Found Deceased FL - Madeline Soto, 13, Missing Child Alert, 13500 blk Town Loop Blvd, Orlando, 26 Feb 2024 *arrest* #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Well, there it is in her own handwriting. She SAW Maddie getting ready for school that morning.

No speculation possible anymore that this was just wording in a cop's written report and maybe she didn't actually say it.
I still can't imagine why in the world she'd lie about that one fact. It makes no sense to me! I've never been arrested (not saying she has, just noting my experience with this sort of thing), nor written a police report, but even I know you just don't lie on them!!! So why, WHY would she do that??
 
I don't know if this is the car he normally drove, ( below: Honda parked in the swale registered to SS) I don't know what CS drove up to Orlando that night to help them with their "housing crisis")
Didnt the police tell CS they had seized Lincoln, and CS said dont expect it to be clean, because it was the poodle ambulance, and had a variety of fluids all over it from when dogs were sick or had surgeries etc,
Sounds to me as though the Sterns know their little boy fairly well -- Mom was outside calling Maddie's name thinking SS may have hidden her in the woods? So, at least kidnapping and keeping hostage; and Dad is busy explaining possible fluids that will show up when the vehicle is processed. Now, that sets my curiosity aflame: wonder just what the vehicle may have been used for and if LE checked all DNA tested every spot found in the car? Might more than one body have been transported?
 
JS used the term while in the LE vehicle on the ride to operations describing Madeline and school. Q: has she ever complained about school?" A: 'not complained exactly, I know its tough on her.... she's given alot of WORK, she's always behind on WORK'.

what she glaringly leaves out is the 'counseling' Madeline was engaged in during school and subsequent communications with the school counselor. also, she never mentions Madeline was seeing a therapist weekly which she told the counselor at school (my question, truth/a lie?)<---that was in response to JS hearing about disturbing drawings Madeline drew 'expressing feelings' she was unable to articulate. JS also never mentioned asthma or an inhaler. all she focused on was her ADHD as an explanation for all things concerning Madeline. :(

listening to her audio interviews again in the LE vehicle was extremely disturbing, so casual about disney jobs, her sister as donald duck, talking about her city life in NY when she was 21....sleeping arrangements....

reading her very brief handwritten statement AND his, it was clear they both thought this was simply cut and dry, dropped off, went to pick up, wasnt there, finds out "didnt make it to school". "feels she was taken". they both stuck to the abbreviated script and were not anticipating being asked particulars. is JS that obtuse?

sorry, mini rant....I just dont know one way or another about that enumerated list....my first impression was JS compiling verbiage for disability or some such....she mentions in that car ride "she's disabled" works part-time and doesnt make much money.

continued rant on my part: she never checked the school when she was right there. she called Madeline's friend first but didnt contact the teacher on the school app until 5:35pm. why did she leave her mother's place of business and go park and sit near a path where she thought she 'might see her walking' when she already took that route when she left the school pickup line.

right, she said he QUIT. but doesnt say why. Epcot as far as I know is owned by Disney.
Would you have a link to her interview in the police car please? I haven't seen or heard that one. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Didnt the police tell CS they had seized Lincoln, and CS said dont expect it to be clean, because it was the poodle ambulance, and had a variety of fluids all over it from when dogs were sick or had surgeries etc,
If CS did that you'd THINK he'd know that LE isn't going to look at a blood stain (or other fluid stains) and then go with it MUST BE Maddie's blood without doing a DNA test on the stains to determine if it is or isn't. He's got to know that so it's a strange thing to say IMO.
 
I still can't imagine why in the world she'd lie about that one fact. It makes no sense to me! I've never been arrested (not saying she has, just noting my experience with this sort of thing), nor written a police report, but even I know you just don't lie on them!!! So why, WHY would she do that??
I know this goes against popular opinion, but I honestly don’t think she was “lying” or being intentionally untruthful. That initial report says she “saw” MS, but every subsequent report where she is asked about it, she says she heard her or she thinks she heard her. She never gave specifics on seeing her (did JS get out of bed? Where was Maddie?) but she does get specific about hearing her (heard movement in the kitchen, assumed it was Maddie). I don’t see anything that would make her want to back away from that lie, if it was a lie. I chalk a lot of it up to all the anxiety and stress that would be building up in the hours of waiting for police and then the hours of working with them after they arrived. I wouldn’t expect any report to be 100% accurate at that point, or any point really.

The same goes for saying “we” dropped her off. I think she might even say “I” in one instance. Despite saying “we,” she also repeatedly talked about Stephan taking MS to school or how JS slept in. She keeps saying “we” even after it’s established that she didn’t take MS to school. It seems like it’s just how she talks.

Also as a caveat: I don’t quite mean that she wasn’t lying or couldn’t be lying, and more mean that the in the set of circumstances, I don’t think her language means she was definitely lying.
 
The problem is that her very first statement to the police is a lie. Also, did she actually search the area? So, possibly two lies there in her statement to the police. If she wanted her daughter found, she should be providing facts not assumptions or half truths or lies, just the honest truth.
 
I still can't imagine why in the world she'd lie about that one fact. It makes no sense to me! I've never been arrested (not saying she has, just noting my experience with this sort of thing), nor written a police report, but even I know you just don't lie on them!!! So why, WHY would she do that??
In my experience, the person is asked what happened, and the cop writes it down. The cop then asks you to review it and sign directly underneath, or when you have written it yourself, the cops dictate certain wordage.
If the cop was writing what she was saying, maybe she said she saw her that morning but did actually mean heard her. Maybe once it was repeated again, she did say heard, but it was already written as 'saw'. Words cannot be corrected after written.
I personally do not see the concern of her saying 'saw' then correcting later to say 'heard', I know I could easily do the same. ASked if I saw my daughter before she went to school, I might say yes, she was getting breakfast. but I wouldn't think of the verbige I used unless I was asked to clarify at a later time, then I would say well I didn't actually see her I heard her in the kitchen making breakfast, but I suppose it may not have been her, but that is usually the time she is in the kitchen making breakfast.
Anyway, I guess what I mean is I do not believe it is evidence to accuse JS of being involved or knowing anything. It is more likely miscommunication.
JMO
 
It needs to be taken literally as her statement of laying eyes on her daughter.
Not what she heard or thought she heard.
This is a highly important detail. Answered with nonchalance or not yet in panic mode, maybe it could be expected? But your daughter is missing long enough to call the police, and this is the answer given that is specific. Seen.
 
It needs to be taken literally as her statement of laying eyes on her daughter.
Not what she heard or thought she heard.
This is a highly important detail. Answered with nonchalance or not yet in panic mode, maybe it could be expected? But your daughter is missing long enough to call the police, and this is the answer given that is specific. Seen.

Yes, and it's a lie because Madeline never got ready for school that morning and she wasn't in the kitchen either.
 
It needs to be taken literally as her statement of laying eyes on her daughter.
Not what she heard or thought she heard.
This is a highly important detail. Answered with nonchalance or not yet in panic mode, maybe it could be expected? But your daughter is missing long enough to call the police, and this is the answer given that is specific. Seen.
Why does it need to be taken literally?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
2,733
Total visitors
2,873

Forum statistics

Threads
603,264
Messages
18,154,190
Members
231,691
Latest member
CindyW1974
Back
Top