Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 **ARREST** #33

[MtnMama]

Went back to look at the timeline again and there was a link to this article written on Tuesday, Jan 28th the day after Gannon was reported missing. In hindsight a couple things jumped out at me.

“That’s really our only concern, that he’s so young,” Mynatt said. “It’s cold outside, it’s going to start getting late here soon. We want to find him, get him home and put him in a safe environment. <snip>
Deputies are actively searching for the boy in between calls for service, and the case has been forwarded to major crimes detectives. Such a move is made when additional investigative tools, such as the ability to obtain deleted information off a phone, are needed, she said.
https://www.outtherecolorado.com/search-underway-for-missing-colorado-boy/

So major crimes detectives were "helping out" as soon as Tuesday. I also thought the part of mentioning needing the help to obtain deleted information off of a phone (Gannon's & maybe TS's) was interesting.

I also found a pic of the Metro Crime Lab van parked in front of the house Wed 1/30:
View attachment 237144

Yeah, I'd say they were suspicious of TS from the start. JMO
Hopefully that suspicion means they have lots of evidence & GPS/tracking info on areas to search and find Gannon!

#GannonStrong #FindGannon

Too late to edit, but the date with the Metro Crime Lab van should be Wed 1/29
Sorry for the error.

 

[MassGuy]

My uneducated guess is that the defense is going to push for a mistrial. People were living in the house contaminating evidence while it was also being treated as a crime scene. When was the truck impounded? I see the defense trying to capitalize on that. TS even talked about it during her interview: “They are saying there is a crime scene with all this blood in the house, which they let people live in during the supposed crime scene for 7 plus days….”

That would be a bigger deal if the house was the actual site of the murder.

Even then, they were looking for blood evidence that had the DNA of one person— Gannon. In most cases where contamination is a problem, it’s when the suspect is referring to their own DNA.

It’s either his blood or it isn’t.

The problem the defense is going to encounter, is that there were likely witnesses to that abuse, and the murder itself did not occur in the home.

I’m not worried.

 

[Trocroc9]

My uneducated guess is that the defense is going to push for a mistrial. People were living in the house contaminating evidence while it was also being treated as a crime scene. When was the truck impounded? I see the defense trying to capitalize on that. TS even talked about it during her interview: “They are saying there is a crime scene with all this blood in the house, which they let people live in during the supposed crime scene for 7 plus days….”

TS saying things is what she wants to happen. I think they were there for a few days or so but moved out shortly after. I’m not confident anyone cares about TS’s allegations. They have real LE evidence. And I think lots of it is a child was murdered and it wasn’t by anyone in the home at that time. He was seen walking out of the home so the crime was never committed at the home. In fact I believe when evidence is shown they are going to have so much against her that living conditions will all be a moot point.

 

[Mito]

I really feel like we are giving this stupid woman way too much credit.
She isn't a mastermind. She is a desperate woman who's world was crumbling right before her eyes.
I think the charge of 1st degree has made us think she has premeditated this. I really think it's just because he is under 12 and she was in a position of trust.
I say this because if we work on premeditated it changes the entire scope of information at hand. If it was as reactive as I think it was then Gannon is not far from home at all.
We know she was reactive to every bit of information out there because she couldn't help herself.
The runaway story came after she had killed Gannon, which means she has concocted that on what she knows. She didn't say abduction initially which would lend to Gannon's body being found anywhere or nowhere, she said runaway, giving an explanation as to why he would be found in the area.
She is a master manipulator and I am sure would do anything to make the evidence fit her narrative.

I keep thinking of Teleka Patrick who when she went missing, it was uncovered that she had a whole other side to her than that of the Dr who kept things together during the day. There was speculation a minister was involved and all kinds of things, turns out she was found not far from her car that she wrecked in the snow.
My point it once you cut out the excess noise, it is usually the most simple answer - Occams Razor.

Do I think that TS was horrible to Gannon on a daily basis - Yes, do I think that she ever thought it would eventuate in his death - I am leaning towards no. I think coupled with her losing her job that when she went into a rage fit on the Sunday night that this time it went too far and she has had to respond to that. I don't think she actively planned it per se.

She said in her interview that Gannon came home with her we just couldn't see him get out of the truck. I wonder if Gannon did come home with her, but was deceased in the back of the truck. I think the rental car was purely to scatter evidence as far and wide as she could to stop LE looking for Gannon close to home. She originally said he had runaway - could be found close to home, and then realised later that there was too much evidence to support that story so took it as far away from home as possible.
JMO

IMO it is premeditated if you make a choice not to seek medical care and instead decide death better helps your personal cause. When she raged she injured him, but he wasn’t killed during that emotionally charged evening, but in the cold reality of Monday where she was able to call the school, snap a selfie, leave her phone and drive off with a scared injured kid.

 

[Kyte]

The defence does not have to prove anything. Wouldn't it be loverly though if they put their client on the stand and the prosecution got to ask her questions? I think hell may freeze over before that happens.

You never know TS might insist...
I mean look at Markeith Lloyd!!!
He was asked on the stand if he felt like he was the victim and he had the nerve to say YES!!!

 

[Mito]

Really good points. I still think someone on a jury might buy she forgot phone bc she was so stressed out. And why would it be first degree if it was accident and she panicked? Defense can say she wasn’t educated enough to know that the injury was going to kill him. She can say she was enroute to hospital when it happened. You know there are always jurors who are naive and want to see the best in everyone.

She claims to have a Monday selfie with Gannon and it appears that she then exited the truck and left the phone. It doesn’t seem panicked.

 

[zenzen]

Tee's hope that she can use scene tampering will come undone, the blood evidence would require access to large quantities of Gannon's blood and pretty certain neither LE or other family members would have been storing G's blood for just such an occasion not to mention stored blood has markers that show it for what it is.
any blood evidence in that house occurred before G's disappearance.
forensic test will prove that conclusively, TS may have the belief she researched forensics and investigative techniques well enough to cover her tracks but her grasp is likely lacking and the evidence when it is presented in court will be a rude shock for her IMO.

I am all for LE withholding information if it helps nail this woman and understand that worst case if she does have someone who assisted her that they do not get any information that may help them to cover their tracks , also sadly she does have her supporters out there who may decide to interfere in the continuing investigation on her behalf.

 

[Abstar80]

IMO it is premeditated if you make a choice not to seek medical care and instead decide death better helps your personal cause. When she raged she injured him, but he wasn’t killed during that emotionally charged evening, but in the cold reality of Monday where she was able to call the school, snap a selfie, leave her phone and drive off with a scared injured kid.

I appreciate what you are saying, however, I would think legally premeditated would have to mean she actively planned it, sought out the opportunity to murder him and have had significant plans put in place. I just don't see this as being premeditated to that extent.

Of course not seeking him medical attention was a choice that she made, but I still don't think that would be classified as premeditated. IF he died of his injuries inflicted from Sunday night then it could be argued that she had no way of knowing what she did would cause his death. I would think the reasonable person test would apply. Now I know how stupid that sounds, but the law doesn't always fit the way we think it should.
I could be terribly wrong and I am happy to be corrected.

I personally think the difference in how we approach whether she was reactive or proactive will eventually help determine where Gannon is.

 

[Kyte]

Julia Donovan KRDO on Twitter
I’ll be tweeting live coverage of the #GannonStauch Memorial Cruise tomorrow. People are meeting at the Dutch Bro’s by Austin Bluffs & Academy at 2. They’ll start moving at 3:30, and end the cruise at Gannon’s memorial in front of Lorson Ranch.

 

[Seajay]

I appreciate what you are saying, however, I would think legally premeditated would have to mean she actively planned it, sought out the opportunity to murder him and have had significant plans put in place. I just don't see this as being premeditated to that extent.

Of course not seeking him medical attention was a choice that she made, but I still don't think that would be classified as premeditated. IF he died of his injuries inflicted from Sunday night then it could be argued that she had no way of knowing what she did would cause his death. I would think the reasonable person test would apply. Now I know how stupid that sounds, but the law doesn't always fit the way we think it should.
I could be terribly wrong and I am happy to be corrected.

I personally think the difference in how we approach whether she was reactive or proactive will eventually help determine where Gannon is.

I remember watching something on TV where they said premeditation can be 5 minutes. premediation was considered any time there was time to rethink what they were doing before acting out and to decide to not commit the crime. JMO

 

[zenzen]

I remember watching something on TV where they said premeditation can be 5 minutes. premediation was considered any time there was time to rethink what they were doing before acting out and to decide to not commit the crime. JMO

i agree the moment she realised the extent of G's injuries and her then choosing not to get him the medical attention he desperately needed, that was premeditation, her choices from that moment onward led to his death, it no longer matters if she took further action to hasten his death or allowed nature to takes its course.
She is culpable and made conscious choices while G was still alive and possibly saveable.

premeditation doesn't mean days or weeks of planning it is simply being aware your choice will result in the death of another.

 

[Sillybilly]

Just an FYI tidbit that may or may not crop up as this case moves forward.

I posted earlier the CO statute related to spousal privilege but had not noticed the very last paragraph of that section that relates to both the spousal privilege and "patient and physician":

(2)(4) The statutory privilege between patient and physician and between husband and wife shall not be available for excluding or refusing testimony in any prosecution for the crime of murder in the first degree as described in paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of this section.

(1)(f) being what was previously posted:

The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.

 

[Mito]

I appreciate what you are saying, however, I would think legally premeditated would have to mean she actively planned it, sought out the opportunity to murder him and have had significant plans put in place. I just don't see this as being premeditated to that extent.

Of course not seeking him medical attention was a choice that she made, but I still don't think that would be classified as premeditated. IF he died of his injuries inflicted from Sunday night then it could be argued that she had no way of knowing what she did would cause his death. I would think the reasonable person test would apply. Now I know how stupid that sounds, but the law doesn't always fit the way we think it should.
I could be terribly wrong and I am happy to be corrected.

I personally think the difference in how we approach whether she was reactive or proactive will eventually help determine where Gannon is.

I think you overestimate what it takes for murder in the first degree. The planning does not need to be long term. In this case there is no escaping the legal definition because age and position of trust. This was definitely not a heat of the moment murder.

 

[Mito]

I remember watching something on TV where they said premeditation can be 5 minutes. premediation was considered any time there was time to rethink what they were doing before acting out and to decide to not commit the crime. JMO

Agree

 

[AllGrace]

I appreciate what you are saying, however, I would think legally premeditated would have to mean she actively planned it, sought out the opportunity to murder him and have had significant plans put in place. I just don't see this as being premeditated to that extent.

Of course not seeking him medical attention was a choice that she made, but I still don't think that would be classified as premeditated. IF he died of his injuries inflicted from Sunday night then it could be argued that she had no way of knowing what she did would cause his death. I would think the reasonable person test would apply. Now I know how stupid that sounds, but the law doesn't always fit the way we think it should.
I could be terribly wrong and I am happy to be corrected.

I personally think the difference in how we approach whether she was reactive or proactive will eventually help determine where Gannon is.

If you research premeditated, it does not mean what you say it means.

First Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw

“Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder. Time enough to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second guess the decision typically suffices. While this can happen very quickly, deliberation and premeditation must occur before, and not at the same time as, the act of killing.”

 

[Sillybilly]

Why are we arguing premeditation? TS is not charged under Section (1)(a) for premeditation.

While there may have been premed, she is charged under Section (1)(f) being child under 12.

 

[Abstar80]

Why are we arguing premeditation? TS is not charged under Section (1)(a) for premeditation.

While there may have been premed, she is charged under Section (1)(f) being child under 12.

I brought up premeditation because originally I said that it seems "premeditation" has over ridden the fact that she has been charged in the 1st because of his age, and digressing from thinking it was premeditated in the true sense could narrow down the thinking on where he could be located.
Essentially looking at her actions as reactive instead of proactive.

 

[Angels27]

No GPS on the receipt, but they have GPS in case the vehicle is stolen.

so can they go back later and see where the rental car was driven?

 

[GRT]

I believe she left CS by Feb 3-4, that LE knew that, that LE had to take steps to monitor her situation in SC, etc.

Just the fact that she left the Springs when there was an active search going on for her stepson was suspicious.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

bbm

The defence does not have to prove anything. Wouldn't it be loverly though if they put their client on the stand and the prosecution got to ask her questions? I think hell may freeze over before that happens.

IKT. Of course, a defense need not prove a thing. That requirement is placed on the prosecution.

But a defense typically is forced to refute evidence as presented by the prosecution, and that was my point.

LS may have boxed herself in to a corner regarding a few elements.