Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 7,251
- Reaction score
- 46,028
He might not be planting daisies but he's sure spreading fertilizer.Definitely a seed planter, but this guy ain't planting daisies. MOO.
Last edited:
He might not be planting daisies but he's sure spreading fertilizer.Definitely a seed planter, but this guy ain't planting daisies. MOO.
~3 min into the 2/27 LE interview:“Rummaged” (may have been rummaging, don’t quote me) a word he used TWICE when asked what he did after he dropped her off. He repeated the story - almost verbatim. When I think Le were asking where he went after the drop off.
If the female LE was asking on the 27 if it was normal to not have anything on his phone "before this morning" (the day after Maddie goes missing)... then he must have "accidentally reset" his phone Monday evening (the day Maddie is reporting missing).I know we beat this to death but:
this interview is on the 27th and the lady LE says she noticed he didnt have any calls before this morning.( 27th)
he said he did a factory reset yesterday morning ( 26th)
So he did it the day before? where are all the calls from the night she went missing? He should have a whole day full of calls on that phone.
Of course. She lied about seeing her getting dressed. No wonder he had to dispose of Madeline. Can't see Jen being able lift Madeline,and move her around. MOOIf this interview was Feb 27, then he is referring to “yesterday morning” February 26th. So he was hanging out with JS February 26th morning ? She wasn’t sleeping in?
Well said. I, also gave JS the benefit of doubt, with her less detailed statement. As I've experienced with employees and teenagers, it takes detailed questions to funnel down to the exact details. That's LEs job and I don't see reporters taking this to task.I was going to say a long time ago, regarding JS saying she saw Maddy "getting dressed," which I think SS also said at one point:
To defend JS for just a few seconds, I thought the "I saw her getting dressed" could've been a case of semantics. To preface my example: I'm the oldest of several and was responsible for carting the youngin's to school when I got my first car. I helped mom make sure everyone was ready when I was done myself. I also did this when we had to ride the bus. Can't be late, after all. They still made me late all the time, lol.
If I saw my siblings in PJs one minute and then dressed for school the next, maybe even saw them switch outfits to get mom's approval, brushing their teeth, combing hair, etc., I might say, "Yes, I saw my brother getting dressed this morning!" if asked. Did I literally see him change out of his PJs, possibly be "stark nekkid" or in underwear (as older relatives would say), and into day clothes? No, but my saying I saw him "getting dressed" is technically not wrong. It would definitely make more sense to say, "I saw him getting ready for school this morning," but there we go: it's semantics. People use words and phrases interchangeably all the time, not realizing how it could be interpreted differently later on.
Of course, none of this ultimately matters. Whether JS meant that she literally saw change clothes or just "getting ready," it appears she lied about that (for whatever reason). But, I thought I'd throw this out there for posterity anyway.
It's always good to keep semantics in mind when analyzing statements. MOO.
I’d agree. When I first read the incident report(linked below hopefully correctly) and the word used in it is “observed” my initial thought was if JS heard the “normal” routine going on that am. I know in my house I can tell you who is in the shower by what time it is.I was going to say a long time ago, regarding JS saying she saw Maddy "getting dressed," which I think SS also said at one point:
To defend JS for just a few seconds, I thought the "I saw her getting dressed" could've been a case of semantics. To preface my example: I'm the oldest of several and was responsible for carting the youngin's to school when I got my first car. I helped mom make sure everyone was ready when I was done myself. I also did this when we had to ride the bus. Can't be late, after all. They still made me late all the time, lol.
If I saw my siblings in PJs one minute and then dressed for school the next, maybe even saw them switch outfits to get mom's approval, brushing their teeth, combing hair, etc., I might say, "Yes, I saw my brother getting dressed this morning!" if asked. Did I literally see him change out of his PJs, possibly be "stark nekkid" or in underwear (as older relatives would say), and into day clothes? No, but my saying I saw him "getting dressed" is technically not wrong. It would definitely make more sense to say, "I saw him getting ready for school this morning," but there we go: it's semantics. People use words and phrases interchangeably all the time, not realizing how it could be interpreted differently later on.
Of course, none of this ultimately matters. Whether JS meant that she literally saw change clothes or just "getting ready," it appears she lied about that (for whatever reason). But, I thought I'd throw this out there for posterity anyway.
It's always good to keep semantics in mind when analyzing statements. MOO.
Incident report from Orange County Sheriff’s Department
The incident report shared by WFTV on March 5 (~1:30 into this video):
View attachment 489549
Transcribed by me:
I was going to say a long time ago, regarding JS saying she saw Maddy "getting dressed," which I think SS also said at one point:
To defend JS for just a few seconds, I thought the "I saw her getting dressed" could've been a case of semantics. To preface my example: I'm the oldest of several and was responsible for carting the youngin's to school when I got my first car. I helped mom make sure everyone was ready when I was done myself. I also did this when we had to ride the bus. Can't be late, after all. They still made me late all the time, lol.
If I saw my siblings in PJs one minute and then dressed for school the next, maybe even saw them switch outfits to get mom's approval, brushing their teeth, combing hair, etc., I might say, "Yes, I saw my brother getting dressed this morning!" if asked. Did I literally see him change out of his PJs, possibly be "stark nekkid" or in underwear (as older relatives would say), and into day clothes? No, but my saying I saw him "getting dressed" is technically not wrong. It would definitely make more sense to say, "I saw him getting ready for school this morning," but there we go: it's semantics. People use words and phrases interchangeably all the time, not realizing how it could be interpreted differently later on.
Of course, none of this ultimately matters. Whether JS meant that she literally saw change clothes or just "getting ready," it appears she lied about that (for whatever reason). But, I thought I'd throw this out there for posterity anyway.
It's always good to keep semantics in mind when analyzing statements. MOO.
Then there's "We took her to school" NOPE NOPE NOPE. Then her not going inside the school to see why she wasn't there. There is zero reason to lie when your own child is missing. MOOMy only nitpick is that the incident report is that it is the LE officers interpretation of the events and conversation with JS. We don’t know exactly what LE asked and exactly what JS responded. (IIRC) The officer isn’t directly quoting her (not using “” ) so IMO we cant really study the words she used.
If JS did in fact write in her sworn written statement (which IIRC you write yourself with a pen and paper) that specific sentence about “observing MS getting dressed” then the window of misunderstanding/misinterpretation is very slim IMO.
Except when you are involved in some way, which is my opinion about the sitch. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. It's been dangling for a while now. Gravity will overcome! Justice for Maddie!!Then there's "We took her to school" NOPE NOPE NOPE. Then her not going inside the school to see why she wasn't there. There is zero reason to lie when your own child is missing. MOO
Which is another thing that people close to JS (sister and mother) could speak to - if it is out of character for JS to use that adaptation of the “royal we”. If JS has never used any variation of “royal we” before, than that obviously says a lot.Then there's "We took her to school" NOPE NOPE NOPE. Then her not going inside the school to see why she wasn't there. There is zero reason to lie when your own child is missing. MOO
^^rsbmI was going to say a long time ago, regarding JS saying she saw Maddy "getting dressed," which I think SS also said at one point:
Yes. But there is one reason to lie perhaps? Time will tell. MOOThen there's "We took her to school" NOPE NOPE NOPE. Then her not going inside the school to see why she wasn't there. There is zero reason to lie when your own child is missing. MOO
I understand that but, my husband, daughter, and I go into minute details. We usually need wings to get to the point. Although, our stories never deviate by adding or changing details.IMO? He's lying.
A note I took years ago from The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker - TOO MANY DETAILS – When people are telling the truth they don’t feel they need to elaborate on their story with ‘too many details’.
When asked if it was normal that Stephan and Madeline would sleep together without her being there, she said yes, statements say.
"(Jennifer Soto) stated if she needed a good night sleep due to her anxiety, she would ask them (Stephan and Madeline) to sleep in a different bedroom."
Now that you mention it that’s an ADHD thing as well. That could be part of why they both talk like that.I understand that but, my husband, daughter, and I go into minute details. We usually need wings to get to the point. Although, our stories never deviate by adding or changing details.