Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reviewing what is known thus far publicly, I am having difficulty trying to find any explaining rationale for the sheriff’s actions. Or attempts to associate with an as yet unknown condition or an ‘episode’ of some sort.

IIUC the judge and sheriff had a brief lunch earlier that day. I can’t recall if others were present with them. Something seems to have came up in discussion IIRC at lunch between those two. It was apparently of concern to both, and the judge suggested the two of them continue any further discussion on it in his chambers.

If that much is correct, how long was the time between when they had lunch - discovered something - until that time when the sheriff came to the courthouse and entered the judge’s chambers?

IIUC the sheriff had time to contemplate 1) something before the lunch, 2) during the lunch, 3) after the lunch encounter enroute to the judge’s chambers, and 4) when he apparently confronted the judge in those final fatal moments in chambers. Eight (8) shots IIUC, fatally killing the judge.

IMO at this point it is hard to see anything other than a calculated, premeditated shooting murder of the judge by the sheriff. MOO
 
Laxity and Vagueness. Opinions.

@Harriett_Eva. Thx for your response. Yes, absolutely, positively, all of us on WS look at cases differently.
From your earlier post: "was some laxity and vagueness in the prosecution’s testimony..."
@Allabouttrial 's transcript set forth the DIRECT EXAM Q & A w prosecutor & detective.
Rereading it, I’m still missing the laxity or vagueness you and perhaps others are seeing.

Maybe a post pointing out the precise questions or answers in the direct exam will help me understand.
I’m not sure if I can explain, other than to say it was a strange proceeding in that many of the questions that the defense asked about were not answered (and I don’t know KY law, and more will come out later and the goal of the prosecution was met, which was getting it sent to grand jury)

But I might just have a high bar/desire for specificity (for example don’t just tell me that someone had a baby, I’d want the date, gender, name, weight etc …) and/or my limited familiarity with other cases perhaps has led me to believe erroneously that certain things might/should happen at certain points in the process

To be clear, the judge is the victim in this case as he was indisputably shot and killed by the sheriff-

I don’t justify or condone taking the law into ones own hands- and I can understand scenarios where someone might think and choose differently (a father shotting an offender who had hurt a child and got a light sentence, for example) I’m NOT suggesting that is what happened here

Something extreme happened in small town KY to the point that the well respected sheriff calmly executed his friend, the well respected judge

This is jarring and unsettling the core- and it is difficult to make sense of- motive may or may not be fully known to anyone but the sheriff and we may or may not ever get sufficient information or closure to satisfy our varying degrees of certainty

I’m not trying to convince anyone of my current feelings or opinions and not bothered by others holding different opinions, there are so few known facts, other than something happened and the sheriff took the course of action that he did, after the preceding weeks’ events transpired and the day’s events unfolded in the final 3-4 hours of the judge’s life

Two families are devastated and a community is collectively traumatized as the nation and world watches and speculates- that has to be very difficult for all of those Immediately impacted and involved and that is profoundly sad
 
Thank you everyone for posting on this thread. I LOVE reading your ideas. This is one of the most perplexing cases we've had in a long time.
If you could take a moment to read this post, I would appreciate it.

It is so wonderful that Websleuths is ad-free now. Remember all those obnoxious ads? They are gone, and we have Othram/DNA Solves to thank.

That's why
I would really appreciate it if you could please CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR A MONTHLY DONATION TO DNA SOLVES. Donating as little as Five dollars a month could help families get the answers they deserve about their missing loved ones.

We don't want to see those ads come back, right?

The work the people do at DNASolves.com is truly amazing. Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated.

Please do not discuss this on this thread. CLICK HERE if you would like to discuss further or have any questions.
Thank you,
Tricia Griffith

Manager/Websleuths.com
 
Thinking about what might trigger uncontrolled rage at the time of the shooting.

It seems likely to me that when Stines initially became suspicious, he probably asked his daughter some questions, and we have no idea what she told him and whether she was fully forthcoming in her answers.

Then I can imagine, during their lunch, Stines, perhaps suspicious or perhaps inadvertently seeing something on Mullins' phone that MADE him suspicious, asking Mullins some questions and perhaps Mullins denied something or claimed something was a certain way.

Then in the chambers, Stines saw something that confirmed, in reality or at least in his own mind, whatever his suspicions were.

If it turns out the daughter's number WAS saved in Mullins' phone, perhaps it was saved under another name, maybe something that sounded too intimate for Stines' emotional state?

Regardless whether she answered or not, dialing the number from Mullins' phone would be the easiest way to immediately see what label that contact had been given by Mullins.

MOO
 
That’s absolutely true- my opinion was that there was some laxity and vagueness in the prosecution’s testimony- I have no idea what the facts, motives and or intentions are- was trying to say how it appeared to me

From a viewers perspective experiencing a single witness hearing that the Commonwealth put forth to present its case for probable cause (to bind the case over to a Grand Jury), I think laxity and vagueness are fair descriptors, especially given many labeled KSP Clayton Stamper, the lead investigator, as the worst witness they'd ever watched!

However, in fairness to Stamper, I think there's also a lack of understanding here in the difference between the prosecution of a Murder case by a 'Grand Jury Indictment,' compared to the the more common prosecution by 'Information and Complaint,' where state Statutes generally provide for a preliminary hearing for a case this complex, would typically be allotted multiple days, and the parties call more than one witness. Under I & C, if the Court finds probable cause, the case is bound over for trial. Given a multi-day preliminary hearing as I've just described, compared to the Commonwealth's preliminary hearing of only 30 minutes, it's understandable why OP would think laxity and vagueness.

I hope this helps explain why Stamper's job as the Commonwealth's only witness to essentially confirm Stines used his phone, and Mullins phone, to call his daughter's number, and defer any specific details about the phones and the contents of the phones to the KSP forensic lab experts who were downloading the phones. It will be the KSP forensic lab personnel who will be called to testify about these details before the grand jury, and at trial, and not Stamper.

I think we could see how frustrating the abbreviated hearing was for Stines defense too (Jeremy Bartley) who finally took to presenting leading questions to Stamper for yes or no responses. Ultimately, even this required the KSP spokesperson (Trooper Gayheart) to issue a statement to clarify Stamper's preliminary hearing testimony on the cell phones!

Understandably, Stamper and Bartley had competing purposes during the hearing: Stamper's single purpose was to protect the Commonwealth's charge of Murder, and Bartley hoped to introduce doubt on Murder, and where there was probable cause for Manslaughter in the first degree, at best.

Also, be reminded of Bartley's question posed to Stamper that he used to elicit the response about Stines being concerned for his family (i.e., Stines kidnap comment), where Bartley had to reminded closed mouth Stamper that the preliminary hearing allowed him to give hearsay evidence.

IMO, Bartley was using this opportunity to get it on record the defense's claim for extreme emotional disturbance, the only mitigator to Murder, pursuant in KRS 507.020 Murder.

The defense would certainly have every reason to want Manslaughter in the first degree, given Stines current Murder charge makes him eligible for the death penalty; he killed a Judge. MOO

 
Reviewing what is known thus far publicly, I am having difficulty trying to find any explaining rationale for the sheriff’s actions. Or attempts to associate with an as yet unknown condition or an ‘episode’ of some sort.

IIUC the judge and sheriff had a brief lunch earlier that day. I can’t recall if others were present with them. Something seems to have came up in discussion IIRC at lunch between those two. It was apparently of concern to both, and the judge suggested the two of them continue any further discussion on it in his chambers.

If that much is correct, how long was the time between when they had lunch - discovered something - until that time when the sheriff came to the courthouse and entered the judge’s chambers?

IIUC the sheriff had time to contemplate 1) something before the lunch, 2) during the lunch, 3) after the lunch encounter enroute to the judge’s chambers, and 4) when he apparently confronted the judge in those final fatal moments in chambers. Eight (8) shots IIUC, fatally killing the judge.

IMO at this point it is hard to see anything other than a calculated, premeditated shooting murder of the judge by the sheriff. MOO
All points, well taken. But as is now often asked: "What did Stines "know" and "when" did he know it. The subject stifled at lunch, later talked with the employee who texted him, the phone calls/answers. Never having done it; I have no idea of how long it would take to calculate and conclude I needed to murder someone. But I would think the actual perception of the reason might set the speed. Real serious, my person, family, would not take as long as some others. I can think of a couple of scenarios that would have me faster than Stines.

I do NOT think Stines woke up one morning; felt bad and moped around the recounted oddities while planning to murder Mullins. I DO think he became aware of something which transcended friendship and he followed up to confirm or stewed over doing anything about it.

The subject matter at lunch and the sudden "Lets talk about it in private" may have hardened his decision to confront Mullins and settle the problem/question. Obviously Mullins failed finesse it.
 
All points, well taken. But as is now often asked: "What did Stines "know" and "when" did he know it. The subject stifled at lunch, later talked with the employee who texted him, the phone calls/answers. Never having done it; I have no idea of how long it would take to calculate and conclude I needed to murder someone. But I would think the actual perception of the reason might set the speed. Real serious, my person, family, would not take as long as some others. I can think of a couple of scenarios that would have me faster than Stines.

I do NOT think Stines woke up one morning; felt bad and moped around the recounted oddities while planning to murder Mullins. I DO think he became aware of something which transcended friendship and he followed up to confirm or stewed over doing anything about it.

The subject matter at lunch and the sudden "Lets talk about it in private" may have hardened his decision to confront Mullins and settle the problem/question. Obviously Mullins failed finesse it.
Well stated. Based on what we know, I completely agree.

jmo
 
I would be very interested to see - at some point, not necessarily now - to see a “study” by psychologists, sociologists, etc as to why this case seems to have evoked such strong reactions (possibly due to the unusual nature of the murder and the fact that it was caught on camera) and, more importantly, why so many people seem to sympathize with the Sheriff. I wonder if some of the strong feelings represent a lot of overall frustration at “the system” and how it seems to so often fail the victims and society that in some way people want to applaud someone they feel finally got justice when the Courts often seem to fail to do. I’m not saying the Judge deserved this - since none of us know what really happened in this case. I’m also not condoning the Sheriff’s actions, but I can see how many people may sympathize with the strong desire to protect your child, family, etc.

Plenty interesting in this analysis and in recent posts on this thread.

I wonder if the current election cycle in the US is also impacting the case -- so much polarized, politicized and even conspiratorial thinking seems to surround cases that involve a perceived "much wronged person" fighting a corrupt system against long odds.

The face that the basket of alleged "provocations/ justifications" seem to include assertions of inappropriateness/ power imbalances just amps up the rhetoric IMO.

That the victim of the execution -- for it was -- seems to have no voice and relatively fewer loud defenders also seems to change the perceived truthiness of these precursor "justifying" events.

As an outsider, and whatever was in Stines' mind at the moment he pulled out that gun and fired, this looks very much like vigilante justice to me. Especially from the acting sheriff. And that too seems to have an appeal for some, even many.

Finally, of course, it's caught on video. In detail. Up close. The horror, but also the fascination. An actual, in real time, face of death.

I can't watch the video. But it will be watched, discussed and distributed for a long, long time. A Zapruder film, in colour, in a silent shareable file.

Yes, this one keeps me awake.
 
Last edited:
Plenty interesting in this analysis and in recent posts on this thread.

I wonder if the current election cycle in the US is also impacting the case -- so much polarized, politicized and even conspiratorial thinking seems to surround cases that involve a perceived "much wronged person" fighting a corrupt system against long odds.

The face that the basket of alleged "provocations/ justifications" seem to include assertions of inappropriateness/ power imbalances just amps up the rhetoric IMO.

That the victim of the execution -- for it was -- seems to have no voice and relatively fewer loud defenders also seems to change the perceived truthiness of these precursor "justifying" events.

As an outsider, and whatever was in Stines' mind at the moment he pulled out that gun and fired, this looks very much like vigilante justice to me. Especially from the acting sheriff. And that too seems to have an appeal for some, even many.

Finally, of course, it's caught on video. In detail. Up close. The horror, but also the fascination. An actual, in real time, face of death.

I can't watch the video. But it will be watched, discussed and distributed for a long, long time. A Zapruder film, in colour, in a silent shareable file.

Yes, this one keeps me awake.
Sheriff has had a nice salary on the public dime making sure that everyone else doesn't just get a gun and settle up.
 
Now I'm starting to think that the only reason he called daughter at that time, right before he knew he was about to shoot the judge, was to say goodbye to her or to apologize or give her advance warning of what she'd be about to hear he did or even maybe to tell her why he did it.

If so, that still tells us nothing about why he killed him. Mental illness likely, imo.
But he probably could have done that from his phone when he called her. moo
 
^^bbm

@Tricia -- here's another MSM. Maybe Stines viewed the call history and there were more calls from Mullins phone to his teens number than he was happy about, and it topped him over.


Following the prelim hearing, KSP Trooper Matt Gayheart was dispatched to issue a clarification to the answers Stamper provided during his testimony about the phone calls:

Kentucky State Police Trooper Matt Gayheart told FOX 56 News on Wednesday that contrary to how it was stated in court, investigators won’t know if her number was saved in Mullins’ phone until forensic reports come back in a few weeks. However, the call log reportedly showed her number had been called prior to the shooting.

Surveillance video showed that the shooting occurred just moments after the calls were made.

Stamper said that Stines’ daughter has been interviewed with a parent present, but her phone was not collected as evidence yet.

I wonder why it hadn’t been collected sooner. It could be the “smoking gun” in this case. (no pun intended)
 
Has it ever been released what the “fatal accident” was that the Sheriff delayed responding to a reporter about? I’m just curious if this was in any way relevant to what happened - even if in such an innocuous way such as the possibly the Sheriff knew the victim and it triggered an emotional meltdown. Again, just trying to understand what made him seemingly snap.
 
Reviewing what is known thus far publicly, I am having difficulty trying to find any explaining rationale for the sheriff’s actions. Or attempts to associate with an as yet unknown condition or an ‘episode’ of some sort.

IIUC the judge and sheriff had a brief lunch earlier that day. I can’t recall if others were present with them. Something seems to have came up in discussion IIRC at lunch between those two. It was apparently of concern to both, and the judge suggested the two of them continue any further discussion on it in his chambers.

If that much is correct, how long was the time between when they had lunch - discovered something - until that time when the sheriff came to the courthouse and entered the judge’s chambers?

IIUC the sheriff had time to contemplate 1) something before the lunch, 2) during the lunch, 3) after the lunch encounter enroute to the judge’s chambers, and 4) when he apparently confronted the judge in those final fatal moments in chambers. Eight (8) shots IIUC, fatally killing the judge.

IMO at this point it is hard to see anything other than a calculated, premeditated shooting murder of the judge by the sheriff. MOO
IIRC, there were other people with them during the lunch. I wonder if they were all aware of whatever Stine was upset about. Perhaps he felt uncomfortable about everyone being aware of a situation he was in.
And if the judge was discussing it openly, Stine didn’t appreciate that, and it could have angered him even more. The judge could have sensed that and offered to discuss it privately back in his chambers. Whatever “it” is, I think the judge was somehow involved with it and Stine resented it greatly. IMO
 
And a further possibility is that the judge's phone number was in Stines' daughter's contacts, but not the other way around.

As far as the daughter's number being "found" on the judge's phone, it may have been nothing more than her number being the last outgoing call to appear on the recent calls list, having just been entered by her father.

IMO, the clear, decisive and thorough act of murder carried out by Stines in that chambers was blunt, no ambiguity at all. I feel the underlying reason must be just as blunt, but something tells me not to hold my breath in terms of ever hearing it.

I wonder if he considers himself a martyr?

[bbm]

BINGO!
 
Thinking about what might trigger uncontrolled rage at the time of the shooting.

It seems likely to me that when Stines initially became suspicious, he probably asked his daughter some questions, and we have no idea what she told him and whether she was fully forthcoming in her answers.

Then I can imagine, during their lunch, Stines, perhaps suspicious or perhaps inadvertently seeing something on Mullins' phone that MADE him suspicious, asking Mullins some questions and perhaps Mullins denied something or claimed something was a certain way.

Then in the chambers, Stines saw something that confirmed, in reality or at least in his own mind, whatever his suspicions were.

If it turns out the daughter's number WAS saved in Mullins' phone, perhaps it was saved under another name, maybe something that sounded too intimate for Stines' emotional state?

Regardless whether she answered or not, dialing the number from Mullins' phone would be the easiest way to immediately see what label that contact had been given by Mullins.

MOO
Yeah, he must have been like a pressure cooker and that one little thing finally just set him off. I can’t help but think about what his daughter is going through right now. IMO
 
I, too, wondered about some sort of brain tumor/brain cancer but the longer time goes by without it being mentioned by defense attorneys and with MS still being in jail I doubt it more and more.

I feel, or at least I would like to believe, that if his actions had to do with a brain tumor/brain cancer this would have been brought up and MS would have been released so he could receive treatment. Although he could possibly receive treatment while in jail, IMO the Courts are more likely to release someone under these circumstances (charged but not convicted) so that the cost of medical care is the responsibility of the patient/family and not that of the tax payers.

there's no way they would release someone for treatment who's on camera executing his best friend would they?

Thinking about what might trigger uncontrolled rage at the time of the shooting.

It seems likely to me that when Stines initially became suspicious, he probably asked his daughter some questions, and we have no idea what she told him and whether she was fully forthcoming in her answers.

Then I can imagine, during their lunch, Stines, perhaps suspicious or perhaps inadvertently seeing something on Mullins' phone that MADE him suspicious, asking Mullins some questions and perhaps Mullins denied something or claimed something was a certain way.

Then in the chambers, Stines saw something that confirmed, in reality or at least in his own mind, whatever his suspicions were.

If it turns out the daughter's number WAS saved in Mullins' phone, perhaps it was saved under another name, maybe something that sounded too intimate for Stines' emotional state?

Regardless whether she answered or not, dialing the number from Mullins' phone would be the easiest way to immediately see what label that contact had been given by Mullins.

MOO

[bbm]

possible
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
240
Total visitors
431

Forum statistics

Threads
608,652
Messages
18,243,090
Members
234,410
Latest member
DeChino
Back
Top