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

[acehard]

IIRC there was some discussion upthread about whether Stines had actually said something like "they're trying to *TAKE* my wife and kid -- which is a word with much broader meaning than *kidnap*

I was going to mention this. On the day it happened, this statement was already leaked on social media and I saw the word 'take'. I don't know what was actually said and obviously it makes a big difference. IMO

 

[Chimera]

It's a quilt hanging on the wall.

Yes, you're correct --- and it's a creative take on the mining business there in that state ... this was already discussed and the enhanced photos showed the quilt in a clearer frame; and I did acknowledge this.

Welcome to Websleuths, @UK Feline !

 

[Live_and_Learn]

ARC is a for profit rehab with strong political ties to some names we've seen mentioned on this thread including the Gov and the AG. Owner of ARC is an attorney being investigated for insurance fraud. Mullins favors sending offenders who come before him to ARC and Stines drives them to the facility. Could be a nexus to Mullins or both Mullins and Stines. Kickpacks are alive and real-- even in KY. JMO

Exactly. No one said he was murdered over this. I was assuming by this point in the second thread of discussion, relevance would be obvious. I found it and posted it right before I went to sleep, not thinking it required this explanation. Apologies, and thank you, Seattle1!

 

[Live_and_Learn]

I was going to mention this. On the day it happened, this statement was already leaked on social media and I saw the word 'take'. I don't know what was actually said and obviously it makes a big difference. IMO

Yes.
Speculation: When I heard Stamper make the statement in court, it sounded to me like he was paraphrasing with some not very well hidden contempt.

 

[Seattle1]

Jury nullification is always an option in the United States, any state, anytime. It’s rare, but it does happen. Once a jury is seated, they can vote to acquit over and above any instruction given by the judge. Juries have the ultimate power to judge the law and the facts. Judges and prosecutors will tell and instruct juries otherwise. In fact, most clearly state that the jury is only allowed to judge the facts. But that’s not true. Once seated and decision made, it’s done. It’s very rare due to the fact it’s improbable to get 12 at one time on a jury of the same mind to nullify.

Interesting. Can OP cite a case in the last 10-20 years where this happened? Thanks.

 

[Seattle1]

I think we need to find out with certainty whether that's exactly what Stines said or whether Stamper was paraphrasing -- IIRC there was some discussion upthread about whether Stines had actually said something like "they're trying to *TAKE* my wife and kid -- which is a word with much broader meaning than *kidnap* -- it could even refer to the wife/kid being persuaded to do something "merely" against Stines' wishes, rather than a literal physical kidnapping.

I was going to mention this. On the day it happened, this statement was already leaked on social media and I saw the word 'take'. I don't know what was actually said and obviously it makes a big difference. IMO

For discussion purposes, we have a 24 year veteran of the KSP (Clayton Stamper) who testified under oath at that preliminary hearing that when he arrived at the Courthouse (crime scene), he personally talked to Stines, and the only thing the accused said to him was the 'treat him fair.'

When questioned by the defense if Stines made any statements about his family, Stamper offered (as hearsay evidence) that he heard from other Investigators who arrived before him that when Stines was taken into custody, he made the comment, "they're trying to kidnap my wife and kid."

Again, this was only Stamper's recollection of what he was told.

Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.

One thing is for certain: during trial, it won't be Stamper who tells us what Stines said here but the Investigator who actually heard the statement (i.e., hearsay evidence not allowed at trail).

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how long evidence is sealed when a grand jury is used but I imagine the KSP personnel who had contact with Stines will testify before the GJ, and the transcript eventually made available to the defense but when it's discovered-- I don't know.

And this ^^ is why I very much prefer charges by Information and Complaint! MOO

For reference, please see the preliminary hearing transcript by @Allabouttrial linked in the MEDIA thread.

 

[gremlin444]

When questioned by the defense if Stines made any statements about his family, Stamper offered (as hearsay evidence) that he heard from other Investigators who arrived before him that when Stines was taken into custody, he made the comment, "they're trying to kidnap my wife and kid."

Again, this was only Stamper's recollection of what he was told.

Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.

Sitting here, I just had a thought...

I wonder if Stines said "they are trying to steal my family"--which could fit into the idea that Stines' daughter and/or wife were in communication with the judge and/or others in order to get help with a situation involving Stines. It could be as basic as daughter or mom talking to the judge about being worried that Stines was on drugs or was having psychiatric issues due to his recent change in behavior and asking him to assist them in getting help for Stines. In his current state, Stines could have viewed the judge offering help/trying to help the family set up services for him as the judge (and the places suggested to help Stines like rehab, therapy, etc) as "these people turning my family against me...trying to separate me from my family, breaking us up, trying to take them away from me."

I could then see Stamper in his retelling condensing that and using the word "kidnap" as an adjacent but not entirely accurate word choice.

 

[Angelcat13]

That doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. There are programs like this all over the country. Why would the sheriff murder him over that?
Cronyism is pretty much all over the place. Heck, might as well investigate the ankle bracelet company and the private detention center. (They always get kickbacks and they're involved with that sheriff deputy scandal)

I thought he murdered him because of his daughter and wife?

I am not saying that a financial scandal such as this led to the shooting. I was simply replying to the comment wondering why the original post about if the financial investigation may have anything to do with the murder.

WE JUST DON’T KNOW AT THIS POINT. We can all speculate, nut that’s all it is at this point on our end - speculation.

We also don’t KNOW if it had anything to do with any real or perceived improprieties by the Judge towards the Sheriff’s daughter.

 

[Friday Fan]

One thing is for certain: during trial, it won't be Stamper who tells us what Stines said here but the Investigator who actually heard the statement (i.e., hearsay evidence not allowed at trail).

Given Stamper was one of the most evasive LE witnesses I've watched in a long time, could he have gotten the alleged statement by Stines wrong? Possibly. Then again, "kidnap" isn't exactly a word one generally substitutes in conversation.


Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with how long evidence is sealed when a grand jury is used but I imagine the KSP personnel who had contact with Stines will testify before the GJ, and the transcript eventually made available to the defense but when it's discovered-- I don't know.

And this ^^ is why I very much prefer charges by Information and Complaint! MOO

For reference, please see the preliminary hearing transcript by @Allabouttrial linked in the MEDIA thread.

Agree! At trial, which will probably be three years from now and long after we have moved on to other cases, we will likely see a video of Stine's interview. (If one exists). It will probably last no more than a minute.

Everyone will disagree on the meaning and write elaborate paragraphs interpreting his one sentence.

I thought this was pretty much a slam dunk and didn't follow on WS.
Last week or so, I saw the differences of opinion and I was like,"what?"
I didn't follow again until the probable cause hearing when the shooting video was released.

Stamper was evasive and said the minimum to establish probably cause. MOO

Link to media forum:
MEDIA, MAPS, TIMELINE *NO DISCUSSION* THREAD

MOO MOO I believe malice is there. Because I see it in the video. MOO

MOO Sadly, I feel that there were warning signs that Stines could be volatile, but because Stines and Mullins were colleagues, the judge did not anticipate the meeting turning violent. MOO This is just MOO.

This shooting is a reminder to judges, law enforcement, attorneys and other powerful people in the legal system that "professional courtesies" can go south quickly.

Both the judge and the sheriff are powerful people. In general, sheriffs tend to be more visible and are more well known than judges.

Powerful people, famous people (OJ, Robert Blake) and people who are notorious (Casey Anthony, John Gotti) do seem to get preferential treatment in court. So I guess I shouldn't expect much. MOO MOO MOO.

 

[scapa]

Don't know and won't go there. I have no inside knowledge of such.

ETA: the defense of "extreme emotional disturbance" would be consistent with that hypothetical fact pattern though.

Quick question, and apologies if asked and answered -- in terms of the causal chain for "extreme emotional disturbance," does the causal element offered need to be factive and proven via evidence, or can it be a statement of more or less well-founded belief?

"I knew based on the following well-supported evidence that X was Y..."

OR

"I believed because Q that X was Y," despite no evidence to that effect.

Just wondering about the strength of foundation required for such a defence to be mounted and prevail in a circumstance like this where other key facts of a crime aren't in dispute (murder caught on video).

Temporal element also interest me, but seems like a different set of questions.

 

[ilovewings]

FIrst of all: The company is only being investigated.
They are not under indictment.
All of a sudden this has morphed into a rumor that the judge "is under pending federal indictment" because a company is being investigated.

Is there evidence that the judge was even being investigated for this??????

Sorry folks, victim blaming isnt allowed and especially without
a scintilla of evidence.

 

[Seattle1]

The alleged statement by Stines when he was taken into custody: "They're trying to kidnap my wife and kid"

Was this just a self serving statement by an individual and/or a lawman (acting in the capacity of the Sheriff) who just shot the Judge multiple times in his Chambers?

For example, why not "take" or "abduct"?

Pursuant to KRS § 509.040, Although the terms kidnapping and abduction are sometimes used interchangeably, abduction (abduct) is a broader category that generally does not require the threat or use of force.

IMO, seems to me that Stines never forgot his legal training of how/when to legally neutralize the threat where use of deadly force would be a hard sell under generic use of of "take" an object, possession, or person.

Based on his training and experience, I do believe it likely that Stines did use the term "kidnap" --giving him the most legal cover (defense options) for his actions, including the following reasonable fears. However, with nothing else to go on at this time, applying the threat of kidnapping by Mullins just makes it seem to me like some serious paranoia happening with Stines. MOO

KRS § 509.040 Kidnapping​

The charge of kidnapping is the longest and most detailed section of chapter 509. It includes exact definitions of the crime under Kentucky law as well as the various possible penalties that can be imposed under different circumstances. Depending on the exact situation, kidnapping can be charged as a Class B felony, a Class A felony, or a capital offense.

• A person is guilty of kidnapping when he unlawfully restrains another person and when his intent is:
  • To hold him for ransom or reward; or
  • To accomplish or to advance the commission of a felony; or
  • To inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another; or
  • To interfere with the performance of a governmental or political function; or
  • To use him as a shield or hostage; or
  • To deprive the parents or guardian of the custody of a minor, when the person taking the minor is not a person exercising custodial control or supervision of the minor as the term “person exercising custodial control or supervision” is defined in KRS § 600.020.
• Kidnapping is a Class B felony when the victim is released alive and in a safe place prior to trial, except as provided in this section.
• Kidnapping is a Class A felony when the victim is released alive but the victim has suffered serious physical injury
  • During the kidnapping; or
  • As a result of not being released in a safe place; or
  • As a result of being released in any circumstances which are intended, known or should have been known to cause or lead to serious physical injury.
• Kidnapping is a capital offense when the victim is not released alive or when the victim is released alive but subsequently dies as a result of:
  • Serious physical injuries suffered during the kidnapping; or
  • Not being released in a safe place; or
  • Being released in any circumstances which are intended, known or should have been known to cause or lead to the victim’s death.

KRS Chapter 509