Found Deceased KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #19 *Arrest*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It was a rental, of course there's going to be other folks DNA in the house. Probably quite a few, especially since they had just moved in.

I think what someone was referring to- there was a news article in the very beginning stating that Lucas' DNA was not found in the house. Many of us saw this and discussed here and elsewhere. That's why it puzzled many folks, and it caused many of us, myself included, to believe that he had disappeared before Friday night or Saturday morning. It's still causing a lot of folks to think that the landlord had the wrong day, even though both you and FindLucasAllen have confirmed this several times. To my knowledge, there was never a correction by LE or that news site about the lack of Lucas' DNA in the house. I hope this clears up where some of these posts are coming from.

I think you might be referring to media articles that were written a little unclearly, saying that the dogs hadn't found Lucas and Lucas hadn't been found either inside the house or outside the house. That made people think that the dogs hadn't found a scent of Lucas ever having been in the house. But I think what was meant was that neither the dogs sniffing outside, nor the human LE searchers searching inside the house and garden had actually found *Lucas* (not referring to his scent or DNA but the actual Lucas).

I believe they take something that smells of the missing person and present it to the dog at the nearest place where the person was last sighted, and if that was inside a house they present it to the dog on the doorstep outside the door that was reportedly left open, for example. I don't think they try and trace the person's movements within the house with a sniffer dog. A cadaver dog would be used inside if there's suspicion that a person may not have left the house alive, but LE have never clarified, to my knowledge, whether cadaver dogs were taken into the house.
 
Thanks for the links. I can't view the first link you provided, unfortunately. Weirdly, if you use the Caspio database, from the link Anny88 posted, both charges show as F for Felony.



And WOW , that's certainly a development. What the heck did she confess to, that her attorney's want to have made inadmissable. That's HUGE!

Things are happening guys!!!!

I think the argument is going to be that EG turned her phone over about Lucas’s disappearance and they found the evidence about her driving under the influence. The only “confession” she made was in regards to that incident, only after being confronted with the messages between her and Jonathan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
About the only thing I have to say about this is that KE did an interview with media when Lucas was reported missing. I think it's safe-ish to think that EG called her in a panic to say something has happened, please come over to support me.

I think KE was used, just like the neighbor was used. The neighbor was used as someone who could verify that EG ran around looking for Lucas and asking if they've seen him or if he's come over to play. KE, I think, maybe used to assist with conveying EG's concern, and maybe KE's attitude toward EG helps to convey a particular image to LE of EG being a victim who needs protection and care. KE goes out to speak to the media, she's able to use totally innocent language, and EG would possibly be hoping that the words and impression conveyed by the innocent KE will transfer to an extent to EG. Maybe it takes some of the effort away from EG to have KE there so that all EG has to do is sit and act upset (and it's not wholly an act) and KE can put her arm around EG, and in comforting EG she's saying that EG needs comfort, KE can say, "look she's upset, go easy on her, she's scared for Lucas, she's worried about him!" all without EG having to say these things herself.

I think you nailed it as to both the neighbor and cousin. It could have all been part of her master plan.
 
Hi [emoji112] - bit confused over here.i get that it’s a legal challenge regarding something admitted or coerced maybe?
But we normally I think for something like this have a ‘mention’ pre committal or trial date that determine what is or is not admissible. There’s usually lots.
Is this Jackson Denno the same thing or something bigger ?

Hypothetically is this them maybe trying to get rid of the evidence of her being high driving to OG and leaving him home. Which is essentially what the charges are ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EG now has a Jackson-Denno hearing scheduled for May 11, 2018.

Here’s a summary about the type of hearing:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jackson-denno-hearing/
353ba98353b4802718662802330bb35a.jpg
May 11th is my birthday!
Hoping we'll know so much more by then...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Hi [emoji112] - bit confused over here.i get that it’s a legal challenge regarding something admitted or coerced maybe?
But we normally I think for something like this have a ‘mention’ pre committal or trial date that determine what is or is not admissible. There’s usually lots.
Is this Jackson Denno the same thing or something bigger ?

Hypothetically is this them maybe trying to get rid of the evidence of her being high driving to OG and leaving him home. Which is essentially what the charges are ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I am reading the info about this type of hearing correctly - This is a motion specifically asking that a confession be inadmissible. Outside the normal evidentiary determinations. Seems like she’s grasping at straws to me TBH. Without the confession, LE still has the messages on the phone and the calls made from the area of OG as well as the eyewitness seeing Lucas so.... it really makes me wonder what confession it really refers to....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think the argument is going to be that EG turned her phone over about Lucas’s disappearance and they found the evidence about her driving under the influence. The only “confession” she made was in regards to that incident, only after being confronted with the messages between her and Jonathan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So her confession was gathered without her meaning to confess to what they found on her phone so it shouldn't be admissible? Because she let them see it trying to help find Lucas? Wouldn't that be like if I called in to police that someone had burglarized my home and in the process of investigating they also discovered I was running a meth lab? (I'm not, but hypothetically)
 
If I am reading the info about this type of hearing correctly - This is a motion specifically asking that a confession be inadmissible. Outside the normal evidentiary determinations. Seems like she’s grasping at straws to me TBH. Without the confession, LE still has the messages on the phone and the calls made from the area of OG as well as the eyewitness seeing Lucas so.... it really makes me wonder what confession it really refers to....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you so it will decide if this info is admissible. Obviously named after a particular case at so point. That’s so interesting it has a specific court date itself.
I was worried for a sec - but the phone pings with LL sighting should do the trick unless they try to state LL was wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for the links. I can't view the first link you provided, unfortunately. Weirdly, if you use the Caspio database, from the link Anny88 posted, both charges show as F for Felony.



And WOW , that's certainly a development. What the heck did she confess to, that her attorney's want to have made inadmissable. That's HUGE!

Things are happening guys!!!!

I'm confused. Was the child endangerment charge upgraded to a felony or is the Caspio database incorrect?

IMO
 
I think the argument is going to be that EG turned her phone over about Lucas’s disappearance and they found the evidence about her driving under the influence. The only “confession” she made was in regards to that incident, only after being confronted with the messages between her and Jonathan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. Not quite as exciting as what my mind had leapt to, of course. Still, it's good to get more info.
 
I have to get some sleep because I travel tomorrow.
I just wonder who bailed EG on all of these charges in her past?
I don't know, just wondering.
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article208704089.html
RSBM
"The petition also cited Glass’ criminal history from 2003 to 2017, including arrests for larceny, trespassing, stealing a vehicle, domestic violence and destruction of property"
And I am still wondering if she actually stole a car (or :borrowed; it without permission) as well as where exactly she had been caught trespassing.
:thinking:
 
I have to get some sleep because I travel tomorrow.
I just wonder who bailed EG on all of these charges in her past?
I don't know, just wondering.
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article208704089.html
RSBM
"The petition also cited Glass’ criminal history from 2003 to 2017, including arrests for larceny, trespassing, stealing a vehicle, domestic violence and destruction of property"
And I am still wondering if she actually stole a car (or :borrowed; it without permission) as well as where exactly she had been caught trespassing.
:thinking:

It was her sisters car - so I am thinking without permission - she lived with her sister for a period of time

that she had been accused of stealing her sister’s vehicle, accused of smashing through a window to get into a home where she wasn’t welcome and that “the police are involved.”

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article201898009.html
 
I think the argument is going to be that EG turned her phone over about Lucas’s disappearance and they found the evidence about her driving under the influence. The only “confession” she made was in regards to that incident, only after being confronted with the messages between her and Jonathan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AND, it’s a formality as well. If Emily mentioned something to her attorney about any evidence she gave during an interrogation that she was not “Miranda read” or given the right to refuse a statement, and the attorney didn’t follow Emily ‘s direction, she could ask for a new attorney. It is standard. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If I am reading the info about this type of hearing correctly - This is a motion specifically asking that a confession be inadmissible. Outside the normal evidentiary determinations. Seems like she’s grasping at straws to me TBH. Without the confession, LE still has the messages on the phone and the calls made from the area of OG as well as the eyewitness seeing Lucas so.... it really makes me wonder what confession it really refers to....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The information obtained may be deemed inadmissible, only if a judge believes she gave “the information “ without Miranda rights or due to coercion by LE. EX: “If you do not give us your phone, you will not see your boys again” just as an example. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If she agreed to let them see the phone for the purpose of looking at the picture of the two strangers outside her house, would LE need a search warrant to take other information from the phone?
 
It was her sisters car - so I am thinking without permission - she lived with her sister for a period of time

that she had been accused of stealing her sister’s vehicle, accused of smashing through a window to get into a home where she wasn’t welcome and that “the police are involved.”

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article201898009.html

I am assuming a certain man knows all of this information now, and yet, he chooses to believe in her innocence?

Honest to God, with this case, I feel like I am reading something that belongs in Bizzaro World.
 
It was her sisters car - so I am thinking without permission - she lived with her sister for a period of time

that she had been accused of stealing her sister’s vehicle, accused of smashing through a window to get into a home where she wasn’t welcome and that “the police are involved.”

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article201898009.html

All of this sounds like drug behavior IMO. If not drugs, she has some serious anger issues. I wonder where all that anger comes from.
 
I am assuming a certain man knows all of this information now, and yet, he chooses to believe in her innocence?

Honest to God, with this case, I feel like I am reading something that belongs in Bizzaro World.

IMO he probably knew about the sister situation just didn't think it was a big deal because it was a family squabble type thing. They both have anger issues, so outburst and violence was just away of life. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
1,681
Total visitors
1,749

Forum statistics

Threads
605,255
Messages
18,184,787
Members
233,285
Latest member
Slowcrow
Back
Top