limited to those who know her character
I have sleepless nights everyday wondering what could of happened differently.
Regret
Don’t let the media fool you with videos and false info. I have cooperated with everyone and given them all that they ask for.
avoidance of mentioning law enforcement
Does she have more that she has not been asked for?
Sometimes they let social media create these accusations to keep them busy because people involved in that nonsense have no interest in finding Gannon.
As if police would "let" social media to create accusations to keep them "busy"----
This is insight into her thinking. Police would waste resources violating free speech in order to keep people who are not interested in finding Gannon, busy. She sees life as revolving around her.
With that said, I will only tell the truth not accusations.
Here, rather than issue a denial, she sets up a comparison of her good works with what "could have happened differently."
She goes back six years to show what a "good person" she has been:
I have spent the last 6 years of my life fighting for custody battles, helped Albert pay for it all, was the only person who stood by him in the courtroom after courtroom. I took the kids from coast to coast to be with each parent even driving through the night, extreme weather conditions and countless amount of airplanes. This is not to bash any parent going through pain but to say that I have pain as well.
What of Gannon's pain? What might he be feeling now?
Did you inflict pain upon Gannon? (audio)
Did this cause him to run away?
Did you inflict physical pain upon Gannon?
Did you cause his disappearance?
Everyone remembers months upon months when I was the only provider.
Another downplaying of Albert's fatherhood (masculinity) --see prior analysis.
Note the call for testimony is from "everyone"
Albert in Alaska and Landen was all over the place.
As the "only" one, she now states:
We rescued the kids from horrible homes, living in motels, guns in the back of their cars, their house getting robbed, all the way up until I got the Instagram messages saying that she could not take care of them anymore.
While Gannon is missing, she smears others.
Out of love for my step kids and my husband, I stepped in, delayed getting my doctorate, took care of them because I wanted to.
Elsewhere, she posted that she had to because Gannon's mother would not.
Took them on adventures that most kids their age would never see.
My husband had to prep the kids every time they went with their mom for their safety, until we eventually had them in our home 90 percent of the time. He works crazy hours, lots of schools, training, and took care of our needs.
I took care these two children like my very own. I wasn’t perfect but everyone saw all our pictures and the love that I gave them.
Note the unnecessary "I wasn't perfect" is an important admission of guilt.
Note the call of testimony from "everyone" is here repeated. For her, this exaggeration is necessary ---
Was it hard sometimes? Of course, because I grew up with my step sister and all of our families got along with no problems. So it was difficult navigating through that. But, I want everyone to know that it is well with my soul because I would never harm a child especially not our children.
She avoids a reliable denial.
Would she hurt children that were not her own?
Has she?
Why does she have the need to report, while Gannon is missing, about her childhood? "I grew up with..."
Her need to explain why she had difficulty is consistent with the unnecessary claim of not being perfect.
It is likely that she had experienced significant negative influences in childhood. Not the need she has to control information while expressing no concern for Gannon's suffering while missing.
On Sunday, we went on a hike and Gannon was there crying with me because I was crying.
As she recalls the hike, she could tell us anything. It is important that she report
1. Gannon was crying
2. Why Gannon was crying
3. It was because of her suffering over a stranger.
Recall the context of this statement---- Gannon is the one missing.
It was the day Kobe passed, but he had no idea who he was just that I was upset.
Where an event "begins" in statement analysis is vital to understanding.
Something took place on this hike that is related to her emotion and to Gannon's disappearance.
I had every intention of covering up the fire that he started and protecting his feelings from what punished he thought he was going to get.
She had the intention -- she does not state that she did "cover up" and "protect his feelings."
This is where a deceptive person wants the audience to interpret the language of intention as completed action.
The video that she posted indicated how she tore at his feelings to inflict psychological pain.
That was our plan the next day was to rectify the situation so that his little heart could stop crying.
The next day his "little heart" could not "stop crying."
It is likely that she kept the provocation going.
I have the video because somehow my phone was recording and you can hear how sorry he was.
She was a victim of police, Albert, social media and here she is a victim of her phone----This is "personality driven" perception as a constant victim.
I have the pictures after we returned how, so please don’t believe what these people are speculating. Albert is hurt, he has a lot on him and he has always left me in charge of the kids. He has to go through his emotions but will start to remember how I helped rescue them and have been our families rock.
She has consistently portrayed Albert as limited in his parental capacities and here she puts the burden of trust upon Albert. It is unnecessary information regarding the disappearance of Gannon.
I’m going to make the next post just about Gannon but I wanted to clear up some of these accusations/lies.
It is likely that some accusations are reliably and some are not.
These people have painted me to be this horrible person and I want people to know the truth,
"that I did not cause Gannon's disappearance"?
This would be an optimal place for the denial as she is under "accusations/lies" in context.
that I had the kids because they were in an unfit situation in which a G of Litem placed solely with me until Albert left ALAKSA.
Instead of denial, she uses a Guardian ad Litem position (which she puts a boundary of time upon) to support her as a "good mother." This is the "need to persuade" her audience that is very sensitive (repetition)
I rescued them because I love them. That the kind of person I am who would continue to love them and treat them like my own, always and forever.
Generally, the word "forever" (no future limitation) is something we do not want to hear enter the vocabulary of a parent/step parent of a missing child.
Note the need to explain why she "rescued" them.
Call it what you want because I sit back let people say horrible things that wasn’t True.
**that she "sit back" (tension/body posture) and "let" people speaks to control. She is letting them while sitting back---while she is current (at the time of this writing) not "letting" them nor "sitting back" but actually answering them here.
One should question her statement of why she could not handle step parenting---- her own family life produced this need to control.
Just some of the facts. There are 100’s more so they need to be looking at finding Gannon not blaming me.
The concern is for self, not for the victim, Gannon.
They should be searching for Gannon, not blaming her, but police are keeping them busy by allowing them to post on social media.
Mental health issues evident in her controlling, blame shifting, and aggressive postings.
Some of the language is consistent with substance abuse, which is sometimes evident in a non user who is described as being "wound tight", ("dry drunk" in control) or someone who is under the influence or psychotropics.
Did she cause him to run away?
Did she cause his disappearance?
61 comments:
" have spent the last 6 years of my life fighting for custody battles, helped Albert pay for it all, ..."
language of violence, "fighting" "battles" "Albert pay for it all"
Why does she add the word "battles" to "custody". it is in-congruent, one fights for "custody" not for "custody battles", that makes the goal the "battle". did she fight to humiliate and hurt the biological mother and her interest in Gannon was to weaponize him to her benefit?
"Was it hard sometimes? Of course, because I grew up with my step sister and all of our families got along with no problems. So it was difficult navigating through that."
she claims that "all our families got along with no problems." to say "got along" is sufficient, so why add, "with no problems." this need to double down is often an indication of the opposite.
this is then further supported by the following line, "So it was difficult navigating through that." indicating there were not only problems but possibly serious problems. The manipulative nature of the subject is shown in her use of the word "navigating". it implies she maneuvered/manipulated her families.
I started losing attention span after I got to the part where she says something like:Everyone saw the pictures (of her loving the kids)
and, later on down the thread she goes on to explain how tore up she was over Kobes death.
That is NOT living in reality, imo.
I know I should have taken a direct quote and did some 'splainin'....BUT, need I?
Perhaps this is where the real problem LIES.
Alright, let me try again:
"I wasn't perfect, BUT everyone saw the ALL OUR pictures and the love THAT I gave them."
It's the BUT that makes my panties get in a bunch.
Reality show mindset. She, like many others rearing young children, act and think that if you aren't totally transparent for people around the world to see then others will think you are committing criminal acts...since when did it get to that?
"I’m going to make the next post just about Gannon but I wanted to clear up some of these accusations/lies. These people have painted me to be this horrible person and I want people to know the truth,... "
Wait that sounds familiar...
"What I`m trying to get is that these people are trying to paint me as a monster, and I`m not a monster..."
--Ariel Castro, sentencing statement, Thursday 1 August 2013.
”Don’t let the media fool you with videos and false info."
Did SHE fool us with the carpet burn video and false info?
”Sometimes they let social media create these accusations to keep them busy because people involved in that nonsense have no interest in finding Gannon.”
She herself is/was involved in social media nonsense (“We all have engaged in something crazy online”) -> is she one of those people that “have no interest in finding Gannon”?
”I have spent the last 6 years of my life fighting for custody battles, helped Albert pay for it all, was the only person who stood by him in the courtroom after courtroom. I took the kids from coast to coast to be with each parent even driving through the night, extreme weather conditions and countless amount of airplanes. This is not to bash any parent going through pain but to say that I have pain as well.“
Her pain is not that Gannon is missing. Her pain is that she had to spend time on custody battles, pay for some of that, etc. She seems to resent Albert for that and thinks her pain caused by spending time and money on Gannon is equal to Albert’s pain over Gannon being missing. It's just speculation but: did she pay Albert (who reportedly wanted a divorce) back for the pain he caused her (“Albert pay for it all”)?
”We rescued the kids from horrible homes, living in motels, guns in the back of their cars, their house getting robbed, all the way up until I got the Instagram messages saying that she could not take care of them anymore.“
Homes -> plural. Was her home also horrible for the kids? I sounded that way in the video. And isn’t she the one living in a motel with her daughter now? Guns in the back of their cars -> this makes me think of the following excerpt from an article on crimeonline.com:
“Tecia Stauch said she drove her husband’s truck on January 27 as a way to cut down on mileage on her own vehicle. She explained that her car was leased and she would have to pay a fee or have to buy the car outright if she went over certain miles each month.
She also said she needed the room in the back of the truck to bring used sports equipment to “Play it Again Sports,” a sporting goods store that buys and sells new and used sporting goods. Stauch said she planned to shop for hockey equipment for Gannon since it was the only sport he had shown interest in.”
Why the elaborate explanation for taking her husbands car? What "equipment for Gannon" exactly had she in the back of the car? If she had to sell the sofa to pay for a damaged carpet, why did she go on a long shopping tour the next day (shopping for hockey equipment, a bike for Albert, dog coats)? Is there proof that she went to the sports store? Also: she puts forward "guns in the back of their cars" as an illustration of the "horrible homes" the kids had to be rescued from. However, I assume many people in the US have guns in their car at one point or another -> that in itself doesn't mean they are bad parents. So mentioning guns in the back of cars seems somewhat out of place to me here.
“That was our plan the next day was to rectify the situation so that his little heart could stop crying.”
I had read this sentence before and both times before finishing it my mind completed the sentence with “beating” instead of “crying” (I had never heard of the expression “his heart stopped crying” before).
"I'm going to make the next post about Gannon BUT.....
How about:
Today I will address the topic of online slander against not only myself, but my family as well....yada, yada, yada.
Tomorrow, I will update on Gannon. Please stay tuned.
Naturally, it would be hard to think clearly when everyone is against you so, yes, I get that. That doesn't make her guilty unless we've gone to facism already while I was sleeping.
”We rescued the kids from horrible homes, living in motels, guns in the back of their cars, their house getting robbed, all the way up until I got the Instagram messages saying that she could not take care of them anymore.“
I think "their house getting robbed" is not a suitable illustration of Landen providing a horrible home for Gannon either. Maybe Tee Stauch subconsciously hints at feeling she was getting robbed of her house? After all she was told not to come to the house after Gannon disappeared (and Albert reportedly wanted a divorce?).
There again, you are getting into reality show thinkin' with your comment Autumn.
No one knows if divorce was ever discussed...it's just hurled about here and there to create drama.
Also, Gannon was his child and set the rules of who he could be friends with, curfew, and other boundaries which-in only my opinion-were not set. Rather, such things were dumped in the lap of another.
I can barely make it though the section (I can't call it a paragraph...I don't know why) where you try to defend guns, drugs and children in the same block of ink.
Anonymous said...
There again, you are getting into reality show thinkin' with your comment Autumn.
No one knows if divorce was ever discussed...it's just hurled about here and there to create drama.
Also, Gannon was his child and set the rules of who he could be friends with, curfew, and other boundaries which-in only my opinion-were not set. Rather, such things were dumped in the lap of another.
I can barely make it though the section (I can't call it a paragraph...I don't know why) where you try to defend guns, drugs and children in the same block of ink.
Autunm is trying---she is exploring possible reasons for the language.
**************************************************************************************************************
As to "divorce"---when we see anything shared, we explore for possible reasons, including divorce.
As to "guns, drugs and children"---
all three topics have come from Stecia. That would be the block of ink source; not Autumn.
Peter
Autumn mentioned guns in the back of cars and illustrates many in the US may have guns in their cars. That being true in many instances, they do not necessarily include drugs and children. When Tecia stated those items, she did so-albeit vicously-to demonstrate what type of life they were living with their drug addicted bio mother.
That may also be the reason he weighed less than 2 lbs. I don't know.
Also, I viewed the video of the purported Ring camera in which someone resembling Tecia is seen as appearing to take a photo of something at the front door.The person who posted it JUST wanted to let others know, got the bio moms opinion on if she thought it was the step mom, THEN went on to say they'd prove to ADMIN that it was in fact Tecia.
Okay. Get to it!
Why did they not prove to the police it was Tecia BUT instead feel compelled to prove it to ADMIN?
Just sayin'....it's not like they've called the police a dozen times and felt they weren't interested.
“But, I want everyone to know that [it] is well with my soul [because] I would never [harm] a child especially not our children.”
Here she talks of her conscience (“my soul”). She says “it” is well with my soul, with “it” being something known to her. This “it” is sensitive as she has a need to justify it (“because”) and connects it with the negative “I would never harm” (future conditional).
I would question her use of the word “harm”, and I think she is actually questioning it herself. She is talking of being at peace with “it” (“it is well with my soul”) which tells us she has considered if this thing is morally right or wrong. She has to do so to arrive at her conclusion. I believe she is thinking about what has happened ("it") and has/is internally justifying her actions to herself. This is why we are seeing her telling everyone what she has done and how good a person she is. This is the minds self defence mechanism at work. She has a need not only to justify to others how good she is, but also to herself.
Adrian.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Autumn mentioned guns in the back of cars and illustrates many in the US may have guns in their cars. That being true in many instances, they do not necessarily include drugs and children."
Again, it was Tecia, in various statements made about Gannon being missing, who introduced the three topics of guns, drugs and children.
You will find the statements at the blog here.
As to uncovering the motive of those posting a video, perhaps you can focus upon the subject's posting of a video in which she is abusing Gannon?
Peter
General,
all excellent points.
Peter
I've seen that video, too. Yes, it is nasty and revealing.
Still, in order to convict her of ANYTHING, they'll need some proof other that a personality disorder.
PROVE she was casing the neighborhood.
PROVE it was premeditated.
PROVE she or someone in conjunction with her attributed to his demise or disappearance.
PROVE she googled the cell phone tracking issue on his phone.
PROVE she is the one others are ranting about making social media posts.
PROVE he pooped his pants and she went to buy laxatives claiming he was constipated.
PROVE he was vomiting and she took him hiking anyway.
Yeah, it's too much diarrhea of the mouth I think or else they'd already arrested her.
They have access to the stores she went to that day and can see what she was wearing and put the pieces together from there.
Regardless, none of the banter contributes to locating Gannon or his remains if need be.
IT is concerning if she was giving him laxatives claiming he was constipated when he in fact had diarrhea. That represents a danger to others in my mind and I know I wouldn't want to be around her. There are people who do that sort of thing on purpose.
Get to it already!
Harm does not mean kill.
Peter, thanks, yes that’s exactly right: I’m exploring (that’s why I add words like “reportedly” and “speculation” and use question marks).
@Tania Cadogan said...
“Harm does not mean kill.”
If a child went missing in your care after you had punished it, would you consider you had done harm to the child? Would you ponder over whether it was your actions that may have led to the child’s disappearance? Was the punishment fair? Only the punisher can decide that in their own mind. That is something which would be on your conscience. The question you would ask yourself is was it my actions which led to harm coming to that child. Stepmom says:
“I want everyone to know that [it] is well with my soul [because] I would never [harm] a child”
She is saying I am at peace/my conscience is clear with “it” (something known to her). That she mentions her conscience is clear means that she has thought about something and come to the conclusion she has done no wrong (her perception).
Harm is something which is defined by the individual. Opinions vary where one parent may say “a clip round a child’s ear does them no harm” and another would be horrified at the thought of doing so. Also why mention “harm”, what brings that word into someone’s language. When used with the future conditional it is weak in terms of gauging its reliability. “I would never harm a child” only speaks to the future.
When I said I would question her use of the word harm in my original post I did not mean to infer anything to do with killing. I was pointing out how it was connected with the rest of her statement.
If I didn’t know anything about this case and was analysing this one sentence I would draw the same conclusion. There is an “it”, and that “it” is “well with my soul" (there is something I know and my conscience is clear with it). “because” ( I must justify why my conscience is clear) “I would never harm a child”. We now know what the “it” is connected to (harm a child).
The statement reveals she has had to think about whether she has harmed a child. What is her definition of harm as it may not be the same as everyone else’s. The “harm” is something on her mind as she included it in her statement.
Adrian.
She had “sleepless nights everyday” - does she not sleep much, night or day, to have sleepless nights every day?
“wondering what could of happened differently.” - this is passive language; things don’t happen without any agent or cause. She’s not saying she wished she’d been a better parent to Gannon; she is acknowledging that something or things happened which could have happened differently. Is “wondering” regret? I think it might not be as regretful as wishing she had made things happen differently, or responded or reacted differently to things which had happened.
There were issues which led to Albert seeking custody, and Tecia has put a lot of effort into helping Albert get custody, and caring for the children. They seem very much Albert’s children, despite she is their stepmother. They “had the children in our home’ - and “I took care of these two children like my very own.” It’s unnecessary to say if that is really so. Don’t they become your kids - or stepkids, when that’s the more judicious term - and isn’t it their home, too? For Tecia, six years on, the children were “in” her and Albert’s home, so it’s difficult to believe she regarded them as her very own (why “very”?) - not unless her daughter was also viewed as someone else’s kid who came over to play and overstayed her welcome.
All the effort, travel, and accommodating of the children comes across as done more for Albert than the children and herself - she’s resentful, and as Gannon has gone missing on her watch, it doesn’t seem the best of times to be airing her grievances against her husband and Gannon’s mother. Guilt, perhaps - almost like saying it is their fault because of this and that and this, too much pressure? It’s painful to read when considering the state Gannon’s mother must be in - Tecia Stauch is a heartless woman - though she claims it is well with her soul.
"I had every intention of covering up the fire that he started and protecting his feelings from what punished he thought he was going to get."
The subject's words "covering up" in context of a missing child is unexpected and troubling that "cover up" is on her mind.
"the fire he started", again we she her blaming Gannon. victim blame while the boy is missing is troubling.
then to say "punished" where it looks she meant "punishment" might be more than a typo and leakage that she had punished him.
that she even writes about "punished/punishment" in the context of a missing child is an insight into her thinking. this adds to the language/words of violence throughout her statements. it is a possible she thinks others are thinking about her punishing people. why might that be? is that how she is perceived or how she thinks people see her? she has a need to present that she was not like that.
“Was it hard sometimes? Of course, because I grew up with my step sister and all of our families got along with no problems. So it was difficult navigating through that. But, I want everyone to know that it is well with my soul because I would never harm a child especially not our children.”
I think she is saying here that it was hard with her stepchildren at times, because her childhood with her step sister had been good, but then she says it was difficult navigating through that - so what is the ‘that’? Does she mean her childhood where they all got along, or is the “that” a reference to her, and maybe her daughter’s relationship/s, with Gannon and his younger sister? I think the latter, as she goes on to say the rest. It would not be relevant to her childhood as it is future conditional and she was a child herself - but it’s not relevant to what has happened to Gannon either, for the same reason.
It is well with her soul because she “would never harm a child” - which could be good news, at least for her other children, but as it only references what she would not do in the future, it is not a denial in relation to possible harm caused to Gannon, though it may seem convincing, and like a denial to those who are not aware of Statement Analysis.
“I would never harm a child especially not our children.”
She gives no assurance that she would not harm a child who was not hers or Albert’s, which should be concerning, given that when she is employed it is as a teacher.
“But, I want everyone to know that it is well with my soul because I would never harm a child especially not our children.”
By saying “harm“ she avoids specifically answering the allegation/situation. Gannon disappeared and police have been searching for him in wooded areas with shovels. To say she wouldn’t harm him is to avoid saying: I didn’t cause Gannon to disappear and I didn’t kill him. The word "harm" is open to interpretation.
She avoids “didn’t” and replaces it with “would never”. As mentioned elsewhere on this blog: Deceptive people often do this. “Never” speaks to vagueness of time rather than something specifically addressed. The spreading out of time eases the guilt similarly to how guilty parties feel less alone and responsible when they use the word "we" to ”share” guilt.
By saying ”I want everyone to know that it is well with my soul” she adds elements to the denial. This brings distance between her and the denial, begging the question: "Why the need for distance?"
https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/02/27/gannon-stauch-stepmom-reveals-where-she-went-the-day-colorado-boy-disappeared-exclusive-interview/
Some statements to look at there and the stepmom speaks to whether she arrived home alone the day he went missing.
Adrian.
She says this following on from she would never harm a child. Maybe some type of harm did befall Gannon on this hike, bearing in mind the hike, and Gannon crying, appears next in her statement.
“On Sunday, we went on a hike and Gannon was there crying with me because I was crying. It was the day Kobe passed, but he had no idea who he was just that I was upset.”
Gannon cried because his stepmother was crying. From this it seems she gave her emotions place enough to effect Gannon. Maybe, really, she couldn’t prevent herself, or found no need, or lacks self-control. How might that have felt for Gannon, to have his stepmother crying, apparently over a dead celebrity, up some God-forsaken Garden of the gods hiking trail in the middle of nowhere, with no responsible adult around to help or direct him. It’s no wonder he was crying - anyone might be scared. But self flattering Tecia finds Gannon was crying because she was crying - he knew she was upset, no more, no less reason for him to cry, it’s all about Tecia - so that might be about right.
Then she jumps to the following day:
“I had every intention of covering up the fire that he started and protecting his feelings from what punished he thought he was going to get.”
Why does this come next? Is it at the memory of Gannon crying with her? Was he maybe crying to protect her feelings, and/ or to protect himself? Might there have been consequences if he had not reacted appropriately to her upset over Kobe? I ask this as “protecting his feelings from what punished he thought he was going to get” is so clumsy and unnatural sounding , and follows on from her crying about Kobe.
Is she trying to convey that because he had been understanding of her crying, she intended to be understanding of him, and cover up the damaged carpet, and not punish him for causing the fire? (if there was a fire - well how do you “turn on” rather than light a candle? )
Is she saying she intended to protect his feelings - to not make him feel bad, silly, stupid (or her annoyance?) about what he did, just as he had protected her feelings, by crying with her, rather than showing embarrassment, indifference or something else, at her tears for a dead celebrity of whom he knew nothing?
I think what she said could be a half thought out explanation for why she would make a video showing unnecessary urgency to fix damage to a carpet, making the already distressed Gannon make stupid “pinky promises” and choose what furniture to sell (not much of a cover up when Albert comes home and asks after the sofa . She’s the adult, she should work out how to fix the ****** carpet.) - whoever the unintended audience, Gannon’s distress went public, and with it how she put onto Gannon that which should have been hers to deal with, and how she didn’t find a problem with how she dealt with whatever it was Gannon may or may not have done. Maybe “protecting his feelings” is an attempt to justify what she was doing - she just wanted to cover up the damage before his father came home, or the landlady discovered it. Doesn’t wash if so, as she needn’t have said it was Gannon who caused it - anyone can tip over a candle. I don’t know how you would turn one on though, unless it’s the battery operated type, which can’t cause fires.
That was our plan the next day was to rectify the situation so that his little heart could stop crying.
This is awful - she’s using sentimental language to describe a little boy who is so upset that he can’t stop crying. What “situation” could be so bad that a child could cry from one day to the next?
Is that what she means? Some punctuation might have helped, and I hope she doesn’t teach English.
Gannon’s not living in a war zone - no-one died - his dog didn’t die? She would have said why he was crying if she wanted anyone to know? All she gives here is a fire and a situation. She includes Gannon in the plan to “rectify the “situation so that his little heart could stop crying”.
As someone already noted, it could be so that his heart could stop beating, too? Why does she need a plan in order for his little heart to stop crying? I don’t believe Gannon could have been literally heartbroken over a patch of damaged carpet - it’s just a carpet - kids don’t care about home furnishings. When and how did the carpet become a situation, as she does not mention a carpet here?
“ I have the video because somehow my phone was recording and you can hear how sorry he was.”
That’s open to interpretation - he sounded very upset, to me. It all seemed unnecessary anyway, because setting a fire in the house, if he did, would probably have shocked and scared him out of doing it again. She might have felt the need to establish a fire, if there was one, had been an accident, but the rest of it was excessive.
Then there is all this, but there is no description of what the plan was to rectify the situation, nor indication of it having been done:
“I have the pictures after we returned how, so please don’t believe what these people are speculating. Albert is hurt, he has a lot on him and he has always left me in charge of the kids. He has to go through his emotions but will start to remember how I helped rescue them and have been our families rock.”
Albert is “hurt” and has to “go through his emotions” - then he’ll turn and remember his saviour and his rock, Tecia.
She can’t be going through anything like a bereaved parent does, to be able to speak so lightly of Albert. To her mind Albert is just “hurt” and needs “to go through his emotions” - but his son is still missing; after so long it must be like a bereavement, yet without the certainty or any consolation that might be found in at least knowing his son is at rest. It must be such a nightmare for the parents - “hurt” could be such an understatement as to serve as insult. Meanwhile, she is so insensitive it’s off the scale.
“He has always left me in charge of the kids.”
That sounds like what many fathers do when there are young children and he is the only or main breadwinner. Is it a complaint, or an advertisement, or a very good time and place to make one?
I am still wondering about the key. If Albert HAD given it to Gannon, that might have caused a real bone of contention - “He has always left me in charge of the kids.” - so what if one of the kids had charge of an entrance for which there was only one key?
Tecia is very controlling, and may have felt undermined if Gannon tried to be Man of the House. To Tecia, the kids were in her home, rather than integral to it, so she may have seen it as upstartish of Gannon if he liked to practice at that role. Albert might have given Gannon the key to help him feel more at home rather than in Teecia’s home. < Speculation.
‘I’m going to make the next post just about Gannon but I wanted to clear up some of these accusations/lies. “
Has she made the post just about Gannon yet? It would be interesting to read as she sentimentalises and somewhat infantilises Gannon.
I read that crime online link and didn't get any thing out of it. I didn't listen to the NG link so maybe that's where I was supposed to go to get brainwashed. IDK.
Choosing what piece of furniture to sell....lol!
If I were trying to cover up something like that, I'd be trying to decide how to rearrange the furniture to cover the burn hole...like most people, of course. Lol!
That's not where the problem is.
It seems as if two cell phones were left behind that fateful day, be it on purpose or not. And, he dropped some type of gadget she claims to have picked up for him.
The pooping the pants. . . that may be partially true if that happened after a hike as walking often helps bowel movements. No one knows what his diet is/was and/or if he has an intestinal disease such as crohn's (sp)disease.
Why she would post public the soothing after a crisis is anyone's guess (or not) and the bonding that soon ensued.
If she rented a car because she thought Gannon would reconize one of theirs and run away based on some punishment due him over a carpet burn...I'd question the type of punishments he was accustomed to getting. Was it physical. Was it out of the ordinary gaslighting meant to inflict mental anguish?
Crying over the death of Kobe...a black man she never knew personally. To me, that's some form of mental illness in itself.
And, the boy cried, too. That says he was given to hysteria over things he knew nothing about...easy to freak out, I'd assume.
That's neither here nor there. I'm not gonna bash her as there are plenty out there to carry out that task.
Gannon had to have been LEFT somewhere or some electronic event had to occurred.
It's one or the other. Black or white.
Sticks-n-stones may break your bones, BUT names will never harm you.
REALLY?!!
She gets what she wants by creating a Nancy Grace type reality show for herself and others. Too bad the neighborhood and everyone else has to pay the price when they could be living a life free of chaos.
In regards to the key being the “only” key, I assume most responsible parents wouldn’t give the -only- key to a gate to a child. Now if there were other keys, and he was lead to believe he held the “only” one (to feel mature, grown up), that would make sense.
As it was written, I don’t buy her key story.
In regards to him crying, seeing her cry, I find that hard to buy as well. But since she brought up him crying (and also that we hear him crying in the video), I’m going out on a limb and suggesting his crying did not occur at the hike, but rather later that night during the “candle” incident.
Re: her post about Gannon, it was said in some Facebook groups that she made a private post about him some time after the public post about herself. Take with a grain of salt.
Please help find Kyron
The person seen dressed like a gardener, at Skyline Elementary, was Terri. She tricked Kyron into meeting her at a side entrance, and fooled others by using a disguise. Sort of the way Billy wore Hailey's clothes and walked around in her back yard making the pretend call in sight of the neighbors. They used similar tactics to give themselves fake alibis.
“These people have painted me to be this horrible person and I want people to know the truth,”
We learn that guilty people often say things like this - “please just wait for the truth to come out”, or “I want people to know the truth”, or something similar, instead of plainly stating what it was they didn’t do. So that doesn’t look like a good sign from Tecia.
“that I had the kids because they were in an unfit situation in which a G of Litem placed solely with me until Albert left ALAKSA.”
I think that’s fair enough to say, as people are questioning her parenting - she has much reason to feel insecure. There’s little question that the kids must have been considered better off with her at the time, but the chances are the Guardian ad Litem didn’t know her from Adam. Crystal balls would be helpful all round, at least if they worked, and if there was an option to choose an alternative future if things didn’t look good at the first gaze.
Maybe Tecia did it for Albert, and out of guilt for stealing him from Landen, who maybe then found it difficult to care for the children without him, as seems also was so with Tecia. Or maybe she was jealous of what Landen had, and always was spiteful towards her. Whatever the reason, it wasn’t mainly out of love for the children - twice she’s stated first that it was for another reason - first as their mother didn’t want to care for them, and this time because they were in an unfit situation. Not much changed for them, then. And again her first reason for why she had them is another stab at their mother - she’s insanely cruel towards Landen - there must be something wrong with her to say some of the things she has said/written.
It has to signify that she (allegedly) was first friends with the mother, stole Albert from her, then fought custody battles to get her kids, too. The least she could have done was not lose either of them. Landen, the mother, does not serve Tecia like for like - she’s surprisingly gracious towards her. Could guilt at acquiring and losing one of Landen’s family, cause Tecia to be so cruel towards her? It seems inexplicable - she is vile to Gannon’s mother, dismissive of Albert, blaming of sick, disappeared Gannon. She speaks of kindness, yet continually pours bile on the father and mother of the child she kept home from school and then somehow lost. Awful, most horrible case. How sad - one missing child after another, and with no good outcomes so far this year.
Please help find Kyron
I think Billy drugged Hailey causing Hailey to die, choking on her own vomit. Hailey's grandmother said she had two pieces of chocolate cake. Sean had to be at the house to make the call to Billy, then Billy went home and put on Hailey's clothes, went into her back yard where she knew the neighbors saw her, and pretended to call for permission to go to a sleepover.
Please help find Kyron
"Alive & Breathing"
(feat. Elle Limebear)
What holds your heart
What stirs your soul
What matters come to mind
The cares you keep
The thoughts you think
It's not all wasted time
Seek and you will find
Joy still comes in the morning
Hope still walks with the hurting
If you're still alive and breathing
Praise the Lord
Just keep dancing and dreaming
There's still Good News worth repeating
Lift your head and keep singing
Praise the Lord
Any chance that 'Anonymous' is actually Tecia? She has purportedly been all over the true crime groups and the psychic/tarot card sites defending and deflecting. If so I am sure the couple of negatives in the comments took great effort to draft...
“ I rescued them because I love them. That the kind of person I am who would continue to love them and treat them like my own, always and forever. “
She rescued them - she’s so heroic. Like Rescue dogs. Why did she buy three dog coats that day? They only have two dogs. What did that have to do with rectifying the situation? Maybe best not to go there, it looks like it could have potential, if not for me.
“would continue to love them” - not quite the same as just loving them, and maybe a need to persuade. She didn’t treat them like her own, not unless she treated her own like the neighbour kid who came to play and outstayed her welcome. I said that before on the other thread - excuse the repetition if you read it already. To Tecia, the kids were only in her and Albert’s home rather than it also being their own home. I don’t know how comfortable children could be if they lived in that sort of environment, especially if they were reminded whose home it was - they might feel more like visitors.
“Call it what you want because I sit back let people say horrible things that wasn’t True.”
Wasn’t true - are they true now?
“Just some of the facts. There are 100’s more so they need to be looking at finding Gannon not blaming me.”
She still hasn’t got to the truth, or even outlined what happened on the day of rectification. She doesn’t even say if she placed an ad to sell the sofa, or whatever. Walk the dogs? Replace the carpet just in case the landlady called in for a random inspection. Is that even legal? Not in UK without arrangement, don’t know if it’s the same there. Try on the dog coats. What was it they did, besides not take sick Gannon to the doctor? She’s made claims and given her perspective on some things, but there seems very little fact out of potentially hundreds which relate to “the truth”, excepting that she and Albert were granted custody of the children.
——
I have reached the questions - it’s a bit late to start on those now. I want to read all the comments, so probably will think about the questions tomorrow. I know what I think happened, if not in detail, and that it must be obvious - but not sure it’s actually supported iby the statements, so I need to look and think some more.
"On Sunday, we went on a hike and Gannon was there crying with me because I was crying."
"It was the day Kobe passed, but he had no idea who he was just that I was upset."
NOTE, she does not say she was crying because Kobe died.
NOTE, she does not say she was upset because Kobe died.
General - I missed that. Too busy filling the gaps, still assuming what wasn’t actually said.
Unknown - I think two posts which Peter responded to earlier might have been made by Tecia - they were Anonymous posts made in response to Autumn’s posts - I think there may have been another which he let go, too. Not sure though - you know how some people like to mess with other people on here sometimes.
Please help find Kyron
I'm sorry about part of the post about Hailey,
DUNN: She went missing on Monday while I was at work. My boyfriend - - he came home from work about 3:00 -- or he got to my house about 3:00. And he`s seen Hailey. Hailey was there. She told him, I`m running across the street to my dad`s house for a few minutes but I`m going Mary Beth`s, and I`m staying the night there. Let my mom know.
So that evening when he picked me up from work, we got home, we were getting ready for bed. I didn`t get worried when I hadn`t heard from Hailey. I thought she was at Mary Beth`s. I was kind of upset that she didn`t call and confirm it with me, but not worried at that point.
Tuesday, I was at work again, I left my cell phone at home for my kids to use when I`m working. So Tuesday, I called my son. I said tell Hailey text the little girl, her friend, tell Hailey she needs to go ahead and get home. This was around lunch. My son called me back within a few minutes and she said, mom, she said Hailey never made it over there. She never spent the night.
So at that point I called Hailey`s dad and found out she didn`t over there and she didn`t stay the night with him. I left from work and went to the police station in Colorado City and reported her missing.
Still, it must have been her ( Billie ) in the back yard because Hailey was already dead.
She's quite the martyr, isn't she? I bet she thinks Carly Simon wrote a song about her too.
But seriously.
If I was a detective and had read this I would ask about the relationship between Gannon and his step sister (T's daughter). Was there tension? Sibling rivalry? Rivalry perhaps fueled by T?
Here is a link to the 2nd part of Tee's interview with Crime Online
https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/02/29/ganoon-stauch-stepmom-explains-rental-car-as-search-for-missing-colorado-boy-continues-exclusive-part-2/
Tee apparently rented a car on January 28 (the day after Gannon disappeared). She says she used it to pick up Al at the Colorado Springs airport and that:
“the plan was to look for Gannon in a car he would not recognize.”
and
“Hey, if my son is scared of getting in trouble he may hide if he sees us. Not to mention it was economical and an easy way to pull in and out because we were going door to door.”
What on earth transpired for her to think that Gannon - after spending a freezing night outside? - might be so scared to see his step mother or father's car that he would hide from it?
Can somebody check this for me? I posted analysis of the below statement on a previous blog entry (Gannon Stauch: Change of Language: "Gannon" and "G"), I believe it was made in reference to the day Gannon went missing.
“There was also proof from my phone that we had taken a selfie in the truck in our driveway that was time stamped. We always send pictures to Albert when we are out and about or when he is away. That can be scanned for actual time verification”
Crime online reports:
https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/02/27/gannon-stauch-stepmom-reveals-where-she-went-the-day-colorado-boy-disappeared-exclusive-interview/
“Stauch admitted that she left her phone at home on January 27, but said she had an Apple smartwatch on the entire time, which can easily track her whereabouts.”
If these two quotes refer to the same day then there is a big problem. Her earlier statement speaks to having her phone and taking a picture etc... Her later statement conflicts as she says she left her phone at home. She can’t take pictures without “my phone”.
Adrian.
"I have sleepless nights everyday wondering what could of happened differently."
NOTE, "wondering what could have happened differently" this indicates that she knows the conclusion, she knows what happened.
she knows what happened and is now thinking of alternates and this is causing her "sleepless nights everyday".
Gannon`s electronics
“There [was] also [proof] from my phone that we had taken a selfie in the truck [in our driveway] that [was] time stamped.”
“There was” speaks to past as opposed to “there is” present. Is the proof not there anymore.
She fails to connect herself with the proof she doesn’t say “I have proof”.
“in our driveway” – This speaks to location not time. She chose to insert the location opposed to the time it was taken. She could have said “that morning” or “that day” or given a time and location. By giving location alone it conceals the time it was taken.
She now reports that she left her phone at home that day. This causes a problem as to take a selfie “from my phone” she would have to have it with her. If you watch the footage from the neighbours cctv of Gannon and Tecia leaving in the truck on the morning of his disappearance, you will notice that they both get in the truck, but the truck doesn’t move. A few seconds later Tecia gets out of the truck and goes off camera. She then returns and they leave. It’s possible that she did take a selfie with Gannon “in our driveway” and then get out and put her phone back in the house. That is the only way a selfie could be taken “in the truck in our driveway” and then her not have her phone with her.
That begs the question why take a selfie and then put your phone in the house and drive off without it. A good reason would give to evidence to support Gannon still being alive that day/morning. She returns without him, but says he went out to a friend’s house. She brought the side gate and Gannon having the key for it into a previous statement. It was something she wanted people to know, that he went through the gate and that’s why nobody saw him leave. There is no footage from any neighbours with cameras of Gannon so he had to have left through the side gate right because he does have a key.
On the morning in question crime online report Tecia saying that Gannon dropped one of his electronics as he was getting into the truck, and she picked it up for him.
Note Gannon “dropped one of his electronics” would be passive language as it fails to identify what the item was. She could have said he dropped his gamepad or his phone, but she fails to identify what it was. His phone was at home as it was searched after his disappearance.
Adrian.
Nod to General above, thanks for making me look at this twice.
"On Sunday, we went on a hike and Gannon was there crying with me because I was crying."
"...we went on a hike..."- Who is we?
"...and Gannon was there..."- According to step-mom, "We" went on a hike, but Gannon is there. Gannon is not verbally included and part of the "we" at this moment in her perception of reality. He is also crying, while "there". She has a need to explain why her young stepson was crying in the context of him being missing. Not a good sign. Definitely not a good sign after she already told us that on Saturday night G cut his foot, sat on the edge of the car and "we" bandaged it up". Who is we? She said bandaged, not put a band-aid on it. Whatever injury G received, it bled enough to cause her to introduce the word bandaged, in an attempt to look like a good mom. Except good mom's wouldn't take a child on hike with a foot injury that needed bandaging the night before. If Gannon was there wherever the "hike" was, he definitely wasn't crying because step-mom was crying.
*Grasping a bit here, but in her perception of reality, Gannon (the "saint"-who wants everyone to get along and be kind to his beleagured step-mom) may be crying remorsefully because of whatever he did (her perception) that caused her to do whatever she did that resulted in him being missing and her crying (being fearful of being caught and in a jam trying to explain his absence).
Step-mom doesn't say "Gannon and I were crying"- shared activity; comforting and consoling. Gannon is "with me"-distance in language, not unity and cooperation.
How can you have sleepless nights everyday? Wouldn't you say I have sleepless nights/sleepless nights every night?
"Social Media has been devastating from the harsh comments, speculations, threats, cyber bullying, etc. It has been a challenge when people are trying to run you off the road, waiting outside your hotel, threatening to kill you, etc. I encourage the Sheriff’s Office to take down those pages that promote negative behavior and violence. Let’s Do what Gannon would do. Be Kind to one another!"
Couple of things here:
1. Social media has been "devastating", but your stepson being missing isn't?
2. Even if stepmom don't exactly love the stepson, her husband does...and Gannon being missing isn't devastating?
3. People trying to run me off the road, stalking me, and threatening to kill me would not be a challenge-it would be terrifying.
4. She says "when people are"-People is vague, threats are personal. She doesn't say she is the target of these threats, she says "you" are. Being threatened is very personal and her language should reflect that.
5. This is an overt attempt to manipulate the public to feel sorry for her.
6. More importantly, she is actively working to draw attention away from Gannon and divert the attention to herself. In the context of Gannon being missing, this is seriously alarming. In my opinion, she can't stand that Gannon is getting all the attention...she is jealous of a missing Gannon.
Discussing stepmom's statements with my daughter just now, she said it's concerning that the stepmom introduces death/a death into the hike story.
I had decided I was just seeing her everywhere. Thank you!
They are both referring to the day Gannon went missing, January 27th. She can't keep her ies straight anymore.
I wish she would keep talking until enough slips out that someone could figure out where Gannon is!
Gannon's mom, Landen, posted on FB today begging people to ignore all the people involved except Gannon and not discuss the distractions but to share Gannon's story, keep him in the public eye, to pray and share a few lines about why we are drawn to Gannon.💔
Peter- Watching your video breakdown on Missing Gannon: Stepmother's Statements, I have a question about a Statement Analysis principle.
She said, "I took care of Gannon for the last two years in our home because his mother didn’t want to do it and I would never, never, ever hurt this child and I know there’s some questions out there about,..."
Would her use of "took care" indicate that she knows or has reason to believe Gannon will not be coming back or that she will no longer be taking care of him? Or is her use of this phrase appropriate in context because she's limiting it to a specific time period? I would expect to hear a stepmom who is purporting herself to love the child and be his primary care giver say "I've taken care of Gannon..." Using the past tense "took care of" seems to indicate a finality to me. Am I understanding this principle correctly?
“So it was difficult navigating through that.” Could she have drowned Gannon? The next sentence makes my blood run cold “…it is well with my soul…” This is a hymn that was written after the drowning death of four daughters by shipwreck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Is_Well_with_My_Soul
"Social media has been devastating..."
Social media continues to be devastating...to those that read and listen to it that is.
I listened to a video in which the woman-who professes Christianity via her posting of scriptures-pondered what would have happened if the step mom had taken Gannon to the doctor, they examined him, pressed on his tummy and found he was in pain. They then would have called child protective services, the police would have been called and the step mom would have been in jail and Gannon would still be alive.
Okay. That is sad. That is demented. That is simply downright crazy!
It stands to reason why these women-and men-need additional bottles of screw top wine and other things to relieve their own pain. To expect the caretake of any child to go to jail over any pain a child experiences is way out there! That's the prison pipeline they want to enact. These people are raising a really sick generation that we have no clue what will happen when they do experience pain later in life.
Will they become drug addicts because their mind isn't trained to cope with pain? Hypochondriacs? Constant complainers? Someone who calls paramedics when they get gas?
No wonder they want others cameras pointing at and surveilling the neighbors houses to ensure a bubble is built for their little children.......it's clear they are raising lunatics.
I saw a video out of Austraila where a woman accused her fiancee of rape and was so convincing she got him thrown in prison. He'd built a house, she moved in, then the allegations began.He was a dog handler for the police. His father was either military or police, too. She then went after them. They spent everything they had trying to defend not only themselves, but also their son who also lost the house he built to her so she could move in with yet another police officer.
Hot mess!
One cop, a female, reviewed the case and found some 10 years earlier she'd tried to destroy yet another family by accusing her best friend's father of rape. Not only did she rape her, but also her friend, the man's daughter, and her siblings as well.
The accused man said her accusations made him feel guilty though he was not.Naturally, her best friend and her sisters were devastated as well.
She'd accused the family of her fiancee of stalking and harassing her her, but it was revealed she was setting them up when going over her gps on her auto. She claimed someone cut the lock off her power box. Other time someone stole her Ipad-which mysteriously was found on their property-and other things that made the family have to log every time they left their home, where they were at what time down to the very minute, spends a ton of money on securing their own home and defending themselves against this pretty, innocent woman with a child-like voice.
They claim she is a pathological liar.
She might be worth a gander on statements if available.
The Austrailan woman who set up her fiance is Sarah Jane Parkinson (in case anyone is interested). Her fiance was a prison guard who broke off the engagement because she'd been fooling around with a police officer in their area.
The tale goes from strange to stranger, as most do when military, police and prison system is involved.
It would seem the police took her side of the story seriously since she was the girlfriend of one of their own. Thick blue line so to speak.
It cost the accused-which is all it took to destroy his and his family's life-their life savings. Then, one day someone had a weird thought: what about the evidence?!
That someone, who looks amazingly like Cybil Shepard, reviewed the case.
Why cops take up with psychopathic liars is unknown. Maybe it's because they are the one category most caught stalking themselves? They seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. Rain and mud puddles.
"I would never harm a child especially not our children."
There is a lot in this short sentence which resembles a key one from Michael Jackson's statement.
"wouldn't" is hypothetical. An "IF" is often attached. The question is not what she would do under different circumstances in the future or even what she could or would have done differently in the past, but what in fact she DID DO.
"never" is also a form of distancing as it includes all additional scenarios diluting importance of the specific one everyone wants her to talk about.
"A child" does the same thing, but even stronger as it removes association with Gannon. Is he no more important than any other child would be?
"especially not our children."
leads back towards, but not TO him. She mixes the other kids in when again, there is only one whom we all need information on at this moment. Does she keep other abuses towards the other kids in mind which she wants to preemptively avoid having to be accused of?
While "our" takes ownership, it doesn't have to include Gannon. It also doesn't require explanation that one's own kids are of utmost importance.
Reliable denial actively avoided and keeping the essential part hypothetical avoiding specific time and person whom harm "would" have been done to indicates guilty knowledge of harm having been done to Gannon.
“I took care these two children like my very own. I wasn’t perfect but everyone saw all our pictures and the love that I gave them.“ “I have the pictures after we returned how, so please don’t believe what these people are speculating.“
“These people have painted me to be this horrible person and I want people to know the truth, “
She needs perception in her favor and uses "painted" as a way to convince the public that what isn't looking like a happy home is due to the perception being wrongfully distorted.
"Albert is hurt, he has alot ON HIM and he has ALWAYS LEFT me in charge of the kids."
Wth?!!
She has to lick Albert's wounds and be subjugated into becoming the nanny?
That may be the beginning of the resentment. No wonder she would cry over the death of a stranger. At least that is someone that can attach themself to you if only in a fairy tale.
There must have been a lot of competition amongst other trophy mommies to pretend to be the bestest of the restest.
The "covering up" of the fire to avoid "punished"?? How explosive was Albert any way?
Wonder if he brow beat his first wife and step mommy dearest knew from the fallout she was much better, much stronger and could cure humanity for all time.
Some of those typos of hers make me wonder if someone isn't monitoring her cell or computer...whatever she's posting from. There are those who want to control other people, neighborhoods, food, medicine,etc. in order to create a "I am perfect" world to live in.
I am not perfect so that must mean I am guilty of something. SORRY! In fact, I can't recall ever meeting any one person beyond reproach. Perhaps that is why others get into those groups who think everyone else should dedicate their lives to their cause of missing and murdered children and solve all the crimes in the world.If they don't, they should be blamed, shamed, threatened and extorted to get away from their "perfect" world.
I'd lay odds she was in such a group. She is too much like these perfect mommies online. . . it's creepy and scary, imo.
These people have painted me to be this horrible person and I want people to know the truth,
Why this word choice?
Painted
??
.
Interesting thought.
Maybe she painted a picture.... of a fake family life?
.
OBTW, her arrest affidavit is out.
It's 32 pages.
In it, she propounds four explanations/alibis for what happened, two of which involve her own reputed rape (separate rapes; allegedly same day) by two different men; both strangers.
It, and she, is quite the piece of work.
Read more here:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/03/gannon-stauch-murder-leaked-document-gives-new-details-of-boys-death/
Post a Comment