Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, Lorson Ranch, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *endangered* #15

[FNG]

I read the document. It is revealed within the document that the BOE was provided the military order (proof of the move order), albeit it was late (received in pre-hearing communications) and not provided in the required time frame and method to facilitate proper review for the request.

Being lazy or disorganized or who knows what/why does not reveal one as capable of murderer or reveal a character that would hurt a child.

IMO, such fodder is being used to kick a person who was the last-to-see GS. Yes, we are not LE here and we have some leeway in kicking about a discussion regarding a possibility the person is involved but at this point we are not aware of any evidence that indicates involvement and I believe many are prematurely crossing a line.

Character flaws is all we have at this point. No evidence. Even the 'shopping trip' video is not definitive (yes, the 'shadows' again).

I always tend to lean on the benefit of 'innocent until proven guilty' in cases like this, and I truly do try to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone until strong evidence proves otherwise. As far as the 'video' (likely a copy of a copy of a copy), I don't see these 'shadows' that some people speak of. With that being said, I'm just a normal John Doe with no camera expertise and I very well may be wrong. But what I do see CONTINUALLY in this case (that has concerned me from the beginning) is a primary caretaker (we all know who) who seems more eager to defend herself and random details (that weren't even brought up by anyone else prior), rather than mourn the loss and unknown whereabouts of a child. It is a stark contrast from what has appeared from the biological mother and father. Other than the early video of the Bio mother and father yearning for their son's return, they've been quiet. Whereas the last documented person that saw Gannon just seems to be in defense mode and more than happy to just keep talking; Just an observation by me IMO. If one of my children were missing and I sincerely didn't have a clue where they were, I would just WANT THEM FOUND. None of the other stuff nor my ego would even be brought up. Unfortunately in this case, I'm not seeing that from SM. Just an observation by a random dude; not confirmed by MSM.

 

[Winterhike]

Bolded and underlined for emphasis.

Oooh, good catch, if true. I wouldn't be surprised if it was fiction, along with everything else she's claimed, it would seem. MOO.

I wonder if part of what was going on at the time the contract dispute/licensure issue went down was that she was considering NOT moving when AS's apparently upcoming military move happened. Maybe the marriage and their cohabitation was up in the air at that point and she was hedging her bets and/or manipulating AS by accepting positions in two different locations (and then leaving one in the lurch in the most unprofessional possible way she could have resolved the situation). JMO, not based on any information about marital strife.

By the way, if this isn't a good case for what might happen when districts are desperate in a teacher shortage... THIS lady scoring TWO different teaching positions is what might happen.

 

[gitana1]

I've been following this case from the start. First time posting, so please be kind!

IMHO I think this was the case or LE didn't want SM to have access to the house to get rid of possible evidence or "stage" things to fit her story. Another possibility is that AS asked or demanded that she leave. He knows his kids, their personalities, habits, and household. Based on SM's story and details of things (maybe out of place or missing) he saw when he returned home (and then by what he saw on that video) he knew she did something to Gannon. On another note, I wonder what details the little sister has been able to give?

I wonder that too. I think she saw a lot of what was going on in that house with the SM.

Thanks for posting!

 

[magnetic]

I think there is a cute saying about making ASSumptions, it evades me at the moment...

LE will never frame any statement or comment within the context of looking for a deceased person, until there is substantial evidence if such. Since this is an open active investigation and they have released next to no information or details on what evidence they are working with. What else would they say at this point?

From watching a ton of episodes of the Disappeared show, which is how I found this site, they do stories about people they never find, and sometimes they do find a body after a long time. I have not seen any case where the police ever declared someone is deceased when the case went cold. The family after many years can chose to declare the missing person dead. But otherwise, it seems when someone is missing and they cannot find them, they remain an open missing person case. I think it would be the same for children as well.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

I don't know. I've never known a teacher to sign a contract who hasn't been fully committed to that school. If she had let them know she might not be able to commit in the first place, they wouldn't have agreed to the contract. Then to turn around and blame the school is ridiculous. She didn't accept responsibility for her own actions which shows a pattern.

It's a huge inconvenience to staff, students and parents. It was dishonest and deceptive, which is what you wouldn't expect from a teacher who cares about children.

Imo

ITA, but I'm not yet fully convinced those traits indicate the particular person is capable of the big M, but I am leaning toward the person is capable of certain abuse tactics, such as instilling fear and/or causing physical discomfort to the point of inflicting pain, and that is based on something that we are not permitted to discuss in this forum.

 

[BeckyF]

I am concerned of course. I mean I think we all get worried that a case won’t resolve. But it’s super early on. We’ve all seen enough of these cases. They take time.

Yes, they definitely do. Not one size fits all that is for sure. I do not envy the searchers who have spent hundreds of hours searching for any clue. They have my admiration. Thank you for your insight.

 

[firebird]

It was more than a lapsed license. A lapsed license doesn't end up in a court battle and judicial decision. It just lapses. JMO

My point is, I once had my license suspended in state xyz for not paying dues. If you googled my name and read the public notice, you would have thought I'd been "dis-professionaled"everywhere for all time because it said something along the lines that I had been suspended from the practice in XYZ state. And you would have had no idea why. If my stepson had disappeared, the thread about it would have been full of "omg, her license was suspended" and it must have been for something awful. The reality was, that I was still licensed to practice in A B and C states, where I actually was practicing at the time and, but for my $ not being paid in XYZ state, I was "good to go"

eta: I looked it up and it still shows me as suspended, even though I've been practicing in multiple other jurisdictions for years.

Imo, the whole license issus is a whole lot of nothing. Regardless of her challenging it and the outcome. It's not like she was charged with a crime and found guilty. jmo

 

[lucidtx]

I read the document. It is revealed within the document that the BOE was provided the military order (proof of the move order), albeit it was late (received in pre-hearing communications) and not provided in the required time frame and method to facilitate proper review for the request.

Being lazy or disorganized or who knows what/why does not reveal one as capable of murderer or reveal a character that would hurt a child.

IMO, such fodder is being used to kick a person who was the last-to-see GS. Yes, we are not LE here and we have some leeway in kicking about a discussion regarding a possibility the person is involved but at this point we are not aware of any evidence that indicates involvement and I believe many are prematurely crossing a line.

Character flaws is all we have at this point. No evidence. Even the 'shopping trip' video is not definitive (yes, the 'shadows' again).

She was dishonest with the state board about what she had submitted to the district, though, and that's a pretty big deal. She had also entered into a contract with a different nearby school district at the same time.

Professional licensure proceedings are official and if nothing else she demonstrated a willingness to lie to authorities.

 

[MassGuy]

We've established a pattern of dishonesty. And resentment against the Bio mum. Don't you think that is very relevant for this case. TS is the last person who saw Gannon. He is the son of a woman she apparently hates. And yet she has shown deception in her statements about what happened to him during those crucial days before and after his disappearance.

What other theories are there that make sense for all of this deception on her part? Who else makes sense in terms of motive and opportunity? It seems very clear that law enforcement is not on the same page as TS's account of the situation. That is very telling.

I'd like to see someone explain TS's actions and inconsistencies (in context and examined as a whole), in a way which would clear her of any involvement in Gannon's disappearance. So far I haven't heard or seen anything that is convincing me otherwise. JMO.

Exactly. This all makes perfect sense to me.

When I heard about that alleged Google search, and that Gannon hadn’t been in school that day, I was very suspicious.

When she gave that interview, alarm bells were going off. We saw an angry, vindictive woman, concerned only about her public image.

When we saw A CSI team at the house, and District Attorney Dan May on scene, that sent an unmistakable signal that they were investigating foul play.

When we heard what the neighbor had to say about the video, and how Gannon’s dad reacted to it, the timeline came into focus.

When we saw that prolonged search 40 miles away, it left no doubt in my mind that this is nothing, if not a homicide investigation.

Gannon was in one person’s custody. This person was the last one to see him. There is no sign he left the house to go play, and every indication that he left with SM, and never returned.

And it all fits.

 

[lucidtx]

My point is, I once had my license suspended in state xyz for not paying dues. If you googled my name and read the public notice, you would have thought I'd been "dis-professionaled"everywhere for all time because it said something along the lines that I had been suspended from the practice in XYZ state. And you would have had no idea why. If my stepson had disappeared, the thread about it would have been full of "omg, her license was suspended" and it must have been for something awful. The reality was, that I was still licensed to practice in A B and C states, where I actually was practicing at the time and, but for my $ not being paid in XYZ state, I was "good to go"

eta: I looked it up and it still shows me as suspended, even though I've been practicing in multiple other jurisdictions for years.

Imo, the whole license issus is a whole lot of nothing. Regardless of her challenging it and the outcome. It's not like she was charged with a crime and found guilty. jmo

A license that's lapsed is way different than one that was suspended in official disciplinary proceedings. I also doubt there's record of you lying to the state board in such proceedings.

 

[Winterhike]

My point is, I once had my license suspended in state xyz for not paying dues. If you googled my name and read the public notice, you would have thought I'd been "dis-professionaled"everywhere for all time because it said something along the lines that I had been suspended from the practice in XYZ state. And you would have had no idea why. If my stepson had disappeared, the thread about it would have been full of "omg, her license was suspended" and it must have been for something awful. The reality was, that I was still licensed to practice in A B and C states, where I actually was practicing at the time and, but for my $ not being paid in XYZ state, I was "good to go"

eta: I looked it up and it still shows me as suspended, even though I've been practicing in multiple other jurisdictions for years.

Imo, the whole license issus is a whole lot of nothing. Regardless of her challenging it and the outcome. It's not like she was charged with a crime and found guilty. jmo

...But that isn't why her license was suspended. I see your point about how license issues can look a lot more serious than they are without context, but in this case we do have context: her license was suspended because of a contract issue that, IMO, shows her to be unprofessional and deceptive (and not somebody that seems to be a great pick to model behavior--or grammar-- to children or teenagers).

 

[MsBetsy]

ITA, but I'm not yet fully convinced those traits indicate the particular person is capable of the big M, but I am leaning toward the person is capable of certain abuse tactics, such as instilling fear and/or causing physical discomfort to the point of inflicting pain, and that is based on something that we are not permitted to discuss in this forum.

Yes, it definitely shows a pattern. The biggest concern for me is that if she lies so much, how can we believe anything she says?

At first she seemed confident that Gannon was alive and would come home, next she's not sure but still doesn't show any concern. It makes me believe she at least knows what happened to him, and that she is likely responsible.

Imo

 

[gitana1]

If LE again comments they believe GS is alive, after so much time has passed since he went missing then I would hope LE will provide at least a minimal reasoning why they hold such a belief.

If it's because they don't believe a certain individual has it in them to have done the Worst to GS then I would question such reasoning. Since I do not believe LE would be that dismissive I must assume LE has evidence that leans toward or directly points to the likelihood that GS is alive.

Or it’s just tactic that they use.

 

[gitana1]

...But that isn't why her license was suspended. I see your point about how license issues can look a lot more serious than they are without context, but in this case we do have context: her license was suspended because of a contract issue that, IMO, shows her to be unprofessional and deceptive (and not somebody that seems to be a great pick to model behavior--or grammar-- to children or teenagers).

And someone who doesn’t handle the end of relationships well.

 

[Winterhike]

And someone who doesn’t handle the end of relationships well.

SHIVER.

 

[MtnMama]

Frankly, I'd love to see the ENTIRE text and electronic messaging history b/t AS and TS, going back to when they first married.

I think that would likely be quite revealing.

This incident didn't just suddenly materialize out of nowhere.

She wasn't Mary Poppins, dishing out spoonfuls of sugar for years and then all of a sudden, "Poof!" GS is gone.

That ain't how it works.

JMO.

Yes, this. He knew her personality & likely knew something was "off" with her. I mean we all watched a 10 minute interview with her & could tell she wasn't normal, I'm sure her spouse knew this better than anyone. Did he know to the extent that she would do something like this, no, but a screw loose...yes! I think that's what makes this all the harder for AS. Maybe he's thinking, I knew something was wrong & if I'd just left with the kids, none of this would've happened. JMO

 

[firebird]

...But that isn't why her license was suspended. I see your point about how license issues can look a lot more serious than they are without context, but in this case we do have context: her license was suspended because of a contract issue that, IMO, shows her to be unprofessional and deceptive (and not somebody that seems to be a great pick to model behavior--or grammar-- to children or teenagers).

I'll just say I wouldn't want someone potentially hostile to my interests involved in making decisions regarding my employment. I think there are two sides to that story and, as I said, it's a minor board matter. The most minor of civil cases and certainly not a crime. Not even a misdemeanor. I don't think she's a fantastic person, or even innocent, necessarily. I just think the license thing is, as I said, a bunch of irrelevant nothing as far as serious criminal behavior goes. jmo

 

[ChuckMaureen]

I always tend to lean on the benefit of 'innocent until proven guilty' in cases like this, and I truly do try to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone until strong evidence proves otherwise. As far as the 'video' (likely a copy of a copy of a copy), I don't see these 'shadows' that some people speak of. With that being said, I'm just a normal John Doe with no camera expertise and I very well may be wrong. But what I do see CONTINUALLY in this case (that has concerned me from the beginning) is a primary caretaker (we all know who) who seems more eager to defend herself and random details (that weren't even brought up by anyone else prior), rather than mourn the loss and unknown whereabouts of a child. It is a stark contrast from what has appeared from the biological mother and father. Other than the early video of the Bio mother and father yearning for their son's return, they've been quiet. Whereas the last documented person that saw Gannon just seems to be in defense mode and more than happy to just keep talking; Just an observation by me IMO. If one of my children were missing and I sincerely didn't have a clue where they were, I would just WANT THEM FOUND. None of the other stuff nor my ego would even be brought up. Unfortunately in this case, I'm not seeing that from SM. Just an observation by a random dude; not confirmed by MSM.

I agree with your comments but the video is a sticking point for me; I do see the shadows (there is more than one and appear in-sync), they're not anomalies of a 'copy of a copy of a copy'.

The person's seemingly-constant 'defense mode' could be explained by her experiencing true fear for her life; she has been threatened, not only on-line but also during one-on-one confrontations; expected.

I suspect the person has felt quite comfortable in their lifestyle, a certain freedom perhaps but has always felt inferior as compared against, let's say, a bio-mom and always felt a need to present an "I'm better than her" character. I don't know, I'm not schooled in that art, it's just a feeling I have. And it's that feeling that makes me concerned for GS, as I am not entirely sure as to what lengths such a person would extend to fight back against even an imagined threat. What would such a person do to inflict emotional pain against either a real or imagined threat? And unfortunately, maybe an innocent child was caught up in the process.

I approach the notion of self-serving individuals cautiously. Some have limits as to what they would do to accommodate their own needs, while others have no limit and to the point where they have no care of whom they hurt nor of the consequences that may befell them; it's all about the here and now.

 

[ChuckMaureen]

She was dishonest with the state board about what she had submitted to the district, though, and that's a pretty big deal. She had also entered into a contract with a different nearby school district at the same time.

Professional licensure proceedings are official and if nothing else she demonstrated a willingness to lie to authorities.

Which does not a killer make. We've yet to see evidence or propensity. Pain infliction, whether emotional and/or physical is a whole other topic.

 

[Winterhike]

I agree with your comments but the video is a sticking point for me; I do see the shadows (there is more than one and appear in-sync), they're not anomalies of a 'copy of a copy of a copy'.

The person's seemingly-constant 'defense mode' could be explained by her experiencing true fear for her life; she has been threatened, not only on-line but also during one-on-one confrontations; expected.

I suspect the person has felt quite comfortable in their lifestyle, a certain freedom perhaps but has always felt inferior as compared against, let's say, a bio-mom and always felt a need to present an "I'm better than her" character. I don't know, I'm not schooled in that art, it's just a feeling I have. And it's that feeling that makes me concerned for GS, as I am not entirely sure as to what lengths such a person would extend to fight back against even an imagined threat. What would such a person do to inflict emotional pain against either a real or imagined threat? And unfortunately, maybe an innocent child was caught up in the process.

I approach the notion of self-serving individuals cautiously. Some have limits as to what they would do to accommodate their own needs, while others have no limit and to the point where they have no care of whom they hurt nor of the consequences that may befell them; it's all about the here and now.

Can you explain more about what you are talking about in the bolded? What lifestyle and what freedom?