Mother of ‘missing' daughter appears in Rock Island County Court
In a brief appearance, 37-year-old Princess Ilunga sat with other people in the courtroom and waited for the judge to call her case number and name. Her attorney and the prosecutor discussed whether extended media coverage – whether a camera will be allowed in the courtroom – is appropriate.
The defense attorney asked that photojournalists show Ilunga only in street clothes. The judge said extended media coverage should be granted because so many people in the community were involved in the search for Ilunga's daughter Blessing Aoci.
Our Quad Cities News crew saw Ilunga sit quietly in the courtroom with a group of supporters.
Additionally, the judge wanted to clarify that all pretrial proceedings will be held without an interpreter because Ilunga understands English well enough to follow court procedures.
The case is tentatively scheduled for a jury trial. Once the trial begins, a Swahili interpreter will be present.
Ilunga's attorney asked for a continuance, citing the need to examine hundreds of hours of officers' body-cam video. The prosecution said there are more than 600 pieces of evidence in this case.
The judge said a status hearing will be scheduled for 8 a.m. June 13 in Rock Island County Court. At a status hearing, the judge, attorneys and sometimes the person accused will discuss the case's progress and the next steps in court proceedings.
Ilunga, who earlier reported her daughter, 4-year-old Blessing Aoci, was missing in a stolen car, faces a Class D felony charge of filing a false police report after law enforcement discovered the child had been safe at home the whole time.
A community joins law enforcement in a search
On Jan. 16, Ilunga called 911 shortly after 6 a.m. and reported her vehicle, which was left running, was stolen. During the call, Ilunga told the dispatcher six times that her daughter was in the car. 'It's important to note that Ms. Ilunga speaks very good English, albeit with an accent,' said Rock Island Police Chief McCloud at an earlier news conference. 'She is easy to understand.'
At 6:24 a.m., the stolen car was found about eight blocks away, abandoned and with no sign of Blessing.
An Amber Alert was issued, followed by a mobilization of local, state and federal law enforcement resources 'on a scale not seen in my 30 years in the Quad Cities,' McCloud said at the news conference. 'We had upwards of 120 law enforcement officers working hundreds of man hours, joined by countless concerned citizens from around the area who walked block by block in cold temperatures, drove around in vehicles and shared information through social media.'
Searchers considered every possibility – that Blessing had been transferred to another stolen car, that she had gotten out of the stolen car and was lost, or that she had been abducted by someone else.
Throughout the day, officers responded to numerous unfounded sightings of Blessing, as well as reports of pink backpacks or pink coats left abandoned in alleys or back yards, while numerous calls for service were put on hold as all resources were diverted to the search for Blessing.
After about nine hours of intensive searching, McCloud said, 'Blessing suddenly showed up at the back door to her residence, unharmed, showing no signs of distress or even of having been out in the cold temperatures.'
Body cams support the findings. 'We have tried to understand why (Ilunga) would invent this story, but when confronted with all the information, the family stopped cooperating with the investigation,' McCloud said.
'During the course of the investigation, we learned that Blessing had, in fact, been inside her own residence the entire time, her identity hidden from officers by her mother from the moment officers arrived,' McCloud said. Body-camera footage showed Blessing inside the residence, no longer wearing the pink coat she earlier was described as wearing.
'This was, by all account, an intentional deception that wasted the time and resources of six local law enforcement agencies, the Illinois State Police, the FBI and the federal marshals,' McCloud said.
Ilunga has seven children, many close in age and all with familial resemblances, 'so there was no reason to believe that (the girl Ilunga referred to as 'Baraka') and Blessing were not one and the same,' said McCloud. 'In fact, Ms. Ilunga actually pointed to 'Baraka' and said that Blessing looks just like her sister. '
Ilunga advised officers not to speak with 'Baraka' 'because she was too young and did not speak very well,' he said.
As officers pored over body-camera footage, they determined Ilunga was lying.
'Throughout the day, we had a detective assigned as a liaison for Ms. Ilunga,' McCloud said. 'Body camera and other video evidences show Ms. Ilunga continued to perpetuate the lie several times. It was only when our detective had to run back to the station that Ms. Ilunga seized her opportunity to put the pink coat back onto Blessing, and took her outside into the alley where she was found shortly thereafter by a citizen,' McCloud said.Play Video
'We have tried to understand why she would invent this story, but when confronted with all the information, the family stopped cooperating with the investigation,' McCloud said.
Immediately after the girl was 'found,' the family vanished. Later, Ilunga was arrested in Wisconsin, and was transported back to Rock Island. She is on pretrial release.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. Advertisement 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. Advertisement The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. Advertisement 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents.
4 hours ago
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
