Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #50

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

  1. squareandrabbet

    squareandrabbet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    18,724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hilarious. This type of depiction of "insanity" hasn't been fresh since Lucille Ball died, and might in fact have been worn out after Dracula's Renfield first made his appearance.

    She may in fact qualify for a mild psychiatric form of delusion at this point, lol.

    IMO, it either (a), refers to she herself as counsel; or means that (b), she's come to her partial senses and is waving the white flag asking for her original attorneys to be reinstated.

    If (b), I'd guess some wilier smarter member of her inmate cohort told her and told her until it sank in, that only a moron would elect to represent themselves with 30,000 pages of printed discovery and a Sharpie.
     


  2. crhedBngr

    crhedBngr Attempting to Keep Calm and Carry On.

    Messages:
    4,851
    Likes Received:
    37,053
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THIS^^^^
     
  3. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,819
    Likes Received:
    231,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Duh... I was so excited we finally reached May 2021 and the Preliminary Hearing on the calendar that I completely glazed over the 5/5/21 "appearance of counsel" hearing!

    I believe the hearing scheduled for 5/5 is for Judge Werner to decide if both parties will be ready for the upcoming preliminary hearing.

    Given that LS failed to use the hours scheduled for her in the law library (and had her privileges suspended for 90 days), it's probably not looking so good.

    I recall during the Arguello Advisement (when LS asked to represent herself), she also tried to waive the Proof Evident, Presumption Great hearing because she said she didn't feel she would ever be granted bond. But I don't remember if she tried to waive the preliminary hearing too?....

    I can't even imagine how annoying this has to be for both the Prosecutor and the Court that are already taxed with trying to recover from months of COVID imposed delays-- let alone the entirety of LS too! :eek:
     
  4. Shamrock1

    Shamrock1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes Received:
    5,928
    Trophy Points:
    93
    What is the reasoning - in general - of suspending library privileges for 90 days? That seems like a Constitutional issue to me?
     
  5. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,819
    Likes Received:
    231,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. imstilla.grandma

    imstilla.grandma Believer of Miracles

    Messages:
    13,413
    Likes Received:
    100,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It wouldn’t surprise me if she tried to intentionally set up a constitutional case from the get go. She had already killed an innocent 11 year old in cold blood and she knew it the very first time she went into that interview room with the EPCSO officers. She had/has a strategic role to play to find a way to be found not guilty. It’s my opinion she has an informed background of trials involving Constitutional and Civil Rights.
     
  7. Ninja Bunny

    Ninja Bunny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    3,011
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I bet she’s going to try the sovereign citizen ploy. Hehe. Good luck, that never works.
     
    jakat, crhedBngr, dcfi224 and 7 others like this.
  8. squareandrabbet

    squareandrabbet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    18,724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently not an issue with any teeth:

    More here (nice fresh April 2020 article, btw):

    Are Prison Law Libraries Adequate? | Prison Legal News
     
    Kittybunny, jakat, dcfi224 and 11 others like this.
  9. Abstar80

    Abstar80 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I very rarely comment on here but have read most of the posts and followed the story from the day Gannon went missing.
    This may have been discussed, an apologies if it has, but I am very curious/concerned about the cross examination LS will be able to perform as part of representing herself.
    The prosecutors will no doubt need to put Gannon's parents on the stand. This gives LS access to cross-exam them. Is it possible her "ace in the hole" is that she is preparing to mentally torment Al on the stand in the hope of getting him to crack under the pressure and then point the finger at him as an abusive man.
    It would be bad enough having to be in the same room as this monster, let alone have to be questioned by her in a murder trial against her.
     
  10. Abstar80

    Abstar80 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Trophy Points:
    93
    And another thing I am wondering about is if this whole "I am crazy, chasing butterflies, in a wheelchair" nonsense is just another bit by this putrid human.

    I wonder if she thinks she is setting the prosecution up to not put their all into the case, ie she will be an easy beat because she is off the charts, yet when trial day comes she will walk into court fully put together and show how smart she is. I think she thinks she is manipulating the prosecution team and making them underestimate her.
     
  11. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,819
    Likes Received:
    231,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, the prosecutor gave us at least one hint for the preliminary hearing -- if and when it happens:

    Letecia's preliminary hearing is set to start on May 20, according to court dockets. That's when evidence will start being presented, and witnesses will be called to the stand. The prosecution has previously said they plan on calling witnesses from the FBI during the hearing.

    4/30/21
    https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-...her-speaks-following-final-divorce-proceeding
     
    Shadow@light, NoSI, dcfi224 and 18 others like this.
  12. cujenn81

    cujenn81 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,128
    Likes Received:
    8,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While this is a valid concern, I don’t think this judge will stand for any tomfoolery in his courtroom. There are a number of restrictions courts can impose on pro se defendants, and I think the judge can (and will) rescind his decision to allow it if/when LS becomes disruptive or engages in abusive behavior.
     
  13. NCWatcher

    NCWatcher Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    5,185
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Wow. I'm surprised the divorce settlement judge was such a blabbermouth. (Assuming the reports cited here are accurate, of course.)

    Seems foolish and quite unprofessional to me to speak about the contents of the sealed competency evaluation reports. Judge Werner's finding of competency to proceed is public record but the reports themselves aren't public--I'm kind of surprised the divorce judge even had access to the reports (especially because from what he said it sounds like he read them just to satisfy his own curiosity!) But he didn't stop there-- he went on to opine from the bench that LS is trying to fake mental illness and to discuss her previous behavior in his courtroom. ("The Three Stooges"? Really?)

    It does seem his actions could be prejudicial to the criminal trial and give weight to a change of venue request. (Luckily though, LS doesn't have a lawyer!)

    The judge could have made his point about why he felt they could proceed without LS without saying all that. I'm pretty shocked. The wild wild west indeed. Glad I'll never have to meet that judge for any reason.
     
  14. Ontario Mom

    Ontario Mom stay safe ♥ be kind

    Messages:
    12,263
    Likes Received:
    73,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm honestly quite fascinated that your takeaway on this was, that the judge was an unprofessional blabbermouth.
     
  15. wyome

    wyome Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    6,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Couldn't agree more.
     
    crhedBngr, CalmSeas and NCWatcher like this.
  16. NCWatcher

    NCWatcher Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    5,185
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I thought I explained why I believe that. But I guess my reasons weren't entirely clear, so here's why:

    1. The divorce judge has no role in the criminal case. Rarely is it appropriate for a judge to comment from the bench on even tangential aspects of upcoming or in-progress cases that don't directly concern him/her.

    2. The competency evals were ordered in the criminal case and sealed when LS was publicly ruled competent to stand trial by Werner. It seems quite odd those reports would be available to parties outside of the criminal case. Suggesting, as the divorce judge did, that he read both the reports to check his perceptions was lame. Judges don't do (and shouldn't do) "private behind-the-scenes research" on parties appearing before them. (Or if they do, they certain don't admit it in open court!) His comments also bring into question exactly what "sealed" means as well as raising new questions about document security in the El Paso Co judicial system.

    3. Expressing an opinion from the bench about the mental status of a party in a divorce (when mental status isn't a formal part of the current proceeding) seems to hint at possible judicial bias. Stating he believes LS is faking was beyond belief to me. (I'm not saying she's not faking-- I have no idea what her game plan is--but it was unbelievable for the judge overseeing the final property settlement for her divorce to say that.)

    Further, using inflammatory language could be prejudicial in the criminal case (jury pool etc) Forget that it's LS for a moment. Is it possible to imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate for any judge to compare a party to a case in his/her courtroom to the Three Stooges prior to his/her final ruling? I don't think so. It's inappropriate even if the party isn't facing legal action elsewhere in the district.

    LS certainly is not a sympathetic defendant but that doesn't relieve those in the court system of their responsibility to act fairly and professionally. And the fact that LS chose not to attend the property settlement hearing is immaterial so far as the propriety of the judge's comments is concerned.

    I suspect if the same thing happened to a defendant people thought was wrongfully accused (divorce judge talking about him in a disparaging manner while he's in jail waiting for a criminal trial), people would be outraged.

    JMO
     
  17. Ontario Mom

    Ontario Mom stay safe ♥ be kind

    Messages:
    12,263
    Likes Received:
    73,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for taking the time to go into such detail. I appreciate that.
     
    NoSI, Tutter, crhedBngr and 5 others like this.
  18. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,819
    Likes Received:
    231,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had to go back and re-read the MSM article I previously posted after reading OP's review!

    I'm comfortable that I did not miss anything at first read:

    Judge Miller observed what he described as a "theatrical performance" by a defendant due in his courtroom, and I believe he had a professional obligation to confirm that there was no medical basis for what he observed.

    To corroborate his opinion, Judge Miller confirmed what has already been reported in MSM --i.e., LS had two thorough evaluations finding no significant symptoms of mental illness to prevent her trial from moving forward.

    I do not see where this confirmation by Judge Miller would be deemed as reading from or disclosing the contents of a sealed medical evaluation that was actually ordered by and prepared for the court (i.e., competency evaluation).

    I believe Judge Miller essentially told the People there was no basis (medical or other) for the civil hearing in his courtroom to be continued. (LS refused to enter the courtroom and most likely why Judge Miller provided additional detail).

    If there's no medical reason for LS to claim an empty room was full of people, or pretend to catch butterflies, what else would it be called if not feigning mental illness-- especially since the defendant clearly knows mental illness would cause all legal proceedings to immediately cease (pending competency evaluation)?

    In other words -- been there, done that.

    MOO

    ETA: Three Stooges slapstick comedy was primarily arranged around basic plots dealing with more mundane issues of daily life, a number of their shorts featured social commentary or satire

    https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/behavioral_health_issue_brief_1282017.pdf
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2021
  19. Megnut

    Megnut Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,948
    Likes Received:
    43,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I happen to think she's only gotten MORE into her head, in solitary. And there, she wins all the debates she starts.

    We know she collects Constitutional slights, as she percieves them. No lunch during questioning, to start, and likely a growing list since.

    I think we may hear, from her, how her Constitutional rights are continuously violated -- in not getting the medication she'll claim she needs. We might even hear that SHE didn't kill anyone but prescribed Ambien did. Or some such thing. And that her ace in the hole, her indisputable science, is that the pharmaceutical industry is responsible, and that she was sleepwalking for two days. Or 10. Or maybe it'll be a doctor's fault because he or she wouldn't prescribe a medication Dr. T thought she was entitled to... leaving her with no choice but to brew something else up. (Which may well be what Gannon caught her doing. )

    Too bad for T, none of that's gonna fly.

    As for the wheelchair, I suspect she was shackled to it. Probably falls herself over every time they try to move her. Insisting her ankle cuffs are another pair of violations to her Constitution. Refusing to shuffle.

    She's not going to the library, she's not reading 30,000 pages of discovery. IMO she's spending her time accumulating her imaginary right violations.... which she thinks she'll present to her bbf judge at trial, while wrapping her patriotic self in the flag of the country she so loves. With eagles landing to her right and left ... as the world lines uo to apologize to her.

    Thing is, I don't know many sleepwalkers who rent cars.

    Her mind is just an ant farm.

    My apologies to ants.

    JMO
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2021
  20. NCWatcher

    NCWatcher Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    5,185
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Here's the way I see it.

    1. Judge Miller said he read the competency reports to substantiate his impression of LS's previous "theatrical" performance. I'd argue that's an inappropriate use of sealed competency reports generated for a different matter under a different judge.

    2. He noted one of the reports was "the most thorough" he's ever seen. Why make that kind of editorial comment from the bench? Judges usually don't make those sorts of comments about expert reports unless they must make some sort of ruling regarding an expert report in a case before them.

    2. He revealed the reports showed "no significant symptoms of mental illness." That's absolutely revealing content that had not been revealed before.

    The purpose of the evaluations was only to determine if LS was competent to stand trial. Not to speak to the presence/absence of mental illness except so far as the presence of mental illness could interfere with her ability to understand the charges against her and to aid in her own defense. So the fact she was ruled competent by Werner doesn't tell us whether she has a mental illness. It just tells us Werner believes she can understand the charges and aid in her defense.

    Let's not forget that every single defendant ever found "not guilty by reason of insanity" was deemed mentally competent to stand trial. In some cases, perhaps they really weren't competent. In other cases medication or other treatment may have rendered them competent since the crime occurred.

    My point is not that LS is (or isn't) mentally ill. Nor do I have reason to think she will mount an insanity or diminished capacity defense (or that she would have had she retained her public defenders.) My point is it was not up to Miller to reveal what the reports said, reports of evaluations that were done solely to help Judge Werner determine her competency to stand trial in his courtroom. Reports that were ordered sealed by Werner. If Werner thought the public and the potential jury pool should have the information Miller chose to reveal, he would have revealed it himself. So far as I know, he did not.

    3. I don't see why Miller thought it was appropriate to describe in detail LS's "theatrical" behavior in an earlier hearing. That is, I guess it was in a hearing. I'm not sure why or where Miller would have observed her otherwise. But why was he in an empty room with her? (Is he sure she wasn't referring to lots of people in the courtroom when she was alone in a room connected to tbe courtroom by WebEx?) Why was her previous behavior relevant to the current property division hearing?

    I had never seen details of a theatrical performance (of that sort) by LS at a hearing reported in the news before. Did Miller think it should have been reported before? Is it possible it wasn't because no one else saw what he saw? Where and when did the performance occur and where was everyone else at the time?

    And since when is he a mental health expert able to determine her "detachment from reality" is unusual? And at least with what we've read here, whether or not she was "feigning mental illness" isn't terribly relevant to the matter before Judge Miller, is it? IF he had doubts about her competence to proceed in the divorce matter, why did he grant the divorce in Sept before her competency was determined by Judge Werner?

    Specifically the news blurb said:

    "Judge Miller described the behavior he observed from Letecia, saying it was like no other "detachment from reality" he has ever seen. He mentioned a time when she was in an empty room, but said it was full of people. Judge Miller also claimed he watched her chasing what seemed to be invisible butterflies. He compared her actions to The Three Stooges. The judge believes she was "feigning mental illness," and decided that if she is competent to proceed in her criminal case, she is competent to proceed in this civil case. "We'll press on," said Judge Miller."

    4. Obviously Judge Miller had to address LS's absence. And he had to decide what to do. But why not just say something like:

    "LS has been found competent by Judge Werner in another matter in this county. Therefore, I believe she is competent to proceed in this matter as well. She has made the decision not to attend this hearing. That is her right. We will proceed without her."

    Instead we get (in effect, not his actual words, of course) "She's faking mental illness but acts as nutty as the Three Stooges, how dumb is that? And those reports of her mental evaluations were good, I'm telling you. One was especially thorough. Can't fool those people. They said they didn't find anything wrong with her mentally even though i saw her claiming to be surrounded by people when in an empty room and she seemed to be chasing invisible butterflies. Not dragonflies but butterflies! What a kook, but not mentally ill. I'm telling you, I know. That's not how people who've lost touch with reality act. So let's roll."

    JMO. And maybe only mine ;-)
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2021

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