First week of trial ends for dead infant case

Save

LaPorte, IN
Posted: 8:59 AM Jul 18, 2008
Last Updated: 8:59 AM Jul 21, 2008
Reporter: Alana Greenfogel
Email Address: Alana.Greenfogel@WNDU.com

29 comments

A | A | A

Court proceedings are scheduled to resume in the trial of 31-year-old Kathy Phillips. Phillips is facing murder and neglect of a dependent charges involving a dead infant alleged to be Phillips' child.

NewsCenter16 has been following the trial and will be posting updates directly from the courthouse throughout the day. Simply refresh the page for the latest on the trial.

Remote Reporter
Alana Greenfogel, WNDU
Reporting via cell phone through Twitter.com.

04:30 PM Court dismissed until Monday. Week one of Kathy Phillips' trial is over.
03:40 PM Detective is back to talking about the seized garbage bags found in Phillips' home.
03:20 PM Prosecution shows video of Kathy Phillips' giving DNA sample to police.
02:42 PM Court takes brief afternoon break.
02:03 PM Detective says investigators possibly found blood in the sink and bathtub in the bathroom at Phillips' home.
01:48 PM Detective says beige towel in Phillips' bathroom was collected for a visual comparison to the towel baby was found wrapped in.
01:43 PM Detective describes process of examining garbage bag found in Phillips' attic, including a trip to a plastic company in Louisiana.
01:15 PM Detective's testimony continues.
12:08 PM Trial breaks for lunch.
12:08 PM Detective specifically points out a beige towel found in the bathroom and a roll of garbage bags found on a shelf in the garage.
12:06 PM Prosecution and detective walk jury through a series of pictures both outside and inside the Phillip residence.
11:33 AM Detective describes process of sampling DNA from Garry Phillips, Kathy's husband.
11:28 AM Judge calls for brief recess.
10:40 AM Detective continues testimony by analyzing a stained towel and washcloth found on the scene.
10:10 AM Testimony with detective continues.
09:41 AM Court takes short break.
09:22 AM Explaining a key piece of evidence--black plastic garbage bag found in Phillips' home.
09:22 AM Detective describes background in forensic analysis and investigating blood stain patterns.
08:49 AM LaPorte County detective takes the stand.
08:46 AM Defense argues prosecution hasn't proved yet a crime was committed because there's no proof the baby was alive.
08:43 AM Judge enters courtroom.

While the prosecution gets into the meat of its case Friday, a LaPorte County detective spends the entire day in the witness stand.

He focuses on two pieces of evidence taken from Phillips' home--a garbage bag and a towel. The prosecution considers them significant because in March of 2006, back in the woods, the baby was found wrapped in a towel in a garbage bag.

First the towel. The detective says officers collected the towel from Phillips’ bathroom to visually compare it to the towel the baby was found in.

And the garbage bag. It was found in the Phillips' attic filled with costumes. We learn the bag was taken for several visual exams, including to a plastic company in Louisiana. And to conclude three days of testimony, the prosecution tries to prove the garbage bag found with the baby and the bag found in Phillips’ home, may have come from the same roll.

The detective also says there’s a possibility blood had been found in the bathroom at the Phillips’ home—in the sink and in the tub. They haven’t indicated if it truly is blood or whose blood it may be.

The State wrapped up Friday showing a video of police taking DNA samples from Kathy Phillips. Earlier, police say they also took DNA samples from her husband, Garry Phillips.

Keep in mind the defense is standing by its argument. Whether or not Phillips had the baby, whether or not the garbage bags and towels match up, according to the defense, the baby was a stillborn, so Phillips can’t be a murderer.

Trial is set to begin again Monday morning.

On Thursday, testimony left the judge considering declaring it a mistrial. As of Friday afternoon, there hasn't been another work said about this since. While the prosecution was questioning a key witness Thursday, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the baby, he said he didn't know how the baby died or if she was stillborn or born alive.

He also said in other cases, the mother has provided that information and helped the investigation.

The defense found that last statement unconstitutional, placing the burden on Kathy Phillips to defend herself. Rather, it's the prosecution's burden to prove. The defense called it a "terrible blunder" on the part of the prosecution for not informing its witness the laws on what he can say and not say.

The judge allowed testimony to continue, but is considering the motion for a mistrial.

Testimony began Wednesday morning in Phillip's trial. Phillips has continued to deny ever being pregnant. But in opening statements Wednesday, the defense wouldn't deny or confirm a pregnancy; rather, they insisted Kathy would not murder her own infant. The defense suggested the baby was stillborn. Phillip’s defense attorney also asked the jury to consider the fact that there's a chance Kathy could have lied about not being pregnant.

In March of 2006, Kathy’s husband, Garry Phillips, found the body of a baby girl wrapped in a towel in a plastic bag near Phillips’ house.

She was arrested in October of 2006.

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

Several witnesses are expected to be called during the trial including character witnesses, police detectives, and DNA experts.

Stay with NewsCenter 16 throughout the day as we bring you continuous updates from the courthouse.

Related Stories
Kathy Phillips' murder trial continues in LaPorte

LaPorte Woman Released from Jail

Phillips trial will have local jurors

Trial delayed in Rolling Prairie newborn death

Full jury selected in Kathy Phillips murder trial; testimony begins Wednesday

More Stories
Elkhart doctor pleads guilty on weapons charges

16 Curb Appeal finalists: The Magers family of Mishawaka

Police search for suspects wanted in 7-11 armed robbery

Teen indicted for making bomb threats at Indiana schools

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: Nate Location: MI on Jul 20, 2008 at 05:36 AM
If she did murder the baby, the death penalty would not be efficient...

Posted by: Robin Location: Goshen on Jul 19, 2008 at 03:39 PM
There are so many things that "could" have happened. They first need to show if the baby was hers through DNA and then if it was his. She could have been pregnant, hid the pregnancy because it's not her husbands baby and then it was either stillborn or she murdered it to keep anyone from finding out it was hers.

Posted by: jerry Location: coloma on Jul 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM
if she was not pregant how can she say it was a stillborn. I think that she was on durgs and didn't want ever one to no.

Posted by: new mother Location: LaPorte on Jul 19, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Okay, I just recently had a baby and I am wondering how Kathy hid her pregnancy!? There is now way possible unless she gained absolutley no weight! I do believe in Innocent until proven Guilty, but I'm sorry DNA doesn't lie!! Maybe she did it, maybe her husband did, but whoever tossed that poor innocent baby girl out like trash needs to be punished! I was so outraged to see that she was realeased from jail not to mention my reaction to see her laughing as she left! Does she have no heart,no feelings for a baby?! I'm also wondering how she got pregnant after she was in police custody! Anyone ever notice that?! I really hope I see her out somewhere in town! I will not physically touch her, but I will let my feelings be know for sure!!!

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 19, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Indi19 - I'm afraid in your irrationality, you've forgotten that there is no evidence that this baby was born alive. The pathologist stated that in his examination that this baby never took a breath. The coroner lists no cause of death. You and Carla are people that pass judgment way too fast and probably don't have a lot of friends. I don't understand how you can blatantly ignore evidence that exonerates this woman of murder charges (intentionally killing another human being). There is simply no evidence of this, which is why the Court may stop this trial at some point. I urge you to listen to the evidence and not draw conclusions that are inappropriate and ignorant. Good luck.

Posted by: DNA on Jul 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Very few things are 100% in science because of the potential spontaneous mutation, however comparing the parents DNA to the babies DNA can confirm (excluding the potential that either parent in question has an identical twin...as their DNA is also identical). For the fingers still flexible, no way, rigor mortis takes hours, by 24 hours will definitely be present as well as other signs of circulatory collapse. No chance the fingers were flexible (unless the child was still alive or just died). If you do not have detectible blood in your bathroom then you have never used it, shave, women with a period, trim a fingernail too close...will place blood in your bathroom (that is useless evidence). Have not heard enough to execute Mr. Philips yet, just because he found the infant does not mean he had any knowledge of the infant prior to his stumbling across the corpse. She will get off based solely on the pathologists report of inability to confirm respirations (a sign baby was alive).

Posted by: JasonM Location: Nappanee on Jul 19, 2008 at 02:09 AM
As far as wasting tax payers money.. dear Lord.. I hope you are never charged with any crime.. and not given a fair and timely trial Guilty or not.. our system is designed in nature to treat everyone equal (and innocent) until a verdict is reached

Posted by: Jason M Location: Nappanee on Jul 19, 2008 at 02:06 AM
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty.. As only the people involved will ever know the facts.. like most things.. we only know what we can see, feel, taste, smell, and hear.. As to the baby being 4 days old.. I think that was at the time of the investigation/baby being found.. not time of death.. as the fingers were still flexible As for the father also being charged.. I think that would have already been done if, during the long investigation, the authorities thought there was enough evidence to prove otherwise.. As far as the husband and another family member setting up the wife.. come on.. give me a break.. Do you really think your DNA is the same as your sister/mother father/brother??? As far as paternity.. DNA can only exclude you 100%.. not confirm you are the parents 100%.. although the percent one is the parent/parnets.. is very high.. it is never 100%

Posted by: EC on Jul 19, 2008 at 01:26 AM
“Phillips has continued to deny ever being pregnant. But in opening statements Wednesday, the defense wouldn't deny or confirm a pregnancy; rather, they insisted Kathy would not murder her own infant. The defense suggested the baby was stillborn.” I have seen mentions of her insisting she was never pregnant. I have also seen mentions of the baby was stillborn. How can you have a stillborn baby if you were never pregnant? Maybe it’s just me. It just seems it keeps being mentioned that she insists she was never pregnant yet the baby was stillborn.

Posted by: Carla Location: SB on Jul 19, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Do you really want the case thrown out, Anonymous? What about that child? I'm not saying it should just be pinned on "somebody." This is a clear cut case of a "Mother", for whatever reason, decided to throw her baby away. Dead or alive, she's sick. What a very disturbed individual! And so are you for wanting this case thrown out when the DNA proves they are this child's parents. I've seen a post that says DNA is not 100%. Well, let me tell you that the statistics were STAGGERING! BOTH of them tested positive for parental DNA. Not just one, BOTH. The odds of this happening and not being the parents were in the TRILLIONS. I'm glad that we have laws that protect us from people like YOU who are willing to toss out a case that is so obvious. That was an innocent child and regardless of whether she was stillborn or born alive, Kathy Phillips is a sick freak that needs to rot in hell. May God bless that poor baby.

Posted by: Yeah...Right Location: LaPorte on Jul 18, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Bob-You also can't have a baby if your not pregnant, which was her story up until now. What happened to that excuse? How convenient that now her lawyer is saying maybe she lied about being pregnant but Baby Jane was stillborn. Give me a break. She is a cold blooded sick individual. I really feel sorry for her kids especially the newest addition. One day he/she will know that they were conceived to try to get her off of murder charges. The DNA, the trash bags, the towels, the blood in the bathroom. Come on how much evidence does a jury need? Hopefully, she will be convicted of murder and sent to prison. It makes me sick to see her laughing and smiling. Does she not realize she is on trial for murder. That will be her next excuse-insanity. She has guilty wrote all over her face.

Posted by: Indi19 Location: LaPorte on Jul 18, 2008 at 09:15 PM
Are you an IDIOT???? I did not say I would take a DEAD Baby, as far as any of us knows this baby may very well have been born alive!!!!!! Don't jump to conclusions!!!! There are way to many "coincedences" in this case. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

Posted by: Bob on Jul 18, 2008 at 07:47 PM
I told you so at the beginning. Remember? You can't "murder" a stillborn baby.

Posted by: Anon Location: Michigan on Jul 18, 2008 at 07:33 PM
I don't know the Phillips' but I like to think the best of people. From the beginning I didn't think that they were involved. No one saw Kathy pregnant. But when the DNA showed that they were the parents, I had to come up with a new theory. Perhaps when Kathy got pregnant, knowing that her husband didn't want anymore children, she hid the pregnancy,hoping that when he saw the baby he would love it as much as their first child. When the baby was stillborn she probably panicked and decided to hide the body until she was strong enough to bury it. Postpartum insanity?

Posted by: not gonna say Location: l.p. on Jul 18, 2008 at 05:42 PM
I have a feeling that there will be a mistrial.I do not agree with the people that are saying to toss this case.The people that,make comments like there is nothing wrong with delivering a dead baby.Are you crazy?No there is no crime in having a stillborn,or a baby die after birth from natural causes,but there is no excuse to not give that baby a proper burial.You can't tell me that she made a bad choice leaving it in a yard.That's inexusible.That is demonic and sick,people give their pets better burials than that.Rip Baby Jane,you are in a better place now I'm sure.

Posted by: Duke Location: LP on Jul 18, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Some courtrooms still have rules about cameras. They only allow sketch artists. I am very interested in this trial and I think WNDU has done an excellent job reporting.

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 18, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Shocktified - cameras are not permitted in the courtroom.

Posted by: Shocktified Location: Bremen Highway on Jul 18, 2008 at 04:52 PM
I'm really saddened that some media outlets are apparently making some kind of comic book out of this trial! Instead of live feeds from the courtroom we're forced to relive the days events in poorly drawn sketches. Oddly no speech bubbles or "Kapow!" in big red arcing letters. Thats great for spiderman and archie, but for a sensitive subject like this, we should see some kind of better standards dont you think!

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 18, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Note to self - Indi19 said she would be willing to take babies that did not survive childbirth.

Posted by: Just a thought Location: sb on Jul 18, 2008 at 04:21 PM
What if she wanted a baby, got pregnant, didn't tell Garry, hid the pregancy from everyone, had the baby at home, he found out and got rid of it?

Posted by: Indi19 Location: LaPorte on Jul 18, 2008 at 03:49 PM
I stand corrected it is SAFE HAVEN and yes we do have it in Indiana!!!! All she had to do was take the baby to a hospital,fire house or police station and no questions would have been asked. But instead she has just cost all of us alot of tax dollars??? Shame on you WHOEVER you are that did this!!!!

Posted by: Indi19 Location: Laporte on Jul 18, 2008 at 03:36 PM
The Case should be tossed?????? Like the inocent little baby???? What is wrong with you people???? Is Indiana a safe harbor state? If the person didn't want the baby there are many people out there who would have taken the child including myself..

Posted by: Julie on Jul 18, 2008 at 02:58 PM
First of all - nice headline, very distasteful choice of words. To Carla - DNA nor anything else in life is 100% all the time. If they don't have enough physical, scientific facts to prove the baby was stillborn or live birth then I don't know why they even filed a murder charge, except that maybe they thought she'd crack under pressure. What I want to know is WHY is the father not being charged as well if they think someone should be charged? IF and I repeat IF there was a murder then how do they know that she didn't deliver at home and the father murdered the child? After all Dad's the one who "found" the child so IF there was a murder I'd say, at the very least, he was an accomplice. How do they know IF the DNA is some degree of accurate that Dad wasn't having an affair with one of the wifes relatives? Maybe they conceived the child and set the wife up? Nobody really knows, not even Carla who claims with such assurity that she has all the answers.

Posted by: scott Location: michigan on Jul 18, 2008 at 02:52 PM
The problem I have with this is the pathologist listed the death as "undertermined", but the infant as being (4) days old at the time of death. How can a stillborn be (4) days old?

Posted by: Anonymous on Jul 18, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Carla - You have missed the point. Irrespective of DNA, it is not murder to deliver a dead baby and make a poor choice on where to place it. Thank god we have laws to protect us from your line of thinking. The Court should toss this case.

Posted by: Myrt on Jul 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
To Carla: I was on a jury once and was surprised at how little time was spent listening to testimony. Much of our time was spent in the jury room while the attorneys and judge determined what could be said and how the trial should be continued. It could be determined that the DNA evidence can't be entered since they didn't use the correct protocol to retrieve it. It is totally a different world in the court system. Also sometimes charges are "stacked" which means they have to be guilty of all charges in order to be convicted. If this case isn't dismissed, I have a feeling that there will be a "reasonable doubt" and she'll be found not guilty. I'm afraid she is the only one who knows whether or not she is guilty and she will have to live with it the rest of her life. After that, God will be her judge.

Posted by: s on Jul 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Did they ever determine if the baby was a full term baby or premature????

Posted by: Fred Gailey on Jul 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Carla, my only point is that the defense planted the idea that the baby may have been stillborn, and the pathologist (a prosecution witness) had to admit that he didn't know. If the baby was stillborn, there is no murder. The prosecutor has to prove the baby was alive at birth, and I don't think he can. That is reasonable doubt. The only charge would be not reporting the infant's death. I'm not saying I think that's what happened. I'm defending the jury for what I think they will return as a verdict.

Posted by: Carla Location: SB on Jul 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM
There is black and there is white in this case. If the DNA proves that she is the mother and he is the father they should both spend the rest of their lives in prison. DNA does NOT LIE. Why is anyone questioning this? It is a waste of time and taxpayers money. That poor child is with her Maker now. God bless her. If these people are found to be the parents, I believe there is a special place in hell for the both of them.

Posted by: Fred Gailey on Jul 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM
It appears the defense lawyers completely misled the prosecutors regarding their strategy. The prosecutors cannot even prove that a crime was committed, so there is little chance of a guilty verdict. I wouldn't be surprised if the defense didn't even call a witness. I'm not saying it's the accurate verdict, but the jury may have no choice but to find the defendant not guilty.

Posted by: A Location: SBI on Jul 18, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Has she stopped for any photo opps with her friends today?!?!?!