Gannon Staunch: Step Mother's Statement

Tecia Staunch: 

"Ok I took care of Gannon for the past 2 years in our home because his mother didn't want to do it..."

This is an unusual beginning to the interview.  We see that her priority begins with herself, and she has a negative linguistic disposition towards Gannon's mother. 

This is not expected. 

The subject begins with "ok", which may be a habit of speech. Like all habits of speech, we look to learn what context provokes it, and what does not. 

"Ok" is often an "agreement" or "affirmation"---a form of ingratiation.  Once flagged, we seek to learn if the ingratiation is appropriate or inappropriate in context. 

Here, the expectation is the child's welfare and de facto innocence of the step mother.  There should be no need to ingratiate herself, even in light of negative publicity, because it pales in comparison to the missing boy.  

This next statement is revelatory: 

And I would never never ever hurt this child...and I know there are some questions out there about..."

This is very likely a statement of guilt.  It does not mean that she killed him, but is both an unreliable denial and an assertion---it comes after blaming the child's mother in context. 

It is very likely that Gannon did not have a happy home life with his step mother. Whether this was emotional abuse, emotional coldness, or outright physical abuse is not known. 

She does not use Gannon's name, nor does she use a possessive pronoun, further indication of a poor relationship.  


Interviewer, "So OK tell me what happened..."

The interviewer must ingratiate himself into the mind of the subject in order to obtain info.  This is an example of an appropriate use. 

The subject is a victim, of sorts, of having to raise Gannon, because of the biological mother. 

Remember---this is not reality, but the subject's verbalized perception of it.  It is not fact, it is what the subject believes. We want to be led by the subject's words and let these words guide us, whether or not we agree with her. 

"But that's up to the investigations when they end up letting you guys know...
But I've cooperated with them, even to the point that we were held by a gun, 

The subject is now a victim of law enforcement, "even to the point that we were held by a gun"--- again, against her will. This is her level of "cooperated"--- Indication to the contrary.  She likely has withheld critical info from police investigators.  

With  this we see the distancing from police by the word "with" between "I've" and "them" prior to the "gun" entering the statement. 

She has not been cooperating fully with police.

This does not mean that she killed him, though it could.  It indicates some form of guilt. 

Attendant Guilt -- is guilt that attends a criminal act. 

Tangent Guilt -- this is guilt that the subject has that is unrelated to the missing child. 

For example:  A father is deceptive about his missing child while she is missing.  

Yet, he did not kill his child; a sexual predator did. 

Why the deception?

He was under the influence, asleep, when his daughter wandered out of the home. 

Analysts must be very careful in discernment of this, citing the guilt, and allowing for it to be tangential guilt. 

and my daughter, a 17 yr old who serves our country in the United States Air Force , 

By referencing the "United States Air Force" she is portraying herself and her daughter 

a. together  ("we" were held by a gun)
b. as patriotic 

This is to affirm the necessity of not being alone, and the need to be portrayed in a positive light. 

Q. Who has the need for a positive portrayal in an unnecessary context?

A. Someone who has done wrong. 

This lead to questions: 

Did she harm Gannon?

Did she cause him to run away? 

Given her need to begin with Gannon's mother, did Gannon compare his step mother unfavorably to his mother?  


who has never committed a crime or done anything wrong in her life , 


The subject does not say that she, herself, never committed a crime, but is defending her daughter----

who is not missing, nor, at this time, appears accused of anything. 

Q: Does the daughter know something about the mother? 


was put in hand cuffs over the keys that was in her purse so they could take her car...and they weren't even in her purse, they were in my pocket...

She now shows her daughter as a "victim" of police.  This is a tangent that moves the topic away from Gannon. 

I didn't know it was a law enforcement officer because when he came out, I guess he was putting his jacket on and it wasn't necessarily his fault, he was adjusting and he happened to catch me, but I saw the gun and I panicked originally and kinda thought oh gosh ,I got...whose this guy and then once I realized it was the sheriffs office I was totally okay but they still had a gun and told me they were gonna shoot me...

The subject tells us that she "panicked originally", but does not tell use what this means. 

What did she do to cause the deputy to pull his weapon? 

Linguistic Disposition: 

thus far, no concern for Gannon while he is missing.

Concern for self and concern for her daughter, of whom she takes pronoun possession of: 


but I was really concerned about my daughter asking why she was being detained in handcuffs and things like that...when that shouldn't even happen for a child that shouldn't happen for someone who is standing inside of a store shopping because we couldn't have any clothes because all of our clothes were here, if we came here and got clothes ya know we would be harassed and so she went to purchase some underwear and things like that and was put in the handcuffs in the store, And ya know then she was brought out with me and the guns, and that's just not okay, ya know they could have approached me and said 'Hi, I'm with Pasco County can I please...instead of the way that it happened..."

This is a lot of information that is unrelated to the priority of the missing child, Gannon.  

She has not yet used his name. 

She has not called him "my stepson", either. 

Um, I think that a lot of people can see that I'm not missing, 

She's not missing----this is her priority. 



and see that I am being cooperative, and, but, to me it's okay that they think those things because my, the way someone thinks about me, I don't have a problem with that. 

She doesn't have a "problem" with people holding her in suspicion. This is a good position to hold if your priority is the missing child.  This would be to care only for the missing child---what he is going through and how he must be found. 

But in context, she has not mentioned him yet, other than to blame Gannon's mother.  


My main thing is I would never want someone to think that I hurt Gannon or any of the children in our home cause that's just not the case.

She has hurt Gannon. 

 This is an embedded admission. 

She is not quoting someone else, but what someone to "think" that she does not want.  

It is not known if the "hurt" inflicted was emotional or physical, from the statement thus far. 

Did she "hurt" him emotionally, causing him to run off?

Did she "hurt" him in a way that causes his status of missing? 


 I've spent my whole entire life working so hard in education, 

The Good Person---- the need to assert this is indicative to the contrary.  

"The Good Person" narrative reveals guilt.  

Q. "Did you embezzle funds?
A. "Let me tell you, I have worked since I was 12 years old and I have worked two jobs to provide for my children, and I..." 

Q. "Did you  assault her?"
A. " I am an advocate for women. I vote for women. I have always..." 



um, there's even things online that was talking about my education license and I shouldn't even be a teacher, and they just didn't know that. 

How is Gannon doing?
What is he experiencing?
Is he being fed?
Is he warm?
Is he afraid? 

She is concerned for herself, first, and then for her daughter. 

it's "my" education license but not "my stepson, Gannon" 

This is insight into what Gannon experienced the last two years. 



Like, we moved on a military move, and I didn't finish out my contract so, I gave up my license in that state. 

Gannon is missing and she wants to address a detail about her career.  


Um, it had nothing to do with any criminal activity you know, or any of those things, and it just got blown out of proportion on my professional status you know and... "

She has done something illicit and/or illegal 


"Secondly, I'm going to be so ecstatic when I am able to say to people that I hope they have a really sincere apology for all of these theories that have came  out online, for ALL of the things that they say that I have done, or people have done, 

Her ecstatic response will not be because Gannon is found safe, but because she will get a "really sincere apology" from social media.  


and I just want everyone to know that we are going to find Gannon, 

Here he is "Gannon" who will be found so that she can receive her really sincere apology --- this is her priority. 


and I love him so much, and I have been taking care of him for so long."

Note that she now goes back to length of time where she has been taking care of him----language consistent with burnout, exasperation or possible depression.  

Did he, in her view, wear her out? 

When we see time lengthened inappropriately (and in an inappropriate context) we must not only consider depression but in this context, possible justification. 

Greater Context Observation 

The length of time should not be of consideration unless the length of time is how long he has been missing.  Has he been missing "for so long"? For even a few hours is dreadful to a loving parent. 

Note the initial reference to only two years.  

Is she making excuses (justifications) for her actions? 


The reporter then asks her to tell him a little bit about GS.

"He was always so helpful with the dogs, " "He was always the person I could say, Gannon, could you go do this, and he would go do it right away…"

The past tense references indicate a belief or  knowledge that Gannon is either no longer living, or if he is, will not live with her upon return.

He gets a positive linguistic disposition when he did what she said to do, but not while he is missing. 

Analysis Conclusion:

It is not known from this statement if the step mother caused Gannon to go missing. She, herself,  raises suspicion about possible involvement. 

Her priority is herself.  This is a dominant theme for her.  

She shows no interest in his plight.  

This is always concerning because it highlights possible disassociation as well as what Gannon likely experienced while living with her. Some kids will run away from such abuse. 

Her personality: acutely selfish---she holds her priority as to self, and to promote herself as a "good" person---- turning all back to herself, with little self awareness (given the context here) 

This is something Gannon likely experienced daily. 

She sees herself as a victim while showing no concern for what Gannon may be experiencing currently.  She was a victim of Gannon's mother and of law enforcement.  What is most concerning about this is the need to justify---if one is a victim, it is not one's fault for lashing out. Politicians exploit the public in this way.  

She may believe or know that he is deceased.  

She should be considered a suspect. 

Her mental health hx should be explored. 

Should it prove that she did not cause his disappearance, it is very likely that she caused him harm while he was living there. It is not known if this is emotional or physical or both, from this statement. 

That she spends so much effort justifying herself is very concerning.