At around 6:30 in the morning, Lorie Phillips woke up in her home in Wisconsin and realized her husband was nowhere beside her. She walked through the rooms, checked around the house. Then, almost by chance, she glanced out the window. A body was lying in the snow. Within seconds, she was running outside.
48-year-old Mark Phillips was dead. He had spent the entire night lying in a snowdrift. His body had literally frozen to the ground. But that was not the biggest problem. Mark had not died from the cold. The autopsy revealed severe injuries to his head and chest, several broken ribs, a fatal impact to the left side of his body. Investigators quickly focused on one important detail.
The night before, Mark and his wife had gotten into an argument. She left the house in their pickup truck. When she returned in the middle of the night, she claimed she had not noticed anything unusual. But later, forensic experts found fabric fibers underneath the truck that matched the clothing Mark had been wearing. Meanwhile, surveillance footage, phone records, and dozens of text messages began to piece together a timeline of the final hours of Mark Phillips’s life.
Hours during which his wife was searching for hotels, sending messages about domestic abuse, and repeatedly checking the home security cameras. But the biggest question still remained unanswered. Did Mark Phillips really die beneath the wheels of his wife’s vehicle? Or did something entirely different happen that night? Hey guys, let me grab you for just a second.
I’m really curious where my audience is watching from. So, I’d love for you to drop a comment and tell me what city you’re in and what time it is for you right now. Thanks for taking a moment. Go ahead and share that in the comments. And now, let’s keep going. Hullman is a community of about 12,000 residents located in the northern part of Lacrosse County, Wisconsin.
Over the past few decades, the area has grown from a small farming community, but its rural roots are still easy to see. On the outskirts of Hullman along a county road east of Highway 35 sat the property of 48-year-old Mark Phillips and his new wife Lorie. In February of 2019, Wisconsin was experiencing a typical winter, cold, snowy, and unforgiving.
On the evening of February 22nd, the ground was covered by several feet of snow in areas that had not been cleared, and the forecast called for even more snowfall overnight. Mark and Lorie Phillips, who had been married for nearly 2 months, had plans to spend the evening with friends.
Lorie, who was originally from nearby Winona, invited her friends Hannah Kinsky and Adam Stevens to join them. At around 7:00 that evening, the group arrived at a local spot known simply as the dive bar. After enjoying plenty of drinks and staying out late, Mark and Lorie headed home shortly after 1:00 in the morning.
What happened about 30 minutes after they arrived back at the house remains unknown. Lorie later said that an argument broke out between them and ended with her leaving in their Dodge Ram pickup truck. She did not return home until several hours later in the middle of the night when Mark had likely already gone to bed.
The next morning at around 6:30, Lorie woke up. She had managed only a few restless hours of sleep. As she walked through the house, she realized Mark was not in their bedroom. Before she could make it to the garage to check on their second vehicle, she noticed a dark shape in the snow outside the window.
She ran outside and found Mark lying there. Unresponsive, frozen to the ground. She ran back into the house to get her phone and called 911. Okay, what’s going on? My husband is out of this kidney. Oh my god. He said he’s frozen. I know he’s not moving. Is he breathing? No, I don’t think so. Okay, stand in front of me.
Oh my god. Oh my god. How did this happen, ma’am? Okay, tell me exactly what happened. Okay. I I don’t know. I can’t do this. Okay. What’s going on right now? Is he awake? Okay. Okay. Okay. Is he awake? Is he breathing? No, he’s not. Okay, we have help on the way. Lay him flat on his back.
We’re going to try to help him. Okay. I’m sure he’s been here for a long long long time. They’re still all over him. Are you able to get him on his back? and we’ll try to do chest compression. No, you’re too heavy. Okay. When was the last time you saw him? Last night at like 11:00. Okay. Okay.
He was chasing my knee down like in the truck and I just took off. He was chasing you down in the truck. Is that what you said? Yes. Okay. Okay. No, he’s over here. It was still twilight when Officer Valencia received the call to the Philips residence. Arriving just a few minutes later, he turned onto the first driveway leading to the house, the same driveway Luri had used when she returned home the night before.
The driveway curved to the right around the main house before looping back toward the county road. Just before the bend, not far from a pair of sunglasses that appeared to have fallen in the middle of the driveway, Mark Phillips was found. He was lying next to a snowbank. Although he could be clearly seen from the house, a snow pile roughly 10 ft high blocked the view from nearly every point along the driveway.
Sergeant Valencia was the first person to speak with Lorie about what had happened. Oh my god, I did not know he was odor. So, we had an argument last night and uh he was coming around the truck to come and get me. So, I took off. His door was so wide open, but I didn’t know that he was like I didn’t I didn’t I don’t know what happened.
I didn’t know he was there. Oh my god. Okay, stay here. Stay with me. Okay. Okay. Are these your footprints here? Just yours? No, I thought it was I went to see. Okay. If he was because I got up and I went to the bedroom and I went to see where he was and I went to see if his car spawn. My god.
I came home last night and I never even saw him. Snow had fallen throughout the night. Mark was covered by a thick layer of snow, leaving little doubt that he had been outside for many hours. The only footprints found around him were Lorie’s made when she ran from the house to where he was lying. Lorie and Mark had married the previous December after being together for 3 years.
Mark was the father of two children from a previous relationship. According to everyone who knew him, he was a loving and devoted father. He had recently been offered a new job in Bismar, North Dakota. The couple was preparing to move there. A trailer parked behind the house had already been partially loaded with their belongings. For them, it was supposed to be the beginning of a new chapter in life.
Yeah. What? She said they just got married in December. All right. Try to figure this out. She said they got something about I’m sure that’s a big part of it. Inside the house, Lorie continued speaking with the deputy sheriff. She explained that the last time she had seen her husband was the night before.
The two of them had been arguing and she left in the pickup truck, leaving Mark standing in the driveway. without being asked about it. She volunteered one particular statement on her own and said, “I didn’t hit him with my truck or anything like that.” Lori agreed to provide a written statement describing the events of the previous day and the circumstances surrounding her call to 911.
Later that same day, she sat down with Lacrosse County investigator Fritz Linfelder to prepare and write out that statement. Sometimes it’s easier. Put your thoughts down in a written form. Obviously, it’ll get you going on this. Lori was not placed under arrest. She did not ask for a lawyer. She also had no idea that while she was sitting at the sheriff’s office, the Dodge Ram pickup truck she had been driving the night before was already being towed away on a flatbed to the police impound lot.
Investigators were also very interested in the home’s surveillance footage. Lorie willingly explained to investigator Linfelder how to access the security system remotely. She provided the usernames and passwords and walked him through exactly how the system worked. camera system is your email. Do you goes by email system? Oh, the Mark’s email and pass and is it pass? Do you know what his email address is that would go to? No, I have I have all three.
Okay. There were three surveillance cameras installed on the property. One monitored the front entrance of the house and the area where the pickup truck had been parked the night before. Another covered the back door of an outuilding on the property. The third was pointed toward the hot tub.
At the time, investigators were likely interested only in the first camera, although they could not be certain of anything yet. While they reviewed the footage and worked on obtaining a search warrant for the pickup truck, Lori carefully recounted the events of the previous night. Just basically starting from when you left last night, you went to dinner, everything you told me.
you went to Sloopies had wings pizza blah blah blah went to the dive for the drawing um if when things got a little an argument may have started just in that kind of detail. Um whatever you think is important to put into in into that to tell the story of what happened last night with the the domestic situation. After dinner, the couple arrived at the dive bar with their friends Hannah and Adam.
While they were there, they met up with another acquaintance, Scott Kundi, to go to features drawing at 9 and we ran into Scott Kundi. When we were leaving, Scott Kundi asked us to go to a car that had just pulled in to say hi to Terry and his wife. According to Lorie, unexpectedly running into Scott and Terry turned out to be bad news.
She said that when Mark drank, he would become extremely and irrationally jealous after a few drinks. Any mention of her past was something he took very personally, especially when he had been drinking. Terry Lafleur, who had arrived at the bar with his wife, was someone Luri had known for many years. At one time, Terry worked as a bartender at a business owned by Lorie’s former in-laws.
Lori had also worked there for a period of time. There had never been any romantic relationship between Lorie and Terry, but according to Lorie, that did not matter to her husband. She said he became angry as they were trying to leave the bar. Got into the truck and we left. Mark accused Terry of coming to the bar to see me. Accused me of sleeping with him.
Asked he’s never brought Terry’s name up before in his life. Mark pulled me into the middle of the truck and was holding me down. He had me in a choke hold. After getting away from Mark, I went inside to be with friends that we were still at. Lorie also claimed that during the argument, Mark became so angry that he punched the pickup truck’s window with his fist landing just inches from her head.
After that incident, Lorie went back inside the bar. Visible marks were left on her neck. Investigator Linfelder did not ask to see the bruise on her chest that Lorie said she had suffered. None of her alleged injuries were photographed or documented. The last thing I wanted you guys to think he’s a bad person though by reading them cuz he certainly wasn’t.
He just had a jealous reaction. He said he had bruise here. You grab you by the neck. Yeah. I don’t know if there’s anything or not. Yeah. Me in the middle of the truck. There should be an earring somewhere in the truck, too, cuz that diamond earring is missing still. Eventually, Mark also returned to the bar.
Lorie told investigator Linfelder that by then she believed he had calmed down. Shortly before 9:00, he sent her a text message apologizing for his behavior. Lorie told their friends that everything was fine and that they could leave and head home. About an hour later, she drove Mark and herself home from the bar. My friends were going to leave and I told them I’d be fine and we were going and went back by Mark.
Everything was okay. He texted me at 8:52 to say, “I’m so sorry. I love you.” Shortly after that, we left to go home. He brought up Terry again and got really mad. We argued all the way home. When we got home, I told him I was leaving. He said he wanted to get his things out of the truck.
He was on the passenger side with the door open and he got mad and started running over to my door. Started running ran over to Yeah. running over my door. When he got to my door, I took off. His door was still open, meaning the passenger door that he was getting his stuff out. I turned right out of the driveway and I closed. I drove to a subdivision down the street, pulled over to see if Mark was chasing me.
The autopsy of Mark Phillips revealed blunt force injuries to the left side of his torso, his upper extremities, and his head. Several of his ribs were broken and he had suffered a serious injury to the left side of his head. Hypothermia was ruled out as a cause of death. If the head injury had resulted from a simple fall to the ground, it would not have explained the rest of his injuries.
Forensic pathologist Doctor Ross Rod concluded that Mark’s injuries were most likely caused either by an extremely forceful impact with the ground or by his body being crushed by a heavy object on the left side. The injuries were also consistent with a fall from a significant height. However, that explanation clearly did not fit the circumstances of the case.
That left only a few possible scenarios. After reviewing all available evidence, investigators concluded that Mark Phillips had most likely been crushed by a heavy object. They believed that object was the Dodge Ram pickup truck driven by his wife. Specialists from the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory conducted a forensic examination of the vehicle.
During the inspection, they discovered hair near the front right wheel, components of the front right suspension, and the driver’s side running board. Fabric fibers were also found in multiple locations. The fibers that drew the most attention were those discovered on the rear drive shaft and underneath the vehicle. Experts determined that they were consistent with the fabric of the pants Mark Phillips was wearing when his body was found.
His clothing, particularly his pants, showed signs of tearing. At the same time, the vehicle itself displayed no obvious signs of a collision. Investigators found no dents, no scratches in the paint, no damage to the mirror, grill, or any other indication of an accident. They also found no traces of blood. Even so, investigators considered it suspicious that fibers from Mark’s clothing had ended up on the underside of the truck.
The earring Lorie claimed Mark had ripped from her ear during the altercation outside the bar was never found. Based on the autopsy findings and the preliminary examination of the vehicle, investigators developed their theory of how Mark Phillips died. According to that theory, Lorie did in fact speed down the driveway in the pickup truck during a heated argument, but not while her husband was safely standing off to the side.
Investigators believed she accelerated at the exact moment Mark was running toward the front of the vehicle. The truck struck him, spun him around, threw him to the ground, and then ran over the left side of his body. Mark was left lying beside the snowbank. Investigators believed that frightened by what had happened, Lorie spent most of the night away from the house.
They alleged that she later returned under the cover of darkness and claimed she did not see her husband lying in the snow drift. Then the next morning, she allegedly staged the discovery of his body. Detectives in Lacrosse County began verifying every detail of the story Lorie had told them. Using surveillance footage and data from her phone, they were able to reconstruct a detailed timeline of the night’s events.
They located video from Sloopies, where the couple had dinner earlier that evening. They also obtained footage showing their arrival at the dive bar. Cameras near the entrance captured both their arrival and departure exactly as Lorie had described. Just a few minutes after the couple left together, Lorie returned alone following the alleged argument in the pickup truck.
About 15 minutes later, Mark also came back to the bar. In the interview room, investigators reviewed text messages Lorie had sent to her friend Hannah after the incident outside. In one of those messages, she wrote, “It got really serious.” After that, she asked Hannah to delete the message from her phone.
Lorie did not want to risk Mark seeing it. Cameras inside the bar captured Mark walking over to the table where Lorie was sitting. They exchanged a few words and then stepped outside to talk. When they came back in, Mark continued gesturing aggressively, pounding on the table and waving his arms around. The argument was still going on.
A few minutes later, while they were sitting separately inside the bar, Mark sent her a text message apologizing for his behavior. Lorie’s friends left for home shortly after 10:00. Surveillance footage also captured Lorie and Mark arguing as they left the bar. The home security cameras were not activated when the couple returned to the house, so they did not record what happened next.
Investigators confirmed that at around 11:00, Lorie drove away from the property in the pickup truck. They also recovered the text messages she sent to Hannah after leaving. He completely lost it again. He was standing by the passenger door and trying to come around the truck to get to me, but I drove away. I honestly don’t even know what to do tonight.
He totally lost control. He promised he would never lay a hand on me. He lied. Search records showed that Lorie tried to book a room at a Holiday Inn, but there were no vacancies available. She then searched for other nearby hotels and directions to get there. By 11:40 that night, Lorie had arrived at the Bmont Inn and was attempting to check in for the night.
Less than an hour after investigators believe she fatally injured her husband with the pickup truck, Lorie was calmly searching through her purse for her identification and bank card. She had booked a room in advance using her phone, but she had entered the wrong date. No rooms were available for that night. After that, Lorie drove across the road to an empty parking lot. She spent some time there.
During that period, activity on her phone showed several internet searches and text messages. Among them was a message she sent to Mark telling him that after that night their marriage was over. “I can’t believe you actually laid your hands on me,” she wrote. She wished him the best, but told him she would not be moving to Bismar with him.
After that, Lorie searched online twice for information about domestic violence. When she found a quote on the subject, she sent it to her husband as well. Lorie also did something else that investigators considered potentially suspicious. Throughout the night, she repeatedly logged into the home’s surveillance camera system.
Was she checking to see whether the earlier incident had been captured on video? Or was she trying to find out whether her husband was still alive? Even though she had nowhere to spend the night, she declined Hannah’s offer to stay with her in Winona. Instead, Lorie remained in the parking lot until about 2:00 in the morning.
At that point, she decided that Mark had probably gone to bed. Before returning home, Lorie remotely disabled the camera system. After she got back, she reactivated it during the early morning hours, shortly before leaving the house and finding Mark in the snow drift. In June of 2020, 50-year-old Lorie Phillips was arrested and charged with one count of reckless homicide.
The trial began in November of 2023. Prosecutor Berdick argued that the pickup truck was the only possible cause of Mark’s death. He told the jury, “We know this was not a simple fall. We know it was not a heart attack. We know Mr. Phillips did not get drunk and fall asleep in the snow.” At the same time, the prosecutor emphasized that it was impossible to strike a person with a vehicle hard enough to cause fatal injuries and not realize that it had happened.
The prosecution also argued that Lor’s actions after leaving the house were part of an effort to cover up the crime. By sending messages to Hannah and Mark and searching for information about domestic violence, investigators claimed she was creating a digital trail designed to support her innocence. On the other hand, a person who truly did not know that her husband was lying severely injured in a snowbank near the house might reasonably continue sending text messages to his phone.
The physical evidence that was supposed to support the prosecution’s theory was not especially strong. The forensic expert who examined the pickup truck testified that the fabric fibers found underneath the vehicle were consistent with the pants Mark had been wearing. However, the material itself was extremely common.
Similar fibers could be found in thousands or even millions of other clothing items. As for the hair that was allegedly discovered on the exterior of the truck, despite the significant attention given to that finding early in the investigation, laboratory testing could not even confirm that it was human hair.
It certainly could not establish that it belonged to Mark Phillips. Defense attorney Chris Zacher also pointed to streaks in the dirt along the driver’s side of the truck near the rear portion of the vehicle. According to the defense, those marks could support an alternative explanation. The running boards mounted beneath both the drivers and passengers doors had been installed after the truck was purchased.
They were wide and extended noticeably beyond the body of the vehicle. If Mark had tripped over one of those running boards and his pant leg briefly caught on it, the stumble could have spun him around and thrown him onto his left side. In that scenario, he might have instinctively reached out along the side of the truck, leaving a mark behind.
Afterward, he could have hit the ground with enough force to suffer the fatal injuries that were later discovered. Well, let me ask you first. Do you see the presence of kind of that salt film that tends to accumulate on vehicles? Yes, I do. And uh do you see an area um behind the uh um driver the driver’s side rear door where that film appeared to have been wiped or marked in some respect? Um it appears that in this picture. Yes.
And it appears that we have some thinner lines running downwards from the smear near the item of the gas cap. Is that correct? Correct. So those appear to be consistent width of a human finger. I don’t have a scaled photo, but uh just based off the size of typical vehicles, that looks to be pretty close to about the width of a finger.
I’m sorry. Forensic pathologist Dr. Rod, who served as a medical examiner in southern Minnesota, told the jury that Mark Phillips’s estimated blood alcohol concentration was 0.149%. At the time of his death, he was heavily intoxicated. Benadryil was also found in his system, which would have further intensified the effects of alcohol.
In the autopsy report, the cause of death was listed as blunt force trauma. However, Dr. Farad did not assign a specific manner of death. He did not classify it as an accident, a homicide, or any other category. During questioning by the defense, he acknowledged that he could not rule out the possibility of an accidental death.
The theory presented by Lor’s defense remained a plausible explanation. If an individual were caught or tripped by a moving vehicle, that’s enough force to cause this type of injury, this subdural hemorrhaging. and the exterior head injury if they strike the payments is the answer. Is that fair to say? Yes.
Are some of these injuries, doctor, consistent with Mr. Phillips thinking on sudden fall into becoming attached to the vehicle for some period of time um where he would be in a position of drag? Yes, Lori took the stand in her own defense. She testified that Mark was a loving husband when he was sober.
However, whenever he drank alcohol, he would begin accusing her of being involved with other men. According to Lorie, every time he came back to his senses, he would apologize for his behavior. Lorie also testified about previous incidents involving Mark that took place before they were married. She said he had a habit of sneaking into her apartment at night without permission.
He never physically struck her. But according to Lorie, his behavior while under the influence of alcohol was unquestionably emotionally and psychologically abusive. Over the years, Lorie learned exactly what kinds of things could set him off. That was why she turned down Hannah’s offer to stay overnight in Winona.
She had stayed there before, and if Mark had found out that she had gone there again for the night, it would have made him even angrier. Lorie also presented photographs showing bruises on her chest, neck, and legs that appeared after the night of Mark’s death. The pictures were taken by Hannah a few days later once the bruising became clearly visible.
According to Lorie, the police showed no interest in documenting those injuries. Her testimony also gave her a chance to explain behavior that prosecutors had presented as circumstantial evidence of her guilt. In particular, they focused on the numerous times she logged into the home security camera system after she had left the house. What would lead me to believe if he that he would leave the home? He had stated he found some um beer tokens to a homeman bar that he was going to go to that bar um and pick up some ladies.
Okay. And uh Laura, did you have some sense that Mark uh might also try to follow you in the other vehicle? Oh, yes. Um, which cameras in particular did you check? All of them. Why were you checking all of them, Lori? Because when I couldn’t tell if he had left the house or not with the vehicle, um, or had somebody actually even come in, I thought, “Oh my gosh, maybe he’s in the hot tub.
” So, that’s the reason for the hot tub as well. Is it something that you were checking throughout the the course of the evening just to see if Mark was up and about? Yes. Now, um, at any point, um, Lori, were you watching anything other than the live feeds from those cameras? No. Um, and I’m going to ask you a question that you’ll probably get on cross- examination.
Were you checking these live feed cameras to see whether or not Mark had been injured? No. When you were going home, Lori, um, did you do anything particular with the cameras? Oh, yes. I turned them off so that the alarm didn’t wake Mark up. Is that the sole reason that you turn the cameras off at that point? Yes. Um, and what would lead you to believe that the alarm might wake Mark up? Because there’s a a beeping.
I can’t remember if it’s a beeping or what it is. It’s been a few years, but that it alerts your phone anytime there’s movement. Okay. Um, were you trying to conceal evidence of you returning home at that point, Lori? No. Later, while lying in bed during the early morning hours, Lorie activated the camera system again.
According to her testimony, Mark would have been furious if he had found out that she had turned the cameras off. The defense also presented footage from the dashboard camera of Sergeant Valencia’s patrol vehicle. The video showed just how dark it was during the early dawn hours when the officer arrived at the Philips home in response to the call.
When Lorie returned home at around 2:00 that night, it had been even darker. Jurors were also shown a photograph of the scene. The image captured the same snowbank located next to Mark’s body. His body was actually in the frame, but it was completely concealed beneath the snow drift. Let’s describe the conditions when you were driving back.
Um, was it light out at all? No, it was pitch black. Um, do you have any street lights or sources of artificial lighting right in that area that would have illuminated the area of the driveway? No. Well, my truck lights, that’s it. So, other than the headlights, uh, nothing else. Correct. And uh um Lori, at any point did you um look over to the right um or feel the need to look over to the right as you were driving up that west facing driveway? No.
Lori, I’m just going to ask you, did you see Mark out there when you returned to the house? No. How would you have reacted had you uh seen Mark? I would have helped him. Lorie told the jury that to this day she still does not know exactly what happened to Mark that night. Did you believe at that time that you had hit Mark? No.
Um, to this day, are you even sure exactly what happened once Mark reached that driver’s side of the truck? I have no idea what happened to my husband. Lori, what was your sole purpose for trying to get away from Mark that night? To get away from him so that I would be safe. to get to safety. Despite everything that we’ve heard and everything that we’ve testified to in this trial, how do you feel about Mark today? I love him. I miss him.
During cross-examination, prosecutors carefully walked through the argument that took place that night step by step. They reconstructed the sequence of events in detail, revisiting every significant moment of the confrontation. One question followed another, requiring Lori to once again relive the events of that evening, an evening that would ultimately become central to the case.
Prosecutors worked to recreate the atmosphere of the argument as accurately as possible and determine exactly what had been happening between the couple during those critical moments. Their goal was to show just how angry Lori may have been. According to the prosecution, her emotional state that night was crucial to understanding the decisions she made afterward.
They sought to convince the jury that the argument had reached such an intense level that actions could have been driven by powerful emotions. They highlighted every circumstance that might have caused hurt, anger, humiliation, or desperation. Mark insulted her, told her he was going to change the locks on the house, and even threw a beer can koozie at her that displayed a picture of a woman’s breasts.
According to Lorie, he told her, “That’s all you’re good for.” That statement became one of the most memorable moments of her testimony. Lorie said she took the remark as a personal insult and a humiliating attack. Throughout the trial, prosecutors repeatedly returned to that exchange while examining the effect it may have had on her emotional state at the time.
She testified that she pulled out her phone and began recording what was happening because she wanted to document both the argument and his conduct. By that point, the conflict had gone far beyond an ordinary marital disagreement, and the tension between them continued to build. According to her account, he reacted aggressively when she tried to record him.
She testified that the phone was struck from her hands, preventing her from continuing the recording. That incident became an important part of her account of the night’s events. She then said he moved toward her with his fist clenched, as if he was about to strike either her or the vehicle, and she was not sure which.
Looking back on those seconds during her testimony, Lorie explained that everything happened very quickly. According to her, she saw Mark approaching with a clenched fist. At that moment, she could not tell whether he intended to hit her or the truck. Lorie testified that this uncertainty became one of the reasons for the actions she took next.
Everything unfolded within seconds amid an atmosphere of conflict, tension, and emotions that had reached their breaking point. In that moment is the when he walks goes around that truck when something clicks, that is the angrierest you’ve ever seen him. the the the look I saw in him. Yes. He was very upset. Okay. So, we’re talking about a period of time when he goes from the passenger seat to your driver’s side window.
Correct. How many seconds is that? Two to three. I I don’t know. It’s just running around the truck. So, what is the look? I guess describe the look. Describe what the worst you’ve ever seen him. Is he yelling? Is he fuming? Is he? No. So, when I had my phone and then when he jumped to grab it and it fell, I as soon as it fell, I was like, “Oh no.
” I look at him and he had this just evil look and that’s just when he just tore off and I was like, “Oh my god.” So, it was a look. It was an absolute look. Yes. He didn’t Was he screaming then? No, not that I recall. I just remember him just immediately coming at me or coming for me.
But it was that look that he gave you was the true worst you’ve ever seen him. It’s the the the scariest I’ve ever seen my husband. Correct. How does he walk around the truck? He didn’t walk around the truck. He ran around the truck. He ran around the truck. And Miss Phillips, that’s when you took off after he cleared the front and he was by my door. Yes.
Okay. The central question facing the jury was whether Lor’s actions were reasonable and justified or whether they were reckless. Much of the trial revolved around that very issue. Jurors had to do more than simply determine the sequence of events that unfolded that night.
They also had to understand what was driving Lor’s decisions at the time. Was she acting out of fear for her own safety, or were her choices motivated by entirely different emotions? The answer to that question would play a major role in how all of the events leading up to the tragedy were ultimately interpreted. If Lorie suddenly accelerated the pickup truck during the argument, her motive may not have been fear for her safety, but anger.
That was the theory presented by the prosecution. Prosecutors argued that her actions could have been an emotional response to a conflict that had rapidly escalated that evening. According to their interpretation, fear was not what drove her behavior. Instead, they suggested that intense frustration and resentment brought on by the argument may have been the real motivation behind her actions.
That was the position the prosecution maintained throughout the trial. Prosecutors repeatedly returned to that argument, emphasizing that in their view, the facts of the case were more consistent with an emotional reaction than with an attempt to escape danger. They also argued that Lor’s behavior afterward did not match the actions of a woman fleeing for her safety.
In their view, several of her decisions after leaving the house raised serious questions. For that reason, they carefully examined her actions and messages, attempting to determine whether they were consistent with the behavior of someone who genuinely feared for her life or personal safety. Just 5 minutes after leaving the house, Lorie sent her husband a message telling him that their marriage was over.
For the prosecution, that fact carried particular significance. Prosecutors highlighted how quickly the message was sent after the argument. In their view, the contents of the text provided insight into Lor’s emotional state at the time and helped reveal what her true intentions may have been. This was despite her own testimony that she did not know whether Mark might be trying to follow her.
That point became one of the prosecution’s key arguments. If she truly feared that her husband could be nearby or attempting to catch up with her, prosecutors argued that some of her later actions appeared difficult to reconcile with that fear. Did those actions resemble the behavior of a frightened woman searching for a safe place? That was essentially the question the prosecution placed before the jury.
It surfaced repeatedly throughout the trial in different forms and was intended to encourage jurors to carefully evaluate every circumstance surrounding that night. In addition, Lorie declined the opportunity to stay overnight in Winona. That decision also became the subject of close examination during the trial.
Prosecutors argued that her choice not to remain there deserved special attention because it could help explain the reasoning behind her subsequent actions. Instead, she returned to the house where, as far as she knew, the husband she described as her abuser was asleep. For the prosecution, that decision was one of the most difficult aspects of her story to reconcile.
Prosecutors emphasized that returning to a place where a person she claimed to fear was located seemed inconsistent with the idea that she was trying to escape danger. As a result, that fact became an important part of the case they presented to the jury. She she goes over him with her truck. She causes his death. That is unreasonable and it is substantial.
It is unreasonable because it’s not based on her need to flee as she indicated. It is based on her anger. It is based on her being in the heat of the moment. It is based and perhaps very probably based on Mr. Phillips and the way he acted that night that he mistreated her in some capacity is probably is going to be on dispute is not in dispute.
Maybe she maybe she knew she killed him right then and there. Maybe she just thought she hit him. But she knew. She knew right then and there. And everything that happens after that is a narrative that is inconsistent with the evidence that is presented. There’s a corroborated history of physical abuse.
There’s Mark’s behavior in the bar captured by witnesses and videos. There’s his blood alcohol concentration of 149. Dr. Riker’s agreement that this accident could have happened in a way consistent with Ms. Phillips’s innocence, Mark’s perfect concealment behind that snowbank, Lor’s video reaction and 911 call, the corroboration of all of Lor’s movements after the fact, and her cooperation with law enforcement and providing her phone and camera login information, and that fight orflight instinct that each and every one of us can understand.
And you know what? I am a true believer in our system of justice here in the United States and that I believe that a group of 12 people selected randomly out of the voting roles, it’s all we found you all. You’re all good citizens, can come to a better conclusion than any one of us could individually. And I respect the fact that in the course of your deliberations, the 12 of you might be able to take some of these cards and put them back up on the deck.
But before you reach the result that the state is asking for, they’ve all got to be there, and they’re a long ways away from that. The jury deliberated for three and a half hours. After all the testimony had been heard, the closing arguments had been delivered, and the judge had provided final instructions.
The jurors left the courtroom to discuss the evidence and reach a verdict. For everyone involved, a tense wait began. Family members, friends, and those connected to the case waited for the decision, knowing that the next few hours would determine the outcome of a trial that had drawn attention throughout the proceedings.
Those 3 and 1/2 hours passed in an atmosphere of uncertainty and anticipation. During that time, the jurors had to carefully evaluate all of the evidence, testimony, and arguments presented by both sides before reaching a final conclusion. When they returned to the courtroom, their decision was unanimous. Silence filled the room.
All eyes were fixed on the jurors as they took their seats after completing their deliberations. At that moment, it was clear that the discussions were over and a decision had been reached. When the verdict was announced, it became known that every member of the jury had come to the same conclusion.
Their decision was unanimous with no disagreement among the jurors. After hours of deliberation, a case marked by conflicting testimony, emotional claims, and intense courtroom arguments had finally reached its conclusion. State of Wisconsin versus Lorie Phillips, Lacrosse County case number 20 CF364. Verdict: We, the jury, find the defendant Lorie Phillips not guilty.
Find by the juror for person dated this 10th day of November, 2023. Members of Mark’s family were deeply saddened and disappointed by the court’s decision. For them, the verdict was a painful blow. They believed that not all of the circumstances had been fully examined during the trial and that some important questions remained unanswered.
After the case concluded, Mark’s relatives openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the outcome and spoke about how difficult it was for them to accept the conclusions reached by the jury. According to his brother Todd, the version of Mark Phillips that Lorie described in court was completely different from the man they knew.
Speaking after the trial, Todd said that the person portrayed in the courtroom was someone he barely recognized. In his view, the description presented by Lorie was dramatically different from the mark known by family members, friends, and those closest to him. For that reason, the testimony presented during the trial was especially upsetting to him.
Mark’s former wife, Nancy, also reportedly stated that the behavior Lorie described was not at all consistent with the man she had known. According to available information, she likewise disagreed with the image of Mark that emerged during the trial. In her opinion, the character traits and patterns of behavior discussed in court did not match the man she had known for many years.
Todd argued that Lor’s actions were part of a larger pattern. He believed that the events of that night should not be viewed in isolation from other circumstances. In his opinion, certain incidents from the past also deserved attention and could have helped create a more complete picture of what had happened.
He claimed that Lorie had previously attempted to run over her former husband with a vehicle. Todd pointed to that incident as one example that, in his view, suggested a broader pattern of behavior. He believed that information deserved serious consideration and should not have been overlooked. Todd also drew attention to what he saw as gaps in Lor’s account that were not thoroughly examined during the trial.
According to him, some claims were never fully investigated, even though they could have been important in evaluating the overall situation. He believed that certain issues required much deeper scrutiny and additional explanation. For example, he questioned how it was possible that Lori could not find a single available room in an area with more than 30 hotels.
He repeatedly cited that issue as one of the aspects of the case that raised the most doubts for him. In his view, the circumstance seemed unusual and deserved closer examination during the proceedings. Todd also criticized the prosecution for not challenging the allegations of abuse more aggressively. He believed those claims should have been examined in greater detail because they played a significant role in shaping the overall narrative of the case.
In his opinion, the prosecution did not devote enough attention to that issue. On the night in question, some of those claims were partially supported by text messages, but there was no direct witness to the events. That fact continued to be a source of debate even after the trial ended. Some evidence pointed to a conflict between the couple, but there was no person who could personally confirm exactly what had happened that evening.
As the case came to a close, the following words were spoken. Cognizant of the fact that there are um two families here that are grieving in their own ways over what happened. And realistically, nobody wins. But I hope that what the uh community takes away from this is what Judge Lavine said at the end that this is a time hopefully to heal.
