:00:08. > :00:11.Tonight, Newsnight learns that America is considering a plan to
:00:11. > :00:14.enter Pakistan in the country's nuclear material should be in
:00:14. > :00:19.danger of falling into terrorist hands.
:00:19. > :00:25.The US Government is very concerned about the possibility that nuclear
:00:25. > :00:28.weapons can be lost in Pakistan as a result of the Pakistani society
:00:28. > :00:32.falling apart. Pakistan's High Commisioner will tell us what he
:00:32. > :00:36.makes of that. We will ask him why relations between Islamabad and
:00:36. > :00:42.Washington seem to be so bad. In New York, Dominique Strauss-Khan
:00:42. > :00:49.is freed from house arrest, but he still faces a lengthy charge sheet.
:00:49. > :00:54.The only defence that Dominique Strauss-Khan has s that this sexual
:00:54. > :00:58.encounter was consensual. That is a lie.
:00:58. > :01:02.One of America's top lawyers assess whether the case against him is
:01:02. > :01:07.falling apart. Andy Murray says Scottish for
:01:07. > :01:15.another year, will he ever make it to the Wimbledon final, Tim Henman
:01:15. > :01:20.gives Newsnight his verdict. Good evening. Newsnight has
:01:20. > :01:23.discovered that the United States is so concerned about security in
:01:23. > :01:29.Pakistan, that worst case scenario plans are being discussed to enter
:01:29. > :01:33.the country to stop extremists getting hold of nuclear material.
:01:33. > :01:36.Following their success with Osama Bin Laden a mission carried out
:01:36. > :01:39.without Islamabad knowledge, we are told the Americans are once again
:01:39. > :01:42.warm to go the idea of a pre- emptive operation to stop
:01:42. > :01:49.terrorists in their tracks. Relations between the two countries
:01:49. > :01:53.seem to be close to an all-time-low. Just this week Pakistan stopped
:01:53. > :01:59.drone flights from a base, and ordered US personnel to leave. In a
:01:59. > :02:03.moment we will speak to Pakistan's High Commisioner to London.
:02:03. > :02:07.First Richard Watson reports. Pakistan might yet prove to be the
:02:07. > :02:13.major challenge in the so-called war on terror. The rising
:02:13. > :02:16.confidence of extremist groups, in a constricting democratic space, is
:02:16. > :02:21.making observers extremely nervous, especially as the country is home
:02:21. > :02:26.to what the Jihadist like to call, the Islamic bomb. The last time the
:02:26. > :02:33.world go so jittery about nuclear security in Pakistan was nearly -
:02:33. > :02:36.got to jittery about nuclear security in Pakistan was after the
:02:36. > :02:41.9/11 attacks. Newsnight has been told these plans are coming to the
:02:41. > :02:45.fore once again, as the west contemplate as country fast
:02:45. > :02:49.expanding its nuclear arsenal, at a time of acute weakness. As one
:02:49. > :02:53.security source said tonight, it is a volatile mix.
:02:53. > :02:57.These are the images behind the latest attack of nerves. A naval
:02:57. > :03:03.base near Karachi, attacked and occupied in May by a band of
:03:03. > :03:07.heavily armed insurgents. They destroyed two US-made spy planes in
:03:07. > :03:10.a well-executed operation, which is believed to have received support
:03:10. > :03:15.from elements within Pakistan's Armed Forces. The American author
:03:15. > :03:19.of a new report published today, which charts nuclear proliferation,
:03:19. > :03:22.is worried. The raid on that particular facility was unique n a
:03:22. > :03:29.sense, in that it was the first time an organised group was able to
:03:29. > :03:34.get inside to a heavily armed military facility, and move around
:03:34. > :03:42.inside, and conduct devastating attacks against elements of the
:03:42. > :03:46.facility. In this case they particularly went, of course, after
:03:47. > :03:51.US supplied P3 maritime surveillance aircraft.
:03:51. > :03:58.Pakistan's nuclear assets are spread across the country. Partly
:03:58. > :04:01.for defensive reasons. Open source research reports and information we
:04:01. > :04:11.obtained to an overseas intelligence source leads to this
:04:11. > :04:12.
:04:12. > :04:18.map. Nuclear reactors. Uranium enrichment at these sites.
:04:18. > :04:22.Plutonium reprocessing at Rawalpindi and Chasma. Crucially it
:04:22. > :04:26.has assessed there are weaponisation programmes at Wah,
:04:26. > :04:34.and close to where Osama Bin Laden was based. There are now believed
:04:34. > :04:42.Are they secure? Extremists are said to have taked three nuclear
:04:42. > :04:49.sites in the past five years. able to find at least three
:04:49. > :04:54.instances of attacks against the, again, allegedly, or supposedly,
:04:54. > :04:58.secured, military-related facilities. This extends back over
:04:58. > :05:02.the past, probably three or four years i can recall one against what
:05:02. > :05:07.we would call a missile storage site a few years back. I don't
:05:07. > :05:14.think the attack was wholly successful, but again, what it
:05:14. > :05:20.indicates is a level of brazenness, and perhaps even sophistication, in
:05:20. > :05:29.the fact that these kind of attacks can be co-ordinated by extremists
:05:29. > :05:38.in country. Al-Qaeda's leaders have long harboured to obtain and
:05:38. > :05:44.detonate a nuclear device. Al-Zawahiri said he would travel to
:05:44. > :05:51.Daghestan in 1998, a repute the source of ex-society nuclear
:05:51. > :05:54.weapons, says an Al-Qaeda insider. He told me there was an
:05:54. > :05:59.investigation of the environment, the possibility of getting the
:05:59. > :06:03.weapon itself, weapons of mass destruction, or the material, which
:06:03. > :06:08.might help Al-Qaeda to build their own plant. He was arrested for six
:06:08. > :06:13.months, it is fact, without a doubt. Why go to former Soviet Republic,
:06:13. > :06:16.if weapons or radioactive material for a so-called dirty bomb can be
:06:16. > :06:21.procured from inside Pakistan. Islamist groups have targtded the
:06:21. > :06:26.Armed Forces with this in mind. there are people inside the
:06:27. > :06:31.military command structure, that is in charge of these weapons, that
:06:31. > :06:35.are sympathetic to extremists and under the right circumstances could
:06:35. > :06:40.take action and either enable people from outside to get in,
:06:40. > :06:44.where they otherwise wouldn't be able to get in, or simply divert,
:06:44. > :06:49.by using a unit, try to divert some weapons during a crisis or
:06:49. > :06:53.something like that. The Pakistani army has
:06:53. > :06:57.internationally agreed safety protocols designed to protect their
:06:57. > :07:00.nuclear assets. Warheads and detonators are stored separately
:07:00. > :07:04.there are security codes, with inside help, anything might be
:07:04. > :07:08.possible, it is feared. There is no question America is extremely
:07:08. > :07:11.concerned about the nuclear sites inside Pakistan. There are
:07:11. > :07:14.certainly contingency plans that have been made by the Americans,
:07:14. > :07:20.probably involving British elements, to oversee those sites and in the
:07:20. > :07:25.event of their falling into the wrong hands, to intervene. So what
:07:25. > :07:28.would a plan look like? We asked a former CIA nuclear proliferation
:07:28. > :07:32.expert and former adviser to the Clinton administration? Governments
:07:32. > :07:36.aren't thinking about how they wo respond, you know, they are not
:07:36. > :07:41.preparing and they are not doing their job if they don't. It would
:07:41. > :07:46.be an operation both from those who would try to remove materials and
:07:46. > :07:52.those who might respond, of such complexity, that we are almost
:07:52. > :07:57.entering into unchartered territory. Again, we are on the extreme edges
:07:57. > :08:01.of the real, I hope. There was a particular effort under what was
:08:01. > :08:09.known as the global strike programme, which is, of course,
:08:09. > :08:13.part of the US strategic command's plan to go out and take out WMD
:08:14. > :08:17.facilities or facilities on a global scale. It is a global
:08:17. > :08:21.programme in how far it is in Pakistan and in terms of real plans
:08:21. > :08:25.I have no way of knowing. Some Pakistan watchers believe raising
:08:25. > :08:30.nuclear security now is deliberately provocative, at a time
:08:30. > :08:33.when relations are so tense. Any plan to go in would be a disaster?
:08:33. > :08:37.This is not a Bin Laden raid, this is for them, something far, far
:08:37. > :08:40.bigger and more serious. If the US were foolish enough to do this,
:08:40. > :08:44.they would be setting a precedent, for example, with Israel, would
:08:44. > :08:50.there be anything to stop Israel going and attacking Iran. It is a
:08:50. > :08:58.very dangerous precedent to set. The west wants to see tough action
:08:58. > :09:03.inside Pakistan. The arrests of an army Brigadier for alleged
:09:03. > :09:06.extremist links, was made public, an encouraging sign at a time of
:09:06. > :09:10.tension. Watching that with us the Pakistan
:09:10. > :09:17.High Commisioner in London, Wajid Shamsul Hasan. Good evening. Good
:09:17. > :09:26.evening. How safe are your nuclear weapons' facilities? Well, I'm not
:09:26. > :09:33.a professional nuclear expert, number one, but whatever little I
:09:33. > :09:40.know about it is that IEA, NATO, Americans, CIA, and other
:09:41. > :09:46.organisations, has certified that Pakistan nuclear weapons are in
:09:46. > :09:51.safe hands, they are secure, they are not easily accessible. But, the
:09:51. > :09:57.IEA is talking about obviously your nuclear facility for power. You are
:09:57. > :10:02.telling me the CIA say they are happy with the weapons facilities
:10:02. > :10:07.about the country? Even NATO has said they are satisfied with
:10:07. > :10:11.Pakistan's security measures. by the reckoning, you have 90-100
:10:11. > :10:18.warheads at the moment, you are adding 10-15 each year? You are
:10:18. > :10:24.telling me the figure, I don't know. That is the sources. That is like a
:10:24. > :10:29.Hollywood fictional script. Is it like a fictional script? The
:10:29. > :10:33.Jihadis talk about the Pakistani bomb. You say Pakistani bomb, not
:10:33. > :10:38.Islamic bomb. They say the, the Jihadis say. They say so many
:10:38. > :10:42.things. You don't have to take them seriously. But, you would have
:10:42. > :10:46.heard Mr Christianson saying that the measures that Pakistan has
:10:46. > :10:49.taken are unclear. He, afterall, is the director of the nuclear
:10:49. > :10:54.information project, he says the measures you have taken to secure
:10:54. > :11:00.these areas are unclear, and that is what is making the Americans so
:11:00. > :11:08.jittery. The IEA has been there, the watchdog authority on nuclear
:11:08. > :11:11.things, it has certified that Pakistan is safe. So we cannot
:11:11. > :11:15.dispute that. We don't know who the people they are, what sort of
:11:15. > :11:21.condition they have, but when the IEA say that we don't believe it.
:11:21. > :11:27.It is very strange. But there is evidence of insecurity, because you
:11:27. > :11:31.have the attack on the Karachi naval bai, and also the unmasking
:11:31. > :11:41.of the Brigadier, openly talked about, who had extremist links.
:11:41. > :11:43.
:11:43. > :11:48.There is an insecurity in your security forces? My simple answer
:11:48. > :11:53.would be what about 9/11, Pentagon, they could be attacked, any place
:11:53. > :11:56.could be attacked. Mumbai, despite security was attacked, Sharm El-
:11:56. > :12:00.Sheikh, despite all intelligence presence there, it was attacked.
:12:00. > :12:04.Bali was attacked. So many other places were attacked by these
:12:04. > :12:11.terrorists. But you are saying, you are saying that actually all your
:12:11. > :12:16.nuclear weapons are stored safe and sound, and after the raid on Osama
:12:16. > :12:20.Bin Laden, of course, which was a great success in the American eyes,
:12:20. > :12:23.and indeed in Pakistan's eyes, although they were horrified not to
:12:23. > :12:28.be involved. The Americans feel emboldened by that, it would seem
:12:28. > :12:34.if they think that there is a problem, they are prepared to take
:12:34. > :12:38.pre-emptive unilateral action. Americans did take pre-emptive
:12:38. > :12:43.unilateral action against Osama, and they got him. I'm sure they
:12:43. > :12:48.must be regreting it now, that they should have informed Pakistan, but
:12:48. > :12:53.since there was a time lag and they didn't inform. The thing is, it is
:12:53. > :12:57.all talk. They are planning to attack, they are doing this and
:12:58. > :13:03.that. Our relations have worsened, our relations have not woreened. To
:13:03. > :13:07.that extent, as to call it bad. Hillary Clinton was visiting
:13:07. > :13:13.Pakistan and she was happy and satisfied with what was happening.
:13:13. > :13:18.Even when President Obama was here, and when he was talking with Prime
:13:18. > :13:21.Minister Cameron, and Prime Minister Cameron said it very
:13:21. > :13:24.clearly, the enemy of Pakistan is our enemy, and this afternoon when
:13:24. > :13:28.the President of Pakistan was meeting him, he said Pakistan's
:13:28. > :13:32.future is Britain's future. Pakistan's future is Britain's
:13:32. > :13:36.future, and therefore, security is one of the most important issues.
:13:36. > :13:40.So if the Americans were to move in and take pre-emptive action on
:13:40. > :13:48.sites they have identified, and our sources say these plans are in
:13:49. > :13:53.place. What would Pakistan's reaction be? Again, you are a very
:13:53. > :13:58.hypothetical in your questioning, it doesn't have any sound basis.
:13:58. > :14:02.The Americans planning to do this, and the Americans wouldn't do that.
:14:02. > :14:07.They did do it with Osama Bin Laden? Let me tell you, if I were
:14:07. > :14:15.to see him, or any Pakistani, with so much money on his head, they
:14:15. > :14:20.would have killed him. So Osama was a known tart. These national assets
:14:20. > :14:24.will be protected by each and every Pakistani, including the Armed
:14:24. > :14:27.Forces. Like at Shamzi now, the Government in Islamabad has ordered
:14:27. > :14:32.the Americans to stop the drone flights and American personnel to
:14:33. > :14:37.get out. That is not a signal of good relations, is it? Again it is
:14:37. > :14:42.a Misper exception. Americans have themselves said they never flew
:14:42. > :14:48.their drones from Pakistani territory. They have proved it time
:14:48. > :14:51.and again, and said it time and again, and they have not done that.
:14:51. > :14:56.But you want American personnel out of that area? We want the Americans
:14:56. > :15:01.to give us drones so we should use them, instead of our space being
:15:01. > :15:05.used by them. High Commisioner thank you very much indeed.
:15:05. > :15:09.Today there were dramatic scenes inside and outside a Manhattan
:15:09. > :15:12.courtroom, as the former IMF chief, Dominique Strauss-Khan, was
:15:12. > :15:17.released from house arrest, but ordered to remain in the country
:15:17. > :15:22.for another hearing on July 18th. He still face seven serious charges
:15:22. > :15:26.over the alleged attack on a hotel maid in New York. But the judge
:15:26. > :15:29.said he understood the circumstances of the case had
:15:30. > :15:36.changed substantially, now Strauss- Khan's supporters in France have
:15:36. > :15:40.been given fresh hope of an improbable comeback. Could he still
:15:40. > :15:43.with the socialist presidential candidate. It has been an
:15:43. > :15:47.extraordinary day? Absolutely. Everyone thought this would be the
:15:47. > :15:51.centre of the cautious we thought all of the charges would be dropped.
:15:51. > :15:55.They haven't been. Why was that? was because of a report in the New
:15:55. > :15:57.York Times. They reported two law enforcement officers, as they say
:15:58. > :16:01.they were, they were saying there were flaws in the witnesses
:16:01. > :16:04.statement. She claims that after she was allegedly raped she went
:16:04. > :16:08.and reported it straight away. There is evidence to suggest she
:16:08. > :16:12.didn't, she went and cleaned another room and took her time to
:16:12. > :16:16.report it. They also say she lied on her asylum claims, her
:16:16. > :16:20.credibility is not what it was. You can see why Dominique Strauss-Khan
:16:20. > :16:24.woke up this morning thinking he might be a man who was in a
:16:24. > :16:28.slightly better place than he was six weeks ago. We saw pictures of
:16:28. > :16:32.him in court, you can see his whole demeanor is different to what it
:16:32. > :16:37.was, he's there with his wife. They both look, not chipper, but calm,
:16:37. > :16:39.and they look relaxed. There is a bit of a swagger about Dominique
:16:39. > :16:43.Strauss-Khan? Something like a smirk there, not the pictures we
:16:43. > :16:53.have seen in the past of him, he looked nothing like that. Cast your
:16:53. > :16:53.
:16:53. > :16:58.mind back to six weeks ago, here he is in the dock, jouly, heavy lided,
:16:58. > :17:08.tired. These are the pictures beamed across the world, a guilty
:17:08. > :17:11.
:17:11. > :17:16.man. A different picture. This Case has been studded with dramatic, we
:17:16. > :17:22.have the lawyer, who represents P Diddy and other superstars, is a
:17:22. > :17:27.star in his own right, this is his statement saying the case was
:17:27. > :17:31.almost over. We asked the public not to rush to judgment, now you
:17:31. > :17:35.can see why. We believed from the start this case was not what it
:17:35. > :17:38.appeared to be. We are convinced that today is the first giant step
:17:38. > :17:42.in the right direction, the next step will lead to a complete
:17:42. > :17:45.dismissal of the charges. He hopes, but, of course, what
:17:46. > :17:50.actually has changed today? only thing that has changed today
:17:50. > :17:53.is the bail conditions. He still is facing these charges. We have
:17:53. > :17:57.Benjamin Brafman there saying his client's in the clear, on the other
:17:57. > :18:00.side we have the alleged victim's representatives saying he's
:18:00. > :18:04.absolutely not. The scene that followed Benjamin Brafman's
:18:04. > :18:08.statement here were quite extraordinary, we saw her
:18:08. > :18:12.representative using the most lurid, explicit and aggressive language to
:18:12. > :18:15.describe exactly what he thought had happened, saying this was not
:18:15. > :18:19.consensual. Some people might find this quite offensive, this shows
:18:19. > :18:24.you what was going on outside the court today. He grabbed her vagina
:18:24. > :18:30.with so much force that he bruised her vagina. When she went to the
:18:30. > :18:34.hospital later that day, the nurses who examined her saw the bruises on
:18:35. > :18:39.her vagina that were caused by Dominique Strauss-Khan's hand. They
:18:39. > :18:43.took pictures of the bruises on her vagina, and the District Attorney
:18:43. > :18:47.has those pictures. That is language that is designed to shock.
:18:47. > :18:50.I have never heard anything like that outside any court anywhere in
:18:50. > :18:55.the world. That is specifically designed to make an impact, this is
:18:55. > :18:58.lunchtime in the US, going out on the networks over there, quite
:18:58. > :19:04.unprecedented. You have to question the motivation behind that kind of
:19:04. > :19:06.performance. In France, there is all this talk about a possible
:19:06. > :19:09.comeback for Dominique Strauss-Khan as the socialist presidential
:19:09. > :19:14.candidate? This morning there was even talk that he could be the
:19:14. > :19:18.President of France. We have got the primaries closing on the 13th,
:19:18. > :19:21.he's due back in Manhattan five days later, it is certainly not
:19:22. > :19:26.looking good. Yes, it has been a slightly better day for him, but he
:19:26. > :19:29.still wakes up tomorrow, although he's not under house arrest, he is
:19:29. > :19:38.still facing seven serious charges here, he's not anywhere near in the
:19:38. > :19:42.clear yet. Joining us from Martha's Vineyard,
:19:42. > :19:46.is distinguished lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, and Dominique Strauss-
:19:46. > :19:51.Khan's biographer. First of all, Alan Dershowitz, what
:19:51. > :19:56.is the dynamic of this case now? This case is over. There is only
:19:56. > :20:00.the technicality of when it will be dismissed. Nobody knows, nobody
:20:00. > :20:03.will ever know what happened in that hotel room, what we do know is
:20:03. > :20:08.that the witness simply doesn't have the kind of credibility
:20:08. > :20:12.required to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt. She has allegedly
:20:12. > :20:15.lied about previously being raped, she has allegedly lied on her
:20:15. > :20:19.application for amnesty. She will be lucky if she's not deported at
:20:19. > :20:22.the end of this matter. She came into the case hoping perhaps to
:20:22. > :20:28.come away with several million dollars, she will be very fortunate
:20:28. > :20:33.if she comes awhich with the status quo preserved. This is a very good
:20:33. > :20:38.day for the defendant and justice in America. The prosecution came
:20:38. > :20:42.forward and produced the conclusions of the investigation
:20:42. > :20:47.and made it clear this case is a weak one. The weakness of the
:20:47. > :20:51.American system is it has the perp walk, in which it presents the
:20:51. > :20:56.defendant as guilty, it withholds the name of the victim, which
:20:56. > :20:59.suggests that she is a real victim and that the defendant is guilty,
:20:59. > :21:03.it undercuts the presumption of innocence. It will cause many
:21:03. > :21:07.Americans to re-think how we prosecute cases of this kind.
:21:07. > :21:15.charges are serious charges, still standing of tonight, and Dominique
:21:15. > :21:21.Strauss-Khan is still due in court on the 18th of July? These charges
:21:21. > :21:24.will stand, and he remain as defendant, but I think anybody who
:21:24. > :21:29.has any understanding of the American criminal justice system
:21:29. > :21:34.has to say, unless some miraculous new evidence will come forward, I
:21:34. > :21:40.can't imagine what that will be, short of a video tape, no
:21:40. > :21:43.prosecutor will want to vouch for the victim's credibility, and say
:21:43. > :21:49.ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a witness we are asking you
:21:49. > :21:51.to believe on the basis of her word and put someone in jail for a long
:21:51. > :21:54.time. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires more credibility
:21:54. > :21:59.than this witness is prepared to present. This creates a terrible
:21:59. > :22:03.problem, it means that sometimes women who are actually raped but
:22:04. > :22:08.who have terrible backgrounds, backgrounds of criminality or lack
:22:08. > :22:14.of credibility, cannot get justice. That's why we say better ten guilty
:22:14. > :22:19.people go free than one innocent person be wrongly convicted. This
:22:19. > :22:23.may be a case that fits that description, nobody will know for
:22:23. > :22:26.sure. What do you make of it, from a legal point of view, we may never
:22:26. > :22:31.know what happened in that bedroom, we may never know what Dominique
:22:31. > :22:34.Strauss-Khan actually did, but because this witness has changed
:22:34. > :22:40.her story, we will never maybe know. Dominique Strauss-Khan, in a sense,
:22:40. > :22:46.will he ever be free of this, if he is actually acquitted, or if the
:22:46. > :22:50.case falls? You know, I'm not a friend of Strauss strau, I'm just a
:22:50. > :22:54.journalist, just a journalist who did - Dominique Strauss-Khan, I'm
:22:54. > :22:58.just a journalist who did his work. During the work, during my
:22:58. > :23:04.investigations of more than two years for writing this book, the
:23:04. > :23:12.biography of Dominique Strauss-Khan, that is called The True Story of
:23:12. > :23:17.Strauss-Khan strau, I have met more than 60 people, his political
:23:17. > :23:21.enemies and friends, his first wife, his actual woif. I twelve his
:23:21. > :23:26.political story - wife, I twelve his political story and also in
:23:26. > :23:32.this book about his relations with women. Why do I talk about this
:23:32. > :23:38.question, it is because in France there were a lot of rumour about
:23:38. > :23:43.his attitude with women. My conviction, not a personal
:23:43. > :23:52.conviction, but a conviction after a big work about his life, after
:23:52. > :23:59.having met a lot of people, is that this man is a typical French lover,
:23:59. > :24:06.he's a great seducer, but completely unable to do any
:24:06. > :24:13.violence, any act of violence against a woman. We don't...I
:24:13. > :24:19.that before May 14th, I say that after May 14th, and today I don't
:24:19. > :24:24.change my words, you know. I don't change my mind. But, Alan
:24:25. > :24:28.Dershowitz, on that point, let's pick up on that, there is Dominique
:24:28. > :24:31.Strauss-Khan's biographer, let's be clear about this, in a situation of
:24:31. > :24:37.power, we never know, as you say what happens behind that bedroom
:24:37. > :24:41.door, and as you say, we may never know what actually happened,
:24:41. > :24:46.therefore, how do you think the frenzy around this case in America,
:24:46. > :24:50.will go on from this now. What do you think people's view of
:24:50. > :24:54.Dominique Strauss-Khan will be? think he will be viewed the way
:24:54. > :24:58.many defendants are viewed, when their cases are dismissed, the
:24:58. > :25:03.court of public opinion and the court of history, often makes
:25:03. > :25:09.different judgments from a court of law, in the court of law the burden
:25:09. > :25:13.of proof is very, very high, for historians, for journalist, the
:25:14. > :25:17.burden of proof is some what lower, people can come away concluding
:25:17. > :25:20.that we don't approve of the conduct that we believe this man
:25:20. > :25:24.engaged in, but there was insufficient evidence to convict
:25:24. > :25:27.him of a crime. Some people may come away thinking he was
:25:27. > :25:32.absolutely innocent, perhaps even framed, there is no real evidence
:25:32. > :25:36.there was a set up here. But perhaps that this woman took
:25:36. > :25:41.advantage of the situation, considering her background, and
:25:41. > :25:45.he's the real victim. It will end up being a mixed picture. I would
:25:45. > :25:50.hope that since there is not sufficient evidence to conclude he
:25:50. > :25:55.is a criminal, that the presumption of innocence will apply. He will be
:25:55. > :26:04.able to go back to life as normal. He will always be kind of
:26:04. > :26:07.representative of this problem of how do you prosecute "he said/she
:26:07. > :26:11.said" rape cases that happen in a room. This is one of the most
:26:11. > :26:16.difficult and daunting challenges our legal system faces today. I
:26:16. > :26:19.think Americans have learned a lesson from this, don't jump to
:26:19. > :26:24.conclusion, don't conclude a person is guilty before all the evidence
:26:24. > :26:30.is there. Sorry to interrupt, I will put one point there, go back
:26:30. > :26:39.to life as it is, is what might happen. Life as it is, is that the
:26:39. > :26:42.possibility of the reemergesence of reemergence of Dominique Strauss-
:26:42. > :26:45.Khan, even as the socialist candidate for President? What I
:26:45. > :26:50.have always said since the beginning of the scandal is that
:26:50. > :27:00.the main problem for Dominique Strauss-Khan was the judiciary
:27:00. > :27:01.
:27:01. > :27:07.problem. But in the case of, if this judiciary problem is finished,
:27:07. > :27:15.is over, as there is no reason that Dominique Strauss-Khan cannot come
:27:15. > :27:20.back to French policy, and now the decision, the decision belongs to
:27:20. > :27:26.himself and to his wife and family. You know he has suffered a lot in
:27:26. > :27:30.this situation, and there is no reason for not to come back, but it
:27:30. > :27:35.is his own personal decision. Thank you very much, we are out of
:27:35. > :27:39.time. At 7.45 this evening, Andy Murray's hopes of playing in the
:27:39. > :27:44.Wimbledon final were dashed, as he was defeated for the 12th time in
:27:44. > :27:49.his career by the champion, Rafael Nadal. After winning a blistering
:27:49. > :27:56.first set, the momentum went away very suddenly, when mid-way through
:27:56. > :28:06.the second, he sent a forehand back beyond Nadal's line, from this
:28:06. > :28:16.
:28:16. > :28:20.Nadal looked the more confident Well earlier I asked four-times
:28:20. > :28:24.Wimbledon semifinalists Tim Henman whether the problems for Murray was
:28:24. > :28:32.all psychological, is it that he hadn't prepared for a moment like
:28:32. > :28:36.that when he he couldn't get over? He played faultless tennis up until
:28:36. > :28:40.then. My disappointment for the match thank moment in time is it
:28:40. > :28:43.really took Murray quite a long time to regroup. I think if the
:28:43. > :28:48.roles had been reversed and Nadal had been up a set and had those
:28:48. > :28:53.opportunities and hadn't taken it, then perhaps he would have had a
:28:53. > :28:57.few hiccups for a couple of minutes, where as with Murray, unfortunately
:28:57. > :29:04.it lasted seven games N that moment in time, through that period, Nadal
:29:04. > :29:09.raised his game, and then once you give him an opportunity, his level
:29:09. > :29:13.was phenomenal. John McEnroe's analysis is Murray don't get angry
:29:13. > :29:17.enough. Ironically we have seen him angry in the past. You were in
:29:17. > :29:21.semifinals in the past, maybe there is a thing you don't get angry
:29:21. > :29:25.enough. You just don't psyche yourselves up hard enough, do you
:29:25. > :29:30.see that in Murray? No, not at all. I look at the semifinals and I
:29:30. > :29:39.would say that probably was pblt good enough, I lost to Sampras
:29:39. > :29:44.twice, Hewitt was world number one, and Ivanisavic in a Vicky three-day
:29:44. > :29:50.match. There is - a tricky three- day match. There is all this talk
:29:50. > :29:53.about Murray and being in control with his emotions and he hasn't had
:29:53. > :29:57.all the problems on the court, and now everyone is saying he needs to
:29:57. > :30:01.get angry again. It is a fine line. Murray is doubtless, he's
:30:01. > :30:07.physically much, much stronger, he's in much better shape in that
:30:07. > :30:11.way,'s changed trainers, there is been a bit of churn, has that been
:30:11. > :30:14.an issue? No, you are making a comparison with Murray and one of
:30:14. > :30:18.the best, the number one player in the world today, and who is going
:30:18. > :30:23.to go down as one of the best players in history. Nadal has won
:30:23. > :30:27.ten slam, and Murray's game is still exceptional. He's four in the
:30:27. > :30:30.world for a reason. You don't get to that level without being a very
:30:30. > :30:34.good player. And the exciting thing is that he can get better. And he
:30:34. > :30:39.needs to get better if he's going to win these majors, because the
:30:39. > :30:47.rather that he's in is probably the tough Esther ra ever.
:30:47. > :30:52.Next year. That - toughest era ever. On Monday, Jeremy will be here with