Found Deceased FL - Madeline Soto, 13, Missing Child Alert, 13500 blk Town Loop Blvd, Orlando, 26 Feb 2024 *arrest* #14

You would think!! Sounds like the security guard isn't super credible to me. After all, who is going to debunk what he says he saw? Certainly not SS... although the defense could argue how could he see a clicker and not a dead body?
Nothing I've heard thus far tells me that the security guard isn't, or won't be, credible. Why he didn't see Maddie depends on a lot of reasons. Was SS's body blocking his view? I KNOW SS didn't allow the guard to approach the car. (JMO on that but c'mon... he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but even he's not that stupid). He more than likely got out and went to the window to talk to him.

Or... he didn't pull far enough up for the guard to get a look into the car, along with getting out and walking to the window or door to chat. Or... the angle of where the guard was standing (likely still inside that building at the window or door) wasn't ideal to see the passenger side of the car.

Here's the guardhouse. The street is wide with 2 lanes so it's not like it's a narrow lane leading in so he'd be super close to the guardhouse. SS likely was stopped all the way over on the right side, as far from the guardhouse as he could be.

1738087847697.png

It doesn't look like that window opens, nor is it used to communicate with people IMO. More than likely they come to the door which is either being pointed out by the red or yellow arrow. It's hard to tell from the only angle picture that I could find.
1738087976374.png

All JMO.

All JMO.
 
Nothing I've heard thus far tells me that the security guard isn't, or won't be, credible. Why he didn't see Maddie depends on a lot of reasons. Was SS's body blocking his view? I KNOW SS didn't allow the guard to approach the car. (JMO on that but c'mon... he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but even he's not that stupid). He more than likely got out and went to the window to talk to him.

Or... he didn't pull far enough up for the guard to get a look into the car, along with getting out and walking to the window or door to chat. Or... the angle of where the guard was standing (likely still inside that building at the window or door) wasn't ideal to see the passenger side of the car.

Here's the guardhouse. The street is wide with 2 lanes so it's not like it's a narrow lane leading in so he'd be super close to the guardhouse. SS likely was stopped all the way over on the right side, as far from the guardhouse as he could be.

View attachment 560995

It doesn't look like that window opens, nor is it used to communicate with people IMO. More than likely they come to the door which is either being pointed out by the red or yellow arrow. It's hard to tell from the only angle picture that I could find.
View attachment 560997

All JMO.

All JMO.
I think there is a statement from him. I don't know if he said anything about Maddi in the vehicle or not, he could have just thought she was sleeping?
Regardless , if he had a clicker why did he need to stop.? He should be hustlin right through there.
I'll look for the statement.
 
Regarding the security guard.

Imagine you're standing up talking to the driver on the driver's side of the car.

You can see the driver and most of their body clearly, but if there is someone in the passenger seat, all you can see of them is essentially their lap.

And why would you even suspect that the passenger that you can't see much of is actually deceased instead of just napping?

The security guard deserves no blame for anything.
 
The security guard deserves no blame for anything.
totally agree, just trying to figure out why he went back to the complex, its coming up b/c Stephan says it was for the clicker but this pdf, is not that clear, It is the police that say " it was in his hands" Im wondering if the police saw it on surveillance maybe?? It's a little vague, doesn't really say why this writer wrote or believes Stephan had the clicker in his hand.
I guess it doesn't matter about the clicker we know it's likely not true,
but he returned twice ( below). It just sounds like he was scrambling, not knowing what to do.
8:19 to -8:31 maddi in front seat
10:14-10:54 maddi not in front seat ( this was after he moved her to the trunk)
 
Last edited:
"Stephan said they had time to kill [...]"

::chills running up my spine::
SS also said she was "shambling" in the direction of school after he dropped her off. I found that comment cringe worthy as well as the way zombies walk is depicted as shambling. I'm also a TWD fan hence me immediately thinking of how the dead walk when he said shambling.

Video copied a few seconds before him saying that:
 
SS also said she was "shambling" in the direction of school after he dropped her off. I found that comment cringe worthy as well as the way zombies walk is depicted as shambling. I'm also a TWD fan hence me immediately thinking of how the dead walk when he said shambling.

Video copied a few seconds before him saying that:
“… time to kill …” and “… shambling …” = Freudian slips o_O
 
Stephan Sterns is doing all he can to prevent a potential death sentence as his attorneys filed a series of motions this week seeking to have the penalty struck on the basis that it’s unconstitutional.
[snip]
Sterns’ attorneys in the murder case filed three separate motions on Thursday seeking to have the death penalty disqualified as a potential punishment, arguing it’s unconstitutional. All three motions argue that different aspects of the 1996 Florida statute that outline aggravating factors are overly vague and subject to be applied in an “arbitrary and inconsistent manner.”
Stephan Sterns argues potential death sentence is unconstitutional

that is rich. wee wittle Stephan is skeered silly.
 
the recent defense motions arguing against the constitutionality of the death penalty tells me one thing; they've got nothing. nothing to mitigate his eventual sentence, no excuses, nothing.
 
Lot of new dockets added yesterday, thanks to @tlcya pointing that out! 6 to be exact, and 45 pages worth. I've only looked at 2 thus far, but trying to figure out what the bolded part means in relation to SS. Are they talking about case #2024 CF 000632 (CSAM)? If so, why should his CSAM felony get him off the hook for the DP for murdering her?!? Anyone?

1738360112824.png

 
Interesting...

This part sounds like a bunch of waa waa (crying) to me. Of COURSE it's going to be emotional for the jury. A child was SA'ed since the age of EIGHT, by someone that was supposed to be caring for her like a *gag* "step-father", AND then murdered after her 13th birthday party!!!! Man is this making my blood boil. My clients rights... waa waa... What about MADDIE'S rights?!?!? :mad:

Victim impact evidence, particularly in a death penalty trial, is normally of an extremely emotional nature, and has a high probability of unduly, unfairly, and unconstitutionally inflaming the jury, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to get a fair sentencing phase of his trial, free of bias and prejudice.

1738360585757.png

https://courts.osceolaclerk.com/
 
Lot of new dockets added yesterday, thanks to @tlcya pointing that out! 6 to be exact, and 45 pages worth. I've only looked at 2 thus far, but trying to figure out what the bolded part means in relation to SS. Are they talking about case #2024 CF 000632 (CSAM)? If so, why should his CSAM felony get him off the hook for the DP for murdering her?!? Anyone?

View attachment 561795

here is the full statute quoted in this motion Florida statute 921.141
 
Interesting...

This part sounds like a bunch of waa waa (crying) to me. Of COURSE it's going to be emotional for the jury. A child was SA'ed since the age of EIGHT, by someone that was supposed to be caring for her like a *gag* "step-father", AND then murdered after her 13th birthday party!!!! Man is this making my blood boil. My clients rights... waa waa... What about MADDIE'S rights?!?!? :mad:

Victim impact evidence, particularly in a death penalty trial, is normally of an extremely emotional nature, and has a high probability of unduly, unfairly, and unconstitutionally inflaming the jury, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to get a fair sentencing phase of his trial, free of bias and prejudice.

View attachment 561797

https://courts.osceolaclerk.com/
it is totally waaaa waaaa. Here is Section (8) they are referencing:

(8) VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE.—Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the existence of one or more aggravating factors as described in subsection (6), the prosecution may introduce, and subsequently argue, victim impact evidence to the jury. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim’s uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community’s members by the victim’s death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as a part of victim impact evidence.

their motion seems to suggest their client committed a crime so heinous that even though the statute allows for victim impact statements the defense thinks that those statements would be so emotional and so upset the jury that they might unduly be swayed to sentence little Stephan to death.

1) GOOD, and
2) finding it hard to imagine JS summoning up any sort of emotion for her daughter during her impact statement. So I am not sure who they think is going to prejudice the jury. :rolleyes:
 

Keep Websleuths Free

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
4,450
Total visitors
4,528

Forum statistics

Threads
618,677
Messages
18,387,606
Members
238,143
Latest member
Linapurple
Back
Top