29/11/2017 Newsnight

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

hate videos

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.

Hello.

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

insignificant issue

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.

The transformation

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

great power.

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.

And

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.

In Dublin,

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

Ireland.

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.

What

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?

The UK

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.

Thank you.

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.

We

know...

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

want.

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?

Well, you

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

their solutions.

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?

That

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.

Would your

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

concessions?

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

history.

Thank you.

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

is appalling".

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.

To Muslims.

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.

I have

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.

I

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,

attention?

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.

Finally,

we call Britain First a far right

group, should be call him a

far-right President?

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

him.

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

answered unambiguously.

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

Permanent Secretary

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.

No.

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?

Fantastic.

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.

Modest!

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?

In hindsight...

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

liberation struggle.

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?

Mmmmm?

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

successor administration

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

police sanction.

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...

Calmed.

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.

He had

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

perplexing?

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

original murderer?

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?

From Levi

Bellfield, there are a number of

aspects and only the person who

committed the crime would know.

Just

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?

Cell confession

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.

Kent

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

soon enough.

Thank you both for

coming in.

That is all we have time for.

Tomorrow, Kamal Ahmed will be here.

Good night.