In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 29/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
The border between North
and South in Ireland.
Is this where Theresa May's vision
for Brexit becomes unstuck?
It's the issue with
the power to disrupt -
Britain is leaving the EU,
partly to get control of its borders
- but can that be squared with a
no-border solution in Ireland?
If measures are put in place to
control it again, whether that is
remote-controlled cameras or customs
officers, those could easily become
the focus for protest or even
violence, by those opposed to any
tightening of control.
The Irish Agriculture Minister tells
us how the problem can be solved,
and what happens if it isn't.
President Trump retweets anti-Muslim
from far right Britain First.
Does getting shocked by that,
just encourage him?
Michael Stone - jailed for
the murder of Lin and Megan Russell.
But is it the biggest miscarriage
of justice for decades?
We'll hear about the arguments
for re-examining the evidence
for that conviction.
And hope runs high as Zimbabwe
considers a future without the long
shadow of Robert Mugabe,
but is it really all change,
or simply as you were?
President Mugabe, do you still
like him or do you not like him?
CROWD CHANTS "NO".
We don't like Mugabe.
Since long, you were afraid
because if you were saying
something negative about him,
you would be butchered.
The weather may be getting
colder, but the Brexit process
is hotting up.
A European Council meeting in two
weeks will decide whether Britain
gets to the next level in the talks.
That is, whether we get to discuss
trade and our future relationship.
We've made concessions
on the money issue.
Fair to say that's no
impediment to moving on now.
But there is still the not
of the Irish border.
It's a circle to be squared.
The UK does not want to be
in the Customs Union
or the Single Market -
but that would normally imply
we have border with those who are.
The land border between Northern
Ireland and the Republic included.
Everybody agrees that a border
is not a good idea there -
but no-one has really suggested how
you avoid it in a way
that is acceptable to everyone else.
We'll hear from the Irish
agriculture secretary shortly,
but first our diplomatic editor,
Mark Urban reports
from the invisible border itself.
This is how the modern
lumber business is done.
Load trees in one end.
Get planks out of the other.
takes just 12 minutes.
It all runs with such sharp
efficiency that the mill works
day and night 365 days a year.
This plant near Enniskillen
in Northern Ireland,
uses mainly logs from the Republic,
put a hard border in the way
of that, and all its precisely
calculated margins would go awry.
Now we have 23,000 cross-border
commercial lorry movements every
year and you can imagine how much
time would be lost if we
started to lose an hour
or a half-hour of time on those.
We have 300 direct employees
here in Enniskillen.
Maybe another 300 indirect.
If we lost an hour a day,
or an hour on each truck movement
that would equate to 15 new people
and the efficiency of the business
would be badly impaired.
Years of tranquillity and political
progress here mean that
in many places the border
is barely discernible.
So we're on the road here to Clones
in County Fermanagh and this road
actually passes the border four
times in the space of ten minutes.
This type of ease of traffic
is the thing that is being
threatened by current developments.
So back in the Troubles,
the army closed many border crossing
points and people who want
the border to carry on working
in this very unrestricted way say
that if measures are put in place
to control it again,
whether that is a controlled cameras
or customs officers,
those could easily become the focus
for protest or even violence,
by those opposed to any
tightening of control.
But with the EU heading for a
summit, where two out of the three
of its Brexit separation issues,
money and citizens rights appeared
to be close to resolution, the Irish
border question has suddenly gained
This is the first time
in the history of Anglo-Irish
relations, when you have had
conflict between Britain and
Ireland, when Ireland has been the
stronger position. It has never
happened before. It is very
unfamiliar territory for us to be
in. And it is a huge challenge for
Ireland, because we are not used to
having that kind of power in our
side of Anglo-Irish relations. And
we have to use it really, really
well. We have a fairly short period
in which it can be used, and if it
is used badly, it is a disaster for
Ireland, but also for Britain, and
that is no good for any of us.
if Ireland takes too strong a line,
and contributes to a disorderly
Brexit, one without an agreement,
its economy would suffer terribly.
Any sector or any company which has
supplied chains which span the north
and south, so there are a lot of
complications for firms which they
are beginning to grapple with, and
beginning to look at in a more
granular sense as they prepare for
Brexit, but these will have real
impact on companies, and potentially
would be very disruptive.
politicians want maximum concessions
for business, while keeping peace in
the form of the Good Friday
Agreement in tact. But if their
favoured solution, retaining
Northern Ireland as part of the EU's
customs union is to take flight,
loyalists in the north will have to
be convinced that that is not
pushing them towards a united
The constitutional position
can only be changed if there is a
referendum and a united Ireland, and
that is contained in the Good Friday
Agreement. We are campaigning for
that and we want to see that
referendum and win that referendum.
This is a practical measure.
can the UK say, short of keeping the
North in the customs union, to
convince Ireland it should allow
Brexit talks to move on?
We have not
had sufficient detail from the UK
Government will stop when it comes
to the border, we had a fine speech
from the Prime Minister in Florence
and a lengthy paper but neither of
which had any decent level of detail
for the Irish government to put out
a proposal in relation to a new
customs union. We want to make sure
we have something similar or
advanced from the UK Government.
Back in Fermanagh, what they want is
a minimum of disruption to their
supply chain, and a special status
for the north that might not be
called customs union, but could look
remarkably similar to it. Solving
the border issue will require some
sort of special regime that is not
such an example of Irish
exceptionalism that it falls foul of
the bureaucrats in Brussels. Ireland
is using its window of opportunity
to press the UK for answers, but
with wider EU UK agreement
apparently close, the pressure is
being felt on both sides of the
Irish border, for a workable road
map to solve their issues.
Nick Watt our political
editor is here.
Nick, it has been a busy couple of
days with the money thing yesterday,
Northern Ireland a lot of things to
say there. Let's start on the money.
Are we clear about where the deal is
and what was promised?
Yes, we said
last night that the UK and EU have
reached agreement on a framework,
but if there is a written agreement
you will not see of money written
down, but I understand that if we
get to that agreement, in the run-up
to or at the
European Council next month, the two
sides will agree a figure. It will
not be in writing and that figure
will emerge. The UK view is that
that figure will be between 40 to
£45 billion, with an absolute cap
that it cannot go above £45 billion,
and that is 40 billion of money that
is absolutely related to the EU, and
what I'm told is a couple of extra
billion in money that is not wholly
definitively related to the EU but
will essentially go into that pot.
That is pounds. A lot of things we
were talking yesterday was in Euros
so billion euros. Northern Ireland.
Does the UK Government believes it
can see a way through?
Government believes this is the most
serious issue. One source said they
hoped to get there by the time of
the summit but it is a gamble. I
understand UK is planning a carrot
and stick approach with Dublin. The
stickers to say you claim that we
are not abiding by the principles of
the Good Friday Agreement. Actually,
you are not abiding by it because
what you're doing is slowly
representing the nationalist
community, which has real fears
about Brexit. At the heart of the
Good Friday Agreement is you need to
take both communities with you, and
unionists obviously voted mainly in
favour of Leave in the referendum.
That is the stick. The carrot is to
say let's take the cooperation
across the iron and of Ireland that
is in the Good Friday Agreement,
let's entrench them in this issue
with the EU and two areas such as
agriculture and the single energy
market. What UK ministers will say
is we reckon we could sell that to
the DUP. The DUP, until earlier this
year, was in government with Sinn
Fein governing an all Ireland
issues. We can sell that to them.
What we cannot sell is putting a
border between Northern Ireland and
Great Britain down the Irish Sea.
We hear a lot of the British view -
but earlier this evening,
I spoke to Michael Creed,
the Irish Agriculture Secretary.
I started by asking him how
the Irish border issue could be
resolved in Brexit talks.
Well, we have articulated what we
believe is a reasonable position to
resolve the issue. The UK has
clearly set its face against that.
Our suggestion was Northern Ireland
should remain within the customs
union and the single market.
What is clearly incumbent on
Theresa May and her government, and
her negotiating team, is to
articulate and alternative which
does not give rise to hard border,
because everybody's agreed, we do
not want a hard border. Not just for
trade reasons, but because of the
long lessons of history that we have
learned to our great cost, not just
financially but indeed at higher
cost, over many, many years. The
Good Friday Agreement, the single
market and the customs union have
facilitated a seamless border over
many years. If the UK Government has
clearly said No to a single market
and customs union, it is clearly
incumbent on the British government
to articulate a way forward that
enables us to have an invisible
seamless border which they said they
Let me put this to you.
Suppose the British said we have a
solution but it relies on checking
one in 100 trucks as they go across
the border, would that be acceptable
to the Irish government?
and I are not going to negotiate the
detail of it. There are teams of
negotiators on behalf of the UK
Government and the Bynea negotiating
teams. It is not a bilateral
agreement between the Republic of
Ireland and the UK, it is between
the UK and the 27 member states. The
27 are rock solid. We need political
solutions now and we're not getting
What if there was a
big lorry parked inside Northern
Ireland where some checks were made,
does that constitute a physical
border is unacceptable or is that
compatible with the kind of no
border rhetoric we are hearing?
is not compatible with an invisible
seamless border. But it is an
interesting premise to your
question. The UK citizens, and I
respect their vote, but voted to
leave the EU but they did not in
this city vote in the mentation of
that decision to vote to leave the
customs union or the single market.
That is an entirely different
interpretation of the issue. My
concern is, with all of the
historical connotations of the
border, if they were to re-emerge,
that is something which is violently
destructive to the citizens of
Northern Ireland, and that is why,
also in the context of trade,
anything that is an impediment to
trade, no matter what political hack
the web, is to the detriment of
citizens north and south.
Prime Minister Leo Varadkar survived
if he made significant concessions
to the position you were describing?
It is not a strong government in the
Republic at the moment. Would he
survived, would he be able to
command Madrid to support if they
made concessions? -- if he made
I do not propose to
speak for other parties but I am
certain there is 100% agreement
across the political divide on the
issue of the border between the
Republic and Northern Ireland. This
is a really, really critical issue.
It is far, far more important than
the trade context between North and
south on the island of Ireland. It
has to do with the difficult
historical lessons we have learnt,
which have been born out of a hard
border, and we certainly want to
avoid that, and that is our primary
motivation. Obviously, trade issues
that arise and costs associated with
the border are important, but they
are secondary to the lessons of
So, if you didn't see the news,
Donald Trump's morning Twitter flow
included three retweets -
each an anti-Muslim video posted
by the deputy leader of the far
right group Britain First.
For example, one purported to show
a Muslim migrant beating up
a Dutch boy on crutches.
The reaction to Trump sending out
hate videos was immediate: Yvette
Cooper, chair of the Home Affairs
committee was typical.
She said, "Couldn't have imagined
there was anything left Trump
could do to shock me.
But promoting the views of a woman
from a far right hate group
It raises an interesting question -
for progressives or mainstream
politicians, how should you react
to Trump on a day like this?
A question for us too.
A day when a President breeches the
norms that most citizens respect.
Here's the dilemma.
If Trump - or anyone -
wants to get attention
by doing things that annoy you,
you don't want to reward
their undesirable behaviour.
So strategy number one
is not to reward it.
Avoid being shocked by President
Trump, by not being shocked.
Don't rise to the bait.
The problem is, that a consequence
of that is that then the abnormal
can become normalised.
If anti-Muslim videos
are not your thing,
especially those posted
by Britain First's Jayda Fransen,
then to passively watch a US
president post them as though that's
an everyday occurrence, implies
that is an everyday occurrence.
But it isn't.
So if you don't want it be
normalised, strategy two,
is to be shocked by Trump tweets.
Like Labour MP Chris Bryant
who suggested Trump be arrested
if he comes to the UK,
for inciting racial hatred.
The problem with expressing outrage,
is that one suspects
it is what President Trump wants.
And it's certainly what
Jayda Fransen wants.
So is there a third way
for those who find the whole
hate thing distasteful?
Neither rewarding it,
nor ignoring it?
I can think of only one.
You react not with hate or division,
but with love and understanding.
You don't get angry -
you follow the simplest advice
of the Dalai Lama,
"Be kind whenever possible.
It is always possible" he said.
And to Trump supporters.
Is there anything else to be done?
You may have your own ideas -
but I'm joined by the Conservative
MP Nadhim Zahawi was born in Iraq,
and has previously spoken out
against Trump's travel ban
on majority Muslim countries.
You have reacted in your own way, by
writing a letter to him.
written to him tonight to explain to
him why I think he is wrong for
re-tweeting those videos. Why many
people in his administration, as
well as ours, who work on
counterterrorism, would be
heartbroken because our work
involves effectively combating the
ideology of diversion or Al-Qaeda
any hate group, far-right or any
radical group. By effectively going
the other way, by saying, what they
are trying to do is dehumanise our
values, to brainwash young men to
blow themselves up. To participate
in the same thing and dehumanise
Muslims, I would want him to think
again, delete those videos. I want
him to come here so I can take him
to Stratford-upon-Avon and
Birmingham and London... And I have
invited him, to try to educate him
to the diversity, integration and
how beautiful, as he would put it,
our society is.
I think he really
needs to think hard tonight about
his behaviour. Do you think he has
not thought about this does not know
what you are saying? Or needs to
visit the UK to know that spreading
hate is not a good way of fostering
community relations? I wonder
whether rationalising with the man
is never going to work?
I would like
to think that he is probably naive
to the fact that a lot of resources
in the United States, human
resources and financial, is going
into combating this narrative, not
just physically in Iraq, the Prime
Minister was in Baghdad today, where
we are taking on diversion
militarily but the ideology is more
important and to effectively
dehumanise in the way they do, or
that we, as he has done, is
counter-productive and when he
speaks to the secretary, his
secretaries, he will know this.
would like to know the reply. What
reaction does you want when he
tweets this stuff? What reaction is
he trying to get? To annoy, to
distract from other things,
People who create these
videos do it they try to target
emotional heartstrings that are
about hatred. It is a basic knee
jerk reaction. Tribal? It is what
terrorists use. They show videos of
our society and they dehumanise it
so that young men can be brainwashed
and once you do that, you can do
anything to a human being. That is
what the Nazis did to the Jews. I
think, dare I say it, he has naively
bought into that narrative.
we call Britain First a far right
group, should be call him a
I don't think
so, sometimes when he thinks about
these things, he does say that he is
the least racist human being and I
would like to believe that, I would
like him to come here and see how
integrated, how peaceful and
tolerant, we coexist, it is a
wonderful place in England. And I
need him to be here to see this
because he is the holder of the
office and the Prime Minister needs
to work with the President and he
happens to be that President so we
have to go the extra mile to educate
Thank you for coming in and we
would like to see his reply.
Two weeks and one day ago, the
Zimbabwean army moved into Harare.
We reported the armoured
vehicle movements that day,
perplexed as to what was going on.
Was it a coup?
Well, the question, "was it
a coup" was never quite
Certainly, President Robert Mugabe
was soon out of office,
but if it was a coup,
it was unusual in that the army
did its job peacefully,
then went away again
without installing one
of its generals
into the presidential palace.
Gabriel Gatehouse has been
in Zimbabwe for the last few days
piecing together what exactly
happened over the few days running
up to President Mugabe's
departure from office.
And, working out whether there
are grounds for optimism
at the man who replaced him.
It was Tuesday the 14th of November.
Ignatius Chombo, Zimbabwe's Finance
Minister, had gone to bed early
at his home in the affluent
suburbs of Harare.
Some time after midnight,
masked men, armed and wearing
military fatigues, burst
in and took him away.
Now he's in hospital, purged
from the party and under arrest.
We've come to see if he can
tell us his story.
Thank you very much.
Mr Chombo was on a bed behind
a screen under armed guard.
There are three soldiers
in there saying get out.
The following day, he appeared
in court charged with corruption.
But Mr Chombo's real difficulty
now is his association
with Zimbabwe's former First Lady.
We've been hearing some really quite
dramatic details about the arrests
of supporters of Grace Mugabe
on the night of
the 14th of November.
Events, really, that became
the starting gun for the coup that
overthrew Robert Mugabe.
As night fell, the cameras assembled
to catch a glimpse of one
of Zimbabwe's most powerful men,
humbled and shackled.
Herded into a prison van along
with common criminals.
As this country embarks
upon a new era, some habits,
it seems, die hard.
They bombed the gate
to his house and entered
through the roof, some of them.
Others, they broke the doors,
broke every door in the house
until they finally came
to where he was with his wife.
They were all asked to lie down.
They were then blindfolded
and he was taken out of the house.
Taken to a place where
he could not tell what place
it was and at the end of the day,
he was there for more
than seven days.
Blindfolded throughout the entire
period of his incarceration.
Fr Fidelis Mukonori is sometimes
called Mugabe's Confessor.
The events went very fast.
I was phoned by the
in the Ministry of Information.
He said, Father, you know,
something's happened in the early
hours of this morning.
A Jesuit priest and close personal
friend of many years,
when the generals made their move,
they asked Fr Fidelis to mediate.
The tanks were in the street,
the boys were on the street.
And his generals were sombre,
sombre as anything.
There was no sign of jitteriness
or overexcitement or anger.
Did it strike you as well planned?
Yes, well planned.
The generals had drawn up a list
of demands which centred around
the reinstatement of the exiled
Vice President, Emmerson Mnangagwa.
The main one was, we will not accept
the legacy of Zimbabwe,
the legacy of Robert Mugabe,
to be drained out or to be fizzled
out by opportunists.
After finishing the meeting
with the commanders, I drove
to President Mugabe's residence.
The blue roof.
And we read the points, one by one.
What was his reaction?
Robert Mugabe is a guerilla,
a fighter and a leader.
He never loses his calmness.
Not everyone who was at that first
meeting remembers things going
quite that smoothly.
Two people with knowledge
of the conversation that day told us
that Robert Mugabe said
to the generals, "You can go to hell
- you can kill me if you want to".
And perhaps, after 37
years in power, that's
a more plausible reaction.
But Robert Mugabe is the embodiment
of power in Zimbabwe.
And the aim is to control that
legacy, not to kill it.
It's a delicate operation
and it's not over yet.
The removal of Mugabe
from the Presidency brought euphoria
onto the streets of Harare.
How do you feel right now?
This is a new Zimbabwe.
The inauguration of the new
President last Friday seemed
like a moment of great promise.
And yet, the figure of Robert Mugabe
retains some respect for his role
in the liberation struggle.
Despite a record of
political violence, endemic
corruption and unemployment.
The people, they are desperate.
That is why most of us
have supported Emmerson
Mnangagwa, because of jobs.
We are jobless.
Most of these people, they actually
hold degrees, Masters, PhD's.
But we're sitting at home
with nothing to do.
Can I ask you, how do you all feel
about President Mugabe?
Do you still like him
or do you not like him?
THEY CHANT "NO".
Since long, we didn't
like him but we were afraid
because if you were saying something
negative about him,
you would be butchered.
But this was no revolution.
The soldiers on the streets
heralded an internal
battle within Zanu-PF,
the ruling party.
Mnangagwa and the military had
gained the upper hand.
Grace Mugabe and her supporters
were losing their grip.
Walter Mzembi is among
the latter group.
He was appointed Foreign Minister
just before the coup and was a close
confidant of the Mugabes.
When the tanks appeared
on the street, his first thought
was for his own safety.
Nice place you have here.
I was in my bedroom, upstairs.
I heard gunshots.
Of course, I said, this can't be
right, whatever it is.
You don't wait for yourself
to be captured, I suspect
that is what it is.
You don't wait for it to happen.
I obviously sought sanctuary.
Where did you go?
I just went into a hotel.
Looking back, Mr Mzembi says
he should have known
that trouble was coming.
Sometimes, the military
were giving us a warning.
What kind of warning?
That if we insisted and continued
to act the way we are doing
in the party, that would be
the end of him.
They gave you warnings?
You realise they were warnings.
They were warning us.
We never took them seriously!
That was a mistake.
Grace Mugabe had made many enemies
using her power as First Lady
to publicly chastise party stalwarts
and veterans of the
Well, she would correct even
some of us in public.
And there was absolutely nothing
that I was felt was wrong...
In our culture, if you are
corrected by a mother.
Except when it tends
to border on abuse.
But as she corrected me...
Is that what happened?
I think she behaved like a of mother
would punish children
in public, I think.
That is what incensed others, yes.
Now the tables had turned.
From exile in South Africa,
Emmerson Mnangagwa sent
a message to Fr Fidelis.
He wanted to speak to Mugabe.
So, I called him on my phone
and I said, I'm sitting
next to the President.
He also wants to speak to you.
So the two spoke for
exactly ten minutes.
Mnangagwa had accused Grace
of trying to poison him.
Now he told his former boss...
He said I had to leave the country
for fear of my life.
And that's why I left the country.
You want me to come?
I love Zimbabwe.
Would you like to
deal with the issue?
Indeed, I will come.
So the President said,
please, please, come,
come, come right away.
And that was the last words.
That was on the Friday.
By the weekend, people were coming
out onto the streets, calling openly
from Robert Mugabe to go.
These were scenes unthinkable
just a few days earlier.
On Sunday, Mugabe
addressed the nation.
Everyone expected him to resign,
but still he clung on.
Some people close to Robert Mugabe
said that by this time,
he had already accepted that
Emmerson Mnangagwa would be his
successor, but he wanted to hand
over to him personally,
at the party congress in December.
Others, though, say
that he was still haggling over
the terms and conditions
of his retirement.
Immunity from prosecution,
the security of his and his wife's
businesses and properties.
Even a lump sum in cash.
Whatever the truth,
by the following Tuesday, the 21st,
Parliament had begun impeachment
proceedings and the game was up.
I pretty much was taken by surprise
when I heard that he had capitulated
and tendered his resignation.
But I thought that happened under
a break of pressure that was coming
from the impeachment
process in Parliament.
What do you think it was that
finally made him capitulate?
He was betrayed by his colleagues.
By their last-minute switch.
But that is politics!
Mr Mzembi himself backed
Mugabe to the last.
Now he supports the new President -
his loyalty, he says,
is to the office.
A short drive out of Harare,
through countryside of rolling
hills and gold mines,
brings you to Mazowe.
It was where Grace Mugabe
built her base, centred
around a sprawling mansion
behind stone pillars.
This is known as Graceland.
Many local people were
pushed off their farms
by the former First Lady.
Those who remain are still uneasy.
How has it been to be
the neighbour of Grace Mugabe?
A few people are
still scared to talk.
For the past three-and-a-half
decades, this country has been
held together by fear.
Few expect that to change quickly.
People said to me, a week ago,
I couldn't have come out
on the street and said
what I am saying now.
One person said to me,
I would have been...
I mean, that gives you some
indication of the kind of regime
that people have been living under,
that you were also part of?
Well, I didn't get the sense
that there was an infringement
of civil liberties in this country.
You don't think Robert Mugabe ran
a repressive regime?
To demonstrate without a police
order, I'm not sure it attracted
the attention of the police
at the time.
And I don't think even this
would authorise expression
of freedom that led
to unauthorised demonstrations.
Do you think there will be a change?
They may have a false sense
of freedom if they think
that they can be out on the streets
to demonstrate without
For decades, Robert Mugabe
outsmarted his enemies,
foreign and domestic.
Now, the combination of political
acumen and intimidation that
kept him in power for so long
finally failed him.
Fr Fidelis was there
when he was presented
with his resignation papers.
He read them and he took
his pen and signed.
And when he finished his
signing, his face just...
It just glowed.
As if to say, wow, it's over.
So, what happens now?
The soldiers have largely
returned to their barracks.
Life has almost returned to normal.
After 37 years of rule dominated
by one man and one party,
the overwhelming imperative
for the new regime is
continuity, not change.
Gabriel Gatehouse reporting.
The murders of Lin and Megan Russell
in Chillenden in Kent back in 1996
shook the nation at the time.
The mother and daughter
were bludgeoned to death
while walking their dog.
Megan's sister was left for dead,
but amazingly survived the attack.
A year later, Kent Police thought
they'd found the killer,
a man called Michael Stone.
A drug user and criminal,
he was convicted for the murders
in 1998, on the basis not
of forensic evidence,
but alleged confessions he had
made to other prisoners.
He always denied the killings
but even in a retrial,
his conviction upheld.
However, Mr Stone's legal team claim
to have new evidence
that suggests it was,
in fact, the known murderer
Levi Bellfield who actually
killed the Russells.
They have presented their evidence
to the Criminal Case Review
Commission and now hope that
Michael Stone will soon be free.
They describe it as potentially
the largest miscarriage of justice
since the Birmingham Six case.
I'm joined by Barbara Stone -
Michael's sister who has always
asserted his innocence.
And Mark McDonald is
Michael Stone's barrister.
Good evening to you. Barbara, why
have you always felt so sure that he
was not the murderer?
Because I have
never seen any evidence or anything
that would suggest that he was. I
think the only reason that people
think he was the murderer is because
the police said that he did it. But
there is no evidence and I have
never seen anything.
committed other crimes that they
were not like this?
He did, but they
were a different kind. I always say
he did the crime and he did the
time. I would not approve of all his
lifestyle choices but this is very
different to this, the murder of
women and children. That is not
something any of us would tribute to
him. Also around that time, there
were no behaviours that would
indicate that he had done that.
Mark, you have cited three pieces of
evidence which would point
potentially to Levi Bellfield. A
witness, some forensics evidence and
some prison confessions on his part.
The amazing thing is, for at least
two of those, that so long after the
murders, the evidence comes out now
and people would find that
First of all, with Levi
Bellfield, the trigger was a
documentary that ran in May of this
year, and that was a trigger for
discussion that took place because
Bellfield was worried that the
documentary may say something
prejudicial about him. That started
a conversation happening thereafter,
a series of conversations which were
part of the confession.
And as I
understand it, his confession, his
alleged confession had elements in
it that he would not have known by
reading newspaper accounts of the
And that is
important. When you look at the
confession or the alleged confession
that convicted Michael Stone,
nothing in that confession, there
was nothing, everything was in the
public domain. But it comes to...
From what you are citing?
Bellfield, there are a number of
aspects and only the person who
committed the crime would know.
briefly, is prison cell evidence, is
that good evidence? It is ironic
because Michael Stone was convicted
that and now you're citing some of
that in relation?
evidence is a problem and in
particular cell confession evidence
from somebody who is on remand which
is what convicted Michael Stone in
the first place, has huge problems
attached to it. What is important is
to look at the other evidence, the
corroborative evidence to go with
that. So, for example, with Damien
Daley, the witness who convicted
Michael Stone in the first trial, it
was clear that everything was in the
public domain, nothing new was in
that, whereas with Levi Bellfield,
there was a lot.
Barbara, how is
Michael Stone now? It must be a
roller-coaster of emotional turmoil
hearing that the evidence has come
out and then suddenly finding out
you do not know if it will have any
hope or not. How is he?
Mick is very
confident. I speak to him almost
daily. He is very confident about
the potential evidence. He is
convinced Bellfield is the guilty
party. We would not go that far at
the moment but my brother is
convinced that he did it. That is
because Mick would know that he
didn't. In order to get out of
prison, he is happy about that.
Police are not particularly keen on
reopening this case and we have a
long statement. It is unfair on the
victims to reopen the investigation.
It is important though, you want a
different police force to come in
and examine this?
We do. That have
been problems over the years with
the Kent Police force, actually
going right back to the first trial,
the way that they obtained evidence,
and thereafter that have been a
number of issues, including missing
on losing an important exhibit. So,
yes we do. Their statement today is
quite bizarre. So we do have
concerns. It goes back many years.
Where we are now, this is with the
criminal cases review commission.
The criminal cases review commission
need to look at this. I know they
are investigating it, but it is
clear that the evidence is quite
compelling and it needs to be
referred back to the Court of Appeal
Thank you both for
That is all we have time for.
Tomorrow, Kamal Ahmed will be here.