Rolling Prairie woman to go on trial for murder of newborn Save Email Print
Posted: 5:28 PM Jul 14, 2008
 Last Updated: 6:06 PM Jul 14, 2008
 Reporter: Stephanie Stang
Email Address: stephanie.stang@wndu.com
30 comments
A | A | A

Jury selection began Monday and will continue Tuesday for a Rolling Prairie woman accused of killing her newborn baby girl and abandoning the infant near her home.

31-year-old Kathy Phillips faces murder charges and neglect of a dependent.

Monday 120 people were called in for jury selection at the LaPorte County courthouse. Jurors are being asked to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their knowledge of the case based on past media reports.

The highly publicized trial has been postponed at least three times.

Currently Phillips is out on a five thousand dollar bond. She could be seen around the LaPorte County courthouse with her husband, Garry, by her side.

March of 2006 Garry Phillip found a dead baby girl wrapped in a plastic bag near Phillips’ house.

She was arrested in October of 2006. The prosecution says DNA evidence shows Kathy and Garry Phillips are the biological parents. Meanwhile they deny being the parents. Kathy says she was never pregnant.

A gag order has been ordered issued by the judge upon the request of the defense attorney.

Several witnesses are expected to be called during the trial including character witnesses, police detectives, and DNA experts. The judge hopes to start opening arguments by Tuesday afternoon.
More Stories
Niles complaints sent to Congress

Local Republicans discuss convention wrap-up

Granger construction worker knocked out by lightning

Four-day work week expands in LaPorte County

 Local hospitals hurt by abuse of the emergency room system

Graffiti on display at I.U.S.B.

Kati pleads guilty to killing bar security guard

Budget cuts concerns in county departments
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: marie Location: na on Jul 24, 2008 at 02:03 PM
IT is sad that even now when found innocent, people's eyes are going to look differently at this family. It is too bad we as people are so quick to judge.
Posted by: na on Jul 15, 2008 at 08:31 PM
Her baby is beautiful. happy and well cared for just as her older sister. Kathy and GL are great parents and are incapable of this crime. You will see soon.
Posted by: na Location: Laporte on Jul 15, 2008 at 03:36 PM
You know what is really sad about this case is while she was on bond she got preggo again. How is this baby?????????
Posted by: Craig Location: Bremen on Jul 15, 2008 at 02:44 PM
To "Enough", how do you know DNA is 100%? All I said was to keep an open mind. As I stated in the other blog, Pluto was a planet 100% for years!!! Now it isn't. Science isn't exact. It always changes. Kathy may be guilty as well as her husband. Then again, there is a lot we do not know. There are many possibilities either way. Nobody has come forward yet and proven that this woman showed any signs of being pregnant. She is a thin woman. How can that be explained? WE just do not know! How can the positive DNA be explained? None of us know either way. It is unfair and harsh to judge either way. What if you are wrong? Let it unfold. We can all speculate without being too critical. I would hate myself if I had the "throw them away in a field" attitude and later evidence proved they were innocent. It happens.
Posted by: Betha Location: South Bend on Jul 15, 2008 at 01:35 PM
In response to Craig: The dad may have known but felt remorse for leaving the baby out in the field- he very well may have been involved. It is also possible she told him after the fact.
Posted by: ??? Location: Here on Jul 15, 2008 at 01:35 PM
The police in LaPorte are BUMBLING IDIOTS! They probably ran the parents DNA twice and said it was from the CHILD. Believe me, these police can barely chew gum and walk, my dad, 90 yr old grandfather, and my uncle were hit by a drunk driver on HWY 39, the woman got out or her car, BARELY able to stand up and pulled her panties down and PEED on the HWY and they LET HER GO HOME. The woman had 3 PRIOR drunk driving accidents and was driving WITHOUT INSURANCE! Apparently the laws only apply when they want to apply them, so don't be too quick to find these people guilty!
Posted by: Enough Location: Outside the box. on Jul 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM
DNA is 100 % no questions asked. People lie, DNA don't, period. Hang them both, throw them away in a field and forget about them. If the system would do that more often people would think twice about things before they do it.
Posted by: Craig Location: Bremen on Jul 15, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Wow! This is a baffling case. First of all, if the father was guilty, why would he notify authorities of finding the baby when obviously nobody else knew and it couldhave been discarded permanently? That leads me to believe he is innocent. Maybe DNA is'nt 100%. I'm no expert there. Those that use it probably pad the numbers to make them look more reliable. They do that for polygraphs. People can fool those things. Yes, this is hard to figure out. One possibility, and I may be wrong, could be that Kathy thought she was pregnant by another man and discarded the baby without her husbands knowledge. Then when he found it, he did what was natural by calling authorities. The DNA turned out to be his. Maybe...maybe not. There are many possibilities for all of this.
Posted by: Alan Location: Elkhart on Jul 15, 2008 at 08:15 AM
If the baby was stillborn then all she is guilty of is improper disposal of a corpse.
Posted by: Megan Location: Elkhart on Jul 15, 2008 at 05:07 AM
Harry - I entirely agree with you! Abortion is just legalized murder... makes me sick. Adopting out is the answer if you don't want a baby; there are always couples out there (or singles as well) who would love to have a child and can't! I hope justice is served here in this case for all concerned. I don't remember ever reading about this story before but I would be interested in following the trial.
Posted by: EC on Jul 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Julie.. Because posting in all caps is considered yelling.
Posted by: Pro-Life Loving Mom Location: Mishawaka on Jul 14, 2008 at 11:33 PM
The baby's mom and dad are BOTH guility of this in my opinion! What a sad, sad thing for that innocent baby. This is one of the most ridiculous trials ever I think. The DNA evidence is there, what else is there to talk about?!? If they didn't want the child, they should have given her away for adoption! Makes me sick...
Posted by: Susan on Jul 14, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Okay, let's play devil's advocate here. She denies she was ever pregnant, why is the baby showing her and her husbands DNA? ?2, IF it was a home birth and stillborn, why not call the coroner, I'm sure this happens occasionally. No harm/no foul. If it was a home birth and stillborn, why put it outside along a fence??? Why not give her a proper burial if there was no foul play. Or if supposedly no one knew she was pregnant, and she gave birth, why not bury it instead of leaving her along a fence line. Women disguise pregnancy all the time, then show up in the ER with "abdominal pain" and "miraculously" they were pregnant and didn't know it. Come on....give me a break!!
Posted by: me Location: la porte on Jul 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM
she was not shunned by the whole community.only the ignorant people who go on what media says.when alot of it is not true.she deserves a fair trial..shes a good christain women and i hope the truth comes out and the ignorant people get to eat there horrible comments and realize shes a innocent child of God yes God,a good mom ,wife and friend to many ..may God bless her and her family..
Posted by: Julie on Jul 14, 2008 at 07:54 PM
Kind of interesting that the dad found the infant? Maybe he was abusive and forced her or was involved in the killing. Or maybe it was stillborn and for some odd reason they didn't deal with it properly. Or maybe it's the dads baby and not the moms... nothing is 100% not even DNA - I don't care what they say - nothing is 100% each & every time. But, whatever happened... let them try it in court... not on here. By the way - why does it matter if people post in all caps?? People get on here & say highly inappropriate things especially in stories where a death is involved, they spell very poorly and they use incredibly poor grammar... and the only thing I see repeatedly noted is "Please do not post in all caps". Why does it matter?
Posted by: mike Location: south bend on Jul 14, 2008 at 07:41 PM
She is an evil Bee Eye Tea See H. I meant female dog.
Posted by: Impartial resident Location: RP on Jul 14, 2008 at 06:28 PM
What a shame that there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty. From what I remember reading, there was never ANY proof that the baby ever took a breath outside the womb. There was NEVER any conclusive evidence that the baby wasn't stillborn. As much as I don't understand what happened, I could never convict a person based on the news. I certainly hope they can find 12 people out of 120 who can go into that trial with open minds, but I've lived in LaPorte County long enough to know otherwise. May God TRULY have mercy on the innocent, even if that means Kathy Phillips too!
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 14, 2008 at 04:08 PM
i hope she likes prison. we can only hope that she will be shunned there as she as been in the community. LIFE in prison
Posted by: Anonymous Location: LP on Jul 14, 2008 at 03:05 PM
THIS IS TO THE PERSON THAT POSTED 07-14 AT 8:12 AM..THEY ARE USING THE 2ND DNA EVIDENCE. I BELIVE THEY HAVE PLENTY OF EVEIDENCE TO GET A GUILTY CONVICTION, ONE COULD ONLY HOPE ANYWAY.

Please do not post in all caps. Thank you - wndu.com

Posted by: Abe Location: Elkhart on Jul 14, 2008 at 02:11 PM
It sounds to me like Kathy Phillips attorneys were trying to pull the same stunt that Jeff Pelley's attorneys did. Delay the trial as long as possible and persuade a judge to dismiss the entire case. I mean, this happened in 2006 so what is the hold up here? I think the woman and her hushand are mentally unstable. Why isn't he being charged for murder and neglect as well? And shame on her for becoming pregnant while awaiting trial. Yeah, nice cover up for murdering the other. Now, another child will have to suffer. I would like to hear the woman and her husband explain why they did it!
Posted by: Harry Location: Goshen on Jul 14, 2008 at 01:42 PM
Isn't it ironic that: BOTH the husband and wife seem to be ignorant of her pregnancy (if she really had one), and that had she gone to have an abortion that would be considered "legal" while killing the baby herself is "illegal"? The only difference is a few weeks! I think this serves to illustrate how much abortion really IS the killing of an innocent human life... Murder, we call it.
Posted by: Myrt on Jul 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Did she ever get examined by a doctor? I would think that if she was innocent, she would have gotten examined right away to answer the question whether she had just given birth or not. Something does not add up here and unfortunately again the innocent suffer.
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM
This is just a weird story all together. Is she mentally sick??
Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 14, 2008 at 10:15 AM
its about time how can she continue to say she wasn't pregnant when the DNA proves the baby belong to her and her Husband!!!!! This baby desirves justice
Posted by: Linda Location: Granger on Jul 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM
All I can say is if this woman had a baby and murdered it, then she should be killed. She should know that a Doctor can tell if she's ever been pregnant. Unless she delivered the baby somewhere other than a hospital, they would also have a record of the birth.
Posted by: A Location: SBI on Jul 14, 2008 at 09:10 AM
Guilty!!
Posted by: finally Location: RP on Jul 14, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Bye Bye Kathy!!!!
Posted by: me Location: here on Jul 14, 2008 at 07:39 AM
DNA. That is your answer.
Posted by: Roxy Location: Indiana on Jul 14, 2008 at 07:34 AM
What I dont understand is this, if in fact she gave birth there will be all kinds of evidence from Dr's stating yes in fact she did give birth. If they dont have that then what other evidence could there be..perhaps DNA linking her to the child?...try her already and get it over with!
Posted by: Anonymous Location: La Porte on Jul 14, 2008 at 07:12 AM
This will be interesting. The media has put out all of this info about DNA, but for some reason (hmmmm) it isn't going to make the trial. If that is the case, what is their evidence based on? I feel for this family who has been publicly slammed due to poor investigation and media bias. LaPorte is horrible for police investigations. There is no witnesses nor any physical evidence against this woman. The 1st DNA expert was injured and the trial was postponed and now the 2nd DNA evidence is not going to be used. How interesting!!! Give this family a break!!!
Posted by: GUILTY Location: South Bend on Jul 14, 2008 at 06:36 AM
To all of the people who think she is innocent, including her husband, DNA does not lie. DNA tests are 99.9999999% accurate and she IS the mother of the child. I have been in the medical field for over 20 years and as a physician I have seen people cover up pregnancies and it is possible to do. I have no sympathy for her. I hope that when she is found guilty by jury that she serves the maximum amount of time.
Five Day
WNDU News Poll

How many games will the Irish win this season?

Fewer than 6
Between 6 and 8
9 or 10
More than 10