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

[Seattle1]

He had only just been elected when he was already using this defense and even the judge who ruled on the lawsuit mentioned how Stines was quite peeved that Congleton had been speaking out against him. Idk, IMO, that deposition he had to give on Monday somehow plays a big ol’ role in this whole thing.

It was an accurate defense then and now -- KY has not banned qualified immunity against LE or elected officials. Furthermore, Stines prevailed in the civil lawsuit by disgruntled, former employee Congleton who was dismissed by Sheriff Webb, and who then filed a civil suit against Stines when he did not hire her after he was elected Sheriff.

Post in thread 'Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024'

Sep 24, 2024

Eeek -- what a stressful way written in the KY Commonwealth to run a County Sheriff's Office!

Stines looks forward to having full staff - The Mountain Eagle

A state-mandated tax settlement at the end of an outgoing sheriff ’s term coupled with late mineral tax bills issued by the state means Sheriff-elect Mickey Stines will be seriously shorthanded and seriously short on money when he takes office on January 7. Stines said the transition from...

www.themountaineagle.com

Take note that Stines was first elected Sheriff during the Nov 2018 election, and was sworn into office in January 2019.

Appending my earlier post about how "State law says an outgoing sheriff must make a settlement — pay off all bills and remit all collected taxes — at the end of his term," which resulted in the outgoing Sheriff Webb terminating three County staff members: Congleton, Sloan, and...

• Seattle1

• 
• 

 

[Curiousobserver]

If the Judge had the Sheriff’s daughter’s phone number STORED in his phone UNDER A FAKE NAME - to me it would most likely NOT be gor a legitimate/appropriate reason.

But if the Sheriff’s daughter’s phone number was stored in the Judge’s under her REAL NAME I wouldn’t be able to believe - beyond a reasonable doubt - that it was definitely for some nefarious reason. I live in a relatively small town - about 3,600 people, 2 Churches, 1 traffic light and most people know (or at least know of) almost everyone. My son just turned 21 y/o and we are good friends with his best friend since they were 4 y/o - they even dated twin sisters for about 3 yrs. I have the parents’ numbers in my phone along with my son’s friend & the friend’s older brother (who was in my daughter’s class & on the same co-ed winter indoor soccer team because we didn’t even have enough kids for a boys team a
nd a girls team. My point is, it could just be because the families had a good relationship. Maybe the daughter took care of pets, watered plants, brought in mail, etc if they were away and her number was in both the Judge’s phone AND his wife’s phone for purely innocent reasons. We just don’t know at this point.

I have chaperoned many school trips and I have the phone numbers of probably 25 or more students and their parents still on my phone. There are innocent reasons to have a minor's number on an adults phone, we don't know if any of those reasons apply here.

I personally doubt that the number being on the phone was the only piece of evidence the Sherriff had- after all he had must have had some reason to look at the phone in the first place. MOO he began to suspect something over the past couple of weeks and started doing what police officers do, ask questions and collect evidence. The phone was the nail in the coffin (pun intended). Whether it proves to be true that his suspicions were real or imagined we shall see. Sometimes the picture isn't what it seems to be and that might be what happened to the Sheriff.

The wild card here is his family, especially his daughter, sitting behind him in court. I cannot imagine any 17 year old showing her face in such a public way if it was now widely known she had been having a relationship with a married, middle aged man and her father shot him.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

I have chaperoned many school trips and I have the phone numbers of probably 25 or more students and their parents still on my phone. There are innocent reasons to have a minor's number on an adults phone, we don't know if any of those reasons apply here.

I personally doubt that the number being on the phone was the only piece of evidence the Sherriff had- after all he had must have had some reason to look at the phone in the first place. MOO he began to suspect something over the past couple of weeks and started doing what police officers do, ask questions and collect evidence. The phone was the nail in the coffin (pun intended). Whether it proves to be true that his suspicions were real or imagined we shall see. Sometimes the picture isn't what it seems to be and that might be what happened to the Sheriff.

The wild card here is his family, especially his daughter, sitting behind him in court. I cannot imagine any 17 year old showing her face in such a public way if it was now widely known she had been having a relationship with a married, middle aged man and her father shot him.

Your last paragraph.... those were my immediate thoughts as well.

And having the number on his phone... I feel it could be harmless as well. They have stated that they were good friends... I have many numbers of daughters and sons of my good friends. And we hardly ever delete them these days.... so if it was only for a super simple reason to take the number down at some point.... its still in my directory.

 

[Simply Southern]

I agree. I also think these families were close for years, maybe closer than some relatives? Also, maybe the children had a relationship? IDK. Stines called his daughter and she didn't answer, but she answered for the judge's number...
I think that phone call during the lunch from the employee (who's phone is in custody) is also pertinent.

The Judge had two daughter and three nephews.
Per obit

Kevin Russell Mullins - View Obituary & Service Information

Share Memories and Support the Family.

www.hallandjones.com

 

[Ontario Mom]

I must have missed an article or two. Can someone point me to the MSM article that states Stines' daughter did not answer his calls from his phone, but did answer the call from the judge's phone?

TIA

 

[bestill]

DBM

 

[tlcya]

Law & Crime did an interview with the defense attorneys yesterday. I haven’t seen it posted. Interview starts around 13 minutes.

after speaking about how they don't know what happens on the video leading up to the moments shared in court and they want to see that:

(mark 14:55 Defense atty says) "I don't know at this point - what um, what ultimately was on that phone. They're examining the phones. But we believe that based upon the statements that our client made just following arrest as well as the indication that there was this exchange of phones/reviewing of phones that something in that moment made our client feel that there was no other choice than to do what he did."

Shouldn't their client have been able to shed some light on these things? Has Stines not given them his side of the story? Because this sounds as if his attorneys are just as in the dark as we are? Based upon the statements made (to others) during his arrest they believe there was an emotional upset that left their client thinking there was no other choice? To me that suggests their client hasn't told them WHAT made him do it. JMO MOO

 

[tlcya]

per the defense attorney this is textbook extreme emotional disturbance - and yet he appears not to know what caused his client's extreme emotional disturbance. But it is textbook. Got it. sigh.

 

[sunshineray]

IANAL- nor do I have anything to base this on-

But hypothetically if there were some unsavory things going on in the county, which involved multiple layers of law enforcement, perhaps even a judge and deputies, and if there was perhaps an open secret about what those things might be, and if a sheriff got pushed too far and took matters into his own hand…

AND if someone wanted to make it just GO AWAY, protect certain innocent or not so innocent people and keep things private, letting mountain justice take care of it, and had the power to do it…

I could imagine a scenario where a person might be over charged, leave a lot of unanswered questions during an investigation, not allow for a lesser charge to be considered by the Grand Jury, and then have the GJ either fail to return an indictment for murder one, and or set things up so that getting acquitted is likely at trial -

Not suggesting that’s what happened or is happening, or that it’s a good idea-

just thinking of scenarios that account for the totality of the ODD data/information available about the events that have occurred to date

In my experience rural small town Deep South and Appalachia (and FL/TX) have different ways of handling things sometimes- and I could see a scenario where the “outsiders” might not ever get the details … MOO

I been wondering along the lines of what poster Seattle1 was supposing in their above post. If the Sheriff was going through problems in his home life on top of the deposition coming up for the lawsuit, that's a lot of stress coming to a head, on his head. He was losing weight rapidly and getting paranoid about his SM being used against him somehow.

The judge was the one who set up the meeting in chambers so it seems like he knew the Sheriff had to vent in some way and whatever the subject matter was (family, lawsuit or both), best done behind closed doors.

I don't know if those things jive with the way he shot and killed his long-time good friend? The video played at his recently hearing showed him shooting in 3 separate spurts, so stopping and starting over and over and over again. The judge was heard to call out for help and we don't know what else, maybe pleading with his friend? The Sheriff just came back to shoot again, that sounds like blind rage, MO

I still cannot understand why the judge had the daughter's number on his phone unless he was like a very close uncle figure to her and her Dad was unapproachable at the time? If their families were very close you'd think she reach out to the judge's wife instead...but then maybe not.

Like the other poster said, very tragic. The above is AJMO.

 

[bestill]

DBM

 

[Kudzuu]

I must have missed an article or two. Can someone point me to the MSM article that states Stines' daughter did not answer his calls from his phone, but did answer the call from the judge's phone?

TIA

I don't believe there is MSM that has stated that . People have wondered if that happened and could have triggered Stine's behavior. MOO

If you've read the PC transcript that sums up what is known as fact thus far.

 

[Florida_marlin]

after speaking about how they don't know what happens on the video leading up to the moments shared in court and they want to see that:

(mark 14:55 Defense atty says) "I don't know at this point - what um, what ultimately was on that phone. They're examining the phones. But we believe that based upon the statements that our client made just following arrest as well as the indication that there was this exchange of phones/reviewing of phones that something in that moment made our client feel that there was no other choice than to do what he did."

Shouldn't their client have been able to shed some light on these things? Has Stines not given them his side of the story? Because this sounds as if his attorneys are just as in the dark as we are? Based upon the statements made (to others) during his arrest they believe there was an emotional upset that left their client thinking there was no other choice? To me that suggests their client hasn't told them WHAT made him do it. JMO MOO

I think this may be lawyers doing what they should at this point to protect and keep their client’s options open and not pin themselves down to a story/narrative. Suppose Stines did tell the lawyer his side of events and what he did/didn’t do with phone and what he did/didn’t see on phone. The lawyer doesn’t know for sure what he told them is supported by the evidence that will come forth. Best to say don’t know right now, in my option.

 

[scapa]

I have chaperoned many school trips and I have the phone numbers of probably 25 or more students and their parents still on my phone. There are innocent reasons to have a minor's number on an adults phone, we don't know if any of those reasons apply here.

I personally doubt that the number being on the phone was the only piece of evidence the Sherriff had- after all he had must have had some reason to look at the phone in the first place. MOO he began to suspect something over the past couple of weeks and started doing what police officers do, ask questions and collect evidence. The phone was the nail in the coffin (pun intended). Whether it proves to be true that his suspicions were real or imagined we shall see. Sometimes the picture isn't what it seems to be and that might be what happened to the Sheriff.

The wild card here is his family, especially his daughter, sitting behind him in court. I cannot imagine any 17 year old showing her face in such a public way if it was now widely known she had been having a relationship with a married, middle aged man and her father shot him.

Great point -- have been thinking about also (said Scapa, stealthily assuming some credit for said great point). I find it hard to square any of the current scenarios with the comments and behaviour we've seen by the friends and especially family of either the victim or accused.

That said, my wildcard is the MSM assumption that Stines was a well man, thinking clearly, when he carried out the shooting. I know that the possible erratic / oddly quiet behaviour in the weeks prior has been noted here.

I also wonder about the power of misinformation, innocent or malicious, to play a role in such a shooting, where whatever was seen on the phone as they were swapped seems to confirm something suspected and fixated on and stewed over but not necessarily true.

Anyway, hopefully justice runs true and families and community get some answers that make sense.

Would also add that, as a Sports Parent and 20240era Parent full-stop, both my partner and myself have dozens of kids' names in our phones, as well as the names of their parents, of various ages and genders. They're on our teams, are friends of our kids, are dating/ have dated them, have phoned us about events or games, etc etc.

It might have been nefarious in other worlds at other times, but not now, IMO, when virtually anyone who calls for any reason becomes "a contact," and parents are as involved in the day-to-day of their kids' lives as we are -- ironically, this would be noted as a Net Good Thing in many of the cases we discuss on WS.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

I don't know if those things jive with the way he shot and killed his long-time good friend? The video played at his recently hearing showed him shooting in 3 separate spurts, so stopping and starting over and over and over again. The judge was heard to call out for help and we don't know what else, maybe pleading with his friend? The Sheriff just came back to shoot again, that sounds like blind rage

I agree with blind rage- but perhaps there were “bad things” happening and the judge was somehow involved and the sheriff knew some things as bailiff but maybe found out more about it after becoming sheriff and then something tipped the scales and it became personal and the sheriff snapped when he found out something “unforgivable” -

Hypothetically if there was something illicit going on with kickbacks /abuse of power regarding the rehab facilities and shortened sentences etc- if folks were coerced into going (court ordered vs voluntarily getting admitted) and all was not as it seems, in addition to the abuse of power in the case of SA happening the judges office- a sheriff finding out that his trusted friend was involved would be a shocking betrayal- additionally finding out that your wife and daughter were involved/ harmed/ potentially going to be harmed might be enough for someone to snap and shot someone in mercilessly in blind rage-

No indication that this is anything near to the truth, but in my mind at least it’s a plausible scenario of events- given the limited information currently available publicly— MOO

 

[bestill]

I think this may be lawyers doing what they should at this point to protect and keep their client’s options open and not pin themselves down to a story/narrative. Suppose Stines did tell the lawyer his side of events and what he did/didn’t do with phone and what he did/didn’t see on phone. The lawyer doesn’t know for sure what he told them is supported by the evidence that will come forth. Best to say don’t know right now, in my option.

I think that was a good interview. I also agree with what you're saying here. At this point the State is really operating blindly, their witness is dead and all they have is what they are discovering through the investigation, thankfully they have the video and the phones. The defense attorneys may or may not know what really happened, if they do know their position still has to be this.

I had missed that the defense attorney asked if the lead investigator knew of or had any reports on the Judge. Wondering now what is that about.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

I still cannot understand why the judge had the daughter's number on his phone unless he was like a very close uncle figure to her and her Dad was unapproachable at the time? If their families were very close you'd think she reach out to the judge's wife instead...but then maybe not.

The daughter’s number in the phone would be only suspicious to me if it was under a pseudonym or had a lot of calls logged or incriminating information …

As a parent, teacher, youth leader, employer, board member, coach, volunteer committee member etc over the years I have tons of contacts in my phone which would make no sense today, but I rarely if ever delete contacts because I don’t think about it-

some are from a onetime event such as some one will have a child or spouse call me after a procedure or something to give me an update or for me to pick some one up- I’d put it in my phone so I know to pick up since I don’t answer unknown callers-

Field trips, church or civic events, house sitting, birthday parties etc are all reasons I’ve had seemingly strange numbers/contacts in my phone- I can only imagine how this would be amplified in a small town with longtime friends in a close knit community-

Also I’ve had my kids message people on my behalf and those folks likely saved the contacts in their phones- my daughter’s number was in many adult phones when she was 16-17 for legit reason that might not be obvious to the outside observer-

For example she once messaged a husband of a friend of my to drop something off for my friend - she needed to make sure he was home to help get it out of the car - I’d given him my daughter’s number earlier so he would recognize the number when she called/messaged- I seriously doubt he deleted immediately after, probably didn’t think about it- just like I don’t think to delete contacts

Not saying there wasn’t a suspicious or questionable reason for the daughter’s number to be in the judges phone- but I don’t think that there has to be- I can think of a lot of legitimate reasons for why it might be there - MOO

 

[Harriett_Eva]

The wild card here is his family, especially his daughter, sitting behind him in court. I cannot imagine any 17 year old showing her face in such a public way if it was now widely known she had been having a relationship with a married, middle aged man and her father shot him.

Maybe the wife and daughter were involved in a different way and they actually support him-

Neither to victim blame, nor advocate for taking the law into ones own hands- I could imagine that if a daughter or wife had been caught up in something and a judge were abusing power in someway and/or some future harm might be imminent (getting sent to rehab facility perhaps) that a sheriff might do and say what he did, and his family might support him-

Just my imagination and thinking out loud, and I could be 100% down the wrong rabbit hole- MOO

 

[housewife]

I think that was a good interview. I also agree with what you're saying here. At this point the State is really operating blindly, their witness is dead and all they have is what they are discovering through the investigation, thankfully they have the video and the phones. The defense attorneys may or may not know what really happened, if they do know their position still has to be this.

I had missed that the defense attorney asked if the lead investigator knew of or had any reports on the Judge. Wondering now what is that about.

Attorney Melanie Little said it might mean that the sheriff had previously reported the judge for... something.

 

[Parsnip]

From sworn testimony during the preliminary hearing, there is no confirmation that any call was answered. We only know that Stines used his phone, and the phone of Judge Mullins, to call his daughters phone.

I was under the impression that the calls were answered, so I had another look at @Allabouttrial ’s handy transcript from the first thread. I think the following is what led me to that impression:

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

DETECTIVE - I did not but she has been interviewed.

<Snip>

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.

Bbm.

That last sentence is definitely ambiguous. The phrase “during those conversations” could refer to either

1. during the conversations LS had with MS on his and the judge’s phones, or

2. during the conversations LS had with the interviewers. I do tend to lean toward the first reading. Jmo.

 

[Friday Fan]

That last sentence is definitely ambiguous. The phrase “during those conversations” could refer to either

1. during the conversations LS had with MS on his and the judge’s phones, or

2. during the conversations LS had with the interviewers. I do tend to lean toward the first reading. Jmo.

I took it as the second. The detective was vague. His way of speaking was not the most direct. So, that's why I took it as the second. Someone who is not the most direct speaker tends to add things at the end a sentence. Dangling modifier - Wikipedia

Just MOO, but I can see how someone could interpret it as the first.