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

[worm]

What are the likely scenarios under which we'll be able to learn the Sheriff's motive or motives, and how long will we likely have to wait? TIA

If it’s like other cases I’m following we will wait a year or 2 at least before it goes to court.

 

[Friday Fan]

- The item on floor underneath desk corner, close to judge's feet. Has 2 black wheels, connected to hinged arm, w bulldozer bucket on end. Mining related? Toy or model?

It's a dolly for files and likely has a lamp. Someone answered that question earlier in this thread.

 

[al66pine]

It's a dolly for files and likely has a lamp. Someone answered that question earlier in this thread.

@Friday Fan. Thx.

I edited my earlier post to correct.

 

[PrairieWind]

It's a dolly for files and likely has a lamp. Someone answered that question earlier in this thread.

I don't think that is a dolly with lamp. I think it is what it appears to be.

 

[Seattle1]

From the beginning I've wondered if the sheriff wasn't involved in a larger more criminal conspiracy and the information asked during his deposition probably fueled the fear that he might be charged criminally or be involved in a felony investigation, after all, afaik, witnesses are privy to the questions asked in a deposition well before the actual deposition.

^^rsbm

To my knowledge, the Sheriff was only party to one recent deposition and that was as a defendant in the civil lawsuit brought by the victims of former deputy Fields.

IMO, we know two things about this civil lawsuit. First, Stines was named a defendant in his official capacity as Sheriff, and second, the AG's Motion to quash the Plaintiffs subpoena requesting unredacted files from the criminal proceeding resulting in a mediated agreement to complete discovery, was was granted by the Court (docket #113). The Plaintiff had other means to seek the information.

Given Official-capacity civil suits are simply “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent” -- making Stines nothing more than a figure head,
pursuant to Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985), and rules prohibiting witnesses from being questioned during depositions on topics they won't be questioned on during trial, I don't see Stines defense attorney (J Shaw) allowing anything being suggested by OP to occur during Stines otherwise overdue deposition by the Plaintiff! MOO

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65590626/adkins-v-fields/

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/473/159.html

 

[Seattle1]

For clarity, are you saying you think actions of deputy fields had something to do with Mullins?

ABSOULUTELY NOT, and apologize for whatever OP read in my post that caused OP to question this!

ETA: No intent to feed any conspiracy sort either...

 

[Seattle1]

So having actual campaign sings in his chambers isn't really proper. Its a small community, and I dont think it was a big deal, but it isn't something that should be done. We don't know why the sign was there. But given that he was smoking in his chambers, in a government building, could show that the Judge Mullins sort of played a bit fast and lose with rules. "Rule for thee, not for me."

^^rsbm

Lol.. Just looking at Mullins overloaded desk (which would cause me to break out in hives ), I'm not sure he even noticed that there was a campaign sign on the floor between the wall and his desk! JMO

 

[Parsnip]

Plaintiffs subpoena requesting unredacted files from the criminal proceeding resulting in a mediated agreement to complete discovery, was was granted by the Court (docket #113). The Plaintiff had other means to seek the information.

Bbm
Except that plaintiffs tried to and could not obtain the unredacted documents from Fields’s criminal attorney because they could not be located. I’m not arguing with the judge’s decision, but I sure don’t blame a frustrated plaintiffs’ attorney in a civil case for being frustrated when the unredacted documents could not be located by the obvious other source.

Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65590626/111/adkins-v-fields/

Here is the text:

“Plaintiffs obtained heavily redacted records from the Attorney General’s office earlier this year and have shared these documents with the parties to this action. The redactioin of these records2 makes it difficult for Plaintiffs to ascertain the full breadth of information contained in these records which relate directly to Plaintiffs’ claims in the case sub judice. Plaintiffs worked

<RSBM for continuity>

diligently to obtain these documents through discovery from Defendant Fields, but have been told the Defendant Fields’ criminal attorney, who purportedly has had health issues recently, was unable to locate these documents. As such, and after much discussion with all counsel in this
action, the parties agreed that the best course was to obtain these records through subpoena to the Attorney General’s office.”

I think we all agree that the deputy’s actions were despicable. No doubt. But to the extent that there were significant redactions from the documents that appeared to directly apply to the civil case, and since the less redacted documents were provided to Fields’ criminal defense attorney but they could not be supplied by the criminal attorney to the civil attorney, it is also no doubt that the civil attorney’s curiosity was piqued.

However, I agree completely with @Seattle1 ’s point that the parties were prepared to go to mediation immediately before the shooting of KM. Immediately after the shooting, however, a stay was requested by both parties and approved by the judge in the civil case.

That’s the long. The short is this: there very well could be material in those documents that connects MS to others. Or maybe there’s nothing there. Clearly, the plaintiffs in the civil case have decided to wait for their payout in the belief that *something* is there that would increase their chances for more money. Not at all sure if that could involve KM or not.

All Moo.

Edit for clarity

 

[Chimera]

Pardon my morbid comment, but there is no blood seen in the video at all. Particularly the last shot where he walks out, that appears to possibly be a head shot?

Graphic :



There must have been blood spatter on the walls, correct ?

From the link :
In the first videos that were shown, the more pixelated and blue-ish version, there appears to be a red mist twice.
Could have been the colors of the security video camera, though ?
This latest version is more clear and it appears that the video is edited at least three times.
Prob. for privacy reasons.

The jury will most likely view it in it's entirety.
Regardless of what Stines' defense will come up with, this was murder, not manslaughter/self-defense/etc. .
Omo.