Ex-prosecutor, jail guard dropped fro...

Ex-prosecutor, jail guard dropped from Fox lawsuit

There are 39 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Nov 7, 2007, titled Ex-prosecutor, jail guard dropped from Fox lawsuit. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Former Will County State's Atty. Jeffrey Tomczak was dropped as a defendant Wednesday in the federal civil rights suit filed by Kevin Fox, the Wilmington father who alleges he was falsely arrested and jailed ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
MotorCyklMikl

Florissant, MO

#2 Nov 7, 2007
Sheryle.........can't you read? The story stated .......'DNA testing showed that Fox's genetic profile did not match DNA taken from Riley's rape kit'. What more conclusive evidence does one need to determine Mr. Fox is not guilty.
Geez Sheryle. Learn to comprehend what you read.
Nick

San Pablo, CA

#3 Nov 7, 2007
I still think he is guilty and the DNA evidence was flawed or that he did not act alone in her assault and murder.
T-man

Chicago, IL

#4 Nov 7, 2007
sheryle wrote:
Kevin Fox is guilty.
Let's see...no motive, no physical evidence, ummmm...what causes you to presume guilt, Sherlock?
Nick

San Pablo, CA

#5 Nov 7, 2007
MotorCyklMikl wrote:
Sheryle.........can't you read? The story stated .......'DNA testing showed that Fox's genetic profile did not match DNA taken from Riley's rape kit'. What more conclusive evidence does one need to determine Mr. Fox is not guilty.
Geez Sheryle. Learn to comprehend what you read.
I'm sure you do know that DNA testing is sometimes flawed and sometimes criminals who commit crimes are freed because of problems in the DNA testing, right?

And you do know if someone participated with him in her assault and murder it might appear that his DNA is not on her

Finally, I believe she was in water so his part of the dna could have been washed away.

Stranger things have happened.
sheryle

Hickory Hills, IL

#6 Nov 7, 2007
MotorCyklMikl wrote:
Sheryle.........can't you read? The story stated .......'DNA testing showed that Fox's genetic profile did not match DNA taken from Riley's rape kit'. What more conclusive evidence does one need to determine Mr. Fox is not guilty.
Geez Sheryle. Learn to comprehend what you read.
Yeah - I can read dumbass. He is GUILTY - DNA or not. You are clueless.
Jim V - Oak Park

Hillside, IL

#7 Nov 7, 2007
Jeez, this makes me happy that we have ajury system where people like Nick and Sheryle probably wouldn't get picked to be on a jury.

There were NO facts at all linking Kevin Fox to the crime. None at all. There is plenty of evidence that someone else did it.
starfish

West Chicago, IL

#8 Nov 7, 2007
kevin Fox is innocent!!!!!
What has happened to this poor family is a travesty. I live in Wilmington and it is heartbreaking. everyone wants to know who killed Riley- but it was NOT Kevin!
Nick

San Pablo, CA

#9 Nov 7, 2007
The conclusion that a DNA match proves the defendant's guilt is based primarily on the assumption that the probability against one individual matching another is in the hundreds of millions, or even billions, depending on who is crunching the numbers. However, as overwhelming as these figures may seem, it's still possible to whittle them down to far less overwhelming odds -- or even to no odds at all -- if it can be shown that the methods used by the laboratories doing the testing were flawed in some manner. It is this approach, among others, that the defense team in the O.J. Simpson case used to mount its defense against what appeared to be overwhelming DNA evidence implicating O.J. Simpson as the guilty party.

DNA has been of huge value in solving a wide range of violent crimes, providing unexpected solutions to past mysteries and bringing comfort to the families of victims who yearn for justice. It is not, however, as reliable as we would like to believe, and it remains just one weapon in the armoury of detection rather than the magic solution to every unsolved case.
joeshtheragman

Chicago, IL

#10 Nov 7, 2007
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you do know that DNA testing is sometimes flawed and sometimes criminals who commit crimes are freed because of problems in the DNA testing, right?
And you do know if someone participated with him in her assault and murder it might appear that his DNA is not on her
Finally, I believe she was in water so his part of the dna could have been washed away.
Stranger things have happened.
Nick I kind of agree with you,what trouble me in this case,was the father was out ,picked kids up from Grandparents who were Babysitting, wife was out of town,brought kids home and a child winds up missing and found murder,either he did it or someone knew his whereabouts possibly someone he knew or was with him prior to picking kids up.
AL SANCHEEEZY

Springfield, IL

#11 Nov 7, 2007
God Bless that little girl and her family.

who ever did kill her i hope you die a slow painful death.
Kat

United States

#12 Nov 7, 2007
Anyone remember Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas, Danielle Van Dam??? Girls have randomly been snatched by strangers from their bedrooms before while their parents slept. The prosecutors dropped charges against Kevin Fox (after the election, of course) due to lack of evidence. There is NO physical evidence linking him to the crime, DNA does not match, and there is evidence someone was in the house before he got home (his alibi for his whereabouts prior to arriving home checks out). DNA in this case excludes Kevin, but shows someone else. I know of no way you could erase Kevin's DNA from the sample if it was there originally. SO, I'm not sure why so many of you are convinced it was Kevin. Predators watch children for weeks, sometimes months before they strike. They do not have to know the family's schedule. They often act on impulse. How else could you explain the insanity of snatching children from their beds while parents are in the house? We may never know who killed Riley. Only God, the killer, and Riley know now. But, persecuting her father (as it appears the DA who wanted to be re-elected did--remember the Duke case?) without evidence seems cruel. It is scary to me that so many people are ready to convict this guy with no evidence. I sincerely hope you never serve on juries, because, clearly, your mind is made up in advance regardless of evidence or lack thereof.
Josh

Huntington, NY

#13 Nov 7, 2007
Nick wrote:
The conclusion that a DNA match proves the defendant's guilt is based primarily on the assumption that the probability against one individual matching another is in the hundreds of millions, or even billions, depending on who is crunching the numbers. However, as overwhelming as these figures may seem, it's still possible to whittle them down to far less overwhelming odds -- or even to no odds at all -- if it can be shown that the methods used by the laboratories doing the testing were flawed in some manner. It is this approach, among others, that the defense team in the O.J. Simpson case used to mount its defense against what appeared to be overwhelming DNA evidence implicating O.J. Simpson as the guilty party.
DNA has been of huge value in solving a wide range of violent crimes, providing unexpected solutions to past mysteries and bringing comfort to the families of victims who yearn for justice. It is not, however, as reliable as we would like to believe, and it remains just one weapon in the armoury of detection rather than the magic solution to every unsolved case.
actually I believe the O.J. Simpson case had more to do with the handling of the blood evidence BEFORE it got to the lab and not the lab's procedures and/or handling.

I think it was D. Fung who left the evidence in his trunk for several hours, unguarded in the heat of the sun and it was this that was attacked by the O.J. Defense team. Someone could have planted/altered the evidence, or the heat altered the DNA.

One needs only to reference the Rolando Cruz case to see the impact that DNA has.

AS far as this case goes, I don not believe for one second that Kevin Fox is guilty and am glad to see DNA show that fact. Hopefully the real killer is caught.
Ana Banana

United States

#14 Nov 7, 2007
I thought this was all about getting the prosecutor elected. Now its dismissed. Guess it was put up or shut up time.
wondering

Hillside, IL

#16 Nov 7, 2007
MotorCyklMikl wrote:
Sheryle.........can't you read? The story stated .......'DNA testing showed that Fox's genetic profile did not match DNA taken from Riley's rape kit'. What more conclusive evidence does one need to determine Mr. Fox is not guilty.
Geez Sheryle. Learn to comprehend what you read.
YES SHE CAN READ AND SHE SAID IT!!!! HE IS GUILTY A LOT OF INNOCENT MEN HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND LATER IT CAME BACK THE KIT WAS TAINTED. I SAY RETEST HIM. YOU GO SHERYLE SAY WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND.>
Harry Bosch

Chicago, IL

#17 Nov 7, 2007
Nobody has come forward with hard evidence of Fox's guilt. Thus he was never prosecuted. He may or may not be guilty, and in a criminal courtroom he would be presumed innocent. For my purposes, I don't apply that presumption unless I'm a criminal juror. So I make no presumption here. I don't have enough evidence on which to base a presumption, either way. The DNA evidence does suggest that someone else was involved; I wouldn't say it definitively clears him of all knowledge and involvement. At the same time, to say that he still was present for the killing but didn't ejaculate, or didn't leave trace evidence on her, really would require evidence that nobody has ever made public in this case, so again, there's no basis for that assumption.
SHS Teacher

Satellite Beach, FL

#18 Nov 7, 2007
point of information: DNA evidence may or may not prove someone guilty, but it is conclusive about whether someone is innocent. If his profile doesn't match the DNA the police have, he's not the person who left the evidence. Sure, you can claim that someone else did it while he watched etc., but under that scenario anyone in the city at the time is a suspect.
Harry Bosch

Chicago, IL

#19 Nov 7, 2007
SHS Teacher wrote:
point of information: DNA evidence may or may not prove someone guilty, but it is conclusive about whether someone is innocent. If his profile doesn't match the DNA the police have, he's not the person who left the evidence. Sure, you can claim that someone else did it while he watched etc., but under that scenario anyone in the city at the time is a suspect.
Agreed, if there is no other evidence. Here there is some circumstantial evidence linking him to Riley's whereabouts near the time of her death. It's just not enough to base any conclusions on. Also, we should look with a jaundiced eye toward prosecutors who at first take the position that the defendant did the killing, and then take the position, after DNA evidence emerges adverse to the prosecution, that he still did it, but someone else was with him. In 99 cases out of 100, that's a very disingenuous position.
joeshtheragman

Chicago, IL

#20 Nov 7, 2007
I find it strange that the crime occurred when the mother was out of town and then Jason appeared as the father slept was this just a coincidence or what????
Patriot

Bellingham, WA

#21 Nov 7, 2007
Of course he was linked to her whereabouts near the time of her disappearance/death. He was her dad and she was taken from his home. The fact is that a complete stranger's DNA was found in the rape kit. That means that some other man's DNA, most likely from his semen, was found in or around her vagina. That DNA was not her father's. To believe that he was involved in her death in the face of this evidence, you would have to believe that he conspired with some strange third person who the police have never been able to identify to allow that person to have sex with and kill his daughter. That is preposterous. This poor man lost his daughter in the most horiffic way; he was falsely accused of the crime and told he was going to be facing the death penalty; and scientific evidence establishes his innocence. He has been through a horrible ordeal.

I can't understand those who continue to summarily proclaim his guilt in the face of the uncontroverted evidence of his innocence.
Patriot

Bellingham, WA

#22 Nov 7, 2007
Interesting that the Tribune censors the word "v*gina" in my post. Is that a dirty word now? So, you can have an entire article about a girl being raped and murdered, but won't let someone use the word "v*gina," huh? Nice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Violent Crime Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News In 6 years, 53 blacks shot 37 min Jungle Juice Johnson 35
News Lifetime Is Making a TV Movie about Robert Durs... 3 hr Texxy 2
News Reporter Goes Where Liberal Media Won't, Asks S... 4 hr spud 63
News Texas girl admits she FAKED kidnapping and gang... Thu Posted to ur book... 1
News Shane Ragland admits murdering Trent DiGiuro (Aug '07) Thu Tredding 58
News Two Years Later, Davidson County Murder Still U... (Oct '10) Mar 22 Cousin 22
News Dylann Roof's friend is going to prison for lyi... Mar 22 Adelson knows 1
More from around the web