Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #49

Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by imstilla.grandma, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. CemeteryHunter12

    CemeteryHunter12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The holidays are fast approaching and my heart hurts as I think about Gannon and his family, and the emptiness and heartache they will endure. Each day is painful for them, but the holidays are always worse when family you love is not here. Every time I see a certain color blue, I immediately think of sweet, handsome Gannon and how blue the skies must be in Heaven! No punishment on this Earth will ever be severe enough for the wretched soul that took his precious life. Forever Gannon
     


  2. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    18,224
    Likes Received:
    193,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. CemeteryHunter12

    CemeteryHunter12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
  4. NCWatcher

    NCWatcher Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Thanks @Seattle1!

    For me, that was not a terribly persuasive brief. I have no idea what the judge will do but I guess the defense will have the opportunity to post one last brief before that decision is made.

    CRS 16-8-5-401(1) ("defendant waives privilege")
    doesn't mention recording even though we've had the ability to easily audio-record for over a half-century (and the ability to easily videotape for over a quarter-century.) The state claims the statute could include recordings. Yeah, it could. It could have been written to include alot of things not mentioned. Maybe it could even have said all parties can directly observe evaluations in real time. But that's not what it says. Observation, whether via audio- or videotape or in "the flesh" wasn't mentioned. And it seems to me there is good reason it wasn't for a pre-trial competency evaluation.

    As a non-lawyer, the brief to me seems to rest mainly on the notion of "transparency is always best" and I'm not sure that's the case so far as a defendant's pre-trial rights go. (And I'm quite sure when it comes down to it, it's not how most DA's offices operate either!)

    A second difficulty I have is with the argument the state makes about the possibility of conflicting reports. While admitting they aren't "soothsayers" and so there may not be a future conflict, the state argues recordings will be the "best evidence" for all parties to consider if there is a conflict in recommendations re: competency.

    That argument makes it sound as though the state expects all parties to be able to properly function as fully-trained psychiatrists and psychologists, if necessary. Coming from a psychology perspective, I have trouble with that notion.

    If there is a conflict, the best evidence, in my opinion, is not the recordings but the testimony of the evaluators. Anyone who does court-ordered evaluations is going to have a very clear idea why he/she made a particular recommendation. He/she will lay out his/her reasoning in the report to the court and will be prepared to discuss that reasoning.

    For example, let's say the defendant said A, B, and C during the evals. (Of course, it wouldn't be this simple in a real eval situation.)

    Evaluator #1 testifies A was key in his recommendation of competency. (A fact he included his report.) Evaluator #2 testifies C was key in her recommendation of incompetency. (A fact she included in her report.) It sounds as though the state is arguing:

    1) Statement B, a statement neither evaluator thought particularly relevant, should be heard and considered by the "psychologically-untrained" court parties to determine competency.

    2) Both Statements A and C need to be heard on tape/ seen on videotape by the psychologically-untrained court parties to determine which statement was "heard wrong" in real time by the trained evaluators.

    Of course, the evaluators can be and should be examined about their recommendations and their weighting of Statements A and C contained in their respective reports. Of course, each evaluator will be allowed to read the other evauator's report and will be prepared to offer expert testimony to rebut the other report. And Evaluator #1 can be asked why he appeared to discount C while #2 can be asked the same about A. But the notion that the court has to hear/see both A and C on tape to decide which is "right" (or decide neither is and B is key instead) doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I can't think of other instances where conflicts in expert testimony even during a trial would be handled that way. For example, if there is a dispute about autopsy findings between the state's medical examiner and the defense expert, the court doesn't view a videotape of the autopsy to decide who is "right."

    JMO
     
  5. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    18,224
    Likes Received:
    193,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems to me the defense didn't like LS being recorded but since it happened, they want to use it but not share it with the State. I agree that the defense can't have their cake and eat it too! Otherwise, I thought the State's argument on the statute was weak. I'm in no hurry for the decision.
     
  6. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good Evening.

    Burger and Fries, Anyone??

    pubBurgerAndFries.jpg
     
  7. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    18,224
    Likes Received:
    193,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And big thanks for the Octoberfest lager to wash it all down!
     
  8. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A very Good Morning!

    coffeeAndDonuts_Hearts.jpg
     
    MsBetsy, NoSI, altojack and 8 others like this.
  9. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I quite agree! So sad.

    JMVHO.
     
  10. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. BitchieBlackmore

    BitchieBlackmore Highway Star

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I’m sorry if the answer to this has been posted already....

    Will she stay in jail for this second evaluation? Do we know if it has been completed? I periodically look for her on the El Paso County inmate search, and I see her name every time, since she’s been back from the 1st.
     
  12. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    18,224
    Likes Received:
    193,173
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. LS will not be out of custody. I recall the professional contract included approval for travel time. I believe I posted the link in the media thread.

    Eval has not commenced -- there's an issue before the court on whether or not the evaluation should be video recorded or not.
     
  13. BitchieBlackmore

    BitchieBlackmore Highway Star

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Thanks for your help, as always!
     
  14. Megnut

    Megnut Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    33,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering WHO is before the court, no one should be in a room alone with her. Video at a minimum! She's dangerous!

    JMO
     
  15. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    RBBM

    Ugh, delays . . . patience is not my strong suit!

    In the meantime, today's goodies while we wait.

    krispyKremeShopDubai.jpg coloredHotBeverages.jpg
     
  16. Yellow Rose

    Yellow Rose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    25,007
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I keep checking in for updates on this case. I’m so disappointed with the delays but on the other hand, I want all the little ducks lined up appropriately so that this woman never sees the light of day again! Does anyone know if the daughter will ever be charged at minimum as an accomplice after the fact?
     
  17. NCWatcher

    NCWatcher Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Maybe others on WS know something I don't but I've never seen evidence that would support charging LS's daughter.

    A teenager buying stuff at mom's direction that is later used to clean up the scene and driving mom around or picking mom up in a car at mom's direction isn't really enough to be charged as an accessory so far as I know. Those actions can easily be a matter of being LS's minor daughter and did not require the daughter to have had knowledge LS was guilty or knowledge of LS's intended future actions. And we don't have evidence the daughter actively aided in the body disposal so far as I know. We'll likely know more after LS's trial.

    If strong evidence implicating others as intentionally, voluntarily, and actively participating in the crime is available, I'd expect them to be charged.
    JMO
     
  18. Ontario Mom

    Ontario Mom stay safe ♥ be kind Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    10,509
    Likes Received:
    53,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you're correct here.
    If LE had any evidence at all that anyone else was involved, I have no no doubt they'd have already been charged.

    jmo
     
  19. Yellow Rose

    Yellow Rose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    25,007
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can’t imagine living with that woman that there was not an inkling by anyone that her relationship with Gannon was off kilter. I so wish for a time rewind so that this could have been stopped before this child experienced the ultimate horror.
     
  20. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,469
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like a time rewind as well.

    Justice for G'Man.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice