Found Deceased Ks - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #29

[nyvictoria]

I'm not sure if this is going to work - it is the first time I've tried to bring a post forward from another thread. But, to my knowledge, this is the only source we have for the face time call on 2/15. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #19 *Arrest*

Wait a minute! JH spoke to him on the 15th. Not video. That’s a huge difference. When my kids were that young I’m sure I could have impersonated them on the phone.

 

[hopingicanhelp]

Could be, but why would he say he face timed with Lucas? If he in fact had not?

I'm not sure if this is going to work - it is the first time I've tried to bring a post forward from another thread. But, to my knowledge, this is the only source we have for the face time call on 2/15. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #19 *Arrest*

This is the only source I can recall with the exception of reiterations when the timeline was being questioned. I am not at all doubting the poster believed what was being posted at the time, but now we have a reason to doubt it. We also don't know if JH was the primary source for all posts or if there were others providing info.

The face time call could have been what others have speculated -- an effort by EG to make it appear to JH that Lucas was in the home; JH could have been confused himself whether he actually spoke to Lucas on that specific day. Perhaps EG told JH the date and he just agreed, assuming she must be correct.

We were all so certain about the LL -- it was discussed with both MSM and VI verification, but with the new uncertainty... I'm wondering if it's possible that the confidence came from the fact that the LL had been there at some point or planned to go by there, or there were verifiable phone conversations.

This neighbor Q & A is curious -- did it actually happen as reported in MSM or is that unreliable as well? We don't have a date for it. Did we ever establish that the neighbor was not the landlord -- one person or two? Who saw Lucas and had the Q&A with him?

I have to wonder if they're letting EG dig herself deeper and standing back to see what she does to herself.
Suppose....
They have phone proof that she messaged JH on the 16th, mentioned smoking bowls and claimed she did smoke them, and that she was in the area of OG. They have EG's confession and 6 page account for 16th-17th. Both of EG's accounts include Lucas.
But, what if LL told LE he had come by and even talked to EG by phone but -- he didn't actually work on anything that day-- OR he did investigate the pipe smell but didn't see Lucas.

Perhaps he saw Lucas peeking out, but not on that day -- maybe the Friday prior (the day JH returned to work). I think EG's admission that she left Lucas alone was a minimization of the multiple times she probably did that. This would have been her first chance to do what she wanted after JH had been home for so many days.
Maybe the LL saw the cat or asked Lucas about the cat -- EG comes home, beats Lucas for allowing himself to be seen, let alone talking to anyone. He suffers greatly and passes away 48-72 hours later; perhaps she did find him dead. He would have still been alive, but unwell and quiet on the 11th when the boys were over and the neighbor saw him.
So, LE asks her about her location activity on Fri afternoon/eve 216 and she says she went to OG; witness sees her and MH but no Lucas and she admits to leaving him alone. EG explains the LL/neighbor must be confused -- she left Lucas alone on the 16th when she went to OG because he was sick and sleeping.
LE knows she's lying -- but she admitted to using illegal drugs and driving with MH, endangering her, so let her own words lock her up while they straightened things out.

Now, LE is trying to build a case without knowing the precise date of death but they do know that EG used the events of the 16th to further the lies that Lucas was alive and disappeared on the 17th.
EG was used to getting away with lies -- she didn't anticipate the scrutiny or the outpouring of love for Lucas. She thought she'd get away with Lucas wandering off or JO kidnapping him -- with Lucas never to be seen again. Lucas had to be alive on the 16th, and if it took admitting to leaving him alone that day and incorporating a prior experience getting caught at it, then so be it. Small potatoes in comparison.

There is a reason LE dropped the CE charge concerning Lucas, and I'm not sure it is just about protecting evidence for additional charges -- I think the date EG admitted to leaving Lucas alone is a lie and that IS the evidence.

imo, jmo, moo!

 

[Hans23]

She was in jail when he was hit by the car. Why would he have been at her house again that day?

I do not know if he was..he could have simply been in the area as people were wondering if he was a frequent visitor.,, just adding info as to a true coincidence or suggested set up.

 

[KsFarmGirl]

Does anyone know if EG was interrogated when arrested the 2nd time, after the body was found? I apologize if this has already been addressed. The threads are moving so fast!

 

[flute4peace]

This is the only source I can recall with the exception of reiterations when the timeline was being questioned. I am not at all doubting the poster believed what was being posted at the time, but now we have a reason to doubt it. We also don't know if JH was the primary source for all posts or if there were others providing info.

The face time call could have been what others have speculated -- an effort by EG to make it appear to JH that Lucas was in the home; JH could have been confused himself whether he actually spoke to Lucas on that specific day. Perhaps EG told JH the date and he just agreed, assuming she must be correct.

We were all so certain about the LL -- it was discussed with both MSM and VI verification, but with the new uncertainty... I'm wondering if it's possible that the confidence came from the fact that the LL had been there at some point or planned to go by there, or there were verifiable phone conversations.

This neighbor Q & A is curious -- did it actually happen as reported in MSM or is that unreliable as well? We don't have a date for it. Did we ever establish that the neighbor was not the landlord -- one person or two? Who saw Lucas and had the Q&A with him?

I have to wonder if they're letting EG dig herself deeper and standing back to see what she does to herself.
Suppose....
They have phone proof that she messaged JH on the 16th, mentioned smoking bowls and claimed she did smoke them, and that she was in the area of OG. They have EG's confession and 6 page account for 16th-17th. Both of EG's accounts include Lucas.
But, what if LL told LE he had come by and even talked to EG by phone but -- he didn't actually work on anything that day-- OR he did investigate the pipe smell but didn't see Lucas.

Perhaps he saw Lucas peeking out, but not on that day -- maybe the Friday prior (the day JH returned to work). I think EG's admission that she left Lucas alone was a minimization of the multiple times she probably did that. This would have been her first chance to do what she wanted after JH had been home for so many days.
Maybe the LL saw the cat or asked Lucas about the cat -- EG comes home, beats Lucas for allowing himself to be seen, let alone talking to anyone. He suffers greatly and passes away 48-72 hours later; perhaps she did find him dead. He would have still been alive, but unwell and quiet on the 11th when the boys were over and the neighbor saw him.
So, LE asks her about her location activity on Fri afternoon/eve 216 and she says she went to OG; witness sees her and MH but no Lucas and she admits to leaving him alone. EG explains the LL/neighbor must be confused -- she left Lucas alone on the 16th when she went to OG because he was sick and sleeping.
LE knows she's lying -- but she admitted to using illegal drugs and driving with MH, endangering her, so let her own words lock her up while they straightened things out.

Now, LE is trying to build a case without knowing the precise date of death but they do know that EG used the events of the 16th to further the lies that Lucas was alive and disappeared on the 17th.
EG was used to getting away with lies -- she didn't anticipate the scrutiny or the outpouring of love for Lucas. She thought she'd get away with Lucas wandering off or JO kidnapping him -- with Lucas never to be seen again. Lucas had to be alive on the 16th, and if it took admitting to leaving him alone that day and incorporating a prior experience getting caught at it, then so be it. Small potatoes in comparison.

There is a reason LE dropped the CE charge concerning Lucas, and I'm not sure it is just about protecting evidence for additional charges -- I think the date EG admitted to leaving Lucas alone is a lie and that IS the evidence.

imo, jmo, moo!

You raise some really good points here. The one thing that gives me pause about the LL sighting is that one doesn't just mix up "yesterday" and "a week ago" when being questioned about a missing child. I mean, I'm as forgetful as they come, but I just don't think I would be that far off when it came down to supposedly seeing a kid on the night he allegedly died. This is a high-profile, public case, not what was for supper, ya know? I'm still of the mind that there's something very off about the sighting/timeline.

 

[kkdj]

Could be, but why would he say he face timed with Lucas? If he in fact had not?

Emily asked him to?

 

[GigTu]

I’m curious if anyone believes DM’s tape would be admitted in court. I know we’re a long way off from a trial but I’ve been thinking about this aspect. Can a Defense Atty successfully argue to keep it out?

Here's some good reading on that. Recorded Conversations: Can we use them in court? – A City Law Firm As far as I have ever read, as long as at least one of the two people is aware they are being recorded, it is admissible. In this case, it would be considered person-person. I sure do hope any and all recordings that were between person-person are admissible in this case, because there are now quite a few out there.

 

[Hans23]

fwiw, my thoughts re CR. this post is based off his statement of not seeing Lucas (and being cleared by LE) so I am thinking about a scenario where Lucas has passed already and was out of the house (or maybe hidden in the house)

the logical side of me says this is an unrelated accident:
-Part 1: its eerily similar to CA in that both Caylee and Lucas had passed and CA and EG just continued to party on. Maybe Lucas had passed by Fri Feb 16 but EG was still alive and well, why shouldn't she have a friend over, kick back and enjoy herself? idk what EG or CR did that night and im not trying to speculate anything negative on his behalf but imo, i am speculating EG and CR were going to socialize/hang out - i dont think our good samaritan EG invited him in from the cold randomly. imo, they prob were friends/acquaintances of some sort and it wasnt entirely random. its also possible that EG both wanted to hang out but also set up someone to frame for Lucas' disappearance.

Part 2: but what would drive EG to need to kill him? hes a 22 year old kid. it seems like EG could easily make up a story why Lucas wasnt there: he was at a sleepover w friends, with his mom or he was upstairs sick in his room. its easy for us to question everything EG says/does in hindsight but this kid (and yes kid, not an adult with extensive parenting experience) would be hearing this all in the moment and why would he question if Lucas was too young for a sleepover or suspiciously quiet for a sick kid - he wouldnt. the logical side of me is having a hard time seeing WHY he would be a loose end bc not seeing Lucas doesnt seem like enough of one.

the curious side of me considering this was set up by EG:
Part 1: maybe EG was planning a setup, as Marshburn suspects (9http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article212330284.html). so after her CA-style afternoon of smoking bowls and eating bottomless pasta at OG, she connects with CR bc they either know each other directly, via friends, or she drives around after OG to her old homeless spots & chats him up. there seems to be a pattern of EG trying to throw suspects on a wall and seeing what sticks which makes it more believable to me she'd attempt to weave in this storyline Her potential suspects are also people she likely hopes won't have an alibi (i remember FLA mentioning her best guess was EG hoped JO couldnt account for whereabouts on the 14th, smoking couple cant defend themselves bc they are nothing more than a photo and CR was homeless).

Part 2: so she tries to frame him but again, what happens that she would need to kill him?? maybe at the time, CR wasnt suspecting EG of anything bc again, why should he be? but maybe after his police questioning, something clicked or he remembered something he saw (blanket with blood on it, something weird in the car, odd smelling clothes in the laundry). just an example, but if theres truth to this bathroom theory, maybe LE already had some evidence about the bathroom and asked him about something chipped/broken/stained during his questioning. so he confronts, or even harmlessly asks EG to clarify and she freaks out. or maybe CR hadnt connected the dots but told EG something about his questioning that made her freak and worry he'd figure out what she'd done. having someone spend the night in your home shortly after murdering a child is a recipe for disaster...he likely was in her kitchen, bathroom, possibly awake when EG wasnt - he could have accidentally stumbled across something, not realizing it was evidence yet.

Part 3: even if part 1 & 2 make sense, who would kill for EG AND come forward so quickly? we know the driver was a Mike (22-year-old Wichita man killed in hit-and-run crash on Kellogg identified by police) so one of the logical speculations would be her drug dealer. imo a drug dealer wont do that for you but a drug deal slash lover would. or maybe MS isnt her drug dealer but another guy under her love spell. it seems like LE would have connected if MS and EG had any type of relationship by now.

so idk, imo, it seems like a stretch but i cant rule it out entirely. its also been really helpful to people posting the maps/location of where the accident was - im more visual but even still without having been there, i cant tell how realistic/unrealistic it seems.

Knowing the area very well (by driving home nightly down Edgemoor to Kellogg) ...unfortunately it can go either way. To know that area and without seeming belittling, I believe a frequent visitor is very realistic. Oliver is also a "very active" thorough fare for certain types of behavior and "activity". Again...I know nothing proven or solid...just IMO only. He had to have known something....MS just so happened to be there.

 

[Amonet]

You raise some really good points here. The one thing that gives me pause about the LL sighting is that one doesn't just mix up "yesterday" and "a week ago" when being questioned about a missing child. I mean, I'm as forgetful as they come, but I just don't think I would be that far off when it came down to supposedly seeing a kid on the night he allegedly died. This is a high-profile, public case, not what was for supper, ya know? I'm still of the mind that there's something very off about the sighting/timeline.

If it was 2 weeks ago vs 3 weeks ago I probably wouldn't be able to say very easily. But if the LL was questioned pretty soon after the 17th it's more like 3 days ago vs 10 days ago, and I think that's a lot harder to mix up.

When I viewed the video of the officer reading out EG's written statement there was nothing on that tape saying that it was only highlights that related to the child endangerment case? But she didn't say anything about the LL actually coming over, only that she received two phone calls from him. It must have been only highlights because there was so many gaps?

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Emily asked him to?

So we know now he hasn't been exactly honest, covering for her. She was in communication with him while in jail.
Oh the tangled web we weave.

 

[ScarlettLin]

I do not know if he was..he could have simply been in the area as people were wondering if he was a frequent visitor.,, just adding info as to a true coincidence or suggested set up.

According to LE, he was known to frequent the area where he was killed.

“The 22-year-old died at the scene. Police did not release his name, but say they know he was homeless and frequented that area.”
Police identify man hit by vehicle, killed on E. Kellogg

 

[ScarlettLin]

If it was 2 weeks ago vs 3 weeks ago I probably wouldn't be able to say very easily. But if the LL was questioned pretty soon after the 17th it's more like 3 days ago vs 10 days ago, and I think that's a lot harder to mix up.

When I viewed the video of the officer reading out EG's written statement there was nothing on that tape saying that it was only highlights that related to the child endangerment case? But she didn't say anything about the LL actually coming over, only that she received two phone calls from him. It must have been only highlights because there was so many gaps?

They only had 2 of the six pages she wrote at trial, and only had the detective read specific items from the statement on the stand

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Knowing the area very well (by driving home nightly down Edgemoor to Kellogg) ...unfortunately it can go either way. To know that area and without seeming belittling, I believe a frequent visitor is very realistic. Oliver is also a "very active" thorough fare for certain types of behavior and "activity". Again...I know nothing proven or solid...just IMO only. He had to have known something....MS just so happened to be there.

Hello

 

[kshultz06082]

I don't think she'll hurt anyone because she's a coward who targets defenseless children and I'm pretty certain no one wants to leave their child unattended in her care at this point. Jeez, I hope not at least.

Dont be surprised if we are wrong though.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Dont be surprised if we are wrong though.

I wouldn't count on that.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Household bleach would not make his hair white. Lord, I wish it were that easy. If she put bleach on his body/hair, he would have chemical burns and his hair would fall out and/or dissolve completely.[/QUOTE
So his hair sun bleached
But she could have used bleach to try and clean up.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Hello

Eurika.

 

[nyvictoria]

According to LE, he was known to frequent the area where he was killed.

“The 22-year-old died at the scene. Police did not release his name, but say they know he was homeless and frequented that area.”
Police identify man hit by vehicle, killed on E. Kellogg

I’ll just bet Emily frequented that area too!

 

[PetDetective]

Have we touched on them allegedly doing 2 autopsies within a short period of time? I am curious to hear the reasons you all might have for them needing to do a second autopsy almost immediately after completing the first.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Sadly, I don’t think we can say much with certainty.