#361 Jason Flom with Audrey Edmunds

In the fall of nineteen ninety five, Audrey Edmunds was running a small in home daycare center in Wannakee, Wisconsin. One of the children she cared for was a seven month old girl named Natalie Beard, who had a troubling health history, both known and unknown, in addition to fussiness when it came to feeding. On the morning of October sixteenth, nineteen ninety five, as per usual, Natalie was set up in a car seat in a quiet room with a

That trial.

Medical experts testified with certainty that Natalie's death was not the result of an accident, but rather recent intentional forceful conduct and the most recent caregiver was Audrey Edmunds. With the stresses of childcare, it's easy to believe that something inside Audrey could have snapped. But this is wrongful conviction.

Good morning.

Likewise, you know, we've covered shaking baby syndrome or SPS, not only a this show, but also in depth on wrongful conviction junk science. When our host Josh Dubin spoke with Kate Judson, the executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences, and we've been asking her to join us when we cover a case like yours. But since the co founder of that organization, Keith Finley, was your post conviction attorney, We're going to give Kate the

Thanks so much, Jason, glad to be with you now.

I know you know a lot about this hypothesis, which masquerades day in and day out as a decided science.

Shake and baby syndrome is. As its founder, doctor Norman guth Kelch referred to it repeatedly, It's a hypothesis, that's all it is.

It's a hypothesis, right, And the hypothesis was that violently shaking an infant could cause the brain to sort of slosh around back and forth inside of the skull, which would in turn cause the bridging veins of the brain and eyes to tear and bleed inside the coverings of the brain and retinas, in addition to brain swelling, ultimately resulting in the triad of findings for which doctor gotth Kelch was trying to figure out, try to solve, and

This hypothesis has never, as guth Kelch himself said late in his life, has never been scientifically validated, and it's for a very very good reason. It's nearly impossible to do the kind of validation studies that would be required to really test this scientifically, you need to do randomized controlled studies, But for obvious ethical reasons, you can't shake a certain group of infants and compare them to a group of infants who are not shaken.

Right, if this hypothesis was to be believed, then you not not only be submitting these infants to abuse, but also what a proponent of SBS would believe is almost a certain death. However, there have been studies over time that have been able to disprove the hypothesis without shaking infants, and those revelations come down to what other injuries would also have to be present. In addition to the triad of findings.

The thing that really informs this is biomechanical research. Biomechanics is the study of the effects of force applied to the body, and what the biomechanical research shows consistently is that the most vigorous shaking that a human being can generate comes nowhere close to meeting the injury thresholds estimated in these kinds of cases, and if sufficient forces could be generated, that force would have to travel from the chest through the neck to the brain. The weak link

And it has since been proven that there are a multitude of other potential causes of the so called.

Triad, everything ranging from choking to inherited conditions, coagulopathies, childhood stroke, accidental falls, you name it. There's just so many of them that there's simply no way that a physician can, so to speak, diagnosis on the basis of the triad or associated findings. And yet that's exactly what they did in Audrey's case.

Pers and so many others, because antithetical to the scientific method, doctors at that time were trained in medical school to just jump to this false conclusion each and every time they saw that triad of findings. But before this happened to you, Audrey, let's go back. Tell us about what your life was like.

I grew up in Hudson, Wisconsin. I have three brothers. My dad was a teacher. My mom was a stay at home mom. We had a very middle class life. We had a small home, we had one bathroom. We worked when we were old enough too. I had done a lot of babysitting, dog sitting.

So you were predisposed of being a caregiver even as a teenager. And what did you do after high school?

I started a job in the Saint Paul area right out of high school. And then I was married when I was almost twenty eight years old, and within a year we had moved to Ohio, and in Ohio is where I had my first child, Carrie.

And then when Carrie was still a toddler, your family moved to Wannakee, Wisconsin, where you went back to childcare. How did that come about?

As much as I enjoyed working, I really enjoyed and wanted to be a stay at home mom. And we were in a young neighborhood with lots of small children. People started asking me from time to time if I would watch their children, And that is how this all started for me, having children come to my house to take care of them. And I loved it.

I mean, it all sounds wonderful. And you had two little ones of your own by that time, and you were expecting your third, So how great is that to be able to be with them full time while also providing this much needed service to your community and to other parents in the area. So tell me a little bit about your day care facility.

We had a large ranch house, a kitchen in the center of the house. I had the master bedroom to the far left and two other bedrooms in a bathroom on the right hand side. And I was not a licensed daycare since I didn't have several children every day, I took people as needed.

And one of the families you helped was the Beards and their seven month old daughter, Natalie, who tragically passed away on October sixteenth, nineteen ninety five. Were there any potential warning signs regarding her.

Health Natalie's parents, this was their first child. They'd had a lot of problems with her fussiness and either taken her to the doctor or called the doctor twenty five times in her twenty seven weeks of life.

Wow, twenty five doctor visits. That's a doctor visit a week pretty much.

That's correct. And then also, Natalie, unfortunately was not able to roll over on her tummy. She couldn't prop herself up with her arms as most children do at that age. She couldn't hold her own bottle, and ever since I started taking care of her, she had a real hard time sucking, and I had asked her mom about that because most babies at that age they will take down six to seven ounces in five to seven minutes, and

I mean, most of our artis probably at some point have been a baby, and as you may have experienced, if the baby isn't feeling well or has some other stuff going on, it can be hard for them to maintain focus while feeding. So anything else notable about the lead up to that awful, faithful day.

Yes, she had not been at my house since the previous Wednesday, so I hadn't seen her for four days. The previous Wednesday, after she'd been at my house, they took her into the doctor the next morning because they said she was fussy, and the doctor treated her with

And nose, And had head scans been a regular practice back then, we might have known what was happening inside Natalie before it was too late for both her and for you. As it turns out, as these findings manifested and took her life while she was in your care.

And it's proven these symptoms can take hours, if not days, to manifest before there's an outward symptom, as it did happen in my care.

But at that time, the most recent caregiver was almost always the one who was blamed. So let's talk about that morning. It was around seven thirty am on October sixteenth, nineteen ninety five, when Cindy Beard dropped Natalie off.

That morning, the mother could not get her to take her bottle, and babies should be hungry when they haven't eaten for eight to ten hours. But I knew that she was a very sensitive baby to noise, to any little jolting, and that's why I decided to put her away from the noise of the rest of the house.

Audrey tried to comb the child by propping her up in a quiet bedroom in a car seat with a bottle, and she then went to ten to other children in her care, and within less than an hour, when she checked on Natalie, she found the child to be unresponsive, turning blue.

I thought that she was choking, and I propped her upright against my body. I'm patting her on the back. She's not responding, and I run outside with her in my arm, screaming for a neighbor lady who comes down, and I'm babbling telling her what's going on, and she's saying, you've got to call nine one one.

The nine one one call itself is really revealing from the very get go. Audrey is telling the rescue people that there was all kinds of formula coming out of the infant's nose and mouth, and when paramedics arrived. They said that they noted that there was formula coming out of the child. They said they found a child who had aspirated formula and it appeared by all accounts to be a choking incident.

So the paramedics also noted that Natalie's pupils were fixed and dilated and she was taking short breaths. She was flown to University Hospital in Madison, where tragically she died that very night. A forensic pathologist named doctor Robert Huntington performed the autopsy, which revealed extensive brain damage, dual retinal hemorrhaging, bleeding in the coverings of the brain, and bruising on her scalp. So the bleeds represent part of the triad, But what about the bruise.

They couldn't say the timing of it. It was maybe fresh, but how fresh is for rush? Is it two hours? Is it two days?

Could that have happened in transit to the hospital or while this little child was struggling to survive? What did Huntington make of that?

Doctor Huntington said he thought it was too small to be of any consequence, and therefore he concluded this had to have been shaking right.

Huntington ruled out accidental injury, saying that it was quote intentional forceful conduct directed specifically at Natalie. But this murder diagnosi is completely ignored not only her medical history that we've already discussed, but also what should have been a big red flag at the autopsy.

Their own brain scans showed that this child had a chronic subdural hematoma, meaning previous episode of bleeding around the brain. That's well established in the medical research. The chronic subdural hematomas are very susceptible to rebleeding based on very little additional trauma, or sometimes no trauma, just spontaneously like a

And these kinds of earlier bleeds are sometimes written off as proof of previous abuse. But since they also believed that violence shaking caused an immediate demise in the SPS proponent's mind, perhaps the alleged previous abuse wasn't forceful enough to kill. But now the alleged repeat offender, the most recent caregiver had just finally been caught by way of the child's death, and that puts the onus on you, Audrey. Now did you get the sense that Natalie's parents believed this as well?

So Cindy called me at noontime that day, and she was very compassionate to me, asked me what happened. She was very concerned. I went to the hospital that afternoon, short after four, and we hugged and we both cried, and I talked to her and I told her how much I cared and how much I had tried to help Natalie that morning. She was very kind to me, and then once the prosecution went on the witch hunt after me, they told her not to speak to me anymore.

So when did this witch hunt, as you so aptly called it, begin, or when were you made aware of it?

I had no clue that anything was trying to be held against me until January. I was just talking to anybody that came to talk to me. The chief of police who had come to my house earlier, mister Geezy, he was very very kind. I just answered whatever questions, showed them anything they wanted to see. They took photos, and I thought this was just regular protocol.

Typically, we see this diagnosis at the autopsy quickly turned into an accusation, charges and arrest, but that didn't materialize until five months later, on March nineteenth, nineteen ninety six. Now you were charged with first degree reckless homicide. As I mentioned earlier, you had two kids of your own and one more on the way. Perhaps they were waiting for that baby to arrive before bringing you in. I don't know. I mean just thinking about you having to

It was horrible. My youngest was one month old. I had no clue why this was even happening, why I was charged, what they thought happened. I was so so scared, but yet I kept thinking, well, nothing happened, so everything will be okay.

And I was wrong. This episode is underwritten by global law firm Greenberg Trowig through its pro bono program. Greenberg Trowig leverages its more than twenty six hundred lawyers across forty four offices to serve the greater good of our communities and provide equal access to justice for all. In the field of criminal justice. Greenberg Trowrig attorneys have exonerated

This is what we call a science dependent prosecution. The science, the medicine, the expert testimony comprised the entire case. It's almost unique in the law in that sense. There are really three things the prosecution had to prove. One is what's known as the actus reus, what happened. The medical professionals would come in and say, we can tell you

So the trial began on November eighteenth, nineteen ninety six. The judge was Daniel Moser, and the prosecutor was to Da Dretchen Hayward. And the star witness for the prosecution was doctor Robert Huntington, the forensic pathologists who had done the autopsy.

He was joined in his testimony by a number of other doctors, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, a range of others who were uniform in their opinion that, as they said, nothing could cause this triad of findings except violent shaking.

So what did Audrey's defense attorney Steve Hurley present the counter all of that combined so called medical expertise.

The defense called their own expert witness, but reflecting how early this is in the life story, of the shaking baby center hypothesis. At that point, there was virtually no one who was challenging or disputing the hypothesis itself. So at the trial, all of the prosecution's witnesses were of one voice, were unanimous this had to be shaking, and

Audrey, what about Natalie's mother, Cindy Beard. You mentioned that she didn't seem to blame you when Natalie was taken to the hospital. In fact, she expressed kindness and understanding. As you recall. Did she testify at the trial.

Yes, she did. I don't recall a whole lot about it. She had a hard time, of course, when Steve Hurley cross examined her and talked to her about Natalie's pre existing conditions. He was gentle around it, but he had some good, strong topics.

The prosecutors basically told them that Audrey murdered your child, and despite the absurdity of that claim, that's what they led them to believe. And so I think that used an inevitable hostility. And who wouldn't be angry if you were told that your baby was murdered by someone? Right?

And other than the defenses expert Audrey, who else testified on your behalf.

A lot of people thankfully came to my defense because they had seen me with Natalie day after day when I had her. I interacted with a lot of moms and neighbors, and they would see when she would cry, and I'd pick her up, and I'd pat her and I'd comfort her, just little things like that.

So, if I can just add Jason, the defense was built a lot on the notion that this was just absurd to think that Audrey, with this sterling track record, would have snapped in less than an hour of caring for Natalie. After not having cared for her for four or five days, Stan snapped to the point of violently shaking her to death.

Nonetheless, with that bevy of tuber confident medical expert testimony, it doesn't appear that even a sterling track record made a bit of difference to the jury. On November twenty sixth, nineteen ninety six.

The courtroom was full. Both sides had a lot of supporters, family friends, and the closing arguments were horrifying. When Gretchen Hayward still wants to talk like she was standing in my kitchen that day telling how I had shaken this child and bonked her head against a wall. And then the jury had some questions about first degree reckless homicide

Well, I'm glad to hear that. And meanwhile, you were doing literally everything you could possibly do to prove your innocence. Now, in two thousand and two, your first appeal was denied, and then in two thousand and three, Keith and the Wisconsin Innocence Project got involved. Now, from what I understand, Audrey's case was your introduction to the SBS hypothesis and eventually inspired you to start the Center for Integrity and Forensic Science. But at that time, knowing very little about

It was a high profile case here, so we all knew about the case and knew that it was a controversial conviction from the beginning. And her lawyer, Steve Hurley, is a really outstanding lawyer, and her appellate lawyer was Dean Strang, who many of you may remember as one of Steve and Avery's lawyers in the Netflix Docuseriies Making

And so the medical examiner actually admitted that he was wrong. That's huge.

He also said that having research this further, there was now emerging, growing body of research that was challenging the very hypothesis itself. And he therefore said he could no longer be confident with his testimony that this child was shaken at all. And so we reached out to doctor Huntington and said we were working with Audrey Edmonds. The first thing he said, first thing out of his mouth, was oh, Audrey Edmunds, what are we going to do about Audrey Edmonds?

So in two thousand and seven you got an evidentiary hearing in which you presented, among several expert witnesses, doctor Huntington himself.

Doctor Huntington was courageous and forthright, and he on the witness stand, and he acknowledged that he was no longer comfortable with the testimony he had offered at Audrey's trial. One he said he could no longer stand by his testimony that the injury almost certainly happened within two hours of the child's collapse. Elucid interval was possible, so he

Much refuting his own very damning testimony at the original trial, and to back him up, you had five other expert witnesses, all prominent physicians and pediatric neurosurgeons.

In response, the state called four experts, most of whom had testified at the trial originally. And what we showed through the course of this was that there indeed can be elucid interval, that a child so injured can experience a period where they are alert and responsive for hours,

And yet after you had established all of this updated scientific evidence, the original trial judge, Daniel Moser, was not persuaded.

He denied the motion and basically said, I believe the state's experts more.

Yeah, sounds like you gave that a lot of thought. But of course you appealed, which brings us up to January thirty first, two thousand and eight.

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judge and said that Audrey had indeed presented newly discovered evidence in the form of new medical research that created a probability that at a retrial she would be acquitted. And they said the trial judge had legally aired by applying the wrong standard by substituting his own judgment about the guilty innocence for that of the jury, and therefore Audrey was entitled to a new trial. Conviction vacated.

Hey man, that was a great day.

That was a great day.

I believe it. Audrey. Can you tell me about those first moments on February sixth, two thousand and eight, when you found out you were finally going.

To be released.

It was awesome. It was a snowy day. I'm working on this auto part scrapping line and my supervisor's supervisor comes to me and says, Audrey, I have gotten a call and you can legally come to my office to take a telephone call. And at first I was like, oh no, I can't do that. I was scared to death. You don't touch a telephone. You don't even think about touching a telephone because that's a form of escape. I'm this close to getting out, I'm not going to do anything.

By the way, there's this iconic, beautiful photograph of Audrey. I believe in the parking lot meeting with meeting with her friends, being reunited with them, with the snowstorm swirling around them and the wind blowing, and they're all reaching out to hug each other. It's just such pure joys. It makes it all amazing.

And I have to say on one thing, the prosecutor did say that they had contacted the parents and neither one objected to my release, because had they objected, I could have been having to go back to County jail until the July hearing. So that was a big plus.

Right, So although you were out, you were still in legal limbo until that hearing.

Once Audrey's conviction was overturned and the prosecution was thinking about whether to retry them, and then ultimately when they dismissed the charges, the prosecution continued to insist publicly and to tell the parents that Audrey had murdered their child, even though they no longer had any proof, no evidence, And to me, that was just morally indefensible. It was such a harmful thing to do to everyone, as a prosecutor,

Yeah, it was. It was atrocious. I've never expected and I'm sorry for them, but I wish they would be big enough to say the truth that the medical evidence does not support the charge.

But they did dismiss the case on July eleventh, two thousand eight, and you were finally exonerated of these completely ludicrous, false and unjust charges and able to return to your family at last. And I have to ask, I'm sure everyone's wondering, how are you doing now? And how are your kids because they were, in a sense in prison with you during your entire ordeal, doing their own sort of time because of this horrible persecution.

And they're good. They all have very good jobs. Two of them are married. I just found out that my baby is pregnant, so I will have two grand babies.

Yeah, congratulations.

I just saw my middle one over the weekend. She lives in Iowa and she will be taking her boards to be a licensed practical nurse. And I'm just super thankful that they are doing well. I'm sure they have a scar from this. They don't hardly talk about it. I think it's just too hard for them. But they know that there are things still going on in my life that I speak out like I am today, and I'm grateful that there's just more and more awareness of these wrongful convictions.

And you've also written a memoir called It Happened to Audrey, A terrifying journey from loving mom to accuse baby killer. We're going to put a link to that at our bio. I'm going to order a copy, I hope everybody does. And Keith, you've also co authored a book along with a number of leading experts in this field, which is coming out very soon. I've already ordered this one, by the way, the book is called Shaken Baby Syndrome, Investigating

Yeah, Audrey's case. In the end, the whole topic of shaking baby syndrome represents what is all too common and wrongful convictions, and that is a rush to judgment, an unquestioning acceptance of expertise and authorities even when they are flawed, and a real vindictiveness and sort of the punitive nature of the culture we live in that you know, when a baby dies, somebody's got to pay for it, and

In the meantime, just please be aware if you're around a jury, really listen to truth and facts, no matter how many witnesses one side has versus the other, use some common sense, know the facts, know the truth, know the validity of any witness. Really be open minded. Just because somebody is charged doesn't mean they have done the appropriate investigation and know all the facts of the case. And especially in cases like mine, please please look at

Thank you for listening to wrongful conviction. I want to thank our production team, Connor Hall, any Chelsea Lyla Robinson, Jeff Cleburn, and Kevin Warris. The music in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow me on both