14/03/2016 Newsnight

The Russians say they're with drawing from Syria.

Is it job done or is something else going on?

We'll ask what this means for peace talks and for the Assad regime.

Also tonight, the shaken baby row - We talk to the doctor who's accused

of dishonesty and threatened with being struck off,

because of her trial evidence as an expert witness.

In plain English, are you saying that shaken baby syndrome is

rubbish? Yes, I am. I think we've known that from the very outset. I

know it's not... Will scenes like this help or halt

the Donald Trump juggernaut? If you're an African first, go back

to Africa. Go back to Europe. We'll be talking to George Bush's

former speech writer, Like so many things Russian,

it came entirely without warning: An announcement by President Putin,

a few hours ago, that his troops would - in the main -

be pulling out of Syria. The Obama administration -

and indeed governments here in Europe -

were taken by surprise. Perhaps that was no small

part of the strategy. It is five months since Russian

forces entered the conflict in Syria, at the request,

the Kremlin says, of Tonight, President Putin spoke

with the air of a man whose So is it a genuine withdrawal

or is it a political manoeuvre Lyse Doucet, the BBC's chief

international correspondent, has spent much of the last five

years covering the Syrian civil war, How do you read this? I think we

have to be very careful in how we read it. Because the West has gotten

Russia wrong so many times before. Go back to September of last year,

when Russia suddenly announced that it was going to be targeting the

so-called Islamic State in Syria. That took Western powers, took the

world, by surprise then. Recently senior American officials said to

me, we were naive. We believed Russia when it said that it would be

targeting IS. Then they slowly began to realise that the main target was

not IS at all, it was some of the very groups that the West, the

moderate opposition groups, that the West wanted to have at the

negotiating table venlt it's interesting -- table. It's

interesting to hear the phrase used by President Putin, "job done".

Under cover of coming in to support the West, the Russians have

strengthened their only Naval Base along the Mediterranean. They have

built a new air base, they're using that for their flights. They've sent

in advanced weaponry. All of that is staying. Russia isn't going

anywhere. What about the decision to say it's going to be pulling out

some of its troops? Well, I think that is sending a message about the

other objective for President Putin. Having strengthened the position of

President Assad's forces, and they were almost failing on some

strategic frontlines, it is now turning his attention to the

political process, the so-called Peace Talks, and I don't think it

likes the soundings it's getting from Damascus, where they're saying

we refuse to discuss the future of President Assad and even

presidential elections, which are part of the very political process

that Russia has played a key role in forging. As you work through the tea

leaves, where do you think it leaves Western intervention in Syria? Well,

let's say that the last five months of Russia's intervention in Syria

have been first, rising anger in Western capitals, but aside from

that, hand wringing. They have found themselves absolutely powerless to

do anything as Russia got away with its strategic objectives in the

reason. I was at the Munich security forum, the place was resounding to

criticism of Russia. I said well, then why did Russia get away with it

and allow an agreement on a truce which excluded the Russian bombing

in Syria around strategic areas like Aleppo and you'd get a shrug. Well,

we had to work with Russia. Russia is the main player. So Russia has

played a role. It's not for nothing. Look at Arab states backing the

opposition. They're making more trips to Moscow than they are to

Washington. When I saw King Abdullah last month, he says, "The Russians

for bad or worse have shaken the tree." You might not like what's

coming down from the tree, but it's galvanised the process. Fascinating.

Thanks very much. Let's look at what the Russian

withdrawal tells us about the state of the Syria crisis and how the West

should respond to it. Joining me now are Crispin Blunt,

chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and Sarah Lain,

a Russia expert at the Royal United Warm welcome to you both. Thanks for

coming in. It's a very interesting to hear Lyse put it not from our

perspective, but perhaps from the perspective of Bashar al-Assad. He's

angry. There's an element of truth in that. There's been a dichotomy,

between the Iranians and Russians, in terms of their attitude to Assad

and his longevity. The Russians have key interests there, continuing with

their air base and Naval Base. That's going to be sustained. There

will have been interesting conversations between the Saudis and

Russians where certainly the Saudis have been using the oil weapon to

depress the oil price, which has a serious effect on the Russian

economy. I don't think we should overlook Russia's need to address

that issue. If Assad, they are putting Assad in play, that may meet

some Saudi objectives. At the same time, they are militarily probably

very stretched to sustain this operation for very much longer.

Lyse's words came with a caveat. All things Russian you have to take with

a pinch of salt. You're very good at watching the Putin manoeuvres. What

do you read into what he's done today? I think the element of

mistrust is obviously quite large in this, particularly from the West

towards Russia. Russia came into this saying it was fighting Isis. It

clearly wasn't. But I do think to echo what's been said is that

there's really nothing the West can do about this. Russia came into this

scenario for strategic reasons. It was trying to bolster Assad, at a

time when he looked like he was falling. Without Assad Russia loses

influence in the Middle East. Things have moved on since then. It was a

matter of time before Russia needed to pick a point at which it needed

to move the situation to a political discussion, which is what you're

seeing from Putin now. Interesting that we hear that the Naval Base

there has never been stronger. Was this all part of a process just to

shore up Russian naval support there, whatever the antics in the

air? I think that's part of it. Certainly there was a strategic

military objective. Previously this was not strategically important to

Russia. They've built it up. They've put personnel there and gained a new

air base in La tacka, which is now a centre for mediating the ceasefire

that Russia helped to broker. This was partly part of Russia's foreign

policy within the Middle East. But also, foreign policy that's been

consistent with what we've seen in Ukraine, regarding Russia's

frustration at the Russian perception that America is setting

the international rules. I think there are many objectives here. Do

you think we will regard this as victory of a sort for Russia? When

history writes it they'll say, there was this unsolvable conflict, you're

came in, within five months, they had a ceasefire and they left. It's

are the template. Well, that's a victory for everybody in that sense,

we now have a cessation of hostility. You think it's a victory

for everyone then? The war coming to an end, which it has done now, it

can restart, but the fact it's stopped is enormous benefit. And the

fact that there is now a peace process happening and the two sides

are beginning to start those negotiations, that's a positive for

everybody. Do you think the West owes Russia on this? Do you think

there's a sense of gratitude? If everyone had been putting their

national priorities to one side and all the states in the region and all

the powers, the West and the Russians, have been putting the

common interest at the top of the agenda, we'd be a lot further

forward than we are now. However, we've got to a place where there's

now a cessation of hostilities. My view is that it's quite important to

get the focus of the Syrian-Arab army and Free Syrian Army not

glouring at each other whilst peace negotiations take place. But let's

engage them in taking the territory back from Isil and they can begin

jointly a narrative of Syria re-establishing control from the

jihadist extremists. Do you think Putin has hit in at all to the Isis

strength? I think, first of all, Russia has been integral into the

process of moving the cessation of violence along. It's been on

Russia's terms. That's the difficulty for the West. It is about

putting national interests aside. But Russia hasn't in the same way

it's advocating everyone else should. It went in under the pretext

of saying it was targeting Isis. It has targeted certain Isis strong

holds. It has targeted alfuss a, but it has -- al-Nusra, but it has

targeted opposition broadly. What does Britain do now then? Our policy

was, frankly, unclear from the start. We encouraged the rebellion

against Assad at the beginning. Then when the rebellion actually really

took light, we then didn't weigh in with weapons and the kind of support

- We were too slow? The issue is whether we were ever prepared to do

that in the first place. I don't think we should have been or would

have been. We weren't, as it turned out. The consequence was we lured,

in that sense, the people represented by the now Free Syrian

Army onto the punch. Assad and the people are fighting for their lives

and they've fought brutally to survive against the threat they see

coming their way. Part of this is our responsibility. Sarah, do you

see a window in here for Russia to re-enter, if Bashar al-Assad doesn't

do what he wants? Absolutely. They say they will maintain their bases

in Syria. I think that is the re-entry if they need it. Is that a

veiled threat or a support issue? It's a mixture of both. Russia's

doing this to try and use its position to pressure Assad to

negotiate, be constructive. Russia requested he be constructive at the

negotiations. Today we saw the Syrian government isn't be

constructive on this one sticking point. In some ways, it is useful

for the process, particularly for the West. It's something the West

can't leverage. Thank you very much. Syria, of course, has not

contained its crisis within the country or even

within the Middle East. Today, the starkest visual reminder

of how that civil war has shifted an entire population,

refugees and migrants wading through the freezing waters

of a Greek river to cross the border with Macedonia, after authorities

there have forbidden their entry. Many - some with toddlers -

had marched for hours along muddy paths to enter the swollen river

in a bid to get around One photographer, who witnessed

the exodus, suggested as many Well, this evening, I spoke

to the Dutch Foreign Minister, Holland currently has

the presidency of the EU Council. I asked him what Europe's response

to the crisis should be. The imperative is

first and foremost... And that's why I know that the Greek

government is together with the Macedonians trying to find

a solution and if people actually go to the possibility

for camps in Greece. But they are leaving

those camps, the camps aren't leaving, people

want to leave the camps. Yes, and that's why it's

so important that this system we have right now is stopped

and we go to a system of voluntary relocation, that is the only

way to make this dismal Just explain, is it

wrong to see Slovenia I don't think it's a matter

of right and wrong and these countries have obligations

under international law, in the context of international

humanitarian law. It's fairly clear that

people don't want to stay in those countries,

they want to go to destinations like Germany, Sweden,

the Netherlands. We have seen that

that route in itself leads to an endless flow

which is not controllable. Which basically leads to this

enormous sense that the European population feels it

is not under control. But a very clear signal has two B,

do they shut the Borders and stop -- to be, do they shut those borders

and stop the trafficking, stop the roots and take the pain or keep the

borders open? The way we have seen the countries of Austria and others

carrying out the so-called Schengen Agreement, that doesn't work. We

have to work with external borders of the Schengen Agreement and

voluntary resettlement in Europe. The present system doesn't work.

Forgive me but Holland can take the lead,

you have the Council Presidency, isn't it

time to stop saying, we don't know if it is right

or wrong and say, we know that this is right and that's

what's going wrong at the moment, there is no leadership at all.

Well, I think if I may contradict you, I agree

with you and being in this position of trying to find consensus

among 28 countries of which some are not taking any migrants at all,

or not taking Muslims and others are very hospitable and receive

It is our role to get the 28 countries together and we can be

cynical about it but now with the plan that has finally

worked out on the responsibility of Greece and the Balkan countries

but also countries like Germany and the Netherlands,

we are working towards a system that makes much more sense.

Tell me how the Dutch government views the British question of EU

We are pleased that under our presidency and with the negotiations

at least there has been made a deal and I think it is in the interests

of all of the European countries, which takes seriously the concerns

Are plans being made in the case of a Brexit?

Anybody who tells you they know what will happen knows more

Everything has to be renegotiated between the UK

and the European Union.

On the basis of unanimity in the rest of Europe

But it's up to the British people to decide.

Do you think a Brexit would harm the body

I know that it is in our interests at the

We are living in a world which is unstable,

in which we have a lot of competition, internationally,

Of course Europe will survive after a Brexit.

But it is a loss to Europe if it would happen,

For some people, George Osborne represents everything that's

He's rich, privileged and never had a proper job outside Westminster.

He's also, say his critics, overly fond of minutely strategising

the political embarrassment of his enemies.

But to his fans, he's responsible for many of this Government's

proudest achievements and masterminded the Conservatives'

On Wednesday, he will deliver his eighth Budget,

which if the EU referendum goes against him, could prove

So what do we know about George Osborne?

For someone who has been in the job for so long, George Osborne is

surrounded by a surprising amount of uncertainty. He carries it around

with him like an ever present Budget box. For a start the economic signs

are not good. He is also constrained by the politics of the referendum.

Then there is his own future and what happens when his friend and

partner David Cameron steps down from the premiership? My view is

that if David Cameron said he was going to be Prime Minister for

another five years the happiest person would be George Osborne

because he believes David Cameron does the job very well and while

David Cameron is in power George Osborne has a share and he is

pragmatic enough to know that that is valuable to him. As one of the

architects of a surprise election victory George Osborne might now

have expected to be basking in the appreciation of a grateful party,

however that is not how politics works. Some of his MPs are a little

wary of George Osborne, others are suspicious regarding him as perhaps

not even a proper conservative at all. His pet project, HS2, certainly

isn't an obviously conservative one, costing ?50 billion and ripping

through the Tory shires in the process. Nor is raising the minimum

wage. There are other criticisms too, bubbling up all too readily

from Conservative MPs, he is too fond of political intrigue and

calculation. George Osborne has certainly been mastering the trade

of politics his entire adult life, in every office he has worked, he

could clearly hear Big Ben through an open window. IOS thought he

should do something other than politics before the House of Commons

but he is enormously thoughtful and a good tactical judge. If you talk

to George the -- he seldom says something that isn't worth listening

to. The Conservative Party were deep into a decade-long nervous breakdown

over Europe and an attempt to reboot the squabbling party John Major

appointed the affable but accident prone Jeremy Handley. As the party

chairman. A new researcher, fresh out of Oxford. The day after George

Osborne was filmed in front of Central office the parties fortune

nosedived, Labour elected a charismatic leader and Osborne was

dispatched to Blackpool to observe in the flesh this mortal threat to

the Conservatives' chances of holding onto power. In 1994 and a

Labour Party conference George was there for the Conservatives and I

was therefore a think tank and we were sat next to each other when

Tony Blair made his great speech, abolishing Klaus 4. Afterwards we

went for a drink and talked about what we saw and agreed that the

Conservative Party would never get back into power until it coped with

the fact that Tony Blair was serious about making Labour new Labour. Do

you still think the joke is a good idea on the first page? Definitely.

George Osborne was highly valued as a speech writer. His seat in

Parliament meant he could give as well as write speeches and it open

up the higher rungs of politics. After the election defeat Michael

Howard gave him an extraordinary promotion to Shadow Chancellor when

he was still only 33. There is a bit of a gamble in George, you know, he

is a relation of Aspinall. And he took the view that up against the

Colossus of Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a

formidable task. Gordon Brown had to be lucky every time and he only had

to be lucky once. Osborne and Cameron were the crucial partnership

at the top of the Conservative Party, for political journalists the

comparisons were too inviting. The papers will say, have the

Conservatives found their own brown and Blair? How much I will wait on

you and George Osborne is that? It is probably fatal! They have always

worked closely and effectively and I think that is one of their

strengths, collectively, as a partnership. Unlike Brown and Blair

there was never any doubt who George Osborne thought would make the

better leader, and it was George Osborne who ran the Cameron

leadership campaign on a Blair like modernising ticket. At the Cameron

victory parade in December 2005 I spotted a jubilant George Osborne in

the crowd. It's great, when we started in July I don't think we

could have predicted such a great margin. To start with Osborne

promised to match Labour spending plans but as the world economy began

unravelling he had to ditch the policy in a hurry. In an attempt to

understand what was going on he travelled to New York to meet big

players of global finance face-to-face and I went with him to

see how every meeting reinforced his conviction that the British economy

was heading for a potentially catastrophic crash. What is very

clear is that Britain is ill-prepared for this financial

turmoil and its impact on the economy later this year. George

Osborne became the austerities Chancellor that we know today, but

he has never delivered his deficit reduction promises on time. The

journey between number 11 Downing St and number ten is just a few yards

but in politics it is capable of consuming careers. His critics say

that he is obsessed with the transition and everything he does is

couched in those terms but not so say his friends, if that was really

is obsession he would have given up being Chancellor when the

opportunity was presented to him after the last election. You take

the success of the election and you park it in the hope to become leader

of the party because you have not done anything controversial in the

intervening period. The chances were the economy would not do well and

you take risks and you do things, and that has happened. His decision

was that he would be wasting potentially four years as a guide of

the government, it is cautious but also a waste of the office. This

week 's budget doesn't look like one where George Osborne will be able to

do much, his radical pension reforms were dropped amid concern about

angering swing voters and Conservative MPs in the run-up to

the EU referendum. And depending on how the referendum goes, this budget

could conceivably be George Osborne's last.

Within the next 48 hours, Donald Trump may emerge

as the Republican presidential candidate.

This, after a weekend in which the frontrunner had

to cancel several rallies, after violence broke out -

scenes of chaos that don't appear to have dented his popularity.

But tonight - on the eve of the next big electoral test -

we ask about the policies of the other candidates.

Could it be that he is the least conservative amongst them?

We'll speak to George Bush's speechwriter, David Frum,

who joins us live from Florida, tomorrow's biggest electoral

Go back to Africa! This may be seen as the low point of the 2016

election campaign but then again it may not, we still have a long way to

go. Donald Trump doesn't seem to mind the violence at his own

rallies. The guards are very gentle with him, he is smiling and

laughing, I would like to punch him in the face, I tell you. What is it

doing to his popularity? Well, his poll ratings seems to be improving

on the back of all of this, doubling his lead over Marco Rubio. In

Rubio's home state of Florida, the biggest electoral jewel of the race

tomorrow. And he is strong everywhere else except Ohio, John

Kasich's home state. Several of them are winner takes all, if as the

polls predict he comes first he lands a significant number of

delegates and adds them to his tally. Thank you, everybody. Even at

this stage with Trump potentially hours away from securing the

Republican presidential nomination, many feel they don't really know

what policies the billionaire would espouse, he has been accused of

flip-flopping. By the other candidates. Despite the eyebrow

raising immigration talk it is easy to argue that the others lie to the

right. Ted Cruz is an ideologue who wants to breath at the Iran deal,

and end gay marriage and abortion rights and do away with gun control.

Marco Rubio is often betrayed as the moderate, but sounds identical to

Ted Cruz on the stump. He wants to tear up diplomatic softening to Cuba

as well as the Iran deal and votes against abortion even in cases of

rape. Then there is John Kasich, sometimes betrayed as the

bleeding-heart candidate. Take a closer look at his voting, far to

the right on reproductive rights. They are all against Obama care, of

course. Donald Trump for all of the bluster may be the least

conservative of the candidates, America just has to decide whether

that is a good or bad thing. Fascinating. Joining me now is David

Frum. and from Florida, that key swing

state, writer and commentator, Great to have you here. I'm not sure

how Gaelic you out of the country at a time like this, David. -- I'm not

sure how they allowed you out. If Donald Trump loses Ohio even if he

wins Florida the contest is open. He will obviously have a tremendous

gust of wind at his back but it remains mathematically possible if

he loses Ohio that he would be short of an outright majority of

Republican delegates and at the convention anything can happen

because the delegates will be there and won't want to nominate him if

they could avoid it. Isn't it odd that there isn't a second-place

candidate? One week we thought it was Marco Rubio, the other Ted Cruz.

If there was a broken convention it would not necessarily be Ted Cruz

but something different? Ted Cruz is a strong second-place candidate but

you are right, evil need to understand this, when you see the

numbers of delegates that does not refer to actual people but slots. --

people need to understand this. The power to appoint people. Actual

delegates are selected later usually by state parties and they are not

necessarily beholden to Donald Trump, they make the party go, local

activists and donors and they have different views about the future of

the party from less committed people, less committed Republican

formatter casting votes for Donald Trump. We have talked about the

anger and emotion of this campaign, how do you define a trump voter?

Well, according to the polls, the Trump voter is white, less educated,

and angry. It's an anger that has been fed for the last ten or 20

years from right-wing talk radio but also from left-wing demagogues, as

you mentioned in the piece before. He is more moderate than the other

Republican candidates, and there is an awful lot that would appeal to

Democrats. The part that appeals to Conservative working-class voters is

quite frankly the racial part, the anger at Muslims, Mexicans, and so

on. You once called Trump lizard brained

- You have it wrong, no. Tell me. I said that Trump was acting out of

his lizard brain. I'm sorry, I can hear myself talking. I said that

Trump was acting out of his lizard brain. Each of us has a lizard brain

at the base of our skull that controls reflective actions like

fight-or-flight, hunger and so on. He was, he hasn't been dealing and

appealing to people on the basis of thought or reason. He's been

appealing to people on the basis of their fears, the emotions and

reactions that come out of their lizard brains. David, one of the

reasons I introduced you at the beginning as a speech writer for

George Bush, because in a sense whatever candidate emerges is a

product of the last one. Do you think Trump is a product of Obama?

No Trump is a product of Bush. I don't think Freudian psychoanalysis

is the way to approach actual people, but as a literary advice

it's very powerful. Your viewers who remember, the theory was the patient

suffered a trauma. The patient dealt with the trauma through repression,

but the repressed always returns and expresses itself in hysterical

behaviour. Who's got the mental illness? The Bush years were the

trauma of the Republican Party. We have not been able to talk candidly

about what went right and wrong. We have a set of responses - he kept us

safe. What do we mean? How do we feel about Iraq and Katrina and how

do we feel about Medicaire? There have been a stereotype list of

things to say. I like everything about George W Bush except he spent

too much at home. So, in the vacancy created by this inability to talk,

Jeb Bush thought, maybe the party is ready for another Bush, a third

Bush. This enormous pile of money was gathered and this left and least

articulate of all the Bushes set forward and it was catastrophe.

Trump has stepped into the post-Jeb environment with, in which all the

establishment money - So this is a direct failing of the Republican

Party to get to grips with what happened to it? Donald Trump,

somebody as obviously fraudulent as Donald Trump, could not have a

political career in a party that was well. This is not a well party.

That's why there's an opportunity for him. The interesting thing,

perhaps, is we've got this extraordinary situation where a lot

of voters don't like the candidate of their own party naturally. Will

we see cross-dressing here, the Democrats that can't bear Hilary and

the Republicans that can't bear Trump? Yes, I do. Can I say about

David Frum, over the years, he has been very courageous, one of the few

Republicans who have been willing to speak the truth about the problems

in that party. Right now, I'd like to speak some truth about some

problems in the Democratic Party. These left-wing protesters, who are

going to Trump rallies and causing this trouble are only strengthening

Donald Trump. He is the master of disaster. As long as the country

seems chaotic and anarchic, he will benefit. I believe that no matter

what the polls are showing right now, he has a very strong chance

against Hillary Clinton next fall, which should terrify all of us. So

your message to those protesters would be - don't protest? Stay home.

Go door to door, knock on doors and talk to people. Be positive. Be

creative. Every time - I've been to these Trump rallies and the crowd

loves it when, you know, some poor left-winger starts screaming and

Trump says, "Get them out of here!" Have we reached the low point of

this campaign? Oh, no! Right. Not as long as Donald Trump is breathing.

It's going to get lower. Joe's point about staying home, one of the

sicknesses of American politics, and one of the sicknesses with Donald

Trump is the break down in institutions. If you feel that the

idea, this is a Facebook era idea, if you feel strongly about something

what you do is go somewhere and express your indig nation. If you

feel strongly about something, get 25 of your friends registered to

vote. Drive people to the polls. Raise money for the candidate of

your choice. Those are pro-institutional actions. One of

the things that has enabled the Trumps is every time we saw, we have

a reform, all of our reforms are based on weakening and degrading our

institutions to make it more impossible for parties not to do

self-destructive things. I could go on for another three hours, thanks

very much. In the British prison system,

a child murderer is the lowest But what if there hasn't

been a killing at all, but the child died of an accident

or by natural causes? The question is important

because one of Britain's leading defence experts in the hotly

contested area of shaken baby syndrome has been severely

criticised by the doctors' A medical practitioners tribunal

ruled on Friday that Dr Waney Squier gave misleading and dishonest

evidence, when she acted as an expert witness in six cases

involving parents accused of harming One of the country's very

few neuropathologists, she may now be barred

from practising. But her defenders call what she's

experienced a witch hunt. Pathologist Waney Squire has had the

book thrown at her, a General Medical Council panel, a retired

Wing Commander, former Merseyside copper, and retired geriatric

psychiatrist found her evidence to be outrageous and untruthful, that

she had misrepresented and cherry picked and said, "You must have real

aislesed you were being dishonest." Either Waney Squire is a bad Doctor

Who faces being struck off for lying to the courts, or she's a Galileo

for the 21st century, the victim of a great scientific injustice. In

plain English, are you saying that shaken baby syndrome is rubbish? Ah,

yes, I am. And I think we've known that from the very outset. But there

are many doctors, senior doctors, who gave evidence against you, who

don't agree with that at all. That's correct. I've looked in great detail

at the literature on shaken baby syndrome. I've gone through the

whole history and read as much as I can. I have found nothing which

satisfies me that there's any scientific foundation for it.

They're calling you a liar effectively. They are. And what's

your reaction to that? As I say, I gave my evidence to the best of my

ability. I tried to be as truthful and honest as this work demands.

It's serious work and I take it seriously. Shaken baby syndrome is

hotly disputed. Its supporters believe swelling of the brain,

bleeding over the surface of the brain and in the eyes must have been

caused by the baby being vie lently shaken. The syndrome's critics doubt

it exists. Including a former defence lawyer Campbell Malon.

Shaken baby syndrome is a fact - true or false? I'm not a scientist.

But the Court of Appeal held in 2005 that shaken baby syndrome was a

hypothesis, was a theory, not a fact. In 2007, Newsnight told the

story of Susan Holdsworth. Dr Squire, one of the country's few

neuropangologists was asked to examine the evidence against her.

The original trial had heard that Suzanne must have slammed Kyle

against a banister. Suzanne said he suffered a fit. Patients who have

epilepsy have scars in their brain and they act as a focus for the

epileptic activity. Kyle had two abnormalities in the brain that

would predispose him to seizures. And seizures can kill. As a result

of the evidence, Susan Holds worth appealed and was found not guilty at

retrial. I asked what she thought of the tribunal's verdict? I am

disgusted in it. If it weren't for Waney Squires, I don't think I'd be

here where I am now. We turned to Waney Squires for help. If she's not

here any more, who, like people like me who are wrongly convicted, who

are they going to turn to? The question at the heart of this

argument is not who killed this baby, but was there a crime? As far

as shaken baby syndrome is concerned Dr Squire has been a thorn in the

side of the medical establishment, the Crown Prosecution Service and

the Metropolitan Police. The Met's child abuse unit initiated the case

against Dr Squire. In their view they had to. Child protection is

paramount. My view is that having lost the scientific argument, having

lost the legal argument, what they've done is to try and take the

experts on an individual basis out of the argument. It seems to me that

we, in the 21st century, have gone back to the days of the inquisition.

In the future, when someone is accused of shaking a baby to death,

on the science, who will defend them? I think it's a deeply

troubling time because this is going to inhibit even further anybody who

understands the science and who has a valid opinion to offer from

stepping forward, for fear of also facing this kind of hearing. Dr

Squire faces being struck off later this month. Despite all our

scientific advances, the tragedy of unexplained invanity death stays

with us. For Susan Holdsworth it isn't an academic issue. Without Dr

Squire, she fears she might still be in prison.

I felt like I had won the lottery. It was amazing, somebody what I

never thought I would do. So if it wasn't like Waney Squires, that

people like me could be still in prison. O

Evan's here tomorrow. Until then, good night.