, most people have only heard that term in relation to this trial, I believe.

Her crime is wanting to stay quiet and keep out of it, and maybe more? Might ruin her image, because though it was convoluted, most people will just remember Naomi Campbell and blood diamonds.

(Not since OJ has court TV been so good. It's all over now, bar the i's and t's. Pity it was so short and sweet)