I actually agree.. while I don't believe Naomi 100%, I don't quite believe Mia's account as well and I definitely can't trust what Carole White has to say. And plus, she gave the diamonds to charity, that is undisputable right? So its not like she turned the diamonds into a 1,000,000 VS bra or anything.. its time to move on..
Just caught up with this case and I agree with you completely, Charlotte. I don't believe 100% in any of the three but Carole White is the one that's given the impression to be in some sort of special mission.. she sounds hurt, very far from truthful.
Silly question but when she says texting, she meant beeper texting right?. I was too young to know gadgets but texting in Pretoria 13 years ago sounds way too technology savvy even for heads of state and supermodels... someone please clear this up for me here.
I also find it hard to think Mia would remember about a gift given to someone else at a party, I know it's not
any gift at
any party but still, it's been more than 13 years to remember an exchange that must not have taken more than a couple of minutes.
Another thing is that perhaps Naomi lied in front of Mia out of pride/fear, sounds naive I know, but suspecting the origin just by the diamonds' appearance, I don't think anyone would've said so casually
'I was giving a pouch of dirty-looking stones' to someone they're not really that close with.
Finally, I couldn't care less for Naomi Campbell and I'm no expert on this case or this woman's behavior, but she didn't look on a 'high horse' to me, she looked as nervous as anyone would be having to face an international court and having to talk on detail about an event that (providing she's saying the truth) didn't seem to hold much weight in her life until now, when she said 'inconvenience', you can see she's trying to get back on diplomatic vocabulary after breaking out a nervous smile seconds before... and I think it's perfectly normal to be concerned or
inconvenienced about a potential backlash for having to testify against a man that had no problem in doing the horrible things he did to
thousands of people, it takes a hero complex or maybe just uninformed confidence on the system to think your testimony can only be positively consequential and nonthreatening for you or those around you, so I think she just found a perhaps insensitive replacement for the word she wanted say, which is
dangerous.. and obviously, saying that would've caused a bigger uproar because.. '
what's so dangerous about saying the truth' is the observer-friendly argument people like to tell themselves to ditch the logical, admittedly more sympathetic one,
what's so dangerous about testifying against a dangerous man.