All language subtitles for Staged Deadly Deception - S01E01 - Baby on the Bus.eng

Anyone who is on the bus would

have experienced
some level of trauma.

Was there an attack on the bus?
Was it a member of the public?

There were very few details.

Anyone looking at that
from the outside,

not knowing the true facts,

it's almost inconceivable
that only hours before,

together, they've taken part
in the most heinous crime

and then taken part
in the most heinous attempt

to cover that crime up.

I feel for the detectives
in this particular case

because, can have all logic in the
world, but you need that evidence.

And many times it's just not there.

It comes down to
where else was this child at?

And again, it seems that
the only place this child was at

was in the family residence.

In all of these incidents,

what ends up happening
is the mom blames the dad.

Dad blames the mom.

No one's going to make it out
of this trial

without an emotional scar.

This crime
and these two people's actions

have done so much damage
to a lot of people.

More people than they know.

London's a very sprawling
metropolis.

We've got a very diverse community.

And we've got a certainly
a very diverse range of crimes,

far, far more than
the rest of the country,

in my experience.

Violent crime, sadly,
is more prevalent in London.

Stratford's in the borough
of Newham,

which is one of the biggest
and fastest growing

boroughs in London.

And it's got
a very, very diverse population.

Compared to the rest of London,

it's got levels
of quite high deprivation.

So with that I guess comes
some crime, petty crime,

theft, robbery, stuff like that.

There are significant pockets
of crime within Stratford,

such as violent crime, drug dealing,
robbery and things of that nature.

Rosalin Baker was known
to social services for many years.

She kind of presented first,
I think, because she was homeless,

like living in between
families and friends,

but also known
to have a chaotic background.

She lived very much kind of,
on the fringe,

and that she didn't engage
in any kind of regular work,

education, that type of thing.

She was an addict,

and she was with Jeffrey Wiltshire
who was 23 years her senior.

He had been a rapper,
he'd fathered many children,

23 children from 18 women.

And he was also an addict,
he took heroin and cocaine daily.

Rosalin Baker was 25,
and Jeffrey Wiltshire was 52.

Because of the age gap

there must have been some kind of
power imbalance

between the two of them.

Imani was born really prematurely,
aged 28 weeks.

And so she spent her first 65 days
in an incubator

under kind of intense supervision.

When Amani was in the incubator,

her mother didn't visit as much as
you would normally expect.

Jeffrey didn't visit once.

And Rosalin wouldn't tell
social services what his name was.

So he was very much
not in the picture.

When she was discharged,

she went with her mother
to stay with her grandmother

in Colchester, in Essex.

And they stayed there until about
nine days before the bus incident.

And then Rosalin left
her mother's house.

She told people
she'd been kicked out,

and travelled to Newham
to stay with Wiltshire

in his bedsit
in the Manor Park area.

When Rosalin and Imani
came to live with Wiltshire,

neighbours didn't really see
much of them.

They maybe saw them
coming and going once or twice,

but it was very much they were
in the flat

and it was
a very secret, private existence.

I don't think Rosalin
would have had any interaction

with friends
or potentially other women

who could help her deal
with a newborn baby.

It would have been a very isolated
existence for both her and the baby.

On the day that Rosalin took Imani
on the 25 bus,

she was seen with Wiltshire,

they went into a newsagents...

...and then she boarded the bus.

She had Imani in a newborn sling
on her chest

and she was pushing a pram.

Wiltshire gave her a kiss goodbye.

And then as she got on the bus,
he gave her a thumbs up.

So that was
the initial starting point

of how this whole thing began.

Rosalin sat there
for about 20 minutes,

texting quite a lot on her phone,

and then she suddenly
raised the alarm,

telling other passengers
that there was something wrong

with her baby
and that she wasn't moving.

The call was made to 999.

And what happens
when you might call out to 999,

you're explaining
that you've got a problem,

there's a baby that's become ill
potentially on the bus,

and the operator talks them
through a procedure.

The other passengers
all stepped in,

and several of them tried
to resuscitate Imani.

All the while,
Rosalin was quite impassive,

again, looking on her phone,
not saying anything

to the extent that another passenger
thought that one of the passers by

was actually the mother
because she was so distressed.

And they tried and tried
to resuscitate her

until an ambulance was called.

The people on the bus are just
going about their ordinary day

and all of a sudden
there's this emergency with a baby

who might be dying.

The scene was quite chaotic.

And when
the ambulance service arrived,

what you were greeted with was
a lot of trauma

in members of the public,

are the only person
hat didn't seem to be in trauma

or any kind of upset,
was Rosalin Baker.

Rosalin, obviously would have,

at the very least known
she had a sick child.

She should have been frantic

when she's realising this child
is not responding,

seems to be in distress.

She herself should have been
calling 999.

When emergency responders arrive,

they're faced with a lot of people
on a bus,

and time is of the essence.

They don't know
if this baby is going to survive.

First responders would
attend a scene.

And it was at that point
when medical attention was brought,

that obviously the temperature
of the baby

was the first indicator that
that baby had not just died.

An ambulance was called,

and they reported
that the baby was cold,

and they tried and tried
to resuscitate her.

My suspicion in this case is that
any health professional

who encountered this baby
around the time that she was found

on the bus

would immediately realise
that the baby had been dead

for some time.

You always start from
the first shred of information,

evidence that you have.

In this case,
what we were faced with

was Rosalin Baker on the bus
with that baby.

The baby, on the face of it,
according to her,

becoming ill
and then the intervention

of the London Ambulance Service
and the first responders.

The child being on the bus
creates problems for investigators

because you don't have
a crime scene.

In this case, different people were
trying to render aid to the child,

trying to help her.

So the crime scene
is completely disrupted.

And also it's questionable whether
the life saving attempts

caused some of the injuries,

or whether the injuries were there
already.

Investigators are going to talk
to the mother.

They're going to talk to the father.

They're going to talk to anyone
who is directly involved

with these two.

Any relatives.

Her mother was involved,
nurses for the child,

doctors for the child.

They're going to want to know
everything they can

about this child.

And have there been earlier reports

of this child being abused
in any way.

When the baby is brought
to the hospital,

it appears to have been cold
for some time.

And also to have injuries
that are well beyond

what might have happened
with anybody trying to do CPR

on this child.

Babies don't just die.
There's a reason why they die.

On a postmortem examination is
a quest to establish

what that reason is

and the sort of things you can find

are injuries
or pathology that's in the body,

organs that aren't working properly,

bleeding and so on and so forth.

What the postmortem in this case
encountered was

a whole series of serious injuries.

I don't think you need to be
a pathologist to realise

that a baby
that has 40 rib fractures,

a fractured skull,
a subarachnoid haemorrhage,

and an injury to the brain stem -
these are not accidental injuries.

These are injuries that have
been inflicted by someone,

and they've been inflicted
over a period of time.

It's almost hard to imagine
that anybody would inflict

these kind of injuries
against 16 week old baby,

and the injuries that we found
that had been inflicted

was 40 fractured ribs

that had been caused
through gripping that baby.

When they get the results,

what they see is signs
of chronic child abuse.

This is not something that happened
just last night.

Because are indications of injuries
that have healed

or in the process of healing,

which means they took place
a significant time

before the child's death.

Once they determine
that the child did not die

simply of natural causes,

that there was a physical means...

...now the cops are looking
at homicide.

So now it's what happened?
Where is it most likely to happen?

This is a child.

It's most likely to have happened
at the child's residence

or at some other caregiver's.

Who had control over the child?

There any families
or a babysitter or whatever?

They're all going to be looking
at that.

It seems that the only place
this child was at

was in the family residence.

So now we're lucky in one sense,
we only have two suspects.

The mom and the dad.

If Rosalin doesn't look
as if she's really deeply affected

by this baby's death
and there are other injuries

on this child
that can't be explained

by whatever happened on the bus,

that would raise certainly questions
that maybe something has happened.

She's already begun
to distance herself from the child

because she knew the child had died
before she even got on the bus,

or was at least about to die.

And so something happened.
And she knows what it is.

That's the problem
with all child abuse deaths

is trying to figure out
who exactly caused the injuries

and caused the injuries
that actually killed them.

I feel for the detectives
in this particular case

because you can have
all the logic in the world,

but you need that evidence
to prove who exactly did it.

And many times it's just not there.

We know that the child was
in hospital

for a extended period of time. OK.

Well, how many times was
the child visited?

I mean, it is normal.

You know, I've seen this in
the past, where you have preemies,

it's almost like you can't drag
the mother out of the hospital.

Poor Imani,

who was only 16 weeks old
at the time of her death,

had been for the first 64 days
of her life,

so effectively half her life,

had been hospitalised
in a high dependency unit

since birth.

And the reason for that is
that she'd been born prematurely.

However, when we looked
into the history of the parents,

we found that Rosalin Baker
only visited 16 days out of that 64.

So imagine that,
that if that's your newborn baby,

knowing that baby is very ill
or very weak, may not survive,

and you only visit her
16 days out of 64,

that was a level of concern.

And the next level of concern was
that there was a reluctance

to name the father,
who was Jeffrey Wiltshire.

Wiltshire, by the way,
had never visited Imani in hospital

for all her 64 days.

So here, from the very, very
inception of this inquiry,

we could already identify
that both parents seemed

very, very distant from that child
and her welfare.

Although a forensic pathologist
can establish

what these injuries are,
how serious they are,

and whether
they're potentially fatal.

It's very difficult for them
to establish

who actually inflicted the injuries.

And if there are two people
in the household,

in theory,
it could be either one of them.

And you're relying
on other investigative factors.

It may even be that
friends or neighbours or relatives

can shed some light,

because they've seen
an individual treating the baby

in a particular way.

So that's something the police
would try to get to the bottom of.

They were suspects simply because
the circumstances of Imani's death

and the initial account given
by Baker just didn't tally.

There was no way that she could
have dressed that baby,

put that baby on a harness
and not know that she was dead.

And obviously we later found out
with the injuries

they were very, very severe.

And then we needed to identify
who had access to Imani

within the timeframe of her death,
to definitively rule anybody else.

And Jeffrey Wiltshire was arrested.

Well the approach was obviously
to get a first account from them.

And in the case of both of them,
they were very cold,

very emotionless.

Bearing in mind,
you put that into context,

you've just lost
your 16 week old baby.

You say, in terrible circumstances,
that were nothing to do with you.

You're suggesting
that baby's become ill.

That is your defence at that time.

In Baker's case,

she gave a prepared statement
simply saying that Imani

had an accident a little
while before,

had falling over, but had not
sustained any serious injuries?

And when we arrested
Jeffrey Wiltshire,

he claimed to not even be
Imani's father

and later he retracted
that statement

and actually claimed
that the reason he told us that

was because he was concerned
that he had mental health problems

and drug abuse issues that would be
a concern to the authorities.

Once you determine that
the time of death was

at least one day prior
to the discovery,

to me, and then I go back and say,

well, what was
the mother's behaviour?

What did she do?

Well, she hit all the CCTV points
going in and going out.

She's establishing an alibi,
because what they have to do,

she has to cover
what exactly happened

and how normal this trip on the bus
was going to be.

How normal?

Rosalin Baker went out with Imani,

she was fully dressed

and was in a baby harness
positioned with her face,

and I believe
there's a reason for that,

because there was an injury
to the eye,

facing Rosalin's chest,

again, covered up,
but they went out in public.

So they've gone out in public
on the streets of London,

deliberately putting themselves
in a position

where they know they're going to be
subject to CCTV surveillance

with the baby apparently well.

Then getting on the bus,

London busses are
very, very well catered for

in terms of
closed circuit television.

And once again
it's very high quality.

So in this particular case,
what Baker and Wiltshire did,

they walked together
almost projecting the persona

that they were a happy family
with young innocent children.

And when you look at it,

if you didn't know
what had really happened,

you'd think this is
quite a loving family.

I say that because Wiltshire gives
Rosalin a kiss.

He'd been a gentleman, helps her
with the buggy onto the bus,

then gives her a thumbs up
as the doors close.

So anyone looking at that
from the outside,

not knowing the true facts,

you'd think
it's almost inconceivable

that only hours before,

together, they've taken part
in the most heinous crime

and then taken part
in the most heinous attempt

to cover that crime up.

They see her walking with her
partner, the father of the baby.

And at that point,
the baby is very likely dead.

And they know they're carrying
around a dead child.

So it begins to appear
that they've made a plan

to have this child appeared to have
gone into distress in a public place

where other people
would be touching it, handling it,

maybe inflicting the injuries on it,

and, witnessing her being
in distress over it

before, quote, unquote, it dies.

They're in this together.

They both know
that this child is dead

and they have to do something
about it

because people are aware
that they have this child.

So they were planning how
they were going to make this look.

I think it was very well
thought out.

They wanted to have the child
out of the house,

so there's no reason for the police
to come back to the house

to search it and
see if there's anything there.

When I studied that CCTV
on the bus,

Baker's actively looking
at different members of the public

getting on that bus.

And now what know is going through
her mind for that 28 minutes was,

who am I going to pick?

What person is going to become
the third part of this conspiracy

to stage this cover up?

Because of the very conclusive
postmortem results

which showed that Imani
had been dead for up to 24 hours

before the bus, it was very clear
that this wasn't an accident.

So police knew early on
that this was serious crime.

What we've managed to determine
was that Rosalin Baker

moved from her mother's house
in Colchester in Essex,

into the Stratford area
where Wiltshire had small flat.

And they were there for the week
leading up to the death of Imani.

We knew then with this timeline
from the postmortem,

that Imani had died 24 hours or so
prior to the discovery of the body

on the bus. So we knew that
she'd been there for the week.

So what was a very, very important
to determine was

all that catalogue of injuries,

could we determine
when they had occurred?

So to determine this we actually
use some of the United Kingdom's

foremost bone injury experts

that could actually tell us,
through the postmortem examination

and the findings

that these injuries had occurred
at three different stages

that could be timed
within that last week.

That was within the week
that we knew Imani was in

the so-called care of both parents,
Jeffrey Wiltshire and Rosalin Baker.

They charged Rosalin and Jeffrey
very early on.

When it came out that they'd been
charged on murder charges,

there was a sense of real horror

because there were so few details
that emerged.

But what we were told
was really shocking,

that a three month old baby
had died of head injuries on a bus.

So without any more context,
you start to think

was there an attack on the bus?
Was it a member of the public?

Was it- You know,
there were very few details,

but what we did know,
it was horrible.

I can tell you, as a detective,

and I've investigated
child deaths before,

these are some of the most,
difficult cases to work.

Particularly if you have kids
of your own at the house,

because this is an absolutely
innocent person

who cannot possibly
defend themselves.

So you really have to take
a deep breath,

because you can't allow all these
emotions that you're feeling

to interfere
with your investigation.

Whenever you investigate
the murder of a child,

and I've investigated several,

it's a very different kind of case

to investigating the murder of
an adult in quite a number of ways.

Firstly, on a personal level,
we're all humans.

We all have emotions
and so do my team.

It's quite a harrowing thing
to investigate

when you're uncovering detail
of most unimaginable cruelty

and unspeakable acts that you don't
think any human being could

ever, ever perpetrate,
but these two did.

So there's that element.

But you put aside
any personal feelings,

and then you look
at how you investigate it.

Well, in a homicide of an adult,
they've got a background.

And normally you're looking
for the motive

as to why that murder
has taking place.

In a case of a 16 week old baby,
that baby has had very little life.

And half the life that she had

was obviously in
a high dependency unit in hospital.

So there's no background in terms
of that baby

in any contact with anybody else.

As soon as the trial started

and as soon as the prosecution
delivered their opening statements,

it was just immediately clear that
there was so much more to this case

than was initially thought.

The trial, I thought,
was a very interesting trial

because bearing in mind
the engagement we'd had

with Baker and Wiltshire,

what we'd seen from them
was that they were very cold,

very much in denial
of any wrongdoing.

And so it's going to be interesting
to see, firstly,

what they gave evidence
in their defence,

and if so,
how would they come across.

What were they going to say?

They don't have to prove anything.

It's for the prosecution to prove
their guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt.

So they, as defendants,

they could have sat
in the defence box,

deciding not to give evidence

and to let the prosecution prove
or try to prove their guilt.

Interestingly enough,
what both of them decided to do

because they were charged
with the same crime,

sitting in the dock together,

they decided to engage in

what is known in English law
as a cut throat defence.

So they both blamed each other.

I think that's a calculated gamble
as far as they were concerned.

And thought the evidence is clear
that Amani has been murdered

and we were her parents
and we were together with the baby.

Baker decided to go
to the witness box.

Her evidence essentially
was that she had woken up

on the 28th of September

and Jeffrey Wiltshire had said
to her I've killed the baby.

Now,
this is what you're going to do.

And she painted Wiltshire
as a coercive domestic offender

that had abused her
over period of time.

And she said that she went along
with it because she was in fear.

Wiltshire, apparently,
according to her, had dressed Imani

and then Baker then put
Imani in the harness

and put Imani around herself,

knowing her own daughter was dead,

and then went along
with this facade, this charade,

in the street.

But here's the thing.

If that were actually true,

and it was imminent fear of danger
or harm to herself

that she really feared,

the moment she got on that bus,
knowing that she could give evidence

against Wiltshire
and involve the police,

why didn't she do that?

We then heard a different side
to Rosalin's story,

because at first
when she gave a police statement,

she said, oh no, no,

my partner wouldn't do
anything like that to her.

She didn't notice any injuries,
just a small mark above her eye.

And then we start to hear of details
that Wiltshire was abusive

and controlling
or taking drugs every day.

So it's a much bigger kind of
picture of neglect and depravity.

The interesting part for me,
again with this,

was her demeanour
this time around

where she'd been cold before
and even on the bus CCTV,

you could see that she had
no concern at any point.

And now she's presenting herself
as is terrified victim

that's been coerced.

That was totally innocent.
I had no choice.

All of a sudden,

Baker became confrontational,
became a different person.

And so really,

once her bogus account was
properly probed in the witness box,

it fell apart,

as did Baker,
and her real character came out.

That was seen by all,
including the jury.

Wiltshire's account,

was, again,
a very, very interesting one,

the way that he decided
to go about defending himself.

And he basically said
it was nothing to do with me.

When he asked by his defence
counsel, did you murder Imani,

he said, I'm a baby maker,
not a life taker.

And the reason he said that,

apart from the obvious attempt
to defend himself,

was that he claimed to be the father
of 23 children by 18 women.

So he was basically just refusing
any part, any knowledge in it,

says it's nothing to do with me.

Looking at
the two defendants themselves,

there was lots of lying,

lots of going back on
original statements,

lots of trying to put the blame
on somebody else.

I feel that Rosalin's statements
were the ones that

was kind of- She was tripping
herself up the most.

And it was clear that they weren't
in this together anymore.

They definitely, you know, diverged
and were trying to blame each other.

With both co-defendants
blaming the other,

it can cause so much confusion

that the jury is not able to decide
definitively who did what.

And in that situation,
they can't convict either one.

As more details of the abuse
emerged and the kind of the deceit

around trying to cover i tup,

there was a real sense of disgust
and a real hope that, you know,

justice was going to be served
for this poor child.

We looked at everything,

but we were unable to definitively
say which one inflicted

the fatal injury.

But what we could say,
without a doubt,

was that all of those injuries,
including the fatal injury

had occurred within
that period of time

when that baby
was in the care of Rosalin Baker,

Jeffrey Wiltshire, in Wiltshire's
bedsit in east London.

The public perception would be

that it doesn't matter
who inflicted the death.

Both of these people are
responsible, and it's murder.

However, legally speaking,

without being able to prove
an intent to kill the child

or a cause of death,
you cannot prove murder.

And that fact in itself
means the difference between

ten years in jail

or spending the rest of your life
in jail.

And in this particular case,

knowing that the jury may struggle
to reach a verdict on homicide,

because we just couldn't prove which
person inflicted the fatal injury,

the judge decided that it was better
to direct

about an alternative charge.

Some of the other passengers
on the bus actually gave

really, really compelling evidence
at the trial,

and they spoke of how
they were trying really hard

to revive this little body,
this little girl,

thinking that there might
be a chance

that they could save her life.

And then when she went off the bus,

they thought that they'd failed

and that maybe, perhaps there was
something else they could have done.

And so to learn that, actually, this
baby had been dead the whole while

and that her mother was sitting
there knowing this was happening,

that must have just been horrifying.

Some of them said that they actually
had kind of effects of trauma,

were unable to sleep, had to take
medication because of it.

It must have just been
so distressing for everybody

on that bus.

The prosecutor told jurors

that Rosalin Baker enacted
what's been described

as a nightmare charade,

claiming her baby had fallen ill.

Passengers tried to help.

They were panicking and distressed,
compared to Baker,

who was noted to be calm and cold.

Many homicide cases I dealt with,

when a jury goes out,
I was always nervous.

I was always confident
in the evidence we presented,

but always nervous
only because there's so much riding

on that particular case.

You know,
you've got a victim murdered,

you've got a family wants justice.

Justice for the victim themselves.

And when you've worked hard
to get all of the evidence

that you possibly can,

and it's sufficient to present
that case to a jury,

you obviously want to get
the right verdict.

So I was nervous but confident.

Very tense moments
when a jury return.

And on this occasion, we got back
and were told there was a verdict.

And then they're asked, do you find
the defendant guilty or not guilty?

And in this case, it was guilty
of causing or allowing the death

of Imani Baker.

The jury deliberated
for 14 or so hours,

but they couldn't agree
that the evidence was kind of

beyond reasonable doubt,

that they were both guilty of murder
or one of them.

So they those charges
couldn't be upheld.

Ultimately,
they're not able to prove murder.

And that has to be
incredibly frustrating,

because they have committed such
a heinous crime, multiple times.

Inflicted terrible abuse
on this child,

yet, because they're not able
to prove murder,

it doesn't seem like justice
was served.

Because it was difficult
to pinpoint

who actually had delivered
the fatal blow,

they ended up with lesser charges
and a lesser sentence of 11 years,

which is reduced to ten.

And that's not an adequate sentence
for what happened to this child.

Their hands were tied.

Had they been convicted
of the homicide,

the actual substantive murder,

they'd have probably gone to prison
for 30 years.

The sentence they got was 11,
later reduced to ten on appeal.

On the one hand,
justice has been done,

that it's been proven
Imani was unlawfully killed

at the hands of her parents.

But it was just a shame
we couldn't have proved

which one had administered
that fatal injury.

When we got the sentencing,

I definitely felt that
this was miscarriage of justice

and it did not properly represent
the horror

that this poor, innocent child
had to endure.

They got 11 years, I think sentence
was then reduced by a year.

And I don't think that is
a adequate punishment.

This had to be a very difficult
case for not just the investigators,

but also for the jury.

Because this is an emotional case.

No one's going to make
it out of this trial

without an emotional scar.

Because this is a baby.

16 weeks old, vulnerable, small.

Completely helpless
against the hands of her parents.

It can be very frustrating,

when you know that this particular
person did that crime,

you know it.

But they're let off with a lesser
offense than what they should have.

Sometimes what you have to do
is you just got to suck it up

because there's nothing
you can do about it.

That is the justice system.

Looking at
the whole, staged plot itself,

it seemed that the reason they did
it in such a busy, public bus was

because they wanted to bring
as many people as possible

into their deceit.

But in doing so, they've actually
affected so many people

and traumatised so many people.

Some of the people who are
on the bus say they can now

no longer take buses because
they feel so scared

about what happened that day.

And also, this was an incident
where people of the community

really did step in to help,
and it was all in vain.

And there's a sense
that they might not do that again,

because they don't want to be used
in someone else's horrible plot.

The person who I think it
affected the most on that bus

was the lady that administered CPR.

And I spoke to that lady at length
after she gave evidence

and she gave evidence
and she was from Italy.

A lovely lady who was just
on her way to work that day.

And that lady was totally innocent,
minding her own business

wanted to do the best she could.

And when she discovered
that this baby was cold as ice

as she described it,

and then saw the bruise
under the eye,

you know,
and still administered CPR,

even though she might well have
known that she was dead.

But it was a terrific thing for her

and her everlasting thoughts after
was that she could not get

on a bus again.

She did want to travel
on public transport again.

If she saw a baby, you know,
she'd be upset

because she was worried
the same thing would happen again.

And that's the level of trauma

that Rosalin Baker
subjected this lady to.

Despite the fact that they thought
this was a means

by which they could cover up
the crime...

...they had no understanding of how
the pathology examination would work

and the fact that it would reveal
overwhelming evidence

that this child had died
due to abuse.

This case stands out to me
for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the callous nature,

and the cruelty
that somebody can hurt a child.

But let alone hurt a child,
murder a child,

let alone a 16 week old child.

We can identify the warning signs.

And the warning signs
were there in this case.

But unfortunately,
many of these systems are overloaded

and they can't follow up
on every single difficult case.

So lots of cases, you know,

just don't get the attention
that they need.

I think had there been
enough resources,

this baby probably
would have been saved.

I see death all the time.

I don't like it, but I see it.

But here's someone going on a ride
on a double decker bus.

All of a sudden they're confronted
with a dead baby.

What's the worst thing in the world
if you're a family person?

Is what a dead, innocent baby?

They're the ones that were really,
traumatised by all this.

And I feel mostly for them.

Looking back at this case,

there's so many parts of it that
kind of ignites

different emotions:
anger, frustration,

but the overwhelming sense
of this just pure sadness

and pain you feel
for this little girl.

You know, she didn't have
the love and support of her parents.

Definitely.

She didn't have wider protection
from social services.

Probably the safest she had been
was when she was in an incubator.

And that's just a really, really
tragic start to any life.

Subtitles by Sky Access Services