Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

PrairieWind said:
It could be that the attorney, in asking about the daughter's phone at the hearing, was almost wanting people to know "there is nothing of interest on the daughter's phone, and we know this because the police aren't seizing it." And then goes on almost telling LE where they DO need to be looking for info on the Judge's phone. Stines could well have told the attorney to throw those questions in for that purpose. I would assume LE would be looking for that already, but maybe Stines just wanted to make sure, and wanted the public to know as well.
Click to expand...

IMO, inquiries by Stines defense lawyer, Jeremy Bartley, were all to imply Stines reacted to something on Mullins phone that caused him to act in the heat of passion to shoot Mullins dead (i.e., acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance).

No doubt Bartley wanted attention on Mullins phone. During the prelim, he argued the Commonwealth proved only manslaughter in the first degree, and not murder. Stamper, the lead investigator, did his job-- to the frustration of all viewing. Stamper and his evasive answers, protected the State's Murder charge. MOO

nypost.com

Kentucky sheriff allegedly killed judge in the ‘heat of passion,’ his lawyer says

“It was not something that was planned and occurred in the heat of passion.”
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Ontario Mom said:
We most certainly do. The detective on the stand explicitly stated that Stines' daughter was interviewed about her conversations with the judge, on her phone. He named who interviewed her, stated that her parent was present, and when asked if her phone was obtained he said no, and added that whatever was on her phone would be on the judge's cell records as well.

She may have not answered immediately before her dad shot the judge, but we know from the detective she did have previous conversations with the judge, on her phone. I've posted the link to the testimony several times.
Click to expand...
Just because they interviewed her about conversations with the judge, doesn't necessarily mean there were ever any conversations, and I suspect is why they didn't seize her phone. I'm sure officers looked through it and interviewed her about any conversations she had with him but that, on it's face doesn't mean she had conversations with the judge on her phone. I have read nothing stating the daughter and the judge spoke on the phone. Not saying it's impossible. And forgive me if it has been stated that the daughter spoke to the judge on this day or that day, but I haven't seen anything like that.
I'm just saying, the police could interview me about phone conversations I've had, but the reality could be I never had any conversations and my phone evidence backs it up. I think them investigating it goes to show they looked at everything, but just because they investigated it doesn't mean they got anything substantial.
 
fsngruv said:
Just because they interviewed her about conversations with the judge, doesn't necessarily mean there were ever any conversations, and I suspect is why they didn't seize her phone. I'm sure officers looked through it and interviewed her about any conversations she had with him but that, on it's face doesn't mean she had conversations with the judge on her phone. I have read nothing stating the daughter and the judge spoke on the phone. Not saying it's impossible. And forgive me if it has been stated that the daughter spoke to the judge on this day or that day, but I haven't seen anything like that.
I'm just saying, the police could interview me about phone conversations I've had, but the reality could be I never had any conversations and my phone evidence backs it up. I think them investigating it goes to show they looked at everything, but just because they investigated it doesn't mean they got anything substantial.
Click to expand...
When the lead detective stated on the stand, during Stines' prelim hearing that Stines' daughter was interviewed about her conversations with the judge, and that she specifically described what occurred during those conversations, he made the point that while her phone was not collected, the records of those conversations would also be on the judge's cell phone records.

How folks are taking this to mean that there never were any conversations between Stines' kid and the judge, is mind boggling to me. The detective couldn't be any more clear, that there were in fact, conversations between the kid and the judge, on their phones.

I've posted this several times, but here it is again. The defense attorney begins the line of questioning about the phones at 19 minutes in.
 
Ontario Mom said:
When the lead detective stated on the stand, during Stines' prelim hearing that Stines' daughter was interviewed about her conversations with the judge, and that she specifically described what occurred during those conversations, he made the point that while her phone was not collected, the records of those conversations would also be on the judge's cell phone records.

How folks are taking this to mean that there never were any conversations between Stines' kid and the judge, is mind boggling to me. The detective couldn't be any more clear, that there were in fact, conversations between the kid and the judge, on their phones.

I've posted this several times, but here it is again. The defense attorney begins the line of questioning about the phones at 19 minutes in.
Click to expand...
Maybe never had conversations is a poor choice of words

The attorney asks if they will obtain records for the daughter's phone and the investigator said
The calls should be on the judges phone as well, and she made comments about those conversations, so there is an implication there were conversations, but it was said on the heels of if they were going to obtain phone records for the daughter's phone.

While it may mean they had conversations it doesn't mean they were of any substance.

Thanks for the guidance, I think we're all here to just discuss opinions and ideas so I apologize for boogling your mind, lol, while it's still a bit flattering, I meant no offense.
 
Ontario Mom said:
We most certainly do. The detective on the stand explicitly stated that Stines' daughter was interviewed about her conversations with the judge, on her phone. He named who interviewed her, stated that her parent was present, and when asked if her phone was obtained he said no, and added that whatever was on her phone would be on the judge's cell records as well.

She may have not answered immediately before her dad shot the judge, but we know from the detective she did have previous conversations with the judge, on her phone. I've posted the link to the testimony several times.
Click to expand...
You know what you know, I don't know what I don't. And we do not have to agree. So I will amend my post you quoted to say We I have no clue if the judge and the daughter had spoken on some previous occasion.

MOO that LEO who testified on the stand didn't know ish about ish. wasn't the one who spoke to daughter and didn't have any report about the interview from the individual who conducted it, wasn't the one who heard Stines say "they are trying to take (or abduct) my wife and kid".

So until I see some sort of actual facts about who talked to who or knew or did what all I have is a video of the murder and what KSP have told the public about the circumstances around it. JMO
 
Kentucky State Police later clarified that they have no evidence the daughter’s phone number was on the judge’s phone before the sheriff dialed it, despite court testimony that suggested that. Trooper Matt Gayheart, a state police spokesman, attributed the confusion to what he called a “misleading” exchange during the preliminary hearing.

“It was very confusing,” Gayheart said. “I was even confused watching it.”

It’s not clear why the sheriff called his daughter from the judge’s phone. Gayheart says Stines’ daughter did not answer.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/01/g-s1-25793/video-shows-the-moment-a-kentucky-judge-was-shot-to-death

MOO Det Stamper (who testified) was not a good witness, got easily discombobulated and the above confusion is not the only confusion that came from his testimony. again JMO

Hoping to hear from the grand jury this month and then perhaps more info will be revealed.
 
tlcya said:
Kentucky State Police later clarified that they have no evidence the daughter’s phone number was on the judge’s phone before the sheriff dialed it, despite court testimony that suggested that. Trooper Matt Gayheart, a state police spokesman, attributed the confusion to what he called a “misleading” exchange during the preliminary hearing.

“It was very confusing,” Gayheart said. “I was even confused watching it.”

It’s not clear why the sheriff called his daughter from the judge’s phone. Gayheart says Stines’ daughter did not answer.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/01/g-s1-25793/video-shows-the-moment-a-kentucky-judge-was-shot-to-death

MOO Det Stamper (who testified) was not a good witness, got easily discombobulated and the above confusion is not the only confusion that came from his testimony. again JMO

Hoping to hear from the grand jury this month and then perhaps more info will be revealed.
Click to expand...
I think its fair to be confused by that exchange and you can look at it either way. We are going to find out at trial.

My take: The officer was answering in the context of a conversation about why they didn't seize the daughter's phone and if he thought it would be important. When the officer said ..because those calls would also be on the judges phone, I think he was defending himself and referring to the calls made just before the shooting and when the officer said that she had specifically described those conversations he was still referring to those calls, which we now know the daughter didn't answer.

If those pre-murder calls were the only calls and she didn't answer them, then her phone is irrelevant. If there were numerous other calls in addition to those pre-murder calls then not seizing her phone makes absolutely no sense. You wouldn't use that fact to defend yourself because it would do the opposite.
 
Curiousobserver said:
I think its fair to be confused by that exchange and you can look at it either way. We are going to find out at trial.

My take: The officer was answering in the context of a conversation about why they didn't seize the daughter's phone and if he thought it would be important. When the officer said ..because those calls would also be on the judges phone, I think he was defending himself and referring to the calls made just before the shooting and when the officer said that she had specifically described those conversations he was still referring to those calls, which we now know the daughter didn't answer.

If those pre-murder calls were the only calls and she didn't answer them, then her phone is irrelevant. If there were numerous other calls in addition to those pre-murder calls then not seizing her phone makes absolutely no sense. You wouldn't use that fact to defend yourself because it would do the opposite.
Click to expand...
It seems 2 very different things are somehow being conflated here.

1. The calls made to the daughter's phone from both her dad's phone, and the judge's phone. It's been reported in MSM that she did not answer those calls that day.

2. The conversations the daughter and the judge had that the detective described as the daughter saying what occurred during those conversations, and the records of them being on the judge's cell phone records.

Stines' daughter couldn't have described conversations she never had if she never answered her phone the day her dad shot the judge. There would be nothing to describe. There wouldn't be any conversations. So clearly, she was describing conversations with the judge that the investigators interviewed her about, that she did have, that the lead detective rightly pointed out, would be found on the judge's cell records.
 
Ontario Mom said:
It seems 2 very different things are somehow being conflated here.

1. The calls made to the daughter's phone from both her dad's phone, and the judge's phone. It's been reported in MSM that she did not answer those calls that day.

2. The conversations the daughter and the judge had that the detective described as the daughter saying what occurred during those conversations, and the records of them being on the judge's cell phone records.

Stines' daughter couldn't have described conversations she never had if she never answered her phone the day her dad shot the judge. There would be nothing to describe. There wouldn't be any conversations. So clearly, she was describing conversations with the judge that the investigators interviewed her about, that she did have, that the lead detective rightly pointed out, would be found on the judge's cell records.
Click to expand...
I agree- its confusing because I am not sure the officer was as skilled at parsing his language as you are (putting it delicately).
 
Curiousobserver said:
I agree- its confusing because I am not sure the officer was as skilled at parsing his language as you are (putting it delicately).
Click to expand...
I agree. I almost took it like the investigator was using the word conversations to refer to the calls made that day, but I see what @Ontario Mom mom is saying, the two are being conflated and Ontario is right, how could conversations occur if the calls weren't answered, so it appears as if the investigator is referring to some other conversations that occurred on the phone. Plus, he never said there weren't any conversations on the phone. So, there's that. Anyway, I get the horse is dead, lol, but it's kinda important isn't it? I mean were there conversations? And if so, what were they?? I mean if there weren't conversations and just calls then it's a big nothing, but if there were calls and conversations then I would think it's a big something. But anyway thanks for helping me play catch up and twist my little noggin in knots!

Also, one I noticed listening to the prelim, the defense mentioned phone apps, if there were communication on snap chat or Whatsapp the phone would not be needed to obtain those conversations, I believe they can be obtained from the app provider, also, if that's how the daughter and the judge did communicate (through apps) there really wouldn't be a reason to save the phone number.
 
fsngruv said:
I agree. I almost took it like the investigator was using the word conversations to refer to the calls made that day, but I see what @Ontario Mom mom is saying, the two are being conflated and Ontario is right, how could conversations occur if the calls weren't answered, so it appears as if the investigator is referring to some other conversations that occurred on the phone. Plus, he never said there weren't any conversations on the phone. So, there's that. Anyway, I get the horse is dead, lol, but it's kinda important isn't it? I mean were there conversations? And if so, what were they?? I mean if there weren't conversations and just calls then it's a big nothing, but if there were calls and conversations then I would think it's a big something. But anyway thanks for helping me play catch up and twist my little noggin in knots!

Also, one I noticed listening to the prelim, the defense mentioned phone apps, if there were communication on snap chat or Whatsapp the phone would not be needed to obtain those conversations, I believe they can be obtained from the app provider, also, if that's how the daughter and the judge did communicate (through apps) there really wouldn't be a reason to save the phone number.
Click to expand...

A question?
Answered and "picked up" are not the same. You call, I accept or pick up the receiver, I have responded. Not answered.
I call you or you call me, we talk for minute or two. We have had a conversation and have answered.
There are many definitions of each in varying contexts.
 
Seems to me that of more importance here is after Lieutenant Randy Combs (18 yr vet per his LinkedIn) and Detective Anthony Trotter (17 yrs) interviewed the daughter of Stines, they did not think it necessary to seek a warrant for her phone and/or subpoena for her phone records.

Lead Investigator Stamper, essentially testified that as of the date of the prelim, he believed any thing of evidential evidentiary value could be obtained from Mullins phone that was already in custody at the forensic lab.

In other words, the seasoned investigators from KSP nor the Commonwealth, had no concerns whatsoever about preserving anything on her phone.

IMO, I think the daughter's phone is only important to the defense. For the defense, it's a matter of life or death to push the narrative that moments after Stines used Mullins phone, he stood up and began firing-- acting in the heat of passion, resulting in manslaughter, not murder.


From the transcript of the prelim hearing:

DEFENSE - So, we don't have a viewing of what transpired during that exchange of phones, but based upon your review of those moments prior to when Sheriff Stines observes that cell phone is it... was he previously seated?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Okay, so when we saw him he was standing the entire time.

DETECTIVE - He was seated in front of the Judge's desk.

DEFENSE - And when he looks at the cell phone - what is... can you describe his reaction in the video we haven't seen?

DETECTIVE - Whose reaction?

DEFENSE - The Sheriff.

DETECTIVE - You can't see his face in the video.

DEFENSE - Okay, but is it clear that.. does it appear to you that.. let me rephrase this - did he stand up after looking at the phone?

DETECTIVE - Yes, he stood up.

DEFENSE - And how long after he looked at the cell phone and stood up did this occur before what you played.

DETECTIVE - Just seconds.

DEFENSE - Did you make the decision on edits today for what you were going to present? Did you make the edit to determine which portion of the video we were going to see today?

DETECTIVE - No sir, I did not.

DEFENSE - Both cell phones have been sent to the State Police Forensic team, is that correct?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Have you gotten any early report on what was found?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Were both phones still on the desk when you arrived?

DETECTIVE - The Judge's phone was on the desk, Sheriff Stines' phone was on his person.

DEFENSE - So are there photographs of... was the phone unlocked at that point, or was it still open?

DETECTIVE - Are you asking about both of them?

DEFENSE - Well first let's talk about.. first I'm talking about Judge Mullins' since his was the one that was still on the desk, and presumably nobody touched it right prior to you securing it, correct?

DETECTIVE - No, no.

DEFENSE - Yeah so I'd like to know about that, have you ascertained what was currently open on that cell phone?

DETECTIVE - No, I don't know at this point, no.

DEFENSE - You don't know?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Do you think that would be.. do you think that would be important to learn?

DETECTIVE - I hope to learn that when the reports ready, yes.

DEFENSE - But as of today you can't tell us what was currently open on the Judge's phone?

DETECTIVE - No sir.

DEFENSE - Did you conduct an interview with Sheriff Stine's daughter?

DETECTIVE - I did not but she has been interviewed.

DEFENSE - Are you aware of... who was present when she was being interviewed?

DETECTIVE - Lieutenant Randy Combs and Detective Anthony Trotter.

DEFENSE - And she was interviewed with or without her parent.

DETECTIVE - With.

DEFENSE - So her parent was present at the time you interviewed her?

DETECTIVE - Yes I believe. I wasn't there, but yes, I think so.

DEFENSE - Law enforcement has not spoken to her without her parent present?

DETECTIVE - Not that I'm aware of.

DEFENSE - Did state police obtain her phone?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Do you intend to intended obtain records for her cell phone number?

DETECTIVE - Possibly, yes.

DEFENSE - Do you believe that that would be soon that you'll do that?

DETECTIVE - Could be, yes.

DEFENSE - Had you ever intended to do that or did you just... respond to my question?

DETECTIVE - Well, the call should be on the Judge's records too and she's made statements about what occurred during those conversations.

DEFENSE - I understand that but I would presume that.. have you ascertained whether Judge Mullens also had apps that stand outside of phone records?

DETECTIVE - I've not received those records yet, I don't know what's on the phone.

DEFENSE - Fair enough, but I mean did you look at the phone? did it appear there were apps on it?

DETECTIVE - I'm not the person that's qualified to look through the phone.

DEFENSE - Okay, but you're familiar with a cell phone, they can host other forms of communication.

(Objection from prosecutor as to asked and answered. Judge says he can testify to any personal knowledge he has)

DEFENSE - So you're aware that phones can be used for apps, such as Facebook?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Okay, and that is not something that is captured by cell phone records - you'd agree with me?

DETECTIVE - I agree.

DEFENSE - So, in light of that, although the records may be mutually the same... the same between Judge Mullens' phone and the Sheriff's daughter do you believe that you could also ascertain other information from a cell phone app content?

DETECTIVE - Are you asking what apps are on the phone?

DEFENSE - Yes, well that was my original question..

DETECTIVE - Well, I don't about... I've not received that report yet. I don't know what apps he had downloaded on the phone.

DEFENSE - If he has social media apps do you intend to....

DETECTIVE - That could lead to additional search warrants, yes.

Seattle1

Post in thread 'KY, Judge Kevin Mullins killed, sheriff arrested, Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 MEDIA, MAPS, & TIMELINE**NO DISCUSSION**'

  • Like
 
Last edited:
Seattle1 said:
Seems to me that of more importance here is after Lieutenant Randy Combs (18 yr vet per his LinkedIn) and Detective Anthony Trotter (17 yrs) interviewed the daughter of Stines, they did not think it necessary to seek a warrant for her phone and/or subpoena for her phone records.

Lead Investigator Stamper, essentially testified that as of the date of the prelim, he believed any thing of evidential value could be obtained from Mullins phone that was already in custody at the forensic lab.

In other words, the seasoned investigators from KSP nor the Commonwealth, had no concerns whatsoever about preserving anything on her phone.

IMO, I think the daughter's phone is only important to the defense. For the defense, it's a matter of life or death to push the narrative that moments after Stines used Mullins phone, he stood up and began firing-- acting in the heat of passion, resulting in manslaughter, not murder.


From the transcript of the prelim hearing:

DEFENSE - So, we don't have a viewing of what transpired during that exchange of phones, but based upon your review of those moments prior to when Sheriff Stines observes that cell phone is it... was he previously seated?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Okay, so when we saw him he was standing the entire time.

DETECTIVE - He was seated in front of the Judge's desk.

DEFENSE - And when he looks at the cell phone - what is... can you describe his reaction in the video we haven't seen?

DETECTIVE - Whose reaction?

DEFENSE - The Sheriff.

DETECTIVE - You can't see his face in the video.

DEFENSE - Okay, but is it clear that.. does it appear to you that.. let me rephrase this - did he stand up after looking at the phone?

DETECTIVE - Yes, he stood up.

DEFENSE - And how long after he looked at the cell phone and stood up did this occur before what you played.

DETECTIVE - Just seconds.

DEFENSE - Did you make the decision on edits today for what you were going to present? Did you make the edit to determine which portion of the video we were going to see today?

DETECTIVE - No sir, I did not.

DEFENSE - Both cell phones have been sent to the State Police Forensic team, is that correct?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Have you gotten any early report on what was found?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Were both phones still on the desk when you arrived?

DETECTIVE - The Judge's phone was on the desk, Sheriff Stines' phone was on his person.

DEFENSE - So are there photographs of... was the phone unlocked at that point, or was it still open?

DETECTIVE - Are you asking about both of them?

DEFENSE - Well first let's talk about.. first I'm talking about Judge Mullins' since his was the one that was still on the desk, and presumably nobody touched it right prior to you securing it, correct?

DETECTIVE - No, no.

DEFENSE - Yeah so I'd like to know about that, have you ascertained what was currently open on that cell phone?

DETECTIVE - No, I don't know at this point, no.

DEFENSE - You don't know?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Do you think that would be.. do you think that would be important to learn?

DETECTIVE - I hope to learn that when the reports ready, yes.

DEFENSE - But as of today you can't tell us what was currently open on the Judge's phone?

DETECTIVE - No sir.

DEFENSE - Did you conduct an interview with Sheriff Stine's daughter?

DETECTIVE - I did not but she has been interviewed.

DEFENSE - Are you aware of... who was present when she was being interviewed?

DETECTIVE - Lieutenant Randy Combs and Detective Anthony Trotter.

DEFENSE - And she was interviewed with or without her parent.

DETECTIVE - With.

DEFENSE - So her parent was present at the time you interviewed her?

DETECTIVE - Yes I believe. I wasn't there, but yes, I think so.

DEFENSE - Law enforcement has not spoken to her without her parent present?

DETECTIVE - Not that I'm aware of.

DEFENSE - Did state police obtain her phone?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Do you intend to intended obtain records for her cell phone number?

DETECTIVE - Possibly, yes.

DEFENSE - Do you believe that that would be soon that you'll do that?

DETECTIVE - Could be, yes.

DEFENSE - Had you ever intended to do that or did you just... respond to my question?

DETECTIVE - Well, the call should be on the Judge's records too and she's made statements about what occurred during those conversations.

DEFENSE - I understand that but I would presume that.. have you ascertained whether Judge Mullens also had apps that stand outside of phone records?

DETECTIVE - I've not received those records yet, I don't know what's on the phone.

DEFENSE - Fair enough, but I mean did you look at the phone? did it appear there were apps on it?

DETECTIVE - I'm not the person that's qualified to look through the phone.

DEFENSE - Okay, but you're familiar with a cell phone, they can host other forms of communication.

(Objection from prosecutor as to asked and answered. Judge says he can testify to any personal knowledge he has)

DEFENSE - So you're aware that phones can be used for apps, such as Facebook?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Okay, and that is not something that is captured by cell phone records - you'd agree with me?

DETECTIVE - I agree.

DEFENSE - So, in light of that, although the records may be mutually the same... the same between Judge Mullens' phone and the Sheriff's daughter do you believe that you could also ascertain other information from a cell phone app content?

DETECTIVE - Are you asking what apps are on the phone?

DEFENSE - Yes, well that was my original question..

DETECTIVE - Well, I don't about... I've not received that report yet. I don't know what apps he had downloaded on the phone.

DEFENSE - If he has social media apps do you intend to....

DETECTIVE - That could lead to additional search warrants, yes.

Seattle1

Post in thread 'KY, Judge Kevin Mullins killed, sheriff arrested, Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 MEDIA, MAPS, & TIMELINE**NO DISCUSSION**'

  • Like
Click to expand...
That's my take at this juncture. On the date of prelim defense was simply doing all it could to try and argue for manslaughter as opening/primary charge, against all evidence to the contrary.jmo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 821 (members: 203, guests: 618)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
619
Total visitors
822
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
611,007
Messages
18,274,854
Members
235,262
Latest member
Insider810
Back
Top