Early 2012 Updates on Baby Kate: Delays and Get Aways

[XLFD]

In today's local media, there were two local updates on the Baby Kate case.  It looks as if WMOM had the first posting of the story, followed by WOOD and then the LDN (on the web).  I am glad our Daily News gets updates from other sources.  Here is what WOOD says:

 

With no reason revealed, the Mason County Circuit Court confirmed the trial for Sean Phillips, accused in the disappearance of his baby girl, Katherine Phillips, has been delayed.

The trial for Phillips was scheduled to begin January 17. Phillips is charged with unlawful imprisonment and parental kidnapping. There is no new date set for the trial.

Baby Kate, as she came to be called, was 4 1/2 months old when she last was seen June 29, 2011 with Phillips. Baby Kate lived with her mother Ariel Courtland at the time.

Phillips remains in jail on a $250,000 bond. He rejected a plea deal in October. He could face up to 15 years behind bars if convicted.

 

WMOM alone also reports that:

 

It wasn't a joyous holiday vacation for everyone.  Over the Christmas break, Ariel Courtland, the mother of missing Baby Kate, was granted a personal protective order.  Her complaint states that April Reynolds of Grand Rapids has threatened violence and harassed her.  It says that since July of last year, Ms. Reynolds has posted inflammatory information on a Facebook page.

That page was taken down over the New Year's weekend.

It included posts with interpretation of alleged facts that have yet been proven in the disappearance case of Baby Kate.  Courtland claims that Reynolds called her over 30 times on Christmas Eve.

Reynolds was involved in the candlelight vigil in September and "protests" at the county jail on Halloween.  Sources tell MOM news that the police have intervened but have not yet commented on the PPO issued to Ariel Courtland.

 

April has posted on here that this article is not totally true.  I would not be surprised if it wasn't, I have heard PPOs can be gotten without much burden of proof of anything.  But I invite any or all parties in that disputation of facts to present their claim or their defense, and offer any corroborating evidence.  I would also like to find out the reason for all the delays and the lack of information released about mundane aspects of this case to the public at large.  I can see why many people are just getting frustrated over it all.

[Willy]

Has any of the involved people taken a lie detector test or were requested to take one and refused?

[Sweater Cows!]

This case is so strange that it is hard to know what to think about it!

[XLFD]

I agree WWAS.  It's like one of those mystery/detective stories where the suspects aren't talking, motives are sketchily undefined, and we don't even know the full extent of the crime.  The delay is reportedly a technical aspect.

 

Willy,

WOOD TV on 7-1-2011 reported that Ariel voluntarily took a lie detector test, and was not a suspect.  That early in the investigation, it seemed rather weird that she was taken off the list of having any complicity in the crime.  LPD's continued withholding of information and other early mistakes (such as botching the Amber Alert, postponing organized searches, etc.), even if it's within their power, has helped foster the notion that Ariel might be involved.

[XLFD]

More updates.  Congrats to MLive a favorite source of local news from two counties away; this afternoon they broke the story of when the Baby Kate trial has been resceduled.  It will be February 26, 2012. 

 

A more interesting snippet from this article is: 

"There is absolutely no plea negotiation," Smedley (Sean's lawyer) said Wednesday. "Sean has stated again and again, Ariel was the last one to have that baby when he left that day. He has not changed that story. It is not a story he has spun. It's the facts."

 

Have I ever read this in the local paper?  No.  Is he a liar?  Perhaps, but... 

Why has the mother never been considered a suspect by the local police?  If she has an airtight alibi supported by solid witnesses, why doesn't the LPD put this on the table to explain why she shouldn't be a witness?  If she passes a lie detector test, that proves nothing, particularly when the results are not publicly released.  Cooperation with authorities also does not prove her innocence.  

WMOM had their own story up by 3:04 this afternoon, but the LDN may have it by tomorrow.

[XLFD]

Yesterday, WMOM reported that:

Charges dropped in Baby Kate Case

Wednesday, 04 April 2012 15:23 |

MOM Radio has discovered a  big development in the Baby Kate Case. One of the charges against Sean Michael Phillips has been dropped. According to courts records, Paul Spaniola, Mason County prosecuting attorney is proceeding with only one of the three original charges in the case. Originally, Phillips was charged with capital kidnapping, custodial interference and secret confinement. The original kidnapping charge was dropped when it was discovered that Phillips was the biological father of Baby Kate. Now, this court order drops the parental kidnapping charge. Phillips is only accused of secret confinement of the child but that charge carries a 15 year penalty.

The prosecuting attorney said that this change will simplify the case for the jury. The trial begins a week from Monday. Some 50 witnesses have been called by subpoena to testify.

---------------------------

I don't know about the jury they selected, but this move seems to further complicate the case for me.  Unless there is some information that has yet to come out, a responsible jury would almost have to find Phillips 'not guilty' of the remaining charge.  As it is right now, I see the charge that was dropped was the strongest part of the prosecution.  But I don't have the great mind of our local prosecutor, Paul Spaniola.

[Marty Redman]

My opinion is that if they can't even make a parental kidnaping charge stick, how are they going to ever make secret confinement stick?  How can they even prove non-secret confinement, can someone explain this MI law for me?

[Willy]

I predict that the charge will be amended just before the trial begins to "double secret confinement".

[XLFD]

If that's the case, Willy, look forward to Sean Phillips filling his mouth with mashed potatoes and doing his impression of a zit at court.

This is the MI law, Marty:  MI 750.349b.  I see a problem in the prosecution showing the "restrain" element.  This is usually called unlawful imprisonment, and I think it could be trouble in showing "confinement" as well.  The "secret" part is easily proved.  If I was on the jury, I couldn't find Mr. Phillips guilty of this with what has been released so far.

[Willy]

The problem with the current charge is in the definition of the charge.

(b) The restrained person was secretly confined.

(a) "Restrain" means to forcibly restrict a person's movements or to forcibly confine the person so as to interfere with that person's liberty without that person's consent or without lawful authority. The restraint does not have to exist for any particular length of time and may be related or incidental to the commission of other criminal acts.

How can a parent restrain a baby especially if he obviously had authority to have the baby in his custody at the time of the incident.

What "force" would they be referring to.

(b) "Secretly confined" means either of the following:

(i) To keep the confinement of the restrained person a secret.

(ii) To keep the location of the restrained person a secret.

Again the term "restrained" "confinement" and "secret" must be proven. And what is a "secret"? Is a "secret" something that is concealed from the baby from the  authorities or from everyone.

These definitions must be applied to a baby who doesn't know what force and restrained means and cannot testify unlike someone who can speak and be present at a trial.

I think using this part of the law shows a lack of confidence in getting a conviction.

[XLFD]

Dittoes on the legal analysis, but for the latter I think it shows a lack of competence in the prosecution.  With this latest twist, I predict that Sean Phillips is going to walk if his lawyer, Annette Smedley, does her job well.

[AQUAMAN]

Willy, as usual, you make some very interesting and valid points of law here. And again, we seem to have what appears to be a weaker and weaker prosecution of Mr. Phillips by our local prosecuting attorney. What I'd like to know is how on earth they are going to select a local unbiased jury for the trial? Given the facts that ALL locals know about this case, along with most of the surrounding counties in the entire State of Michigan, how do they propose to get that jury selected? The very First thing Phillips attorney should request is a change in venue/location for the trial and jury selection. It's a shame this case has so many faults and miscues by all LE involved, maybe that's why this case is so complex now. 

[XLFD]

The jury has already been seated and are waiting for it to start after a couple of false starts.  Whatever the outcome, it's likely to be the Mason County trial of the millenium, and I plan on following it closely.