Canadian True Crime - Andrea Giesbrecht [2]

Episode Date: April 15, 2018

[Part 2 of 2] The shocking conclusion to the case of a woman charged with concealing infant remains in a storage locker. * Additional content warning: this episode includes the death of a child. Please take care when listening.Look out for early, ad-free release on CTC premium feeds: available on Amazon Music (included with Prime), Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast. Full list of resources, information sources, credits and music credits:See the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This podcast may contain coarse language, adult themes, and content of a violent and disturbing nature. Listener discretion is advised. This is Christy and welcome to Canadian True Crime. Episode 23, Andrea Giesbrecht, Part 2. In the last episode, we heard that Andrea had opted for a judge-only trial. Testimony and forensic analysis found that Andrea's babies were all strong. structurally normal, with no genetic abnormalities, and had been born at a round full term. The remains of the infants were in such a state that the medical examiner wasn't able to find a

cause of death for them, or evidence to ascertain whether they'd even lived outside the womb. We also heard testimony that it was medically impossible for a mother to give birth to six stillborn children, and there was no evidence that Andrea had self-induced late-term pregnancy terminations, because doing so would cause major harm to Andrea herself, which would require urgent medical attention. No such care was on record. It was time for some more medical testimony. Forensic pathologists Dr Raymond Rivera testified that he conducted the autopsies on the babies which determined gender where possible and how old they were. He confirmed the remains were so decomposed that he wasn't able to determine how any of them died,

or whether they'd been born alive or stillborn. He also confirmed previous testimony that there were no abnormalities or evidence of prior injuries, but also said there was, quote, no evidence that the infants had any sort of life after birth. For the remains that were so badly decomposed that just the skeleton was left, an x-ray was taken and the bones were analysed by, forensic anthropologist to determine how old they were. As we know, one set of remains was dried out and, quote,

rock hard due to being soaked in a white powder. It then had to be soaked in a saline solution so that the autopsy could take place. Anthropologist Emily Holland testified also that she'd estimated their ages from examining dental age, long bone growth and skull development. She also said she saw no signs of skeletal trauma. On cross-examination, defence lawyer Greg Brodsky wouldn't refer to them as infants,

instead calling them products of conception, and Andrea Giesbrecht showed no emotion while graphic detail of the state of the remains came out in this testimony. Another forensic pathologist, Dr Michael Pollan, conducted a peer review of the findings, something that's often done to ensure quality and thoroughness. His findings were, for the most part, consistent with the previous analysis. He concluded that, quote,

they were all sufficiently developed to be born alive. He then outlined five theories about how the infants could have died. One was stillbirth, when the baby dies while still inside the womb. He said he couldn't exclude this theory, even though it had been declination. quote, just impossible by Dr. Nogler, a head of obstetrics and previous expert witness. Other theories presented included death during the delivery process, death caused by inadequate care shortly after birth, like hypothermia,

or the killing of a live baby by way of strangulation, drowning or smothering. A fifth theory of miscellaneous was given. The Crown asked if such a theory, could include putting a live baby in a plastic bag and knotting the bag on top. Dr. Pollenin testified that yes, that is a possible way to kill a baby. Under cross-examination, he also confirmed that other methods could include birth unattended by medical personnel. A representative of Manitoba Health testified, saying that Andrea had claimed a total of 10 pregnancy terminations between the ages of 20 and 37. Her first one was in April 1994,

three years before her first son was born, and within the span of nine months she'd had another two pregnancy terminations. She also had a miscarriage on the record, as well as a menstrual condition. During the time period that she had these 10 terminations, she also gave birth to her two sons, who were teenagers at the time of the trial. When calculating the two sons, ten terminations, and the six infant remains in the locker, this meant she may have had as many as 18 different pregnancies in total, possibly even more.

When asked if the Manitoba Health Representative could tell if Andrea had any self-induced pregnancy terminations, the response was that they couldn't tell because there wouldn't be a claim for that. Now it was time to hear from some people that knew Andrea throughout various stages of her life and find out what they knew. A former friend and co-worker called Danielle

testified about a strange series of events involving Andrea Giesbrecht that started around 1997. This is around the time that Andrea first got married at age 23. One time, Andrea called. called into work sick. She was calling from a pay phone and said she'd just suffered a miscarriage while walking down the street. She said she'd seen the blood on the footpath. Danielle said that Andrea would often call in sick during the four years that they worked together. She said her friend had gambling and financial issues that resulted in her eventually pawning off her engagement ring to get cash.

She said they would often go to the casino at lunch. Several months after Andrea said she had a miscarriage, she'd told Danielle that she was pregnant again. She said she didn't want to keep the baby, although didn't tell her friend why. She kept the pregnancy secret from everyone else in the office and confided in Danielle that she'd thought about ways to perform a self-induced pregnancy termination.

When asked about what methods Andrea spoke about, Danielle said, quote, Punch herself in the stomach, use a coat hanger, or over a chair. Most surprisingly, Andrea told Danielle she was also hiding the pregnancy from Jeremy, her boyfriend, soon to be husband. Danielle was only 18 or 19 at the time,

so wasn't quite sure how to handle the situation. Daniel noticed that during Andrea's pregnancy, she was tall and thin and only gained a small amount of weight. She wore heavy, oversized sweaters to conceal her small baby bump, often wearing her coat at work. Danielle said that you could only see the small baby bump if she pulled her clothing tight.

She asked Andrea how it was possible that Jeremy didn't know she was pregnant if the couple was still having sex and she had a visible baby bump. Andrea's response was that he just didn't notice. When Andrea went into labor with this baby in 1997, she drove herself to hospital without telling anyone, and within 30 minutes of arriving there had given birth to her first son. The first that Jeremy or her family knew of this pregnancy, or the birth, was when they were called by the hospital after the fact.

At first, Andrea spoke with social workers about giving her son up for adoption, but after speaking with Jeremy and her parents, she decided to keep him. She gave birth to her second son in 2002 and didn't try to conceal this pregnancy. Another friend, named Lynn, contacted the police after Andrea was first arrested and charged with concealing the dead bodies of six infants, telling them that she had important information on the case. She and Andrea became friends when Andrea Gamble, daily at the casino that Lynn worked at, the McPhilip's Station Casino.

Lynn said that Andrea, quote, said so many bad words about her husband. Lynn said that Andrea had an affair with another casino employee called Gerald, from around 2005 to 2008. One time, Andrea told her husband, Jeremy, she was with Lynn, but instead she'd gone to Gerald's house. This affair was confirmed by another friend of Andrea's, Liesel Collins. It seemed to be a widely known fact among Andrea's closest friends. In 2006, during the time Andrea was having the affair, her casino worker friend Lynn noticed that Andrea seemed to be pregnant. Andrea confirmed that it was Gerald's baby, the man she'd been having the affair with,

but later said that she'd lost the baby. Three years later, in 2009, Lynn noticed that Andrea seemed to be gaining weight and suspected she might be pregnant again. Andrea acknowledged that she was gaining weight, but never said why. Lynn noticed that Andrea would wear baggy sweat clothes or an oversized jacket, and although it was hot and stuffy in the casino, she would never take off her jacket. Andrea's maid of honor at her wedding, Heather, said the two had been friends, since they were teenagers. She also had no idea her close friend was pregnant

until the day her first baby boy was born. She asked Andrea why she didn't tell her, and as she recalled, Andrea said she, quote, thought she had more time up her sleeve. Heather said she hadn't noticed that Andrea had gained any weight, but did say she'd never seen her wearing tight-fitting clothes

that would have revealed it. Andrea preferred baggy and overhaul. oversized clothing. Heather said their friendship ended in 2010 and that she never knew about another pregnancy or the affair with Gerald during the time they were friends. Next up was Andrea's friend Liesel, who she first met around 2005 when they both worked together. Liesel said that Andrea was the godmother of her child. They were that close. That said, she said she had no idea Andrea had all those pregnancy terminations and was shocked to find out that Andrea had listed her as the emergency contact for the procedures. She testified that she often drove Andrea to appointments,

but would pick her up at a street corner and not at a medical facility. But Leasel did know about the storage locker. She said she drove Andrea to make payments a couple of times, and Andrea told her she was storing a few boxes of her dad's old things. In 2013, when Andrea moved her items to U-Haul from the other storage facility, Leesel offered to help her move the items, but Andrea insisted she would move them herself. Leesle said she was flawed when she found out about what was really in the locker. The court also heard testimony from a woman named Linda,

whose son went to school with one of Andrea's sons around 2007. They became close, and she even helped Andrea get a job at a cleaning company. Linda testified that she never saw Andrea pregnant, but she was known for always wearing an oversized black flee sweater, even in hot weather. Some of the schoolmums talked and joked about this unusual quirk amongst themselves. Linda said the item of clothing hid Andrea's body and over the year she'd known Andrea, she'd only ever seen her without the sweater two times. There was an interruption in the trial because of scheduling conflicts, so it had to be adjourned for a few months until the summer of 2017. During this time, Andrea pled guilty to the fraud

charges related to the Manitoba employment and income assistance and was given a sentence of 30 days in jail for fraud and another 30 days for the breach of probation, which was the time she'd already spent in custody, followed by two years of supervised probation. Judge Cynthia Devine said, quote, it's aggravating she defrauded the public to feed her addiction. She was not in financial need. She was gambling away the family's resources.

In the meantime, lawyers for both the Crown and the defence told Court that Andrea had been performing well in recent months while out on bail in the community. She'd been participating in weekly gambler's anonymous meetings as well as parenting and life skills programs. Her sentence also included an order to pay back the money she wrongly received, which she was apparently working to try and do. After the scheduling break, Court was back in session. The Crown called Andrea Giesbrecht's 18-year-old son, who couldn't be named because of a publication ban. He would be the first of her family members to take the stand.

But this only happened after some arguments in the court. The Crown had asked to speak with Andrea's son before he took the stand, which angered his father, Jeremy. During a break in court, Jeremy yelled at Crown Attorney Debbie Bures, quote, we have a right not to answer your questions and said that his son was being bullied. The arguing went on for nearly 10 minutes before the sheriff was called. After that, defense lawyer Greg Brodsky spoke to the family and was able to settle the matter.

Andrea's son took to the stand to describe his time living at the family home before he moved out in 2014. The same year Andrea was arrested, although it wasn't established. whether he moved out beforehand or because of this event. He was described as calm and didn't appear nervous when he testified. He said he couldn't remember his mother being pregnant at any time, nor could he remember any changes to do with her weight. He said his mom was a normal mother. She sent him to school, fed and clothed appropriately,

took him to church occasionally, sent him to camps in the summer, and bought him video games. She said that his parents argued sometimes and often would separate and spend time apart for a few days but said that he didn't see his father bringing home any girlfriends. Upon cross-examination, Andrea's lawyer referenced the sanitary pad that the police seized from her house, the pad that contained the DNA that they compared to that of the infant remains.

Andrea's son said often the plumbing in the house's main toilet was faulty, so often guests to the house would use the bathroom from the master bedroom, including female friends. The inference was that the sanitary pad didn't necessarily belong to Andrea, that there could have been someone else there who discarded of the pad and of course who shared the same DNA with all of the infant remains. Andrea's husband Jeremy took the stand. He was the father of her two teenage boys,

and also the father of the six infants whose remains were found in the storage unit. The trial had to move to a larger courtroom because many people showed up for the day they knew Jeremy Giesbrecht would be testifying. They wanted answers and he seemed like the most likely candidate to provide them. 41-year-old Jeremy said he hadn't discussed the case with anyone, including his wife. He spoke at length about his marriage to Andrea, saying it had been off and on for quite a few years. He said that they were still married, but the family situation was difficult. He said he'd never seen Andrea smoke, drink or do drugs, except for the odd prescription drug like aspirin for a headache. He confirmed that he had a vasectomy.

Previous court documents filed showed that it was in 2011, three years before Andrea was arrested. Men who undergo the procedure are asked to return three to six months afterwards for testing to make sure it was successful, but Jeremy said he didn't go to his follow-up appointment and therefore didn't know whether his vasectomy had been successful or not. Jeremy confirmed that no one else had lived in the family home before Andrea was arrested. He also said he hadn't had sex with any other women other than,

Andrea Giesbrecht between 1999 and 2014, the years that she had terminated the 10 pregnancies. Jeremy then spoke about how he didn't find out Andrea was pregnant with their first son until the day he was born in 1997. He did say that during sex, he noticed that the lower part of her stomach seemed to be a little bit bigger, but she never said anything to him about being pregnant. He testified that five years later, she did tell him when she was pregnant with their second son. He was asked to describe the way she dressed and said it was, quote, boring, boring. He was aware that she had terminated about nine pregnancies over the years,

saying that some of them were, quote, sketchy, dating back many years. When he referred back to the original statement he gave police, He said he was only aware of two of them because he specifically remembered driving Andrea to two medical appointments. Jeremy was asked about the man Andrea had an affair with, the casino employee named Gerald. He actually knew about the situation, but his recollection was different to that of Andrea's friends.

Jeremy said that Gerald had come to their house a long time ago and that he was left traumatised by the visit. When Jeremy was asked to describe the relationship between Andrea and this man, his response was, quote, Someone who was raping and blackmailing someone, I don't believe, is a relationship. The prosecution asked him whether he or Andrea had ever reported the man to the police, and Jeremy confirmed that he believed that Andrea contacted police to complain that she'd been harassed, but they never reported a rape or blackmailing.

He said that one of Andrea's pregnancy terminations took place, quote, after the rapist came to the house, about nine years beforehand. Jeremy said he didn't know about the storage unit, and when he was shown some photos of some of the extra contents in the locker, like papers, toys and underwear, he said he didn't recognize them. When Jeremy was cross-examined by Andrea's defense lawyer, Greg Brodsky, Some confusion arose around spousal privilege. Jeremy said he would answer some questions, but not all.

The Crown argued that he should not be able to pick and choose which questions he answered about his communication with Andrea. The judge asked for a written submission on case law, and the trial was delayed yet again. The trial was only supposed to have lasted for five days total, but thanks to the delays, it had now been three months, and it wasn't over yet. And this weight for spousal privilege clarification

would extend the trial by yet another month. It started off again with Jeremy Giesbrecht now having a legal aid lawyer to help him through questioning relating to spousal privilege. But as it turns out, no issues arose and he answered all the questions Andrea's lawyer, Greg Brodsky, asked him. He didn't look at Andrea as he testified. Jeremy Giesbrecht said he knew his wife had an unknown number of miscarriages

and had terminated a further nine or so pregnancies. When asked if he thought Andrea was hiding those pregnancies, he said that he was aware of them, explaining that the couple had decided not to have any more children after their second son was born. As far as he knew, there were no problems or unhappiness with this decision afterwards. When asked if he'd ever been ever, seen a bill for the U-Haul storage locker, he said he wasn't sure. He also said that the family

often went swimming and Andrea wore a bathing suit and he'd never noticed that she may have been pregnant. The Crown finished presenting evidence and because the defence declined to present any, it was now time for closing arguments. However, it was announced that there was yet another delay and closing arguments would be postponed for a month. Greg Brodsky, defence lawyer for Andrea Giesbrecht, said she was, quote, stressed out because of all the delays. Closing arguments started in early October 2016, seven months after the trial began.

The defence gave no reason for why the babies had come to be at the storage locker or how they died, but gave a surprising reason as to why they were being kept there. Lawyer Greg Brodsky continued to refer to them as products of conception but said they were never meant to be concealed as Andrea had been charged. Quote, To make sure they are kept in a storage locker is to make sure they don't end up in a garbage dump. It's saving, not disposing of them.

He mentioned a couple of times that Andrea had paid extra for a heated storage locker when there were non-heated available that were much cheaper. He asked why would she do that if she was just trying to conceal them? He went on to say that conceal means to hide. It does not mean to keep. He stated that Andrea didn't hide pregnancies from her husband and friends. Quote, she was having abortions and taking her friends along. She wore ordinary clothes and whether it was boring or not is irrelevant.

It wasn't for the purpose of concealing a pregnancy. He argued there was no evidence. before the court about Andrea's state of mind or whether she knew the infants were likely to have been born alive and that there was no evidence that the babies breathed or cried. Quote, I'm not going to say this is a weird case, but it is. Crown prosecutor Debbie Bures started her closing arguments. Remember, the Crown only had to prove the charges

of six counts of concealing the body of a child. She said that the remains were not being saved, as the defence suggested. Quote, you can't save human remains. She was trying to conceal these remains. She was trying to hide them. She said the towels, blankets and other household items stored with the infant remains showed that they were probably born at her home before being taken to the U-Haul locker.

Quote, clearly Andrea had control and possession of these human remains. remains. The Crown Prosecutor also spoke about how the infant remains had been stored in a careless manner, carelessly packaged and cast aside. She said, quote, they'd been hidden away and unloved by a woman who had gone to great lengths to conceal all of her pregnancies. Cement and detergent had been used in some of the containers, quote, to mask the smell of these remains so that employees of U-Haul wouldn't become suspicious. The theory suggested by the Crown was that all six babies had been born alive at Andrea's home, dumped into plastic bags that had been knotted at the top, and then hidden in the storage

unit with detergent poured over some of the remains to mask the smell. If it could have been proven that the babies were definitely born alive, Crown Prosecutor Debbie Bures said, quote, we'd be here on a whole different set of charges. She went on to say that when you look at all the evidence that's before the court, especially the medical evidence, it's clear that Andrea is aware of how to get pregnant and how to give birth. The Crown also suggested that the testimony of Andrea's husband, Jeremy, be taken with a grain of salt.

Quote, it's hard to believe he did not know she was pregnant with these six babies. Regarding the proof that Andrea had concealed the remains and not someone else, the Crown spoke about how the evidence showed that Andrea Giesbrecht was the person who had sole possession and control of the U-Haul's storage locker. She was seen on security footage paying for the storage locker, had received calls from the facility about her locker, and had also received mail to her home about it. quote, all of this evidence I would suggest to the court clearly demonstrates the effort that Andrea Giesbrecht went to conceal these pregnancies and subsequent births to people in her immediate circle, to medical professionals, to society at large.

There was extreme efforts to conceal these pregnancies. With that, closing arguments were over, and it was now up to Judge Murray Thompson to present his verdict. Remember, this was a judge-only trial, so no jury was involved. The Crown also stayed that breach of parole charge against Andrea Giesbrecht, meaning the only charges remaining were the six counts of concealing a child's body. Global TV, a Canadian English-language broadcast TV network, had placed a motion for the judge to allow one TV camera into the courtroom as the judge was ruling. This motion was on the heels of a pilot project to allow TV cameras into courtrooms.

The project was the first of its kind in Canada and began about three years before, but it was going slowly. At the time, live broadcasts of court proceedings had occurred only five times. The reasons why included technological issues, like in old buildings where the ability to send and receive cellular. signals was limited, and also requests from judges saying they didn't want to be on camera. Also, surprisingly, the broadcasters themselves hadn't exactly rushed forward to make a request. On this occasion, Global TV's motion to broadcast the verdict live was successful, with the provisions that the camera would be focused only on the judge, Murray Thompson, and would be switched off after he finished delivering his decision.

Literally hours before the judge was supposed to deliver his decision, Andrea's legal team asked that the case be thrown out because the trial had been delayed so many times and had taken so long. The trial had started in April of 2016 and it had stretched out until October of that year when really it was only slated to last five days and now it was February 2017. The judge replied to the request saying that the lateness of this motion when a conviction was entered months ago,

sentencing dates had been set for months, and distracting a judge writing an important and detailed decision is unacceptable. He dismissed the request. Judge Thompson delivered his verdict as planned. He discussed possible homicide charges in his decision, saying the charge wasn't on the table for the Crown, because there was no evidence that, quote, the children proceeded in a living state from the body of the mother. What are the essential elements the crown must prove? Accordingly, after analyzing the case law,

I am satisfied that the crown must prove the following, that Anderé Giesbrecht did dispose of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that an unknown person had been delivered of it, the child was at a gestational age of development where it was likely to have been born alive and fourthly to the knowledge of the accused the child would likely have been born alive the crown must prove these essential elements on each count

independent of the others and bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt he provided an analysis on each of the following points saying where the crown was able to prove each one and then gave his conclusion. All of her actions lead to one conclusion. The Giesbrick was aware that these children were likely to have been born alive, and she wished to conceal the fact of their birth.

There is no evidence of injury to any of the fetuses. I accept the expert evidence of Dr. Nogler that a self-induced abortion at the advanced gestational age of these fetuses would have caused life-threatening medical consequences to Giesbrecht, which would have required urgent medical care. The accused's complete medical records, Exhibit 9, show no such treatment. I am satisfied that the only logical and rational conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that Giesbrecht would have been aware that each child was likely to have been born alive.

In conclusion, the evidence at trial established that Andrea Giesbrecht was the mother of and delivered six near or full-term children. The remains of those children were disposed of in a storage locker. The evidence leaves no doubt that she concealed her pregnancies and the resulting delivery of each of the six children. Expert evidence has established that each of the six children were at a gestational age of development where they were likely to have been born alive.

The evidence also established that to the knowledge of Giesbrecht, each child would likely have been born alive. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proven the essential elements of each of the offences. I find the accused guilty on all six counts. After the guilty verdict, the Crown asked for Andrea's bail to be revote. The defence argued that she wouldn't commit the same type of offence again because, quote,

pregnancy is something that's obvious. The judge allowed her to remain free on bail until sentencing. Andrea's lawyer, Greg Brodsky, spoke to the press afterwards. That's not the verdict we were hoping for her, obviously. But we have to live with the verdict because the judge is the rule of the judge of the law, not on my preference or my argument. We are pleased that the judge thought that the public wouldn't be offended if she were released on bail

and ordered that she be released on bail until the sentencing, and that's still an issue. The reaction is she's happy that the case is finally coming to a conclusion. She's not happy with the result of the conclusion, but she's happy that it's coming to an end. Before Andrea's sentencing took place, a pre-sentence report stated that she believed she's, quote, on borrowed time and will end up in jail.

Quote, I've been found guilty of a pretty serious crime. She said she'd never been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, but suspected she might have an unspecified mental health disorder. Quote, just because I'm all over the place, I would call it being distracted easily. She reported that everyone was affected, including her kids. While she was out on bail, she'd worked in data collection, had taken a couple of online education classes,

and had hopes of reuniting with her husband and teenage sons. The report didn't go into anything else, including how she felt about the offences themselves or the circumstances around how the babies came to be in the storage locker. Everyone came back to the court for sentencing submissions. Each count of concealing the body of a child carries a maximum sentence of two years, so with six infants found, that brings the possible sentence to a 12-year maximum. The Crown suggested that the judge sentenced Andrea to 11 years,

saying her actions were calculated and that she'd shown no remorse. Crown prosecutor Debbie Bures said Andrea had a pretty unremarkable childhood, free from violence or substance abuse. Quote, there's absolutely no explanation. She had a very normal, untroubled upbringing. The Crown also went on to request that the judge placed Andrea on the child abuse registry,

saying, quote, there was no dignity given to those individuals, those fetuses. Defense lawyer Greg Brodsky suggested Andrea should serve no more time behind bars because she'd already spent 160 days in custody following her arrest in 2014. Remember, after that, she was released on bail and had been out on bail the entire trial. He reminded the court that Andrea is being sentenced only on concealing the remains and not on anything to do with how the infants died. He also said that the fetuses are not victims.

quote, the victim is her husband and the public. She didn't murder these children. There was no live birth. The sentencing hearing was on July 14, 2017. Judge Murray Thompson said each of the six infants represented six separate offences considered and contemplated by her over a lengthy period of years and that her moral culpability increased after the first offence. He said, quote, these were newly developed infants our most vulnerable.

He said she had shown a lack of remorse for the offences and has a well-documented history of deceiving others. He referred to Section 243 of the Criminal Code of Canada, explaining the law against disposing of infant remains was put in place to ensure that newborn deaths can be investigated to ensure the cause wasn't homicide. Because Andrea concealed the bodies, she prevented the state's ability to determine

whether their deaths occurred before or after birth. He cited some previous cases to base his sentence on, including the three detailed in the last episode, saying that most involved young women without permanent partners. Most of them had only disposed of one child, and often it was their first. first experience with pregnancy. He also said some of the previous cases involved women diagnosed with mental health issues.

Quote, Andrea Giesbrecht is not that person. She is an outlier, a very different member of a particular group of women who concealed the bodies of children they delivered. He said Andrea did not come to the court as a person of good moral character. Judge Murray Thompson sentenced. Andrea Giesbrecht to six months prison for the first count, one year for the second, and two years each for the remaining four dead infants, a total of 9.5 years in prison. But he went on to say that a sentence that long would have been, quote, crushing to Andrea,

because of her family and work involvement. He then reduced the sentence by one year, bringing it to 8.5 years. And with the time she'd already served before she was less than, out on bail, this reduced the sentence to seven years and ten months. Andrea displayed little to no visible emotion, and as the sheriff's officers arrived to take her into custody, she was seen exchanging a few words with her husband, Jeremy. When speaking to the press, her lawyer, Greg Brodsky, said he was surprised at the severity of the sentence and said that his client didn't kill anyone. Quote, there were no marks as

as you know, on the fetuses or products of conception, to show that she self-induced an abortion and killed anybody. She can't be sentenced as if she did. But this comment would be flipped around when two months later, in September 2017, Greg Brodsky announced that Andrea Giesbrecht was going to appeal her conviction and her prison sentence, saying she took issue with the judge's decision in a number of ways.

One of her main concerns was that, that she believed she was sentenced for a crime that she was not charged for. And part of the reasons for the appeal came back to the Ivana Levkovich case mentioned in the last episode, and the issues surrounding a woman's privacy and autonomy with what she does with her body in relation to a child. Andrea's lawyer said that Judge Murray Thompson, quote, erred in failing to acknowledge a woman can destroy her near-term or term fetus,

and can induce an abortion accordingly and do what she wants with the remains without receiving criminal sanctions. According to Greg Brodsky, the judge also made a mistake, quote, in failing to acknowledge that the mother should be acquitted if she killed the fetus, child, in the womb,

and therefore had a self-induced abortion, but that allowing the child to be delivered in a stillborn state would require her to be imprisoned. This is obviously in reference to the Ivana Levkovich case where the judge finally found that she likely performed her own late-term pregnancy termination and had to acquit her of concealing the infant's remains. This same month, September 2017, another fraud situation would come to light in regards to Andrea Giesbrecht.

We already know that she had two previous fraud convictions, one for defrauding the Manitoba and income assistance of more than $5,000 and one for nearly $8,000 for writing bad checks and not repaying an elderly neighbour who loaned her money. But a third one would come to light. This new one was a civil lawsuit by a woman and her son, who named Andrea and the Winnipeg Police Credit Union in a $9,000 suit that had been filed in February 2017. They said that Andrea had manipulated and induced the mother into removing thousands of dollars from the savings account she shared with her son,

in the 18 months before Andrea was arrested after the U-Haul discovery. They said Andrea often accompanied the mother to the credit union as they withdrew money, and alleged credit union staff knew that Andrea was committing illegal acts. After a while, Andrea began making withdrawals from their bank, account at the ATM without the mother present. She was only caught when a bank teller refused to let her deposit a personalized bank check belonging to the mother. The credit union denied that it knew any of the withdrawals weren't for legitimate purposes. In September 2017, two months after Andrea's sentencing to eight and a half years in prison, the mother and son dropped their claim. In December 2017,

Andrea asked a judge to be released from jail on bail while her appeal made its way through the justice system. The bail hearing was postponed until March 2018, where her lawyer Greg Brodsky argued that her sentence was extraordinarily harsh. Quote, if there is no homicide here, we don't need such a severe sentence. Crown Attorney Jennifer Mann responded by saying, quote, we are dealing with very serious offences here. We will never know how these babies died. The judge reserved his decision on the bail without setting a date. Regardless of whether Andrea Giesbrecht gets bail or not,

her appeal is still coming down the pipeline, so this is not the last the court system will hear from her. After the trial and all the witness testimonies, we seem to be left with more questions than answers. It seems the only person who knows the truth about what really happened to those six babies is Andrea Giesbrecht. Thanks for listening. Come and join me in the Facebook discussion group to talk about this case, what happened and what we think may have happened.

Just search for Canadian True Crime on Facebook. I wanted to thank Taylor again for recommending this case to me, what a minefield it's turned out to be. And also, if you're one of the ones that has left me a review on Apple Podcasts or my Facebook page, thank you so much for that too. It really does help the show. This week's podcast suggestion is The DoFiles. If you like unsolved cases, this one is for you.

You'll know the host, Ellie, from The Insight Podcast. Hello, dear listeners. My name is Ali, and I'm the host of a new investigative series, The Doe Files. a series out of respect for those who have managed to slip between the cracks. Those who have lived through so much pain, and yet there was little closure or justice for them or their families. They are given numbers, nicknames, mainly loosely based on John and Jane Doe. They have their own Wikipedia pages, and they have faces.

But unfortunately, for whatever reason, we still don't know who they are. The Doe Falls hopes to give these victories, a voice and a chance for us to try and learn more about them and who they may be. The Do Foles is a production of Insight podcast. First episode, we will learn more about Little Miss Lake Panzer Coffee. Listen from March 2nd on iTunes or your favourite podcast app. This week I'm saying a big thank you to these patrons. Helen F. Kevin C. A. Campbell.

Autumn. Jessica. Christine A. ES and Bella from the Creepsville podcast. Check that one out. She's from Brisbane where I'm from and I actually met up with her when I was there in November. She is lovely. This episode of the Canadian True Crime podcast was researched and written by me with audio production by Eric Crosby. I'll be back soon with another Canadian true crime story. I'll see you then.