FL MADELINE SOTO: Missing from Orlando, FL - 26 Feb 2024 - Age 13 *Found Deceased*

Madeline Soto missing: Florida mom begs for daughter's safe return home

A mother in Orange County is begging for help locating her missing daughter.

www.fox35orlando.com

Madeline Soto missing: Florida mom begs for daughter's safe return home​

A mother in Orange County is begging for help locating her missing daughter.

Madeline ‘Maddie’ Soto was last seen on Monday, one day after she and her family celebrated her 13th birthday. Maddie’s mother, Jenn Soto, said surveillance video shows Maddie hanging out in a church parking lot on February 26 after being dropped off for school, but she never made it inside.

"I’m trying to hope for the best, but I’m scared for her," said Jenn Soto. "I want her to be okay; I want her to be safe… I don’t want her to come back harmed. I just want her back – whatever that means, I just want her back."

Jenn Soto said sheriff’s deputies are using K9s and a piece of Maddie’s clothing to try to track her scent near Town Loop Boulevard.

According to Jenn Soto, Maddie had never run away before. She said the teen had forgotten her cell phone at home that morning, but that was normal.

As of Wednesday morning, a variety of search teams are out searching for Maddie.


MEDIA - MADELINE SOTO: Missing from Orlando, FL - 26 Feb 2024 - Age 13

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well that's my view, too, I mean, I don't think he was forced- I know had a choice and yeah, I think the only reason he allowed it is because he knew it wouldn't look good if he didn't.

EXACTLY what I meant too. Agree. Totally. Now of course they need to try to get it thrown out but I think it was totally legal and okay. Heck that is one thing about this case, so much is on video and has been released, it is obvious he handed it over as he felt it wouldn't look good otherwise as you said. He could have said lawyer, and refused....

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Stephan Sterns' sex crimes trial pushed back to July after indecision on evidence

A judge ruled on Wednesday to push back the sex crimes trial for Stephan Sterns to July, as he is still trying to determine what evidence will and will not be applicable. Sterns is accused of killing and sexually abusing 13-year-old Madeline Soto.

www.fox35orlando.com

Stephan Sterns' sex crimes trial pushed back to July after indecision on evidence​

A judge ruled on Wednesday to push back the sex crimes trial for Stephan Sterns to July, as he is still trying to determine what evidence will and will not be applicable. Sterns is accused of killing and sexually abusing 13-year-old Madeline Soto.

The judge's ruling was made at a suppression hearing Wednesday at the Osceola County courthouse.

Although Sterns and his defense team were hoping to delay the suppression hearing, saying they needed more time to review "confidential information," the request was denied at an additional hearing on Tuesday. No details have been provided by Sterns' attorney regarding the confidential information.

The hearing on Wednesday focused on whether evidence from Sterns' phone and Google account was lawfully obtained in the case.

At the hearing, both state prosecutors and Sterns' legal team agreed that investigators got information from his phone without a search warrant.

The state says investigators were right to take Sterns' phone and go through it. They argued that detectives were concerned that Sterns was allegedly getting rid of evidence. Investigators say that pictures and videos were eventually found on Sterns' phone that allegedly showed he had been abusing Soto for years.

The defense says that Sterns only originally gave investigators official consent to look at certain apps and argued that law enforcement pushed boundaries, even calling on Sterns to testify.

"I consented only to them looking at the Google Maps and to see if I was logged into Google in the first place,"Sterns said.

The team is hoping the judge will consider tossing the evidence from the sex crimes trial.

"Law enforcement has consistently overstepped bounds, knew that they didn't have enough for a warrant to get into his phone at first, sought a way to get around that and kept going until they can get to it," one of the attorneys on Sterns' team said.

The judge is expected to next issue a written ruling about what evidence collected from Sterns' phone can or cannot be used.

The decision is anticipated to come before June 30.

 

[GrandmaBear]

OMG sometimes I really don't like our system. And I value my privacy so I get that of course I wouldn't want anyone invading it but them I'm not one that is doing the bad things. So I get needing the right and having rights to privacy but still LE needs some legs and options to catch people. A lot of things are on video and I don't recall him limiting to certain apps and so on @Regina do you?

You might not agree here but the remarks about not enough to get a warrant, well imo Jen Soto can be thanked for some of that, IF TRUE, I don't automatically trust D claims. She was covering for him or at minimum believing in him. Could they get a warrant or not? I mean I'm sure his statements were not adding up I'd guess. Anyhow I'll wait to see this shake out I think.

Two things here. FIRST we all already know what he did to this child. And that he recorded it and so on. I mean there is little doubt what a predator this "man" is. Allegedly. On the other side of things as I said I value my privacy and don't think it should be invaded without cause, however, I'm also not doing evil things like he is. I get the rights thing. On I guess there are three, a third note, like I said LE needs to have SOME abilities if we want criminals caught. Every single one of us know one can insist on a lawyer and refuse to hand that phone over and he DID NOT.

I guess those are my points and I am beyond right now putting them together but I think they make sense just listed together for those that can.

And I do NOT recall him limiting to just some google map or something.

I truly also don't agree with some laws. If my child went missing, I'd expect to have to hand over my phone and more so I would WANT to. Not that he was her DAD. He was her sickening molestor that destroyed her entire life.

Enough from me.

 

[Regina]

OMG sometimes I really don't like our system. And I value my privacy so I get that of course I wouldn't want anyone invading it but them I'm not one that is doing the bad things. So I get needing the right and having rights to privacy but still LE needs some legs and options to catch people. A lot of things are on video and I don't recall him limiting to certain apps and so on @Regina do you?

You might not agree here but the remarks about not enough to get a warrant, well imo Jen Soto can be thanked for some of that, IF TRUE, I don't automatically trust D claims. She was covering for him or at minimum believing in him. Could they get a warrant or not? I mean I'm sure his statements were not adding up I'd guess. Anyhow I'll wait to see this shake out I think.

Two things here. FIRST we all already know what he did to this child. And that he recorded it and so on. I mean there is little doubt what a predator this "man" is. Allegedly. On the other side of things as I said I value my privacy and don't think it should be invaded without cause, however, I'm also not doing evil things like he is. I get the rights thing. On I guess there are three, a third note, like I said LE needs to have SOME abilities if we want criminals caught. Every single one of us know one can insist on a lawyer and refuse to hand that phone over and he DID NOT.

I guess those are my points and I am beyond right now putting them together but I think they make sense just listed together for those that can.

And I do NOT recall him limiting to just some google map or something.

I truly also don't agree with some laws. If my child went missing, I'd expect to have to hand over my phone and more so I would WANT to. Not that he was her DAD. He was her sickening molestor that destroyed her entire life.

Enough from me.

I went back and listened his interviews with detectives 2/27-28, linked below.
At about 39:33, the detective asked if he had google maps, asked to look and Sterns agreed.
She then asked to take a picture of his history and he agreed and she asked to go into Settings and he again, agreed.
(Noticeable are his many very heavy sighs as she fiddled with his phone, lmao!)
She eventually told him she was gonna hold onto his phone and he was agreeable to that.
The next day, at about 1:08:27 in the video, he clearly gave consent for LE to have full access to his phone without a warrant.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I went back and listened his interviews with detectives 2/27-28, linked below.
At about 39:33, the detective asked if he had google maps, asked to look and Sterns agreed.
She then asked to take a picture of his history and he agreed and she asked to go into Settings and he again, agreed.
(Noticeable are his many very heavy sighs as she fiddled with his phone, lmao!)
She eventually told him she was gonna hold onto his phone and he was agreeable to that.
The next day, at about 1:08:27 in the video, he clearly gave consent for LE to have full access to his phone without a warrant.

I'm not in a place I can go back and watch, search, etc. but I trust what you just said. So he DID agree to all without a warrant which is what I thought. So recalled right lol for once. Often do, but not always.

Man when I just came in here and saw that pic of him, so digusting to me, I thought of that poor little girl immediately putting up with him since childhood. INSTANTLY. Such a creeper.

I know you and I don't necessarily agree on mom/Jen Soto but just looking at him and all the yrs, I don't know with all the things how you never pick up on it. Sending to bed together. So on. It is just really hard to fathom.

But so anyhow, back to the point, the phone thing then sounds pretty solid? I thought it was pretty much all on video. And thought it solid. Full access, there we go. He agreed.

 

[Regina]

I'm not in a place I can go back and watch, search, etc. but I trust what you just said. So he DID agree to all without a warrant which is what I thought. So recalled right lol for once. Often do, but not always.

Man when I just came in here and saw that pic of him, so digusting to me, I thought of that poor little girl immediately putting up with him since childhood. INSTANTLY. Such a creeper.

I know you and I don't necessarily agree on mom/Jen Soto but just looking at him and all the yrs, I don't know with all the things how you never pick up on it. Sending to bed together. So on. It is just really hard to fathom.

But so anyhow, back to the point, the phone thing then sounds pretty solid? I thought it was pretty much all on video. And thought it solid. Full access, there we go. He agreed.

Correctiion: that last timestamp in the video should be 103:27. (Really, it's sometimes as though all I accomplish here is correcting oopsies, lol.)
Anyway, I think it could be that there's dialogue between the detective and Sterns that wasn't recorded because in the video, the detective reminded Sterns that she'd told him that they wanted to download his phone and I don't remember hearing that and if it's anywhere in that video I posted, I obviously missed it (which isn't out of the realm of possibility, lol).
The circumstance from where I sit is that the detective told him that she would hold onto his phone yet the next day, told Sterns that they'd gone thorough his phone and saw lots of messages and facetiming with Madeline and so I can see why that'd be an issue but I don't know how they could have got into his phone if they didn't have the pin, which the detective asked for later.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Correctiion: that last timestamp in the video should be 103:27. (Really, it's sometimes as though all I accomplish here is correcting oopsies, lol.)
Anyway, I think it could be that there's dialogue between the detective and Sterns that wasn't recorded because in the video, the detective reminded Sterns that she'd told him that they wanted to download his phone and I don't remember hearing that and if it's anywhere in that video I posted, I obviously missed it (which isn't out of the realm of possibility, lol).
The circumstance from where I sit is that the detective told him that she would hold onto his phone yet the next day, told Sterns that they'd gone thorough his phone and saw lots of messages and facetiming with Madeline and so I can see why that'd be an issue but I don't know how they could have got into his phone if they didn't have the pin, which the detective asked for later.

The downloading sounds familiar. I'm a bit lost, so you think there may have been talk they did not record?

Still sounds as if he gave it willingly. Or do you no longer think so?

I can tell you that I never used to have a PIN on my phone, I only added one when I started working and we use them at work and I didn't want anyone picking phone up and getting into it as like probably a lot of people, I griped about the job on occasion lol. Nothing too bad, back to back shifts, things like that--but I'd forgotten it and left i lay on occasion where anyone could have picked it up so I added a PIN then. Do you know whether he had one or not? One does not have to have on is what I am saying. My last two phones one had to be added

Oh now i see you said they asked for the PIN later so ignore my last paragraph lol. So he DID have a pin? Well then so you are saying they did not have the PIN but claimed they saw messages on his phone before they had a PIN? I dont know why your post is confusing me but it is lol. I guess since I did not rewatch anything, I'm not getting it.

To be more clear, you are saying they claimed to have been into the phone before he gave them a PIN? And was that before they kept it but had only glanced at it with him therle? Maybe he got into it for them or it was already cleared with the PIN?

I'm sorry, I just got up and I'm really not tracking too well yet I guess because I'm just not getting the points here and need more explanation I guess.

So boy I get confusion and correcting things let me tell ya, happens to me all of the time too.

 

[Regina]

The downloading sounds familiar. I'm a bit lost, so you think there may have been talk they did not record?

Still sounds as if he gave it willingly. Or do you no longer think so?

I can tell you that I never used to have a PIN on my phone, I only added one when I started working and we use them at work and I didn't want anyone picking phone up and getting into it as like probably a lot of people, I griped about the job on occasion lol. Nothing too bad, back to back shifts, things like that--but I'd forgotten it and left i lay on occasion where anyone could have picked it up so I added a PIN then. Do you know whether he had one or not? One does not have to have on is what I am saying. My last two phones one had to be added

Oh now i see you said they asked for the PIN later so ignore my last paragraph lol. So he DID have a pin? Well then so you are saying they did not have the PIN but claimed they saw messages on his phone before they had a PIN? I dont know why your post is cohis pin. nfusing me but it is lol. I guess since I did not rewatch anything, I'm not getting it.

To be more clear, you are saying they claimed to have been into the phone before he gave them a PIN? And was that before they kept it but had only glanced at it with him therle? Maybe he got into it for them or it was already cleared with the PIN?

I'm sorry, I just got up and I'm really not tracking too well yet I guess because I'm just not getting the points here and need more explanation I guess.

So boy I get confusion and correcting things let me tell ya, happens to me all of the time too.

At one point, she asked him to "enter his pin one more time" and it wasn't until the end of the interview on the 28th that she asked for his pin and so how could they have "gone through" (her words) his phone if they didn't have the pin?

 

[GrandmaBear]

At one point, she asked him to "enter his pin one more time" and it wasn't until the end of the interview on the 28th that she asked for his pin and so how could they have "gone through" (her words) his phone if they didn't have the pin?

I don't know. Because they had it on from him entering it? Maybe she knew it but wanted it on record they asked for it? I guess I'd have to watch and believe me not up to it to see. I'm takingi your word for it that okay she claims they went through it but then asked for the PIN after that claim? Is that what you are saying?
'
Are you sure they didn't go through when he did enter the pin and that's what was meant? That they saw things then when he entered it?

Trying not to get confused here and be sure of what you mean is all.

I guess since the D is fighting it, it will come out in hearings I'd think what they claim?

I wish I knew of someone covering this but so many are on Daybell and now Read, I don't encounter much on this one.

I'm not in a place I can go back over things in cases right now plus I doubt I'd take it in anyhow. Perhaps even wouldn't if someone was covering it and I watched. Lol but not. Just not doing too great right now. ABout only thing I manage is to try to be online here, and barely managingi that today.

Hope all well with you.

So what are you thinking being you've watched it and all? His phone was taken legally and he gave it or not? With what we know from it he did to that child, I'd have a fit if it was decided it was not and they ditched that evidence.

Also this cryptic thing about some new evidence but they can't share it with the judge or anyone yada, yada, irritates me.