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

 

[Regina]

No, I think Riley was missing 12 or 13 days, wasn't he?
I know in the pc, the police chief said he was informed that it's expected that a body of Riley's height and weight would surface in 12-14 days, which I hadn't known prior and so aware of the other case, I expected his body would have surfaced sooner unless it was trapped by debris.

Correction: The sheriff said it was the 14th day and that his body could surface in 14-20 days.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I'd imagined the car as moving and hadn't thought of the trunk but yeah, that makes the most sense to me.
So if that's right, it seems to me he may have gone back to the dumpster where he'd earlier ditched her belongings.

I'm not fdllowing, the car was moving, they wouldn't have seen her in the trunk if so.

Not following returning to the dumpster either? He dumped her miles away.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Do you think it could have anything to do with the custody agreement with Madeline's father? That because she wasn't married to Stephan, he wasn't permitted to be live there?

It's a thought but I can tell you we tried to stop my grandkids' dad from seeing when he had a new gf present he had just met and was putting with the kids and the court cared less/did nothing even though imo there were valid things that had happened that should have not been ignored so I don't know how common that is. Now if he had a sex offender status or a fomer record of such I'd think that might be a possibility but it doesn't seem like he does but who knows. There also could have been some incident or claim where he was not to live there, be around her alone or some such. CPS even. No one seems to have asked if they were ever involved in Jenn's life, Maddies etc. for any reason.

It is Florida though and not my state or county where I was not impresssed whatsoever with such so perhaps you are right, it is certainly a possibility. I do get the "impression" she was not to have him there, some didn't think much of it or would if they knew she had him there and that kind of thing...

Here's Plunder with a new one. There are some tidbits in it that I hadn't seen. Footage of them that night near THE car, crime scene tape and forensics units at the home, I didn't know Stephan's father had given a short statement and some other things. Part of grandma's Telemundo interview translated and some various little things here and there that maybe you or others had seen but I have not. Plunder also got the jail phone logs, doesn't show a lot but that he tried to call dad, someone in San Antonio, etc. I'm sure she will continue to obtain such and try for all things she can FOIA.

I'd have to rewatch it but I don't recall mom ever being near Jenn or him (meaning grandma).

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well, I don't believe it's possible that she saw Madeline at 8, I mean, I believe she was dead before then, sometime after she was home from the party but before Stephan ditched her belongings at 7:35.

I'm not at a point where I can believe one scenario over another yet. These really are the big questions and too much conflicts or is unaswered to go either direction for me without more clarified/cleared up. We certainly don't have to agree but it isn't like I disagree, just simply haven't decided yet.

 

[GrandmaBear]

And this statement made by mom along with her "we" drove her, etc are exactly why she needs to be looked into. She very possibly was just so "into" him and was easily gaslighted but it also could mean much, much more. I can't give her a pass yet.

I can't either. There's too much without answer yet. It's even POSSIBLE her first story to police was "we took her to school" and only when faced with they found something to show they knew better, that changed... And then she may have said "we" again in the interview to show that's just how she talks if LE had gotten after her about it and that was her explanation or some such. Don't know, but a thought...

WAy, way too many questions yet. Enough appears she was lying for him and even the 8 a.m. sighting was possibly for him and a lie. Or she may have seen her but not getting dressed sadly (IF already dead)...

I'm hung on whether she was killed in the car or the home honestly. I think the home more likely BUT a few things lend to the car...

Anywhooo because of so many non working things and questions, I'm undecided of anything but his guilt and that's pretty much wrapped up for me.

 

[GrandmaBear]

He supposedly was trapped under a barge and yes, nearly two weeks. The barge owner was moving equipment and found him is what I last saw.

I saw that too and that the barge owner (and others I'm sure) were advised to keep eyes peeled while working, etc. Heard earlier in the case a lot of barges, sounding like this river is used heavily for such.

 

[GrandmaBear]

For the record, I never said she shouldn't have been "looked into", or that she should be given a pass.
Anyway, it sounds to me like there're still looking into her a month later and heck if I know why but I think it's apparent by now and should be evident to LE that she had nothing to with anything surrounding what Sterns is currently charged with.

I don't know, there's a heck of a lot of years to look into here for her to answer to. Not that if she is lawyered up (we don't know) that she is providing any info and in that case, they probably can't clear her that easily even as to the sexual things and her knowledge or lack of it. I don't think a month is any time at all when most of that month has probably been focused on higher priorities like finding Maddie, discovering early the sh*t on his phone and going that route, reviewing and charging as soon as they can and then charging again with another 60 counts. Then it would also be Maddie found and investigation on that and autopsy. The search of their home, his car and so on. It was CLEAR they needed him off the street ASAP, mom doesn't likely need to be that high of a priority. He could have went and molested another child, even if she knew anything I doubt she is that kind of risk. Then there was the handing off of the case and all of that.

I think it's little time although to us of course it seems too long and we'd like answers quicker and arrests if any more are coming, or will ever come.

BUt again, they have YEARS, time periods, and would need to know where mom was, where she worked, when she was home and all of that to the best of their ability to find out. I'd guess they will go back with her phone and computer and all records as far as they can as well.

I doubt they've scratched the surface yet with all against him or all they are going to continue to find, but whether one likes it or not, this goes back like what five years and maybe six if I recall to when Maddie was single digits? Yes, there's a lot to look at re mom--and I mean to either clear her or charge her.

Dad lives in TX from what I just heard on Plunder. That would mean he couldn't have seen her much or easily during the school year.I wonder as you said if he/they (he is married I believe and Maddie had a stepmother but in their case it's true I think unlike Stephan being her "stepfather' which seems not to be) had issued with the situation and perhaps there was some agreement or court order that he not be there. Certainly is possible. I also wonder if there was any acrimony, custody fights, child support issues and that's something no reporter or anyone has thought to take a look at. Plunder would be the type that would into everything but I'm not sure that she has yet into that side of things/history.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Correction: The sheriff said it was the 14th day and that his body could surface in 14-20 days.

Close enough. I heard it too and couldn't have given you exact, I came away with recalling in the range of two weeks.

 

[GrandmaBear]

INTERESTING. I'd heard Gray refer to and hint at it prior but no more than that and now he is sharing it.

Every person should know about this site even aside from this case for the sake of their children if no other reason.

Less than 14 minutes and interesting. If it was a 3 to 10 hour Gray I wouldn't have watched.

So Stephen was on the site mere hours before he threw Maddie's stuff. Or so it appears. Worth a listen for a variety of reasons imo. And it's short enough.

 

[Regina]

I'm not fdllowing, the car was moving, they wouldn't have seen her in the trunk if so.

Not following returning to the dumpster either? He dumped her miles away.

Indeed, the way the sheriff said it, it sounds like the car was moving at the time!
Anyway, I'm not convinced that her body was in the trunk, it just makes the most sense to me that since the car has a trunk, that's where he'd put the body.
You know, it's just occurred to me that he could have been planning to have that flat tire and was checking to see if he had tools/spare.

As for why return to the dumpster, I'd suppose to discard something we don't know about but I was thinking dumpster because it's where the car would be parked where we know there's a camera.

 

[Regina]

I can't either. There's too much without answer yet. It's even POSSIBLE her first story to police was "we took her to school" and only when faced with they found something to show they knew better, that changed... And then she may have said "we" again in the interview to show that's just how she talks if LE had gotten after her about it and that was her explanation or some such. Don't know, but a thought... One interview was within 24 hours She said we in both interviews and in those same interviews, she clarified that he took her to school, that he dropped her off.

Her story to the sheriff deputy was that Sterns dropped Madeline off, and in both interviews (both the following day, one within 24 hrs.) she said "we" but also later said Sterns took her to school, Sterns dropped her off.
So why she said "we", I don't know but it wasn't because that's what she first told police.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Indeed, the way the sheriff said it, it sounds like the car was moving at the time!
Anyway, I'm not convinced that her body was in the trunk, it just makes the most sense to me that since the car has a trunk, that's where he'd put the body.
You know, it's just occurred to me that he could have been planning to have that flat tire and was checking to see if he had tools/spare.

As for why return to the dumpster, I'd suppose to discard something we don't know about but I was thinking dumpster because it's where the car would be parked where we know there's a camera.

I don't know. She was seen in the car plus he was "returning" not parked or so it would sound. This was a fairly huge news presser where we got told a couple of big things like that unlike we'd get told in many a case and I see no reason to believe it false.

Of course most people put dead bodies in trunks, not in the car where they can be seen but they said she could be seen. I GUESS if he stopped near the camera and opened the trunk on his return maybe the camera caught him with her body and it also does make sense then that seeing her in the trunk inert would be a reason they feel she was already dead... So I kind of see what you are thinking/where you are going with this.

Why he'd be so stupid as to think the entrance or exit front or back don't have cameras in a gated community I have no idea. But he was caught with the laptop etc. too BUT we don't know he wasn't just caught doing something and then they found the items or do we? Can't recall the exact wording on that... I assume since you talk dumpster you mean the back entry where some assume with the laptop and backpack and dumpster.

I know many a perp isn't that bright but a lot of this belies belief. Why was he returning at all? He could have pulled over anywhere and popped the trunk if this was the case. I tend to believe he wanted her seen thinking all would think her asleep but alive...? If they are being that gray with the few big facts they threw out, then why? It isn't serving them in any helpful way but it is hurting things with the assumptons and talk.

He could have popped the trunk to dump something or see if he had a spare and so on anywhere else but the complex. It just makes little sense to me if that's what you are thinking. Not little sense that you'd think that but little sense that he'd do that and there when he did....

 

[GrandmaBear]

Her story to the sheriff deputy was that Sterns dropped Madeline off, and in both interviews (both the following day, one within 24 hrs.) she said "we" but also later said Sterns took her to school, Sterns dropped her off.
So why she said "we", I don't know but it wasn't because that's what she first told police.

Well you assume they got other things wrong in the incident report like seeing her at 8 and more is where I am with that. And have mentioned how often they are wrong in such things and so forth. So how do we know they didn't just put down her final story/explanation with regard to the we or he?

Don't take me wrong but that's having it both ways as to what one wants right is right and what one wants to be wrong is wrong.

I'm starting to think here nothing they told us can be taken as it sounds. Now we have a car made to sound like moving/returning and a dead girl seen while doing so was actually in the trunk and the car was stopped. I think that is possible but it is certainly not the impression they gave if so.

And again, don't take me wrong, but you've been pretty clear in that you think or want mom to be innocent of even lying and covering for him and so you see these things one way or make them work that way when it could be either.

I know never in my life have I said we took so and so here or there when I was not with. Coupledom does not extend with the "we" to that point. And they didn't appear to be that much of a couple. Having a room instead of a bed with mom would seem to indicate that and the fact he was doing what he was to he daughter instead of any kind of real relationship with mom.

And the fact her own family didn't seem to think or understand why he'd be there. And a lot of other things.

I guess I'm just saying if we are to assume the car wasn't moving and she wasn't seen inside the car itself (not the trunk) and a lot of other things now to take a variety of ways then I guess all that's been said is possible it isnt' as it was or is assumed and that includes what mom told LE to begin with, how she then explained it or what she really said and so on.

She did say WE took her to school. We heard her. She does explain later.

Still, who does that...

That's like oh yes, "we loved Florida when we were down there last week" only to find out the person talkng never went with.

Since all possibilities are open and nothing we were told can be taken the way such was said or came across, maybe mom WAS WITH................................. I mean she was up and had seen her at 8....

Okay.

Also again if one thing they said is true then don't assume the next isn't right in that he "picked" her up... He probably did, to put her dead body in the trunk then... So that's true.

Just saying who the heck knows any more what is true and what isn't... And just frustrated with it I guess.

Clearly we can't take anything the way it sounded even from LE and so that also extends to mom imo. And all. Mom was at minimum parroting Stephan's story and more likely was covering for him or trying to but got caught in it with the "we" took her and the seeing her at 8 a.m. That's the most likely where she's concerned imo at least.

 

[Regina]

INTERESTING. I'd heard Gray refer to and hint at it prior but no more than that and now he is sharing it.

Yes, I remember you mentioning that and it still blows my mind!
I think we all wondered whether he'd shared or traded images and upon learning this, it appears it's very likely he did one or both.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yes, I remember you mentioning that and it still blows my mind!
I think we all wondered whether he'd shared or traded images and upon learning this, it appears it's very likely he did one or both.

There is certainly enough reason in this one to truly wonder or suspect that I agree. Generally I don't go that route but even his "Disney" thing or claims, all of it, all we know, just lends to such. Many a ped doesn't have cameras set up and more, they just are on--trying to think of words that aren't awful--getting their time with their prey and keeping from getting found out I guess I'd say. He seems to be more, far more than that. Some sick sh*t mentioned of some of what is on that website/SM app and how these weirdos actually group...

 

[Regina]

I don't know. She was seen in the car plus he was "returning" not parked or so it would sound. This was a fairly huge news presser where we got told a couple of big things like that unlike we'd get told in many a case and I see no reason to believe it false.

I wouldn't think it's false, I'm just considering that we may have taken it the wrong way.
Do you think he could have meant that he was returning to the apartment, yes, but he wasn't actually there yet, that he'd stopped somewhere along the way?
You know, a reporter asked for clarification and I was disappointed but not surprised that he wouldn't elaborate.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I wouldn't think it's false, I'm just considering that we may have taken it the wrong way.
Do you think he could have meant that he was returning to the apartment, yes, but he wasn't actually there yet, that he'd stopped somewhere along the way?
You know, a reporter asked for clarification and I was disappointed but not surprised that he wouldn't elaborate.

Well I think most all took it the way he made it sound and I don't think we took it wrong so much as they wanted it mis "tooken" so to speak as they weren't clear at all then if that is true--car stopped, trunk open, etc. I'd say they intentionally weren't clear then yet came right out and said she was dead when seen in the car and apparently wanted us or him to know that much... And it implied imo the car was moving and en route back...

I don't think he could have been far from the apartments as they say he was returning to them (or condos, whatever) which is why I think many think it was at the entrance, dumpster, etc. I personally figured it was in the neighborhood and it was somewhere along his route back as you say here. BUT the more one thinks on it, that too is only as clear as mud...

To KNOW he was returning, it had to be his usual route to return, they know he then returned or he was basically was returning or yeah, at the back entrance, etc. or some such.

I took it to mean on his way back to the gated community and elsewhere like passing a cam en route back.. But who the heck knows...

I guess Stephan knows and maybe that was their point for him to wonder where they saw what and what they know when he was doing this or that and what they are referring to...

Darned if I know any longer...

 

[Regina]

Well you assume they got other things wrong in the incident report like seeing her at 8 and more is where I am with that. And have mentioned how often they are wrong in such things and so forth. So how do we know they didn't just put down her final story/explanation with regard to the we or he?

It's when info doesn't correlate that we question it.

 

[GrandmaBear]

It's when info doesn't correlate that we question it.

For sure. And much doesn't here. I can't then though assume anything with a strong certainty. I can with him of course with far more certainty for obvious reasons. Charged with tons of offenses, basic instincts about him from start and his interview, etc.

Haven't had any time last couple of days and won't again for next couple. So combining this post with another thing.

I think you watched Gray with the Telegraph or was it Telegram SM site? Because you commented on it. Here's another I found this afternoon when I've finally had a few moments of Gray and not long where he says the time would have been like 11:49 the birthday party night he was on the site... Now as he said in his first one this is an app a lot use and it is not all for predators, BUT considering what we know of Stephan it is probably the reason he was on it...

AFter that he goes into the things we all have and do, the questions of when did he kill her, was she seated in the car that the camera could show them she was likely dead and so on, why did he do it, was there a real flat tire and so on and so on. Honestly, a few times I am not following his thoughts but interesting to go back to your post here I am responding to, it is when things don't correlate we question. That's for damned sure.

Worth a watch and short.

I don't as I said follow his thinking with all but it reminded me he did get caught by a license plate reader near the school, I was thinking he never went near the school and had forgotten that. And that's got it's own time, 8:09 or something I think...

He takes the fact Jen says she saw her at 8 as that she really said that but discusses the reasons she may have. I tend to agree with that at this point. That she did say it but why?

Gray actually defends her so you'd like to hear this all I think. He gives how she could make that story up considering a lot of things...

It's interesting. Just his take.

BUT he was on Telegram at 11:49 birthday party night...

 

[GrandmaBear]

he has some thoughts though that I really can't get on board with though. you will see what I mean.

I do agree with him that i'm not convinced he really did not have a flat tire. Possibly anyhow.