Genetic evidence connected a man known as “Carlos” to Alexis Flores years after I’riana De Jesus was killed.
PHILADELPHIA, Penn. — The prosecution of Alexis Flores in the 2000 killing of 5-year-old I’riana De Jesus rests in large part on a forensic trail that outlasted the original manhunt: evidence from a North Philadelphia property, a DNA profile entered into a national database and a match that gave investigators a name nearly seven years after the child’s death.
That evidence now sits at the center of a case finally back in a Philadelphia courtroom. Flores, 51, was arrested in Honduras in February and returned to the city at the end of August. The District Attorney’s Office has charged him with murder, kidnapping, unlawful restraint, interference with custody of a child, false imprisonment and indecent assault. He is accused, not convicted, and prosecutors must still prove their case through the court process. A preliminary hearing that had been set for September was postponed and is reported to be scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 20.
The forensic story began with what police recovered after I’riana was found on Aug. 3, 2000. Prosecutors say officers responding to a property on the 3900 block of North Sixth Street found the child’s body concealed there after she had been missing for five days. The medical examiner determined that she died by strangulation and ruled the death a homicide. Investigators also recovered clothing associated with a man known only as “Carlos,” along with other items that were submitted for laboratory testing. The District Attorney’s Office later said I’riana’s blood was detected on clothing linked to that unidentified man.
Laboratory work produced another piece of evidence: a separate male DNA profile from clothing and other material recovered at the scene, according to prosecutors. At that stage, investigators had a genetic identifier but no confirmed name to attach to it. The Pennsylvania State Police entered the profile into CODIS, the national DNA database, in January 2003. For years, the profile did not publicly resolve the case. Then, in February 2007, Philadelphia homicide detectives were notified that the DNA associated with “Carlos” had matched Alexis Flores, a man whose DNA was available because of an unrelated Arizona conviction.
The match changed the investigation from a search for an unidentified neighborhood figure into a hunt for a specific person, but it did not immediately lead to an arrest. Authorities determined that Flores had served time in Arizona on a forgery case and had been deported to Honduras in 2005. That meant the suspect identified through the database was already outside the United States when Philadelphia investigators linked his name to the evidence. State and federal warrants were issued in March 2007, including a federal warrant accusing Flores of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.
The underlying disappearance had happened in a much tighter geographic area. I’riana’s mother told police the girl was last seen at about 8 p.m. on July 29, 2000, playing near the family’s home on the 3900 block of North Fairhill Street. A woman who had known the child for about two years later reported seeing her around 8:30 p.m. walking with an unfamiliar Latino man near Pike Street. Police searched the neighborhood but did not find her that night. When officers found I’riana five days later, the property was only a short distance from where she had disappeared. Accounts of how the child was concealed differ in detail. The District Attorney’s Office said in its Sept. 1 charging release that I’riana was found wrapped in a plastic trash bag and covered with construction materials. WPVI and other secondary reports have said she was wrapped in wallpaper. Both descriptions concern the same discovery, but the official charging account is the stronger source for the prosecution’s factual presentation. The medical examiner’s finding of strangulation as the cause of death is also included in the District Attorney’s public chronology.
After the 2007 DNA match, Flores became one of the FBI’s most visible fugitives. The bureau added him to its Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list on June 2, 2007, identifying him as wanted in connection with the kidnapping and killing. The designation brought national attention, but it did not produce an immediate capture. In March 2025, the FBI removed Flores from the Ten Most Wanted list after determining that he no longer fit the program’s criteria. The removal did not clear him or cancel the warrants; the bureau continued to describe him as wanted before his eventual arrest. That arrest came Feb. 11, 2026, in Lepaera, Honduras. The FBI said its Transnational Anti-Gang Task Force worked with Honduran authorities to take Flores into custody. Bringing him to Philadelphia required a separate extradition process that continued for months. Federal and local officials said the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and other agencies helped secure his return. By the end of August, Flores was back in Philadelphia, where state prosecutors could move forward on charges that had remained unresolved while he was abroad.
The passage of time also changes what a court may need to examine. The DNA evidence is important, but it is not the only material described by prosecutors. Their public account also includes the eyewitness report from the night I’riana disappeared, the clothing associated with “Carlos,” the child’s blood on that clothing and the circumstances surrounding Flores’ departure from the United States years before investigators publicly identified him. Public sources do not say which of those witnesses or exhibits prosecutors will present first, what defense challenges may be raised, or whether additional forensic testing has been conducted since Flores was returned. I’riana’s mother, Lizasuain De Jesus, said after Flores’ return that 25 years had been a long time to wait and thanked the detectives who continued working the case. Her statement came at the point when the investigation shifted into a prosecution. That distinction is important: an arrest and a DNA match are not the same as a conviction. The evidence described by police and prosecutors will be subject to the rules of court, and Flores will have the opportunity to challenge the state’s case through counsel.
The next reported step is a preliminary hearing at Philadelphia’s Criminal Justice Center on Oct. 20. The scheduled hearing also creates the first public opportunity in this new phase for the prosecution’s evidence to be tested in a proceeding focused on whether the case should advance.
Because much of the investigation predates modern digital recordkeeping, the preservation and chain of custody of physical evidence may become significant subjects as the litigation develops. The public record reviewed for this story does not establish whether Flores has entered a plea to all charges, whether his attorneys have filed motions addressing the DNA, or which witnesses the Commonwealth expects to call. Those are matters for the court rather than assumptions that can be drawn from the age of the case. At that stage, prosecutors do not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but they must present enough evidence for the charges to move forward under Pennsylvania procedure. No trial date has been publicly announced. More than 26 years after I’riana disappeared, the case has moved from an unidentified DNA profile and a fugitive search to an active criminal proceeding, with the central allegations still to be tested in court.
Author note: Last updated October 19, 2026.