Fire destroys home in Lemont, Illinois
Firefighters battled heavy flames and smoke at a house south of downtown Lemont, just off of Archer Avenue.
Video from the scene shows the heavily damaged house. The flames spread to a car parked in the driveway.
The cause of the fire is under investigation.
Fire officials have not released further details.
This is a developing story. CBS News Chicago will continue to provide updates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
Amanda Knox: How one misunderstood text sparked suspicion in infamous murder case
Fox Nation is revisiting one of the most sensational true crime cases of the 21st century – the Amanda Knox story – in a new special that reexamines the twists, trials and lingering questions surrounding the American exchange student accused of murder in Italy. The Seattle native spent nearly four years in an Italian prison after being accused of murdering her roommate Meredith Kercher while studying abroad. To some, she was a cold-blooded killer. To others, she was a scapegoat trapped in a legal nightmare. "Since O.J. Simpson, this was the biggest case. This was the other case of the century, and it was going to be spun by different people [in] different ways," said Dr. Greg Hampikian, a forensic DNA expert, in the new special. Along with attorney Anne Bremner and journalist Angenette Levy, Hampikian broke down the Knox case in the Fox Nation special, starting from the moment she left the U.S. and became a suspect abroad. Before the handcuffs, Knox was a student at the University of Washington with her sights set on Europe. "She wanted to go abroad like anybody at that age, wanting to branch out," said Bremner. She worked three jobs, including one as a barista, to make that dream a reality. With a goal to learn Italian and become a translator, she arrived in Perugia, Italy in September 2007 and moved into a flat with three roommates, one of whom was Kercher, a British exchange student. Along the way, a romantic relationship emerged when Knox met a man while attending a concert with Kercher. Raffaele Sollecito, a 23-year-old student who was in the area to study information technology, was added to the triangle of suspicion surrounding Kercher's unexpected death. There were reports that Kercher was stabbed several times and sexually assaulted in the middle of the night, but further details surrounding the incident remained mysterious. With a window broken and a rock found nearby, police initially speculated that the crime was a burglary gone wrong, but when they realized nothing had been taken from the property, they developed alternative theories. Investigators then zeroed in on Knox, Sollecito and an innocent bar owner — despite having no physical evidence to support their implication. "The police in Perugia – they don't think Amanda Knox is acting appropriately for someone whose roommate was stabbed 47 times," Levy explained. Bremner chalked up that suspicion to cultural differences that largely shaped Italian authorities' perceptions. One image of Knox kissing Sollecito outside the murder site was plastered everywhere, but Bremner said it failed to capture the despondent looks they shared immediately after. Then, one text message – a complete misunderstanding – shifted everything, raising suspicion even higher. To learn more about the Amanda Knox case, including her hours-long interrogation, a faulty statement, the emergence of a well-known criminal and the road to Knox's eventual acquittal, subscribe to Fox Nation and begin streaming "Framed: The Amanda Knox Story" today.
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
San Mateo County Sheriff Corpus defends herself in unprecedented removal hearing
San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus delivered emotional testimony Tuesday as she continued her defense in a hearing that could determine whether she remains in office. The proceeding is being closely watched as an unprecedented attempt to unseat a sitting, elected sheriff in open court. Speaking on the witness stand for a second day, Corpus reflected on her early years in the department, describing a workplace she said was rife with discrimination and harassment. She recalled being one of just two women in her academy class, finding ants and sugar stuffed into her locker, and being called derogatory names by veteran deputies, some of whom, she noted, still serve in the Sheriff's Office today. Corpus said hostility resurfaced when she launched her campaign for sheriff. According to her testimony, department insiders tried to sabotage her run by tearing down campaign signs and threatening her supporters. Legal analyst Steve Clark said the testimony marked a pivotal moment for the sheriff. "Sheriff Corpus was clearly fighting for her career, and she was very well prepared," Clark said. While her attorneys cast Corpus as a reformer battling a hostile workplace culture, attorneys for the county sought to highlight allegations of misconduct. They questioned whether she had retaliated against employees, using her position to punish critics and reward allies. Central to their case was her close relationship with aide Victor Aenlle. The county argued she pushed through pay raises and promotions for Aenlle despite his limited formal experience in law enforcement and the public sector. They suggested the relationship blurred professional lines and created a conflict of interest. "It doesn't really matter if it was romantic, but the fact that he was so close to you, giving you gifts," Clark explained. "You're having lunch all the time, and you're promoting him. You're moving him up the ladder when he doesn't necessarily deserve it. That's where the conflict of interest comes in." Attorneys presented the Sheriff's Handbook and confronted Corpus with text messages, slurs, and questions about gifts, including diamond earrings. Corpus denied any wrongdoing, saying she was unaware of the meaning of the slur and insisted she used cash to purchase $8,000 diamond earrings for herself. The county suggested they were a gift from Aenlle. "She had an answer for everything," Clark said. "She was very well studied on this material. And so when there were these negative inferences trying to be drawn, she corrected the county council and said, 'No, that's not the way it happened.'" The county also pointed to the arrest of Deputy Carlos Tapia, a union leader, suggesting it was retaliation after he criticized a costly overtime policy. Tapia was later cleared of fraud by the district attorney. The county then highlighted actions taken against a former captain of the Half Moon Bay bureau who posted an unauthorized message announcing her departure. The message, Corpus said, was not cleared through the proper channels but did not mention Corpus by name. Corpus testified that she responded by locking the captain out of their email before they exited the department, citing concerns of erratic behavior. Corpus defended her actions, saying she relied on her executive team and made legitimate management decisions. The county suggests the actions were retaliatory. "She's the elected sheriff, and she has the right to make these decisions," Clark said. "Maybe there was an element of being unhappy with some of these people, but at the same time, is that grounds for removal?" Corpus's future within the department will ultimately be decided by the board of supervisors, who will receive a recommendation from a third-party judge overseeing the proceedings.
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
The Menendez brothers will have parole hearings this week after decades in prison. Here's what to know
The Menendez brothers are set for long-awaited parole board hearings in California this week after spending nearly 30 years in prison for the 1989 killings of their parents, Kitty and Jose Menendez. In May, Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were sentenced in 1996 to life without the possibility of parole, saw their sentences reduced by a judge to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole under California's youth offender law because they were under the age of 26 when they committed their crimes. The brothers will appear separately before the state parole board to argue that they no longer pose a threat to public safety, will not re-offend and take full responsibility for their crimes. Erik Menendez will have his hearing on Thursday morning, followed by Lyle Menendez on Friday. The brothers are expected to appear virtually from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. The Menendez brothers' appellate attorney, Mark Geragos, has said their parole hearings should be about redemption and not about relitigating the facts of the case. Several family members of the brothers have spoken out in favor of their release from prison, saying they have forgiven them for what they did. "I'm hopeful and glad we're one huge step closer to bringing the boys home," Geragos said after the brothers were resentenced. Here's what to know. On Aug. 20, 1989, Kitty and Jose Menendez were shot multiple times at close range with a shotgun inside their Beverly Hills home. On March 8, 1990, the brothers were arrested for the killings of their parents after police received a tip from Judalon Smyth, the girlfriend of a psychologist whom Lyle and Erik Menendez had been talking to. In 1994, a judge ruled a mistrial after separate juries for the brothers were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The following year, prosecutors decided to retry them. In 1996, after days of deliberation, the jury found the Menendez brothers guilty of first-degree murder. They were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has been outspoken that the brothers should not be released, claiming they have continued to lie about alleged physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Earlier this month, he filed a 132-page response outlining his office's opposition to their petition for a new trial, which is still pending. In 2023, the brothers submitted a habeas corpus petition looking to get a new trial, based on evidence that was not originally presented to the court. One of the new pieces of evidence was allegations made by a former member of the boy band Menudo, who alleged he was sexually abused by Jose Menendez. The second piece of evidence was a letter from Erik Menendez, which was not found until several years ago, that described his alleged abuse. Ahead of the parole hearings, Hochman reiterated his office's stance on the Menendez brothers' possible release. He claimed that the brothers have "never fully accepted responsibility for the horrific murders of their parents." He added that they continue to pose a risk to society and have failed to show that they are "fully rehabilitated." "While recent documentaries and films have drawn renewed attention to this case, parole decisions must be based solely on the facts and the law," Hochman said. "This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye." Parole hearings are held to determine if an inmate currently poses an "unreasonable risk of danger to society," if they are released from prison, according to the CDCR. The brothers will have independent parole hearings before a panel that will determine whether they are suitable for release. Following the hearings, the board's decision is considered a "proposed decision" and can be reviewed by the Board's chief counsel within 120 days. If the board does grant either of the brothers parole, Newsom will have 30 days to either approve or deny parole. Only then, if Newsom does approve their parole, would the Menendez brothers be released from prison. If the Menendez brothers are denied parole during their hearings, they could attempt to gain freedom in future meetings with the board. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, if an inmate is denied parole, state law requires the board to schedule another hearing three, five, seven, 10 or 15 years in the future. An inmate can submit a petition to advance the next hearing date based on new circumstances or information. In 2024, the board held 3,764 hearings, according to the CDCR. Of those hearings, 69% were denied compared to the 31% who were granted parole. Regardless of what the parole board decides, Newsom will have the final say whether he approves or denies its recommendation. According to the CDCR, under the state constitution, the governor has the "executive authority to affirm, reverse, or modify any Board decision to grant or deny parole to a convicted murderer." Thus far, Newsom has remained guarded about the brothers' release, saying he will take the parole board's decision into consideration when making his. "On the basis of recommendation, I reject the parole board's recommendations often," Newsom said in May. In 2022, Newsom rejected two notable parole recommendations for Sirhan Sirhan, whose death sentence for the 1968 assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was commuted to life imprisonment in 1972, and former Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, who was convicted of murder for her role in the 1969 killings of Rosemary and Leno LaBianca in their Los Angeles home.
