Found Deceased KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #11 *Arrest*

[PhoneJockey]

I’m curious....i smoke tobacco cigarettes and I would be pretty hard pressed to smoke 3 cigarettes in an hour
Is 3 bowls in an hour a lot? It just seems like it would be. But she claims she smoked at 3:30, the first call at OG was 4:53, figure Friday afternoon traffic that’s high school/middle school traffic at 3:30, elementary traffic at 4:30... that part of town on Friday going toward the restaurants on Rock is a B in my experience, so maybe 15 minutes to get there?
It probably doesn’t effect much as far as anything but it might. Does smoking effect your sense of time? Stretch it out longer or make it seem shorter?
I probably sound horribly naive... LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honestly, it depends on the size of the pipe, the potency of the pot she had and her tolerance. I have a pretty small pipe and I can easily burn 3 bowls in an hour (or much less), especially if my tolerance is up (smoking teh same stash for a long time or crap weed). Some pipes have bowls so small you only get 3 good hits or so before you have to reload. If they'd bought a large quantity and she'd been smoking on it for days and days, she could have built up enough tolerance for it - or if the bud wasn't that great in the first place.

 

[GigTu]

Tbh I’m not 100% sure. I know they’re really keeping things hush hush due to SM and community involvement. Much more than normal. They’re not even posting on their page.

Probably shouldn't talk about it here either. Just sayin'.

 

[hopingicanhelp]

I do agree with that. Completely. Plus she just moved. Not sure how she pulled that off alone. I have OCD and have everything in a certain spot but couldn’t do it all with such young children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And now you've got me thinking the opposite and jumping off what you said in an earlier post about the smell of cleaners. Maybe there was a problem with her story because despite her having talked about cleaning, the house in general did not appear to have been cleaned much at all?

 

[Pamela_Brewer]

Having a "clean" place is important to anyone who has had experience with DCF, imo. See how great a mom I am? This place is clean as a whistle -- no filth, no squalor -- I'm a GOOD MOM!

Yes, and she already knew that her ex had reported JH.
So, yes she was probably trying to keep the new place spotless.

Moo

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[MsFacetious]

We have been told by our VI to focus on 4PM on the 16th to 6pm on the 17th. Mostly the dark hours there.

It's also been made clear by our VI that Lucas was NOT at Olive Garden. So, just like Sherin he was left home alone... whether he was alive or not at the time.

It would be nice to know whether he was seen by the other person before or after Olive Garden. That would narrow down our time frame a little. However, I understand why we aren't getting that information.

I think we definitely focus on the child neglect time period to the reporting time period as instructed. 4pm on Friday - 6pm on Saturday. Special emphasis on dark hours. Where does that leave us?

 

[WildcatRunner]

That is true, very good point. I still mentally am going to picture a slob. At least for tonight. Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How much cleaning can a house you've lived in for maybe 2 weeks really need?

 

[ESO]

Thanks for the answer!
Alibi does seem unlikely to be needed for Friday...
I think LE is already surprising her with how much they know tbh

ETA: traffic over there is at a crawl on Friday afternoons/evenings anyway ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What LE will do is ask questions about their activities on days that don’t matter to get a sense of how they would normally answer questions. So that way when it comes to the important times, they can pick up on if there is changes in tone, verbiage, pauses, etc. It’s also what they do for lie detector tests, get a baseline in order to interpret other statements. But it’s also common to clear the people closest to the crime first, unfortunately they haven’t been able to clear EG yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steelslady]

Sorry, the new info about Olive Garden threw me off is what happened there and I thin its thrown everyone else off too. I just don't understand if something happened into the early morning hours of the 17 then where was Lucas when she was at Olive Garden?



Yeah and this leaves open the question of where was this little boy at when she was eating at Olive Garden with the little girl?

We all would love to know the answer to that question. I hope he wasn't all by himself or with someone that harmed him during that time frame while she was stuffing her face. I'm really ticked off that he wasn't with her when they went out to eat. That poor kid, my heart just breaks the longer this goes on, the more details that come out.

I'm starting to hate some of these characters immensely. I wish LE could tell us why Lucas wasn't with them at OG- that is really bothering me and pissing me off. Did she plan to starve the poor kid and rub it in that they ate and he didn't? Was this a form of punishment or something?

 

[kmartin96]

We have been told by our VI to focus on 4PM on the 16th to 6pm on the 17th. Mostly the dark hours there.

It's also been made clear by our VI that Lucas was NOT at Olive Garden. So, just like Sherin he was left home alone... whether he was alive or not at the time.

It would be nice to know whether he was seen by the other person before or after Olive Garden. That would narrow down our time frame a little. However, I understand why we aren't getting that information.

I think we definitely focus on the child neglect time period to the reporting time period as instructed. 4pm on Friday - 6pm on Saturday. Special emphasis on dark hours. Where does that leave us?

BBM - I agree with focus on that time period....but I'm still dying to know how LE got so focused on the 4-6pm time period on Friday.

Imagine our own worse nightmare. Having to call 911, our child is missing.....the police come, there is searching and questioning.....in my mind, I imagine going over, and over and over all the details from that whole day (in Lucas' case-Saturday)....what time did you all wake up, breakfast? baths? How about lunch? play outside, etc, etc......if my child went missing Saturday afternoon, then of course they were safe and sound Saturday morning.....so Friday night isn't going to be the big focus of the conversation, KWIM?

So by the time LE did the follow-up interview (released today), it seems they already knew it was possible that Lucas was really missing as of Friday afternoon. But they didn't know that at the time of the original 911 call and responding officers arriving.....not until the "follow-up"

I can't tell the date of the follow-up interview....just that it was "submitted" on 2/26 I believe....but it could have occurred sooner.

 

[chihuahua]

I agree that her calls from OG are calculated. Still intrigued by her obsession with numbers and their meanings found on her facebook.
The calls were made IIRC at 4:53 and 5:43. Weird number inversion. Man I think I need some sleep
:thinking::moo:

 

[Kuyluc2764]

You all have given me SO much food for thought -- having some experience and dealings with some really good, detailed liars in my lifetime, I'm just putting my thoughts out there.



BBM
Speculating on bits of truth – EG, I agree, is a habitual liar and blame-shifter. I’m certain she employs this in all her relationships as needed. She has to think carefully – what did she tell LE? What did she tell JH? What did she tell anyone else she spoke to? OG was the exception to naptime because she told JH that's where she'd be....?

Is it possible that the 3 am, standing in the cold, smoking a cigarette was what she recalls the night she disposed of Lucas? Is it possible this strange couple is someone she encountered – perhaps it was reversed and THEY offered HER assistance and expressed worry that she was stranded. Perhaps she reacted in a hostile or aggressive fashion after being startled. Perhaps they said, “Don’t get offended, we were just trying to be nice.”
Maybe too nice and tidy, but I think there’s a reason she was so detailed, and she wants this couple she saw (whatever the circumstances) to know she’s a “nice person, no misunderstanding intended….” OR…. She needs a reason to be out in the cold at 3 am smoking when JH thought she was at home in bed, whatever – maybe this couple were hanging out at the house, not just in the neighborhood and should neighbors mention them, she’ll tell them this is WHY she was talking to them.



RSBM. Cleaning was important to both of them – they were trying to make a case for themselves that they were already cleaning as part of a routine and NOT because anything happened. Nothing happened here, Officer. Just my normal cleaning day.

I think you’re absolutely right. Something was hinky as they were working backwards from the 911 call. Perhaps there was some nervousness or elbowing or comments like, “Remember, babe? I told you that’s what we did yesterday/this morning/etc” and with each request for further substantiation, answers just got more detailed and more awkward. Something resulted in the Miranda, as the Affidavit states the officer requested the phone post-Miranda. http://www.kake.com/story/37715009/document-details-child-endangerment-case-against-emily-glass Perhaps an account for her whereabouts after 4 pm on the 16th took a little too long for anyone’s comfort. IMO, I think the redaction probably details the actual arrest and perhaps who she called that afternoon.

I hesitate going here because it’s not argued in the Affidavit. But.

The Affidavit (unless in the redaction) does not verify EGs presence at OG. It simply says EG claims that’s where she went, she sent messages to JH telling him that’s what she was doing, and there were cell phone pings in the vicinity of OG.

Why the gift card? Perhaps she had the munchies, it was free food. Perhaps they asked for a receipt or how she paid and upon realizing she couldn’t verify her purchase, she said “Oh, I used a gift card.” Perhaps she remembered she had an unused gift card, maybe she was winging it.

We don’t know if she went or not, but the thought occurred to me that when EG gives her answers, she has to think about 1) what sounds good to LE … AND 2) whatever fits with whatever she said to whomever else during any conversation in the questioned time period. What if OG was what she told JH so he wouldn’t call her during that period – “don’t bother me now dear, we’re going out to eat.” The call later? “Why don’t we skip the call/skype tonight? We’re all tired, full – I think we’ll all go to bed early.”

IMO.JMO. :moo:

My mind is blown.

 

[Amonet]

Further to ESO's post, I think it would be expected that in a child disappearance LE would question the main caregiver as to their movements over the past week to get an idea of scheduling, and if they say "we went to the park", then LE might ask what they did there, did they talk to anyone, did anyone come up to them and talk to the kids, was anyone just hanging around who didn't have kids with them? And anywhere they went, those questions will be valid just in case there was someone stalking them. I think if parents are innocent victims then keeping them in the mindset of answering questions and remembering anything odd is a good idea for them to have something to focus on that could be useful. You can't usually let them go out searching, so they have to keep their mind occupied with something they can consider constructive while they're going crazy waiting for news.

The affidavit says LE found out about OG from the FB messages between JH and EG. Does that mean that neither JH nor EG mentioned OG the previous day? Did EG immediately tell them that Lucas didn't go? Did LE find that out by going to OG and getting receipts and/or video footage from there?

 

[GigTu]

We have been told by our VI to focus on 4PM on the 16th to 6pm on the 17th. Mostly the dark hours there.

It's also been made clear by our VI that Lucas was NOT at Olive Garden. So, just like Sherin he was left home alone... whether he was alive or not at the time.

It would be nice to know whether he was seen by the other person before or after Olive Garden. That would narrow down our time frame a little. However, I understand why we aren't getting that information.

I think we definitely focus on the child neglect time period to the reporting time period as instructed. 4pm on Friday - 6pm on Saturday. Special emphasis on dark hours. Where does that leave us?

<Brain dump of theory.... jmo>

Leaves us relying on stats.

...... EG seems to be a classic narcissist in some ways. A narcissist does not like crossover. A narcissist keeps all the relationships separate from each other, that way no one can out the narcissist to the other relationships. And when she's done with you and you can't do anything for her anymore, you're no longer needed. Relationship over.

Selfishness is a key trait. Putting too much time and energy into something that a narcissist isn't going to benefit from probably isn't going to happen. Being nice to Lucas was required when his daddy was around, but otherwise it probably didn't benefit her, so she didn't do it and didn't care.

With all that in mind, if she had help it would be from someone no one else knows or at least doesn't "cross over" really. That person will be hosed when she no longer needs them. So if Lucas is found, that person will SO get thrown under the bus. If they're smart, they'll come forward first and save themselves.

If she did this alone, I can't believe she would put any real effort into doing anything sentimental, because that would not benefit her. So, this was strictly CYA mode. No water. Water is work because she'd have to think about how to keep him under and then do the work to make it happen. I don't see her putting in that much effort or time. Placed, not buried. Buried is too much work for someone who can't benefit her. But also not dumped because she has to CYA. So placed, camoflaged and covered up. Therefore, findable.

And not too far. She's cocky. She thinks she's smarter than other people. It's a false sense of confidence based on her years of using people... stupid suckers. She thinks she outsmarts people. What it really is is her preying on people's good side, but that's not the point. She thinks she's smarter than everyone.

So, she's driving to a place and sees an unusual spot. It's not a place she would consider if she wasn't being sneaky, so because she can't see past her own shoes, she thinks no one else would look there. It's not obvious so no one will think of it. But.... she doesn't follow stats. She doesn't know that's exactly what all the other narcissists and sneaky murderers would do.

So let's get back to stats. Small window of time, no real serious effort, not too far away.... stuffed in, under, or behind. He's findable. </brain dump partially complete... jmo>

 

[kkdj]

We have been told by our VI to focus on 4PM on the 16th to 6pm on the 17th. Mostly the dark hours there.

It's also been made clear by our VI that Lucas was NOT at Olive Garden. So, just like Sherin he was left home alone... whether he was alive or not at the time.

It would be nice to know whether he was seen by the other person before or after Olive Garden. That would narrow down our time frame a little. However, I understand why we aren't getting that information.

I think we definitely focus on the child neglect time period to the reporting time period as instructed. 4pm on Friday - 6pm on Saturday. Special emphasis on dark hours. Where does that leave us?

This right here is the question! During the time frame LE is saying EG endangered her child they are not charging her for endangering Lucas.I have a feeling this is why she went out to eat......to think. And she was messed up! Maybe kinda paranoid even as pot can have that affect. Then she went back home by 6:00. Why did the endangerment charges cease to occur then? She was still under the influence! Where was Lucas during this? Had he already been dropped off somewhere before she smoked her bowls? Is that why she smoked her bowls? To calm herself?

 

[WildcatRunner]

Yes, but she has the right to not say anything until she has representation from an atty. She sat that whole time in there not saying a word, as she evoked her rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

FWIW, the right to remain silent, and right to counsel are two different things, and are handled differently, especially if the person is remaining in custody. She may have invoked to remain silent, but with the right to counsel, you're required to be given contact with counsel "within a reasonable time," generally accepted as a few hours. The important difference is if you only exercise the right to remain silence there are a few ways in which LE still may get information from someone, a bit unknowingly. That doesn't work if right to counsel is invoked, it's basically impossible to obtain information without counsel present.

 

[WildcatRunner]

This right here is the question! During the time frame LE is saying EG endangered her child they are not charging her for endangering Lucas.I have a feeling this is why she went out to eat......to think. And she was messed up! Maybe kinda paranoid even as pot can have that affect. Then she went back home by 6:00. Why did the endangerment charges cease to occur then? She was still under the influence! Where was Lucas during this? Had he already been dropped off somewhere before she smoked her bowls? Is that why she smoked her bowls? To calm herself?

This is all assumption on my part, but perhaps she admitted to taking the baby to OG, but said Lucas was napping (since that's her go to) and so she left him home alone. Hence the other endangerment charge they're still holding off on. She explained away him not being at OG because he was home alone, which while still bad judgment, isnt nearly as bad as saying he wasn't at OG because you had murdered him.

 

[WildcatRunner]

We are really close to a thread #12. Heartbreaking. Where are you, Little Man?!

 

[n_6CC]

We have been told by our VI to focus on 4PM on the 16th to 6pm on the 17th. Mostly the dark hours there.

It's also been made clear by our VI that Lucas was NOT at Olive Garden. So, just like Sherin he was left home alone... whether he was alive or not at the time.

It would be nice to know whether he was seen by the other person before or after Olive Garden. That would narrow down our time frame a little. However, I understand why we aren't getting that information.

I think we definitely focus on the child neglect time period to the reporting time period as instructed. 4pm on Friday - 6pm on Saturday. Special emphasis on dark hours. Where does that leave us?

Ok- Hold up here. You just brought something to light for me. Child neglect time as instructed-4pmFriday to 6 pm on Saturday . As far as we know, he is NOT eating inside OG. She cleaned, smoked, and went to OG. Who is to say Lucas was not in the vehicle already? One call: I’m here ( my car is open take the luggage) Second call: I’m leaving . How on Gods green earth do we know he wasn’t transported. Going back to initial thoughts: another persons involvement.
Secondly, you cannot prove to the courts that you are changing your ways and are trying to provide a healthy environment for your two boys, when you have two children, 2 adults living in a one bedroom apartment- hence the move. Trying to get more visitation with her boys. A lot of times, the courts want to see that you can provide them a room, a space of their own. This may be where the interview comment of “ at a time like this” comes in. Just putting my thoughts out there to be expanded upon.
MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[n_6CC]

<Brain dump of theory.... jmo>

Leaves us relying on stats.

...... EG seems to be a classic narcissist in some ways. A narcissist does not like crossover. A narcissist keeps all the relationships separate from each other, that way no one can out the narcissist to the other relationships. And when she's done with you and you can't do anything for her anymore, you're no longer needed. Relationship over.

Selfishness is a key trait. Putting too much time and energy into something that a narcissist isn't going to benefit from probably isn't going to happen. Being nice to Lucas was required when his daddy was around, but otherwise it probably didn't benefit her, so she didn't do it and didn't care.

With all that in mind, if she had help it would be from someone no one else knows or at least doesn't "cross over" really. That person will be hosed when she no longer needs them. So if Lucas is found, that person will SO get thrown under the bus. If they're smart, they'll come forward first and save themselves.

If she did this alone, I can't believe she would put any real effort into doing anything sentimental, because that would not benefit her. So, this was strictly CYA mode. No water. Water is work because she'd have to think about how to keep him under and then do the work to make it happen. I don't see her putting in that much effort or time. Placed, not buried. Buried is too much work for someone who can't benefit her. But also not dumped because she has to CYA. So placed, camoflaged and covered up. Therefore, findable.

And not too far. She's cocky. She thinks she's smarter than other people. It's a false sense of confidence based on her years of using people... stupid suckers. She thinks she outsmarts people. What it really is is her preying on people's good side, but that's not the point. She thinks she's smarter than everyone.

So, she's driving to a place and sees an unusual spot. It's not a place she would consider if she wasn't being sneaky, so because she can't see past her own shoes, she thinks no one else would look there. It's not obvious so no one will think of it. But.... she doesn't follow stats. She doesn't know that's exactly what all the other narcissists and sneaky murderers would do.

So let's get back to stats. Small window of time, no real serious effort, not too far away.... stuffed in, under, or behind. He's findable. </brain dump partially complete... jmo>

YEP- Love the brain wave!! Will process this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kuyluc2764]

Ok- Hold up here. You just brought something to light for me. Child neglect time as instructed-4pmFriday to 6 pm on Saturday . As far as we know, he is NOT eating inside OG. She cleaned, smoked, and went to OG. Who is to say Lucas was not in the vehicle already? One call: I&#8217;m here ( my car is open take the luggage) Second call: I&#8217;m leaving . How on Gods green earth do we know he wasn&#8217;t transported. Going back to initial thoughts: another persons involvement.
Secondly, you cannot prove to the courts that you are changing your ways and are trying to provide a healthy environment for your two boys, when you have two children, 2 adults living in a one bedroom apartment- hence the move. Trying to get more visitation with her boys. A lot of times, the courts want to see that you can provide them a room, a space of their own. This may be where the interview comment of &#8220; at a time like this&#8221; comes in. Just putting my thoughts out there to be expanded upon.
MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if they have checked cameras in the area to see if someone met her at or around Olive Garden? If something had already happened to Lucas and she put in a suitcase or a box, somebody could have met her somewhere close and it wouldn't have looked too obvious. Especially with people selling things all the time off sm, it wouldn't have looked like anything out of the norm.

ETA: she could have been calling someone saying hey, I'm here and the person she called could have given a time frame and EG might have called back when the person hadn't shown up yet.