this is bbc news with me, christian fraser. the omicron variant is spreading, with the us tonight reporting its first confirmed case. but as countries respond by tightening travel restrictions, the world health organization says there are better strategies to contain the virus. there are ways that you can de—risk travel in terms of having increased testing, more testing before departure, more testing on arrival. in the united states, the supreme court considers whether a 15—week ban on abortions in mississippi should be upheld. if it is, then abortion could become illegal in almost half the country. is bosnia once again on the brink of war? tonight, we will talk to the man who once shared the presidency and who now leads the main bosniak party. and the american author alice sebold has apologised for her part

in the conviction of man she had claimed raped her in 1981. we'll speak to the film producer who produced the evidence that cleared anthony broadwater. hello. the world health organization says at least 23 countries around the world have cases of the new covid variant omicron and that it expects that number to grow as scientists around the world sequence more test samples. the first case has been detected in the united states. the patient had recently returned from south africa, was fully vaccinated and had mild symptoms that are improving. in response to the spread, some 50 countries have imposed tighter travel restriction, with some banning foreign nationals altogether. dr michael ryan, the executive director of the who's

health emergencies programme, said in his view it was the wrong approach. there are ways that you can de—risk travel in terms of having increased testing, more testing before departure, more testing on arrival, quarantine until negative testing. there's a whole series of things that can be done that will manage the risk of importation of disease or even exporting disease to another country which fall short of blanket bans. dr ryan said the emergence of omicron is the result of the enormous vaccine inequity in poorer countries. barely 3% of the people in africa have been vaccinated. today, the who's member countries agreed to begin work on an international treaty which will set down new rules on how we prepare and respond to future pandemics. at the heart of it is an attempt to improve access vaccines and the means to manufacture them. i'm joined tonight by dr peter singer, special adviser to the director general

of the world health organization. lovely to have you with us on the programme. iwonder lovely to have you with us on the programme. i wonder if there is any treaty that would really guarantee equity on vaccines.— equity on vaccines. thank you for havin: equity on vaccines. thank you for having me _ equity on vaccines. thank you for having me on- — equity on vaccines. thank you for having me on. we _ equity on vaccines. thank you for having me on. we need - equity on vaccines. thank you for having me on. we need to - equity on vaccines. thank you for having me on. we need to do - equity on vaccines. thank you for i having me on. we need to do better on vaccine _ having me on. we need to do better on vaccine equity because omicron is teaching _ on vaccine equity because omicron is teaching us_ on vaccine equity because omicron is teaching us a — on vaccine equity because omicron is teaching us a very important lesson, and that_ teaching us a very important lesson, and that lesson is one of the best way to— and that lesson is one of the best way to people in the uk, in the eu, inthe_ way to people in the uk, in the eu, inihe us— way to people in the uk, in the eu, in the us safe is to vaccinate the world _ in the us safe is to vaccinate the world. why? because viruses love to mutate _ world. why? because viruses love to mutate the _ world. why? because viruses love to mutate the more they transmit, the more _ mutate the more they transmit, the more the _ mutate the more they transmit, the more the mutate, the lower the baxa rate, more the mutate, the lower the baxa rate. the _ more the mutate, the lower the baxa rate, the more they transmit. so if vou've _ rate, the more they transmit. so if vou've got — rate, the more they transmit. so if vou've got a — rate, the more they transmit. so if you've got a 7% vaccination rate for symbol _ you've got a 7% vaccination rate for symbol across africa, that's a breeding _ symbol across africa, that's a breeding ground for variants. by raising _ breeding ground for variants. by raising that camera you get less transmission, less mutation, less variants— transmission, less mutation, less variants and — transmission, less mutation, less variants and would not be better to prevent _ variants and would not be better to prevent variance than to scramble around _ prevent variance than to scramble around dealing with them as we are doing _ around dealing with them as we are

doing now? — around dealing with them as we are doing now? the around dealing with them as we are doinu now? ., , around dealing with them as we are doing now?— doing now? the answer that is yes, and i've doing now? the answer that is yes, and i've been _ doing now? the answer that is yes, and i've been hearing _ doing now? the answer that is yes, and i've been hearing that - doing now? the answer that is yes, and i've been hearing that for- doing now? the answer that is yes, and i've been hearing that for two l and i've been hearing that for two years and here we are, the percent of africa has been vaccinated. why would america do anything differently if pandemic appeared? because the national security of any country. _ because the national security of any country, the united states, the uk, and this— country, the united states, the uk, and this is— country, the united states, the uk, and this is a — country, the united states, the uk, and this is a little counterintuitive, is bolstered by vaccinating the world. you know, even _ vaccinating the world. you know, even if _ vaccinating the world. you know, even if you — vaccinating the world. you know, even if you put aside the argument that the _ even if you put aside the argument that the current situation a year into the — that the current situation a year into the vaccination effort is unethical because there are people dying _ unethical because there are people dying on— unethical because there are people dying on the world that don't need to die _ dying on the world that don't need to die because they are unvaccinated and that— to die because they are unvaccinated and that really raises the question of the _ and that really raises the question of the extent to which we actually do love _ of the extent to which we actually do love our— of the extent to which we actually do love our neighbours, to be honest. — do love our neighbours, to be honest, even if you put aside that argument. — honest, even if you put aside that argument, there is a self—interest argument — argument, there is a self—interest argument and the self—interest is look at _ argument and the self—interest is look at omicron. you know, the greek letter— look at omicron. you know, the greek tetter after _ look at omicron. you know, the greek letter after omicron is pi and we

can reduce — letter after omicron is pi and we can reduce the risk of pi another variance — can reduce the risk of pi another variance hy— can reduce the risk of pi another variance by vaccinating the world and there — variance by vaccinating the world and there is a very straightforward way of— and there is a very straightforward way of doing that. we have set a target _ way of doing that. we have set a target of— way of doing that. we have set a target of 40% of every country should — target of 40% of every country should be vaccinated by the end of the year _ should be vaccinated by the end of the year a — should be vaccinated by the end of the year. a couple of weeks ago, the shortfall— the year. a couple of weeks ago, the shortfall in _ the year. a couple of weeks ago, the shortfall in vaccines was about half a million _ shortfall in vaccines was about half a million vaccines. that's a manageable number. let's get those hundreds— manageable number. let's get those hundreds of millions of vaccines donated — hundreds of millions of vaccines donated through covax, get them into arms and _ donated through covax, get them into arms and get to 40% by the middle of next year— arms and get to 40% by the middle of next year and reduce our risk of variance — next year and reduce our risk of variance and of course expendable solution _ variance and of course expendable solution is — variance and of course expendable solution is for congress to be able to make _ solution is for congress to be able to make the vaccines themselves. and that can be to make the vaccines themselves. fific that can be delicately broken this programme it last night the news that aspen pharmaceuticals in south africa has signed a licensing agreement withjohnson &johnson to manufacture and distribute as agreement with johnson & johnson to manufacture and distribute as they see fit in bigger quantities the vaccine. so why is pfizer, why is moderna another vaccine company saying it cannot be done? it

moderna another vaccine company saying it cannot be done?- moderna another vaccine company saying it cannot be done? it can be done, it actually _ saying it cannot be done? it can be done, it actually can _ saying it cannot be done? it can be done, it actually can be _ saying it cannot be done? it can be done, it actually can be done. - saying it cannot be done? it can be done, it actually can be done. so i done, it actually can be done. so are done, it actually can be done. are the done, it actually can be done. sr are the governments not standing to them? , ., ., ., ., them? there is a lot of movement here. them? there is a lot of movement here- more _ them? there is a lot of movement here. more than _ them? there is a lot of movement here. more than 100 _ them? there is a lot of movement here. more than 100 governments them? there is a lot of movement - here. more than 100 governments have supported _ here. more than 100 governments have supported the waiver all intellectual property. there is a technology transfer hobbits of africa, — technology transfer hobbits of africa, that a ua show in the government of the africa have produced _ government of the africa have produced for mrna vaccine technology transfer _ produced for mrna vaccine technology transfer. there are things happening, and this is really the sustainable solution. it's to the citizens— sustainable solution. it's to the citizens of— sustainable solution. it's to the citizens of our countries to say to our governments this is what we want you to _ our governments this is what we want you to do _ our governments this is what we want you to do because we want the world to he _ you to do because we want the world to he a _ you to do because we want the world to be a super place, we want every region— to be a super place, we want every region to _ to be a super place, we want every region to he — to be a super place, we want every region to be able to manufacture their— region to be able to manufacture their own — region to be able to manufacture their own vaccine.— their own vaccine. people might start to think _ their own vaccine. people might start to think that _ their own vaccine. people might start to think that action - their own vaccine. people might start to think that action of- their own vaccine. people might start to think that action of the l start to think that action of the pharmaceutical companies are all about profit, and when you go down that road, you might start to think that road, you might start to think that perhaps they are not too concerned that new variants are spreading come of the areas of the world are unpatented because that means another round of vaccines, that means another round of profit. you know, i understand that

argument, and the profit motive. but the board _ argument, and the profit motive. but the board to — argument, and the profit motive. but the board to these companies do have some _ the board to these companies do have some accountability for what vaccinating the world. the investors of these _ vaccinating the world. the investors of these companies have an opportunity to say we want you to do better— opportunity to say we want you to do better on— opportunity to say we want you to do better on vaccinating the world to the companies in which they are investing — the companies in which they are investing. in the governments of the world _ investing. in the governments of the world have _ investing. in the governments of the world have an opportunity to pressure _ world have an opportunity to pressure those companies to vaccinate _ pressure those companies to vaccinate the world. you know, the director— vaccinate the world. you know, the director general said in the treaty discussion— director general said in the treaty discussion today that ending the pandemic is not about a matter of chance. _ pandemic is not about a matter of chance. it's— pandemic is not about a matter of chance, it's a matter of choice. the pandemic— chance, it's a matter of choice. the pandemic will end, it's a question of when, — pandemic will end, it's a question of when, and the sooner we vaccinate the world _ of when, and the sooner we vaccinate the world and the sooner citizens call upon — the world and the sooner citizens call upon the governments to call upon _ call upon the governments to call upon the — call upon the governments to call upon the companies and the centre investors— upon the companies and the centre investors call upon the companies and the _ investors call upon the companies and the sooner the boards take greater— and the sooner the boards take greater accountability, the sooner

we vaccinate the world and the less the risk— we vaccinate the world and the less the risk of— we vaccinate the world and the less the risk of variance in the sooner the risk of variance in the sooner the pandemic will end. this is in our hands, — the pandemic will end. this is in our hands, and we should act with some _ our hands, and we should act with some urgency. what we have got here is a five _ some urgency. what we have got here is a five alarm blaze and we have not set _ is a five alarm blaze and we have not set out — is a five alarm blaze and we have not set out of the fire trucks. doctor— not set out of the fire trucks. doctor ryan said today there are european countries who were only accepting their own people, as if in some way at the very only recognises your own nationals. it's a bonkers theory. would not be much better to test people who were getting on planes with a pcr test of the day before they get on the flight as i know the american government are considering. why has he can government for instance not consider that? is not the best way to do it? yes, i mean as mike ryan said, we issued _ yes, i mean as mike ryan said, we issued some — yes, i mean as mike ryan said, we issued some guidance on this, who, first of— issued some guidance on this, who, first of all— issued some guidance on this, who, first of all the call motors is up to governments, we advise but we advise _ to governments, we advise but we advise a _ to governments, we advise but we advise a risk—based element and evidence — advise a risk—based element and evidence approach. that means we

support— evidence approach. that means we support multilayered risk reduction, namely— support multilayered risk reduction, namely screening, testing, quarantine, is that they what mike said _ quarantine, is that they what mike said but — quarantine, is that they what mike said. but falling short of a blanket travel— said. but falling short of a blanket travel bands. they have less effectiveness and terrible perverse incentives. for example, you know, the governments of savannah and botswana — the governments of savannah and botswana should be rewarded for the transparency and applauded for their transparency and applauded for their transparency in spotting this variant— transparency in spotting this variant which makes us all safer and the scientists who use cutting edge techniques in this country to do so. travet— techniques in this country to do so. travet hands — techniques in this country to do so. travel bands punish those countries and the _ travel bands punish those countries and the scientists. it's the wrong incentive — and the scientists. it's the wrong incentive. and it'sjust a matter of escalation— incentive. and it'sjust a matter of escalation around the world, and there's— escalation around the world, and there's a — escalation around the world, and there's a limited effectiveness. so we support the border management, screening, _ we support the border management, screening, surveillance, quarantine, but the _ screening, surveillance, quarantine, but the travel bands are a limited effectiveness and they have terrible knock _ effectiveness and they have terrible knock on _ effectiveness and they have terrible knock on effects in the end make us all tess— knock on effects in the end make us

all less safe. knock on effects in the end make us all less safe-— all less safe. they endanger transparency. _ all less safe. they endanger transparency, don't - all less safe. they endanger transparency, don't they? . all less safe. they endanger - transparency, don't they? thank you very much for being with us, doctor. christian, thank you so much. the us supreme court has begun hearing arguments in what many consider the most important case it has heard in half a century. it's considering a mississippi state law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. that is in direct conflict with the law first established in 1973 which we know as roe v wade. it prevents the government imposing any undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion before viability, which in america is considered to be 22—24 weeks. so, where is the country on this debate? well, a recent poll for cbs suggests a large majority of americans want the court to defend roe v wade — 62% in favour, only 38% against. but remember, during his four years in office, donald trump put three conservative justices on the bench. the supreme court now leans heavily in their favour — six conservatives, three liberals. let's cross to the supreme court and speak to bloomberg law

reporter kimberley robinson. good to have you on the programme. we have had various challenges to roe v wade over the years. but have tried to chip away at the law. why is this different? this tried to chip away at the law. why is this different?— is this different? this one is different civilly _ is this different? this one is different civilly because - is this different? this one is different civilly because the | different civilly because the supreme court agreed to hear this one. so a lot of the states across the country have passed a lot of laws that are trying to get at the heart of roe v wade and undo what the court did back in the 70s but the court did back in the 70s but the court did back in the 70s but the court has pretty routinely at least in the past decade or so refused to hear those cases and reallyjust hearing cases that deal with abortion to initially but in taking this case, they switch grounds and took up this case which really does go to the heart of roe v wade. ., ., , ., wade. there were two conservative 'ustices we wade. there were two conservative justices we have _ wade. there were two conservative justices we have not _ wade. there were two conservative justices we have not heard - wade. there were two conservative justices we have not heard from - wade. there were two conservative justices we have not heard from on | justices we have not heard from on abortion since they were sworn in and that's brett kavanagh and amy connie barrett. it was lifestream

today, the arguments, what did you hear from the two of them and which way you think they might be leaning? i think after arguments to date, of course we can get some surprises sometimes even in abortion, but i think of your argument today it seems pretty clear that both of those justices are either for overturning roe v wade or at least curtailing it in a way that would make it easierfor curtailing it in a way that would make it easier for states to restrict abortion where ever they want to. fin restrict abortion where ever they want to. , restrict abortion where ever they wantto. , ., , want to. on these occasions we tend to look towards _ want to. on these occasions we tend to look towards the _ want to. on these occasions we tend to look towards the chief _ want to. on these occasions we tend to look towards the chiefjustice, - to look towards the chiefjustice, john roberts, who has tried to be i think an arbiter in the past, a more balanced voice. which way do you think he's leaning? he balanced voice. which way do you think he's leaning?— balanced voice. which way do you think he's leaning? he sure seemed like a justice — think he's leaning? he sure seemed like a justice who _ think he's leaning? he sure seemed like a justice who maybe _ think he's leaning? he sure seemed like a justice who maybe was - think he's leaning? he sure seemed like a justice who maybe was not. think he's leaning? he sure seemed like a justice who maybe was not allj like a justice who maybe was not all the way there for overturning roe v wade, but instead did signal that he was open to upholding the 50 make abortion ban here, which of course would do away with a big part of roe v wade which has you cannot ban abortions before viability. the question that came out then is what

is the line then there should be if it's not my ability, not 15 weeks, how far can say is go? how far will they go to restrict abortion rights? are you saying then there is a middle ground between upholding the they mississippi law and not at the same time getting rid of roe v wade? there is a middle ground in that the court does not have to do away with the right altogether. they can say that states have to jump over some hurdles in order to pass restrictions. but if there were that middle ground of the court comes to, it would still be a pretty big victory for pro—life advocates who have really made it their goal to overturn roe v wade for the past several decades.— overturn roe v wade for the past several decades. ., ,, , ., , . several decades. thank you very much indeed for that. _ i'm joined now by the pollster ashley konig, who is at the center for public interest polling at rutgers university. i was listening to the liberal justices today and they questioned whether overturning the precedents would make the court appear

political. do you think they are in tune for the country stand on this at the moment? i’m tune for the country stand on this at the moment?— tune for the country stand on this at the moment? �* , , ., . at the moment? i'm sure they are. we know that about _ at the moment? i'm sure they are. we know that about six _ at the moment? i'm sure they are. we know that about six in ten _ at the moment? i'm sure they are. we know that about six in ten talking - know that about six in ten talking about roe — know that about six in ten talking about roe v wade which is actually seven— about roe v wade which is actually seven and — about roe v wade which is actually seven and ten do not want it overturned. six in ten think abortion— overturned. six in ten think abortion should be legal in all or most _ abortion should be legal in all or most cases. public opinion is certainly— most cases. public opinion is certainly on the side of roe v wade is certainly — certainly on the side of roe v wade is certainly on the side of not overturning it and most certainly on the side _ overturning it and most certainly on the side of— overturning it and most certainly on the side of abortion at least in some — the side of abortion at least in some circumstances. but we see is a huge _ some circumstances. but we see is a huge partisan divide in public opinion— huge partisan divide in public opinionjust like we huge partisan divide in public opinion just like we veritably see on the _ opinion just like we veritably see on the court. gn opinion just like we veritably see on the court-— opinion just like we veritably see on the court. , ., , on the court. on the democrat side, the have on the court. on the democrat side, they have always — on the court. on the democrat side, they have always worn _ on the court. on the democrat side, they have always worn their- on the court. on the democrat side, they have always worn their base . they have always worn their base that a day like this might come in that a day like this might come in that they have to come out and vote for the liberties they treasure. do you think though that this might become an issue for them in the mid terms with my is it perhaps a calling card for democrats? certainly, and i think we have seen this more _ certainly, and i think we have seen this more and more. this is a revisit— this more and more. this is a revisit of— this more and more. this is a revisit of the culture wars that we saw decades ago and now it's once again— saw decades ago and now it's once again coming up with things like abortion— again coming up with things like abortion and critical race theory.

tatking — abortion and critical race theory. talking about lgbtq education in schools _ talking about lgbtq education in schools and i think these are all somewhat— schools and i think these are all somewhat codes and certain language that's being used and certainly going — that's being used and certainly going to — that's being used and certainly going to enter the political play in 2022 _ going to enter the political play in 2022 and — going to enter the political play in 2022 and of course 2024 and it could really _ 2022 and of course 2024 and it could really rally _ 2022 and of course 2024 and it could really rally the party bases on both sides _ really rally the party bases on both sides. ~ . really rally the party bases on both sides. . ., ., really rally the party bases on both sides. ~ ., , , , really rally the party bases on both sides. ~ ., ., , , ,., sides. what about republicans and mike pence because _ sides. what about republicans and mike pence because he _ sides. what about republicans and mike pence because he feels- mike pence because he feels passionately about this and in some ways it was the reason he was on the donald trump ticket and he has been speaking today. does this rally republican base?— speaking today. does this rally republican base? speaking today. does this rally reublican base? ., , . ,, ., republican base? certainly. we know that only about _ republican base? certainly. we know that only about 3596 _ republican base? certainly. we know that only about 35% of— republican base? certainly. we know that only about 3596 of republicans i that only about 35% of republicans actually _ that only about 35% of republicans actually support abortion in all cases— actually support abortion in all cases or— actually support abortion in all cases or in most cases. you know we know— cases or in most cases. you know we know that _ cases or in most cases. you know we know that that gap between democrats and republicans has grown even wider in recent— and republicans has grown even wider in recent years was that we know that even — in recent years was that we know that even - — in recent years was that we know that even — evangelicals are also strongly— that even — evangelicals are also strongly against abortion so playing this card _ strongly against abortion so playing this card definitely would benefit somebody like mike pence. so what ou're somebody like mike pence. so what you're telling _ somebody like mike pence. so what you're telling me — somebody like mike pence. so what you're telling me then _ somebody like mike pence. so what you're telling me then is _ somebody like mike pence. so what you're telling me then is that - somebody like mike pence. so what you're telling me then is that this i you're telling me then is that this goes right to the heart of the political debate in america? that it could be when it comes to the

decision i think you next year, this could really make things worse, could really make things worse, could it not? i could really make things worse, could it not?— could it not? i mean, it will certainly — could it not? i mean, it will certainly come _ could it not? i mean, it will certainly come at _ could it not? i mean, it will certainly come at a - could it not? i mean, it will certainly come at a prime l could it not? i mean, it will. certainly come at a prime time could it not? i mean, it will- certainly come at a prime time for congressional midterms in 2022. with the verdict _ congressional midterms in 2022. with the verdict coming up reasonably in june _ the verdict coming up reasonably in june. this— the verdict coming up reasonably in june. this could certainly deepen partisan — june. this could certainly deepen partisan gaps we already see with polarisation and hyper partisanship at levels _ polarisation and hyper partisanship at levels that we have not seen before — at levels that we have not seen before. the bringing it civic culture _ before. the bringing it civic culture issue could certainly deepen that divide. �* . . , culture issue could certainly deepen thatdivide. a ., , ., that divide. actually, thanks talkinu that divide. actually, thanks talking to — that divide. actually, thanks talking to us. _ that divide. actually, thanks talking to us. thank- that divide. actually, thanks talking to us. thank you - that divide. actually, thanks talking to us. thank you so l that divide. actually, thanks - talking to us. thank you so much. let's look at some of the day's other news. the us secretary of state, antony blinken, says a troop build—up on ukraine's border gives russia the capacity to invade "on short order" if president putin makes such a decision. he said the us would be "resolute" in the case of any confrontation. on thursday, mr blinken expected to meet his russian counterpart during an economic summit in sweden. the european union says its new global investment plan — will be a "true alternative"

to china's belt and road initiative. the european commission has outlined plans to raise 300 billion euros via its global gateway strategy. beijing's initiative has invested billions of dollars in dozens of countries over the last eight years. the women's tennis association has suspended all tournaments in china. the move is in response to concerns about the wellbeing of the chinese player peng shuai, who disappeared from public view for three weeks after accusing a top chinese official of sexual assault. the wta chief steve simon said he had "serious doubts" that she was "free, safe and not subject to intimidation". stay with us on bbc news. still to come, donald trump tested positive for covid a few days before his debate withjoe biden last year, his former chief of staff claims in a new book. we'll discuss.

here, the uk government has outlined more details of its ten—year—plan to reform social care in england, which will include £300 million to increase the range of supported housing and £500 million on staff training. the reforms will be paid by the new health and social care levy. labour say the plans "falls woefully short of the mark" and fails to deal with immediate pressures facing the social care system. the care minister, gillian keegan, said successive governments had failed to tackle the problem. this white paper contains more detail on what we plan to do over the next three years. to transform the sector over the next decade, the white paper is underpinned by three core principles. first, that everybody has choice, control and support to live independent lives. second, that everyone can access outstanding personalised care and support. and third, that adult social care is fair and accessible for everyone who needs it.

cast your mind back to september last year when the campaign for us presidential election was white hot. donald trump was in cleveland, ohio for his first debate againstjoe biden. two men of an advanced age in a relatively confined space and at the height of the pandemic. now, under the rules of that debate, each candidate was required to take a test for the virus within 72 hours of the start. but today, there are explosive details that come from mark meadows, mr trump's former chief of staff, that in fact donald trump had tested positive for covid—i9 three days before the debate and ploughed on regardless. mr meadows sets out the story in his new book seen by the guardian newspaper. let's bring in the bbc�*s senior north america reporter anthony zurcher.

let's map this out. so we will put a calendar on screen. there were two tests on september the 26th. one positive and one negative and on that particular day, they had a rose garden ceremony for the supreme court nominee amy connie barrett and that was described as a super spreader. in fact some people were infected, chris christie one of the many i recall he became quite ill. on the 27th he attended eight military event will gold star families indoors, and then on the 29th, he was at that first televised debate with joe 29th, he was at that first televised debate withjoe biden and on the 1st of october, that's when the tested positive again and on the second they announce the diagnosis. now why on the 26th with all the medical experience at their disposal would they not conduct a pcr test? that's a very good — they not conduct a pcr test? that's a very good question. _ they not conduct a pcr test? that's a very good question. they - they not conduct a pcr test? “trust�*s a very good question. they conducted two tests as you mentioned on the 26th of september. the first one

came back positive and they decided to do the buying next test after that, and they were testing that came back negative and it seems like after that the white house wiped its brow and considered it full speed ahead towards the debate, towards the rally that he was going to that night in pennsylvania, the ghost are meeting the next day which i will note donald trump later would say he probably picked up covid—i9 at that goals are meeting because he was hugging the families of grieving widows and orphans from people who were killed in the iraq war and fighting in afghanistan. so it is rather remarkable that they did not follow it up and did not do a test right before the debate on tuesday. they said they were to rush and did not have time. so conceivably donald trump was the super spreader at that saturday morning super spreader event at the white house. you see his critics say _ event at the white house. you see his critics say this _ event at the white house. you see his critics say this is _ event at the white house. you see his critics say this is evidence - event at the white house. you see his critics say this is evidence of i his critics say this is evidence of a conspiracy because not only did the chief of staff know about it,

he's written about in this book but the white house physician knew about it as well. and on the second, when he eventually found out that he was seriously ill, they did sendoff a pcr test of a pcr test so they knew what the protocol was.— pcr test of a pcr test so they knew what the protocol was. then with the rotocol what the protocol was. then with the protocol was — what the protocol was. then with the protocol was and _ what the protocol was. then with the protocol was and it _ what the protocol was. then with the protocol was and it was _ what the protocol was. then with the protocol was and it was a _ what the protocol was. then with the protocol was and it was a not - what the protocol was. then with the protocol was and it was a not want i protocol was and it was a not want to to find out that donald trump really had covid—i9. the way that mark meadows explains it in his book apparently is that donald trump was on his way to that pennsylvania rally, the white house physician said you have got to get donald trump off the helicopter he just tested positive for covid—i9 and they ran another test possibly with they ran another test possibly with the same sample that the first test came from and that came back negative and at that point, donald trump was happy to go ahead. not doing any more testing after that. so that it was eyes wide closed as far as other donald trump really did or did not have covered nothing

although even mark meadows in his book so that by tuesday and the debate something looked off with donald trump, that he looked like he was a bit ragged and maybe displaying symptoms of a cold, if not of covid—i9. displaying symptoms of a cold, if not of covid-19.— displaying symptoms of a cold, if not of covid-19. because he turned u . not of covid-19. because he turned u- like not of covid-19. because he turned pp like that — not of covid-19. because he turned pp like that he _ not of covid-19. because he turned up like that he be _ not of covid-19. because he turned up like that he be debate _ not of covid-19. because he turned up like that he be debate so - not of covid-19. because he turned up like that he be debate so he - not of covid-19. because he turned | up like that he be debate so he was not tested on the day, but there was an honour system in place.— not tested on the day, but there was an honour system in place. yeah, and under system — an honour system in place. yeah, and under system to _ an honour system in place. yeah, and under system to have _ an honour system in place. yeah, and under system to have been _ an honour system in place. yeah, and under system to have been tested - under system to have been tested before hand, another system that donald trump i was at the advantage of by not having a test merely beforehand. and then standing of the debate stage and mocking joe biden for wearing a big mask all the time and in hindsight now, it's pretty remarkable that think that donald trump knew that he had tested positive at least once three days before and that he could have had covid—i9 because either we look at it, the false negatives are much more likely for these tests and false positives. so if you take to test and one is part of it was negative, the odds are that the

wrong one would be the negative test another positive one.— another positive one. absolutely. has it been _ another positive one. absolutely. has it been any _ another positive one. absolutely. has it been any reaction - another positive one. absolutely. has it been any reaction from - another positive one. absolutely. has it been any reaction from the joe biden team today?— has it been any reaction from the joe biden team today? know there has not been. joe biden team today? know there has not been- they — joe biden team today? know there has not been. they asked _ joe biden team today? know there has not been. they asked joe _ joe biden team today? know there has not been. they asked joe biden - not been. they asked joe biden actually about this and joe shrugged it off and said he is not paying attention to what donald trump did. but you would think behind closed doors, joe biden was on stage with donald trump and neither of which being vaccinated to that point because there was no vaccine, but he was within shouting distance of donald trump and donald trump could have been covered nothing positive at that point so it could have jeopardised the health and safety not trump but ofjoe biden so both major candidates for president at the same time.— major candidates for president at the same time. ., ., ., the same time. how do you feel about this story probably _ the same time. how do you feel about this story probably depends _ the same time. how do you feel about this story probably depends on - the same time. how do you feel about this story probably depends on what i this story probably depends on what side of the little divide you were on. why would you say it is relevant? why a year on from this happening is it important, do you think? ., ~ ., ~

think? yeah, you know, i think it noes think? yeah, you know, i think it goes back— think? yeah, you know, i think it goes back to _ think? yeah, you know, i think it goes back to trustworthiness - think? yeah, you know, i think itj goes back to trustworthiness and donald trump like to boast about being very transparent, but here he was concealing something that clearly was very relevant to the american public, donald trump public health in the run—up to the election and i think you have to see it as part of a pattern that donald trump had during that election campaign of dismissing the seriousness of covid—i9 and even after he tested positive, and he went to the hospital and came back, he was dismissing the seriousness of covid—i9 saying that he got it, he got better in the drug is a great and if you get kevin utton, i recall i was at a rally that he told the crowd at the rally i got covid—i9 and i got better and if you get kevin you were going to get better and that was in october of 2016, hundreds of thousands of americans had died of covid—19 since then. i think it drives home the lack of seriousness that donald trump and his administration took towards this pandemic. his administration took towards this andemic. . ., , . .,

pandemic. anthony in washington, alwa s pandemic. anthony in washington, always good _ pandemic. anthony in washington, always good to _ pandemic. anthony in washington, always good to get _ pandemic. anthony in washington, always good to get your _ pandemic. anthony in washington, always good to get your views, - pandemic. anthony in washington, l always good to get your views, thank you very much indeed for that. stay with us and we talked bosnia after the break. secret situation developing there. stay with us. hello there. today was the first day of meteorological winter, and fittingly, it's been getting colder. tomorrow is likely to be colder than today. but many places will be dry with a fair bit of sunshine around. but the winds are turning more to the north. the cold air coming all the way from the bering sea, the norwegian sea, hitting the uk from the north at the moment, dropping those temperatures. and the colder air is coming in behind this weather front here, which is taking rain away from southern parts of england and allowing the showers to follow on. and it's going to stay quite windy for a northern and eastern areas, where we'll see most of the showers, those could be turning wintry, we'll find some snow even to lower levels in northern scotland. a few showers coming into northern ireland heading across to wales and the south west, those could turn a touch wintry, and where we keep those showers,

this is where we are more likely to have some icy conditions into the night and into tomorrow morning. and tomorrow morning will start much colder. there'll be a widespread frost around. it won't be long before we see the back of the showers in south wales, south west england, it should turn drier in eastern scotland, but those wintry showers and cold wind continues to run down the easternmost side of england into east anglia. away from here, many places will be dry, though, a fair bit of sunshine around, except in northern ireland, where it's turning cloudy quickly, and that cloud will push into western scotland in the afternoon. ahead of that ,though, in that colder air, it's going to be a colder day than today, maybe 3—4 celsius at best. and into that colder air, we've got this wetter weather coming in from the atlantic. so, it's notjust rain, we could find some snowjust for a short while in scotland, perhaps over the pennines, some wintry weather down across the midlands and to east anglia for a while, but it is going to be just for a short while because it turns back to rain again and milder air comes down from the north. so, as we head into friday, it'll be a milder start. this weatherfront, having

moved down across the uk, could hang about a bit across more southern parts of england, so more cloud around here. still some rain to clear away from southeastern areas, and we could see some rain coming back into the south west later on. away from here, it brightens up a bit further north. and temperatures aren't going to be as low on friday, so it's a milder day. we've cut off that supply of very cold air, but there is going to be some wet weather loitering there in the far north west, and that will move its way southwards and eastwards overnight into the weekend. quite windy for a while, we're going to find the winds back into the north or northwest, so always on the chilly side. most of the showers on saturday, the best of the sunshine is likely to be on sunday.

this is bbc news, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. the eu chief says the time may have come for countries in the bloc to mandate the covid vaccine. we'll talk to the leader of bosnia's bosniak party about fears of a balkan break—up. plus, the american author, alice sebold, apologises for her part in the conviction of man cleared of raping her in 1981. we speak the film producer who got the evidence that cleared anthony broadwater. perhaps at no stage since the conflict in bosnia ended

in 1995, has there been so much talk about war. there is widespread consensus right now that the country is again on the brink of what is undoubtedly the most serious crisis since the dayton accords were signed. the crisis in large part is being fuelled by the actions of one man — milorad dodik. in early october, the bosnian serb leader, who shares power as a member of bosnia and herzegovina's tripartite presidency, announced plans to split from state run institutions — which would mean the encalve of bosnia serbska would secede in all but name. by establishing parallel centres of power within the country, dodik is following in the footsteps of the wartime leaders who did something very similar in 1992. guy delauney sent this report from belgrade. another day, another protest in sarajevo. they're calling on the international high representative in bosnia and herzegovina to take action. "stop those who threaten peace," reads one of the banners.

and this is who they're talking about. milorad dodik is bosnia's senior ethnic serb politician. he's been threatening to withdraw the country's majority ethnic serb region from bosnia's national institutions — and that's stirred up fears about the stability of the country. those fears are founded on bosnia's recent blood history. —— bloodied history. the war of the 1990s killed 100,000 people. two million more had to flee their homes as ethnic conflict engulfed the country. bosnian serb forces committed some of the worst atrocities — including the srebrenica massacre. they systematically murdered thousands of bosniak muslim men and boys. that's why milorad dodik�*s proposal to revive the bosnian serb army has caused such alarm. the 1995 dayton peace agreement brought an end to the horror, but at a price — bosnia was divided into the majority ethnic serb republic of srpska, and the federation —

which most bosniaks and ethno croats call home. the national government is weak and ethnically divided. today's sarajevo is peaceful, but poor. ethno—nationalist politicians divide and rule — but they've dismally failed to move the country forward. and bosnians of all ethnicities are justifiably cynical about their leaders. translation: unfortunately, this country has been running| on nationalistic tensions for years. translation: the interests of our current politicians is not war. - it is rather corruption and nepotism, which are easier to maintain at peace time then at war. that's why most young bosnians say they want to leave the country — because even without the threat of conflict, it's hard to see a future here. guy delauney, bbc news. i've been speaking to the former chairman of the presidency of bosnia and herzegovina and former bosniak member of the presidency of bosnia, bakir izetbegovic. i asked him what he thought

mr dodik�*s intentions are. he is checking. he's trying to see how much he can help. if he can, he will make successful. if he cannot, then he will try to turn back the competencies which were actually put on the state level 15 years ago when we established our army. it used to be on the empty level 15 years ago, and it was passed... he would like to turn it back and make it a divided country again. so he will try to do that. if you cannot do that, then he will try to at least have something in the situation so

he can present himself as somebody who is fighting for the interests of serbs and win the election. so it depends on our reaction and on the reaction of bosnian nationals. do ou reaction of bosnian nationals. do you think if the reaction is wrong, there's the risk of bosnia going back to war?— there's the risk of bosnia going back to war? ., ,, ., back to war? you never know with bosnia. people _ back to war? you never know with bosnia. people are _ back to war? you never know with bosnia. people are fed _ back to war? you never know with bosnia. people are fed up, - back to war? you never know with i bosnia. people are fed up, including serbs, of tensions, of crises, of war, of conflicts. common people are fed up with it. serbs would not like to go to war. but you never know with bosnia. but to go to war. but you never know with bosnia-— to go to war. but you never know with bosnia. but it's interesting to hear ou with bosnia. but it's interesting to hear you talk— with bosnia. but it's interesting to hear you talk about _ with bosnia. but it's interesting to hear you talk about that _ with bosnia. but it's interesting to hear you talk about that because, | hear you talk about that because, although milorad dodik has taken a lot of the blame, there are people who say leaders like yourself always hearken back to the past, that you

talk about the threat of conflict to rally your own support — are you partly to blame for this situation the country finds itself in today? no. you fight back. then you can say that all of us are equal. we are not equal. he's done so many bad things over the last 15 years. actually he forced us to fight back against him, doing his best to make this fight political. we are doing our best in that sense. you know something? there is a proper appetite, muslims and catholics are second—class citizens there. you know, you can

imagine what kind of provocation can happen from such things. this crisis started when high representatives and the celebration of war criminals celebrating genocide, and the denial of genocide. it is their responsibility on me or others? i don't think so.— don't think so. there were about 60,000 don't think so. there were about 60.000 nato — don't think so. there were about 60,000 nato peacekeepers - don't think so. there were about 60,000 nato peacekeepers that don't think so. there were about - 60,000 nato peacekeepers that were deployed to implement the dayton accords back in 1995 — i think now they are around 600 troops in your country to keep the peace. is that enough? it country to keep the peace. is that enou~h? , ., , ~:: 11:11: ., enough? it used to be 60,000 of them, of troops. _

enough? it used to be 60,000 of them, of troops. 600 _ enough? it used to be 60,000 of them, of troops. 600 is - enough? it used to be 60,000 of them, of troops. 600 is of- enough? it used to be 60,000 ofj them, of troops. 600 is of course not enough, but there is an army and police forces. so it is enough. and if there is a need... to drive up the number of international soldiers, that would be nice. 600 could be 6000, or 60,000. what could be 6000, or 60,000. what do ou think could be 6000, or 60,000. what do you think vladimir _ could be 6000, or 60,000. what do you think vladimir putin _ could be 6000, or 60,000. what do you think vladimir putin is _ you think vladimir putin is making of this? he's met with milorad dodik, what role do you think the kremlin is playing in this? you know, kremlin is playing in this? you know. the _ kremlin is playing in this? you know, the behaviour _ kremlin is playing in this? gm. know, the behaviour of russia throughout all europe... i cannot define it now precisely. in the balkans, they are fighting against a nato presence. this is their main

goal. but they want to have influence. and serbs like the russians. they are some kind of friends, they even call them brothers, their relationship is strong. so they want to have influence on both throughout europe. and as for washington, the treasury department did put sanctions on milorad dodik in 2017 for obstructing the dayton accords — could they do more? could president biden do more to protect the peace in bosnia? , ., ., ., ., in bosnia? they have to do more, because those _ in bosnia? they have to do more, because those ones _ in bosnia? they have to do more, because those ones that - in bosnia? they have to do more, because those ones that you - because those ones that you mentioned, it was a kind of warning, they weren't proper sanctions. it doesn't hurt milorad dodik at all. so something much more efficient, something that is much more painful for the ones who pay should be done,

they must be done. you expect the united states to do it? they can't do it. they're pretty confused, it's not easy for the european union. they should do it. we are, yet again, reporting on gun violence in america's schools. in oxford, michigan on tuesday afternoon, a 15—year—old student killed four of his fellow classmates and injured seven others. the local sheriff's office said the gun belonged to the suspect�*s father. it is an all—too—familiar story. after a brief dip last year during the coronavirus lockdowns, the number of attacks in the us has climbed again with 138 incidents of gunfire on school grounds, so far this year, resulting in 29 deaths. this was the moment classmates at the oxford high school barricaded themselves in to their classroom after hearing shots on the campus. yes? sheriff's office! it's safe to come out.

yeah, he said it's safe to come out. we're not ready to take that risk right now. i can't hear you! we're not taking that risk right now. ok, well, come to the door and look at my badge, bro. yeah, "bro". he said "bro". he said "bro" — red flag. nervous chatter slow down, you're fine! dave cullen has been covering these tragedies for more than two decades. he is the author of two books about mass shootings in america — columbine, and more recently, parkland: birth of a movement.

nice to have you on the programme. i say that but every time we see you on the programme, it's to discuss this. i don't know what you thought about that video, but i've watched it several times and what amazes me is that 15—year—old students know what to do in the event of a mass shooting. they are so well drilled. yeah... that's really a horrible commentary on where we've come too. because they do know, and kids are smart. but we shouldn't have to be training our kids on how to evade a murderer. they actually pay attention and they know what to do, that's wrong. attention and they know what to do, that's wrong-— that's wrong. week go round and round the same _ that's wrong. week go round and round the same issues _ that's wrong. week go round and round the same issues - - that's wrong. week go round and round the same issues - there i that's wrong. week go round and i round the same issues - there have round the same issues — there have been 651 mass shootings this year, 21 children killed in schools, for more this week, and nothing changes. to the point where we discussed the democrat in the meetings in the morning, is there any point in

covering this any more? because we do the same debate and nothing changes. i do the same debate and nothing chances. do the same debate and nothing chan . es. ,., ._ , changes. i feel the same way, very frustrated- — changes. i feel the same way, very frustrated. there _ changes. i feel the same way, very frustrated. there are _ changes. i feel the same way, very frustrated. there are a _ changes. i feel the same way, very frustrated. there are a couple - frustrated. there are a couple things going on — one big thing and one potential thing happening today which could be the start of something. the prosecutor announced that she may bring charges against the parents. the washington post had a great analysis ofjuveniles in nearly all these cases, the gun came from a friend or family nearly all these cases, the gun came from a friend orfamily member — more than 80%, most are from a parent or sibling. and more than 80%, most are from a parent orsibling. and in more than 80%, most are from a parent or sibling. and in most cases, poorly secured, not locked up and easy to get. in only four of those 105 cases where they could determine it, only four times were charges brought. but we need to maybe reconsider that because most of these jurisdictions, it is a crime not to lock up your firearm and you're supposed to keep the

ammunition separate. there's lots of regulations. that's one area where we do need to stop the access to guns at such an important thing. that's one of the key loopholes. the bigger thing, though, that's one of the key loopholes. the biggerthing, though, is not that's one of the key loopholes. the bigger thing, though, is not related to school shootings, but related to the bigger problem of inner—city violence where 90% of the gun murders are taking place. and something quietly powerful has just happened in the last couple weeks — the biggest thing that gun safety advocates have been pushing for is funding for these violence interrupter programmes, essentially. lots of these have been proven to work, there's lots of small programmes in cities but they are widely underfunded. the big spending bill that the democrats finally got there after months of trying a few weeks ago to the house contains $5 billion for these programmes, which is staggering, it works everything

we've had before. it's likely to pass the senate, then biden of course will sign it. this could make a dramatic change over time, a gradual thing of helping to put that down. that's the bigger problem. sadly that doesn't get any attention, and people of colour in urban — poor people in cities, those are the people dying the most. so at least some help on the horizon for them. , , , w' , least some help on the horizon for them. , , them. just very quickly, dave... i mean, if them. just very quickly, dave... i mean. if you _ them. just very quickly, dave... i mean. if you get— them. just very quickly, dave... i mean, if you get money, - them. just very quickly, dave... i mean, if you get money, do - them. just very quickly, dave... i mean, if you get money, do you | mean, if you get money, do you think these shootings are related to this sort of gang violence we see in america? because i don't get that impression when it comes to schools, or am i wrong? impression when it comes to schools, oram i wrong? ida. impression when it comes to schools, or am i wrong?— or am i wrong? no, they are two different things. _ or am i wrong? no, they are two different things. i'm _ or am i wrong? no, they are two different things. i'm changing i or am i wrong? no, they are two | different things. i'm changing the subject in a way to the larger problem, probably because it doesn't get any attention and also because we are finally getting some headway. yes, it is gang—related — and what

they found out, a simple example that simply effective is going into emergency rooms where the person has just been shot, and usually the person who is a victim of these is also frequently a perpetrator, a rival gang member. that's where the person is reconsidering their choices, and the gangs typically have to one up each other — and they don't really want to, they are looking for a way to de—escalate but they can't because they don't talk to each other. and these programmes can often de—escalate before it gets out of control and more murders happen over the ensuing weeks, which almost always happens. so that's one of the morse powerful way these programmes work. it's an example, but it's important and really effective. but it's important and really effective-— but it's important and really effective. , ., ., effective. just on the legislation, i know effective. just on the legislation, i know joe _ effective. just on the legislation, i know joe biden _ effective. just on the legislation, i know joe biden has _ effective. just on the legislation, i know joe biden has talked i i knowjoe biden has talked passionately about this before, that we saw the governor brought to tears again last night in michigan — is there anything that they could agree? it so divided in congress,

but is there anything they can agree on? ., , ., ., �* , but is there anything they can agree on? ., , ., ., �*, ., on? not in the short run, that's a long-term _ on? not in the short run, that's a long-term goal- _ on? not in the short run, that's a long-term goal. with _ on? not in the short run, that's a long-term goal. with a _ on? not in the short run, that's a long-term goal. with a 50-50 i long—term goal. with a 50—50 senate and with thejoe manchin problem, into a very conservative senators and probably 68 required, there's no way anything significant is going to happen in the short run. this is a long—term goal which will probably take 5—10 years or more. i do see a lot of hope, the nra has been dramatically weakened in the long—term, but not the short medium term. long-term, but not the short medium term. ., ., ., term. dave, thanks for coming on the programme- — term. dave, thanks for coming on the programme. thank— term. dave, thanks for coming on the programme. thank you. _ the american author, alice sebold, has apologised for her part in the conviction of a man she wrongly accused of raping her in 1981. anthony broadwater was arrested and convicted on flawed evidence. he served 16 years in prison, but always protested his innocence, and was finally exonerated last week. in a statement, sebold said she was struggling with the role she played in his arrest. in her memoir, lucky, she described in some detail the ordeal she had been

through as an 18—year—old girl and how, months later, she'd spotted a black ban in the street who she'd identifed to police. —— a black man. but when he was arrested, she failed to pick him out in a police line—up. nonetheless, he was charged and in the subsequent trial she told the court anthony broadwater was responsible. a film producer who had doubts about anthony broadwater�*s conviction was timothy mucciante. he was adapting the memoir for a film, but left the project over his doubts — and hired a private investigator to dig deeper. he's been telling me about the first time he felt something was wrong with the conviction. certainly the first time i read the book, which was january 2021, i noticed there were parts of the book not relating to her tragic attack, but relating to the arrest and conviction of — and trial, rather, of who she names in the book as gregory madison.

so what did you do at that point? you hired a private investigator, correct? well, there were several events that sort of piqued my, you know, curiosity about the case over the next six months. i was eventually fired from the film in part because i was pushing back on this issue of, you know, is this story accurate? and after that point, i tried to investigate the case on my own — didn't get anywhere. so then i hired a private investigator in late june, earlyjuly. but what was it specifically in the book that piqued your interest? the first thing was the scene regarding the line—up, where alice identified who she calls gregory madison, but who is anthony broadwater — or she tries to identify him, i should say. she fails to make an identification — and typically in the american legal system, that would be the end of the case as it relates to that suspect, you know, she couldn't identify him, it's over. but the assistant district attorney,

in my opinion, quite irresponsibly pursued in the case. there was some evidence that relied on in court, which was a microscopic fibre — why was that evidence discredited all those years later? it was a pubic hair that was taken from anthony broadwater that he volunteered to give. and a forensic scientist from the district attorney's office, i believe, did a microscopic hair comparison — and that literally means they put it on a microscope and compare the hair that was found on alice to the hair taken from anthony broadwater. the fbi, in 2015—16 here in the states at that time, discredited that microscopic hair comparison method because it's inherently subjective — it's not like dna, it's literally a person just looking at hair and saying whether it

looks similar or not. so where did it go from there? once you had convinced yourself and the private investigator, sort of, had backed up your thinking, where did you go? who did you convince that they needed to relook at the case? well, we realised dan myers, the investigator and i realised we needed to get attorneys involved for anthony. so we reached out to an attorney in syracuse named dave hammond, and he brought in another attorney named melissa schwartz, both excellent attorneys, and did a very, very good job, obviously. but they are the ones who had to do the legal research, make the legal court filings, reach out to the district attorney in charge of the case, and file those papers in court — which eventually ended in the exoneration of anthony on 22 november. now he says that it would be

impossible for him to lay blame on an 18—year—old alice sebold, who had been raped and herself as a victim. but there would be a lot of people who would look at the case and say, "had she not gone into court, having failed to identify him in a line—up, had she not then gone into court and identified him as the man who attacked her, he wouldn't have been convicted." you know, anthony's being very, very gracious. he's a very bighearted man, and he's just a wonderful, wonderful guy. and he would say that — and i would agree, 18—year—old alice bears very little blame for this. she was guided by the district attorney's office, you know — misguided, i should say. however, when alice wrote the book in 1999, she didn't tell the whole story about what happened at the trial. that's really interesting — so you think had she put in more detail to how the trial unfolded, many people would, like you,

have come to the conclusion that there was an awful miscarriage of justice here? without question. i have absolutely no doubt because, when i — we had to go through many steps to get the file unsealed to read the transcript, because it was not public until recently. and when i read the trial transcript, i was frankly horrified. and if anybody even without legal training read this transcript, they would realise that this is a terrible miscarriage of justice. in a way, he's been twice vilified — he's been publicly convicted of being a six offender, he's been put on the six offender registry, but he was also identified in some way in the book which sold a million copies. how do you ever compensate a man for that? you know, i have no idea. and dave and melissa, the attorneys, i know are looking into that.

but there is a lot of what alice said about anthony and his family — the investigator found anthony had no trouble with the law before this case, he was in the marines, just released from the marines, discharged right before he was arrested. and he has had no criminal history since he left prison in 1998. he's not been compensated by the state as far as i can work out — how does he live today, where does he live? what's his means of income? he lives a very simple life, he and his wife, you know, go out and collect plastic bottles and cans that they return to the store to get the money back from the deposits people leave on the side of the road. he also does some handyman work. he does, you know, like roofing

and odd jobs, basically. there is a gofundme page that's raised i think over $30,000 for him at this point. and he and his wife live in very poor, very meagre circumstances — his home is literally held together by tarps. and that's a hard thing to see when i visit there, because alice is living in a $6 million condo in san francisco. that's it from us, we'll see you tomorrow, bye—bye. hello there. wednesday was the start of meteorological winter — and fittingly, it started to turn colder. and the winds on thursday coming all the way from the north, from the barents sea, the norwegian sea, and northerly winds sweeping down across the uk, so we are starting cold on thursday, with some frost and some ice.

particularly icy where we've had those overnight showers. soon moving away from the south—west, continuing to run in to coastal areas of eastern england, into east anglia. and again, they could be a touch wintry. for many on thursday, it may well be dry with some sunshine around. not so for northern ireland, more cloud here. that cloud will push its way into western scotland in the afternoon. ahead of that, though, in the cold air temperatures may be no better than three orfour degrees, maximum. and into that cold air we've got all this cloud. that's going to bring some rain, but also the threat of some snow in scotland during the evening, especially over the hills. a battle taking place, really, that colder air in place, a slice of milder air trying to come in from the atlantic, and that means weather fronts. could be some snowjust briefly over the pennines, the welsh hills, perhaps some sleetiness through the midlands towards east anglia, but it is going to be briefly, because it will turn back to rain, and most of that rain is going to be sitting, by the morning, across more southern parts of england, and could see another pulse of rain

threatening to come back into the south—west later. further north it's going to be brighter, maybe some sunshine, temperatures won't be as low on friday, so a slightly milder day but there's some wetter weather just waiting to nudge in to the north—west of scotland and also northern ireland, on that weather front, which is bringing showers or longer spells of rain. and indeed, many places actually overnight will see some wet weather around, some strengthening winds, too, so it shouldn't be too cold to start with on saturday. less frost around, certainly. that band of rain moves through, then the wind direction changes back to the north or north—west and it does get colder during the day. there will be some sunshine around, there will be some showers, particularly across northern and western parts of the country. and those temperatures lower on saturday. and it's probably going to remain quite chilly right the way through the weekend, in actual fact. that low pressure just wanders its way into continental europe and behind that we still have these winds, mainly coming in from the north, by the looks of things. quite a chilly wind blowing down those north sea coasts, where we will see a few wintry showers continuing on sunday. maybe a few showers across west wales, the far south—west of england. many places, though, on sunday will be dry with some sunshine around, but those temperatures around about 5—6 celsius, typically, and maybe starting with a bit more

frost in the morning. may well get chilly, actually, overnight into monday morning, before we see this weather front coming in from the west. that's certainly going to increase the cloud. i'm not sure how much rain there's going to be in it, cos it's weakening as it comes into the uk. as it hits the colder air, could well find a bit of snow for a while over the scottish hills and into cumbria too, before a lot of that wet weather just sort of fades away and the front continues to weaken. still cold, though, 4—5 celsius. now, after monday, into tuesday, huge uncertainties. now it looks like there's going to be a spell of very windy weather with a deep area of low pressure. some models take it to the north of the uk, some models take it to the south of the uk, so a lot of uncertainty. the preferred solution is to take that low pressure on that track and head its way into france, so taking that wetter, windier weather and pushing it southwards. after that, high pressure builds in briefly, before a weather front comes in from the atlantic. now, if that scenario comes to pass, there isn't really any warm air coming in to the uk, and it looks like we're

going to stay on the colder side of things, really, for the outlook, so temperatures typically up to around 6—7 celsius.

tonight at 10pm... stepping up the vaccine booster campaign across the uk, with firefighters and soldiers among those called to help out. this was the scene at a centre in llangefni — welsh ministers admit the booster programme will put the nhs under immense pressure. we recognise that the workforce is absolutely exhausted, which is why we are really making sure that the net is really cast much wider this time to make sure that we can ask those volunteers to come back in. as preparations for christmas go ahead, some doctors say it's best to avoid large gatherings but ministers say it's the individual�*s responsibility. we've all got a role to play in this, it is a national mission what we've set out in vaccinations, we can all play a role.