STEPHAN STERNS' EMAILS FROM JAIL 3

[@bleedingbitzy]

I love this channel. It really gets the critical thinkers out. Some excellent comments on here.

[@Plingu698]

thank you

[@PatsSpaghetti]

Great video! I agree wholeheartedly. Mommy doesn't care who did what to whom. It doesn't even matter to her if he's guilty. This is the message she's sending him. "I don't care what really happened and you shouldn't either. What matters is that you [we] may benefit from 'ratting' someone else out instead of 'letting them get away with stuff' like you [we] have always pretended you were doing." Stephan comes by his inability to take accountability naturally. Mommy is trying to feed him a legal strategy. Not to save her dysfunctional child, but her massive, brittle ego. She's a version of Donna Adelson.

[@Plingu698]

@@PatsSpaghetti great point! yes! Donna Adelson is a very good comparison

[@MT-dd2rb]

Incredibly insightful. Mom trying different manipulation tactics- first, kind/loving (buying things he wants), now tough (get it together and think strategically. She prob never liked “sharing” him w a woman, and esp a non-Caucasian one. Thank you!

[@Plingu698]

@@MT-dd2rb i agree with you. I sense a measure of contempt from the mother towards Jennifer's family.

[@raineedayz]

There was an instance in Stefan's past where his parents were forced to pay off his roommates when they discovered a camera that Stefan put up which was monitoring the roommate's girlfriend as she came in and out of the shower. At the time, the roommate found a shared folder on a computer which also had videos which involved underage people. So I am curious if some of this language around not ratting out of friend has to do with that previous event. If Stefan had to have his parents pay off the roommates but didn't want to take the entire blame about what happened he may have contrived a story that involved someone else. I wonder if that's why the mother is saying not to take the blame again.

[@bleedingbitzy]

That's an interesting point. Showing the mother is very much in denial. Her son can do no wrong, despite the red flags of his previous nefarious behaviour

[@Plingu698]

@@raineedayz very good point! ....and if he did that before, then he may be doing it again.... insinuating to his mother that despite everything, he is actually something of a hero by protecting a friend, making her 'mad' but winning a small measure of forgiveness. She is naive to fall for it twice, but maybe that is what she wants to believe and has therefore come to the false conclusion that her son 'would not ever rat out a friend' instead of seeing him as a two-time liar.

[@raineedayz]

@@Plingu698 yes, she may be more comfortable dealing with denial that facing the truth. By transferring blame, it likely helps get her through the day and allows her to continue to support him. I just feel like he's a total slime ball snake and if he had an out he would have taken it so he likely does not have an out I don't see this guy taking the fall for anyone. He just doesn't appear to have that kind of character.

[@PatsSpaghetti]

I don't think mom is naive. I think she is egotistical and entitled. If she didn't believe her son was the predator he turned out to be, why would she and her husband pay people off in the past to cover for him? That is as good as an admission on her part that she knows he was at fault. I think telling him, "I know you'd never rat out a friend" is her getting down to his level and saying, "listen dumbass, what we did to fix your bs in the past will not work this time. You are going to need to step up like a man and blame someone else because we can't get you out of this one if you don't." Meanwhile, she's on the outside telling everyone who will listen about how much of a victim she and the rest of her family is. They are victims of the Soto family in their story. She's pissed because she's doing all the legwork to vindicate their reputation while her baby boy lies around reading books and making paper swans, refusing to declare his innocence and save himself [his family]. That's why she threw in the manipulative comment about how they feel he was always choosing others over them. She is telling him that by not lying to throw another family under the bus, he is throwing his under it. And she wants him to quit it with that nonsense. I don't think she fell for it once, and definitely not twice. She knows her kid. She made him.

[@raineedayz]

@@PatsSpaghetti wow, very interesting take. This could very well be what is going on here! She is the headstrong one in the family. So this could very likely be what is going on. Great insight!

[@AnotherAmy]

What a close listener and reader you are. I try so hard to teach that skill to my students, but am not always so good myself. Eureka. I really tried to wrap my mind around this mom thread, but simply could not. I was missing the setting/context piece (can’t remember this second what that part is called). He’s in prison and has probably said previously he does not rat out friends-mom’s language implies that. Speak to your lawyer- yes a possible plea. And more that you mentioned that my goldfish mind doesn’t recall in this moment. I am going to give this another lesson when I’m not on my phone and can more clearly see the map. Thank you!

[@Plingu698]

@@AnotherAmy i agree with you... the meaning of some of the language in this email is so personal to the two of them that it is quite obscure to me. I'm only guessing at what she means !

[@gillianlaing1073]

I found this very interesting! Yes,his mother is very domineering, he is weak, I think his parents got him out a whole in his past,where he had a hidden camera taking photos of a girl coming out a shower, they paid off his roomates! I also remember hie friends saying he used to peep in their mums windows to see them undressing 😮 I'd like to think Jen is innocent, but nobody can be that nieve, to tell her boyfriend to sleep with her daughter !!! I think jenny knew what was happening to madaline,but choose to shut her eyes to it!

[@Plingu698]

@@gillianlaing1073 That is the key question, isn't it. Did she have any idea what was going on. I think she was so debilitated by her own mental health problems that she abandoned her responsibilities.

[@carolfletcher9939]

What a treat! I've been waiting for this one 🎉🎉🎉

[@Plingu698]

@@carolfletcher9939 you are welcome.

[@Suse21]

Another interesting gem thank you 😊

[@Plingu698]

@@Suse21 thank you !

[@shurtlocker2216]

Good work, thank you!

[@Just_Peachy8777]

His emails are so boring. Order books, put money in his account, blame Jen. That sums up the email content

[@danabiehn8611]

Thank you!!

[@Plingu698]

@@danabiehn8611 you are welcome

[@PatsSpaghetti]

I think her use of 'don't be doing that' instead of 'don't do that' suggests: 1) an attempt to be motherly and passive instead of overbearing (noteworthy because she uses active and direct language throughout the rest of her email), 2) evidence that she perceives he has a history of 'letting' others 'get away with stuff,' and 3) she perceives him as doing the same in the present moment, and seemingly in an ongoing manner 4) mommy is very irritated with her baby boy

[@Plingu698]

@@PatsSpaghetti yes, that's it. She is saying, 'stop the habit!' That's the answer.

[@kristenbrannock5655]

I love your videos! These prison emails are fascinating! Have you heard of Steven Jay Russell? It's an unbelievable story, and there's quite a bit out there for analysis. Another interesting one would be Kate McCann's book. Anyway, thanks for putting out videos! They brighten my day!

[@Plingu698]

i'll look up Steven Jay Russel today- thanks

[@bambacska]

Monsters have always monster mothers.

[@AWanderingEye]

Ahh, yes. Mothers of criminals. Have you spent any time looking at Charles Adelson's mom, Donna Sue Adelson? They are also in Fla. She now has a trial coming up next. Charlie's in prison now (South Dakota I believe is his new residence, oral surgeon he was). I'll see if there is any video of any of the communications between them. Some of which were at Charlie's trial. Here is a video of her arrest at the airport where they cc'd the conversations starting at 01:17 [EDITED TO SAY I guess I think like other viewers here...ha] kzbin.info/www/bejne/foa3fZKCqqqjjZIsi=XaIV9WYWu-pBruM9&t=77

[@Plingu698]

Hi wandering, yes, I watched Charlie's trial and listened to his phone calls with Donna. That was before I started uploading videos of my own. I'm sure I would have covered them if I had been up and running then. He was a little annoyed that nobody bought his well-crafted story, wasn't he. I wonder what Donna's defense will be. I look forward to watching the trial.

[@AWanderingEye]

@@Plingu698 I don't know if you'll want to do a watch party, I look forward to any analysis you may make on the Adelson's...

[@WilsonJonesMusic]

[this] is not all your fault. Deceptive deliberate ambiguity over what [this] is. They want the reader to assume it is referring to his crime, but could equally refer to his being caught or sentencing. As if [this] could have been avoided with the assistance of another party.

[@Nous520]

The most perverse part of Debbie Sterns trying to strongman arm Stephan into implicating Jennifer is that her ultimate motivation is not actually to save his life. It’s to manage the perception of herself as a parent in the eyes of others. I’m not saying she doesn’t care about Stephan. He is, at the end of the day, her child. Of course she cares about him. But I do think she knows implicating Jennifer isn’t going to change the fact that he’s facing the death penalty as the DA needs NO help in prosecuting him and the judge needs no help in deciding his fate. He committed murder during the commission of a 1st degree felony (statutory rape). They are both death penalty crimes in Florida. The way they speak as a family to each other and others is slimey and ALWAYS driven by a preferred outcome. They are all pathologically manipulative. I would love to see a series on Chris Sterns. I really don’t trust him, he makes me feel sick. I would very much like to hear your analysis on him someday.

[@Plingu698]

@@Nous520 thanks. i find him interesting to listen to. Chris Sterns. He is just a bit too keen to throw his son under the bus. I wonder if he is trying too hard to ingratiate himself with the investigators.

[@Nous520]

@@Plingu698 I think we are thinking along the same lines.

[@bleedingbitzy]

Stephan is wholly to blame, jen is guilty of turning a blind eye when she probably had knowledge of the abuse. Like so many of these mothers, they will do anything to keep the status quo of their relationship with these evil men. Sacrificing their children for their own needs. Unfortunately nothing she can be prosecuted for. Child neglect and child endangerment comes to mind, but the question is can it be proven. Jen has deniability

[@Plingu698]

@@bleedingbitzy i agree with you. i do believe she admits to asking them to leave her in peace and sleep in a separate room because she was having an episode of anxiety, which is very different from her giving her blessing to his molesting of her daughter. The 'anxiety' aspect would be a strong exonerating factor. I think Stephan groomed Madeline so well that Jen thought he was a safe pair of hands, perhaps even better able to connect with Madeline than she was. That, combined with her own mental health/ work issues, meant that she effectively handed her daughter's care over to Stephan, and as Madeline never complained to her ( presumably ), Jen assumed everything was alright. I am still totally baffled by her lying to cover for him though. Why did she do that?

[@PatsSpaghetti]

Jennifer will get her comeuppance after she testifies for the prosecution. Stephan is certainly guilty, but saying he is wholly to blame overlooks Jennifer's role in turning a blind eye, suggesting they both bear responsibility. They are both wholly guilty for their individual parts. If her only error was that she was so wildly naive, then she's guilty of neglect and child endangerment. A lack of experience and intelligence, and/or failure to recognize and correct your personal challenges are not legal justifications for exploitating your own, or any other, child. Regardless of Jennifer's anxiety or confusion, nothing makes up for the fact that she chose Stephan over her daughter when she coddled and repeatedly lied for him. She also chose self-preservation and/or Stephan over her daughter when she took every opportunity to speak negatively and blame her for her own disappearance. It's difficult to find compassion for Jennifer because I've chosen to give it all to Maddie. Jennifer is the adult. Maddie had no sense of security, control, or trust that she could be helped. She knew her mother was too weak to help her because she was too wrapped up in her own lack of self-worth. She knew her mother was pitiful and would choose a man over her. She was completely alone.

[@bleedingbitzy]

@Plingu698 is it another case of denial? When you know, but it's so heinous you don't want to know. She even saw a picture of a heinous act and denied that she recognised anything in it. Her daughter or the birthmark. Or did she cover up for him out of habit. Is that the dynamic of the relationship, he is psychologically manipulative and this often happens in these type of relationships. Like his own mother, she finds excuses for his behaviour

[@PatsSpaghetti]

@@bleedingbitzy I would agree that there would have to be some degree of at least emotional and psychological abuse going on between SS and JS. I see SS as being emotionally intelligent and capable of manipulating a person who lacks self-worth. And I see JS as being someone who has little to no self-worth, likely do to her own traumatic upbringing. It's possible that JS lied about seeing Maddie that morning and continued lying until she was out of earshot of SS because she felt threatened. And it's possible that she still felt his influence when she was alone with investigators, leading to her lying about not recognizing anything in the picture. SS is a shady character and it's safe to say he rolled with other shady characters. The truth is that we don't know the extent of this. Was SS involved with individual online predators such as himself? A t-ring, possibly? JS could have had reason to believe she was in danger if she spoke up. Her self-preservation after the fact is almost easier to stomach than her prior choices that brought SS into, and kept him in, Maddie's orbit. It appears there was distance between them sporadically. Was this JS attempting to protect herself and her daughter from SS? Did he refuse to leave them alone? Did she attempt to stop him and send him away, then later compromise her morals and Maddie's soul and well-being to persuade him to come back when being 'alone' or without him became too much? Time will tell, but the answers to these questions may explain why she is currently free.

[@bleedingbitzy]

@PatsSpaghetti This case certainly brings up so many questions. Ones that you have highlighted so succinctly. Showing us all that everything is not so black and white as it seems. Thank you for your comments and discussion it really opens up the mind and gives us all food for thought.