As I understand it, her reason for refusing to testify until she was compelled to was the fact that Charles Taylor is a scary, violent man, and she didn't want to risk his harming her or her family. That sounds reasonable - at first. But wait! She didn't know who he was, isn't sure he was the one who gave her the diamonds, and wasn't even sure they were diamonds until someone else pointed it out to her. In other words, if you believe her, she knows nothing.
So why was she afraid of testifying? Even a violent and dangerous man is hardly going to go to the trouble of harming someone, or their family, just for saying they don't know anything about him. I know absolutely nothing of these events beyond what I've read in the press. What I'm about to say is purely my own opinion, but it seems to me that the delay was in order to find out just how vague she could make her testimony, just how unrevealing, without quite crossing the line into anything which could be proved as perjury.
Now, that's just my analysis of what she said, based on the point that, if she really knew so little, I can't understand what she would have had to fear in the first place. But what irritates me is that no one in the press, no one in the courtroom, no one at all, seems to have even thought of this possibility. Shouldn't the question at least be asked? Shouldn't the possibility at least be discussed?
As I said, the violence and lust for power that lurks behind blood diamonds is an important issue, and one that should be explored thoroughly. I don't know what really happened, or who is to blame, but if so much money and effort is going to be expended to look into this, shouldn't someone at least consider the obvious?