CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, found deceased, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #64

[iamshadow21]

Stream is back up.

Jury returning.

 

[NCWatcher]

I think it's really a stretch to call a psychiatrist's meet-up with a client a "review" of something. It was new material. And it wasn't a conversation with another expert, before testimony. It was a conversation with the defendant, who is a party to this trial. IMO

Can you think of another case where the expert chose to "talk to" (which makes it sound like a consultation) with the defendant off the record? In the jail? This was a 3 hour interaction. And I seriously doubt that T. was silent for three hours.

IMO.

I didn't say the meeting was a review. I was responding to various posts (including yours) that said Dr. L was using the meeting to "reinforce her already-presented ideas." And people seemed to think that was so wrong. But any expert will do things before testifying to reinforce his/her already-presented ideas.

I have no idea if a meeting like this has happened in other trials. What makes it problematic to me is NOT what everybody else seems in a twist about. But Colorado requires taping of expert evals for sanity. That's the rub to me. Not that she may come across as more confident in her testimony. Big whoop. Other people do things we don't know about and the other side doesn't either to create confidence in their testimony too.
JMO

 

[PhoneJockey]

Nope. No video. LE was left, it seems, with the knowledge Gannon did come home without solid video confirmation.

Jmo

I think the solid evidence is 2 parts.

1 - we see him leave, walking on his own and getting into the vehicle - very alive.

2. The fatal injuries had to have occurred in the home (more specifically, his room) based on the blood evidence.

Therefore, he had to have come back home to receive the fatal injuries in his room.

JMO! That seems pretty solid to me, though.

 

[iamshadow21]

Looks like we are getting the timelines on the screens.

 

[Kiranerys]

Who doesn't record is anybody trying to cheat the system.

I think it's really a stretch to call a psychiatrist's meet-up with a client a "review" of something. It was new material. And it wasn't a conversation with another expert, before testimony. It was a conversation with the defendant, who is a party to this trial. IMO

Can you think of another case where the expert chose to "talk to" (which makes it sound like a consultation) with the defendant off the record? In the jail? This was a 3 hour interaction. And I seriously doubt that T. was silent for three hours.

IMO.

Right? If she needed to review she should've looked through her notes and watched the videos from her interviews with the defendant, not visited her for 3 hours off the record the day before she is due to testify. I can't see anything ethical about this at all.

I am wondering how the Prosecution found out, did the defence disclose this visit or did someone at the jail inform them?.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I thought the defense only had 2 witnesses?

Ninja'd by 10ofRods

This is what Icked Mel has.
There is a lady that regularly shows up in the courtroom that provides him with documentation.


JMO

 

[Curious Me]

Back from Morning Break
..


..

 

[10ofRods]

I'm inclined to believe this was their first face-to-face meeting and it would be impossible for such a meeting not to affect Dr. Lewis's testimony. I think the state has reason to move the court to disqualify Dr. Lewis as an expert witness for the defense. I don't think this is over.

You put it so well. I agree with every word.

 

[LovesPeace2]

I just got here. Is Dr Lewis testifying now? Who was the last witness for prosecution? Thank you.

Wait till you read up on the shadey sh** the defense pulled jmoo

 

[Kiranerys]

What was that all about at the beginning of the first recess? I've never seen the judge cover his camera before, I was just wondering if I could attempt to lip read (I wouldn't have been able to, I never can ) and he put his hand over the camera!
He seemed annoyed.

 

[Cindizzi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Megnut]

Turned on a candle? Turned on?

 

[Cindizzi]

This is what Icked Mel has.
There is a lady that regularly shows up in the courtroom that provides him with documentation.


JMO

We’ve had access to all the documents from the Court site here.
Defense witness list has been there since February 13th.

They are only going to call 2 witnesses.

Home | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.courts.state.co.us

 

[Curious Me]

Conversation text mentioning the video where Gannon is heard saying, "I'm just worried about my burns."

Texts between Letecia and Harley
Letecia telling story to Al

 

[Megnut]

No confirmation of T's post-fire drive around the neighborhood. Never happened.

 

[iamshadow21]

No indication that any of them left the home after the candle incident at all. No going outside, no screaming in the street, no driving. Not LS, not Little Sis, not Gannon, not the dogs. None of them.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Recovery Addict seems to have a clearer image of the timelines. (I don't normally watch the livestreams but I can see why this part is going to be hard for people to quickly transcribe.)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Megnut]

No burns on the couch, just dripped wax, per the witness.

 

[Ravenmoon]

We’ve had access to all the documents from the Court site here.
Defense witness list has been there since February 13th.

They are only going to call 2 witnesses.

Home | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.courts.state.co.us

Thank you.
This is updated?
I wonder why Mel's showed different?

JMO

 

[heartandsoul]

I didn't say the meeting was a review. I was responding to various posts (including yours) that said Dr. L was using the meeting to "reinforce her already-presented ideas." And people seemed to think that was so wrong. But any expert will do things before testifying to reinforce his/her already-presented ideas.

I have no idea if a meeting like this has happened in other trials. What makes it problematic to me is NOT what everybody else seems in a twist about. But Colorado requires taping of expert evals for sanity. That's the rub to me. Not that she may come across as more confident in her testimony. Big whoop. Other people do things we don't know about and the other side doesn't either to create confidence in their testimony too.
JMO

I disagree. It is inappropriate in the last week of a trial. A confident expert witness, the only one (we know of) who is backing Letecias DID claim, this close to deliberations, can influence jurors. Defence know what they’re doing.

It’s unprofessional, imo. We’ll see what prosecution think when they get chance to review it.