Woman who killed her infant son in 1986 in Connecticut avoids prison
Janita Phillips, 65, of Lake Mary, Florida, was charged with murder in 2021, after police said new DNA testing linked her to the crime. She pleaded guilty to a lesser manslaughter charge in April.
The probation sentence was unusual in a child homicide case, but warranted because a peer-reviewed psychological assessment concluded Phillips experienced "extreme emotional distress" at the time of the killing, both the prosecutor and defense lawyer said. Judge Gary White in Stamford, Connecticut, called it a case deserving mercy.
When Phillips killed the infant, she and her husband had just moved into an apartment in Greenwich, Connecticut, with their eldest child after being homeless and her husband had told her he didn't want another baby, her lawyer, Stephen DeLeo, said. The couple, who remain together and have been married for 42 years, were stressed about money and their ability to feed their family, DeLeo said.
Phillips told police she hid the pregnancy from her husband and other relatives, an arrest warrant said. Police said her husband did not know about the baby's death and had no involvement.
Phillips and her husband have three children who are now adults. One of their sons is disabled and resides at an assistant living facility, while her husband has medical problems and she takes care of him, DeLeo said in an interview.
"Incarcerating her would serve no purpose at this time," DeLeo said, adding that this case was Phillips' only brush with the law in her life. He also said she lost her insurance industry job because of the case.
Phillips cried during the sentencing hearing and said she had a "deep sense of regret." She also said she took full responsibility, DeLeo said. Under her sentence, if she violates probation she could face up to 20 years in prison.
The newborn child, named Baby John by police, was found dead in a garbage truck on May 16, 1986, after workers had emptied a dumpster at the apartment building in Greenwich where Phillips lived, authorities said. The chief medical examiner's office determined the baby was strangled shortly after being born and ruled his death a homicide.
Phillips and her family moved to Florida shortly after the baby's death, police said.
As CBS News New York reported after her arrest in 2021, the case had gone cold, but in 2019, police announced new DNA techniques would be used to try to solve the case. They offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction.
Greenwich police said they used newly available forensic testing in 2020 that linked evidence found at the crime scene to the boy's mother. Police took items out of the trash and recycling at Phillips' Florida home in 2020. DNA testing showed Phillips and her husband were the parents of the infant, authorities said.
The arrest warrant says Phillips confessed to the crime, blaming stress and her husband's wish to have no more children, CBS News New York reported.
"This had troubled her throughout her entire life. She did seem remorseful," Robert Berry, with the Greenwich Police, said after her arrest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Advertisement The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Advertisement Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. Advertisement News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Associated Press
3 hours ago
- Associated Press
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
