Infants could have been born alive, pathologist tells Giesbrecht trial

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 30/08/2016 (3355 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The six infants whose remains were found in Andrea Giesbrecht’s storage unit were developed to full term — all between 34 to 40 weeks — and could have been born alive, but the bodies were too decomposed to determine the causes of death.

Those was the findings revealed in provincial court Tuesday by Dr. Michael Pollanen, a forensic pathologist who is the chief resident pathologist in Ontario.

Court heard Pollanen conducted a peer review Jan. 29, 2015, on the remains of six infants found in October 2014, in a storage unit Andrea Giesbrecht had rented on McPhillips Street. A peer review is when another expert conducts an examination and reviews the findings of the first expert.

Giesbrecht, 42, is charged with six counts of concealing a child’s body. Giesbrecht was in court, seated behind her lawyer, Greg Brodsky. Her hair is now dark in colour, in a straight cut with bangs.

Court was held Tuesday in a smaller court room to facilitate video testimony.

Pollanen said he used measurements of the femur, or thigh bone, on each body to establish “gestational age.” He physically examined each of the six infant remains and reviewed the previous autopsies. No injuries were found on any of them.

He said the first infant was aged 38-42 weeks and he was able to dissect the face and back of the neck to “determine if any injuries had occurred.” The second infant was aged 35-39 weeks but the body was too decomposed to make any further determinations. The third infant was largely skeletal remains and was 35-38 weeks in age. The fourth infant’s face and neck were able to be examined for injuries and was aged 36-40 weeks. The fifth infant’s remains were skeletal but was determined to be aged 34-27 weeks. The six infant was somewhat decomposed but a dissection of the face and neck was done and the age was 34-37 weeks.

During examination by Crown attorney Debbie Buors, Pollanen said he was able to determine that infants one, four and six did not appear to have birth defects but the others were inconclusive due to decomposition. He said infants one and six still had placentas attached.

He gave his opinion of all six infant remains “that they were sufficiently developed to be born alive.” However, because of “the state of the bodies, in terms of decomposition was such that it was not possible to determine whether they were born alive or stillborn.” He said the state of the remains and the degree of decomposition did not allow for the cause of death to be determined.

Pollanen outlined five theories as to the infants’ causes of death including stillborn, death during the delivery process, death shortly after birth due to inadequate care such as hypothermia, or the killing of a live born infant by means such as drowning, smothering or strangulation. He gave the fifth theory as “other miscellaneous” to take in any scenarios he many not have included.

“What about putting a baby in a white, kitchen catcher bag and knotting it on top. Would that be a possible way of killing a baby?” Buors asked.

“Yes,” Pollanen said.

On cross examination, Brodsky asked Pollanen specifically about several possible scenarios that could have resulted in infants being dead, such as a birth unattended by medical personnel or all the infants being stillborn. Pollanen said, “I could not exclude that” for all of them.

“One possibility is as equal as another?” Brodsky asked, to which Pollanen agreed.

Later, Dr. Katherine Lynne Gruspier, a forensic anthropologist from Ontario, testified based on her examination of the six infant remains that no injuries were found, no causes of death were found and it could not be determined when the infants’ deaths occurred.

Court was adjourned for the day to give lawyer Amanda Sansregret time to meet with her new client, Andrea’s husband, Jeremy Giesbrecht. He did not have a lawyer until Legal Aid appointed Sansregret late Monday.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Jeremy Giesbrecht was to be called by the Crown to testify Tuesday afternoon but needs advice from a lawyer regarding spousal privilege – what he can and cannot testify based on conversations with his wife.

Sansregret appeared in court briefly Tuesday morning and said she only had the case for a few hours and had not been able to meet with her client. She asked for time.

When court resumes Wednesday, the law relating to spousal privilege is expected to be discussed.

ashley.prest@freepress.mb.ca