Found Deceased Ks - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #28

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone stop the merry go round, I'm getting nauseous.....

Honestly, I never understood why keeping contact with the 2 bio kids were such a big deal to HER. She didn't try to satisfy court orders to make it happen, and never intended to financially contribute. She's obviously lazy, so actually watching them,along with Lucas and her one year old was probably more than she wanted to do. I imagine her ex would have been happy just to waive child support if she JUST STAYED THE HELL AWAY from them.
Being angry about losing visitation with them enough to murder poor Lucas just doesn't quite sit right with me.

MOO and stuff.
It’s all about pure greed, revenge and retribution. She only cared/cares about herself. How’s that working for you now, Emily? Yeah, thought so. I know you hate to be alone. Enjoy your deserved misery and all the self-hate that comes with it. There’s nowhere to run or hide now. You’re in your own jail for now. Your mind will assert it’s own punishment while on pins and needles waiting for the knock on the door with LE shoving an arrest warrant in your face. I can’t wait until I see you in your jail bracelets.
 
I'm a few pages behind (again) this morning, but I do want to point out that a ME will use not only the condition of the body and toxicology reports to determine date of death - but they also use clues and information gathered by LE, such as last known sightings, phone/bank use, etc.
 
It’s all about pure greed, revenge and retribution.

.....snipped for focus.......

I agree. If anyone has seen how custody disputes in the courts go then you know that sometimes it is just the "Winning" that is important to the parties.

Winning at all cost. No matter if the kids are used as pawns and no matter if money is spent. Winning against the other party is all that matters sometimes to the people involved in a heated custody dispute. Its really sad.

ETA some people can do it respectfully and admirably and they are to be commended. I dont think EG was the type to handle it admirably.
 
I'd been wondering the same thing, about whether the 2nd CE charge was dropped beo there was no kiddo left home alone. But the LL thing kept throwing that idea out the window.

Oh poor baby Lucas I'm so sorry.
I still don't think that is why the charge wasn't pursued at that time. They didn't want to place evidence about Lucas into discovery yet, and had another charge they could use to get children out of her care.
 
So perhaps the homeless guy was cleared based on info/an alibi from the 16th. Now that we know it could be the 11th, maybe he was the male seen smoking with EG as they tried to figure out a plan on how to dispose of Lucas. Not trying to rehash this but if FLA is agreeing that the dates could be altered, we should probably start looking at everyone/everything all over again!
FLA has said the homeless man was not involved in Lucas' case whatsoever, so let's not point fingers at a guy who isn't here to defend himself, and was probably caught up in EG's mess of a life just like poor Lucas was. The news about the homeless man bring interviewed and stating Lucas wasn't at the home could mean he was the smoking man, but that he is the reason they are looking at the dates around the 11th.
 
If I remember correctly FLA felt strongly that the homeless guy was not involved. How do we know the hit and run was random? Maybe the individual arrested for the hit and run was involved and the hit and run was to because the homeless guy saw something or knew something.
We don’t know...but the ‘street’ he was hit on is a very busy, divided highway and traffic moves fast. I think the speed limit where he was hit is 40 but most people drive it 60 or more. It would be rather difficult to set that up IMO
 
I wonder what DCF or whatever fancy name they go by has to say now.
Are they going to keep covering up? Are they going to protect the remaining children?
Their abysmal track record tells me That's a big no.
 
BBM

I think the cat does, but idk why. It's the timing.

Keep the LL away?
An excuse for driving somewhere? Maybe she had someone keep MH for her during the "cat" errand?
Maybe she was scouting for locations?
Maybe she just hated the cat since Lucas loved it?
Maybe she needed a reason to seem upset....
 
I remember seeing this post, but at the time I just thought she meant that with the added "neighbor q & a" statement there must have been a change. I didn't take it to mean that it was known to be incorrect info. I guess I should have read between the lines better!
I thought about this last night when I left here for the night- I do remember that post now by FindLucasAllen, like you, I must have thought the same thing and didn't think anything about the date changing as to when the last time Lucas was actually seen. I always thought it happened on the 11th because her sons were over that day, and her neighbor confirmed that. In my eyes, it happened after the boys were picked up by their father. I agree with kkjd- she probably had an argument with the boys' father and it angered her so much, she took it out on Lucas. Perhaps he told her then that he had filed a police report against Jonathan and wanted to know why, if she kicked him out, she still had Lucas at the house.
 
I'm a few pages behind (again) this morning, but I do want to point out that a ME will use not only the condition of the body and toxicology reports to determine date of death - but they also use clues and information gathered by LE, such as last known sightings, phone/bank use, etc.


Correct. But that 48 hour span is still awfully specific.
 
I wonder what DCF or whatever fancy name they go by has to say now.
Are they going to keep covering up? Are they going to protect the remaining children?
Their abysmal track record tells me That's a big no.
The head of the agency left, and it sounds as if they're attempting to hire more caseworkers, so I think change is being driven, but this sort of thing doesn't change overnight.
 
JMO but I'm thinking it more likely that Emily was just trying to set this guy up to take the blame for Lucas' death. I don't know how I feel about the fact he was killed by hit and run. It's seems mighty coincidental.
I feel like she used him for drugs and sex. When she reported Lucas missing and had to admit he was in the house, she took advantage and portrayed him as a suspect. I don’t think she would have wanted JH to know she had another man in the house. I think it was just another thing she got caught in.
 
The head of the agency left, and it sounds as if they're attempting to hire more caseworkers, so I think change is being driven, but this sort of thing doesn't change overnight.
Left where? Is he just getting shifted somewhere else? To be in charge of what?
 
Emily was clearing out a flower bed in the month of Feb?
Perhaps JG do a little digging.
Perhaps Emily buried something.

JMO
I was thinking the same thing.
That whole area needs undug to see if she buried any incriminating evidence. She may have buried photos or his clothing or other things that could help LE.
 
Yes this “gardening” should be added to the timeline as well as backing up the suv (13).

I’m unsure of the gardening, but we did examine it closely and then brushed it off as nothing when we thought LH had died later on. A neighbor saw her gardening with her daughter... (Lucas was not there)
I know- we all thought that this was relevant- maybe to rough her hands up a bit, if you catch my drift, until we were told he was last seen alive at 5:30 by the land lord and JH talked to him on the 15th.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
227
Total visitors
391

Forum statistics

Threads
609,342
Messages
18,252,955
Members
234,635
Latest member
steven10-42
Back
Top