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

Status
Not open for further replies.
So if Mona abducted Jonathan around 2:00 pm and was seen disposing his body at 6:00 pm. then he had 4 long agonizing hours with this horrid woman.

I don't think she killed him right away. I think she bound and gagged him and taunted him then slowly tortured him.

IMO

It has me ill that, even taking off travel time, he had to spend hours with her. Hours.
 
sbm

MN is def tied to the home after 1:45 from at least 1 witness & the phone call she answered at the residence around 2p from mom..I'm sure Mom's phone can provide the evidence the call was made but I don't believe 'answered' so that could be a problem..But even with the phone 'missing' can the phone co. confirm that it was? I don't know!

eta..No matter what it can't be proven WHO answered mom's call :(

do they do voice line ups or is that just on TV???
 
In this case it might not have made a difference but they could have eliminated whatever small chance at discovery he had.

Parents are statistically the first suspect.
Start off with conflicting stories and lies and you guarantee they aren't going to start an outside search.

I have been wondering though about the conflicting stories.
Why lie about a twelve year old being home alone?
And if I got an emergency call from my house at work, which would be odd in and of itself, and when I called my own house a total stranger answered my phone and then hung up on me I don't know that I would find making a 25 minute ride home a reasonable solution.

Now add that my kid who should be home alone blew in an emergency call and a total stranger hung up me after answering my phone.......

it probably wouldn't have matter, but you are compounding the delays. Built in headstart now that they know you are coming home, then lie to the police so they think you are a flake who just got your kid back. The neighbors saw Mona, saw her truck, if things had gone slightly differntly maybe they would have gotten an Amber Alert.

The stepdad left right? Went home or back to family? I have to assume he is coming back for the funeral?
'

Although I would love to respond regarding my thoughts about the mother's initial statement to LE, I must refrain because I am not able to put forth my thoughts without getting a TO.

It has been reported that DD left Houston and is being "held up" by a friend. If he can't handle the memorial outside for Jonathan, who knows if he will show up for the funeral.
 
At around 1:23 there's a view of how 'deep' the burning actually is & that's metal not flesh & bones..I honestly don't see how there could be anything left of poor J..Sorry for being so GRAPHIC! Now I'm gonna go get :sick:

My husband, also a welder, can't imagine how she could do it if he wasn't dead already. The pain is tremendous and there would have been screaming - blood curdling screams. He just told me he can't talk about it anymore -- too horrifying for him :(

MOO

Mel
 
I think it is entirely possible that Mona had a hatred for men (as some other posters have suggested) and this was a violent crime against “males.” in general. Jonathon, being a young, vulnerable “male” was an easy target and found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am wondering if she took great pleasure in torturing this precious little boy (sexually?? I hate to say that!), and used the torch to disfigure, illuminate what made him male, his male genitals? Perhaps this is why it has been reported that initially it couldn’t be determined if the body was male or female? Maybe she “targeted” certain areas of his body with the torch, thus the torch wouldn’t have touched the twine used to bind him? Just thinking out loud..MOO

Jonathon, I am glad you are in the arms of the angels now....and that you got to experience living with your mommy before you left this Earth~she did love you!
 
At around 1:23 there's a view of how 'deep' the burning actually is & that's metal not flesh & bones..I honestly don't see how there could be anything left of poor J..Sorry for being so GRAPHIC! Now I'm gonna go get :sick:

I have been wrestling with that too. Using a cutting torch would have burned through the skin in less than a second, then hitting vital organs, main arteries followed by shock/unconsciousness. Death would have been quick. I do not think , Jonathan suffered long. Plus there is always the possibility , he was already unconsciousness/dead prior to the burning. She was a boxer and probably knew how to knock a person out with minimal trauma.
 
sbm

MN is def tied to the home after 1:45 from at least 1 witness & the phone call she answered at the residence around 2p from mom..I'm sure Mom's phone can provide the evidence the call was made but I don't believe 'answered' so that could be a problem..But even with the phone 'missing' can the phone co. confirm that it was? I don't know!

eta..No matter what it can't be proven WHO answered mom's call :(

Did the witness see Mona after 1:45 PM or did the witness see Mona at 12:30 PM.
 
BBM. OMG, can u imagine. She had NO reaction? I can only imagine what our response would be. I'd be on the floor out cold.

MOO

Mel

She was even 'chatty', according to the one detective. She says she was driving around listening to music as she sought a dumping spot for his body.

Some killers, particularly serials, get an excited high after they kill. Celebrating what they've done. I'm afraid that's the type she is. This may have been her 'masterpiece', and it may have taken her days to come down off her high from her 'accomplishment'.

This is one scary lady.
 
I am going to guess the mother believed she could get in trouble with CPS if she admits the child was home alone. Even though since he is 12 that would not be the case but she likely did not know that. Regarding the phone calls, since she did live with a roommate, the fact that somebody was in the apartment might have been less alarming than if she lived there alone.

below is a post from lovingmom who is a verified friend and neighbor of jonathan's grandma. either this cop was misinformed or s/he intentionlly lied to mom.

Apparently law enforcement told AD that children could not be home alone under the age of 14.
 
In this case it might not have made a difference but they could have eliminated whatever small chance at discovery he had.

Parents are statistically the first suspect.
Start off with conflicting stories and lies and you guarantee they aren't going to start an outside search.

I have been wondering though about the conflicting stories.
Why lie about a twelve year old being home alone?
And if I got an emergency call from my house at work, which would be odd in and of itself, and when I called my own house a total stranger answered my phone and then hung up on me I don't know that I would find making a 25 minute ride home a reasonable solution.

Now add that my kid who should be home alone blew in an emergency call and a total stranger hung up me after answering my phone.......

it probably wouldn't have matter, but you are compounding the delays. Built in headstart now that they know you are coming home, then lie to the police so they think you are a flake who just got your kid back. The neighbors saw Mona, saw her truck, if things had gone slightly differently maybe they would have gotten an Amber Alert.

The stepdad left right? Went home or back to family? I have to assume he is coming back for the funeral?
'

Didn't LE say the mother was embarrassed at first to tell them she had left Jonathan alone? I remember LE commenting that there was nothing wrong with leaving a 12 year old by himself. I guess at that age children do not have to have supervision in Tx.

The step dad left to be with his own support group, iirc. I am sure he will come back for the funeral.

IMO
 
I'm not buying it all either. Here's what she claims:

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.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7872780

She didn't just deny murdering Jonathan, she denied that she burned him, she denied even knowing it was a child's body she dumped. There is proof he was burned in her home, so if we're to believe her story, then does she expect us to believe someone used her house, her equipment to murder Jonathan and then attempted to clean up, then give the body to her to dispose? It's so ridiculous.

She said she had no idea what was in it (the imaginary container) until they showed her pictures. THEY SHOWED HER PICTURES of Jonathan's maimed, tortured and burned body and she showed no reaction, no remorse, her eyes were dead. That is not a normal reaction for someone unjustly accused to such horror.
And even IF that occurred, how would she explain that she was at least at her home the first time LE came to talk to her, and then again the next day when they took evidence and arrested her? Who could (supposedly) go home on or after Christmas Eve, find such evidence and not report it to LE immediately? It's so far beyond belief that it makes her look like a fool to think anyone would believe it.

Aside from LE's saying that she did this alone, I still have an open mind that someone else may have been involved. It was a tight window of opportunity. I'm disappointed in the news teaser about "new leads", which I think mentioned "someone else" (at the least, it was alluded). Apparently that didn't pan out (yet).
 
She was even 'chatty', according to the one detective. She says she was driving around listening to music as she sought a dumping spot for his body.

Some killers, particularly serials, get an excited high after they kill. Celebrating what they've done. I'm afraid that's the type she is. This may have been her 'masterpiece', and it may have taken her days to come down off her high from her 'accomplishment'.

This is one scary lady.

I think the tale about her being drunk of Vodka was just another lie she told. Like trying to say 'I was so drunk I am not responsible.':innocent:

I agree with you. I think she was high from the thrill she got when she tortured and murdered him.

IMO
 
The witness put her there after 1:45. Mona herself told LE she was there at 12:30.

Without having to go back to the presser, was it stated that way in the presser or MSM? We had so many conflicting statement with MSM over the last couple of days.

Did the witness ever see DD?
 
Just for clarification for me (because I"m geographically challenged) are the 2 residences involved in this story both on Oak Street? I've seen media references to the SD's apt on Oak Street and then Jonathan being taken from SE's home on Oak Street.
 
I am not understanding you. What would be the quickest less painful form? They have no evidence of anything that would have killed him except the body is badly burned. There is no evidence of trauma, and no evidence of strangulation so how can they assume strangulation? What is that they are supposed to assume absence any evidence of such a thing occurring?

It's interesting how some of us want to cling to the hope that the innocent victim here MAY have died by some other means before the torch was used, while others, though horrified, are able to accept that the torch may have been the COD. I chalk it up to the different ways we are all made up.

I do take issue with LE speculating on these details publically. I am local, and frankly I am surprised by the information that has come out of these pressers. It seems that in most of the other cases I have followed on this board, LE has held information very close to the vest. I know I have been frustrated with that at times as we try to make sense of crimes committed. Ironically, for me, this seems to be a situation of 'be careful what you ask for'. Turns out I don't really WANT to know what LE is *thinking* after all. :(

Having said that, it is obvious that this case has shaken LE to the core. There is so much human emotion visible in these pressers and I DO NOT FAULT the detectives for that. God bless them for their willingness to fave the depravity of mankind to see justice for the victims.

I will reserve my indignation for my local media for choosing sensational headlines.
 
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM

While at work that morning, a colleague told Davis her son had called the office and was asking for Ennamorato’s number.

According to information read at a probable cause hearing, Davis then received a phone call from a woman who made threatening remarks about her son. Concerned, Davis said she called her home phone repeatedly as she drove there.

She said an unknown woman finally answered around 2 p.m. – just minutes before she made it back to the apartment.

Davis said she asked the woman if she could speak to Foster.

Davis said she heard a woman ask her son, "Is your mama’s name Angela?" And then heard Foster say, "Yes ma’am, my mama’s name is Angela," before the line went dead.

When Davis got to the apartment moments later, she said cartoons were still on the TV, and a game was up on the computer screen.

But when she called for her son, she got no answer.

"The only thing missing in this house is his tan T-shirt with a guitar on it, a pair of jeans, his white sneakers and his black stuffed cat that my grandmother made him," Davis said. "There was no struggle."

A witness reported seeing a woman matching Nelson’s description pull up to Davis’ apartment in a gray or silver pickup truck near the time the threatening phone call was made.

Davis said Nelson stopped by the house later that night, saying she’d come over that morning looking for Ennamorato. Davis said Nelson told her that Jonathan had answered the door wearing no shirt, and it seemed like someone was in the house with him.

http://www.kvue.com/home/112668169.html
 
I think it is entirely possible that Mona had a hatred for men (as some other posters have suggested) and this was a violent crime against “males.” in general. Jonathon, being a young, vulnerable “male” was an easy target and found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am wondering if she took great pleasure in torturing this precious little boy (sexually?? I hate to say that!), and used the torch to disfigure, illuminate what made him male, his male genitals? Perhaps this is why it has been reported that initially it couldn’t be determined if the body was male or female? Maybe she “targeted” certain areas of his body with the torch, thus the torch wouldn’t have touched the twine used to bind him? Just thinking out loud..MOO

Jonathon, I am glad you are in the arms of the angels now....and that you got to experience living with your mommy before you left this Earth~she did love you!


I do believe she is a sexual deviant.

But I am not sure she just targeted specific parts of his body. She seems to have done a thorough job.

He said that killers often try to cover their tracks by burning the victim's corpse, but in this boy's case, the burning was so intense and thorough that many veteran homicide investigators are struggling with the notion of such a grisly and painful way to die.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26334262/detail.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
2,322
Total visitors
2,515

Forum statistics

Threads
589,968
Messages
17,928,480
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top