TX - Jonathan Foster, 12, Houston, 24 Dec 2010 - Mona Nelson charged with Murder - #9

Status
Not open for further replies.
From Google cache

"Harris" = Sgt. Brian Harris of Houston Police Department's homicide division

Dec. 28, 2010, 9:52PM

Initial reports that Jonathan had disappeared after running home from a babysitter's house to retrieve a video game turned out to be false, Harris said. The boy's mother eventually admitted that Jonathan was not in the care of a babysitter when he disappeared, he said.

"There was some shame and embarrassment about leaving a kid home alone, but it's not unusual for a 12-year-old to be home alone," Harris said.

Jonathan, who used to live with his grandmother, had moved in with his mother and stepfather at the Villa Nueva apartment complex in the 800 block of Oak in November, the sergeant said.

In mid-December, Jonathan and his mother moved to a nearby apartment after "mom had some troubles with the stepdad," Harris said.

The stepfather reportedly is the last known person to see Jonathan, he said.

David Davis told investigators Jonathan was at home playing video games when he went to check on the boy at 1:45 p.m. Friday.

That afternoon, someone called Angela Davis' workplace, Harris said.

"We believe Jonathan's actually on the phone and asks to speak to his mom," Harris said. A colleague who answered the phone said Angela Davis was working and would call him back.

"And then a female gets on the phone and says, 'This is an emergency,'" Harris said.

By the time Jonathan's mother picked up, no one was there, he said.

Angela Davis called the land line where she and Jonathan live, and a woman with a gruff voice answered, Harris said.

"Angela says, 'Well, this is Angela, I'm Jonathan's mother. Who are you?'" Harris said. "And the woman is heard saying, 'Is Angela your mother?' And the boy replies, 'Yes ma'am, Angela's my mother.' And then the phone went dead."

snip

A few minutes later, the mother arrived home, Harris said. Jonathan was gone, and the cordless phone was missing, he said.

Within an hour, relatives called police, Harris said.

"Patrol responds by like 3:30 p.m. and they're there from 3:30 to 4:15 or so," Harris said.

The family was told to go to HPD's station on Mykawa Road to file an official missing child report with the juvenile division. Officers there entered details about Jonathan into the national crime information center database about 9:30 p.m., Harris said

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+false,+Harris+said.&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
Yes, truth is what matters. What is the truth?

The autopsy has ruled out any trauma on the child's body. There were no broken bones or any signs of strangulation or head wounds.

Why didn't it stop there? The rest is guessing, not truth.

So why, for the sake of the family... can they not simply assume the quickest, least painful form of murder unless they can disprove it. Until they can prove that he was burned alive? They could have stuck with the autopsy results, no trauma. Unknown cause of death. End of story.


I am not talking about the theories discussed here. I am talking about law enforcement and media headlines.



Imagine reading about your 12 year old nephew, or son complete with a picture of him.... as you prepare for his funeral in 4 days...

Police Believe Child Was Killed With Welding Torch

Homicide investigators say they think a 12-year-old boy's death was extremely painful and grisly.


They BELIEVE and they THINK and that is enough to put the family through that?

There is absolutely no reason to say that. If it said "the autopsy PROVED he was killed by _______" then that's fine. But to come out and "guess" and "assume" about the most horrific way possible for this child to die is just so completely wrong.

Then you throw in the...we think it was sexual abuse... but we can't prove it. If they cannot prove abuse, they cannot charge anyone with abuse, there was absolutely NO need to bring it up at all. All it did was further anger the public and further torture his family. They could have stuck with "we cannot prove a motive."

I have no problem acknowledging any of these things if they were FACTS and not "beliefs" and "guesses."

I assure you that unproven and unfounded guesses about the possible torture their child went through...from people in power, is the last thing they need right now. :(

I agree with this wholeheartedly. To me, it was unnecessary and cruel. They should have waited until they got COD before speculating on what could possibly have happened to this poor baby.
 
Well, when I first read it, I thought the twine, but it kept sticking in my mind, since other articles said twine right out, and this one didn't. So I was noodling on it, and I think the twine is impersonal, and links to her house, rather than to her. Also, the testing and chain of evidence and all that stuff to prove twine or tape (such as in Caylee's case) came just from a person's home, let alone that they are the one who bought or acquired, let alone used it on the victim, well, all that testing and establishing takes forever.

And this was done quickly. So I obsessed on it, and decided it wasn't the twine, but something more personal to account to the link to her, but not so personal that it required a lot of time consuming testing.

Of course, it's only in this one article that I've seen, so it could just be this one reporter chose to word it this way, and to make it cryptic.

But I'm fascinated by how very quickly and easily the DA coughed up *capital* murder charges. Look at Ethan Stacy's case - it took days and a long presser with a long explanation for that DA to decide to go for capital charges.

This DA is unusually and extremely confident of a *capital* conviction. He's got something big in his hot little hand. And when I go through the news articles, this undefined piece of evidence, *on* Jonathan's body, and linked directly to this woman, smells like a smoking gun to me.
I agree about the twine. Too general. I also agree that the statement might've been a vague reference to the twine. If not, then it would have to be something distinctive and known to belong to MN. Because it's stated, "on Jonathan's body", that lead me to think of the two suggestions I posted. Another thought is something burned onto or into his little body. (Okay, that's enough. Normally I would love to chase this one with you BeanE, but I have to leave it alone for now.)
 
From behind bars on the fourth floor of the jail, Nelson gave her side, telling us one of Jonathan's family members stopped her Christmas Eve outside his Oak Street home and asked her to dump a plastic container. She said he paid her $20, and she didn't know what was inside because she was drunk on vodka.

She told us she randomly chose a ditch in northeast Houston because she said, "I was basically just drunk and driving and listening to music."

"I didn't know what was in it until they were showing me pictures in the interrogation room," Nelson said.

But the body, police say, was not found in a plastic container.

Investigators believe Nelson acted on her own. They say all family members have alibis


http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7872780
 
I agree about the twine. Too general. I also agree that the statement might've been a vague reference to the twine. If not, then it would have to be something distinctive and known to belong to MN. Because it's stated, "on Jonathan's body", that lead me to think of the two suggestions I posted. Another thought is something burned onto or into his little body. (Okay, that's enough. Normally I would love to chase this one with you BeanE, but I have to leave it alone for now.)

I posted this before but deleted it because I didn't want the family to read it, but it involved the phone that is missing. My guess is that phone had her prints on it and I'll let your imagination go from there.
 
...the thing is he has known Jonathan for no more than a couple of months,give or take,within this short period of time he has reportedly slapped the kid.While I don't believe anymore that he is responsible for his death I do think it's still strange that he checked on the kid so close to the time this happened.I think it's ok to still ask questions.The stories have changed too many times.In former cases we have seen again and again that even if LE clears a person that can change later.Again at this point I personally don't think he is involved at all and I think his pain that this happened to an innocent child was not fake but I don't think he loved Jonathan like his son either.

Jonathan lived with his granny for a year. I would assume he was around DD frequently during this time. JMO
 
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
...(snipped)...
- Jonathan was last seen Friday night at his home on Oak Street near Garden Oaks. He had run home from a babysitter's house in the neighborhood. He was home playing video games when his stepfather says he stopped in, but Jonathan was gone just 25 minutes later when his mother came home from work....(snipped)...
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7868001

red by me

25 minutes is a narrow window... to enter, to make phone calls, and get Jonathan out of there. Wow. It's amazing that she wasn't noticed. Sounds like it was timed to the second almost.
 
Regarding getting Jonathan out of the house, I kept thinking there was no way he would leave with her. But what if when Mona hung up the phone, he didn't know. And she kept "talking" and then told Jonathan that Angela said to go with her.

Of course, there were the 'threatening' phone call reports, so perhaps she did coerce/threaten him, or somehow incapacitate him to get him to the truck.

This whole case has my head spinning...
 
I cannot remember but did a witness state that when she was leaving she had a rolled carpet under her arm?
 
Wednesday, December 29, 2010


- They're looking for any clues that may lead to his location, including a portable or cordless phone which is missing from the home.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7868001

Wouldn't her fingerprints be on the phone? I wonder what else she may have touched while in the apartment with Jonathan?

She could have thrown the phone in any trash can that was on the curb waiting for trash pickup.
 
what is statutory warning?

The DIC-24 (or statutory warning) is the form containing legal warnings required to be given orally and in writing before a police officer can request a DWI/DUI suspect to provide a sample of their breath or blood. The necessary condition precedent to giving the warnings is that the person is under arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI).

The statutory warning tells the person arrested that a refusal to provide a sample may be admissible in a subsequent prosecution. The form also notifies the accused of the different lengths of suspension, depending on whether the person refuses or takes the test. There is a separate paragraph that's specifically directed to persons younger than 21 years of age. The warning says:

If you are younger than 21 years of age and have any detectable amount of alcohol in your system, your license, permit, or privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be suspended or denied for not less than 60 days. However, if you submit to the taking of a specimen and an analysis of the specimen shows that you have an alcohol concentration of less than 0.08, you may be subject to criminal penalties less severe than those provided for under Chapter 49, Penal Code.
By its nature, this warning is coercive since it explicitly informs the person if they take a breath test and the result is less than 0.08, they may still be subject to less severe criminal penalties than if they completely refuse to take the test. However, under the implied consent law, consent to the taking of a breath or blood sample must be voluntary.

For consent to be voluntary a person's decision must not be the result of physical or psychological pressure brought to bear by police officials. A clear reading of the DIC-24, as it relates to suspects under 21 years old, is coercive because the warning provides for less severe penalties only if the accused person agrees to provide a sample. In other words, the warning results in a person providing a sample "involuntarily." Consequently, these breath and blood test results should be attacked by DWI defense lawyers by motions to suppress evidence based on this psychological coercion.

http://texascriminaldefenselawyer.blogspot.com/2008/11/statutory-warning-legal-coercion.html
 
Regarding getting Jonathan out of the house, I kept thinking there was no way he would leave with her. But what if when Mona hung up the phone, he didn't know. And she kept "talking" and then told Jonathan that Angela said to go with her.

Of course, there were the 'threatening' phone call reports, so perhaps she did coerce/threaten him, or somehow incapacitate him to get him to the truck.

This whole case has my head spinning...

Perfect ruse. Keeps talking on the phone, says to Jonathan, "Your mom wants me to drive you over to have lunch with her. We have to hurry - she only has a half hour for lunch."
 
Perfect ruse. Keeps talking on the phone, says to Jonathan, "Your mom wants me to drive you over to have lunch with her. We have to hurry - she only has a half hour for lunch."

This is exactly why we have a "code word" with the kids - if someone (even a family member!) is picking them up or wanting to take them somewhere and we haven't told the child ahead of time, that friend or relative better have the "code word" or the child(ren) are NOT to go with them.
 
Regarding getting Jonathan out of the house, I kept thinking there was no way he would leave with her. But what if when Mona hung up the phone, he didn't know. And she kept "talking" and then told Jonathan that Angela said to go with her.

Of course, there were the 'threatening' phone call reports, so perhaps she did coerce/threaten him, or somehow incapacitate him to get him to the truck.

This whole case has my head spinning...

I don't know that it would be that hard for a woman of her size and strength to intimidate a child the size of Jonathan into submission. What scares me is the stun gun and how once he was in her total control he had no ability to defend himself at all. If this went down at fast as it did, there was little or no time for this little boy to react. He was a good kid and sounds like a polite child -- even answering "yes, ma'am" to this woman's questions. Being defiant to her probably never entered his head.
 
I don't know that it would be that hard for a woman of her size and strength to intimidate a child the size of Jonathan into submission. What scares me is the stun gun and how once he was in her total control he had no ability to defend himslef at all. If this went down at fast as it did, there was little time or no time for this little boy to react. He was a good kid and sounds like a polite child -- even answering "yes, ma'am" to this woman's questions. Being defiant to her probably never entered this his head.

If MN used a stun gun...why go through the ruse of the phone calls?
 
This is exactly why we have a "code word" with the kids - if someone (even a family member!) is picking them up or wanting to take them somewhere and we haven't told the child ahead of time, that friend or relative better have the "code word" or the child(ren) are NOT to go with them.
OT: You are so smart to do that, BEC. My husband and I practiced that with my son from the time he started talking until he entered high school. (apple juice) I wish all parents would. Reading these boards everyday, I see so many situations that could've been prevented with a simple family code word.
 
...the thing is he has known Jonathan for no more than a couple of months,give or take,within this short period of time he has reportedly slapped the kid.While I don't believe anymore that he is responsible for his death I do think it's still strange that he checked on the kid so close to the time this happened.I think it's ok to still ask questions.The stories have changed too many times.In former cases we have seen again and again that even if LE clears a person that can change later.Again at this point I personally don't think he is involved at all and I think his pain that this happened to an innocent child was not fake but I don't think he loved Jonathan like his son either.

Kids with ADHD often have poor boundaries which leads to behavior that can be quite frustrating for those around them (I'm a teacher, and I work with a lot of families with children who have ADHD. Many of the parents have it as well, which really compounds the issues). I assume SD has a short fuse, just from watching his interviews. I imagine the slap came from SD's frustration at not being able to make JF control his behavior (doesn't excuse the slap, of course. He didn' have the tools to help JF appropriately yet). I would hope that he regrets it. AD may have seen the impossible situation with SD's fuse and JF's ADHD, and chose to remove JF from it until SD had a better handle on how to respond to JF. IMO. I do not doubt that SD loved JF, in SD's own definition of what love is. I do not question what someone says they feel. If evidence emerges later, that is one thing. But I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his actions, words, and emotions at this time. That's my opinion.
 
Originally Posted by claudicici
"...the thing is he has known Jonathan for no more than a couple of months,give or take,within this short period of time he has reportedly slapped the kid.While I don't believe anymore that he is responsible for his death I do think it's still strange that he checked on the kid so close to the time this happened.I think it's ok to still ask questions.The stories have changed too many times.In former cases we have seen again and again that even if LE clears a person that can change later.Again at this point I personally don't think he is involved at all and I think his pain that this happened to an innocent child was not fake but I don't think he loved Jonathan like his son either."

I am guessing that he knew him longer too, per westsidefox64. I assume he spent time with his mom during that year, thus giving the SD time to get to know him. And I also can't think of a case where LE actually cleared someone and then went back to calling them suspects. If they didn't have any evidence, even for years, that person always remained in the crosshairs, even if not publicly. But they were never actually cleared. IMO LE has made it abundantly clear that SD and family are free and clear. I think I read where they went and re interviewed them just to "shore up the time lines". And I'm equally sure that all of it will come out at trial. LE will definitely not show their complete hand at this point. They are probably being told by the DA what they can and can't say. They don't want to give Mona/her defense attorney any more info than they have to because as we've seen, she will tailor her story to match thier info. Why would anyone outside of the family feel that its odd that the SD checkon on Jonathan? Maybe the mom asked him to, maybe he did it every day. Other family members, as I've stated before, didn't see anything odd about it. If they consider it normal, then I can't imagine why it would be questioned by anyone who didn't know the family dynamics. As for the SD not caring about the boy like a son.....there's no way you anyone can know how he feels......Jonathan was an exceptionally loving and obviously forgiving child and easily lovable I'm sure......and you can't fake emotion like he displayed.....see Casey Anthony. MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
4,286
Total visitors
4,477

Forum statistics

Threads
593,826
Messages
17,993,523
Members
229,252
Latest member
NinaVonD
Back
Top