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

[Kuyluc2764]

Actually, I believe it has been confirmed by PB that she had a restricted license, which at least in my state means you can only drive for certain things or at certain times of the day, or with another licensed driver in the vehicle. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - and also maybe a KS local can clarify exactly what a restricted license means in that state?

Sorry if someone else answered this but in Kansas, a suspended license means you cant drive period. You can get a restricted license and drive to and from work and things like that but you have to apply to have one. Also, getting caught while driving on a suspended carries jail time in Kansas. 90 days for the 3rd time.

 

[Sillybilly]

Sorry to interrupt the flow but it seems a few reminders are in order:

Discussion about fundraising in the various cases is not allowed.

Numerous OT posts have been removed. The odd off-topic post is okay, but sometimes it derails the thread to the point that it becomes hard to know what details refer to the case at hand or some unrelated personal matter that someone else has posted.

Don’t discuss PMs at all. No “PM me” or “Your mailbox is full” of “I private messaged so-and-so”, etc. Just don’t discuss them.

Thanks.

 

[andalso]

It does sound like the person stopping by was likely the last person who could have saved Lucas. But come on...he is the last person in an extremely long list of people who could have saved him.

The right agencies were notified. They failed.

How about whoever is responsible for letting EG care for Lucas to prove that she could regain some custody of her own kids?

Lest it be said that the father of this child is very high on the list of people who could have saved Lucas.

Yes, as it turns out this WAS a missed opportunity. But there really were so many missed opportunities that for this to fall in the lap of a LL/neighbor is very unfair. He was the last rung on a ladder of missteps leading what happened to Lucas and so if we are looking to blame, maybe we could start with EG and JH.

In my opinion.

 

[WildcatRunner]

Good point - I just assumed it was the LL since we knew he'd been by while she was out. I wonder if the LL is the neighbor or if two different people came by that afternoon and saw Lucas.

I'm inclined to say two people saw him. Only because PB said she wasn't sure if the LL knew LH was home alone, or if he didn't know it until he talked to LE. Perhaps PB didn't have the liberty to say, but it sounds like it COULD be a different person.

Even more interesting that this is in the evidence for this charge, since they aren't bringing a charge for Lucas being home alone...yet.

 

[kshultz06082]

Sorry if someone else answered this but in Kansas, a suspended license means you cant drive period. You can get a restricted license and drive to and from work and things like that but you have to apply to have one. Also, getting caught while driving on a suspended carries jail time in Kansas. 90 days for the 3rd time.

I understand what everyone is saying, but I think the word "restricted" was not being used the way its being taken. I believe in the CINC affidavit it said that she was restricted from driving her boys anywhere, not a true license restriction or suspension. I wish we could get clarification on this.

 

[kshultz06082]

It does sound like the person stopping by was likely the last person who could have saved Lucas. But come on...he is the last person in an extremely long list of people who could have saved him.

The right agencies were notified. They failed.

How about whoever is responsible for letting EG care for Lucas to prove that she could regain some custody of her own kids?

Lest it be said that the father of this child is very high on the list of people who could have saved Lucas.

Yes, as it turns out this WAS a missed opportunity. But there really were so many missed opportunities that for this to fall in the lap of a LL/neighbor is very unfair. He was the last rung on a ladder of missteps leading what happened to Lucas and so if we are looking to blame, maybe we could start with EG and JH.

In my opinion.

You are 100% correct and I apologize if my wording sounded like I was blaming the LL/Neighbor for Lucas' disappearance. That was not my intent. I was simply lamenting the "what-ifs".

I couldnt agree more that the primary person who should have and could have made this not happen, is JH. In my eyes, he is in no way a victim in this. I do have empathy for him because I cannot imagine having a missing and presumed deceased child, however, that is the extent of my empathy. He and I held a conversation elsewhere, and admittedly, he had me fooled for a short while, but this was before 90% of the info came out. I can only imagine what is still left to come out.

My love, sympathy, empathy, hope, etc is all for Lucas. He is the only true victim here. The family that tried to save him and do right by him are of course victims and have my sympathies and prayers too, but LUCAS IS THE TRUE VICTIM!

 

[newmember]

I'm inclined to say two people saw him. Only because PB said she wasn't sure if the LL knew LH was home alone, or if he didn't know it until he talked to LE. Perhaps PB didn't have the liberty to say, but it sounds like it COULD be a different person.

Even more interesting that this is in the evidence for this charge, since they aren't bringing a charge for Lucas being home alone...yet.

two ppl could also clarify how there have been versions of someone seeing him at the door and the LL seeing him peeking at the window.

additionally, a new neighbor (unlike the LL) very likely would not have EGs phone number so it creates a more difficult situation for them to directly/immediately help, especially keeping in mind you dont want to scare Lucas and be like "hi kid you dont know me but let me in your house". so maybe that person waited on the porch or was like "lucas im right next door if you need anything & this is my phone number, ill come check on you in 20 mins" and by that time EG was home.

 

[Steelslady]

It does sound like the person stopping by was likely the last person who could have saved Lucas. But come on...he is the last person in an extremely long list of people who could have saved him.

The right agencies were notified. They failed.

How about whoever is responsible for letting EG care for Lucas to prove that she could regain some custody of her own kids?

Lest it be said that the father of this child is very high on the list of people who could have saved Lucas.

Yes, as it turns out this WAS a missed opportunity. But there really were so many missed opportunities that for this to fall in the lap of a LL/neighbor is very unfair. He was the last rung on a ladder of missteps leading what happened to Lucas and so if we are looking to blame, maybe we could start with EG and JH.

In my opinion.

I am not in disagreement with you- you've made several excellent points that I back you up on 100%.

I just don't understand how you can have a "Q&A" with a child that young and know that they are alone, and at least not call the cops? What happened after to Lucas, I fear, would have happened eventually, if not that night, so I do not at all blame them for his disappearance. But I wonder, what made them go over to their home, after they realized that EG and the baby was not at home- was Lucas possibly outside looking for EG? Could he have woken up and got scared, and went to look for her, causing the neighbor to come over? We don't have any information as to what caused this neighbor to go over there after they suspected Lucas was alone.

It also makes me wonder about the back door. In the earlier articles, they said the back door was open when he disappeared- was this door broken or did something happen that night to cause it to stay open?

Too many things going through my head right now, going back to when he was first reported missing.

I am curious as to whether the neighbor and landlord are the same person, or was there two separate visits that night? If it was two separate people, then just how long was EG truly gone?

 

[Charliegizmo49]

It does sound like the person stopping by was likely the last person who could have saved Lucas. But come on...he is the last person in an extremely long list of people who could have saved him.

The right agencies were notified. They failed.

How about whoever is responsible for letting EG care for Lucas to prove that she could regain some custody of her own kids?

Lest it be said that the father of this child is very high on the list of people who could have saved Lucas.

Yes, as it turns out this WAS a missed opportunity. But there really were so many missed opportunities that for this to fall in the lap of a LL/neighbor is very unfair. He was the last rung on a ladder of missteps leading what happened to Lucas and so if we are looking to blame, maybe we could start with EG and JH.

In my opinion.

GREAT POST‼️‼️

Everyone tailed LUCAS. except those who picked up the phone to the state agencies. It sickens me to know how many missed opportunities there were to save all of these kids from an abusive life. Sad because what has been exposed is a small fraction of the abuse LUCAS endured.

 

[Helpthechildren]

So what happen? It was not the LL that seen Lucas? It was the neighbor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PetDetective]

This is where we need an attorney to chime in. If I am remembering correctly, LE are required to get you an attorney or let you get one if you request it, but they are not required to stop talking to you. It is your choice whether or not you continue to talk after asking for an attorney.

I am fairly certain that when you ask for a lawyer the questioning is supposed to stop immediately.

Edited to add this:
“The Court further instructed the police that if a suspect says he wants a lawyer, the police must cease any interrogation or questioning until an attorney is present. Further, the police must give the suspect an opportunity to confer with his attorney and to have the attorney present during any subsequent questioning.”

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-miranda-case-and-the-right-to-counsel.html

Unless otherwise stated, everything above is MOO[emoji230][emoji5]

 

[WildcatRunner]

This is where we need an attorney to chime in. If I am remembering correctly, LE are required to get you an attorney or let you get one if you request it, but they are not required to stop talking to you. It is your choice whether or not you continue to talk after asking for an attorney.

I don't have time for a thorough response, and I'm not verified here as an attorney, nor have I practiced any criminal law, so there are others who are definitely more practiced in it...but if you begin to speak again, before your attorney arrives, if LE Mirandizes you again when the conversation picks up, and you keep talking, it's fairly likely those statements are still going to be admissible.

Although, what I expect is more likely, is something called Limited Invocation. She was mirandized and asked for an attorney in respect to Lucas being missing. But she continued a willingness to talk about what may or may not have happened with her daughter. If the questioning only related to driving under the influence with her daughter, after she wanted an attorney in respect to Lucas, it's still legal.

 

[PetDetective]

Or coming down from meth - coming down from meth causes the user to become extremely sleepy as they are no longer being sped up by the drug. When I detoxed from alcohol the meth users slept for DAYS because they had been up for days. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to a lot of detectives, falling asleep while in an interrogation room is one of the main signs of guilt a suspect can physically display.


Unless otherwise stated, everything above is MOO[emoji230][emoji5]

 

[WildcatRunner]

I don't have time for a thorough response, and I'm not verified here as an attorney, nor have I practiced any criminal law, so there are others who are definitely more practiced in it...but if you begin to speak again, before your attorney arrives, if LE Mirandizes you again when the conversation picks up, and you keep talking, it's fairly likely those statements are still going to be admissible.

Although, what I expect is more likely, is something called Limited Invocation. She was mirandized and asked for an attorney in respect to Lucas being missing. But she continued a willingness to talk about what may or may not have happened with her daughter. If the questioning only related to driving under the influence with her daughter, after she wanted an attorney in respect to Lucas, it's still legal.

I should add, the first paragraph I wrote, is very, very, very dependant on the choice of words, and other factors. Asking for a lawyer is much harder to then switching to an admissible statement than just invoking silence and then speaking again. But because we have 2 somewhat unrelated cases going on, I would assume my second paragraph could be applicable.

Also to remind all, I'm not verified here, so don't treat as if I am.

ETA: I never even see the inside of a courthouse in my job, so I definitely never work with things like we see on WS. The minute something hits my desk that may see a court room, it goes away to someone else. For lack of a better description, I do interpretation of laws and regulations for financial institutions, so I don't deal with the "after" effects like what most envision attorneys doing. So I'm basically doing my best to regurgitate what I learned in school and haven't used since. 🤣

 

[ScarlettLin]

This is where we need an attorney to chime in. If I am remembering correctly, LE are required to get you an attorney or let you get one if you request it, but they are not required to stop talking to you. It is your choice whether or not you continue to talk after asking for an attorney.

Police can question and not even give Miranda warnings if the person is free to leave - Miranda only attaches when the person is detained. That being said, the article plainly said she left mid interview and came and went over several days. The key will be what wording was used and when did she ask for an attorney. If you’re not in custody, the right to counsel hasn’t ‘begun’ according to the Supreme Court. So she would have had to provide her own attorney prior to arrest. This article says it better than I can
https://resources.lawinfo.com/criminal-defense/when-must-the-police-read-me-my-miranda-right.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WildcatRunner]

Police can question and not even give Miranda warnings if the person is free to leave - Miranda only attaches when the person is detained. That being said, the article plainly said she left mid interview and came and went over several days. The key will be what wording was used and when did she ask for an attorney. If you’re not in custody, the right to counsel hasn’t ‘begun’ according to the Supreme Court. So she would have had to provide her own attorney prior to arrest. This article says it better than I can
https://resources.lawinfo.com/criminal-defense/when-must-the-police-read-me-my-miranda-right.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can request legal counsel without being mirandized, and LE generally is going to have to stop that line of questions...you just aren't going to get court appointed counsel.

Wording is key, as you said. If she even implied she WAS GOING TO want an attorney, vs implicitly asking for one, there's a way to keep questioning. Thinking you might want an attorney later is different than actually asking for one.

 

[WildcatRunner]

I understand what everyone is saying, but I think the word "restricted" was not being used the way its being taken. I believe in the CINC affidavit it said that she was restricted from driving her boys anywhere, not a true license restriction or suspension. I wish we could get clarification on this.

I believed this to be the case also. Her license wasn't restricted in the way we all envision, but there was a condition in her parenting agreement related to driving. So she couldn't get a ticket for it probably, but if the family court learned she'd not followed the restriction, then she could have gotten an adverse effect to her custody agreement.

 

[WillenFan21]

I'm surprised that none none of you are talking about this little piece also:

"The next day, Feb. 19, Lucas’ father sent a text saying Glass wanted to speak with the investigators, and he brought her back to a police interview room at City Hall. An FBI agent also was present for the second interview."

This clearly shows that Jonathan and Emily talked about Lucas being gone which I am sure they would have but he literally drove her back to the questioning room. I have always thought since day one he might know what happened to little Lucas. Granted, I know he has been cleared since he was at work but I've always said that does not mean Emily told him what happened. He has always defended her even PB has stated that he is in denial. I don't think he's in denial - I think he knows. He knew about the previous abuse that happened. This piece in the article has me wondering even more about what I suspect. Do any of you guys feel the same way?

Quoted article part is from here: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article210955789.html

 

[kshultz06082]

I believed this to be the case also. Her license wasn't restricted in the way we all envision, but there was a condition in her parenting agreement related to driving. So she couldn't get a ticket for it probably, but if the family court learned she'd not followed the restriction, then she could have gotten an adverse effect to her custody agreement.

<modsnip>Thank you for saying it more clearly than I could. Now, if someone who knows for a fact could let us know which is accurate, that would be awesome.

Where are you Lucas?

 

[kshultz06082]

I'm surprised that none none of you are talking about this little piece also:

"The next day, Feb. 19, Lucas&#8217; father sent a text saying Glass wanted to speak with the investigators, and he brought her back to a police interview room at City Hall. An FBI agent also was present for the second interview."

This clearly shows that Jonathan and Emily talked about Lucas being gone which I am sure they would have but he literally drove her back to the questioning room. I have always thought since day one he might know what happened to little Lucas. Granted, I know he has been cleared since he was at work but I've always said that does not mean Emily told him what happened. He has always defended her even PB has stated that he is in denial. I don't think he's in denial - I think he knows. He knew about the previous abuse that happened. This piece in the article has me wondering even more about what I suspect. Do any of you guys feel the same way?

Quoted article part is from here: http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article210955789.html

I do and I dont. Ithink she gave him a story. Im not sure if he believed it and felt there was no harm in her speaking to investigators.... OR.... he has not believed a word she said, but is pretending he does in hopes of getting her to talk. I really hope its option #2 because I want to believe he was more interested in finding Lucas than his relationship with her, however, its too little too late IMO.