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.
So, hypothetically, if for whatever reason, the GJ didn’t think that the evidence presented to them rose to the level of murder, then no charges would be brought against MS and it would be “over” correct?
Hypothetically, I think every existing video of the shooting in the universe would have to vanish, as well as the weapon, for a grand jury not to indict on murder, and the case to be over. And I don't see any of the above happening.
 
the fact that the judge was unarmed
Do we know that for a fact? Was it mentioned? Or was he unarmed in the video clip shown and assuming from that? I can’t remember-

MS obviously shot the judge - that is undeniable- the almost instant murder charges were kind of odd- as is a lot with this case-
 
Do we know that for a fact? Was it mentioned? Or was he unarmed in the video clip shown and assuming from that? I can’t remember-

MS obviously shot the judge - that is undeniable- the almost instant murder charges were kind of odd- as is a lot with this case-
Per KSP during the PC hearing, no gun was found on the judge or in chambers.
 
Do we know that for a fact? Was it mentioned? Or was he unarmed in the video clip shown and assuming from that? I can’t remember-

MS obviously shot the judge - that is undeniable- the almost instant murder charges were kind of odd- as is a lot with this case-
Yes, per the sworn testimony of lead detective Clayton Stamper:

DEFENSE - Okay, so you're carrying the case. So I want to make sure I understand - had Judge Mullins been removed from chambers when you arrived.

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Were you able to ascertain - did he have a firearm on his person?

DETECTIVE - We did not locate one.

DEFENSE - You did not locate one?

DETECTIVE - No, there was not one in the chambers.

DEFENSE - Okay, and there was none on his person?

DETECTIVE - No.

 
Do we know that for a fact? Was it mentioned? Or was he unarmed in the video clip shown and assuming from that? I can’t remember-

MS obviously shot the judge - that is undeniable- the almost instant murder charges were kind of odd- as is a lot with this case-
he was unarmed in the video shown at hearing. The defense attorney also made a point when questioning the investigator at the hearing to ask if any firearm had been found in the judge's chambers and had LEOs searched for one. The investigator stated they had searched for one and no gun was found. The questions were not about the sheriff's weapon as they had already discussed Stines having turned his over, so they were discussing any potential weapon in relation to Mullins. There was none.
 
Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm way too old fashioned but as a mom of 6 girls I find it highly inappropriate for a grown, married man to have a teenage girl's phone number that he isn't related to, or isn't an employee of his. In this case, neither applies.

Now if it turns out her number wasn't actually stored as a contact but only on the phone because her dad dialed it immediately prior to shooting Mullins, that's a different story. And yet, her number was still dialed immediately prior so it's pretty obvious she's connected in some awful way to what her dad did.

jmo

Thank you.

As a daughter of a cop who used to be a court liaison officer the last few years of 32 years. I can not fathom having a judges # in my contacts, or the chief of police who my father was very good friends with. It just would not happen.

Jmo
 
Sure, here you go.



Thank you Seattle. I appreciate it.
 
@Friday Fan wrote:
The portion played in court opens with Stines standing and Mullins sitting at his desk in his black robe. This is what happened next:

Stines pointed his gun at Mullins from perhaps five feet away. The judge raised one hand, perhaps a gesture to ward off the threat, then turned away from Stines and hunkered over in his chair.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article293386104.html#storylink=cpy

This may be insignificant, but when the judge went to lunch, would he be wearing his black robe? I've rarely seen judges in their robes when not in court and doing something with friends in public. So I'm wondering if he donned his robe when he entered his chambers- and if so, why?
Also, would he offer to meet with Stines privately if he was involved in something inappropriate with Stine's daughter? I'd think he might hesitate, knowing things could go south quickly (not anticipating being shot, but perhaps a loud confrontation,, etc.)
I'm spacey today, so I hope I'm making sense on some level! Just a couple of random thoughts...
 
So I'm wondering if he donned his robe when he entered his chambers- and if so, why?
That is a really good observation!

ETA: it is unlikely, ime, that the judge would have still had his robes on at lunch. But he clearly had them on when he was shot. There are certain things that judges hear in chambers…search warrants, for example, that are not recorded, for obvious reasons.
 
@Friday Fan wrote:
The portion played in court opens with Stines standing and Mullins sitting at his desk in his black robe. This is what happened next:

Stines pointed his gun at Mullins from perhaps five feet away. The judge raised one hand, perhaps a gesture to ward off the threat, then turned away from Stines and hunkered over in his chair.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article293386104.html#storylink=cpy

This may be insignificant, but when the judge went to lunch, would he be wearing his black robe? I've rarely seen judges in their robes when not in court and doing something with friends in public. So I'm wondering if he donned his robe when he entered his chambers- and if so, why?
Also, would he offer to meet with Stines privately if he was involved in something inappropriate with Stine's daughter? I'd think he might hesitate, knowing things could go south quickly (not anticipating being shot, but perhaps a loud confrontation,, etc.)
I'm spacey today, so I hope I'm making sense on some level! Just a couple of random thoughts...
Judges typically don't put on their robe until they are about to head in to court or if they are doing some official in some other location. In this case, my guess is that the Judge was going to be going in to Court shortly.
There could be various reasons for a Judge to meet with the Sheriff. They could be discussing jail issues or some procedures regarding court operations, etc. Or since they were acquaintances, lots of reasons to have a short discussion. or if there were something illicit going on, the Judge not wanting that conversation to occur in front of others (not knowing he was about to be shot, of course).
 
Judges typically don't put on their robe until they are about to head in to court or if they are doing some official in some other location. In this case, my guess is that the Judge was going to be going in to Court shortly.
There could be various reasons for a Judge to meet with the Sheriff. They could be discussing jail issues or some procedures regarding court operations, etc. Or since they were acquaintances, lots of reasons to have a short discussion. or if there were something illicit going on, the Judge not wanting that conversation to occur in front of others (not knowing he was about to be shot, of course).
So, from what we learned and saw from the video shown at the PC hearing, we know that the judge was in chambers and in robes. Further, we know that several people were present in some part of chambers when MS entered, and chambers were emptied. So, we know Judge had donned his robes at some point after lunch and before the shooting. Is it possible that he was handling a proceeding off the record in his office when the sheriff interrupted? Speculation on my part.
 
Thank you.

As a daughter of a cop who used to be a court liaison officer the last few years of 32 years. I can not fathom having a judges # in my contacts, or the chief of police who my father was very good friends with. It just would not happen.

Jmo
She is older then the Mullins children perhaps she baby sat them.
 
This may be insignificant, but when the judge went to lunch, would he be wearing his black robe? I've rarely seen judges in their robes when not in court and doing something with friends in public. So I'm wondering if he donned his robe when he entered his chambers- and if so, why?

I don't believe Mullins was wearing his robe outside of the Courthouse.
However, we know from the transcript of the prelim hearing that prior to meeting with Stines inside his Chambers, there were other parties inside Mullins Chambers meeting with him. We don't know the identity of these persons, and Mullins was likely wearing his robe pertaining to earlier business before Stines entered. MOO
 
Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm way too old fashioned but as a mom of 6 girls I find it highly inappropriate for a grown, married man to have a teenage girl's phone number
I fully agree. Its a Red Flag for me as well (father). But... Red Flags do not always mean "criminal behavior"- or even attempted criminal behavior. Rather, such flags mean "warning"
it's pretty obvious she's connected in some awful way to what her dad did.
I disagree with the "obvious" and "awful" conclusion.

As the sheriff referred to "kidnapping my wife and daughter" (two people), I am leaning towards an interference with family life being the motive.

As a side note, in certain sub cultures, including Appalachian, parental authority- and especially male parental and male spousal authority is highly respected. It can be considered a strong provocation to interfere in the family life / home authority of another man.

Anyways, possible non awful reasons for the presence of the daughter's phone number could be:

- Daughter sought help for domestic violence or child abuse.
- Daughter sought help in obtaining substance abuse counciling.
- Daughter sought help after noticing illegal activity- cant really call the police if the person of concern (dear olde dad) is the police.
 
Last edited:
The daughter’s number was in the judge’s phone, Stamper said.


After the hearing, Bartley was asked if he believes there was an inappropriate relationship between Mullins and Stines’ daughter.

“I don’t want to comment on that,” Bartley responded. “I left the hearing today with a lot of questions still unanswered myself and there will be more light shed on the preceding events.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
268
Total visitors
502

Forum statistics

Threads
608,542
Messages
18,240,862
Members
234,392
Latest member
FamilyGal
Back
Top