« | Home | »

Dirty-Looking Stones

Tags: | |

Mia Farrow is still a star turn. See her testimony at The Hague, where Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity in neighbouring Sierra Leone. Farrow, Naomi Campbell and Campbell’s agent, Carole White, of Premier Model Management, were in South Africa in 1997 when, according to White and Farrow, Campbell was a knowing beneficiary of Taylor’s dodgy largesse.

Here’s how it looks, very roughly, if you dovetail the testimonies of White, Farrow and Campbell at the Special Court for Sierra Leone:

Scene I: Taylor takes a shine to Campbell at a gala evening, hosted by Mandela. In the small hours, he dispatches his aides to rummage through his suitcase for his stash of blood diamonds. ‘Look in my combat fatigues, under the Brooks Brothers shirts.’

Scene II: Later still, the aides knock on the door of Campbell’s room in her Pretoria guesthouse and present her with ‘a pouch’. Next morning when she comes to and opens the bag (she recalled this in court), it’s full of ‘very small, dirty-looking stones’. Yuck. ‘I’m used to seeing diamonds shiny in a box, that’s the kind of diamond I’m used to seeing.’

Scene III: Breakfast in Pretoria (bacon, boerewors, lamb chops, a cut of charismatic roadkill, eggs any style, hash browns, muesli for the dog). Mia Farrow’s children are falling to (‘my children and I were already eating breakfast’) and so is Carole White. Enter Campbell. ‘And before she even sat down’ (Farrow again) she blurts out that she’s just been given a ‘huge diamond’.

Chorus of Farrow children: Are you sure it isn’t just a bag of gravel?

Scene IV: Lights dim on the boerewors and children. Campbell, Farrow and White to front of stage.

Campbell (to the tune of ‘La La La Love Song’): Very small, dirty-looking stones.
Farrow (stage whisper through cupped hands): Huge diamond! Taylor!
White: That’s Charles Taylor, the suit you were bantering with last night.

Somebody looks bad here but it isn’t Taylor or Campbell. The prosecutor’s office are the ones with breakfast on their faces, having called two celebrities and a huffy modelling agent, in the hope of proving that Taylor travelled around with conflict gems in 1997, to barter against arms for rebel friends in Sierra Leone. But Campbell has said she wasn’t clear who sent the pouch, while White and Farrow’s insistence that they know she knew hasn’t held up.

So Campbell is neutralised and the defence have had a field day with the other two. White’s evidence is compromised, they say, because she’s in a legal battle over a contract with Campbell; they took her to bits in court yesterday. Farrow, for her part, is overinvested in her campaigning work for Africa. She’s said she’s ‘eager to see the people of Liberia and Sierra Leone see justice’ and Taylor’s a plausible bad guy, even if none of the charges against him concerns Liberia.

But so what? Farrow has got her teeth into the idea of redress – in Darfur especially – even if she has a narrow sense of the issues. Never mind that she couldn’t recall how old her children were in 1997 (was the oldest 17 or 27?) or that she thinks of Imran Khan, also at the gala dinner, as a ‘soccer’ player. Her key flaw as a prosecution witness was her galumphing parti pris.

Comments on “Dirty-Looking Stones”

  1. Joe Morison says:

    I can see that someone might give to a worthy cause anonymously, but i find it very hard to believe someone would do the same to a supermodel.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement