Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 **ARREST** #33

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t really care that Dadwithaphone put this out there.
Maybe don’t do incriminating interviews with random people you don’t know or trust, and lie on tape and reinforce opinions that people already have. Once again T is her own undoing

I'm glad he released it as well. If nothing else, because we can now talk about Petco.

I'm grateful for that. She all but admitted to buying three coats. What if she bought additional coats on the second trip, to account for missing coats she realized she would have to account for from the first trip, after awareness of surveillance settled in. Maybe first trip on a card, second trip cash.

I tell you what, I've always longed for the desire to get inside other people's heads and understand how they tick. From what we've seen so far, walking around in that particular head would be a nightmare I'd never wake up from.

I do, however, wish that there was some way that people like us (WS) could have live, realtime access to the case files, especially in cases like this where so much is held back from the public.
 
Agreed.

That crummy grammar and 4th grade vocabulary of hers are unmistakable.

Nobody butchers the King's English like TS.

JMO.
IMO the "anonymous" caller was even less coherent and had less command of the English language and grammar than does TS. Like Like um. Chris Watts sounds like an English professor compared to that gal and to stepmom.

And you guys already know what I think of T's educational level and command of English language, at first I even thought she was a product of recent ESL studies.

I listened to most of it because an earlier poster said that TS was dissing Gannon, I did not hear that at all.
 
Just thought of something else. If she did go to a Petco 3 furtherest away from her home, then it matches that she disposed of Gannon after her visit there. If she took Gannon to the Petco (and my theory is correct that he was injured but alive and she didn't expect him to die) it could be that she went to one far away because she didn't want to risk going to one where people would recognize him in the car and be able to see that he was hurt.

She had no problem being seen on the security camera in the Petco itself and even went back to the same one a second time after 1 pm. So it's obvious she didn't care about being recognized or seen that day. In fact she wanted to be seen. (I think it was an attempt to alibi herself for the time frame)

I could see her wanting to take advantage of the "buy 2 get one free sale" and prioritizing her dogs and dragging him along because she wasn't going to let him ruin her plans, but going to a Petco further away so no one would recognize him in the car and see he was sick or hurt, in case she got investigated later.

What sinks her story here about going to it because they wanted to go to PIAS. is that then she would have gone to two different Petcos. Even if she did go to the first one because it was near PIAS, she would have gone to a different Petco on the way home. This really indicates to me that she was trying to use the Petco stops to alibi herself and why she makes a point of telling the cops about it.
 
Maybe. She certainly doesn't seem capable of empathy or understanding why it would be hurtful to Landen and how it would look to everyone else.
But the fact that she got so defensive about it and said she wasn't going to take it down to "appease" Landen says it all. She even defends herself by saying what does it matter whether he's waving hello or goodbye and that it should be looked at as a happy memory.

That she would consider Gannon's parents, worried sick about their child, hoping he is not alone or cold or dead somewhere out in the snow, would see that picture as a happy memory is pathological. It shows a complete lack of respect and compassion.

Imo

she murdered their child ....she wants to hurt them, she does not care in fact i suspect if she is able to lash out at them in court she will, her sense of self preservation is being over ruled by her hatred for LS and even AS at this point

if his parents had commented it was a lovely picture she would have decided to delete it
 
i

respectfully disagree

if the impact of SM may effect the ongoing case then why should they have to make the information available?
the successful outcome of the investigation and prosecution trumps all IMO

i can imagine the outrage if LE released information that ended up damaging their investigation... they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
G's parents seem to be very supportive of the LE involved and they way they are conducting the case.
They want justice, they want Tee to get the maximum sentence possible... that is what matters at this point.

LE aren't damned if they don't. But if they want to engage in these social contracts then yes there will be an expectation that it is not a one way street.

Restricted reporting is a thing. Shut it down, suppress all names. Given the ride that the reputation of an accused person is given theres some cause to say it wouldn't be a bad thing if that always happened. Ever seen someone wrongly accused of a serious crime try to rebuild their reputation? Not a fun sight.

BUT if the powers that be are choosing to not go that route, there is going to be tension between the private and public domain. Because is it simply unreasonable (on both sides) to expect comment, rumours, conversations, group texts, facebook groups, youtube channels, twitter, church sermons to conform to some undefined standard of ethical behaviour.
 
The greatest paradox for me is how LS can both fox her way around a very loaded conversation and be completely oblivious as to the ONLY reason the conversation would be so loaded.

(snipped)

For me it's two things -- First, she's doing a reasonably good job of playing the role of a person who had nothing to do with it, or what she feels that should look like, which of course is all wrong. Second, though, and I've said this before, where does this need to convince the internet people come from? We have no say in what happens to her, we won't be in court with her, what is the overall psychological driver for that need to convince people who aren't stakeholders? And the real paradox is that had she NOT been doing that all along, she might be considered a much less likely suspect. It's her desperate attempts to convince everyone she's innocent that make her look even more guilty.
 
I’m not understanding why she insists that LE only knew she went to Petco “because she told them.” If they tracked her locations for the other areas they’ve been searching, why would she think Petco would not be picked up through pings or GPS? What is different in that situation??

Or...is it just TS being TS, a liar and not that smart?
I don't think it's been cleared up yet as to whether or not the pickup had GPS tracking. I would think so, but maybe it wouldn't track right to a store. Is "her" Petco in a shopping center? I just came on, I assume that we can talk about Petco now, because the moderator said we could discuss TS's part of the conversation.
Someone tell me quickly if we can't, and I'll erase that last part.
 
Ok first let me say I am pissed this recording came out on the same day as Gannon’s memorial. Once again overshadowing Gannon and redirecting focus to this wicked witch. I did not listen to the recording last night because i was not about to end Gannon’s day with TS.
Now I still haven’t listened and I won’t be able to for awhile but this is one thing that she contradicts. She says they are searching because they are following her gps. But then she says they wouldn’t have known she went to petco if she hadn’t told them. Huh?
Well, she said they were following her GPS and checking everywhere her phone pinged in a week, or something like that. Jmo
 
Thank you @Tricia for allowing the phone call between Letecia Stauch and the anonymous caller to be discussed here.

On to the call, that I will probably listen to again because oh boy, she's talking again....

At the start of the call she gets right into talking about bio-mom (where she's very comfortable). I still stand by my opinion that she was not jealous of bio-mom, she is so resentful. I don't believe she wanted bio-moms life, she liked her own. I'm not sure if her marriage at the beginning was different, where they had the children less and she pictured their lives together differently? Of course when you marry someone with children, it's a package deal. Her bio-daughter is considerably older, there's a decent age difference between them. Again, I just sense resentment. She's also saying in the call *IMO* that it was too much for her being alone with the kids especially with her husband gone often for work. I honestly believe in her twisted mind that's how she's justified what she did to Gannon. That's how she's rationalized her actions.

Other takeaways - she does not want to talk about Petco. My imagination then wanders to was Gannon deceased in the truck when she went into Petco the first time? Had the event just happened? Was that her first public appearance right after she murdered him but had not yet disposed of him? It's just interesting.

She also says she told LE she was at Petco, that they would not have known if she didn't tell them (wrong), because she didn't have her phone on her. That was a little nugget of acknowledgement to me that she purposely kept her phone home that day because she knew it could be tracked.

She later says they must have been sifting through snow because of her gps pings. But then she says they were sifting/searching in areas she did not go and that confused her. I immediately thought when she said that - she subconsciously was thinking about where Gannon's body is located. She might have been saying they were either "hot" or "cold" on those search locations in relation to his body.

I'm looking forward to reading members feedback on this phone call. There's alot to ponder and analyze.
 
IMO LS is someone who has had a LOT of experience talking her way out of situations. She's on what is perhaps the smart end of compulisive liars, in that lies are not used for needless fantasy lands but rather towards manipulation and, goals, money, jobs, relationships.

Yes, experienced at 'talking her way out of situations.' I see so many parallels with Casey Anthony. She also just kept lying and piling lies on top of lies. Only difference is that TS can't help responding to public opinion.

CA was so active on sm and created this illusion of this girl that's got it all together - just like TS with her $180,000 income, etc. I think TS has BS'd her way through many a situation in her life just by seeming like a person who would never do 'blank...'

Casey Anthony appeared, from the outside, to be a very attentive mother with Caylee - lots of selfies together, patient with Caylee in front of other people. This reminds me of TS with her twisted efforts to look like stepmother of the year with the postings and photos. Probably worked great until Gannon disappeared and now no one believes her.

And the final parallel, the disposal of Caylee - just down the street, low effort disposal after hiding Caylee's body in the car for a bit. I think we will see the same sort of 'low effort,' just off the road kind of placement with Gannon. Caylee wasn't found during early searches due to high water from rain covering the search area. Gannon is likely hidden by snow. Once it melts, he may be revealed. Casey didn't plan for that - she just got lucky. IMO, TS has been lucky in this regard. JMO

I'm really looking forward to seeing what LE knows. IMO it is only a matter of time before Gannon is located, but she's going down with or without his body.
 
Morning all,
Popping in to say #JusticeforGannon
Needed to step away this weekend a bit to clear my head and be present in my life. I'm doing better, I only cried for Gannon twice yesterday.:confused:
Saw there was some sort of recorded convo that took place with little helpful info from LS. Go figure.
Wondering how things are progressing. I hate the lack of information. I just want what she deserves to come quickly.
 
Well, she said they were following her GPS and checking everywhere her phone pinged in a week, or something like that. Jmo
I guess I need to listen to it because it still doesn’t make sense. Even if she left her phone at home they had gps ability to track her. Either by truck or by watch or both. So it wouldn’t make sense that they had the ability to track every place she went to except Pepco. Unless she is trying to say she went to Pepco on a different day. Or she was in a different vehicle without her watch that day.
 
LS really did kind of clam up regarding the topic of Petco. When the anonymous person said something about it being the Petco three away from LS's home and that someone said LS had been at that Petco twice that day, LS basically said so what (I can't remember exactly how she put it). Maybe the first time Gannon was with her or in the truck and the second time not. Or maybe she did buy something that was used in either in the incapacitation of Gannon or in disposing of his remains. The subject of Petco is one topic she really avoids.
 
For me it's two things -- First, she's doing a reasonably good job of playing the role of a person who had nothing to do with it, or what she feels that should look like, which of course is all wrong. Second, though, and I've said this before, where does this need to convince the internet people come from? We have no say in what happens to her, we won't be in court with her, what is the overall psychological driver for that need to convince people who aren't stakeholders? And the real paradox is that had she NOT been doing that all along, she might be considered a much less likely suspect. It's her desperate attempts to convince everyone she's innocent that make her look even more guilty.

BBM I wonder if she was a fan of shows like Dateline or Criminal Minds and would read comments online from the shows. This is the vibe I get from all her planning. A huge redflag is the back to camera interview (with the excuse that she's been getting death threats) but to me it was to avoid scrutiny of her face.

All her planning is what I think makes some people think this was preplanned. But IMO it's just years of knowing how criminal cases are investigated. If any of us found ourselves in a situation where we had to dispose of a dead body (not that any of us would) we'd know all the pitfalls and how to try to avoid detection.

Hence her not bringing a phone, her slick attempt at avoiding detection with the rental car. Going to the Petco twice. Statements she has made.

IMO the first part of her "cover up" wasn't to cover up a murder, because I don't think she expected Gannon to die from his injuries. I think it was to cover up her abuse of him to hide it from AS.

This is because I think she would have had a more coherent story to tell if she had planned it out. I think she had to switch gears in her lie which is why it's a disjointed mess.
 
Last edited:
I guess I need to listen to it because it still doesn’t make sense. Even if she left her phone at home they had gps ability to track her. Either by truck or by watch or both. So it wouldn’t make sense that they had the ability to track every place she went to except Pepco. Unless she is trying to say she went to Pepco on a different day. Or she was in a different vehicle without her watch that day.
To add to what I just posted, if Petco is in a shopping center (?) where there is a lot of parking, the gps, if there was one, would not have indicated which store she entered.
 
LS really did kind of clam up regarding the topic of Petco. When the anonymous person said something about it being the Petco three away from LS's home and that someone said LS had been at that Petco twice that day, LS basically said so what (I can't remember exactly how she put it). Maybe the first time Gannon was with her or in the truck and the second time not. Or maybe she did buy something that was used in either in the incapacitation of Gannon or in disposing of his remains. The subject of Petco is one topic she really avoids.
I thought she said that particular Petco was near where she was going to buy a bike for AS valentine's day.
 
So are you discounting that she moved his body the following day, before LE showed interest in that area?

I think the need to move him was because she realized her watch would give away his location, that same night.

When had she belonged to groups dedicated to murder? Afterwards or before?

moo
Many years before
 
LE aren't damned if they don't. But if they want to engage in these social contracts then yes there will be an expectation that it is not a one way street.

Restricted reporting is a thing. Shut it down, suppress all names. Given the ride that the reputation of an accused person is given theres some cause to say it wouldn't be a bad thing if that always happened. Ever seen someone wrongly accused of a serious crime try to rebuild their reputation? Not a fun sight.

BUT if the powers that be are choosing to not go that route, there is going to be tension between the private and public domain. Because is it simply unreasonable (on both sides) to expect comment, rumours, conversations, group texts, facebook groups, youtube channels, twitter, church sermons to conform to some undefined standard of ethical behaviour.
can I ask what social contract you are referring to?
LE using social media to help solve cases?
i do not see that as a contract rather a tool, just because they seek information doesn't mean it is a two way street, this is not some friend asking for advice who is prepared to sit and explain the situation, it is LE throwing a wide net with the hope of finding information that may help solve a case.

people have a very inflated sense of entitlement these days, SM and the internet has fed that belief that we have a right to everything now.
the idea because we feel invested that somehow elevates us to more than just bystanders with opinions doesn't actually mean we have a right to information that is not for public domain.
if we choose to gossip and throw out reckless theories about suspects or families involved that is on us as a society not on LE because they didn't set us straight at a time that wasn't appropriate or in the best interest of the case
 
she murdered their child ....she wants to hurt them, she does not care in fact i suspect if she is able to lash out at them in court she will, her sense of self preservation is being over ruled by her hatred for LS and even AS at this point

if his parents had commented it was a lovely picture she would have decided to delete it
Yes, each time she talks she basically gives away her motive for the crime. Jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
2,425
Total visitors
2,526

Forum statistics

Threads
590,003
Messages
17,928,882
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top