CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, found deceased, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #58

[Kiranerys]

Re juror number 12. I've been thinking and I think the judge will dismiss her. After what Mr Tolini said, I think it's possible if they keep her the judge will be thinking they will use it to move for a mistrial or at least grounds for appeal, and he has been pretty thorough so far to ensure there are no grounds. I think he will err on the side of caution here.

 

[NCWatcher]

Surely her Barrister , Attorney, Lawyer , whichever it is , will not allow her to take the stand! What a debacle that would be. He must get a signed waiver from her if she does. And, being Letitia, with such a story and so much more to reveal about herself to us all, and actually believe that people hear her lava flow of irrational and dreary nonsense, over and over again, the mad fantasies, the crazed convictions, the dribbling banality of her backwoods barnyard life, she will fight to the death to get into the stand and finally, finally have an audience that has to listen to her, where she can direct and control and conduct the flow and ebb of rubbish.

People like Letitia love that witness testifying stuff, even if they are the accused, sometimes, particularly if they are the accused. It's like Gangbusters Day for them, they cannot shutup, and everything goes to hell quite quickly. Many a dedicated lawyer has tried to woodshed clients like Letitia.. a losing game. ...

I reckon that judge will give her a long leash should she take the stand, enough to hang herself 10 times over.


And 25 years from now, when she comes up to apply for parole, she will tell the same ludicrous delusionary scenario of being 'raped' and ' frightened' and ' protective' and all that tootle. Said with a straight face and that cockeyed stare. Her story will never change. Not ever. It's concreted in, now.

Her attorneys have to let her take the stand if she wants to. They can advise (I agree they'd advise against it) but it's her choice. And I'm sure they will explain they cannot control the cross-examination she'll face.

I'm sure too the judge would question her to ensure it's really her choice and it's on the record if that's what she chooses to do. So far as I know, she would be questioned outside the presence of the jury initially. But it would then be made clear to the jury she has chosen to testify. And if she doesn't choose to do that, it will be made clear to the jury they cannot legally hold her choice against her. (Doesn't mean it won't be held against her. Jurors do and say illegal things all the time, unfortunately. "He wouldn't have been arrested if he didn't do it." "He must be guilty if he hired an attorney that early" "She didn't defend herself so she must have done it" "If she didn't do X she must have done something else illegal or she would have taken the stand" and so on.)

Personally I don't think testifying will be her choice. I really don't think she wants to testify. At all. She's obviously tried out lots of stories prior to arrest. While she is clueless about how she comes across, and I'm sure she may still overestimate her persuasive abilities, I don't think she thinks she can testify her way out at this point. While AS testified in hindsight about her use of manipulation, he did marry her. And they stayed married for over 5 years. So her approaches have worked at certain times-- I just don't think she believes they'll work now. I think she knows that other approaches are needed. But I could be wrong.
JMO

 

[Marie Bell]

Her attorneys have to let her take the stand if she wants to. They can advise (I agree they'd advise against it) but it's her choice. And I'm sure they will explain they cannot control the cross-examination she'll face.

I'm sure too the judge would question her to ensure it's really her choice and it's on the record if that's what she chooses to do. So far as I know, she would be questioned outside the presence of the jury initially. But it would then be made clear to the jury she has chosen to testify. And if she doesn't choose to do that, it will be made clear to the jury they cannot legally hold her choice against her. (Doesn't mean it won't be held against her. Jurors do and say illegal things all the time, unfortunately. "He wouldn't have been arrested if he didn't do it." "He must be guilty if he hired an attorney that early" "She didn't defend herself so she must have done it" "If she didn't do X she must have done something else illegal or she would have taken the stand" and so on.)

Personally I don't think testifying will be her choice. I really don't think she wants to testify. At all. She's obviously tried out lots of stories prior to arrest. While she is clueless about how she comes across, and I'm sure she may still overestimate her persuasive abilities, I don't think she thinks she can testify her way out at this point. While AS testified in hindsight about her use of manipulation, he did marry her. And they stayed married for over 5 years. So her approaches have worked at certain times-- I just don't think she believes they'll work now. I think she knows that other approaches are needed. But I could be wrong.
JMO

But if her defence is not guilty by reason of insanity that surely rules out her taking the stand? Has any defendant who has pleaded insanity ever taken the stand? Genuine question.

 

[iamshadow21]

Re juror number 12. I've been thinking and I think the judge will dismiss her. After what Mr Tolini said, I think it's possible if they keep her the judge will be thinking they will use it to move for a mistrial or at least grounds for appeal, and he has been pretty thorough so far to ensure there are no grounds. I think he will err on the side of caution here.

Well, whatever he does, we know it will be damn thoroughly researched and have a solid foundation, after what we saw with the caselaw discussion of laypeople giving opinions on sanity the other day. He's going to be mugging up on juror eligibility this weekend. Hopefully in a comfy lounge chair and with a bevvy of his choice (alcohol, coffee, tea, milk, etc.) in hand.

MOO

 

[Trooper]

I can't figure out what happened the night before. I also believe the carpet burning was to cover up a blood letting event, however, Gannon was burned and that seemed to concern him greater than any other injury at that time. But there's also planning involved. Letecia wanted the girls and dogs out of the house - but not Gannon. She mentions covering up smoke detectors (?). What was her plan? Whatever it was, it didn't work, and she needed to take the Monday to further her torture of a child in her care and eventually end his life.

She's sat in the court room, plugging her ears with tissue to avoid only her own voice, swearing at witnesses/the jury/the family (I don't know), communicating to the jurors and making "jokes" to her defence team. No remorse. No empathy. No humanity. She is still demonstrating calculated planning, but she's bad at it. Lock her away.

She is so bad at it! She knows enough to copy normal conduct, but she doesn't quite understand the basis of it, and she gives it away completely once she realises she is getting no traction. She can only do it for a certain amount of time, too, she keeps the word flowing, and .... and then there is a flare, a verbal trip up and other people reel back.

I genuinely think she will get up and testify, mainly because it's her last chance to shine, and shine she must, and she believes she is cleverer than the Prosecuting Attorney, by miles. Can rung rings around him, and she wants people to see that. She wants all of Arizona to see that, how kind, clever, gentle, motherly, wifely, Arizonally she is. Why . she just cans tomato's and peaches in her spare time, and wool weaves scarves, and bakes cupcakes for the homeless. The witness stand is a huge stage to people like Letitia. Lights, cameras, directors, etc. It is really what they yearned for, and proceeded towards all their life.

She is blocking her ears because that yapping other people are doing is white noise. Always has been, people will have the beacon of TRUTH and MOTHERHOOD and THE AMERICAN WAY shone on them when Letitia gets up.

 

[Trooper]

One thing I have not got a handle on, is this a Death Penalty case? I know Arizona has the death penalty at law, with currently 115 awaiting that action, is this what these jurors are qualified ( in the legal sense of being agreeable to finding someone guilty with the death penalty as a consequence ) ( I live in a no death penalty country so I don't actually understand the qualifier perhaps as much as I should ) ... If she is found guilty , and not insane, is it a death penalty consequence or has that been already adjudicated as a non death penalty trial?

 

[Warwick7]

Not to change the subject. But did anyone catch that comment by the Kansas LE when he arrived? Lol!!
Before he said to get her in the ditch on her knees, he said: "I've got a dog. If you going run, you better run fast."
Lol!!!!

 

[Warwick7]

Here is another area of LS's disposition worth talking about. She said:

"So, I let her stay up longer than she's supposed to as like, you know, I don't want to say bribery but, you know?"

 

[AngTxGal]

Her attorneys have to let her take the stand if she wants to. They can advise (I agree they'd advise against it) but it's her choice. And I'm sure they will explain they cannot control the cross-examination she'll face.

I'm sure too the judge would question her to ensure it's really her choice and it's on the record if that's what she chooses to do. So far as I know, she would be questioned outside the presence of the jury initially. But it would then be made clear to the jury she has chosen to testify. And if she doesn't choose to do that, it will be made clear to the jury they cannot legally hold her choice against her. (Doesn't mean it won't be held against her. Jurors do and say illegal things all the time, unfortunately. "He wouldn't have been arrested if he didn't do it." "He must be guilty if he hired an attorney that early" "She didn't defend herself so she must have done it" "If she didn't do X she must have done something else illegal or she would have taken the stand" and so on.)

Personally I don't think testifying will be her choice. I really don't think she wants to testify. At all. She's obviously tried out lots of stories prior to arrest. While she is clueless about how she comes across, and I'm sure she may still overestimate her persuasive abilities, I don't think she thinks she can testify her way out at this point. While AS testified in hindsight about her use of manipulation, he did marry her. And they stayed married for over 5 years. So her approaches have worked at certain times-- I just don't think she believes they'll work now. I think she knows that other approaches are needed. But I could be wrong.
JMO

I think it is a toss up if she will take the stand or not.
She is a self absorb attention seeker, and for some reason her record did not prevent her from working with children. It appears to me that she is a power hungry , likely always has been, and I believe there are other victims.
As the trial moves forward and she gets a sense of how it is going her hail Mary may be to take the stand.
Her options are limited, the trial is all the freedom she has out of her cell. Once it is over she may go into general population- and she will hurt someone and also be hurt. That is her future- Karma will find her
JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

But if her defence is not guilty by reason of insanity that surely rules out her taking the stand? Has any defendant who has pleaded insanity ever taken the stand? Genuine question.

I don't see why her plea would have anything to do with her ability to testify myself. She is pleading insanity. She's competent for trial, after allor there would be a trial or any plea. Testifying isn't a good idea (usually isn't for most defendants) but she could likely do it. In Colorado the burden in an insanity case is on the state to prove sanity but she'd still be able to testify I'd expect.

I am not from Colorado so I'm not as familiar with cases there. But here are two cases from NC where 1) Insanity pleas were successful and likely should have been IMO. And 2) The defendants testified. And 3) In the first case the defendant was 1 of only 2 defense witnesses. And 4) The second case raised issues about NC law. But all cases and all controlling state laws are not alike.

An 'extremely rare' verdict: Jury finds Greensboro man was insane during 2015 crime spree

From the moment Isaiah Jural Fox, 31, awoke in the hospital on Oct. 6, 2015 with a bullet wound, his story to authorities has remained the same: He couldn't remember

greensboro.com

Old Salisbury Road shooting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

JMO

 

[kittythehare]

Re juror number 12. I've been thinking and I think the judge will dismiss her. After what Mr Tolini said, I think it's possible if they keep her the judge will be thinking they will use it to move for a mistrial or at least grounds for appeal, and he has been pretty thorough so far to ensure there are no grounds. I think he will err on the side of caution here.

Not sure yet.
She gave rather more information than was necessary about the personal circumstances of the witness, I thought.

 

[Kiranerys]

One thing I have not got a handle on, is this a Death Penalty case? I know Arizona has the death penalty at law, with currently 115 awaiting that action, is this what these jurors are qualified ( in the legal sense of being agreeable to finding someone guilty with the death penalty as a consequence ) ( I live in a no death penalty country so I don't actually understand the qualifier perhaps as much as I should ) ... If she is found guilty , and not insane, is it a death penalty consequence or has that been already adjudicated as a non death penalty trial?

They have recently removed the death penalty in Colorado, which is where this crime occurred. Technically this could have been a death penalty case as she killed Gannon before they banned the dp, but I believe they said early on that the Governor had been commuting dp cases, so even if convicted and sentenced to death, it would never realistically happen.

This is just my recollection of events which should in no way be trusted, and I would wait for someone who actually knows what they're talking about to clarify, don't take my word for it!

 

[kittythehare]

But if her defence is not guilty by reason of insanity that surely rules out her taking the stand? Has any defendant who has pleaded insanity ever taken the stand? Genuine question.

the 'insanity' applies to the time of the offence afaik.
Not a permanent ailment.

 

[Kiranerys]

Not sure yet.
She gave rather more information than was necessary about the personal circumstances of the witness, I thought.

I think she was just being thorough, she was probably a bit worried about being in trouble (even though she wasn't and she did the right thing straight away), nerves I would think.

 

[Kiranerys]

the 'insanity' applies to the time of the offence afaik.
Not a permanent ailment.

Which is exactly what she's banking on. She thinks she can game the system and be declared sane and free to go after a year or so

 

[AngTxGal]

I don't see why her plea would have anything to do with her ability to testify myself. She is pleading insanity. She's competent for trial, after allor there would be a trial or any plea. Testifying isn't a good idea (usually isn't for most defendants) but she could likely do it. In Colorado the burden in an insanity case is on the state to prove sanity but she'd still be able to testify I'd expect.

I am not from Colorado so I'm not as familiar with cases there. But here are two cases from NC where 1) Insanity pleas were successful and likely should have been IMO. And 2) The defendants testified. And 3) In the first case the defendant was 1 of only 2 defense witnesses. And 4) The second case raised issues about NC law. But all cases and all controlling state laws are not alike.

An 'extremely rare' verdict: Jury finds Greensboro man was insane during 2015 crime spree

From the moment Isaiah Jural Fox, 31, awoke in the hospital on Oct. 6, 2015 with a bullet wound, his story to authorities has remained the same: He couldn't remember

greensboro.com

Old Salisbury Road shooting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

JMO

LS is showing the jury she is a manipulative pathological liar, and capable of planning and carrying out a heinous act and attempting to cover it up.
She understands right and wrong, I can’t see how that translates to criminally insane.

While her testifying would not be a good idea if she actually had a chance… but when she begins to feel trapped and desperate she will do one of these… I predict
- fire her defense while on camera so she can defend herself and question/ harass some of the witnesses for her own entertainment- such as her daughter and Gannon’s mom, maybe Al
- throw a fit at a witness, the judge, her attorneys, or the prosecution
- throw a fit in jail
- take the stand and make a spectacle of herself and the courtroom
She is the eternal victim, and wants to prolong this as much as she can, she actually likes the spotlight. Her turtle behavior is an act- her watching and hearing and reacting is her nature.
She will go out in some kind of news splash- she won’t fade away quietly.

JMO

 

[Ontario Mom]

I can't get past the cut out carpet sections.

Until yesterday we only knew of ONE 2'x2' cut out carpet section, with burn marks and candle wax, which was located in the trash can outside the house.

Then yesterday we learn, there was a second carpet section with large blood stains, hidden and rolled up inside another, larger carpet section, tucked away inside the storage area. That blood stained carpet section didn't have any burn marks on it at all.

So, was the blood stained carpet section we learned about yesterday, the original carpet next to the couch? Keeping in mind the testimony given stated there was a presumptive hit for (possible) blood on the burned area of the carpet next to the couch. So then, was the bloodied carpet removed, and replaced with another piece of carpet that she then burned intentionally, to claim that's why she had to cut that section out?

 

[Tealgrove]

After listening to Leticia over and over and over again….how happy are we that she decided NOT to represent herself?

Can you imagine her being her own lawyer and going on and on and on…………..?????

It’s the only sensible decision she’s ever made. Thank God for that! Lol

 

[NCWatcher]

LS is showing the jury she is a manipulative pathological liar, and capable of planning and carrying out a heinous act and attempting to cover it up.
She understands right and wrong, I can’t see how that translates to criminally insane.

While her testifying would not be a good idea if she actually had a chance… but when she begins to feel trapped and desperate she will do one of these… I predict
- fire her defense while on camera so she can defend herself and question/ harass some of the witnesses for her own entertainment- such as her daughter and Gannon’s mom, maybe Al
- throw a fit at a witness, the judge, her attorneys, or the prosecution
- throw a fit in jail
- take the stand and make a spectacle of herself and the courtroom
She is the eternal victim, and wants to prolong this as much as she can, she actually likes the spotlight. Her turtle behavior is an act- her watching and hearing and reacting is her nature.
She will go out in some kind of news splash- she won’t fade away quietly.

JMO

I don't disagree with many of your points. But I think on there's zero chance some of the things you list will actually happen. For example, I do not to think the judge will allow her to fire her court-appointed attorneys and represent herself mid-trial. She's not going to be allowed to harass witnesses by questioning them no matter how much she might want to. Attorneys aren't allowed to do that either.

I know some want to see her tied up Hannibal Lector style during the trial but that's not going to happen. And if she wants to stick pieces of tissue in her ears, no one cares and IMO the judge isn't going to reprimand her for that silly behavior. But she's not going to be allowed to act out in other ways. The judge has made that clear as ANY competent judge would. The chances are greater IMO she ends up in the holding cell during the trial than some of those things happening. But that's JMO.

 

[shotgun09]

Thinking about the question of if she takes the stand. I believe she will, IF miss Harley's testimony is too damaging towards her. The defense has been subtly suggesting Harley as a suspect, and this is their door to a defense. MOO