Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 4

[PrairieWind]

One man has already been convicted of using the judge's office to abuse prisoners. You can't tell me in that teeny courthouse, the judge had no clue. I don't believe the sheriff didn't know either. I feel bad for the women who were abused because these men knew they could easily take advantage of them and they would appear to lack credibility because supposedly these men were the pinnacle of law enforcement. They were evil men using their power to abuse women they had control over.

But the Sheriff had just been deposed on the previous matter with I guess no indication that he was personally involved. But it also seems that something in that deposition seemed to alarm him? What was it?

 

[Inthedetails]

I don't know if what they are saying is true, and withhold my decision on that until I hear more information. With that being said, it seems there was a lot more going on in the jail and judges chambers than most people knew about. Do I think the judge should have been shot and killed? No Do I think the Sheriff should be charged for his murder? Yes But I also think we need to listen to what these ladies have to say and take that into account as well. Especially since the librarian came forward.

If this did happen to these ladies, they are victims as well and shouldn't be blamed or shamed. Their life choices aren't justification for what they may have gone through. People with authority have been known to use that to their advantage in cases regarding SA.

@Tricia I completely agree with you....it's time to turn this over to the Feds and let them get this case figured out.

EBM

I'm just watching from the sidelines, well, from the fence actually. I don't know what to think about this case.

But, after listening to the interviews, I'm getting the impression it was mainly men in the law enforcement/court roles and the women who were "invited" to participate were SINGLE? (I know "invite might not be the right word but can't think of another). If not single, did their husbands take part too?

Did these men participating have wives? Did the wives know? One interviewee said everyone in town is a swinger (or something like that). So, married couples? If that is true, perhaps that is what finally snapped the ring (in more ways than one), that the sex might be okay, but not when wives are "invited." IDK, grasping to make some sense of this situation.

jmopinion

 

[SluethinAway]

fsngruv said:
I mean, no offense towards these lovely ladies, but couldn't they find some more credible people to interview?
This is exactly how the perps want their victims to be perceived.
They are "just drug addicts... can't be trusted. I'm respected in law enforcement. Believe me, not them," and people do.
@fsngruv I am glad you were honest and said what you said. Because many people feel this way, and this is why they can get away with it for so long.
The feds need to come in and take over.
This is HUGE.

Yes, agree.
Outside agency with no bias.
Probably a lot of people involved with lots of pull!

 

[Frodosdojo]

But the Sheriff had just been deposed on the previous matter with I guess no indication that he was personally involved. But it also seems that something in that deposition seemed to alarm him? What was it?

Why do you think he wasn't personally involved ? Are you referring to the judge or the sheriff ?

 

[Kudzuu]

I'm just watching from the sidelines, well, from the fence actually. I don't know what to think about this case.

But, after listening to the interviews, I'm getting the impression it was mainly men in the law enforcement/court roles and the women who were "invited" to participate were SINGLE? (I know "invite might not be the right word but can't think of another). If not single, did their husbands take part too?

Did these men participating have wives? Did the wives know? One interviewee said everyone in town is a swinger (or something like that). So, married couples? If that is true, perhaps that is what finally snapped the ring (in more ways than one), that the sex might be okay, but not when wives are "invited." IDK, grasping to make some sense of this situation.

jmopinion

I think that woman's world is smaller than she puts forth. She tends to get off on a little exaggeration. I believe her but not verbatim.

I doubt there were swingers. What she described was not swinging parties since she had no power. Sadly she has had a very traumatic life.

Don't fall off that fence until we got more information!
IMOO

 

[Chimera]

But the Sheriff had just been deposed on the previous matter with I guess no indication that he was personally involved. But it also seems that something in that deposition seemed to alarm him ? What was it ?

Bbm.
Something he wanted covered up ?
Evidence that hit closer to (Stines) home ?
Imo.

 

[PrairieWind]

Why do you think he wasn't personally involved ? Are you referring to the judge or the sheriff ?

I am talking about the Sheriff. He was a defendant in the federal lawsuit, but only in his capacity as Sheriff. There were no allegations that he himself had done anything other than "failure to properly supervise/train,.... etc." If that Plaintiff had info to that the sheriff had been involved, certainly that would have some up then.

 

[Inthedetails]

I think that woman's world is smaller than she puts forth. She tends to get off on a little exaggeration. I believe her but not verbatim.

I doubt there were swingers. What she described was not swinging parties since she had no power. Sadly she has had a very traumatic life.

Don't fall off that fence until we got more information!
IMOO

Thanks for giving me some perspective. I'm solid on my fence (though it's not that comfy).

jmopinion

 

[PrairieWind]

Bbm.
Something he wanted covered up ?
Evidence that hit closer to (Stines) home ?
Imo.

I don't know. need to see the deposition transcript to look for clues. Was he asked something that he thought led him to believe he was going to be blamed for something someone else did? Was there some sort of surprise in that depo? Nothing has been said as yet.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I am talking about the Sheriff. He was a defendant in the federal lawsuit, but only in his capacity as Sheriff. There were no allegations that he himself had done anything other than "failure to properly supervise/train,.... etc." If that Plaintiff had info to that the sheriff had been involved, certainly that would have some up then.

If even half of what's being said is what was really going on, it sounds like Stines knew all about it and looked the other way. For whatever reason.

 

[fsngruv]

One man has already been convicted of using the judge's office to abuse prisoners. You can't tell me in that teeny courthouse, the judge had no clue. I don't believe the sheriff didn't know either. I feel bad for the women who were abused because these men knew they could easily take advantage of them and they would appear to lack credibility because supposedly these men were the pinnacle of law enforcement. They were evil men using their power to abuse women they had control over.

When the one lady said "the whole county is a bunch of swingers" is when her creditably flew out of the window for me. So we are to believe everything she says, including the fact that the entire county is swingers? That's too much for me to believe. Just me. I don't understand why she's allowed some exaggeration in some statements but not in others. I get things aren't black and white, but I don't see the reasoning in the grey thought that she just made a few exaggerating statements but not the ones that defame a victim who can't speak for himself. Except for the fact it makes for an enteraining story.

 

[Ontario Mom]

When the one lady said "the whole county is a bunch of swingers" is when her creditably flew out of the window for me. So we are to believe everything she says, including the fact that the entire county is swingers? That's too much for me to believe. Just me. I don't understand why she's allowed some exaggeration in some statements but not in others. I get things aren't black and white, but I don't see the reasoning in the grey thought that she just made a few exaggerating statements but not the ones that defame a victim who can't speak for himself. Except for the fact it makes for an enteraining story.

I'm not sure she meant literally every single person in the county (not likely) or that maybe there's an inordinate number of them in the county. I understood her mean the latter.

 

[fsngruv]

IMO, credible women are not normally trafficked.

Sure. What about the one not allegedly trafficked not being credible. Maybe it's just all women are not considered creditable? I said that much already.

 

[fsngruv]

I'm not sure she meant literally every single person in the county (not likely) or that maybe there's an inordinate number of them in the county. I understood her mean the latter.

That's still a huge blanket statement to make. Guess just the ones she knows? Like her Grandpa too? It's an outrageous statement. She is definitely agitated with most of the officials in the county. Not even Mullins as much? According to her Mullins was the only one who stood up for her? But he also used the law to control her? Just not then? Strange.

 

[worm]

I am so confused. I understood the first young woman and what she was alleging. The second young woman who claims to be a former guard at the jail confused the heck out of me. She describes Ben Fields coming in and being an automatic "trustee" and having access to keys and such that most have to exhibit good behavior for some time and show initiative and prove trustworthiness to achieve.

I have always only ever heard the term trustee in a jail or prison setting used to describe and inmate who had achieved some level of trust through good behavior. I've never in my life heard of an officer being a trustee in a jail setting. Now granted I am not well versed in prison and jail type stuff outside of what I've seen on TV but can someone with more knowledge explain to me a guard or deputy being a trustee and what that means?

There are people who are on a first name basis with the staff of our local jail and can get perks fast if they are in/out a lot.

 

[Ssschu]

fsngruv said:
I mean, no offense towards these lovely ladies, but couldn't they find some more credible people to interview?
This is exactly how the perps want their victims to be perceived.
They are "just drug addicts... can't be trusted. I'm respected in law enforcement. Believe me, not them," and people do.
@fsngruv I am glad you were honest and said what you said. Because many people feel this way, and this is why they can get away with it for so long.
The feds need to come in and take over.
This is HUGE.

Absolutely! This mentality is what predators rely on.

I hope this gets blown wide open and major changes are made. These women are brave for speaking out. The first woman said she is taking the risk of speaking out so her kids don't have to grow up on the same environment.

 

[fsngruv]

Absolutely! This mentality is what predators rely on.

I hope this gets blown wide open and major changes are made. These women are brave for speaking out. The first woman said she is taking the risk of speaking out so her kids don't have to grow up on the same environment.

The victim in this case has never been named a predator nor should he be considered a predator without evidence. I personally feel like continuing a narrative that he is a predator without any evidence is reckless and victim blaming as if he deserved to be shot in cold blood in his chambers. It also definitely takes away from the pain of these victims if what they say is true as they will never ever receive justice. I've been a victim and all I ever got was, somebody should've taken them back and handled them. And no one ever did. So maybe my own perspective clouds things too...

I appreciate the attention but some of what I've said is being taken out of context to suit a narrative that goes against everything I said in the first place. Ah. The joys of public forums!

 

[worm]

I think the ex sheriffs team wants this to get as muddy as possible with a lot sticking to the victim. Try as they want, nothing will make this killing ok.

 

[CSIDreamer]

More from Brian Entin.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[CSIDreamer]

I think the ex sheriffs team wants this to get as muddy as possible with a lot sticking to the victim. Try as they want, nothing will make this killing ok.

I agree. The Sheriff could have went to the FBI if necessary.

IMO, these allegations are believable to me and still need to be investigated outside of the murder trial.