Found Deceased KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #21 *Arrest*

[Steelslady]

Unless I missed something this charge would almost have to be between a state official (employee) and JH. CHARGES such as this are not usual between a child and adult or 2 adults.

I wiuld also like to see jh entire legal, criminal and civil filings.

Bringing this forward because Charliegizmo49 mentioned this this morning. Also, the charges are for 4/18, not the ones from EG's boys/father, from my understanding.

 

[ESO]

Was he arrested and then bailed out? I'm confused, sorry.

Yes he was arrested but then was allowed to bond out OR. He had been served with a criminal summons to appear, if he had failed to appear then a warrant would have been issued. This practice is common for misdemeanors (shoplifting for example).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ESO]

Bringing this forward because Charliegizmo49 mentioned this this morning. Also, the charges are for 4/18, not the ones from EG's boys/father, from my understanding.

No it’s for the incident with the boys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Busylady]

Bringing this forward because Charliegizmo49 mentioned this this morning. Also, the charges are for 4/18, not the ones from EG's boys/father, from my understanding.

I believe the date of the charge is 2/5 but they weren't filed until 4/18

 

[Paddleboarder]

Hang on one second! JH was arrested for battery? Who did he batter? And he was bonded out? Am I reading this right? I got lost somewhere in the last few days and missed all this

He’s currently in booking. This stems from the incident with Emily’s sons that occurred in February. Charges were filed in April. He was served with papers when he was in town for the CINC hearing. He’s being released on his own recognizance. His next court appearance is May 23rd. He plans to hire his own attorney.

 

[Paddleboarder]

I am so sorry you have nasty folks who are out to pi$$ in your Cheerios! I respect and appreciate all you do here and those folks can just eat the dang Cheerios they pi$$ed in. Just sayin. You are an awesome resource and extremely informative! We couldn’t be websluethes without you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for my first laugh of the day!

 

[WildcatRunner]

No it is just my opinion based on the date of the charges and what charges she received that it doesn't involve Lucas. I am not sure if her hearing will be sealed.

This is where I agree also. The date is quite a bit of time before the doctor's notes were given to the school. I can't come up with any reasonable way to explain why you'd forge a note for someone, and they wouldn't use it for 2 weeks.

 

[kkdj]

Sorry if I came off as *****y. People keep sending screenshots of things being said about me in FB groups and I’m getting frustrated because it’s taking time away from me working on cases and taking the focus off of Lucas.

I had no idea. Sorry that is going on.

 

[Paddleboarder]

IMO KE charges have nothing do with Lucas, so I am afraid there will be no bargaining to get information about Lucas.

I politely disagree. I think they have everything to do with Lucas.

 

[Kamm5]

I agree with PB I think it is related. Is there any news from her being in court this am

 

[kkdj]

I politely disagree. I think they have everything to do with Lucas.

me too.

 

[Steelslady]

I politely disagree. I think they have everything to do with Lucas.

I wonder if she went before JH or is still waiting to get up in front of the judge. I imagine she'll be free as a bird, too.

 

[Busylady]

I politely disagree. I think they have everything to do with Lucas.

You might be right, I just can't figure out how it could apply - the date of occurrence is 1/11/2018 for all the charges and the identity theft charge is

[FONT=&quot](B) severity level 5, nonperson felony if the monetary loss to the victim or victims is more than $100,000.

[/FONT]So I just can't figure out how that works into something regarding Lucas.

 

[deedee21]

Stranger things have happened, but you are more than likely correct. It's nearly impossible to charge someone with committing a crime that they committed when it wasn't illegal. It would be akin to changing the drinking age to 50 years old tomorrow, and then charging some college students for having beers last week. They weren't committing a crime when they completed the action, and it could easily be defended that they would not have partook in the action had it been illegal. ie JH could say, "I would have reported it, had it been a crime not to report it."

It all really does depend on current law.
It can be proven that he left his son in the care of a violent abuser.
There is neglect that lead to the death of a child.
Currently it might be a case by case basis.
A new law would be across the board.
No one gets to skirt.

 

[flute4peace]

Wait WHAT??!! He did actually get arrested? (Sorry, I'm behind)

He’s currently in booking. This stems from the incident with Emily’s sons that occurred in February. Charges were filed in April. He was served with papers when he was in town for the CINC hearing. He’s being released on his own recognizance. His next court appearance is May 23rd. He plans to hire his own attorney.

 

[WildcatRunner]

I politely disagree. I think they have everything to do with Lucas.

Then I certainly need to rethink my view. I guess that does make sense, as I recall you mentioning it was sealed - which would be strange (generally) otherwise.

 

[Busylady]

I wonder if she went before JH or is still waiting to get up in front of the judge. I imagine she'll be free as a bird, too.

Her bond was 5000 -[FONT=&quot]Personal Recognizance which she posted on 4/11 really don't understand why such a low bond - hopefully something will happen in court today.[/FONT]

 

[PommyMommy]

You might be right, I just can't figure out how it could apply - the date of occurrence is 1/11/2018 for all the charges and the identity theft charge is

[FONT=&amp](B) severity level 5, nonperson felony if the monetary loss to the victim or victims is more than $100,000.

[/FONT]So I just can't figure out how that works into something regarding Lucas.

Do the dates have to match though? If she stole someone's identity or a prescription pad or doctor's stationery or whatever it was on 1/11, it still could have been used later in relation to Lucas, right? She may not have taken whatever she took to help EG, but rather just happened to have it when EG needed it.

IMO

 

[JulesinOz]

Maybe. You could certainly be right--I don't know enough about it to know if JH would have been violent with Lucas or allowed that to happen in his presence. It is clear that the turmoil in his and EG's relationship was escalating.

I did grow up with an abusive nut-job of a stepmom--and I know that my Dad, while observing unstable, irrational, and even violent behavior in her, never guessed she was abusing me. It took me years to forgive him for not knowing--but I honestly believe that sometimes people get involved in relationships that are toxic and can't see the forest for the trees. MO

I’ve always tried to post things that are unbiased and explain both sides of a point of view so I get what you are saying. But I hold JH the MOST responsible, he turned his back on his son when he needed him the most. And I think the only reason JH is free right now, is because he just happened to not be in town when Lucas died. I’m not yet unconvinced that the fatal beating didn’t happen while JH was here and it took LH that many days to finally pass away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WildcatRunner]

It all really does depend on current law.
It can be proven that he left his son in the care of a violent abuser.
There is neglect that lead to the death of a child.
Currently it might be a case by case basis.
A new law would be across the board.

No one gets to skirt.

A new law is applicable at the date determined when the law is passed. The law passed after Lucas went missing, which means it wasn't an applicable law when Lucas was being abused, which mean JH was not committing a crime by not reporting his knowledge of abuse because there was no law requiring it. No one is skirting anything - there just wasn't a law on the books. I haven't read into it, but it may not still be on the books, even today, yet.