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

[Mamabearto2boys]

Does this mean JH thinks she has nothing to do with Lucas disappearance?

No. IMO, she is stating this so that he will not be able to testify against her in the future as that could be very damaging.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

I have seen JH refer to EG as Emily Hernandez on SM in a tag. It might be admissible if common law marriage is claimed. It's possible this may be a defense strategy to ensure neither can be compelled to testify against the other should more serious charges come to light. Which, sadly, makes me wonder about the father's possible involvement in light of the reported abuse allegation against him. JMO only.

 

[Amonet]

If EG has an order preventing her from any contact with JH, how does she know he would take her back into the home?

Would he be obliged to let her back in regardless of his wishes if that order is rescinded, as they have the home in joint names?

 

[Horror]

No. IMO, she is stating this so that he will not be able to testify against her in the future as that could be very damaging.

Just jumping of your post
I've read very little bits of this previously, (so am uninformed)so in US a husband/wife or long term de facto cannot testify against the other ? Even if they wanted to hypothetically ? Is that right ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kamm5]

I have such a bad feeling about all the news today. I hope EQ search has some luck. If I was EG I would be afraid to be out

 

[chihuahua]

Dang it again:
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article131568029.html
"[FONT=&quot]February 08, 2017 05:56 PM[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Updated February 08, 2017 06:57 PM
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"TOPEKA A proposal in the Kansas House would get rid of common-law marriage starting in July.
A common-law marriage occurs when two people agree to marry without a formal ceremony or marriage license.
Common-law marriages entered into before July 1 would still be valid if HB 2101 were signed into law."
snip (talking about when a death occurs in a common law marriage)
“Someone is saying they’re a common-law spouse, but then their other family members are saying, ‘Well, no, they were never married,’ ” Scott said. “When family members disagree, the funeral service has to be put on hold while it’s determined whether a common-law marriage exists.”
:gaah::moo:




[/FONT]

 

[kkdj]

If EG has an order preventing her from any contact with JH, how does she know he would take her back into the home?

Would he be obliged to let her back in regardless of his wishes if that order is rescinded, as they have the home in joint names?

Wait! There's a restraining order? Or is this just hypothetical?
Also, I would think she wouldn't be allowed to be around any of her other children, so if JH has their daughter, then that might be a pretty significant factor.

 

[Kadoober]

I don't think spousal privilege means that a spouse cannot testify against their spouse, only that they can't be compelled to.

 

[chihuahua]

Does this mean JH thinks she has nothing to do with Lucas disappearance?

IMHO he probably still believes her. arrggggh:notgood:
jmo

 

[kkdj]

No. IMO, she is stating this so that he will not be able to testify against her in the future as that could be very damaging.

Well, I think he can testify against her if he wants to, just can't be compelled to. Plus I think this is just legal posturing at this time.

 

[Jo in Calif]

I would really, really surprised if he is standing behind her or beside her.
Just because she says her husband, IMO he has some say in that matter.

 

[Gardener1850]

Do they meet the condition of "common law" in KS? She just recently said that she preferred to be known as "the live in girlfriend", now that she has called him "husband" in court docs - I guess that would suffice....

When/where did she say that? Is there a source for her saying that she preferred to be called girlfriend? TIA.

 

[chihuahua]

Not sleuthing the attorney of EG's that was mentioned in the bond lowering link. Just wondering how that came to be...
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article204719964.html
:thinking::moo:

 

[Mamabearto2boys]

Just jumping of your post
I've read very little bits of this previously, (so am uninformed)so in US a husband/wife or long term de facto cannot testify against the other ? Even if they wanted to hypothetically ? Is that right ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I worded that wrong. I should have said “not necessarily” regarding if this means he’s supporting her. He can testify against her if he chooses to, but the prosecutor can’t require him to. My guess is that she’s trying to claim they are married so that he won’t be required to and he won’t choose to.

 

[Jewels53]

Common Law Marriages
A common law marriage is a marriage by agreement of the two persons without any formal ceremony or license. A common law marriage will be recognized in Kansas if the couple considers themselves to be married and publicly holds themselves out to be married and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required.

Common Law marriages are subject to the same legal obligations and privileges that apply to marriages with licenses. Once a common law marriage is established, the couple must get a court ordered divorce to terminate the marriage.

https://www.ksbar.org/page/marriage_divorce

Common law marriage in Kansas

 

[razzledazzle]

Just jumping of your post
I've read very little bits of this previously, (so am uninformed)so in US a husband/wife or long term de facto cannot testify against the other ? Even if they wanted to hypothetically ? Is that right ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Husband and wife can testify against the other if they choose, but would not be required by a judge.

 

[ZoriahNZ]

<modsnip> Still, there's nothing stopping him testifying against her, should he choose to do so. I've just been under the impression since his odd comments about the abuse allegations in public interviews that he's still in deep denial and would rather believe she's not responsible. Or that there are other things in the past she could throw back at him in court, should he not defend her position. Just my speculation based on public comments/actions.

 

[chihuahua]

When/where did she say that? Is there a source for her saying that she preferred to be called girlfriend? TIA.

IIRC it was NG saying it near the beginning of her podcast on this case.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mrw-productions-llc/crime-stories-with-nancy-grace/e/53447443
:moo:

 

[chihuahua]

Common Law Marriages
A common law marriage is a marriage by agreement of the two persons without any formal ceremony or license. A common law marriage will be recognized in Kansas if the couple considers themselves to be married and publicly holds themselves out to be married and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required.

Common Law marriages are subject to the same legal obligations and privileges that apply to marriages with licenses. Once a common law marriage is established, the couple must get a court ordered divorce to terminate the marriage.

https://www.ksbar.org/page/marriage_divorce

Common law marriage in Kansas

Thanks. This leaves me wondering if JH claimed EG as a dependent on his tax returns.
That would be real proof of marriage imo.
:moo:

 

[ScarlettLin]

Do they meet the condition of "common law" in KS? She just recently said that she preferred to be known as "the live in girlfriend", now that she has called him "husband" in court docs - I guess that would suffice....

I’m going to have to look it up but there was a state legislature bill up for vote last year to abolish common law marriage in KS. I don’t know if it passed or not.
I would think even if common law is still observed in Kansas her initial statements of being the live in girlfriend would be presentable by the DA to defeat an attempt at blocking testimony now.
The part that confuses me most, is the hearing for bond reduction is set for Friday Mar 16 but her next appearance on the child endangerment charge is still tomorrow as far as I can tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk