Dead Boy's Mom: I Don't Want Any Money

Just two days after her 5-year-old son was killed when her boyfriend smashed her car into a tree, Kathie LaFond had a lawsuit seeking financial damages from the boyfriend, a cop and the town of Chicago Heights.

On Thursday, LaFond repeatedly denied under oath she wanted any money out of it.

"I really don't care about the money," LaFond testified Thursday. "I want justice for my son."

LaFond was testifying in the criminal case against her now former boyfriend Cecil Conner of Steger, who ran their 1997 Chevy Cavalier into a tree in the early morning hours of May 10.

The crash killed LaFond's son, Michael Langford, 5, who was sleeping in the car's back seat. Following the wreck, tests showed Conner's blood-alcohol content was three times the legal limit of .08 percent.

Forty minutes prior to the crash, Chicago Heights Police Officer Chris Felicetti pulled the car over and arrested LaFond, who was sober but driving without a valid license.

The allegedly drunken Conner was allowed to drive off with LaFond's young son in the back seat.

During her testimony Thursday, LaFond went so far as to say she did not even file the civil suit her attorney had in place only days after her son died. She blamed that on her lawyer, and claimed she did not even seek out an attorney to take civil action.

An irritated Judge Edward Burmilla sent LaFond out to the hallway and cleared the jury from the room before taking attorney Jeff Tomczak to task for allowing a witness to lie on the stand.

Tomczak, who is defending Conner in the fatal drunk driving case, pointed out that LaFond may be so utterly ignorant of worldly matters that she did not know the lawsuit was filed for her or that she stood to profit from it.

"It may not be false, judge," Tomczak said of LaFond's testimony. "It may be about a young lady who's not familiar with the law."

Tomczak's co-counsel in the criminal case, Paul Napolski, stepped in to suggest that LaFond may not have realized where she stood with the lawsuit since it was filed on behalf of her young son, Michael Langford.

"This is a complex legal matter," Napolski said, "and her understanding of it may be limited, as such."

Burmilla wasn't buying it.

"Are you going to tell this jury that she has no understanding of what she's doing in her life?" Burmilla said.

"It's inaccurate testimony, and all the attorneys know it's inaccurate," the judge said. "We're not going to get into a semantic game."

When LaFond returned to the stand, Tomczak, on orders from Burmilla, tried to get her to concede she was aware she might see some money from the lawsuit. But she wasn't obliging the lawyer, saying only, "I really don't care about the money."

Felicetti, who is a defendant in LaFond's civil suit, also testified on Thursday. He denied noticing any signs that Conner was intoxicated during the traffic stop.

Felicetti also said he had no recollection of taking LaFond's car keys and giving them to Conner so he could drive off with the sleeping boy.

Felicetti's testimony is to continue today.

Another witness called to the stand Thursday, Jennifer Tartt, testified that she was with Conner the night of the crash and was certain that he was quite drunk when he left with LaFond.

Tartt said Conner was "completely wasted."

"He looked like he would pass out any second," said Tartt, adding that Conner was "walking into walls, tripping over his own feet."

Asked to measure Conner's drunkenness on a scale of one to 1o, Tartt said, "If I could say 15 I would say 15."