Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,414
- Reaction score
- 41,894
If not to protect him, then to protect herself. She certainly didn’t say those discrepancies to protect her daughter since Madeline was missing and LE needed the right information to find her. MOOIm not saying she was involved in Maddi's murder or the cover-up, but she did some things that made her look suspicious, If she didn't do it to cover for him, then what other reason could there be?
It didn't come across that way, I understand your compassion and appreciate it.JS isn’t a victim of bad choices. I refuse to minimize what happened to Ms to this sentiment. JS invited the monster into their lives and didn’t just keep him there - she sent her child to bed with him. Repeatedly. I don’t care if she is charged or not as nothing will bring her daughter back anyhow and she has to live with this for the rest of her life but I think it’s a great disservice to the memory of Ms to minimize this down to JS is a victim of bad choices.
Ontario Mom - I quoted your post but this is NOT directed at you personally and I’m sorry if it comes across as an attack. It isn’t meant to be and was only a jumping off point for what I believe is the larger issue of how things like this continue to happen in society time after time.![]()
Why minimize any of it at all? SS told a woman he dated briefly that he had woken in a bed with Ms with an erection and had to turn away. If he made this comment to a woman he had not been with for very long, what comments might he have made to JS whom he had a long standing relationship with? I’m sorry, I simply do not see JS as a victim of SS. She isn’t blameless here and she has massive responsibility for what her daughter endured.It didn't come across that way, I understand your compassion and appreciate it.
We just see things differently.
Instead of minimizing the horrific act against Madaline, I see it as maximizing the evil SS is responsible for.
Everyone who loved that girl is a victim of SS, in one way or another, based on what he did to her.
It isn't just children who are groomed by sexual predators, it's their parents & other adults in their lives as well.
My heart goes out to every adult who's ever been in this same situation where a vile child rapist weaseled their way into their lives the way they do.
jmo
I totally hear you, but IMO LE did accuse her of doing just that, or at least prosecutors and their investigators (who are LE) did. They didn't do it publicly, but it is all there in the nearly 900 pages released by prosecution. The press may have been who put it together for the public, but we here at WS were already aware and discussing her public statements that weren't adding up.It's important to remember, LE never once accused JS of giving them conflicting statements.
That allegation was made my media (and the reason stated for us allowing to discuss her as a suspect), and fed by other media & folks in the social media sphere, and folks here & elsewhere discussing her.
Given what happened to her child, I will 100% see her as a victim (of both poor choices as well as a predatory child raping murderous monster) until or unless LE tells me that is not the case.
So far, they have not given me reason to believe that.
jmo
IMO the press read the same 896 page data dump that we did and came to the same conclusion most of us here have. "several inconsistencies" are the words LE used (Pg 876).I totally hear you, but IMO LE did accuse her of doing just that, or at least prosecutors and their investigators (who are LE) did. They didn't do it publicly, but it is all there in the nearly 900 pages released by prosecution. The press may have been who put it together for the public, but we here at WS were already aware and discussing her public statements that weren't adding up.
Who made those choices? Who continually made those bad choices?"JS is a victim of bad choices."
Right? Sadly, JS is the author of her own misery.Who made those choices? Who continually made those bad choices?
MOO.
she said she 'thinks' black shorts. when the officer relayed the information for the missing description, she went with it. turns out, she was not found deceased in black shorts, rather blue jeans.Doesnt that just beg the question " if she didnt see her, how could she speak to what she was last seen wearing?"
were her clothes set out for her? did she always wear gym clothes on Mondays? She didnt just guess, she corrected Sterns account of what she was wearing, why?
I know she didnt see madeline, thats why im asking why she even added her 2 cents. She saw nothing, so the "traditional garb" could be one non-nefarious reason for her input, otherwise ( IMO) shes covering for something whether it be herself or him.whether this was traditional garb on gym day or not, the fact is she did not see Madeline before she left for school.
The Public Defender's office asked the court to set the case for a status hearing "two-three months out in lieu of being given a new Pre-Trial Conference date," and Judge Keith Carsten granted that at a Wednesday afternoon pre-trial hearing. The next hearing, a status hearing, is scheduled for Oct. 14 at 9 a.m.
Public defender Beth Bourdon, new to the case, noted "There is quite a bit of work still to do" to build Sterns' defense, noting there are about 177 witnesses listed as part of the case.
“The undersigned attorney will appear on behalf of the accused at all scheduled pretrial conferences,” the Waiver of Defendant’s Attendance at Pretrial Conference filed Tuesday afternoon reads
His trial on the murder charge was scheduled to begin July 16, and the trial on his 60 other charges was set for the Aug. 19 trial docket. As a notice that defense attorneys will be taking at least one more deposition in mid-September in the case, those dates will likely be continued into the fall.
It is unclear if Sterns will appear at any of his trials
![]()
Sterns murder, sexual assault case continued into October
The defense team for Stephan Sterns, accused in the murder of Kissimmee teen Madeline Soto, filed a motion for a continuance late Tuesday in the cases against him.www.aroundosceola.com
All I know from the data dump about her blacks shorts was what they collected from the house when they were gathering 4+ pages worth of evidence.she said she 'thinks' black shorts. when the officer relayed the information for the missing description, she went with it. turns out, she was not found deceased in black shorts, rather blue jeans.
whether this was traditional garb on gym day or not, the fact is she did not see Madeline before she left for school.
also the info released states K9's were provided with black shorts and her undies. they did arrive at the home when JS and SS returned home that nite....police cam just recording they were there about Madeline's clothing as JS answered the door, then the cam was turned off).
maybe someone can clarify if the 'black shorts and undies' were identified as being in SS's vehicle or were actually just mentioned as being given to the K9 handler. cant recall.![]()
THIS^^^^ Also, it's been talked about that she probably didn't really "sleep" in this space, since she either slept with JS and or SS; however, wasn't it listed that the police found objects in the CSAM that were matched to those in her "space"? So, SS would SA right there in the living room, basically?I just realized something very interesting when I was looking for K9 clothing in the data. While she could have, I'm really doubting that Maddie wore boxers, yet a pair of boxers were collected from HER bedroom area of the living room. What in heck's name were HIS boxers doing in HER "bedroom area" of the living room?!?!? And! No one in a house, that included her mother and several roommates, noticed that his boxers were in HER space?? That's the living room, and we all know that they were all gathered in the living room the night she went missing (2/26), yet the were collected 2 days later (2/28) according to the evidence report. NO ONE noticed his boxers in HER space??? Not even SS!
Pg 439.
View attachment 517034
That makes me wonder where in her space they were. They couldn't have been on the floor next to her makeshift bed (couch), or on it. They'd have been noticed. Were they found under the bed/couch? In the cushions? In her dresser drawer? Between the sheets?
That is correct. Pg 45:THIS^^^^ Also, it's been talked about that she probably didn't really "sleep" in this space, since she either slept with JS and or SS; however, wasn't it listed that the police found objects in the CSAM that were matched to those in her "space"? So, SS would SA right there in the living room, basically?
I think that bedroom was basically a 'set' for CSAM.That is correct. Pg 45:
Via a video call, they showed us digital photographs of (presumably) Sterns sexually abusing Maddie. The purpose of viewing the child sexual abuse material (CSAM) via a video phone call was to ensure the correct evidence was collected and preserved to the best of our abilities. We examined the clothing worn by both and Sterns, along with surrounding items such as sheets, blankets, and other articles of clothing. We were able to identify some of the items seen in the photographs in a downstairs area that was previously described by detectives as Maddie's room.
What's interesting about the above statement is that they saw items on a video, and FOUND those same items on 2/28 in Maddie's room (living room). That tells me that that particular video must have been dated shortly before she was killed. They'd know by the timestamp of the file. Hence saying "look for these specific items".
And let's not forget what else was in that area, which we saw in one of the MSM photos a while back.
Pg 440: (1) phone tripod (Bedroom area of living room)
So, since they saw items in the CSAM, and asked those to be found and taken as evidence, which they did, that tells me that SS was making CSAM in the living room. And with JS mere yards away. I can't imagine those walls were very soundproof. I wonder if there is a downstairs bathroom outside of the master bedroom? I'd think there might be because I can't imagine a 2 story layout where guests would have to either go upstairs to use the bathroom, or go through the master bedroom. Either way, that's another added risk of being caught if JS going to the bathroom IF the bathroom was outside of the master bedroom. This is just so hard to wrap my head around. That poor child.
JMO of the facts as I know them.
For what it’s worth, boxers are trendy for teen girls right now. I think maybe 8th grade is a little young for it, but teen girls do wear boxers and shorts that look like boxers both to lounge in at home and out and about.I just realized something very interesting when I was looking for K9 clothing in the data. While she could have, I'm really doubting that Maddie wore boxers, yet a pair of boxers were collected from HER bedroom area of the living room. What in heck's name were HIS boxers doing in HER "bedroom area" of the living room?!?!? And! No one in a house, that included her mother and several roommates, never noticed that his boxers were in HER space?? That's the living room, and we all know that they were all gathered in the living room the night she went missing (2/26), yet the were collected 2 days later (2/28) according to the evidence report? NO ONE noticed his boxers in HER space??? Not even SS!
Pg 439.
View attachment 517034
That makes me wonder where in her space they were. They couldn't have been on the floor next to her makeshift bed (couch), or on it. They'd have been noticed. Were they found under the bed/couch? In the cushions? In her dresser drawer? Between the sheets?
I say SS is a manipulating coward now, doesn't want to face public scrutiny, it hurts his fee fees. I don't believe any defendant in a murder trial should ever be allowed to just 'not show up'.
Thank You for the much needed updates in this current article, @imstilla.grandma. This is all mainly my reactions to the new info. How many of those approximately 177 witnesses will have something favorable in defense of SS? Of course, there'll be many technical forensic witnesses. I'm picturing JS's family members and any people who noticed something might step forward. I have no idea, but I sure would love to be able to watch the trial.
I bolded and underlined things I found interesting or questionable. I can't get over the fact that SS may not appear at any hearings or even his own trials.
What is that about? Shame? (MOO, he's a weasel and a worm, and he should be deeply ashamed for taking up earth space.) What's up with being allowed to not attend and not take part in his legal proceedings? Is he trying not to be recognized for other crimes? I didn't take part in earlier discussions about this and now wish I had. Surprised that he's allowed to be absent in all these proceedings.
All MOO.