Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 **ARREST** #34

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you know the source for her having supervised visits? I read in the beginning that they have shared custody. This is the first I've ever heard about supervised visitation.
I assumed AS had the kids during the school year and they spent summers and holidays with their mom for the past two years. Jmo
It was what T stated around the 16 min mark of the video, PLEASE DO NOT take this as a fact!

ETA
Just another of her many lies.....IMO
 
Favoring one child and totally dumping on another is classic cluster B parenting.
GANNON is my hero!
Wowww! I will have to go back and research, my biggest source of personal experience, comes from baby sister...this was one of her favorite techniques, splitting... and there was a conscientious effort to bond w/ me and exclude our other sister... instinctively, I refused...this is such good insight. I so wish this was just a hypothetical case study w/ no real victim...
 
TS spoke about that supervision requirement in that phone call.
Yes, I know she did but I'm not sure I believe a thing she says.

The post I replied to said "Landen only had supervised visits with the kids."
I was asking what the source was for that, other than what TS claims.
All along I thought they had shared custody because that's what I read in the beginning. Jmo
 
Anyone know "how" to find out what the case # for the 3/17 hearing is about? What kind of charge?

Date Len Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
3/11/20
4:00 PM 1H STAUCH, LETECIA First Appearance D212020CR1358 El Paso County DIV 15-ROOM S403 (South Tower)

3/17/20
8:15 AM 1H STAUCH, LETECIA Setting D212020DR30309 El Paso County DIV M

link: Seventh Judicial District » Docket Search
 
BBM

Agree with many of your points.

But was it only two years? That's what I had thought but in the phone call didn't TS say the younger sister had been with them since she was 2?

I agree with earlier posters TS sounds more resentful than jealous of LH. I think she didn't expect to be raising AS's kids. That's no excuse for what it appears she's done, of course. And she knew he had kids when she became involved with him and later married him. She also knew he'd be away alot being in the military. But I'm not sure the "jealous" label that's been so freely used really fits.
JMO
All along, I regarded TS's disdain toward LH as jealousy. Not anymore!
Her resentment rings loud and clear in that interview. Her blatant resentment of being a custodial parent was obviously well hidden from AS. Did she believe AS's children would just fade away after they were married?
 
When she went back to the same PetCo to alibi herself after two hours, how does this provide an alibi? To me, it just tells me at those two specific times we know where she was. We do not know if Gannon was with her on either visit.

We may not "know", but I didn't notice her running to deny her co-conversationalist's characterization of her behavior as allegedly reported by Petco clerk - running back and forth, continually looking out the window, "frantic" - none of which description involved bringing Gannon with her into the store.

Keeping in mind that this recorded conversation took place February 16 (?) IIRC according to DWAP's time stamp, I don't think Tee was expecting to be asked about Petco because she had not yet mentioned Petco in any of her excuses (thus why we couldn't talk about it); and it's only because the conversationalist knew of Petco that she talked about it at all.

I agree that for whatever reason Petco is sensitive to her, and she doesn't want to talk about it.

I think the Petco thing, and the Castle Rock thing and the 'back roads' thing, due to an accident, all are tee's twisted way of attempting to justify her running up route 105. I think Gannon will be found up 105 somewhere. MOO

I think he'll be found near the original search site because of how readily Tee offered up that it was being searched based upon her activity pings (be it car or electronic wearable).

During the same conversation, she also admits that she left her cell phone at home.

I'd be curious about where these statements fit in a timeline, and if she was still telling people in other sources that she had taken a selfie with Gannon in the cab of the truck; while simultaneously omitting/deceiving about having then exiting the cab and chucking her cell phone back into the house.

I think that is a bunch of bull ----. At around 16:52 she states that Landen could "pick up" the kids IF she was taking them to her (Landen's) mothers. I worked in child support and I have never read a file where supervised visitation was ordered that the non custodial parent could pick up the child/children without supervision. If it was ordered supervised all contact had to be supervised. No picking them up unsupervised. JMO

Do you know the source for her having supervised visits? I read in the beginning that they have shared custody. This is the first I've ever heard about supervised visitation.
I assumed AS had the kids during the school year and they spent summers and holidays with their mom for the past two years. Jmo

Yeah, I too agree that they had shared custody.

I also believe that Tee said as much specifically in the phoner; or that the other side of the conversation person said it for her and was not denied/corrected by Tee. There was a lot of talk about custody and various women in the families during the beginning of the conversation. I missed a lot of it; or at least was unclear of which woman - or, to be precise, even which girl; sometimes I couldn't tell the difference between her speaking of Laina or Landen - was being spoken of; but I was pretty sure I heard them talking about shared custody.
 
Anyone know "how" to find out what the case # for the 3/17 hearing is about? What kind of charge?

Date Len Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
3/11/20
4:00 PM 1H STAUCH, LETECIA First Appearance D212020CR1358 El Paso County DIV 15-ROOM S403 (South Tower)

3/17/20
8:15 AM 1H STAUCH, LETECIA Setting D212020DR30309 El Paso County DIV M

link: Seventh Judicial District » Docket Search

Yeah, it's the divorce. If you use the above link to search by last name only, AS is listed at the same time as having an appearance in DIV M.
 
We may not "know", but I didn't notice her running to deny her co-conversationalist's characterization of her behavior as allegedly reported by Petco clerk - running back and forth, continually looking out the window, "frantic" - none of which description involved bringing Gannon with her into the store.

Keeping in mind that this recorded conversation took place February 16 (?) IIRC according to DWAP's time stamp, I don't think Tee was expecting to be asked about Petco because she had not yet mentioned Petco in any of her excuses (thus why we couldn't talk about it); and it's only because the conversationalist knew of Petco that she talked about it at all.

I agree that for whatever reason Petco is sensitive to her, and she doesn't want to talk about it.



I think he'll be found near the original search site because of how readily Tee offered up that it was being searched based upon her activity pings (be it car or electronic wearable).

During the same conversation, she also admits that she left her cell phone at home.

I'd be curious about where these statements fit in a timeline, and if she was still telling people in other sources that she had taken a selfie with Gannon in the cab of the truck; while simultaneously omitting/deceiving about having then exiting the cab and chucking her cell phone back into the house.





Yeah, I too agree that they had shared custody.

I also believe that Tee said as much specifically in the phoner; or that the other side of the conversation person said it for her and was not denied/corrected by Tee. There was a lot of talk about custody and various women in the families during the beginning of the conversation. I missed a lot of it; or at least was unclear of which woman - or, to be precise, even which girl; sometimes I couldn't tell the difference between her speaking of Laina or Landen - was being spoken of; but I was pretty sure I heard them talking about shared custody.
Yes, TS said they lived with them for the "school year." So I'm assuming they were with mom for the two or three months in the summer and maybe long holidays too. Jmo
 
she didn't buy a bike so her story lacks any frame or wheels to back it up... it was simply away to paint her as a wonderful wife who would buy her constantly absent husband a very expensive toy....
sorry but one thing stands out here
Gannon was alive when they left the house, if this was a cover up for child abuse what was her intention leaving with him that morning and why did she leave her phone at home?
leaving it at home means she knew she did not plan to bring G home alive.
that in my book is premeditated murder to cover up a lesser crime not some terrible accident,
the same goes for dragging him all over the countryside to go to stores she could have gone to much closer to home.

None of her actions speak to accidental death, had she taken her phone i might be inclined to question that but she didn't.
Not only did she take out a child who needed medical attention she wilfully and intentionally left behind the only way to call for help if his condition deteriorated and made a long unnecessary trip for items as trivial as dog coats ??

This was not a case of child abuse leading to accidental death, this was cold blooded murder to cover up child abuse.
... and during the interview, she admits to understanding cellular pings. So, proclaiming ignorance to the technology won't fly when explaining the reason she embarked on a 4 hour trip with a sick/injured child and left her phone at home.
 
I always wondered what it was she had against Gannon<modsnip: discussing family social media is not allowed> And why she didn't also take out the other witness, the younger stepdaughter. This audio explains it all now in her own words. I now see that she felt closer to the younger girl because she’s known her from a younger age, probably feels like she raised her more as her own. I also believe she saw Gannon as an annoyance and a threat to her. He was older and more aware of what she was doing day to day. If she was stealing, cheating, overspending, lazy not cooking for them, ignoring them, treating kids poorly, etc G would be more cognizant of it and more likely to relay that to his father, mother, nan, or friend's parents, teachers, etc. Not saying the initial injury was planned, but more likely a rage attack precipitated by her underlying dislike of him and it would also explain her ability to then finish him off and easily dispose of him instead of seek medical care. It would also explain her complete lack of a rise in BP n respiration rate during every single court appearance and interview.

GANNON is my hero!
How do we know her blood pressure did not rise?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... and during the interview, she admits to understanding cellular pings. So, proclaiming ignorance to the technology won't fly when explaining the reason she embarked on a 4 hour trip with a sick/injured child and left her phone at home.
Yeah, she said LE searched in all the places she pinged in a week or something like that. Does the GPS in cars or from an Applewatch ping too? I have only heard of cell phone pings.
 
IMO T's assertion in the phone call of a happy marriage is false, just as we KNOW the claims of why she was unable to go to work are bogus. When asked pointedly, "Are you okay?!" T's exclamation is "NOOOOOoooo!"--I thought we were going to hear some heartfelt emotion about Gannon. It is beyond baffling to me that this WSM does not even sob for HERSELF. She merely attempts feeble rationalizations for why she is UNABLE to be emotional (LE's fault; SM's fault). What she was aghast about, of course: her possessions that LE was keeping with the SOLE PURPOSE of getting to her and causing her to break.
"Trying to break me", ... feeling a bit of pressure TS? She is neck deep into victim-hood.
 
Are we sure that is TS on the phone call? I don’t think it sounds like her, her drawl is more pronounced in the tv video. IMO

that might be where the ‘she’ slip comes from.

It sounded like Tee on the call to me. That, and the way she repeated so many of her past lies, leads me to believe it was indeed, Tee. JMO.
 
Are we sure that is TS on the phone call? I don’t think it sounds like her, her drawl is more pronounced in the tv video. IMO

that might be where the ‘she’ slip comes from.

Oh, it's her, all right.

First, there's her self-obsessed focus during the entire conversation.

If that isn't enough to convince a person, there's her trademark crappy grammar and diction throughout the call, which are also dead giveaways.

She can mask her voice.
She can mask her face.
But she can't mask her stupidity.

It's definitely TS.

JMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
1,797
Total visitors
1,898

Forum statistics

Threads
601,606
Messages
18,126,747
Members
231,104
Latest member
maxnum
Back
Top