UPDATE: Geneticist testifies Kathy Phillips is the mother of Baby Jane Doe

by Nora Gathings (hsgathings@wsbt.com)

Tools

Kathy Phillips and Baby Jane Doe

A geneticist testified in court on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 that Garry and Kathy Phillips are the parents of Baby Jane Doe, found dead in a field next to the Phillips' home in 2006. (Photo provided)

By Beth Boehne

LAPORTE — A geneticist told jurors Tuesday that Kathy Phillips is the mother of Baby Jane Doe. But Phillips' mother says her daughter wasn't pregnant.

Phillips is accused of giving birth and leaving the baby in a LaPorte field near her home in 2006.

Testimony started nearly two hours late Tuesday, because Phillips’ attorney raised questions as to whether the state's geneticist qualifies as an expert when DNA results are generated by computer software.

The judge allowed the witness because she had knowledge of how the program worked.

Geneticist Dr. Arla Bush testified that DNA evidence proves Kathy and Garry Phillips are the baby's parents. Bush told the jury that the probability of Garry Phillips being the father is 99.99 percent, and the odds of Kathy being the mother are 99.9 percent.

Those were the same results listed in court documents in 2006. Yet, her family maintained then and maintains now that Kathy Phillips was never pregnant.

Phillips’ mother Marcia Ruminski told the jury Kathy Phillips was losing weight. She says she expressed concern as to how thin her daughter was getting in the winter of 2005 — just months before the newborn was found.

"Did Kathy ever indicate she was ever pregnant during April 2005 to March 2006?" the prosecutor asked Ruminski.

“No,” she replied. “My husband and I were concerned because she was losing so much weight and appeared drawn.”

But her testimony contradicts DNA evidence and previous testimony from a nurse who told jurors Phillips had a visible bump.

Jurors will see a home video later this week that the prosecution says shows a heavier Phillips.

Garry Phillips was supposed to take the stand but he requested an attorney and won't be allowed to testify until he has one. But in a meeting before the judge and attorneys, he indicated he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not testify.

Stay with WSBT News for continuing coverage of this trial.

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 9:55 PM Anonymous wrote ...

a good ol fashion pelvic exam wold helpclear this up. Did too much time pass from finding the baby till when they suspected her for an exam to be reliable? I WOULD HAVE WENT AND GOT ONE TO CLEAR MYSELF! I have to admit its not lookin good for her all these wittnesses. Poor baby wish I could have gotten my hands on it!

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 3:52 PM Cathy Blabby wrote ...

Who cares? Huh? Deep down in your heart, who really cares? Let the real court Judge decide her fate.

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 2:02 PM Anonymous wrote ...

To 10:43 PM A: It is horriible morally if she did not care for the baby while pregnant but the fact is you cannot charge her for the murder of an unborn child. If the child was stillborn there is no murder

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 12:13 PM MBNC wrote ...

I am so sorry "3:48 PM Excuse me" that you noticed my admitted "oops" (and boy, was it a BIG "oops"!)to be your pick for the Spelling Police. At least we can't say WSBT is messing with our commentary as they leave these shining examples of spelling stupidity (mine) up here for all to read- LOL! I'll try to do better next time, okay?!

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 9:38 AM Sue wrote ...

To LmNoP: My thoughts exactly! There are many missing bits of evidence and a lot of what they have isn't evidence. Now let's put ourselves in the position of someone who has a baby (dead OR alive) and doesn't want it and wants to get rid of it? Would you toss it in your own back yard? I don't think so!

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 9:28 AM think people wrote ...

to the people defending this mother of the year, 99.9 it's hers 99.9 it's his what do you need and to the idiot that said it could be someone in thier blood line duh every ones dna is different yours is different than your brothers it has some of the same markers not all wake up idiots she did it and if it was still born she would of said so by now what i'm trying to say is wake up idiots

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 8:00 AM Kit Kat wrote ...

Help - the baby was found in a trash bad in their yard near the road..if correct..could the baby have been put out with their trash on the wrong day from the confusion of trying to get rid of the baby?

Wednesday, Jul 23 at 6:28 AM WOW wrote ...

Proud LP Citizen. If your so sure (99.9%) the cops couldn't solve a crime, why didn't you call CSI and have Grissom come and solve the mystery. Better yet, I bet you can even get Horatio to also come up. Yup, your a really "PROUD LP CITIZEN". I hear they are looking for a few good wanna be's for the detective bureau. Why not apply oh smart one?

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 11:38 PM LmNoP wrote ...

It certainly seems that the investigators involved are finding interesting ways of missing important evidence. Some woman's rude comments about another's waistline at a wedding is hardly "evidence". DNA is. Of course, since she was a suspect at the time of the discovery of the body, a simple pelvic exam would have told the truth about whether or not she'd been pregnant, so where's that "evidence" -for either side? I would have run to the OB/GYN for that alibi in her place-IF she's innocent.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 11:30 PM Anonymous wrote ...

to maybe: pot smoking is proven to cause delusional paranoia and inability to fully absorb information. That would be a really good guess at why you came up with such a ridiculous comment and felt justified in leaving it where people would be able to tell there's something wrong with you. I see it as a cry for help. There are psych sites where you could get the attention you crave and fear at the same time. I think we are all a little worried about you.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 10:24 PM Anonymous wrote ...

A at 10:43 p.m. sure interjects a lot of fantasy into this story, there is no evidence she did anything to harm this baby in or outside the womb. Please stop making up facts.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 9:43 PM A wrote ...

hey jen at 631... she is a human being, needs a support system????? she lost that right when she took that poor childs life... whether born alive or stillborn... she didnt take care of that child while it was growing in her, IF it was stillborn... that is neglect and no doubt IF stillborn still murder since she purposely caused its death that way as well... that child was alive the minute it was conceived! she doesnt deserve any support rights or nething else that poor child never had a chanceof

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 9:08 PM Hey Jen wrote ...

Jen ... not one shred of evidence? How about hiding the dead baby's body. Why do we hide things? We bury things we care about ... even the pet cat out in the back yard with the little wooden cross.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 8:33 PM rn wrote ...

To maybe:You are an absolute idiot.There was no police set up.You obviously don't understand DNA.How sad is it, that there are people like you who are discrediting the police, especially one who died.I'm sure his family appreciates the way you discredit him in death.The story has alot of holes agreed,but she gave birth to Baby Jane and knows what she did at the birth.Her husband is only "free"because he didn't give birth and there's no way to prove he was there or what he knew.God does.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 8:11 PM Anonymous wrote ...

I'm guessing the Court will dismiss this case tomorrow, the last day of the State's evidence.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 7:54 PM Nell wrote ...

This is to Kathy's mother regarding her losing weight and saying she couldn't be pregnant and so thin at the same time. I just had a baby 3mos ago and lost 10lbs during pregnancy and another 15lbs delivering and being home the first 4 days. It is not impossible! I think she's guilty and needs that smile slapped off her face!!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 7:44 PM Kit Kat wrote ...

expect a dead lock...

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 7:13 PM proud LP citizen wrote ...

I am 99.9% positive that the LaPorte County and city police couldn't solve a mystery if they had to but they do know alot about seat belt tickets and putting party people in the drunk tank lets face it LP cops are pathetic

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 6:14 PM dkelkhart wrote ...

I'm also troubled by the pictures we see of her on the news, and think there's much more to this story than I want to know. God bless the children....and what happened to the baby she was carrying earlier this year? Did she give birth?

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 6:09 PM CK wrote ...

Let's say it was not murder. Let's say it was stillborn and she made a poor decision to dispose of the body. Then why has she lied about it all this time? Why is the defense still bothering with the "she was never pregnant" line? The only thing that will save her is telling the truth about what happened. Right now it looks really bad for her and if the real truth and circumstances don't come out, she doesn't stand a chance. The whys must be answered for her to expect any leniency.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 5:31 PM Jen wrote ...

Guilty of what? There is no way a jury is going to find her guilty of MURDER because there has been not ONE SHRED of evidence stating that the baby was born alive. Inconclusive is what the coroner indicated. I find it hard to believe that there can even be a guilty verdict on the Felony neglect. Again, we don't even know if the baby was alive! What did she neglect? And so what if her friends or aquaintences are on her defending her?! She needs a support system too, she is a human being.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 4:31 PM Makes me wonder wrote ...

You crazy people who do not think that 99.9% is good enough. Not only is it 99.9%, but the child was found on their property, not 2 states away!!!! Does that make sense??!!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 4:02 PM Anonymous wrote ...

A set up? Come on, be real!!! The DNA is surley enough proof for me expecially since it is 99.9%. If it wasnt for the matching DNA then I would have my doubts about her being guilty. But as it stands now she is very guilty.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 3:38 PM not gonna say wrote ...

To Jen,I didn't want you to think I was saying that you thought she was psycho,I was in agreement with you.But when we speak of her frame of mind let's look back on why if she was pregnant for nine months,why didn't she see the Dr.Unless she was hiding it from her husband the whole time,which is a nother question.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 3:36 PM R. wrote ...

Now her friends are trying to make excuses.. of course its not her fault.. the voices in her head made her do it. She still hasnt admitted it and when it comes she cant deny it anymore watch her try to claim the insanity plee!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 3:31 PM Wayne wrote ...

WOW, She sure does seem pretty happy to be on trial for murder!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 3:01 PM Proud Mother wrote ...

This is not news to us, we KNOW it is her baby. This whole thing is totally disgusting to me. You can't tell me her husband didn't realize she was pregnant. I say lock em both up, they don't deserve to be anyone's parents! I wouldn't trust them to take proper care of any other living thing. I can't even stand the sight of her photos anymore, she is way too full of herself! Sickening!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 2:57 PM amomlp wrote ...

So.. either Gary had an affair with someone in her blood line or she had an affair with someone in his blood line.. someone needs to come clean!!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 2:48 PM Excuse me... wrote ...

Hey "1:22 pm MBNC"- Speak for yourself...I am not the "pubic". If you can't spell, don't dwell!!!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 2:45 PM maybe wrote ...

Just a thought, but what if undercover police followed them and took a straw or something from the older daughter which biologicly is theirs together and sent that evidene off for DNA testing.That would explain the exact match and she didn't get arrested for 6 mths. after the baby was found, that would give plenty of time for the police to plan their setup. This can be especially true when none of the key people are involved in the case anymore.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 2:45 PM Jen wrote ...

To: Not gonna say: I was definitely not saying Kathy is a psycho or a killer. I don't beleive she did anything with intent or malice. I am only saying that if the jury convicts her on any charge, I would hope that the stone of her frame of mind on that day isn't left un-turned. People don't just wake up one day and give birth and say, oh, I think I will dump this baby in my backyard today. Something made her snap. I hope she gets fair treatment from the jury.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 2:04 PM not gonna say... wrote ...

To Jen. I have known this whole family for many years,and am now tied to them in a way that I will not explain.I never thought that Kathy was a psycho,or a killer,I've known G.l. for years also,and never thought he was capable of this.I do know that I don't see them that much together,but when they first got togetherit was like they were perfect for eachother.Now the facts are out.The defense is the only side to say the baby was not alive.Not the prosecution.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:57 PM RS wrote ...

This whole thing is bizarre! I feel sorry for the baby, it didn't deserve to be left in a field, whether it was stillborn or not, that was disgusting leaving it! Hope someone has to answer for this!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:56 PM Sue wrote ...

I agree with Jen on one count: LET'S LOOK AT THE HUSBAND!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:52 PM Mr. Sarcasm wrote ...

LA is right, and she's always smiling in those pictures taken with her family too. How dare she be happy.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:24 PM Sue wrote ...

Maybe (ok, probably) the baby was hers. But either a) her husband was in on it and why isn't he being charged too or b) if he wasn't in on it, why is he covering for her? If my wife tossed our baby into a field I would make sure she was held accountable! Nothing in this case makes any sense! And these are upstanding people, not low-life drug addicts that do stupid things.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:23 PM REALLY?? wrote ...

OK, the fact that the baby is theirs isn't news...that info has been publicly available for at least a year. But the question still remains-if the baby wasn't born alive, how can Ms Phillips be guilty of murder? Questionable decision-making and character, maybe, but not murder. I still think the prosecutor is trying to go for the sensationalism factor that this trial has obviously fostered. No solid proof, so let's get 'em emotionally riled up. All smoke and mirrors.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:20 PM Kit Kat wrote ...

Regarding Jen: she made a bad decision? Is it called a bad decision when you are standing on the sidewalk and someone runs you over with their car and drives away after killing you? Oh, and another is filming it..you know like DNA - Gotcha!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 1:05 PM TA wrote ...

BigRedEvil are you stupid...give me a break...are you telling me that if you supposidly fathered a child and the test came back 99.9% that is was your child you would still deny it because of that 0.01%. Your a joke. This baby was her's and we all know it.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:57 PM Perry Mason wrote ...

Just playing devil's advocate (mostly to annoy those that have already turned in their guilty verdict), how did they come up with 99.9%? Have they tested 1,000 and only found 1 that didn't match the DNA? This can be nothing but an estimation. My next question to the "expert" would be what if the defendant had a twin, would the chances go down, or is that taken into account? OK, the decided jurists can get red-faced and repeat their guilty verdicts again.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:56 PM joe wrote ...

Guilty...

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:54 PM Portland wrote ...

No matter how much spin the defense would like to throw towards the collected evidence being tainted, the geneticist makes it reasonably undebateable that this time, the glove does indeed fit!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:52 PM Anonymous wrote ...

if she is 99.9% and so is the father there is no room for doubt this is like going to child support court and them saying you're 99.9% positive i order you to pay child support the basby is theirs or every onethat has had a dna test done to determine if they will pay child support questioning this

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:51 PM interested party wrote ...

Big Ed... Hello... there is no such thing as 100%. When it comes to DNA 99.9 is as high as it goes (out to many nines after the decimal point). 99.9 represents certainty. Sometimes they are less than that and still considered certain where parentage is concerned -- just watch Maury.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:38 PM Sue wrote ...

Have they interviewed the people Kathy worked with? Wasn't she a legal secretary? Relatives claim she wasn't pregnant - she couldn't have hidden that from her co-workers! I can't explain the DNA results, but the fact that no one can prove she was even pregnant casts that reasonable doubt...

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:29 PM NM wrote ...

Regardless if she is guily or innocent, why does she seem so happy to be on trial. Either way a baby was found dead and this is a very sad thing. The victim (the baby) deserves respect, not to be a joke that this woman obviously thinks this is. Shame on her!!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:25 PM Jen wrote ...

I worked with Kathy from 1999-2001. She is not psychotic or a bad person OR a murderer. Obviously she made a bad decision. A really bad one. Something or someone made her conceal that pregnancy, thus that's why she didn't go to the hospital. Poor decision to try to dispose of the body of a stillborn infant. But, can you really show malice and intent to murder when you leave the body on your own property? That shows she wasn't in her right mind.But why? Let's look at this husband..abusive maybe?

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:22 PM MBNC wrote ...

I am uneasy about the DNA results appearing in the media, since we, the pubic, are not the jury but I do hope that justice isn't blind in this instance and that the guilty are punished to the fullest extent of the law for the sake of Baby Jane. I feel so bad for the other children. Wish she would have left the little nubbin on my doorstep. I feed every stray critter in the neighborhood. Nothing goes hungry or unloved at this place! I am ashamed to be in the same species with that woman.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:18 PM jessica wrote ...

Why is she always smiling? SHE IS GUILTY OF THIS HORRIBLE CRIME!!!Is a joke to her or what? I hope she pays big time for this crime!!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:10 PM LA wrote ...

How come every time we see Mrs. Phillips on the news, she appears to be laughing and haveing a great time at the taxpayers expense for her trial. I hope if she is guilty, she get's the maximum for her crime. God Bless that poor child with no name, that baby deserved so much better than parents like that!

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 12:09 PM BigRedEvil wrote ...

But isnt 99.9% LESS than 100%? I mean hello - thats "reasonable doubt" - and thats all you need to escape a guilty verdict.....

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 11:50 AM Anonymous wrote ...

do we need any other evidence, that killing machine is guilty, lock her up. I bet if she says she was drunk when killing her baby she would only get 2.5 years in prison, just look at tony pellicos drinking and driving deal.

Tuesday, Jul 22 at 11:41 AM R. wrote ...

What are we going to argue about this? I think its obvious now all these test done by different professionals are not all going to say 99.9% positive and all be wrong.

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

Comments are moderated and will not appear on this story until after they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

WSBT and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.

WSBT Weather

icon
Current Temp 27
°
More Weather
More On Demand

Stock Quotes

YouNews

This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Tonight On WSBTFull Schedule

7.00
Wheel of Fortune
7.30
Jeopardy!
8.00
NCIS
9.00
The Mentalist
10.00
Without A Trace
11.00
WSBT News
11.35
Late Show with David Letterman

Question of The Day

When was the last time you bought a car?

E-mail your comments. We'll pick some to read during WSBT News at 5.