Found Deceased FL - Madeline Soto, 13, Missing Child Alert, 13500 blk Town Loop Blvd, Orlando, 26 Feb 2024 *arrest* #12

[iamshadow21]

I am reminded of the text JS sent SS....something like: I cant afford to have Maddie sleep with me anymore.
What was that about.
And after listening to CS speak with LE he described when JS told him to get SS a lawyer. She was not stressed at all about hearing about SA or that her child was missing.
And when JS was being interviewed by LE or media....it was all about "her" story, no pleas about finding her daughter. Not sure she even brought up Maddie's name when speaking with LE. VERY odd. IMO

"Maddie is no longer sleeping with me, I can't risk it."

Yeah, claimed she didn't remember and couldn't explain the text's meaning.

Uhuh, sure. Pull the other one, JS, it's got bells on.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

FWIW I think her statement about MS not sleeping with her, couldn't risk it was all about JS. Her priority was her mental health and she didn't want anything to interfere with her meds. Not her meds, her routine, her sleep, her new job. Parenting got in the way of that.

jmo

 

[iamshadow21]

FWIW I think her statement about MS not sleeping with her, couldn't risk it was all about JS. Her priority was her mental health and she didn't want anything to interfere with her meds. Not her meds, her routine, her sleep, her new job. Parenting got in the way of that.

jmo

I think what's interesting about that text is I think, 100%, that LE have the text message he sent before she replied to that. So, they have the context, they just wanted to see what she would say when questioned about it.

I think there was nothing innocent about his request (hence her convenient and predictable memory loss), and the pattern of their messages over time combined with the dates of his visits and the date stamps on the CSAM would mean they know exactly what was going on there.

MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

FWIW I think her statement about MS not sleeping with her, couldn't risk it was all about JS. Her priority was her mental health and she didn't want anything to interfere with her meds. Not her meds, her routine, her sleep, her new job. Parenting got in the way of that.

jmo

I cant remember the exact word she used...but "risk" was not about meds, etc. imo. More coverup lies.
Her lack of concern that Maddie was missing convinces me, she knew what happened.

And her regurgitation of the same "story" was rehearsed. imo....as was SS's.

 

[Poedelini]

Im working on a timeline and JS is contradicting herself in the same interview. Tell me im seeing that wrong?
Page 32 in the 896 page PDF file.

 

[iamshadow21]

Im working on a timeline and JS is contradicting herself in the same interview. Tell me im seeing that wrong?
Page 32 in the 896 page PDF file.

Just because you wake up doesn't mean you get up then. I don't think it's a flat out contradiction.

MOO

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Im working on a timeline and JS is contradicting herself in the same interview. Tell me im seeing that wrong?
Page 32 in the 896 page PDF file.

I have to agree with what you cite there @Poedelini . Nice catch! It does seems inconsistent, and right in the same statement displayed in that image. Two different times for when she states SS had woken IIUC.

And yet JS IIRC had also woven in something about having heard someone in the kitchen around that time. But she was unsure who it was, or so she said. So the timeline IMO is even more fluid or less specific. (The individual(s) in the kitchen statement is right mid center of that image.) As some might say, pinning that down is like nailing jello to a wall. MOO

 

[cujenn81]

I am reminded of the text JS sent SS....something like: I cant afford to have Maddie sleep with me anymore.
What was that about.
And after listening to CS speak with LE he described when JS told him to get SS a lawyer. She was not stressed at all about hearing about SA or that her child was missing.
And when JS was being interviewed by LE or media....it was all about "her" story, no pleas about finding her daughter. Not sure she even brought up Maddie's name when speaking with LE. VERY odd. IMO

That’s been my problem with JS from the jump. In every single interview, she tells her story from a justification point of view.

Maddie had her party at my mother’s house because I had to work.
I sent Maddie upstairs to sleep with Stephan because I needed a good night of sleep.
Stephan took her to school that morning because I wanted to sleep in.
Maddie is missing because she has ADHD and left her phone at home because she’s forgetful and does that often.
I left the school when I didn’t see her exit because I was holding up the line.

This woman has been in defensive mode from Day 1. Why was it so important to her that she defend herself and explain her reasoning behind every decision she made—without being asked? I’ll tell you why. Because SHE KNEW how her choices would make her look. SHE KNEW they were selfish and wrong. SHE KNEW she shouldn’t have sent her child to bed with a grown *advertiser censored* man. SHE KNEW… and she did it anyway. And then when she was faced with the public learning about it, she tried incredibly hard to justify her actions in an effort to make them seem rational. It didn’t work.

I think one of the most poignant points made on The Behavior Panel video of the March 1 interview was this— in reference to JS saying she rarely sent Maddie to sleep upstairs with SS… she said it only happened a few times. Greg Hartley points out that such statements are common from people who have groomed children.

At 1:05:22 in the video:

 

[iamshadow21]

I think one of the most poignant points made on The Behavior Panel video of the March 1 interview was this— in reference to JS saying she rarely sent Maddie to sleep upstairs with SS… she said it only happened a few times. Greg Hartley points out that such statements are common from people who have groomed children.

At 1:05:22 in the video:

RSBM

Yeah, that combined with the 'sex stuff isn't evil' and 'oral isn't rape' are, combined, a hideous trifecta of child rape apologism and enabling.

I honestly think her being uncharged is a travesty.

MOO

 

[cujenn81]

RSBM

Yeah, that combined with the 'sex stuff isn't evil' and 'oral isn't rape' are, combined, a hideous trifecta of child rape apologism and enabling.

I honestly think her being uncharged is a travesty.

MOO

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[Gemmie]

Im working on a timeline and JS is contradicting herself in the same interview. Tell me im seeing that wrong?
Page 32 in the 896 page PDF file.

What I'm seeing is that SS "woke her up" around 8am to "put the leash on the dog" (a lie on his part of why he was in her room when she was sleeping). I then read that JS "got out of bed" around 9am. Waking up and getting up aren't the same thing IMO. An example is myself (true story). I "woke up" around 3am this morning, and finally fell back asleep around 5am. I "got out of bed" around 8:30.

So... not the same thing IMO.

 

[Pruddennce]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Keep wondering if SS might eventually or ultimately provide information about any one else’s possible involvement.

IMO it is hard not to think that the parents CS and DS should also be examined. For items such as the apparent missing or unfounded computer hard drive at a minimum.

And as @Pruddennce notes in post # 1008 above, the apparent ‘sorting it out’ in SS room in their house. With SS visits and appearance there IIUC after MS was missing, hard not to see possible tampering with evidence or obstruction of justice? The investigation had only begun and was ongoing!

IMO if other charges can be laid, it might help invigorate or ‘fresh-start’ the investigation and change the dynamic between anyone suspected or involved. MOO

I agree. IMO, his parents gave the impression they were 'cooperating' but IMO it was selective and conflicting as to what they knew firsthand....IMO, there are many dizzying explanations for this or that that doesnt line up.

its also noteworthy that CS did not volunteer information he had a storage unit originally. he relays the story in the parental interview with Det Smallwood when asked about the storage unit keys, etc. CS says that when he was told by "Alex" (Det Alex Richards) wednesday evening that SS was in Northport early wednesday morning, CS relayed he said 'really'...and he said "I couldnt imagine why', then he said he was told by "Alex" that they had information SS possibly went to his storage unit, he then begins the storage unit story access/no access story.

this was interesting to me: CS states he spoke to SS AFTER he arrived in Kissimmee on the 25th. (no time stated) why were they talking on the phone?

then CS said he tried to call him several times in the morning on 2/26, no answer. why was he calling SS in the morning?

then SS calls him back at 15:17 hours, and CS says his voice 'sounded off" and SS tells him about the flat tire on Highway 192 and 'hurting his finger' and specifically how the injury happened. then SS calls CS again at 16:54 and told him there was an 'occurrence', and CS punctuates how he felt that was a 'strange use of words'. and SS tells him all about Madeline missing etc.

CS hightailing it down to Kissimmee to the hotel at that hour, why not just come up first thing in the morning? what did he expect to accomplish with SS and JS and the situation at that time of the morning? wasnt he concerned enough when he got the call on 2/26 Madeline was 'missing' and get there to assist in any way he can?

the next morning CS gets up and goes to his office. he claims he has no idea if JS and SS were in their rooms when he left and only found out that SS wasnt there when JS called and said he wasnt there. CS is so intuitive and he asks if her car keys are there? why would he immediately think SS left in her car?