LAW & ORDER, LOCAL NEWS

THE BRODSKY SMOKE SCREEN – Justice Delayed

The Absurdity of TimeA search for the truth.

That’s what people are led to believe a criminal trial is all about.

Experience tells me truth is often the first casualty.

Enter esteemed criminal defense attorney Mr. Greg Brodsky.

Brodsky is counsel of record for Andrea Giesbrecht (40) who stands charged with six counts of concealing the dead body of a child.

The case remains troubling and mysterious on several levels.

The intrigue is only intensified by a stubborn defense attorney who seems ready to bring American style justice to a Canadian court room.  When in doubt, attack the science.

Brodsky filed a motion this week to bring an immediate halt to the autopsies of the six infants so he could have an independent Pathologist observe the proceedings.  The motion underlines concerns critical evidence might be manipulated or destroyed.

Brodsky’s motion calls the entire integrity of the Chief Medical Examiner’s office into question and suggests a lack of independence exists.

Sound familiar?

The phrase, “search for the truth,” was used more than seventy (70) times during the OJ Simpson trial.

Forensic pathology turned out to be one of the most controversial aspects of the trial that turned out to be more of a three-ring circus than a judicial proceeding.

It seems Mr. Brodsky is hoping for a similar result in the Giesbrecht case.

The Redundant Motion

The motion to halt the autopsies makes little sense and Mr. Brodsky should know it.

When it comes to suspicious deaths or homicide, autopsies are generally performed within twenty-four (24) hours of the discovery of the remains.  That’s because the progress of criminal investigations often depend on the findings of these examinations.

I wasn’t surprised when evidence tendered during the hearing suggested 90% of the post-mortem examinations had been completed.  I doubt the testimony surprised Mr. Brodsky.

So what’s the point?

Does it make any sense to delay the remaining 10% of the procedures?

Did the motion make any sense?

It really didn’t.

Chief Medical Examiner Thambirajah Balachandra stressed the results of the examinations will be available for independent verification.  That assertion should have allayed any concerns expressed by Giesbrecht’s defense team.

Unfortunately, that didn’t stop Brodsky from filing a pointless motion that will accomplish little more than convoluting the issue, squandering valuable court time and delaying the investigative findings.

Is it any wonder people continue to lose faith in our justice system?

The hearing was adjourned until Friday.

RELATED LINKS:

The Police Insider – “Death Toll Rises – Woman Charged with Concealing Bodies of Six Infants”

The Police Insider – “Police Investigate after Discovery of Deceased Infants”

Winnipeg Free Press – “Lawyer for Winnipeg woman accused of hiding babies asks for delay of autopsies.”

4 Comments

  1. Not surprised….just disappointed.

    Considering the autopsies were essentially complete, what is the point of wasting the courts time?

    Taxpayers should be outraged.

  2. You raise a good point.

    Unfortunately, I’m confident the offender isn’t picking up the tab.

    Your comment makes me think about the irony of it all.

    Unemployed people on income assistance can get the very best legal representation thanks primarily to middle class tax payers who fund legal aid. Middle class tax payers who come into conflict with the law could never afford the equivalent representation.

    Somethings wrong with that…

    Thank you for commenting.

  3. James please don’t say you are so surprised by Brodsky putting on a charade here. In the past I have heard such funny outrageous claims during cases. Some things were so unreal you wonder how anyone with a partial brain could even believe it.

  4. As far as I’m concerned, Greg Brodsky can delay the autopsy until the end of time, and have whoever he wants watch, as long as someone other than the taxpayer is on the hook for the costs. If my tax dollars are going to line Brodsky’s pockets, then I say “Enough already”. Let’s put a maximum Legal Aid will pay for a case, no matter what the charge or the added cost. There are too many defense lawyers that see nothing but dollar signs when they take on a Legal Aid case.

Share your thoughts - we value your opinion!