Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 3

[tlcya]

Youtube video with the judge:

Allison's story is a moving one. I hope she and her little family is still doing well today.

 

[Deleted member 229974]

How does Stines overcome the Murder charge (i.e., intent) for Manslaughter in the first degree when he did not pause when walking out the door to render aid to Mullins, to call for help, but to align himself to aim in the direction under Mullins desk, and fire off more shots at him before walking out the door.

How does Stines overcome the Murder charge for Manslaughter, acting in the heat of passion, where Mullins was unarmed, and posed no imminent danger to him.

If this was an 'imagined threat', was danger so great where Stines believed the only way to end the threat was by neutralizing Mullins right then and there? Mullins Chambers was located on the first floor of the Courthouse where the jail is beneath them, his Bailiff feet away in his courtroom, and the Sheriff's office behind them.

It's just crazy that Stines believed he could pull this off, and walk out of Chambers alive.

I think this only happens (Manslaughter conviction) if Bartley gets this case heard in Letcher County as he recently told WEKU Public Radio. For whatever reason, "Stines people" still seem to be holding firm that he did right by the county. If Mullins is being Canonized, I'd say Stines is their Martyr. JMO

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

I hav been following the story for awhile. How are the people in the photo?

 

[Seattle1]

I hav been following the story for awhile. How are the people in the photo?

I'm not following. Is OP asking the identity of the couple in the photo?

The photo is Stines defense team: Jeremy Bartley & Kerri Bartley

Somerset Car Wreck & Personal Injury Attorneys | The Law Office of Jeremy A. Bartley, PSC

At The Law Office of Jeremy A. Bartley, PSC, we focus on criminal defense, providing legal representation to protect your rights and freedom | 606-485-1713

www.carwreckattorneykentucky.com

 

[Deleted member 229974]

I'm not following. Is OP asking the identity of the couple in the photo?

The photo is Stines defense team: Jeremy Bartley & Kerri Bartley

Somerset Car Wreck & Personal Injury Attorneys | The Law Office of Jeremy A. Bartley, PSC

At The Law Office of Jeremy A. Bartley, PSC, we focus on criminal defense, providing legal representation to protect your rights and freedom | 606-485-1713

www.carwreckattorneykentucky.com

Sorry, typo. I have not been following. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 296739]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
I can think of several “somethings” that might in his mind justify his actions- doesn’t mean I agree- but if he found out about deep corruption and or nefarious dealings and it entangled his immediate family- I can see how someone might be moved to take the actions the sheriff took- don’t necessarily agree with it, would not make similar choices- I can conceive of scenarios where someone might do what the sheriff did under certain circumstances- doesn’t make it right- but it might make it conceivably understandable- moo

 

[fsngruv]

I can think of several “somethings” that might in his mind justify his actions- doesn’t mean I agree- but if he found out about deep corruption and or nefarious dealings and it entangled his immediate family- I can see how someone might be moved to take the actions the sheriff took- don’t necessarily agree with it, would not make similar choices- I can conceive of scenarios where someone might do what the sheriff did under certain circumstances- doesn’t make it right- but it might make it conceivably understandable- moo

Or the sheriff was involved in his own nefarious actions and he could not foresee himself getting out of.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Or the sheriff was involved in his own nefarious actions and he could not foresee himself getting out of.

That’s possible- but it would have to be a shallow small circle something- that taking out the judge and then going to prison would fix- in my opinion-

 

[OldAce]

Seems to me that of more importance here is after Lieutenant Randy Combs (18 yr vet per his LinkedIn) and Detective Anthony Trotter (17 yrs) interviewed the daughter of Stines, they did not think it necessary to seek a warrant for her phone and/or subpoena for her phone records.

Lead Investigator Stamper, essentially testified that as of the date of the prelim, he believed any thing of evidential evidentiary value could be obtained from Mullins phone that was already in custody at the forensic lab.

In other words, the seasoned investigators from KSP nor the Commonwealth, had no concerns whatsoever about preserving anything on her phone.

IMO, I think the daughter's phone is only important to the defense. For the defense, it's a matter of life or death to push the narrative that moments after Stines used Mullins phone, he stood up and began firing-- acting in the heat of passion, resulting in manslaughter, not murder.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/randall-combs-004b71225/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-trotter-49b54b145/

From the transcript of the prelim hearing:

DEFENSE - So, we don't have a viewing of what transpired during that exchange of phones, but based upon your review of those moments prior to when Sheriff Stines observes that cell phone is it... was he previously seated?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Okay, so when we saw him he was standing the entire time.

DETECTIVE - He was seated in front of the Judge's desk.

DEFENSE - And when he looks at the cell phone - what is... can you describe his reaction in the video we haven't seen?

DETECTIVE - Whose reaction?

DEFENSE - The Sheriff.

DETECTIVE - You can't see his face in the video.

DEFENSE - Okay, but is it clear that.. does it appear to you that.. let me rephrase this - did he stand up after looking at the phone?

DETECTIVE - Yes, he stood up.

DEFENSE - And how long after he looked at the cell phone and stood up did this occur before what you played.

DETECTIVE - Just seconds.

DEFENSE - Did you make the decision on edits today for what you were going to present? Did you make the edit to determine which portion of the video we were going to see today?

DETECTIVE - No sir, I did not.

DEFENSE - Both cell phones have been sent to the State Police Forensic team, is that correct?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Have you gotten any early report on what was found?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Were both phones still on the desk when you arrived?

DETECTIVE - The Judge's phone was on the desk, Sheriff Stines' phone was on his person.

DEFENSE - So are there photographs of... was the phone unlocked at that point, or was it still open?

DETECTIVE - Are you asking about both of them?

DEFENSE - Well first let's talk about.. first I'm talking about Judge Mullins' since his was the one that was still on the desk, and presumably nobody touched it right prior to you securing it, correct?

DETECTIVE - No, no.

DEFENSE - Yeah so I'd like to know about that, have you ascertained what was currently open on that cell phone?

DETECTIVE - No, I don't know at this point, no.

DEFENSE - You don't know?

DETECTIVE - No.

DEFENSE - Do you think that would be.. do you think that would be important to learn?

DETECTIVE - I hope to learn that when the reports ready, yes.

DEFENSE - But as of today you can't tell us what was currently open on the Judge's phone?

DETECTIVE - No sir.

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

DETECTIVE - I did not but she has been interviewed.

DEFENSE - Are you aware of... who was present when she was being interviewed?

DETECTIVE - Lieutenant Randy Combs and Detective Anthony Trotter.

DEFENSE - And she was interviewed with or without her parent.

DETECTIVE - With.

DEFENSE - So her parent was present at the time you interviewed her?

DETECTIVE - Yes I believe. I wasn't there, but yes, I think so.

DEFENSE - Law enforcement has not spoken to her without her parent present?

DETECTIVE - Not that I'm aware of.

DEFENSE - Did state police obtain her phone?

DETECTIVE - No.

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.

DEFENSE - I understand that but I would presume that.. have you ascertained whether Judge Mullens also had apps that stand outside of phone records?

DETECTIVE - I've not received those records yet, I don't know what's on the phone.

DEFENSE - Fair enough, but I mean did you look at the phone? did it appear there were apps on it?

DETECTIVE - I'm not the person that's qualified to look through the phone.

DEFENSE - Okay, but you're familiar with a cell phone, they can host other forms of communication.

(Objection from prosecutor as to asked and answered. Judge says he can testify to any personal knowledge he has)

DEFENSE - So you're aware that phones can be used for apps, such as Facebook?

DETECTIVE - Yes.

DEFENSE - Okay, and that is not something that is captured by cell phone records - you'd agree with me?

DETECTIVE - I agree.

DEFENSE - So, in light of that, although the records may be mutually the same... the same between Judge Mullens' phone and the Sheriff's daughter do you believe that you could also ascertain other information from a cell phone app content?

DETECTIVE - Are you asking what apps are on the phone?

DEFENSE - Yes, well that was my original question..

DETECTIVE - Well, I don't about... I've not received that report yet. I don't know what apps he had downloaded on the phone.

DEFENSE - If he has social media apps do you intend to....

DETECTIVE - That could lead to additional search warrants, yes.

Or the sheriff was involved in his own nefarious actions and he could not foresee himself getting out of.

And he "can/could foresee getting out of" this??? Killing live on video. Plus, if involved and or with the judge, immediate detailed investigation would out him. Or, kill the judge for (?) then suicide? None seem to fit.
Question.. Apparently no remarks whatsoever so far have expressed ANY exam of "nefarious activity on the sheriff's admin. Public opinion/remarks are about equally split on he and the judge.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

And he "can/could foresee getting out of" this??? Killing live on video. Plus, if involved and or with the judge, immediate detailed investigation would out him. Or, kill the judge for (?) then suicide? None seem to fit.
Question.. Apparently no remarks whatsoever so far have expressed ANY exam of "nefarious activity on the sheriff's admin. Public opinion/remarks are about equally split on he and the judge.

I figure he would have shot himself if he was intent on taking them both down do to nefarious things about to be exposed- and have to conclude that there’s more to the story to explain his calm surrender and treat me fair comment- figure we just wait and see if more info comes out.. moo

 

[sunspun]

I figure he would have shot himself if he was intent on taking them both down do to nefarious things about to be exposed- and have to conclude that there’s more to the story to explain his calm surrender and treat me fair comment- figure we just wait and see if more info comes out.. moo

Exactly what I was thinking. It's possible that was his plan, but he didn't have whatever it takes to follow through on that.

Wouldn't that seriously be the worst position to find put yourself in though? To think you had it all figured out how you wouldn't have to deal with all the ugly aftermath etc. etc., because you had an exit plan, but then when the time came... ugh. And now it's too late. And you're stuck having to go thru it all anyway. And knowing you did it to yourself.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Exactly what I was thinking. It's possible that was his plan, but he didn't have whatever it takes to follow through on that.

Wouldn't that seriously be the worst position to find put yourself in though? To think you had it all figured out how you wouldn't have to deal with all the ugly aftermath etc. etc., because you had an exit plan, but then when the time came... ugh. And now it's too late. And you're stuck having to go thru it all anyway. And knowing you did it to yourself.

That would be a bad place- but his demeanor during and after the fact don’t strike me as a guy who just killed somebody point blank- calmly- and the lacked the testicular fortitude to follow through with using the last bullet for himself- I don’t know, I wasn’t there- but I don’t think he had any intention of taking himself out too - moo

 

[fsngruv]

And he "can/could foresee getting out of" this??? Killing live on video. Plus, if involved and or with the judge, immediate detailed investigation would out him. Or, kill the judge for (?) then suicide? None seem to fit.
Question.. Apparently no remarks whatsoever so far have expressed ANY exam of "nefarious activity on the sheriff's admin. Public opinion/remarks are about equally split on he and the judge.

Imo he was toast anyway, so why not take the person down who knew more about him or the situation or refused to help him. Who are we to believe that he hasn't already killed someone else already, considering his actions on film? He might've been too cowardly to commit suicide, a lot of murderers talk of it or attempt it with no luck.
You're right, there have been no remarks about nefarious activity about the sheriff, but for his actions in killing his friend and judge while he was acting sheriff or properly training his deputy or supervising him while he was attempting to exchange sexual favors for drug court offenders in the judges chambers.. But there haven't been any remarks about the judge either... Does that stop anyone from making the suspicion that the judge was involved in nefarious activity? With a minor, in a sexual manner, no less? Why does the guy who pulled the trigger get the pass but we can make all kinda criminal allegations or suggestions of lascivious actions of the victim or against the character of the victim?? It goes both ways. And I lean more towards the guy who's already been involved in nefarious behavior, caught on film. More information is definitely needed before anyone can eat crow but if the judge is fair game so is the sheriff.
I've also thrown around the theory that the sheriff was legitimately in trouble with nefarious characters and was looking for help from the judge and the judges refusal might've confirmed the judge was party to nefarious actions or at least the sheriff perceived that in the moment? I'm open to all possibilities. And can't help but play devil's advocate, even to myself at times!

 

[fsngruv]

Either way or another, I believe there is some other conspiracy involved with the shooting of the judge. If the judge is party of the conspiracy, the sheriff or both.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Imo he was toast anyway, so why not take the person down who knew more about him or the situation or refused to help him. Who are we to believe that he hasn't already killed someone else already, considering his actions on film? He might've been too cowardly to commit suicide, a lot of murderers talk of it or attempt it with no luck.
You're right, there have been no remarks about nefarious activity about the sheriff, but for his actions in killing his friend and judge while he was acting sheriff... But there haven't been any remarks about the judge either... Does that stop anyone from making the suspicion that the judge was involved in nefarious activity? With a minor, in a sexual manner, no less? Why does the guy who pulled the trigger get the pass but we can make all kinda criminal allegations or suggestions of lascivious actions of the victim or against the character of the victim?? It goes both ways. And I lean more towards the guy who's already been involved in nefarious behavior, caught on film. More information is definitely needed before anyone can eat crow but if the judge is fair game so is the sheriff.
I've also thrown around the theory that the sheriff was legitimately in trouble with nefarious characters and was looking for help from the judge and the judges refusal might've confirmed the judge was party to nefarious actions or at least the sheriff perceived that in the moment? I'm open to all possibilities. And can't help but play devil's advocate, even to myself at times!

Agreed that nefarious deeds could run both way and the sheriff could be totally corrupt and calculated- not sure I’m totally on board with that scenario- but definitely can’t rule it out - moo

 

[fsngruv]

Agreed that nefarious deeds could run both way and the sheriff could be totally corrupt and calculated- not sure I’m totally on board with that scenario- but definitely can’t rule it out - moo

Truly, I felt more on the sheriff's side early on. Not that it matters. It was just a gut thing, but I like to play all possibilities, unlikely it supports the best one in the end, and it might be that the sheriff was the one exposing a conspiracy involving the judge, but he did it in the most horrendous manner because he might've felt it was the only way he could safely (namely, his family) expose it.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Agreed that nefarious deeds could run both way and the sheriff could be totally corrupt and calculated- not sure I’m totally on board with that scenario- but definitely can’t rule it out - moo

Regardless- I’m 110% convinced that it’s more job related, vs mental health issues vs personal family related - time will tell, in theory - moo

 

[fsngruv]

Regardless- I’m 110% convinced that it’s more job related, vs mental health issues vs personal family related - time will tell, in theory - moo

I find comfort in that one! Less conspiracy! Haha! Any theories??
I've also wondered if the sheriff had misappropriated funds and that led to some of his issues?

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Truly, I felt more on the sheriff's side early on. Not that it matters. It was just a gut thing, but I like to play all possibilities, unlikely it supports the best one in the end, and it might be that the sheriff was the one exposing a conspiracy involving the judge, but he did it in the most horrendous manner because he might've felt it was the only way he could safely (namely, his family) expose it.

I definitely feel that he did what he did because he felt it was the best or only option- at the time- not sure if anyone else would agree- and evidence might show something different- moo

 

[fsngruv]

I definitely feel that he did what he did because he felt it was the best or only option- at the time- now if anyone else would agree- and evidence might show something different- moo

I agree with that completely.

Sheriff feel like it was was the best or only option.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I find comfort in that one! Less conspiracy! Haha! Any theories??
I've also wondered if the sheriff had misappropriated funds and that led to some of his issues?

I was leaning towards corruption and “favor trading” look the other way on this and I’ll ignore that type thing and a line might have been crossed by judge or sheriff- moo