Found Deceased KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #12 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The thread is open again.

Some reminders:

If you see a post that violates TOS or is offensive in some way, please alert on it and move on. Do not reply to the post because now you have compounded the problem for cleaning up the thread. Thank you to the members who alerted and moved on.

If your post starts with words like, "I know we aren't allowed to..." then DON'T post what you were about to post. If you know it isn't allowed, then it isn't allowed. Period.

Please stay on topic and focus on where Lucas could be. Do not sleuth the landlord. Do not speculate about what the landlord may or may not be feeling now.

Do not post about visions or dreams. We don't allow that type of speculation on WS. We need facts and links. We are also VERY lucky to have 2 VIs in this case. I can't tell you how many cases I wish we had even one VI.

I apologize. I know that was my post. I was just really emotional last night, as I'm sure we all are. I will make sure not to post anything like that again. Hoping with my all that Lucas is found soon.
 
Good point. I should have kept reading. I would have to lean then that her phone "made" the calls IMO. Thanks.

The only reason the phone calls are mentioned is because that is the evidence to show EG was in the area after driving under the influence. That is all. When you are charged with a crime, they have to discuss what evidence is being used against you in a general term. That is why it’s vague, the process of filing “discovery” later on as the case gets ready to go to trial is when the specifics and copy of the evidence is disclosed to the defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bbm

The bold is the problem with that article as Emily was in jail in February so she could not have been at a vigil in March. jmo

Yes, Good catch, Jewels!

I think perhaps it should read KAKE reports that a neighbor who attended a vigil in early March, said they saw Lucas and met his stepmother just a few days before he vanished.

???

JMO. Really bad reporting or sentence structure at best.
 
The only reason the phone calls are mentioned is because that is the evidence to show EG was in the area after driving under the influence. That is all. When you are charged with a crime, they have to discuss what evidence is being used against you in a general term. That is why it’s vague, the process of filing “discovery” later on as the case gets ready to go to trial is when the specifics and copy of the evidence is disclosed to the defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You make a really good point. Definitely proves she left the home after admitting to smoking mj. I am however, very interested in who the calls were to and/or what they’re about. Could be nothing of any importance or it could be very important and related to the case.
 
Could either of our VIs answer whether the information you provided to us about getting Lucas a fish as a pet to replace the cat that they had to get rid of is in some way relevant to Friday night or was that just an added detail that is irrelevant?

Irrelevant detail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I saw this earlier too. EG sent her older boys with LH to play at the neighbors home. I think this was just mixed up reporting.

These are 2 separate incidents. One neighbor told LE that EG brought Lucas and her other 2 sons over to the neighbors to introduce themselves. He said that the 2 boys were playing with rake handles like they were swords while Lucas stood off to the side with his hands in his pockets acting very shy. The article said that EG mentioned to the neighbor that she also had a daughter in the house. This was on February 11th.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kansas.com/news/local/article201763589.html

I think in this case, which another neighbor mentions it was 2 days before Lucas's disappearance which would have to of been the 15th of February, the neighbor may have thought that the baby was a boy. I have been guilty of calling a girl baby a boy and vice versa. So she just may have thought that the 1 year old was a boy.
 
Irrelevant detail


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you know if EG has given more info than we have been made aware of? Or is all the info LE has at this point due to their own investigation? TIA
 
Do you know if EG has given more info than we have been made aware of? Or is all the info LE has at this point due to their own investigation? TIA

I can’t comment on that at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yes, Good catch, Jewels!

I think perhaps it should read KAKE reports that a neighbor who attended a vigil in early March, said they saw Lucas and met his stepmother just a few days before he vanished.

???

JMO. Really bad reporting or sentence structure at best.

I agree poor reporting, and I think the whole article was written very poorly. jmo
 
Was Emily dining with someone else?
(In addition to the one year old daughter)
 
I just thought of something. EG stated around 3pm they took a nap like they always do. Based on the endangerment info from the day before we now have clear proof this was a lie. Which would mean her time table for the 17th would also be rubbish. We suspected as such but that helps
confirm it for me.
 
This has been puzzling me from the start. Is the "anyone" part an adult or child? Man/boy or woman/girl?

I mean, what was the purpose of asking people if they remembered this person? Was it another one of EG's lies about that afternoon, or was there someone legitimately running with no shoes on? Could it be they think Lucas might have been running from EG out of fear?

One's mind could really wander with such a question. Sometimes the less details given, the less likely people will remember anything pertinent because nothing stands out to them. Most folks might not look at someone's feet to see if they are barefoot or have sneakers/shoes on. Shoes, on the other hand, might stand out to someone if there was say, black with neon pink laces, etc. But barefoot? How many people would remember that, unless someone was stark naked?

Here in crazy SoCal...

It is REQUIRED to run around buck nekkid!
J/K:giggle:

Seriously, though...

Perhaps since the winter weather had been so cold in Wichita...
If someone saw a person running without any shoes on ....
This might be noticeable?

Just a thought...:thinking:
 
FLA our VI confirmed that Lucas was in afternoon pre-K (so regular naps by 3 are doubtful) and that he doesn't take naps at all. I think that it's pretty obvious EG's statements were fabrications from the start.

ETA: Still it's good to see EG once again, on record, caught out in a fib.
.
 
I agree poor reporting, and I think the whole article was written very poorly. jmo

The story has been updated to reflect that the neighbor--while at the prayer vigil-- told a local reporter with KAKE that she had previously met EG, shook her hand, and saw Lucas and a "little brother." I have no idea who the "little" brother is, but we can't alter the quotes made by others. Perhaps she mistook the 1-year-old toddler as a boy? It's not really clear and the neighbor declined to provide her name, making it difficult for us to reach her.
 
I can’t comment on that at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bless your heart [emoji175] I can’t imagine the emotions you’re dealing with. There is a very special place in heaven for you! Thank you for all you do! :hugs:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Here in crazy SoCal...

It is REQUIRED to run around buck nekkid!
J/K:giggle:

Seriously, though...

Perhaps since the winter weather had been so cold in Wichita...
If someone saw a person running without any shoes on ....
This might be noticeable?

Just a thought...:thinking:

It really wasn’t cold around the time Lucas went missing. It was 60 degrees.

There were a couple cold days right after he went missing but it has been abnormally warm for the most part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FLA our VI confirmed that Lucas was in afternoon pre-K (so regular naps by 3 are doubtful) and that he doesn't take naps at all. I think that it's pretty obvious EG's statements were fabrications from the start.

ETA: Still it's good to see EG once again, on record, caught out in a fib.
.

She also initially reported that he was awake when she went to sleep, then in her jailhouse interview said he was asleep so that's why she went to sleep.

Can't keep the detailed lies within her big lie straight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
1,652
Total visitors
1,740

Forum statistics

Threads
600,240
Messages
18,105,737
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top