Sean Phillips Murder Trial of Baby Kate: Day 2: Ariel Rises and Kim Sets

[XLFD]

Day two of the Sean Phillip' Murder Trial continued the testimony of Ariel Courtland throughout the morning before introducing four other witnesses in the afternoon.  Phillips is alleged to have murdered Baby Kate, the five month old daughter of Ariel Courtland and him (allegedly at the time), however, Baby Kate has never been found since her disappearance 64 months ago. 

Absent a body, Sean Phillips was tried for unlawful imprisonment, found guilty, and sentenced for ten to fifteen years back in 2012, a sentence he currently serves.  Shortly after he wrote a prison letter to Ariel where he 'confessed' to certain things happening that day including an accidental killing of Baby Kate in the parking lot of Wendy's, the local prosecutor along with the Michigan Attorney General decided a more severe charge was due for Phillips. 

In 2013 they announced an open murder trial would take place, which stalled in the 79th District Court in 2014 when Judge Peter Wadel decided there was not enough probable cause for murder to send it to circuit court.  The judge of the original trial overruled that decision on appeal, and the higher courts over the last couple years have decided two things:  that there would be a trial, and that Judge Wadel would sit for the jury trial.

The regular news for the second day of trial is found here at WOOD Friday's Testimony and COLDNews Friday.  Here we offer not only the full video of Friday's proceedings below so you can see it for yourself, but we also offer what we refer to here as the supplemental report and notes, for those who have been following this case throughout the county the state, and the nation.

Supplemental Report and Notes

Court convened at 9:07 on Friday, September 30, 2016 with a conspicuous absence; the boyfriend/baby-daddy of the prosecutor's star witness, Ariel Courtland.  Those who view the videos may notice that I sit on the side of the defense, while the other media assemble behind the prosecution. 

This sometimes allows me to see things they don't, like the web-surfing habits of Defense Attorney John Smietanka, who was hired by the state to compensate for the prosecutions having an experienced AG prosecutor.  When questionably-competent public defender David Glancy is cross examining the main witness, why is Barrister Smietanka surfing The Drudge Report and Real Clear Politics instead of listening intently like the rest of us and offering legal advice like he's being paid to do?

Glancy started the day with the cross examination.  Ariel said she was never allowed into the Phillips' house (home to Sean) even before the incident where she allegedly stole money (referenced in the 2012 trial with the jury absent).  She added Sean stayed with her most every night during June 2011, the night previous to the disappearance being an exception. 

Glancy went back to August of 2010 to texts Ariel sent about getting money from Sean for an abortion for the unborn Kate.  By her choice of words, she appeared to be the one trying the most for the procedure even though she claimed to be pro-life at this hearing.  She got the money from Sean who was out of town during the time training for the National Guard, but she took the money he sent for that and spent it on baby clothes instead. 

Glancy ran through many of Ariel's texts in May and June 2011, getting Ariel to admit they were about adoptions; many of these texts showed she seemed to be leading the conversation.  When she interviewed at the LPD with Det. Kenney on the day Kate disappeared, she said it was only discussed a 'couple of times', but there were dozens of texts about each in the record.  Including these that Ariel admitted were about adoptions:

June 1, 2016:  "The lady wants to know if we could do it tonight?" and "When can we take her?"

June 3:  "So the adoption lady called me..."

June 9:  "Are we doing it tonight or tomorrow?"  and "They wanna do it now."

And several more.  It should be noted that the couple had not ever formally went through any adoption agency, so the legality of what they were considering has to be suspect.  A recess was called shortly after Ariel said their relationship had changed once he got back from training (Editor:  likely because of her use of the abortion money, she said it was due to his parents).  Her new baby-daddy came in after the recess.

Glancy came back with more discrepancies of Ariel's testimony concerning:  the fate of the birth announcement, whether she or he took Kate down to the car when they went to the DHS, whether she desired to stop at the hospital or not on the way back from DHS, whether she carried Kate in front of the car or behind it before he took off, and whether he had permission to take Kate with her or not. 

Ariel thought that Kate was awake and should have been crying when Sean took off, but believed Sean was getting very attached to Kate, and made known that he wanted to adopt her out soon. 

Then came Alaina Campbell to the witness stand, the friend who loaned her phone and rode Ariel around town looking for Sean.  She recalled her original testimony with little help from the prosecutor, but she did testify she never really saw Sean around the complex when she previously stated he came over to her place to repair stuff while she was there.

LPD Officer Chad Skiba began testifying about his experience as being the first responding officer to the scene, eight minutes into his testimony LPD Chief Barnett came in the court to spectate.  At the 2014 prelim, Skiba was not an LPD officer and it was rumored that there was some bad blood between him and the chief, by their body language at that hearing and before.  It was not noticeable today. 

Skiba, not mentioning the hiatus, said he had been on the LPD for 10 years, other than that his testimony was as it was four years ago.  Under cross examination, it was noted that originally Ariel said she left her keys in the car, but that they were found on the stroller; perhaps an honest mistake by a distraught mother.

Anna Appledorn, an intake worker for the DHS office near the hospital, also reiterated her earlier testimony about Ariel's later arrival at 1:45 PM to ask whether her daughter had been left there.  Appledorn, Skiba, Campbell, and Ariel all spoke on the same day back in 2012 also.

The day finished with testimony beginning at 2:11 from Kim Phillips.  It began with some tense moments between AG Pendergast and Kim debating about the content and context of a text message Kim sent to Ariel which could be liberally interpreted to be tampering with a witness' testimony.  Judge Wadel's basic indifference on the topic, showed that he felt it was not a breach, and Pendergast dropped it shortly thereafter, but she badgered Sean's mother for most of the duration on the consistency of her prior testimony with her more recent memories. 

She related that Sean had been very surprised by the paternity papers.  That LPD Officer Kuster's first visit included a consensual walk through, and that when Sean came home and had only been in the kitchen, living room and his bathroom until his second arrival.  The rest of her testimony (pt. 4 of the videos) was where I had to leave.

[XLFD]

Yes, I caught that moment.  The prosecution was leading Detective Kenney through the timeline and Glancy was correctly objecting about some of the entries being based on hearsay information, not what the witnesses actually attested to in court.  Spaniola was wanting to alter a line that Wadel said should be struck, then Wadel made the remark, which stunned Spaniola momentarily before he came back with a "you really think so, your honor" or something similar, before moving along. 

[Brad]

Can anyone here come to the conclusion that Sean is smart?  I haven't seen enough.  Is he smart enough to orchestrate the secret adoption scenario and leave no trace, no one to slip up?  I just just don't see that.  IMO, I barely see enough smarts to leave no trace of the baby if he murdered her.  But since that would possibly be only him to keep it secret, seems more likely.  With adoption scenario there's several people involved, so less likely to keep under raps.  

I am dumb founded why they would pursue this with what they have/had.  One thing for locals to pursue, another for the state to.  Unless there plan was to go for 2nd degree.

Makes me sick, but my opinion, I still think he is guilty of murder.

[XLFD]

Smartness has to definitely be questioned when you consider his nihilistic relationship with Ariel over the years.  Sean is smart enough to keep his mouth shut and thus, smart enough to know that his jail and prison writings wouldn't be private.  I think Sean mistakenly believed that he may be absolved of his 10-15 years time for secret confinement if he crafted a story that illustrated an accidental death and fit what the investigation already uncovered. 

That didn't happen, and even though I doubt any of the investigators believe Sean's version is truth, they invoke their own prejudices into what 'actually happened', as they have since day one, rather than shoot for the truth of the matter.  The Wendy's receipt and phone records shows conclusively that Sean's phone could not have been ringing in his pocket like he said, because it had already been turned off.  Nor is it plausible that he could have thrown the baby out of the car, nor do it all without anybody noticing it happen from Burger King, Wendy's, the highway and the drive-thru of BK during lunch time, nor have the baby clothes/car seat/his clothes all be bereft of forensic clues. 

[X_Ldy_Law_Dawg]

I agree.  I fully believe Ariel is in on this whether his parents paid her off or they actually sold the baby.  For me her lack of real emotion after the disappearance of her daughter is what I am focused on.  Who goes SHOPPING just a couple days after your child goes missing and is allegedly kidnapped?  Just does not make sense.  Something the prosecution has not come up with is REAL motive to intentionally kill his child which is what first and second degree must have.  If it was an accident, the most he could be charged with would be manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.  Even that would be really pushing the envelope.  Did the defense bring up anything at all concerning Ariel's behavior?  I can understand the defense not calling any witnesses such as his parents or even Sean himself because then they would have to answer for their trip to Germany and for Sean's lack of explaining where Kate's whereabouts are, as well as incriminate a LOT of people, such as his parents, Ariel, and the people who may have purchased Kate in a black market adoption.

I wish I could have been there to sit through the trial.  I truly believe the jury will find him not guilty and the prosecution will not be ever able to retry him for the murder of his daughter.  The only way he could be charged with murder is if her body is found on tribal or Federal land.  Even then, I would think double jeopardy would still apply.  I am not a lawyer, my husband has a Masters in Criminal Justice.  I will have to throw it by him to see what he thinks.   The thing that matters most is that Kate is not with those two cretins anymore, and hopefully she is alive with a wonderful family living like a little princess.

[Willy]

X, if Sean is found not guilty of murder at this trial would that not negate his first conviction of kidnapping. If they can't prove that Kate was with Sean so that a murder could take place then how can he be guilty of kidnapping? 

[XLFD]

The finding of this trial will not influence the result of the first trial.  Though it may seem odd, consider the more famous case of OJ Simpson where a reverse result happened.  OJ was found not guilty in the criminal murder trial, which had much tougher elements to prove and a dedicated legal team.  But in the following civil trial over the same incident, he was determined to be liable. 

Consider also that he could have 'kidnapped' Kate and not killed her, for example, as in a black market adoption, a case that nobody should ever rule out without better proofs, including the jurors.  The scary thing I find about this case is that there is no proof of a death occurring and many signs pointing away from that; a guilty verdict will lower the thresholds set to protect innocent people from false charges in other cases.