CA CA - Emmanuel Haro, 7-months, reported kidnapped 7:30pm from Big 5 parking lot, Yucaipa Blvd, Yucaipa, 14 Aug 2025

[Chimera]

There is something about her story that has been bugging me all day and that's when she says the kidnapper says "Hola" to her. Hola in Spanish means "Hello", so why would someone with intentions on snatching a child come up behind you and say hello? You would think a kidnapper wouldn't be that stupid, they would come up behind you quietly and then attack from behind. That part of her story smells really rotten.

This ^^^.
The supposed kidnapper wouldn't risk the victim turning around and seeing & identifying them, which is what a normal interaction would be in response to a person who says 'hello' or 'hi' behind you.
There is something rotten ... not in Denmark, but in the town of Yucaipa, CA.
Imo.

 

[Breezyflavor]

Police Find ‘Inconsistencies’ in Alleged Kidnapping of Baby Boy in California Police Find ‘Inconsistencies’ in Alleged Kidnapping of 7-Month-Old Boy Outside Retail Store: ‘Cannot Rule Out Foul Play’

Police Find ‘Inconsistencies’ in Alleged Kidnapping of 7-Month-Old Boy Outside Retail Store: ‘Cannot Rule Out Foul Play’​

Investigators confronted Emmanuel Haro’s mom about the “inconsistencies in her initial statement” regarding her son’s disappearance

NEED TO KNOW​

• Investigators said they found "inconsistencies" in the case involving the disappearance of 7-month-old Emmanuel Haro
• Emmanuel disappeared outside a California retail store after his mother, Rebecca Haro, was allegedly attacked on Aug. 14
• Investigators confronted the mom about the “inconsistencies in her initial statement,” and she declined to address them

Police have found “inconsistencies” in the case involving the disappearance of 7-month-old California boy Emmanuel Haro.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (SBCSD) revealed in an update on Saturday, Aug. 16, that investigators found “inconsistencies” in a statement made by Emmanuel’s mother, Rebecca Haro, over his alleged kidnapping on Aug. 14.

 

[Knox]

What about the park they were at before she went to store to get mouth guard, did anyone there see him? And also it would be interesting if grandmother could ask the other siblings when was the last time they saw emmanual.

You're asking the same questions that have been posed here for two days now. No one has answered that question in MSM or on social media - that's interesting and telling IMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Just in case people haven't noticed this development.

On Saturday, Beushausen [the grandma] said authorities had searched the couple’s Cabazon home and reportedly brought cadaver dogs.

Investigators can’t ‘rule out foul play’ in search for missing SoCal baby

The 7-month-old’s mother said she was attacked and her son was kidnapped. Investigators said they can’t rule out foul play after confronting the woman about inconsistencies in her accou…

fox2now.com

 

[Frodosdojo]

<mod snipped - source>

As to your first question, you’re right, it’s not actually known, I’m making some inferences and my wording could have been improved.

While I don’t know when they married, the conviction was only two years ago and he was sentenced to 180 days in jail. It’s almost certain she knew of the conviction. So at a minimum, I am comfortable saying (but still MOO of course), that we know that she has decided to be in a relationship where her husband committed domestic violence against his child in the past. Even though that particular incident may have preceded her, it’s still an active decision she is making to raise children with someone she knows has previously committed domestic violence against his child (and to such an extent that he was convicted and sentenced to jail).

The rest is inference. It’s been reported that he has an upcoming hearing for a probation violation. I don’t know what that violation was, but it seems there is evidence he hasn’t followed the guidelines set out by the court in response to that domestic violence incident. I think the likelihood someone who commits that level of violence against their child will display violence at other times is high. I think anyone willing to overlook that history in a partner, and parent for their children, is themselves in a vulnerable position for whatever reason, making them more likely to become the victim of abuse. And then a child abuser’s son goes missing and his wife has a black eye, and the wife is caught making inconsistent statements. Based on all the above, MOO, the likelihood there was no behavior that could be described as domestic violence displayed by him towards either her or any of their 5 children during the course of their relationship is low (so low that I considered it a given).
(Foul play 'can't be ruled out' as cops hunt for missing baby Emmanuel Haro)

Regarding your second question, it has not been reported that they live separately. So more accurately, we have no reason to think he doesn’t have custody. The very fact they appear to have more than one child together indicates he didn’t lose custody of subsequent children. That’s why I said it “appeared” he had custody. In this context, I was referring to the children they had together.

It seems they only have 2 children together and the 2 year old was removed from their custody recently.

Has the family set up a place for donations to fund the search yet?

I don't believe so and the organization that had volunteered to help them rescinded their offer and canceled the reward.

 

[TMich6811]

Think there will be an arrest within the next 24

 

[Knox]

Just in case people haven't noticed this development.

On Saturday, Beushausen [the grandma] said authorities had searched the couple’s Cabazon home and reportedly brought cadaver dogs.

Investigators can’t ‘rule out foul play’ in search for missing SoCal baby

The 7-month-old’s mother said she was attacked and her son was kidnapped. Investigators said they can’t rule out foul play after confronting the woman about inconsistencies in her accou…

fox2now.com

If the plan was to divert attention away from thier home, by creating a missing scenerio somewhere else. They failed miserably. I guess the plan always sounds better in the rehearsal stage. But when LE starts asking the hard questions, it quickly falls apart.

If there were cadaver dog hits in the home, but not the car. I think we can assume something happened in the preceeding days/weeks/months. But if the opposite is true, and a hit was only found in the car? Or no hits at all?

 

[steff13]

If the plan was to divert attention away from thier home, by creating a missing scenerio somewhere else. They failed miserably. I guess the plan always sounds better in the rehearsal stage. But when LE starts asking the hard questions, it quickly falls apart.

If there were cadaver dog hits in the home, but not the car. I think we can assume something happened in the preceeding days/weeks/months. But if the opposite is true, and a hit was only found in the car? Or no hits at all?

Agreed, . They were hoping the police would not search the home.

She was at the park with 3 other adults. If she did need to get a mouth guard, there was no need to take the baby with her, except to create a scenario when the baby disappeared.

I wonder what the ex-wife and BF have to say. I can't imagine they'd be willing to cover for them.

 

[BlaiseFinlay]

If he is currently on probation, which I think I read that he is, would he be required to cooperate with the law enforcement as a condition of his probation?

You raise a very good point. As I recall (and confirmed with a quick search), felons on probation generally waive their right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure. It will likely give law enforcement much greater latitude to search their property without a warrant — they don’t even need his cooperation. Not sure the extent of any limits or exceptions, or how often law enforcement relies on that ability in practice, but if ever there was a reason to make use of his waiver of those constitutional protections, surely this is the case (at least if obtaining a warrant would present any obstacle).

He probably retains his right to remain silent.

Edit: Caveat — I think it’s more that the law allows for that to be a condition of probation, and it is a common condition of probation, but probation conditions are technically determined on a case by case basis. So while it’s not known to a certainty that he’s waived that right, there is good reason to believe they’ll likely have the right to do warrantless searches of him/his home/his property.

 

[Knox]

These aren't isolated incidents. I have reviewed 44 verified cases where parents killed their children, then created elaborate abduction stories to deflect suspicion. I call this phenomenon "staged abduction filicide."

What the Data Shows
These 44 cases reveal patterns:

• 80 percent of perpetrators were biological parents
• Mothers acting alone accounted for 60 percent of all cases
• 60 percent invented violent intruder scenarios (carjackers, masked men, home invasions)
• 40 percent claimed their child simply wandered off or disappeared
• The murders were motivated primarily by one of two factors: fatal child abuse escalating to murder (55 percent) or viewing the child as an obstacle to be removed (45 percent)

When Parents Claim Abduction: The Emmanuel Haro Case

Distinguishing genuine child abductions from staged ones.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[BlaiseFinlay]

…

Although for the life of me, I can't imagine any parent willingly choosing to not cooperate with LE in an investigation into the disappearance of my helpless, innocent baby. But here we are.

To be blunt, I have no difficulty imagining a parent who killed their child choosing to not cooperate. And the constitution generally protects their right to not cooperate. The optics would be terrible, but you can’t convict someone for exercising their constitutional rights. But in this particular case, he’s fortunately likely waived those rights.

 

[tlcya]

Agreed, . They were hoping the police would not search the home.

She was at the park with 3 other adults. If she did need to get a mouth guard, there was no need to take the baby with her, except to create a scenario when the baby disappeared.

I wonder what the ex-wife and BF have to say. I can't imagine they'd be willing to cover for them.

I suspect by tomorrow we will get an update that confirms what many have speculated. That baby E was never at the park and never at the Big 5 that evening. What the other children in their household and those who accompanied the couple to the park have to say about their baby sibling and the state of Rebecca's appearance will be key. JMO MOO

I think LE are going to be hard pressed to find anyone at that park who saw baby E. and if they saw his mother they did so only briefly and she was wearing sunglasses if and when they did. (SPECULATION)

 

[Lucy6226]

I suspect by tomorrow we will get an update that confirms what many have speculated. That baby E was never at the park and never at the Big 5 that evening. What the other children in their household and those who accompanied the couple to the park have to say about their baby sibling and the state of Rebecca's appearance will be key. JMO MOO

I think LE are going to be hard pressed to find anyone at that park who saw baby E. and if they saw his mother they did so only briefly and she was wearing sunglasses if and when they did. (SPECULATION)

Fingers crossed because clearly things are not as they were portrayed at the start. I also suspect that no one saw the baby that day. MOO

 

[tlcya]

sadly I suspect nobody saw the baby, and they saw RH only briefly. The mouth guard was the subterfuge to create a need for RH to leave the park shortly after arriving, never having even had time to unload the baby purportedly in the truck in his car seat. I wonder if the vehicle has tint? bet it does.

My own theory is that while mom was left to perpetrate a hoax (black eye was helpful in selling the story) dad is the "brains" behind the plot, he picked the time and place for it to be perpetrated, making sure he was in front of a full crowd of witnesses at the park at the time of the alleged abduction. JMO

 

[alucardsdream]

If the plan was to divert attention away from thier home, by creating a missing scenerio somewhere else. They failed miserably. I guess the plan always sounds better in the rehearsal stage. But when LE starts asking the hard questions, it quickly falls apart.

If there were cadaver dog hits in the home, but not the car. I think we can assume something happened in the preceeding days/weeks/months. But if the opposite is true, and a hit was only found in the car? Or no hits at all?

My mom and I were just talking about this...it seems like parents who don't make up an abduction to cover up a child's murder actually seem to get away with it for a longer period of time than those who do. I think most people like to think that they're smarter than the police and that they'll be able to get away with their fabricated story.

 

[Herat]

sadly I suspect nobody saw the baby, and they saw RH only briefly. The mouth guard was the subterfuge to create a need for RH to leave the park shortly after arriving, never having even had time to unload the baby purportedly in the truck in his car seat. I wonder if the vehicle has tint? bet it does.

My own theory is that while mom was left to perpetrate a hoax (black eye was helpful in selling the story) dad is the "brains" behind the plot, he picked the time and place for it to be perpetrated, making sure he was in front of a full crowd of witnesses at the park at the time of the alleged abduction. JMO

I think you have read the scenario very well @tlcya

"Forgetting the mouth guard" seems like something a guy would come up with.

 

[Knox]

My mom and I were just talking about this...it seems like parents who don't make up an abduction to cover up a child's murder actually seem to get away with it for a longer period of time than those who do. I think most people like to think that they're smarter than the police and that they'll be able to get away with their fabricated story.

Exactly right, there are far too many cameras to get away with that anymore. You'd think they would realize this. Locally a theft was solved last week, because someone with a dash cam turned in their footage to the PD. So it's not just fixed cameras anymore either.

 

[mickey2942]

I've changed babies in cars and you're standing in the door and your body is blocking out a lot of what can be seen, so I'm wondering and it doesn't make sense. So E 's car seat is in the middle ? and she places him on the seat by the door and is rummaging around getting diaper etc and her body would be kind of shielded by the car door and no baby really seen , but she's knocked unconscious and someone reached over her body on the ground grabs a baby and takes off...

Hats off to you. That is incredible logic. And only the specific detail known only to someone who has actually "changed a baby" in a car.

As I read your insightful comment, I remembered, back decades ago, changing a baby in the back seat, you are right, no one knows what you are doing, bending over, the baby is laying on the seat, the door and your body blocks what you are actually doing. It could be getting a package out of the back seat, or any other task. No one can actually "see" a baby, to kdnap.

The Mom had not been in the store yet. So, no one saw Emmanuel. No one spotted the baby, to follow her out to the parking lot to kidnap the baby.

So, when did the kidnapper see or know she had a baby in the vehicle? Even getting the baby out of the car seat. And putting him on the seat, is pretty quick.

Also, noted someone mentioned that a mouth guard needs to be heated in hot water to melt the plastic for correct fit. Brilliant.

So far, WS sleuths have pretty much been spot on regarding the discrepancies in this sad situation.

 

[charminglane]

This is one of those cases I refresh the pages often and am not getting anything done.

 

[BlaiseFinlay]

LE has to eliminate the parents, just no way around that. Parents who have nothing to hide, are eager to get past that step so LE can find their missing child.

I cannot fathom why Rebecca terminated the interview unless she's not telling the truth. In addition to that - the Uvalde Foundation, who also came in to help search. Also stated she would not answer any of their questions or provide the requested information to them either.

So it doesn't seem like either Jake or Rebecca really want Emmanual to be found. Likely because they are the reason he's gone - all JMO.

Going to simply play devil’s advocate here for a moment. Let’s say the mom is innocent, and it happened roughly as she said. You’re desperate to have police find your child, and they’re not even understanding what you’re telling them. They’re asking you questions you can’t answer. They’re saying that your statements are inconsistent. You seem to be failing at explaining what happened. You aren’t even sure what exactly happened because it’s so traumatic, your memory is fuzzy. You sometimes don’t even understand what they’re asking. All you want is your baby back, and you’re being asked the same things over and over. You probably just want to go to bed and cry, or drive around searching. Their repeated questions are wasting time. They’re not putting the resources towards it that you think they should. You’re not coping. You realize you’re not going to convince them. You’re now getting scared they’re going to take your other children away.

Stopping the interview at that point until you can get an attorney sounds like a good decision. You do need help. Go hire an attorney who can help you answer the police’s questions in a manner that isn’t unintentionally making things harder for everyone. Get someone who can advocate for both you and your child. Like I said in my previous posts, the purpose of an attorney in this context is to help you cooperate with the police so they can eliminate you as quickly as possible. In the meantime, take a moment to cry and sleep. Sometimes sleep brings clarity. The police do believe that your child is missing, so they will continue searching.

Do I think that’s what happened here? No.