TX - Jonathan Foster, 12, Houston, 24 Dec 2010 - Mona Nelson charged with Murder - #8

[jjenny]

Has anyone considered that maybe she was planning on robbing not just them, but others in the complex? Since she had worked there, she was familiar with the property, and knew which places had children.

She would assume that there would be lots of toys and maybe video games, etc. She could rob them and then sell the things she took. Maybe she was not expecting anyone to be home and when Jonathan was there she had to do something to cover for herself and in a panic Jonathan was killed or severally injured. Just a thought.

Not what LE seemed to imply during the press conference.

 

[fran]

What's interesting is that she couldn't appear in court yesterday for her arraignment because of medical reasons, yet she requests this X guy to visit her. Then she gives a statement to the press.

The statement was self-serving at best. She KNOWS LE has her on video getting rid of the body, but she may have thought it was grainy or whatever and she could get away with saying in a container.

I believe that one of the problems so many WSer's are having is this is NOT normal for a woman and there is yet, no motive. Only MN knows why, but LE pretty much said, 'she's evil.'

I realize M's sister thinks there's no way her sis could have done this. Well, I was reading another case this morning where acquaintances of the suspect said THEY and everyone else who knew the suspect, NEVER saw this dark side of them that's been revealed since he committed his crime. They can't believe they were so fooled.

Sure people who are on the RIGHT side of MN will think there's no way she could have done this, but, LE believes differently. LE wants to get this RIGHT. They're not going to take chances. Yeah, she's innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but to LE, they've got their perp! They want justice for Jonathan and his family.

JMHO
fran

 

[BOZGAL]

When you have a rap sheet like MN dating back 26 years give or take, I feel quite confident you have a pretty good idea of how the system works.

Sounds like to me she is already representing herself in a crude way by her own statements. She will never in my opinion give out any TRUE FACTS.

It is all smoke and mirrors. Throwing pasta on the wall and see what sticks.
Reasonable doubt.

Sorry but that old dog don't hunt.

JMHO

 

[belimom]

Has anyone considered that maybe she was planning on robbing not just them, but others in the complex? Since she had worked there, she was familiar with the property, and knew which places had children.

She would assume that there would be lots of toys and maybe video games, etc. She could rob them and then sell the things she took. Maybe she was not expecting anyone to be home and when Jonathan was there she had to do something to cover for herself and in a panic Jonathan was killed or severally injured. Just a thought.

BBM

I think it was clarified that AD and JF were staying with SE -- in a "cottage" outside/next to the complex. I think she targeted JF. She had already been there at 12:30 or so, and then I think she watched and returned later.

 

[fran]

This is just something to think about. Recall how the report of Jonathan's first call to his mom and he talked to the employer, he wanted the roommates phone #?

Well, just SUPPOSE MN was there and she had planned to TAKE things out of the house, ok, rob, but she came upon Jonathan so she was trying to persuade him to let her in or take something and that's why he tried to call his mom.

Just suppose, and MN waited around and saw the SD come and go and she got impatient and decided to just go for it and instead of taking SOMETHING, she took Jonathan?

Just suppose,
fran

 

[Cazzie]

Is it possible that MN used the stun gun on JF, to immobilize him, but that is the COD? It seems logical to me that a stun gun that could immobilize (and even injure or kill) an adult could possibly kill a child.

If we can believe MN's statement about being drunk on vodka when she dropped JF's body off, perhaps that is how she "got sloppy" and got caught. It also makes sense that someone might have to get very drunk in order to get through doing horrible things (although most people couldn't do them even then).

 

[jjenny]

When you have a rap sheet like MN dating back 26 years give or take, I feel quite confident you have a pretty good idea of how the system works.

Sounds like to me she is already representing herself in a crude way by her own statements. She will never in my opinion give out any TRUE FACTS.

It is all smoke and mirrors. Throwing pasta on the wall and see what sticks.
Reasonable doubt.

Sorry but that old dog don't hunt.

JMHO

Especially considering she didn't serve much time considering her rap sheet. She got probation, she got parole, etc. In one case where children got hurt she never got prosecuted because DA didn't think there was enough evidence.
She could very well be expecting more of the same.

 

[Dear Prudence]

She's definitely a liar. I do not think she will ever confess to the murder, only the disposal. She would not have admitted anything if she had not been convinced LE really did have a video of her dumping the body. Which is why the container story is so stupid. She would have to know it won't fly because she knows his little body wasn't in anything, unless she was so out of it that she thought she did dispose of him in a container somewhere. It would have been smarter to say someone forced her to dispose of the remains but she didn't kill him as opposed to such an obvious lie. I just hope some juror doesn't have reasonable doubt and let her off on the murder charge.
K.

bbm - I'm not worried about this at all. I think once we see the evidence LE found at MN's home we will be just as horrified and convinced as those detectives are.

No reasonable doubt here:
"We stumbled to a wealth of evidence; evidence that showed Jonathan's body was burned at the residence," said Miller.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/26330826/detail.html

 

[dar107]

Has anyone considered that maybe she was planning on robbing not just them, but others in the complex? Since she had worked there, she was familiar with the property, and knew which places had children.

She would assume that there would be lots of toys and maybe video games, etc. She could rob them and then sell the things she took. Maybe she was not expecting anyone to be home and when Jonathan was there she had to do something to cover for herself and in a panic Jonathan was killed or severally injured. Just a thought.

Warning: Graphic

The thing that makes me think no this was not a robbery gone bad is the burning of the body. It's one thing to try and hide the identity of the body, but my boyfriend is a welder and he said it would take some time to burn the body this way, and would be absolutely horrific. This makes me think there was some sick excitement or enjoyment in the act. It might not seem well planned out, but it does seem methodical being this was all done in a very short time period. I initailly felt this was payback for something but now with LE suggesting this was possibly not her first victim, I really don't know what to think.

 

[jjenny]

This is just something to think about. Recall how the report of Jonathan's first call to his mom and he talked to the employer, he wanted the roommates phone #?...

I think she came up there and asked him for the roommate's phone number.
If LE is correct and she took an "opportune moment" she could have been checking out to see if he was home alone.

 

[BOZGAL]

Especially considering she didn't serve much time considering her rap sheet. She got probation, she got parole, etc. In one case where children got hurt she never got prosecuted because DA didn't think there was enough evidence.
She could very well be expecting more of the same.

Exactly.
Career criminals know how the system works and they sure do try to work it too. IMHO this is normal behavior from a criminal.
Its also know as ROLL BABY ROLL.


jmho

 

[Noway]

It's clear to me police don't believe her story that she was just asked to dispose of a container. So if police don't believe that story what makes you think the container actually exists?

By the time I get this typed out so it makes sense to me, someone else will have answered but oh well ...


Mona's defense (her own statements) is that she did not know what was in the container SD paid her $20 to dispose of. The container that JF's body was in (as stated by Mona, not what was actually found).

Mona mentioned a container; however, the video shows only a person disposing of JF's body (not in container).

Because Mona mentioned a container, this lead people to speculate that perhaps the reason nobody saw Jonathan leaving the apartment with Mona was because he was placed in a container when she took him, not when she disposed of his body.

(It makes sense in my head ...)

 

[jjenny]

Exactly.
Career criminals know how the system works and they sure do try to work it too...

jmho

She could very well be thinking she tells LE some stories, they believe it, and she gets some minimal time for disposal of the body.

 

[peeples]

She could very well be thinking she tells LE some stories, they believe it, and she gets some minimal time for disposal of the body.

Which would lead to LE saying "Her statements are self serving".

 

[Kelly Faraday]

Is it possible that MN used the stun gun on JF, to immobilize him, but that is the COD? It seems logical to me that a stun gun that could immobilize (and even injure or kill) an adult could possibly kill a child.

If we can believe MN's statement about being drunk on vodka when she dropped JF's body off, perhaps that is how she "got sloppy" and got caught. It also makes sense that someone might have to get very drunk in order to get through doing horrible things (although most people couldn't do them even then).

I doubt that's the COD but would explain why no one heard any commotion when she took him. I can't imagine he wouldn't have screamed or cried. But then, I remember that monster Couey was able to make Jessica Lunsford crawl quietly out of her window and walk across the street. :-(

K.

 

[jjenny]

Which would lead to LE saying "Her statements are self serving".

Yes, it sure doesn't look like LE believed what she was saying.

 

[Patty G]

By the time I get this typed out so it makes sense to me, someone else will have answered but oh well ...


Mona's defense (her own statements) is that she did not know what was in the container SD paid her $20 to dispose of. The container that JF's body was in (as stated by Mona, not what was actually found).

Mona mentioned a container; however, the video shows only a person disposing of JF's body (not in container).

Because Mona mentioned a container, this lead people to speculate that perhaps the reason nobody saw Jonathan leaving the apartment with Mona was because he was placed in a container when she took him, not when she disposed of his body.

(It makes sense in my head ...)

Then the neighbors would have seen Mona leaving with a container and putting it in the back of her open-bed pick up truck and driving down the street with the container hanging out there for everyone to see; unless she put the container on the passenger seat. But then, I don't know if a container or standard size trash can would fit on the front seat. IMO

 

[BOZGAL]

She could very well be thinking she tells LE some stories, they believe it, and she gets some minimal time for disposal of the body.

Apparently so.
And this mention of vodka and drinking. :waitasec:
I cannot imagine anyone would think all the evidence would just disappear and not be noticed while drinking vodka?
Must be some mighty strong vodka.


jmho

 

[jjenny]

I doubt that's the COD but would explain why no one heard any commotion when she took him. I can't imagine he wouldn't have screamed or cried. But then, I remember that monster Couey was able to make Jessica Lunsford crawl quietly out of her window and walk across the street. :-(

K.

I don't know what happened, but it is also possible to convince the child to go with someone by promising to take the child for fast food, get ice cream, a new video game, a puppy, etc. Especially if the child is alone in the apartment and could be a little bored, etc.

 

[Pensfan]

I doubt soot would be in a person's lungs if they were burned randomly here and there. I agree that he was not burned to death, but I just don't see how they can tell for sure that she did not burn him before death.

bbm

There are two ways to determine if she burned him severely before his death. Both can be seen by tissue samples.

1. Burn victims and smoke inhalation victims will frequently vomit and inhale vomitus. Vomitus mixed with soot will be found in smaller bronchi of the lungs. Vomitus with soot would not be found in the smallest areas of the bronchioles unless the person was inhaling (alive).

2. In tissues samples, carbon pigment will be evident in the alveolar phagocytes.
http://human.freescience.org/images/wikimages/300px-Alveoli_diagram.png