Audrey Edmunds
51:20 Share

To get this episode of Forensic Tales ad-free, please visit patreon.com slash Forensic Tales. Forensic Tales discusses topics that some listeners may find disturbing. The contents of this episode may not be suitable for everyone. Listener discretion is advised. At 725 a.m. on October 16th, 1995, Cindy Beard dropped her six-month-old Natalie off at the babysitter.

Natalie was a little grumpier than usual, but Audrey was an experienced babysitter and a mother of three. She took the baby girl, gave her a bottle, and left her to rest in the bedroom. Moments later, Audrey returns, and the nightmare begins. Natalie is unresponsive. Paramedics airlifted the baby to the hospital, but they were too late. Six-month-old Natalie died that night.

This is Forensic Tales, episode number 168, The Audrey Edmond Story. ♪♪ ♪♪

Welcome to Forensic Tales. I'm your host, Courtney Fretwell-Ariola. Forensic Tales is a weekly true crime podcast covering real, spine-tingling stories with a forensic science twist. Some cases have been solved with forensic science, while others have turned cold. Every remarkable story sends us a chilling reminder that not all stories have happy endings.

As a one-woman show, your support helps me find new compelling cases, conduct in-depth fact-based research, and produce and edit this weekly show. As a thank you for supporting this show, you'll get early ad-free access to weekly episodes, shout-outs and episodes, priority on case suggestions, and access to weekly bonus episodes.

To support Forensic Tales, please visit patreon.com slash Forensic Tales or simply click the link in the show notes. You can also support this show by leaving a positive rating with a review. Now, let's get to this week's episode. At around 725 a.m. on October 16th, 1995, Cindy Beard dropped her six-month-old daughter, Natalie Beard, off at her babysitter's house.

Since Cindy gave birth to Natalie and returned back to work, she dropped her baby off at a neighbor's house to watch her. The neighbor was 34-year-old Audrey Edmonds, a stay-at-home mom who babysat neighborhood children in her Wanakee, Wisconsin home while pregnant with her and her husband's third baby.

Babysitting neighborhood kids was a good job for Audrey. She got to stay home with her two kids and earn a little extra money for the family while her husband went to work each day. It was a great help to moms in the neighborhood who needed someone to watch their kids while they went to work, like Cindy Beard. When Cindy got to Audrey's house that morning, she told Audrey that Natalie had been a little fussy. She was a little fussier than usual that day.

Cindy said that she'd been up twice the night before and only drank half her bottle that morning. But Cindy chalked it up to her just simply not feeling well that morning, and she would probably calm down later that morning. Besides being a little cranky and not finishing her morning bottle, everything else was normal about her baby. She didn't mention anything about her being sick or acting differently. So after Cindy dropped Natalie off with Audrey, she went to work.

like every morning during the week. But that morning was unlike any other morning, because after she dropped Natalie off, she would never see her six-month-old baby alive again. As Cindy was leaving Audrey's house, another parent showed up to drop his daughter off at Audrey's house for the day, James Hennings.

A few minutes after James dropped his daughter off and left, Audrey put Natalie in the master bedroom, propped the bottle in her mouth, and left the room to get her daughters dressed for the day. She figured Natalie just needed to finish the rest of her morning bottle and she would calm down and stop being so fussy. Over the next half hour, she checked on Natalie once and all was fine.

But when she returned about 20 minutes later to get Natalie dressed for the walk to preschool at 8.35 a.m., she knew something was seriously wrong. Natalie was making strange noises that she had never heard before, and when she picked her up, formula dribbled out her nose and her mouth. Audrey quickly realized Natalie wasn't well. She was limp and almost totally unresponsive.

At 8.41 a.m., Audrey dialed 911 and said that a baby she was babysitting was unresponsive and she needed help. Initially, she thought Natalie was choking on something. Four minutes later, at 8.44 a.m., police and paramedics arrived at the house. When they arrived, first responders immediately started CPR on the baby.

They first noticed that Natalie's eyes were dilated and she seemed to be having trouble breathing, but she was still alive. Once paramedics had done everything possible, Natalie was airlifted to the nearest trauma center, University Hospital in Madison. But the help at the hospital came too late. The emergency room doctors were unable to save her. Six-month-old Natalie Beard died later that night.

As soon as Natalie was rushed to University Hospital in Madison, police officers arrived at Audrey's front doorstep. They needed to know everything that happened during the small window of time that Natalie was under her care. Everyone wanted to know what could have possibly happened to a seemingly healthy baby in about an hour.

Her mom dropped her off at the babysitter's around 7.30 a.m., and by 8.41 a.m., 911 was called. So what happened? Well, according to Audrey, Natalie's babysitter, she didn't know. Her story seemed to line up with what everyone else said. Cindy dropped Natalie off around 7.30 a.m., and she was a little fussy.

Audrey took her inside and put her in the master bedroom so that she could finish her morning bottle. And another parent dropped his child off that morning. It was simply a typical morning. But when Audrey returned to check on Natalie, she wasn't breathing. So she had no idea what could have happened in such a small window of time. But the emergency room physicians who worked on Natalie that night weren't too sure about Audrey's story.

Although Natalie didn't appear to have any visible injuries like cuts or bruises, it looked like Natalie had been abused. A few days after she died, a medical examiner performed Natalie's autopsy. They wanted to see what, if any, underlying medical conditions she had that would cause her to die so suddenly. And what they found during this initial autopsy was gut-wrenching.

The medical examiner who performed Natalie's autopsy found that she had suffered extensive brain damage. Some of her injuries included extensive retinal hemorrhaging in both of her eyes. She had retinal folds due to the retinas being torn from the back of her eyes. She had significant bruising to the top of her scalp. In other words, she had a lot of bleeding in her brain.

The medical examiner said that the bleeding in her brain was consistent with someone being involved in a massive car accident or falling from a second-story window. According to this medical examiner, Natalie sustained fatal head and brain injuries at only 6 months old and 22 pounds. But how exactly did little Natalie sustain these types of serious brain injuries?

When her mom turned her over to the babysitters, she was fine except for being a little fussy. But what six-month-old baby isn't fussy at times or doesn't want to finish their entire morning bottle of formula right away? Plus, when Natalie was turned over to the babysitter, she had no visible injuries to her body. She also had no injuries when she arrived at the emergency room. All of Natalie's injuries were internal and weren't discovered until the autopsy.

So how does this happen? Well, according to the medical examiner, none of the injuries Natalie sustained could have resulted from an accident. So in other words, although the head injuries were consistent with a car accident or fall from a second story window, we know that's not what happened.

So according to the medical examiner, there was only one other possible explanation, SBS or shaken baby syndrome. The term shaken baby syndrome, sometimes called abusive head trauma, is the most common cause of death or serious injury resulting from child abuse. This diagnosis first got its name in the mid-1970s in the U.S., and it's still used today to describe infant and child abuse.

In many cases of shaken baby syndrome, you don't see any visible signs of trauma or abuse on the baby. You don't see any bruises like you'd expect to see if a baby was hit. Instead, most trauma occurs internally on parts of the head and brain.

Over the years, doctors and researchers have identified many complications associated with shaken baby syndrome, like seizures, vision problems, cognitive impairment, and in severe cases, death. According to one study, one in every four babies who became a victim of SBS died, and nearly three in 10,000 babies each year experience this type of abuse in the U.S.,

Most of the kids are younger than five years old, so it might be a little bit more common than you think. When thinking of shaken baby syndrome, most people assume the parent or caregiver shakes the baby, and that's what causes head trauma. But shaking isn't the only cause of SPS. Blunt force trauma to a baby's head can cause similar SPS symptoms. And in other cases, it might be a combination of both, both blunt force trauma and shaking.

According to many studies, the most common cause of SBS is the parent or caregiver's frustration. The caregiver becomes frustrated because the baby won't eat, sleep, or stop crying, and they shake the baby so that they will stop crying or fussing. But sometimes the shaking goes too far, and the baby experiences head trauma like brain bleeds, skull fractures, or soft tissue damage.

But diagnosing SPS is challenging, and not all medical professionals agree on what type of injuries qualify as SPS and which do not. It's especially difficult when the injuries can also be attributed to something else besides SPS. In other words, the injuries can look similar to another medical condition or could have been caused by an event other than shaking head trauma.

And they are bleeding in the retinas of the eyes, bleeding under the dural matter of the brain, and brain swelling. These three symptoms are usually called the triad of symptoms associated with almost every case of shaken baby syndrome.

In Natalie's case, the medical examiner noted all three symptoms in the autopsy. She had bleeding in the retinas of her eyes. She had bleeding under the dural matter of her brain. And she had a significant amount of brain swelling.

And without any other explanation for the injuries, the examiner concluded that Natalie had to have been shaken. And that's when the intention turned towards Natalie's caregiver, 34-year-old Audrey Edmonds. Five months after Natalie's death, Audrey was arrested on March 19, 1996. She was arrested and charged with first-degree reckless homicide.

Prosecutors alleged that Audrey became frustrated with Natalie after she wouldn't stop crying. Her frustration and anger got the best of her, and she shook Natalie, causing bleeding and head trauma. The shaking was so severe that it resulted in Natalie's death. Prosecutors believed they had enough evidence to arrest and charge Audrey with reckless homicide.

Under Wisconsin law, someone can be charged with reckless homicide if they, quote, recklessly caused the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life, end quote. Essentially, prosecutors believe Audrey acted in such a way that displayed a total disregard for Natalie's life. And due to that behavior, the baby under her care died.

But Audrey said the prosecutors were wrong. According to Audrey, she never shook or hit Natalie while she was under her care. She stuck to her story that everything was fine when her mom dropped her off that morning. And she only left Natalie alone for a little while as she helped the other kids get ready for school that day. Then when she returned back to the room where Natalie was, she said she was limp and unresponsive.

According to the Wisconsin prosecutors, Audrey had to have been the one who caused Natalie's injuries. Immediately after her death, investigators questioned Natalie's parents, and according to them, they didn't find any evidence that they had ever physically abused their baby.

And because Natalie died while under Audrey's care, the only other explanation, in their opinion, was that Audrey had to have done it. But the police and prosecutors didn't just take Natalie's parents' word for it.

According to the police reports, they also questioned many of their family members and friends. And every witness they identified all said Natalie's parents were great and loving. No one ever witnessed them physically abuse Natalie. So according to investigators, the only other possible explanation here was that the babysitter must have done it. Then there was the timing of the injuries.

According to the medical examiner, Natalie's injuries were caused sometime during the 24 hours before she was pronounced dead. That meant that the bleeding and swelling happened within a relatively short amount of time. But when Natalie's mom dropped her off at Audrey's house that morning, she was fine, except for being a little more fussy than usual. She appeared to be in perfect health.

According to the medical examiner, it would have been highly unlikely that she would have seemed normal the following day if she had been shaken so badly the night before. Bad enough to cause this type of hemorrhaging. So if Natalie's parents had done the shaking, she would not have been able to make it to Audrey's house the following day.

Do you know what I don't miss at all? That vicious week before my period each month. If you're anything like me, that week is a complete nightmare. I'm craving the worst kind of food, like fast food and candy, and I just feel off. I don't feel like myself. But now, it's so much easier to manage my PMS with Estro Control. Happy Mammoth, the company that created Hormone Harmony, is dedicated to making women's lives easier.

And that means using only science-backed ingredients that have been proven to work for women. They make no compromise when it comes to quality. And it shows. And the biggest benefit? Feeling like myself again. That's what women mention over and over in their reviews. And there are over 17,000 reviews for Hormone Harmony.

For a limited time, you can get 15% off your entire first order at HappyMammoth.com. Just use the code TAILS at checkout. That's HappyMammoth.com and use code TAILS for 15% off today. After Audrey was arrested on first-degree reckless homicide charges in March of 1996, she remained in jail until her trial began in December 1997.

By that point, Dane County, Wisconsin prosecutors felt like they had the medical and the forensic evidence on their side. Assistant District Attorney Gretchen Hayward was the lead prosecutor assigned to the case. Throughout the trial, she presented several expert witnesses who testified that six-month-old Natalie had been a victim of shaken baby syndrome.

Many of the experts even went as far to say that Natalie's case was a, quote, hallmark case of SBS. All the experts testified that she had all the key symptoms of SBS, the triad, brain swelling, brain hemorrhaging, and retinal hemorrhaging. And based on the medical evidence available back in the mid-1990s, no other injuries could have caused these three symptoms to happen simultaneously.

So because she had all three, Natalie had to have been a victim of shaken baby syndrome. And since she became unresponsive almost immediately after the shaking, the last person to have physical care of her must have done it.

And in this case, the prosecution's forensic experts alleged that the last person to physically be present with Natalie before she became unresponsive was the babysitter, Andre. Natalie's prior medical records were also an essential part of the trial. The prosecution needed to convince the jury that no other medical condition could have caused this diagnosis.

If the injuries were related to something else, that could open the door to another possible cause of death, not SBS. But instead of helping the prosecution, the medical records seem to help Audrey's defense more. Natalie's medical records included dozens of doctor trips over the first and last six months of her life.

She went to the doctor more than a typical infant did. And only a few days before she died, Natalie's parents had taken her in because they were concerned about her being lethargic. She was tired and wasn't moving around as much as a regular healthy six-month-old should. They also said that she seemed a lot fussier and more irritable than usual.

But the biggest concern at these doctor visits was her vomiting. She couldn't keep any of her formula down and had been vomiting for several hours straight. This happened just days before she died. So Audrey's defense lawyers argued that these doctor visits and symptoms were also a sign of a possible brain injury.

If Natalie had been lethargic, irritable, and vomiting for several days before she died, she could have sustained the injuries long before she showed up at Audrey's house that morning. And if that's true, the brain injuries didn't happen that morning, and Audrey didn't shake her. But the prosecution had its own opinion about the medical records.

According to the prosecution, the records were irrelevant. They were irrelevant because in their narrative, Natalie had clearly been shaken to death. The previous doctor visits of vomiting and irritability were completely unrelated to being shaken.

Natalie's defense lawyers could only find one pediatric neurologist expert to testify that the injuries could have been caused earlier before Natalie was at Audrey's house.

This expert testified that it was possible that she had sustained the injuries the day before and only started showing symptoms hours later. And if that was true, this meant the injuries happened hours before she was dropped off at Audrey's house. Although the defense only had one expert testify, it was still an important part of their case. This expert testimony creates reasonable doubt.

A pediatric expert said there were other explanations for her condition. The injuries could have happened hours or even days before. And again, if that's true, shaken baby syndrome isn't the only possible cause of death here.

In a criminal trial, all the defense has to do is create a reasonable doubt in the jury's minds. Andre's lawyers didn't have to find a forensic expert who could say specifically what happened to Natalie. All they needed was one expert to say, hey, there are other possible explanations here. Explanations other than shaken baby syndrome.

And if the defense can do that, they create reasonable doubt. In this case, Audrey's defense expert argued that the injuries could have happened before she arrived at the babysitter's house. Audrey's defense also had several of her friends and neighbors testify. And they all said pretty much the same thing. Audrey was a good person and an even better mother.

When Natalie died, Audrey was a mother of two and expecting her third child. So all of her friends and neighbors took the stand and said that Audrey was a great mother. They never saw her abuse her kids or get frustrated with them. Almost every single one of them said that she was patient with the kids and she was a great neighborhood babysitter.

Probably the most influential witness for the defense were these neighbors and friends besides the pediatric expert because they were all there to testify about Audrey's child care skills.

The defense put on several neighbors to the stand who had Audrey babysit their kids in the past, and every one of them said that she was a great caretaker. They never had any issue with her, let alone an incident involving Audrey becoming abusive with their children. But the prosecution had its own set of character witnesses. These witnesses challenged the defense portrayal of Audrey.

Before the trial began, the prosecution filed a motion saying they planned on presenting evidence about a previous incident that occurred at a library during late 1994 or early 1995. It was evidence of an incident where Audrey allegedly hit a child with a hardcover book over the head. It was a child that she was reportedly babysitting at the time.

Initially, the court denied the prosecution's motion to allow this evidence be presented at trial. Generally speaking, proof of a, quote, prior bad act can negatively sway a jury toward a conviction. A jury might convict the person for being a, quote, unquote, bad person instead of convicting them for a crime that they're on trial for.

In this case, the defense didn't want this evidence to be presented at trial because it would paint Audrey as a bad mom or a bad caretaker. But of course, the prosecution wanted this evidence to be admitted because it showed or it allegedly showed prior child abuse. It showed that Audrey could become frustrated or angry with children.

But the evidence was ultimately ruled admissible, and here's the reason why. Now, initially, the court denied the prosecution's motion. Remember, the prosecution wants this evidence of this incident at the library admitted. The defense doesn't. So initially, the court denied the prosecution's motion. But, and there's a key but here,

After Audrey's defense lawyer said in his opening statement that Audrey was a, quote, good and patient child care provider and told the jury again, quote, you will hear from no one who ever saw Audrey do an unloving act to a child, end quote.

The judge, after this, the judge agreed to let the prosecution present its evidence that suggested that might not be true. And at trial, the jury did hear about the previous incident involving the book and the library. But the trial didn't come down to character witnesses. Of course, this was terrible for Audrey's defense.

But at the end of the day, it didn't come down to character witnesses. It wasn't about, is Audrey a good or a bad mom? Or who had the better character witnesses to testify about what kind of babysitter she was around the neighborhood? Instead, the trial came down to the forensic evidence.

The prosecution's entire case relied on medical and forensic evidence available to them in the mid-1990s. That evidence suggested that Natalie could have only sustained those injuries if she was shaken. Moreover, the prosecution's experts told the jury that after suffering her fatal injuries, Natalie would have had, quote, an immediate and obvious response.

and would not have seemed normal when her mom left her with Audrey. Now, before the case was handed over to the jury, Audrey took the stand in her own defense. Although the medical and forensic evidence was seemingly stacked against her, she wanted the opportunity to tell her side of the story. She wanted to look the jury in the eyes and say, I did not shake that baby.

And that's exactly what she did when she took the stand. But ultimately, the jury didn't believe her. They believed the medical evidence that was presented by the prosecution and that Natalie had been a hallmark for SBS. And Audrey was the last person who was with her. Audrey became frustrated with the baby because she wouldn't stop crying. So she shook her.

and she shook the baby so violently that she caused all the brain damage and bleeding. The damage was equivalent to Natalie falling from a second-story window or being involved in a fatal car crash. After only eight hours of deliberation, the jury returned its verdict on November 26, 1996. They found Audrey guilty of first-degree reckless homicide.

They sided with the prosecution's experts that this was a textbook case of shaken baby syndrome. They believed the forensic evidence supported that finding. Once the jury found Audrey guilty, she was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Although she was found guilty, this was a relatively light sentence for a first-degree reckless homicide charge.

Under Wisconsin law, the maximum penalty is 60 years in prison. But Audrey and her supporters disagreed. In their eyes, her conviction was a gross miscarriage of justice, and 18 years in prison was 18 years too long for an innocent person. After the conviction and sentencing, one of Audrey's neighbors told the Madison Capital Times, quote,

She is such a warm and caring person. I've seen her in some stressful situations and have been impressed with how she dealt with them. There's just no way Audrey could have done something like this. Madison Magazine quoted another person as saying, I never ever even considered she might have done it.

I understand she was the last person with the child, but anyone who knew her knew there was just no way, end quote. But the prosecution completely discounted these interviews. Instead, the prosecution argued that Audrey's friends and neighbors simply didn't know the real Audrey Edmonds because the real Audrey was a baby shaker.

Immediately following her guilty conviction, Audrey began serving her 18-year prison sentence. And as a result of the conviction, she lost custody of her three young children and her marriage fell apart. Almost the entire country believed she was guilty. She was painted to be a monster, a baby shaker, a baby killer, a murderer. You name it, that's what people called her. And you couldn't blame anyone for that.

At the time of her trial in the mid-1990s and for years to come, no one questioned that Natalie had been a victim of shaken baby syndrome. Not one credible medical expert said there was another possible explanation for the injuries. Not one. Three years after her conviction, Audrey filed her first appeal in 1999.

Her appeal was based on three things. Number one, the prosecution didn't fulfill its duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Audrey killed Natalie. Audrey was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide. To find someone guilty of this, the state has to prove that someone acted in a way that completely disregarded human life.

In this case, the state had to prove that Audrey completely disregarded Natalie's life when she was under her care. Number two, Audrey's lawyers argued the court shouldn't have allowed evidence about the prior incident involving the child at the library to be used against her. Remember, at trial, prosecutors told the jury about an alleged incident where Audrey hit a child over the head with a hardback book at a local library.

On appeal, her attorneys argued that this should have never been allowed in court because it negatively influenced the jury. And number three, evidence about Natalie's parents wasn't allowed to be presented. The defense felt like they had enough evidence to suggest that her parents may have caused the abuse and not Audrey. But none of this evidence was allowed to be presented in front of the jury.

The appeal was argued in April 1999, and the decision was issued a few months later in June. But the court didn't side with Audrey. Instead, they agreed with the prosecution. They found that the state did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Audrey acted with a complete disregard for human life and caused Natalie's death.

And they also said the evidence about the previous incident at the library was valid because her attorneys made a comment during opening statements that no one had anything negative to say about Audrey's caregiving abilities. But that wasn't true. At least one witness said that they saw Audrey hit the kid in the library over the head with the book.

So because of the opening statement, because it was Audrey's defense lawyers who brought this up and said, hey, you're not going to find anyone who has a bad word to say about Audrey. Basically, by making that comment, they opened the door for the prosecution to be allowed to present evidence suggesting that that statement wasn't true.

Ultimately, the court sided with the prosecution and agreed to uphold the original conviction. And that's how the case stood for the next seven years. No one argued or challenged the experts' opinions about SBS or Audrey's conviction. Not until 2006. By 2006, Audrey was in her 10th year of her 18-year sentence.

She had spent over a decade behind bars for something that she still maintained didn't happen. But by 2006, there were also significant advancements in our knowledge about shaken baby syndrome. Research on the condition has come a long way over the course of a decade. Many doctors and researchers changed their opinions about SBS. As a direct result of all these changes,

One person became increasingly interested in Audrey's case, Keith Finley, the co-founder of the Wisconsin Innocence Project. As soon as he heard about Audrey's case and all the changes in medical opinions about SPS, he knew he wanted to help with her defense. First, he filed a motion to get her a new trial.

His motion argued that in the decades since her conviction, quote, a large body of new scientific evidence has emerged that supports her claim of innocence, end quote. So he argued that the evidence they used to convict her 10 years ago was no longer valid.

And new evidence has emerged over the years suggesting that not all experts agree on symptoms associated with shaken baby syndrome. This appeal for a new trial was one of the first cases to challenge previous beliefs about SBS.

Up until this point, everyone agreed with the medical experts. If a baby died and had all three symptoms listed in the triad, they were an SBS victim. No one ever considered any other alternative because that's all the experts knew at that time. So Audrey's appeal became one of the first cases to challenge this idea.

Her and the Wisconsin Innocence Project argued, hey, the evidence used to convict me 10 years ago is outdated. And since the evidence has changed over the years, I think I've got a shot at proving my innocence.

This was something Audrey wasn't able to do at her original trial because at her trial, only one expert was willing to testify and said that Natalie's injuries could have happened hours or days before she got to the babysitter's house that day. Besides that, the defense had no other experts willing to challenge what doctors and researchers were saying about SBS in the mid to late 1990s.

So after the Wisconsin Innocence Project filed the motion for a new criminal trial, it was received by the appellate court. Audrey's defense was granted a hearing. This was tremendous for them because it was an opportunity for Keith Finley and the Innocence Project to finally show the court exactly what's changed over the years regarding shaken baby syndrome.

At this hearing, Keith Finley had a handful of witnesses who all testified that symptoms they once thought were proof of SBS had actually been linked to dozens of other causes. Some of them included accidents, certain types of illnesses, infections, old injuries, and even other type of birth defects.

Not all the symptoms meant that it was direct proof of shaken baby syndrome like they said 10 years ago. One expert who testified at this hearing was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediatric neurologist at Stanford University.

Dr. Barnes said that even something as small as an ear infection could spread to the brain with fatal consequences, like in the case of six-month-old Natalie. Now, he's not saying that Natalie did suffer from this type of severe ear infection, but

But what he was saying was that something as small as a ear infection could spread to the brain and in some rare cases could have fatal consequences. His testimony basically challenged head-on the belief that it had to have been shaken baby syndrome. George Nichols, a former Kentucky medical examiner, also testified on Audrey's behalf.

He concluded that Natalie had some kind of choking event and that a lack of oxygen to the brain could have resulted in her fatal brain injury. In his opinion, her injuries weren't consistent with shaken baby syndrome. The testimony was compelling for Audrey's defense, and for a brief moment, it seemed like she had a good shot at getting a second trial. But that's not what happened.

The judge in charge of overseeing the motion denied it. In the judge's opinion, there wasn't sufficient evidence to support Audrey getting a new trial. He believed the prosecution and jury got it right the first time 10 years earlier. Therefore, there wasn't enough to cause to warrant a retrial. Audrey shook the baby, end of story. Well, not exactly because that's not where this story ends.

After the judge denied the motion, Audrey's defense team and the Innocence Project had the opportunity to appeal the ruling. Just because it didn't go in their favor the first time didn't mean it was over. It's not game over just yet. They had the constitutional right to appeal the judge's decision on the motion. So Keith Finley and the Innocence Project filed an appeal.

The next level of courts heard the appeal, which in this case was the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The hearing was held on January 21st, 2008. This was now 12 years after Audrey's original conviction. She was already in the second half of her sentence. On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with Audrey.

They found that, quote, a shift in mainstream medical opinion had casted doubt on whether shaking could have caused the brain injury that caused Natalie Beard's death, end quote. As a result of this shift in opinion as referenced by the court, the appellate court granted Audrey and her defense team a new trial.

They found that there was overwhelming evidence to support a new trial, and this new evidence might lead to a full acquittal. Since so much has changed over the years about what we know about SBS, so the appellate court ruled that the only fair judgment was to give Audrey a brand new criminal trial.

The Court of Appeals decision was huge for Audrey in her defense. She had already spent over 12 years in prison for something that she always maintained she didn't do. So to get the opportunity to prove her innocence a second time was huge. But she wouldn't get that opportunity. She wouldn't have to step back into a courtroom to prove her innocence.

After the court ordered a new trial, the district attorney's office officially dropped the case against her on July 11, 2008. The DA announced that they wouldn't pursue any additional charges against Audrey related to Natalie Beard's death. So after over a decade behind bars, Audrey Edmonds was released.

In 2012, Audrey released a book titled It Happened to Audrey, A Terrifying Journey from Loving Mom to Accused Baby Killer. Her time in prison caused her to lose over a decade with her three children, and it cost her her marriage. Her husband decided that he couldn't wait for her to be released, so he divorced her. And although she's released from prison, not everyone believes that she's innocent.

There are still many people out there who think that she shook Natalie that morning in 1995. Audrey Edmonds was granted a new trial because the court found that false or misleading forensic evidence convicted her. But the prosecution decided not to retry her because of rapidly changing evidence and opinions surrounding shaken baby syndrome.

Some people argue that the science behind shaken baby syndrome has been debunked, while other people say the evidence is there, and people like Audrey Edmonds got away with murder. To share your thoughts on this week's story, be sure to follow the show on Instagram and Facebook. To find out what I think about the case, sign up to become a patron at patreon.com slash forensic tales.

After each episode, I release a bonus episode where I share my personal thoughts and opinions about the case. You'll want to listen to this one because I'm going to share what I think about Audrey's story. Don't forget to subscribe to Forensic Tales so you don't miss an episode. We release a new episode every Monday. If you love the show, consider leaving us a positive review or tell friends and family about us. You can also help support the show through Patreon.

Thank you so much for joining me this week. Please join me next week. We'll have a brand new case and a brand new story to talk about. Until then, remember, not all stories have happy endings.

Thank you.

To learn about how you can support the show, head over to our Patreon page, patreon.com slash Forensic Tales, or simply click the support link in the show notes. You can also support the show by leaving a positive review or telling friends and family about us. Forensic Tales is a podcast made possible by our Patreon producers, Tony A, Nicole L, David B, Paula G, Nicole G,

Christine B, Karen D, Sherry A, Elizabeth M, Lisa S, Nicola, Nora, Roberto R, Jerry, Gary M, and Brian W. If you'd like to become a producer of this show, head over to our Patreon page or send me an email at Courtney

at ForensicTales.com to find out how you can become involved. For a complete list of sources used in this episode, please visit ForensicTales.com. Thank you so much for listening. I'll see you next week. Until then, remember, not all stories have happy endings.