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

[Inthedetails]

I agree iamshadow21….. and even more perplexing IMO…… if the state really thinks they need JS for any testimony or evidence….. why no charges? Isn’t it often seen where multiple parties are charged, and eventually one might either cooperate or agree to lesser charges or a plea in exchange for testimony against another?

I am still confused why JS was offered a proffer or ‘Queen for a Day’ (my term…. IANAL) for evidence in this case. Unless it was only an opportunity to allow them to get more information or evidence. And to further check facts and inconsistencies. MOO

I'm unclear what the immunity covers. Is it just an agreement they won't charge her for previously lying to the cops? Or is it more of a blanket immunity of agreeing not to charge her with anything having to do with crimes against Maddie?

I just get the hunch she was still lying in that interview....and she was involved somehow, though I don't know to what extent. Yet, she is not charged with a thing.

jmo

 

[kae27]

I haven't heard anything that JS did for her daughter's 13th birthday, unless I missed it. You'd think she'd mention something about her own celebration with Maddie.

jmo

IIRC her birthday was earlier that week, not the night of the party, so the next day didn't really have any special significance at the time.

I'm willing to blame JS for many, many, many awful things, but not remembering what MS wore to bed or fixing her breakfast in the morning aren't among them.

 

[JennieM]

During the interview, she is asked why she gave him the room after they split up, and she says that’s when he got the Disney job. She says he had difficulty holding down a job because of his mental health and she wanted to help him out because he was like her best friend. Listening to that alone, no one could imagine she is talking so calmly about the man who SA and killed her child.

 

[ttjo]

I'm unclear what the immunity covers. Is it just an agreement they won't charge her for previously lying to the cops? Or is it more of a blanket immunity of agreeing not to charge her with anything having to do with crimes against Maddie?

I just get the hunch she was still lying in that interview....and she was involved somehow, though I don't know to what extent. Yet, she is not charged with a thing.

jmo

Dave Aronberg in an interview this morning said there is derivative use immunity ( what jenn was offered) vs transactional immunity, I kind of know the difference but it would be much better if a lawyer would explain it. ( something like she would not be prosecuted for previous lies as long and she told the truth in the April interview, if they find out she lied in the April interview all deals would be off) and there' was more to it, but I'll leave that for the lawyers in here.
He also said that interview was in April when they were still trying to sort things out get information and they couldnt compel her to give testimony against SS, and she most certainly would not give evidence if she thought it would implicate her and if she thought she would be prosecuted for it) sounds like a tactic to get more info. They wanted him, but her...?

 

[ttjo]

718. Derivative Use Immunity

www.justice.gov

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I'm unclear what the immunity covers. Is it just an agreement they won't charge her for previously lying to the cops? Or is it more of a blanket immunity of agreeing not to charge her with anything having to do with crimes against Maddie?

I just get the hunch she was still lying in that interview....and she was involved somehow, though I don't know to what extent. Yet, she is not charged with a thing.

jmo

Yes Inthedetails….. this is confusing to me as well. And I also see ttjo’s response below in post # 784. I can’t figure out exactly who and what the authorities are seeking to charge (or not charge). Several posters in this thread have for some time been saying - and I agree too - IMO seems they already have possibility to also charge at minimum for endangering the welfare of a child (or the FL state equivalent) - willfully or by culpability? And that would seem for JS? Justice should be sought for those that contributed (or neglected) in the harms and ultimate fate that MS experienced. IANAL. MOO

 

[floridafreshsqueez]

So from what I understand, derivative immunity means they cannot charge her based on the testimony she gave. Any criminal charges would need to be from an “independent source” apart from the testimony she gave in the interview with her counsel.

Someone help, is that correct?

I’ve read the definition and I’ve watched podcasts about Wendi Adelson’s derivative immunity but it just doesn’t stick for some reason. That’s why Wendi testified in court, correct? She knew she couldn’t be charged and convicted with a crime based on her testimony and any charges forthcoming would need to be based on a source from elsewhere?

 

[Pruddennce]

I found it telling, as well, that Jen said she usually gets up to make Maddie breakfast before school and confirmed that M is a breakfast eater. Yet, Maddie left home extra early only to "sleep in the car" and skip a take-out breakfast that takes minutes to order and eat. And Jen just rolled over and refreshed the rain video.

jmo

JS usually makes breakfast.... I dont see that happening....

 

[sunspun]

So from what I understand, derivative immunity means they cannot charge her based on the testimony she gave. Any criminal charges would need to be from an “independent source” apart from the testimony she gave in the interview with her counsel.

Someone help, is that correct?

I’ve read the definition and I’ve watched podcasts about Wendi Adelson’s derivative immunity but it just doesn’t stick for some reason. That’s why Wendi testified in court, correct? She knew she couldn’t be charged and convicted with a crime based on her testimony and any charges forthcoming would need to be based on a source from elsewhere?

I have also read definitions of these immunity terms, but they still don't make sense to me. The non-derivative type especially, because AFAIU, you could say something self-incriminating, but they can't use it against you. So it encourages you to tell the truth, knowing you have that immunity. But unless it's derivative immunity, they can still use what they learned from you to further investigate, and something they may then learn from other sources CAN be used against you, if I have that right. So how is that helping you really? Seems like not much immunity to me. You would still want to avoid telling them the whole truth, to lessen the risk of providing them with the clues they need to find out things that incriminate you. But I'm probably missing something.

 

[Pruddennce]

I haven't heard anything that JS did for her daughter's 13th birthday, unless I missed it. You'd think she'd mention something about her own celebration with Maddie.

jmo

not that I recall either....it was thursday. her celebration was counting Madeline's money, without her IMO.

 

[sunspun]

not that I recall either....it was thursday. her celebration was counting Madeline's money, without her IMO.

The money that we can assume is now hers, correct?

 

[Pruddennce]

I have also read definitions of these immunity terms, but they still don't make sense to me. The non-derivative type especially, because AFAIU, you could say something self-incriminating, but they can't use it against you. So it encourages you to tell the truth, knowing you have that immunity. But unless it's derivative immunity, they can still use what they learned from you to further investigate, and something they may then learn from other sources CAN be used against you, if I have that right. So how is that helping you really? Seems like not much immunity to me. You would still want to avoid telling them the whole truth, to lessen the risk of providing them with the clues they need to find out things that incriminate you. But I'm probably missing something.

which results in "I dont remember" and "I dont know'. she doesnt remember the 'nest' text and doesnt know what that means.

 

[Seattle1]

So from what I understand, derivative immunity means they cannot charge her based on the testimony she gave. Any criminal charges would need to be from an “independent source” apart from the testimony she gave in the interview with her counsel.

Someone help, is that correct?

I’ve read the definition and I’ve watched podcasts about Wendi Adelson’s derivative immunity but it just doesn’t stick for some reason. That’s why Wendi testified in court, correct? She knew she couldn’t be charged and convicted with a crime based on her testimony and any charges forthcoming would need to be based on a source from elsewhere?

MS, a minor child, died under suspicious means that were determined to be criminal, not an accident, under JS's watch.

JS was under criminal investigation and had to make a decision if she was going to cooperate with the investigation of her daughter's murder or not.

IMO, JS lawyered up, and made the decision to cooperate but not without some form of protection for herself. There are three types of immunity, and JS received the middle ground. IMO, she got more than she deserved.

Derivative Use Immunity (DUI) is better than Use Immunity because it prevents the government from using not only JS's direct statements and evidence against her, but it also protects her from any evidence derived through additional information the authorities might derive from her as she cooperates by giving the DA and investigators honest answers to their questions about both herself and SS.

JS's DUI won't protect her from the government using evidence against her that it obtained completely independent of her cooperation. For example, an independent source, and/or an independent investigation could still result in evidence to prosecute her. IMO, the person who could probably hurt her is SS but she's covered now. JMO

JS was given Derivative Use Immunity (DUI)...​

​

Proffer and Derivative Use Immunity​

When someone finds themselves under criminal investigation or charged with a crime, they will face several extremely important decisions. In some cases, a combination of factors could lead the person to consider whether some form of cooperation with the prosecution might be the most beneficial road for them to take. In these relatively rare cases, an experienced criminal defense lawyer can guide their client through a procedure called a “proffer meeting” during which the client will be granted “use and derivative use immunity.”

Use Immunity v. Derivative Use Immunity v. Transactional Immunity​

The three types of immunity that could be extended to a cooperating witness are use immunity, derivative use immunity, and transactional immunity. The differences between them are significant and misunderstanding which immunity is granted can lead to catastrophic consequences for the cooperative person.

Use Immunity: Use immunity means that the government cannot use the statements or evidence provided by the proffer witness against that person in a prosecution. However, the government may use the statements of the witness to investigate new leads and develop new evidence against the witness. Under simple use immunity, the government could use the new evidence “derived” from the evidence given by witness against that same witness. As long as the government didn’t use the witness’s direct statements or evidence against them, it will not have violated the immunity agreement.

Derivative Use Immunity: The better, more extensive immunity is called “derivative use immunity” because it prevents the government from using not only the witness’s direct statements and evidence against them, but it also protects the witness from any evidence derived through additional investigation based on the witness’s proffered information. It guards individuals from the “derivative use” of the information they share during a proffer session.

Of course, neither use immunity nor derivative use immunity prevents the government from using evidence against the witness that was derived from entirely independent sources and investigation. While the witness’s cooperation would be considered mitigating and perhaps reduce the length and nature of their ultimate sentence, they might still be prosecuted.

Transactional Immunity: The best and fullest level of immunity the government can grant is called “transactional immunity.” This means the government is barred from bringing any criminal prosecution against the witness involving a specified course of criminal conduct. For example, if a seventy-year-old shop keeper was beaten by one of three men robbing a store, possible charges could include robbery, conspiracy to rob, assault with intent to rob, and assault on a person over 65, among others.

With transactional immunity, a cooperating witness would be protected from any and all criminal charges arising out of that robbery “transaction.”

Proffer & DUI

 

[Inthedetails]

MS, a minor child, died under suspicious means that were determined to be criminal, not an accident, under JS's watch.

JS was under criminal investigation and had to make a decision if she was going to cooperate with the investigation of her daughter's murder or not.

IMO, JS lawyered up, and made the decision to cooperate but not without some form of protection for herself. There are three types of immunity, and JS received the middle ground. IMO, she got more than she deserved.

Derivative Use Immunity (DUI) is better than Use Immunity because it prevents the government from using not only JS's direct statements and evidence against her, but it also protects her from any evidence derived through additional information the authorities might derive from her as she cooperates by giving the DA and investigators honest answers to their questions about both herself and SS.

JS's DUI won't protect her from the government using evidence against her that it obtained completely independent of her cooperation. For example, an independent source, and/or an independent investigation could still result in evidence to prosecute her. IMO, the person who could probably hurt her is SS but she's covered now. JMO

I'm slowly starting to understand the immunity deal.

Thanks to everyone chiming in.

jmo

 

[Pruddennce]

The money that we can assume is now hers, correct?

IMO, the 'big wad of money' was gone before she was found. wondering where the missing xmas money situation originated, from text exchanges and/or Madeline repeated it to a family member? it was asked so it was significant.

.....Madeline's missing christmas money which she was questioned about:

but as usual, gives this account as if Madeline was not freaking out on her or SS about it. JS presents this 'me and madeline' united front discussing possibly it was SS. unfortunately, a follow up question where was it found was not asked. nor was, how was Madeline's demeanor, was she angry?

Q So let me just narrow it down. Did she accuse Stephan of taking it?
JS: I'm not sure if she did directly. We—we—we both had the suspicion, but we were like, "No, could he have? No, I don't think so." But I eventually found that money.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I've said this before, but I've now listened to that interview several times with commentary by various youtube creators, and none of the questions asked of her were gratuitous.

They knew they had limited time--her lawyer made sure of that--so they were not going to waste any of it
on unimportant things.

ETA: The first time I heard it I was all "where did THAT come from?" when the subject of SS stealing Maddie's Christmas money came up. But these are experienced professionals. There was something behind that question.

IMO of course.

 

[claudicici]

IMO, the 'big wad of money' was gone before she was found. wondering where the missing xmas money situation originated, from text exchanges and/or Madeline repeated it to a family member? it was asked so it was significant.

.....Madeline's missing christmas money which she was questioned about:

but as usual, gives this account as if Madeline was not freaking out on her or SS about it. JS presents this 'me and madeline' united front discussing possibly it was SS. unfortunately, a follow up question where was it found was not asked. nor was, how was Madeline's demeanor, was she angry?

Q So let me just narrow it down. Did she accuse Stephan of taking it?
JS: I'm not sure if she did directly. We—we—we both had the suspicion, but we were like, "No, could he have? No, I don't think so." But I eventually found that money.

Again this is after she knows what this monster did to her child,yet she's still protecting him even under immunity It's as if he is her child she will excuse anything this monster does yet Maddie never mattered at all to her

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Yes, she talks about SS as if she didn't know he had abused and murdered her child (allegedly).

 

[LetsSolvIt]

So she's aware of what can happen at a sleepover, but she's just fine sending her daughter to sleep with a grown man that she's not related to.

I think the sleepover comment was a cover for the SS situation — she had to act like she knows vulnerable situations — she has good motherly instincts and who might be a predator; and since she has such good insight, she would know that SS was a safe situation and *could* be trusted. Hope this makes sense. Hard to put in words but it’s like reverse psychology. OMO.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I think the sleepover comment was a cover for the SS situation — she had to act like she knows vulnerable situations — she has good motherly instincts and who might be a predator; and since she has such good insight, she would know that SS was a safe situation and *could* be trusted. Hope this makes sense. Hard to put in words but it’s like reverse psychology. OMO.

I get you. She's putting on the good mother act when she was anything but.