14/03/2016 Newsnight


Why is Russia withdrawing from Syria? Plus, reports on the migrant crisis, George Osborne and the US presidential race. Emily Maitlis presents.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles