If you're white don't make the fatal mistake and think you could never be falsely accused for murder

[NNN0LHI]

http://truthinjustice.org/kevin-fox.htm



Kevin Fox with daughter Riley

DNA clears dad in girl's slaying

Father jailed 8 months in 3-year-old's death

Chicago Tribune By Deborah Horan, Jo Napolitano and John Biemer
June 18, 2005

After nearly eight months in jail, a Will County man who police said had confessed on videotape to the June 2004 murder and sexual assault of his 3-year-old daughter was set free Friday, after DNA tests failed to link him to the crime.

Kevin Fox walked out of jail and into a knot of cheering, sobbing relatives and friends after a brief court hearing at which prosecutors said they no longer had enough evidence to hold Fox for the slaying of his daughter, Riley.

The DNA testing of evidence resulted in an "absolute exclusion of Kevin Fox as a donor," State's Atty. James Glasgow told the judge. snip

Fox turned aside questions about the videotaped confession at the heart of the case, saying "it was a nightmare and I don't want to relive it right now."

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

Kevin Fox: 'I Did Not Kill My Daughter'

"Statement Of Kevin Fox Regarding His Interrogation By The Will County Sheriff's Office"

"I want the public to know that I did not kill my daughter. I have always cooperated with the authorities in the investigation of my daughter's death. On Oct. 26, I went to the Will County Sheriff's Department at the request of the investigators. I tried to cooperate and answer their questions, however, they became very abusive -- yelling and screaming at me that I had killed her."

"For hours, I told the investigators that I did not kill my daughter. I asked them repeatedly to call my father so that he could get me a lawyer. I was told that I did not need to speak to my father or a lawyer."

"I was kept in a locked area for approximately 14 ½ hours. I was told by the investigators that if I did not give a statement saying I was involved in my daughter's death that they "knew inmates at the jail" that would make sure that I was (expletive) every day I was there."

One of the investigators "got 6 inches from my face screaming at me that I was a (expletive) for not talking and that my wife was going to divorce me if I didn't cooperate."

"I was told that I would be in jail for 30 years unless I talked. At one point the investigators threw a picture of my deceased daughter on the table in front of me. They screamed that I had duct taped her mouth and hands. This was the first time I learned that she had been bound. The wanted me to say that there had been an accident at home and that she had hit her head -- that was the first time I learned that she had lumps on her head."

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

This happened about 15 miles from where I live. People were calling for blood around here. I can remember hearing people saying why try him? After all he admitted it. Just execute him some people around here were saying.

[SavWriter]

1. It's the Police more than the public

The Police take the easy way out, brow beating suspects until they get some sort of confession. Sleep deprevation, lying about evidence. Whatever underhanded means it takes to get the confession.

[NNN0LHI]

3. I grew up believing you should always trust the police

Just cooperate with them and everything will be alright I was always told.

Don

[SavWriter]

21. Try that

More people talk their way into trouble than will ever talk their way out. I would trust a Republican long before I ever trusted a cop.

[xocet]

24. Same here.... However, this video lecture gives one good reasons to say nothing at all:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

[ThomCat]

35. That's a good way to end up becoming their handy scapegoat

for whatever unsolved crime they're trying to get off their desk.

Never, ever trust a cop.

Never, ever talk to a cop unless you have a lawyer advising you.

Never, ever allow a cop to search anything of yours without a warrant, and if they use force and insist on barging in and doing it anyway, make sure you do not do anything that could be interpreted as giving them permission to be there doing that search. Don't do anything but ask for the warrant, and ask for a lawyer before answering questions.

[ThomCat]

34. Far too often the police want to manufacture of a conviction

because they can't be bothered to do the real police work of finding enough evidence to have a solid idea who the real guilty people are. That's far too much work.

They'd rather go the easy, safer route, and get paid for putting innocent people in jail. There's no risk to them that way, and they don't have to put in nearly as many late hours.

They also get to claim to always be 100% certain they're right, because they don't care about the truth, so they don't care about doubt either.

[EFerrari]

2. These "confessions' happen all the time.

I just saw a panel on them that CSPAN ran. If you get someone tired and confused enough, upset enough and scared enough, you can get them to confess to anything, it looks like.

That man is lucky to be out.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. DO NOT talk to the police

without a lawyer. Law professors and retired cops will tell you this. If get caught in a case and you are unlucky, you could get caught in a real mess no matter what your original role was. If the officers of the law you are involved with are unscrupulous or caught in a pressure cooker, you could be in real trouble.

In a lot of cases, some of the people that are given extra scrutiny are the first witness or witnesses. You may think you are doing your civic duty only to find yourself under a microscope.

Ask for a lawyer and don't say anything else.

[DrunkenBoat]

6. You can ask for a lawyer but you might not get one unless you can pay.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. Um, not in the US. We have public defenders here.

Do you have a cite for your rather outrageous claim?

[DrunkenBoat]

9. Only if you're a defendant in a criminal case, I believe.

i.e. you've been formally arrested & charged.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Use the original post for your cite

This man asked for a lawyer and was refused one. Until they had a videotaped confession and then it was nearly too late. If there had been no DNA evidence where do you think this fellow would be at right now?

If this is not enough to convince you nothing will be.

Don

[EFerrari]

11. No, you don't have ANYTHING the police don't want you to have.

Those are the real rules.

[ThomCat]

36. Not everywhere. In many places there is no budget for public

defenders, so they simply don't have them.

[Sirveri]

8. And then watch the following youtube videos about not talking to the police!

A lawyer explains the fifth amendment, with backup from a cop.
http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
http://youtu.be/yqMjMPlXzdA

[Selatius]

5. Forced confessions are pretty common tactic in war zones and occupied territories and corrupt police

When my parents were growing up during the Viet Nam War, people were shaken down all the time to find the people who were "responsible" for mortaring forward operating bases or leaving bombs on the road for passing jeeps and trucks carrying servicemen. Half the time, the wrong people were imprisoned, tortured, or killed because the people questioned simply were pressured, coerced, confined, or even tortured into giving a name.

An often used tactic used by the police in South Viet Nam was a combination of violent shaking coupled with sleep deprivation. Caning and burning were also fairly common, but some of you who have followed the situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip may have heard of violent shaking and sleep deprivation as a tactic. It's used by the IDF on terror suspects to get information.

[DCBob]

12. Unless you are also rich.. high priced lawyers seem to always win.

sad.

[DrunkenBoat]

13. so you have to ask, are those lawyers really that good, or is it who they work for?

good, or just connected?

[DCBob]

16. They know all the legal tricks and loopholes and willing to use them.

and abuse them. But yes, connections are part of it as well... for sure.

[raccoon]

14. Also, read John Grisham's THE INNOCENT MAN. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

20. That book is an eye opener for many people...

I recommend it, I give copies away.

[PA Democrat]

31. Great book. The prosecutor, Bill Peterson, should be in jail.

Instead, Peterson tried to sue Grisham, the book's publisher, Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project and a host of other people for libel. He knowingly sends 2 innocent men to jail for 12 years based upon concocted evidence and he's the victim?

Fortunately, Peterson LOST his lawsuit.


http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2010/02/corrupt-cops-and-prosecutors-lose-lawsuit-against-john-grisham.html

[Odin2005]

33. I love that book.

[NewJeffCT]

15. Way back in my college days, I did a study on this

there is a difference based on race of the accused murderer. However, there is a far greater difference in death penalty application based on the race of the victim.

If the murder victim is white, it is far more likely that prosecutors will seek the death penalty. And, the least likely capital cases for prosecutors to seek the death penalty were where both the victim and the accused murderer were black (black on black crime)

[Zax2me]

17. Thanks, because, I'm being told I cannot by MANY

Only happens to non whites.
Many believe, or say so anyways.

[NNN0LHI]

18. That "It only happens to non whites", is the kind of deception that keeps this massacre going

Easy to be for the death penalty if someone believes that they and their family are immune to it.

Effectively explain to someone how easily they could find their own son or even themselves in this same exact situation and watch them them start rethinking their position. Won't be enough for everyone to open their eyes, but a few might?

That is the reason I posted this.

Don

[EOTE]

27. The death penalty is applied in a racist manner. It's a racist institution.

Blacks are far more likely to receive the DP and the race is the victim is a strong indicator in how likely the DP is to be applied. I also notice that you've been too cowardly to present any of the evidence that's been requested of you numerous times. Like calling for death but don't very much like establishing guilt, do you? There's a name for that, it's called psychopathy.

[mopinko]

19. who was the other guy who basically was convicted

of killing his daughter because he was a pot smoker. started with a d. want to say drobnick or some such. spent 3 or 4 years in prison iirc.
that was either will or dupage.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Wasn't his daughter or murder but I think you may be thinking of Gary Dotson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Dotson

Gary Dotson

Gary Dotson (born circa 1957) is an American man who was the second person to be exonerated of a criminal conviction by DNA evidence. In May 1979, he was found guilty and sentenced to 25 to 50 years' imprisonment for rape, and another 25 to 50 years for aggravated kidnapping, the terms to be served concurrently. This conviction was upheld by the appellate court in 1981. In 1985, the accusing witness recanted her testimony, which had been the main evidence against Dotson. He was not exonerated or pardoned at that time, but due to popular belief that he was a victim of a false rape accusation, Dotson went through a series of paroles and re-incarcerations until DNA evidence proved his innocence in 1988. Dotson was subsequently cleared of his conviction.

Personal background

Gary E. Dotson was a high-school dropout who, at the time of his arrest, was living in Country Club Hills, a modest Chicago suburb, with his mother Barbara and his sister Debbie. After conviction in 1979, the next eight years of his life were spent in prison; another four were spent on legal proceedings which led to charges being dropped in 1988 and a full pardon in 2002.

After his first release from prison in 1985, Dotson married Camille Dardanes, a woman who had come to know him during the hearings following his conviction. In March 1986, under difficult financial circumstances, the couple moved in with Dotson's mother. In January, 1987, they had a daughter, Ashley. The early years of their marriage were complicated by poverty, and by Dotson's unemployment and alcoholism. An August 1987 arrest for domestic violence further complicated Dotson's legal situation in the years to come. Near the end of 1987, Camille requested a divorce. She filed the formal paperwork in April 1989.

[mopinko]

29. no, it was a dad who was later exonerated.

by a confession, iirc.

[NNN0LHI]

30. Almost sounds like the Jeanine Nicarico murder case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_Nicarico_murder_case

Prosecution of Cruz, Hernandez, and BuckleyMain article: Rolando Cruz case
Rolando Cruz, Alejandro Hernandez and Stephen Buckley were indicted in March 1984. A joint trial was held; in February 1985, Cruz and Hernandez were convicted, but the jury deadlocked on Buckley. The next month, both Cruz and Hernandez were sentenced to death.

In November 1985, Brian Dugan, who was already in jail and being tried for the murder of a seven-year-old girl and a 27-year-old woman, confessed to the crime through his attorney. Dugan plea-bargained his charges to life imprisonment.

In 1987, the charges against Buckley were dismissed by a judge.

On January 19, 1988 the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the conviction of Cruz and Hernandez because the two did not have separate trials. Both were retried despite public pressure on the DuPage State's Attorney's office to pursue the Dugan confession. Cruz was convicted in his second trial in February 1990. The second trial of Hernandez ended in a hung jury in May 1990; after his third trial, Hernandez was convicted and sentenced to 80 years in prison on May 17, 1991.

Meanwhile, Cruz had appealed. In December, 1992, his second conviction was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court, but in May 1993 the court agreed to rehear the case, and on July 14, 1994 Cruz was ordered a third trial.

The Illinois Appellate Court overturned the second conviction of Hernandez on January 30, 1995.

During his third trial, a sheriff's lieutenant reversed his testimony, and Cruz was acquitted in November 1995. A state investigator was appointed to review the recanted testimony. In December 1995, charges against Hernandez were dismissed by the State's Attorney.

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

There have been so many it is hard to keep up with them all.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. That case has to be one of the most horrific things I ever read about.

My blood boils when I read the facts and that the police and the DA in that case weren't sent to prison for what they did for that poor man.

I think as a father of two daughters it affects me even more, to even think about being falsely accused of something so horrific just in the hopes of getting a quick conviction.

[xocet]

25. Never Talk to the Police....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

[NNN0LHI]

26. That is easy to say but if my daughter had been murdered I would be very talkative

Not because I was trying to talk myself out of anything. But because I would want the person who committed this crime off the streets and in jail as soon as possible. If I thought I might remember some small detail like who I seen in the neighborhood that day or anything that could possibly lead them to the killer I would want to do that.

But to see the police use those normal feelings against an innocent grieving father is very disturbing to say the least. The police who were involved in doing this should have been fired immediately for incompetence. It terrifies me to think they are still on the job and probably are doing the same thing to others to this day.

Don

[xocet]

28. Correct.

I am not arguing with you on this even though my statement may come across that way: that was not the intent.

Originally, I was taught that the police are there to help and that one should trust them. However, it appears that that is not the case in general.

Have you read about the Cameron Todd Willingham case?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/xocet/176

[louslobbs]

32. I read about that case through the Innocence Project, Rick Perry could have stopped that murder.

At Willingham’s 1992 trial, prosecutors claimed he intentionally set fire to his home in order to kill his own children. Willingham said he was asleep in the home when the fire started and always maintained his innocence. He was convicted based on the testimony of forensic experts who said they had determined that the fire was intentionally set and a jailhouse informant who said Willingham had confessed to him. On October 29, 1992, he was sentenced to death. (Download the full trial transcripts at the Innocence Project.)

Thirteen years later, in the days leading up to Willingham’s execution, his attorneys sent the Governor, Rick Perry, and the Texas Board of Pardon and Parole a report from Gerald Hurst, a nationally recognized arson expert, saying that Willingham’s conviction was based on erroneous forensic analysis. Documents obtained by the Innocence Project show that state officials received that report but apparently did not act on it. Willingham was executed by lethal injection in Huntsville on February 17, 2004.

Months after Willingham was executed, the Chicago Tribune published an investigative report that raised questions about the forensic analysis. The Innocence Project assembled five of the nation’s leading independent arson experts to review the evidence in the case, and this prestigious group issued a 48-page report finding that none of the scientific analysis used to convict Willingham was valid.

No one at the Governors office responded to the new information and Willingham was executed for a crime he may not have commited.
Lou