ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Going rouge? Is that like, putting on too much blush?
![]()
Boy, was his face red!
Going rouge? Is that like, putting on too much blush?
![]()
Yeah maybe it's as simple as him being shocked the daughters' number was in his phone at all. Probably more shocked if there was a call history attached to it. I'm sure the sheriff was expecting his daughter to answer an unknown number to her, but then found otherwise.
Seems like kind of a longshot circumstance to happen to see a judges phone with the call history and a phone number displayed, though.
I would think the odds were better that Stines already knew it would be there, maybe having seen it on his daughter's phone, and demanded the judge show the phones contents at gunpoint.
Then Stines tried to call the daughter on the judges phone to see how she answers. When she doesn't, he tries on his phone. Then he gets sick of playing around and unloads.
While all the time recording it on his phone, I guess. Maybe Stines was trying to force the judge to admit to screwing with the daughter on video, and it didn't happen?
ETA: whatever this video is and however it came about likely has all the answers.
I guess I don't know what kind of phone he had. On mine (Pixel 7 pro), when I start dialing a number on the keypad it will show me any name\contact card for a matching number. So if I start typing in my dad's phone number, it'll show me my dad's contact card. Do iPhones do the same? I'm not sure.
I don't believe the weapon was pulled until after the sheriff had used the phone to call his daughter. It was placing the call on the judges phone that seems to have triggered the shooting. Maybe he did know it would be there, I don't know. My understanding is the sheriff called on his phone, no answer, tried on the other phone, then started shooting.
I believe you have that flopped. He tried on his first, the other second.
I'm going to try a few other sources, but I'm not sure words were exchanged between the call from the judges phone and the shots.
The only words I've heard confirmed is the "they're trying to take my wife and daughter" and then he said "Treat me fair" to the police that were arresting him.
The video isn't from a cell phone, it's from a camera in the room they're in. Below is the video.
Hm. In the rape case, they made a point of going to the judges chambers, because there were no cameras there. I guess that appears to be wrong. Maybe the security cameras were turned off in the odd hours?
No matter which order the calls were made, it's super weird for a judge to have a minors number on his phone, and with Stines trying to call her from both phones, then murdering the judge, that rumor about the judge and Stines daughter seems like a mighty strong contender. But I suppose we'll wait and see.
Eta; and that wS horrific to see the judge cowering back into the corner while Stines walked up and shot him at close range. Christ almighty.
Yeah maybe it's as simple as him being shocked the daughters' number was in his phone at all.
I don't see any reason so far to assume it was. I presumed the sheriff just dialed the number using the keypad.
I don't see any reason so far to assume it was. I presumed the sheriff just dialed the number using the keypad.
This.
Having no desire to watch the video of a murder, does anyone else know if it shows whether the sheriff dialed the number, or scrolled for a name on the judge's phone?
And if the story should turn out to be that the judge was professionally involved in some attempt by the sheriff's family to get away from him, is there any reason to be surprised if he had their phone numbers?
This.
Having no desire to watch the video of a murder, does anyone else know if it shows whether the sheriff dialed the number, or scrolled for a name on the judge's phone?
And if the story should turn out to be that the judge was professionally involved in some attempt by the sheriff's family to get away from him, is there any reason to be surprised if he had their phone numbers?
The second, and the one that is gaining steam on my theory train, is that the sheriff was a violent, angry, aggressive man and that extended to his family. The judge played some role in some form to try and help them get away from him.
Maybe I'm a bad father, but my kids have had the same cel numbers for well over a decade since I bought their phones and put them on my plan, but I couldn't recognize any of the actial numbers if they were put in front of me. They're all on my contacts. I only know my wife's because I have to type it in often for adult shared account stuff.
ETA: what mean is that I wouldn't be able to recognize or dial my own kids number on someone else's phone, unless their name appeared as a contact, which makes me think the judge actually had her name stored. Which isn't exactly discrete on his part.
Frankly this is the only really credible explanation so far. The rumor that there was anything going on between the judge and the daughter is completely out of left field; there is no source for it, nobody known to be actually connected with the case has even substantiated it as a possibility, let alone something that's actually being alleged by the sheriff or anyone else.
If even one known friend or family member of Stines or his daughter actually came out and said that, I'm not sure I'd believe it was true given what else is positively known right now, but at the very least I'd be willing to buy that it was a plausible motive.
A witness testified that during his arrest Stines proclaimed that "They are trying to kidnap my wife and kid". If Stines wanted to call the judge a child molester he could have; but he didn't, and his phrasing (Not he was but they are) further suggests that he doesn't think the threat to his "wife and kid" has been necessarily ended with the judge's death, which it would've been if it was just a guy killing his daughter's abuser. Not to mention that if that's all it was it makes no sense for him to bring up his wife in the first place.
If the name was stored on Stines' phone, then so was the number. Even if he didn't personally have the number memorized, all he had to do was look at the contact on his own phone to see the number so that he could dial it on the judge's phone.
I obviously don't know how the judge and Sheriff's phones display, but mine shows the contacts name, not their number. it's an extra few steps of fumbling around and messing with phones to call ...his daughter, but not not wife?... while preparing to murder a judge? Seems the daughter rated awfully high on the importance scale, when the wife would surely be more knowledgeable about any legal proceedings about the "kidnapping".
My phone shows only the name and face, until you start the call. Then it shows the name and face and the actual number being dialed (as well as that number's nickname, like "Cell" or "Office"). So, it could have been trivial to see the number to dial it from a second phone. Also, we don't know how long it took for the sheriff to dial the second phone, he could easily have had time to look up the contact on his phone.
I have seen no mention of the daughter's number being on the judges phone, outside of baseless speculation. Assuming it must be could easily lead to spurious conclusions.
Yup. Same can be said for the counter theory about the family breaking up and the judge being involved. Are there any reports of the sheriff being in a custody hearing or marital stress or any reports of violence at all, prior to the sudden murder? The big difference is that the daughter getting drilled by the judge would be an intensely private matter known only to a few, and the family getting legally interceded with by a judge would be on public record.
Regarding the hilited: put yourself in the position of a father who's daughter was being sexually abused by a judge, and you killed him. You want to put your daughters newfound reputation on blast or say something to cover it up? I mean, the judge is dead and you're going to prison, so maybe leave the door open for the daughter to decide whether to be on international news or be left alone?
Seriously, man. When I say "Monica Lewinsky", what comes to mind? Do you think a father wants it broadcast that his daughter is the little girl that ***** old men?
I obviously don't know how the judge and Sheriff's phones display, but mine shows the contacts name, not their number. it's an extra few steps of fumbling around and messing with phones to call ...his daughter, but not not wife?... while preparing to murder a judge?
Regarding the hilited: put yourself in the position of a father who's daughter was being sexually abused by a judge, and you killed him. You want to put your daughters newfound reputation on blast or say something to cover it up? I mean, the judge is dead and you're going to prison, so maybe leave the door open for the daughter to decide whether to be on international news or be left alone?
I challenge you to name even a single victim of child molestation that has a bad reputation or has been publicly condemned by virtue of their being a victim of child molestation.
Mmmm. I might mention Steven Staynor, who was abducted and held as a sex slave until he aged out of attractiveness, when he escaped with his replacement and tried to go back to his old life his schoolmates hounded him out by accusing him of being gay or enjoying what was done to him. You might understand that victims aren't participants, but small-minded people are everywhere.
Mmmm. I might mention Steven Staynor, who was abducted and held as a sex slave until he aged out of attractiveness, when he escaped with his replacement and tried to go back to his old life his schoolmates hounded him out by accusing him of being gay or enjoying what was done to him. You might understand that victims aren't participants, but small-minded people are everywhere.
Not if the proceedings are taking place in juvenile court.
The idea of some kind of custody issue was proposed to explain the words Stines actually spoke.
It's speculative, but more grounded than this rumor from Twitter that came from nobody directly involved.
Monica Lewinsky was an adult and Clinton's affair with her was unethical, rather than illegal.
I challenge you to name even a single victim of child molestation that has a bad reputation or has been publicly condemned by virtue of their being a victim of child molestation.
Anyway the answer is "no", because I don't view a kid being a victim of a sexual predator to be some kind of mark of shame so deep that I couldn't expose the predator for what they are, especially if I felt the crime is deserving of such a public execution as Stines obviously does.
To be clear, I think the family-custody hearing is plausible. My own running theory is that Stines is a delusional lunatic who killed the judge over a whackadoodle personal conspiracy theory about a kidnapping plot against his family. Because that is the theory that I think best matches the only thing that Stines actually said (so far), with the custody issue being a second-best match for reasons aforementioned.
This would be an awful lot of forethought for what was, in my view, a heat of the moment killing. If it was all just about the daughter, then why bring up the wife at all (I think someone else said that)? Why say someone is trying to take "them" rather than take "her"? If he had the forethought you're suggesting then he would assuredly have known anything done between the judge and the daughter would be made public at trial, in a plea bargain, or in an FOIA request after the case has been finished. It would also be tough to square having lunch and everything with the man you thought\knew was sleeping with your daughter.
I don't know. It's all kind of random right now. I'd bet within the next week we'll have his service record. Perhaps that will shed some more light on the question of if he has violent tendencies.
The thing is, it really doesn't explain them. "They were trying to kidnap my wife and daughter" were the words. Your wife is not kidnapped in a custody hearing. Nor is your kid, notwithstanding your colorful take on what "kidnapping" means (no, Stines didn't say "take them" as you claimed upthread).
If there was a custody battle, the sherriff and his wife were presumably not living together. I guess no one noticed? Not one person said "yeah old Mickey doesn't live with his wife. He moved into the Motel 6 months ago when the custody battle started. I see his car there every night and he leaves there every morning"?
"They're trying to kidnap my wife" is in utterly nonsensical territory, with or without the kid. That's not exactly grounded.
The Twitter rumor only requires that one assume it's true, and all the known facts pretty much fit. The custody battle requires boatloads of utterly unevidenced assumptions, and doesn't even have a rumor to support it. Literally pulled out of thin air.
I didn't ask it anything was legal or if anyone was an adult. I pointed out that your worst moments can attach to your name. Like, when a potential employer googles the daughters name, what international news story do you think might be the lingering first hit for decades?
Really? Well, first I challenge you to support your use of "child molestation" here. The daughter has only been described as "underage" and been in a "relationship" with the judge.
Ok. Raging psycho theory needs no motivation. Being a raging psycho suffices. Custody battle requires a lot of assumptions and explanations for no friends or family noticing and being "baffled", as well as explaining the amicable lunch together.
Wait what? Uh...where did I say that?
I'm not the person who came up with the idea that it was a custody situation. My opinion is that the idea, which was invoked by someone else, is plausible
because people who have had children removed by the court system very often (re: practically universally) rhetorically describe the situation as their children being "kidnapped" by the state.
Another explanation along the same lines: the daughter has committed a crime and was likely about to be sent to jail. Stines doesn't think she should be, and was trying (and failed) to convince the judge not to do so (or to intervene if it wasn't his case). Both scenarios can explain the daughter's being physically present in the courthouse at that moment.
And yet he said it while he was being arrested, and a witness in court has testified to that effect. Any explanation for what he did needs to account for it.
What? No, of course not. I'm saying that the dalliance theory at least had something, however unevidenced and trivial, behind it. You're was pulled from thin air with no evidence and no explanations for the myriad details needed for it to work."Doesn't even have a rumor to support it"? Am I to take that to mean you believe a rumor's mere existence, in and of itself, is a positive mark in favor of its plausibility?
At least that explains why the rumor being unsourced doesn't bother you in the least. Well, unfortunately, someone in this thread invoked the possibility that it was a custody issue. You must now consider it partially supported by virtue of that fact alone. Don't look at me, I didn't make your own rules. If you think it's "different", I can't wait to hear you explain the difference between a speculation by some rando in this thread and a speculation by some rando on Twitter.
"All the known facts" also "fit" a potential custody issue being the motivation just as well. The daughter exists, meaning it's possible he might have been about to lose custody of her. She was present in the courthouse during the shooting, meaning it's possible she was there for a proceeding of some kind. Stines targeted the judge, custody decisions are ultimately made by judges, and judges have been the targets of violence before from people unhappy with decisions they've made or are expected to make. What doesn't "fit"?
, that's silly. Again, I don't accept being a kid who was abused by a predator is a stain on someone's name. I don't think anybody's going to not hire a person because they were the victim of a sexual predator at some point in the past. The daughter has not even been named - there's a good chance she never will be, if she's a minor.
By whom? Is it someone in an actual position to know?
I'll concede this semantic nitpick for fun, though: bring me instead the name of anyone who has suffered a reputational hit as an adult because they were abused while any form of "underage", even if you wouldn't personally refer to the situation as child molestation.
But again:
These aren't mutually exclusive explanations, as you frame them. A raging psycho may not "need" a motivation, whatever that means, but they typically do have one however convoluted or illogical. My preferred theory (for now) is that his motivation was a delusion about a kidnapping plot. Someone else thinks his motivation might have been a looming custody issue. His statement about a "kidnapping" sets off my yahoo-alarm, but I also concede that right-wingers and conspiracy theorists extremely commonly describe custody-removals as "kidnapping" by the government.
The idea of some kind of affair between the judge and Stines' daughter, whether real or imagined, would also just be another motivation for a raging psycho's actions.
If you are referring to the brief parenthetical, sorry man, my mistake. That wasn't you.
If you were referring to the bulk of the part you quoted, ... well, you've said so repeatedly and with no justification. People in child custody hearings don't say their wives are being kidnapped. That's not a thing.
You said (copy paste quoting for accuracy here) "Frankly this is the only really credible explanation so far", referring to the theory that "the sheriff was a violent, angry, aggressive man and that extended to his family. The judge played some role in some form to try and help them get away from him".
Because when the rumor came out, there was no reporting of the sherriff even having a daughter, much less the later detail of him literally calling her from both phones moments before killing the judge. That has to at least give pause, that it is stunningly coincidental that the later-revealed facts would align with the rumor so bluntly.
By comparison, nothing at all has come forward to advance the custody theory. No, "they're trying to kidnap my wife" is not supoort for that. Contradicts it, if anything.
If it turns out she was the motivation here, you can bet your sweet bippy she's gonna be named and her face plastered everywhere, and likely even called to testify. Hell, she might pass her 18th birthday by then and there would be no even theoretical restriction to naming her. You up for a bet that we get her name, face, and more before this is over?
Why do you keep trying to reframe this? I said she will be widely known and associated with this sordid tale, and her name google-tied to it internationally forever. You keep pretzeling that into naming child molestation victims. Lewinsky is tied to the tale, no matter what else she does. So is Jon-Benet Ramsey. It doesn't have to be a "reputational hit" or condemnation; just a permanent international Google first-hit, not to mention everyone in her county that will likely remember it in hushed whispers to each other. "She's the one who was with that judge who made our little county a story of international intrigue back in 2024".
Yes, but an otherwise normal guy could go into a very brief blind rage over hearing that his respected coworker is doing his underage daughter, and if he has a gun with him, well... you don't have to be a psycho for a moment of blind fury.
Eta: and you might recall, I was the first to point out that the dalliance rumor was just that, a rumor, and gave it no further credibility till it came out that Stines had a daughter, she was in the courtroom with him right then, and Jesus christ tried to call her twice right before shooting the judge dead. That's a bit more substantial than whipping things up out of nowhere.
They don't say it when some pervert has abused their kid, that's not a thing either.
They do say their kids are being kidnapped though; it's definitely a thing. As an example, I invite you to do a search for "CPS kidnapping" on the search engine of your choice - any one should do - and bask in the lunacy.
If that's the hang up, you're are right. I should have said "most". It was incorrect to say "only".
Available to people Google mining. To those on this thread and in literally all reporting, there was not a peep about her. For instance, no one on this week old story knew anything about her. You didn't either till your very recent Google mining, if we are being honest.The fact that he has a daughter was publicly available at the time the story broke.
His listing on the county government's website includes a photo of him with his family. (I advise against clicking the link under his name there, it is a maliciously-inserted browser hijack). So his daughter's existence is definitely not something that was only later revealed and thus corroborates the rumor.
As an aside I would point out that she absolutely does not look "17" in that photo to me, I would absolutely be comfortable calling anything that happened to her child molestation; but that's just me, I could be wrong and it could be an old photo as well.
Possible, of course. But on his personal cel phone? Makes for strange conversations at the dinner table explaining to your wife why you have young girls on your phone that you are... kind of rolling on your own with outside the legal system? With other people's minor children? Probably an interesting discussion to eventually have with the Bar association, too.Helping the daughter to get away from an abusive father was proposed as an alternative explanation for why the judge might have been contacting the daughter.
Kind of might not blame Stines if an adult was contacting her outside the legal system. Pretty sure I wouldn't believe it, unless maybe under those black robes the judge wore a Batman outfit, dispensing his own brand of extra judicial custody negotiations?I mentioned custody loss as an avenue for that, but there are certainly others. For instance, the judge might have been encouraging the daughter to take formal legal steps if she had been heretofore reluctant, and finding out about that is what set off Stines' rage.
I now think I was wrong about something I said earlier; I said that the sheriff had the judge "at gunpoint" during the phone exchange. Reading the reports again, it sounds like that wasn't true, it sounds like Stines did not become violent until after the judge showed Stines his phone.
In that case, I think the judge willingly giving his phone to Stines at all is an argument against anything illegal or indicative of actual impropriety on it. If there were compromising text messages or call history or anything of that nature on it, the judge could've just said "no" when asked to hand it over. Stines was a law enforcement officer after all, and the judge is certainly well aware of his legal rights.
If that's the case though, that ship sailed when Stines pulled the trigger - so making up a reason changes nothing, her name will get "attached" either way. Nothing Stines says about his motive after the fact will change that. It only matters if you believe the particular details about the internationally-publicized crime her name is definitely going to be attached to will make a difference somehow, and why would that be if she clearly isn't the one who committed whatever the crime is?
But that's not what you said. You said "You want to put your daughters newfound reputation on blast or say something to cover it up?" and "Do you think a father wants it broadcast that his daughter is the little girl that ***** old men?" as if you think it's plausible that an underage victim of abuse is ever going to be thought of this way by people who remember the case. You even invoked the specter of her being denied a job because of what happened to her. I think that's preposterous, and I still invite you to show me a case where a victim of this kind of circumstance is viewed unsympathically by the public at large, or who has suffered social damage or lost job opportunities because her name comes up in an internet search as, very clearly, one of the victims of a notorious crime. Not some scandal she was "involved in" like in the Lewinsky case, but a literal, very serious crime that someone else committed in proximity to her.
Hmmm...no. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I do think that you have to be mentally unstable to some degree to murder someone in the specific fashion that this man did, regardless of his motivation. It is normal to be outraged and even lash out, I don't think it is normal to be murderous like this. I don't believe most people accused of such a "dalliance" as you put it wind up dead like this.
And I think Stines' actual statement in the moment about his own crime potentially explains all of those details well enough on its own and outweighs a random odor that wafted in from Twitter.
About their kids, sure. But you keep kind of glossing over the "kidnap my wife" bit. They just don't say that.
Available to people Google mining.
Possible, of course. But on his personal cel phone?
You're not catching my reasoning here: you make up a story to detach your child completely from the otherwise high profile case, as much as possible. Her father may go down as a nut, but she seems removed from it and can go about a relatively normal life untouched further. As a dad myself, I get the reasoning in my gut.
Fair enough. I think that if you are pretty far to the right on ye Olde ASPD scale, you can be nudged over temporarily. I've heard that cops have been known to dally in "shoot first ask questions later" and killing people talking on cell phones and whatnot. When all you have is a hammer and all that.
But I'll happily meet you more than halfway and hope we can agree that just to commit such an execution, Stines had to be about 70% cuckoo from cocoa puffs from the start, and whatever set him.off was likely... not justifiable to the normies? We ok there?
An interesting point is that the investigator making the statements to the press got the kidnapping quote from other officers, so we're getting that one third hand at least. The only thing said to him directly by Stines was "Treat me fair". His recounting seems a little squirrelly. He also says Stines "made some calls" (not just one to his daughter) from his phone, then "borrowed" the judges phone to call the daughter again. He doesn't say whether the calls connected or no answer, which would display on the log.
And they don't say it when their kid is being abused by a pervert, which you keep glossing over.
Like the ones who made up the rumor? Yes, that is exactly my point.
"Personal" is something you're adding. Strictly speaking in some places, especially rural counties like Letcher County seems to be, and for certain officials like the one and only judge in the district, it might not be a distinction that actually exists.
It occurs to me, for example, that if your dad is the county sheriff and you want to report that he's been abusing you, well you can't exactly call the sheriff's office and talk to one of his friends/employees, can you? There's too strong a possibility that's the Bad Ending option. So who do you talk to? Who in the legal system is available that is separate from the sheriff's office, has been around a lot longer than your father, and might have some kind of authority above your father's pay grade?
...but that's not what he did, is it? His "fake" story attaches both his daughter AND his wife to the case, explicitly bringing them up as his justification for what he did: he literally said "they" were trying to kidnap his wife and kid.
Ya or they could come to the same conclusion I did, that it was likely meaningless babbling.So his actions are not removing his daughter from the case at all, quite the opposite - they are chaining it firmly around her neck, and his wife's, for better or worse.
Maybe? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say at the end there.
I see you've determined conclusively that the "rumor was made up", as opposed to having been started by someone with knowledge. Well good, that's settled then. I guess.
Well all the phone numbers in the link you provided are landline exchanges for that area, and you can kind of see a landline phone on the desk in the judges chambers... so you conclude that this county for some reason conducts it's business on cel phones? OK.
The action all takes place in Whitesburg Kentucky.
Stines was not the Law in town. Your link above even says he does primarily civic duties, not criminality and law enforcement.
But you know who I definitely wouldn't contact? The guy who is buddies with my dad and might have his phone contacts seen while having lunch together. Pretty much anyone but him. And claiming the judge is in a habit of taking underage girl's numbers is not realistic. What are they gonna do? He needs to talk to the child's guardian, not the kid.
You're still not getting this? One way or the other, she'll be the nut sheriff's daughter who murdered a judge. But she doesn't need to have a sexual angle involved, consensual or otherwise, to drag around in addition to that.
People that commit publicly private executions are either psychopaths or in some kind of temporary insanity. In either case, us normal people don't call it justified. So whatever the reason is, it's probably not an acceptable one in this case.
We touched on temporary insanity earlier. Seems that Kentucky law says that you are not guilty of murder if under extreme emotional distress, and that Stines' lawyers may be looking at exactly that as a defense.
It's unsourced, so yes. That's how you have to treat unsourced internet rumors until the source is determined. Even if you're unwilling to do so, you have to acknowledge that it's less than a minute's work for someone to see "Letcher County" in a news article, look up the county website, and see Stines' family photo posted right there on it. We're not exactly talking about a deep darkweb Fawkes-masked hacker-doxx campaign here that only someone with an inexplicable agenda would be able to pull off.
Political figures and officials often conduct business on their cell phones. How do you think they're contacted when they're away from their desks?
That's where the murder happened but Stines' family does not live in Whitesburg, that's just where the courthouse is. Before his recent move to Prison, Stines lived in McRoberts according to the news, which is an unincorporated neighborhood around 10 miles or so away from Whitesburg. I can't say I know for sure in the particular case of McRoberts but as a general rule unincorporated communities are policed by the sheriff's office of whatever county they reside in. It's not an invalid idea but, I don't think a kid would necessarily reason that a city police department that has nothing to do with the area where she lives would be the right people to call.
That has nothing to do with it - he's still their boss, and they're still his employees. They work for him, and they work WITH him. If they get a call about him they're probably going to let him know about it.
"Drag around"? She. Is. A. Minor. Give me an example of an adult woman who is publicly impugned because she was sexually exploited as minor.
And for the second time, if there is a sexual angle to the case it's going to come out because Stines has pleaded not guilty meaning there will be a trial and a prosecutorial investigation which will find out what happened and lay it out plainly in court.
This is what I'm referring to above, by the way. If Stines is making a positive defense to this effect, and tries to claim that the reason for his emotional distress was a kidnapping plot he believed was afoot, the prosecution is going to tear that apart in court if it's not true and the real reason is going to come out.
A few things I can add from my experience working with a city police department in a smaller town.
Our municipal court judge has his own private practice. It's just based in civil law vs. criminal so there are no ethics concerns. Municipal court takes 2 hours a day.
I work for a city, have a desk phone and also received a stipend monthly for my cell phone use. I get emails on my phone that alert me to outages. They want me receiving this message.
We give each of our police officers a city provided phone but they always have their personal cells as well. Completely normal.
Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
... What's not normal is for an adult to store non-famiy children's numbers on their phones.
Yet we find out about it happening all of the time, all over the country. It doesn't need to be nefarious. If he has a hybrid phone like I do, for both work and personal, then the number could have any myriad of reasons to be in his phone. Maybe he has kids that hang out and go to school together. They've worked together for years, there could be reasons there. I definitely don't find it as odd as you do. Especially given the size of the town and the everyone knows everyone vibe that I get from reading about it.All true and normal for anyone in the 21st century to use their phones between colleagues, supervisors, and even customers. What's not normal is for an adult to store non-famiy children's numbers on their phones.
My wife works in a school system. I asked her if she stores students numbers on her phone for any reason. She asked me if I was stupid; she could be immediately fired if even her boss found out, because it would open the district up to being sued too. Adults in positions of power can't hustle the information of children on their own devices, and I'm pretty sure that goes double for a judge.
Whilst it is interesting reading what is discussed in the writers' room when do you think you'll have finalised the script and be ready to go into production?
We don't know the number was on his phone. Has it even been established whether the sheriff's daughter is a minor? For all I know she could be in her 20s.