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

[LadyL]

IMO it looks like the screen on an iPhone when the phone is locked and it’s receiving a call. You can see the white circle on the bottom left of the screen that you would swipe over to answer the call, as well as what appears to be the phone number or contact name at the top of the screen.

An alarm on an iPhone displays an orange snooze button in the middle of the phone, and a smaller gray button centered at the bottom of the screen which I don’t see here.

IME, android devices have completely different interfaces that don’t match what is seen from the phone on the desk.

Screenshot of the phone from the video (zoomed in as far as YouTube would allow) posted upthread is attached.

All my opinion.

what is IME short for?

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Trying to think of a scenario where Stines is suspicious enough to suspect Mullins of something, yet it's still something that, once he confirms it, packs enough of an emotional punch to enrage him sufficiently to commit this crime.

My current theory:

Stines finds a troubling text conversation on his daughter's phone, but the other person is in her contacts with a fake name -- let's say "Kilroy".

Subject of the text conversation -- intimate? drug related? someone pressuring her regarding joining a club, or pursuing a non-dad-approved career, or changing churches or otherwise getting involved in something Stines might consider "stealing her away" aka "kidnapping"?

We've heard Stines had been troubled in recent weeks -- maybe he was trying during that time to figure out who his daughter had been texting with. Chasing down her friends and acquaintances and ruling them out one by one.

Perhaps at lunch that day he heard a comment or saw something on Mullins' phone that made him suspect Mullins was the other half of that text exchange.

Once in chambers, he called his daughter with judge's phone, and whether or not she was saved as a contact, either way he could see whether there was a text string between judge's phone and her number, and whether it matched the troubling exchange he had seen on daughter's phone.

Confirming it was Mullins could have enraged Stines to the point of emptying his gun, unfortunately and obviously unjustifiedly.

MOO

 

[KonaHonu]

Protective Vest?

sbm. @Parsnip. Hi, again.

1. From what I could see, no vest, nothing apparent imo.
Seems his shirt was a polo-style of thin knit fabric. It fit rather snugly around upper torso but more loosely at waist, w shoulder seam being kinda sloppy or low.
If he had been wearing a Kevlar or other vest, imo, we'd see outlines of it under the shirt, possibly even see the vest's seams underneath his shirt.

Maybe some else notices indications of a vest. Anyone? ICBWrong.

Starting at ~15:24 mark.
The Shooting Of Judge Kevin Mullins | Vinnie Politan Investigates

2. "prepared for a confrontation with le"
No opinion on whether he had prepared for.

ETA: What's the black item on right side of waist?
An extra magazine? Pretty common for LEO's to carry an extra mag.
Sometimes more than one.

If one of the BACKPACKS was Stines, he MAY have loaded it w more ammo, additional firearms, & other weapons.
Not saying he did. IDK.

I don't think there was a vest. When I've seen cops wearing vests under shirts it is usually a more angular look to the features. In the video I think we just see fat rolls. Not being offensive, just noting the difference.

I think his shirt has a badge insignia on it, kind of like a "casual uniform" I've often seen cops wearing. As sheriff he would have been on duty 24/7/365 so whether he was actually in uniform is mostly irrelevent.

 

[MassGuy]

what is IME short for?

"In my experience."

 

[KonaHonu]

what is IME short for?

IME = in my experience
IMO = in my opinion

Source: well over 35 years on the internet.

 

[LadyL]

IME = in my experience
IMO = in my opinion

Source: well over 35 years on the internet.

yeah I knew the IMO, JMO etc. and having been on the internet probably over 30 years I still didn't know that one lol

 

[Boxer]

Trying to think of a scenario where Stines is suspicious enough to suspect Mullins of something, yet it's still something that, once he confirms it, packs enough of an emotional punch to enrage him sufficiently to commit this crime.

My current theory:

Stines finds a troubling text conversation on his daughter's phone, but the other person is in her contacts with a fake name -- let's say "Kilroy".

Subject of the text conversation -- intimate? drug related? someone pressuring her regarding joining a club, or pursuing a non-dad-approved career, or changing churches or otherwise getting involved in something Stines might consider "stealing her away" aka "kidnapping"?

We've heard Stines had been troubled in recent weeks -- maybe he was trying during that time to figure out who his daughter had been texting with. Chasing down her friends and acquaintances and ruling them out one by one.

Perhaps at lunch that day he heard a comment or saw something on Mullins' phone that made him suspect Mullins was the other half of that text exchange.

Once in chambers, he called his daughter with judge's phone, and whether or not she was saved as a contact, either way he could see whether there was a text string between judge's phone and her number, and whether it matched the troubling exchange he had seen on daughter's phone.

Confirming it was Mullins could have enraged Stines to the point of emptying his gun, unfortunately and obviously unjustifiedly.

MOO

Its also a possibilty Stines was becoming paranoid and scary, and daughter reached out to Mullins.

 

[Friday Fan]

I think without the video, probable cause may have been harder to establish. The sheriff did not really confess. They probably had very little evidence other than his presence at the scene. I mean, yes, it was probably pretty obvious the sheriff shot the judge and that should be enough for probable cause. But it's not. The sheriff is the chief LEO for the county. He could have been doing his job. I'm not defending him. I'm just saying that he is in the special place of being authorized to kill people if they are committing a crime and resisting arrest.

Without the video, what would be the actual evidence that this was not a case of justifiable homicide by a LEO? The video was necessary to make it a slam dunk. The mere fact that 2 men went into a room and one ended up dead at the hands of the other does not necessarily meet the bar for probable cause for charging murder, especially when the killer is a sheriff who may quite literally has not only the authority but also the obligation to take the law into his own hands.
The prosecutors wanted him to stay in jail so they had to get that murder charge.

I think this is very personal and the sheriff was in the wrong. But his position as sheriff puts him in a special position so the prosecutor had to make it a slam dunk.

All MHO.

Not in the eyes of the law. He would have needed a warrant or probable cause for an arrest. Of course there may have been "something with the phone", but other than that, any arrest would be illegal. (And I don't even know how that would work if there was "something with the phone")

I think the video shows Stine's demeanor more than anything. I don't see arguing. I don't see fear on Stine's part. I just see Stines looking methodical...Like he's in "the zone"...

 

[MollyDDD]

His instinct was either to duck and cover, or he was too injured at that point to even try something like that.

That woman on the Court TV broadcast suggested what you’re suggesting, but I still think he’d be a dead man.

I think he was probably mortally wounded with that initial volley of shots anyway.

Absolutely. Stine firing those few extras was just overkill, imo.

 

[MollyDDD]

Its also a possibilty Stines was becoming paranoid and scary, and daughter reached out to Mullins.

I don’t know, but it takes an awful lot for someone to be able to kill someone else in cold blood, knowing full well that it will mean the end of your own life. (figuratively speaking)

 

[Boxer]

I don’t know, but it takes an awful lot for someone to be able to kill someone else in cold blood, knowing full well that it will mean the end of your own life. (figuratively speaking)

Just thinking what Stines "kidnapping wife and daughter comment" might indicate.

 

[KonaHonu]

Not in the eyes of the law. He would have needed a warrant or probable cause for an arrest. Of course there may have been "something with the phone", but other than that, any arrest would be illegal. (And I don't even know how that would work if there was "something with the phone")

I think the video shows Stine's demeanor more than anything. I don't see arguing. I don't see fear on Stine's part. I just see Stines looking methodical...Like he's in "the zone"...

I do NOT think this is what happened but this is kind of what I was thinking in the quoted scenario...

Sheriff says he has evidence of kickbacks from ARC... "Stand up and turn around. You are under arrest."

Judge: "Are you nuts? You have a family to think about."

Sheriff: "On the ground. Now."

Judge: ""Why do you think your daughter didn't answer? Put the gun down."

And that's when the sheriff fired.

That would be completely consistent with the video and contact with the daughter. Do I think that is what happened? No.

But it could explain a justifiable use of force by the sheriff.

 

[Friday Fan]

In the past 100 years, how many judges have been murdered by a sheriff? (or a chief of police)

 

[KonaHonu]

Not in the eyes of the law. He would have needed a warrant or probable cause for an arrest.

Not if he witnessed the crime. See the scenario I just posted. As a LEO officer if he witnessed a kickback or bribery event in person, perhaps as the bag-man himself, he can make an arrest without a warrant if he personally witnessed the crime. This is actually how most arrests are made I believe.

 

[Friday Fan]

Not if he witnessed the crime. See the scenario I just posted. As a LEO officer if he witnessed a kickback or bribery event in person, perhaps as the bag-man himself, he can make an arrest without a warrant if he personally witnessed the crime. This is actually how most arrests are made I believe.

I don't know about bribery or kickback? Who knows? Most of the time, those are undercover detectives making an arrest, they're already being investigated and documentation is available. You need documentation and I don't see how you would get it by just showing up in someone's office.

Sure if the judge was committing a crime like selling drugs in front of a cop or using drugs or assaulting someone or theft etc....But bribery or kickbacks, you would need to witness it. But how would he witness it? It's kinda like the "kidnapping" scenario....."I was trying to arrest him for kidnapping, but he resisted"

 

[KonaHonu]

I don't know about bribery or kickback? Who knows? Most of the time, those are undercover detectives making an arrest, they're already being investigated and documentation is available. You need documentation and I don't see how you would get it by just showing up in someone's office.

Sure if the judge was committing a crime like selling drugs in front of a cop or using drugs or assaulting someone or theft etc....But bribery or kickbacks, you would need to witness it. But how would he witness it? It's kinda like the "kidnapping" scenario....."I was trying to arrest him for kidnapping, but he resisted"

The sheriff could witness a kickback scheme by participating, or pretending to participate in it. He does not need to be undercover. Documentation is not necessary if a LEO testimony is available.

 

[Boxer]

I do NOT think this is what happened but this is kind of what I was thinking in the quoted scenario...

Sheriff says he has evidence of kickbacks from ARC... "Stand up and turn around. You are under arrest."

Judge: "Are you nuts? You have a family to think about."

Sheriff: "On the ground. Now."

Judge: ""Why do you think your daughter didn't answer? Put the gun down."

And that's when the sheriff fired.

That would be completely consistent with the video and contact with the daughter. Do I think that is what happened? No.

But it could explain a justifiable use of force by the sheriff.

I saw cold blooded first degree murder. Nothing else.

 

[Boxer]

Not if he witnessed the crime. See the scenario I just posted. As a LEO officer if he witnessed a kickback or bribery event in person, perhaps as the bag-man himself, he can make an arrest without a warrant if he personally witnessed the crime. This is actually how most arrests are made I believe.

There was no artempt to arrest.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

Didn’t the crime happen on September 19th, a Thursday? If so, wouldn’t his daughter theoretically have been in school? If why did he think it would make a difference if he called on his phone vs. the judges’s? Were they not on speaking terms? Usually class has a no phone policy which may explain why she didn’t pick up. Why did he expect her too in such a short amount of time if she was school. If he really needed her to answer did he try to text her to say she really needed her to pick up? Did he try the school? Or ask his wife to ask her to get through to their daughter?

What if his daughter wasn’t at school? Did he even know where she was or whereabouts? Is that why he mentioned a kidnapping? What his mental state of mind at the time? As opposed to a kidnapping did something happen or occur that perhaps led to a physical separation between him and wife and daughter? Did they leave the home of their own volition and were not on speaking terms with him nor did they inform him of where they had gone? What if his mentally due to illness, lack of sleep or stress rather than perceive his family left of their own will he suffers the delusion or paranoia that they were taken from him and thinks other at fault? Did this delusion or thought cause him to suspect the judge because they and their families were close and he was someone with power?

The NPR article mentioned that he seemed altered mentally and emotionally as early as the Monday before during the deposition. Court TV hypothesized his change in demeanor was caused by the stress due to the deposition itself but what if something happens before that and at home?

Also, I wonder if before the shooting if he tried to contact his wife too? It seems his mindset evolved around both of them based on his statement they were trying to kidnap his wife and daughter.

Just my opinion but hypothetically if this horrific murder was motivated by committing a crime or doing something inappropriate and illegal with MS’ daughter wouldn’t he had made a statement more along those lines, like ‘he touched my daughter’ or ‘he was pedophile’ or ‘that pervert had it coming’, rather than allude to a kidnapping that threatened not just his daughter but wife too? His lawyer said MS committed a crime of passion and emotional disturbance. If so, I imagine MS probably wouldn’t be able to help but express to the arresting officer that his fellow friend and judge who everyone looked up had the audacity to assault or prey upon his beloved daughter. Why then mention a supposed kidnapping unless he thought, whether real or not, one was involved and the motivator for the such a horrible murder?

And then again, his daughter claims she wasn’t sexually assaulted by the judge and unless LE or the court say differently I presently no reason not to believe her.

Is did mental illness or some type of delusion or paranoia play a role? Unlike in the moments and days after the murder, he seemed to express remorse or at least show emotion via looking down and seeming to wipe away tears when the video played the preliminary hearing. Does this indicate a change in mental state or whatever mindset or thoughts he had towards the victim? Does he still feel or carry himself as justified?

Just spitballing my thoughts/sharing my opinions

 

[fsngruv]

I don't think people call family members to say good bye like this. Now they do in the movies.....
Stines was a on mission. He was in a "zone". Calling a family member to "say good bye" would have broken that trance. Of course he called her, but I don't think anything "touchy feely" was behind those calls.

MOO I feel like the purpose of the calls was for a "justification" about what he intending to do..MOO

Right on. I agree, I don't think there was any touchy feely behind the call. I think he was amping himself up. I've had a case where a person called their mom before they shot their girl friend, and there wasn't any touchy feels. Remember most people in the throws of crime are not in the best mind space, and possibly never were!

Justification? Like how?

Justification, as if the judge and the daughter had a relationship?

Don't you think that narrative has been a bit played out with zero proof? Why should a victim be dragged through the mud because we can't come up with a justification for a murderer calling a family member before he kills someone?