Friday, March 29, 2019

What Happened to Lucas Hernandez?

Lucas Hernandez was reported missing by his step mother, Emily Glass. The emergency call (911) was analyzed and indicated her for deception regarding what happened to Lucas. 

She later led a private investigator to the location of his body and committed suicide. 

The coroner was unable to conclude the cause of death to the child. 

Here is the statement made by Emily Glass. 

A team of analysts worked through it to determine if the cause of death may be discerned.

To train in deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services

 Statement With Analysis 

Friday February 17th. Me and thekids, Lucas and Mia, woke up at around 8.30 am to 9 am.

a.    The statement does not begin with the pronoun “I”; therefore, we should consider that there may be less than reliable information contained within it. 
b.    The subject has begun her statement “Friday February 17th
c.    The death of the child began on “Friday February 17th” in the subject’s verbalized perception of reality. *If the subject was prompted to begin her statement on Friday or even Friday morning, we cannot say the death began Friday morning. 
d.    Listing of “people” in a statement in order—“Me” is first, “Lucas” and “Mia” 
e.    “the” kids may be psychological distancing (not “my” nor “our”) yet it also could be contamination -the children were previously discussed and the reference is appropriate.
f.     at around 8:30 am to 9 am” – did the children get up before the mother?
g.    With the estimate, please consider possible substance abuse impacting parenting.
h.    If there is distancing in the language, from mother to children, it is at the time of the statement. Contextually, it is while reporting and being interviewed about a dead child. We must further consider the distancing language is at the point of “Friday February 17th” at this specific time frame of “at around 8:30am to 9am”--   We continue to consider the possibility of substance abuse impacting the event. It is also early in the statement, making it a priority. 
i.     Questions should be asked about the night before. 

   ___ Changed Mia’s diaper, helpedLuke out of his pull upinto his underwear, turned TV cartoons on for kids and gave them breakfast, pop dogs (?) and fruit.

a.    The subject does not commit to the above activities. Did she actually change Mia’s diaper? Did she really help Luke out of his pull up? 
b.    She chose this information – the inclusion of bodily functions. 
c.    “helped” is to give assistance, as if it is Luke’s responsibility. Is this a form of sublte blaming of the victim? 
d.    Slows down the pace with unnecessary detail.  
e.    Consider that the subject may have a need to portray herself as dutiful or “not neglectful” (see dual time of waking up, above) 

 Ismokeda cig and then loungedwithMia and Luke, watching cartoons.

Context: she smoked a “cig” after bodily functions, tv, and breakfast 
a.    The first entrance of “I”
b.    She did not have a cigarette, she “smoked” a cig. 
c.    She “lounged” ? Not a word of a mother of young children in need. 
d.    Adults “lounge” with peers; not with children.  While “smoking” a “cig”, she is not a parent (provision, protection, supervision), she is a peer who is in a relaxed mode. 
e.    Is this an attempt to sound “casual” or non-alarming, thus indicating to the contrary?
f.     To “lounge” is not only adult – peer and socially related, it is to no longer be in a state of activity. Question: is this a need to portray this period of time as “relaxed” indicating to the contrary? If she is “lounging”, she is no longer “parenting” but disengaged from parental duties. 
g.    “cartoons” is unnecessary detail.  
h.    Naming the children again is unnecessary.  What happened here?

__ Did a couple of loads of laundry, cleaned Mia’s bottles andwateredplants. Around noon

a.    Explore for sexual abuse 
b.    The sexual abuse could be the subject, herself, and/or children. 
c.    “plants” unnecessary detail.  Note “cig” above.  Explore for substance abuse
d.    Note the description of her working while writing or speaking about her child’s death. 
e.    Consider that watering plants is to “nurture” or “keep alive” given as an unnecessary detail, making it very important to her regarding the death of her child. 

 ImadeMia and Luke p.b.l.j.(?) and somespaghetti for lunch.

She didn’t feed them or give it to them, she “made” it; giving more emphasis to her activities.  Consider whether or not she is portraying herself in a positive light, and that she may be telling us she was over-burdened. The focus remains upon her as she addresses what happened to her child. 

 I did not eat yet at that point,becausemy appetite was notthere. 

a.    Unnecessary = important
b.    It is offered in the negative = important x 2 
c.    It is explained why, without being asked = important.
For whatever reason, she has the need to tell us what she did not do, and why she did not do it. 

We should now ask:  What did she do during this time?

This sentence is of the highest sensitivity and indicates missing information critical to this case. 

Where was she at this time?
What was she doing?
Was she alone?
This deliberately withheld information is related to Lucas’ death. 

What happened to her appetite?  

Did she use drugs at this point? 

She had the need to tell us that she DID NOT EAT.  

Did she poison him?  Munchausen by proxy 

Sometime after eatingLucassaidhis tummy hurt and wanted to watch a moviein his room.

“after” = time
He is no longer casual “Luke” but “Lucas”
She, in the statement, now separates Lucas from Mia (“in his room.”) 

 SoI gave him some zofran(?) andput his show on. 

The sentences without notes:

“I did not eat yetat thatpoint,becausemy appetite was notthere.SometimaftereatingLucassaidhis tummy hurt and wanted to watch a moviein his room. SoI gave him some zofran(?) andput his show on.”

Here is the same sentences:

“I did noteat yetat thatpoint,becausemy appetite was notthere.SometimaftereatingLucassaidhis tummy hurt and wanted to watch a moviein his room. SoI gave him some zofran(?) andput his show on.”

Was she drugging her children to allow her to not parent (“lounge”)?  

The subject needed to tell us what she did not do, and why she did not do it. This is an indication of an alternative reason. 

The mother gives us a description as if she is overburdened. This may be a subtle blaming of the victim. 

**The mother may see herself as the victim.  

Is our subject putting theresponsibility(blame) upon the victim? 
“and put his show on” is also unnecessary.  She is the “good mother” strongly here, which tells us of projected guilt. 

*What did she give him that she did not eat, that made his tummy hurt? 

Did she put something (Zofran?) in his food?

If true, is it possible she did it at breakfast, allowing her to “lounge”? 

This would be, if true, consistent with the need to persuade that she is a good mother and that her duties appear to have overwhelmed her (in portrayal) --- if a regular or repeated event, she was able to “lounge”; that is, stop being a mother, after they ate. 

Mother did not need to tell us she did “not” eat at breakfast.  She “smoked”…

The subject has a need to explain why Zofran will be found in the victim’s system, before being asked or found out. 

I can’t remember what show.     

We have concluded that the mother is deceptively withholding information at the point where the two “blues” are--- truthful people tell us what they remember. As she offers what she does not remember, we should consider that she is, again, withholding information and anticipated being asked, “What show did you put on for him?” and wishes to preempt it. This is to indicate that she is not speaking from experiential memory (truth) about what happened when she separated the children. 

I then cleaned up hismess from eating,

Note that it is “his mess” (blaming of the victim, who is the older child) 
This is to portray the subject as a victim of Luke. 
Please consider that this “mess” was not the children’s mess from lunch, but “his” and may have included vomit or his messy diaper/underwear (laundry mentioned) 

I then cleaned up his mess from eating, while Mia was still eating and then satdown browsing my phone and crossing(?) my phone, still waitingfor Mia to finish soI could clean her and her mess up. 

Body posture (“sat down”) indicating an increase in tension while “still” waiting (increase in tension) to finish (time, increase tension) including high sensitivity as to why she had to wait 

After thatI did some more laundryand cleaned some of backboners( ?) room.

Did subject clean up evidence?

 Ididcheck in on Luke while watching his movie and he was fine each time.

 I checked in on him every twenty to thirty minutes, just to say hiand see how he was doing.
And then I decided to take a break from cleaning due to my handsfrom hurting and my endo(?). 
My hands hurt due to cleaning flowerbed during Thursday. I went to the garageto smoke cannabis and got really hungry and then I remembered Jonathan had given me an Olive Garden gift card and wanted that to eat when I got Mia and myself ready

She previously separated Lucas from Mia.
Here she separates herself and Mia from Lucas. 

I decided to eat real quickwhileI had my appetite. This was around 5.25 pm. My landlord, Chris called me towards the end of me finish at the Olive Garden so that he can stop by to check the sewer /  plumbing, I believe due to nasty smells of smelling(?). I told him I was almost home and would see him soon.

 On my way home he end up calling me back.

 I got home around six – there’s a question mark – after I got home I made Luke his dinner, he had French fries and chicken fries and Sprite. We all lounge(d?) at night whileI did some laundry.  

Around 7.30 to 8, I gave Lucas and Mia a bathand then put them to bed. 

I do believe I talked to Jonathan via dual video chat before I fell asleep at Friday night the 17th.
Saturday, February the 18thThe kids and I woke up at 9 amI changed…. And then that’s it…

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject is deceptive about what happened to the victim. 
The subject psychologically distances herself from the victim.
The subject likely was a neglectful and abused substances.
The subject may have poisoned or drugged the victim. 
The subject would likely see herself as a victim.
Had she not committed suicide, the subject would need to be interviewed by an empathetic investigator who would allow her to portray herself as victim. 
The subject may have been a victim of sexual abuse.

The victim may have also been a sex abuse victim. 


Bobcat said...

"___ Changed Mia’s diaper, helpedLuke out of his pull upinto his underwear, turned TV cartoons on for kids and gave them breakfast, pop dogs (?) and fruit.
Ismokeda cig and then loungedwithMia and Luke, watching cartoons."
__ Did a couple of loads of laundry, cleaned Mia’s bottles andwateredplants. Around noon

Dropped pronoun
"for" = because
"and then" followed by a period of rest
"watching" is present tense, while the other verbs are appropriately past tense.
Cartoons were seared into her memory. The innocent images on the tv screen were something she could alternately focus on while whatever happened, happened.
Another dropped pronoun, cleaning and water
Vague time period

Did she not have an appetite because there was a dying child in her home?

Anonymous said...

Around noon I made Mia and Luke p.b.&.j.’s and some spaghettios for lunch. I did not eat yet by that point, because my appetite was not there. Sometime after eating Lucas said his tummy hurt and wanted to watch a movie in his room. So I gave him some Zofran and put his show on.


And then I decided to take a break from cleaning due to my hands from hurting and my endo.My hands hurt due to cleaning flowerbed during Thursday.

Emily never said Lucas ate. She said she made Mia and Luke lunch. She mentioned Lucas said his tummy hurt “after eating”. She specifically said “Mia was eating”. But she never in so many words said “Luke was eating”. While she was making lunch, she still referred to him as “Luke”. After eating it was “Lucas”. Something happened during lunch. Why all the focus on eating and appetite? What was Emily trying to say? I think maybe it was Lucas who didn’t want to eat. It was Lucas whose appetite wasn’t there. Did he mess with his food? Was Emily angry because she had to “clean(…) up his mess from eating”?

In her short statement Emily mentioned twice hat her “hands hurt due” to something. Her hands and her “endo” hurt so much that she took a “break”. Apparently that was important in this context. Why? If we turn these words around a little it becomes: “endo hurt due to my hands” or “endo breaks due to my hands”. “Endo” probably refers to endometriosis. But “endo” also means “inside” or “within”. Did Emily hurt something inside Lucas with her hands? His tummy? Did she punch him in the stomach because he wouldn’t eat and made a mess? Is that why his tummy hurt so much that she had to give him Zofran? Is that why she kept checking in on him (“just to say hi”…)?

Endometriosis causes severe pain during periods. Maybe a combination of hormones and drugs made Emily aggressive that day (“just to say hi” -> just high so to say).

Emily says that her hands hurt due to cleaning “a flowerbed”. Did she put Lucas’ body on a bed of flowers? I read that Luke’s remains were found in a rural area under a bridge near the end of a road named Oliver (near 96th Street) in Harvey County. I think she may have been giving subconscious indications of that location in the following statement.

My landlord, Chris called me towards the end of me finish at the Olive Garden so that he can stop by to check the sewer / plumbing, I believe due to nasty smells I’m smelling(?).

Emily said she put on a show for Lucas and that she couldn’t remember what show. I think it was Emily who was “putting up a show” by telling lies about what happened.


Gary said...

Lucas was already dead that morning.

Similar linguistics to Mark Redwine when she says she “can’t remember what show she put on for Lucas. Same with Redwine who couldnt remember what movie he and Dylan watched (Dylan was already dead at that time).

No appetite because she had killed Lucas.

Hands hurt from whatever she did to Lucas and/or from digging his grave.

Cause of death: Blunt trauma with a board.

Anonymous said...

Not that it's important in light of the outcome but just FYI, Zofran is an anti-nausea and doesn't cause drowsiness, just a headache.

Michael said...

I dont tthink either kid was with her that day.

Lack of any detail re: the kids’ actions, behavior, moods, activities, or foods eaten (she “made” foods nut does not say they ate). Not good. Reminds me of Baby Deorr. With him, diapers were mentioned also as “proof” he was alive at campground. Same wirh rhis lady.

Landlord involvement? Fix “nasty smells? Landlord helped dispose of body?

Sandra said...

Could landlord have given him Draino?

How does one “check” plumbing & sewage?

Could landlord have been hurting Lucas & wanted him dead so no evidence?

Sandra said...

It seems landlord was there at the house with Lucas while she and Mia were at Olive Garden.

Anonymous said...

Lucas' remains were found under a so-called culvert bridge. A culvert is a structure that allows water to flow under a road, railroad, trail, or similar obstruction from one side to the other side. There seem to be many types. Some look exactly like a sewer pipe (Emily said "check the sewer / plumbing"). The culvert bridge near which Lucas was found seems a bit more like a real bridge though, see here.

Emily said her hands hurt “due to cleaning flowerbed during Thursday”. Do people's hands usually hurt after cleaning a flowerbed? I don’t think so (mine don’t), unless they have arthritis or it's a gigantic flowerbed with really tenacious weeds or thorny flowers (but in that case one uses gloves and tools and does not recklessly grab the thorns). I don’t think the flowerbed caused her hands to hurt. Instead it was her hands that caused Lucas to hurt and brought him to his final resting place (“flowerbed”?). In that process she may have gotten scratches on her hands or something. People may have noticed. By saying her hands hurt from cleaning a flowerbed she gave a pre-emptive explanation for that. If “flowerbed” is indeed a reference to Lucas’ final resting place, Emily saying she “cleaned” the flowerbed “during Thursday” could mean that Lucas died on Thursday (Feb. 15, 2018).

Also: another meaning of “Endo” = cannabis that is grown indoors. Since Emily “watered plants” and “went to the garage to smoke cannabis” I wonder if she was growing her own cannabis. In that case, she may have been “cleaning up” a “flowerbed” after all. Prior to informing police that Lucas was missing, she would have surely gotten rid of such a cultivation.

I listened to Emily’s statement being read in court (see here):
“backboners room” could be “back bonus room”?
“pblj” = “pb&j” = peanut butter and jelly
“pop dogs” = pop tarts
“spaghetti = spaghettios
(not that these food names are important)


sonjay said...

From what I've read of this case, Jonathan Hernandez (Lucas's father and Emily's boyfriend) had a solid alibi at the time she killed herself and was not suspected in her death. But the transcript of his 911 call upon finding her body has a number of SA red flags.

The 911 transcript is here:

The very first thing he says is "yes ma'am" to the dispatcher. Ingratiation?

Then there's the address & phone number question, then he's asked "what happened," and this is what he says:
"Oh, it’s the first time I’ve been home in like three weeks. Uh, my fiancée has been staying here, and I had nowhere else to go tonight. So I asked her, ‘Hey are you awake?’ etc. and she didn’t answer. So I came home, and it’s so bad. It’s so bad."

His priority? Making sure they know it's the first time he's been home in 3 weeks.

Then the "uh" ... a pause to buy time? To think about what he's going to say? Not an immediate blurting out "I found my girlfriend dead." But a pause, followed by his second priority:

His second priority? Telling why he went home that night. (Answering a "why" question that hasn't been asked yet)

There's an incomplete introduction: "my fiance" who as of yet has no name.

He says he asked her if she's awake and that she didn't answer, without any explanation as to how he asked her. Did he text her? Call her? Did she answer the phone but failed to answer his question? If she was dead of suicide when he called, how did he "ask her" anything?

So he came home, and "it's bad" but he still hasn't fully introduced her or given her a name or even told us what's bad.

He's then asked again "what happened" and his answer is "I saw my rifle."

He says that "her brain is laying on the carpet." I know that in SA that attributing sitting or laying or other human positions to objects often has a special meaning, but I'm not sure if or how that would apply here.

He doesn't give her a name until the dispatcher directly asks "what is her name?"

I couldn't find any discussion of Hernandez's 911 call here. I would love to read Peter's take on his call.

Michael said...

Sonjay, Just wow about the 911 call from the ex-boyfriend.

I didn't get a strong sense that Emily was the actual killer from reading her statement.

There are linguistic indicators that males were abusing Lucas.

Now that I've read the 911 call re Emily's "suicide", I don't believe Emily did kill Lucas.

frommindtomatter said...

"Oh, it’s the first time I’ve been home in like three weeks. Uh, my fiancée has been staying here, and I had nowhere else to go tonight. So I asked her, ‘Hey are you awake?’ etc. and she didn’t answer. So I came home, and it’s so bad. It’s so bad."

"Oh, it’s the first time I’ve been home in like three weeks.”

He tells us the “first” time so it’s important to him that we know this. Then he gives us a time, “like three weeks”. Like is a word used for comparison, if something is like something else it is similar but not identical. What is similar to three weeks? We must note he uses the liar’s favourite number three to describe this time period.

“Uh, my fiancée has been staying here, and I had nowhere else to go tonight”

He pauses before introducing Emily as his fiancée. He tells us she has been staying there “and” which suggests missing information. He tells us in the negative that he “had nowhere else to go” instead of telling us he needed “somewhere to go.” By telling us this he is letting us know that there are no other options available to him, that he can’t stay anywhere else.

“So I asked her, ‘Hey are you awake?’ etc.”

He has already told us he had “nowhere else to go” which sets him up to say “So I asked her”. We must deduce that he has texted her “hey are you awake” but we must consider what the “etc” was. I presume Police will have examined Emily`s phone to see if she had been threatened in any way or if she had spoken to others about being depressed/suicide.

“So I came home, and it’s so bad. It’s so bad."

Again the previous sentence (she didn’t answer) allows a reason for Hernandez to come home. A clever criminal could commit a murder then leave the crime scene. Next they would make the text and use it as proof of their location and as a pretext to go back to crime scene to discover the body. I am not saying that happened but it is certainly a thought worth entertaining.

Next he tells us “it’s so bad” when we expect him to tell us that he found Emily dead.

I know it takes time to process something as serious as the crime scene he discovered but after listening to the 911 call I find his tone and behaviour very calm. Remember he introduced the woman who allegedly was responsible for his sons’ death as his fiancée which is a big statement to make in my opinion. He did have to pause before he said the words though. I would imagine some serious upset from someone who found their fiancée in a pool of blood.

A full transcript of the 911 call would be interesting to look at.


sonjay said...

Adrian, wow, you spotted several things that I missed. I'm only a rank amateur at SA, from reading this blog for a few months, so I noticed only some of the most obvious things.

What you pointed out regarding his comment about having no place else to go really stands out. Obviously, he had to go home that day, as he had no other options.

According the link that I included in my previous post, the transcript on that page is a complete transcript. It certainly reads like a complete transcript, starting with the dispatcher's "911 what is the location of your emergency" and ending with the dispatcher letting him go because police had arrived.

He was cleared by police vis-a-vis her suicide, but his 911 call sure seems kind of sketchy.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Zofran knocks me out and I'm an overweight almost 59 year old woman.

frommindtomatter said...


I missed the full transcript at the bottom of the page you linked to, I will take a look at that later. thanks,


Anonymous said...

Nancy Grace did 12 podcast episodes on this case including several interviews with Lucas's father Jonathan Hernandez, both shortly after Emily had led investigators to Lucas's body and shortly after Emily had died:

I lean toward Emily having committed suicide despite the red flags pointed out in the above comments. Yes, Jonathan seems amazingly calm in most of his 911 call. That may be how he is wired, though. To me, in his interviews Jonathan makes a very calm, phlegmatic impression; no signs of aggression or anger in his words and voice, just disbelief. He also doesn't sound so calm at the beginning of the 911 call, as if he’s shocked but trying to control himself. He seems to use the words “yes ma’am” often so that could be part of his normal speech pattern. Also: his son was already missing and found dead and now his fiancée was also dead and he is the one who finds her. He must have known how that would look to authorities which may have prompted the explanation at the beginning of the 911 call (although that might not be something you would think of under those circumstances?). Emily left three suicide notes, not something a murderer would likely (have her) produce. In audio recorded by private investigators on the day Lucas was found, Emily sounds like total emotional mess (audio at the beginning of this podcast), saying a.o.: “I just, I feel so sorry. I put everyone through f…ing hell" and (crying) ”I did Lucas so wrong. I did him wrong. That's the God's honest truth" and ”I'm such a piece of s…t. I'm a piece of s…t. I can't do jail, I can't.” Like she had no hope left.

In a.o. this article, some information is given about Lucas’s autopsy. The cause of death is undetermined. Although no skeletal trauma was identified, examination for soft tissue was limited due to decomposition. The autopsy showed that Lucas tested positive for phenethylamine, an organic compound humans are able to naturally produce. Phenethylamines are also defined as “stimulant, entactogenic, and hallucinogenic substances that share similar chemical structures with amphetamine, catecholamines, synthetic cathinones, and other substances.” According to the article, there is no reason to believe Lucas's phenethylamine was above a normal range.

Before Lucas went missing, a close relative had repeatedly called a child protection agency because Lucas had told his great-grandmother that Emily had thrown water in his face in a living room and kicked him and dragged him across a room. He told his great-grandmother: “She’s mean to me.” He showed signs of physical abuse. Emily had told Jonathan she had been smoking meth the day Lucas disappeared. Meth can make a person very aggressive. Or, as mentioned in the analysis, she may have given Lucas drugs and his tummy hurt because of that (she said she checked in on Lucas “just to say hi” -> maybe Lucas was “just high”).


frommindtomatter said...

I had a look at the 911 call from Hernandez from the transcript.

Dispatcher: What happened?

Hernandez: I, I saw my rifle.

This is the place where Hernandez chooses to start his account of actually discovering Emily. We expect something along the lines of how he entered the house, how he arrived at discovering the body. Perhaps he called out to Emily to see if she was about etc.. We find the first thought in his mind is not how he discovered her but in his own words that “I, I saw my rifle”. There is sensitivity with the repeated/stutter on the pronoun “I”. Is this where the beginning of her end occurred with him seeing his rifle?

As Sonjay mentioned earlier we would expect he would begin his statement with the priority of telling the dispatcher he has discovered his girlfriend shot. The shortest sentence is always best and in a 911 call we expect something like “I`ve arrived home and found my fiancée dead” because that would be what has happened. We also expect that Hernandez will go into memory and retrace his steps from entering to finding Emily but he begins with “I, I saw my rifle”. That throws some red flags up.

Dispatcher: OK, did, so did she shoot herself?

Hernandez: At her feet, at her feet. Yes, I think so. I think so. Her brain is laying on the carpet and her head is split wide open.

He repeats the words “I think so” in reply to the question of did she shoot herself which shows sensitivity. It is worth noting he puts the rifles location “at her feet”, not simply on the floor or next to her but at her feet. This language is suggestive in nature; it offers up that there is a connection between the rifle and her. People will often lay the blame for something at another’s feet.

With regards to her brain lying on the floor I personally find it strange language to use. We must ask does a brain “lie on the floor” or would it be “on the floor”, or “all over the floor”? When listening to the audio of the call that sentence is said in a very matter of fact way which surprised me, I would expect some distress when recalling something as horrendous as that image, but it isn’t there.

Dispatcher: OK. Where is the gun at now?

Hernandez: It’s at her feet.

Again the gun is not on the floor or next to her but he places it “at her feet”.

Dispatcher: OK. And you said it’s a rifle?

Hernandez: Yes, ma’am.

Dispatcher: OK. Have you seen any other weapons?

Hernandez: No, ma’am. I have a shotgun in the closet — if it’s still there. I haven’t even checked. But there was only my rifle that it looks like she got out of the case.
He tells us he has a shotgun in the closet and we believe him. He wants to cast doubt on if it is still there and tells us “I haven’t even checked”. We note he now speaks in the negative (haven’t) and also adds the extra and unnecessary word “even” to his statement. This suggests to me that he has checked if the shotgun was there. If he has had a hand in Emilys’ death he may have considered using the shotgun but changed his mind.


frommindtomatter said...


(This is from later in the 911)

Dispatcher: OK. What are you wearing?

Hernandez: I’m wearing a blue shirt and kind of white - not white pants, but they would look white.

This is very interesting and if you listen to the audio you will find out of the whole call that this is the only time serious stress is obvious in his voice. His voice becomes very shaky when answering the question which shows a verbal sensitivity and stress when he answers. So if we analyse his words what do we see?

His answer is very strange indeed. We believe him when he tells us he is wearing a blue shirt but we then find he has a big problem describing his pants. He tells us they are kind of like, but not like, but they would look white. The shortest and simplest answer would have been “whitish colour pants” but there is some much sensitivity connected to them that he cannot manage to say that. We must consider in connection to a bloody crime scene the importance of this. Had Hernandez changed his pants due to them being covered in blood? This would account to his sensitivity to describing them not just through his words but also in his voice being very shaky when talking.


Anonymous said...

frommindtomatter said...

He pauses before introducing Emily as his fiancée. He tells us she has been staying there “and” which suggests missing information.


I believe it's only when an sentence beginning with "And" that there is possible missing information?


frommindtomatter said...


The problem would be how would you know if a sentence begins with “and”? When transcribing audio I would imagine ten different people would punctuate the same audio in varying ways. Look at the statement again below.

"Oh, it’s the first time I’ve been home in like three weeks. Uh, my fiancée has been staying here, [and] I had nowhere else to go tonight.

If there was a full stop after “here” we could say that the next sentence did begin with “and.” This would depend on how the audio was interpreted by the transcriber. I took it in context with the full statement. We are told it is his home, his fiancée has been staying, and then finally [and] he had nowhere else to go. I considered that if it is his home and his fiancée is there, why would he need to tell us he had nowhere else to go? It doesn’t make sense.

If someone told me they “drank whiskey [and] got drunk” I would get that. If someone tells me they went home, their fiancée lives there [and] I had nowhere else to go tonight” I am logically thinking there is significant information from the statement. We use “and” to add information to our statements but when it`s use creates gaps in time or the information being added together doesn’t make sense then it stands out as representing a way skipping over things.


Anonymous said...

Hi, Adrian

Transcription, verbatim, (without commentary) is vital. Transcribing audio, i agree, at times, can be very difficult (context). If there are no interruptions in the conversation to cause a pause (sensitive) and the person relaying (pauses) in mid sentence then continues, i would flag.

The pause ("And" thinking time?) the subject may utilize this, unknowingly

Temporal lacunae.


Anonymous said...

“My hands hurt due to cleaning flowerbed during Thursday.”

Why did she claim to clean the flower bed during February? The first killing frost had already occurred leaving only the perennials which should already have been mulched. She couldn’t put out annuals because the average last killing frost date was two months in the future. Did she ever say what she did with the kids while she was “cleaning the flower bed?” Did she just leave the kids inside while she tidied up the outside? This sounds like she was trying to explain why the flower bed was disturbed.

frommindtomatter said...

Thanks to Autumn for the link to the Nancy Grace interviews.

This is from the second Nancy grace interview. I have transcribed a few bits of it but I wanted to hear what J.H. had to say about discovering Emily dead. Below is his answer in response to Nancy Grace asking him that very question.

NG: So that evening you end up deciding to go over to your home where you’re letting her stay. When you went in what if anything did you discover?

JH: Well the lights were on, and the TV was on, and it looked like you know, [somebody] was there. [And] I [go] to the bedroom and she’s not there, so I [go] out to the garage and check to see if her car was there. [Missing pronoun “I”] thought maybe she [wasn’t] staying there, maybe had [left] or something. And her car was there in the garage, so I went back inside and did a more thorough room by room search. And that’s when I found her in the back room.

There is present tense with word “go” used twice. It could be his way of speaking but we see later he says “I went”. If his normal dictionary is to say “go” I expect him to be consistent with it. He tells us he checked to see if her car was there, but before telling us it was, he adds an extra sentence to justify why he went out there. That sentence does not begin with the pronoun “I” and includes the word “left” in it. He does not call out to see if she is in the house which is something we would expect. If all the lights and TV are on then calling out or checking other rooms would seem the most logical approach. Why go out of the house to the garage to see if her car was there when the TV and lights suggested she was inside.

We see the word “and” after “somebody was there”. I would have expected “so” here. Did he do other things before going to the bedroom? “and” then go to it?

I don’t know what happened. Apparently there were three suicide notes (the number 3 again) so it looks like an open and shut case, but something tells me JH knows more than he is letting on.


frommindtomatter said...

Something else from the Nancy grace interview

NG: When you saw Emily what flashed through your mind Jonathan?

JH: I honestly didn’t know who it was, and I actually walked out of the room briefly, just to breathe a minute and try to…. Ask myself if I was seeing what I really saw. And I, you know, glanced back in the room and, she was still there so, as soon as that happened I ran outside and called 911.

“I honestly didn’t know who it was” – I would expect him say it was hard to recognise her or something along those lines but to open his response “I honestly didn’t know” seems a little over the top. It was his house and his girlfriend lived there I think it would be fair to assume it was her.

“I actually walked out of the room briefly” – He could of said I had to leave the room but he uses the word actually, a word which suggests comparison. The word isn’t needed for the sentence to make sense so it is an extra word which he has subconsciously added. Is he comparing his words with another action? He tells us he left the room “briefly” which tells us that he returned to the room at some point later.

“just to breathe a minute and try to…. Ask myself” - His reason for leaving the room is “just to breathe” but the extra word “just” could suggest a minimisation of his actions. He then self-censors himself.

“and, she was still there so” – At the beginning he told us he honestly didn’t know who it was, he said he glanced in the room but does not confirm it is Emily, yet he then tells us “she was still there”, which tells us he knows it is Emily.

In a different question from NG he said

“so I figured I would just go and stay at my house that night” – Again there is the extra word “just”. It is not needed in the sentence. If used for minimisation it tells us he may have been planning to do more than “just” stay there. Perhaps he wanted to confront Emily.


Iris Mentus said...

Mr. Hyatt, I want to thank you for posting and freely sharing your knowledge!. I have worked for the past 10+ years on various DHS monitoring projects for American Jihad Watch. I WISH I had discovered statement analysis years ago!!!. I have filled one notebook already with notes from several of your videos, and I intend to watch all of your videos and read your blog posts so I can learn as much as I can on statement analysis. Its such a fascinating area of study. I have even considered seeking formal training!. I just wanted you to know that I think you are amazing!!!.

Dan the Detective said...

Could someone please summarize what new findings or revelations the commenters have discovered through this discussion instead of blah blah flowerbed, negligent Mom, pop dogs, etc?

Mikhala said...


I agree. I feel that Peter needs to be more present with his guidance, because it seems we have a few “strange” people here going off on “tangents”. Flowerbeds, endometriosis, pop tarts. Peter’s guiding force is needed badly.

Lusilvia said...

Thank you for saying what I was afraid to say Dan. Sometimes I feel like things “derail”. Hopefully Peter will be back soon with his level-headed yet pentrative thinking.

Anonymous said...

Dan = Mikhala = Lusilvia: Peter posted a very lengthy analysis about this case just four days ago. Is that not guidance enough? If comments about flowerbeds and endometriosis make you feel derailed and call out for guidance, don't read them.


frommindtomatter said...

I wanted to look more at how when JH arrived at the house to discover Emily he uses the indefinite pronoun “somebody” to describe who was there.

NG: So that evening you end up deciding to go over to your home where you’re letting her stay. When you went in what if anything did you discover?

JH: Well the lights were on, and the TV was on, and it looked like you know, [somebody] was there.

If you visited (for example) a female friends house and found the lights and TV were on but got no answer when ringing the bell, would you go home and tell your partner that is looked like “she” was there or it looked like “somebody” was there?

What about if you visited a male friends? Would you say “he” or somebody? If you visited a family’s house would you say “they” or “somebody”?

If the postman left a Parcel for another house with you for someone or some people you didn’t know, when delivering it to their house and finding the TV and lights on but not getting a response what would you say? Your words would be guided by the information you had on the person or people in question. The details of whether it was a male, female or family would cause you to choose the word you used to identify them. It would be your expectation of who would be there which influenced your language.

We note JH selected the word “somebody” when visiting his home, which was also the home where his girlfriend lived. We must ask what led him to the selection of this word. We expect “Emily” or “she” to be used as that makes logical sense. This leaves us with a couple of options. First that he believed that “somebody”, someone he does not know could be there. Or secondly that he had visited the house earlier that evening, and he had left with the lights and TV on at that time. It would then look like “somebody” was there. If he knew that Emily was already deceased from the earlier visit, upon returning his mind would not automatically select Emily or she to describe who was there as it would know that she wasn't (at least alive that is). His mind would select the word "somebody" instead.

“and it looked like you know, [somebody] was there.”


Anonymous said...

Here’s the significance of my “flower bed” comment: there is a possibility that she tried (and failed) to bury the body in the flower beds. It was the dead of winter. Depending on the temperature, the ground may have been too frozen for digging. Even if there was a temporary thaw, it wouldn’t have penetrated to the depth needed to conceal a body. There is a possibility that the first few inches of soil were thawed but she would have hit a frost line below which the ground would have been too frozen for further digging. Lighting a fire to thaw the soil would have drawn attention.

She could not dump Lucas in the woods. The Kansas woods are largely deciduous, and the leaves would have fallen by February making for long sight lines. The hills are starting to flatten out, creating even longer sight lines. The old serial killer stand-by, dumping a body in the forest, was not a viable option for her at that time of year and in that terrain. She placed his body under a bridge.

The body of this unfortunate child was not recovered until the end of May. He was too decomposed to determine the manner and cause of death.

Rest in peace, Lucas. You deserved better. You were failed by the people who should have cared for you and you were failed by the authorities who should have protected you.

Maddie said...

I think he didn’t want to eat or made a mess or vomited and she assaulted him which lead to the stomach pain, wanting to lie down and her administration of Zofran which is an anti nausea drug. Poor baby. And she speaks over and over if doing laundry. Trying to cleanse herself?

Maddie said...

I practice medicine and Zofran can cause drowsiness. I give it.

Lindsey said...

I'd say somebody...

Lindsey said...

I'm also from Wichita so maybe regional?

Anonymous said...

It's True the line if vision. Wichita and the surrounding areas can be pretty rural. There are no real hills anywhere In south east Kansas so hiding him under a bridge would probably be the only option if not able to bury. If I remember correctly it did warm up quite a bit last winter but I remember hoping they would find him before it got down to harsh cold weather again. Which might be plausible that she thought the ground might have been thawed enough for digging to bury, on the other hand when it's that cold and you get a warm day in February where it feels like spring you might the the inkling to get a headstart on gardening. Why couldnt she have just confessed everything before killing herself. So at least they would know what happened. Maybe its better that way...I digress

Cathy in Manchester UK said...

Zofran (ondansetron) is a drug used to prevent nausea and vomiting particularly for cancer chemotherapy. If she gave him an adult dose of ondasetron he may well have died from serotonin syndrome.