• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Kentucky Sheriff fatally shoots District Judge inside Kentucky Courtroom

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.
 
Last edited:
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 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 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.

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.

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.

I believe you have that flopped. He tried on his first, the other second.

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?

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.

ETA: whatever this video is and however it came about likely has all the answers.

The video isn't from a cell phone, it's from a camera in the room they're in. Below is the video.

 
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?

Thanks for the video. None of the reporting here till you posted it said where it came from. As far as the rest goes, they are holding back on most of the video, and say there is no audio. 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 was horrific to see the judge cowering back into the corner while Stines walked up and shot him at close range. Christ almighty.
 
Last edited:
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?

I would bet that the camera doesn't cover the bulk of the room, and with no audio they wouldn't be able to tell. It looks like it's only aimed at the door and the corner.

Security cameras are a really weird thing. Outside of bigger banks or something like that, they really only get looked at if something goes wrong. I bet people would see all kinds of weird **** if they went back and looked at old surveillance footage. It could be that by the time the complaints\investigation started that the footage was deleted. Perhaps they only have a 30 day archive process or something.

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.

I'm basically down to two theories: The first is that there was some form of sexual relationship between the judge and the daughter.

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. That pissed the judge off.

I like to think that, despite the tough talk, if one of us found this going on the first action wouldn't be to kill him. I know mine wouldn't be, especially being a police officer. I'd arrest him. Even without those powers the first thing I'd do is contact the police. Then again, I'm spiteful. I'd want to sit and watch while his entire world crumbled around him as a judge with the smug satisfaction of knowing he will go to a jail, where he probably had a hand in putting people away, with a reputation of diddling underage girls. That's the ultimate revenge.

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, he wasn't going to stop until that man was dead. I was shocked how many shots he got off, according to the articles. I didn't seen exact count but 7ish seems right.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any reason so far to assume it was. I presumed the sheriff just dialed the number using the keypad.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?

Only the part of the video showing the shooting itself was released, the earlier part of the confrontation was not.
 
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?

There is only partial video release. They are intentionally withholding what happened before the shooting, they say. And of course, the actual gun firing is not shown. They edit the releases video heavily.

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?

On his personal cell phone? Yeah, that would be super weird. Think of all the cases a judge has. He doesn't put everyone's number on his phone. A judge, in a professional capacity, shouldn't be doing much calling defendants/claimants at all. His clerk arranges appearances.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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?

Seems to me that if Stines was in danger of losing his family, a whole hell of a lot of people inside and out of the court system would know about that, and it would be all over the news, instead of townspeople saying they are baffled. And the judge and sheriff had just very publicly done lunch together that same day, which would be highly inappropriate for a judge in the midst of some kind of custody hearing with an allegedly dangerous participant. Pretty sure his professional ethics would require him to not be socializing under those circumstances? And Stines is able to sit amicably while munching sandwiches together, and the judge thinks it's all hunky-dory too?

That's why I lean towards the daughter-banging theory. It's business as usual, then Stines credibly finds out this judge is screwing around with his little girl. He goes to confront him, and somehow or other the judge admits to it. That's the kind of thing that could send a father into an otherwise unprompted blind rage.

Also,and I don't know if it means anything,but the sheriff told the news just prior to this that he lost 40lbs in the last two weeks and didn't know why. Another peripheral detail is that he was reported to be a "hulking" 6 foot 4, but his mugshot shows him at maybe 6'1"". Not really relevant, but might say a little something about accuracy of the local news.
 
Last edited:
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".
 
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.
 
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.

I'm not assuming it's there. I'm trying out the possibilities which more likely indicate whether it would be there or not. For instance, why try to call from both phones? Maybe he thought she would screen dad's call, or maybe respond quickly to the judge?

It seems like if they know that Stines tried to call his daughter from the judges phone, the phone must be intact and they would know if contact info/conersations were there or not (I thought it might be damaged during the shooting). Unless they relied on the daughter's incoming call log?

I dunno. Just trying to piece together what we know to either fit the facts, or discount a theory.

It's frustrating that they have likely reviewed everything already and have 99.5% of what they need to drop the gavel, but for procedural reasons are holding back. Yet they release the video of the shooting, which doesn't really matter except for shock value.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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?

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.
 
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?

He had the guy in a small room at gunpoint, it's not like he was going anywhere.

To expose the phone number of a contact on my phone, you just need to tap the contact. Once.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

I watched a documentary about that story. Everything that guy went through was tragic.
 
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.

Fair, and no less than Bill O-Really made the same insinuations about Shawn Hornbeck. But the common factor there is that they were both boys who were abused by men and the motivational force was homophobia - which doesn't apply here.
 
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.

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"?

It's speculative, but more grounded than this rumor from Twitter that came from nobody directly involved.

"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.

Monica Lewinsky was an adult and Clinton's affair with her was unethical, rather than illegal.

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?

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.

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. That sounds more to me like above age of consent, but below adult. More like a 17 year old. Of course, not carved in stone, but "in a relationship with the sheriff's underage daughter" is a far cry from a child molester.

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.

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. Daughter dalliance requires only believing the rumor (which fleshed out with the later reporting that he actually had a daughter, and repeatedly calling her immediately preceeding the shooting), and only needs a supplementary assumption that the affair was confirmed somewhere between the lunch and shooting.
 
Last edited:
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.

That's my point; it didn't require forethought because it was an ill-thought improvisation on-the-spot. I'd guess Stines had the affair confirmed in his mind somehere between the lunch date and the shooting. Maybe got wind of it after lunch, confronted the judge in his chambers, and the judge (or the daughter) confirmed it, and bang bang it went, then a clumsy excuse about kidnappping spat out on the fly.

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.

Another woman who was present at the lunch turned in her phone to police,saying she had texts on it that related to what caused the shooting. That, and the other phone records, should paint a fairly clear picture.

Kind of amazing what a stupid phone can show. Who you talk to, text convos for years, GPS location.. it's like a snitch you pay to keep with you.
 
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).

Wait what? Uh...where did I say that?

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"?

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.


"They're trying to kidnap my wife" is in utterly nonsensical territory, with or without the kid. That's not exactly grounded.

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.

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.

"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"?

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?

Nah, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Wait what? Uh...where did I say that?

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.

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

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".

And for clarity, this is all I'm really arguing here. I think that it is not only not the "only really credible explanation", but that it's the least likely. It's the one that requires the most assumptions, the most explanations of why no one seems to have noticed it, why they would have sammiches together, why publicly socializing with a man you are ruling in a case over didn't raise blinding ethical problems from those around them, etc.

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.

No they don't, and especially when referring to their wives.

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.

Agreed, I've been wondering what she was doing in a courthouse in what appears to be a school day, too. It fits just as neatly with the dalliance theory, though (Stines finds out and drags her to the courthouse while he confronts the judge about it), so I'm not seeing how the "violent man losing custody" theory is so strong as to be the only one standing, according to you.

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.

Several have been posted. None explain it, because it is completely nonsensical. That's why I don't see why you claim.it is not credible that I think that either he was whacka doozy or Stines flipped and shot the judge in a rage over his daughter, realized "oh God what have I done" then said the first thing that came to mind to explain himself without admitting the real reason.

"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?
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.

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.

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.

"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"?

I didn't say they don't fit. I said, multiple times, that they require more assumptions and explanations. Dalliance theory stands with no more needed. Yet you dismiss it as not credible (see your bolded above, cf: only).

, 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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

Your "preferred theory" is one of the ones you don't find credible (see bolded above)? Crazy Loon theory is different than Violent Custody Battle theory, although they certainly could overlap. Distinctly different, though.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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".

If that's the hang up, you're are right. I should have said "most". It was incorrect to say "only".

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.

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.

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.

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. 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 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?

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

About their kids, sure. But you keep kind of glossing over the "kidnap my wife" bit. They just don't say that.

If that's the hang up, you're are right. I should have said "most". It was incorrect to say "only".

Well yeah and that paragraph that followed where you slam the Dalliance theory using the identical logic that trashes the competing ones.

The fact that he has a daughter was publicly available at the time the story broke.
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.

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.

Very good catch, and agreed on her apparent younger age and your honest caveats. Kudos.

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.
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.

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.
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 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.

Yeah, I caught that, but it doesn't seem that important. Backed in a corner dead to rights, the judge might just as well have thought "let's get this out in the open and over with. I'm in my chambers with a dozen cops right outside. What's he gonna do, shoot me?"

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.

He might also be aware that he is cold busted and probably in the safest place to deal with it. Hindsight is a bitch.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
About their kids, sure. But you keep kind of glossing over the "kidnap my wife" bit. They just don't say that.

And they don't say it when their kid is being abused by a pervert, which you keep glossing over.


Available to people Google mining.

Like the ones who made up the rumor? Yes, that is exactly my point.

Possible, of course. But on his personal cel phone?

"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.

But whether or not, we have absolutely no idea what was on his phone. Or what Stines saw on it. It could have been a text from another officer about Stines' daughter. It could have been messages forwarded to him by someone else.

Heck, it could have been something about Stines, that Stines didn't want being made public. 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?

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.

...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.

And since he pleaded not guilty there's going to be a trial, and the prosecution is going to dig and look for evidence that he actually believed in such a plot. If your theory is correct then they won't find it, but they will certainly find out what he DID believe, and they will definitely bring that up in court as motive for murder. 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.

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?

Maybe? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say at the end 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.

It was a prelim hearing, so I suppose it makes sense there wouldn't be a whole lot of details given. I'm confident a lot of the things we're contesting will be made clear at the trial. There is a chance you're completely right. But I think the chance that you're not is a fair amount higher. We'll see eventually.
 
The kidnap wife and daughter things sounds like someone is helping the wife and daughter move to a shelter for battered and abused women.
 
And they don't say it when their kid is being abused by a pervert, which you keep glossing over.

No. I've hit that squarely and repeatedly. It's a nonsensical statement that is either a cover or ill-thought "oh God what have I done" disjointed blurt. It's you who's treating it like holy words sent down on stone tablets.

Like the ones who made up the rumor? Yes, that is exactly my point.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

The action all takes place in Whitesburg Kentucky. Maybe the Whitesburg police department? They are on Facebook and everything. Or Kentucky state police? Or the LKLP Domestic Violence program? Or the other shelters serving the county, offering immediate safe spaces and counseling?

Stines was not the Law in town. Your link above even says he does primarily civic duties, not criminality and law enforcement. He literally collects taxes for the county. The whole sheriff's department is him and two deputies. I don't think they run the county with an iron fist.

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. That's dangerous territory for an adult and I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest the judge would have a nodding acquaintance with law and not take a minor girl's affairs into his own hands. He would forward the matter poste haste to the people who could actually provide help and/or counseling.

...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.

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.

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.
Ya or they could come to the same conclusion I did, that it was likely meaningless babbling.

Maybe? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say at the end there.

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.

https://www.police1.com/chiefs-sheriffs/video-made-public-in-court-hearing-shows-ky-sheriff-shooting-judge-in-his-office

Eta: I also mean to throw in here somewhere that I find the idea of the young girl.having any sexual relationship with the old judge to be highly unlikely. He ain't no dreamy Brad Pitt. But the explanatory power of a +/- normal guy being driven to murder by the idea of it is something I can believe, rather than the otherwise undetected generic psycho cop theory.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.

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?

And not just officials, either. Have you never seen police video where officers are talking with supervisors or colleagues on their cell phones while at a scene? Do you think those are always special IT-department-issued phones that police are issued in addition to their radios?

The action all takes place in Whitesburg Kentucky.

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.

Stines was not the Law in town. Your link above even says he does primarily civic duties, not criminality and law enforcement.

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.

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.

Like her mother? Maybe he did. Maybe she's cooperating with whatever is going on and that's why he included her as one of the would-be "kidnapping" victims.

I'm not imagining it's a habit for an interaction like this to take place; but it's no work at all to see the judge as a potentially trusted figure that someone resorted to in a situation that is highly unusual all around. The families of high level law enforcement officials in very small departments just don't have the same straightforward access to help when the person they need to be saved from is that official. Things will have to get unorthodox.

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.

"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. This line of reasoning does not make sense unless you feel being abused as a kid is popularly perceived as some kind of stain or taint on a person's reputation that they would need to be "protected" from. Do you think of her that way, since you feel this version of what happened is the most credible? Would you think of her that way if it is later proved to be 100% correct? If not, then why do you presume enough other people would to the point that you're willing to suggest she's going to, like, have trouble getting a job because of it?

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. Even if we lay aside your daft insistence that Stines' daughter might suffer some kind of scarlet letter for the rest of her life if it was ever revealed she had been sexually abused as a kid, if protecting her was really Stines' actual motive then he 1) wouldn't have mentioned her in his "made up story" at all, and 2) would be pleading guilty for this crime he is on video committing and would only need to stick to his fake story once on allocution, preventing any deeper investigation.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.

It's also not what we are talking about. Christ, if you take any 40 year old American man, the odds are 30-40% that he has a teenage daughter (go ahead, google it). That's near coin flip range. The issue is that the daughter was later revealed to play what appears to be such a significant role in the murder. In the execution killings that I recall, the murderer doesn't often stop to chat with the fam before opening fire.

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?

Oh Jesus Christ dude, we're not talking about if people use their cell phones at work. Everybody does, obviously. We're talking about whether a judge uses his cell phone to store the names of minor girls in his jurisdiction. Have you ever interacted with a judge? They're kind of sticklers for procedure and propriety.



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.

Aw, the poor little hillbilly girl wouldn't be able to figure it out, huh? Despite your sudden inexplicable befuddlement as to who could possibly be the policing authority in McRoberts, I was able to find out in a few seconds that it's the Kentucky State police. You are forgetting that a 21st century teenager literally grew up googling answers. She's not some 1950s toothless redneck who can't figure things out just like you and I with our search engines.

In fairness, I knew the Kentucky State police would turn out to be the policing authority for McRoberts before I googled it, because I noticed you took the extra time to snip out my references to the KSP, then got vague about who could possibly be policing a rural area. It's your "tell", and I've mentioned it to you before.

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.

And she would have no reason to contact the three man sheriff's department.If she was reporting something, she would Google it and contact the KSP or one of the myriad Domestic Abuse hotlines in her area that come up on a first hit, none of which recommend calling the sheriff.

"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.

Why the **** do you keep attaching this inane "impugned" and "scarlet letter" bull **** to the discussion? Tilt at some other windmill, brah.

When I was a teen, I got tied up in a local news story/scandal, in which I was kind of a comic relief bit player. To this ******* day, people introduce me saying "Remember when X happened, and some yahoo kid did Y? This is the kid! **** hangs on to you, like it lr not, which is why I don't even like names being attached to the accused prior to guilty verdicts. It's not a question of this dip **** "scorn" and "won't get a job". That's just your weird projection of sexual hangups. Stop laying it on me.

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.

And for much more than the second time. no it need not. You're the only one worshipping the "kidnapping" third hand hearsay report. I think what's more likely, as I've said repeatedly, is that he said something nonsensical while under extreme distress and shock. Having had some time to mull it over in his cell, he could come up with anything as a defense. If no one but him, the judge, and the girl knows anything about the speculated sexual angle, and he and his daughter say nothing, no one would ever have any reason to even pursue it. You're putting exponentially too much weight on the "kidnapping my wife" third hand hearsay that was not part of any formal statement.

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.

Or, as I keep saying, he could claim it was the random babbling of a distressed nut and had nothing to do with anything. Unless he gave them reason to suggest his daughter was involved, I'm not sure they could go anywhere with it unless the kid said something happened. If she says no, it's pretty much over and nothing further develops, and she can go on with her life, maybe with some confidential private therapy on her own. Absolutely nothing needs to come out in public court, if the players choose not to reveal it. There was no audio in chambers, and we will have only Stines recounting of what it was about and what was said, and we know full and well he was ready to go to throw his own life away.
 
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?
 
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

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.
 
... What's not normal is for an adult to store non-famiy children's numbers on their phones.

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.
 
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.
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.

Also, if there is a trial and there was an affair between the daughter and the judge, it's coming out. There's absolutely no way it wouldn't come out. No prosecutor that has that information, which they would, it would be in the phones, would sit on it. Especially at a trial. That's just nonsensical. It would be a key point to both the prosecution and any form of insanity defense. The only way it doesn't get out, at this point, is sealed plea bargain. That's it. If the father is that concerned about his daughters reputation then he has to take a plea and getting it sealed might present its own issues.

I'm still leaning towards abusive father. Hell, if he's a hothead maybe it's being over thought. Just cause he saw something on the phone doesn't mean he rationally understood it. If he was that insane that we can't assign any value to the words he said in that moment, then why does it have to be anything more than a hot headed ass hole loses his grip over nothing and kills someone. Not exactly unheard of.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
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?

There's nothing much to talk about on this or most threads if you don't poke around the periphery.

Here, posters think it's the most normal thing in the world for a judge to have some young girls number on his phone, and they explain how they think that would go. I think no judge would ever have one, as a matter of propriety and procedure and just flat out not getting himself and/or his employers sued if anyone found out. So we tease it out. That helps us to frame our thinking as new facts come up, because we have challenged the narrative and our starting assumptions in greater detail than we normally would have. Is this a bad thing? Really?
 
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.

The lead investigator said at the hearing that "the girls number was in the judges phone".

Checkmite posted a picture of the girl who looks a pretty long way from being an adult.

As talking points to question starting assumptions, yeah we're in safe territory, even if we are just trying to rule some things out or to test their likelihood.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom