Found Deceased KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #18 *Arrest*

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a detail here, that is possibly being misreported. It might be a good idea to contact the newspapers involved if they got their facts wrong:

Jan. 22, 2018: Lucas came to Beech Elementary School with nine abrasions and bruises, according to an interview of the school nurse by a DCF social worker on Feb. 20, three days after his stepmother reported him missing.
Lucas and his mother said he had fallen off monkey bars, but the school nurse said, “It looked like he had been in a fight.”

The nurse measured the abrasions or bruises on his left elbow, right knee, forehead, left upper eyelid, left eyebrow, left cheek, right eyelid, right cheek and nose. The bruises on his cheek and right eyelid were swelling. The largest injury — the scrape on his nose — was about 3 inches long.

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article208704089.html

I'd presumed this was a typo and meant to be "step-mom". But now the local fox outlet (who appears to be regurgitating the Wichita Eagle article) has used the word "biological" mother.

The next month, Lucas arrived at Beech Elementary School with nine cuts and bruises, according to an interview with the school nurse by a DCF social worker on Feb. 20, three days after he went missing. Lucas and his biological mother said he fell off monkey bars, but the school nurse said, “It looked like he had been in a fight.”

http://fox4kc.com/2018/04/16/new-details-emerge-about-missing-5-year-old-kansas-boy/

Most likely this is a mistake because it has been clearly stated by both EG and JO in the original article JO had not seen Lucas since Dec. So how would she be the one reporting back to the school nurse about injuries incurred while in EG's custody on Jan 22? It doesn't make sense.

I've seen people bring this up elsewhere on SM. If this is an error, it needs to be corrected before more people make the wrong assumptions.
 
That must have been horrible. I'm so sorry!
:grouphug:
Thanks it was three months ago.
I am doing very well.
Both my husbands were untreated bipolar by their own choice and they both took their own lives by heroin od.
You just get stronger and you work harder to save the next one.:heart:
 
Thanks it was three months ago.
I am doing very well.
Both my husbands were untreated bipolar by their own choice and they both took their own lives by heroin od.
You just get stronger and you work harder to save the next one.:heart:
BBM
I knew you were a good person!
We've had suicide and drug abuse in our family too. Just heartbreaking. I'm so sorry you are the one who found your husband. I'm glad you're doing well.
 
I don't have any extra info to elaborate on the running with no shoes thing, sorry. I'm not sure who they were referring to.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

Just getting in and caught up, but bouncing off this and thinking out of the box for a minute, could be totally irrelevant...

So, why not say " a CHILD running without shoes"...

(And if they said a "WOMAN" running without shoes, well that would sound suspicious/obvious/telling...)

Maybe EG's feet were dirty or had cuts on them...idk...I know a stretch, just thought I'd mention it.

Another thought, could she have lost her shoes during the disposal process?

I know, these are stretches. They sound so weird even as I type them.

One of the first things LE wants to examine is shoes, upon an initial interview and of couse warrant. Maybe EG couldn't provide them? But surely she'd have more than one pair she could just hand over to them?

Maybe there's a connection between "parks" and "shoes"...?
 
Just getting in and caught up, but bouncing off this and thinking out of the box for a minute, could be totally irrelevant...

So, why not say " a CHILD running without shoes"...
(And if they said a "WOMAN" running without shoes, well that would sound suspcious/obvious/telling...)

Maybe EG's feet were dirty or had cuts on them...idk...I know a stretch, just thought I'd mention it.

Another thought, could she have lost her shoes during the disposal process?

I know, these are stretcbess. They sound so weird even as I type them.

The first thing LE wants to examine is shoes, upon bother inormal interview and of couse warrant. Maybe EG couldn't provide them? But surely she'd have more than one pair she could just hand over to them?

Maybe there's a connection between "parks" and "shoes"...?

BBM
This makes total sense to me!
 
Just getting in and caught up, but bouncing off this and thinking out of the box for a minute, could be totally irrelevant...

So, why not say " a CHILD running without shoes"...
(And if they said a "WOMAN" running without shoes, well that would sound suspcious/obvious/telling...)

Maybe EG's feet were dirty or had cuts on them...idk...I know a stretch, just thought I'd mention it.

Another thought, could she have lost her shoes during the disposal process?

I know, these are stretcbess. They sound so weird even as I type them.

The first thing LE wants to examine is shoes, upon bother inormal interview and of couse warrant. Maybe EG couldn't provide them? But surely she'd have more than one pair she could just hand over to them?

Maybe there's a connection between "parks" and "shoes"...?

BBM
Let's not forget how her hands looked too in the jail pics.
Might not mean anything, but where would one get pretty scraped up hands and feet and maybe in between too? Imo a very tight place. Pushing and pulling. Or in a fight.
 
Looking back on this, the whole shoe thing is really odd....sticks out...what an odd comment....

Wait, what about dirty footprints in the house?
 
BBM
Let's not forget how her hands looked too in the jail pics.
Might not mean anything, but where would one get pretty scraped up hands and feet and maybe in between too? Imo a very tight place. Pushing and pulling. Or in a fight.

Hmmmmm....

I know some of those hand marks have been brushed off as shadows, but perhaps they require a closer look...sometimes drug addicts shoot drugs in their hands, right? Maybe that contributes to the look, idk, need to go back and look...
 
Omgggg...could be a total reach here...

You know how when you're walking in thick wet mud, your shoes get stuck in it...and your feet come out of your shoes...maybe her shoes got stuck in the mud...which would indicate maybe something near water, marshy, swampy...or I guess even a field if it was really muddy and had been raining? When was the last rain again?
 
Looking back on this, the whole shoe thing is really odd....sticks out...what an odd comment....

Wait, what about dirty footprints in the house?
There was an offhand remark by our VI PB at one time just wondering about gravel,,,nothing specific.
 
Or, could she have lost her shoes chasing Lucas? Maybe he tried to run? I doubt this scenario, I hope...
 
There was an offhand remark by our VI PB at one time just wondering about gravel,,,nothing specific.

I remember initial speculations/discussions re: gravel in the parks as a possible common identifier (during the flora and fauna discussion).

I missed the VI comment, or at least I think I did...
 
I'm back to wondering again if she had help...or of someone else was there....
 
What if something happened in the car? I don't know...
Or again, if it was premeditated...

Going around in circles in my head. As usual.

(Eta: Song for you, Chi:

"Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FAVKG0I6XXA )
 
Looking back on this, the whole shoe thing is really odd....sticks out...what an odd comment....

Wait, what about dirty footprints in the house?

I remember the the running comment seemed really off. Like, a child, adult, gender, what? I thought at the time that EG had told LE she had been running looking for him and they wanted to know if there were any witnesses to this as they didn't believe her. I also wondered if they wanted to know if they saw a child possibly running. I don't think LE actually thought either of these were true, but put it out there during their initial investigation. I don't think it's an issue anymore.
Oh! And I guess a perpetrator could have been running too!
LE never really considered this viable imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
4,267
Total visitors
4,411

Forum statistics

Threads
592,386
Messages
17,968,259
Members
228,764
Latest member
GreyFishOmen
Back
Top