- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,220
- Reaction score
- 178,587
Letecia is expected to plead insanity if the retrial happens
So she doesn’t have DID liked they claimed first time around. What a shock! The Russian and whoever else she paraded around were just a flat out lie. Oh my, surprise surprise.Tolini spoke with FOX31 and said there were differing opinions of what mental health disorder Stauch had, but the state hospital said she had severe borderline personality disorder.
“There’s also been a lot of studies, and everything coming out in the last couple of years, dealing with, that it is not uncommon at all for psychosis to occur in people with borderline personality, and so I think we’ll be exploring that quite a bit more for the next trial,” said Tolini.
Tolini said they will be looking at different experts who focus on severe borderline personality disorder.
“You know, all she had ever wanted was her day in court with a fair and impartial jury, and hopefully we’ll get it this time,” said Tolini.
While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody.
Thankfully!While Stauch’s conviction was reversed, she will remain in custody.
^^bbm
There were 6 days of voir dire for this case, and although jury selection is not broadcast, it was available to us via the Court's Webex (audio only, mostly the attorneys and the Court audible).
From my personal notes, I can attest that this matter of Juror MB (with a son-in-law employed by the 4th Judicial District)-- came up late on the fourth day--or Friday, March 24, 2023 during questioning session by the Prosecution.
To be clear, potential Juror MB had previously disclosed this personal relationship on his juror questionnaire provided to the parties.
To my recollection, the defense did not initiate the objection to strike juror MB for cause during their questioning session of the candidates on March 24, 2023.
The defense objection to the potential juror MB was more in passing during questioning by the prosecution and Judge Werner late on Friday. (Judge Werner recalled MB's questionnaire). After it wasn't completely clear (audible) about the son-in-law's position, length of service, etc., Judge Werner agreed with the Prosecutor not to strike the juror for cause YET, and suggested the matter be carried over until Monday.
IMO, the Parties/Court either discussed off record, moved on, and/or forgot about the matter after the weekend, and as dissenting Judge Bernard concluded in his Opinion, defendant's combination of awareness and deliberate conduct was intentional, and an implied waiver of defendant’s right to challenge the trial court’s erroneous decision to deny her challenge for cause to Juror M.B. on appeal (i.e.,through her counsel, Stauch intentionally banked this juror for her successful appeal).
I've already posted upthread the multiple Defense Motions filed during voir dire where remaining silent on the matter of removing potential juror MB for cause and/or challenging the denial clearly emphasizes how this act was intentional by the defense-- as a means to "bank" a deliberating juror MB to be used for appeal. And it worked! MOO
ETA: I do not fault Judge Werner whatsoever for killer Stauch being granted a new trial pursuant to a "structural error." Instead, I believe Judge Werner was of a like mind of Judge Bernard.
IMO, Judge Gregory Werner's handling of LS trial was one of the only positives of this horrific case where he was fair and balanced to all parties-- including the defense's expert witness who just couldn't get the most minimal discovery filed!
The fact that defense counsel typed a expert's report on the eve of her testimony, which was overlooked by all, knowing action of lesser magnitude cost parties of another Colorado case sanctions, and added to the cause for disbarment, speaks volumes to Judge Werner honoring the "spirit of the discovery statutes."
Absolutely.Thankfully!
^sbmIMO, Judge Gregory Werner's handling of LS trial was one of the only positives of this horrific case where he was fair and balanced to all parties-- including the defense's expert witness who just couldn't get the most minimal discovery filed!
Knowing that LS is expected to plead insanity in the retrial of Gannon, thought I'd share a sample of how LS spends her time in the Topeka DOC Facility. It's actually not much different than how she spent her time pretrial in El Paso County Jail!
For example, while incarcerated pretrial, LS filed a civil suit against the county and the El Paso County jail’s medical and food providers. Here, LS alleged staff were inappropriately labeling non-kosher food items as kosher and violating the sanitary requirements for a kosher diet. In retaliation for her complaints, jail workers delayed or denied her food. LS also claimed the jail was not providing adequate medical treatment.
The defendants moved to dismiss, but LS repeatedly failed to respond to USDC Colorado court orders or filings. In a series of letters, she informed the court her address changed multiple times, and, as of August 2023, she had transferred to a Kansas facility. She elaborated that prison officials there were “interfering with legal mail,” and LS was litigating that issue before a Kansas federal judge.
In an Aug. 8 [2024] order, U.S. District Court Judge S. Kato Crews decided to dismiss LS's civil lawsuit due to her failure to prosecute. Crews cited LS's pattern of non-response and non-compliance with the procedural rules. [Order--Colorado U.S. District Court]
Accordingly, on Feb 16, 2024, LS filed a 22-page pro-se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Kansas DOC-- Secretary Jeff Zemuda, et. al., and more than 80 Motions and/or Orders have followed-- including the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed on March 20, 2026. [Kansas (Federal) Court Docket]
Plaintiff's response to the Defendants' MTD is due on or before April 10, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond, the Court will likely take up the motion without the benefit of her response.
For a sample of LS's filings, please see the attached MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Letecia Stauch filed on April 10, 2025, and the Court's ORDER denying 46 Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 4/16/2025.
In seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, LS contends she is supposed to be a general population resident (without any disciplinary reports from August 2024 to present), but alleges she was placed in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) in August 2024, without a hearing, in retaliation for filing
this lawsuit.
Bless her black, evil, heart.... it's no surprise whatsoever to read that Judges have repeatedly had to advise LS that she does not have a constitutional right to dictate where she is housed in prison!![]()
Harley is probably horrified that she will have to listen to people talking about her mom again and giving her side eye. I feel for gannons family having to relive this again. I hope this woman never gets out, she should rot in a jail or mental health hospital for the rest of her days chasing those imaginary butterflies ..jmvhoDoes anyone know how Harley is doing now? Last I heard she was trying hard to get a nursing degree in North Carolina. This has probably been a hefty punch in the gut for her too.
I'm hoping it might be all formality and not live broadcast so no one ever has to see that evil woman's face ever again.I am looking forward to again seeing her stick wads of toilet paper into her ears each morning as testimony begins.
I missed the reason she is getting a new trial. ??????I agree that she likely sees the mental health prison as an easy escape. She probably also thinks she will be able to fool and manipulate the doctors, nurses and other patients. And, all it would take would be one relatively inexperienced staff person for her to get her hook into them.
But her communication with the outside world should be nil (unless a journalist contacts her in writing and she puts them on her visitor list, which I"m sure she would). Prisoners in a mental facility often get more personalized treatment (such as being allowed a particular shampoo or whatever). Federal law requires that there be some sort of barbering/hair care in prisons. Most prisons (and mental hospitals for criminals) allow better behaved prisoners to act as barbers to others (some prisons actually have classes in this). I cringe thinking that she'll be near sharp objects at some point. In a mental health prison, it should be the case that her treating psychiatrist has to okay her getting near sharp objects.
In a prison, she would likely be allowed barber services if she is behaving properly and works her way up through "levels" to get to that point.
I just picked hair care as an obvious topic for T. I do think some journalist, somewhere, will attempt (when she's allowed to have visitors, which she will be, eventually) to do a story on her. Hopefully, it will be an ethical journalist.
I have no clue how all prisons handle it, but in mental health prison situations, the treating psychiatrist would likely have to approve a journalistic interview (because sometimes, interviews about the past can trigger a whole host of new problem behaviors on the part of the prisoner-patient). All the interviews I've done inside state mental hospitals have been under the auspices and supervision of the treating psychiatrist. Same for interviews I've done in other mental hospitals. I've never had to have a doctor's permission to interview a regular prisoner.
IMO.
Biased juror previous trialI missed the reason she is getting a new trial. ??????
If trial is live streamed, people who don't want to see her face can skip the viewing. As someone with a special interest in law and the function of our justice system, I will certainly watch if possible.I'm hoping it might be all formality and not live broadcast so no one ever has to see that evil woman's face ever again.
Here's to wishful thinking.
jmo