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

[lonetraveler]

I will always wonder how we got from "I told them no no no, this can't happen very often" ( ) to Madeline being literally forced by JS to sleep with SS -- not even just to sleep in her own cot/on the couch downstairs, but specifically in his bed in Room #4 -- despite Madeline begging JS for them all to sleep together, that one fateful night (most likely in an effort to avoid the continued abuse she knew was coming if he managed to get her alone).

This is why I will always believe JS was complicit. No good parent goes from that first extreme to the other. Not only that, but if she was truly worried about losing him to the Woody Allen scenario, why would she force it? There are few explanations, and none of them good.

If they lived in that condo that whole time (pretty sure they did), then, at some point, there absolutely must have been options for Madeline other than Room #4, when JS apparently needed her sleep. There's no getting around the fact that JS made any/all of those no longer an option by the time of these events, because she specifically forced Madeline to go sleep with SS in Room #4, despite Madeline's pleas to the contrary.

This is exactly why I'm so angry that JS is not in jail and charged with everything he is charged with.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

Here is a snippet of the doc they are talking about.

7. Since filing that motion, the Defense has come in to possession of confidential information that may impact the presentation of evidence at that hearing. Filing # 220927980 E-Filed 04/14/2025 11:14:04 AM

8. The Defense will not have time to develop this evidence before the currently scheduled Motions to Suppress scheduled for hearing on April 23, 2025.

9. As such, Defense is requesting to continue these hearings to be reset for a later date.

https://courts.osceolaclerk.com/BenchmarkWeb/Image.aspx/PDFViewer2?cid=59300668&digest=Y7iPJVG7ZSVNA%2B1%2BsPZRXw

Are we allowed to speculate on what this information might be and why it would be confidential? It’s not going to be confidential if they want to use it in trial? And defense has to share all discovery with state — so it won’t be confidential then. Right? What could be so confidential?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Are we allowed to speculate on what this information might be and why it would be confidential? It’s not going to be confidential if they want to use it in trial? And defense has to share all discovery with state — so it won’t be confidential then. Right? What could be so confidential?

We're allowed to speculate as long as we word it to make clear that it is speculation or opinion and not fact.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Judge denies Stephan Sterns' motion to push suppression hearing, 'confidential information' not shared

A judge has denied Stephan Sterns' motion to push Wednesday's suppression hearing during a hearing Tuesday.

www.fox35orlando.com

 

[tlcya]

However, in Tuesday's hearing, the motion was denied. The "confidential information" the defense claims to have was never revealed to the court. The judge stated that there has been plenty of time to prepare for these hearings. Citing that the case began over a year ago in February 2024 and there has been nothing presented to the court that would prove the defense's claim.
Judge denies Stephan Sterns' motion to push suppression hearing, 'confidential information' not shared

 

[Gemmie]

However, in Tuesday's hearing, the motion was denied. The "confidential information" the defense claims to have was never revealed to the court. The judge stated that there has been plenty of time to prepare for these hearings. Citing that the case began over a year ago in February 2024 and there has been nothing presented to the court that would prove the defense's claim.
Judge denies Stephan Sterns' motion to push suppression hearing, 'confidential information' not shared

Very interesting. I too wondered what they might have had, that they "claimed" was confidential information. I also wondered if what they "claimed" was actually real, or just a ruse to push the case out.

 

[PayrollNerd]

Crybaby doesn’t want to go to real prison because he knows what happens to child molesters/killers.

 

[ttjo]

They want a delay to explore evidence that may or may not benefit the defence. (They don't even know yet)

Don't ask for any more info on what this new evidence is that would warrant a delay. Just take their word that they're not just using a stall tactic.
Don't ask for an ex parte hearing because this info is so top secret they can't even disclose it to the courts.
They want the judge to grant a delay, without having the respect to tell him what has come up that would warrant the delay, do they even know? Since they can't determine if it will even benefit the defence.
That did it for me, you can't show your hand, but you want the judge to trust you and grant a delay and if not, it will be an injustice to the defence, according to her cited cases.
Note to self: Don't even try to test a judge.

Too little and too late, but I sure hope this doesn't give them grounds for an appeal.

( Maybe they need more time to hunt down a critical but possibly missing witness )

 

[Wallendo]

The "confidential information" is likely a tip or rumor that had not been investigated. If it were really important, this information would have been shared with the judge. IMHO.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

The motion to suppress hearing is underway and live.

WATCH LIVE: Hearing to discuss cell phone evidence in Madeline Soto case

The man accused of raping and murdering 13-year-old Madeline Soto is due back in court for a hearing discussing cell phone evidence connected to the case.

www.clickorlando.com

Detective Frank Hunt looks NOTHING like I pictured./random

 

[Megnut]

The motion to suppress hearing is underway and live.

WATCH LIVE: Hearing to discuss cell phone evidence in Madeline Soto case

The man accused of raping and murdering 13-year-old Madeline Soto is due back in court for a hearing discussing cell phone evidence connected to the case.

www.clickorlando.com

Detective Frank Hunt looks NOTHING like I pictured./random

I just tuned it. Witness is describing the process of factory resetting.

Guess what. It's not easy to "accidentally" do.

Guess what else. After a factory reset, when you sign back into your Google account, it'll politely repopulate your phone with photos, contacts, etc, etc.

SS reset his phone (the first time) after midnight. At 2 am, it was repopulating....

What happened, SS, by midnight that you needed to reset your phone?

 

[Megnut]

The "confidential information" is likely a tip or rumor that had not been investigated. If it were really important, this information would have been shared with the judge. IMHO.

Or an unrelated hair, fiber, fingerprint.

Unrelated = irrelevant

JMO

 

[Megnut]

FWIW SS isn't wasting away.

Looks quite robust. Must be getting an abundant supply of fatbeer barrels.

JMO

 

[ttjo]

I just tuned it. Witness is describing the process of factory resetting.

Guess what. It's not easy to "accidentally" do.

Guess what else. After a factory reset, when you sign back into your Google account, it'll politely repopulate your phone with photos, contacts, etc, etc.

SS reset his phone (the first time) after midnight. At 2 am, it was repopulating....

What happened, SS, by midnight that you needed to reset your phone?

That might be a pretty good indicator of when things likely happened. He must have been having a "catastrophic breakdown" for 5 hrs before he decided to hide her body.

 

[ttjo]

FWIW SS isn't wasting away.

Looks quite robust. Must be getting an abundant supply of fatbeer barrels.

JMO

Just for fun, everyone should see Jumpsuit Pablo's video on the court hearing yesterday. That guy is hilarious, just watch it for the entertainment value alone and a good laugh during this horrible case. The video is 20 minutes and is all about the root beer barrels. ( 9 min is the funniest part IMO )

 

[Megnut]

Defense asking to throw out the google search warrant. Judge says the Defense hasn't shown any cause to.

Defense asking to suppress the Google searches.

Ha! Saying there was no 'exigency due to destruction of evidence' because SS had ... already destroyed the evidence (by resetting it).

What a miserable job this Defense attorney has.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

State is well prepared.

Had every reason to seize the phone.

MS was missing.
SS was the last person to see her.
He'd already already reset it.
LE wanted to preserve what was left on the phone.

 

[ttjo]

State is well prepared.

Had every reason to seize the phone.

MS was missing.
SS was the last person to see her.
He'd already already reset it.
LE wanted to preserve what was left on the phone.

its awfully suspicious when the last person who see's her, has a deleted history at the same time she goes missing. I am behind but I remember someone in here talking about exigent circumstances regarding the search warrant, here is one source,( just the first one I found )

Law enforcement can also seize or search a phone without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances present. Exigent circumstances include emergency situations requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious danger to property, or to stop the imminent escape of a suspect, or to stop the destruction of evidence. For instance, if law enforcement is arresting someone they believe has kidnapped a minor child and they believe the person’s cell phone contains information about the location missing child then law enforcement may be able to go into the phone without a warrant. In this situation, if the child’s life is in immediate danger and waiting on a warrant could put the child’s life in further peril, the police would be able to get into the phone without a warrant or consent due to the exigent circumstance; however, these situations are rare.
source :Criminal Defense & Personal Injury Attorney | Tallahassee, FL

 

[IzzyBlanche]

its awfully suspicious when the last person who see's her, has a deleted history at the same time she goes missing. I remember looking at this when it happened and wasn't there some grounds for not needing a search warrant , I recall something like that, i.e. when someone is in danger, something like that.?

He consented to the search of his phone. Bottom line. IMO

 

[ttjo]

He consented to the search of his phone. Bottom line. IMO

I sure hope so. How do you ignore that?
I am behind in watching,